A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: studies in early Christian literature and its environment, primarily in the Syrian East 9782801700716, 2801700711

Citation preview

A TRIBUTE TO ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

ARTHUR

VOOBUS,

Dr. theol

A TRIBUTE TO ARTHUR VÖÖBUS Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment,

Primarily in the Syrian East Edited by ROBERT

THE LUTHERAN

SCHOOL

H. FISCHER

OF THEOLOGY

AT CHICAGO

© 1977 by the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60615 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-79982 International Standard Book Number : 2 8017 0071 All rights reserved

Printed in Belgium by the Imprimerie Orientaliste, Louvain (Belgium)

1

CONTENTS

Greeting Foreword

. .

.

.

.

Arthur Vööbus:

.

. .

.

.

.

.

Curriculum

Tabula gratulatoria

.

.

.

.

.

vitae

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

IX x

.

.

xvI

.

XIX

PART ONE

STUDIES

IN PATRISTIC

SOURCES

The Coptic New Testament Kurt

Aland,

Münster

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

X

3

Une méthode d'édition des textes syriaques René Draguet,

| Louvain

MEME

A New Text from the Syrohexapla: Deuteronomy 34 Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, Jerusalem . . .

13

.

.

.

19

.

.

.

29

Une page retrouvée de Théodore de Mopsueste François Graffin, SJ,

Paris

.

.

.

Some Syriac Libraries of Kerala (Malabar), Comments E.R.

Hambye,

SJ,

Delhi

Autour de la Didascalie J.C.J. Sanders, Amsterdam Une

découverte

.

.

.

.

India:

Notes

and

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

35

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

47

inespérée : L'homélie

2 de

Sévére

d'Antioche,

sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos Joseph-Marie Sauget, Cité du Vatican

.

.

.

.

.

.

55

Die Bibelkommentare des Moses bar Kepha Lorenz Schlimme, Göttingen . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

63

vi

CONTENTS

Beobachtungen an zwei syrischen Handschriften mit Kommentaren zum syrischen Corpus Dionysiacum Gernot Wiessner, Göttingen . . . . . . . . .

PART

EXEGETICAL,

TEXTUAL

A Note on Ecclesiastes 12:12a P.A.H. de Boer, Leiden

73

TWO

AND

.

LINGUISTIC

.

.

.

.

.

STUDIES

.

.

.

.

85

Un midrash d'Exode 4, 24-26 chez Aphraate et Ephrem de Nisibe Antoine Guillaumont, Paris . . . . . . . . .

89

Urchristliches Kerygma in seiner Abhángigkeit von der aramáischen Verkehrs- und Kanzleisprache und seine Nachwirkung im Koran Joseph Molitor, Bamberg . . . . . . . . . .

91

Some Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature Robert Murray, SJ,

London

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

109

Form-Analysis and Source Criticism : The Case of Mishnah Kelim 1:1-4 Jacob Neusner, Providence. . . . . . . . . .

133

Jesus-Sirach-Zitate bei Afrahat, Ephraem und im Liber Graduum Werner Strothmann, Goéttingen . . . . . . . .

153

The Root '-L-M in Semitic Languages and Some Proposed New Translations in Ugaritic and Hebrew John A. Thompson,

Melbourne

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

159

PART THREE STUDIES

IN PATRISTIC

LIFE AND

THOUGHT

Die zwei Paradoxa des Glaubens bei Ephrám Edmund Beck, OSB,

Metten

.

Quadratus, the First Christian Apologist RobertM. Grant, Chicago. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

169

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

177

VII

CONTENTS

Les méthodes de l'ascése monastique, d'aprés Arm 10, 159 Louis Leloir, OSB, Clervaux EN

185

Sens et portée de l'argument scripturaire chez Aphraate Jean Ouellette,

191

Montréal

Macarius and the Diatessaron of Tatian

Gilles Quispel,

Utrecht

203

.

Panténe et le Didascalée d'Alexandrie: du Judéo-christianisme au christianisme hellénistique Martiniano Pellegrino Roncaglia, Beyrouth (Liban)

211

L'eucharistie et le Saint Esprit d'aprés St Ephrem de Nisibe Pierre Yousif, Mossoul . ΝΕ ΕΝ

235

PART

STUDIES

IN ECCLESIASTICAL

FOUR

AND

CULTURAL

HISTORY

Exorcism and Baptism John Bowman,

Melbourne

249

.

Some Syriac Accounts of the Jewish Sects

Sebastian P. Brock, Peter

of Antioch

and

265

Oxford Damian

of Alexandria:

The

End

of a

Friendship R.Y. Ebied,

Leeds

277

.

Le symbole de foi de Séleucie-Ctésiphon (410) Jean Gribomont, OSB, Rome . Trois synodes impériaux du VI* syriaque inédite André de Halleux, Louvain

siécle

dans

283 une

chronique 295

Jewish and Christian Baptism: Some Notes and Queries Edward R. Hardy, Cambridge .

309

Le Deir es-Zapharan et le «Siége d’Antioche» Jules Leroy,

Paris

.

en

Two Unusual Liturgical Ceremonies of the Chaldean Rite William F. Macomber, Collegeville

319

329

van

CONTENTS

The Problematic Thracian Version of the Gospels Bruce M. Metzger, Princeton. . . . . "The Three Chapters": Antiochene Christology Albert

C. Outler,

A

Comment

Dallas

.

.

on .

the

.

.

.

Survival

.

.

.

. .

.

337

of

.

.

.

357

Syrian Christians amidst Their Muslim Compatriots Bertold Spuler, Hamburg . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

365

Lenten Fast of the East Syrians Jacob Vellian, Kottayam

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

373

Luther and the “New Testament Apocrypha” Allen Wikgren, Chicago . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

379

Bibliography: Writings of Arthur Vóóbus

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

391

Indices: GeneralIndex

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

415

Proper Names

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

43]

References Facsimile Plates.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

439

GREETING

Distinguished scholar and teacher, Devoted Christian pastor, Courageous champion of suffering humanity, Respected colleague and cherished friend!

With this volume your friends present an affectionate tribute as you retire from your professorial chair. Thirty-six of your fellow specialists in ancient church history have honored your creative scholarship by

bringing you some ripe fruits of their own creativity. For one whose contributions to his chosen field are so masterful, what salute is so appropriate as a banquet of further masterful contributions to the field, delighting both the specialist and the neophyte? Surely the gracious words of your good friend Professor Rene Draguet of Louvain, the dean of Christian Oriental scholars, express the mind of all our authors: "We record our reflections in this Festschrift as a tribute of grateful admiration to Professor Doctor A. Vóóbus, our old friend and our collaborator over many years in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, and a scholar who more than once has undertaken to provide documentation for our own researches. We take pleasure in affectionately saluting this man who, through prestigious discoveries, numerous publications of texts, and constructive historical works never before attempted, has undoubtedly done more than all other scholars of our time to advance our knowledge of the Christian East. 4d multos annos!»

This volume, meanwhile, honors you not only as a scholar but also

as a man. Along with the early church historians, as you see from the tabula gratulatoria, there are three other groups of people who heartily join in congratulating you: your Eastern Christian friends, your fellow Estonians scattered throughout the free world, and the colleagues, alumni, students and friends of your twenty-nine years with the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. Eastern Christians of various persuasions, and of both high and humble rank, have been eager to greet you with deep appreciation, brotherly love and fraternal regards. “We, the heirs of Syrian culture”, wrote Professor Abrohom Nouro of Aleppo, “not only feel a profound

X

GREETING

admiration toward this scholar, but we also cherish a very particular esteem for him. I have seen in him a missionary of Syrian culture". With his customary ardor Professor Nouro added: “The great Syriac scholar who has so fervently served our beloved culture deserves to be honoured in the language which he loves". Overruling your reluctance to see your volume freighted with personal praise, dear colleague, I take pleasure in appending the Syriac poem which Professor Nouro composed for this occasion. “We fellow Estonians are proud of Dr. Vóóbus' scientific achievements. No less do we appreciate his true Christian spirit", wrote Editor Feliks Tamm. Your Estonian friends have honored you on many occasions, and we welcome the opportunity for them to do so again in company with the rest of us. Of all the tributes that you can receive, I know that you especially cherish the one which Gottfried Redi and Dean Aleksander Hinno, members of the Consistory of the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Exile, expressed in the first volume of your Studies in the History of the Estonian People. Two sentences in particular bear repetition as your friends greet you now: “He has been a voice for the voiceless in suffering, not only the people of our homeland but also people everywhere, wherever human beings must live in agony under the same tyranny. In this respect, too, he has remained faithful to the best that true learning can produce in illuminating the mind, in ennobling the heart and in sensitizing the conscience". Your hundreds of friends from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago also salute you with respect and affection. While we share you with your fellow Estonians, we also claim you as one of us. LSTC is and will remain your school. We are all the prouder to be associated with it because of the luster you have brought to it, and the constructive influence you have quietly exerted within it. By having you

among us, we all at LSTC, faculty and students alike, have come to know better what it means to hold up before oneself high standards of thought and life. "An academician is a proper colleague", your eminent friend of many years, Joseph Sittler, has written, "when he relentlessly pursues the truth by methods and data intrinsic to his field of inquiry. That is the way Professor Vóóbus has been our colleague in this place". Beyond all that, we appreciate your gentlemanly bearing and your personal warmth with us whenever we have opened ourselves to you. Finally, we draw into the circle of our tribute your delightful, patient, spirited wife. Without you, Ilse, Arthur Vööbus would not be the same

GREETING

XI

person, and his scholarly achievements would not be the same. A decade ago, in dedicating a monograph to you, he paid tribute to your great courage in sharing personal hardship and loss. Referring to the obligations which the anguish of suffering people has imposed upon him and his work, he continued, “It is with self-sacrifice that my wife has

shared in all the distresses and frustrations as well as in the fulfilment of the demands involved in those obligations. Her inner luster of cheerfulness and spirit has had a deep bearing upon me". Your friends, Ilse, cannot plumb the full depth of these words, even vicariously. But we do understand them in part, and most of all we cherish the inner luster of cheerfulness and spirit which you have made abundantly

apparent to us. May long life, continued fruitfulness, fulfilled happiness, and God's rich blessing be yours, Arthur and Ilse! Robert H. FISCHER

SYRIAC

POEM

IN HONOR by Abrohom

OF PROFESSOR

A. VÖÖBUS

Nouro, Aleppo

Free translation

un.

1. For Arthur Vóóbus, our master, the learned one and researcher, a volume of homage is fashioned and his name in all the world is exalted.

2.

3.

wisi

cam»

iohinl

Minors wohl

nmi

a

mihhæw

rohan.

τ᾿»

m

dal

las

iam

"s

neo

blessed is your excellent. project, as now you celebrate this festival.

^

Vööbus twenty-one times

Maw ist ein

he welcomed him with kindness of heart and showered on him all his encouragement.

ax»

mam

lan

mas

οἵου.

aus Amas \

.

si romliaz rial wasal

anm 2o en

mo

La

mala

το ἵνα

eines ,

msi ara

ria enm»

mi»

hu ha

a> δι

Karaaa

al».

0 | οἷο

Res hizo hin

aa ir

hasumas

and interpretations along with inquiries, this masterful teacher has brought us

of literature in the Syriac idiom

pao

.

critiques and works of research,

works in various disciplines

io N

wins $ela vases nca daai

With many ornaments and essays,

6. Discoveries in great abundance;

4 \

A alla roca elie is ha 1

As Dolabani the great spiritual shepherd perceived in him such ardor,

7.

iohimi

ih) ria lus AA REA ec aee

of Kurkama and Midyat and Tur Abdin.

5.

ean

O Lutheran institute of learning, theological school in Chicago,

crossed the seas and flew to Mesopotamia, labored in the libraries of Mardin,

4.

οὶ

iam

al

maar

aha

ram

: the man of great exploits has produced.

ridicu

réhoias mi»

‚iar

So the sons of Syriac culture ask of you, a son of the truth, M ud Ms bte from them— | y the Lord reward you with blessings!

mHcniam

ha

ftfhron is ehisoh 2

Wrhaiaas

rhaismo

jis

οὔκ A

“eis

vafa oo lanh A

re imo

FOREWORD

A century ago, Professor J. C.J. Sanders relates, Paul de Lagarde edited the Syriac Didascalia with misgivings. He regretted the defects in his text. But he consoled himself that no more than five scholars would be interested in the edition. Dr. Sanders then observes, “I believe that this number of five has now been greatly increased, thanks—among others—to Professor Vóóbus and his tireless work". The present rise of interest in early Christianity in its Semitic context is indeed long overdue, and surely it has not yet reached its fullness. In modern times Eastern Christians have not produced an abundance of scholarly interpreters of their own history, no doubt chiefly because of the great catastrophes which have decimated their strength. Westerners have tended simply to write off those whom they have labeled heretics, and to a great extent they have ignored the rich Eastern culture which in many ways can bring us closer to the thought-world of our Lord and of the primitive church than can the patterns of the Greeks and Romans. Only now are Westerners becoming embarrassed to realize how meager

is the attention which their standard church histories and patrologies devote to Oriental Christendom. Now, hopefully, we may make greater progress toward reducing and closing the gap between East and West. A Festschrift in honor of Arthur Vóóbus is naturally an advancement of the cause of early eastern studies. On the one hand, the volume serves to focus attention on the immense contributions which he has made

toward broadening and illuminating this field of history. On the other hand, every further contribution made by his colleagues to the understanding of this field is a tribute and a delight to him. Production of the Festschrift thus has been a labor of love for one whose career has been so full of love for his labor. The autliors responded to our invitation with heart-warming alacrity. We wish we could have invited more. Difficulty of communication with the Near East was one obstacle. Had it seemed economically feasible, we surely could have enlarged the volume considerably. One overseas contributor remarked, "Perhaps three or four volumes would be necessary according to the importance of Professor A. Vóóbus". With invitations scattered over four continents, authors were given a

completely free hand to choose their subjects. As the essays began to

XIV

FOREWORD

come in, their inevitable heterogeneity seemed to suggest that we could give the Festschrift only a general title, Studies in Early Christian Literature ... Eventually, however, we realized that the tribute to Arthur Vóóbus himself is the unifying factor in the whole enterprise. The essays, moreover, distributed themselves into four categories, to all of which Dr. Vóóbus himself has made important contributions. Professor Sebastian Brock has written, "Ever since my undergraduate days I have been a great admirer of (Dr. Vööbus’) work; indeed I think it was his History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient that served to spark off my enthusiasm for Syriac literature, so I have a lot to be grateful to him for!" The hope that this volume may exercise a similar attraction to young scholars, and be equally interesting to specialists, has shaped its production. Inclusion of the bibliography of Dr. Vóóbus' writings (which cost him many an hour recently to compile!) will be a great boon to all Syrologists. Students will surely find the album of facsimile plates a welcome treat. The index has been prepared with ampler than usual detail to serve as a reference tool not only for beginners but also for advanced scholars. This may be the appropriate place for Dr. Vóóbus' colleagues to thank those unseen partners, the foundations and institutions which have made the financial grants that enabled him to continue his task of systematically exploring in the Near East for Syriac manuscripts. These include the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society, the Mid-European Studies Center, the Aid Association for Lutherans, the Lutheran Brotherhood, the Department of Theological Education of the Lutheran Church in America, and the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. By assisting our colleague in his arduous but fruitful work, you have placed us all in your debt. Incidentally, as Professor Nouro's Syriac

poem states, Dr. Vööbus has visited Mesopotamia twenty-one times; altogether thirty-two times he has journeyed to the Near and Middle East to look for manuscripts. His trip this summer is the thirty-third. LSTC also cordially thanks the Aid Association for Lutherans, and Faith Lutheran Church, Glen Eilyn, Illinois, the Reverend Dr. Theodore A. Youngquist, pastor, for grants which have generously subsidized the launching of this Festschrift project. To Dr. Vóóbus' disciple, Professor Walter Freitag of Saskatoon, Canada, belongs the honor of first conceiving and promoting the idea

FOREWORD

XV

of the Festschrift. The faculty and administration of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago gave his suggestion their willing support, and I undertook the editorial task gladly. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my debt to many persons for their valuable contributions to the enterprise. At the outset Professors Allen Wikgren (Chicago) and Bruce Metzger (Princeton) gave me excellent advice and encouragement. Monsieur E. Peeters of the Imprimerie Orientaliste (Louvain) and his consultant Professor René Draguet have been immensely helpful with the project and patient with me, and I thank them especially heartily.

Bruce Young and Allen Fitchen of the University of Chicago Press have aided me with advice on many an editorial detail, and Professor John Brinkman of the Oriental Institute (Chicago) has offered helpful suggestions on promotion. To Miles A. Snyder, M. Photog., of the Color Clinic, La Grange, Illinois, go the credits for the portrait of Dr. Vóóbus and all but one of the facsimile plates; plate 7 was made by Eric Soovere, Cincinnati (who prepared all the plates for the facsimile edition of this discovery). President Arthur O. Arnold of LSTC, Dean Wesley J. Fuerst, and Director of Development Luther R. Livingston have helped greatly with good counsel and practical energies. Sharing various editorial tasks with me have been my LSTC colleagues

Wilhelm Linss, Walter L. Michel and James A. Scherer; my neighbors Professor J. Patout Burns, SJ (Jesuit School of Theology) and Elvire Hilgert (McCormick Theological Seminary Library); and research

assistants Roger L. Anderson with his wife Arletta, the Reverend Louis Dorn, the Reverend John Helmke, and the Reverend James R. Skewes. With Professor Roncaglia we all say to our friend, “Vivat, crescat, floreat !'"

R.H.F.

Arthur Vööbus

CURRICULUM

April 28,

1909 —

born

in Vara,

VITAE

Estonia,

son

of schoolmaster

Karl

E. and Linda H. Vóóbus 1936 — married Ilse Luksep They are the parents of two daughters, Ruth (Mrs. Karl von Heimburg) and Eti 1928 — graduated cum laude from the Classical Gymnasium, Tartu, Estonia 132 — candidatus theologiae, University of Tartu 1932 — ordained to the Lutheran ministry 1933-40 — pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church, Tartu 1934 — magister theologiae, University of Tartu 1934-40 — research fellow: post-graduate studies in manuscript research in Rome, Paris. London, Berlin and Leipzig 1940 — escaped from arrest by the Soviets to Germany

194]

— interned with his wife in Mecklenburg, Germany because of his Christian stand against the Nazi regime

1942 — returned to Estonia 1943 — doctor theologiae, University of Tartu 1943-44 — assistant professor of Ancient Church History, University of Tartu 1944 — escaped for the second time from the Soviets to Germany 1944-48 — exercised pastoral care among fellow refugees in refugee camps in Germany 1946-48 — associate professor of Ancient Church History, the Baltic University, Hamburg, Germany 1948-77 — professor of New Testament and Early Church History, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago; 1977 — professor

emeritus founded the series, Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile visiting professor, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago

XVIII

CURRICULUM

VITAE

Recognitions Membre, L'Académie Internationale Libre des Sciences et des Lettres, Paris Membre, L'Académie

Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-

Arts de Belgique Fellow, The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellow, The American Council of Learned Societies Fellow, The National Endowment

for the Humanities

Fellow, The American Philosophical Society Financial Grants also from The The The The The

Mid-European Studies Center Aid Association for Lutherans Lutheran Brotherhood Department of Theological Education, Lutheran Church in America Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago About his biography, academic work, research and concerns, see:

The International Who's Who of Intellectuals. International Biographical Centre. Cambridge 1977. Men of Achievement. Fourth Edition. International Biographical Centre. Cambridge 1977.

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

The Reverend Johannes Aarik Adelaide, South Australia

The Reverend Lowell Albee, Jr.

Father Abdulahad Kas Ephrem Syrian Orthodox Community of the German Federal Republic

Doctor Micheline Albert Paris, France

Chicago, Illinois

Abdulmassih Saade Aleppo, Syria

Los Angeles, California The Reverend David T. Anderson Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Jako Abel New York, New York

The Reverend John E. Anderson

Professor Joseph-Albert Abouna, OCD Mosul, Iraq Professor Luise Abramowski

Tübingen, German Federal Republic Abt-Herwegen-Institut Maria Laach, German Federal Republic

Academic Society of Estonian Students New York, New York Libre

des

Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique Brussels, Belgium

Deacon Adai Jacob Muvattupuzha, Kerala, India Professor Gósta Ahlstróm

Chicago, Illinois

Calgary, Alberta, Canada Doctor Leo Anderson Stockholm, Sweden

The Reverend Philip V. Anderson Chicago, Illinois Roger and Arletta Anderson Chicago, Illinois

Academic Society of Estonian Students Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Académie Internationale Sciences et des Lettres Paris, France

Professor Milton V. Anastos

Doctor Sandra Anderson Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Archbishop André Sana Chaldean Church Aqra, Iraq The Reverend Paul W. Anhalt Rockford, Illinois

Martin L. Appelt Luverne, Minnesota President Arthur O. Arnold

Lutheran

School

of Theology

Chicago, Illinois

Doctor Endel Aruja Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The Reverend E. W. Aho Glendale, Arizona

Professor Julius Assfalg

Professor Kurt Aland Münster/Westphalia, German Federal Republic

Association

Munich, German for

the

Federal Republic Advancement

Baltic Studies Brooklyn, New York

of

XX

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

Bishop Z. Mar Athanasios Syro-Malankara Rite of the Catholic Church Tiruvalla, Kerala, India Archbishop Athanasius Y. Samuel Syrian Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada Hackensack, New Jersey

Doctor Paolo Bettiolo

Bologna, Italy Bishop Raphael Bidawid Chaldean Church Beirut, Lebanon

Professor Robert D. Biggs Chicago, Illinois

Professor Karl Aun Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Doctor Lewis P. Bird

Dean Jakob Aunver

Professor J. Neville Birdsall

Uppsala, Sweden Monk Avgin Shukri Mardin, Turkey

Broomall, Pennsylvania

Birmingham, England Principal Matthew Black St. Andrews, Scotland

Professor T. Baarda Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Jost G. Blum

Doctor E. Theodore Bachmann Geneva, Switzerland

Professor P.A.H. de Boer Leiden, The Netherlands

Professor Klaus Baer

The Reverend Erland L. Borg

Chicago, Illinois

London, England

Miltona, Minnesota

The Reverend George W. Bornemann

Paul D. Balaban

Chicago, Illinois

Southfield, Michigan

Baltic Scientific [Institute in Scandinavia Stockholm, Sweden

Professor John Bowman Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

The Reverend Frank L. Barcus Monroeville, Indiana

Professor Jean Bozeman Chicago, Illinois

Monsignor Barsom Y. Ayoub Aleppo, Syria

Dean Jerald C. Brauer

The Reverend Alfred K. Beck Williamsville, New York Doctor Edmund

Beck, OSB

Metten über Deggendorf, German Federal Republic

Doctor Axel V. Beckman Duncanville, Texas

Chicago, Illinois

The Reverend J. Stephen Bremer Madison, Wisconsin Professor Michael Breydy Cologne, German Federal Republic Professor John Brinkman

Chicago, Illinois

Professor Pierre Benoit, OP Jerusalem, Israel

The Reverend Charles T. Britton Malvern, Pennsylvania

Milton E. Berg

Professor Sebastian P. Brock

Boulder, Colorado

Oxford, England

TABULA

XXI

GRATULATORIA

The Reverend Daniel A. Brosi Riverdale, Illinois

The Reverend Robert C. Cooling Princeton, Illinois

The Reverend Robert K. Brunk

Professor Theodore E. Conrad St. Paul, Minnesota

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania The Reverend Paul R. Buettner Forreston, Illinois

The Reverend Thetis R. Cromie

The Reverend David A. Bunge Duval, Saskatchewan, Canada

Jerry Crow

The Reverend C.A. Burnett, Jr. Hanna City, Illinois

Professor Irénée-Henri Dalmais, OP Paris, France

The Reverend Lloyd D. Buss Rochester, Michigan

Robin Darling

The Reverend Robert L. Butler Dakota, Illinois

Gregory Nelson Davis Chicago, Illinois

Harry and Susan Cannon St. Paul, Minnesota

The Reverend David M. Deal Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The Reverend James Leslie Carlson Victoria, Texas

Chicago, Illinois Chicago, Illinois

Chicago, Illinois

The Reverend Alain J.P. Desreumaux Sevran, France

The Reverend John W. Carlson Macomb, Illinois

Doctor Paul Devos, SJ

The Reverend Dennis J. Carroll Oldwick, New Jersey

The Reverend Leland R. Diekhoff

Ulana Celewych Addison, Illinois The Reverend Theodore E. Chell Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Elizabeth A. Christian Elmhurst, Illinois The Reverend Michel D. Clark Decatur, Illinois The Reverend John Clark-Johnson

Naperville, Illinois The Reverend Marcia Clark-Johnson

Naperville, Illinois

Brussels, Belgium Dakota City, Nebraska The Reverend Richard W. Dishno

Wantagh, New York F.J. Dólger - Institut Bonn, German Federal Republic The Reverend Louis Dorn Chicago, Illinois Professor Hermann Göttingen,

Dörries

German Federal Republic Professor Rene Draguet Louvaın, Belgium

John Andrew Clausen Columbiana, Ohio

Professor H.J.W. Drijvers

Professor J. F. Coakley Lancaster, England

Professor R.Y. Ebied

Groningen, The Netherlands

Leeds, England

XXII

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

École Biblique et Archéologique Française Jerusalem, Israel

Professor Robert H. Fischer

Chicago, Illinois

The Reverend L. Jack Ehlers Durant, Iowa Professor J.A. Emerton Cambridge, England Estonian Archives Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia

Estonian Archives in the USA Lakewood, New Jersey Estonian Bible Committee Västeräs, Sweden

Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church New York, New York Estonian Learned Society in America New York, New York The Consistory of the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Exile Stockholm, Sweden Estonian National Council New York, New York

The Reverend Daniel Thomas Ford, Jr. Garner, North Carolina Professor James G. Fraser Melbourne, Victoria, Australia The Reverend Carl D. Freedlund, Jr. Chicago, Illinois

Professor Walter H. P. Freitag Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Professor Wesley J. Fuerst Chicago, Illinois The Reverend Timothy J. Fuzzey Bloomington, Minnesota The Very Reverend and Mrs. Antony F. Gabriel Montreal, Quebec, Canada Acting Metropolitan Gabriel Syrian Orthodox Church Mardin, Turkey The Reverend Douglas C. Gast Pueblo, Colorado Barbara Gazzolo Evanston, Illinois

The Reverend Joseph L. Evrard Breinigsville, Pennsylvania

Rabban Georges Saliba

Faith Lutheran Church Doctor Theodore A. Youngquist,

Professor Georges Touro

Pastor

Allaf

Atchané, Lebanon Aleppo, Syria The Reverend Dale R. Giffin Leetonia, Ohio

Glen Ellyn, Illinois Richard Falc Hinsdale, Illinois

Kathryn M. Ginther Chicago, Illinois

Gary Miles Faleide

Professor Norman Golb

Riverside, Iowa

Chicago, Illinois

Professor Francis I. Fesperman Newberry, South Carolina

Professor Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein Jerusalem, Israel

The Reverend James M. Modesto, California

Doctor Richard J. Gotsch Northbrook, Illinois

Fincher

TABULA

XXIII

GRATULATORIA

Professor Frangois Graffin, SJ Paris, France

Jüri and Tina Hansen London, Ontario, Canada

Professor David M. Granskou Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Robert L. Hansen

Professor Robert M. Grant

Doctor Paul Harb Reinbek, German Federal Republic

Chicago, Illinois Doctor Robert E. Grefe

Hollywood, Florida Archbishop Gregorios Saliba Syrian Orthodox Church Mosul, iraq Professor Jean Gribomont, OSB

Rome, Italy The Reverend Clifford C. Grosenbacher Shiner, Texas Professor Antoine Guillaumont Paris, France The Reverend Talivaldis Gulbis

Indianapolis, Indiana The Reverend Hans-Fredrik Gustafson

Phillips, Wisconsin Doctor Joseph Habbi Mosul, Iraq Doctor Louis Hage, OLM

Kaslik, Lebanon The Reverend Winfield S. Hall Riverside, Illinois

The Reverend Dennis Hallemeier

Mount Prospect, Illinois

Chicago, Illinois

Professor Edward R. Hardy Cambridge, England The Reverend Charles Lee Harman Omaha, Nebraska

Doctor Peter Hauptmann Münster/Westphalia, German Federal Republic Doctor A.A. Háussling, OSB Maria Laach,

German Federal Republic Professor Philip Hefner Chicago, Illinois The Reverend Leslie von Hefty Buenos Aires, Argentina Doctor Franklin C. Heglund Denver, Colorado Karl and Ruth von Heimburg Cary, Illinois Edgar Heinsoo

Montreal, Quebec, Canada The Reverend Arthur J. Henne Berne, New York The Reverend Robert C. Hereth

Chicago, Illinois Professor André de Halleux

Louvain, Belgium

Dean Aleksander Hinno New

Professor E.R. Hambye, SJ Delhi, India

York, New

York

Professor J.G.H. Hoffmann

Villeneuve-lez-Avignon, France

Hanna Salman Beirut, Lebanon

Professor Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. Chicago, Illinois

The Reverend James E. Hansen San Francisco, California

Michael J. Hollerich

Chicago, Illinois

XXIV

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

Callon W. Holloway, Jr. Chicago, Illinois

Hans Jalakas, M.D. Hinsdale, Illinois

The Reverend B. Penrose Hoover Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Professor Elmar Järvesoo Amherst, Massachusetts

Simon Hopkins Cambridge, England

Professor Aina Járvesoo Amherst, Massachusetts

Jerene Houser

Doctor Paul C. Johnsen

Chicago, Illinois

Huntington Beach, California

Professor Arland J. Hultgren

The Reverend Curtis A. Johnson Austin, Texas

Staten Island, New York Rabban Ibrahim Turker Mardin, Turkey

Elinor C. Johnson Chicago, Illinois

Ignatius Yacoub III Patriarch of Antioch and All the East Syrian Orthodox Church Damascus, Syria

The Reverend Julius Juhkentaal

Professor Frederik W. Ihloff Aarhus, Denmark

Seattle, Washington Linda Kaeaemer Edmonds, Washington The Reverend Henry R. Kangas Warren, Ohio

Professor Karl Inno Rensselaer, New York

The Reverend Jerome B.S. Kaufman

Chicago, Illinois

Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung Münster/Westphalia, German Federal Republic

Professor Peter Kawerau

Marburg, German Federal Republic Doctor Josef Kerschensteiner Munich, German Federal Republic

Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Münster/Westphalia,

Dean Elie Khalifé-Hachem, OLM Kaslik, Lebanon

German Federal Republic Malfono Isa Gares Gülcan

Karen A. Kiener

Midyat, Turkey

Chicago, Illinois

Issa Yeshu Hanna

Professor Axel C. Kildegaard Chicago, Illinois

Kamichli, Syria Professor Ivar Ivask Norman, Oklahoma Ernst Jaakson, Consul Estonia New York, New York

General

The Reverend Fredrick D. Jacobi Dallas, Texas

of

Leon V. Kirstein Kitimat, British Columbia, Canada Dean Joseph M. Kitagawa Chicago, Illinois The Reverend Lloyd Kittlaus Dolton, Illinois

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

XXV

Janet (Mrs. Lloyd) Kittlaus Dolton, Illinois

Professor D.J. Lane Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Dean Rudolf Kiviranna New York, New York

Herman Lane West Caldwell, New Jersey

Dean Einar Kiviste

The Reverend Roland E. Langford, Jr.

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Professor Theodor Klauser

Bonn, German Federal Republic

Curtice, Ohio

The Reverend Christopher J.A. Lash Oxford, England

Doctor Wolf D. Knappe Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Daniel L. Lauderdale Cheyenne, Wyoming

Professor Johannes Knudsen Des Moines, Iowa

The Reverend Hendrik Laur Olympia, Washingon

Juta Koch Seattle, Washington The Reverend Donald R. Koepke Albuquerque, New Mexico The Reverend Wayne A. Kofink Miami, Florida

Voldemar Kóiv Ridgefield Park, New Jersey Dean Richard Koolmeister Västeräs, Sweden

The Reverend Walter Kopperman Allentown, Pennsylvania The Reverend Alex William Koski Brawley, California P. Krusten Arlington, Virginia The Reverend Calvin D. Kuder Tiffin, Ohio Professor Walter J. Kukkonen Chicago, Illinois The Reverend Karl T. Kuskevics Hamilton, Ontario, Canada The Reverend Heino Laaneots Montreal, Quebec, Canada

The Reverend Frank E. Lay Altona, Illinois Dom Louis Leloir, OSB Clervaux, Luxembourg Doctor E.E. Leppik Beltsville, Maryland Doctor Jules Leroy Paris, France Doctor Maurice Leroy Brussels, Belgium Professor Fairy von Lilienfeld Erlangen, German Federal Republic Hans Lill

Indianapolis, Indiana Professor Wilhelm C. Linss Chicago, Illinois

Professor Thomas F. Livernois Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania The Reverend Luther R. Livingston Chicago, Illinois The Reverend Donald G. Love

Viborg, South Dakota Lutheran

School of Theology

Krauss Library Chicago, Illinois

XXVI

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

Doctor William F. Macomber

Collegeville, Minnesota

Christopher M. Miller Chicago, Illinois

Professor W.F. Wilfred Madelung Chicago, Illinois

The Reverend David Ellis Miller

John E. Magnuson

The Reverend Leland E. Molgaard Harcourt, Iowa

Los Alamos, New Mexico

Chicago, Illinois

Karen Brobst el-Malik Chicago, Illinois

Professor Joseph Molitor Bamberg, German Federal Republic

Doctor Bruce J. Malina Omaha, Nebraska

The Reverend Elton H. Moore Unity, Wisconsin

The Reverend Kenneth Marks

The Reverend David N. Morrell Dwight, Illinois

Antwerp, Ohio The Reverend Rudolf K. Markwald

Chicago, Illinois President Robert J. Marshall Lutheran Church in America New York, New York Alice H. (Mrs. Robert) Marshail New York, New York

Doctor Luther C. Mueller Harvard, Illinois Professor D.J. Mulder Amsterdam, The Netherlands Professor C.D.G. Müller

Bonn, German Federal Republic

The Reverend Peter R. Martyn Birmingham, Michigan

Professor Robert Murray, SJ

The Reverend Donald Marxhausen Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Professor Yacub Namek Beirut, Lebanon

Doctor Theodore E. Matson Lake Geneva, Wisconsin

Doctor Erik ten Napel Groningen, The Netherlands

The Reverend David A. McCleary

Professor George Nedungatt, SJ

Bloomingdale, Illinois The Reverend Donald Chicago, Illinois

London, England

Rome, Italy K. McClelland

The Reverend Rein Neggo Los Angeles, California

McCormick Theological Seminary Library Chicago, Illinois

John G. Nelson Taunton, Massachusetts

Doctor Brian McNeil Cambridge, England

Doctor Roger A. Nelson Northbrook, Illinois

Professor Bruce M. Metzger Princeton, New Jersey

Thomas E. Nelson, Jr.

The Reverend Ferdinand D. Meyer St. Clairsville, Ohio

Professor Jacob Neusner Providence, Rhode Island

Chicago, Illinois

TABULA

Margaret B. Nichols Chicago, Illinois Doctor Eugene A. Nida New York, New York Karl W. Ninnemann Morristown, New Jersey The Reverend Paul L. Ninnemann

Chicago, Illinois Professor N. Leroy Norquist Chicago, Illinois Professor Abrohom Nouro Kahlaji Aleppo, Syria Doctor Russell Bradner Norris, Jr. Mount Union, Pennsylvania The Very Reverend Numan Aydin Midyat, Turkey Professor Paul Nwyia Beirut, Lebanon Father Joseph Obeid, OLM Kaslik, Lebanon

Editor Hannes Oja Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Doctor August Okas Woodside, New York

GRATULATORIA

Orient-Institut der Deutschen

Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Beirut, Lebanon Oriental Institute Chicago, Illinois

Professor Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina, SJ Rome, Italy Professor Jean Ouellette

Montreal, Quebec, Canada Professor Albert C. Outler Dallas, Texas Father Bernard Outtier, OSB Solesmes, France Priit Paas, M.D. Toronto, Ontario, Canada The Reverend Elmar Páhn Skokie, Illinois

Doctor Ants Pallop Bernardsville, New Jersey The Reverend Howard W. Palm Park Ridge, Illinois Voldemar Palm Stockholm, Sweden

Bruce W. Pangborn Chicago, Illinois

The Reverend Kenneth R. Olsen Wheaton, Illinois

Professor Dennis Pardee

The Reverend Arnold C. Olson

The Reverend Oskar Pastik Redondo Beach, California

Washington, Illinois The Reverend Glen H. Oman Minneapolis, Minnesota

Professor Ernst J. Ópik Bangor, Northern Ireland

Alide (Mrs. Ernst) Ópik Bangor, Northern Ireland

Professor Uno Ópik Belfast, Northern Ireland

XXVII

Chicago, Illinois

Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios Syrian Orthodox Church Kottayam, Kerala, India Doctor R.G. Peaslee Fairfield, Iowa Dean Jaroslav Pelikan New Haven, Connecticut Professor Albert Pero

Chicago, Illinois

XXVIII

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

Professor Charles Perrot Paris, France

Henno Räägo

Peshitta Institute Leiden, The Netherlands

Doctor Tönis Raamot Mountainside, New Jersey

The Reverend F. Leonard Peterson Chicago, Illinois

Professor Fazlur Rahman

The Reverend Kenneth L. Peterson

The Reverend August Raidur Stockholm, Sweden

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada The Reverend Norman C. Peterson

Chicago, Illinois Father Petros Ogune Schusche Syrian Orthodox Community German Federal Republic The Reverend Raymond H. Phyles Armonk, New York Ilmar Pleer New York, New York

Professor J.P.M. van der Ploeg, OP Nijmegen, The Netherlands The Reverend James C. Plymire Menasha, Wisconsin Professor Vincenzo Poggi, SJ Rome, Italy The Reverend Leif A. Pohl

Convent Station, New York

Chicago, Illinois

Professor Alfred Rammelmeyer Frankfurt-am-Main, German Federal Republic Ortrud (Mrs. Alfred) Rammelmeyer Frankfurt-am-Main,

German Federal Republic Professor Gustav Rank Stockholm, Sweden The Reverend Fred G. Ranlett Missoula, Montana The Reverend Peter R. Rasmussen

Sakyo Ku Kyoto Shi, Japan Archibald Raud, M.D. Glenview, Illinois

Editor Harald Raudsepp New York, New York

Dean Toomas Pöld Bielefeld, German Federal Republic

Bishop Karl Raudsepp Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Exile Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada

The Reverend and Mrs. Richard Poole Chicago, Illinois

I. Rebane Stockholm, Sweden

Professor Jaan Puhvel

Mary F. Recher

Valparaiso, Indiana

Los Angeles, California Professor Madli Puhvel Los Angeles, California Professor Gilles Quispel Utrecht, The Netherlands Vaino Raag, M.D. Addison, Illinois

Bethesda, Maryland Vice President Gottfried Redi

Consistory of the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Exile Plainsboro, New Jersey The Reverend Rudolf Reinaru Lakewood, New Jersey

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

Professor G.J. Reinink Groningen, The Netherlands

The Reverend John J. Santoro Burbank, California

Professor Karl Heinrich Rengstorf Münster /Westphalia,

Doctor Joseph-Marie Sauget Vatican City

German Federal Republic Doctor V.G. Roennfeldt Bordertown, S.A., Australia The Reverend Gordon A. Roesch Fort Worth, Texas

Professor Martiniano Pellegrino Ron-

XXIX

The Reverend Howard Herman Schaar Melrose Park, Illinois Alan D. Scheible Chicago, Illinois

The Reverend Garland C. Schenk Riverton, Manitoba, Canada The Reverend Royce J. Scherf Evanston, Illinois

caglia

Beirut, Lebanon The Reverend Randall G. Rottman Ridgewood, New York

Doctor Lorenz Schlimme

Claud S. Rupert Dallas, Texas

The Reverend Robert C. Schmeelcke Westville, New Jersey

The Reverend John E. Ruppenthal

Glen W. Schmidt Chicago, Illinois

Madison, Wisconsin

Göttingen, German Federal Republic

Doctor William G. Rusch New York, New York

The Reverend John T. Schmidt Omaha, Nebraska

The Reverend Helmut Saabas Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Doctor Margot Schmidt Regensburg,

German Federal Republic

Vice Dean Max E. Saar

The Reverend Richard K. Schultz

Bogota, New Jersey

Westland, Michigan

Paul Saar New York, New York Doctor Hugo Salasoo Lidcombe, New South Australia

John E. Schumacher Chicago, Illinois Wales,

Wolfgang Schwaigert Marburg, German Federal Republic

Professor Vello Salo Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The Reverend Fredric A. Seefeldt Neenah, Wisconsin

Professor Samir Khalil, SJ Rome, Italy

Professor Stanislav Segert Los Angeles, California

Rabban Samuel Akdas Midyat, Turkey

Professor Walter Selb Vienna, Austria

Professor J.C.J. Sanders Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Professor Frank C. Senn Chicago, Illinois

XXX Doctor Emmanuel Maria Laach,

TABULA

von

Severus,

GRATULATORIA

OSB

Louisville, Kentucky

German Federal Republic

The Reverend Ernest W. Switzer Spencer, Nebraska

Doctor Lloyd E. Sheneman Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The Syriac Academy Baghdad, Iraq

Professor Franklin Sherman Chicago, Illinois

Feliks Tamm Captain’s Cove, Maryland

Doctor Rein Silberberg Bethesda, Maryland

Heino Taremäe Lakewood, New Jersey

The Reverend John F. Simonson

Dollar Bay, Michigan

Tartu Institute Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Professor Joseph Sittler Chicago, Illinois The Reverend and Mrs. Skewes Warrenville, Illinois

The Reverend Thomas D. Swasko

James

R.

Doctor Artur Taska Stockholm, Sweden

Professor Ragnar C. Teigen Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

The Reverend Harold C. Skillrud Bloomington, Illinois

Doctor Jacob Thekeparampil

Doctor H. Dixon Slingerland

Professor John A. Thompson

Brooklyn, New York Professor Morton Smith New York, New York

The Reverend Marlin E. Snyder Underwood, North Dakota The Reverend William H. Snyder Friedens, Pennsylvania

Kottayam, Kerala, India Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Josephine E. Thorsen Palos Heights, Illinois Edward O. Tootson, M.D. Carpentersville, Illinois Jack E. Tootson Downers Grove, Illinois The Reverend Alden A. Tormala

Professor Bertold Spuler Hamburg, German Federal Republic Professor Lawrence E. Stager Chicago, Illinois Professor Werner Strothmann

Göttingen, German Federal Republic

Fort Wayne, Indiana Professor Olev Träss Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Professor Géraud Troupeau Paris, France The Reverend Ross H. Trower Middletown, Rhode Island

Doctor Reuben T. Swanson Omaha, Nebraska

The Reverend Erwin A. Uecker

The Reverend Stephen H. Swanson Chicago, Illinois

Professor Reinhard Ulrich Howards Grove, Wisconsin

Chicago, Illinois

TABULA

GRATULATORIA

The Reverend Thomas Vaga Gothenburg, Sweden

The Reverend Howard E. White Absarokee, Montana

Doctor Herbert Valdsaar

The Reverend James B. White

Wilmington, Delaware Ellen Parve (Mrs. Herbert) Valdsaar

Wilmington, Delaware

XXXI

Detroit, Michigan The Reverend James W. Wiberg Brookfield, Wisconsin

Ado Valge Bowie, Maryland

The Reverend Thomas A. Wickstrom

Doctor Michel van Esbroeck, SJ

Professor Gernot Wiessner

Brussels, Belgium Professor Albert van Roey Leuven, Belgium Doctor Lucas van Rompay Leuven, Belgium Archbishop Konrad Veem Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Exile Stockholm, Sweden Professor Jacob Vellian Kottayam, Kerala, India

Judge Karl E. Viilu Woodside, New York Major August and Regina Vóhma Cary, Illinois The Reverend Robert D. Walters

Clarkston, Michigan Wayne Walther

Palmer, Michigan Göttingen, German Federal Republic Professor Allen Wikgren Chicago, Illinois Norman R. Williamson Evanston, Illinois

Miili Willson Everett, Washington Professor Robert Wilson St. Andrews, Scotland

Madame Gabriele Winkler Munich, German Federal Republic Doctor Walter Frederick Wolbrecht

Shreveport, Louisiana The Reverend Jan L. Womer

Cypress, California The Reverend Royal A. Yount, Jr. Tequesta, Florida

Warrenton, Texas

The Reverend Bruce D. Weber Imia City, Michigan The Reverend Knight W. Wells Tekamah, Nebraska

The Reverend Armin G. Weng Oregon, Illinois Professor Edward F. Wente Chicago, Illinois Professor Henry F. Werling St. Paul, Minnesota

Yacoub Kas Aday Touma Aleppo, Syria Professor Pierre Yousif

Mosul, Iraq Doctor Ugo A. Zanetti. SJ Brussels, Belgium Doctor Nicole Zeegers-Vander Vorst Leuven, Belgium

PART ONE STUDIES

IN

PATRISTIC

SOURCES

THE

COPTIC

NEW

Kurt

TESTAMENT*

ALAND

Münster/Westphalia, German

Federal Republic

Westcott and Hort in their edition of the New Testament assigned to the Versions a decisive importance. For them, they were the resources for reaching back to the text of the second century, which they could not reach in any other way. The oldest Greek manuscripts at their disposal originated in the fourth century. Certainly, the Latin and Syriac translations—and their connection with Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis—were given the greatest importance. Nevertheless, they set the Coptic text on an equal footing beside these two: "Besides some outlying Versions, there are three principal classes, the LariN, the Syriac and the Egyptian”, they say right at the beginning of their descriptions of the Versions in the introduction to their edition: The New

Testament in the Original Greek (1881), 8107, p. 78. And

in

the discussion of the Coptic itself, it is stated, to cite only the most significant portion : The Coptic or Egyptian versions proper are three, very unequally preserved. The Memphitic, the version of lower Egypt, sometimes loosely designated as the Coptic, contains the whole New Testament, though it does not follow that all the books were translated at the same period, and the Apocalypse was apparently not treated as a canonical book. The greater part of the version cannot well be later than the second century.

Only a very small number of the known manuscripts had been utilized in the existing editions, apparently without any very obvious principle of selection. Lightfoot's cursory examination of the manuscripts had shown “much diversity of text among the MSS; and in Egypt, as elsewhere, corruption was doubtless progressive". The Sahidic, so Westcott and Hort continue, may be in comparison with the Bohairic probably little if at all inferior in antiquity. It in like manner contained the whole New Testament, with the Apocalypse as an appendix. No one book is preserved complete, but the number of extant fragments, unfortunately not yet all published, is considerable. (p. 86) * Paper read at the First International Congress of Coptology, Cairo, December 1976.

4

K. ALAND

Now it is difficult to establish with any confidence—even in the Greek section—what materials were theoretically accessible to them and, in particular, what they utilized in practice. In the case of the Coptic,

the

second

edition

of Scrivener's

Plain

Introduction

to

the

Criticism of the New Testament, which appeared in 1874, may reflect the "existing state of knowledge", as is said in the foreword to the work. Here relatively numerous manuscripts of the Bohairic are presented and briefly described : twenty-eight for the Gospels, a total of seventeen for the epistles and Acts, and ten for the Apocalypse. For the Sahidic, in comparison, Scrivener comes than ten manuscripts, and all of them fragments.

out with little more

For the Sahidic, it is thus to be assumed from the outset that Westcott-Hort had only limited access to it, particularly since in their time there was no proper edition of the text in existence. The situation is different with the Bohairic, which was already cited by Fell in 1675 and following him by Mill in 1707 in their editions of the Greek New Testament, and for which the editions of Wilkins (1716), Schwartze (1846/47), de Lagarde (1852), and Tattam (1847/52) were already in existence. The Fayyumic text (which at that time was called Bashmuric),

although known since Zoéga, may not have been adduced by WestcottHort, since they refer to it with the laconic remark : Of the third Egyptian version, the Bashmuric, about 330 verses from St John's Gospel and the Pauline epistles alone survive. (p. 86).

By the turn of the century, the picture so far as the material is concerned had already changed considerably. In the second volume of his Textkritik des Neuen Testaments in 1902, Gregory counted for the Bohairic already sixty-eight manuscripts of the Gospels, twenty-eight of the epistles and Acts, as well as seventeen of the Apocalypse, making a total of one hundred and thirteen. This may to some extent correspond with the amount which is to be assumed for Horner's four-volume edition of 1898-1905. In the case of the Sahidic, the number of known fragments is raised even more; it has now increased to ninety-one. Thus already in 1902, Gregory was able to put together the mosaic of a complete Sahidic text from the existing pieces (p. 534f), with some complete texts: the Gospel of John (with the exception of the pericope adulterae),

the

epistle

to

the

Galatians,

First

Thessalonians,

First

Timothy, Second Peter, the complete Johannine epistles; some are represented with only very slight lacunae (in Luke only five verses are missing;

in Acts thirteen, and

so on). (The

same

in von

Soden

I, 2,

p. 1478f, with a list of the underlying editions for the Gospels). What

THE

COPTIC

NEW

TESTAMENT

5

here took place in theory, Horner brought into reality volume edition of 1911-1924. Frequently he had several one single verse, because the extant fragments overlapped but sometimes there is no attestation at all for a text : so verses in the Gospel of Mark (Mark

1, 20-21, 24-29;

in his sevenwitnesses for one another; with fourteen

16, 2-7), or it was

only partially supported (so with a further thirty-seven verses in the synoptic Gospels; see p. viii in the foreword to volume I). In the Pauline epistles, the lacunae are even more noticeable (p. v to volume IV): in Romans, for example, eighty-one verses are lacking, either completely or in part;

in

First

Corinthians,

one

hundred

and

one;

in Second

Corinthians, ninety-eight; in Hebrews, thirty-six. What is our situation now today? The lists of manuscripts by H. Hyvernat in the Revue Biblique of 1896/97 remain in time behind Horner; those in Vaschalde, so far as they were published in the Revue Biblique (1919-1922), run parallel to his edition. With those in the Muséon, however (1932-1933; the list of 1930 deals only with the Old Testament), he pushes beyond Horner, although not very much. For the Fayyumic he counted forty new, in part major fragments of the New Testament; for the Achmimic he counted five. Till's continuation list in the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in 1959 shows the progress which had been made in the publication of Coptic texts in approximately twenty-five years since Vaschalde. The advance beyond Horner is at its most modest in the case of the Bohairic. The situation is already different for the Sahidic. Till presents one hundred and fifty fragments which were not used by Horner, for the Fayyumic around thirty, and for the Achmimic around fifteen. These figures are already impressive enough. However, they are very relative. For all these lists result only from published texts and disregard completely the numerous unpublished complete manuscripts and fragments in international libraries and museums. Nevertheless, Till can already record the edition of the complete text of Acts and the Pauline epistles in the Sahidic dialect by Thompson. With that begins the modern era, marked by the fact that—with the exception of the Apocalypse—we now have all the books of the Sahidic New Testament in complete manuscripts, and for some parts more than one. In the Pierpont Morgan Museum in New York alone there is a manuscript of the four Gospels (M 569), to which are to be added an additional manuscript of the Gospel of John (M $), two manuscripts of the Pauline epistles (M

570 and

manuscript of the catholic epistles (M

572). In addition to these we

M

571), as well as a

6

K. ALAND

may mention the Chester Beatty manuscripts A and B, with the Gospel of John (twice), the Pauline letters and Acts. Apart from the sections

of these manuscripts edited by Thompson, we now have the edition by Rodolphe Kasser of the Bodmer Papyrus XIV with Matthew

14-18

from the fourth or fifth century. Hans Quecke has published the fifth century Barcelona manuscript of Mark, and the edition of the Barcelona Gospel of Luke is expected. Fritz Hintze and Hans Martin Schenke have published the Berlin manuscript of the fourth century containing Acts. To all these we have to add the so-called Mississippi Codex of the third century, still shrouded in unnecessary and incomprehensible secrecy. This amounts to a fundamental change in the situation. It will prove to be even greater when the Institute for New Testament Textual Research comes even to some degree towards the end of its systematic search for unpublished Coptic New Testament manuscripts. Karlheinz Schüssler's edition of the Sahidic text of the catholic

epistles, which

originated in the Institute, will give a sample of that. Although finished several years ago, when the Institute's work of collecting was still in its beginnings, it cites 59 manuscripts for the Sahidic (28 in Horner), 124 manuscripts of the Bohairic (13 in Horner, exclusive of lectionaries), 2 manuscripts for the Fayyumic and Achmimic tradition

of the catholic epistles not in Horner. Actually, the figures are even higher when one takes as a basis the numbering hitherto usual. For in numerous cases (especially with the Sahidic), fragments regarded until now as independent units (frequently six or more) were identified as homogeneous and counted as one manuscript. What are the consequences today of this new situation? There are, in my opinion, two: First, it is time to replace Horner's edition of the Sahidic New Testament with a new one, which offers as the basic text not a patchwork quilt of separate fragments differing widely in origin and age, but rather is based on complete manuscripts, as Horner himself did in his edition of the Bohairic New Testament. Second, it is time to replace Horner's edition of the New Testament in the Bohairic tradition by one which merits the description of a critical edition. Indeed, Vaschalde, for instance, stated that the edition of the text, the critical apparatus, and the translation are all that one could desire.

Instead of an artificial text based

on several manuscripts,

it

presents in its entirety the text of a single one and preserves for the critical apparatus at the bottom of the page the variants in the other manuscripts which he has collected. (121)

THE

COPTIC

NEW

TESTAMENT

7

This opinion was, at the time of its publication in 1932, already at least one hundred years out of date. For philology is a unit and Coptic is governed by the same precepts as other languages. And here it is an unavoidable principle, that when one has at his disposal, as did Horner, 46 manuscripts of the Gospels, 12 for the Apocalypse, and 22 for the remaining books of the New Testament, then one must attempt to penetrate through to the best possible text after a careful examination of the textual value of each individual manuscript and present in a critical apparatus the material for the assessment of the text as well as of the underlying principles. That is always the task of the philologist; when he does not observe it, it is evidence of a premature resignation. In my opinion, one may even ask if this task is not already imposed on us today for the Sahidic version also, and whether the proposal under point one does not still fall short of the true task of philology. Perhaps here one may justify the suggested intermediate stage on the ground that we have too few complete manuscripts of the Sahidic. For the Bohairic, that is not possible, since the complete manuscripts available to Horner represent only a fraction of those which today could be obtained by a reasonably thorough search. In his dissertation of 1969, Epistolarum Catholicarum Versio Sahidica, (unfortunately produced only in photocopy and therefore difficult to obtain) Schüssler noted that Should one, in spite of these difficulties, persistently seek after the imaginary “original archetype’, then in that search one must himself set out upon a path which textual critics and New Testament scholars have already walked since the time of Theodotion (circa 190 AD). Despite immense labours, they have in the course of well nigh 1800 years scarcely come any closer to the goal of tracing the Greek archetype. Therefore, I would here, perhaps in resignation in the face of these facts, turn away from the search for the archetype and be satisfied with the investigation of the position of our text relative to the remaining Coptic and Greck manuscripts.

This can be explained by a date for completion already far back in the past and a beginner's inexperience. Besides, he is factually incorrect, for instance in his assertion that New Testament scholars—to take only them—in the “course of well nigh eighteen hundred years" are "hardly any nearer" to the establishment of the original text of the New Testament. Naturally, in the case of the Coptic text as a translation, the problems are much more manifold than in an edition of the Greek text. But if it was possible to produce a critical edition worthy of the name for the Old Latin, with its immensely more extensive manuscript

8

K. ALAND

tradition, it is inconceivable why this should not be possible with the Coptic dialects. Certainly, a critical edition of the Bohairic as well as the Sahidic New Testament cannot have as its goal the establishment of an Urversion, because this, at least in my opinion, never existed. Urversion is here understood as the first translation, on which all the others are directly dependent. On the contrary, we have to start with several independent attempts at translation which stand at the beginning of the Coptic New Testament. Our edition must be organized accordingly. However, a fundamental decision must first be taken as to whether the text is to be treated as a purely Coptic literary document,

or in its relation to its Greek

Vorlage.

In the first case, if

the "best" or original text is not accessible, that text perhaps would be given which would represent the *'majority text" of the version in question, and in the critical apparatus all deviations would be indicated, including all linguistic details. In the second case, the Greek witnesses would have to be fully included in the collation; but on the other hand,

a certain reduction could be anticipated in the presentation of the Coptic variants. It is not the purpose of this edition to cite all the internal Coptic variants, but to show the connection of the translation with the Greek Vorlage, so that the character and value of the translation

may be determined. In this second case, however, there is a need for a more careful consideration of possible relationships between Vorlage and translation than has been done thus far. Coptologists, as a rule, are not very familiar with the Greek tradition of the New Testament and the very difficult problems which it presents. New Testament scholars, as a rule—even when they think they have studied Coptic sufficiently, and sometimes primarily then—are not fully in a position to determine what conclusions regarding the Greek Vorlage can be drawn with confidence from the Coptic text, and what not. It is not unusual to find in the existing editions of the New Testament, as well as in monographs on the Coptic text, astonishing evidence of the defective presuppositions brought to the task by New Testament scholars as well as by Coptologists. Not without reason have we established four categories for the inclusion of the versions in the editio critica maior : 1) certainly a rendering of a particular Greek model, 2) probably the rendering of a particular Greek model, but origin within the versions is not impossible, 3) the variant probably originated within the translation (innerversional), but origin from a Greek model is not impossible,

THE COPTIC NEW

TESTAMENT

9

4) useless as attestation for a Greek variant, because of the different linguistic structure of the version. The first category is found in fewer cases than one might expect. I personally would argue for work on a new edition of the second type, that is, the inclusion of the Greek witnesses and the adjusting of the Coptic to the Greek Vorlage, because it promises more results. Certainly, it would be appropriate to begin with the Sahidic, because Horner's published text cannot but lead one astray. His edition of the Bohairic is on an entirely different level in the character of its text, since it takes complete manuscripts as its starting point. On the other side, in the Bohairic also the material has grown to such an extent that a new edition seems to be urgently required. As already emphasized, here we should have the courage to begin a critical edition in the true sense. That would, I think, also be possible for the Sahidic, although the argument that one should not take this step at once, but first accomplish what Horner did for the Bohairic, is thoroughly understandable. Karlheinz Schüssler takes this course in his edition of the Sahidic catholic epistles which originated in the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, and which will soon appear in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Yt reproduces the Pierpont Morgan manuscript 572 and notes against it not only the readings of the remaining Sahidic manuscripts, but also the Greek witnesses and the most significant of the other Coptic versions. However, the decision to follow this course was made a good fifteen years ago and need not prejudice the decision taken today. In any case, this edition could be the basis for discussions concerning future policy. At any rate, here an important problem is grappled with and, in my view at least, solved in the right way. Naturally, one can set up an edition of the Sahidic New Testament in such a way that the critical apparatus is confined to readings of the Sahidic witnesses (in addition to the Greek). But that would be to build a wall which would obstruct the view of the total Coptic tradition. Certainly, in an edition of the Sahidic, the citation of the Bohairic readings will be limited to what is absolutely essential, but it seems to me to be necessary if we are to reach our goal. It must be stressed with all possible emphasis that the undertaking of these editions, in whatever manner they are constructed, will only be possible after the registration, arrangement, and classification of our existing stock of Coptic manuscripts of the New Testament. For years, the Institute for New Testament Textual Research has been

10

K. ALAND

occupied with the task of establishing a list of Coptic manuscripts of the New Testament. But the end of the task is by no means yet in

sight. It is not enough

to bring together

the profusion

of Coptic

manuscripts of the New Testament on microfilm or photographs, although their dispersal over the entire world makes this already a very difficult task. It is also not enough to assign the manuscripts to the various dialects which, because of the small size of many fragments, often presents difficulties—here in particular, as all scholars are aware, numerous difficult problems stand in the background. But the greatest problem lies in bringing the various scattered fragments together again into their original unity. To cite only one example (I must limit myself to materials already in print): the Greek-Coptic manuscripts of the Apostolos, which Schüssler describes in the volume Materialien zur neutestamentlichen Handschriftenkunde I of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, is cited in the list of New Testament manuscripts under numbers L 1575, 0129, and 0203—this trio is already characteristic of the situation hitherto. According to the state of our knowledge at that time the following fragments, hitherto regarded as independent, belong to this bilingual: 1 from Naples, 2 from the National

Library

in Paris,

1 from

the Bodleian

Library,

9 from

the

Austrian National Library, 1 from the collection of Sir H. Thompson, 1 from the Museum of Catholic University in Washington, and 3 from

the British Museum. The process of reconstruction produced a curious mixture of locations, and some pages had to be assembled together not merely from various units, hitherto independent, in one library, but occasionally from material in two different libraries. This is admittedly a particularly bad example, but the same thing happens again and again in our work on the list of the Coptic manuscripts ofthe New Testament. On the one hand, the number of known fragments steadily increases; on the other, it diminishes through the process of identification. Considering the small size of many fragments, it is obvious that this task is extremely difficult and demands not only paleographic skill, but also sonsiderable acumen—and time (to say nothing of the cost). But until it is at least approximately completed, we cannot think of the publication of the kind of edition we have in mind. This is certainly not to say, and that must also be emphasized, that one could not set about the preparation of an edition today; so far as the necessary collations are concerned and the discussion of basic principles connected with it, a beginning must be made. It is one of the

THE COPTIC NEW TESTAMENT

11

purposes of this paper to call for that. Coptologists, and I beg your pardon for this comparison, seem to me, so far as their occupation with the New Testament is concerned, to be sometimes in danger of so attentively studying a brick, that they lose sight of the wall of which this brick is only a part, to say nothing of the house to which this wall belongs. Only one must be completely clear about the extent of the project, about the difficulty of the project, about the time required,

not to speak of the expense. If an individual takes up this task, he would have to devote the rest of his life to it, and that probably even if he limited himself to the edition of one version. However, if one distributes the work among a group, of which each member takes over one of the parts of the Coptic New Testament (the Gospels, Pauline epistles, Acts, and the catholic epistles), then the edition will be much more quickly completed. But we then require a very considerable coordination of the work, so that the necessary homogeneity of the edition may at least to some extent be preserved, and a central

organization to control the enterprise, probably over a long period and from a long-term point of view. There is much more that could be said, but the space allotted does not permit. Allow me only to refer to a few points, which in comparison with the fundamental questions raised for discussion may seem of little importance, but have a greater bearing on the matter than is apparent at first glance. First, the work on the Coptic text of the New Testament should not lose sight of the Bilinguals, but should especially work on them. It is no accident that there are three contributions on the Coptic Bilinguals in the volume Materialien zur neutestamentlichen Handschriftenkunde 1 of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. This is because the problems of transmission and mutual influence here become exemplary. And second, the work on the Coptic New Testament should keep Egyptian Church history more firmly in sight than it sometimes appears to do. When one takes the accounts about Antonius and those of the Historia Lausiaca along with the traditions about the Pachomian monasteries, then, in my opinion, there results with certainty an established translation of the New Testament in Coptic in the second half of the third century, and the existence of a considerable number of manuscripts for it, at the latest from the beginning of the fourth century. The alienation from the eastern church and also from the Greeks as such, which set in among the Christian population of Egypt during the fourth century and reached its culmination in the christological disputes of the fifth century and in

12

K. ALAND

the formation of the monophysite church, allows us to presuppose a tradition of the New Testament text isolated Koine—an isolation strengthened by the Arab one might expect from the Coptic versions at significant control for the so-called Egyptian means that the significance of the Coptic text for New Testament textual criticism is to

at least from the later domination. Therefore, least the function of a text, if not more. This of the New Testament be much more highly

assessed than it was in the time of Westcott and Hort. Certainly we have advanced on tradition. But we the establishment For the witnesses to call it that for

a wide front into the second century with the Greek expect still more help from the Coptic tradition in of the Greek archetype than Westcott and Hort did. of the Egyptian text of the Greek New Testament, simplicity, were all the more clearly subject to the

influence of the Koine with the passing of time. Political isolation did not keep the Greek monasteries in Egypt free from the influence of the Byzantine church. Till proof is shown to the contrary, we can expect the Coptic manuscripts to be relatively free from this influence. And finally, this as a closing remark : in dealing with the text of the Coptic New Testament, in addition to the manuscripts the Coptologist should not forget the citations of the Coptic Church Fathers. Their number is certainly much smaller than in the Greek or Latin area, but nevertheless Schüssler found, for the catholic epistles alone, about one hundred citations. When one considers that the catholic epistles constitute only about one seventeenth of the New Testament, that leads one to expect considerable new material. And this material in patristic citations means not only a broadening of the textual basis, but it can

also fulfill an important control function for all the investigations mentioned here.

UNE

METHODE

D’EDITION

DES

TEXTES

SYRIAQUES

Rene DRAGUET Louvain, Belgique

L'édition critique d'un texte est appelée dans l'usage à servir de substitut à l’œuvre elle-même. Parmi les problèmes que pose son élaboration, le premier est celui de la méthode. Quels principes présideront à ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler l'établissement du texte, et, dans la pratique, quelle forme concréte imposeront-ils aux deux étages de l'imprimé, texte et appareil? Chaque édition est un cas d'espéce. Depuis qu'il y a des éditeurs les méthodes ont varié; elles continuent à différer. Éditeur de textes syriaques, nous avons été amené à en adopter une. Nous l'avons appliquée aux Logoi d'abba Isaie (CSCO 289-290 et 293-294, 1968) et aux Commentaires dont ils ont fait l'objet, celui de Dadiso (CSCO 326 et 327,

1972) et celui d'un

Anonyme

(CSCO

336

et 337,

1973);

nous la maintenons dans l'édition, en préparation (CSCO), des Recensions syriaques de l'Histoire lausiaque conservées dans une cinquantaine de mss. Nous voudrions l'exposer briévement.

Le syriaque de ces ceuvres a traduit du grec. Nos mss ne sont pas les autographes des traducteurs, mais des copies, et donc des documents plus

ou

moins

altérés,

car

il est

sans

doute

sans

exemple

que

des

textes de quelque étendue et transmis par plusieurs témoins ne comportent pas de variantes propres à chacun de ceux-ci. Si c'est là une évidence, elle est bonne à rappeler dans sa crudité, car elle est grosse d'une conséquence que nous formulerions comme suit : à parler en rigueur de termes, ce n'est pas l'œuvre elle-méme—ici une version—que nous sommes en mesure d'éditer, mais seulement la tradition manuscrite que nous en atteignons. D'une facon générale, notre táche est celle de tout éditeur. Nous devons d'abord fournir une image fidéle de l'ensemble des témoins de la tradition dont nous disposons; nous devons ensuite, en portant un

14

R. DRAGUET

jugement personnel sur les variantes, indiquer au lecteur quel est, selon nous, le profil textuel qui a le plus de chance de se rapprocher de l'original, c'est-à-dire, dans notre cas, de l'état primitif de la version syriaque de l’œuvre grecque. Or il apparait tout de suite que, si ces deux composantes de l'édition sont également requises, leur valeur est trés inégale: la premiére note des faits objectifs, la seconde exprime un jugement subjectif éventuellement susceptible de révision. La remarque nous met au coeur du probléme, car il importe souverainement que la différence de valeur des deux composantes ressorte nettement de la présentation du texte imprimé. L'édition doit étre constituée de telle facon que, d'emblée et clairement, notre interprétation subjective des faits y apparaisse distincte des faits eux-mémes, tout objectifs.

A cet effet, nous procédons concrétement comme suit : 1. Nos textes sont souvent transmis sous plusieurs formes, ou recensions. Chaque forme est éditée à part, et toutes de la méme facon. Une fois pris un contact suffisant avec l'ensemble de ses témoins, nous choisissons un ms., dit de base, que, en principe, nous imprimons tel qu'il est, fautes comprises. C'est celui que nous estimons le meilleur, meilleur en ce sens qu'il nous parait le mieux adapté à la présentation de la forme; les critéres de meilleure adaptation sont principalement l’antiquité du ms, ou celle de son texte—recentiores non deteriores—et son état de conservation. Les variantes des autres témoins sont consignées dans l'appareil; celui-ci est négatif, sauf dans des cas spéciaux. Rien que d'objectif en tout cela. L'objectivité n'est pas compromise par le choix d'un ms., puisque le ms. de base sera imprimé tel qu'il est; il importerait méme assez peu, au fond, et pour la même raison, que notre choix eût été discutable. 2. La ponctuation diacritique et grammaticale a varié au cours des siécles; et quand il y a sur ce point du systéme dans un ms., il n’est pas toujours appliqué, soit par défaut de fermeté du systéme soit par négligence du scribe. D’autre part, il est des éditions—telle celle des recensions syriaques de l'Histoire lausiaque—qui doivent recourir selon leurs parties à des mss de base différents. Autant de raisons d’oü

peuvent naitre des difficultés à sauvegarder

le principe d'imprimer

le ms. de base tel qu'il est. Voici comment nous y faisons face.

UNE METHODE

D’EDITION DES TEXTES SYRIAQUES

15

a. La ponctuation diacritique determine le sens des mots homographes. Nous conservons celle du ms. de base. Comme d'autre part il est avantageux au lecteur qu'un seul systéme soit employé dans tout le cours de l'édition, nous adoptons uniformément celui des mss anciens, qui réduit la ponctuation aux seuls points dits nécessaires. Quand donc notre ms. de base utilise un systéme plus tardif, nous le transposons adéquatement en celui des mss anciens. Si, p.ex., un ms. nestorien affecte du point inférieur le Awo enclitique, nous omettons tacitement ce point, indice normal du passé selon le systéme ancien. Il faut compter aussi avec les défaillances locales des copistes, auxquelles il serait déraisonnable d'accorder valeur documentaire. Lorsque, p.ex., le scribe écrit kıb sans aucun point—graphie ambigué par défaut d'un point supérieur ou inférieur—, nous ajoutons tacitement le point que requiert le contexte; si, de deux présents ou de deux passés nettement coordonnés un seul est pointé, nous suppléons tacitement le point nécessaire omis. A pari, on ne taxera pas d'inobjectivité de citer un imprimé frangais en écrivant le subjonctif eüt, avec accent, alors qu'il porte l'indicatif eut, sans accent, par une distraction du claviste non apergue par le correcteur. b. La ponctuation grammaticale sépare les phrases et en organise logiquement les membres. Les déficiences de celle des mss syriaques sont bien connues. Dans sa Syrische Grammatik, T. Nóldeke les a sommairement décrites : « Die álteste Interpunction, dit-il, welche auch in spáterer Zeit beibehalten wird, besteht in einem einfachen Punkt nach grósseren wie kleineren Satzabschnitten...»; quant aux autres signes, qui apparaissent déjà dans des mss anciens, il ajoute: «Die Kriterien des Gebrauchs sind undeutlich, und die Anwendung wenigstens vom Seite der Copisten ist sehr schwankend ». Maintenir intégralement la ponctuation du ms. de base aboutirait donc dans bien des cas à fournir au lecteur un texte dont, comme l'éditeur en a fait avant lui l'expérience, il ne pourrait percevoir le sens qu'en le relisant plusieurs fois. A ce grave inconvénient on pourrait à la rigueur passer outre lorsque le ms. de base est l'unique témoin; mais quelle vaine complication dans l'appareil si l'on y notait la ponctuation de dix ou de vingt témoins, nombre couramment atteint pour les chapitres de notre tradition syriaque de l'Histoire lausiaque! Aussi, tout en respectant les indications non équivoques de notre ms. de base, lui

imposons-nous

une ponctuation

normalisée:

le point

sur la ligne

sépare les phrases de sens complet; le double point, droit ou incliné

16

R. DRAGUET

vers la droite ou la gauche, phrase (cfr nos deux points et derniére lettre du mot marque Les cas oü les divergences de

distingue les elements logiques de la notre point-virgule); le point sous la une pause mineure (cfr notre virgule). ponctuation affecteraient le sens sont,

cela va de soi, notés dans l'appareil.

3. Ainsi arrétée la physionomie de notre ms. de base, nous accomplissons notre seconde táche en exprimant notre jugement sur la valeur de ses lecons, que d'ailleurs la qualité du ms. nous fera rarement récuser. Mais—la est le point capital—ce jugement étant subjectif, nous le réléguons dans l'appareil. Des lege (parfois lege?) y proposent la lecon qui a nos préférences, en indiquant d'un mot la raison de notre choix lorsqu'elle n'est pas par elle-méme évidente. La raison varie selon les cas : c'est parfois l'appui d'un ou de plusieurs mss qu'un ensemble de motifs constants fait estimer étre généralement plus valables; nos textes syriaques étant traduits du grec, ce peut être l'appui de mss ayant conservé la leçon du grec ou, à leur défaut, l'appui du grec lui-méme. 4. Une traduction francaise accompagne le syriaque. Bien que nous la voulions littérale, la différence des moyens d'expression des deux langues nous oblige parfois à prendre des options (p.ex. sur la valeur temporelle de l'imperfectif syriaque). Elle accueille d'autre part les lege de l'appareil, mais en les encadrant de crochets qui invitent le lecteur à se reporter à la note au texte qui les a justifiés et en les commentant au besoin en note.

Les motifs qui nous ont engagé à suivre cette méthode nous paraissent imperatifs. Le premier est d'ordre doctrinal: respecter au mieux le principe qui veut qu'un exposé scientifique distingue et explicite ce qu'il contient d'objectif et de subjectif, qu'il donne la vedette aux faits et mette clairement à part l'interprétation qu'il en donne. Les autres sont d'ordre pratique : l. L'éditeur échappe au risque toujours onéreux d'avoir à remodeler sans cesse le profil textuel qu'il a une premiére fois mis par écrit. L'œuvre éditée ayant en effet, autant que ses témoins, l'unité d'une prestation littéraire, les critéres d'interprétation de la tradition n'apparaissent que progressivement, si bien que le profil arrété à une étape du travail est toujours susceptible de devoir étre modifié à une étape

UNE

METHODE

D'ÉDITION

DES

TEXTES

SYRIAQUES

17

ultérieure. Méme, un nouveau témoin peut surgir alors que le travail est déjà avancé, peut-étre à son terme. L'intégration des informations nouvelles ne nécessitera que l'insertion éventuelle d'un appel supplémentaire de note dans le ms. de base et, dans l'appareil, un complement de note ou une nouvelle note. 2. Le lecteur aperçoit d'emblée la portée des /ege de l'appareil sur le texte du ms. de base sans devoir s'engager dans une comparaison des deux étages de l'édition, opération difficile et d'issue hasardeuse à pratiquer sur un texte éclectique qui a accepté tantót les legons d'un ms. et tantót celles d'un autre. 3. Au cas oü un nouveau témoin est découvert apres la sortie de presse de l'édition, celle-ci n'en devient pas caduque, l'apport du témoin pouvant s'y intégrer aisément par les légéres additions indiquées plus haut. A supposer un texte éclectique, le lecteur aurait par contre à refaire pour son compte une expérience cruciale du genre de celle que nous avons faite nous-méme en terrain grec avec la Lausiac History de Butler (1904). Pour intégrer à celle-ci les informations que nous apportaient des mss qu'elle n'avait pas connus, nous aurions dü recommencer entiérement le travail fait par le bénédictin anglais sur les mss dont il avait disposé.

Il pouvait être utile de soumettre cette méthode aux éditeurs dont les problémes seraient analogues aux nótres; peut-étre la trouverontils apte, mutatis mutandis, à leur faire entrevoir une solution à leurs propres difficultés. A tout prendre, n'est-elle pas bien proche de celle que déjà Origéne appliquait dans ses Hexaples au texte hébreu prémassorétique ? Nous déposons nos réflexions dans ce Festschrift en hommage de reconnaissante admiration au Prof. Dr. A. Vóóbus, notre vieil ami, notre collaborateur de longue date au Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, et qui a plus d'une fois pris à táche de documenter nos propres recherches. En sa personne nous nous plaisons à saluer affectueusement celui des scholars de notre temps qui, par de prestigieuses découvertes, par de multiples publications de textes et par des travaux de synthése historique jamais risqués avant lui, aura sans doute fait le plus avancer notre connaissance de l'Orient chrétien. Ad multos annos!

18

R. DRAGUET

A METHOD

OF EDITING

SYRIAC

TEXTS

The editor of a Syriac text must furnish a faithful picture of the available witnesses, but also indicate the textual profile which seems best to approximate the original. He should distinguish between objective data and subjective editorial

judgment. The following method is recommended : 1. A “base manuscript" is selected and edited, defects included. 2. The diacritical punctuation of the base ms. is generally retained, but tacitly reduced to the style of ancient mss. Grammatical punctuation is normalized. 3. Editorial judgment on the relative value of variant readings is indicated in the apparatus.

4. A translation accompanies the text. Attention is called to variant readings. Among other advantages, this method most conveniently allows for modifications when new textual evidence is found. It is a method very close to that of Origen when he edited the pre-massoretic Hebrew biblical text.

A NEW

TEXT

FROM

THE

DEUTERONOMY Moshe

H.

SYROHEXAPLA : 34

GosHEN-GOTTSTEIN

Jerusalem, Israel

It must be a sign of vitality of Syriac studies that we constantly lament their demise. To be sure, a host of doctoral students could be kept busy, and the list of desiderata does not shrink !. Yet if we take a look at the field of Syrohexapla studies—admittedly a subspecialty—we hardly have the right to complain. When 1 first got interested in the problem of the Syriac biblical text in the early fifties?, we possessed hardly more of the Syrohexapla than what had been left by Ceriani and de Lagarde?. It looked as if the loss incurred by the disappearance of the Masius manuscript could never be fully made good. Hardly did I think at that time that what I had restarted almost as an incidental exploration would result in so much renewed activity. Two decades afterwards we have a splendid edition of further materials by Baars * and most recently the stunning discovery of the Midyat MS by Vóóbus. ! For my 1967 survey "Some Thoughts on Syriac Studies in the Twentieth Century" I must still refer to the abstract as published in Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Orientalists (Wiesbaden 1971), 141 f. ? "A List of Some Uncatalogued Syriac Biblical Manuscripts", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 37 (1955), 429f. sums up my first search for manuscripts in connection with my preparatory work towards a possible edition. That work resulted eventually in "Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Peshitta" ; see my Text and Language in Bible and Qumran (Jerusalem 1960), 163f. Syrohexapla materials were published in Muséon 67 (1954), 291f.; Biblica 37 (1956), 162f. 3 There were, of course, the materials published by J. GwvNN, Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible 11 (London 1909). That is to say, for half a century nothing at all had happened in the field. * W. Baars, New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts (Leiden 1968). A remark apropos BAARS' publication is in order. Dr. BAARS has brought out a competent dissertation. He has made as many or as few mistakes as more seasoned scholars would have. I, for one, can state unequivocally that what with my manifold interests and projects 1 would not have been able to bestow so much energy on the publication as BAARS could do for his dissertation. However, bearing in mind the bibliographical erudition which BAARS has often displayed—much more profound than that of most of us who roam over large

20

M.H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

Arthur Vööbus—to whom this study is dedicated in friendship and high esteem—has already referred to our talks, two decades ago, as regards our hopes of regaining lost Syrohexapla texts 5. Where I myself and others were able to contribute only a few bricks, he has presented us with a palace. Thanks to his generosity, we are able to study so speedily most of the hitherto missing parts of the Syrohexaplaric Pentateuch $. But for minor lacunae in Leviticus and Numbers, the main portions still missing concern the first two-thirds of Genesis. The discoveries announced by Vóóbus have had an, additional effect. What with the hunt for unknown materials, little attention has been paid until now to textual differences between MSS’. After all, we had no critical edition of the Peshitta who would bother to go into details of possible differences between MSS of the Syrohexapla*? We areas of biblical and Semitic studies—it is an extraordinary coincidence that BAARS seems

so ignorant of what I have written. It would almost appear that he knows my publications in this field only if they are ripe for a note of his to the effect that I did not work as carefully as I should have. Such statements turn out, upon further investigation, to refer to nothing

more

heinous

than

that in his opinion

I misread

a word

in a manuscript.

For some strange reason BAARS managed to miss all the references in my published work where I had announced that I was working on additional Syrohexaplaric texts which I had discovered in the fifties. In fact, practically all the texts from European libraries mentioned by Baars p. 20 as unknown Syro-Hexaplaric texts had been announced in my earlier publications. The texts were detailed after initial announcement—first in my Text and Language (1960),

19, then in Textus 4 (1964), 230f. While the bulk

had

been

readied for publication back in the late fifties, I was too involved with other work to finalize the

edition.

To

be sure,

on

those

occasions

I also

wrote

that

some

of my

previous readings have to be corrected —but since BAARS was ignorant of what was being published in the field he could allow himself his remarks. Some years afterwards I learned that BAARS was preparing Syrohexapla texts for his dissertation. Hence 1 did not rush into print what I had almost finished but gladly let him do the job knowing that his work would certainly be much more thorough than mine. I should add that I entertain no doubt that Dr. Baars discovered those texts on his own and that he would have acted with more circumspection had he been aware of the literature in the field of his dissertation. Needless to add that since I had been too busy to get those texts out, Dr. BAARS would have been entitled to publish texts he

discovered even had * Cf. the indices (Stockholm 1970); Introduction to his $ A. VOOBUS,

he been aware of my statements. to his Discoveries of Very Important Sources for the Syro-Hexapla The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla (Stockholm 1971). Note the publication detailed n. 6, p. 27.

The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla—4

Facsimile Edition

of a Midyat MS discovered 1964 [CSCO 369, Subsidia 45] (Louvain 1975). Between the introductions of BAARs and VOOBUS the presently available information on the Syrohexapla has been pretty well summarized. 7 For the problem of comparing the Syrohexaplaric text of different MSS, cf. VOOBUS, Discoveries, 2f. * | recall the pangs of excitement and subsequent disappointment when I discovered uncatalogued MSS of the Syrohexapla which turned out to include known texts only. This happened at the time with BM Or 8732 (cf. my List etc. p. 434) and later on with the

THE

SYROHEXAPLA : DEUTERONOMY

34

21

had no monographic study of any aspect of the language of the Peshitta?; why expect anyone to analyze linguistic aspects of the Syrohexapla !?? It is to be hoped that the very fact that the discoveries by Vóóbus have almost closed the textual gap will encourage students to turn to the next stage of the study of the Syrophexapla. It is in this spirit of stressing the impact of Vööbus’ own contributions that I should like to present to him one of the few texts which his finds did not yield: Deuteronomy 34. To be sure, this is not the kind of text that comes with marginal notations from the "Three", nor may we expect it to be absolutely uncontaminated. But it will do until a better source turns up. Another aspect, perhaps not less intriguing. Sooner or later specialists will have to ask themselves, at what time and place and according to which circumstances Syrohexapla selections were mixed with Peshitta readings in liturgical MSS—where did they survive, and why? Until now we have searched in lectionaries''—unless we were content with short quotes from commentaries. Once I discovered a Syrohexapla text in the type of MS to be described presently, I rechecked some other MSS of that type. Sure enough—the same kind of text was there. We may already state now that MSS of that type are quite likely to show Syrohexaplaric admixtures—to be sure, each MS has to be studied in its own right, and the biblical portion may occur in one MS in the Peshitta recension and in the other in the Syrohexapla. The text to be published here raises the usual questions as regards the reliability of tradition in liturgical MSS—as opposed to "biblical" codices !?. While this is a matter of general methodological concern !*, MS St. Mark 1 (a favourite for rediscovery). The same is true for Harvard cf. Textus 2 (1962), 52.

Syr 28;

9 The recent Jerusalem dissertation on the syntax of the Peshitta Pentateuch, carried

out under my direction by I. AvINERY, is the first attempt at a large-scale inquiry into the language of the Peshitta in its own right. 19 Since the short remarks contained in my paper in Biblica (see n. 2) no analysis has appeared. I do not know whether anyone else has been more successful in interesting a student to tackle this subject properly. The forthcoming dissertation which S. Assır is preparing on the recension of JaCo8 OF EDESSA will contain much material which has bearing on the subject. 11 [n Textus 2, 53 I have remarked on a certain type of MS

which

includes Ezechiel

pericopes in the Syrohexaplaric recension. BAARS, New SH Texts p. 2 is unaware of my finds (cf. n. 4).

12 When I first stumbled into this field (see n. 2) I had no idea what exactly was involved.

MERCATI,

Biblica 36 (1955), 277 f. was indeed wrong.

But his remarks forced

all subsequent contributors to greater methodological circumspection. Note BAARS p. 146. 13 Note the system which I developed for the edition in my The Bible in the Syropalestinian Version 1 (1973) [Hebrew University Bible Project Monographs IV], p. [v]f.

22

M.H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

a particular MS may turn out to have suffered particularly. We may attempt to evaluate the text. If a liturgical MS contains known and unknown Syrohexapla texts side by side, some check of the textual character is possible. Yet this is hardly decisive, since each selection in a liturgical MS might represent different developments. And yet, such evidence from ἃ “neighbouring” selection is as good an indication of the "'reliability" of the textual portion

as we can muster—of course,

bearing in mind all the possible Greek evidence available.

Now

that the book

of Deuteronomy

is almost

complete !*, the

material to be published here almost fills the final lacuna, i.e. only the blessing of Moses (Deut. 33) is still missing. I found the major part of Deut. 34 while checking the manuscripts now kept in the Houghton Library at Harvard, belonging to the Semitic Museum, in preparation for my Catalogue of the Harvard Syriac Manuscripts "δ. The MS is now Harvard Syr 49—formerly known as No 37 of the Semitic Museum-Harris numbering, Accession No 3975. From the

description of Clemons ! one could not have suspected that this MS would The Syriac A. Sel.

turn out to be a repository of Syrohexapla selections. codex under study is a volume of Funeral Services—the title in is ras esha and in Arabic Kitab Tagniz. It was written 1980. It includes a few portions from the Syrohexapla, even

though the fact is not mentioned in any heading. As might be expected, some N.T. portions are taken from the Harklean recension. The Syrohexapla portions of MS Harvard Syr 49 are as follows:

Num 20:23-29 (fol 25b); Deut 34:1-8 (fol 26a); Jos 24:26-33 (fol 27a). Other portions are quoted in the Peshitta recension, even though the exact nature of variants ought to be examined more closely 17. I have already remarked that the very fact that one discovers a MS of a certain liturgical nature which contains Syrohexapla material makes 14 In the volume mentioned n. 6, VOOBUS has described the contents of the MS. Deut. 34 does not appear in the list of pericopes quoted by VOOBUs from the liturgical MS Mardin Orth 47. Cf. also BAARS, p. 30. 15 Since I was convinced in 1962 that I am about to publish that catalogue, I had better not promise publication for 1977/78. The material to be published here is onc of the few items I intend for the moment to publish from that collection. My notes indicate that I discovered that text only in 1969. But for the special occasion afforded now, publication would have probably been delayed much longer. 16 J.T. CLEMONS, “A checklist of Syriac mss in the United States and Canada", Orientalia Christiana Periodica 32 (1966).

17 Thus, e.g. a superficial examination of the portion on David's lament (2 Sam 1:17f.) reveals, it seems at present, too many variants to be taken as an ordinary Peshitta text.

THE

SYROHEXAPLA : DEUTERONOMY

34

23

one suspect other MSS of that type. MS Harvard Syr 85—formerly Semitic Museum-Harris 76 (No 120 in the list of Clemons) is a different collection for Funeral Services. But e.g. the unit from Num 20 also

appears here in the Syrohexapla recension (fol 27a) 15. Only one of the Harvard MSS of this type—and these are the ones I happened to work on—includes an express statement as regards the recensional character. This is MS Harvard Syr 88—formerly Semitic Museum-Harris 80, No 122 in Clemons' list. That codex was written in the 17th century and includes a statement on the type of text used (fol 51a)

19 waned

mica.x3

mimi

400 werd.

hisıa

mts

ὦ

Mio

wis

Doh

But, alas, we cannot cull anything new from that MS ?°. Let us, then, look at the text of Deut 34:1-8 as found in Harvard Syr 49, fol 26a :

qua

rial,

Ja

mo»

hesdi

©

ndzam

alma

4

réaaçia laco debut ‚m mamai mhanio Ja aao conim dein dila mis me jana aires ende wu

dlaso

Ana

mde

ala

2

romana

mans

Main

mina

mCxic»30

hers

cubes

RNR

iulio

misimla

ram hal mis immo 4 eu Sansala aumrélo miami iam em dul αλλ eda . omi

€»

xXzo.5

cl»

x2

anamı

miss >

mom

Sarr

sramı

maim

mm

oom ‚natur

wi

marta

ris „no

a

„I

n»3o

3

pias

ie

oma maa Zain om mam eamm in τὰ

Adan

moisi

‚noima

xam au

_ X

MN

Min

kum

6

ma

jaası

mu

dran

7

ama

alas exoc»

:

Lim

ur

Ja

mi

18. This MS includes, e.g., a portion from Jeremiah 18 (fol 30b), the study of which may be of interest. This is the oldest MS of this type kept at Harvard, written in a 12th century cursive Estrangelo. 19 Exactly two decades ago—after I had initially missed the “unmarked” Syrohexaplaric portions in Add 14485—1 first learned that the character of liturgical readings is not necessarily indicated by the introductory heading. 20 Yet, again, were we to study textual details as regards texts already known from other MSS, we would look at the material from Is 38:10f. contained in MS Syr 88, fol 55b.

24

M.H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

ms

ris

ulm

Lim

ss

amisza

usa

oom

nl

lec»

aso

„sah

8

air

‚mais

eos

cima alasır

hasiss

ea

em

ls

ma

ral ha

The following notes may be helpful 2! : 1-3: We need not dwell on the differences between Field and BrookeMcLean, since both depend on what appeared, rightly or wrongly, in Masius’ name in Critici Sacri (1698-) 285f: ex Syra editione sic ad Hebraeum restituendus: ἀπὸ àpafko0 Μωαβ ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος NnBo (our MS vocalizes with zegäpä (näbü). Masius continues to quote: xai ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ Κύριος πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Αἰγύπτου ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ μεγάλου ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐσχάτης (cf. Deut 1:7; Gen 15:18). While one may speculate what Masius wanted to stress, it seems pretty clear that the unit mia Casa rca mi is not paralleled in another MS tradition. But v. 3 comes back with au aea eie e 3: For a study of object markers in Syriac the introduction of isa a is of interest 22, The place name sa'ar is hardly part of the LXX-tradition ad loc??. ] am not certain whether the vowel in the MS on the sade is meant to be a Western zeqofo. 4: No supportive evidence for added on nor for presentative en. As for Juan no : all the evidence in the LXX-apparatus for the prepositional complement unto you seems to be hexaplaric (note part of the Ethiopic). In any event it is meager; note Peshitta. 5: As the text stands divided into verses, aaa is intended to be the beginning of a new unit (v. 6). Admittedly such an addition is not very likely at that point. The possibility of a circumlocution hava ... lea cannot be dismissed. I would be reluctant, however, to ascribe such a textual addition to the specific character of our collection, unless such a claim could be well substantiated. Masius had

trouble with the variant and tried to explain : nimirum quia funus est vitae finis. 6: Weknow already from the Scholia of Bar Hebraeus (ed. Sprengling2! This is not intended to be a full-dress discussion of all possible points of interest. ?? Over the years I have suggested to my students to pay attention to this problem of Syrias syntax. Note AvINERY's dissertation (n. 9) ad loc and T. MuRAOKA'S find quoted by AvINERY, Lesonenu 38 (1974), 224.

23 [ have not checked into all the possible traditions reflecting this name in Greek and Syriac.

THE

SYROHEXAPLA : DEUTERONOMY

34

25

Graham (1931), 248) that the Syrohexapla reads ‚naiaaco which he glossed with rà is» m, i.e. suggesting the suitable plural subject. So far as I can see from checking the commentary of Bar Salibi on our portion (I have at present at my disposal the text of Harvard Syr 130, but I do not assume there are differences in that matter), this is the only reading from the Syrohexapla known to Bar Salibi—who, incidentally, adds a few more identifications to justify the plural. That exegetical tradition appears, of course, elsewhere. Cf., e.g., v.d. Eynde's edition of I$o'dad in CSCO 176 (Scr. Syri 80) 1958, p. 145f. Much as I should like to follow up this kind of inquiry, I am afraid it gets us far beyond the confines of our present study. As regards the reading „as: this is, of course, an inner-Syriac corruption. On the other hand, there is the Greek problem THI/TAI. I do not know why the remark by Masius did not get reflected in Brooke-McLean, for he writes: sic restituendam | ostendit Syrum exemplar : xai ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν Γαι ἐν γῇ Μωαβ. The rendering ax. for τελευτή is, of course, natural. But because of the sense-variants ad loc it looked odd enough to both Bar Hebraeus and Masius, who both preserved that reading for us?*. It is part of the next stage of Syrohexapla studies to try and answer

questions such as why Bar Hebraeus quoted the form as mas. On the face of it, the wording of our text sounds more like authentic Syrohexapla syntax. 7: The reading ram ‚malum’ıa would render ὧν (as in the "Three"), not ἦν. Going through the Greek variants rendering Hebrew 3n52, we cannot be absolutely sure about the translation

syntax that produced plz.

I think I see quite clearly

a\, mx.

As for ‚maaa alas bev it simply mirrors (διεφθάρησαν τὰ χελύνια αὐτοῦ. 8: Masius’ note with regard to Greek ἐπὶ τοῦ Ιορδάνου κατὰ "lepeıxo: hoc in Hebraeo non habetur, nec Syrus interpres agnoscit ; tamen per asteriscum in Syro exemplari ad marginem adscribitur—is now quite clear. While it is not the aim of this paper to look for Greek MSS of the O-recension type, we may note in passing that at present only MS x (= 426!) goes together with the Syrohexapla.

That MS is known elsewhere for its O-character??. 24 Cf. RAHLFS' study, apud DE LAGARDE,

Bibliothecae Syriacae (1892), 27.

15 | would assume that WEvers' forthcoming edition will corroborate this characterization of the MS.

26

M.H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

We have already noted that any selection has to be judged in its own right in light of all the Greek and Syriac evidence we can muster. Whereas the study of some similar MSS suggests that rite-books were copied together with their selections, others show how the text could be changed. Thus, e.g., the text from Num 20 seems to have been included in general in the Syrohexapla recension. However, in BM Add 14525, fol 6a I found it only indicated by incipit and explicit. Moreover, the text indicated there agrees neither with Peshitta nor with Syrohexapla. The MS tells us to read from loeisre roa roga mia ohwa

rial,

ioo

up to «ας

A onim.re? bus

‚narfasa 25.

We have already noted that the attested Syrohexapla character of a given portion should not be taken as indicative of the textual character of a different portion in that selfsame MS. Each portion has to be studied on its own. Nevertheless, the following exercise may be instructive, so far as it goes. I have printed the text of Num 20:23-29 according to the same MS from which the new text (Deut 34) has been

printed, i.e. Harvard Syr 49 (fol 25b). Variants have three manuscripts of the "Funeral Service" type as biblical MSS. If I am not mistaken, this is the Syrohexaplaric textual traditions carried out with

been well first such

added from as from two exercise on a wealth of

sources?2”. The ‘‘Funeral Service" books will be quoted as follows : b= Harvard Syr 85 c= Harvard Syr 88

d=BM

Add 17130?8

In addition, the biblical MSS will be quoted as : L = de Lagarde's edition of BM Add 14437 26 | am afraid this is how the scribe quoted the text. To be sure, the problem of old recensions of the Syriac Bible appearing from the leaves of a lectionary is the kind of dream we would like to come true. We must remain open to the possibility of the reemergence of an O.T. Vetus Syra, or something similar. But 1 am more than hesitant to take such incidental variations as we find at present as evidence of the existence of such a different recension. 27 The present exercise is not even complete, since some of the notes I have taken from BM manuscripts at the time were not really intended for collation proper. Thus the text of BM

Add

it will yield was carried codex. ?* This have seen. mentioned. wake of my

14502, fol 31b would

have to be rechecked, even

though

I do not

think

anything remarkable. The first exercise in collating Syrohexaplaric sources out at the time by CERIANI in the annotations to his edition of the Milano is the earliest MS of It is dated A. Sel. But since WRIGHT did restudy of this genre

the "Funeral Service" type that I can remember to 1188. Fol 16a the Syrohexaplaric origin is expressly not note that fact, it remained unknown. It is only in the of MSS that I discovered the text in the BM codex.

THE SYROHEXAPLA : DEUTERONOMY

V=Vööbus’

facsimile

of the Midyat

MS??.

34

27

The

following

picture

emerges :

rial, iams ,aime hala xoc τό lamahhu 2

ort

.24

ism

Ash

4

hal mi

: pois

rés

NUES

mois

mls

iem 23

das

m».

hal

X

sin

Lies πιο Δ τ mua eedem οι 25 τόμος

demo: m nde im de sua iii

pro

rial,

mls

nb:

DART

iom

sawahhm

mame in mis

nero

mis

„cin!

8 ,maslzrra

ainra

seb

26

dis

ica

eo

œhecn

iae

mia

museo

7 nice σὰ Anan masse Sana 27 oh has mulera 28 rhea mia pro trial, iom iaa

ram

ee

NEED

15 haua

siert ala

a.

„ur

12 rials

daran

1 monos

za

mia

mila

Mein

hina

ex

ma Dh

29

1.

aimed „

Kal,

„in

aimre\ Kama

>

Marana

sado odore

«--

‚Liu ! d

mme

* d mor x ? LV

rials

dran

? bedLV om

3 bdL ,manlzréo

“ ALV+ xoc»? e 10 c om

d rial, iom=

!

7LV~ où modice

c

aka

7 c ohuo

«is

12 cLV

nta

* dLV

mis

ct ee MA mania

Às

— !*d uma

While this exercise reveals some obvious scribal mishaps which occurred in the tradition underlying our manuscript, we do not get the impression that the tradition of the liturgical MSS is notably inferior to

that of LV?!.

With all due caution— bearing

in mind

the limited

exercise—one may suggest therefore that textual portions from liturgical

29 Originally VOOBUS termed this codex : MS Midyat Abdullah Gülçe 1. It would seem that this designation has been dropped after the MS changed hands. 3° Cf. also SPRENGLING-GRAHAM, Bar Hebraeus' Scholia on the O.T. (1931), 206. The problem of readings sub ast cannot be gone into here; but LV seem to coincide to a considerable extent.

5! Variations concerning such basic differences study, precisely because the liturgical MSS may On the other hand, the form réa, seems (at Syrohexaplaric usage than Sec, which appears

as eaa reis | e a deserve further overdo the Syrohexaplaric technique. least at first blush) more "authentic" in the earliest MS of this type.

28

M.H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

MSS may preserve a pretty well standardized text of the Syrohexapla. It thus stands to reason that what we have recovered is, indeed, the “standardized” text of the Syrohexapla of Deuteronomy chapter thirty-four.

UNE PAGE RETROUVEE

DE THEODORE DE MOPSUESTE Francois GRAFFIN, SJ Paris, France

Il s'agit d'une page d'un des ouvrages ascétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste presque entièrement perdu et dont l'existence nous a été

révélée par le catalogue de l'écrivain nestorien du début du XIV* siécle (il est mort en 1318), 'Abdiso' (ou 'Ebedjesu'), métropolite de Soba (Nisibe)!. Ce catalogue, étudié une première fois par Abraham Ecchellensis à Rome en 1653, a été édité avec une traduction latine par J.S. Assemani

p.

dans

342.

G.P.

sa

Une

Bibliotheca

traduction

Orientalis

anglaise

(Rome

fut

faite

1719-1728),

un

siècle

tome

III,

tard

par

plus

Badger dans son livre The Nestorians and their rituals (Londres

1852) II, p. Il est fait manuels de nent que le

365. mention de ce livre de Théodore de Mopsueste dans les Patrologie et les dictionnaires, mais leurs auteurs s'étontitre différe légérement selon les traductions.

Le texte syriaque porte

: w-hoi d-gamirüt dubbäre.

ce que Assemani traduit : De perfectione regiminis. et Badger

: One Book of Perfection.

Quasten

: On the Perfection of works?.

Quasten, traduit par Laporte : Sur la perfection des euvres*. C'est le deuxiéme mot dubbäre qui, ou bien n'est pas (Badger) ou bien a une trop vague (regiminis).

! Le Professeur A. VOOBUS

traduction

en a annoncé

trop

large

(works,

traduit

ceuvres)

ou

une nouvelle édition critique. Qu'il nous

permette ici de lui offrir cet article en hommage qu'il a publiés sur la littérature syriaque.

aux si nombreux

livres et articles

? Réédité chez Georg Olms (Hildesheim 1974), avec préface de Mgr 3 J. QUASTEN, Patrology (Utrecht 1950) HI, 411-12. 41 Laporte, Initiation aux Pères de l'Église (Paris 1962) III, 578.

J.M. SAUGET.

30

F. GRAFFIN

On sait que dubbäre correspond à πολιτεία et veut dire facon de vivre, conduite, régle de vie. La meilleure traduction semble étre observance, comme l'a fait le Professeur Draguet dans le livre cité infra. Ce n'est pas la premiére fois qu'une traduction impropre donne lieu à des hésitations analogues: ainsi en est-il pour la traduction du titre des mémré de Philoxene de Mabboug : ‘al martyanütà d-dubbáré, traduit par: De Institutione morum (A. Vaschalde, CSCO 10, Syr. 10). Sur la Rectitude des meurs (R. Duval, Litt. syr. (1899), p. 221). Upon Discipline of Life and Character (E. A. W. Budge, Discourses (1893-4) II, p. 1). De l'enseignement des régles (E. Lemoine, Sources Chrét. 44, p. 9 sqq.). La méme ambiguité a longtemps subsisté pour le titre d'un ouvrage du maitre de Théodore de Mopsueste, condamné lui aussi avec Nestorius, Diodore de Tarse (M. Briére aimait à le rappeler): il s'agit de son ouvrage appelé par le méme 'Abdiso dans le catalogue cité plus haut : ktabä da-m‘parn*sanuta correspondant au grec de La Souda (Suidas) : περὶ προνοίας ; traduit par Abraham Ecchellensis : Liber Politicorum ; par J. S. Assemani : De dispensatione seu Economia; par G. P. Badger : The Division of the Food; par J. W. Etheridge : On the Incarnation ; et par A. Baumstark: Buch der Verwaltung (Gesch. d. syr. Lit., p. 106) toutes significations que l'on retrouve dans le dictionnaire au mot mtparn'sanütà

à savoir:

victus, administratio,

gubernatio, providentia,

le verbe parnes voulant dire fregit, distribuit, administravit 5. Quel que soit le nom précis de l'ouvrage de Théodore de Mopsueste dont nous parlons gamirüt dubbäre, De la perfection des observances, nous n'avions connaissance jusqu'ici que de deux de ses fragments. Le premier est cité par l'écrivain nestorien DadiSo Qatraya, dans son livre De la Solitude édité par A. Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies (Cambridge 1934) VII, trad. anglaise p. 109-110, texte syriaque folio 27b, p. 225. En voici la traduction: on remarquera qu'il n'y a qu'un bref résumé, mais pas de citation proprement dite. * M. BRIERE, «Fragments syriaques de Diodore de Tarse, reedites et traduits pour la première fois». dans Revue de l'Orient Chrétien 30 (1946) 3 & 4. 231-284.

THÉODORE DE MOPSUESTE

31

«De par l'explication de ces deux illustres initiés yad'ätäné Evagre et Marc, il n'est pas possible à quelqu'un de chercher le royaume des cieux sans les observances dans la solitude (dubbäre dab*-selyä). Mais aussi le bienheureux Apótre, imitant Notre Seigneur, commandait aussi aux solitaires de persévérer dans la solitude, en disant: «Que les solitaires se tiennent-dans-la-solitude en eux-mêmes ($leyn Iwot naf$hün) et s'adonnent aux œuvres de justice»? (wa-'nein b-su'rané d-zaddiqütà). C'est en expliquant la force de ce (passage) que le Bienheureux Théodore l'INTERPRÈTE en parle en plusieurs et longs passages dans le livre De la perfection des observances, où il enseigne, admoneste et avertit les solitaires d'être assidus à la solitude ($e/yä) et confirme ses paroles par des preuves (tirées) des livres des prophètes, des Évangiles et des Epitres de Paul. Or ce que dit J'INTERPRÈTE sur

la solitude et combien il reprend et réprouve les solitaires qui se laissent distraire par les travaux corporels (Mingana: worldly) hors de la solitude, celui-là est en mesure de l'apprendre qui lira avec soin dans le livre fait par lui sur la Perfection des observances des solitaires : ‘al gamirüt dubbäre d-ihidaye. Mais, que fut estimée l’observance de la solitude (dubbärä d-selya) et qu'elle fut aimée non seulement par les Péres solitaires, mais encore par les grands docteurs de l'Église, on le sait, non seulement par le livre De la Perfection de la conduite (d-gamirüt dubbäre) de l'INTERPRETE, mais encore (folio 28a) par ce qui a été dit par le bienheureux Basile et Jean Bouche d'or, etc. » Le deuxiéme fragment connu du livre De la perfection des observances de Théodore de Mopsueste se trouve dans le commentaire du Livre d’Abba Isaie par le méme DadiSo Qatrayä, édité et traduit par le Professeur René Draguet dans le Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 326, Syr. 144 (1972), p. 25 et 327, Syr. 145, p. 19. Voici ce passage : Le bienheureux INTERPRETE aussi et les Péres solitaires font de méme chaque fois qu'ils écrivent sur la charité, de facon à en parler tantót séparément et tantót confusément et sans distinction. Le bienheureux Théodore, en effet, dans le livre De la perfection des observances, en excitant le solitaire, en l'encourageant à l'observance dans * A. MINGANA renvoie en note à 1 Cor. XIV, 30: Si quelque autre assistant a une révélation, que le premier se taise: 1 Tim. Il, 2: ... afin que nous puissions mener une vie calme et paisible en toute piété et dignité, Héb. XII, 14: Recherchez la paix avec tous.—Allusions lointaines! On pourrait ajouter Rom. VI, 19: Offrez (vos membres) ἃ la justice pour vous sanctifier.

32

F. GRAFFIN

la retraite et en exposant le (mot) du prophéte Jérémie, qui a dit: Il est bon à l'homme de porter ton joug dans sa jeunesse, de s'asseoir seul et de se taire parce qu'il a pris sur lui ton joug, de mettre sa bouche dans la poussiére parce qu'il y a l'espérance, et de livrer sa joue à qui le frappe et d'étre rassasié d'opprobres, dit ceci : «Par

‘mettre sa bouche dans la poussière

comprend

parce

qu'il y a l'espérance',

il

tous les travaux dont est constituté l'amour pour Dieu; par 'donner

sa joue à qui le frappe et étre rassasié d'opprobres', toutes les tribulations et épreuves que le solitaire supporte et accepte pour l'amour des hommes; puis, par 's'asseoir seul, se taire et porter son joug’, il nous enseigne que, en dehors de la retraite, il est impossible qu'il soit parfait dans l'amour de Dieu et dans l'amour du prochain qui lui ressemble. »

A ces deux fragments connus du livre De la perfection des observances de Théodore de Mopsueste, il faut en ajouter un troisiéme que vient de découvrir le Pére Joseph Paramelle, chargé de la section grecque à l'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes de Paris (C.N.R.S.), qui veut bien me charger de l'annoncer, ce dont je le remercie cordialement. Il a découvert par ailleurs d'autres fragments inédits de Théodore de Mopsueste de son commentaire /n Genesim, trouvés dans le Marcianus graecus 573, folios 19-21; Madame Kershkemeti, sa collégue, en prépare l'édition. Ces quelques lignes se trouvent dans le recueil de sentences mises sous le nom de Saint Antoine, dans Migne, Péres Grecs, tome 40, colonne 1085 B. Cette fois le passage n'a pas été conservé dans une version syriaque, mais dans une version arabe, traduite en 1646 par le maronite Abraham Ecchellensis, (cinq ans aprés sa traduction latine de vingt lettres en version arabe de saint Antoine), sous le titre suivant :

Sapientissimi Patris nostri Antonii magni Abbatis Regulae, Sermones, Documenta, admonitiones, Responsiones et vita duplex. Omnia nunc primum ex arabica lingua latine reddita, Parisiis, 1646". [Voici la traduction francaise du texte latin de Migne :]

7 D'après la préface de MiGNE, PG 40, 958 B, l'origine de cette traduction latine d'ABRAHAM ECCHELLENSIS est un manuscrit arabe du college maronite de Rome. Il est devenu le Vatican arabe 398, comme l'indique J. M. SAUGET, annongant une recherche ultérieure sur les sources arabes utilisées par ABRAHAM ECCHELLENSIS pour

la traduction des œuvres d'ANTOINE, dans son article: «La double recension arabe des préceptes aux novices de l'abbé Isaie de Scété» dans Mélanges Eugene Tisserant II, Orient chrétien l1, p. 299-356 Vaticano 1964).

(surtout

p.

306,

n.

17).

(Studi

e Testi

232]

(Città

del

THEODORE DE MOPSUESTE

33

Apres la mort du saint abbé, un vieillard répond aux questions des moines. La première est celle-ci: Comment comprendre cette sentence de saint Antoine à son disciple Paul aprés sa sortie du monde : Si tu veux être moine, va dans un couvent où il y a beaucoup de frères, afin qu'ils puissent te soutenir dans tes infirmités. Réponse du vieillard Nous apprenons par là qu'il nous faut recevoir des vieillards infirmes, impotents, aveugles et paralytiques et les entourer d'affection, car c'est avec joie et bonne volonté qu'ils se sont offerts pour acquérir des vertus, bien qu'ils soient incapables d'entreprendre des travaux à cause de leurs infirmités. Aussi, sont-ils dignes de vifs reproches, les responsables et supérieurs des monastéres qui n'acceptent pas de vieillards ni d'infirmes, méme doués de vertus remarquables, alors qu'ils regoivent volontiers des jeunes gens pleins de santé, en vue de l'administration des affaires, des voyages à entreprendre, des entrées et des sorties, méme s'ils sont insolents et sans scrupules. Ce sont ceux-la que le bienheureux INTERPRETE reprend vivement dans le livre De perfectione regiminis, en disant : Ces gens tolérent que leurs disciples se donnent peu de mal pour la pratique des vertus et les poussent intensément aux œuvres corporelles et mondaines. Quant à ceux qui ont embrassé

la vie religieuse pour s'adonner à l'acquisition

des vertus, ils ne leur laissent aucun repos ni loisir en dehors des œuvres mondaines, mais ils les poussent continuellement à les embrasser, ils les reprennent, les bläment, leur font des réprimandes et des reproches, parce qu'ils n'ont pas rempli avec assez d'ardeur le travail qui leur avait été confié, que cela soit arrivé par cause de maladie, ou parfois par incurie, quoique par ailleurs ils fussent trés actifs et diligents. Par contre ils comblent de grandes louanges ceux qui s'adonnent activement aux choses du monde, ce qui évidemment ne vient pas de la vertu, mais qui provient des soucis du monde; mais—et c'est là le pire de tout— qu'ils soient paresseux ou diligents. ils les tiennent pour des esclaves.

Nous ajoutons ce qui suit immédiatement cette citation de Théodore, pour faire mieux comprendre le contexte : Abba Poemen a dit: De trois cénobites, si l'un est tout à fait paisible, le second infirme, mais rendant gráce à Dieux, et le troisiéme serviable et plein de bonne volonté, tous les trois sont aptes à la méme

ceuvre. «Ce saint voulait montrer par là que dans un beaucoup de moines réunis, il est nécessaire qu'il des gens robustes pour remplir les charges, mais infirmes, des vieillards impotents et des fréres qui lement le silence, sinon leur labeur est vain.»

monastére n'ait pas aussi qu'il observent

ou il y a seulement y ait des continuel-

34

F. GRAFFIN

Il n'y a pas lieu de contester l'authenticité de ce passage: d'abord parce qu'il est d'usage courant de citer Théodore sous le nom de l’INTERPRETE (par excellence); ensuite parce que le titre du livre correspond à ceux que nous avons énumérés plus haut; enfin parce que les idées qui s'y trouvent développées correspondent bien à celles des autres fragments déjà cités.

A

RECOVERED

PAGE

OF THEODORE

OF

MOPSUESTIA

Until now we have known two fragments from the ascetic treatise of Theodore of Mopsuestia,

On

the Perfection

of Observances.

Fr.

Joseph

Paramelle

has

identified a third fragment in a comment attributed to Anthony of Egypt, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca 40, 1085B. Graffin gives a translation of all three fragments. He also notes that other fragments from Theodore's commentary on Genesis have been identified and are being edited.

SOME

SYRIAC LIBRARIES OF KERALA (MALABAR), INDIA NOTES AND

COMMENTS

E.R. HAMBYE

SJ

Delhi, India

Introduction

It is well known that India and particularly one of its present pro-

vincial states called Kerala, formerly widely named

Malabar,

have

belonged and still do to some extent to the Syriac cultural and religious world. However it does not mean that ever in the past there has been in this vast subcontinent any substantial population whose everyday language had been one or the other form of Aramaic, out of which Syriac arose as a classical tongue during the first centuries of the Christian era. Those Christians of Kerala who still like to be called ‘Syrians’ actually speak their own mother-tongue, Malayalam, one of the four main languages of the Dravidian group.

Though today the original abode of those Christians is indeed Kerala, there is little doubt than in former centuries, especially until perhaps the 14th century, there have been Christian communities in India, particularly spread out on its coasts, which could also be called ‘Syrians’. At any rate those of Kerala are even better known as Thomas Christians; for they still strongly believe that their origins go back to the apostolate and martyrdom of Thomas the Apostle, known also as Didymus. Hence for the sake of better clarity we shall call them in these notes Thomas Christians.

All the ancient and medieval documentation at hand, rather small as it stands, points to the fact that from the 5th or 6th century onwards Christianity in India was intimately connected with the Church of the East, with its supreme head, soon to be called catholicos-patriarch. His see was first at the twin cities, SeleuciaCtesiphon, later on at Baghdad, and then still more northwards in Iraq, after the

14th century.

This means

that the Thomas

Christians

36

E.R. HAMBYE

form a section, a metropolitanate of that once widespread Church in Asia. It indicates also that the Syriac they knew was that which is called East Syriac, Nestorian or Chaldaean. Only since approximately 1663 did the West Syriac influence (Antiochene, Jacobite) begin being felt in Kerala. It even grew rather slowly. Today about two-thirds of the Thomas Christians still live in an East Syrian background, though almost exclusively liturgical and not without much variation. Another one-third firmly adhere to the West Syrian tradition, being called Syrian Orthodox or Jacobite. The latter have been further split so that a minority among them belong to the Syrian Church of Mar-Thoma which in spite of a ritual still basically West Syrian are a kind of local expression of evangelical Anglicanism. The interest in Syriac, its language and its literature, has been strongly maintained among the Thomas Christians until fairly recently. Among those Catholics who still kept their East Syrian background the knowledge of Syriac was regarded as one of the major signs.of their identity as a Syrian Church. Through their growing relations with the Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) patriarchate, especially after the middle of the 18th century, those Thomas Christians who had accepted the West Syrian ways of worship steadily increased and improved their attachment to everything Syriac. However in recent years the Catholic Thomas Christians have gone massively into vernacularizing their forms of worship. On the one hand they went back to some extent to the original East Syrian ritual; on the other hand their attachment to Syriac steadily deteriorated. I would not say that the situation among the Syrian Orthodox is much better nowadays. It cannot be denied however that thanks to the weight of tradition and even to the fact that Syriac is a recognized subject for the underand post-graduate studies in the universities, the knowledge of Syriac is still fairly widespread. above all in the clergy. Owing to this historical and ecclesial background it is not difficult to understand why for very many centuries Syriac manuscripts were either copied locally or brought from the Middle East. In this respect the manuscripts of the type kept today in such western libraries as the Bodleian (Oxford), British Museum (London), Cambridge

Univers-

ity. Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris), and Vatican Library, bear witness to such a zeal as was fostered in Kerala. One local factor led to the forming of manuscript collections in Kerala. Until about 1855 for the Catholic Thomas Christians, and until much more recently for their

SYRIAC

LIBRARIES

OF

KERALA

37

Orthodox compatriots, most of the clerics were trained in some important parishes which enjoyed the presence and influence of one or several renowned Syriac teachers, whose status as priests was enhanced by the title of malpan ('absolute' for malpana). In order both to facilitate their teaching and to exercise their students, manuscripts were needed. It explains partly how several among the present known collections of manuscripts were formed and why on occasion ancient manuscripts could be preserved in spite of natural and man-made calamities. Among the Thomas Christian Catholics some of the religious houses which during the second half of the 19th century took up the succession of the malpan teaching centres did receive manuscripts from them. Yet it is still difficult today to trace back the formation of such collections as we find in Kerala. Out of those more or less important libraries of manuscripts we have chosen some which are particularly representative of the rest. Only a team of scholars could succeed in making a complete survey of all the Syriac manuscripts existing in Kerala today.

l. Konat Library, Pampakuda'. The pride of place in Kerala goes to the private library of the Konat family, which likely contains the largest collection of Syriac manuscripts in that land. Pampakuda is a Syrian Orthodox centre situated in the central district of that province of India, some 15 miles west of the growing township of Moovatupuzha, where one of the Syrian Orthodox metropolitans usually resides. The collection began some two hundred years ago thanks to an almost hereditary succession of malpans. Their zeal considerably increased during the 19th century. The father of the present owner Father

Abraham

Konat,

known

as

Malpan

Mathen

(=

Matthew)

(1859-1917) was not only a great lover of Syriac but showed almost a passion for gathering manuscripts. For instance he spent much of his money to pay scribes, both in Kerala and in the Middle East,

!

[owe much

of the information gathered here on this library to its present owner,

the Reverend Abraham KoNAT, who was awarded in 1963 the coveted title of "Malankara Maipan' by the Catholicos of the East in recognition of the service rendered by him in the field of Syriac and the Syrian liturgy. For, besides his contribution as a Syriac scholar, he is also the publisher of most of the printed editions of the various

liturgical books of the Syrian Orthodox constant help and advice.

Church

in India.

I must thank

him for his

38

E.R. HAMBYE

to make excellent copies of existing works. He himself was a scribe of renown who produced several manuscripts for his own collection. Thanks to a recently built construction, the library today is well housed; nearly all the manuscripts are also well bound, though very few of them have still their original binding. The whole collection comprises about 300 MSS, both Syriac and Malayalam. Out of the

Syriac group sixty-three can be regarded as very useful ones. According to topics they can be listed as follows : Biblical texts (lectionaries included) : seven. Biblical commentaries : nine. Bible dictionary : one. Theology : fifteen. Canon law : four. Liturgical texts : twelve. Liturgical commentaries : two. History and lives of saints : three. Various patristic texts : three. Grammatical works : three. Most of the MSS were copied in the 19th century, 39 in all, out of which 29 were copied during its last quarter. The oldest of the collection is a copy of the Nomocanon of Bar-Hebraeus (d. 1286), dated 1389, without however the scribe's name preserved. The second oldest is a liturgical lectionary with readings from the Old and New Testaments (not from the Gospels) dated 1422 and written by the maphrian

Basilios Bar-Com

(1422-55). One

MS

belongs to the 16th century,

another to the 17th century, ten to the 18th century, and one only to our own century. Eight among those 63 are not dated. Among the authors Bar-Hebraeus is best represented with all his writings, except the Book of Youth of Reason, the Book of Signs and Symbols, the Book of Sparks, the Book of Laughable Stories and his two poems. Most of Bar-Hebraeus' MSS are good copies of the 19th century, often made at Deir-Mar-Mattai, near Mosul, and at Mardin. St Ephrem is very poorly represented by only two copies of his commentary on the Old Testament. We have there also the biblical

commentaries of Dionysius Bar-Salibi and Moses

Bar-Kepha;

Bar-

Salibi's Book of Canons of the Apostles and Fathers is also found at Pampakuda in a copy dated 1886. From the collection I select for special mention the following MSS which appear as relatively more important :

SYRIAC LIBRARIES OF KERALA

39

1. An excellent copy made at Mosul, 1895, by deacon Mattai, of the revised New Testament of Thomas of Harkel accompanied by a short commentary. The author of the latter is not known so far. 2. A Fenqith coming from St Mark's monastery of Jerusalem, and written at the beginning of the 19th century. 3. A canonical collection with the pseudo-Clementines, which we describe more fully in the appendix to this essay. 4. A commentary on the Psalms attributed to Daniel of Tella, copied in 1806 by Abraham Konat, one of the priests malpans of the family. It may well be the homilies on the psalms by Daniel of Salah. 5. A collection of Memre of Jacob of Serug, with some also attributed to St Ephrem, which we describe more fully in the appendix. 6. Doctrinal epistles of Jacob of Edessa, written in Kerala in 1887. 7. Chain of sermons and homilies of Greek (e.g. John Chrysostom)

and Syriac writers coming likely from Mosul, dated 1743, and whose scribe was the Rabban

(hieromonk) Abdalnoor.

8. The well-known Treasury of the Mysteries of Bar-Hebraeus, but bound together with 300 folios of Philosophical Discussions and Illustrations by Moses Bar-Kepha. It may well be one of the lost treatises of the latter. It appears that the Konat Library has only one manuscript of East Syrian origin, the title of which is Theowologia, and which is attributed to one Simon Catholicos. It has no date and it has not been closely examined. 2. Metropolitan's Library, Trichur. Another collection of manuscripts is worth recording here. It belongs to the Metropolitan see of the Church of the East (East Syrian, Nestorian), situated at Trichur, an important commercial and religious centre in the northern part of Kerala. This see was only established there at the end of the 19th century for an admittedly small minority of Catholic Thomas Christians who, spurred on by the desire of becoming pure East Syrian again, finally forged permanent links with the ‘Nestorian’ catholicos-patriarch. Today it has about 12,000 faithful under their first Indian metropolitan, Mar Aprem? Mookan. 2 Without the positive help given me by H.G. Mar APREM, Metropolitan, it would have been impossible for me to draw this picture of the Trichur library. Since he became successor to the erstwhile metropolitans hailing from the Middle East, Mar APREM has shown much zeal for his library. For instance, he recently added to it a

40

E.R. HAMBYE

He belongs to the new line of catholicos-patriarchs, launched some fifteen years ago in Iraq, in order to supersede the hereditary system of patriarchal succession in that Church. The collection of MSS as well as a goodly number of printed Syriac editions owe their origin chiefly to three sources : a few either already existing or copied in Kerala itself; some brought to Trichur by those Chaldaean monks and bishops who came there between 1855 and 1882; manuscripts brought by the first Nestorian metropolitan, Mar Timotheos Abimelech

(1908-1944), and to a much

lesser

extent by his successor, Mar Thomas Darmo, who after returning to Iraq founded the new East Syrian patriarchate just mentioned. This library contains some twenty-one recorded Syriac MSS, out of which twelve are liturgical texts, three are copies of the Sunhados of Abdiso Bar-Berika of Soba, one has a patristic text, another a work of monastic character. Only one, a lectionary, belongs to the category of biblical texts, another is a Syriac-Malayalam lexicon, where the Malayalam text is written in the local garsuni, i.e. Malayalam written in Syriac with some additional letters. From among the collection we select a few of greater importance : l. The Sunhados or Nomocanon of Abdiso Bar-Berika of Soba (d. 1318) dated 1302. We describe it more fully in the appendix. 2. The Book of Epistles of Catholicos-patriarch Timothy I (d. 823) which has neither the date nor the name of the scribe. According to the script it must have been written in the 18th or 19th century. It has 223 numbered pages. 3. The Book of the Bee of Solomon of Basrah (fl. first half of 13th century). It has 460 numbered pages, but the first twenty pages and the end of the MS are missing. Hence we do not know either the date or the scribe. From the type of script used it may belong to the 16th or 17th century. The missing first pages have been replaced by the last few of the Book of the Pearl of Abdi$o Bar-Berika of Soba. 4. A Kaskul copied in Kerala, at St Mary's Church of Kothamangalam (now a Syrian Orthodox church) in 1584 by the priest Abraham

Mattai of the Punorkodan family which still exists. It is one of the rare MSS which have survived the Udiamperur pseudo-synod of 1599 and its aftermath. It has 359 pages. quite precious manuscript with copies of letters of the 18th-19th centuries sent to Kerala from Iraq. I thank him warmly for the information he so painstakingly gathered in my behalf.

SYRIAC

LIBRARIES

OF

KERALA

41

5. A Hudra of Alqo$, near Mosul, dated 1598, having 1331 pages, with two colophons. Among its particular features, it contains also the three Anaphoras of the East Syrian tradition. The one under the name of Addai & Mari is inserted for the Eucharist on the evening of Easter Sunday (actually Holy Saturday) and does not have the silent prayers called Kusapé. It has also the “Order for making Malka” and "For the renewal of Hamira i.e. Malka’, as well as the “Order for the Hallowing of Polluted Water". We describe in the appendix another Hudra of some importance also. 6. The Order of the Consecration of the Altar attributed to Catholicos-patriarch

ISoyabh

III

(d.

657/8).

It is dated

1537

and

has

220

pages. This library has one manuscript of West Syriac origin, which is entitled the Book of Splendours and is attributed to a certain Mar Gregorios. It is obviously the work of Bar-Hebraeus, a well-known compendium of his theology. It has notes in Arabic.

3. St Joseph's Monastery, Mannanam?. About twenty miles northwest of Kottayam which is the most important Christian town in central Kerala, there stand a large cluster of buildings, all gathered around St Joseph's monastery. It this there that in May 1831 three Catholic Thomas Christian priests laid down the foundation of a religious congregation which today is one of the most important in India for men. It was first known under the name of Third Order of the Discalced Carmelites (T.O.C.D.); in the

last few years it has become

the Carmelites of Mary

Immaculate.

Until recently at least it was one of the mainstays of that particular

Church

for the maintenance,

study and propagation

of the Syriac

language and literature. Mannanam was for a while during the last century a seminary for the clergy. It explains how so many Syriac manuscripts could be collected

there,

yet

it is due

also

to

the

zeal

many of their successors that this monastery them but also keep them.

of the

founders

and

could not only gather

> I must thank here Father Grecory C.M.I., the retired librarian of Mannanam, for having provided me with much of the information I wanted. His advanced age (he is past 92 years) seems to have given him additional vision and courage for listing the Syriac treasures of his collection.

42

E.R. HAMBYE

Its library, besides a fair collection of Syriac printed editions, has some ninety Syriac MSS. Three of these are texts of the P'sirta and biblical lectionaries; no less than fifty are liturgical texts, three of

which are Chaldaean Missals copied in the 19th century. Among the rest of the MSS one meets with copies of the Book of Paradise of Abdiso Bar-Berika of Soba, a work which was quite popular among Malabar clerics once upon a time, two collections of letters exchanged between Iraq and Kerala, one with a life of St Epiphanius (of Salamis likely) and a Book on the Miracles of the Prophets attributed to him; another has a collection of theological and philosophical poems by Bar-Hebraeus, known to have been used and even re-arranged by East Syrians ^. A mixed collection bound in one volume contains an Arabic history of the Patriarchs, Bar-Hebraeus' Ecclesiastical History (copied only until the end of the Sassanian rule), extracts from Abdiso Bar-Berika of Soba, etc. 4. Other libraries and collections.

As in the case of Mannanam, there exist small collections of MSS in several monasteries of the C.M.l. congregation, including a few at their theologate at Bangalore (Dharmaram College). Some of the houses in Kerala, e.g. Elthuruth near Trichur founded in 1853, Pulinkunnu in 1851, Vazhakulam in 1859, were used as seminaries for some years. In Ambazhakat, their house is found in the vicinity of the former Syriac seminary run by the Jesuits until their suppression in 1773. Its manuscripts may have come from that dispersed library. Apparently there are some manuscripts in the modern seminary

of Kottayam

for the Syrian

Orthodox

Church,

but

they

consist

mostly of liturgical texts. The private collection of the Catholicos, or supreme head, of the Church, at Devalogam, Kottayam, does not have any collection as such, except for very few handwritten liturgical books of recent making. Thanks to the interest in Syriac displayed by the late Givargis Mar Iwanios

(d.

1953),

founder

of the

Catholic

Syro-Malankara

metro-

* A. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte der svrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922), p. 319. * Information sent me by Rev. Prof. J.P. M. van DER PLOFG O.P.. Nijmegen.

myself have seen the manuscript which is very well preserved. Dr van DER PLOEG has gathered

many

notes on the Syriac

cum of 1972, Rome,

manuscripts

he gave a communication

for lack of completeness was not then published.

of Kerala.

At

the Symposium

on this subject, which

Syria-

unfortunately

I

SYRIAC LIBRARIES OF KERALA

43

politan see of Trivandrum, the capital of the Kerala state, there is at that place a substantial Syriac library, though having many more printed editions than manuscripts. It has a P'&itta New Testament which may go back to the 16th century, therefore of East Syrian origin. It is written by a local scribe. In the library belonging to the house of the Catholic Syrian archbi-

shop of Ernakulam-Cochin (East Syrian tradition), there is a collection of about thirty manuscripts, mostly biblical and liturgical, with some manuscripts dealing with other topics as well. Two of these are beautifully written copies made either at Alqoë or at Mosul, last century, by expert Chaldaean scribes; both are well-bound in folios of more than 500 pages each. One in two volumes is the famed Syriac lexicon of Hassan Bar-Bahlul (10th century), the other in one volume is the great Syriac grammar of Bar-Hebraeus, written in a good East Syrian serta. Another manuscript has, at least locally, a particular significance. Under signature L-22, in modern binding, measuring 20 cm x 14.5 cm, with 320 pages of 21 lines each, we have a well-written manuscript copied in A.G. 1874 (= A.D. 1562), likely in northern Iraq, for Metropolitan Mar Abraham, the last Chaldaean bishop to stay and die (1597) in Kerala just before the Thomas Christians were forcibly put under the rule of Latin bishops belonging to the Portuguese royal patronage. The manuscript contains the Nomocanon of Abdiso Bar-Berika of Soba. In a marginal note the good metropolitan wrote : ‘J am not a Nestorian...’ There must be still a few collections of Syriac manuscripts in private hands, exclusively among the clergy. I personally know of one. It is owned by Fr Thomas Aryathinal, a Catholic Thomas Christian priest, of St George's church, Arivithura, who is one of the foremost local Syriac scholars, particularly as a grammarian and liturgist. His collection which is partly made of ‘spoils’ coming from the former malpans and their clerics comprises mostly manuscripts of a liturgical character written by local scribes. Two or three, e.g. a Chaldaean pontifical, were recently written for him by Chaldaean scribes in northern Iraq.

N

APPENDIX

In order to express still more concretely some of the manuscript wealth of Kerala, we have chosen a few more interesting samples for a more complete description.

44

E.R.

HAMBYE

A. Pampakuda. (1) MS 32.

von

Dated 1757, paper, 80 fols, 245mm x 185mm, written surface 190 mm x 135 mm, two columns after fol. 5, 27 lines, West Syriac serto. Index of contents on fol. 3. It contains the following items : l. Eight books of the Secret Things of Clement of Rome disciple of Peter. 2. Teaching of the Holy Apostles. 3. Revelation of each apostle. 4. Synodical canons of the councils of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicaea of Phrygia, Constantinople (I), Ephesus. 5. XII anathematisms of St Cyril of Alexandria. Explanation of the same by the same. Condemnation of Nestorius. Letter of St Gregory of Nazianzus. . Calender of feasts and fasts (last five fols.). There are texts missing on fol. 24, fol. 36, and fol. 47. All titles and subtitles are in red. There are occasional Arabic words in margins, with also a garsuni text on fol. 5 and another on fol. 76. (2) MS 52. Dated 145mm

1673, paper, 490 pages, x 60mm,

180mm

x 110mm,

written

surface

one column, 24 lines, West Syriac serto.

Table of contents on pp. 2 & 3. It has the following general title: Memré of Jacob of Serug. Its contents are as follows: l. One memro, not of Jacob of Serug, on Mary and Joseph and the rejection of the Jews. 2. 52 memré of Jacob of Serug on the feasts of the liturgical year, from the Renovation of the Church to the Assumption. 3. 5 memré of St Ephrem on the Table. 4. 12 memré of Jacob of Serug on: Mother of God of the Ears; Funeral of the Mother of God; Finding of the Cross by Helena; 318 Fathers and Creed (Nicaea); Martyrs and suffering; Annunciation of the Mother of God; Day and Night. There are three additional pieces, Tesbehotho (hymns) for vespers (Ramso), night prayer (Lilyo) and morning prayer (Sa/ro), also attributed to Jacob of Serug.

SYRIAC

LIBRARIES OF KERALA

45

5. One memro of St Ephrem on the feast of the Mother of God of the Ears. 6. 4 memré of Jacob of Serug on: Mother of God of the Ears; Mother

of God

(common):

Assumption

of the

Mother

of God

and

its wonders; Commemoration of the Mother of God for Wednesday. 7. On fols. 15v to 26v, there is an Arabic text in honour of St John the Baptist, and on fols. 27r-28v another on Elisabeth. 8. fols. 319r-320v : the life story of each apostle. 9. fol. 344, on the upper margin and left margin, the story of St Thomas going back from India to attend the funeral of the Mother of God. The last ten pages are apparently missing. Both titles and subtitles are in red, though added later, it seems to me. Good West Syriac serto. Bible references are sornetimes found in margins. Fols. 4, 5, 7, 126, 147, have been repaired. There are two colophons; the first states that the book was completed in A.G. 1984 in the monastery of Mar Yaqub near Mardin. It was the 50th manuscript copied by Yuda son of Shammu Bukrid. The second colophon reads: ‘This manuscript was begun at the monastery of Mar Yaqub and that of the Mother of God near the fortress of Qal'ahmarh; it was completed in a monastery situated in the country of Mosul in November A.G. 1984. Pray for his father Shammu and his mother Masiro'. The rest of the colophon is damaged. B.

Trichur.

(1) MS

19.

Dated 19 May 1302, paper, 169mm x 123mm, written surface 129mm x 106mm, 426 pages, one column, 19 lines. Title : Book of the Ordered Collection of the Synodical Canons made by Mar Abdiÿo Metropolitan of Soba and Armenia, i.e. the canons of the Nestorians called Easterners. Pages are not numbered, good Nestorian serta with West Syriac influence on daleth, res, zain. Titles and subtitles are in red. The binding is modern; there are corrections and additions in margins. The colophon is incomplete but the writer seems to be the priest Dawia Abulker. (2) MS

12.

Dated 1681, June 11th, paper, 405mm x 270mm, 325mm x 200mm, 834 pages, two columns, 32 lines.

written

surface

46

E.R. HAMBYE

Hudra which follows the classical division of this typical East Syrian office book. On pp. 2-4 it has an introduction by Rabban Briki:o, three Arabic lines on p. 673 written in 1844, and on p. 833 we find in Syriac four texts of exhortation : when to go; when to hide; to those who are companions or friends; for the dead. The work was divided into two rebound volumes in 1928 at Trichur. It was brought to India and left there by the Catholic Chaldaean metropolitan, Mar Mellus, who went back to Iraq in 1882. The titles for the main feasts and divisions of the liturgical year are fully decorated with coloured interlacing designs. Many subtitles and additions are found in margins. The colophon found on p. 831 states, besides the date already given, that the manuscript was written at Upper-Alqoë, in the monastery of Rabban Hormizd, by the priest Giorgis, son of priest Israel son of priest Hormizd son of priest Israel of Alqos, but the first five quires (there are 42 quires in the whole book) were written by priest Hadb$aba, Giorgis’ brother. This Hudra was written for the church of Sem'on Safe of Mosul at the request of deacon Jem'a of Mosul. son of Maq'dasi 'Abdalyah. (3) MS 23. Dated 20 Nov. surface

206 mm

1900, paper, x 109 mm,

one

179 pages, 242mm

x 155mm,

column,

East

22 lines,

Syrian

written serto.

Title : “Important Rules and Directions for the dutiful and perfect anchorite by Mar Behiso of Kmol”. Titles and subtitles in red. The colophon of nearly two pages states the above-mentioned date, and the name of the scribe, i.e. Thomas the reader, son of deacon John

son of deacon Zachariah son of priest Sabro of the Melayla house; by order of Abimelech Bar-M'naha, priest Isai Bar M'haym'na M'naha, deacon Zacharaiah Bar-M'naha, priest Sabru Bar-M'naha, priest Rabban; written at Urmi. Note : This is one of the manuscripts brought by Metropolitan theos Abimelech for whom this manuscript was written. Kmol monastery dedicated to Mar-Behiso, situated in the region of (Resafa). As far as can be seen from the existing histories of literature this work is not known so far.

Timohad a Urmi Syriac

AUTOUR

DE LA DIDASCALIE * J.C.J. SANDERS Amsterdam,

Pays-Bas

Le christianisme oriental, né dans une ambiance judéo-hellénistique en a gardé les traces dés sa premiére heure. La vie juive était profondément formée par la Loi, plutót que par des vérités d'ordre purement spéculatif et nous savons que la halakhah, maniére de vivre selon la Loi et selon les dérivations de cette Loi supréme l'a toujours emporté sur la métaphysique grecque si elle se trouvait quelque part à cóté de la population juive, et méme sur la Haggadah juive, c'est-à-dire

le récit pieux et édifiant qui ne fonctionnait que pour éclaircir la Loi. Si on admet comme hypothése que les centres les plus anciens de la christianisation de l'Orient étaient Antioche, Edesse et Erbil en Adiabéne on peut se demander si l'on a gardé quelque recueil de lois, base de la vie communautaire de ces centres importants. Que la Didascalie, premier essai d'un corpus de droit ecclésiastique qui a été conservé est de la main d'un évéque qui vivait dans la Syrie du Nord en la seconde partie du III* siècle! ne veut pas dire qu'il n'en a pas existé en méme temps à Edesse?, oü plus loin du monde hellénisé

* Le mot didascalie vient du verbe grec : didaskein-enseigner ; son équivalent syriaque :

ioulpönd ou malponoutó jusqu'à

1929 (CONNOLLY)

vient du verbe yiléf-apprendre. ia Didascalie des Apótres

Depuis

a été étudiée

1854 (DE

LAGARDE)

presqu'uniquement

sur un manuscrit de la Bibliothéque nationale de Paris, le ms. syr. 62. Nous voulons dans notre article tirer l'attention des savants sur quelques manuscrits jusqu'à maintenant inutilisés qui pourraient nous aider pour réconstruire le texte original et en m&me temps nous pousser vers des recherches à d'autres manuscrits encore inconnus. U F. CAYRÉ AA, Patrologie (Paris 1938). p. 276; I. ORTIZ DE UnBiNA, Patrologia Syriaca (Rome 1965), pp. 248/9 fait néanmoins cette remarque : Didascalia probabiliter a Jac. Edesseno t 708 est confecta. A. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922), p. 263, en donne quelques mss. ? A.J. VAN DER AALST, Aantekeningen bij de hellenisering van het Christendom (Nijmegen 1974), bl. 53: les priéres gardent quelques traces de leur origine juive, ce qui nécessite dans un monde déjudaisant une législation, donc des collections canoniques.

48

J.C.J. SANDERS

p.e. à Erbil, située à l'Est du Tigre entre le grand et le petit Zab?. La premiére collection canonique de l'Église de Perse nous est conservée dans le Synodicon Orientale datant de l'an 410*. Pour remonter notre connaissance de la législation syrienne dans un passé plus lointain nous avons besoin de nouvelles découvertes de manuscrits en Orient ou méme chez nous en Occident. Quant aux mss en Orient : nous avons le résultat des découvertes faites par l'infatigable voyageur, Mr. Le Prof. Vóóbus, publiées dans le Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium de Louvain? ou dans plusieurs articles. Qu'on ne soit pas trop vite tenté à prendre comme lui le

chemin

vers l'Orient, aux endroits parfois presqu'inaccessibles,

oü

se trouvent encore quelques mss.! Les difficultés qu'on doit surmonter et que Mr. Vóóbus ne mentionne que rarement" sont trés variées: la chaleur, la poussiére, les vers, le manque de tables à écrire et des assertions des gens sur place, allant de: {a clef de la bibliothèque est perdue, le jardinier est parti avec cette clef, jusqu'à : les mss. ont disparu (sic!). En chercher les causes serait un sujet utile pour un symposion! Quels sont les titres des plus anciennes collections canoniques? Nous en possédons un apergu de la main de Dom. B. Botte OSB qui nous avertit que cette matiére est comme un maquis dans lequel beaucoup hésitent à s'engager... ils s'y perdent?! Il divise la matiére en neuf chapitres : I Didascalie des Apótres, III* siécle II Canons Apostoliques = Constitution de l'Église Apostolique, III-IV* siècle III Tradition Apostolique = Constitution de l'Église Égyptienne, HI* siècle

? La christianisation d'Erbil et de l'Adiabéne remonterait aux temps les plus reculés. Cf. J. Fi£v OP, Assyrie Chrétienne (Beyrouth 1965), vol. I. p. 41. Pour l'évangélisation de l'Iraq. cf. du MEME auteur, Jalons pour une histoire de l'Église en Iraq [CSCO 310.

subs. 36] (Louvain 1970), pp. 32-45. * ORTIZ DE URaINA, op. cit., p. 121; ce synodicon (Paris

5 A.

a été édité par J.B. CHABOT

1902).

VOOBUS,

Svrische

Kanonessammlungen,

I.

Westsyrische

Originalurkunden

I, B

[CSCO 317, subs. 38] (1970). * «Nouvelles Sources de l'Octateuque clémentin syriaque», dans Le Muséon

86. 1-2

(1973), pp. 105-109. ” Une fois un vol de ms., cf. CSCO 344, subs. 39 (1973), p. 160, n. 1. * B. Botte OSB, «Les plus anciennes collections canoniques»,

5 (1960). pp. 331-350.

dans L Orient Syrien

AUTOUR

DE

LA

DIDASCALIE

49

IV Constitutions Apostoliques, IV-V* siécle contient entre autres une remaniement de la Didascalie V Epitome des Constitutions Apostoliques VI Synodos de l'Église d'Alexandrie: Canons Apost. et Tradition Apostolique VII Octateuque Syriaque : compilation traduite au VII* siècle par Jacques d'Edesse; comprend: Testamentum Domini, Canons Apostoliques, Extraits des Constitutions VIII Testamentum Domini : IV* siécle IX Canons d'Hippolyte : IV* siécle Dom Botte y ajoute que les numéros I, IV, VII et VIII sont d'origine syrienne, les autres d'origine égyptienne mais avec une relation avec l'église syrienne. On peut considérer l'évolution et la relation mutuelle de ces recueils comme une boule de neige qui s'aggrandit au cours des siècles : dans les mss on trouve autour d'une œuvre

centrale, dont le

ms porte le titre, plusieurs élucubrations qui en sont une adaptation en des cas particuliers ou qui datent du méme temps d'origine que la derniére compilation. La matiére est devenue trés complexe et le nombre de mss qui nous peuvent révéler les stades d'évolution a augmenté surtout après les découvertes récentes du Prof. Vööbus?. On voit tout de suite sur la liste de Dom Botte quelle place importante la Didascalie occupe dans cette histoire par son ancienneté et qu'on l'a jugée digne d'inspirer d'autres recueils et d'y rentrer. Lors d'une rencontre en Proche Orient Mr. Vóóbus m'avait confié

son intérêt pour la Didascalie. A Leyden,

l'institut de la Peëitto!?

m'avait demandé de l'avertir si je trouvais quelque part un ms de la Didascalie puisqu'on en avait besoin pour une édition critique de l'oraison du roi Manassé qui en forme une partie. Et me voilà un beau jour d'été devant un codex intitulé: Didascalie; j'en ai pris tout de suite quelques diapositives ne disposant plus d'autres films; le résultat s'avérait satisfaisant pour les couleurs rouge et noir mais le texte méme était trop vague. En retournant l'année suivante pour en faire des copies en noir et blanc, ce codex n'y était plus mais 150 km plus loin je trouvais un instituteur en train de copier une Didascalie pour gagner son pain, comme il me disait; pour ne pas le déranger je n'en ai pas pris de photocopies. En tout cas: on voit bien comme ? Cf. note 6. 19 «La prière de Manassé» the

Peshitta

Version,

ed.

par

figure dans: le

Peshitta

The Old Testament in Syriac according to Instituut

(Leiden

1972),

Part

IV.

fasc.

6.

50

J.C.J. SANDERS

cette compilation reste de grand intérét. En Occident j'eus plus de succés en trouvant un exemplaire dans le monastére de Montserrat

en Espagne!!. Il s'agit du codex ms. or. 31. A la page 368 on lit en syriaque: Copié par le prêtre Isaac ben Armaleh le Syrien'?, du monastère de Mar Ephrem à Mardin en 1915 A.D.; en cette année a éclatée une guerre forte et amére entre tous les royaumes de l'Occident; en cette méme année les Turcs impies et sans pitié ont perpetrés des meurtres,

des persécutions et des injustices contre le peuple fort des Chrétiens en Arménie et en Mésopotamie. Copie d'un texte ancien à Deir Za'faran, monastére des Syriens-Jacobites de l'an 1333 A.D. durant le patriarcat

d'Ignace Joseph bar Wahib + 1333'?. En cette année 1924 le copiste à écrit!* ces lignes confuses!5 pour le moine modeste et savant Dom Bonaventura Ubach, de l'ordre des Benedictins'®. Cette persécution ne semble pas avoir trop dérangé le travail scientifique ni du moine Armaleh ni d'un autre qui travaillait à quelques kilométres de lui: le moine Bar Sawm qui fut l'auteur d'une histoire des monastéres du Tour Abdin'’, paru en 1917. Nous allons revenir sur ce Bar Sawm car lui aussi est important pour la Didascalie. Le ms. or. 31 de Montserrat montre quelques divergences comparé

avec la Didascalie syrienne éditée par P. de Lagarde'®; les chapitres νι

Le Peshitta

Instituut à Leyden

consulté aprés ma trouver copie!

ici ma

visite en

gratitude

pour

en possède

Espagne; m'avoir

que

Mr.

une

W.

trés bonne

BAARs

mis au courant

photocopie,

du méme

que j'ai

institut veuille

de l'existence de cette

photo-

12 L'autorité de Mgr. I. ARMALEH (1879-1954) nous garantit l'exactitude de la copie. Ce savant nous a laissé 30 livres et 9 études manuscrites, concernant l'histoire des patriarches, des croisades, de la littérature, de la liturgie et de la musique de son église syrienne. En plus: le catalogue de la bibliothéque de son monastére à Charfeh au Liban, 1937; cf. A. ABOUNA, La Littérature Araméenne (Beyrouth 1970), pp. 614616 (en arabe).

15 Pendant 40 ans il gouvernait son Eglise coupée en trois par des schismes. Il était un savant et un canoniste qui nous a légué une anaphore trés belle, cf. Chronicon Eccles. 791.

Bar Hebraei,

éd. J.B.

ABBELOOS

et Th.J.

Lamy

(Louvain

1874),

II, col.

781-

14 srath au lieu de ktab—récrire, copier. 'S blil—confus ou mouillé, c'est-à-dire dont l'encre est encore fraiche. !6 De Montserrat en Espagne. Ce moine bibliste et orientaliste est l'éditeur de La

Bible en catalan.

Sa spécialisation était l'Exode; dans

le musée

de son

monastére

il a apporté entre autres des coupes d'incantation en araméen qui ne sont probablement pas les mêmes que celles dans l'étude de H. coupes de Khouabir (Paris 1899).

PoGNON,

/nscriptions Mandaites des

7? Mr. VoôBus mentionne ce livre une fois: History of Asceticism Orient 11 [CSCO 197, subs. 17] (Louvain 1960). 229 n. 30. '5 Leipzig 1854, réimpression anastatique Göttingen 1911.

in the Syrian

AUTOUR

DE LA DIDASCALIE

5]

7 et 10 manquent de titre et aprés le chap. 23 on y trouve encore 4 au lieu de 3 chap. avec de légéres différences dans les titres mais le chap. 27 porte le méme titre que le chap. 26 de de Lagarde: les commandements de Deutéronome. Le compilateur y a ajouté, on s'y attendait déjà, quelques pieces de teneur canonique que voici: épitre canonique de Clément aux Corinthiens'?; doctrine de Siméon

Kepha dans sa ville de Rome??; Epiphane sur St. Paul, apótre; épitre de St. Denis d'Athénes à Timothée; la mort des App. Pierre et Paul?! ; prophéties des philosophes paiens, en abrégé??; dictons des philosophes, paraboles composées et demandées; traité: aux temps des rois chacun des Saints Prophetes était rempli de l'Esprit; de St. Xyste: le bouc émissaire; De Mar Ephrem: l'anathéme; de St. Cyrille: la lecture des Livres Saints; de St. Sévére: le baptéme; le profit pour les ämes tiré des priéres, des offrandes et des aumónes à leur intention; de Mar Severe: Satan voit-il Dieu ou non?; récit de l'évéque defalar (?); les synodes : démonstration à propos des 318 (évéques de Nicée); de Philoxéne: le synode de Chalcédon; de Philoxéne: ceux qui ont fini leur jeunesse; d'Isaac le docteur: Questions; de Jacques

d'Edesse : Extrait de la lettre à Jean le Stylite??; du méme: au prétre Addai?*; du méme: à St. Lazare, le moine; du méme: St. Paul élevé au 3me ciel; lettre du patriarche Susan contre les Chalcédoniens?5; du méme : questions abrégées contre les Chalcédoniens; lettre

de Bar Wahbun au métropolite de Tarsus?°; du méme: à Michel le Grand;

dix chapitres de Bar Salibi contre

le diacre

Rabban

Jesu’,

c.-ä-d. 1 et 2: Le signe de la croix, 3: Révélation de l'imposteur et de celui qui aide les débauchés, 4: Les liturgies et les fétes des mariages chez les Grecs, 5: Les répons et les chants sont désagréables sans couronnes et sans cierges, 6 : Contre la vaine gloire des Chalcédoniens. La construction de leur capitale?", 7: Réfutation contre celui qui met les Grecs à la téte de tous les Chrétiens, 8: Celui qui s'unit aux Grecs accuse ses coréligionnaires (en l'Église syrienne), 9: Le signe 19 70 2! 22

BAUMSTARK, 0.c., 261. J.H. CHABOT, Littérature Syriaque (Paris 1934), p. 38. J,B. CHABOT, o.c., 37. On peut penser à BABA DE HARRAN. Cf. E. RAHMANI,

Studia Syriaca (Charfeh

1904), 47 sqq.

23 BAUMSTARK, O.C., 249. ?* Vid. note 22. 25 BAUMSTARK, 0.c., 291-292; Chron. Eccles. Bar Hebraei, o.c., 1, col. 447, 789. 26 BAUMSTARK, 0.c., 300 et 301, n. 1; Bar Hebr., o.c., I, col. 554-590; cette lettre n'y est pas mentionnée.

?? Nous lisons au lieu de kenjo benoio-construction.

52

J.C.J. SANDERS

de la croix,

10: Le trisagion??.

(Le ms continue) Traité contre

les

docteurs des Arméniens ?? ; Base de la foi; l'Agneau, le pain fermenté et l'azyme??; Le sel?! ; l'Onction avec de l'huile; Le calice que nous mélons avec du vin et de l'eau; Les vépres du Mercredi et du Vendredi. On y reconnait donc les points de grande importance pour la vie chrétienne jusqu'au 14* siécle; on ne peut plus identifier tous les titres et des noms propres comme Cyrille et Xyste, on peut le présumer, n'y figurent que pour ajouter de l'autorité à des pseudépigraphes. Puisque nous ne savons pas encore exactement si les bibliothéques syriennes au Liban, donc celles de Charfeh, d'Athshaneh et celles des gens privés ont échappé aux degäts de la guerre fratricide qui vient de ravager notre cher Liban, il sera utile de mentionner ici ce que nous avons retrouvé à propos de la Didascalie dans les sources syriennes en arabe. Nous retournons donc au moine Bar Sawm, mentionné plus haut. De celui-ci nous possédons un petit trésor d'informations minutieuses, fondé sur des manuscrits en Orient ou méme en Occident (Paris, London, Cambridge); c'est son Histoire du couvent Mar Hana-

nia, appelé Deir-uz-Zafaran, imprimé en 1917 au méme monastère ??. Dans son avant-propos l'humble moine veut oublier tout-à-fait le massacre affreux de ses coréligionnaires en [915, puisqu'il commence à remercier le gouvernement ottoman pour son aide au monastére; puis il donne ses sources imprimées ou manuscrites en douze titres. Nous y voyons une base solide pour un travail vraiment scientifique! C'est donc avec plaisir que nous continuons notre lecture: histoire et description de son monastére, liste de 33 monastéres dans le Tur Abdin, liste des patriarches qui ont eu leur siége et (ou) leur tombeau dans ce monastére, suivi par les conciles qu'on y a tenus, tout celà 28 Mer.

BAR SAWM,

Histoire de la Littérature

Syrienne

(Alep

19562), p. 473 (en

arabe): ces dix chapitres ont été édités avec la Didascalie par A. MiNGANA, Woodbrooke Studies (Cambridge 1927) T, 17-63. ?? Probablement aussi de la main de BAR SALIBI, qui a composé à l'occasion de la

chute de Mar'a$ dans la main des Arméniens en 1156 trois poèmes, cf. BAUMSTARK, o.c., 298.

3° Probablement de la main de JACQUES D'EDESSE, cf. BAUMSTARK, 0.c., 250. 31 Probablement de la main de JEAN 447, note 1, ad 2.

BAR Susan

(t 1073), cf. BAR

HEBR., o.c., col.

32 Pour avoir au moin une idée de l'importance de ce monastére les non-arabisants peuvent consulter: A. VOOBUs, Eine wichtige Urkunde über die Geschichte des Mär Hananjá Klosters, c'est-à-dire le ms syr. orthod. Mardin 323 avec les 32 canons pour la réforme monastique de 246-252; et du MÊME von Mardé [Or. Christ. explicitement, dans BAR de JEAN DE MARDIN et

JEAN DE MARDIN [Oriens Christianus 53] (Wiesbaden 1969), auteur: Neues Licht über das Restaurationswerk des Johannes 47] (1963), 129ff. Le ms syr. orth. Mardin 323 n'est pas cité SAWM, Histoire, op. cit., chapp. XV et XVI, oü il est question son renouveau de Deir uz-Za'faran.

AUTOUR

DE

LA

DIDASCALIE

53

avec des références aux manuscrits et à d'autres travaux scientifiques. Au chapitre XVII en traitant de la bibliothéque du couvent il mentionne

deux mss de la Didascalie ??. Une fois devenu patriarche sous le nom de Mar Ignatius Aphram I Bar Sawm il édite en 1956 la seconde édition de son Histoire des sciences et de la littérature syriaque; là encore il mentionne une Dida-

scalie dans sa bibliothèque donc à Homs en Syrie, datant de 1204“. On peut présumer que les grandes bibliothéques en Orient gardent encore des mss inconnus; mentionnons seulement les bibliotheques des syriens-orthodoxes à Damas ?*, à Mosul?5, des Maronites à Alep?", et une bibliothèque privé d'un syrien-orthodoxe à Istanbul?®. Les Maronites à Rome en possédent un ms, eux-aussi??. En Occident il y a un ms inconnu qui est une copie de celui de

Charfeh des syriens-catholiques au Liban *°. Nous avons voulu seulement souligner l'importance de la Didascalie dont la multiplicité des mss est une preuve en soi, pour attirer l'attention des savants sur ceux des mss qui sont abordables pour le moment, afin qu'ils ne tombent pas dans l’oubli*'. Espérons en plus que la bienveillance des autorités ecclésiastiques, des universités et des possesseurs privés de mss nous facilitent l'accés à leurs trésors! Voilà donc plus d'un siécle écoulé depuis l'édition de la Didascalie par P. de Lagarde qui comme il dit dans son avant-propos avait peur de laisser passer des fautes dans son texte mais qui se consolait par la pensée qu'il n'y avait que cinq savants intéressés à cette édition. Je crois que maintenant ce nombre de cinq a largement augmenté gráce entre autres au Prof. Vööbus et son travail acharné. 93

... deux manuscrits rares avec des recueils de canons de la Dascalia (sic). p. 146.

>* p. 146; dans la traduction syriaque de cette œuvre, faite par Mgr. PHILOXÉNE JEAN DOLABANI à Mardin en 1967, il en est aussi question à la page 163. 35 Mgr. CHABBOURI des syriens-catholiques à Damas en a composé une liste seulement typee.

** Le catalogue est prét en arabe et attend seulement sa traduction en anglais pour étre édité; le diacre syrien HANNA IBRAHIM, étudiant à Rome, en a une copie. 37 Le Pére BECHARA, bibliothécaire, a promis une traduction du catalogue arabe qui est peu lisible. Il doit y avoir 1500 mss. 38 Mr. BESARANLAR est le fils d'un prétre; sa Didascalie est en karshouni et porte la cote 97 et la date AD 1697. ?* R.P. BourRos FAHD, Catalogues des mss syriaques et arabes (Rome 1972); on y trouve la Didascalie sous le no. 32. *9 A l'institut des Pères Assomptionistes

à Nimégue,

sous le no. 87, copie

récente

de Jacques BAR ZEITUN, fils de MALKE, A.D. 1907. Le Rev. Père BEHNAM SONY a fait le catalogue arabe de tous les mss de Charfeh; il en prépare une traduction et l'édition. 41 H£RODOT, |, 1.

54

J.C.}. SANDERS

ON

THE

DIDASCALIA

Dom Botte has listed nine collections of ecclesiastical law from Syria and Egypt dating from the third to fifth centuries. The earliest, the Syriac Didascalia, has been studied until recently on the basis of a single Paris ms. Now several other copies have come to light. At Montserrat, Spain, Sanders found a copy in a codex (ms. or. 31) containing many items of importance on Christian life

down to the 14th C. In the Near East libraries there will probably yield more. can be found among Syrian sources in The very multiplicity of Didascalia mss

several copies are known, and the great Bar Sawm mentions three copies. Versions Arabic. A copy is preserved at Nijmegen. testifies to its historical importance.

UNE

DECOUVERTE

L'HOMÉLIE

SUR

2 DE

INESPEREE:

SEVERE

L'ANNONCIATION

D'ANTIOCHE,

DE LA THÉOTOKOS

Joseph-Marie SAUGET Cité du Vatican

De FPhéritage littéraire du patriarche d'Antioche Sévére (512-518), victime dés 536 d'une draconienne damnatio memoriae de la part de l'empereur de Byzance Justinien!, il ne reste presque rien dans la langue grecque originale?. Et si l'on est arrivé à rentrer progressivement en possession d'une grande partie des œuvres de cet écrivain fécond, c'est avant tout gráce aux traductions syriaques qui en furent exécutées assez rapidement, pour certaines méme du vivant de leur

auteur?. La figure de Sévére, pasteur d'ámes, ressort plus particuliérement de la longue série des cent vingt-cinq Homelies Cathédrales (ὁμιλίαι ἐπιθρόνοι) qu'il prononga au cours des principales célébrations liturgiques qui jalonnérent les six années durant lesquelles il occupa le

siége patriarcal d'Antioche^. Constituées en véritable Corpus, ces homélies, classées selon l'ordre chronologique οὐ elles furent prononcées, ont été l'objet d'une double traduction syriaque: la premiére, habituellement attribuée à Paul évéque de Callinicie en Osrhoéne, durant les deux premiéres décennies du VI siècle, et par conséquent exactement contemporain de Sévére; ! Voir

le texte

grec

de

la Constitution

de

l'empereur

Justinien

contre

Anthime,

Sévére, Pierre et Zooras, dans Patrologia Orientalis 2 (Paris 1907), pp. 358-361.

? Voir spécialement H.-G. BECK, «Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich», Byzantinisches Handbuch im Rahmen des Handbuches des Altertumswissenschaft, 11. Teil, I. Band (München de la bibliographie relative à SÉVÈRE.

1959), pp. 387-390; on trouvera

là l'essentiel

> Aucun paragraphe spécial n'est consacré à SÉVÈRE dans A. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922); c'est à propos des traductions syriaque qu'on y peut trouver mention du patriarche d'Antioche.

de ses ceuvres en

* Toutes les informations relatives aux homélies de SÉVÈRE sont très clairement présentées par M. BRIÈRE, Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévére d'Antioche. Traduction syriaque

de Jacques

d'Édesse.

Introduction générale d toutes les homelies.

dans

Patro-

logia Orientalis, t. XXIX, fasc. 1 (Paris 1960), pp. 7-72 [Cité BRIERE, Introduction).

56

J.-M. SAUGET

la seconde, plus précisément révision de la précédente d’apres l'original grec, est due au célèbre évêque Jacques d'Édesse (t 708). Aucune

des deux

traductions

n'est

conservée

intégralement,

mais

celle qui est parvenue dans l'état le plus complet est incontestablement celle de Jacques d'Édesse. Aussi est-ce de celle-ci que la publication avait été décidée et commencée, dans la Patrologia Orientalis de R. Graffin, il y a déjà soixante-dix ans, par les soins de Rubens Duval°. Continuée par M. Brière, cette longue entreprise arrive finalement à son terme gráce à la diligence opiniátre et infatigable du Rév.

Pére F. Graffin®. La base de cette édition est le manuscrit British Museum, Additional 12159, daté de l'année 1179 des Grecs, soit 867/68 de l'ére chrétienne, qui, à l'origine, contenait le Corpus complet des cent vingt-cinq homélies. La disparition de vingt-huit feuillets a provoqué des lacunes d'étendue variable dans l'ensemble du manuscrit, mais spécialement dans sa partie initiale. Et si le seul autre témoin connu jusqu'ici de cette collection, le Vatican syriaque 141. (VIII*-IX* siécle), permet de compléter quand besoin en est la section qui englobe les homélies 44-91, les autres lacunes du codex londonien ne peuvent étre éventuellement comblées que par la découverte dans d'autres manuscrits, en général dans des homéliaires liturgiques, d'homélies isolées. C'est ainsi que l'existence de l'homélie de Sévére sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos était seulement connue jusqu'ici par son explicit conservé au début du f. 3'a du manuscrit Berlin syriaque 28 (Sachau 220)’, homéliaire liturgique trés lacuneux et dont les cinquante feuillets subsistants se présentent dans le plus grand désordre?. Et 5 L'état de a été présenté

la publication du Corpus des cent vingt-cinq homélies jusqu'en 1960 dans BRIÈRE. /ntroduction. pp. 69-70; à ce moment, seule la section

comprenant les Homelies 51-125 était publiée. * Depuis la mort de M.

Briére,

F. GRAFFIN

a continué dans

la Patrologia Orien-

talis, à un rhythme assez régulier aprés un long temps d'arrét, l'édition des Homelies Cathédrales: t. 35, 3 (1969). 46-51; t. 36. 1 (1971), 40-45: t. 36, 3 (1972), 32-39; t. 36, 4 (1974),

26-31;

groupe des Homélies

t. 37,

1 (1975),

18-25.

Il ne restait donc

1-17, qui est la section oü se trouvent

plus à éditer que

le

les pieces disparues ou

conservées fragmentairement (voir, plus loin, p. 62, note 31). 7 E. SACHAU, Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, — Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der kóniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin 23 (Berlin

1899), Bd. I, p. 114a. * E. SACHAU,

dans

sa description

du

contenu,

s'en

est

tenu

à l'ordre

actuel

des

feuillets sans chercher à rétablir leur succession normale primitive. A propos de diverses piéces

de ce recueil, j'ai déjà eu

l'occasion

de

reconstituer

l'ordre

des

feuillets,

voir

en particulier J.-M. SAUGET, « L'homéliaire du Vatican Syriaque 253. Essai de reconstitution», Le Muséon 81 (1968), spécialement p. 326, note 26b.

L'HOMÉLIE 2 DE SEVERE D'ANTIOCHE

57

les deux lignes de la doxologie finale de l'homélie, qui précédent l'explicit, étaient insuffisantes pour permettre à E. Sachau de déterminer avec certitude un raccord entre le f. 3" et l'un ou l'autre des feuillets de ce méme manuscrit dont il n'avait pas identifié le contenu©. Gráce néanmoins à cette maigre information, il était désormais assuré que dans la section initiale du Corpus sévérien des Homélies Cathédrales, la seule qui présente des lacunes importantes dans la premiére partie !? du British Museum, Additional 12159, il y avait originairement place pour l'homélie sur /'Annonciation de la Theotokos.

Mais était-ce le numéro 2, 3, 5 ou 6!!? Aucun élément supplémentaire n'était venu enrichir l'information à ce propos jusqu'au moment oü l'analyse de deux homéliaires liturgiques syriaques provenant de la bibliothéque du célébre monastere de Dayr Za'faran et actuellement conservés dans la bibliothéque du Patriarcat syrien-orthodoxe de Damas, m'a permis de repérer deux témoins, l'un complet, l'autre mutilé de la partie finale, de l'homélie sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos : Damas 12/19!?, non daté, mais remontant vraisemblablement au X*-XI* siècle, ff. 7*a-10*b, mutilé de la fin. Dans ce manuscrit, l'homélie est actuellement la troisiéme, mais portait le numéro 4 dans la structure primitive de l'homéliaire. Damas 12/20'>, daté du mois de teërin hroy de l'année 1312 des Grecs, soit novembre 1000 de notre ère, ff. 2ra-7*a, complet pour le texte, mais seulement mutilé, au début, des deux premiéres lignes du titre rubriqué. Dans ce manuscrit, l'homélie est actuellement la deuxiéme, mais portait le numéro 4 dans la structure primitive de l'homé-

liaire !^. * Ayant appris qu'un disciple du professeur A. ScHALL, M. Marxi, projetait de publier une étude sur le dit manuscrit Sachau 220, j'ai attendu de livrer à l'impression une reconstitution de ce recueil homilétique, préte depuis plusieurs années. 19 Voir BRIERE, Introduction, pp. 42-43. 11. Tbid., pp. 50-51. '? Voir la notice assez rapide consacrée à ce manuscrit dans A. VOOBUS, Handschriftliche Überlieferung der Mémré-Dichtung des Ja'qob von Serüg, 1. Sammlungen : Die Handschriften [CSCO 344, Subs. 39] (Louvain 1973), pp. 98-100; ou encore IDEM, Discoveries of great import on the Commentary on Luke by Cyril of Alexandria. The emergence of new manuscript sources for the syriac version [PETSE

24] (1973), pp. 22-23.

1? Voir également les deux études citées à la note précédente : respectivement, pp. 9598 et 21-22. '* Les deux collections homilétiques de Damas fournissent un apport considérable à notre connaissance de l'histoire et de la structure des homéliaires liturgiques syriaques. en méme temps qu'ils mettent au jour des textes patristiques non encore retrouvés

58

J.-M. SAUGET

Soumettant successivement à une confrontation directe avec le texte complet de l'homélie sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos, les deux feuillets du manuscrit Sachau 220 qui, à la suite d'une nouvelle analyse de cet homéliaire, avaient jusqu'alors résisté à toute identification, j'ai pu facilement m'assurer que l'un et l'autre étaient bel et bien des fragments de cette méme homélie. Un troisiéme témoin, bien qu'assez incomplet, pouvait donc désormais être ajouté au dossier de l'homélie sur l’Annonciation de la Théotokos : Berlin syriaque 28 (Sachau

220),

VIII*-IX*

siècle, ff. 15'a*b; lacune

| f.; Zarb + 3a, mutilé en outre du début du texte de l'homélie!*. Dans ce manuscrit, celle-ci est actuellement la premiére'®, mais elle

portait le numéro 4 dans la structure primitive de l’homeliaire!”. Sur la base des trois manuscrits cités, il devenait possible de procéder à l'édition de la traduction syriaque de l'homélie de Sévére d'Antioche sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos, mais la question de la place à lui donner dans le Corpus des Homélies Cathédrales demeurait ouverte, car aucun des témoins syriaques ne fournit de précision à ce propos. La solution de ce probléme a pu toutefois étre découverte en interrogeant les citations patristiques d'une Collection de Chaines grecques. R. Devreesse a jadis dépouillé la collection de Chaínes du manuscrit de la Bibliothèque Vaticane : Barberini grec 569, puis classé systématiquement, par ordre chronologique des auteurs cités, les extraits des Pères commentant l'Octateuque et les Livres des Rois, qu'il avait recueillis. Ce précieux répertoire a permis de repérer deux citations de l'homélie sur /'Annonciation de la Théotokos, utilisées comme com-

mentaire à deux versets du livre de la Genése !? :

jusqu'ici. Voir à ce propos J.-M. SAUGET, l'Évangile

de

S.

Luc

de

Cyrille

«Nouvelles homélies du Commentaire

d'Alexandrie

dans

leur

traduction

syriaque»,

sur dans

Symposium syriacum 1972, [= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197] (Roma 1974), pp. 439456 (M. le professeur A. VOOBUS a traité du même sujet de manière indépendante dans l'étude citée plus haut, note 12). J'espére étre en mesure de publier trés prochainement une étude comparée du contenu détaillé de ces deux homéliaires. 'S E, SACHAU avait déjà reconnu dans le f. 2 un fragment d'une homélie sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos; voir op. laud., p. 114a. 16 Suivant l'ordre original des feuillets encore conservés, non suivant la numérotation actuelle des feuillets. 17 Elle est en effet suivie de l'homélie de GREGOIRE DE NAZIANZE, Sur la Nativité de Notre-Seigneur (cfr MiGNE, PG 36, coll. 312-333), qui porte le numéro 5. 18. R. DEVREESSE, «Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l'Octateuque et des Rois (fragments tirés des Chaines)», [Studi e Testi 201] (Città del Vaticano

1959), p.

187.

L'HOMÉLIE 2 DE SEVERE D'ANTIOCHE

59

a) Genese XXV, 23: Chaine = Ta δύο παιδία... κατὰ τὸν χρόνον. b) Genese XXV, 27: Chaine = Ὡς Σύμμαχος ... ὡς Παῦλός φησιν. Or l'une et l'autre de ces citations se référent explicitement à l'Homélie 2, selon le lemme rubriqué qui les introduit: Σευήρου ἀπὸ λόγου β΄. Étant donné que, lorsqu'elles ont pu étre contrólées, les autres

références précises aux ceuvres de Sévére reportées par ces Chaines se sont révélées exactes, il n'y a absolument pas lieu de mettre en doute, pour le cas présent, la véracité de leur témoignage. Il s'en suit que l'on peut replacer dorénavant avec certitude l'homélie

sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos à la deuxiéme place dans le Corpus sévérien !?. R. Devreesse proposait de restituer à l’Homelie 2 un troisième ex-

trait 2° à propos de: Genèse XXV, 28: Chaîne = Ἢ Ρεβεκκὰ διὰ τὴν συνήθειαν ... ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ προαιρέσεως καλὸς. En fait ce passage n'appartient pas à l’Homelie 2. Le lemme qui l'introduit, à la suite d'un autre extrait de Sévére, lui aussi étranger à cette méme piéce, mentionne d'ailleurs seulement génériquement : τοῦ αὐτοῦ. En revanche, un sondage rapide dans le Barberini grec 569, m’a permis de reconnaitre (f. 171") une troisiéme citation appartenant à notre homélie. Si elle n'a pas été relevée par R. Devreesse, c'est tout simplement parce qu'elle n'est introduite par aucun lemme; il s'agit d'un commentaire à propos de : Genese XXV, 30: Chaine = Οὔτω xai ὁ λαὸς τῆς συναγωγῆς ἔφαγε καὶ ἐνεπλήσθη kai ἐλιπάνθη καὶ ἐπαχύνθη καὶ ἀπελάκτισεν Kai ἀπέστη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ. Καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῶν προτείων καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν εὐλογίας παρακεχώρηκεν. Dans le chapitre consacré

ἃ Sévére d'Antioche,

R. Devreesse,

tou-

jours dans l'ouvrage ci-dessus mentionné, indiquait que des citations du patriarche antiochien se rencontraient encore ailleurs, entre autres dans la Lettre d'Eustathe le moine à Timothée le scolastique, sur

les deux natures contre Sévére?!. Cette référence devait s'avérer utile

19 Le Pére F. GRAFFIN cette numérotation

m'a d'ailleurs communiqué (lettre du 2 octobre

1975) que

était, selon une découverte de C. LAsH, confirmée par une note du

manuscrit British Museum, Additional 14684, f. 109v. 20 DEVREESSE, op. laud., p. 187. 2! Ibid., p. 187, note I.

60

J.-M. SAUGET

pour notre propos, car de fait Eustathe??, dans son argumentation, cite?? à la fois l'incipit de l'homélie sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos : Ὑμεῖς ἴσως οἴεσθέ με γεγηθέναι25, en l'appelant toutefois homélie sur le Trisagion? (ce qui peut s'expliquer par le commentaire sur cette hymne que Sévére développe au début de l’Homelie 2), et un autre nouvel extrait: Ei δὲ μετὰ τὴν Evwow ... τὸν θάνατον ἀποκληρώτομεν. Une etude systematique des citations patristiques grecques soit dans les Chaínes, les Florileges, ou bien encore dans les œuvres de Controverses christologiques, permettrait sans doute de retrouver d’autres emprunts à l'homélie sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos. Pour l'instant, il nous suffira, gráce à ces premiéres glanures, d'avoir pu, d'une part, assurer l'authenticité sévérienne de cette homélie, retrouvée seulement jusqu'ici dans des homéliaires liturgiques, et d'autre part, lui restituer son numéro d'ordre au début des homélies du Corpus Sévérien, οὐ elle vient en deuxiéme place. Mais il est en outre possible de cerner entre des limites assez restreintes le jour où fut prononcée par Sévére l' Homélie 2. Si, d'une part, comme l'a accepté M. Brière, l' Homélie 1, prononcée une première fois le 16 novembre 512 (jour de la consécration épiscopale de Sévére), fut réitérée le dimanche suivant, 18 novembre?9, et si, d'autre part, l'Homélie 3, qu'on peut identifier désormais trés sürement avec la premiere en l'honneur de sainte Drosis, a été prononcée le jour de l'anniversaire de la martyre, le 14 décembre 5127’, l'Homélie 2 se situe obligatoirement entre ces deux dates. Peut-on encore préciser davantage? Pour le faire avec certitude, il faudrait au préalable connaitre le schéma selon lequel se répartissaient à Antioche à cette époque les dimanches de préparation à la fête de Noél?®; ou, en termes 22 Cette lettre, d'abord publiée par vol. VII (Roma 1833), pp. 277-291, a été 23 [bid., col. 932 A, IL 11-12 et 932 A. ?* Il est à noter que l'Homélie 99 de

A. Mat. Scriptorum. Veterum. nova collectio, reproduite dans MiGne. PG 86. coll. 901-942. I. 12-B, I. 2. SÉVÈRE débute elle aussi d'une manière fort

semblable: comparer avec Patrologia Orientalis 22 (1929), p. 207.

?5 || y a en fait une homélie de SÉVÈRE

sur le Trisagion:

Homelie

125. Mais son

incipit est complétement différent; comparer avec PO 29. o.c., p. 232.

26 Voir BRIERE. Introduction, pp. 12-13. 51. 27 Ibid., p. 51, note |. Ayant désormais identifié l'Homélie 2 avec celle sur l'Annonciation de la Théotokos, Y Homélie 3 est sans aucun doute la premiére des trois prononcées en l'honneur de sainte Drosis. 35. || est impossible en tout cas de résoudre le probléme à partir des études d'A. BAUMSTARK sur l'année liturgique à Antioche d'apres les homélies de SÉVÈRE. Le savant liturgiste, de plus. n'avait pas identifié I’Homelie 2 avec celle sur l'Annonciation

L'HOMÉLIE

2 DE SEVERE

D'ANTIOCHE

61

équivalents, combien d'autres dimanches d'«Avent» précédérent-ils en 512

le

16 décembre

décembre?

(où

aurait

Et en particulier,

été

prononcé

le dimanche

de

l’Homélie

4) et

l'Annonciation

le 23

de

la

Théotokos était-il précédé de celui de l'Annonciation de Zacharie? I] semble

difficile, en

l'absence

de documentation

plus

explicite,

de

répondre de maniére définitive à ces interrogations. Dans l'hypothése d'un schéma de quatre dimanches de préparation, il faudrait incliner pour le 9 décembre, comme date de l'Homélie 2, mais dans l'état actuel des connaissances, on ne peut exclure ni le 2 décembre ni le

25 novembre??.

Quoi qu'il en soit, il faut en tout cas noter que

la date de l’Homelie 2 exclut, pour l'époque,

une célébration au 25

mars de la féte de l'Annonciation de la Théotokos??, dans la ville d'Antioche. Un dernier point reste encore à préciser: le texte syriaque de l’Homelie 2 retrouvé dans les homéliaires liturgiques est-il celui de la traduction de Pierre de Callinice ou de celle de Jacques d'Édesse? Sans entrer dans tous les détails d'une démonstration rigoureuse, il suffira de rappeler que dans les homéliaires étudiés, il se trouve d'autres homélies de Sévére: à titre de simple indication, le Damas 12/20 en contient à lui seul le nombre impressionnant de vingt-quatre; or toutes les autres,

à l'exception

de l’Homélie

7, sur la Nativité de

Notre-Seigneur et sur Saint Étienne, ont un correspondant au moins fragmentaire dans le British Museum, Additional 12159, et les recensions correspondent chaque fois de part et d'autre. Si donc dans vingt-deux cas contrólables sur vingt-quatre, les homéliaires liturgiques transmettent la traduction de Jacques d'Édesse, il n'y a aucune raison pour qu'il n'en aille pas de méme dans le cas de l'Homélie 2 et de l'Homélie 7, ces deux piéces ne présentant absolument aucune situation

de la Théotokos: voir A. BAUMSTARK, «Das Kirchenjahr in Antiocheia zwischen 512 und 518», dans Rómische Quartalschrift für christliche Alterthumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte Ε1 (1897), pp. 31-66: 13 (1899). pp. 305-323; IDEM, «Festbrevier und Kirchen-

Jahr der syrischen Jakobiten», Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, lI. Band, 3.-5. Heft (Paderborn 1910), pp. 166-175. 29 C'est en effet pour le 25 novembre qu'il faudrait opter dans l'hypothèse du schéma de six dimanches de préparation à Noél chez les Syriens occidentaux, tel qu'il est proposé dans B. Botte, «Les dimanches de la Dédicace dans les Eglises syriennes»,

L'Orient Syrien 2 (1957), pp. 65-70. Il faut tenir compte en outre du fait que l'Homélie 4 semble étre un Commentaire du début de l'Évangile de S. Luc; voir BRIERE, Introduction, p. 51.

3° Ceci pour préciser les conclusions de l'étude désormais ancienne de S. VAILHE, «Origines de la féte de l'Annonciation», dans Echos d'Orient 9 (1906), pp. 138-145. *

62

J.-M. SAUGET

ou condition particuliére dans l'ensemble de la collection qui les conserve. Dans le cas qui nous occupe présentement, il est donc tout à fait légitime de conclure que le texte de l'Homélie 2 est bien celui de la révision de Jacques d'Édesse. Il était donc tout indiqué que l'édition de l'homélie de Sévère d'Antioche sur l’Annonciation de la Théotokos, paraisse, insérée à sa place primitive et normale, dans la collection des Homiliae Cathedrales publiée par le Pére F. Graffin, lequel d'ailleurs a aimablement

accepté de l'y accueillir ?! . Étant donné toutefois que dans cette publication, les introductions particuliéres à chaque homélie sont réduites quasiment à de bréves observations d'ordre codicologique, il m'a paru utile sinon nécessaire de faire connaitre indépendamment de l'édition, les avatars et l'histoire de cette Homélie 2 de Sévére d'Antioche. Il ne pouvait pas se présenter de meilleure occasion, à mon sens, que d'offrir cette bréve étude en hommage reconnaissant et amical à

Monsieur le Professeur A. Vööbus qui, dés 1970, attira mon attention sur l'intérét que pouvait présenter pour mes recherches sur les homéliaires syriaques la collection du manuscrit Damas 12/20.

AN ON

UNEXPECTED

DISCOVERY :

HOMILY 2 OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH, THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE THEOTOKOS

Severus, whose memory was condemned by Justinian in 536, was patriarch of Antioch 512-518. A prolific writer, he is shown as a shepherd of souls in his 125

"cathedral homilies", incompletely preserved in Syriac translations. In the library of the Syrian Orthodox patriarchate at Damascus Sauget discovered one complete and one incomplete text of Homily 2. Its date can be established as Advent (December or late November) of 512, and its translator was probably Jacob of

Edessa.

31 Voir M. J.-M.

SAUGET,

Britret

et F. GRAFFIN,

Les homiliae

avec

la collaboration

cathedrales de Sévére d'Antioche.

LasH

et

Traduction syriaque

de C.J. A.

de

Jacques d'Édesse : Homélies | à XVII, dans Patrologia Orientalis, t. XXXVII, (Turnhout 1976) pp. 270-291.

fasc. 2

DIE BIBELKOMMENTARE

DES MOSES

BAR

KEPHA

Lorenz SCHLIMME Göttingen, Deutsche Bundesrepublik

Moses bar Kepha, syrisch-monophysitischer Kirchenschriftsteller des 9. Jahrhunderts!, dessen literarische Wirksamkeit sich in bewunderungswürdiger Vielseitigkeit und nicht weniger beachtenswerter Voluminösität auf so diverse Disziplinen wie die Bibelexegese, spekulative Theologie, Liturgie, Philosophie, Chronographie, Haeresiologie und Patrologie erstreckte?, und der doch der Forschung bisher nur durch einen geringen Bruchteil seines schriftstellerischen Gesamtwerks bekannt wurde?, ist in jüngerer Zeit dank zahlreicher neuer Handschriftenfunde zu den wenigen erhaltenen, aber auch und vor allem einigen bisher als verschollen gegoltenen Bibelexegesen des Moses bar

! Vgl.

zu

diesem

A.

BAUMSTARK,

schluss der christlich-palästinensischen

Geschichte Texte (Bonn

der

syrischen

1922), S. 281

Literatur bis 283.

A.

mit

Aus-

VOOBUS,

Syrische Kanonessammlungen. Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde, I. Westsyrische Originalurkunden 1, A [CSCO 307, Subs. 35] (Louvain 1970), S. 229-234. 2 Vgl. hierzu die bei J. S. ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis 11 (Roma 1721), S. 218f. abgedruckte Biographie, die ein Schriftenverzeichnis des Moses BAR KEPHA enthält. Für die handschriftliche Bezeugung dieser Biographie vgl. auch A. Vöösus, aaO, S. 229, Anm. 15. > Hier sind vor allem zu nennen: A. Masius, De paradiso commentarius, scriptus ante annos prope septingentos a Mose bar Cepha Syro (Antwerpen 1569), wieder abgedruckt in MiGNE, PG 111, col. 481-608. Vgl. hierzu W. STROTHMANN, »Die Anfänge der syrischen Studien in Europa« [Göttinger Orientforschungen I, 1] (Wiesbaden S. 12; O. BRAUN, Moses bar Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele (Freiburg

1971), 1891).

Eine jakobitische Einleitung in den Psalter in Verbindung mit zwei Homilien aus dem grossen

Psalmenkommentar

des

DANIEL

VON

SALAH,

Dietrricn, [Beihefte der Zischr. für die alttestamentl.

hg., übers.,

und

bearb.

von

G.

Wissenschaft 5] (Giessen-Berlin

1901) (von J.-M. VosTÉ, »L'introduction de Mose bar Kepha aux Psaumes de David,« Revue Biblique 38 (1929), S. 214-228 als von Moses BAR KEPHA stammend identifiziert). Die Zahlreichen 'Turgame' oder ‘Festtraktate’ des Moses, die teils als Text, teils in

Übersetzung und Bearbeitung publiziert vorliegen, können hier aus Raumgründen nicht näher vorgestellt werden. Es sei jedoch auf eine neuere, sehr interessante Veröffentlichung hingewiesen : Moses bar Kepha, Myron-Weihe, hg., übers., und mit einem vollständigen Wortverzeichnis versehen von W. STROTHMANN [Göttinger Orientforschungen I, 7] (Wiesbaden

1973).

64

L. SCHLIMME

Kepha durch A. Vööbus* ins Zentrum des bibelexegetischen Forschungsinteresses gerückt worden. Nach A. Vööbus besitzt die Bibelkommentararbeit des Moses bar Kepha eine ausgesprochene traditionsgeschichtliche Schlüsselfunktion in der Entwicklung der syrisch-monophysitischen Bibelexegese. Selbst fuBend auf den literarischen Leistungen Aphrems, Jakob von Edessas, Philoxenos von Mabbugs und Jakob von Sarugs, soll sie das entscheidende überlieferungsgeschichtliche »missing link« zwischen den Werken der soeben genannten literarischen Kapazitäten und den exegetischen Arbeiten der Schriftsteller der sogenannten syrischen Spátzeit, und hier vor allem den Exegesen des Dionysios bar Salibi re-

prásentieren 5. Diese These, außer von A. Vóóbus auch seit langem durch W. Strothmann vertreten, aber bisher noch nicht an konkreten Beispielen, respektive Textvergleichen verifiziert, hat sich für die Erforschung des Gesamtphänomens »jakobitische Bibelexegese« als nicht nur voll brauchbar, sondern auch unverzichtbar erwiesen und ist zudem in vorzüglichem Maße die entscheidende Interpretationsvoraussetzung für die Vorgeschichte des literarischen Spezialphänomens der syrischen Renaissanceliteratur des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts. Die im folgenden vorzulegenden diesbezüglichen Arbeits- und Forschungsergebnisse kónnen und sollen dies bestátigen : l. Der Hexaemeron- und Paradieskommentar des Moses bar Kepha Während der Paradieskommentar—zumindest in der lateinischen Übersetzung des A. Masius®—der Forschung seit langem vorliegt, muß derjenige zum biblischen Sechstagewerk bis auf den Abschnitt über die Zoologie aus dem 3. Buch? sowie das berühmte kosmologische + Vgl. hierzu grundsätzlich A. VOOBUS, aaO, S. 230-233. Ders., »New manuscript discoveries on the Old Testament exegetical work of Moses bar Kepha«, Abr Nahrain 10 (Leiden

1970), S. 97-101.

Ders., »Die Entdeckung des Lukaskommentars

des Mose.

bar Képha,« Zeitschr. für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 62 (1971), S. 132-134. * Vgl. hierzu vor allem A. VOOBUs, »New manuscript discoveries,« aaO, S. 97. Ders., »Die Entdeckung des Lukaskommentars'« aaO, S. 133.

6 Vgl. W. STROTHMANN, (Berlin

1972), S. 106, Anm.

Johannes von Apamea [Patristische Texte und Studien

11]

119.

? Diese Charakterisierung wurde von A. BAUMSTARK

in die Forschung eingeführt.

Vgl. A. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte, aaO, S. 290 und 295.

* Vgl. Anm. 3. ? J. BAKOS, »Zie Zoologie aus dem Hexaemeron des Moses bar Kapha,« Archiv Orientdini 2 (Prag 1930), S. 327-361, 460-491. Ders., »Quellenanalyse der Zoologie aus dem Hexaemeron des Moses bar Kepha,« ArOr 6 (1934), S. 267-271.

MOSES BAR KEPHA

Bardaisanzitat aus dem

65

1. Buch'? als völlig unbekannt gelten!!. Er

kann als ein in fünf Büchern verfaBtes dreiteiliges Großkompendium zur biblischen Schópfungsthematik bezeichnet werden, das in seinem ersten Teil

(=

Buch

1) dogmatische

sowie

die biblische

Einleitungs-

wissenschaft betreffende Prolegomena bietet, in seinem zweiten Teil (2 Buch 2) die eigentliche exegetische Schópfungsproblematik, basierend auf den diesbezüglichen Werken griechischer sowie syrischer Váter und Lehrer, kompendienartig aufgearbeitet und dargestellt bietet, und in seinem dritten Teil (= Bücher 3-5) die mit der biblischen Schópfungsthematik verbundene profanwissenschaftliche Sachproblematik aus den hellenistisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen Astronomie, Zoologie, Elementenlehre und Meteorologie gleichfalls in kompendienhafter Darstellung abschlieBend behandelt. Dieser Hexaemeronkommentar, zumindest für die profanwissenschaftlichen Teile der Bücher 3-5, seinerseits materiell im wesentlichen

auf dem Hexaemeronkommentar des Jakob von Edessa!? basierend, 19 Vgl.

hierzu

BARDESANE

L'ASTROLOGUE,

Le livre des lois des pays,

traduction

frängaise par F. NAu (Paris 1899), S. 59-62. BARDESANES, Liber legum regionum, ed. F. Nau, Patrologia Syriaca 1, 1. 2 (Paris 1907), S. 513-516. H.J.W. Druvers, »Bardaisan of Edessa,« [Studia Semitica Neerlandica 6] (Assen 1966), S. 98-105.

!! Dieser

Hexaemeronkommentar

mir im Dezember

ist in Text,

1974 als Dissertation

Übersetzung

an der ev.-theol.

und

Fakultät

Bearbeitung

von

der Georg-August-

Universität Göttingen vorgelegt worden. Bisher nur in den Hss. Pr. Syr. 241, Pr. Syr. 311, Pr. Syr. 319 und Mard. 64 erhalten geglaubt, ist er nun neuerdings durch die orientalischen Handschriftenfunde von A. VOOBUS auch durch folgende Codd. bezeugt: Hs. Mard. Orth. 371 und Hs. Bagd. Patr. 2112. Zudem hat A. VOOsus als erster auf Hs. Ming. Syr. 65 hingewiesen, die neben der Paradiesschrift des Moses auch die beiden ersten Memren des Hexaemeronkommentars enthält. Vgl. zum Ganzen A. VOOBUS, »New manuscript discoveries«, aaO. Aber noch ein weiterer Textzeuge ist hier zu nennen: Die in der Hs. BrM Add. 17, 274 von W. WRIGHT, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum II (London 1871), S. 621 für die Folien 11-27" angegebenen sogenannten Genesiskommentarfragmenten des Moses BAR KEPHA erweisen sich in Wirklichkeit als solche des Hexaemeronkommentars des Moses. Sie reichen von der Kommentierung zu Gen 1, 11 bis zu der von Gen 2, 7 und stammen aus dem 2. Buch des Werkes. Dass dies mitnichten auf eine isolierte Abschrift nur des 2. Buches hinweist, zeigen die versprengten Fragmente auf fol. 25 der Hs., die von W. WRIGHT lediglich als »misplaced« charakterisiert, als aus dem 13. und 16. Kap. des 5. Buches stammend, verifiziert werden können.

12 Jacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron seu in opus creationis libri septem, ed. J.B. CuABOT (CSCO

92, Syr. 44] (Louvain

Syr. 48] (1953).

Der

von

1953); Lat.

Georcios,

dem

Übersetzung:

A.

VASCHALDE

Araberbischof stammende

[CSCO

Schluss

97,

des von

Jakos unvollendeten 7. Buches ist zudem von V. RysseL, Georgs des Araberbischofs Gedichte und Briefe, aus dem Syrischen übersetzt und erläutert (Leipzig 1891), S. 130 bis 138, ins Deutsche übertragen worden. Zum Hexaemeron des JAKOB VON EDESSA selbst vgl. P. MARTIN, »L'Hexaeméron de Jacques d'Édesse,« Journal Asiatique 11 (1888), S. 155-219,

401-440.

Hierzu : Th.

NOLDEKE,

in Literarisches

Centralblatt (1888),

66

hat

L. SCHLIMME

nachweislich

Dionysios

bar

Salibi

in

Form

der

theologischen

Exegese des 2. Buches für die in seinem Genesiskommentar!? begegnende Kommentierung der Schópfungsgeschichte vorgelegen und ist von diesem anonym exzerpiert worden. Entsprechendes gilt für die Exegese der Paradieserzählung im Genesiskommentar des Dionysios bar Salibi, die quellenkritisch eindeutig als ein Exzerpt aus dem sehr langen, die literale Auslegung beinhaltenden 28. Kapitel des i. Buches der Paradiesschrift des Moses nachgewiesen werden kann. Es erscheint zudem an dieser Stelle anmerkenswert, daB für den angesprochenen exegetischen Themenbereich Schópfung und Paradies die traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung noch über Dionysios bar Salibi hinaus verfolgt werden kann. Dies unterstreicht die eminent zentrale Bedeutung der Vööbus’schen These von der überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Schlüsselfunktion der Bibelkommentare des Moses. So ist es mehr denn offensichtlich, daB der Genesiskommentar des Dionysios wiederum den Genesispartien des Scholienwerks »Scheune der Geheimnisse« des Barhebraus'* zugrunde gelegen hat, und für nicht wenige naturwissenschaftliche Passagen der Dogmatik »Leuchte

S. 1743-1745. Vgl. auch A. HiELT, Études sur l'Hexaeméron de Jacques d'Edesse (Helsingfors 1892). Ders., »Pflanzennamen aus dem Hexaemeron Jakob's von Edessa,« in Orientalische Studien Th. Nóldeke gewidmet (Giessen 1906), I, S. 571-579. E. HONIGMANN, Die sieben Klimata und die Poleis episemoi. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte und

Astrologie im Altertum und im Mittelalter (Heidelberg 1929), S. 109f. Speziell zur Zoologie im Hexaemeron des JAKOB VON EDESSA vgl. auch L. SCHLIMME, »Synkretismus in der syrischen Hexaemeronliteratur. Exemplarisch dargestellt an der Rezeption der antiken Zoologie,« in Erkenntnisse und Meinungen I, hg. von G. WiEssNER [Göttinger Orientforschungen

I, 3} (Wiesbaden

1973). S. 164 bis 188.

13 Dieser Genesiskommentar, bisher noch nicht publiziert, ist näher vorgestellt worden von J.C.J. SANDERS, »Le commentaire de Denis bar Salibi sur la Genése« [Acta Orientalia Neerlandica. Congress of the Dutch Oriental Society 1970], ed. P. W. PESTMAN (Leiden 1971), S. 46-50. Er liegt mir vor in Mikrofilmen der Hss. Brl. Oroct. 1131 und Ming. Syr. 152. Letztere Hs. führt im Unterschied zur ersteren parallel zur

literalen Auslegung die pneumatische Exegese zur Genesisthematik. Hier erscheint in konsequent-systematischer Form dasjenige hermeneutische Prinzip verwirklicht, welches Moses BAR KEPHA im 47. Kap. des I. Buches seines Hexaemeronkommentars als grundsátzliche methodische Gleichberechtigung beider Auslegungsweisen zwar definiert, aber dann noch nicht systematisch praktiziert, sondern nur sporadisch an einigen Stellen seiner Exegesen berücksichtigt hat. Über neue Textzeugen zu diesem Genesiskommentar

des DioNvsios berichtet A. VOOBUS, »Neue Funde für die handschriftliche Überlieferung der alttestamentlichen Kommentare des Dionysios bar Salibi,« Zisch. für die alttestamenil.

Wissenschaft 84 (1972), S. 246-249.

'* Barhebráus' Scholia on the Old Testament, 1: Genesis-I11 Samuel, ed. M. SPRENGLING-W.C. GRAHAM [University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 13] (Chicago 1931).

MOSES BAR KEPHA

des

Heiligtums«!5

J. Bako$!$

eben

desselben

nachgewiesen,

daß

67

Schriftstellers

diese

als aus

wurde

den

bereits

von

diesbezüglichen

Büchern 3-5 des Hexaemeronkommentars des Moses entlehnt angesehen werden müssen. Aber noch weiter läßt sich die Überlieferungsgeschichte verfolgen:

In der Hs. Pr. Syr. 346'’, einem Sammelkodex diverser Abhandlungen astronomischen, astrologischen und meteorologischen Inhalts 18, findet sich auf den Folien 61v-77v ein meteorologisches Kompendium

eines

gegen Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts schreibenden Anonymos, das sich einer exakten literarkritischen Analyse als eine weitgehende Kompilation von größtenteils geschlossenen Kapitelexzerpten aus dem 5. Buch des Hexaemeronkommentars des Moses bar Kepha, dem 4. Abschnitt

des 1. Teils des 3. Kapitels des 2. Fundaments

der »Leuchte

des

Heiligtums« des Barhebráus, dem Hexaemeronkommentar des Jakob von Edessa, einer unbekannten Schrift des Dionysios bar Salibi, sowie aus einer weiteren unbekannten Quelle, die auf Grund diesbezüglicher Zitation dem profanwissenschaftlichen Schrifttum des Nestorianers Hunain ibn Ishak nahestehen wird, darstellt.

'S BARHEBRAUS, Le candélabre des sanctuaires, Patrologia Orientalis 22,4 / 24,3 / 27,4 / 30,2.4/31,1 (Paris 1930-1961) und Fortsetzung. 1 BARHEBRÄUS, Le candélabre des sanctuaires, éd. et trad. en francais par J. BAKOS,

PO 22,4 / 24,3 (1930-1933). '? Vgl. zu dieser Hs. die ebenso ausführliche wie ausgezeichnete Beschreibung von F. Nau,

Revue de l'Orient Chrétien

15 (1910), S. 228-254.

18 Diese Abhandlungen liegen zum Teil bereits in Edition und Übersetzung vor: Zu den beiden Werken De astrolabio und De constellationibus des Severos Sebokt vgl. F. NAU, Le traité de Sévére Sébokt sur l'astrolabe plan (Paris 1899). Ders., »Le traité sur les constellations écrit en 661

par Sévére Sébokt, évêque de Qennesrin,«

ROC

27

(1929-1930), S. 327-410; 28 (1931-1932), S. 85-100. Einige Fragmente aus De constellationibus, betitelt Über die bewohnte und die unbewohnbare Erde und erhalten in der Hs. BrM Add. 14, 538 wurden zusätzlich von E. SACHAU, Inedita Syriaca. Eine Sammlung syrischer Übersetzungen von Schriften griechischer Profanliteratur (Hildesheim 1968)

(2

Reprographischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Wien.

1870), S. 127-134, veróffentlicht.

Von den beiden Kapiteln astronomischen Inhalts des Araberbischofs GEORGIOS, erhalten auf den Folien 145'-161', ist eines bereits von V. RvsstL. Georgs des Araber-

bischofs Gedichte und Briefe, aaO, S. 122-129, nach der Hs. BrM Add. 12,154 in deutscher Übersetzung publiziert worden, während die astronomischen Stücke des BARHEBRAUS

auf den

Folien

161"-168"

im

wesentlichen

ein

Exzerpt

aus

dessen

astrono-

mischen Hauptwerk Buch des Vernunftaufstiegs darstellen. Einige kleinere Stücke der Hs., wie zB das kurze Kap. des SEVEROS SEBOKT über den geistigen Vorrang der syrischen Astronomie gegenüber der griechischen, auf den Folien 168"-171', sind zudem von F. NAU in seiner

Besprechung

der

Hs.

bereits

in Text

und

Übersetzung

vorgestellt

worden.

Die noch verbleibenden beiden grösseren Abhandlungen der Hs.. die Schrift des SEvEROS SEBOKT

Über die Eklipsen

von Sonne

und

Mond

(Fol.

55Y-77*) sowie

die—einzige

er-

68

L. SCHLIMME

2. Der Johanneskommentar des Moses bar Kepha Auch dieser Bibelkommentar des Moses, wie der zum Hexaemeron bisher noch nicht publiziert und bearbeitet, und wohl lediglich in der Hs. Add. 1971 der Universitätsbibliothek Cambridge!? erhalten, hat Dionysios bar Salibi für seinen eigenen Johanneskommentar vor-

gelegen ?? und ist von ihm für diesen nahezu ausschließlich exzerpiert worden. Dabei führt die literarkritische Untersuchung des Johanneskommentars des Moses selbst verblüffenderweise in diesem Fall nicht zu innersyrischen Quellenvorlagen, sondern in die griechisch-bibelexegetische Tradition. Zumindest für die 27 Kapitel starke Einleitung in den Kommentar sowie für die Johannesprologexegese kann gezeigt werden, daß diese im wesentlichen auf Exzerpten aus den Johanneshomilien

des Johannes Chrysostomos?!, dem

Johanneskommentar

des Kyrill

von Alexandrien?? sowie dem in seiner Ganzheit nur syrisch erhaltenen

Johanneskommentar

des Theodor

von

Mopsuestia??

beruhen.

Der

naheliegende Verdacht einer Benutzung des Johanneskommentars des Philoxenos von Mabbug?* bestätigt sich eigentümlicherweise für die genannten Abschnitte nicht. Ob der Johanneskommentar des Moses sich tatsáchlich auf die genannten griechischen Quellen zurückführen läßt oder nicht vielmehr auf diesbezügliche, ihm vorliegende innersyrische Quellen, die ihrerseits bereits eine weitgehende Zusammenstellung der griechischen Tradition aufweisen, muß bei unserer immer noch sehr geringen Kenntnis der syrischen Literatur zur Zeit noch offen bleiben.

haltene—syrische Übersetzung des Tetrabiblos des CLAUDIOS werden zur Zeit von mir bearbeitet.

ProLEMAIOS (Fol. 17-36")

19 Vgl. W. WRIGHT-S.A. Cook, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts of Cambridge 1 (Cambridge 1901), S. 47-50. Von Auszügen sehr geringen Umfangs in der Hs 4/10, fol. Iff. des syrisch-orthodoxen Patriarchats in Damaskus sowie in der Hs.

Harris 29, fol. 3-11" berichtet A. VóOBUS. Kanonessamlungen, aaO, S. 232. Anm. 25. 20 Dieser Johanneskommentar des Dionysios BAR SALIBI liegt mir vor in einem Mikrofilm der Hs. BrM Add. 12,143 und soll zusammen mit dem des Moses in einer Lückentext-Synopse veróffentlicht werden.

21 22 73/74. 23 J.-M. 24

JOHANNES CHRYSOSTOMOS, Homiliae in Johannem, MiGNe. PG 59, col. 23-485. KYRILL VON ALEXANDRIEN, Commentarius in S. Johannis Evangelium, MiGNE, PG col. 9-756. THEODOR von MOPSUESTIA, Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis Apostoli. ed. Vosté [CSCO 115, Syr. 62] (1940). Umfangreiche Fragmente dieses wichtigen Kommentars des PHILOXENOS VON MAB-

8UG liegen in der Hs. BrM

Add.

14,534 vor und harren immer noch einer Publizierung.

MOSES

3. Die Gesamteinleitung bar Kepha

in den

BAR

KEPHA

69

Vierevangelienkommentar

des

Moses

Die Hs. BrM Add. 17, 27423 enthält auf den Folien 26v-48v ein von Kapitel18 bis Kapitel 72 reichendes Fragment der Gesamteinleitung in den Vierevangelienkommentar des Moses25. Diese Gesamteinleitung schließt die spezielle Einleitung in den sich auf den Folien 48v-120v anschließenden Matthäuskommentar ein und handeit über solch grundsätzliche Fragen wie die Ursache der Menschwerdung Gottes, die

Wiedergeburt durch die Taufe, die Lebensspender Leib und Blut, das Verhältnis von Glaube

und Werken,

Zeit, Ort und

Modus

der Bibel-

entstehung, die Bedeutung der Bezeichnungen »Testament« und »Evangelium«, die Übereinstimmungen und Differenzen zwischen den Evangelien, die Entstehung der Evangelienbücher etc. Als Hauptquelle und unmittelbare literarische Vorlage liegt ihr die ebenfalls nur sehr unvollständig und zudem recht zerstört erhaltene Gesamteinleitung in den Vierevangelienkommentar des Georgios von Be'eltan?" zugrunde, und sie selbst hat wiederum dem Dionysios bar Salibi für die Gesamteinleitung?? in seinen Vierevangelienkommentar vorgelegen, die bemerkenswerterweise für nicht wenige Kapitel zudem aus dem 1. Buch

des

Hexaemeron

des

Moses

bar

Kepha

geschópft

erscheint.

23 Vgl. zu dieser Hs. grundsätzlich W. WRIGHT. Catalogue, aaO, S. 621. 2° Es erscheint an dieser Stelle anmerkenswert.

dass eine solche

Einleitung

keines-

wegs ein 'Unicum' im Schrifttum des Moses darstellt, sondern bei den meisten seiner exegetischen Schriften verwandt wurde. Von Einleitungen in den Psalter (vgl. Anm. 3) sowie in den Johanneskommentar

war

bereits die Rede.

Dass sämtliche

neutestament-

liche Brieferklärungen mit kleineren Einleitungen versehen waren, lässt sich aus der einzigen. in der Hs. BrM Add. 17,274 zum I Kor erhaltenen, schliessen. Für das Phánomen, dass neben der Gesamteinleitung in alle vier Evangelien auch diese einzeln noch eine zusätzliche spezielle Einleitung tragen, ist Moses selbst als Zeuge anzuführen (vgl. hierzu die diesbezügliche Anmerkung in der Hs. BrM Add. 17,274, Fol. 37r). Ausserdem erfüllen sowohl das erste Buch des Hexaemeron als auch das gleiche der Paradiesschrift eindeutig die Funktion einer Einleitung. Auf einen sehr wahrscheinlichen traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang zwischen der »Myron-Einleitung« des Moses und der des ANTON von TAGRIT hat R. MESSLING hingewiesen. Vgl. hierzu

R. MESSLING, »Die Schrift des Anton von Tagrit ‘Über das Myron'«, in Paul de Lagarde und die syrische

Kirchengeschichte,

ed.

Göttinger

Arbeitskreis

für syrische

Kirchenge-

schichte (Göttingen 1968), S. 150-161. 2? Gesamteinleitung

und

Evangelienkommentar

sind

in der

Hs.

Vat.

Syr.

154 er-

halten und wurden von A. BAUMSTARK, »Die Evangelienexegese der syrischen Monophysiten«, Oriens Christianus 2 (1902), S. 360-370 näher vorgestellt und meisterhaft beschrieben. 28 Dionysii

bar

Salibi

commentarii

Cuasor [CSCO 15, Syr. 15] (1906, 16, Svr. 16] (1906, 1953), S. 1-22.

in

Evangelia

1,

1953), S. 1-28: Lat.

1, ed.

J.

SEDLACEK

Übers. : J. SEDLACEK

et

J.B.

[CSCO

70

L. SCHLIMME

Fragt man nun abschließend, was auf diesen verschiedenen Stufen der Überlieferung auf schriftstellerischer Seite mit dem vorgegebenen und benutzten literarischen Material geschieht, so wird sich in gebotener Kürze folgendes festhalten lassen : Die Bibelkommentare des Moses bar Kepha sind kompilatorische Sammelwerke, die literarisch vorgegebene Traditionen zu biblischen

Themenbereichen

und

Büchern

scholastisch-kompendienhaft

aufge-

arbeitet und zusammengestellt darbieten. Moses bar Kepha formalisiert und systematisiert die Materialien seiner Quellenvorlagen, schafft thematische Sacheinheiten mit diesbezüglichen Überschriften, gliedert, faBt zusammen, reduziert, präzisiert etc. Vorzügliches methodisches Kriterium seiner Arbeitstechnik ist die dialektische Darstellung einer Sachaussage oder Problemstellung in entsprechende Fragestellungen und sich anschließenden, oft mehrgliedrigen diskutierenden Beweisgang mit oder ohne abschlieBende Lósung. Die Exegesen des Dionysios bar Salibi dagegen sind in der Regel reine Exzerpte, die nur mühsam und unter erheblichen terminologischsyntaktischen Reduktionen sowie mittels langer Omissionen der schier überquellenden Fülle ihrer Vorlagen Herr werdend, in Verfremdung hervorrufenem stilistischem Stakkato den Leser—bedingt durch ihr oft willkürliches materiales Selektionsverfahren—gleichsam durch die zu behandelnde Thematik »hindurchhetzen« und ihn zum Schluß nicht selten fragen lassen, was er denn eigentlich gelesen habe, bzw. was denn da kommentiert werden sollte.

Diese sicherlich harten Worte?? sind dazu angetan, das Bild von der sogenannten syrischen Renaissanceliteratur des 12. Jahrhunderts zu Gunsten (oder: zu Ungunsten?) eines Sprechens vom beginnenden Niedergang eines epigonenhafte Züge annehmenden literarischen Syrertums im 12. Jahrhundert zu revidieren. Die Forschungsthese von A. Vóóbus bezüglich des »missing link«Charakters des literarischen Werks des Moses bar Kepha im Zusammenhang mit der Entwicklung der jakobitisch-bibelexegetischen Überlieferungsgeschichte, die noch an weiteren exegetischen Werken

exakt

zu

verifizieren

sein wird,

führt

somit

zu einem

völlig ver-

änderten Verständnis der syrisch-monophysitischen Bibelexegese, das das bisher wenig beachtete Werk des Moses bar Kepha sowohl als 2% [n meiner eingangs erwähnten (vgl. Anm. 11), zur Veröffentlichung anstehenden Arbeit über Moses BAR KEPHA wird mittels exakter Textvergleiche der Beweis hierfür geführt werden.

MOSES BAR KEPHA

71

entscheidendes Sammelbecken und gleichsam Kristallisationspunkt disparater vorgegebener Traditionen als auch wichtigstes literarisches Durchgangsstadium für die ausschlieBlich exzerptatorischen Arbeiten des Dionysios bar Salibi zu betrachten lehrt, deren literarische Bedeutung somit in erheblichem Maße relativiert wird.

THE

BIBLICAL

COMMENTARIES

OF

MOSES

BAR

KEPHA

Concrete evidence supports Vööbus’ thesis that the biblical commentaries of Moses bar Kepha, the versatile and prolific 9th Jacobite author, have a tradition-historical key function in the development of Syrian Monophysite exegesis. The commentaries are based chiefly on the writings of Aphrem, Jacob of Edessa, Philoxenus of Mabbug and Jacob of Sarug; they serve in turn as the source for later exegetes, notably Dionysios bar Salibi. The tradition of the natural science disciplines can be traced through Moses' commentary on the Six Days of Creation. The commentary on John reflects either some well-known Greek sources or Syriac sources which summarize the Greek tradition. The same development can be traced in the general introduction to Moses' commentary on the Four Gospels. One may conclude that Moses bar Kepha has compiled the available traditions on biblical books and topics with exemplary skill, while the subsequent exegetical writings of Dionysios bar Salibi are pure excerpts, omitting important parts and leaving the reader unsatisfied and puzzled.

BEOBACHTUNGEN AN ZWEI SYRISCHEN HANDSCHRIFTEN MIT KOMMENTAREN ZUM SYRISCHEN CORPUS DIONYSIACUM Gernot

WIESSNER

Göttingen, Deutsche Bundesrepublik

Für eine Editio maior critica der syrischen Übersetzung der Werke des Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita! kommt den erhaltenen syrischen Dionyskommentaren durch ihre zeitliche Nähe zu den ältesten Dionyshandschriften der syrischen Tradition eine große Bedeutung zu?. Im Folgenden sollen daher einige Feststellungen zu zwei syrischen Handschriften mit (anonymen) Kommentarresten mitgeteilt werden, zu den Handschriften Vat. syr. 107 und BrMus Add. 14,541 ?. Die Handschrift Vat. syr. 107 ist zum ersten Male durch Assemani beschrieben worden*. Die folgenden Feststellungen stellen nur eine Ergánzung und Korrektur der Ausführungen Assemanis dar, wollen also nicht den durch Assemani

erhobenen

Befund,

wenn

er nicht der

Korrektur bedarf, noch einmal wiederholen. Vat. syr. 107 ist Assemani zufolge ein 135 Folien umfassender Sammelkodex mit Bruchstücken verschiedener Váterschriften. Die Hauptmasse des Bestandes ist in alter Estrangelä-Schrift geschrieben und ' Eine derartige Ausgabe des syrischen Corpus Dionysiacum wird von mir vorbereitet im Auftrage der Patristischen Kommission der Westdeutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften. Im Folgenden: CD = Corpus Dionysiacum, DN = de Divinis Nominibus,

EH

=

de Ecclesiastica

Hierarchia,

CH

=

de Coelesti Hierarchia,

MTh

=

de

M ystica Theologia, Epp = Epistulae. ? Vgl. grundsätzlich aus der Literatur J.-M. Hornus, »Le Corpus Dionysien en Syriaque«, Parole de l'Orient | (1970), 69-93 (Literatur), G. WiESSNER, »Zur Handschriftenüberlieferung der syrischen Fassung des Corpus Dionysiacum« [Nachrichten der Akad. der Wiss. in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1972] (Göttingen 1972), 163-216. > Eine ausführliche Darstellung soll zur Kommentarüberlieferung in Kürze in den Abhandlungen der Göttinger Akademie erscheinen. * S. E. ἃ J.S. AssEMANI, Bibliothecae Apost. Vatic. Codium Manuscriptorum Catalogus (Roma

1756-9), III, 61.

74

G. WIESSNER

wird im Katalog daher in die Zeit vor das 8. Jh. datiert. Die Folien 81-114 (im Folgenden

mit neuer Zählung

foll. 80-113=

die Reste des hier interessierenden anonymen mentars zum CD, d.h. Lemmata aus dem CD geschlossenen Scholien und Glossen. Diese zufolge rund 700 Jahre vor Abfassung seines Jahrtausendwende,

geschrieben

worden

V) enthalten

syrischen Scholienkommit den ihnen jeweils anBlätter sollen Assemani Kataloges, also um die

sein;

sie

sind

heute

leider

stark beschnitten. Assemani identifizierte auf fol. 81 Lemmata aus MTh II und III, auf foll. 82 + 83 Lemmata aus EH II-VII und auf foll. 84-114 Lemmata aus DN II-VII. Dabei ordnete er fol. 82 hinter fol. 83 ein und fol. 90 (Lemmata aus DN

DN der foll. die lich

IT) vor fol. 87 (Lemmata aus

III). Identifizierungen von Büchern und Kapiteln des CD nach Antwerpener Dionys-Ausgabe wurden wohl von Assemani auf den 87r, 94v, TOSr und 111v notiert. In dieser Beschreibung ist V in Literatur eingegangen. Das Mißverständnis Baumstarks hinsichtder Datierung, von Sherwood übernommen, wurde von Hornus

korrigiert5. Assemanis Beschreibung von V ist leider nicht voliständig und auch nicht fehlerfrei. Hinsichtlich der Blattfolge von V muß erwähnt werden, daß in der Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana bereits der Versuch einer Korrektur der Zählung Assemanis unternommen worden ist. Ein Scriptor ordnete die Blátter neu und notierte die Textidentifizierungen nach Büchern, Kapiteln und Paragraphen des CD mit Bleistift auf den einzelnen Folien. Während Assemani seine Blattnummern im gesamten Kodex jeweils auf dem linken oberen Rand eines Recto anbrachte, notierte der Scriptor die von ihm hergestellte Reihenfolge mit Bleistift auf dem unteren Rand der Folien. V umfaßt jetzt die Folien 80113 der modernen Zählung. Verschiedene Blätter sind dabei der Zählung Assemanis gegenüber an einen anderen Ort geraten. Aber auch dieser Korrekturversuch ist nicht genau. Der Textbestand mit Lemmata aus dem CD setzt ein in V auf foll. 81-82 (= foll. 83 + 84 der Zählung Assemanis), foll. 83-84 (= foll. 85 + 84 Assemani) müssen vor fol. 80 (= fol. 81 Assemani) gerückt werden. Auch die Angaben Assemanis zur Schrift von V sind undeutlich. Mißverständlich ist z.B. seine Angabe, daß es sich bei Vat. syr. 107 um einen in Estrangelä geschriebenen Kodex handelt. Die Blätter von

V wurden

von

mindestens

getätigt. * HORNUS, op. cit. 79.

drei Händen

in Estrangelä

und

Sertö

75

CORPUS DIONYSIACUM

Übereinstimmend ordnen alle drei Schreiber den Kommentartext zweikolumnig an und verbinden Lemmata aus dem CD und Scholien durch syr. e» = hänau (den); auf fast allen Folien sind dabei die Randvorzeichnungen

für die Kolumnen

noch

erhalten.

In allen

drei

»Teilen« von V finden sich außerdem auf mehreren Folien am Rand von mindestens zwei verschiedenen Schreibern unterschiedlich lange Sertö-Glossen, die z. T. durch schwarze oder rote Indices dem

Kolum-

nentext zugeordnet werden. Der Textanteil der ersten Hand, die ein klares Sertó mit verháltnismässig kleiner Buchstabengröße schrieb, umfaßt die heutigen Folien 80-95 mit folgendem, von Assemanis Beobachtungen abweichendem Bestand an Bezugspartien aus dem CD mit dazugehórenden Scholien : foll. 81 + 82 = EH VII, 1-5 (= MPG 3, 553 B, 18-560 C, 26), foll. 83 + 84 = DN I, 1-4 (2 MPG 3, 585 A, 8-589 D, 46), foll. 80 + 85-95 = DN I, 411,2 (= MPG 3, 592 C, 41-681 B, 30, fol. 85 schlieBt unmittelbar an fol. 80 an!). Fol. 80r trágt die Lagenzáhlung Syr. estr. » = 100, ebenso fol. 93v die Schlußzählung der Lage syr. estr. », d.h. foll. 80-93 bildeten einmal die Lage 100-109 desjenigen Kodex, aus dem die Reste von V herrühren; fol. 94r trágt die Lagenzählung syr. estr. τῷ = 110, d.h. hier begann einmal die alte Lage 110-119. Rote Tinte wird nach syrischer Schreibertradition von der ersten Hand für Kapitel- und Zwischenüberschriften verwandt sowie für die Punkthaufen und für die Umrandungen und Kürzungsstriche über der Kürzel syr.m , jedoch, das sei für die Beschreibung der folgenden Partien von V vorweggenommen, mit charakteristischen Unterschieden zu der Art und Weise, in der die rote Tinte von den beiden anderen Hánden in V benutzt wird. Eine zweite Hand schrieb auf foll. 96-103 in einer klaren Estrangelà —unter Einschluß einiger Serto-Zeichen—den zusammenhängenden Kommentartext,

Lemmata und Scholien, zu DN

IV, 20-33 (=

Migne,

PG 3, 720 C, 41-733 A, 11). Die ehemals schwarze Tinte ist auf diesen Blättern unterschiedlich verblaßt, so daB einzelne Folien einen »Leopardenfell«-Charakter haben, die heutige Buchstabenfarbe reicht von hellbraun bis dunkelschwarz. Dieser Schreiber verwendet rote Tinte nur für Punkthaufen, nicht aber für den Kürzungsstrich von syr. m. Fol. 96r trágt wohl von der Hand des gleichen Schreibers die Lagenzählung syr. estr. 34 , d.h. hier begann einmal die alte Lage 140-149. Der von der dritten Hand herrührende Textbestand auf foll. 104113 mit dem Kommentar zu DN IV, 33-VII, 1 (2 MPG 3, 733 C, 12868 A, 11) ist wiederum in Serto geschrieben. Auch dieser Schreiber

76

G. WIESSNER

verwendet wie die erste Hand die rote Tinte für die Kapitelüberschriften, für Punkthaufen und für die Umrandung der Kürzel syr. m. Die Glossen dieser Folien weisen des öfteren starke Rasuren auf; auffällig ist auch, daß sie fol. 107v rot umrandet und auch mit roten Indices dem Kolumnentext zugeordnet werden. Auf fol. 104r findet sich die Lagenzählung syr. estr. ea = 150. Das heute erhaltene Blatt 113 in V war also einmal fol. 159 des alten Kodex; es weist jedoch erstaunlicherweise keine Schlußzählung auf. Die hier gegebene, Assemani ergänzende Beschreibung von V läßt sich in folgendem Urteil zusammenfassen : Die Blátter von V sind die Reste eines alten, einen vollstándigen Dionyskommentar enthaltenden Kodex, der einmal wohl rund 190 Blätter umfaßte. Dieser Umfang kann dadurch annáhernd genau rekonstruiert werden, weil das heutige Blatt 114 mit Texten aus DN VII, 1 einmal eindeutig das Blatt 159 des alten Kodex gewesen ist. Der auf es ehemals folgende, heute in Vat. syr. 107 nicht mehr vorhandene SchluBteil des DN-Kommentares sowie die Kommentare zu MTh und Epp werden nach dem statistischen Durchschnitt der Textverteilung in V wohl. kaum mehr Platz als 3 Lagen beansprucht haben. Der Kodex, aus dem die in V erhaltenen Folien stammen, steht eindeutig in der Tradition der syrischen Estrangelä-Handschriften und ist demnach sicherlich der Zeit vor der Jahrtausendwende zuzuordnen. Hierauf weist auch das Abwechseln der Estrangelä- mit der Sertö-Schrift hin, das sich leicht aus den Schreibund Diktatgewohnheiten einer syrischen Schreiberstátte um die Jahrtausendwende erklären läßt, vor dem allgemeineren Übergang von dem Estrangelä- zum Sertö-Duktus. Ohne einen genauen Beweis antre-

ten zu können, kann außerdem vermutet werden, daß der ursprüngliche Kodex eine Abschrift einer álteren Estrangela-Vorlage war. Vielleicht entspricht außerdem die heutige Lagenzählung in V der Zählung dieser Vorlage; in die Lagenzählung des Estrangela-Teils von V hat sich nàmlich eine Inkonsequenz eingeschlichen, indem fol. 96r als Blatt 140, fol. 104 als Blatt 150 erscheint, die Lage also anders als sonst in V nur mit 8 Blättern gezählt wird. Man kann vermuten, daß diese Inkonsequenz das Ergebnis einer schematischen Übertragung der Lagenzáhlung der Vorlage auf die entsprechenden Textseiten der Abschrift ist. Hinsichtlich des Dionystextes steht V eindeutig in der Tradition der sog. Phokas-Handschriften, wie schon Sherwood und Hornus hervorhoben. Die in V eindeutig bestimmbare Abfolge der Werke des CD entspricht der Anordnung in eben dieser Tradition. V ist damit, was den syrischen Dionystext angeht, ein weiterer Zeuge der Phokas-Tradition.

CORPUS DIONYSIACUM

77

Die Handschrift BrMus. Add. 14,541 ist durch W. Wright beschrieben worden®. Es handelt sich um einen modernen Sammelkodex, in dessen erstem Teil (foll. 1-38, Wright Nr. 630, im Folgenden = L) Folien, z.T. stark beschnitten, verschiedener Herkunft, Reste verschiedener Handschriften von Dionyskommentaren unterschiedlichen Umfangs, zusammengebunden sind. Alle Blätter werden von Wright

ins 9. Jh. datiert und sollen aus mindestens fünf verschiedenen Kodices stammen. Die heutige Anordnung von L ist, nach Ausweis einer Bleistiftzählung am jeweiligen oberen Folienrand, Ergebnis einer neuen Ordnung, bei der die Folien entsprechend der Abfolge der Werke im griechischen CD aneinandergefügt wurden. Die Identifizierung des Dionystextes wurde von Wright anhand der Handschrift BrMus. Add. 12,152 vorgenommen und mit Bleistift am Anfang und Ende jedes Bruchstücks notiert. Der

erste

zusammenhängende

Kommentartext

von

L

(foll.

1-10)

bietet Bezugsworte und Kommentar zu CH VII, 3-XV, 9 (= MPG 3, 209 A, 8-340 B, 30). Dionystext und Kommentar wurden zweikolumnig von mindestens drei Schreibern geschrieben. Von der ersten Hand

stammt

foll.

1-2r in klarem

Sertö

und mit weniger

Zeilen

pro

Kolumne als auf den folgenden Folien. Von einer zweiten Hand in klarer Estrangelä stammt der Text auf foll. 2va 1-b 5. An sie schließt sich unmittelbar

die dritte Hand

an (ab 2vb 6). Sie führt zuerst den

Estrangelä-Duktus bis zum Ende des von der zweiten Hand begonnenen Kommentars zu CH VIII fort. Im daran anschließenden Kommentar zu CH IX geht sie dann zur Sertö über und wird immer nachlässiger, sicherlich mit eine Folge der ab fol. 4v fehlenden Kolumnenvorzeichnungen. Auf foll. 7rb unten und 7va oben finden sich den Schriftspiegel überschreitende Textzeilen in einem anderen Duktus als dem der Kolumnen. Die Abfolge von Schreibern und Schriften ist sicherlich ein Beweis dafür, daB dieser Kommentarrest aus einer Handschrift vor der Jahrtausendwende stammt. Der Dionyskommentar ist auch in diesem Bruchstiick—von allen drei Hánden-—mit schwarzer Tinte geschrieben. Rote Tinte wird nach syrischer Schreibertradition, jedoch mit charakteristischen Unterschieden zwischen den drei Schreibern, für die Kapitelüberschriften und Schlußbemerkungen, für die am Blattrand oder auf dem Zwischenraum zwischen den Kolumnen angebrachten Kapitelzählungen und für die Punkthaufen verwandt. Die Verbindung zwischen den Bezugs6 W. WRIGHT, Catalogue (London 1870-2), II, SOIf.

of Syriac

Manuscripts

in

the

British

Museum,

3

vols.

78

G. WIESSNER

texten aus dem CD und den einzelnen Scholien des Kommentars erfolgt auch hier, wie in allen Kommentarresten von L, durch ein ihnen vorangestelltes syr. m (mit rotem Kürzungsstrich). Einzelne Folien enthalten neben dem Kolumnentext kurze Glossen verschiedener Hände. Auf fol. 4v werden sie mit roten Siglen dem Text zugeordnet, auf fol. 8v ist eine derartige Glosse rot umrandet.

Für unsere Fragestellung ist es bedeutsam, daß fol. Ir die Lagenzählung syr. estr. = = 20 trägt. Dies bedeutet nicht nur, daß dem heutigen Blatt 1 in L einmal 10 Folien vorausgegangen sein müssen. Die Lagenzählung kann auch darauf hinweisen, daß der Kodex, aus dem die Folien 1-10 herrühren, einmal der Phokas-Tradition zugeordnet gewesen sein muß, wenn in ihm der Kommentierung von CH einmal ein Kommentar zu EH gefolgt ist. Leider läßt sich allein aus der Analyse von foll. 1-10 nicht genau feststellen, ob diese Blätter aus einem Kommentar-Kodex zum gesamten CD stammen. Fol. 10v weist nach den Schlußworten des letzten Kommentarstücks zu CH unter der linken Kolumne einen leeren Raum von rund 10 Zeilen auf;

falls dem Kommentar zu CH einmal ein solcher zu EH

gefolgt sein

sollte, dann hätte dieser auf dem ersten Blatt der folgenden Lage, syr. estr.

ὃς

=

30r des

heute

nur

in

Bruchstücken

erhaltenen

Kodex

begonnen. Der zweite

Kommentarrest

mit dazugehórendem 7 (=

MPG

von

Kommentar

L (foll.

11-18) enthält

zu EH

II, Theoria

3, 400 C, 42-436 A, 3). Auch

Bezugstexte

3-III, Theoria

hier sind die Bezugspartien

aus dem Dionystext und der Kommentar zweikolumnig, und zwar in einer sehr klaren Sertó von einer Hand, geschrieben. Die Kolumnenvorzeichnungen sind überall erhalten. Auf den Blattrándern und auf den Zwischenräumen zwischen den Kolumnen finden sich manchmal Glossen, die z.T. aus fast gleicher Zeit wie der Kommentarrest herrühren kónnen, z.T. aber auch, der Tinte und dem Duktus zufolge,

weit jünger sind. Sie werden teilweise durch Indices dem Kolumnentext zugeordnet.

Die Verwendung

der roten

Tinte bei Punkthaufen

und Kürzungen ist von der im ersten Kommentarrest (foll. 1-10) verschieden.

Fol.

17v trägt außerdem

Durchschnittliche

Größe

eine junge

des Schriftbildes,

arabische

Zeilenzahl,

Aufschrift.

Schriftduktus,

Verwendung der roten Tinte bei Punkthaufen und Kürzungsstrichen, Existenz und Art der Randglossen stimmen mit den entsprechenden Charakteristika der Folien

80-95

von

V überein, die bei der Analyse

von V der sog. ersten Hand zugeschrieben wurden. Obwohl ein Vergleich von L und V durch parallelen Augenschein nicht vorgenom-

CORPUS

DIONYSIACUM

79

men werden konnte, spricht alles für die Annahme, daß es sich bei L foll. 11-18 um Blätter handelt, die einmal mit den Folien des Dionyskommentares in V zusammen zu einem Kodex gehört haben. Die Londoner Folien 11-18 stellen dann einen weiteren Teil der Handschrift und des Dionyskommentares dar, von dem die Hauptmasse zu EH und DN in V erhalten ist. Das dritte Kommentarbruchstück von L (foll. 19-24) enthält Textbezüge mit dazugehörenden Scholien zu DN IV, 2-12 (= MPG 3, 696 B, 12-710 B, 27). Dionytext

und

Kommentar

sind hier von einem

Schreiber in einer frühen sehr klaren Sertö-Schrift unter Einschub von Estrangelà geschrieben. Für diesen Schreiber sind auffállige Umrandungen um die Kürzel m und die kräftigen Punkthaufen—unter Verwendung von roter Tinte—charakteristisch. Zwei Folien (foll. 19v und fol. 22v) haben je eine kurze Glosse (ohne roten

Index) auf dem

rechten Blattrand in einer nachlässigen späten Sertö-Schreibung. Auf fol. 20r findet sich eine jetzt auf dem Kopf stehende noch jüngere

umfangreiche Sertö-Glosse, deren Text jedoch bei der nachträglichen Beschneidung des Blattes Ζ.Τ. verloren gegangen ist. Ein viertes Kommentarbruchstück in L bieten foll. 25 + 26. Fol. 25 trägt dabei Bezugsworte des Dionystextes und Scholien zu DN IV, 9-10 (= MPG 3, 706 A, 9-D, 48), fol. 26 zu DN IV, 20 (= MPG 3, 720 A, 6-C, 42). Der Text ist auch hier zweikolumnig angeordnet und von

einer

Hand

in

Estrangelä

unter

EinschluB

von

Sertö-Zeichen

geschrieben. Rote Tinte wird nur für die Punkthaufen, nicht aber für den Kürzungsstrich von syr. m verwandt. Auf den Blattrándern und auf dem Zwischenraum befinden sich jüngere Serto-Glossen, die durch Indices dem Kolumnentext zugeordnet werden. Fol. 25r bietet außerdem—ohne Verwendung von roter Tinte und damit unterschieden von fol.

Ir—eine

Lagenzählung

syr.

estr. Xe

=

130.

Hieraus

läßt

sich

schließen, daß auch der Kodex, zu dem diese beiden Blätter einmal gehörten, eindeutig der Phokas-Tradition zugeordnet gewesen sein muß. Im Anschluß an unsere Feststellungen zum zweiten Kommentarrest in L ist es sicherlich nicht mehr erstaunlich, daß die Folien 25 + 26 in der durchschnittlichen Größe des Schriftbildes, Zeilenzahl, Schriftduktus, Art der Randnotizen, vor allem aber auch in der Art und Weise, in der ihr Schreiber die rote Tinte für die Satzzeichen verwendet, mit den entsprechenden Charakteristika der Estrangela-Hand in V (foll. 96-103) übereinstimmen. Wir betrachten diese beiden Folien daher ebenfalls als Reste desjenigen Kodex, zu dem auch V gehórt hat. Diese Vermutung wird durch die Lagenzählung in L fol. 25r = 130

80

G. WIESSNER

und auf V fol. 96r = 140 gestützt. Der statistischen Verteilung des Kommentars auf den Folien von V würde es genau entsprechen, daB die Kommentierung von DN IV, 9-20 einmal einen Raum von 10 Folien umfaBte, ein Textbestand zwischen den beiden Lagenzählungen in der Londoner und in der Vatikan-Handschrift, von dem heute nur die Textreste auf foll. 25 + 26 in L noch vorhanden sind. Auch die stark zerstörten beiden Folien 27 + 28 mit Lemmata und Kommentar zu DN V, 9-VII, 1 (= MPG 3, 825 A, 7-868 A, 12) sind in alter

Serto-Schrift

(mit

Einschüben

von

Estrangelä)

geschrieben.

Auffällig sind auf beiden Folien die kräftigen Schreibungen der roten Schlußformeln zu den einzelnen Kapiteln und der roten Kapitelüberschriften. Ähnlich wie im ersten Kommentarrest von L (foll. 1-10) wird auch hier die Kapitelzählung aus DN mit Estrangelä-Buchstaben auf dem Zwischenraum der Kolumnen notiert. Der Schriftduktus und die Charakteristika bei der Verwendung der roten Tinte für die Punkthaufen und die Umrahmungen der Kürzel e» entsprechen denen der Folien 19-24, in der Durchbrechung des Schrifttyps durch Textzeilen, die den Schriftspiegel der Kolumnen überschreiten (fol. 27vb), enthält dieser Kommentarrest ein wesentliches Charakteristikum, das auch im

1. Bruchstück

von

L

(vgl.

foll.

7rb

und

7va)

enthalten

ist; die

Hand dieser Zeilen scheint auf fol. 27v und 7r identisch zu sein. Trotz geringfügiger Unterschiede in der Kolumnenbreite und in der Zeilenzahl pro Kolumne zwischen fol. 19-24 und fol. 27 + 28 wird es daher richtig sein, foll. 1-10, 19-24 und 27 + 28 zusammenzuordnen und als Reste eines Kodex zu betrachten. Der sechste Kommentarrest in L (foll. 29-38) bietet Textbezüge und Scholien zu DN IX, 9-XII, 6 (= MPG 3, 916 C, 36-984 A, 12) und zu MTh

I, 1 (2

MPG

3, 997 A, 1-B, 14). Auch

auf diesen Folien

sind Dionystext und Kommentar zweikolumnig geschrieben und zwar von

einer

Hand

in einer sehr

klaren

Serto-Schrift.

Rote

Tinte

wird

für Kapitelüberschriften und Punkthaufen, nicht jedoch, ebenso wie in den Kommentarstücken auf fol. 25 + 26, für den Kürzungsstrich in syr. o» verwandt. Auf den Blattrándern und auf dem Kolumnenzwischenraum

finden

sich

wiederum

Sertö-Glossen,

von

denen

die

meisten durch schwarze Indices dem Kolumnentext zugeordnet werden. Fol. 29r bietet die Lagenzáhlung syr. » = 170, d.h. dieses Blatt war einmal der Beginn der Lage foll. 170-179. Die Folien 29-38 stimmen in der durchschnittlichen Größe des Schriftbildes, Zeilenzahl und Schriftduktus, in der Indizierung und Schriftform der Glossen, in der Form der Satzzeichen und in der Verwendung der roten Tinte,

CORPUS DIONYSIACUM

81

aber auch in Form der Lagenzáhlung mit den entsprechenden Charakteristika der Folien 104-113 von V überein, die in dieser Handschrift von der dritten Hand geschrieben worden sind. Ohne auch hier durch parallelen Augenschein den endgültigen Beweis antreten zu kónnen, kann daher doch festgestellt werden, daB auch die Folien 29-38 von L mit groDer Wahrscheinlichkeit ehemals mit dem Restkommentar in V zusammen zu einem Kodex gehört haben. Diese Vermutung wird, wie bei den

Folien 25 +

26, durch die Lagenzählung auf fol. 29r der

Londoner Handschrift bestätigt: Die letzte Lagenzählung syr. ms = 150 findet sich in V auf fol. 104; die sich daran anschließenden Folien bis 113 sind die Folien 151-159 des alten Kodex, auf denen der Dionystext zu DN

VII,

1 kommentiert wird. Nach dem

statistischen Durch-

schnitt der Verteilung von Text und Kommentar auf diesen Folien müßte der Text von DN VII, 1 (Ende)-DN IX, 9 rund 10 Folien beansprucht haben, d.h. der gesamte Text und Kommentar zu DN IV, 34-IX, 9 rund 20 Blätter. Dieses statistische Mittel würde genau zu der Lagenzáhlung in L fol. 29r passen. Diese Seite wäre also einmal die Seite 170 desjenigen alten Kodex gewesen, zu dem auch der Kommentarrest in V gehórt hat. Das letzte Blatt fol. 38 von L wäre dann das Blatt 179 dieses alten Kodex gewesen. Die von uns bei der Besprechung von V geäußerte Vermutung, daB der alte Kodex, aus dem die Blätter dieser Handschrift stammen, einmal rund 190 Folien gehabt hat, wird so durch den Befund an den Londoner Handschriftenresten bestätigt. Unsere Beobachtungen an der Londoner Handschrift L lassen sich im Unterschied zu den Feststellungen Wrights dahingehend zusammenfassen, daß wir es hier nicht mit Resten von 5, sondern vielleicht nur von 2 Handschriften mit Kommentaren zum syrischen CD der Phokastradition zu tun haben. Die Hauptmasse des in L überlieferten Bestandes wird dabei aus demselben Kodex herrühren, von dem ein anderer Rest in V erhalten ist. Von diesem Kodex (und Kommentar) sind die Kommentarreste auf foll. L 1-10, 19-24 und 27 + 28 zu

unterscheiden.

Diese

Blätter stammen

nicht

nur

aus

einer

anderen

Handschrift, sondern sie enthalten auch einen anderen Kommentar, wie aus unseren Ausgaben zum Textbestand und aus den sich daraus ergebenden Überschneidungen im Dionystext und im Kommentar hervorgeht. Alle beiden Kommentare sind hinsichtlich ihres Dionystextes jedoch eindeutig der Phokastradition zuzuordnen.

8

G. WIESSNER

OBSERVATIONS ON TWO SYRIAC MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING COMMENTARIES ON THE CORPUS DIONYSIACUM Wiessner is preparing a critical edition of the Syriac translation of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. The extant Syriac commentaries on Dionysius, which are close in time to the oldest Dionysius-manuscripts, are therefore of great importance. This essay examines two manuscripts, Vat. syr. 107 and Br. Mus. Add. 14,541 (London), which contain remnants of anonymous commentaries. By analysis of the mss (e.g. date, physical appearance, order of pages, diversity of script and handwriting,

use

of

black

and

red

ink,

recent

editorial

pencilmarks,

etc.),

corrections can be made to the descriptions by earlier scholars, S. E. & J.S. Assemani and W. Wright. It is probable, indeed, that the Vatican ms and parts of the London ms originally belonged together in a single codex. Remaining pages of the London ms contain a different commentary. Both commentaries witness to the "Phocas" text-tradition.

PART

EXEGETICAL,

TWO

TEXTUAL

LINGUISTIC

AND

STUDIES

A NOTE ON

ECCLESIASTES

12:12a

P. A.H. De Boer Leiden, The Netherlands

Jerome's translation of the Hebrew text yp Px 1297 OM DO may nm ... ne requiras faciendi plures libros nullus est finis made Hugo Grotius Observe : Si hoc eä aetate dixit, quid nunc diceret, si nostras bibliothecas inspiceret!? Now that in our age libraries have resorted to microfilms and microcards as substitutions for books, the truth of Eccles. 12:12a seems unshakable. But is it indeed true that the text refers to the writing of many books? I think there is reason to doubt this. Jerome's rendering of the Hebrew text is substantially the same as that of the Septuagint: ... φυλάξαι tod ποιῆσαι βιβλία πολλά" οὐκ ἔστιν περασμός, the only difference being that the Latin version has the pausa at the same spot as the Masoretic text. Both versions render na", an adverb frequently used in Ecclesiastes, by an adjective, many (books);

both

also

understand

the

phrase

Ὁ

mí»

as

to make

books. Now ποιεῖν is the verb used for the writing of poetry while that for the writing of prose is generally (συγ)γράφειν. So there is reason to wonder what was the intention of the literal translation of ney by ποιεῖν. The pupil—called the son in the terminology of the teaching of worldly wisdom—is warned, clare et distincte, ^m , against 'the making of many books because such is without end', runs the usual paraphrase of the text. The Syriac version had already understood DD mtv as the writing of books : Kram han

rei

The Western translations show hardly any variation : ‘faire beaucoup de livres’, or, ‘faire des livres en grand nombre’; ‘making of many books’; ‘das viele Büchermachen’. Some German and Dutch translators prefer ‘schreiben’, 'schrijven' (to write), to ‘machen’, ! Annotata ad Vetus Testamentum (Paris 1644), I, p. 540. ? K. BUDDE in Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments

II, ed.

E.

‘maken’?.

KAUTZSCH

und

A. BERTHOLET (Tübingen 1923); K. GALLING in Handbuch zum Alten Testament XVIII (Tübingen 1940). H.W. HERTZBERG in Kommentar zum Alten Testament XVII, 4

86

P.A.H. DE BOER

Gordis explains his translation with ‘the composing of many books’? but this does not differ from the usual rendering. In Midrash Rabba, Eccles. 12, 12, | the question which books could have been meant in the phrase o™po nwy is answered as follows: they are the books excluded from the rabbinic canon, such as the Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Ben Tagla. If one sticks to the meaning ‘to write’, influenced by the term ‘books’ and the Greek ‘poetry writing’, the phrase o~po mtv does not mean according to the midrash ‘to write, compose books’ but to copy or transcribe books. A similar remark can be made on Barton’s suggestion that ‘heathen libraries’ should be considered^. If this is what the ‘writings’ refer to, then the text does not deal with the writing, composing of these books. Drusius must have felt the same hesitation, explaining faciendi libros with comparandi, emendi 5. In his well-known book, The Legacy of Canaan?, John Gray has produced arguments for an entirely new translation. His translation is inspired by an article by M.J. Dahood, who presumes CanaanitePhoenician influence also in Ecclesiastes’. Dahood refers to a Ugaritic text wherein the terms spr and Ag occur both with the meaning ‘number, reckoning'. Gray thinks that in Eccles. 12:12 there is no reference to 'the making of books ... and much study' and suggests the translation, In much casting of accounts there is no end, And much reckoning is a weariness of the flesh. Although the Ugaritic text with spr and Ag, qua time and place, is very far away from Ecclesiastes, this translation has a clear meaning and maintains the connection between verse 12a and 12b. The warning against

too much

attention

fit into the passage. in this context,

and

The

to financial activities, however,

saying

moreover,

would

I do

not

does

be an

independent

know

a suitable

not

maxim

place

for

it in Ecclesiastes’ book. (Gütersloh 1963); B. ALFRINK (Nijmegen 1939); J. VAN DER PLOEG, Der Prediger (Roermond 1953); New translation. Kath. Bijbel Stichting (Boxtel 1975). 3 R. Gorois, Koheleth—the Man and His World (New York 1950), p. 344. * G.A. Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on ... Ecclesiastes, International Critical Commentary 18 (New York 1908). * J. DRustus, Annotationes in Coheleth. Opus Posthumum (Amstelrodami 1635). He continues, however, aut componendi, conscribendi. $ Vetus Testamentum [Supplements v. 5] (Leiden 1957), p. 201 (2nd ed. 1965, p. 275).

? Biblica 33 (1952), pp. 30-52 and 191-221.

ECCLESIASTES 12:12a

87

The Aramaic version offers some interesting traits. The rendering is paraphrastic and serves a didactic purpose. The text is as follows

RN

mans

porn)

mo

nó

ἽΝ Ὁ

xnasın “po

T2»D5

ἽὝΠΤΕ

The term ibo is explained as ‘books of wisdom’. The phrase npo nwy is repeated in different words to exclude any misunderstanding, 'namely being industriously engaged in lessons’. The verb nt» is literally rendered by 739 , to do, make. There are not sufficient grounds, in my opinion, to suppose that the Aramaic "29 also possesses the meaning 'to write' as suggested by Ginsberg?. He refers to line 22

of Papyrus 9 of the Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, edited by Kraeling?. In Hoftijzer's Dictionnaire!? the same suggestion has been made, translating the line : 'ce document, que j'ai fait (i.e. écrit) pour toi’. Kraeling himself is more reluctant. He translates the line of the document in which the owner of a house is disposing of a part of it by will to his daughter by ‘... this document which I made out to thee’. In a note he suggests a Pacel meaning, ‘prepared? !! The writing of documents, however, is always expressed by the verb 3n3, also in this papyrus. As far as I know tay never possesses the meaning 'to write'. In the passage quoted, the owner of the house is not, I think, attending to the writing of the document, but to the legality, the validity of the disposition written down in it. In my opinion the correct paraphrasing of the text is that no other document than the one with which he is engaged in pinning down his daughter's rights can be brought out against her !?. The Hebrew verb nt» with npo as the object does not have the meaning ‘to write, make, compose books’. Phrases like Dope ney ‘to do acts of judgment, act judicially’ (Exod. 12:12, Num. 33:4, Ezek. 5:10, 15, 11:9, 16:41, etc.); "m mte» , ‘to act mightily’ (I Sam. 14:48,

etc.),

‘to do

efficiently’

(Prov.

31:29);

Pax rte»

‘to

mourn’

(Ezek. 24:17) point to the possibility of rendering Ebd ne» with ‘to read’ or, ‘to study books’, ‘be at work on books’, ‘work at books’. The midrash and the Aramaic paraphrase indicate the right meaning of the phrase, I think. It seems to me possible that the Septuagint * H.L. GINSBERG, Koheleth (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv-Jerusalem 1961). p. 135. * E.G. KRAELING.

19 CLF. (Leiden

JEAN

The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papıri (New Haven

et J. HorrUZER,

1953). p. 238.

Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques

de

l'ouest

1965), p. 200.

!! Op. cit., p. 243. 12 On 329 see also R.A. BOWMAN,

Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis (Chicago

1970). p. 65: "hdw... "he worked’ or ‘he used’ the object. See also ibid.. pp. 39f.

88

P.A.H. DE BOER

version shows a Hebraism. Or did the translator have a different Hebrew text, compare the Peshitta version? The plain reading of the Syrian version, however, more probably is an elucidation of the obscure Greek. If one rejects John Gray’s ingenious rendering and chooses the meaning ‘writings’, ‘books’ for apo in this text—books of wisdom according to the Targumic explanation—then the following translation may be worth consideration : (Furthermore, without end,

my

son.) be warned:

much

working

at books

is

(and much reading aloud is weariness of the flesh). This rendering is very close to R. B. Y. Scott's translation in his commentary : 'Beyond this, my son, be warned; book learning is an endless occupation (and much study is exhausting)' ! 3. It is regrettable that the Notes added to the translation of the Anchor Bible Series are very short. They often do not contain the arguments for the proposed translation. In our case we read only: ‘Literally "much use of books is endless". The New English Bible considers the first adverbial mann to be superfluous but except for this omission ex-

plains the verse similarly. Its rendering is: ‘One further warning, my son;

the use

of books

is endless

(and

much

study

is wearisome)!*.

Professor Vóóbus has flung Ecclesiastes' warning to the winds. His work on documents, manuscripts often discovered by himself in far away regions, is indefatigable and we, his fellow students, are grateful for his contributions.

13 R.B.Y. Scort, p. 256.

Proverbs

and

'* The late Professor THEOPHILE Hebrew

Bible’,

Journal

Ecclesiastes,

J. MEEK

of Biblical Literature

lation ΟΥ̓ ΘΟ ΠΩΣ is ‘to make

use

Anchor

observed 79 (1960),

of books’.

His

Bible

18 (New

York

1965).

in an article, ‘Translating the p.

335.

that

translation

the correct

of the whole

trans-

sen-

tence. however. is different : ‘Be well instructed from them. my son, to make much use of books without end and to study diligently until the body is weary’. O. Loretz

follows MrtK's rendering of verse Auslegung der Bücher Jona, p. 185.

Rut,

12a in Gotteswort und menschliche Hoheslied und Qohelet

(Freiburg

im

Erfahrung. eine Breisgau

1963),

UN MIDRASH D’EXODE 4, 24-26 CHEZ APHRAATE ET EPHREM DE NISIBE Antoine GUILLAUMONT Paris, France

«Il arriva qu'en chemin, à l’auberge, Iahvé vint à sa rencontre et chercha à le faire mourir. Alors Sippora prit un silex et elle coupa le prépuce de son fils, puis elle toucha ses pieds et elle dit: “Tu es pour moi un époux de sang’. Il se retira d’aupres de lui. C'est alors qu'elle dit : ‘Un époux de sang pour la circoncision'». La difficulté qu'offre l'interprétation de ces versets, Exode 4, 24-26, est bien connue des exégétes : «l'un des textes les plus obscurs de la Bible», selon l'un des plus récents commentateurs de l'Exode!. Le texte lui-méme n'est pas clair: Moise n'est pas nommé; qui est désigné par le suffixe à valeur possessive dans «ses pieds»? Mais surtout

quel

est

le sens

de

cette

«scéne

mystérieuse»

(Dhorme)??

L'histoire des interprétations anciennes de ces versets a été retracée naguére par G. Vermes?. C'est un petit complément à cette histoire que nous voulons apporter en hommage au Professeur A. Vööbus qui, parmi ses nombreuses contributions à l'étude de la littérature syriaque, a spécialement étudié les rapports de la Peshitta et des Targums et à qui on doit la découverte récente de la version syro-hexaplaire du Pentateuque. De l'enquête menée par G. Vermes sur les principales versions anciennes—-Septante, targum d'Onkelos, targum fragmentaire, PseudoJonathan—se dégagent deux constatations. Ces versions présentent de

! F. MicHAËLI, Le Livre de l'Exode, chätel 1974), p. 60.

Commentaire

de l'Ancien

Testament

2 (Neu-

? Plusieurs exégétes modernes pensent que cet épisode, inséré artificiellement dans le récit du retour de Moise en Egypte, est le reste d'un conte étiologique sur les origines, madianites, de la circoncision; il s'agissait primitivement de la circoncision de Moise, et non de son fils. Cette thése, exposée surtout par G. Beer, Exodus (Tübingen 1939), a été admise par bien d'autres (en voir la liste dans MICHAELI, op. cit, p. 61, n. I).

> Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden 1961), p. 178-92.

90

A. GUILLAUMONT

cet épisode une interprétation identique, qu'on peut tenir pour l'interprétation traditionnelle dans le judaisme: Moise est attaqué par Iahvé—ou, plus exactement, par l'Ange du Seigneur (Septante et Onkelos) ou l'Ange de la mort,

le Destructeur

(targum

fragmentaire,

pseudo-Jonathan)—et menacé de mort. Sippora circoncit alors son fils et Moise est sauvé par la vertu du sang de la circoncision. Mais ces mémes versions, sur un point essentiel, se séparent et se répartissent en deux groupes. La Septante et Onkelos ne disent pas pour quelle raison le Seigneur a ainsi menacé la vie de Moise. Les targums représentants de la tradition palestinienne, targum fragmentaire, pseudoJonathan, et, de méme, le Neophyti, en donnent, eux, la raison. Sippora l'explique à l'Ange en présentant aux pieds de celui-ci le prépuce de son fils : c'est parce que l'enfant n'avait pas été circoncis; Moise, explique-t-elle, voulait le circoncire, mais son beau-pére, Jethro, ne le lui permit pas; le pseudo-Jonathan précise qu'il s'agit de Gershom, le fils ainé, car le fils puiné, Eliézer, avait été circoncis par suite d'un accord survenu à ce sujet entre les deux hommes. Sippora sauve la vie de Moise en réparant la faute qui avait été commise. Une explication analogue se retrouve chez Ephrem de Nisibe. dans son Commentaire de l'Exode^. Voici une traduction, aussi littérale que possible, du passage. «Or, comme ils étaient dans l'hótellerie, le Seigneur vint à la rencontre de Moise et chercha à le tuer, parce qu'il avait négligé la circoncision, à Madian, pour l'un de ses fils, qui n'avait pas été circoncis. Parce que, depuis le jour oü la parole lui avait été adressée sur l'Horeb, il ne s'était pas uni à sa femme, celle-ci était d'humeur chagrine, et, parce qu'elle n'avait pas cru pleinement à sa parole, elle était jugée à cause de cela?; lui, de son cóté, il lui faisait des reproches parce qu'elle s'était opposée à la circoncision de son fils. Comme ils avaient passé la nuit dans ces sentiments, voici que l'Ange se manifesta pour ces deux raisons, en donnant à penser qu'il s'était manifesté seulement à cause de la circoncision. C'est, en effet, pour que ne soit pas tourné en dérision le voyage de Moise, parce qu'il avait négligé la circoncision sans aucune nécessité, alors que les Hébreux ne l'avaient pas négligée malgré la mort de leurs enfants, qu'il [= l'Ange] se

* IV,

ToNNEAU

4, Sancti

[CSCO

Ephraem

Syri

in Genesim

et

in

Exodum

Commentarii,

éd.

R. M.

152, Syr. 71] (1955), p. 132-3; trad. latine (153, Syr. 72] p. 113.

> Cf. (?) Jean 3, 18 (Peshitta).

EXODE 4, 24-26

9

manifesta avec colere contre Moise®. Qui devait-il craindre? Dieu qui avait ordonné la circoncision, ou l'épouse [litt. la cóte] qui faisait obstacle à la circoncision? Mais la femme, quand elle vit que Moise allait mourir parce qu'elle avait négligé la circoncision, au sujet et à cause de quoi il s'était querellé avec elle le soir, alors elle prit un silex et, en tremblant à la vue de l'Ange, elle circoncit son fils, elle le laissa aspergé de son sang, elle saisit les pieds de l'Ange et elle dit: ‘J'ai un époux de sang! Ne cause pas d'affliction le jour oü l'on féte la eirconcision!’ Parce que ce fut une grande joie le jour où Abraham circoncit Isaac, elle dit : 'J'ai, moi aussi, un époux de sang! Si tu ne le fais pas à cause de moi qui ai circoncis mon fils de mes mains ni à cause de Moise, fais-le à cause du commandement méme de la circoncision qui a été institué’. » Voici, d'autre part, le texte qu'Ephrem commente, c'est-à-dire celui de la Peshitta : «Or il arriva que Moise était en chemin, dans l'hótellerie, et le Seigneur vint à sa rencontre et chercha à tuer Moise. Alors Sippora prit un silex et coupa le prépuce de son fils; elle saisit ses pieds et elle dit: ‘J’ai un époux de sang!’ Et il le laissa. Alors elle dit: ‘Un époux de sang pour la circoncision!" » Comme on le voit, ce texte différe assez peu du texte massorétique et il n'a pu en rien orienter le commentaire d'Ephrem. L'influence des traditions exégétiques sur ce dernier est évidente. Dans la Peshitta et, à sa suite, chez Ephrem, il est précisé que c'est «le Seigneur» qui attaqua Moise, mais dans son exégése Ephrem lui substitue «l'Ange», substitution qui se retrouve dans la Septante et les targums. D'autre part, la Peshitta n'explicite pas plus que l'hébreu à qui renvoie le possessif dans l'expression «ses pieds»; Ephrem précise que ce sont les pieds de l'Ange que saisit Sippora, et, ici encore, il est en accord avec la Septante (oü cette précision est suggérée par le contexte) et avec les

targums. Mais ce qui est le plus remarquable dans le commentaire d'Ephrem, ce sur quoi aussi il insiste le plus, c'est qu'une explication est donnée de l'attaque mystérieuse du Seigneur contre Moise, et cette explication donne la clé de l'interprétation de l'épisode: c'est parce que l'enfant de Moise et de Sippora n'était pas circoncis que Moise

* Allusion est faite, dans cette phrase obscure, au meurtre des fils des Hébreux ordonné par Pharaon (Ex. 1, 16): la circoncision permettait de les reconnaitre. EPHREM partage l'opinion d'aprés laquelle les Hébreux, en Égypte. circoncisaient leurs enfants; c'est ainsi que Moise lui-méme avait été circoncis. /n Ex. 11,4 (TONNEAU), p. 127.

92

A. GUILLAUMONT

est menacé de mort. Sippora le comprend aussitöt, et c'est pourquoi elle circoncit son fils et, ce faisant, elle sauve la vie de son époux. Sur ce point, qui est le plus important, Ephrem est en accord avec le targum fragmentaire, le pseudo-Jonathan et le targum Neophyti, c’est-à-dire avec les targums palestiniens, mais non plus avec la Septante et Onkelos, qui ne mentionnent pas la raison pour laquelle Moise avait été attaqué. Il convient cependant de relever une différence entre l'explication fournie par Ephrem et celle que donnent les targums palestiniens. D'aprés ces derniers, l'enfant n'avait pas été circoncis parce que Jéthro, le beau-pére de Moise—le prétre de Madian—s'y était opposé ". Chez Ephrem, c'est Sippora elle-méme qui s'était opposée à la circoncision de son fils; elle se sent donc plus spécialement coupable et elle répare sa faute. Un peu plus haut dans son Commentaire, à propos d'Exode, 2, 21-22, Ephrem précise les circonstances de ce refus? : «(Moise) épousa donc Sippora et eile lui enfanta deux fils. Il circoncit l'un (d'eux), mais l'autre, elle ne lui permit pas de le circoncire?. Son esprit, en effet, était fier à cause de son père et de ses fréres et, si elle consentit à étre la femme de Moise, elle ne consentit pas à partager sa foi. Elle était fille de prétres, elle avait été nourrie des viandes sacrifiées et était habituée à adorer des dieux nombreux. Aussi ne lui donna-t-elle pas les deux, sans lui refuser non plus les deux : elle en donna un pour que par lui füt continuée la circoncision d'Abraham et elle refusa l'autre pour que par lui füt transmise l'incirconcision de la maison de son pére». L'explication ici donnée rapproche le point de vue d'Ephrem de celui des targums palestiniens : si Sippora a refusé de circoncire Pun de ses fils, c'est à cause de son pére et par fidélité à la religion de ses ancétres. Au grief que Moise fait à sa femme de n'avoir pas laissé circoncire son fils, Ephrem ajoute en contrepartie, dans cette querelle entre époux qui se passe la nuit à l'hótellerie, un grief de Sippora à Moise : celui-ci, depuis que Dieu lui avait parlé, refusait de s'unir

7 Moise, explique Sippora à l'Ange dans le targum fragmentaire et le Neophyti, voulait circoncire l'enfant, mais son beau-pére ne le lui permit pas. Méme explication dans le PSEUDO-JONATHAN, mais donnée directement par le narrateur. * II, 8 (TONNEAU), p. 128-9 (trad. lat., p. 109-10).

? «L'un ... l'autre», et non pas «le premier ... le second»: l'assertion d'EPHREM n'est donc pas nécessairement différente de celle du PsEUDO-JONATHAN, selon qui c'est Gershom,

l'ainé, qui n'avait pas été circoncis;

d'un accord entre Moise et son beau-pere.

Eliezer,

le puiné,

l'avait été, par suite

EXODE 4, 24-26

93

à elle. Les targums ne disent rien de tel, mais Ephrem se fait ici l'écho d'une tradition juive, bien attestée, sur la continence de Moise aprés

sa vocation prophétique 10. L'exégése d'Ephrem rendant Sippora responsable du fait que l'enfant n'avait pas été circoncis n'est sürement pas chez lui simple opinion personnelle, née de sa seule imagination. C'est une tradition qu'il a recueillie. Nous en avons la preuve par Aphraate, chez qui nous retrouvons, de facon allusive, un écho de cette méme tradition. Dans un long développement de sa sixième «démonstration», le «sage de Perse» énumére, d'aprés la Bible, tous les hommes

furent entrainés à mal agir à cause d'une

qui, depuis Adam,

femme;

il en arrive

à

Moise: «Moise fut envoyé pour délivrer son peuple d'Égypte et il emmena avec lui la conseillere de crimes; le Seigneur vint à la rencontre de Moise et chercha à le tuer, jusqu'à ce qu'il eut renvoyé sa femme à Madian»!!. Rien dans le texte biblique ne permet de justifier l'expression «conseillère de crimes» (mälkat sanyätä) appliquée à Sippora; cette appellation ne peut s'expliquer que par une tradition selon laquelle Sippora avait empéché Moise de circoncire leur enfant, aucun autre «crime» à elle imputable n'étant connu par ailleurs. D'autre part, on ne peut expliquer la rencontre entre Aphraate et Ephrem par une influence de l'un sur l'autre. Une influence, en effet, du Commentaire d'Ephrem sur Aphraate est chronologiquement exclue, les dix premiéres «démonstrations» de celui-ci ayant été composées en 336-337, selon le témoignage méme de leur auteur !?, et le Commentaire d'Ephrem ayant été rédigé durant les dix derniéres années que celui-ci passa à Edesse, c'est-à-dire entre 363 et 373. On ne peut non plus admettre que la simple allusion, trop peu explicite, d'Aphraate ait pu inspirer le commentaire développé et circonstancié d'Ephrem. De toute évidence, il s'agit là de deux témoignages, indépendants l'un de l'autre, d'une tradition exégétique qu'ils ont l'un et l'autre recueillie. La tradition exégétique attestée par Ephrem et Aphraate rejoint, pour l'essentiel, celle qui est transmise dans les targums palestiniens : 19 Voir notre article, «A propos du célibat des Esseniens». dans Hommages à Andre Dupont-Sommer. éd. A. CAQUOT et M. PHILONENKO (Paris 1971), p. 395-404. "ι΄ Dem. VI, 3, éd. J. PARISOT, Patrologia Syriaca | (Paris 1894), col. 257, 8-12. La mention du renvoi de Sippora à Madian (avec ses fils) est fondée sur Exode. 18. 2-3. S. Funk, Die Haggadischen Elemente in den Homilien des Aphraates, des persischen Weisen (Vienne 1891), p. 37-8. a déjà rapproché ce texte d'APHRAATE du targum de JONATHAN.

12 Dem.

XXII,

25. col.

1044; et voir l'introduction de Panisor, op. cit, p. XVI.

94

A. GUILLAUMONT

l'un des fils de Moise n'avait pas été circoncis, par suite de l'opposition

du pére de Sippora ou de Sippora elle-méme, et c'est la raison pour laquelle Moise fut attaqué par l'Ange du Seigneur. La version présentée par les sources syriaques peut étre due aux tendances encratites qui ont fortement marqué la chrétienté syriaque des premiers siécles et qui se manifestent clairement, en particulier, dans le passage d'Aphraate

qui a été allégué!?. Mais il n'est pas impossible qu'il s'agisse d'une variante

authentiquement juive

targums palestiniens '*.

de

la tradition

représentée

par

les

!

Cette influence des targums palestiniens sur l’exégèse syriaque mérite d'étre relevée. Aprés Baumstark, A. Vóóbus a apporté de nouveaux arguments en faveur d'une influence de l'ancien targum palestinien sur la Peshitta du Pentateuque!?. Celle-ci parait maintenant bien établie. Par ailleurs les influences de l'exégése juive sur l'exégése syriaque ont été maintes fois signalées!9. I] n'est sans doute pas

sans intérét de préciser quand on le peut, comme

c'est le cas dans

l'exemple que nous venons d'étudier, que cette influence est plus spécialement celle des targums palestiniens. La détermination précise de l'origine des influences juives subies, non seulement par la Peshitta, mais aussi par l'exégése syriaque à sa plus haute époque, est, en effet, d'importance pour la question, toujours controversée, des origines du christianisme mésopotamien. Les preuves d'une source palestinienne de ces influences sont un argument de poids en faveur de la thése, défendue par A. Vóóbus, selon laquelle le christianisme, en Mésopotamie, s'est d'abord répandu parmi des communautés juives venues

de Palestine 17. 13 A. VOOBUS a largement contribué à mettre en relief ces tendances encratites du christianisme

mésopotamien,

notamment

dans son

History of Asceticism

in the Syrian

Orient 1 (CSCO 184, Subs. 14] (Louvain 1958), p. 10-108. 14 Cette variante rend plus acceptable le fait que Sippora circoncit elle-même l'enfant, alors que la circoncision était normalement opérée par un homme (cf. Abodah Zarah 27c); on peut certes penser que Moise, précisée, ne pouvait y procéder lui-même.

frappé d'un mal Mais il convenait

dont la nature n'est pas aussi que Sippora réparât

elle-méme la faute dont elle était la premiere responsable. '5 «Der Einfluss des altpalästinischen Targums in der Textgeschichte der Peschitta des Alten Testaments», dans Le Muséon 68 (1955), p. 215-8; Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs. Neues Licht zur Frage der Herkunft der Peschitia aus dem altpalastinischen Targum [PETSE 9] (Stockholm 1958). '* Pour APHRAATE, voir le livre déjà cité de S. Funk. Un travail systématique

sur ce sujet devrait étre fait pour EPHREM.

Pour les dix-sept premiers chapitres de la

Genese, ces influences ont été bien mises en évidence par A. Levene, The Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis (Londres 1951). Voir aussi PARISOT, op. cit., p. XLIX-L; le MEME,

P. LI, signale des points de rencontre exégétiques entre APHRAATE '" Voir notamment

History of Asceticism in the Syrian

Orient

et EPHREM.

|, op.

cit.. p. 8-10.

EXODE 4, 24-26 A MIDRASH ON EXODUS IN APHRAHAT AND EPHREM

95 4, 24-26 OF NISIBIS

An obscure passage in Exodus relates an attack on Moses and his deliverance through the circumcision of his son. The explanation of this episode by Ephrem, found also in Aphrahat, is traced to the Palestinian targums. This evidence strengthens the theory that Palestinian Jewish exegesis exercised a strong influence on the Christians of Syria, and contributes to the discussion of the origins of Syrian Christianity.

URCHRISTLICHES KERYGMA IN SEINER ABHÄNGIGKEIT VON DER ARAMÁISCHEN VERKEHRSUND KANZLEISPRACHE UND SEINE NACHWIRKUNG IM KORAN Joseph MoLiroR Bamberg.

Deutsche Bundesrepublik

In der Vólkertafel Genesis 10,22 wird ein Aram neben Assur zu den Söhnen Sems und damit zu den Semiten gerechnet. Gen. 22,21 spricht von einem Aram als Enkel von Abrahams Bruder Nachor. Unsere ältesten gesicherten Kenntnisse stammen aus akkadischen Dokumenten, die in Keilschrift abgefasst sind, einer ursprünglich nichtsemitischen Silbenschrift der Sumerer, einem seit der 2. Hälfte des 4. Jahrtausends

v. Chr.

in Südbabylonien

(»Sumer«)

ansässigen

Volk mit frühentwickelter hohen Kultur. Um 2000 v. Chr. beginnt dann noch unter sumerisch-altbabylonischer Herrschaft mit PuzurA&&ur I. die Reihe der in Keilschrift bezeugten assyrischen Herrscher. Babylonien, das Tiefland zwischen unterem Euphrat und Tigris, wurde um 1730-1688 v. Chr. als dem 6. in der Reihe der babylonischen Grosskónige von Hammurabi regiert, einem Zeitgenossen Abrahams. Sein Gesetzeskodex mit mehr als 300 »Paragraphen« ist, in einer über 2 Meter hohen Stele eingemeisselt, uns erhalten geblieben. Der assyrische König Tiglatpileser I. (1112-1074) spricht von aramäischen Achlamu, die über den Euphrat in sein Reich eingedrungen waren. Die semitischen Sprachen, bei denen im sogenannten Triliterismus die

(3)

Konsonanten

und

nicht

die

Vokale

(vgl.

semitisches

milk

»Kónig« gegenüber sumerischem »lu-gal«) die Hauptrolle spielen, ähneln sich dadurch viel mehr wie etwa die romanischen Sprachen mit ihren variierenden Vokalen. Seit etwa 1000 v. Chr. wanderten dann auch iranische Stámme über den Kaukasus nach Süden. Tiglatpileser III. (745-726) machte jedoch 743 ihr Gebiet zu einer assyrischen

Provinz. Der Perserkónig Kyros (559-529) eroberte Medien, Lydien, ja auch Babylonien; sein áltester Sohn und Nachfolger Kambyses

98

J. MOLITOR

gliederte selbst Ägypten seinem Grossreich an, und dessen Nachfolger Dareios

I. (521-485)

noch

dazu

Thrakien

und

Makedonien.

So

ent-

stand ein-freilich auch viel Wüstenlandschaft aufweisendes-persisches Imperium, das von Indien bis zum griechischen Archipel (bis zum Piräus!) und vom Unterlauf der Donau, dem Schwarzen Meer, dem Kaukasus und dem Kaspischen Meer im Norden sich bis zur arabischen und nubischen Wüste hin erstreckte. Und für unser Thema das Wichtigste: Derselbe Grosskönig Dareios errichtete an seinem Hof in Susa (Elam) für seinen Beamtenstaat eine Reichskanzlei, deren amtlicher Verkehr-es herrschte das Schriftlichkeitsprinzip!-in einer allgemein gültigen Sprache, dem semitischen sogenannten Reichsaramáisch, vor sich ging. Damit war das unbequeme Akkadische mit seiner Keilschrift abgeschafft! Die Nationalitäten des Grossreiches blieben natürlich erhalten. Das neue Prinzip lautete: Einsprachigkeit des

Schriftwesens

durch

das

semitische

Aramäisch,

aber

anderseits

Mehrsprachigkeit der Schreiber im privaten Verkehr!

I Schlagen wir nun zuerst das Alte Testament auf, so wird uns im hebräischen Text von 2 Könige 18, 26 eine Episode noch vor der Perserherrschaft, etwa aus dem Jahre 701, geschildert. In einer überaus kritischen Situation sagen drei hohe Hofbeamte des Ezechias (Hiskia) Kónig von Juda, alieiniger jüdischer Herrscher nach der Vernichtung des Nordreiches durch die Assyrer, námlich die jüdischen Hofbeamten Eljakim, Sebus und Joas zum assyrischen Hofbeamten Rabsake angesichts der vom assyrischen Heer eingeschlossenen Stadt Jerusalem : »Sprich mit deinen Knechten Aramäisch! Denn wir verstehen es!« Aber

2 Verse

weiter (2 Kón

18, 28) heisst es:

Rabsake

trat vor und rief mit lauter Stimme auf Jüdisch: »Hórt die Worte des Grosskónigs, des Königs von Assyrien !« Bibelaramäisch bringen im Alten Testament noch Esdras (Esra) 4, 86, 18; 7, 12-26 und Daniel 2, 46-7, 28. So taten also rund 200 Jahre später die persischen Eroberer, vor allem Dareios I. klug daran, die schon allgemein verbreitete aramáische Sprache zum Reichsaramäisch zu erklären! Nach der Rückkehr aus der babylonischen Gefangenschaft (Mitte des 5. Jhdts. v. Chr.) ersetzten auch die Juden ihre hebräische Muttersprache mehr und mehr durch das Aramäische. Das galt natürlich nicht für den Gottesdienst in Tempel und Synagoge. Das Hebräische

URCHRISTLICHES

KERYGMA

99

spielte bald die Rolle unseres Kirchenlateins; es wurde nicht mehr recht verstanden. So folgte jetzt auf die Lesung des hebráischen Schrifttextes mindestens alle drei Verse, wenn nicht Vers für Vers, eine

Übersetzung in die aramáische Volkssprache. I! Und nun zum Neuen Testament. Auch im neutestamentlichen Griechisch gibt es manche Ausdrücke, die nicht aus der Umgangssprache der Koiné »vulgär-griechisch« zu erklären sind, sondern als »Aramaismen« betrachtet werden müssen. Freilich ist die Unterschei-

dung zwischen

Hebraismen

und Aramaismen

recht schwierig. Aber

der Herr hat sicher wie seine Landsleute aramäisch gesprochen, noch bevor die Evangelisten seine Worte in die griechische Koiné für die Missionstátigkeit übertrugen. Anderseits wird es heute kaum möglich sein, die aramäische Grundlage unserer Evangelienüberlieferung auch nur teilweise wiederherzustellen. . Im ältesten Teil der Evangelienüberlieferung, nämlich der Passionsgeschichte nach Markus, verrät sich Petrus durch seine galiläischaramäische Sprechweise, seinen Heimatdialekt. Er war dem gefangenen Herrn von weitem gefolgt bis hinein in den Hof des Hohenpriesters, sass nun bei den Dienern und wármte sich am Feuer (Mk 14, 54). Da sah ihn eine von den Mägden des Hohenpriesters prüfend an und sagte: »Auch du warst mit Jesus dem Nazarener«. Petrus gab zur Antwort : »Ich weiss nicht und verstehe nicht, was du meinst«. (Mk

14, 67-68). Aus dem

griechischen

Volltext wird

nicht ganz

klar,

ob nun V. 69 dieselbe oder eine andere Magd auf ihn aufmerksam macht. Im folgenden V. 70 sagen diesmal die Umstehenden zu Petrus : »Du gehórst wirklich zu ihnen. Du bist ja doch ein Galiläer«. Sie haben ihn wohl weniger an der Kleidung, als vielmehr an seiner Aussprache, seinem galilàischen Dialekt, als Anhánger Jesu erkannt. Das will auch der nur von wenigen Handschriften bezeugte Zusatz sagen: »Und deine Aussprache (λαλιά: Dialekt) gleicht [dem Dialekt der Galiläer]«. Sehen wir uns nun einige aramäische Termini an, die sich im griechischen Text des NT erhalten haben. Der erste Terminus ist

»Abbä«

(ἀββᾶ) »Vater« oder auch

Jesus hat die bis dahin

»mein

ungewöhnliche

Vater«,

Anrede

»lieber Vater!«!

für Gott

nicht

nur

! Vgl. Gerhard Kırtei, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 1 (Stuttgart 1933), p. 5.

100

J. MOLITOR

da gebraucht,

wo

sie jetzt im

NT

ausdrücklich

bezeugt

ist, nämlich

Mk 14, 36 ἀββᾶ ὁ nathp—der griechische erklárende Zusatz ὁ πατήρ ist wohl von Markus hinzugefügt—sondern überall dort, wo in den Evangelien Gott mit ὁ πατήρ, πάτερ, ὁ πατήρ μου, πάτερ μου, πάτερ angeredet wird—ja vielleicht auch bei πατὴρ ἡμῶν. Was die Familienangehörigen alltäglich zum Vater sagen, wenn sie sich an ihn wenden, überträgt Jesus auf den Gebetsverkehr mit Gott, ein Verfahren, das den Pharisäern respektlos und unfeierlich klingt. Noch heute wird in der lateinischen Messliturgie das Paternoster mit »audemus dicere« eingeleitet, und ebenso steht in der Chrysostomusliturgie ? der Ostkirche das τολμᾶν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι. Auf liturgischen Brauch gehen wohl auch bei Paulus Rm 8, 15 ob yàp ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, £v ᾧ κράζομεν: ᾿Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ. also der Gebetsruf : »lieber Vater« und Gal 4, 6 ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπόστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα tob υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, kpacov’ ᾿Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ. Das urchristliche Vater-Kindverhältnis zu Gott, bewirkt durch das Pneuma, steht in vollem Gegensatz zur Haltung

des

Judentums

und

des

Islams;

es

ist

in

seiner

Intimität

etwas ganz Neues, bei Jesus ebenso wie bei dem Völkerapostel Paulus! Ein zweites, im griechischen Evangelientext und in griechischer Umschrift überliefertes aramäisches Herrenwort finden wir wieder in der Petrusüberlieferung, nämlich Mk 7, 33f. Bei der Heilung des Taubstummen heisst es vom Herrn: ἔβαλεν τοὺς δακτύλους αὐτοῦ eis tà ὦτα αὐτοῦ καὶ πτύσας ἥψατο τῆς γλώσσης αὐτοῦ (misit digitos suos in auriculas eius et ex(s)puens tetigit linguam eius) ... καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ἐφφαθά, 6 ἐστιν διανοίχθητι (ephpheta quod est adaperire). In der Peschitta, der syrischen Vulgata, haben wir, weil mit dem Aramáischen enge Verwandtschaft besteht und eine Umschreibung wie im griechischen Text unnótig ist, einen Kurzvers: »Und (er) sprach zu ihm: ethpatach« (tu dich auf).

Ein anderer aramäischer Imperativ aus dem Munde des Erlösers begegnet uns ebenfalls im Markusevangelium 5, 41 ταλιθὰ xoüp (Vulgatatext: Talitha cumi = (liebes) Mädchen, steh auf) und wird dann gedeutet: 6 ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον τὸ κοράσιον, coi λέγω, ἔγειρε (quod est interpretatum: Puella (tibi dico) surge). Es ist interessant, dass das überlieferte aramäische Herrenwort in seiner ? Die göttliche Liturgie unseres hl. Vaters Johannes Chrysostomus (griechisch-deutsche Ausgabe) (München 1932), S. 87: xai καταξίωσον ἡμᾶς. Δέσποτα, μετὰ παῤῥησίας. ἀκατακρίτως. τολμᾶν ἐπικαλεῖσθαί oe τὸν ἐπουράνιον Θεὸν Πατέρα καὶ λέγειν" Πάτερ ἡμῶν...

URCHRISTLICHES KERYGMA Herzlichkeit

(der aramäische

101

status emphaticus = »liebes

Mädchen«)

auch im nüchternen lateinischen Text so ausführlich umschrieben ist: »Du Mädchen, dir sage ich, steh auf!« Einen ganz wichtigen urchristlichen Terminus gebraucht Paulus als eigenhándigen Schlussgruss 1 Cor 16, 22: ei τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθημα᾽ napavada (Text der lateinischen Vulgata: si quis non amat Dominum [nostrum lesum Christum] sit anathema. Maran Atha). Dieses aramäische Maranatha ist bestimmt ein Ausruf, der aber mehrdeutig ist, je nachdem man ihn einteilt. Er lautet entweder als Imperativform: marana thà »unser Herr komm«? oder als Aussagesatz in Perfektform: maran athà »unser Herr ist gekommen«. Und auch die Perfektform »ist gekommen« kónnte als prophetisches Perfekt (d.h. die Zukunft schon als erfüllt gesehen!) lauten: »Der Herr wird (bald) kommen«. Ja, auch die perfektische Deutung: »Der Herr ist

wirklich gekommen, er ist jetzt da (in der Eucharistie),« ist móglich. Denken wir nur an das Herrenwort: »Wo zwei oder drei in meinem Namen

versammelt

sind,

bin

ich

mitten

unter

ihnen«

(Mt

18,

20).

Jedenfalls beweist diese aramäische Fassung ohne eine sich anschliessende griechische Übersetzung, dass es sich hier um eine festgeprägte Formel handelt, die nur in einer auch des Aramäischen kundigen Christengemeinde entstanden sein kann; und das wäre nach Lage der Dinge zunáchst die Urgemeinde zu Jerusalem. Maranatha wurde bald allgemeines christliches Erbe wie das den Griechen unbekannte ἀμήν (Amen) sowie das zu einem Jubelruf (aus »so hilf doch!«) gewordene ócavvà (Hosanna). Die in Ägypten beheimatete Zwölfapostellehre zeigt Kapitel 10, 6 μαραναθά in engster Verbindung mit der eucharistischen Gemeindefeier: »Wer nicht heilig ist, μετανοείτω (der tue Busse; wörtlich »denke um«) papavada! Paulus gebraucht 1 Cor 16, 22 das aramäische Maranatha sogar als Drohwort: ei tig οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον (d.h. maran) ἤτω ἀνάθημα, wie wir schon oben andeuteten! Der Herr ist doch da! Das ist das unerschütterliche Credo der immer mehr sich ausbreitenden jungen Kirche: Alle feierten das Herrenmahl und verkündeten so nicht nur den Tod, sondern auch die Auferstehung und Wiederkunft des Herrn! Auch die gerade von Paulus öfters gebrauchte Formel ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ist urchristliches Erbe (aramäisch maran) bis hin zu unserer »per Dominum nostrum (Iesum Christum)!«

> Vgl. Apk 22. 20 ἔρχου. κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

liturgischen

Konklusion

102

J. MOLITOR

III Jetzt ist es wohl an der Zeit, die wichtigste neuere Literatur über die Ausbreitung der aramäischen Verkehrssprache beizubringen ^. Da muss an erster Stelle Franz Rosenthal mit seinem zusammenfassenden Werke Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nöldekes Veröffentlichungen? genannt werden. Insbesondere lenkt das 2. Kapitel (S. 2428) unsere Aufmerksamkeit auf sich: »Das Reichsaramáische. Die Funde«. Die massgeblichste Publikation des letzten Jahrzehnts verdanken wir aber H. Donner und W. Róllig mit ihrem zweibündigen Werk Kananäische und Aramäische Inschriften®. Es ist schon interessant, sich nur einmal das Inhaltsverzeichnis des 2. Bandes anzusehen. Da

gibt es 1) Phönizische Inschriften des Mutterlandes aus Byblos, Sidon, Tyros und dem Libanon. — 2) Inschriften aus Syrien und Kleinasien, darunter aus Ur in Chaldáa ein Elfenbeinkástchen aus dem 7. Jhdt. v. Chr. mit einer aramäischen Inschrift auf dem Deckel. — 3) Inschriften der Inseln, und zwar aus Cypern (Limassol, Kition, Idalion, Tamassos und Lapethos), ferner aus Rhodos, Sardinien, Malta, aus Ágypten (Memphis, Abydos, Sakkara) ja Inschriften aus Attika (Athen, Piráus). Auf die phónizischen folgen die punischen Inschriften aus Malta, Sizilien und Sardinien, ja aus Frankreich (Marseille und Avignon)

und Spanien (Cadiz, Ibiza), aus Nordafrika,

unter anderem

aus Karthago und Constantine (Algerien). — 4) Neupersische Inschriften aus Libyen, Tunesien, Algerien und Sardinien, und als Anhang phónizische und punische Inschriften in griechischer Schrift, ja latinolibysche Inschriften aus der Leptis Magna, Bir Semeh und Sirte. — 5) Hebräische Inschriften aus Gezer, Samaria, Jerusalem und Lachisch, ferner eine moabitische Inschrift aus Diban. — 6) Aramäische Inschriften aus Syrien und der arabischen Wüste, Inschriften aus Assyrien, Kleinasien, Ägypten (darunter Papyri und Ostraka) aus Elephantine (arabisch Dschesiret Aswän (= Insel von Assuan), Nilinsel in Oberägypten gegenüber von Assuan unterhalb der Katarakte)? und vor allem die uns am meisten interessierenden Inschriften aus den Randgebieten, man hóre und staune : a) aus Taxila-Sirkap am oberen * Hierbei bin ich meinem

lieben Kollegen Julius AssFALG,

München,

zu besonderem

Dank verpflichtet. Besorgte er mir doch die im Folgenden zitierten Werke. * (Leiden

1939), 317 Seiten mit 5 Tafeln

und einer

Karte.

^ (Wiesbaden 1962-64), Band I: Texte: Band I]: Kommentar und Übersetzung. * In persischer Zeit jüdische Militárkolonie mit eigenem Jahwetempel.

URCHRISTLICHES KERYGMA

103

Indus in Pakistan, circa 60 km südöstlich der Mündung des Kabul in der Gegend von Rawal Pindi; b) 2 aramäische Inschriften auf Basaltblöcken (1. Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.), circa 60 km östlich der Hauptstadt Jerewan (= Eriwan), jetzt im Museum der armenischen Sowjetrepublik Eriwan (aufgefunden 1906 bezw. 1932); c) eine zwei-

sprachige (aramäisch-griechische) Grabinschrift auf einer Basaltstele in Armazi, 22 km nördlich von Tiflis (Sowjetrepublik Georgien, russ. Grusija), heute in Tiflis, beschrieben von Michael Tsereteli (+ 1965). Also, auch Armenier und Georgier blieben vom aramäischen Einfluss nicht unberührt, und zwar besonders nicht der georgische Text des Neuen Testamentes! Wie müssen wir uns die gegenseitige Durchdringung von Sprachen und Ausdrücken vorstellen? Nun, Hans Heinrich Schäder hat in seinen /ranischen Beiträgen I? ein ganz anschauliches Bild davon zu zeichnen versucht. Er sagt dort: »Von den persischen Aristokraten, mit denen die Satrapien

besetzt waren, imstande

war

(aramäisch)

wohl,

ebenso

wie

Geschriebenes

der zu

(Statthalterschaften)

Grosskönig,

lesen.

In

der

kaum

einer

Reichskanzlei

war es Sache der Beamten, Erlasse des Grosskönigs nach seinen Anweisungen oder seinem Diktat aufzusetzen beziehungsweise einlaufende Schreiben ihm inhaltlich oder, je nach Bedeutung, wortgetreu zur Kenntnis zu geben. Und in den Provinzen musste es Aufgabe der Kanzleibeamten

sein, ausser dem

Verkehr

mit der Zentrale

(in Susa)

die Erlasse der Satrapen den lokalen Instanzen zu vermitteln. Wenn also—wie sich noch heute durch einen aramäischen Papyrus aus dem 5. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert belegen lásst—der persische Satrap Ar$äna an den (wie sein Name Vhprimhi zeigt) ägyptischen Zunftmeister der Schiffszimmerleute einen aramäischen Erlass richtet, oder der Ägypter Phim, wahrscheinlich ein Unterbeamter, an den ihm vorgesetzten persischen Beamter Mithanhista eine aramäische Eingabe richtet, so konnte gewiss in beiden Fällen weder der Urheber des Schreibens noch der Adressat aramäisch sprechen und schreiben. Zwischen beiden waren Kanzlisten eingeschaltet, die, was ihnen aus persischem oder beziehungsweise ägyptischem Mund zu schreiben aufgegeben wurde, aramäisch aufsetzten und es wiederum aus dem Aramäischen ins Persische und Ägyptische übertrugen«. Dass bei diesem Schrift- und Sprachverkehr allmählich feste Begriffe ihren Besitzer wechselten, ist, so meine ich, durchaus möglich. Wenn beispielsweise—denken wir jetzt an die Georgier, in deren Kirchen* (Halle/Saale 1930), S. 5.

104

J. MOLITOR

bibel I Petrus 1, 5 wie in der ostaramäischen (= syrischen) Bibel für σωτηρία »Leben« (georgisch: chovrebaj Leben) steht, und auch sonst noch öfters, so ist das kein Zufall. Denn auch im griechischen Urtext zeigt sich deutlich, dass hier nicht im Vollsinn des Wortes von einer »Rettung« bei der Parusie des Herrn die Rede ist, sondern vielmehr an die kommende Herrlichkeit (die Vulgata übersetzt »in salutem«), d.h. also doch an das »ewige Leben« gedacht ist. Vom westaramäischen Christlich-Palästinensischen sind leider im Gegensatz zum vollerhaltenen ostaramáischen Talmud und Midrasch der Juden nur wenige Bruchstücke teils biblischen, teils erbaulichen Inhalts erhalten geblieben?. Vielleicht ist hier eine volkstümliche Wendung aus der matthäischen Bergpredigt erwähnenswert. Da heisst es Mt 5, 15: »Und

nicht zündet

man

einen Docht

(busina) an«.

Das

ist viel anschaulicher als das griechische λύχνον (Leuchte, Licht). Von Hieronymus (108. Brief) wird bezeugt, dass die Teilnehmer am Begräbnis der hl. Paula (t 404) in Bethlehem »Graeco, Latino, Syroque sermone psalmos in ordine personabant.« Also griechische, lateinische und aramáische Psalmenübersetzung friedlich nebeneinander! Man darf natürlich die Abhängigkeit des griechischen Neuen Testamentes vom Syrisch-Aramäischen nicht übertreiben, als ob das syrische Neue Testament genau die Muttersprache Jesu wiedergäbe. »Vollendet ist (ein- für allemal) die Zeit (syrisch : $*lem leh zabnà)«,

heisst es im syrischen

Markusevangelium

(Mk

1, 15), »herbeigekom-

men ist das Reich Gottes (malkutha d'allaha), kehrt um (2 wendet euch Gott zu) und glaubt an die Botschaft (aramäisch : sebartha)!«

Nicht als ob in der Muttersprache Jesu der Begriff »Ende« gefehlt hätte! So heisst es in der syrischen Vulgata Mk 3, 26 vom Satan »es ist sein Ende« (chartha von der Wurzel echar »anders sein«). Auch im Griechischen steht einem πεπλήρωται (Mk 1, 15) ein τέλος ἔχει (Mk 3, 26) entgegen. Im syrischen Text des Johannesevangeliums (Jo 2, 4b) wird das Herrenwort οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα pov als eine Frage aufgefasst : »Ist noch nicht gekommen meine Stunde?« In einem Aussagesatz wäre wohl das Prádikat vor dem Subjekt ungewóhnlich, obgleich durch den Einfluss des Griechischen die strenge altsemitische Wortfolge sich im Syrischen mehr und mehr gelockert hat. Und Jo 2, 4a »Frau, was ist zwischen mir und dir?« ist keine Abweisung, sondern wie Genesis ? Vgl.

Friedrich

SCHULTHESS,

Grammatik

des

Christlich-Palästinischen

hrsg. Enno LITTMANN (Tübingen 1924), S. 106 und 130 Spalte 2.

Aramáisch,

URCHRISTLICHES KERYGMA

105

23, 15 (Verhandlung Abrahams mit den Hethitern über einen Begräbnisplatz für Sara) eine feierliche Form

der Zustimmung.

Und

in der

arabischen Umgangssprache !? ist die Wendung »was ist mit mir und was ist mit dir?« eine nur rhetorische Frage und besagt: »wir sind handelseinig!« Jo 20, 17 liest die gesamte aramäische Überlieferung (Diatessaron, Sinaisyrer und die Peschitta, die ja zur syrischen Vulgata wurde) klar und eindeutig statt μή pou ἅπτου: »Wirst (= willst) du dich nicht nähern mir?« Und einige Verse weiter (Jo 20, 27) fordert der

Herr den Apostel Thomas auf, ihn ausgiebig zu berühren. Ferner heisst es im 1. Johannesbrief 1, 1 ausdrücklich : »Was wir mit unseren Händen betastet haben.« Die Milde und Güte unseres Herrn, aber ebenso auch der aramáische Einfluss in seinen Worten zeigt sich Lk 18, 14 im Gleichnis vom Pharisäer und Zöllner. Da heisst es vom Zöllner: κατέβη οὗτος δεδικαιωμένος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον. Nun kann παρά c. acc. »über hinaus« bedeuten und wie das hier erscheinende iatir men den genitivus comparationis ausdrücken: »dieser ging gerechtfertigter in sein Haus als jener«''. Das Guttun des Pharisäers, nicht seine stolzen Worte, brauchten nicht ganz nutzlos zu sein. Wenn der Herr Mk 4, 31f. vom Glauben, der so klein ist wie ein Senfkorn, noch anerkennend spricht, dann ist es wirklich seine Güte und Menschenfreundlichekit, die im aramäischen Volksdialekt uns mehr zu Herzen redet, als das neutestamentliche Griechisch es vermag! IV Aber dann traf die Christenheit des vorderen Orients ein schwerer Schlag. Am Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts war auch Arabien nahe daran, christlich zu werden. Nur Mekka, ein Zentralpunkt am Karawanenweg von Indien (Kabul!) nach Syrien und Ágypten, war mit seiner Kaaba (arabisch = Würfel!) ganz dem Polytheismus verfallen. Vom judenchristlichen Denken ausgehend, dass die wahre Religion durch von Gott berufene Propheten den Vólkern immer neu ver-

mittelt werde, hielt sich Mohammed

für einen neuen Propheten des

Monotheismus (nach Noe, Abraham, Moses und Jesus), der nach Thora und Evangelium ein neues heiliges Buch schaffen sollte, den 1° Auch

aus

diesem

Grunde

haben

die

Koranzitate

im

letzten

Abschnitt

unserer

Ausführungen ihre Bedeutung. !! Der Auffassung von Ernst Harald RIESENFELD im Theologischen Wörterbuch zum NT V (Stuttgart beipflichten.

1954),

p.

731,

der

hier

keinen

Komparativ

sieht,

kann

ich

nicht

106

J. MOLITOR

Koran. So kämpfte der Islam darum, eine neue Weltreligion zu werden.

Und nach seinem Sieg wurde das Aramäische in seiner Bedeutung als völkerverbindendes Band vom Arabischen abgelöst. Unvergesslich ist mir ein Kolleg,

das mein

hochverehrter

Lehrer

Professor

Anton

Baumstark vor Jahrzehnten in Bonn über das Thema »Die Welt am Vorabend des Islam« hielt. Er zeigte uns damals, wie der nach Klarheit suchende südarabische Kaufmann Muhammad (= der Gepriesene) auf seinen Reisen auch christliche Kirchen besuchte und sich die Wandmalereien erklären liess. Manches hat er als Nichtchrist falsch verstanden, vor allem das Verhältnis des Alten zum Neuen Testament. Am Christentum irre machten ihn die theologischen Streitigkeiten der gespaltenen orientalischen Christenheit. Im »Oriens Christianus«!? hat Otto Spies zum 100. Geburtstag (4.8.1872)

und

25.

Todestag

(31.5.1948)

von

Anton

Baumstark

in

einem tiefschürfenden Aufsatz »Islam und Syntage« nachgewiesen, dass ursprünglich für Mohammed noch nicht der Begriff is/am als der von ihm gestifteten Religion und derjenige der muslim als ihrer Bekenner festgestanden hat. »Die Bezeichnung als muslim erfuhren nicht nur die Angehórigen der Gemeinde Mohammeds, sondern auch frühere Bekenner des Eingottglaubens« (S. 8 a.a.O.). Erst in der medinischen Spätzeit heisst es: »Siehe, die Religion bei Gott ist der Islam« (vgl. Jak 1, 27 παρὰ τῷ θεῷ). Gehen wir nun näher auf das Thema, »Islam und Syntage« ein. Sure 2 (a/-Baqarah)!? V. 132 heisst es von Abraham (Ibrahim): »Als sein Herr zu ihm sprach: ‘Ergib dich (= vollziehe die islàm-Handlung), und er sprach (= da sagte er): ‘Ich

ergebe

mich

(= ich

voliziehe

die

islam-Handlung)

dem

Herrn

der Welten'« Auch das Folgende klingt wie ein Taufbekenntnis (ἐπιταγῆ); es ist Sure 3 (al-Imrän) V. 85: »Wir glauben an Allah und an das, was uns offenbart worden und was offenbart ward Abraham Stámmen,

(Ibrahim) und was

und Ismael und Isaak und gegeben ward Moses (Musa)

Jakob und den und Jesus (Isa)

und anderen Propheten von ihrem Herrn. Wir machen keinen Unterschied zwischen ihnen, und Ihm unterwerfen uns. Auch Sure 39 (al-Zumar) 12 und 15 erinnert an ein Taufgelübde: »Spricht: mir ward geheissen, Allah zu dienen, aufrichtig gegen Ihn im Glauben« (V. 12) und V. 15 in einer kleinen Abwandlung:

dem

ich diene, aufrichtig gegen

Ihn

!2 (Wiesbaden 1973), Band 57. S. 1-30. 13 Vgl. Der heilige Qur-án. arabisch-deutsch. Islams (Zürich und Hamburg).

in meinem Herausgeber:

»Sprich: Allah ist es,

Glauben«.

Und

da

Ahmadiyya-Mission

des

URCHRISTLICHES KERYGMA

107

das Mönchtum in der Einsamkeit der Steppen des vorislamischen Arabiens die Gelübdeablegung durch eine Initiationsfeier (cuvtayfi) kennt und schátzt, stand auch Mohammed den Eremiten mit einem gewissen Wohlwollen gegenüber. So heisst es in Sure 5 (al-Mä’ida) V. 82: »Du wirst sicherlich finden, dass unter allen Menschen die Juden und die, welche Gott (Allah) Bilder zur Seite stellen, die

erbittersten

Gegner

der Glüubigen

(Muslims)

sind.

Und

du wirst

zweifellos finden, dass die, welche sprechen: 'Wir sind Christen', den Gläubigen am freundlichsten gegenüberstehen. Das verhält sich so, weil unter ihnen Gottesgelehrte und Mónche sind, und weil sie nicht

hoffärtig sind«. Auch die Kindheitsgeschichte Johannes des Táufers ist ihm bekannt. Sure 21 (al-Anbiya) heisst es Vers 90-91 : »Und (gedenke) des Zacharias

da er zu seinem Herrn rief: ‘Mein Herr, lasse mich nicht kinderlos, wenn du auch der beste der Erben bist'«. Vers 31 : »Da erhórten Wir sein Gebet und gewährten ihm den Johannes. Wir machten sein Weib fáhig, ihm ein Kind zu schenken. Sie pflegten miteinander zu eifern in guten Taten und riefen Uns an in Hoffnung und in Furcht und waren demütig vor Uns«. In Sure 19 (Maryam = Maria) heisst es Vers 17-22 : »Und bedenke, was in dem Buch (also im Neuen Testament) über Maria steht. Da sie sich zurückzog von den Ihrigen nach

einem gegen Osten gewandten Ort (V. 18) und sich vor ihnen barg im Schleier, da sandten Wir Unseren Geist zu ihr, und er erschien in der

Gestalt

eines

nehme

meine

Zuflucht

mir) wenn

du

Gesandter

von

beschere'.

Gott

vollkommenen

vor dir bei dem

fürchtest’.

deinem

Mannes.

Herrn,

(20)

(19)

Allerbarmer;

Er antwortete:

auf dass

Sie

‘Ich

(lass ab

von

'Ich bin

ich dir einen

(21) Sie sprach : "Wie soll mir ein Sohn

sprach: nur

reinen

werden,

wo

ein

Sohn mich

kein Mann berührt hat und ich auch nicht unkeusch gewesen bin?’ (22) Er antwortete: ‘So wird es sein. Denn dein Herr spricht: Es ist Mir ein Leichtes und Wir tun dies, auf dass Wir ihn zu einem Zeichen machen für die Menschen und zu einer Barmherzigkeit von Uns, und es ist eine beschlossene Sache'«. So genau kennt der Islam die

Kindheitsgeschichte des Lukasevangeliums und wandelt sie in seinem Sinne um! Ein anderer Wind weht aber in der 19. Sure Vers 36: »Es ziemt Allah nicht, Sich einen Sohn zuzugesellen. Heilig ist Er! Wenn Er ein Ding beschliesst, so spricht Er zu ihm "Sei!" und es ist«. In Sure 43 (al-Zuhruf) heisst es Vers 64: »Als Isa (Jesus) mit klaren Beweisen

kam, sprach er: 'Wahrlich, ich komme zu euch mit der Weisheit, um

108

J. MOLITOR

euch etwas von dem zu verdeutlichen, worüber ihr uneinig seid. So fürchtet Allah und gehorcht mir'«. Wir sollten die auch im Koran enthaltenen christlichen Elemente nicht übersehen und nicht vergessen, dass im Irak, in Syrien, Palästina und Ágypten nunmehr auch die Umgangssprache der unterworfenen Christen das Arabische wurde. Schon vom 8. Jahrhundert an entstand eine christliche-arabische Literatur. Spuren davon finden sich auch im Koran. Wir wollen schliessen mit zwei marianischen Zitaten aus dem Koran. In der 3. Sure (al-Imran) heisst es: »Wie die Engel sprachen: ‘O Maria, Allah gibt dir frohe Kunde eines Wortes (vgl. Evangelium!) von Ihm. Sein Name soll sein der Messias, Jesus (Isa), Sohn Marias, geehrt in dieser und in jener Welt, und deren einer (— einer von denen), denen Gottes Náhe gewáhrt wird'«. (V. 46). Und in der Sure 66 (al-Tahrim) V. 13 lesen wir: »Und (das Beispiel von) Maria, der

Tochter ihr von und an ist des Maria!

Imräns, die die Keuschheit bewahrte-—darum hauchten Wir unserem Geist ein—und sie glaubte an das Wort des Herrn Seine Schriften und war der Gehorsamen eine.« Noch heute gebráuchlichste Mädchenname bei den Moslems Merjam,

THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN KERYGMA IN ITS DEPENDENCE UPON COLLOQUIAL AND OFFICIAL ARAMAIC, AND ITS ECHO IN THE KORAN The Persian empire once stretched from India to the Aegean Sea and from the lower Danube valley and the Caucasus to the Arabian and Nubian deserts. The lingua franca in official circles was a Semitic dialect, "imperial Aramaic," which displaced the cumbersome Akkadian cuneiform script. The Persian chancery employed clerks to handle governmental correspondence in Aramaic between, say, Persians and Egyptians. Evidence of Aramaic is found in the 8th C. B.C. (II Kings 18) and later in Ezra and Daniel. After the return from exile the Jews increasingly spoke Aramaic,

and Hebrew became a special language like our ecclesiastical Latin. A number of Aramaic words occur in the Greek NT, and Aramaic idioms frequently shed light on NT texts. Jewish literature is well preserved in East Aramaic (Syriac),

but few fragments of West Aramaic (Palestinian) Christian material are extant. How widely the language was used appears from Aramaic inscriptions found from Algeria to the southern Soviet republics and Pakistan. After the Muslim conquest Arabic displaced Aramaic. Ideas from Semitic Christianity impressed Muhammad, e.g. ascetic obedience, Christian initiation rites, the Lucan infancy story, the purity of Mary.

SOME RHETORICAL PATTERNS IN EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE Robert Murray, London.

SJ

England

Without the discovery of primary material by explorers such as Professor Vööbus, it would not be possible for others to pursue the more meditative literary studies which can flourish in the wake of the trail-blazers. Not that Professor Vööbus is without achievement in the critical field : "Quae regio in terris eius non plena laboris?" It is a pleasure to offer him these pages on some patterns of prayer or discourse in which early Syriac writers still reveal a background shared with Judaism. The literary phenomena studied here, however much they may differ in detail or in likely origin and purpose, are all examples of a practice of listing exemplary figures or events, mainly from the Old Testament, in sequences which are often rhythmical and may involve repetitive, litany-like formulas, by their content and order suggesting established traditions. First to be studied in this area was the Paradigmengebet, the form of prayer which reminds God of his past acts of deliverance : examples lay to hand in Jewish and Christian liturgy and iconography, and already in 1902 Karl Michel pointed to Aphrahat as showing a wider range of examples!. In 1913 Eduard Norden indicated the way for all future studies in late classical religious rhetoric?. Since then many parts of this field have been explored and shown to reflect a common cultural heritage (for example, formulae in the New Testament, in the Hermetica and the Isis aretalogies, to mention only a few), but Syriac literature has not yet been accorded comparable study. Here I develop some hints in my Symbols of Church and Kingdom? ; the survey which follows (compressed, it is feared, to the

! K. MICHEL, Gebet und Bild in frühchristlicher Zeit {Studien über christliche Denkmäler 1] (Leipzig 1902).

? E. NORDEN, Agnostos Theos (Berlin 1913, 21923), esp. pp. 143-277. ? (Cambridge

1975), esp. pp. 42, 336. (Hereafter referred to as SCK.)

110

R. MURRAY

point of difficult reading by the exigencies of space) adds another section, as it were, to Part Il of that work, ‘In Search of the Sources’. It is hard to decide what is the best way of setting out a survey such as this, when there is evidently a long history to be traced, from Old Testament and perhaps even earlier roots, through hellenistic and later Jewish and early Christian examples, while the material falls

into formal categories which may overlap with each other and with other phenomena on which we can only touch. My own studies have centred on Aphrahat and Ephrem; they undoubtedly have much material in common, but often Ephrem's treatment of a traditional theme or genre is so personal that it is not till its prehistory has been studied that one can recognize what he is doing. Aphrahat, on the other hand, appears almost totally traditional in all that he says. This is why I find him a good starting-point. From Aphrahat we shall go back, and then forward again to Ephrem.

APHRAHAT'S

SEQUENCES

Even the most cursory reading of Aphrahat must cause remark on his liking for lists of O.T. examples. It is almost certainly true to say that no other patristic author has more, just as no other has such a long list of testimonia ‘that the Gentiles have replaced the People’*. Further, the complex syncrisis or 'Comparison-series' which is, perhaps, Aphrahat's favourite party piece is only a development of the simpler sequence*. There is room here only to summarize the data, stating the subjects, the examples listed and whether the sequence is or becomes markedly rhythmical. Inevitably the summary loses the charm which Aphrahat somehow retains even at his most garrulous; it is hoped that the reader will go back to the text and read extended

passages. Exemplary sequences occur in thirteen out of the twenty-three ‘demonstrations' (incidentally, Aphrahat uses this word, tahwita, precisely for an exemplary sequence as he starts one in Dem. III), though just * See SCK, pp. 42-3, 350-1; J. NEUSNER, Aphrahat and Judaism [Studia Post-Biblica 19] (Leiden 1971), which contains convenient translations of many of our passages. 5 Cf. SCK, p. 42. * Patrologia Syrica I, t. 1, ed. J. PARISOT

(Paris

1894), col.

100.25.

For the rest of

this survey, however, it seems sufficient to refer to Aphrahat more simply, by PARISOT's chapters.

EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE over half the total material

111

is in two, the 'pastoral letter' (XIV)

and

‘On Persecutions’ (XXI). The sequences can be classified roughly as examples (1) of prayer,

(2) of various virtues, (3) of those who

were

led into sin, (4) of reversals of fortune, (5) of righteous figures who were persecuted and (6) comparison-series, some of which are complex

examples of other classes, while some have their point in the comparison itself. This is a rough classification, merely for convenience, but it wil! remain useful for the whole essay. (1) Examples of Prayer. This is the subject of Dem. IV, so it is not surprising that sequences occur there, though they are mostly broken examples and

hardly dominate

the treatise. (Aphrahat

has, of course,

many

other ways

of using the Old Testament besides the exemplary sequence.) A list seems to be beginning at ch. 5 with the statutory trio Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but a digression on Jacob's ladder interrupts the sequence; when the turn of Moses and Joshua comes their prayers. The

(7), each has a short rhythmical series on the efficacy of sequence gets under way at 8: Hannah, Samuel, David,

Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Jonah, the Three Children and Daniel (including a charming piece of free haggadah about the lions). Later (12) there is a short sequence on prayer that was heard: Moses, Elijah, Jonah, Elisha. In Dem. XIV,

15 there is a short series of effective intercessors : Lot (Jeremiah),

Moses,

Joshua, Hezekiah, Asa, Josiah, Daniel, Mordecai. We might include here the examples of fasting in Dem. III, 2ff.: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, and later (7ff.) the Ninevites, Mordecai and Esther, Daniel. (Here, evidently, there is a lot of Christian

ascetical

haggadah,

as we

shall see again below concerning virginity and continence.) Most of the above examples are more or less interrupted, rarely falling into continuous rhythm. Aphrahat has, however, one classic example of the Paradigmengebet on the model (to be briefly surveyed below) of the Jewish Mi she'anah prayer, ‘Hear as Thou didst hear...'. This comes in Dem. XXIII (On the

Grapecluster), 54ff. : Moses, Joshua, Aaron, Phinehas, Samson, David, Samuel, Elijah, Micaiah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jonah, Daniel, the Three Children, Mordecai and Esther, Jeremiah; then, in a ‘Thou...’ sequence, after mention of Pharaoh and Sennacherib as examples of enemies, come the Maccabees Mattathias, Judas and Simon. Aphrahat's list should be remembered when we come to the Jewish examples. (2) Examples of Virtue. It is enough to proceed schematically : a) Faith. In Dem. I (On Faith), 14-16: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham,

Isaac,

Jacob, Moses (many examples), Joshua, Elijah, Elisha. b) Gentiles who were justified. In Dem. XVI (On the Gentiles who have taken the place of the People), 6: Jethro, the Gibeonites, Rahab, Obededom, Ittai, Ebedmelech,

Ruth, Uriah (a lot of Judaeo-Christian

haggadah

is implicit

here)’. ? Cf. SCK, p. 49. In this list the order diverges from that of Old Testament history. This will be found a frequent feature of Christian lists and occasional in Jewish ones. No satisfactory reason has occurred to me.

112

R. MURRAY

c) Obedience to God. In Dem. XVIII (Against the Jews, and on and Continence), 3: Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses.

d) Continence

(qaddisuta) or Virginity (btuluta).

Virginity

Ibid., 7ff.: Moses

(conti-

nence), Joshua (virginity), Elijah (v.), Elisha (‘single and pure‘, ihida'it w-etnakkap), Jeremiah, Ezekiel. (Here, as we shall see, is a bit of the tradition

behind Ephrem's dramatic contests between these forms of asceticism; again we see the traces of Judaeo-Christian haggadah.) e) Humility's

victories.

In

Dem.

IX

(On

Humility),

3:

Jacob

over

once Esau,

Joseph over his brothers, Moses over Pharaoh, David over Goliath, Hezekiah over

Sennacherib,

Mordecai

over

Haman,

Daniel

and

his companions

over

their persecutors. (This sequence perhaps overlaps in form with class (4), ‘Reversals of Fortune'.) Humility's Rewards, ibid. 13: Noah, Abraham,

Isaac, Jacob,

Job. f) Those saved by their Charity. In Dem. XIV, 14: Noah, Rahab, David, Hezekiah, Asa, Josiah, the Three Children, Daniel, Esther, Mordecai. (But for Jonah's absence this would be a classic list for a Jewish Paradigmengebet, yet its function is quite different.) g) Women who made peace. Ibid., 11: the Woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14); the "wise woman' in 2 Sam 20; Deborah, Jael, Rebecca.

h) This is perhaps the least inappropriate place to include the series in Dem. XIV, 36 (following a poetic section on Wisdom of remarkably 'classic' style). of Creatures which obeyed God's command (in implicit contrast, that is, with the human objects of Aphrahat's strictures): the waters of the Flood, the elements and beasts in the Plagues, the sun and hail for Joshua, the stars for Deborah

and

Barak,

the bears

for Elisha,

the

lions

for

Daniel,

the

fish for

Jonah, the plant and worm for him likewise, the ravens for Elijah; the fish for the apostles, both in the wonderful draught and for the temple-tax. (Perhaps this should be allocated to some sort of midrash rather than our sequences, yet a sequence of a sort it is.) (3) Examples of those who were led into sin a) through a woman. In Dem. VI, 3: Adam through Eve, Joseph through Potiphar's wife, Samson through Delilah, Reuben through his wife, Aaron through Miriam, Moses through his wife, David through Bathsheba, Amnon through Tamar, Solomon through his wives, Ahab through Jezebel, Asa through his mother, Herod through his wife, Haman through his wife, Zimri through Cozbi. (The context concerns the Bnay Qyama and the perils to their vowed

celibacy; but we shall see below reasons to suspect that the sequence of falls, due to the instigation of the Enemy of mankind, reflects an ancient pattern belonging to exorcism.) b) through pride or arrogance.

In Dem. XIV,

10: Adam,

Cain,

Ham,

Esau,

Pharaoh, the Sons of Eli, Goliath, Abimelech, Absalom, Adonijah. Achitophel, Jeroboam. Ahab, the Kings of Edom. Haman, the Babylonians, Judas Iscariot. c) through strife or jealousy. Ibid., 13: Cain, Joseph (as object, not as agent). Pharaoh, Jacob, Korah. Zimri, Achan, Eglon, Sisera, Jabin, Saul, Goli-

ath, Amalek,

Absalom,

Adonijah,

Jeroboam,

Gibeon,

finally, with an anti-Jewish twist, ‘all Israel. d) through greed. Ibid.. 23: Adam, Esau, Pharaoh,

Sennacherib,

Haman,

the Sons of Aaron,

the

EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE

113

hungry Israelites, Achan, the Sons of Eli, Saul, Ahab, Ananias (in Acts 5).

Gehazi,

Judas

Iscariot,

e) through lust (Satan is named as the agent). Ibid., 40: Adam, Cain, Ham, Esau, Shechem, Jacob's sons, Potiphar's wife, the Sodomites, Pharaoh, the Israelites in the desert, Reuben's sons, Gad, Manasseh, Nadab and Abihu, Achan, Zimri, Abimelech, Samson, the Gibeonites, Eli’s sons, Saul, Amnon,

Adonijah,

Solomon,

Rehoboam,

Ahab,

Gehazi,

Hezekiah

(showing

his trea-

sures), Nebuchadnezzar, Haman, the Chaldaeans, Judas Iscariot, and Israel (rejecting Christ). f) falls from chastity. In Dem. XVIII, 9: Adam. the Sethites?, Samson, David, Amnon, Solomon. (4) Reversals of Fortune.

(a) Those who lost great position. In Dem. XIV, 27: the House of Phinehas (through Eli's sons). Esau to Jacob, Saul to David, Elijah to Elisha, the House of Ahab to Jehu. b) Those who were exalted from being shepherds. In Dem. X, 5: Joseph, Moses, David, Amos, Elisha. c) The

lesser exalted above

the greater or senior.

In XIV,

33: (men),

Seth

over Cain, Noah over Adam, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over Reuben, Ephraim over Manasseh, Eleazar and Ithamar over Nadab and Abihu, Joshua and Caleb over the Spies, Samuel over Eli, David over Saul, Solomon over Adonijah, Jeroboam over Rehoboam, Jehu over Ahab, Mordecai over Haman, Daniel and his brethren over the wise men of Babylon; (women), Sarah over Hagar, Rachel over Leah, Hannah over Peninnah, Esther over Vashti; then (doubtless because it came next in the tradition) comes a

list of prophetesses : Miriam, Hannah, Huldah, Elizabeth, Mary ‘mother of the Great Prophet’, and the ‘judge’ Deborah. d) Following the ‘Victories of Humility’ (3, e above), comes a sequence on "Envy Punished' in Dem.

IX, 8: the Serpent, Cain,

Esau, Joseph's persecu-

tors, Pharaoh, Korah and his supporters, Aaron and Miriam, Saul, Ahab, Jezebel, the Chaldaeans, Haman and the usual anti-Jewish tailpiece. Several examples

mention

the

victims

of aggression,

so

that

this

sequence

partially

overlaps with the following category : (5) The Righteous who Much of this is occupied with the curious feature is no longer persecution Church?.

were persecuted. This is by a complex sequence that very often, after the but more often typology

the subject of Dem. XXI. in comparison-series form, first few entries, the point referring to Christ and the

a) The long comparison-series is summarized under (6). It is followed by: b) Persecuted saints through whom the Spirit spoke (XXI, 21): Jacob. Joseph,

Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and his brethren, Mordecai and Esther. Then follows c) a rhythmical catalogue of the persecuted righteous (22): Abel, Jacob, * For this interpretation of Gen 6:2 cf. SCK, p. 221. * Cf. SCK. pp. 52. 136-7.

114

R. MURRAY

Joseph, Moses, Joshua; Jephtha, Samson, Gideon, Barak; Hezekiah, Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, the Three decai and Esther, Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers, the Eleazar. Then (23) here alone comes a New Testament list: Simon (Peter) and Paul, James and John, the Martyrs under

David, Samuel, Children, MorSeven Brothers, Jesus, Stephen, Diocletian and

those of Aphrahat's own times. (6) The Comparison-Series. Previous to Dem. show that this is a true formal genre :

a) In Dem.

XXI

Aphrahat

has enough

to

VI, 13 there is a double series, comparing Elijah with John

the Baptist (9 items of comparison) and Elisha with ‘Our Redeemer' (10 items). b) In Dem. XI, 12: ‘Jesus bar Nun' (Joshua) and Jesus our Saviour (8

items)!?. c) The great series in Dem. XXI occupies chapters 9-20''. It begins as though it is to be a sequence on the persecuted, with Jacob and Joseph; but then it slips over into the comparison form, always with Jesus: Joseph//Jesus (18 items), Moses//Jesus (15 items), Joshua//Jesus (9 items), Jephtha//Jesus (4 items), David//Jesus (12 items), Elijah//Jesus (8), Elisha//Jesus (8), Hezekiah// Jesus (11), Josiah//Jesus (8), Daniel//Jesus (18), the Three Children//Jesus (8), and Mordecai//Jesus (11).

This recital of bare lists can hardly have been interesting in itself, and it may have inspired the thought that Aphrahat has really only one list which can be applied to almost any purpose, as though on data cards with punch holes round the edge. Yet, as I hope to show below, the origins of his often very similar sequences lie in several distinct areas of religious activity. Before we leave Aphrahat reference should be made to one sequence-form of which he does not give a proper example, namely ‘Reproaches’ of God to his people, in the form '...' (or He...) ‘but you...’ (or ‘but they...’). Aphrahat may have vestiges of the form in the catena from the prophets in Dem. XIX, 3-5, but he has no full-scale example such as we shall see in Ephrem.

19 Cf. SCK, pp. 51-2. In my article "The Exhortation Vows

at Baptism

in the Ancient

Syriac Church’,

New

to Candidates for Ascetical

Testament

Studies

21

(1974-5),

pp. 59-80, I have argued (pp. 65-6) that this passage, though separated in APHRAHAT's text, has the same

Sitz im Leben

as his account

If 1 may add here a small supplementary

of the ascetical

initiation

ceremony.

note to that article, its complex argument

depended on a very few texts of EPHREM in a way which might seem to strain its weakest link. Dom B. OUTTIER has kindly drawn my attention to others which streng-

then the case: EPHREM in Armenian (Venice ed. 1836), vol. IV, p. 185, links Heb. 4:12 with circumcision, baptism and fire, and a longer version of the Greek homily on Abraham and Eph 6:17.

Isaac,

ibid.,

p. 209,

has a fused

citation

of Mt

10:34,

Lk

12:49

!! Full translation in NEUSNER, Aphrahat and Judaism, op. cit.. pp. 97-112.

and

EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE BEHIND

115

APHRAHAT

Fortunately the ground to be surveyed is not all virgin soil, and for much of it we can summarize previous work. If the present article has any originality, this lies in its bringing into one perspective things which

have

been

studied

separately

(if at all) and

not

seen

to

be

related. I shall start from formal analysis, before considering suggestions regarding Sitz im Leben. The beginnings of all aspects of our subject can be-seen in the Old Testament!?. We find a fragment of a commemorative list in Psalm 99:6

(Moses,

Aaron

and

Samuel),

and

the

mention

of Phinehas’s

exploit in Psalm 106:30-31, though on its own, looks like an ancestor of the elements in a sequence. Most often, however, commemoration of the past is in terms of God's acts, enumerated in either the "Thou', the ‘He’ or the 1 form—a structure of prayer or recital which links Hebrew commemorative praise with both earlier Mesopotamian and later hellenistic patterns of ‘aretalogy’, the enumeration of a divinity's

aretai, dynameis or ‘epiphanies’'?. Thus from the earliest examples on, exemplary sequences of persons divine aretalogy forms, though (as we the very opposite of aretai. Already prophets (as also in some psalms), trasted with sins or failures on the of the prophetic passages a formal

are stylistically interwoven with shall see) the items may involve in a number of passages in the God's saving actions are conpart of his people. From some 'ribh pattern' has been recog-

nized '*, which ultimately underlies the Christian 'Reproaches'. By the late Old Testament period we find the exemplary sequence fully established (though in a diffuse form) in Ben Sira's review of the ‘Men of hesed’ (Sir 44-49), in which 24 figures (counting the Twelve Prophets as one) lead back by inclusio to Enoch and thence to Adam; in the thirtieth place, splendidly introduced ‘by so great a 12 For the background cf. B.S. CHitps, Memory and Tradition in Israel [Studies in Biblical Theology 37] (London & Naperville, Ill. 1962); C. WESTERMANN, Das Loben Gottes in den Psalmen (Göttingen 1954), Engl. tr. by K.R. Crim, The Praise of God in the Psalms (London & Richmond,

Va. 1965).

13 See NORDEN, Agnostos Theos, op. cit., pp. 143-308; A.J. FESTUGIERE, Le Dieu cosmique (Paris 1949), pp. 598-605; IDEM, "A propos des arétalogies d'Isis', Harvard Theological

Review

42 (1949),

pp.

209-34,

reprinted

in his Etudes de religion grecque

et hellénistique (Paris 1972); R. CANTALAMESSA, L Omelia ‘In S. Pascha' dello PseudoIppolito Romano (Milan

1967), pp. 346-52.

14 The main form-critical study is by J. HARvEY, Le Plaidoyer prophétique contre Israel aprés la rupture de l'alliance (Bruges-Paris-Montreal 1967).

116

R. MURRAY

cloud of witnesses’, comes the writer's hero, the High Priest Simon. (This characteristic remains in the Christian sequences, that they are essentially lists of the great figures of old, and only one or two nearer to the writer or worshipper are mentioned.) The Wisdom of Solomon (ch. 10) has what is at the same time an aretalogy of Wisdom and an exemplary sequence (though without names) from Adam to Moses!?. From ch. 11 to the end, one strand in the complex structure consists of a syncrisis contrasting the idolatrous and benighted Egyptians with the Israelites and those illuminated by Wisdom'®. Though this is far from the litany-like rhythm of Aphrahat's comparison-series, an example we shall see in Ephrem (or his school) suggests that the hellenistic syrcrisis lies behind them. Many instances of our patterns in hellenistic Jewish and early Christian homiletic material are listed by Hartwig Thyen in a few useful pages!?. In the homilies called 3 and 4 Maccabees, sequences already showing what will be classical conjunctions of names occur in Eleazar's prayer (Thou-form, 3 Mac 6) and in the exhortation by the mother of the seven sons (He-form, 4 Mac 16, 18). Here we have typified the immediate background both for the ‘virtue’ sequences in Hebrews 11 and 1 Clement, and for the ‘prayer’ sequence which appears both in homiletic narrative, in numerous early Christian picture-cycles and in the formal Paradigmengebet or exemplary prayer!?. The latter appears in two contexts, that of public services (as in the Mishna, Ta'anit 2, 4, on fasting days) and that which has been plausibly identified as exorcism. The formal structure, however, is the same (and remains so in the Christian examples) : God's saving acts (Thou-

or He-form, the verbs in participle or perfect) are each related to a place or circumstance as well as a person. Here again we see an age-old feature of the aretalogy form, that the place of epiphany is

15 Cf. J.M. Reese, ‘Hellenistic Influence on the Book quences’ [Analecta Biblica 41] (Rome 1970), pp. 42ff.

of Wisdom

and

its Conse-

‘© Cf, REESE. op. cit., pp. 98-102, with bibliography there. 1? Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie [Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 65] (Góttingen 1955), pp. 74-9. 18 Cf. K. MICHEL. Gebet und Bild (see note 1); A. BAUMSTARK, ‘Eine Parallele zur Commendatio Animae in griechischer Kirchenpoesie', Oriens Christianus, N.S. 4 (1915), pp. 298-307; IDEM, ‘Paradigmengebete ostsyrischer Kirchendichtung’ OrChr N.S. 10-11] (1923), pp. 1-32: H. Lecverca, art. 'Défunts', in Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie (Paris 1920). vol. IV, col. 430-40; Th. KLAUSER, text in

Frühchristliche Sarkophage in Bild und Wort, ed. F. W. DEICHMANN, Antike Kunst [Beiheft 3] (Olten 1966).

EARLY

SYRIAC

LITERATURE

117

important. The sequence in Ta‘anit 2, 4, giving formulas to be inserted in the Eighteen Benedictions on fast days, repeats the formula ‘May he

that

answered

(mi she'anah)

... at

... answer

you

and

hearken

to the voice of your crying this day’, with a varying benediction following each. The persons named are 'Abraham our father in Mount Moriah’,

‘our

fathers

at

the

Red

Sea’,

‘Joshua

in Gilgal’,

‘Samuel

at Mizpah', ‘Elijah in Carmel’, ‘Jonah in the belly of the fish’ and ‘David and his son Solomon in Jerusalem’ (Danby, p. 196). As selihot prayers multiplied, the examples vary and grow more numerous,

especially in the Sephardic tradition !?. Though unequipped to work critically or attempt any step towards dating such prayers, I cannot resist summarizing one from a Sephardic book of the prayers for the

Day

of Atonement

which

is to hand??.

After one

'asher ‘anah it

continues with the participial phrase ha'oneh and mentions Abraham,

Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the people in Egypt, Joshua,

Eli,

Hannah,

Samuel,

'the

woman

Moses,

Aaron,

Phinehas,

in childbirth',

Solomon,

David, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Jonah, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Daniel, Mordecai, Esther, the Hasmoneans and finally Honi the circlemaker; some are mentioned by place, but more by other circumstances. The same rite has a different kind of sequence (pp. 60-1) which 1 would be equally unable to date, but observe that it seems

very close both to the biblical

'remembering'

patterns and

to the

Syriac love of titles. This is a sort of 'litany of covenants’ in Aramaic: 'Merciful One, remember for us the covenant of Abraham the Beloved, ... of Isaac Bound, ... of Jacob the Whole-hearted, . of Joseph the Righteous, ... of Moses the Prophet, ... of Aaron the Priest, ... of Phinehas the Zealous, ... of David the Anointed, ... of Solomon the King’. To turn to Christian exemplary prayers, it must suffice here to refer only by name to the well-known Cyprianic prayers and their versions in many languages?!. They, the Greek examples in the Eu-

chologion?? and the Latin prayer in the Commendatio Animae all reveal an origin in exorcism or healing, as K. Michel showed??. But 19 A useful comparative table of seven rites is given in 30 Mahzor FYamim Nora'im : Orazioni per il Giorno Israeliti spagnuoli, with Italian translation by A. Costa 2! The prayers, connected with CYPRIAN OF ANTIOCH, CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE. For versions see T. SCHERMANN,

DACL IV, cols. 437-8. dell'Espiazione ad uso degli (Livorno 1892), I, pp. 32-3. are appended to editions of ‘Das griechische Cyprianos-

gebet’, OrChr 3 (1903), pp. 303-23, and BAUMSTARK’s articles in note 18.

22 See BAUMSTARK, ‘Eine Parallele’, op. cit., pp. 299-303. 23 Gebet und Bild, op. cit., ch. I, esp. pp. 9-13.

118

R. MURRAY

in view of the evidently in place to summarize the The exemplary sequence giving on the Lord's Day

Jewish background of Aphrahat, it seems prayer in Apostolic Constitutions VII, 37-8. here occurs in a long prayer of thankswhich follows the actual Anaphora in 25-6.

The exemplary prayer begins and ends with Christ, but its substance is entirely on the Jewish model, with constant references either to places or to circumstances. Here, however, the gracious act of God which is commemorated is not ‘answering’ but the acceptance of sacrifice, from Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Gideon, Manoah, Samson, Jephtha, Barak, Deborah, Samuel,

David, (after

Solomon, his

Elijah,

repentance),

Elisha,

Josiah,

Jehoshaphat, Daniel,

Jonah,

Hezekiah,

Manasseh

the

Children,

Three

Hannah, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, Mattathias and his sons, Jael. Then the sequence breaks for a few phrases, to begin again with examples of God's help ‘in the days of...” Enosh and Enoch Moses and Joshua, Samuel and Elijah and the prophets, David and the kings, Esther and Mordecai, Judith, Judas Maccabaeus and his brethren, 'and in our days by thy great High Priest, Jesus Christ thy Son'?*. The cycles in early Christian art are a subject large enough for a book ??, and since they appear without interpretation (except that the garbled Latin phrases on the Podgoritza cup obviously belong to a prayer of the Cyprianic type)?°, they do not relate themselves clearly to the categories of our survey. The cycles known before the discovery of the Via Latina catacomb (that is, mainly, in some cubicula of catacombs such as Priscilla and Ad duas Lauros, on a number of sarcophagi and the Podgoritza cup) are almost always stereotyped and shorter than the sequences in the Cyprianic and related prayers. The Via Latina find has changed all this, with (for example) 26 Old Testament

scenes in cubicle ‘B’ alone, accompanied by only one certain New Testament figure (and perhaps a problematic second)?". Many of these fourth-century paintings may have a key, now lost, other than ?* Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolicae, ed. F. X. Funk (Paderborn 1905), pp. 436-

8; tr. J. DoNALDSON in Ante-Nicene Christian Library 17 (Edinburgh 1870), pp. 197-8. 2% Besides the works mentioned in note 18, helpful are A. GRABAR. Le premier art chrétien (Paris 1966), and his Christian Iconography : A Study of its Origins (Princeton

1968). ?* See P.

Levi,

27 Since A.

"The

FERRUA's

Podgoritza

Cup‘,

The

Heythrop

Le Pitture della nuova

Journal 4 (1963),

Catacomba

di

pp.

54-60.

Via Latina (Vatican

1960), the literature is extensive. There are some good pictures in GRABAR, Le premier art chrétien, op. cit., and an excellent series of slides is published by the Pontifical Academy of Christian Archeology in Rome.

EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE

119

the common exemplary tradition; but it is certainly remarkable that here, uniquely in a Christian monument which has many of the classic sequence, we see the grisly exploit of Phinehas represented

as in Jewish legend??. Here, however, we must leave the subject of the artistic monuments,

having merely taken cognizance of their un-

doubtable yet not clearly defined importance. The kind of exemplary sequence which lies behind Aphrahat's *prayer' and 'virtue' classes—often coinciding with the typical Paradigmengebet series, often again overlapping with the forms of aretalogy, can be found in a number of the Greco-Latin Fathers. The sequence of examples of Faith in Hebrews 11 is too well known to quote, yet the data reviewed in this article may help the reader to read that chapter with a deeper realization of its background. Like-

wise the examples of faith, obedience and righteousness in 1 Clement 9-12 and of humility, ibid. 16-18. (The most interesting series in this

letter, however, is better kept for our following section.) Origen has a little sequence of those whose prayers were answered in De Oratione 13, 2, repeated identically in 16, 3: Hannah, Hezekiah, Mordecai and Esther, Judith, the Three Children, Daniel, Jonah??. Cyprian, despite his rather formal and traditional use of scripture, has only one list, exemplifying patience in suffering: Abel, Abraham, Isaac,

Joseph, Moses, David ??. Gregory Nazianzen in his poems often versifies some of the traditional type of list?!, as Newman was to paraphrase the litany in the Commendatio Animae in The Dream of Gerontius. One of the most beautiful sequences apart from liturgical texts

comes in the first of Marriott's Macarian homilies??. The sequence is in aretalogy form, the subject being Jesus our Peace, and the phrases being introduced now by εἰρήνη ἐκείνη, now by masculine participles.

Jesus is 'that Peace which received the offering of Abel, ... translated Enoch, ... protected Noah in the Ark; He who blessed Abraham, ... made Isaac the heir, ... chose Jacob from the womb, ... was with ?* Cf. A. FERRUA, ‘Una Scena nuova nella pittura catacombale‘, Rendiconti della Pontif. Accad. di Archeologia 30 (1959), pp. 107-16. 29 Ed. P. KOETSCHAU, Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 3, Origen 11 (Leipzig & Berlin 1899), pp. 326 and 337-8. 30

De Bono

Patientiue

10, ed.

W.

HARTEL,

Corpus

Scriptorum

Ecclesiasticorum

Lati-

norum 3, | (1868), pp. 403-4. ?! J.P. MiGNE., Patrologia Graeca 37. 591-4 (9 examples of God's protection); col. 969-71 (4 examples of deliverance and two from Christ's life); col. 1075-6 (3 examples);

col. 1249-50 (suffering, 4 examples); col. 1396 (deliverance, 5 examples). 32 Macarii Anecdota, ed. G.L.

137.

Marriott

(Cambridge,

Mass.

1918), Hom.

1, p. 20.

120

R. MURRAY

Joseph in exile, ... appeared to Moses, ... gave him authority, ... gave Joshua strength, ... chose Samuel as priest, ... anointed David, ... made the widow's cruse last, ... took Elijah up to heaven, ... gave Elisha a double share of the Spirit, ... made the staff do miracles in Egypt, ... made Aaron's rod flower; that Peace which gave Job strength in his trials; He who was with our fathers in Egypt...’ Let us pass now to Aphrahat's third category, Those who were led into sin. We saw two examples where Satan or 'the Enemy' is named

as the agent; in view of the examples

which

follow, this may

be significant in Aphrahat, whether he realized it or not. We may start with the sequence in 1 Clement which was reserved for consideration; the Evils done by Jealousy (1 Clem. 3-6): it incited Cain against Abel, made Jacob flee from Esau, persecuted Joseph, set the hebrew against Moses, likewise Aaron and Miriam, Dathan and Abiram; made the other tribes envy David and Saul persecute him, and finally caused the persecution of Peter and Paul and Christian women martyrs. This is doubtless simply a homiletic series of moral examples. But there are three instances, at least two

such solemn

form

that they might

from

before Aphrahat,

best be called

in

‘anti-aretalogies’.

In the Acts of Judas Thomas 32, in Act 3??, a story of exorcism, the evil black snake which has killed a young man is made to identify himself in a rhythmical ‘I am’ sequence, as the son of the author of evil (four items; the fourth is ‘I am the son of him who

is outside

the ocean, and whose mouth is closed'. The examples below, together with some Jewish midrashic traditions, make it certain that the allusion here is to Leviathan)?^. The serpent continues, in the sort of free but marked rhythm which is familiar in Aphrahat : I am the kinsman of him who spake with Eve, and through her made Adam transgress the commandment God. 33 Syriac in Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. ed. W. WRIGHT,

2 vols. (London

of &

Edinburgh 1871), I. 198-9; translation in A.F.J. Kıım, The Acts of Judas Thomas [Novum Testamentum, Supplements 5] (Leiden 1962), p. 80 and notes, pp. 224-7. (As in SCK, hereafter the Syriac Acts are referred to as AJT.)

?* This is missed by KLUN, p. 225; see L. GINZBERG, Legends of the Jews, 7 vols. (Philadelphia 1945-55), V. pp. 45-6. An exorcistic Sitz im Leben is also suggested by the incidence of Leviathan imagery on Aramaic incantation bowls; see C.D. IssELL, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls [Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 17] (Missoula, Mont. 1975), nos. 2 and 7; E.R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols. (New York 1953-68), II, 205: C.H. GORDON, ‘Leviathan: Symbol of Evil’. in Biblical Motifs. ed. A. ALTMANN (Cambridge, Mass.

1966), pp. 1-9.

EARLY

SYRIAC

LITERATURE

121

And I am he who incited Cain to slay his brother. And on my account, — because of this I was created,— the earth was cursed and thorns grew up in it. I am he who dared, and cast down the just from their height", and corrupted them through the lust of women; and they begat sons large of body, and I worked in them my will. And I am he who hardened the heart of Pharaoh, that he might slay the children of Israel, and keep them down in hard slavery. I am he who led the people astray in the desert, when I subdued them so that they made for themselves the calf. I am he who stirred up Caiaphas and Herod by slander against the Righteous Judge. I am he who caused Judas to take the bribe, when he was made subject to me, that he might deliver up the Messiah to death. I am he to whom the power of this world was given, and the Son of Mary has seized me by force°° and taken what was his from me. I am the kinsman of him who is to come from the east, to whom the power is given. The rhetorical formalism of this speech makes it extremely unlikely that it began life as an integral part of the narrative. The devil being cast out is made to use in the first person a type of sequence which, in fact, we have in the οὗτός ἐστιν form in two completely unrelated texts—the legendary martyrdom of Cyriacus and Julitta, preserved in Syriac?", and the recently reconstructed commentary on Job

by the hitherto unknown

Julian the Arian??.

Since these texts are

likely to be less widely known, and the latter passage has not been recognized (as far as I know), it is worth while quoting them in full. 35 Since above.

they

are not called

angels,

these

‘just’ might

be the Sethites;

see note

8

3e Cf. APHRAHAT, Dem. VI, 6, not long after a sequence of the Enemy's destruclive acts; see below. 37 Published by P. BEDJAN, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum ΠῚ (Leipzig 1892), pp. 275ff.; text of prayer with retroversion into Greek and discussion by H. GRESSMANN, "Das Gebet des Kyriakos’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 20 (1921), pp. 23-35. 3% Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian, ed. D. HAGEDORN [Patristische Texte

und Studien 14] (Berlin 1973). The sequence is on p. 299.

122

R. MURRAY

The prayer of St Cyriacus during his martyrdom is notable also for its elements in common with the Hymn of the Pearl in the Acts of Judas Thomas; but we must pass on to where he comes to describe a great dragon, ‘the king of the creeping things of the earth, whose tail is placed in his mouth'—a clear allusion to Leviathan in midrashic legend. After a little more description begins the sequence : This is the dragon (hanaw tannina) who made the angels of the height go astray through passion. This is the dragon who made the first Adam go astray, and cast him out of the garden. (repeat 'This is the dragon' each time)

. who incited and inflamed Cain . who increased evil among men, to make God bring the flood . who corrupted (?) the hearts of who stirred up so great evil. . who attracted the wife of the . who hardened the hearts of the

to kill his brother. on the earth. the giants ; captain of the guard Israelites

to Joseph.

and counselled them to make themselves a calf and worship it. . who hardened their hearts, so as not to accept God's commandments. . who made David fall through Bathsheba. . who made Solomon follow the error of his heart. . who made Jeroboam go astray, to make a golden calf, that the people might worship it, and not worship God in Jerusalem. . who drove out Elijah before Jezebel. . who encouraged Manasseh to set up statues of idols in the Lord's house. . who set up all idols. . who has released the power of torments, which overturn the truth and the souls of men. Hugo Gressmann practically limited his remarks on this part of the prayer to the correct observation that the description of the dragon depends on Job 40f. A.F.J. Klijn saw that this section provides a parallel to the self-accusation of the serpent in AJT 32. But it is the commentary of Julian the Arian on Job which clinches the argument. The passage is all the more striking because the general tendency

EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE

123

of the commentary is Antiochene??. D. Hagedorn, the editor, remarks on relationships to Syriac exegesis but does not go into details except for his extremely interesting (and, 1 think, conclusive) argument that the author is the same as that of the Apostolic Constitutions *9. If this is so, then we can ascribe two classic examples of related genres, the exemplary prayer and the 'anti-aretalogy', to the same writer, Julian the Arian, whose commentary Hagedorn dates to about 360. The οὗτός ἐστιν sequence arises out of the comment on Job 41:25-6: This is the βάσκανος (bewitcher or slanderer) of men,

who made them turn from the commandment though they had done him no harm. This is he who armed Cain against Abel for fratricide. because of his just and acceptable thanks-offering ; who [incited] Ham against Noah, to mock at his father's nakedness. This is he who stirred up a disorderly mob to the vain task of building a tower. This is he who made war against this blessed one (presumably Job) and returned empty of his hope. This is he who stirred up temptations against chaste Joseph,

Esau against Jacob, Saul against David,

Ahab against Naboth, Jezebel against Elijah,

Jehoram and 'Ader' (Ben-Hadad?) against Elisha, Joash against Zechariah, the ‘horn-wearer’ against Micaiah, Hananiah against Jeremiah, the Persian satraps against Daniel, the shameless cruel elders against Susanna, Haman

against Mordecai,

Holofernes against Judith ; This is he who opposed Joshua son of Jehozadak, who sought to make the apostles abandon their faith ; This is he who even now is at work among men of disbelief, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath of his mouth 39 HAGEDORN, OP. cit., pp. LVIN-LXXX VIN. *9 And

also of the

PsEUDO-IGNATIAN

letters;

HAGEDORN,

Op.

cit.. pp.

XLII-LI

124

R. MURRAY

and will bring to naught at the manifestation of his coming (τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας); He who smites the assembly of the wicked by the word of his spirit and destroys the ungodly by his lips. If from led into followed reversed

these evil, by by

examples we go back to Aphrahat's sequences on those and bear in mind that the sequence in Dem. VI is soon a summary of evils which have at last been ended and the Son of Mary (VI, 6—the phrase in AJT 32); also

that between

the sequences

in XIV,

10 and

13 comes a

section

(12)

on the works of the Serpent—there is a strong case that we have discovered the background of one of Aphrahat's kinds of sequence. (We have still to see a variant

of it in Ephrem.)

Meanwhile

it seems

very probable that the Sitz im Leben of the 'Leviathan anti-aretalogy’

was exorcism. Another point telling in this direction frequent application of 'salt of the earth' (Mt

is Aphrahat's

5:13) to say or suggest

that this salt puts the serpent to flight, because he cannot abide it *!. Though the use of salt in baptismal exorcism appears a purely Western development, these hints in Aphrahat at least raise the question whether this is not yet another trail that leads back into Syriac Christianity.

So far a Jewish background has been referred to only in connexion with Leviathan, though Ginzberg's examples hardly constitute a chronologically safe argument. There is, however, a hint in the Talmud of a sequence (referred to twice in different places) of 'four who died through the machinations of the serpent’*?. This has been conventionally located among numerical sayings, but possibly it may be parallel to the material reviewed above, and likewise be originally related to exorcism. Aphrahat's comparison-series, it was suggested above, has its remote ancestry in the hellenistic-Jewish syncrisis, though it has become more taut and rhythmical in a way which I have not found earlier. Nearest to Aphrahat, both in date and in style, is a comparison-series in the Martyrdom

of Simeon

bar-Sabba'e,

where Simeon is compared with

8 (Patr.

Syr.

I, 2,

cols.

727-31),

Judas Maccabaeus under seven points,

*! Cf. SCK, p. 87. n. 4. *!

b.

Shabbath

larly in b. Baba

55b

Bathra

(Benjamin.

17a (where

Amram,

Jesse

the fourth

and

Caleb

is 'Kilab'). Cf.

‘the

son

Kun,

of David":

simi-

op. cit, p. 224.

and the notes (opposing any reference to ‘original sin’) in the Soncino edition, Shab. p. 256, B. B. p. 86.

EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE

125

interrupted by a series of descriptive phrases applied to both, introduced by haleyn hwaw, ‘these were’. The choice of comparison certainly suggests a thoroughly Jewish Christian milieu. Behind these fourth-century examples, perhaps an interim stage of development is found in two short typological sequences in Melito’s homily On the

Pasch, 59 and 69“ : Look at Abel, likewise murdered, at Isaac likewise bound, at Joseph likewise sold, at Moses likewise exposed, at David likewise persecuted, at the prophets likewise suffering for Christ. The other is one of the οὗτός ἐστιν sequences in which the homily abounds: 'This is he who in Abel was murdered'—and it continues with the identical sequence of persons and verbs (now in the aorist passive participle) with two additions, ‘who in Jacob went into exile’ and

‘who

in the lamb

was

slaughtered’

in their

Exemplary sequences of this type seems Aphrahat’s typological comparison-series.

EPHREM,

TRANSMUTER

appropriate

two-thirds

OF

places.

of the way

to

TRADITIONS

It remains to review those passages in Ephrem or attributed works which correspond to the different kinds of Old Testament sequence. We shall find several hints of sequences concealed in other literary forms, yet recognizable now that we have learned to see them. We do not find the straight summary list which abounds in Aphrahat, but a typical traditional sequence can be seen to underlie, for example, the diffuse passage in Sermones I, 6 on examples of penitential mourning: Adam, Enoch, Noah; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob; Job, David, Jeremiah, Ezekiel**. Even more diffuse examples, sometimes in Ephrem's dramatic contest form, come in the hymns preserved in Armenian“δ. In Hymn | appear (mainly by allusion), as examples of prayer, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Daniel, the Three Children and Barren Women who

** CANTALAMESSA,

however

(L'Omelia,

op.

cit,

p.

339).

takes

this

rather

as

an

example of the Encomion style. and does not relate it to syncrisis (on which he has some good pages, 352-5). O. PERLER [Sources Chrétiennes 123] (Paris 1966) is always disappointing

on

MELITO's

rhetoric;

he refers vaguely

to the commonplaces

of Stoic

moralists (pp. 167-8). ** Lines 71-134; [CSCO 305, Syr. 130] (1970), pp. 82-3. ** Patrologia Orientalis 30, 1 (1961), pp. further page references for what follows.

26ff.

It does

not

seem

necessary

to give

126

R. MURRAY

became fertile. In Hymn 2, as examples of fasting and virginity: Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, John (the Apostle), Joshua, John the Baptist. With Hymn 4 begin the dramatic contests of Virginity and Marital ‘Holiness’

(ie.

ascetical

abstinence

from

intercourse),

involving

in

every case the same sort of incredible claims made by Christian ascetics about Old Testament figures as we saw in Aphrahat. In Hymn 4 Noah and Moses are claimed for ‘Holiness’, Joshua and Elijah for Virginity; in Hymn 5 come Elijah (V.), Ezekiel (H.), Hannah (H.), Daniel (V.), Paul (H.), John the Baptist (V.), Simon

Kepha (H.),

Mary Magdalen (V.) and Moses (H.). Hymn 9 is not a contest but a self-praising aretalogy by 'Holiness', in which she lists those whom ‘I begot' : Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac (with a reference

to his ‘binding’), Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Daniel and his companions; kings, priests, prophets, and finally Mary, the mother of Jesus. The next hymn begins a series on watching at night, doubtless used to keep the Bnay Qyama awake during their vigils. In Hymn 10 the classic all-purpose list of Old Testament saints reappears to provide models of nocturnal vigilance : Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Job, Jonah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. In Hymn 12 we have a sequence concerning those who were undone by sleep: Adam, Noah, Lot, the Egyptians, Sisera, Samson, the Midianites, Saul, 'Rapsak' (meaning the host of Sennacherib, for whom the Rabshakeh spoke) and Babylon. The last sequence might suggest some of Aphrahat’s lists of those led into sin which may relate to a background in exorcism formulas, but there is no formal element to support this. It is otherwise with a different series of dramatic dialogues, those in the Nisibene Hymns in which the disputants are Death and Satan “5. As they boast in turn about their victories— Death by bringing low the proud, Satan by leading men into sin and ruin—it now becomes clear that Ephrem is playing variations on our old 'anti-aretalogy' of the Evil One's acts. In Hymn 53 the list is divided between Satan and Death, each occasionally making his claim in the ‘I’ form: they refer to Adam, the Men of Sodom, Assyria and the Giants, Joseph, Moses, Elijah's persecution by Jezebel, Aaron, Job, David, Jehu, Solomon, Samuel, Samson, Josiah, Hezekiah, John the Baptist and Simon (Peter). In Hymn 54:15-17 we have a clearer fragment of an ‘I am’ sequence: ** (CSCO

240,

Syr.

Nicene and Post-Nicene

102]

(1963);

Fathers

translation

13 (New

York

by

1898).

G.

Gwynn

in Select

Library

of

EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE

127

Ἵ am he who bound Adam...’. But most revealing of all is Hymn 57, a monologue of Death mocking Satan, using the ‘Thou’ form which is common in aretalogy-prayers, but which we have not yet seen in ‘anti-aretalogies’, though it might well be the most frequent original form in exorcism. The list begins with Adam and next addresses Satan precisely as ‘Dragon’ in connexion with Eve. There follow Cain, Ham (claimed

by Satan

in ‘I’ form),

Lot

and

his daughters,

Lot’s

wife,

Sodom, the people opposing Moses and Elijah, Joseph’s brethren, the daughters of Midian, Samson, Saul, the phantom raised by the Witch of Endor, Absalom, Solomon, Jezebel, the two captains on whom Elijah called down fire, the murder of Naboth, Gehazi, the death of Josiah, the persecution of Jeremiah, Daniel, Esther, the Three Children, the Maccabean martyrs, ‘the two heads of Nazirites, sons of barren women’ (?) and John the Baptist. In all this, though the relationship to the old 'anti-aretalogy' is loose, it seems clear. A different kind of variation is found in Sermones I, 2*’. The theme is “Whatever the Enemy tries against us, we can beat him’: If he hardens his heart like Pharaoh * there is a force that can face him. If he pursues like the Egyptians * the sea is there to drown him. If he hides traps in the ground * there is mercy in heaven. If he threatens like Goliath * the Son of David is like David. If he rears up like Sisera * in the holy Church he is brought low. If he makes war like Sennacherib * he is brought to an end by sackcloth and ashes. If he makes himself like the Babylonians * there is One who keeps us pure like Daniel. If he rears up like Haman * there are fasters to overcome him. If he kindles the fire of lust * there are victors like Joseph. Later the theme continues, more allusively, referring to Daniel and his companions, Moses, Elisha and finally Simon Kepha.

In Sermones II, 2*° there is a comparison-series unlike Aphrahat’s type in that it works by contrast, not by similarity; in this respect (and indeed in theme) it relates more closely to the syncrisis in Wisdom LIff., yet with the concise sequence-pattern of Aphrahat. The plagues in Egypt are contrasted with the blessings brought by Christ : When Pharaoh’s heart was hardened * and his mind was stubborn, *" Lines 1917-66; [CSCO 305, Syr. 130], pp. 48-9.

** Lines 496-537; [CSCO 311, Syr. 134] (1970), pp. 50-1.

128

R. MURRAY

there the staff was changed * and turned into a dragon (tannina); here is the Cross of deliverance * which raised to life the dead in Sheol. There the river turned to blood * and the unclean were tormented by thirst ;

here the Kind One has poured out his blood * and given mortals Life to drink. There the frogs were heaped up * so that the land was foul with their stench ; here are the true apostles * with whose fragrance the earth is sweet. The contrasts continue for another half-dozen pairs, ending : There darkness reigned * for three days in Egypt; here he made light shine * for three days in Sheol. Closer to Aphrahat is a short comparison-series in Ephrem's Diatessaron Commentary, where immediately after contemplating Christ crucified as the Tree of Life, Ephrem suddenly changes both theme and style : Envy persecuted David * and jealousy the Son of David. David was shut up in the recesses of a cave * and the Son of David in the depths of Sheol. David was thought to be guilty * and the Son of David to be conquered ; (yet) it was Saul who was guilty and proved false: * it was death that was conquered and laid low. David cried ‘Where is your spear, O King?’ * and the Son of David, ‘Where is your victory, O Death?’ Saul cast his spear at David, and though he smote him not, the wall bore witness to his smiting; * The crucifiers smote the Son of David with the lance, and though (his) power smiting.

was

not

wounded,

(his) body

bore

witness

David was not hit * and the Son of David was not The wall, the spear and the cave accuse Saul, * the body, the cross and the sepulchre prove the The first cola, both by their discontinuity with what their rhythmic form, suggest a piece of tradition

injured;

to their

Hebrews false *°. precedes and by just like that of

49 Evangelii Concordantis Expositio (= Latin translation) 21. 12, ed. G. MOESINGER (Venice 1876); Syr. ed. L. LELOIR [Chester Beatty Monographs 8] (Dublin 1963), p. 216;

tr. Leroi

[Sources

Chrétiennes

121] (1966),

pp.

380-1.

On

the context,

p. 125: ‘lance’ (rumha) still reflects the peculiar reading discussed there.

see SCK,

EARLY

Aphrahat;

but

all his own

Ephrem

SYRIAC

LITERATURE

elaborates

(as is also the harsh

the

and

129

comparison

with

a subtlety

unjust side-swipe at the Jews);

not only is the comparison of persons made more complex, but several pairs of nouns and verbs are established and woven into a skilful pattern. In a previous section I mentioned the prophetic ribh which, from its fragmentary beginnings in Amos 2:9-12 and Micah 6:1-5, includes a series of reproaches addressed by God to his people referring to his acts for them, normally in the ‘I... you...” form, but sometimes in ‘He... they...” form. In early Christian literature this ancient pattern is adopted for use in anti-Jewish controversy : developed examples occur

in

the

Christian

additions

to

4

Esdras

(1:4-2:3)

and

above

all in Melito’s homily On the Pasch*°. Eric Werner, reacting to Melito with understandable feelings, argues that the passages in question are a vicious parody precisely of a Jewish passover song, the Dayyenu (which

Werner

therefore has to maintain

is older than

Melito)°!.

An

adequate discussion of this matter would require too long. The short answer is that the Dayyenu is indeed a good example of one of the many possible forms of sequence such as we have considered in this essay, but considering the extent of the phenomenon it is neither necessary nor probable that Melito should depend on the Dayyenu. The Reproach tradition was fully established and likewise had an extensive posterity. One element in this is revealed in Ephrem's commentary on the Diatessaron, though once again he has made the tradition his own in a new way by using not a common list of God's benefits to his people but Ezekiel's parable of God's orphan child (Ez. 16:1-14). Commenting on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, Ephrem attacks the Jews for their ingratitude, and then continues

in a markedly rhythmical style>? : The Father washed her of her blood spittle. The Father clothed her in linen and in the garments of mockery. He put a crown on her head * and thorns. He gave her fatness and honey to

* and she defiled his Son with purple * and she clothed him she plaited for him a crown eat

* and

30 Most of 73-100 is in or close to this style. 31 *Melito of Sardis, the First Poet of Deicide’,

Hebrew

she gave Union

him

of gall.

College Annual 37

(Cincinnati 1966), pp. 191-210.

52 Evangelium Concordans, op. cit., 18, 1; Syr. p. 204; tr. pp. 313-4.

130

R. MURRAY

He gave her pure wine * and she offered him vinegar on a sponge. Him who had brought her into cities * she drove out into the desert. Him who had put shoes on her feet * she forced to run to Golgotha. For him who had girt her loins with sapphire * she pierced his side with a lance. This survey has not exhausted the forms which a rhetorical sequence based on the Old Testament might take. There may be a recognizable type listing historic nights: one thinks of the insertion in Targum Neofiti at Ex 12:42 which R. le Déaut calls ‘le poéme des quatre nuits’ —the night of creation, of the ‘Agedah, of the Exodus and of the Messiah's return°?; of the repeated Haec nox est of the Western Paschal Exsultet (a Christian passover haggadah!), the song in the Jewish seder with the response Vay'hi balftzi ha-laylah (it was at midnight), a little sequence ‘that was the evening’ in the Holy Week

homilies ascribed

to Ephrem°*,—and,

Mr

R. Loewe

suggested

to

me (among many other helpful remarks), eventually Shakespeare's sequence ‘On such a night as this’ in The Merchant of Venice. He also suggested that the ultimate origin might be in the standard exercises of the ancient rhetorical schools55. I suspect that this is true throughout our subject: that many of our sequences arise from the marriage of common rhetorical techniques with biblical subject matter, except where the background is clearly the common patterns of ancient prayer or exorcism. The mention of Shakespeare must remind us that the history of these sequences could be traced far beyond Ephrem and in many literatures. There are classic lists in the Qur'an, in the Suras The Prophets and Those in Ranks?9. Roland's dying prayer naturally slips 53 Targum Neophyti I, Vol. 11, Exodo. ed. A. Diez MACHO (Madrid-Barcelona 1970). pp. 77-9 (Engl. tr. ibid., pp. 441-2); R. LE Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (Analecta Biblica 22] (Rome 1963), pp. 64ff. ** Serm. 4, 7 (LAMY I, 425-7). In these homilies, which Dom E. Beck judges not by EPHREM himself, but which contain themes typical of him, other passages relevant to our theme are 2, 10 (col. 385-7), a fragmentary comparison-series on the Old and

the New Passovers: 6, 21 (col. 511-5), embodying a complex comparison-series on Jacob and Christ: 6, 5 (col. 461-7), partly in ‘Reproach' style. 55 D. DAUBE, ‘Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric’, HUCA 22 (1949). pp. 239-64. ended

with a call ‘to conduct

a thorough

inquiry

of Talmudic jurisprudence to Hellenistic rhetoric. There is much

into the debt

more than that to

investigate, as the sketchy suggestions in the present article indicate. 5® Sura 21, al-Anbiydà' (12 O.T. figures from Abraham to Dhu'n-Nün (Jonah). lowed by Zechariah and John the Baptist; Sura 37, as-Sa/far, 8 O.T. figures.

fol-

EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE

131

into the old exemplary pattern, and likewise Charlemagne’s prayer as he sets out to avenge Roland". A comparison-series of exactly Aphrahat's type turns up in the mysterious and undatable Ethiopic work The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth 59. The *Reproaches' developed in a rich literature of Byzantine kontakia and

Western adaptations ??, both liturgical and poetic—as in the poem on the Passion by the eighth-century Irish poet Blathmac, son of Cü Brettan °°. But these things must be for another time and other seekers.

5” Chanson de Roland, laisse 176, 2384-8 (Lazarus. Daniel): laisse 228 (226), 3100-19 (Jonah. the king of Nineveh,

Daniel, the Three

Children).

Engl.

tr. by D.L.

Savers

[Penguin Classics] (Harmondsworth 1957), pp. 142, 170. ** Ed. E. A. WatLis BUDGE (Oxford 1935), Part IV; Engl. tr. pp. 145-7 (Abraham and Christ); 149-50 (Joseph and Christ). 39? See A. BAUMSTARK, ‘Der Orient und die Gesänge der Adoratio Crucis’, Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 2 (1922). pp.

1-17; E. WELLESz.

‘Eastern

Elements

in Western

Chant’ [Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia 2] (Oxford 1947), pp. 19-31. *9 See The Poems of Blathmac Son of Cu Brettan, ed. J. CARNEY [Irish Texts Society 47] (Dublin 1964), pp. 26-35.

FORM-ANALYSIS THE

CASE

AND

OF

SOURCE

MISHNAH

CRITICISM:

KELIM

1:1-4

Jacob NEUSNER Providence, Rhode Island, USA

It was in connection with my History of the Jews in Babylonia (I-V, Leiden, 1965-1970) that I encountered the splendid scholarship of Professor Arthur Vóóbus!. My admiration for his erudition, imagination, and historical sense was tempered only by envy of his sources. For the sources assembled by Professor Vööbus for his historical work on Babylonia and the Near East come, in the main, from identifiable writers, whose time and place are known to us. Accordingly, the critical task may begin at a point quite different from that at which equivalent efforts, in rabbinical literature and history, commence. In the equivalent sources pertinent to Babylonian Jewry, we do not have a literature produced by individuals and in their own name. We do not know where discrete pericopes originate, who put them together with other such materials and presumably revised them as well, or, therefore, the time and the place to which they most immediately pertain. The history which depends upon such sources can at best be called pre-critical, therefore, by contrast to the much more satisfactory history of Professor Vóóbus. Indeed, it was in the contrast between

the sorts of questions which Professor Vóóbus found it possible to ! Abbreviations and definitions Albeck

=

B.Q. Kel. M. Nid. Oh.

= Bava Qamma, the first of the three divisions of Tosefta Kelim. = Kelim = Mishnah = Niddah (tractate on menstrual taboos) = Ohalot (tractate on the uncleanness conveyed in a tent over

Tevul yom =

Hanokh

Albeck,

Seder

Toharot (Jerusalem

1958).

complete the process of purification. Tos. = Tosefta Tos. Reng.= Die Tosefta. Text. Übersetzung. Erklärung, ed. by Heinrich Rengstorf (Stuttgart 1952). Pages and lines

Zah

=

a corpse)

A person who has bathed on the selfsame day and is awaiting sunset to

A male afflicted with gonorrhaea. Female : Zabah.

G. Kittel and Karl are to this edition.

134

J. NEUSNER

raise and answer and those which, given the state of the evidence and our understanding of its history, I was able to ask, that I found the next stage in my scholarly agenda. That is why I hope the discussion which follows, stimulated as it was by the contrast just now noted, will prove an appropriate tribute to one of the great historians of the Near East and its religions in late antiquity. I While we do not know the identity of those who gave us the primary document of rabbinic literature, Mishnah-Tosefta, that is not our primary problem. We also do not know much about the sources out of which Mishnah-Tosefta was formed, how they were transmitted or formulated. Mishnah-Tosefta is a public document. At no point does it reveal the private and individual language of the several generations of rabbis, from ca. A.D. 70 to ca. 200, represented in its assigned pericopes. A highly formalized and stereotyped style characterizes the formulation of the laws. The history of the conventional patterns of which that style is composed—form-history—is not possible, because, in the main, materials attributed to the earliest named authorities of Mishnah-Tosefta, those who flourished shortly before and after A.D. 70, and those assigned to the latest named authority exhibit common forms. On the other hand, the isolation and analysis of the units of tradition are made possible by the recognition of these very same forms. Form-analysis proves, indeed, a powerful instrument of exegesis, since, for the first time, we are able to differentiate among the units of thought of a given, complex pericope and to show the original limits of each such unit?. That makes possible the recognition ? I stress the difference between

form-criticism, in its accepted meaning of form-

history, which

has not been attempted

is. Colleagues complish, it is reasons. First, history are not presuppositions

in biblical form-criticism not form-criticism. I am as emphasized, the data in hand. Second, so far of biblical form-critics,

in Mishnah-Tosefta,

and

form-analysis,

which

have assured me that, whatever | may acinclined to accept that judgment, for two which make possible form-criticism as formas I have been able to follow the claims and with their claim to tell us the Sitz-im-leben

of stereotyped forms, I have been unable to locate solid evidence, in sources, in behalf

of any of these presuppositions. All I discern is a construction built upon one hypothesis after another, with remarkably little evidence in support of even the most fundamental hypotheses. Here, by contrast, we claim to discern only what is clear and on the surface: the literary and formulary traits of units of thought. It should also be observed that Mishnah-Tosefta (and other compilations of rabbinical literature) is to be studied in its own terms and disciplines, not forced to submit to literarycritical methods shaped in response to the traits of other literature. Mishnah-Tosefta

MISHNAH

KELIM

1:1-4

135

of two levels of meaning, the original meaning present in the complete pericope, and the secondary meaning imposed upon the same pericope by its being placed into juxtaposition with other, visually and conceptually adjacent, but originally independent pericopes. The redactional conception of the meaning of what is in fact distinct, of course, is supplied by the great exegetical tradition of Mishnah-Tosefta, beginning in the pages of the Talmuds themselves. The prior meaning, that conceived by the people who made up the pericope in the first place, is accessible primarily through our own formal and logical analysis. A further inquiry,

to be illustrated here, also is to be undertaken.

Mishnah-Tosefta contains a fair number of lists, ladders, and other complex constructions, which claim to summarize and organize a substantial body of information. It is possible to show that these major, impressive constructions are themselves formed of prior materials— prior not merely in their principal ideas, but in their formulation in stereotyped language. So we may give firm evidence that MishnahTosefta is not the work, in respect to its legal conceptions, solely of the uitimate redactional generation alone. On the contrary, the discernment of already redacted units of material within still larger complexes gives strong evidence that redactional work was undertaken over a fairly long period of time and among sequences of generations of scholars. This is one indication, and I think an important one, that Mishnah-Tosefta cannot be deemed the product of a single, ultimate

generation, the one which gave it its final form, but must be read as the product of several redactional circles, spread out as I said over more than a few years. is sui generis, without suitable analogy in other found rather disappointing the incapacity of that fact. I am fatigued by their discussion of form-criticism, some other sort of criticism, or I assumed

documents, so far as I can see. I have New Testament scholars to recognize whether this particular writer produces no criticism at all. In my earlier work

it would be conceded that form-criticism

might

apply to diverse techniques

of analysis and so used the term. I have come to regret it. . The fact is that the generality of New Testament scholars approach rabbinical literature with only superficial interest, at best, in the cognitive substance of rabbinical literature. They have no patience for the mastery of the law and its details, because they approach the legal literature with the theological animus of the New Testament; and because they do not realize that it is through law that rabbinical texts express their cognitive principles (see my "Ritual without Myth: The Use of Legal Materials for the Study of Religions", Religion. Journal of Religion and Religions 5 (1975), pp. 91100). All these scholars seek is a set of parallels, some generalized pictures of "Judaism". They come to rabbinical literature in an insensitive and ignorant spirit. A quartercentury of neglect of Morton Smith's Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (1951) is only one result.

136

J. NEUSNER

It is to be stressed furthermore that the work of redaction follows that of conceptualization—the logical generation of legal ideas, without respect to their formalization and construction into literary units. This process, in which the conceptions of an individual authority take shape and are handed on to his immediate circle of disciples, is tradental, by contrast to the redactional work involved in taking completed materials and forming them into larger units of material, then chapters, and finally tractates. The principles by which tradental work was carried on are to be discerned; some already have become clear. But it is much easier to see how the several stages of redactional work were effected. The pericope before us is of unusual interest, because it is placed at the head not of a chapter or even a tractate but of an entire order of Mishnah-Tosefta, the Order of Purities. The Order itself, comprising 126 chapters, is the largest in Mishnah, and it is the only one which has been given an introductory account of the legal principles to be worked out in the Order itself. The opening chapters of the other five orders deal at best with the subject-matter and principles of the opening tractate. By contrast, the unit before us proposes to give us information relevant to a variety of tractates and decisive in some of them, ignoring the criterion of what is peculiarly relevant to the tractate at the head

of which

it stands,

Kelim

(“utensils’’).

It would

on the face of it seem to be a pericope given its present location in the very latest stages of the final organization of Mishnah, that is to say, after the order and major problems of the several tractates of the Order of Purities were already clear. It is, as we shall now see, a composite of prior materials, and appears to be a pericope the final formulation of which is supplied by those very redactors who proposed to inaugurate the Order of Purities with an account of the legal principles affecting the entire Order. Before us is the result of the work of redactors engaged in the task of tradents.

In the present paper, we settle once for all the question of whether the Mishnah is the work of a single editor at a single point in time, Judah the Patriarch at ca. A.D. 200, or whether it is a compendium of materials composed at various times and by various authorities. It will be shown that the latter is the case. At the same time, I wish to stress that the sort of close literary

analysis undertaken

here is not the invention of twentieth

century

scholarship. The earliest generation of masters after the redaction of Mishnah took up the inquiry and proceeded very much along the

MISHNAH KELIM

1:1-4

137

lines we now follow. That is, their careful and close criticism of Mishnaic texts, of the contending principles of law found in them, and of the consistency of authorities therein represented—that criticism is without peer. Nothing apt to be accomplished in contemporary literary-critical study of Mishnah-Tosefta will turn up literary phenomena not accessible to the early Amoraic authorities or not perceived by their careful study of Mishnah. What we do, therefore, is to resume the work, suspended in the fourth century, of close study of MishnahTosefta. Η My text is the opening chapter of the Mishnah-tractate Kelim (“utensils”), along with the pertinent materials in the corresponding chapter in Tosefta Kelim. This chapter is not part of the exposition of the laws governing the cleanness or uncleanness of utensils. It serves as an introduction to the matter and a laying forth of the principles on how various sources of uncleanness affect various objects. It therefore is an independent essay, standing before and introducing Kelim, but not participating in its primary legal inquiry. The analysis before us will show what can and cannot be done in the analysis, in particular, of those many Mishnaic-Toseftan sayings which are not assigned to particular authorities. For the bulk of our pericopes is anonymous, constructed in ladders or closely related sequences of anonymous rules. How to deal with such materials, what is to be done with them—these are questions facing all those who propose to make use of Tannaitic literature for historical purposes. It seems to me one useful approach to methodological experiments is through the analysis of Mishnah and related materials, and that is why I have chosen the present procedure. At the same time the specific subject matter is especially interesting, because it certainly derives from the interests of pre- and early post-70 Pharisaism, and, because of its substance, is to be regarded as distinctive of the Pharisaic sect. If any anonymous sayings may ever be assigned to a pre-70 setting, some of these should stand among them. To state the result at the outset, it is not possible to demonstrate that anything before us in its present formulation or wording derives from pre-70 authorities, though of course the substance of the laws may well go back to earlier times.

138

J. NEUSNER

In A. The fathers [primary sources] of uncleannesses [are] the creeping thing, and semen, and one who has contracted corpse-uncleanness, and the leper in the days of his counting, and purification-water of insufficient quantity to be sprinkled. B. Lo, these render unclean [both] man and vessels by contact and earthenware vessels by [presence within the vessels' contained] air-space. But they do not render unclean by carrying. M. Kel. 1:1

The pericope lists five primary sources of uncleanness (A) and explains their effects (B). A source of uncleanness (Father) is primary because it may cause men and vessels to become unclean (Offspring). But an offspring of uncleanness conveys uncleanness only to food and liquid. The creeping things are listed in Lev. 11:29f.; the semen (of an Israelite adult) is mentioned in Lev. 15:16-17; the person (but not the vessel) made unclean by a corpse in Num. 19:11-16 is declared unclean for seven days; the leper in the seven days of his counting is one who has been healed from his leprosy, shaved and washed. For seven days he is still unclean and able to convey uncleanness by contact. Purification-water of insufficient quantity for sprinkling nonetheless conveys uncleanness. B then spells out what these particular primary sources do. The main point is that direct contact with them, or, in the case of earthenware vessels, presence in their contained airspace, produces uncleanness. The nature and degree of the uncleanness are not speci-

fied; it is taken for granted that the contaminated object is unclean in the first degree. Carrying them, without actual physical contact, will not produce uncleanness; the virulence of their contamination is not so strong as items which will be listed below. The pericope is an autonomous unit of tradition. The introductory superscription, Fathers of Uncleannesses, does not include a number or a claim that these are all the Fathers. Silence as to what will be listed hardly suggests that what is to follow is a complete list, or

that the pericope stands at the head of a long catalogue, as is the case. Without the superscription, we have simply a list of five items, followed by B. The important part of B is the distinction between touching and carrying. This will require a further list, one naming things which will render unclean by being carried, even though they are not touched at all. It necessarily follows that Fathers of Uncleannesses is not

MISHNAH

KELIM

1:1-4

139

integral, for it serves a much longer list than these five items. The primary tradition should consist of “The creeping thing etc... render unclean man and vessels by touch". Earthenware vessels is a necessary clarification; "touch" in the other items is tantamount to contact with the contained airspace in this one. Once you say, by touch, you then invite but not by carrying. But this is not a clarification of what is implicit in the primary list. The primary form therefore is a simple declarative sentence, "The creeping thing... lo, these render unclean man and vessels by contact". The number of items is not specified, therefore is not important; the list will include all pertinent items and has not been composed around the number five. The sentence is built on a present tense (plural) participle, MTM'YN; the primary emphasis comes at the end: BMG’, by contact. IV A. Above them:

Carrion and purification-water of sufficient quantity to be sprinkled. B. For they render unclean the man through carrying to make [his] clothing unclean, but clothing is not made unclean through [mere] contact [without the uncleanness's actually being carried] (WHSWKY BGDYM BMG’). M. Kel. 1:2

Two items are added to the list, because they convey uncleanness not through contact, but through being carried. This means that if you carry them but do not actually touch them, you are unclean, unlike the earlier Fathers. Carrion therefore is more virulent than the creeping thing, and the purification-water of sufficient quantity for sprinkling obviously will be more effective than the aforementioned insufficient amount. If the list is in ascending power of virulence, then these items should simply be specified as rendering unclean through carrying. But that is forthwith qualified. They render unclean the man who carries them to make the clothes unclean which he touches while carrying these sources of uncleanness. Exactly what this means is difficult to say. If the text followed the foregoing, it would read simply, "Lo, these render unclean the man in carrying [= when they are carried]". The model of the foregoing rule would have produced a clearcut additional stringency. The force of "to render clothing unclean” seems to be a gloss. The meaning should be, "When a man carries these uncleannesses, his clothing becomes unclean".

140

J. NEUSNER

Still more difficult are the following words, WHSWKY BGDYM BMG‘. The commentaries understand HSK as MN"; thus the clothing is “held back” from becoming unclean if the man only touches the carrion or purification-water but does not actually carry it. So carrion and purification-water of sufficient quantity for sprinkling make a man who carries them unclean. But clothes that merely touch them are not unclean. Maimonides explains that one who touches carrion without carrying it is made unclean, but his clothing is not contaminated. If the man carries the carrion, then the clothing is unclean as well. Following him, Bertinoro states that touching without carrying carrion will not render clothing unclean. This is Albeck’s view as well. Now what makes these several views difficult is the use of above them.

We

should

then have expected

an

ascending

list of items,

the

virulence of each greater than that of the foregoing. Yet the five of M. Kel. 1:1 render unclean through contact and not through carrying; the two before us make clothing unclean through carrying but not through mere contact—so are not a more virulent form of uncleanness, but simply one which works in a different way. I certainly am not inclined to reject the exegesis of the three commentaries before us. The solution of the problem clearly is in the construction of the pericope. If we ignore the construction of a list of "fathers of uncleannesses" in ascending order of virulence ("Above them") and simply examine the primary rule, it becomes ‘Carrion and purificationwater [drop: S, which is joining language, and HM, required by S] render the man who carries them unclean in respect to his garments [as well as himself], but the garments are held back [from uncleanness] through [mere] contact". This is a rule on the model of the foregoing, if the “lo, these" clause be ignored, and indeed is a parallel, but different rule, so : 1:1 The creeping thing ... renders unclean man and vessel through contact (4 an earthenware vessel in the airspace) (+ And they do not render unclean through carrying) 1:2 Carrion ... renders unclean the man through carrying (to make his clothes unclean, but [obviously] the clothes are not rendered unclean through contact [alone].)

MISHNAH

KELIM

1:1-4

141

Which is then more virulent, that which renders unclean through contact alone, or that which has to be carried for its uncleanness to affect the man? Is greater virulence required for mere contact, without some affırmative action such as carrying, to be effective? Then should it not work also when carried? If something renders unclean through being carried, even when it is not actually touched, then should it not also render something unclean when it is merely touched? So the concluding clauses in both instances—(1) they do not render unclean through being carried, but have to be touched, for 1:1, and (2) clothes are not made

unclean

through

mere

contact,

but have to be carried, for 1:2—both so qualify the original rule as to make impossible the construction of a ladder of ascending order of virulence. Clearly, the above them-clause is what is problematical, for we can-

not lightly ignore or reject the given

explanation

of the difficult

language before us, and I am not prepared to offer an alternative explanation. 1:2 is not "above" 1:1 in virulence. 1:1 and 1:2 list items which are equally virulent, but in different ways. So above them at the beginning of 1:2 is misleading and probably wrong. V A. Above them : He who has intercourse with a menstrual woman B. for he conveys uncleanness to what lies [far] beneath him [in like degree as he conveys uncleanness to what lies] above [and directly underneath him] (MSKB THTWN K'LYWN). {Danby : “For he conveys uncleanness to what lies beneath him in like degree as he that has a flux conveys uncleanness to what lies above him—that is, what lies beneath him suffers a lesser degree of uncleanness (derived uncleanness of first grade) suffered by what lies above (without touching) him who has a flux, whereas what the latter lies on becomes itself a primary uncleanness".] C. Above them: The flux of the Zab and his spittle and his semen and his urine, and the blood of the menstrual woman—

D. For they render unclean through contact and carrying. E. Above them : the saddle [which is ridden upon by one who has a flux], F. For [if he sits on top of it], it is unclean [even if it lies] under a heavy stone [which itself is not susceptible to uncleanness]. G. Above the saddle : the couch H. For touching it is equivalent to carrying it: [The uncieanness caused by contact with it is equal to the uncleanness caused by carrying it]. I. Above the couch : The Zab, J. For the Zab conveys uncleanness to the couch, but the couch does not [convey uncleanness to] the couch upon which it lies [in the same degree of uncleanness from which it suffers]. M. Kel. 1:3

142

J. NEUSNER

Lev. 15:24 says that a man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman renders unclean every couch on which he lies. Therefore B specifies that if he sits on ten blankets, the bottom cover is as unclean as the top on which he sits; each is in the first degree of uncleanness and renders food and liquid unclean. But the uncleanness does not affect men or vessels. The expression MSKB THTWN K'LYWN occurs in M. Nid. 4:1, where Alback gives the same explanation as here : the bottom spread is like the top spread on which the Samaritan sits. Both impart uncleanness to food and liquids, in the first degree of uncleanness. This explanation is rejected in b. Nid. 32b, as follows

(trans. W.

Slotki, p. 226]:

"What

is meant

by

MSKB

THTWN

K'LYWN?" “If it be suggested to mean that if there were ten spreads and he sat upon them, they all become unclean, is not this obvious, seeing that he exercised pressure upon them? The meaning rather is that a couch underneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant is subject to the same law of uncleanness as the cover above a Zab. As the cover above a Zab imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only, so does the couch underneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant impart uncleanness to foods and drinks". This passage forms the basis for the comments of Maimonides and others. For our purposes, it suffices to add that MSKB THTWN K'LYWN is formulaic. Tos. provides definitive evidence below. C begins with above them, though only one item has been specified in A-B—again evidence that the ladder of severity is external to the substance of the steps. C lists five items, four pertaining to the Zab; these several excretions are more virulent than those listed in 1:1 and 1:2, for they render unclean whether through contact or through carrying. The man in À will not make unclean one who carries him. Next, in E, comes the saddle (MRKB). The saddle on which a Zab is riding or sitting may be rendered unclean even if a heavy stone, itself incapable of receiving uncleanness, intervenes between the Zab and the saddle itself. Whatever bears his weight will be unclean. There follows, in G, the couch, for which touching is equivalent to carrying. That is, if someone touches the couch of a Zab, he is unclean and so is one who carries it; the clothing is unclean, as stated in Lev. 15:5.

But touching the saddle will not make one unclean in regard to the clothing. Finally comes the Zab himself. He of course brings uncleanness to the couch. But his couch will not then cause the same degree of uncleanness to another couch; the latter is made unclean in the first degree of uncleanness only.

MISHNAH KELIM The above them construction,

1:1-4

as observed,

143 is used

in C after A-B,

though only one item appears in the foregoing. It also is varied in G, which has above the saddle, and this is carried through in I, above the couch, and will be reproduced for the rest of the list: above the Zab, above the Zabah, above the leper. So the formulaic language shifts rather strikingly. The elements joined by the ladder clearly are as follows : A. He who has intercourse with the menstrual woman renders unclean... C. The flux, spittle, semen, and urine of the Zab, and the blood of the menstrual woman render unclean through contact and carrying E. The saddle renders unclean under a stone... G. The couch touching it is equivalent to carrying it I. The Zab conveys couch-uncleanness (but a couch does not convey couch-uncleanness) Several declarative sentences thus are joined together in a simple and obvious way. VI A. B. C. D. E. F.

Above the Zab : The Zabah, for she renders unclean him that has intercourse with her. Above the Zabah : The leper, for he renders unclean by his coming [into a house]. Above the leper : A bone about the size of a barley-corn, for it renders unclean (by corpse uncleanness] for seven [days].

G.

Weightiest of them all (HMWR

MKLM):

The corpse,

H. for it renders unclean by overshadowing [a mode of rendering uncleaness by] which none of the rest conveys uncleanness. M. Kel. 1:4

The Zabah

is claimed

to be 'above them'—but

all she can do

is

what the niddah can do (1:3A)! She renders unclean the man who has intercourse with her, exactly as does the menstrual woman. (The Zab does not make the woman with whom he has intercourse unclean for

seven days, as the niddah and Zabah.) Above the Zabah is the leper, whose uncleanness clearly is of a more virulent nature. His very coming into a house renders all that is in the house unclean. The bone

144

J. NEUSNER

of specified size, drawn from a corpse, is ‘above the leper’ because it conveys seven-days uncleanness to one who touches or carries it. Why this is more virulent than the leper—whose capacity for making a whole house unclean has just been specified—is not stated. Then comes the most stringent of all, the corpse, which renders unclean through overshadowing. Now this seems very much like the leper, but the latter's uncleanness is in point of fact less severe. But the greater severity of the corpse is not specified, and that means the authority behind the ladder takes for granted a very great deal of specific information. The literary aspect is as already observed : standing independently, each of the steps in the ladder constitutes a simple declarative sentence.

Having recognized that the construction of individual sentences into a ladder of ten (eleven) steps is secondary, we shall now see that the ladder is composed of two antecedent groups of materials. Source of Uncleanness

Mode or Result of Uncleanness

(D 1:1

1:2

Fathers +

5

Contact, not carrying

Above them + 2

(BMG'/BMS$’) Carrying

but not contact

(BM$'/BMGr) 1:3A-B

Above them

+

|

Couch below as above

1:3C-D

Above them +

5

Contact and carrying

(BMG‘/BMS’) 1:3E-F

(ID) 1:3G-H

Above them

+

of Zab) Above saddle +

1 (saddle

1 (couch)

Heavy stone

Contact and carrying

(SWH MG'W LMS’W) 1:31-J 1:4A-B

Above couch + 1 (Zab) Above Zab + 1 (Zabah)

Makes couch unclean Makes unclean him who has intercourse with her

1:4C-D 1:4E-F 1:4G-H

Above Zabah + I (leper) Above leper + 1 (bone) Weightiest of all + 1

By coming Seven days Tent

(corpse)

Clearly, the list breaks into two main parts, the above-them + contact/carrying group and the above + substantive group. The former

MISHNAH

KELIM

1:1-4

145

clearly prefers an above-them construction, as shown by 1:3C, where them refers to a single item. It breaks at 1:3E, the beginning of the Zab-group; but the final redactor has nicely put things together with his above-them's, and it is this last above-them that produces good linkage between the contact/carrying and the Zab-sequence. In the first group, 1:3A-B breaks the pattern; it would be better placed below, not only because it has a single source of uncleanness, like the second group, but also because the specification of the mode of uncleanness is introduced not by B, as is consistently done in the first group, and, finally, because the mode itself is not comparable to rendering unclean by touch/carrying. The issue rather concerns the result of contamination—MSKB + THTWN K'LYWN—and not how the contamination takes place (BMG'/BM$’). This last point seems to me decisive evidence that 1:3A-B is out of place. It belongs in 1:3E-J; I am not certain at what point. But it cannot be argued that the element has been moved up after the list reached its final form, because it does begin with an above-them just as it should, so this is an error not of transmission, but of redaction. As to the above + substantive group, here we have a fine and well-articulated, consistent construction. The progression is authentic, not artificial; the uncleanness effected by each item really is more virulent than the foregoing. As observed, the predicate focuses upon the result of the uncleanness, not on how uncleanness is conveyed, except for 1:4C-D (which, significantly, does use the B-introduction). | :3E-F says the uncleanness penetrates a stone; 1:3G-H says touching it is like carrying it in conveying the uncleanness; and the effects of uncleanness dominate in 1:31-J and 1:4A-D. The coming, seven days, and rent, produced by sources of uncleanness different from the Zab and Zabah, break the pattern, and constitute a subgroup in the second list; but the redactor again has put things together nicely, keeping the form as above + substantive instead of above + them. The total number of Fathers of Uncleannesses is twenty; there are nine above's, weightiest of all, thus ten, plus the introductory phrase, Fathers of Uncleanness, eleven steps. I assume the redactor planned on ten and did not count the opening clause. The list certainly has been produced by a single hand, but the redactor had two separate composites before him, which he combined rather neatly. As stated, first is 1:1-1:3D, omitting 1:3A-B, built on contact/carrying—contact, not carrying, then carrying, not contact, finally contact and carrying, or +A -B, +B -A, +A+B, mnemonically a logical arrangement.

146

J. NEUSNER

Second is the Zab-group, in ascending order, saddle, couch, Zab, and Zabah, to which would be attached the fifth, 1:3A-B, he who has intercourse with the menstruating woman, the exact counterpart of the Zabah's making unclean him who has intercourse with her. This leaves two to be desired, and these are supplied by leper and bone (1:4E-H). Thus we see the redactor has combined two completed pericopes, 1:1, 2, 3:C-D, and 1:3E-I; 4B + 1:3A-B (a singleton, or somehow misplaced), and finally has drawn upon 1:4E-H for a natural conclusion, though I doubt these two were available as a separate and entire unit of tradition. The composite is a logical beginning for a tractate on the uncleanness of vessels, because vessels are made unclean by Fathers of Uncleanness, but not by Offspring of Uncleanness; so these sources of virulent contamination have to be specified at the outset. Now we shall consider Tos's "supplement" to M. 1:1-4. VII A. There is a more stringent trait in regard to (HWMR B) the creeping thing than in regard to (S'YN B) semen, and in regard to (WB) semen than in

regard to (S'YN B) the creeping thing. B. For the creeping thing's uncleanness TW), but the semen's uncleanness is divided.

is undivided

(L'

HLQH

TWM'-

C. There is a more stringent trait in regard to semen. D.

For semen renders unclean in any quantity (BKL SHW^), but the creeping

thing renders unclean only in the quantity of a lentil. E.

There

is a more

stringent

to purification-water, and

trait in regard

in regard

to the carrion

to purification-water

than

than

in regard

in regard

to

carrion.

F. small G. water

For a small quantity (MY'WT) of purification-water is unclean, and a quantity of carrion is clean. There is a more stringent trait in regard to the carrion, for purificationwhich has dried up—lo, it is clean. [As to} carrion which has dried up,

if it can be soaked and stands (LYSRWT

WL'MWD)

in its former condition,

lo this is unclean. H. There is a more stringent trait in regard to one unclean by a corpse than in regard to one who has intercourse with a menstrual woman, and in regard to one who has intercourse with a menstrual woman than in regard to one unclean by a corpse. 1. For one unclean by a corpse requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days, which does not apply to the one who has intercourse with a menstruating

woman. J. There

is a more

stringent trait in regard to one who

with a menstruating woman,

for one who

has intercourse

has intercourse with a menstruating

MISHNAH

KELIM

1:1-4

147

woman renders unclean the lowest spread as the uppermost one (MTM' KR THTWN K'LYWN), which is not so of one unclean by corpse. K. R. Yosé says, "The flux of a Zab, his spit, his semen, and his urine are like the saddle (KYWS' BMRKB). (Tos. Reng.: “... gleichen [rituell] dem Sattel".] L. “There is a more stringent trait in regard to them which does not apply to the saddie, and to the saddle which does not apply to them. M. "For touching and carrying them is the same so far as rendering unclean man and clothing, which [capacity for contamination] does not apply to the saddle. N. "There is a more stringent trait in regard to the saddle, for the saddle renders unclean [even what lies] under a heavy stone, which does not apply

to them. O. "A more stringent trait applies to an olive's bulk (BKZYT) [of a corpse] than to [an entire] corpse, for with an olive's bulk [from a corpse], an opening [in a room]

of one

handbreadth

square

(PTHW

TPH)

[affords

protection],

but with the corpse an opening (PTHW) of four handbreadths suffices to protect other openings from uncleanness (M. Oh. 3:6, 7:3)." Tos. Kel. B.Q. 1:1-4, Tos. Reng. p. 3, Is. 3-19, p. 4, Is. 1-6

Now we have a fourth "ladder"—but this one makes no pretense at listing items in order of the virulence of their power to effect contamination. We shall first review the items on the list, then comment on the form, and finally compare the pericope to the equivalent in M. Kel. 1:1ff. A compares the creeping thing to the semen. For B Hasdé

David explains that the creeping thing, whether fully grown or not, conveys uncleanness, but the semen does so only when from an adult. This is the meaning of ‘making a distinction (HLQ) in its uncleanness’. C is clear. The comparison of carrion and purification-water poses no problems for our purposes. H presents a curious comparison, for only the one unclean by a corpse requires the sprinkling, but we could list a// other unclean people or objects, for no others do. Introducing the one who has intercourse with the menstrual woman is not demanded by traits intrinsic either to the one unclean by a corpse or to the aforementioned. It is peculiar, therefore pointed and original

to the list. The language MTM’ MSKB THTWN

K'LYWN

now is

supplemented with KR, and that leaves no doubt as to the meaning. It can only be that if the man sat on ten spreads, all become

unclean,

the bottom as much as the top. Then the discussion of b. Nid. 32b either has ignored Tos. or rejects it (by excluding the KR), for its Tos., no KR to begin with.

or has,

148

J. NEUSNER

K interrupts the construction. Yosé says the listed items have the same traits as the saddle. Then L-N tell us qualities unique to the specified items and vice versa. Touching and carrying the saddle do not produce equivalent effects, while touching and carrying the flux, etc., will do so. The saddle conveys uncleanness even through an interposed clean object. O raises no problems for the present. Clearly, we have an effort to lay out a limited number of items in a logical pattern, with the superstructural form: HWMR B...S’YN B..., and this form will then be fully articulated, but in a neat and economical way. O now poses difficulties, for it does not reverse the principal items and does not tell us its entire law. We should want to know in what ways the corpse exhibits more stringent traits than the olive's bulk of corpse-matter. This seems to me a problem in the text, for what we should want is HWMR BKZYT MN HMT S’YN BMT rather than HWMR BKZYT MN HMT. That this is the required reading is shown by WHMT, which means that properly formulated, "the olive's bulk of corpse-matter" will be contrasted with “the corpse", just as in the pertinent passage of M. Oh. 3:7. That the full formulation is not before us and may easily be reconstructed through the contrasting traits need not raise an obstacle to the formulation of the entire set, which must be as follows : 1. creeping thing 2. semen 3. semen 4. creeping thing 5. carrion 6. purification-water 7. purification-water 8. carrion 9. unclean by corpse 10. intercourse with menstrual woman 11. intercourse etc. 12. unclean by corpse [Yosé says...] 13.

Flux of Zab etc.

14. saddle (MRKB)

15. saddle

16. Flux of Zab etc.

17. olive's bulk of corpse

18. corpse

[Supply] 19. corpse

20. olive's bulk of corpse

So we have a list of twenty items, obviously reducible a ladder. But the redactor did not want a ladder and to produce one. He simply intended to specify traits thing and absent in that to which it is compared,

For his purpose the HWMR

to ten steps on made no claim present in one and vice versa.

B...S'YN B...form is ideal.

MISHNAH

KELIM

1:1-4

149

Indeed, when you compare this pericope with M. Kel. 1:1-3, it becomes perfectly obvious that that ‘“ladder” would have been better served by this form, for the items are not above them but merely different from the foregoing in some specific trait. What is even more curious is that the M’s items are remarkably comparable :

. Creeping thing Semen One unclean by a corpse Leper Purification-water [of insufficient quantity] renders unclean through contact and not carrying Carrion Purification-water of sufficient quantity renders unclean through carrying and not contact He who has intercourse with a menstruant MTM' THTWN K'LYWN Flux, spittle, semen, urine of a Zab and the blood of the menstruating woman render unclean through contact and carrying 10. Saddle renders unclean through heavy stone ΠῚ. Couch] This is the point at which we earlier discerned a break in the ladder, for it is no longer above them, but above the saddle, and the predicate ("for it renders unclean...") likewise changes in focus. Now what items do we have in the set listed in Tos. as against M.? M.

Tos.

l. Creeping thing

1,4

2. Semen

2,3

3. Unclean by corpse 4. Leper [5. Purification-water (little)

9,12 — 6, 7]

6. 7. 8. 9.

5,8 6-7 10, 11 13, 16

Carrion Purification-water (sufficient) Intercourse with menstruant Excretions of Zab

|

10. Saddle

14, 15 17-20: Corpse corpse

vs. olive's

bulk

of

150

J. NEUSNER

So Tos. lacks /eper but replaces it with 17-20. Otherwise it makes use of the same items as are specified in M. Not only so, but it compares exactly the same items to one another as are compared in M., specifically Tos. group 1-4 — M. group 1-2, Tos. group 5-8 — M. group 5-6, and Tos. group 13-16 — M. group 9-10. Thus far we have shown that our original surmise about M. Kel. 1:1-3 as a separate unit of the larger list into which it is incorporated is confirmed by Tos., which knows the same items (with the specified exception and addition) but none of the others listed later in M.’s first ladder. I am disappointed not to find the leper in Tos., to be sure. But the little group at the end of Tos. which takes its place is a little help, for it has an appropriate counterpart even in the last addition to the first ladder, the bone about the size of a barleycorn as against the corpse. The final item in the second ladder, the limb on which is insufficient flesh as against the limb on which is sufficient flesh, is not impertinent, for the latter likewise functions like the corpse as a whole. The pattern therefore seems clear: the several redactors wanted to have a corpse, or something like a corpse, at the end of their respective ladders, so the complete first ladder concludes with the corpse, the complete second ladder concludes with the limb on which is sufficient flesh so as to function just like a corpse, and Tos.'s little ladder concludes as it should, with the olive's bulk compared to the corpse as a whole. This would seem a logical preference for the several redactors, and will account for Tos. group 17-20. Now let us turn back to the little groups within M.'s and Tos.'s formulations to see their relationship once again. The best comparison comes not with M. nos. 1-4, for that is a jumble, but rather M.

nos.

5-6/Tos.

5-8, and

M.

9-10/Tos.

13-16,

for here matters

will

be clear : M.

Tos.

Above them carrion and purification-water (sufficient)

for they render unclean man through carrying (but not through contact) More stringent in regard to carrion than purification-water for a small part of purification-water is unclean, but a small part of carrion is clean More stringent in regard to carrion [than to purificationwater] for purification-water which has dried up is clean, but carrion which has dried up may be soaked and come out to be unclean

MISHNAH KELIM

1:1-4

151

Here, therefore, M. gives the qualities common to the pair, while Tos. does what it sets out to do. But M. alleges that the pair is above the foregoing and beneath what will follow—a singularly awkward claim, as we have observed. Tos.'s allegation is accurate and the form fits the substance of law expressed through it. M. The flux, spittle, semen, urine of Zab render unclean through

contact and carrying Above them, the saddle which

renders unclean

under stone

etc.

Tos. More stringent in them [Yosé has already cited the flux, etc.] than the saddle For touching them is equivalent to carrying them, which is not the case with the saddle Here the allegation of M. is false as to the implication that the saddle renders unclean through contact and carrying, so Tos. I think there now can be little doubt as to what has happened. Tos. had a

fine list, articulated accurately in both form and substance,

and since that list demands Yosé's interpolation, it may be claimed attested in Ushan times or thereafter. M. has taken this list and revised it into a larger one, dropped its appropriate joining language, HWMR B, and substituted highly misleading language, the abovethem pattern. That language then was generated by the second part of M.'s first ladder, to which it is integral, above the saddle, above the couch, etc., but it could not be imposed upon the five or rwo or other numbers of things to be joined, so it had to generalize the above the specified-item-construction into above them. But this then makes the item about the man who has intercourse with the menstrual woman into a plural, though it should be above him, namely, BW'L NYDH only. And, as we saw, that is not the only problem. It goes without saying that above + specified item is primary and above + them secondary. We may again claim that M. Kel. 1:1-3's ladder not only is separate from the larger construction into which it is set, but also is prior to it. We now see that the redactor of M. Kel. has revised what probably was a completed list, from the time of Yosé, into a larger construction, dropping the former list's last item— which now would be out of place and contrary to the convention of the form—and keeping the existing arrangement more or less intact. We need hardly say that there is absolutely no relationship between Tos. Kel. 1:1-4 and

152

J. NEUSNER

M. Kel. 1:5, and this makes all the more striking the affinities between Tos. Kel. B.Q. 1:1-4 and M. Kel. 1:1-3. Interestingly, in M. Kel. 1:4G the redactor has ended with HMWR M—as though he had used it!

JESUS-SIRACH-ZITATE BEI AFRAHAT, EPHRAEM UND IM LIBER GRADUUM Werner STROTHMANN Göttingen, Deutsche Bundesrepublik

Das Buch Jesus Sirach, das zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments gerechnet wird, heißt in syrischer Übersetzung Bar Sira!. Diese Übersetzung hat eine besondere Bedeutung. Jeder Kommentator muß sie zu Rate ziehen. Der hebräische Text wurde erst am Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts gefunden?. Man hat die Abhängigkeit beider Texte untersucht ? und die Frage nach dem Alter der syrischen Übersetzung gestellt*. Es genügt nicht, darauf hinzuweisen, daß die beiden ältesten syrischen Handschriften : Br M 154 Add 12 142, fol. 1-73° und B. 21. Inf., fol. 223-237, der sog. Codex Ambrosianus®, im 6./7. Jahrhundert geschrieben sind’. Die ältesten Werke der syrischen Literatur sind schon einige Jahrhunderte vorher entstanden. Um das Alter der syrischen Übersetzung des Buches Bar Sira bestimmen zu können, ist von entscheidender Wichtigkeit, ob die ältesten syrischen ! B. WALTON, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 6 Bde. (London 1657-69), Bd. IV. P.A. DE LAGARDE, Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace (Leipzig 1861), p. 2-51. Mossuler Ausgabe : Biblia Sacra juxta versionem simplicem quae dicitur Pschitta, Bd. 2 (2. Aufl. 1951).

2 Aufgrund neuerer Funde in Kairo, Qumran und Masada 29. Orientalistenkongress in Paris 1973 in dem Referat : »Ben mining the Hebrew manuscripts«, eine verbesserte Ausgabe angekündigt, siehe Résumés des Communications, Sections 1-5, > C.C. Torrey, »The Hebrew of the Geniza Sirach«, in Volume (New York 1950), S. 585-602; H.L. GiNssERG, Ben Sira«, Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955), S. 93ff.

* H.P. ROGER, »Text und Textform 112] (Berlin 1970), S. 112. * W.

WRIGHT,

Catalogue

of Syriac

im hebráischen Manuscripts

hat A. D. Lowe auf dem Sira, some notes on exades hebraischen Textes S. SIf. Alexander Marx Jubilee

»The

Sirach«

Original

Hebrew

of

[Beihefte der ZAW,

in the British Museum

1 (London

1870), S. 97f. © A. M. CERIANI,

Translatio Syra Pescitto

Veteris

Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano

sec. fere VI photolithographice edita (Milan 1876). Τ List of Old Testament Peschitta Manuscripts. Preliminary Issue, ed. by the Peshitta Institute, Leiden University (1961), S. 15, 29 und

107.

154

W. STROTHMANN

Schriftsteller, Afrahat, Ephraem und der Verfasser des Liber Graduum, diesen Text gekannt haben. Afrahat, persischer Weiser genannt, ist uns ein Zeuge für das Denken und Wirken der Christen im Sassanidenreich®; er setzt sich mit dem Judentum auseinander und beweist, daß die Heilsaussagen des Alten Bundes durch das Neue Testament erfüllt sind, indem er seine Meinung durch Bibelverse, die er als solche besonders kennzeichnet, belegt. Unter diesen Bibelstellen findet sich kein Beleg aus dem Buch Bar Sira. Als Afrahat aber die Bedeutung des Noah beschreibt, diente ihm im 13. Abschnitt (Demonstratio)?, der zu dem zweiten Teil des Buches gehört, der Anno Domini 344 verfaßt wurde, nicht nur die Genesis, sondern

auch das Buch

durch Noah ls

Bar Sira als Quelle. Gott

œhals moo b. ral

wünscht,

Literatur nur noch

durch

Sir 44,

ihm

bedeutet vicarius!?

(Stellvertreter), compensatio!! (Ausgleich), suboles!! schaft). Dieses Wort in der Verbindung mit ls in der syrischen

daß

(Nachkommen(der Welt) ist

17 belegt!?,

wo es

auch von Noah ausgesagt wird. Im nächsten Abschnitt !? ist Afrahat nicht nur im Wortlaut, sondern auch im Stil und Inhalt von den ersten Versen des Buches Bar Sira abhängig; er folgt der biblischen Vorlage, indem er rhetorische Fragen bildet, die Status-Constructus-Verbindung aus Sir 1, 6 rà saa» ‚wir (Wurzeln der Weisheit) übernimmt und dem Gedankengang des Buches

folgt, aber rélaam

für rhaihlas®

setzt. Im 23. Abschnitt!5,

der Anno

und m^ma für im,

Domini

345 geschrieben

'*

wurde,

fügte Afrahat bei der Erwähnung des Namens Mose eine Segensformel hinzu, die Sir 45, 1 entnommen ist: haianl mia 03 (dessen Erinnerung zum Segen diene). Wenn auch spáter solche Segensformeln bei der Erwähnung der Väter allgemein üblich werden, so ist doch hier deutlich, daß Afrahat den Text der Segensformel aus Bar Sira entnommen hat.

® J. PARISOT,

Aphraatis sapientis Persae demonstrationes,

Patrologia

Syriaca

1, t. |

(Paris 1894), I, t. 2 (1907), S. 1-489. % J. PARISOT, aaO, I, 1, Dem XIII, 3, S. 549, Zeile 23. 19 R. PAYNE SMITH,

Thesaurus Syriacus 1 (Oxford

1879), Sp. 1289.

!! C. BROCKELMANN, Lexicon Syriacum, 2. Aufl. (Halle 1928), S. 236. 12 Vgl. Anm. 10 und 11; ausserdem CSCO 230, Syr. 97, ed. C. VAN DEN EYNDE (1963), S. 229, Anm. 3. 13 J. Parisor, aaO, I, 1, Dem XIV, 35, S. 660, Zeile 24. 14 Ebenso Theodor Bar KONAI, ed. A. SCHER [CSCO 55, Syr. 19] (1910), S. 332, Zeile 15. 15 J. PARISOT, aaO, I, 2, S. 60, Zeile 22ff.

JESUS-SIRACH-ZITATE

155

Seit AD 344 hat Afrahat die syrische Übersetzung von Bar Sira gekannt »Der raim !? bischof

und benutzt. persische Schriftsteller war schon längst ein Greis, als Ephnoch ein Knabe war«, so hat der AD 724 verstorbene AraberGeorg den Generationenunterschied zwischen diesen beschrie-

ben !?. In den Verzeichnissen der Bibelstellen in den von E. Beck in der Sammlung CSCO herausgebenen Ephraem-Gedichten wird kein Vers aus Bar Sira vermerkt. Der im Band CSCO 322 (Syr. 140), S. 21 erwähnte Hinweis auf Sir 28, 29 will, abgesehen von der Frage nach der Echtheit dieses Gedichtes, nur eine sachliche, keine wörtliche Übereinstimmung bekunden. Aber im Testament des Ephraem XI, 4!* findet sich ein Satz im siebensilbigen Versmaß : »Jeder Vogel liebt seine Art, und der Mensch seinesgleichen«,

der durch Sir 13, 14 »Alles Fleisch liebt seine Art und der Mensch seinesgleichen« beeinflußt zu sein scheint. Das könnte noch dadurch bekräftigt werden, daß Rabbah bar Mari, der zur 4. Generation der babylonischen Amoráer gehórte!?, in Kamma 92b Sir 13, 14 so auslegte : »Jeder Vogel wohnt bei seiner Art und der Mensch bei seinesgleichen«??, Dieses eine Beispiel aber genügt nicht, um zu beweisen, daß Ephraem das Buch Sira in der Peshitta-Lesart oder in einer anderen, vom Talmud beeinflußten syrischen Übersetzung?! benutzt hat; es ist nämlich auch möglich, daB Ephraem hier eine eigene Erfahrung ausspricht. Zu den ältesten Werken der syrischen Literatur gehört auch Liber Graduum. Der Herausgeber des Stufenbuches, M. Kmosko??, hat in der Einleitung der Ausgabe den Verfasser des Buches den Messalianern

‘6 A. VOOBUS, Literary-Critical and Historical Studies in Ephrem the Syrian [PETSE 10] (1958), S. 11f. 17 V. RysseL, Georg der Araberbischof, Gedichte und Briefe (Leipzig 1891), S. 46f. 18. R. Duvat, »Le testament de Saint Ephrem«, Journal Asiatique, 9* Ser., 18 (1901), S. 234 bis 319; besonders S. 257. 1% H.L. SrRACK, Einleitung in Talmud S. 146.

und

Midrasch,

5. Aufl.

(München

1961),

20 L. Levi, »Quelques Citations de l'Ecclésiastique«, Revue des Études Juives 44 (1909), S. 291f.—Frau Dr. Margot Schmidt-Regensburg danke ich, dass sie mich auf diesen Aufsatz hinwies.

?! Vgl. J. HALEvt, S. 144ff. 22 M. Kmosxo,

»Un

passage du testament de Saint

Liber Graduum,

PS 1, t. 3 (1926).

Ephrem«,

JA?

19 (1902),

156

W. STROTHMANN

zugeordnet; demgegenüber hat A. Vööbus mit Recht nachgewiesen, daß dieses Buch eine frühe Schrift des syrischen Mónchtums ist??. Zwei Sirachzitate sind in dem Stufenbuch enthalten :

Das eine in Kap. 19, 3?*:

hans

d

hole wombs

ὦ

war:

eoe qe

mi

ao vum

rier’ is Ue

wea

kocxlem

eem

me

τ iat

ooh mie

dal

za

(Ferner sagte Bar Sira: »Demütige dich selbst mehr als jeder auf der Erde!« »Und wenn du dich der Gottesfurcht hingibst, dann gibst du dich

allen

Versuchungen

hin;

aber

demütige

dich

mehr

als

alle

Menschen!«) Drei von vier Handschriften lesen »die Schrift« statt »Bar Sira«. Dieses Zitat ist aus Sir 7, 17 und 2, 1 zusammengezogen. Liber Graduum ersetzt ààoio durch das im Vers an einer anderen Stelle noch einmal vorkommende »x« X und wählt für Gottesfurcht die Form des status constructus. Ob diese Abweichungen vom Bibeltext beabsichtigt waren oder aus Nachlássigkeit entstanden sind, und ob sie auf den Verfasser oder auf einen Abschreiber zurückgehen, läßt sich nicht mehr feststellen.

Das zweite Sirach-Zitat in Kap. 7, 1825: io

imma

: Narr

warn: pinaza

ia aorta

sadi WAS

À mans

arms m'a

τείας. or:

ar mum

(Oder Heilmittel, die uns versuchen, die für die Geschwulst gut sind, wie es Bar Sira oder ein weiser Mann sagte, der unsere Wunden aufschneidet und unsere Geschwüre wáscht). Hier vermutet der Herausgeber eine Auspielung auf Sir 38, 4, wenn er auch trotz Hinzuziehung des hebräischen Textes und eines SirachZitates im Midrasch Bereshit rabba gestehen muß: in nullo textu verbotenus reperiuntur?®. Bar Sira gebraucht das Wort ri =a =n®,

Liber Graduum

das Synonym ras , das bei Bar Sira viermal?’

23 A. VOOBUS, »Liber Graduum : some aspects of its significance for the history of early Syrian asceticism«, in Charisteria Johanni Kopp [PETSE 7] (1954). A VOOBUS, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient 1 [CSCO 184, Subs. 14] (Louvain 1958).

S. 178-184. ?* M. KMosko, 75 M. KMosko, 2° M. KMosko, 77 3,9; 16. 19;

aaO, aaO, 880. 40, 15

S. 453, Zeile 4-7. S. 180, Zeile 3-10. S. CLX. und 44, ti.

JESUS-SIRACH-ZITATE

157

vorkommt25, aber nie in der Verbindung

mit dem

Verbum

„maus.

Der Herausgeber übersetzt dieses Wort durch commovit; es bedeutet

aber tentavit, conatus, expertus est??. Da an dieser Stelle der Sinn schwer verständlich ist, sei eine Textkonjektur vorgeschlagen : Wenn man qmi» in «mre» ändert—in der Sertö-Schrift ist eine Verwechslung dieser beiden Radikale leicht móglich—, wenn man also »heilen« statt »versuchen« setzt, dann gibt der Text einen guten Sinn: »Oder Heilmittel, die uns heilen und für Geschwulst gut sind, wie es ein weiser Mann sagte, der unsere Wunden aufschneidet und unsere Geschwüre wäscht«. Man kann nun auch erklären, warum an dieser Stelle »Bar Sira« eingefügt wurde. Da ein Jesaja-Zitat vorangeht, wird ein Abschreiber auch hier eine Bibelstelle vermutet und den weisen Mann als Bar Sira gedeutet haben, weil Sir 38, 4 ein weiser Mann erwáhnt wird. Dieser Satz ist demnach kein Zitat aus Bar Sira. Afrahat benutzt syrische Wortverbindungen, die einwandfrei aus Bar Sira stammen; während aber Afrahat diese Wortverbindungen nicht als Bibelzitate einführt, wie er es bei anderen Bibelstellen tut, wird im Liber Graduum Bar Sira wie andere biblische Schriften zitiert. Zwei Zeugen aus der Anfangszeit der syrischen Literatur, die mehr zum Osten als zum Westen des syrischen Sprachgebietes gehóren, verwenden und zitieren das Buch Bar Sira. Es sind nur wenige Zitate geringen Umfangs, so daB man nicht erkennen kann, in welchem Sinn sie dieses Buch auslegen. Die syrischen Theologen der folgenden Jahrhunderte haben das Buch Bar Sira erklärt. Während in griechischer Sprache kein SirachKommentar überliefert ist ?9, sind in syrischer Sprache mehrere Kommentare erhalten :

1. Theodor bar Konai im Scholienbuch?!, 2. Isho'dad von Merv??, 3. Dionysios bar Salibi ??, 4. Barhebraeus im Scholienkommentar

»Scheune

der

Geheimnis-

se« 34, 22 D.

BARTHELMY-O.

RICKENBACHER,

syrisch-hebräischem Index (Göttingen

29 3° 31 32 33 Ming

Konkordanz

zum

Hebräischen

Sirach

mit

1973), S. 57*.

C. BROCKELMANN, aaO, S. 433. Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Aufl., Bd. ΠῚ (Tübingen 1959), Sp. 655. [CSCO 55, aaO]. S. 331, Zeile 4 bis 334, Zeile 9. (CSCO 229, Syr. 96] (1963), S. 174, Zeile 6 bis 197, Zeile 9. Handschriftliche Überlieferung : Par 66, fol. 529r 1I 29-542r; geschrieben vor 1354: 152, fol. 236r II 11-292v H 15; A.D. 1891.

34 S. KAATZ. Scholien des Gregorius Abulfaragius Bar Hebraeus zum Weisheitsbuch des Josua bar Sira nach 4 Handschriften des Horreum mysteriorum mit Einleitung, Über-

setzung und Anmerkungen (Diss. phil. Halle-Wittenberg 1892).

158

W. STROTHMANN

5. Im nestorianischen Perikopenbuch

1-45, 2 als Perikope für den Sonntag

Gannat

Bussamé wird Sir 44,

des Gedächtnisses der kathol-

ischen Väter zwischen dem 7. und 8. Epiphniassonntag erklárt?* und 6. Johannes von Mossul, Auslegung des Buches

Bar Sira in 1184

siebensilbigen Versen mit Endreim °°. Das Buch Bar Sira hat in der syrischen Literatur groBe Beachtung gefunden.

CITATIONS

FROM JESUS SIRACH IN APHRAHAT, AND THE LIBER GRADUUM

EPHRAEM

In order to determine the age of the Syriac translation ot "Bar Sira" it is important to know if the oldest Syriac writers, Aphrahat, Ephraem and the author of the Liber Graduum (a work coming from early Syrian monasticism) were already acquainted with it. Strothmann shows that Aphrahat (344) used this Syriac translation; it is not clear that Ephraem made use of it; two possible references in the Liber Graduum give no sure evidence of its use. Later Syriac authors wrote several commentaries on Sirach,

of which

six are extant, while

none have been handed down in the Greek language.

35. Handschriftliche Überlieferung : Vat Syr 494, fol. 123r Zeile 12-22; Bri Or. quart. 870, S. 354, Zeile 5-18. 36 Handschriftliche Überlieferung : Brl. Or. oct. 1132, fol. 87v Zeile 1-107v Zeile 19; A.D. 1225; Ming 488, fol. 80v-102r. Vgl. G. DiETTRICH, »Zur Geschichte der Philosophie in der nestorianischen Kirche«, Oriens Christianus NS

| (1911), S. 321-324;

J. AssFALG,

1963),

Syrische Handschriften

in Deutschland (Wiesbaden

S. 44-47;

K.

DEPPE, Kohelet in der syrischen Dichtung [Göttinger Orientforschungen I 6] (1975), S. 14ff.

THE ROOT '-L-M IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND SOME PROPOSED NEW TRANSLATIONS IN UGARITIC AND HEBREW John A. THOMPSON Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

It is a particular pleasure to contribute to a Festschrift to honour Professor Arthur Vóóbus. For a number of years Professor Vööbus has generously made available to research students in my care, photographs of manuscripts hitherto unknown. He is in the tradition of

scholars who, instead of hoarding manuscripts in their own possession hoping one day to publish them themselves and finally not doing so, generously supply precious manuscripts to Ph. D. students and research workers who are getting on with the task and providing the world of scholarship with valuable research material. The present paper is only marginally connected with Professor Vööbus’ first love, Syriac, but it outlines a principle which finds application in Syriac no less than in other Semitic languages. The Semitic root '-/-m has given rise to a range of semantic developments in the various Semitic languages. It is evident that, in general, the derivatives of the root cluster around a number of central ideas which do not appear to be related. This leaves open the possibility that some words for long understood as belonging to one semantic group may in fact belong to another. If the context suits an alternative meaning just as well as, or even better than, the traditional sense, we have grounds for proposing a new understanding of some well known

terms. It is not difficult to demonstrate the general point that the root ‘Im gives rise to several semantic groups but there is an important observation to make before any detailed discussion. The two phonemes // and /gh/, well distinguished in Arabic and Ugaritic, have

merged

in Hebrew, Aramaic/Syriac and Ethiopic!, so that some of

the meanings which appear in these languages originated rather from ' C.H. GonDoN,

Ugaritic Textbook (Grammar) (Rome 1965), p. 30.

160

J.A. THOMPSON

the gh-I-m than from

'-/-m. We

shall refer to these at various

points

in the ensuing discussion. Derivatives of the roots ‘-l-m and gh-l-m in selected Semitic languages In Arabic? several verb forms developing from ‘-I-m are related to the idea of »knowing«. Thus 'alima means know, perceive, learn, be informed etc. The II form 'allama denotes teach, instruct, train, designate,

put a mark on etc. The IV form a'lama means let know, notify, advise, tell, inform, etc. Form

V ta'allama learn, study etc., form X

ista'lama

desire 10 know, ask, inquire, gather information. Among the nouns that carry something of the sense of knowing we may note 'ilm knowledge, learning, lore, information etc.; 'alam sign,

token, mark,

badge,

that is, something by which someone or something is known or distinguished; 'alàma sign, mark; ‘alim a learned man, servant; i'làm announcement,

notice,

information;

ta'lim

information,

advice,

instruc-

tion etc.; mu'allim teacher, instructor etc.; among the adjectives (and participles) we may note 'alim knowing, learned; 'alim informed, learned, erudite; ‘allam knowing thoroughly, very learned, u'lüma, sign post, guidepost; 'ulamá', a learned man, a scholar, scientist. These are by no means the only derivatives that relate to the idea of knowing. But there is a second, although smaller group of words relating to the idea of world, universe etc. among which are included 'alam, world, universe, cosmos, ‘alami worldly, secular, international etc. The idea of a long period of time represented in Hebrew by nbiy is not developed in Arabic. The root gh-I-m? gives rise to the verb forms ghalima I to be excited by lust, to be seized by sensuous desire, aghlama to excite one's lust (IV), ightalama to become excited by lust, or in a secondary sense to become stirred up, to be in a state of commotion (as the sea). Related nouns are ghulma lust, desire; ghulàm young man, boy, servant, slave and hence, ghulama girl; ghilam and ghalim, one who is excited by lust, ghulämiya youth, youthfulness. It is from this root that some of the Syriac and Hebrew verbs and nouns arise as we shall see. In Syriac* the verb xls, seems to be a denominative Pael from ? See E. W. LANE, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 1877), pp. 2138-2142.

1877 Part 5 (London

& Edinburgh

3 E. W. LANE, op. cit., Part 6, p. 2286.

* R. Payne

SMITH,

A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford

Thesaurus Syriacus, Tomus II (Oxford

1901), col. 2896f.

1903),

p. 415 and

THE ROOT '-L-M

161

résuls and means to grow young, be youthful, restore to youth, renew. The Ethpaal sala Wee’ denotes grow up, come to maturity, be renewed. This group of words relates to the Arabic parallels derived from gh-I-m. The noun résalx sometimes carries the sense of a long period of time, age, generation, era, eternity, but alternately the sense of world, temporal life. The noun in former sense has as its construct state pla and the latter ala . Related derivatives are url. in worldly fashion; réssals. temporal, secular, worldly; réhaanls the course of this world, worldly life. Several derivatives add the consonant n to the root bureau ala eternal, everlasting; rin cas xls. eternity etc. The Arabic sense of knowing does not seem to develop in Syriac. In Aramaic? it is clear that the roots '-/-m and gh-I-m are both represented under the one root ‘-/-m. The noun no» denotes the ideas eternity and world. The meaning eternity is a specialised one and refers rather to an uncertain or hidden, lengthy period of time and is thus to be connected with the Hebrew development of the root in oy to be concealed. The Aramaic verb ao» Peal, means to be strong, D" Pael to strengthen; and ὈΡΩ͂Ν to be strengthened, to join, to conspire. These verbs may be related to the root gh-l-m which in some Arabic and Ugaritic derivatives refers to a young man who is strong and vigorous in his sexual desires. The range of meanings to be found in the West Semitic inscriptions provides important comparative material. The sense of time appears in Phoenician, Punic, Moabite, Early and Imperial Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, the language of Ha-

traf. The meaning world, universe is also known although this usage is infrequent 7. We have to do here with the root ‘-/-m. But the alternative root gh-I-m occurs in derivatives which mean child, maiden, prostitute and very commonly servant, slave. Thus the derived noun means child in the Sefiré Inscription (iA22); girl in the Kilamaura inscription (Kil. 1:8) servant, slave in Egyptian Aramaic, the Ahigar inscription and in a variety of other texts, and even prostitute in a few texts?. * M.

Jastrow,

Dictionary

of Talmud

Babli,

Yerushalmi,

Midrashic

Literature

and

Targumim (London & New York 1903), pp. 1084f. * C.F. JEAN and J. HoFTUZER, Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Sémitiques de l'Ouest (Leiden

1965), pp. 213f.

7 Ibid. p. 214. ® Ibid.

162

J.A. THOMPSON

Biblical Hebrew has developed a range of verbs from the root "-/-m Qal, Niphal, Hiphil, Hithpael, all relating to the idea of concealing or

hiding. The root gh-I-m lies behind the nouns ay 979 young woman of marriageable age?.

young man, and

Later Hebrew such as occurs in the Midrashim

develops verbs in

the Qal, Piel, Niphal, Hithpael, Nithpael, Hiphil and Hophal, all with some sense of conceal, hide. The noun nos secret, forgetfulness is related, while the noun 0?» has a time reference and means eternity, world, etc. An interesting use of this noun occurs in D’ n°3 cemetery, burial ground. These apparently run back into the root '-I-m. In Ugaritic both roots '-/-m and gh-I-m are represented by derivatives, the latter by nouns meaning boy, servant, messenger, girl'°, and the former by nouns which have some time reference like eternal, everlasting !!

In Ethiopic!? the verb 'alama is equivalent to Arabic 'allama to put a mark (a

upon, designate. The

document).

The

noun

IIL3

ma’älem

form

ta'älama means

corresponds

to

Arabic

to sign mu'allim

teacher. The noun ‘älam covers various nuances of the time idea, equating

to Hebrew n*iy , Syriac xls

and Arabic ‘alam, age, eternity, etc.,

but also to the ideas of world, creation etc. The adjective 'alamawi denotes worldly, of this age, or secular. Ethiopic thus develops the two ideas of learning and lengthy period of time/world in much

the same

way

as Arabic.

The

ideas associated

with the root gh-I-m do not seem to have developed

in Ethiopic.

The phoneme /gh/ became /'/ in Ethiopic. The derivatives of the root gh-I-m were evidently replaced by other terms. Some general conclusions may be drawn from this cursory study of the two roots '-I-m and gh-I-m in Semitic languages. The concept of a lengthy period of time but of uncertain duration is represented by the root ‘-/-m in Arabic, Ethiopic, Syriac, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Biblical and later Hebrew and in languages of the West Semitic inscriptions. The related idea of world, universe, is also developed in these languages.

* L. KŒHLER and W. BAUMGARTNER, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden 1953), p. 709; see M. JasrROW, op. cit.. p. 1084 for all these derivatives.

10 C. H. GonDoN, Ugaritic Text Book (Rome 1965), Glossary, p. 464. 11 [bid., p. 456. 12 A. DILLMANN, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (Leipzig 1864). p. 952.

THE ROOT '-L-M

163

Arabic and Ethiopic have developed strongly the idea of knowing from the root ‘-I-m. Hebrew and Aramaic have developed the idea of hide, conceal, etc. probably from the same root. The second root gh-l-m has a strong sense of sexual excitement in Arabic and this appears in nouns which denote boy, young woman, etc. There are parallels in Ugaritic which preserved the phoneme /gh/. Ethiopic lost the phoneme /gh/ and does not seem to have developed the idea in the root ‘-/-m as did Hebrew, Aramaic and some of the languages of the West Semitic inscriptions. Both because of the range of derivatives of either of the roots ‘-l-m or gh-I-m and also because of the coalescence of these roots in some Semitic languages, alternative explanations of some significant words and phrases in extant texts should be explored. Proposed alternative translations of certain words and phrases in Ugaritic and Hebrew The concordance of G.D. Young!? lists the occurrences of ‘/m in texts published up to 1956. In most of these some time sense for ‘im seems likely. Thus in Text 51, IV : 41-43 the lines thmk.il.hkm.hkmt ‘m.

'Im.hyt.hzt

thmk have been translated by Gordon Thy word, El, is wise

Thou art wise unto eternity Lucky life is thy word Driver translated Thy bidding, El is wise Thy wisdom everlasting; a life of good luck Thy bidding The phrase 'm. ‘Im seems to imply that El is permanently king among the gods '*. However, in Keret lines 55, 127, 140, 258 where the expression ‘bd. ‘Im occurs, the word ‘im may well have a different sense from eternal or permanent. Keret has been given in his dream, detailed directions about how to win a bride. He is to go to King PBL with

13 G. D. Young, Concordance of Ugaritic (Rome 1956), p. 51. 14 Cf.‘ nt V : 39. C.H. Gorvon, Ugaritic Literature (Rome 1949), p. 23.

164

J.A. THOMPSON

gifts and to take with him horses, a chariot and an ‘bd. ‘Im. The idea of a wise servant seems to suit the context quite as well as, and perhaps even better than a permanent servant. Arabic, as we have seen !?, develops strongly the meaning know for the root '-I-m and "bd. ‘Im could be represented in Arabic as ‘abd ‘älim, that is, a knowing servant or a wise servant. Such a sense would suit the context of Keret 55, 127, 140, 285 admirably. On his journey to find a wife what better companion for the road might Keret have than precisely a wise servant ? 16, The term ghim meaning boy, lad occurs regularly in Ugaritic texts and need not delay us here since its meaning is clear!’ In a similar way it seems possible to make some alternative proposals about the translation of a number of phrases in the Hebrew Bible. The vocalisation offered by the Masoretic text is, of course, the traditional one that was in use in the early centuries of the Christian era. But so many other vocalisations of the Masoretic consonantal text have been offered in recent years in the light of our growing understanding of comparative materials that one senses that there may be many areas of the Masoretic text yet to be explored. We offer a number of passages where it would seem that MT nbiy may be either re-vocalised or understood as pointing to a sense something like that of the Arabic ‘alim knowing, wise.

(1) In Psalm 139:24 the Psalmist is asking God to search him and try him, to know his heart and his thoughts and to see if there is any

wicked way in him. Then he adds oyiy 7773 "inn It would seem in the context that the desire of the Psalmist is to walk in the way of wisdom or understanding. If the last noun Θ᾽ were related to the Arabic 'ilm we might propose a noun * 'ilim » ‘elem. (ii) In Jer. 6:16 Yahweh urges the people of Judah through Jeremiah to seek for aiv nian. The expression is variously translated ancient paths (RSV and NEB), old paths (AV), ways of long ago (Jerusalem Bible). The context might equally well allow some such translation as ways of wisdom, ways of understanding if MT aviv were revocalised

as * oy and the noun linked with Arabic "ilm. (iii) “À similar translation might be offered for Habakkuk 3:5 where

15 See above p. 160. 16 The casual remark of my student Mr. Tony ARISTAR when we were reading Keret that “Im here should be related to the Arabic sense of know gave rise to this whole paper. 17 See G.D. Young, op. cit., pp. 54-55.

THE ROOT '-L-M

MT

reads odiy ni» bn. In the theophany

165

presented

in this chapter

the phrase "ways of wisdom (understanding) were his, might well be substituted for the RSV His ways were as of old. (iv) In Ecclesiastes 3:11 an interesting expression occurs. God has set ‘-l-m in their hearts. In the context of the season and the time for every matter under heaven it is noted that God has made everything beautiful in its time; also, he has put ‘-/-m in man’s mind. But even with such a gift man cannot find out what God has done from the beginning. It would seem that a suitable sense for ‘-/-m in this context is wisdom, knowledge, albeit of a somewhat limited scope, and certainly not wide ranging enough to comprehend the ways of God. (v) The description of Yahweh

in Jeremiah

10:10 has been various-

ly translated : God in truth, a living God, an eternal King (NEB), True God, everlasting King (RSV & Jerusalem Bible). It is reasonable to ask the question here too whether the MT ai» may not be revocalised as * noy with the sense of knowledge, wisdom. Alternately a parallel may be drawn with the Arabic participle ‘alim, knowing. (vi) The questions of how to translate the expression Div ox (Gen. 21:35) and ai» OR (Isa. 40:28) should be raised. In the latter passage Yahweh's power in creation is under discussion. The usual translation of the passage is: The Lord, the everlasting God, the creator of the ends of the earth. In the context a translation the God of knowledge (wisdom) may well be appropriate. It was the all knowing, the all wise

God,

the creator,

who

could

renew

the

strength

and

hope

of Israel at such an hour. Similarly in Genesis 21:33 Abraham is depicted as planting a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba and calling upon Yahweh, who is described as

ooi» “nox. Is this to be translated the Everlasting God (RSV) or the

God of knowledge, i.e. the God who knows all things? Certainly there is not lacking support in the Old Testament for some doctrine of the omniscience of God. God at least knows the end from the beginning. He discerns the ways of men and is the Lord of creation and of history. He is thus the God of knowledge (or wisdom). Conclusion

It is not claimed that the proposals made in this paper have exhausted all the possibilities. It would seem that an investigation in the derivatives of the roots ‘-/-m and gh-I-m might yield some important variations in translation. This exercise may well prove signif-

166

J. A. THOMPSON

icant in unvocalised languages like Ugaritic. But some attempt to explore the background of such derivatives in a language like Hebrew may equally well produce some significant results both because the two phonemes /'/ and /gh/ coalesced in some Semitic languages, and also, because traditional vocalisations of earlier unvocalised texts gave

a fixity to a number of terms which obscured their real meaning.

PART

THREE

STUDIES IN PATRISTIC AND THOUGHT

LIFE

DIE

ZWEI

PARADOXA

DES

GLAUBENS

BEI

EPHRÄM

Epmunpb Beck, OSB Metten über Deggendorf, Deutsche Bundesrepublik

Zu den Überraschungen, welche die Edition von Ephräms Prose Refutations! aus dem ursprünglichen Text einer Palimpsesthandschrift mit sich brachte, gehören auch einige griechische Fremdwörter, die bis dahin unbekannt waren. Darunter vor allem das in Pr. Ref. II, 202, 27 u. 34 zweimal erscheinende prdwksn = paradoxon?. Sieht man sich nach dem Vorkommen dieses Wortes in der griechischen Profanliteratur um, so ist es zunächst als ein rhetorischer Terminus festzustellen (der Redner sagt etwas andres als der Zuhörer erwartet),

der von Aristoteles ausgehend über Cicero ins Lateinische kommt und noch von Augustinus gebraucht wird. Auf dem eigentlichen philosophischen Gebiet sind am bekanntesten die paradoxa der Stoiker geworden wie z.B. ihre Anschauung vom menschlichen Glück, zu dem weder Gesundheit noch Kraft noch Schönheit gehören, was der gewöhnlichen Auffassung ins Gesicht schlägt’. Für Ephräms paradoxon kommen beide nicht in Frage. Der rein religiös christliche Hintergrund, auf dem das Wort bei ihm erscheint, verweist uns an die griechisch christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten vier Jahrhunderte. Und hier braucht man nur G.W.H. Lampe: A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford

1961)

sub

voce

nachsehen

und

man

(beyond reason) die folgenden Stellen, die heranführen. Zuerst zwei Stellen aus Justins Dialogus bezeichnet es der Jude in Kap. 38 als mit Moses und Aaron in der Wolkensäule Mensch

geworden,

aufgefahren,

wieder

gekreuzigt

kommen

worden

werde

unter

Punkt

2

uns an Ephräms paradoxon cum Tryphone Judaeo. Hier blasphemisch, daß Christus gesprochen habe, und dann,

sei,

und

findet

daB

er,

anzubeten

in

den

Himmel

sei. Darauf Ju-

’ Vol. I by C. W. MıtcHeLL (Oxford 1912), Vol II by A.A. Bevan and F.C. Burkitt (Oxford 1921) [Text and Translation Society]. * Selbst das Supplementum zum Thesaurus Syriacus (Oxford 1927) bietet es noch nicht. ? Vgl. PLUTARCH, Moralia 11. 1060. Bibliothek Teubner, Bd. 6 (Leipzig 1895). S. 287f.

170

E. BECK

stinus: er wisse, daB die Weisheit Gottes den Juden verborgen sei; darum bemühe er sich, »daB ihr unsere Paradoxa einsehen möget«*. Die christlichen Paradoxa sind also hier das Geheimnis der Präexistenz und Göttlichkeit des Menschgewordenen und Gekreuzigten. Zum gleichen Thema sagt dann in Kap. 48 der Jude: die Rede davon scheine ihm paradoxos zu sein und völlig unbeweisbar*. Diese Unbeweisbarkeit wird bei Ephräms paradoxon wieder erscheinen. Weniger aufschlußreich ist die Stelle aus Origenes contra Celsum I, 32 (ed.

P.

Koetschau,

GCS

2, Origen

I,

1899,

S.

83),

wo

Mariens

Empfängnis vom Heiligen Geist paradoxos genannt wird. Wichtiger ist eine letzte Stelle, die allerdings schon über die Zeit Ephräms hinausgeht. Sie findet sich in der expositio symboli Nicaeni des Theodotus Ancyranus aus der Zeit des christologischen Streites zwischen Cyrill und Nestorius. Hier wird letzterem vorgeworfen, er löse das Mysterium in eine Homonymie auf und entstelle durch Worttechnik die Schlichtheit des Glaubens?. Dieses Mysterium wirft jeden (menschlichen) Vernunftgrund über den Haufen’. Nachdem dafür Paulusstellen angeführt wurden, heißt es zunächst adjektivisch : »Diese Einheit (in Christus)

ist paradox«,

und

spáter substantivisch : sie ist ein

Wunder und ein Paradoxon. »Suche daher keinen logos für Dinge die den logos und die Gedanken der Menschen übersteigen !«® Ein Paradoxon ist also hier eine für den menschlichen Verstand unbeweisbare, nur dem Glauben zugängliche Offenbarungswahrheit. Untersucht man nun, wie Ephrám das Wort verwendet, dann findet man bei gleichbleibender Grundbedeutung eine überraschende Verschiebung in den Gegenstánden seines Paradoxon. Es taucht, wie gesagt, in der in Pr. Ref. II, 190-229 publizierten letzten Rede »Gegen Mani« auf. Der Titel ist zu eng. Die Rede beginnt zwar mit einer Polemik gegen den Archonten, der nach Mani der Urheber des AT ist, gegen die Sóhne der Finsternis und ihren Kampf mit dem Licht. Doch schon die in Il, 198, 16ff. einsetzende allgemeine Erwägung wendet sich an alle, die von einer Mehrheit góttlicher Wesen? sprechen d.h. an die von Ephrám bekámpfte Háretikerdreiheit von Markion, Bardaisan und Mani. * Vgl. Justini Opera, hrsg. J. K. Th. Otto (Jena *1877), v. 1, 128. Le. S. 162, If. auch móron (tóricht).

* 7 * *

MIGNE, Le. 1317 Lc. 1320 Syr. nur

Anschliessend

PG 77, 1316 D. A. A. itvd: vgl. Anm. 15.

heisst

es:

das

sei

nicht

nur

paradoxon

sondern

GLAUBEN

BEI EPHRÄM

171

Der Abschnitt lautet : »Wisse, daß bei einem Streit, bei einer Untersuchung über eines der Geschópfe wir von einem Geschópf, seinem Genossen, das bezeugende (beweisende) Beispiel!? bringen und nicht von der góttlichen Natur. Denn wir kónnen nicht vom ungeschaffenen Gott ein Beispiel für Geschaffene nehmen. Ebensowenig nehmen wir bei góttlichen Wesen ein Beispiel von Geschópfen sondern nur von ihnen selber. So laBt uns das Beispiel von diesem

(göttlichen) Wesen nehmen, das diese Leiden '? fallen kann, dann (göttlichen) Wesen glauben, daß kónnen. Wenn aber das Zeugnis

(einen) gewaltigen

wir alle bezeugen'': wenn es unter müssen wir auch von jenen andren auch sie unter jene Leiden fallen dieses (góttlichen) Wesens (es ist),

daB es nicht unter diese Leiden fállt, dann spricht es alle (góttlichen) Wesen, die es gibt, (davon) frei, daB auch sie nicht unter diese

Leiden fallen. So ist also durch das Zeugnis des wahren (góttlichen) Wesens die Rede des Irrtums besiegt, die (mehrere göttliche) Wesen in die Welt eingeführt hat. Wenn du aber ohne Zeugnis mich zwingst, dir zu glauben,

daß

es (mehrere

göttliche)

Wesen

gibt,

dann

werde

auch du gezwungen, ohne Zeugnis mir zu glauben, daß es kein andres (göttliches) Wesen gibt außer dem einen.« Wenn hier Ephrám seine Auffassung von einem einzigen, ewigen, leidensunfáhigen Gott zur Grundlage jeder Beweisführung über das Góttliche schlechthin macht, auch für die, welche eine Mehrzahl von góttlichen Wesen annehmen, so ist das philosophisch eine petitio

principii. Ephrám gesteht das indirekt selber zu, indem er im SchluBsatz nicht mehr von Beweisen sondern nur mehr vom Glauben spricht. Damit ist die Stelle mit den zwei Paradoxa des Glaubens vorbereitet. Es schiebt sich bis zu ihr, zwischen II, 199, 22 und 201, 29, noch eine Auseinandersetzung über die manichäische Frage ein, woher denn das Böse in den Werken Gottes komme. Nach der Erwähnung des (manichäischen) Grundsatzes, nichts könne entstehen außer aus einem

göttlichen

Wesen

(was

dann

zum

RückschluB

aus

dem

10 Syr. tahwitd d-sähdütä. Zu der Bedeutung des Verbs shd: bezeugen Zeugenaussage) beweisen vgl. Hy. de Fide [CSCO

Bösen

im

und (durch

154, Syr. 73] (1955), 9, 10: »Zacha-

rias bewies (bezeugte) durch die Frage Herzens verloren hatte«. Vgl. vor allem Bezeugen = Beweisen von Bild (Beispiel) !! Daß der Sinn ist: wir Menschen

seines Mundes, daß er den Glauben seines auch HdF 64, 12 für das sich gegenseitige und dem durch das Bild Bezeichneten. bezeugen (beweisen) durch unser geschópf-

liches

Hy.

Dasein

den

Schöpfer,

wird durch

de ecclesia [CSCO

198, Syr.

84] 48,

10

belegt: »Himmel und Erde mit allem, was darin ist, sind Zeugen des Schöpfers«. '2 Im Vorangehenden war vom Tod einiger der sich gegenseitig bekämpfenden Söhne der Finsternis die Rede.

172

E. BECK

Kosmos

auf ein nebengöttliches

böses Prinzip führt), sagt Ephräm:

»Nach eben diesem (Grundsatz) erkenne : auch jene (göttlichen) Wesen

können nicht sein!?. keiten als der meine. die nicht erschaffen Geist! Doch sagst du liche) Wesen

Also bereitet dieser dein Satz mehr SchwierigDenn wie sollten sich (göttliche) Wesen finden, sind? Verkoste das, was ich sage, in deinem (wohl): glaubst du nicht, daB es das eine (gótt-

gibt!*? So führst du mich also zum

Glauben

und

nicht

zu einer (philosophischen) Untersuchung. Du bist es daher, der du mich zwingst, vom Glauben Gebrauch zu machen. Was zwingt dich, daB du mich zwingen móchtest, zu einer Untersuchung zu eilen und nicht zum Glauben? Wenn du mich zur Untersuchung zurückbráchtest, würde ich den Glauben preisgeben...!? Besteht da nicht (auch) für dich die Notwendigkeit, zu bekennen, daB die (góttliche) Wesen-

heit existiert!$. Die Notwendigkeit

also, die mich

zwang,

daß

ich

dieses Paradoxon bekenne, das nicht zu erforschen ist sondern ohne Forschung geglaubt wird, die (gleiche) Notwendigkeit hat mich ge13 Bzw. »entstehen«. Das syr. /nwd kann beides ausdrücken. Der Grund. warum sie nicht sein können, muß in dem vorangehenden Grundsatz liegen. Wird nach ihm

das Böse in der Welt auf ein böses Prinzip zurückgeführt und zwar nicht als Geschöpf (aus dem Nichts) sondern als wesensgleiche Ausgeburten, dann würde der Grundsatz

wieder auf das Prinzip anzuwenden

sein und man

käme

zu einem

regressus

in infinitum, ein Argument, das EPHRAM in seiner Rede gegen eine philosophische Schrift des BARDAISAN (Pr. Ref. II, 1-49) in der Frage von Gott und Raum offen verwendet

(es sei dafür

wiesen,

die

im

Oriens

auf

meine

Übersetzung

Christianus

und

Kommentar

60

(1976)

erscheint)

erste

Form

des

und

dieser

hier

wohl

Schrift

vorver-

stillschweigend

voraussetzt. '* Syr.

it hü

had

ityá,

die

Satzes.

der

anschließend

als

erstes

Paradoxon erscheint. Der Gegner meint wohl damit: wie kannst du eine Mehrzahl von göttlichen Wesen als unmöglich ablehnen, nachdem du doch wenigstens an eines, an deinen Gott, glaubst. Mit »glauben« gibt er EPHRAM das Stichwort für das Folgende. '5 Die Zeilen Il. 202, 12-21 sind wegen des unsicheren Texts nicht voll zu verwerten. Es scheint zuerst unser Satz in der kürzesten Form, nämlich ir ityd. wieder-

holt zu werden, wobei anschließend für ityd aláhá eingesetzt wird. Daß bei EPHRAM in Opposition gegen die bardaisanischen irye, gegen seine ewigen göttlichen Elemente, die gleich im Folgenden erwähnt werden (es scheint gesagt zu werden, daß es keinen Unterschied bedeute, ob man die Welt ein außergöttliches “νά nenne oder ob man sage, die Welt sei aus den iryé geschaffen) der Singular iryä für sich allein zur Bezeichnung, zum Namen für (den monotheistischen) Gott wurde, dafür sei hier nur kurz auf Hy. c. haer. 53. 7-13 (mit Berufung auf Ex. 3, 14!) verwiesen und auf die ergänzende Stelle Hy. de Fide 44. 1.

16 Syr. it hi itütd. Daß hier das Abstraktum

(wie oft im Syr.) konkret gleich ityd

zu nehmen ist, zeigen die vorangehenden Formen des gleichen Satzes: ir iryd und it hü had ityé. Und daß im letzten Fall für EPHRAM das had überflüssig ist, beweist

Sermo de Fide IIl, 13 (vgl. Anm.

18), wo es in einem ganz ähnlichen Zusammenhang

heißt: »Wenn du glaubst d-itaw inva (daB Gott existiert), dann bedeutet dein schen ein Zweifeln«. Der Satz ist nach dem Folgenden das erste Paradoxon.

For-

GLAUBEN

BEI EPHRÄM

173

zwungen, daß ich (auch) glaube, daB aus nichts alles entstand, ein andres (zweites) Paradoxon, das ohne Prüfung geglaubt wird« 17, Demnach sind also die zwei ephrámischen Paradoxa, die nicht Gegenstand des Forschens und Untersuchens sondern nur des Glaubens sind, die folgenden zwei Sátze. Der erste lautet: (der eine) Gott existiert. Der zweite: Alles (was außerhalb Gottes existiert) ist aus dem Nichts geworden (d.h. von Gott erschaffen worden). Ich kenne

keine andre Stelle aus der patristischen Literatur, die derart knapp und präzis diese beiden fundamentalen Sätze auschlieBlich als Objekt des Glaubens hinstellen würde. Man weiß, daB die sogenannten Gottesbeweise der Gottesvorstellung des Alten und des Neuen Testamentes fremd sind auf Grund der hier herrschenden Idee eines dynamisch personhaften, vor allem in der Geschichte wirkenden Gottes. Doch ist bekanntlich schon bei Paulus eine Stelle wie Rom. I, 19f. zu finden, wo stoisch hellenistisch-jüdische gottesbeweisähnliche Gedankengänge mit hereinwirken. Nun kann auch Ephräm von der Erkenntnis Gottes sprechen, als wäre sie eine Tat des Menschen. So sagt er in Sermones de Fide 11. 161: »Es

mühte

sich

der

Verstand,

ihn

(Gott)

zu

ergründen,

doch

nur,

daß er ist nahm er wahr«!®. Und sogar von Abraham heißt es in SdF IN, 73ff.: »Nicht durch einen (göttlichen) Befehl lernte er, daß Gott ım Himmel

einen Herrn wird

aus

ist, vielmehr urteilte er (dän) aus sich selber, daß es

für die Schöpfung gibt«'?.

diesem

Bemühen

des

Doch

Verstandes

schon

(von

II,

in SdF III, 79 161)

und

aus

seinem Urteilen (in HI, 75) ein bloBes Fühlen. Denn hier wird von Abraham gesagt: »Obwohl er fühlte (has), daß (Gott) ist, forschte er nicht, wie er sei«. Und unmittelbar darauf heiBt es sogar : »Auch nachdem (Gott) ihm (sich) geoffenbart hatte, fragte er nicht: wie (beschaffen) bist du«. Damit wird das scheinbar Unvereinbare, das eigne Urteilen Abrahams und das Sichoffenbaren Gottes, gleichgesetzt. Eine Lósung der Schwierigkeit bietet das »Fühlen« Abrahams von III, 79. Denn nach dem Kommentar zur Genesis hat Gott Adam bei der Erschaffung sein Wort gegeben und das Denken und hat ihn so als »die Maiestát (Gottes) erfühlend« (marges b-rabbütä) geschaffen?°. 17 Pr. Ref. 11, 201, 34-202, 36. In 202, 3 korrigiere ich das end in a(m).

18. (CSCO 212, Syr. 88] (1961). S. 11; Übersetzung (213, Syr. 89], S. 16. Zum (arges) vgl. Anm.

Verb

20.

19 Le. S. 24 (S. 35). 29 [CSCO

152, Syr. 71] (1955), S. 28, 2f. Wenn

dabei das Fühlen

Denken (melltä u. hussäbd) auftritt, so zeigt das, daß für EPHRAM Stufe steht; beides ist Tätigkeit das Herz (lebbá) ist.

ein

und

desselben

Sinnes,

dessen

neben

Wort

und

beides auf gleicher (Sinnes)werkzeug

174

E. BECK

Damit wird die »natürliche« Gotteserkenntnis des Menschen zu einem Gnadengeschenk Gottes, das mit einer direkten Selbstoffenbarung Gottes auf gleiche Stufe gestellt werden kann?!. So sagt denn auch Ephräm in Sermo de Fide Il, 243ff.: »Die Gabe des Gebers hat dich zum Geber geführt. Mit dem Wissen, das er dir gab, konntest du dich selber (hier wohl besser : deine Seele) und deinen Gott erkennen... Denn nicht vermochte die Reichweite deines (Verstandes) bis zu ihm

zu kommen«. Damit bleibt es wohl für Ephrám auch schon der Existenz Gottes. An die Seite des zweiten Paradoxon kónnen

altchristlichen

Literatur

gestellt werden,

bei dem

Paradoxon

zwei Texte

die der

Artikel

zus der

»Schoep-

fung« in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart?? bietet. Zuerst der Satz aus Hermas, mand. I, 1: »Glaube, daB der eine Gott aus dem

Nichtseienden

das All machte«.

Diese Aufforderung

zum

Glauben

schlieBt indirekt die Paradoxie der Erschaffung aus dem Nichts in sich. Origenes zitiert und bekráftigt in seinem Johanneskommentar I, 17,

103 (ed.

E.

Preuschen,

GCS

5, Origen

IV,

1903,

S.

22)

den

Satz aus Hermas, indem er im Gegensatz zu denen, die eine Schópfung aus einer zugrundeliegenden ungewordenen Hyle annehmen, von der christlichen Überzeugung spricht, daß Gott aus nichtseienden die seienden (Dinge) geschaffen hat, »wie die Mutter der Sieben (II Makk.

7, 28) und der Bote der Buße (Hermas) in seinem Hirten gelehrt hat«. Die Erschaffung aus dem Nichts ist also nicht Gegenstand der Philosophie sondern der Offenbarung und des Glaubens??.

2! Vgl. dazu auch noch die Fortsetzung der oben zitierten Stelle SdF ΠῚ, 73ff. Hier heißt es in III, 83ff. wiederum von Abraham: »Es kannte (yáda' hwä) auch Christus, disputierte aber nicht über sein Wie«. Dieses Kennen ist nichts andres ais der Glaube an die ihm nach Jo. 8. 56 zuteil gewordene Offenbarung! Zu der ganzen Frage vgl. meine Ausführungen in »Ephraems Reden über den Glauben«. Studia Anselmiana 33 (Roma 1953), S. 42-51. ?? V, 1478 (3. Aufl, Tübingen 1961). Verf. G. GLOEGE. Zum ersten Paradoxon käme

daraus

der

Artikel

»Gott

(esbeweise)«

Frage, wo aber nur weniger treffende

(II,

1747

(1958).

Belege erscheinen

Verf.

J.

aus THEOPHILUS,

KLEIN)

in

IRENAUS,

CLEMENS AL. (das Wissen um die Existenz Gottes ist in die Seele gelegt) u. ORIGENES (Gottesbeweise sind nicht notwendig. nur ein Beweis für die Einzigkeit).

23 Daß hier der Advokat TERTULLIAN die Sache auf den

Kopf stellen kann, wird

nicht allzu sehr verwundern. Er sagt nàmlich in Adversus Hermogenem Kap. 21. die Schrift hätte, wenn sie die Erschaffung aus einer präexistenten Materie hätte lehren

wollen, das ausdrücklich sagen müssen, während sie die Erschaffung aus dem

Nichts

ruhig übergehen konnte: because a creation out of matter would be less self-evident than a creation out of nothing. So J.H. Waszınk in seinem Kommentar zur Stelle in

Ancient

Christian

Writers

24

(Westminster,

Md.

&

London

1956).

S.

137.

GLAUBEN BEI EPHRÄM

175

Die zwei Paradoxa Ephräms verraten eine agnostizistische Tendenz seiner

Theologie,

die

sich

anderweitig

auch

in

seiner

Vorliebe

für

antithetische Aussagen verrät. Um zum Schluß dafür auch noch einen konkreten Einzelpunkt anzuführen, sei auf seine Stellungnahme zu dem Problem der menschlichen Willensfreiheit hingewiesen, die ausführlich in seinem Brief an Hypatios zur Darstellung kommt ?*. Auch hier bleibt es nach Ephräm bei dem Wissen des Menschen um die Tatsache seiner Freiheit, ein Wissen, das nach der oben zitierten Stelle,

SdF 11, 243ff., als Erkenntnis der eignen Seele zusammen mit der Erkenntnis Gottes ein Geschenk Gottes ist. Ein Erkennen und Erklären des Wie ist dagegen ganz unmöglich. Denn für Ephräm ist es ein unerklärbares Paradoxon (den Terminus setze ich hier ein), wie

ein und derselbe Wille in gute und böse Willensakte zerfallen kann, im schroffsten Gegensatz zu den Griechen, die hier mit ihrer prohairesis eine glatte Lósung geben kónnen, und auch im Gegensatz zu Augustinus, der dazu wenigstens klare Definitionen bieten kann?*. Wer daher es wagen sollte, die Theologie Ephráms auf eine Formel zu bringen, wird diesen Zug des Agnostizismus nicht übersehen dürfen. THE Ephraem

TWO

PARADOXES

OF

FAITH

IN EPHRAEM

uses the Greek word paradoxon not in its rhetorical sense but (like

Justin, Origen and Theodoret of Ancyra) in the sense of divine mysteries revealed only to faith. In his last speech "Against Mani," Ephraem tries to establish the nature of God on the basis that God is one, eternal and impassible. Aware that this begs the question, however, E. speaks of faith rather than demonstration. The two paradoxa are : (1) One God exists, (2) God created everything else out

of nothing. Even "natural" knowledge of God is a gift of grace. This seems to be the only

patristic

passage

in which

these

two

fundamental

principles

are

presented exclusively as an object of faith. They reveal a certain agnostic tendency in E's theology, which appears also in his fondness for antithetical expressions : in addressing the problem of human freedom of the will, for instance, he affirms (unlike the Greeks and unlike Augustine) that man knows the fact of

his freedom, but how it operates it is impossible to know. 24 Vgl. meine Übersetzung mit Kommentar in Oriens Christianus 58 (1974), S. 76120. 2% Vgl. in der gleichen Situation der Polemik gegen die Manichäer in De duabus animabus, Ed. J. ZycHA in CSEL 25 (1891), S. 68, 21ff. u. 70, 15ff. Für EPHRAM wäre hier besonders auch noch das anthropologische Problem, das Verhältnis von Leib

und Seele (Geist) zu nennen. vor allem in der Verbindung mit der Frage von Schlaf und Traum, das Thema des 29. Hymnus der Hy. contra haereses, das EPHRÄM zuletzt, ohne eine Lösung gefunden zu haben. in voller Resignation fallen läßt.

QUADRATUS,

THE FIRST CHRISTIAN

APOLOGIST

Robert M. GRANT Chicago, Illinois, USA

The only extant passage from the treatise written by a Christian named Quadratus, in the time of Hadrian, is cited in the Church History of Eusebius. It is a statement about the reality of the miracles of Jesus, attested by the survival of some of those he had healed or raised from the dead into the author's own times. We shall turn to the passage itself shortly, but first we should consider some of the relatively modern discussions of its meaning and setting. Following M.J. Routh!, the great editor of the apologists, J. C. T. Otto, took the passage to involve the contrast between the work of the Savior and that of illusionists. He cites the passage from Irenaeus to which we shall later turn, as well as referring to F.C. Baur's Vorlesungen über die christliche Dogmengeschichte ?. Baur briefly discusses Quadratus in a section on the “proof from miracle" in early Christian apologetic?. Like his predecessors, G. Salmon assumed that Quadratus' work was so influential that it "seems to have survived so late as the 6th century, for several passages were quoted in the controversy between the monk Andrew and Eusebius (Photius, Cod.

162)"*. There

is no reason to assume that Andrew or Eusebius of Thessalonica actually knew anything more of Quadratus than is preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea. According to Photius, they quarreled over the exegesis of biblical passages and passages from Athanasius, the three Gregories, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Proclus of Constantinople, and even the martyr Methodius and Quadratus?. This statement points to the use of a dogmatic florilegium in which Quadratus would have arrived via the Church History. ! Reliquiae sacrae (2nd ed. Oxford

2 Corpus apologetarum

1846). I. pp. 77-8.

christianorum saeculi secundi

IX

(Jena

1872).

pp.

339-40.

* Vorlesungen... 1, | (Leipzig 1865), p. 352; a similar observation in H. SCHLINGENSIEPEN, Die Wunder des Neuen Testaments (Gütersloh 1933), pp. 6. 33-4.

* Dictionary of Christian Biography IV (London 1887), p. 523. * MicNE, PG 103. 456B.

178

R.M. GRANT

In his study of Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen 1909), W. Bauer associated with the fragment of Quadratus another fragment supposediy from Papias and transmitted via Philip of Side. Papias supposedly held that the raised dead lived on into his own time®. But as E. Peterson rightly noted, ‘la notizia di Filippo Sidete sembra una combinazione sulla base di Eusebio con falsa attribuzione a Papia" ". Peterson was on less firm ground when after rightly pointing out that "l'autore dell’Apologia pare fosse conoscitore del linguaggio retorico e giuridico", he gave as an example the use of' enochlein in a decree cited by Josephus (Antiquities XIV, 352) and in the Church History (IV, 3, 1). This proves more about Eusebius than about Quadratus. The verb and related nouns occur in many decrees which Eusebius was well acquainted with?, and there is no real reason for assuming that his preface to the fragment comes from Quadratus. The theory of Dom P. Andriessen that the sentence from Quadratus belongs in a lacuna in the Epistle to Diognetus (7, 6) is highly improbable and is not confirmed by what we shall argue the fragment

means”. To round out our brief survey we note that as might be expected Quadratus appears in two essays in the symposium on miracles edited by C.F.D. Moule. In both instances his work is treated as simply

apologetic !?. We turn now to the Church History of Eusebius, where he apparently mentions three different Christian leaders named Quadratus. Probably he could also have mentioned the rhetorician Statius Quadratus, proconsul of Asia, before whom Polycarp appeared at Ephesus; but to name him would not have been especially relevant to the historical sequence Eusebius was developing. Difficulties arise in regard to two of the Quadratuses, since he has no reliable dates for them. He puts his first Quadratus in the reign of Trajan, claiming that “tradition says (logos echei) that he was prominent for the prophetic gift along with the daughters of Philip” (III 37, 1). This is not tradition. It is $ Das Leben Jesu... (Tübingen 1909), p. 367; C. DE Boor [Texte und Untersuchungen 5] (1888), p. 170. * Enciclopedia Cattolica X (Vatican City 1953), p. 363; so also Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, ed. W.R. SCHOEDEL (Camden, N.J. 1967), pp. 119-20.

* Eusesius, H.E. IV, 13, 6; VIT, 13; IX, 1, 5; X, 5, 6. 15. * Summary in Vigiliae Christianae | (1947), pp. 129-36. '* G.W.H. Lampe in Miracles (London 1965), p. 209: M.F.

Wies,

ibid., p. 221.

QUADRATUS

179

Eusebius’ guess, based on the anonymous treatise against the Montanists he used later in the History (V 16-17). Following this work, Eusebius guessed that Quadratus was close, but not too close, to apostolic times. It seemed reasonable to date him with the authors later called the Apostolic Fathers. It was even more difficult to do anything with the chronology of the second Quadratus. Eusebius knows that Dionysius of Corinth wrote a letter to the Athenians, perhaps about 170. "He rebukes them as all but apostates from the gospel since the martyrdom of their bishop Publius in the persecutions of that time. He mentions that Quadratus was appointed their

bishop after the martyrdom of Publius and testifies that through his zeal they had been faith”

(IV,

23, 2-3).

brought

together and

P. Nautin

has

acutely

received a revival of their pointed

out

that several

of the letters of Dionysius are related to a persecution, all but contemporary, and that therefore the Quadratus who was bishop of Athens was a bishop of the latter half of the second century. What Dionysius knew about Dionysius the Areopagite as first bishop of Athens was almost certainly a combination of legend with the book

of Acts! !. The only Quadratus with whom we are concerned, then, is the one whom Eusebius called a disciple of apostles; according to the Chronicle he delivered his Apology to Hadrian in the ninth year of his reign. Before discussing this occasion, however, we should set forth the content of the fragment (IV, 3, 2), using sense lines to highlight the parallels. Our Savior's deeds were always present, for they were true. Those healed or risen from the dead did not just appear as healed or risen

but were always present, not just while the Savior visited (us) but even when he went away; they remained for a long time SO that some of them even reached our own times. !!

P. NAUTIN,

Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des i* et ii? siècles (Paris

1961). p.

16.

180

R.M. GRANT

These fragmentary sense lines indicate that little information is being conveyed. The basic purpose is to develop an argument. First, the "deeds" or miracles of the Savior lasted because they were real or true. Had they not been real the beneficiaries would merely have seemed to be healed or raised. Since they were real, the beneficiaries

survived, not merely while the Savior was present but also after his departure. It seems evident that the deeds of "our Savior" are being contrasted with someone else's deeds, some other Savior's or someone else's

Savior's!?, The first point to consider, in the search for such a Savior, is the situation in regard to Athens in Hadrian's ninth year. It is known that then he wintered at Athens and was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries ! ?. This date is not so important as that of the winter before, when he was also in Greece and visited the Peloponnesus. His visit was important for the shrine of Asclepius at Epidaurus. In the city a statue of the emperor was set up and he was called "savior and founder". Coins of Epidaurus also refer to him as "founder", obvious-

ly in reference to his benefactions!*. These included a statue of the philosopher Epictetus!? and, more important, a gymnasium!$. The visit was so memorable that as late as 355 an inscription at Epidaurus

was dated in the 232nd year of the Hadrianic era'’. References in dated inscriptions to the "visitation" of Hadrian in Greece remind us of Quadratus! mention of the visit of his Savior. Can he have been thinking of Hadrian? Certainly the epithet "savior" was used of "the great philhellene". It was often combined with "Zeus Olympios" because he had completed this god's temple at Athens!?. But did Hadrian work miracles? 1? This polemic point was neglected in my earlier interpretation, for which cf. Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco- Roman and Early Christian Thought (Amsterdam 1952), p. 188. 1? Cf. R. HANsLIK in Der Kleine Pauly 11 (Stuttgart 1967), p. 909. '* [nscriptiones Graecae IV, ed. M. GRAENKEL (editio minor, Berlin 1929), no. 384 = W. DITTENBERGER, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 1l (3rd ed. Leipzig 1917), no. 842: also /G 1V?, no. 606. 15 IG IV?, no. 683. 16 JG EV2, no. 691, 5. 1? IG IV2, no. 438, “The first visitation of the divine Hadrian in Greece" : nos. 88 and 389. 18 A.D. Nock in The Joy of Study ... to Honor Frederick Clifton Grant, ed. S.E. JouNsoN (New York 1951), p. 137; Essays on Religion and the Ancient World. ed. Z. STEWART (Oxford 1972), II, p. 727.

QUADRATUS

181

We know that Vespasian certainly, or at least unquestionably, effected cures at Alexandria. But Hadrian's healing of two blind persons took place during his last months and at his villa near Tivoli. In any case, the senatorial historian Marius Maximus said they were “‘effected

through

fraud" !?. This is not the subject matter

for a Christian-

pagan debate. Hadrian was not known as a miracle-worker. If a Christian wanted to criticize him for anything, it would be for his enthusiasm for Antinous??. So Quadratus did not have Hadrian in view. What then of Asclepius, the great god of Epidaurus himself? Certainly he was famous as a savior, and precisely because of his power to heal, later developed and extended to universal beneficence. Epidaurus inscriptions frequently refer to Asclepius as savior, and so does literary evidence from various times and places?!. In the fourth century his temple at Aegae in Cilicia was still important enough

for Constantine to have it destroyed??. The Christian apologist Justin, near Quadratus' time, was well aware of the competition provided by Asclepius, who was said to have cured diseases and to have raised the dead 25. Could Quadratus have had Asclepius in mind? The gods can make such an extended "visitation" to a city that it can be regarded as their home. This is what the emperor Maximin Daia, or at any rate the Greek translator of a rescript, tells us?*. But clearly it is not what Quadratus had in view. He referred to the departure of the Savior, and it is hard to see how at Epidaurus, at any rate, anyone would have thought that Asclepius had left his shrine. We therefore conclude that Quadratus is comparing Jesus with neither Hadrian nor Asclepius. Because of this difficulty we finally venture to propose a rather different explanation of the fragment. If we look at epidém- in Hip-

'* On VESPASIAN : SUETONIUS, Vesp. 7. 2-3; Tacitus, Hist. IV. 81: Dio LXVI, 8.1. On HADRIAN: Hadr. XXV, 1-4 (Scriptores Historiae Augustae).

Cassius,

20 Cf. Eusepius, H.E. IV, 8, 2-3. ?!. ΠΟ 1V?, nos. 127. 399. 418. 435. 474. 476, etc. Literary: E.J. and L. EDELSTEIN. Asclepius : a Collection

and

Interpretation

of the

Testimonies

(Baltimore

1945).

I. nos.

460. 463-6; 1]. p. 106.

22 EDELSTEINS, op. cit., I, nos. 817-20. ?* [bid.. 1, nos. 94. 95. 332; Justin. Apol. comparison

of Jesus and

Asclepius

see ORIGEN,

1. 22, 6: 54. Contra

in H. CHADWICK's translation (Cambridge 1953). p. 142. ?* EustEBIUS, H.E. IX, 7, 5.

10: Dial. 69. 3. For the

Celsum

MI. 24, with

the note

182

R.M. GRANT

polytus, for example, we find the verb used with reference to Simon’s stay at Rome, when he worked magical tricks, the noun for the

"visitation" of the "strange demon

Elchasai"?5.

In both cases the

word is being used in relation to what Hippolytus thinks is Gnostic. Suppose that this is the context in which we should place the fragment. What then? If we look at Irenaeus’ catalogue of early heresies, we find two in which magic played a prominent part: Simonianism and Carpocra-

tianism 26. It is in the context of Irenaeus’ criticism of their magic that we find an almost exact parallel to Quadratus’ argument. ‘Even if they actually do anything, working it through magic, ... they try to lead the irrational astray by fraud. They provide no consequence or usefulness for those for whom they say they perform miracles. They

bring forward

young boys?’ and deceive the eyes and show

forth

apparitions which immediately cease and do not last for even a moment of time—thus showing themselves not like Jesus our Lord

but like Simon

Μαριιβ᾽25. So much

for the negative side of the

argument. Then Irenaeus goes on to mention the reality of the life of Jesus and to reject the Gnostics' supposed claim that "the Lord has done all these things merely in appearance". Actually, he claims, "the dead were raised and remained with us for many years"??. This is the positive side, and it is the same as the argument of Quadratus. The whole attack is directed against Gnostics "who are said to work

miracles : but not by the power of God nor in truth"50, What then should we conclude about Eusebius’ knowledge and use of Quadratus? In the Chronicle he called Quadratus a disciple of apostles and linked him with Aristides of Athens, "our philosopher", who presented Hadrian with books composed in defense of the Christian religion?!. The statement in the Church History is different. There Eusebius says that Quadratus presented Hadrian with an apology "because certain wicked men were trying to make trouble for our people". He insists that he has the book, and that it 2% Refutatio omn. 4 (p. 240, 4).

Haer.

(GCS

VII, ed.

P. WENDLAND)

VI. 20. 2 (p.

148.

26 Adv. Haer. 1. 23, 4; 25, 2. 2” On boys as mediums in Roman magic. cf. the examples cited by M.P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion 11 (2nd ed. München 28 Adv. Haer. Il, 32, 3 (p. 374 Harvey).

2° jbid., I, 32. 4 = Eusesius, H.E. V. 7, 3-4. *° >!

Ibid.. II. 31. 2 (p. 370). EusEBIUS. Chron. Lat. (p. 196 HELM).

1961). pp. 530-1.

11);

IX,

NILSSON,

QUADRATUS

183

gives evidence of Quadratus’ “understanding and apostolic orthodoxy". But if it provides such evidence it must deal with orthodoxy and heresy. Presumably, then, it attacked heretics in order to establish the political and social reliability of orthodox Christians, an approach

also found

in Justin's Apology*?.

The fragment

cited by Eusebius

has to do with this intra-Christian fight, not with the relation between

Christ and pagan saviors. Simply for completeness’ sake we add that in the History Eusebius does not say that he has the book of Aristides. This may explain why he sets it under Hadrian, for the Syriac translation clearly shows that it was dedicated to the emperor "Titus Hadrianus Antoninus" >>. In conclusion, the argument of the one fragment of Quadratus' apology is related not to external affairs but to the conflict between orthodoxy and heresy. In this regard he is typical of the secondcentury apologetic movement. Apologists like Justin and Theophilus were deeply concerned with defending the faith against enemies within as well as enemies without. It is merely a modern convention that sharply differentiates anti-heretical writing from apologetic.

?2 Apol.

I, 26, 6-7. Cf. J. GEFFCKEN,

1907). pp. 28-31.

33 P. NAUTIN. op. cit., pp. 18-19.

Zwei griechische

Apologeten

(Berlin-Leipzig

LES

METHODES

DE

L’ASCESE

MONASTIQUE,

ARM

159

D’APRES

10,

Louis LeLoir, OSB Clervaux, Luxembourg

La contribution apportée par le Professeur Arthur Vööbus à la connaissance de l'ascése des moines syriens a été considérable. En vue de rendre hommage à l'effort qu'il a fourni en ce domaine, et à son résultat, je chercherai à mettre en relief ici l'un ou l'autre des aspects sous lesquels les Paterica arméniens ' ont présenté l'ascése monastique. Les Péres Apostoliques et les Apologistes du II* siécle ont trés peu employé le terme d'ácxnotc, ascése, et encore moins celui α᾽ ἀσκητής, ascéte. Ils lui préfèrent celui d’a8Anrng, athlète. Les Paterica arméniens parlent, eux, et fort souvent, de lutteurs. Le terme d'ascéte n'apparaitra que plus tard, réintroduit dans le christianisme, avec un sens religieux, sans doute sous l'influence de Philon. Mais l'idée de méthode dans le combat, essentielle à 1᾿ἄσκησις grecque, est conservée, méme avant la reprise du terme. Les Grecs distinguaient oí ἀσκηταί, les soldats éprouvés et expérimentés, et les ἰδιῶται, dépourvus de formation et

de méthode?. Les Péres du Désert n'acceptent pas davantage

l'idée d'un lutteur

non initié aux méthodes et aux dangers du combat spirituel. A un frére qui lui demandait : «Comment serai-je sauvé?» un ancien répondait : « ...L'athléte lutte et attaque; de méme le moine qui, (assailli) par les ! Ils ont été édités à Venise, en 1855, sous le titre: Vies des saints Pères, selon la double tradition des Anciens; vol. 1, pp. 413-722; vol. 2, pp. 5-504. Par le sigle Arm, je renverrai, dans cette étude, à leur traduction latine, parue en 4 volumes dans le Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium de Louvain : Louis LELOIR, Paterica armeniaca a P.P. Mechitaristis edita (1855), nunc latine reddita, 1: Tractatus 1-IV [CSCO 353, Subsidia 42] (1974); II: Tract. V-IX [36], Subs. 43] (1975); III: Tract. X-XV [37], Subs. 47] (1976); IV : Tract. XVI-XIX (379, Subs. 51] (1976). Si l'on désire connaitre les références aux collections paralléles d'apophtegmes, il suffira de se reporter aux titres donnés à chaque apophtegme dans la traduction de l'arménien, ainsi qu'aux Tables finales du tome 4 [CSCO 379, Subs. 51], pp. 240-269. ? Cfr M. OLPHE-GAILLARD, «Histoire du mot» (ascése), dans Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, tome

1 (Paris 1937), col. 939.

186

L. LELOIR

pensées mauvaises, étend ses mains vers les cieux, en forme de croix, criant vers Dieu. Lorsqu'il lutte, l'athléte est nu, oint d'huile, et instruit par son maitre sur la maniére de combattre; l'ennemi vient, et il essaie de répandre du sable contre lui, afin de le tenir aisément. Rends-toi compte, moine, qu'il en est de méme pour toi. Dieu est notre maitre; c'est lui qui nous donne la victoire, (mais) il la remporte avec nous.

Nous sommes les lutteurs; Satan est celui qui s'oppose à nous; et le sable, ce sont les choses de ce monde. Ne reconnais-tu pas les artifices de l'ennemi? Sois degage de la matiére, et tu vaincras. Lorsque l'esprit est appesanti par le souffle de la matiére, il ne peut plus recevoir en lui la parole sainte et immatérielle de Dieu. Connais-toi toi-méme, moine, acquiers l'humilité, et jamais tu ne tomberas » *. Ce texte nous apprend beaucoup de choses sur l'ascése, et il la présente comme essentielle à la vie monastique; celle-ci ne peut étre molle, et elle comporte des épreuves : « Un ancien disait : Se faire violence en tout, tel est le chemin de Dieu»*. Et, comme un frére demandait à Jean

le Nain : «Qu'est-ce que la vie monastique? », Jean répondit : « Affliction et labeur; et celui qui connait toutes les formes d'afflictions, sera apte à devenir un ancien » 5, un père spirituel. «Nous sommes les lutteurs », en quéte certes de contemplation, mais düment informés que ce repos en Dieu s'achéte : «les saints», dit un apophtegme, «se sont fatigués ici-bas comme un athléte désireux de repos, celui des soucis de ce monde » $. En disant que «le moine étend ses mains vers les cieux en forme de croix, criant vers Dieu», la sentence que je cherche à commenter suggère que cette prière elle-même sera souvent laborieuse. Il est dur à notre nature humaine, faible et inconstante, de prier longuement, et de rester inlassablement fidèle aux mêmes heures de prière, liturgique et personnelle, durant des dizaines d’années. Il y aurait tant de motifs

d’omettre la prière ou, du moins, de l’abréger: les silences de Dieu, l'ennui, le travail, souvent fort urgent et absorbant, plus agréable d'ordinaire à la nature, et qui fait diversion. Le «Celui qui aura tenu bon

jusqu'au

bout,

celui-là

sera

sauvé»

(Mt

10,

22;

24,

13)

vaut

notamment pour la priére; seul, celui qui persévére dans la poursuite de la rencontre de Dieu, a le droit d'espérer voir son désir un jour comblé. * Arm 10, 159. Le premier chiffre indique le numéro du traité, le deuxième celui de l'apophtegme à l'intérieur du traité. * Arm 10, 118. 5 Arm

10, 5 (recension B).

6 Arm 10, 120.

L'ASCÉSE MONASTIQUE

187

Le combat ne se limite pas au domaine de la priére; il s'étend parallélement à toute la vie: «Lorsque l'esprit est appesanti par le souffle de la matiére, il ne peut recevoir en lui la parole sainte et immatérielle de Dieu ». Sans doute avons-nous ici une allusion à Sg 9, 15-16 : « ...un corps corruptible appesantit l'àme et cette tente d'argile alourdit l'esprit aux mille pensées. Nous avons peine à deviner ce qui est sur la terre, et ne trouvons qu'avec effort ce qui est à notre portée; qui donc a pu découvrir ce qui est dans les cieux?» Sans avoir une vue pessimiste sur lui-méme, l'homme doit pourtant se savoir limité et, comme le disent ces deux textes, de la Sagesse et des apophtegmes,

«pesant » et «lourd» ... Pour «découvrir ce qui est dans les cieux», il doit s'alléger, se libérer et, comme le dit Arm 10, 159, «étre nu» spirituellement ... ᾿ Avant donc d’avoir un ennemi exterieur, le moine en a un en luiméme, et il doit étre sans illusion sur le péché qui habite en lui. Abbä Abraham avait entendu rapporter qu'un ancien disait : « J'ai vécu cinquante ans dans la retraite au désert, ne mangeant du pain et ne buvant de l'eau qu'une fois par semaine, et j'ai pu ainsi parvenir à tuer mes passions : la fornication, l'avarice, la vaine gloire et tous les vices». Abraham alla le trouver et lui dit: «Est-il vrai que tu as dit cela?» L'ancien répondit : «Oui». Alors Abraham lui dit: «Suppose que, rentrant dans ta cellule, tu y vois une femme installée sur ton lit; es-tu capable de penser que ce n'est pas une femme?» «Non, répondit l'ancien, mais je puis lutter contre ma pensée, afin de ne pas pécher avec elle». Abraham dit : « Tu n'as donc pas tué cette passion; elle est encore vivante en toi; elle n'est que liée. Suppose encore que, te promenant au désert, tu vois du miel au milieu du rocher; vas-tu penser que ce n'est pas du miel?» «Non, répondit l'ancien, mais je puis lutter avec ma pensée, en vue de n'en pas manger». «Suppose encore, dit Abraham, qu'au milieu de pierres et de coquillages, tu vois de l'or. Ton esprit peut-il lui donner le méme prix qu'à la pierre et à

la poussiére?» « Non, répondit l'ancien, mais je lutte avec ma pensée pour ne pas prendre l'or». «Bien,

répondit Abraham;

cette passion

donc demeure, elle aussi, vivante en toi, mais elle est liée...» Abraham

lui dit de nouveau : «Si deux fréres viennent te trouver, dont l'un dit continuellement du mal de toi, tandis que l'autre te loue toujours, peux-tu les recevoir avec une égale bienveillance?» «Non, répondit l'ancien, mais je lutte avec mes pensées en vue de traiter celui qui me hait aussi bien que celui qui me loue». «Eh bien! conclut Abraham, tu as prouvé (toi-méme, par tes réponses) que tu n'as nullement tué

188

L. LELOIR

tes passions; elles sont vivantes aussi bien en toi qu’en tous les (autres) hommes; sans cela, tu n'aurais pas à les combattre.

Si elles sont liées,

c'est par la sainte grace de Dieu. Ne te glorifie donc pas» 7. Mais le moine a aussi un ennemi en dehors de lui-méme, et c'est le démon. Il le sait, et l'image du sable, employée dans Arm 10, 159, correspond bien au tableau que les anciens font aux jeunes recrues de l'action du diable, car il cherche à aveugler. Il ne veut pas qu'on le voie, et la plus grande de ses ruses et, fréquemment, de ses réussites, consiste à faire croire qu'il n'existe pas. Les Péres se rappelaient la parole de Gn 3, 1: «Le serpent était le plus rusé de tous les animaux des champs que Dieu, l'Eternel, avait faits ». Et ils citeront souvent 2 Co 11, 14, parlant de «Satan », qui «se déguise en ange de lumiére». Au principe de toute ascése chrétienne, il y a donc la conviction de la double et douloureuse réalité du péché en nous et du tentateur tout prés de nous. Fréquemment encore, les Péres, pour le méme motif, rappelleront la parole de S. Paul en 1 Co 10, 12: «Ainsi donc, que celui qui se flatte d'étre debout prenne garde de tomber ». Le moine est donc invité à la vigilance : « Connais-toi toi-méme », dit Arm 10, 159. Et un autre apophtegme précise: «Le moine doit,

soir et matin, scruter son áme, se demandant:

«Ai-je

fait ce que

voulait Dieu? Ou n'ai-je pas fait, au contraire, ce qu'il ne voulait pas?... «C'est ainsi qu'agissaient Arséne et tous les saints Péres»?. Un autre apophtegme dit encore : « Tu ne dois rien faire avant d'avoir demandé à ta conscience si c'est bien pour Dieu que tu vas agir»?. J'ai entendu dire parfois que l'examen de conscience ne serait pas monastique ; telle quelle, cette affirmation est une profonde erreur. Mais il est vrai qu'il peut y avoir des formes d'examen de conscience qui ne soient ni monastiques, ni méme chrétiennes. L'examen de conscience ne peut étre une introspection anxieuse; il doit étre une «confession », au sens que les anciens donnaient à ce mot, c'est-à-dire une louange de la sainteté et de la miséricorde de Dieu; il sera en méme temps un aveu de notre misére et un désir exprimé devant Dieu, avec humilité et confiance, de notre conversion. L'examen de conscience chrétien et monastique doit tourner en priére, de maniére fort simple du reste, et trés souple, qui variera selon les individus et les circonstances. S. Benoit en a fort bien souligné les divers actes dans une série de ” Arm

10. 142.

3 Arm * Arm

10, 160b. 10, 136.

L'ASCÈSE MONASTIQUE

189

conseils qui se suivent immédiatement l'un l'autre dans son chapitre sur les instruments des bonnes ceuvres: « Mettre en Dieu son espérance. Ce que l'on verra de bon en soi, le rapporter à Dieu, non à soi-méme. Quant au mal, comprendre toujours qu'on l'a fait soi-méme et le mettre à son compte. Craindre le jour du jugement. Avoir frayeur de l'enfer. Désirer la vie éternelle de toute l'ardeur de son áme. Avoir tous les jours la mort présente devant les yeux. Veiller à toute heure sur les actions de sa vie. Tenir pour certain qu'en tout lieu Dieu nous regarde. Briser aussitót contre le Christ les pensées mauvaises qui se présentent au cœur et les manifester à un ancien, expert dans la vie spirituelle » !°.

Un examen de conscience de type exclusivement volontariste est certainement à écarter, mais l'homme est quand méme invité à faire quelque chose, à adhérer à la volonté divine et à en suivre le mouvement : «Dieu est notre maitre; c'est lui qui nous donne la victoire; il la remporte avec nous», dit en effet Arm 10, 159. Tout est dans cette courte phrase : humilité, confiance en Dieu, mais aussi acquiescement et effort de l'homme: «Est-ce en dormant que tu veux étre sauvé?» dit un autre apophtegme. « Va, fatigue-toi; va, combats; va, cherche jusqu'à ce que tu trouves (cfr Lc 15, 4 et 8); réveille-toi et frappe à la porte; elle te sera ouverte (cfr Mt 7, 7). Tout travail terrestre, qu'il s'agisse de celui des champs ou du service militaire, comporte de la fatigue;

il te faut concevoir

le travail spirituel

de la méme

manière.

Tiens bon, et Dieu combattra avec toi contre l'ennemi» !!. «L'esprit de l'homme est comme une fontaine qu'il faut sans cesse creuser et purifier, pour qu'elle devienne plus limpide et jaillissante », dit encore un autre apophtegme !?. A un moine qui avait combattu avec le démon et prié pour en étre délivré, le Seigneur disait, aprés l'avoir libéré: « Vois comment, m'ayant cherché, tu m'as trouvé, non sans fatigue pourtant... (recension A) ...Celui qui ne se fatigue pas, ne peut obtenir le secours de Dieu (recension B)...» !?. Nous insistons beaucoup, à notre époque, sur l'intention, et c'est fort

bien;

mais

l’œuvre

est

souvent

le critère

de

l'intention:

l'acte

peccamineux, surtout répété, est souvent un indice de déséquilibre spirituel. Telle était du moins la pensée des anciens; ils insistaient certes sur la pureté du cœur, mais disaient aussi formellement: «Le mal qu'un homme ne méne pas à son terme par des actes, n'est pas 19 Règle, chapitre 4. !

Arm

10, 155d.

12 Arm 10, 132 (recension B). 13 Arm 7, 12.

190

L. LELOIR

un mal; et la justice qui ne s'exprime pas en ceuvres, n'est plus une

justice » !*. L'ascése ne vise pas seulement à former des cœurs droits; elle réclame aussi la rectitude de la vie, et de maniére fort concréte; les bonnes intentions ne lui suffisent pas. Le saint Curé d'Ars était tout à fait dans cette ligne ancienne, lorsqu'il disait: «Les bonnes intentions, l'enfer en est pavé » ... Par ces quelques pages, j'ai voulu suggérer l'intérét théologique de l'ascése monastique ancienne. En méme temps, je désirais exprimer au Professeur Arthur Vóóbus ma haute estime pour la possibilité qu'il a offerte, par les nombreux matériaux qu'il a réunis et publiés sur le méme sujet, d'études isolées et d'essais de synthése qui mettront en évidence l'utilité pour notre temps du message des moines qui ont peuplé, aux quatriéme et cinquiéme siécles, les déserts d'Égypte, de Syrie et de Palestine.

THE

METHODS OF MONASTIC DISCIPLINE, ACCORDING TO ARM 10, 159

According to the Armenian Paterica (The Desert Fathers), the 4th-Sth century

ascetics in the deserts of Egypt and Syria and Palestine regarded themselves as God's trained fighters against evil. The 2nd C. Fathers preferred the term athlétés; only later was it overtaken by the term asketes, interpreted as seasoned

soldier. In affliction and constant labors against his evil thoughts "the monk extends his hands toward the heavens in the form of a cross, crying out to God." Not only in prayer but also in his whole life the monk struggles to avoid being weighed down by the things of this world. He fights an enemy within: his passions, which with great effort and God's grace he may bind but not

slay.

He

also

must

vigilantly

fight

an

enemy

without:

a demon,

which

constantly tries to lead him astray. Examination of conscience is a part of the monastic style, in the form of a confession in praise of holiness and of God's mercy, and humble prayer for conversion. The monks' humility and trust in God, on the one hand, and on the other hand their submissiveness and strenuous effort to bring purity of heart and good intentions to concrete fruition, remain a useful message for our own times.

'

Arm

10, 150.

SENS

ET

PORTÉE

DE L'ARGUMENT CHEZ APHRAATE

SCRIPTURAIRE

Jean OUELLETTE Montréal, Québec, Canada

La présente analyse est tirée d'une étude plus large et a été entreprise à la suite d'une suggestion fort ingénieuse émise par le savant que ces pages voudraient honorer!. Selon A. Vóóbus, en effet, il existerait certaines affinités entre la tradition ascétique en vigueur dans l'Église syrienne, comme en témoignent les homélies d'Aphraate, et cet ascétisme, plus ancien, qui se dégage des écrits de Qumrán?. Dans l'étude mentionnée plus haut, c'est précisément en ces termes que nous avons tenté une réévaluation du probléme que posent les connaissances juives d'Aphraate. Et il nous a semblé alors, que le Sage persan, loin d'afficher la familiarité qu'on lui préte généralement avec un judaisme d'allégeance proprement rabbinique, s'inscrirait plutót dans un courant de pensée englobant à la fois des doctrines attribuées d'ordinaire aux Esséniens et certains des enseignements que professeront plus tard

les Qaraites?. ' Voir notre essai, « Aphraate, Qumran, et les Qaraites», publié par J. NEUSNER, en appendice à son ouvrage: History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. XV. Niddah. Literary and Historical Problems (Leiden 1976). ? Voir A. VOOBUS, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East. I. Early Monasticism in Persia (CSCO

184, subs.

14] (Louvain 1958), pp. 100 ss. Dans son article succinct mais précis sur APHRAATE du «Nachträge zum Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum», in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 3 (Münster 1960), pp. 152-155, p. 154, VOOBUS évoque à nouveau les rapports d'APHRAATE

et le type de judaisme

représenté dans les écrits de Qumrán.

Voir enfin J. NEUSNER, Aphrahat and Judaism (Leiden 1971), p. 4, qui mentionne l'hypothèse de VOOBUS, mais sans lui donner suite. 3 Nous n'avons pas à nous prononcer l'identité réelle des sectaires de Qumrán.

ici sur la question encore fort débattue de Qu'il nous suffise de noter qu'il semble y

avoir un consensus d'opinion sur le probléme des rapports entre les écrits de Qumrän et les écrits qaraites. du moins sur certains points bien précis: voir surtout l'ouvrage de

N.

WIEDER,

The

Judean

Scrolls

and

Karaism

(Londres

1962),

spécialement

p. V. Cette vue est concédée aussi par J. Murphy O'CoNNoR dans «The Essenes and their History», Revue Biblique 81 (1974), pp. 215-244, pp. 225-226. En général, cependant, les spécialistes de Qumrán s'attardent peu à discuter le probléme des rapports entre

192

J. OUELLETTE

Les commentateurs d'Aphraate ont souligné avec raison l'importance que tiennent les citations bibliques dans les discours qu'il consacre tant à l'exposition du christianisme qu'à sa defense*. Ces citations, dont le nombre a été évalué à 1056 pour ce qui est de l'Ancien Testament et à 564 en ce qui concerne le Nouveau Testament, constituent non seulement la trame qui sous-tend la progression logique de chacune des homélies mais la substance méme des arguments qu'il oppose à son interlocuteur juif?. Dans l'étude qui suit, cependant, il convient de signaler que nos remarques s'appliquent presque exclusivement aux homélies qu'Aphraate consacre à la critique du judaisme. La méthode d'argumentation qu'emploie Aphraate, comme l'a fait remarquer J. Neusner, est presque exclusivement historique comme s’il suffisait, pour démontrer les théses chrétiennes, de citer des faits historiques tirés de la Bible. Aphraate semble donc présupposer que le cóté chrétien a toujours raison en vertu de la version correcte qu'il posséde de ces faits?. La langue des homelies, d'ailleurs, libre, dénuée de tout emprunt de termes techniques et philosophiques, reflete bien le caractére dépouillé des interprétations exégétiques offertes par Aphraate". Son exégése s'attache de préférence, en effet, au sens littéral des textes sans que l'on puisse y déceler le moindre recours à la spéculation théologique des Péres grecs®. On serait presque tenté d'attribuer au Sage persan la remarque que fera plus tard Qirqisáni au sujet du nombre de ses coreligionnaires qui «manifestent de la répugnance lorsqu'ils entendent une interprétation scripturaire à lales écrits de la Mer Morte et la littérature qaraite. On pourra consulter tout de méme les notices bibliographiques consacrées à ce sujet par A. GONZALEZ LAMADRID, dans Los Descubrimientos del Mar Muerto, (Madrid

* Voir

L. HAEFELI,

1973), p. 109, n. 2.

Stilmittel bei Afrahat dem persischen

Weisen

(Leipzig

1932),

p. 128. Cf. aussi W. SIBLEY Towner, The Rabbinic «Enumeration of Scriptural Examples» (Studia Post-Biblica 22] (Leiden 1973), p. 237, n. 4, qui cite, en la traduisant,

l'observation de Haefeli : « The most prominent characteristic of the homilies of Aphraates are the biblical citations... The Old and New Testament citations constitute for our author a staff upon which he always leans». : 5 Nous

devons

ces chiffres à F. Gavin,

Aphraates

and

the Jews

(Toronto

1923),

P. 33, n. 8. Sur les citations de l'Evangile selon S. Jean dans les homélies d'APHRAATE, voir

maintenant

T.

BAARDA,

The

Gospel

Quotations

of Aphrahat

the

Persian

Sage,

vol. I (avec appendice). Aphrahat's Textof the Fourth Gospel (Amsterdam 1975). $. Cf. J. NEUSNER, Aphrahat and Judaism, op. cit., p. 5. 7. Voir F. Gavin, op. cit., p. 2. * |. Ortiz DE URBINA décrit APHRAATE

comme

«un asceta di non commune

erudi-

zione scritturistica, ma per nulla iniziato nella speculazioni teologiche dei Padri greci...» : cf. «La Controversia de Afraate coi Giudei», p. 85.

Studia Missionalia 3 (1947), pp. 85-106,

L'ARGUMENT

SCRIPTURAIRE

CHEZ APHRAATE

193

quelle se méle quelque discours rationnel inspiré par la philosophie; ils la considérent comme superflue et quelques-uns méme comme répréhensible et illicite»?. Aphraate lui-méme, d'ailleurs, se définit comme un «disciple des

Ecritures Saintes»

: xw-tp Kant xx NTN

!?. A la considération de

ce passage, l'on sera moins étonné de constater que les connaissances qu'il posséde sur le judaisme consistent presque toujours en une interprétation de certains textes bibliques''. L’insistance avec laquelle Gavin tente de démontrer que le zéle déployé par Aphraate pour l'étude de la Bible ne le cédait en rien à celui dont faisaient preuve les rabbins ne nous contraint pas à conclure à une dépendance d'Aphraate par rapport aux interprétations rabbiniques de la Bible??. Les Péres apostoliques attachent trés souvent une importance pour le moins égale à l'étude de l'Écriture!?. Et l'on pourrait tout aussi facilement rapprocher le ΣῚΡ win27 ax ntmbn de l'expression. mnn "ron par laquelle les Qaraites aimeront plus tard se désigner eux-mémes ou encore de cette autre expression, mnn wi, que l'on lit dans

un fragment découvert

à Qumran !*.

* Cf. G. Vaspa, «Du Prologue de Qirgisanni à son commentaire sur la Genese», dans In Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. M. BLACK et G. FoHRER (Berlin 1968), pp. 222-231,

pp. 224-225. 10 Cf. Dem. XXII, col. 1049, 11. 3-4: nous citons l'édition de J. PARISOT, syriaca I, t. 1 (Paris (1894) et t. 2 (Paris 1907).

Patrologia

11 On ne doit pas nécessairement en déduire qu'APHRAATE puisait à méme un répertoire de testimonia («testimony texts») concus spécifiquement pour les besoins de la controverse ou pour l'enseignement chrétien, ainsi que le suppose A.P. HAYMAN, The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite against a Jew [CSCO 339, Syr. 153] (1973), p. 9*. pp. 25*-26*. Voir les judicieuses remarques de J. NEUSNER sur cette question

dans Aphrahat and Judaism, op. cit., pp. 200-201. 12 Voir F. Gavin, op. cit, pp. 70-71. Pareillement, G. RicHTER conclut à une dépendance d'APHRAATE de l'exégése rabbinique. Cf. «Über die älteste Auseinandersetzung der syrischen Christen mit den Juden», Zeitschr. für die neutest. Wissenschaft 35, (1936), pp. 101-114: «Seine Kenntnis des AT... verrát genaueste Vertrautheit mit

der jüdischen Auslegung» (p. 105). 13 Voir à ce sujet les remarques

de

P. Auc.

SPUKERMAN

OFM,

«Afrahat

der

persische Weise und der Antisionismus», Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus V, 1954-5 (Jérusalem 1955), pp. 191-212, p. 195. CYRILLE D'ALEXANDRIE nouz offre le

parfait exemple d'un apologéte chrétien dont la théologie s'alimente presque exclusivement aux sources bibliques: cf. R. L. WILKEN, (New Haven & London 1971), p. 227.

Judaism

and the Early

18 Sur l'usage que font les Qaraites de l'expression TINA “MSN, The Judean

Scrolls,

op.

cit., p.

80.

WIEDER

(ibid.,

n.

Christian

Mind

voir N. WIEDER,

7) cite également

l'expression

rwn *592 . Quant au fragment de Qumran, il se lit comme suit : by ound Da NN ANN v : cf. RB 63 (1956), p. 61.

mn

194

J. OUELLETTE

I] faut donc considérer comme trés significatif le fait qu'Aphraate, tout en ayant recours parfois à des procédés exégétiques employés surtout par les rabbins, ne connaisse des doctrines juives que celles

qu'il trouvait dans l'Écriture!5.

D'ailleurs,

comme

l'a souligné

J.

Neusner, ni Aphraate ni son interlocuteur juif ne se référent jamais explicitement à une seule tradition rabbinique précise. Cela ressort clairement de l'homélie (Démonstration XV) qu'il consacre aux lois alimentaires juives et dont seules les composantes proprement bibliques lui sont familières !. I] découle aussi des études de Neusner qu'Aphraate ne semble avoir connu aucune des personnalités qui eussent pu exercer quelque autorité sur la communauté juive de Babylonie ou sur le mouvement rabbinique'’. N'est-il pas possible, alors, de mettre légitimement en doute les allégations de tous ceux qui ont cru déceler dans la pensée d'Aphraate une dépendance étroite par rapport à la tradition rabbinique qui avait force en son temps 157 Selon nous, il serait plus prudent d'affirmer qu'Aphraate a dû connaitre des Juifs mésopotamiens qui n'avaient que peu ou pas de contacts avec les rabbins de Babylonie et dont on peut dire, en 15 Cf. J. NEUSNER, Aphrahat and Judaism, op. cit., p. 147. On sait que le Talmud maintient une distinction entre deux catégories de sages désignés respectivement comme

NPD *5y3 «hommes de l'Ecriture», et MM "993 «hommes de la Mishna». Voir les références au Talmud et aux Midrashim citées par A. PAUL, Ecrits de Qumran et Sectes Juives aux Premiers Siécles avant l'Islam (Paris 1969), p. 82. Sur l'utilisation que feront plus tard les Qaraites de telles formules et autres semblables, voir ibid., p. 134. 16 Cf. J. NEUSNER, op. cit, p. 147. En l'absence d'une étude systématique des textes de l'Ancien Testament cités par APHRAATE, il convient de rappeler la remarque de KAHLE sans toutefois que nous puissions en apprécier la justesse: «Aphrahat used a text which followed the Hebrew text more closely than did the text in common

use in the sixth century...». Cf. P. KAHLE, 1? Voir, outre les auteurs mentionnés

The Cairo Geniza (Oxford

plus haut (n.

12), L.

HAEFELI,

1959), p. 266. Stilmittel bei

Afrahat, op. cit., p. 3, qui parle d'une «auffallend starken Abhängigkeit von der rabbinischen Überlieferung», ou encore I. ORTIZ DE URBINA, art. cit., Studia Missionalia 3 (1947), p. 85, qui déclare, en s'appuyant sur l'ouvrage de S. Funk, Die haggadischen Elemente in den Homilien des Aphraates des persischen Weisen (Vienne 1891), qu'APHRAATE

a dû subir l'influence des «teorie rabbiniche». 18 Nous ne voulons pas suggérer ici qu'une barrière étanche devait séparer le judaisme traditionnel, de type rabbinique, de l'idéal ascétique reflété dans les textes de Qumrán. En soulignant à l'excés l'apport des sources extérieures qui ont pu marquer le judaisme qumränien d'un caractére particulier, on oublie trop souvent que le milieu juif de l'époque était loin, lui aussi, d'étre imperméable à ces mémes influences. Peutétre a-t-on négligé, parfois, de considérer l'attrait indéniable que continuaient à exercer les traditions proprement bibliques : voir là-dessus les remarques de B. THIERING, «The

Biblical Source of Qumran Asceticism », Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974), pp. 429444, pp. 440ss. Il se pourrait donc, comme

le fait observer B. THIERING

(ibid., p. 444).

que l'idéal ascétique qumránien nc soit pas aussi incompatible qu'on le prétend avec le judaisme traditionnel ou avec l'Ancien Testament.

L'ARGUMENT

SCRIPTURAIRE CHEZ APHRAATE

195

l'absence de toute allusion, méme voilée, au concept rabbinique d'une Loi orale révélée à Moise au méme titre que la Loi écrite, qu'ils se satisfaisaient d'observer littéralement les préceptes d'une religion

qu'ils savaient fondée sur l'autorité de l'Ecriture!?. Qu'Aphraate ait connu ce type de Juifs nous parait indéniable mais que toutes ses connaissances en matiere de judaisme lui soient venues de ses contacts

avec les Juifs de son temps nous parait moins certain. Il se pourrait fort bien, par exemple, que quelques-uns des paralléles rabbiniques mis en lumiére par des auteurs tels que Funk, Ginzberg et Gavin, proviennent en fait des targumim, par le truchement de la Peshitta, si

telle est, en vérité, la version de la Bible qu'utilisait Aphraate?°. Dans d'autres cas, il est possible que ce soit à travers des enseignements regus au sein méme de l'Église qu'Aphraate soit parvenu à la connaissance de certaines traditions exégétiques juives?'. Ainsi, par exemple, dans l'homélie sur les persécutions (Démonstration XXI), fait-il état, pour la réfuter, d'une vieille tradition concernant la restitution finale de Sodome. L'argument, il va de soi, est présenté par son interlocuteur juif. Or, on trouve un écho de cette tradition non seulement dans le Midrash, mais encore chez Origene et Jéróme qui affirment tous deux la tenir des « Hébreux » 22. Non seulement Aphraate se définit-il comme un exégéte des saintes Ecritures, mais il exige aussi de son adversaire juif qu'il respecte les principes élémentaires de l'interprétation scripturaire. Ainsi, toujours dans le cadre de la discussion sur Jérusalem et Sodome, Aphraate

19 Cf. J. NEUSNER. Aphrahat and Judaism, op. cit., pp. 147-148. 2° || n'est pas impossible, en tous cas, qu'APHRAATE ait disposé d'une version fortement influencée par la tradition targumique. Voir notre essai, «Aphrahat and Judaism : Corrections and Improvements», in J. NEUSNER, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, VIII, Negaim (Leiden 1975), pp. 259-263. S. FUNK lui-méme a reconnu cette possibilité et cite plusieurs cas de paralléles possibles entre l'exégése d'APHRAATE et le Targum Onkelos : voir J. NEUSNER, Aphrahat and Judaism, op. cit., p. 156. 2" Cf. NEUSNER, ibid., p. 157.

22 Exod. R. YO, 21, se lit ainsi : 2/97 1121 WIV) OTTO YSN. Sur les témoigna-

ges d'ORIGÈNE et S. JERÖME, voir G. BARDY, «Les traditions juives dans l'œuvre d'Origéne », RB 34, (1925), pp. 217-252, pp. 232, 242. Ce texte de JEROME, cité par BARDY (ibid., p. 242. n. 3) est particulièrement intéressant : ludaei inter ceteras fabulas et interminabiles genealogias et deliramenta quae fingunt, etiam hoc somniant in adventu Christi sui, quem nos Antichristum scimus, et in mille annorum regno Sodomam esse restituendam in antiquum statum ». On trouvera le texte d'APHRAATE dans l'édition de Parisot, I, 1, cols. 936ss. Dans ses notes sur ce texte, J. NEUSNER omet (cf. Aphrahat..., op. cit, p. 164, n. 42 et p. 204, n. 42) de signaler les références que nous venons de mentionner.

196

J. OUELLETTE

s’efforce-t-il de faire admettre à son opposant la validité d'une régle herméneutique qu'il énonce d'abord sous forme de question : « Lorsque les paroles des prophétes sont proférées comme une provocation, est-ce que tout le passage (doit s'interpréter comme) un jugement, ou peutétre une partie seulement comme un jugement et l'autre comme une (prophétie de) consolation?» Pris de court, l'interlocuteur d'Aphraate répond axiomatiquement : «Un passage qui est un jugement l'est en entier et il ne comporte pas de paix»??. Or, une analyse de quelques-uns des titres ou qualificatifs employés par Aphraate pour désigner son opposant juif s'avére toute aussi révélatrice en ce qui concerne l'activité spécifique à laquelle devait se livrer ce dernier en tant que membre et peut-étre méme délégué de la communauté qu'il représentait. Ces titres, sans étre nécessairement empreints d'un caractére trés officiel, ne semblent pas non plus avoir été inventés par Aphraate pour les besoins de la discussion puisque lui-méme nous rapporte, dans l'homélie sur les persécutions, que son interlocuteur était déjà connu comme «le sage des Juifs»?*. Ce terme de «sage» est trés fréquemment employé dans les homelies d'Aphraate et représente pour nous, de ce fait, un intérêt particulier ?°. En effet, «5n semble correspondre, pour le sens, à l'hébreu "sm , 23 Démonstration woo

na ΠῚ

XXI,

Kon «mm

col. 936, n9»

11. 25-26.

mv.

Le texte se lit ainsi: NOANDT Wax

Il n'est pas sans intérét de remarquer

que le

débat sur la reconstitution finale de Sodome et de Jérusalem est clos par un argument a fortiori:

si Sodome,

dont

été reconstruite, comment

l'iniquité

était

moindre

que

pourrait-il en étre autrement

celle

de Jérusalem,

n'a

de la Ville de David?

pas

Voir

là-dessus l'essai de P. Aug. SPUKERMAN, «Afrahat der Persische Weise und der Antisionismus», Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus V. 1954-5 (1955), pp. 209-210. A en

juger d'aprés l'utilisation que le Sage juif et APHRAATE font d'Ez. 16:55, il semblerait qu'ils citent tous deux de mémoire ce texte si important pour le débat qui s'engage. H est difficile, en effet, de réduire le texte syriaque dont font état les deux interlocuteurs aux lectures suggérées par les diverses versions, le texte massorétique y compris.

par TAN

Le verbe hebreu yawn.

de la racine DW.

est d'abord

rendu

(col. 936,

1. 8)

, verbe formé à partir de la racine 7112 . Cette traduction oriente déjà, pour

ainsi dire, la discussion qui s'amorce dans un sens qui n'est pas nécessairement

requis

par la traduction littérale du texte hébreu. Plus loin, le méme verset est expliqué grâce au recours à la racine ΔΓ PRINS PWT: col. 936, 1. 16; nam ub 3m x5 : col. 944, 11. 12-13; Jam^ N5 : col. 944, 1. 25). Mais ailleurs, APHRAATE emploie Tipi (col. 944, 1. 22), se conformant ainsi au texte de la Peshitta. Pour d'autres exemples

de textes bibliques cités de mémoire

par un

apologéte

chrétien

écrivant

en

langue

syriaque, cf. A.P. HAYMAN, The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite, op. cit, p. 85. Selon HAYMAN, il y aurait ici des cas de changements délibérés du texte par rapport à la Peshitta.

24 KIT NYS pna N°92 : cf. Dem. XXI, col. 932, 1. 9. 23 || importe de souligner, cependant, que ce terme de «sage» ne qu'aux seuls Juifs : cf. Dem. XXII, col. 992, 1. 1 et col. 1040, 1. 16.

s'applique pas

L'ARGUMENT SCRIPTURAIRE CHEZ APHRAATE

un

titre que

les Qaraites,

comme

on

197

sait, affectionnaient

spéciale-

ment ?5, On peut démontrer assez facilement, d'ailleurs, que le Targum et la Peshitta établissent parfois une correspondance entre des dérivatifs de la racine ^39 et des termes formés à partir de la racine aan. C'est ainsi qu'en Jér. 3:15 w2wn devient w52w dans la traduction targoumique alors qu'en Esd. 8:18 529 vest traduit par «2n 2177. Quant à savoir si le terme "Dun s'emploie dans la littérature qaraite dans un sens transitif ou intransitif nous parait étre une question d'importance somme toute secondaire?®. Ce qui est certain, c'est que Down évoque l'idée de sagesse. On ne peut guére douter, non plus, comme N. Wieder l'a montré de façon concluante, que ^27» ait été considéré par les Qaraites comme un synonyme de 13%, «maître» 2°. Cet argument de Wieder se trouve singuliérement renforcé par le fait qu'Aphraate lui-méme n'hésite pas à accoler au titre de «sage» celui

de «maitre d'Israël» (9 0°N7T ἸΏ

w5n)?9.

Poussant l'analyse plus loin, il nous faut aussi remarquer que le terme "3m se retrouve deux fois dans le Document de Damas (XII: 21: XIII : 22) avec un sens trés voisin de «maitre» comme on le voit dans la phrase (XIII : 7) 3*3 nx De, que l'on peut rendre : «Il (l'intendant du camp) instruira les Nombreux»?!, Signalons enfin que deux des grands manuscrits retrouvés à Qumrán, soit la Regle de la Communauté et les Hymnes, font état d'un personnage appelé également

29 Quand IBN Ezra, commentant le texte de Dan. 11:33, applique le terme 0592 aux Sages de la Mishna, il ne fait que réagir contre l'appropriation de cette désignation par les Qaraites. Telle est du moins l'interprétation de N. WIEDER dans The Judean Scrolls, op. cit., p. 107, n. 2. Sur l'utilisation du terme par les Qaraites, voir S. R. Driver, The «Suffering Servant» of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (Oxford 1877), p. 19, n.b. et A. PAUL, Ecrits de Qumran, op. cit, pp. 111-113. Sur l'emploi de t55€n dans le livre de Daniel et dans M. DELCOR, Le Livre de Daniel (Paris 1971), pp. 1555.

27 A noter aussi que 28 N.

WIEDER,

op.

le Targum

cit., p.

105,

de Jér. opte

pour

9:23

les écrits

traduit

le sens

de

Qumrán,

l'hébreu Sow

transitif («maitre»)

voir

par an. alors

que

d'autres savants, tels J. MANN et L. NEMOY, préfèrent le sens intransitif et traduisent respectivement par «wise man» et «man of understanding». Voir la discussion dans A. PAUL, op. cit.

p. 112.

29 ['équation ΩΨ = 19% = WW qu'il avance nous paraît décisive en faveur du sens transitif de 9"2UD : WIEDER, op. cit., p. 107. Sur l'idée de sagesse impliquée dans le terme 9*2UD , voir J. CARMIGNAC et P. GUILBERT, Les Textes de Qumran, vol. I (Paris 1961), p. 21, n. 1. 30 Cf. Dem. XVII, col. 804, 1. 19. *! Cf. J. CARMIGNAC, E. COTHENET et H. LIGNÉE, Les Textes de Qumran, vol. II (Paris 1963), p. 200. Voir aussi les remarques de N. WIEDER, op. cit., p. 112.

198

J. OUELLETTE

le «Maskil», «qui parait étre tantöt l'organisateur de la Communauté en personne, tantôt l'un de ses successeurs » ??. Il n'est pas sans intérêt, à ce stade de notre discussion, de souligner la modération verbale dont fait preuve Aphraate dans ses débats avec

son opposant**. On ne trouve chez lui ni le ton haineux ni les excès de langage qui contribuent à donner un caractére tellement virulent à la polémique d'un S. Jean Chrysostome, par exemple. La modération d'Aphraate, cependant, ne l'empéche pas, à l'occasion, de laisser libre cours à sa subjectivité et de laisser transparaitre ses sentiments au point méme de qualifier d'insensé (x520) celui qu'il honorait, quelques instants auparavant, du titre prestigieux de «sage, maitre d'Israél»?*. On songe ici à l'anecdote rapportée par Qirgisäni et selon laquelle Daniel al-Qümisi, aprés avoir décerné à Anan le titre de «premier des sages» (D'»*2v51 vw?) pour le dénoncer ensuite comme le «premier

des insensés» (n'»o2n 9.1)". Il nous reste à évaluer le sens et la portée d'un autre titre qu'Aphraate, en trois occasions, accole à l'épithéte «sage» lorsqu'il veut s'adresser à son opposant juif. Le titre apparait sous la forme Noy NBN NEAT , que l'on pourrait traduire, littéralement: «ö sage débattant du peuple»?9.

Ailleurs, cas

isolé, le titre

se

lit simplement 50%

mn,

ie. «le débattant d'Israél»?". Sans doute Aphraate se refére-t-il ici à ce qu'il envisageait comme devant étre l'occupation spécifique, pour ne pas dire professionnelle, de son interlocuteur : l'interprétation des Ecritures. Cela ressort clairement, pensons-nous, du passage dans lequel Aphraate, supréme ironie, reproche au «Sage débattant du peuple» de ne pas «scruter» (na x»), comme il se doit, les «mots

de la Loi»?5,

>? Voir A. PAUL, Ecrits de Qumran, op. cit., p. 113. Les textes auxquels nous nous référons sont les suivants : IQS III, 13; IX, 12, 21; 1QH

XII,

11. Cf. aussi

Toutes ces données sont résumées par A. PAUL, ibid., p. 135. 33 Cf. J. NEUSNER, Aphrahat and Judaism, op. cit., p. 5 and

1QM

R. WILKEN,

X,

10.

Judaism

and the Early Christian Mind, op. cit., pp. 67-68.

5* Cf. 1. 19. 35 Cf. 12 (1922), 3° Cf.

Dém. XVII, col. 804, 1. 19; 805, 1. 1. 14. Voir aussi Dém.

XVIII, col. 833,

J. MANN, «Early Karaite Bible Commentaries», Jewish Quarterly pp. 435-526, p. 516. Dem. XII, col. 512, il. 2-3: Dem. XV, col. 744, ll. 15-16; Dem.

Review XVIII,

col. 825, Il. 7-8. Voir aussi les remarques de J. NEUSNER, op. cit., p. 128.

37 Dem. XVIII. col. 821, Il. 2-3. ?* Dem. XII, col. 512, 1. 3. Sur l'utilisation, par les Qaraites, du verbe 97 contexte exégétique, voir N. WIEDER, Op. cit., p. 68, n. 2.

en

L'ARGUMENT SCRIPTURAIRE CHEZ APHRAATE

199

Aphraate semble donc considérer comme tout à fait normal qu'un xv111 sache «scruter» la Torah. Le plus remarquable est que le verbe v1 , dans l'expression zTnn (ms, se retrouve dans au moins deux manuscrits importants en provenance de Qumrán de méme que dans le Document de Damas et fasse partie des vocables ou formules qui cristallisent, selon A. Paul, la théologie d'un Daniel al-Qümisi "5. Quant au verbe ^nà qu'emploie Aphraate pour caractériser l'activité qui consiste à «scruter» la Torah, on peut aisément le rapprocher, pour le sens tout au moins, de chacun des synonymes qui entrent dans la vigoureuse exhortation que le Qaraite Sahl ben Masliah adressait

à ses frères : pM pm wn vio 40, I se trouve aussi qu'Aphraate, parfois, applique à ceux dont il cherche à réfuter les opinions des expressions entiéres qu'il emprunte à la Bible. Ainsi, dans sa toute premiére homélie (Démonstration I), cite-t-il le texte d'Ez. 13:10 tout en l'adaptant aux besoins de la controverse sur le Messie. Il commence par identifier les prêtres et les Pharisiens à ces bátisseurs (43) qui ont rejeté la pierre dont fait état

le Psalmiste (Ps. 118:22) et dans laquelle les chrétiens voient le Messie. Puis, il poursuit en affirmant du Messie, précisément, la parole d'Ezéchiel : «et lui bâtissait une muraille»*'. Le plus étrange, c'est la facon dont Aphraate comprend la suite de ce verset. Alors que le v. 10c, dans sa version massorétique, peut se traduire : «mais eux l'enduisaient

d'un crépi», Aphraate, lui, interprète le »pn de l'hébreu comme

s'il

s'agissait d'une forme verbale de la racine 90). D'où la lecture qu'il

nous propose: pn nb wn MD, i.e. «ils l'assiégeaient au point de la faire tomber»“2. L'expression yY?n m3 que vient d'utiliser Aphraate nous ramène au Document de Damas et aux écrits des Qaraites. Parmi ces derniers, on sait qu'un Daniel al-Qümisi, par exemple, ne s'est pas géné pour 39 A. PAUL, dans Ecritsde Qumran, op. cit., p. 135 donne les références suivantes : IQS VI, 6; 4QFl I, 11. Cf. aussi Document de Damas VI, 7; VII, 18. Enfin, signalons que dans IQH II, 15, 32 on trouve l'expression mpon WM. *9 Nous citons le texte hébreu d'aprés A. PAUL, Ecrits de Qumran, op. cit., p. 173, n. 69. Sur l'expression MNT OND et le hippus comme méthode d'interprétation scripturaire chez les Qaraites, cf. N. WIEDER, The Judean Scrolls, op. cit., pp. 63-64; p. 68, n. 2; p. 76. *! Cf. Ez. 13: 10-11 et Démonstration I, col. 16, ll. 14 ss. ** Démonstration I, col. 16, 11. 21-22. Est-on en droit de penser qu'APHRAATE ait voulu ce jeu de mots portant sur l'hébreu SBN et le syriaque SBA ou doit-on simplement admettre qu'il y a eu confusion au niveau méme de la lecture du texte hébreu étant donné la proximité des mots bb" et Spr au v. 11? Mais peut-on supposer

qu’APHRAATE avait accès au texte original?

^"

200

J. OUELLETTE

prédire, en ce fondant sur l'autorité du chapitre 13 d’Ezechiel, la fin des faux prophètes du judaïsme rabbinique*?. Et, comme l'a noté N. Wieder, d'autres auteurs, comme Salmon ben Yeruhim et Hadassi ont cru bon d'employer «la métaphore du ‘crépissage du mur’ pour caractériser les chefs religieux du camp rival»**. Quant au Document de Damas, là aussi on y retrouve à plusieurs reprises l'expression «bátisseurs du mur» et il semble bien que dans chaque cas ce soient

des opposants de la secte que l'on désigne ainsi *?. Il est clair, cependant, que la formule acquiert alors un sens nettement péjoratif qui contraste avec l'interprétation messianique qu'en donne Aphraate. A cette différence prés, on peut quand méme discerner une certaine continuité dans la facon dont le Document de Damas, Aphraate et les écrits qaraites exploitent à leurs fins l'imagerie sous-jacente au texte d'Ez.

13:9-10.

Une telle continuité dans le développement d'une tradition exégétique entre des póles en apparence si éloignés dans le temps et l'espace peut paraitre étonnante et d'aucuns voudront y voir une pure coincidence. Mais les chances d'un développement fortuit s'amenuisent à la considération du fait que de nombreux fragments du Document de Damas ont été retrouvés dans les grottes IV, V et VI de Qumrán*$. Ceci ne prouverait rien du point de vue qui nous occupe si des savants n'avaient pas noté certaines similarités entre les lois qui figurent dans

le Document de Damas et les lois qaraites*". Malheureusement, la critique de la halacha que nous offre Aphraate est trop générale et trop fragmentaire pour donner lieu à une étude “5 Cf. The Judean Scrolls, op. cit.. pp. 145-146. ** Cf. ibid., p. 147. *5 Cf. Document de Damas IV: 19; VIII: 12, 18; XIX: 25. Il faut remarquer que la forme 7112, au singulier dans le TM, apparait au pluriel ici. L'expression a reçu diverses explications: voir R. H. CHARLES, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford ments

and

the

Dead

Sea

1913), vol. II, pp. 818-819; Scrolls

(Oxford

1956),

p.

H.H. 39,

RowLey, n.

7;

N.

The Zadokite FragWIEDER,

The

Judean

Scrolls, op. cit.. pp. 146-147; G.R. Driver, The Judean Scrolls (Oxford 1965), pp. 9192. J. Murphy O'Connor dans «The Critique of the Princes of Judah», RB 79 (1972), pp. 200-216, p. 210, n. 31, nie que l'expression ait toujours le méme sens dans les textes cités.

+6 Voir là-dessus les remarques de J. A. FrrzMYER dans son introduction à l'ouvrage réédité de S. SCHECHTER, Documents of Jewish Sectaries (New York 1970), vol. I, p. 15. 47 Voir surtout P. KAHLE, The Cairo Geniza, op. cit, pp. 17-18; S. LIEBERMAN, «Light on the Cave Scrolls from Rabbinic Sources» dans Texts and Studies (New York 1974), pp. 190-199, p. 197. On pourra aussi consulter N. GoLB, «Literary and Doctrinal Aspects of the Damascus Covenant in the Light of Karaite Literature»,

JQR 48 (1956-7), pp. 354-374.

L'ARGUMENT

SCRIPTURAIRE CHEZ APHRAATE

201

comparative, sous l’angle proprement legal, de ses homelies d’une part et, d'autre part, des textes de Qumrán ainsi que des écrits qaraites. Il n'est pas exclu, cependant, qu'une telle étude puisse, à l'occasion, s'avérer fructueuse, à condition qu'elle soit entreprise dans les limites qu'imposent les objectifs généraux que poursuit Aphraate lorsqu'il traite de pratiques religieuses spécifiques. Ainsi, dans l'homélie sur la «distinction des aliments» (Démonstration XV), Aphraate s'appliquet-il à démontrer que la consommation de chair animale équivaut à la consommation d'herbes ou de légumes (xpar TX)*?. Aphraate doit, pour justifier sa position, s'appuyer sur le texte de Gen. 9:3 dont il élargit la portée en l'accolant à une cascade de citations bibliques. Mais de ces citations il ne garde, à la fin, que les éléments qui semblent le mieux servir son propos. On peut se demander si Aphraate, dans ce passage, ne s'adresse pas en fait à des coreligionnaires ou méme à ceux de ses adversaires qui croyaient de leur devoir de s'abstenir de toute viande. Or, un texte du Document de Damas a été interprété par certains comme contenant une prohibition qui viserait à interdire la consommation de toute chair animale, méme de celle qui serait considérée comme pure selon les normes bibliques*?. Par ailleurs, on sait que la plupart des premiers Qaraites se sont abstenus, eux aussi, de manger de la viande??. Si, à une époque ultérieure, l'interdiction fut levée, les Qaraites qui habitaient Jérusalem n'en continuérent pas moins de se conformer à cette règle des premiers temps?!.

THE

MEANING

In his arguments he assumes that it to the literal sense Astonishingly, his

AND

IMPORTANCE OF APHRAHAT'S FROM SCRIPTURE

ARGUMENT

with Jews, Aphrahat regards the Christian side correct because has the correct version of biblical historical facts. He appeals of the texts, without recourse to philosophical speculations. understanding of Judaism consists almost entirely of an

** Col. 736, IL. 4 et 14. Voir Gen. 9:3. “5 Ceci a été bien montré par N. Gots, «The Dietary Laws of the Damascus Covenant in Relation to those of the Karaites», Journal of Jewish Studies 8 (1957), pp. 51-69, pp. 51-52. Le texte du Document de Damas (Xll: 1155) se lit comme suit :

Din Yor vom mnn 052 WHI ns vos per ox 359 Cf. N. Gots, art. cit., p. 55.

*! Voir J. MANN, Collected Essays, vol. III (Gedera 1971), p. 122: pp. 242-243. Cf. aussi IDEM, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, vol. | (New York

1972), p. 6.

202

J. OUELLETTE

interpretation of certain biblical texts; he never cites any precise rabbinical tradition, and

though

he probably

knew

some

Mesopotamian

Jews,

he never

indicates any acquaintance with leading personalities of the Jewish community of Babylonia or of the rabbinical movement.

In opposing his Jewish interlocutor, whom he calls “the sage (or master) of the Jews," Aphrahat insists on clarifying hermeneutical principles. His polemical language is moderate compared with that of John Chrysostom, yet he can call his respected opponent “mad.” He rebukes the Jewish "champion" for failing to fathom Scripture. Continuities are observed between Aphrahat's thought and the earlier Document of Damascus and the later writings of the Karaites. A carefully limited study may show further connections

between

Aphrahat,

e.g. regarding the interpretation of food regulations.

Qumran,

and

the Karaites,

MACARIUS

AND THE DIATESSARON

OF TATIAN

Gilles QuispeL Utrecht, The Netherlands

When I was a visiting professor at Harvard, in 1964-1965, I sent an off-print of my article, “The Syrian Thomas and the Syrian Macarius” to my colleague Vóóbus, whom I did and do consider the greatest Syrologist and biblical textcritic of our days!. With characteristic kindness he answered me that he himself had considered discussing the Gospel quotations in the writings of this Syrian, Mesopotamian mystic of the fourth century, but was prevented from doing so because the Logoi of Macarius had not yet been published. Ever since I have felt guilty ánd embarrassed, because I might have been the cause that the learned world has not heard his valuable opinion on this very important subject. In the meantime the new edition of the Sermons and Letters has been published by H. Berthoid (Berlin, GDR 1973). Unfortunately this text is full of misprints, the punctuation is defective and much was already known. But for the purposes of New Testament text-criticism it can be used. So now we have : l. the Sermons and Letters of Macarius;

2. the already well known 50 Homilies, edited recently by H. Dórries and M. Kroeger (Berlin, GFR

1964);

3. seven additional Homilies, edited by G.L. Marriott (Cambridge, Mass.

1918);

4. newly discovered Homilies, edited by E. Klostermann (Berlin, GFR 1961); 5. Werner Jaeger gave us a separate edition of the Great Letter (Leiden 1954); 6. There exists, however, also a second Letter (Migne, PG 34, 410-

425); 7. in Migne we also find the Opera Ascetica, based on the recension W (PG 34, 821-968). ! “The Syrian Thomas and the Syrian 226-235 [Gnostic Studies II, 75-80].

Macarius",

Vigiliae Christianae

18 (1964),

204

G. QUISPEL

All these works contain valuable text variants going back to Macarius himself. To them should be added the text of Diadochus of Photice, ed. E. des Places (Sources

Chretiennes

5, Paris 71955), who

took over very deviant Gospel quotations from Macarius. When writing in 1964 I pointed out that Macarius must have known the Gospel of Thomas and that this was an indication of the Syrian, Edessene origin of Macarius. The new edition of the Sermons and Letters contains, as far as I see, nothing that would oblige me to change this view. Moreover it was established then that Macarius had quite a few parallels in common with the Pseudo-Clementine writings. This was held to be an indication that Macarius still in the fourth century used a Jewish Christian Gospel source. I have come to the conclusion that these variants are sometimes older than Q?. But I must leave this subject to my pupil J. van Amersfoort, whose thesis on the Gospel quotations of the Pseudo-Clementines is near completion. At first glance it becomes immediately certain that the author of the “Sermons and Letters" knew and used the Diatessaron of Tatian. Let me quote a few examples from the new text, part I and part II: Macarius

Diatessaron

II, 102, 4 =

ὑπῆρχον loco

venohg

Mt. 2, 18

εἰσίν

(Ludolph of Saxony)

I, 119,7 = Mt. 5, 20

+ Ἣ δύνασθε

ς (arm)

1, 182, 29 = Mt. 5, 28

+ μὴ ἐπιθυμήσῃς

Alii

Chrysostomus (arm) Hieronymus

MSS 1689 983 Faustus Manichaeus; Anonymus Mt.

I, 233, 6 = Mt. 16, 18

μόχλοι L πύλαι

c (syr)

Eusebius (syr); Ephrem; Titus of Bostra (syr)

Ii, 119, 22 Mt. 18, 14

= ἔμπροσθεν (a. τοῦ πατρός)

ar tusc dutch (L S Theod.)

MSS 990 1588 Syr** Boh Georg Aphraates

1, 15, 1 = Mt. 21, 22

1. πᾶν 1. πάντα

c (arm syr) ar dutch (L S Theod.)

Syr**? Ps.-Cyprianus

2. + μὲ

ς (arm): a deo

ar: à Dieu ? "An Apocryphal Variant in Macarius", Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 6/7 (1975/ 1976) (2 Miscellanea in honorem Josephi Vergote), 487-492.

MACARIUS

II, 118, 23 =

AND

THE

OF TATIAN

205

μείνῃ |. ἀφεθῇ

c (arm) ar pers ven tusc dutch (Maerlant) Pepysian Harm. (Heliand 4281)

Eusebius Socrates (Hist. Eccl. III, 20)

1. --ἰδού

pers ven dutch (L) Pepys.

Aphraates; Vita

Mt. 24, 2

1, 58, 9 = Mt. 28, 20

DIATESSARON

Aithallaha (arm)

Harm.

2. ἔσομαι 1. εἰμι

ven dutch (L)

Eusebius

Pepys. Harm. 3. — πᾶσας τὰς

ἡμέρας

ven tusc (L) dutch (L S)

Aphraates; Addai; Vita Aithallaha

(arm) Novatianus; Augustinus; Ambrosius Il, 121, 27 = Luke 11,8

l. + ἀμήν

ar dutch (Theod.)

2.

ar pers ven Pepys. Harm.

— ἀναστάς

II, 45, 16 = Luke 21, 34

βλέπετε

II, 207,13 = John 14, 16

1. ὑπάγω καὶ ἀποστέλλω

ven dutch (LSH C Theod.)

l. προσέχετε

Syr?

Ps.-Ephrem Acta Archelai

Augustinus (c. Felicem)

2. ἀποστέλλω

€ (arm) pers

(Ist person |.

Acta Archelai Liber Graduum

3rd person)

Augustinus

3. ἀποστέλλω δώσει

1.

c (arm) ar pers ven

Syr sc

Acta Archelai ; Liber Graduum

Augustinus II, 41, 14 = John 14, 23

ποιήσω |. ποιησόμεθα

pers

MSSD Syr* Pers Achm Lat (e d) Liber Graduum

Amongst these Diatessaron readings there is one which requires our very special attention. John 14, 16 is quoted in the new recension of Macarius in the following words : ὑπάγω καὶ ἀποστέλλω ὑμῖν τὸν παράκλητον (Logos 63, 1, 3; Il, p. 207, 13) One would be inclined to say that this is a casual and fortuitous allusion to several passages in John (especially 14, 12 and 14, 16), in

206

G. QUISPEL

which the mission of the Holy Spirit is spoken of. And yet it would be extremely

foolish

to attribute

these

words

to sheer

coincidence.

For they are also found in the Acts of Archelaus, a Greek work from Mesopotamia translated into Latin: vado ad patrem meum et mitto vobis Paracletum (31, 9; G C S 16,

p. 44) It has been established that the Manichaean opponents of Augustine, and also Augustine himself, were familiar with a Latin translation of

Tatian's Diatessaron?. And this is understandable because Mani was born in Mesopotamia, where the Gospel harmony of the Encratitic teacher was the authoritative and, it would seem, exclusive Gospel of the Christians in the third century, in which Mani lived. It would seem plausible that this text was translated by North African Manichees from the Syriac immediately into Latin. There is, however, no other known example of a Latin writing derived from the Syriac without a Greek intermediary. And therefore it could well be that among the Greek-speaking Manichees, who were also responsible for the Cologne Mani Papyrus, there circulated a Greek translation of the Manichaean Syriac Diatessaron, though not a shred of evidence exists to corroborate this hypothesis. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the Manichee Felix was borrowing from the Diatessaron current in his group, when he quoted John as follows : vado ad Patrem; et mitto vobis Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum

(contra Felicem 1, 2; C S E L 25, p. 802, 10) Thanks to R. van den Broek it has been established recently that the Vita beatae virginis Mariae rhythmica and the Life of Christ of Ludolph of Saxony are based upon a Latin Diatessaron very different from the famous Codex Fuldensis, which is almost completely accommodated to the Latin Vulgate*. All suggestions that the vernacular Harmonies of the West are nothing but a perversion of the latter text mixed up with Old Latin readings are refuted by this splendid discovery. But it is in the Vita Rhythmica that we seem to find the same deviant variant : ego vero modo sum a vobis recessurus ad deum vostrum atque patrem sum meum ascensurus ; ? Ὁ. QuisPEL,

Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden

* R. van DEN Broek, "A Latin

Diatessaron

1975), 58-68.

in the ‘Vita Beate Virginis Marie et

Salvatoris Rhythmica’™, New Testament Studies 21, | (1974/75),

van

Maerlant

en het Nederlandse

(1974), 141-164.

Diatessaron",

Nieuw

109-132; IDEM, “Jacob

Theologisch

Tijdschrift

28, 2

MACARIUS AND THE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN

207

remittamque paraclitum, qui vos loco mei docens consolabitur, qui spiritus est dei (6360-6363). Very much the same reading underlies the Heliand : I will go to our Father and / shall send you from the Kingdom of Heaven the Holy Ghost; he will comfort you again and help you (47064709) And this is one of the indications that the Western Harmonies are based upon a Manichaean, not a catholic Latin text of Tatian’s Diatessaron. But what we did not know until now is that Macarius is also a witness for the same variant. There is no doubt any more that this latter was traditional and current in Mesopotamia. It is meant to be a quotation from John, not a free and vague allusion. Can we go any farther? Macarius offers us a combination of John 14, 12 (I go to the Father) and John 14, 16 in a special form. He does not say : "He will give you" but “1 will send you". That was a correction introduced into the text by Tatian himself, as is proved by Ephrem's commentary on the Diatessaron, by the Persian Diatessaron, by the Syriac Liber Graduum and by many other Oriental witnesses. If any lingering notion still remained, that Macarius may have originated in Egypt rather than in Mesopotamia, this sole reading would be sufficient to expel the doubt. A Greek-writing author who quotes the Syrian Diatessaron is influenced by Aramaic Christianity and is best located somewhere in Mesopotamia. On the other hand, it is difficult to suppose that it was Tatian who is responsible for the whole passage which figures largely as a shortened version of John 14, 12-17. This man was so careful and meticulous in his handling of the text that we can hardly believe he used a dagger instead of a pen, as Tertullian said Marcion did. We

know, however,

that this text of John was essential to Mani, who proclaimed himself to be the embodiment of the Paraclete. Moreover, we find it in the mouth of the Manichaean Felix. One might feel inclined to suppose that this reading was characteristic of the Manichaean version of the Diatessaron in Mesopotamia. That the author of the Acts of Archelaus borrowed his version from this source is quite possible because he, though writing in Greek, lived in Mesopotamia too, and is refuting Mani's doctrine. But it comes as a surprise to find that even the great Syrian mystic Macarius could have been influenced by the Manichaean text.

208

G. QUISPEL

Arthur Vööbus has taught us to see the history of Syrian Christianity, especially its asceticism, as a product of an immanent development from Palestinian Christianity. This has indeed been a great help. It thus became clear that the Gospel of Thomas used a Jewish Christian source because the Christian foundations of Edessa were Jewish. The same Jewish Christian tradition is to be found in Aphraates. Obviously this Jewish Christian element persisted in Aramaic Christianity, even in the fourth century. And what is true of Aphraates, can also be true of Macarius, who seems to quote from the same source where he agrees exclusively with the Clementines. Even Bardesanes and Mani can be adduced as witnesses for the defence of this thesis. If Bardesanes stressed the idea that God is not responsible for

the

evil

of this world,

this could

be

interpreted

as

a reaction

against the Jewish Christian view that the devil is the left hand of God. This is certainly the case with Mani, who, as we now know, was reared in an Elkesaite commune in Southern Babylonia and was thoroughly familiar with these Jewish Christian positions. Going in the steps of Vóóbus I have described the mysticism of Macarius and the ascetic movement of the so-called Messalianism to which he more or less belonged as the survival and revival of a very old and very archaic spirituality originating in Edessa. For Macarius, as for the Jewish Christians, the Holy Spirit is a mother. It might, however, be that Macarius owed more to Manichaeism than one was willing to admit before. It could be that he used a Manichaean version of the Diatessaron. This would explain why his text is so much cruder and more interesting than that of Ephrem Syrus, who lived roughly in the same period and in the same region. The Catholics of Edessa obviously had done all they could to adapt the Diatessaron to more canonical texts. But Mani picked up this text as it existed in Mesopotamia in the third century. And neither he nor his followers felt any urgent need to revise it in the sense of Catholicism. Of course, our study is only a first step. A monograph on the whole subject is desirable. But already now we may state that Macarius knew the Gospel of Thomas, the Diatessaron of Tatian and a very archaic Jewish Christian Gospel tradition. And this encourages us to hear sometimes the ipsissima verba of the master in the different and various recensions of his work, which might so easily lead us to despair and make us give up the hope of recovering the real voice. Wherever in the stream of tradition we find a variant of this type next

MACARIUS AND THE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN

209

to a koiné text reading, we may be sure that the first mentioned is authentic and goes back to Macarius himself. It is even possible to lay down a few rules of thumb for attributing the quotations to these three sources : l. in case of agreement with the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron or the Pseudo-Clementines it is safest to attribute it to “Thomas”, because it is absolutely sure that Macarius used the Gospel of Thomas; 2. the Jewish Christian tradition has certainly been used, if there is a parallel in the Clementines, but not in ‘Thomas’ or "Tatian" ; 3. Diatessaron readings are probable if “Thomas” or the ''Clementines" offer no parallel;

4. Diatessaron readings in Macarius can be detected with the help of the Eastern and the Western harmonies. Macarius is a new witness for the thesis that the Western Diatessarons have preserved in the vernacular important readings of Tatian and his followers in the East. The arbitrary denial of this obvious state of affairs should not bother scholars any more.

PANTÉNE

ET LE DIDASCALÉE

D'ALEXANDRIE :

DU JUDÉO-CHRISTIANISME AU CHRISTIANISME HELLÉNISTIQUE Martiniano Pellegrino RONCAGLIA Beyrouth, Liban

Il est presqu'impossible de s'occuper d'histoire du christianisme primitif sans rencontrer une contribution scientifique du Prof. Arthur Vóóbus, spécialement lorsqu'on s'occupe de christianisme oriental. Notre rencontre physique eut lieu à Baghdad le 3 février 1974 à l'occasion de la célébration de deux centenaires, celui de saint Ephrem le Syrien et celui de Hunain ibn Ishaq, mais notre rencontre intellectuelle remonte à une dixaine d'années auparavant, sans connaitre d'interruption. C'est, donc, un réel plaisir pour moi et pour ma femme (qui collabore toujours étroitement avec moi) de témoigner encore une fois toute notre admiration et affection au Prof. A. Vööbus. Lorsque jeune universitaire je lisais The Story of the Church of Egypt... by E.L. Butcher, Vol. I (London 1897) et je réflechissais sur ces mots : «In the first year or two of the reign of Commodus we find

Pantaenus at the head of the Catechetical College» (p. 45), je n'aurais jamais pensé qu'un maniére analytique été un réformateur le plus proche de la grande

jour j'aurais eu l'honneur de m'en occuper d'une et critique pour féter un savant qui, lui aussi, a des études sur l'Orient chrétien et surtout syrien, tradition panténienne. La place importante que la

ville méditerranéenne,

Alexandrie,

a tenu dans

l'histoire

des

lettres chrétiennes, ainsi que dans la théologie et la philosophie, est un fait acquis à l'historiographie depuis l'antiquité. Si l'on se reporte aux origines de cette influence alexandrine, on y rencontre des noms prestigieux, Origene, avant lui Clément d'Alexandrie, et avant tous Panténe. Qui était Panténe? Pour séparer la légende de l'histoire et pour encadrer ce personnage obscure et pourtant si prestigieux, une révision

critique des données traditionnelles s'impose ! . ! Toutes

les encyclopédies

et dictionnaires

se

réfèrent

à des

études

de

première

212

M.P. RONCAGLIA LE TÉMOIGNAGE

DE CLEMENT

D'ALEXANDRIE?

Le témoignage les plus ancien que nous possedions sur Pantene est celui de Clément d'Alexandrie, son successeur immédiat dans la direction du Didascalée. Explicant dans ses Eclogae propheticae? le verset du Psaume 18, 6: «Et dans le soleil il placa sa demeure», Clément signale une premiére exégése qui applique cette parole au passé: «Certains, par exemple Hermogéne, disent qu'il placa le corps du Seigneur dans le soleil; par sa demeure ils entendent, les uns: son corps, les autres: l'Église des croyants». Puis Clément recommande une autre interprétation ou spéculation selon laquelle ce verset concerne l'avenir. Et pour expliquer que le passé il placa peut concerner un autre temps que le passé, il invoque l'autorité exégétique de Panténe : «Mais notre Panténe disait que la prophétie transpose invisiblement ses expressions, en sorte que, le plus souvent, elle se sert du présent au lieu du futur, ou ici...» *.

inversément

du

présent

au

lieu du

passé.

Et c'est ce qui apparait

Nous constatons déjà par ce texte que Panténe jouissait d'une particuliére autorité en matiére d'exégése aux yeux de Clément et du milieu alexandrin de son époque. Il faut aussi remarquer là l'expression par laquelle Clément désigne son prédecesseur: ὁ Πάνταινος δὲ ἡμῶν, «notre Panténe». Cette expression d'affection qui le revendique pour la communauté alexandrine, était vraie à un double titre: il était notre en ce sens d'abord qu'il avait vécu à Alexandrie et que plusieurs parmi les auditeurs et lecteurs de Clément l'avaient connu, comme on doit conclure aussi d'un passage qu'Eusébe de Césarée nous a et de deuxiéme main et se basent surtout sur l'autorité de tel ou tel autre historien. Nous

avons

voulu

recommencer

(et cette

fois-ci

c'est

la troisiéme)

à traiter

et chaque fois il y a des détails qui enrichissent la maniére de comprendre préter les origines de l'école d'Alexandrie. M.P. RONCAGLIA, «Panténe. Sa judéo-chrétienne et les doctrines du Didascalee», in al-Machrig 60 (1966) Ip.: Panténe (Beyrouth 1966); cette dernière plaquette valut à l'auteur une félicitations que le prof. Gustave E. voN GRUNEBAUM lui envoya de Suisse, trouvait en vacance et qui eut le loisir de lire et relire. Enfin, voir mon de l'Église Copte, Tome

2 A. HARNACK, Auflage,

Leipzig

II (Beyrouth

le théme,

et interthéologie 239-260; lettre de oü il se Histoire

1969), 7-41.

Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius (2. erweiterte 1958)

I, 291-296,

931;

P. NAUTIN,

«Panténe»,

dans

Tome

Comme-

moratif du Millenaire de la Bibliothéque Patriarcale d'Alexandrie (Alexandrie 1953), 145152; Eva HoFFMANN-ALEITH, «Pantainos», dans PAULY-Wissowa, Realencyclopádie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft XV111/3 (Stuttgart 1949), col. 684-685.

> Eclogae propheticae xxviii, 56, 2-3. * Eclogae propheticae, loc. cit. «ὁ Πάνταινος δὲ ἡμῶν ... ».

PANTÉNE ET LE DIDASCALÉE D'ALEXANDRIE

213

conservé d'une lettre d'Origéne, oü celui-ci, ayant à se justifier d'avoir lu et exposé les livres des philosophes grecs ou paiens, et voulant prouver que cela n'était pas une chose inouie au Didascalée, écrit : «C'est ce que nous avons fait, en imitant Panténe* qui, avant nous, a rendu

service à beaucoup, et qui a possédé une préparation en ces matiéres»$.

Il était notre aussi en ce sens qu'il avait enseigné une doctrine orthodoxe à la différence d'Hermogéne, mentionné plus haut dans le méme texte. Mais ce n'est pas là la seule mention expresse de Panténe dans les œuvres de Clément d'Alexandrie. Il est nommé également dans les Hypotyposes. Eusébe de Césarée, qui eut entre ses mains cet ouvrage, en témoigne dans son Histoire Ecclésiastique? à la suite de sa notice sur Panténe : «[Clement d'Alexandrie] fait nominativement mention, dans les Hypotyposes [ou Esquisses] qu'il a composées, de Pantene, comme de son maitre®, et il me semble qu'il fait encore allusion à lui dans le premier livre des Stromates, lorsque, désignant les représentants les plus célébres de la succession apostolique? qu'il a reque, il dit ceci: ‘Cet ouvrage n'est pas un écrit composé dans les régles de l'art pour l'ostentation. Ce sont des notes, un trésor pour ma vieillesse, un reméde contre l'oubli; simple reflet, simple esquisse des propos éclatants et pleins de vie que j'ai été jugé digne d'entendre de la bouche des maitres bienheureux et de mérite vraiment éminent. L'un, Grèce, d'autres en Grande Gréce—l'un de ceux-ci était de

ionien, vivait en la Calé-Syrie, le

second d'Égypte—d'autres en Orient : l'un était d'Assyrie, l'autre de Palestine, juif de naissance; j'en rencontrais un dernier—mais il était le premier par son rayonnement —et quand je l'eus découvert à la trace en Egypte où il se cachait,

je m'en tins là' !9...» * ORIGÈNE fait allusion à Panténe sans pourtant mentionner aucune dépendance directe avec lui. Il s'est borné à suivre son exemple, face à la culture grecque, et beaucoup devaient étre encore renseignés sur les méthodes didactiques du vénéré maitre.

* EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl. VI, 19, 13. ” Eusesius, Hist. Eccl. V, 11, 2-4. * RUFIN D'AQUILÉE dans sa traduction latine de ce passage d’EUSEBE précise que c'était au livre vil des Hypotyposes.

DE CÉSARÉE,

* Selon G. Barpy, dans les notes à son édition et traduction de l'Histoire Ecclésiastique d’EUSEBE DE CÉSARÉE [Sources Chrétiennes 41] (1955), le mot διαδοχή employé

ici est inexact, lui-méme

puisque

parle d'une

ni PANTÉNE tradition.

Mais

ni CLEMENT les deux

n'étaient évéque

concepts

et que

de diadoché

CLEMENT

et de parádosis

sont ici trés voisins l'un de l'autre. Il ne faut pas entendre le terme diadoché comme succession

hiérarchique.

mais comme

de la succession

ou transmission

(parádosis)

des

traditions orales «apostoliques» de la théologie judéo-chrétienne, que CLEMENT avait consignées par écrit spécialement dans ses Hypotyposes; HOFFMANN-ALEITH, op. cit., 684-685. 19 En réalité EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE donne son opinion comme hypothèse, et il faut

214

M.P. RONCAGLIA

Eusébe y revient encore plus loin, en présentant la liste des ouvrages

de Clément d'Alexandrie!! : «De

méme

nombre

que

les Stromates

sont

les livres intitulés Hypotyposes,

dans lesquels il fait, par son nom'?, mention de Panténe comme de son maitre et oü il expose les exégéses des Écritures et les traditions (orales) qu'il a reçues».

Il faut regretter qu’Eusebe de Césarée n'ait pas pensé utile de nous transmettre le passage original des Hypotyposes et de ne pas pouvoir par conséquent vérifier si Clément d’Alexandrie désignait expressément Pantène comme son maître (ὡς διδάσκαλος). En effet, en voulant

exercer un droit de critique qui pourrait être une hypercritique, il est possible que cette désignation soit une interprétation ou une déduction d'Eusébe de Césarée, et que Clément d'Alexandrie ait seulement allegué l'opinion de Panténe sous une forme voisine de celle que nous avons dans les Eclogae propheticae : «Notre Pantene disait...». Mais n'y aurait-il que cela, il n'en serait pas moins significatif de voir que Clément, qui se contente ordinairement de désigner ses autorités d'une maniére voilée ou indirecte, a fait une exception pour Panténe et l'a mentionné au moins deux fois par son nom. Ce traitement de faveur marquerait la place de choix que Panténe occupait dans son souvenir d'éléve ou de collaborateur d'abord, et de successeur ensuite. Et par là méme nous obtenons un renseignement supplémentaire : Panténe venait de Sicile. On a pu remarquer en effet que pour chacun de ses autres maitres précédents Clément a indiqué, aprés le lieu οὐ il les a rencontrés, le pays d’oü ils étaient originaires : celui qui habitait la Gréce était un ionien, les deux de la Magna Graecia venaient de Cœlé-Syrie et d'Égypte; ceux d'Orient étaient issus d'Assyrie et de Palestine. De méme fait-il pour le dernier : aprés avoir dit qu'il l'avait rencontré en Égypte, il ajoute qu'il était sicilien en les comparant à l'une de ces abeilles dont le miel constituait un des produits réputés de la Sicile ! ?. admettre qu'encore aujourd'hui nous ne sommes pas tout à fait sürs que le dernier de ces «maitres» qu'il a cité, soit vraiment PANTÉNE, car il est impossible d'identifier avec une certitude absolue les différents maitres de CLEMENT à travers ce qu'il nous en dit et de la maniére dont il le dit. Toutefois cette identification est la plus plausible, d'autant plus que PANTENE—comme il est dit—vivait à Alexandrie en méme temps que CLEMENT.

On peut y ajouter

HiERONY MUS, Adversus libros Rufini 1, 13.

!! EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl. VI, 13, 2. 12 ὀνομαστί, nommément, par nom. Précédemment il n'y avait fait qu'une allusion allégorique incertaine: ici on dit, au contraire, qu'il en parle nominativement. 13 Étant donné que les Hypotyposes ou Esquisses sont perdues, à l'exception des notes sur les Építres Catholiques, que nous possédons sous le titre de Adumbrationes

PANTENE ET LE DIDASCALÉE D'ALEXANDRIE

215

«Lorsque j'arrivais au dernier [maitre}—pour la valeur il était le premier— que je découvris en Égypte, je trouvais le repos. C'était lui, la véritable abeille sicilienne qui, butinant les fleurs de la prairie des prophétes et des apötres, faisait naître dans les âmes de ses auditeurs une science immortelle» '*.

Il parait, en tout cas, qu'il travailla dix ou douze ans au Didascalée avec Clément d'Alexandrie. Le róle de Panténe nous pouvons le devenir sans trop nous éloigner de la réalité: il devait remplir une

táche semblable à celle d'un directeur ou de maitre principal; Clément a dü étre une espéce d’assistant, de répétiteur!?.

Il serait mort vers

l'an 200. LE TÉMOIGNAGE

D’EUSEBE DE CESAREE

La tradition historique ne s'est pas occupée de ce personnage qui, pourtant est bien à l'origine d'un mouvement méthodologique et doctri-

nal si riche en conséquences!$. Les historiens postérieurs, à partir du IV* siècle avec Eusébe de Césarée'’, qui à son tour suivait en cela Pamphyle, disciple d'Origéne!?, ont toujours présenté Panténe comme un maitre (didáskalos) qui dirigeait une école dans laquelle il eut comme successeurs immédiates Clement et Origene. La tradition ne s'est certainement pas trompée, mais selon nous il faudrait remonter jusqu'au milieu et aux temps qui virent se concrétiser les exégéses ou spéculations judéo-chrétiennes des recueils scripturaires dits Testiad Epistolas canonicas dans une adaption latine exécutée au monastére de Vivarium, il ne nous est pas possible de savoir si PANTÉNE y était nommé une fois par allusion et une autre fois par son nom ou bien si ce qui n'était qu'une hypothése pour EUSEBE DE CÉSARÉE lui-même est présenté ensuite comme

une certitude. Cette dernière

méthode acritique est assez souvent employée, par exemple, par HIERONYMUS, De viris inlustribus, et par d'autres historiens de l'antiquité qui suivaient le principe obscuriora per clariora explicare. 14 CLEMENS Alex., Stromata 1, 1, 11, 2. L'épithéte apis sicula, appliquée par CLéMENT à PANTENE, est-elle seulement une épithéte élogieuse ou bien une &pithete qui en indique aussi la provenance?

Le fait que

PANTENE

venait

de Sicile aurait

suggéré

à CLEMENT l'application de cette expression proverbiale. 15 HARNACK, op. cit., 1, 293; B. ALTANER, Patrologie (6. Auflage Basel-Wien 167 et 169; Eric PETERSON,

dans Enciclopedia

Cattolica (Città del Vaticano

1960),

1952) IX,

col. 693-694; F.L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (London 1972), s.v. «Pantaenus». Voir aussi J. QuASTEN, Patrology (Utrecht-Antwerp 1953), It, 5. 16 M.P. RoNCAGLIA, «La théologie de Clément d'Alexandrie et le Judéo-christianisme», dans al-Machrig 62 (1968) 223-249; du MÊME : «Origene e il Giudeo-Cristiane-

simo.

Dottrina

e archeologia

[Istituto

Rendiconti, Classe di Lettere. Vol.

Lombardo.

102] (Milano

1? Eusesius, Hist. Eccl. V, 10, 1-4. 18 PHOTIUS, Bibliotheca, cod. 118.

Accademia

1968), 473-492.

di Scienze e Lettere.

216

M.P. RONCAGLIA

monia dans l’Épitre de Barnabé!?. En effet, le Didascalée ne surgit pas du jour au lendemain mais en partant de formes embryonnaires comme n'importe quelle école catéchétique. Alexandrie, creuset de la pensée antique aussi bien que brassage d'homme et de marchandises, offrit l'humus nécessaire à un tel développement. Ses racines s'enfoncent dans le milieu judéo-chrétien des origines de cette chrétienté alexandrine, qui se transformera peu à peu en une Église philosophante. Il ne faut jamais oublier cela 2°. En tout cas, ceux qui n'ont pas voulu admettre que Panténe ait dirigé le Didascalée ou l'école catéchétique d'Alexandrie, ainsi que ceux qui ont défendu la thése d'aprés laquelle on ne pouvait pas parler de Didascalée avant Origéne, ceux-là ont bien montré de croire

au «miracle de Pallas» et ont dü distorquer les textes à telle enseigne qu'ils les ont vidé du sens le plus évident. C'est le cas de l'éminent historien Gustave Bardy, «Aux origines de l'École d'Alexandrie», dans Recherches de Science Religieuse 27 (1937) 65-90 et, du méme auteur : «Pour l'histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie», dans Vivre et Penser, 2* série (Paris 1942), 80-109. Selon Gustave

Bardy, Eusébe de Césarée semble

fort mal renseigné sur le Didascalée d'Alexandrie et introduit dans son Histoire

Ecclésiastique

d'inextricables

confusions.

A

notre

sens,

ces

confusions inextricables ont pour origine les idées préconçues de critiques modernes. Claude Mondesert écrit lui aussi sous l'influence de G. Bardy : «Panténe n'est qu'un nom dans l'histoire de ce qu'on appelle habituellement l'École d'Alexandrie—mais sans doute à tort si l'on prend le mot École dans son sens strict». (Lettre à l'auteur, Lyon 24 Mai 1965). Nous croyons que le mot École d'Alexandrie dans le sens strict d'un ensemble systématique d'un courant d'idées spécifiques n'est qu'une systématisation dialectique des historiens qui se sont par là imposés un pseudo-probléme historique. Le Didascalée doit avoir connu une origine quelconque, comme lieu où les didäskaloi ou catéchétes enseignaient les rudiments de la doctrine chrétienne. Les développements furent imposés par les circonstances du milieu (Louis Duchesne, Histoire de l'Église, Paris 1911, II, 333): c'est ainsi qu'à un moment donné l'évéque d'Alexandrie chargea Panténe (qui devait déjà avoir une position de prestige) d'y apporter les adaptations méthodologiques réclamées par les nouvelles exigences : Francesco Peri1? P. PRIGENT, L’Epitre de Barnabé I-XVI et ses sources. Les Christianisme primitif. [Études Bibliques] (Paris 1961).

Testimonia dans le

20 M.P. RONCAGLIA, Histoire de l'Église Copte, op. cit., Tome I (Beyrouth 1966).

PANTENE ET LE DIDASCALÉE

D'ALEXANDRIE

217

coli-Ridolfini, «Le origini della Scuola di Alessandria», dans Rivista degli Studi Orientali 37 (Roma

1962) 211-230.

D'ailleurs, en étudiant

l'influence des traditions orales de la théologie judéo-chrétienne chez Clement

d'Alexandrie,

nous

constatons

sans peine que

le Didascalee

ou l'École d'Alexandrie avait hérité d'un bagage méthodologique, spéculatif, théologique d'avant Origéne, avant Clément et avant Panténe lui-méme, car ce dernier n'aurait jamais pu réformer ce qui n'existait pas avant lui. Ce qu'on a oublié trop souvent c'est le background éminemment judéo-chrétien des doctrines du Didascalée jusqu'au IV* siècle, lié étroitement aux origines judéo-chrétiennes de l'Église égyptienne. Mais revenons au témoignage d'Eusébe de Césarée : «Alors, un homme trés célébre par sa culture dirigeait l'école des fideles de ce pays: il s'appelait Panténe?!. D'aprés une ancienne coutume ??, il y avait chez eux un Didascalée des saintes Ecritures : ce Didascalée se prolonge jusqu'à nous, et nous avons appris qu'il est entre les mains d'hommes puissants en paroles et pleins de zéle pour les choses de Dieu??. On raconte que celui dont nous parlons était dans ce temps-là parmi les plus brillants, car il était issu de l'école philosophique de ceux qu'on appelle Stoiciens. On dit donc qu'il montra une telle ardeur et des dispositions si courageuses à l'égard de la parole divine qu'il fut également signalé comme héraut de l'évangile du Christ dans les nations de l'Orient et qu'il alla méme jusqu'aux pays des Indes?*. Il y avait en effet, oui, il y avait encore en ce temps-là un grand nombre d'évangélistes de la Parole qui avaient à cœur d'apporter un zéle divin dans l'imitation des apótres pour accroitre et édifier la parole divine. De ces hommes, 21 W. BOUSSET, Jüdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom. Literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin und Irenäus [Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Neue Folge, Heft 6] (Göttingen

1915).

22 Donc déjà avant PANTÉNE. 23 Nous sommes au IV" siècle et il faut croire qu'EUSÈBE DE CfsARÉE pense surtout à PIERRE D'ALEXANDRIE, à DENYS D'ALEXANDRIE et aux autres didaskaloi ses contemporains. M.P. RONCAGLIA, Histoire de l'Église Copte, Tome II (Beyrouth 1969), 5-54; Tome III (1969); Tome IV (1973). Dans le Tome V (prévu pour 1977) on développe

l'apport de la théologie alexandrine dans la lutte arienne. ?* Les Indes. Elles ont fait verser un océan d'encre. Si EUSEBE DE CÉSARÉE a été bien informé, la mission judéo-chrétienne s'est donc étendue jusqu'aux /ndes, à savoir l'Arabie méridionale. Sur les rapports entre l'Église d'Alexandrie et l'Arabie, voir M.P.

RONCAGLIA, Histoire de l'Église Copte, op. cit., IV, 245-256. Il est possible que l'apôtre Barthélemy ait eu comme domaine d'évangélisation l'Arabie et que ce soit dans le prolongement de cette mission que l'évangile soit parvenu aux /ndes. Par ailleurs, PANTÉNE

aurait

été

un

missionnaire

judéo-chrétien

(thése

non

admise,

mais

à

tort,

par HARNACK), venu d'Égypte. Celà est en tout cas en harmonie avec ce que nous avons démontré dans le tome premier de notre Histoire de l'Église Copte sur le caractére éminemment palestinien de la communauté primitive des chrétiens d’Egypte. Voir aussi J. DanıtLou-H.

MARROU,

le Grand (Paris 1963), 81.

Nouvelle Histoire de l'Église, I: Des origines à saint Grégoire

218 Pantene

M.P. RONCAGLIA fut aussi; et l'on dit qu'il alla dans les Indes;

on dit encore qu'il

trouva sa venue devancée par l'Évangile de Mathieu, chez certaines indigenes qui connaissaient le Christ ?*; à ces gens-la?°, Barthélemy, l'un des apôtres,

aurait préché et il leur aurait laissé, en caractéres hébreux, l'Évangile de Mathieu, qu'ils avaient conservé jusqu'aux temps dont nous vous parlons?". Cependant, aprés de nombreuses réformes, Panténe dirigea finalement le Didascalée d'Alexandrie, exposant divins».

oralement??

et par des écrits les trésors des dogmes

33 A. Von HARNACK, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (4. Auflage Leipzig 1924), II, 698. Voir aussi C. A. NALLINO, Raccolta di Scritti editi e inediti (Roma 1941), IH, 87-137 et 141-156 : «Ebrei e Cristiani nell'Arabia preislamica»; R. DEVREESSE, Le Patriarcat d’Antioche (Paris 1945), 208-240; M.P.

RONCAGLIA, Histoire de l'Église Copte, IV, 245-293; du MEME auteur : «Éléments ébionites et elkésaites dans le Coran. Notes et hypothéses», dans Proche-Orient Chrétien 21 (1971), 101-126, ainsi que J. DoRRA-HADDAD, « Coran, prédication nazaréenne », dans Proche-Orient Chrétien 23 (1973), 148-155.

Le voyage aux Indes n'était pas si difficile qu'on pourrait le croire, J. FILLIOZAT, «Les échanges de l'Inde et de l'Empire romain aux premiers siécles de l'ére chrétienne», dans Revue Historique 201 (Paris 1949), indépendamment

l'un

de

l'autre,

Nil jusqu'à Coptos, ἀ οὐ l'on la Mer Rouge, Myoschormos et le retour. Selon STRABON, drins, faisaient annuellement le

1-29. STRABON

l'itinéraire

et PLINE décrivent par exemple,

d'Alexandrie

aux

/ndes:

on

remontait

le

gagnait, par la route des caravanes, l'un des ports de ou bien Béréniké; on attendait la mousson pour l'aller cent vingt bateaux, armés par des marchands alexanvoyage de Myoschormos aux /ndes et retour. F. ALTHEIM

und R. STIEHL, Christentum am Roten Meer 1 (Berlin 1971).

26 Sans doute des Juifs de la Diaspora, provenant aussi probablement de la Palestine et de la Transjordanie, ce qui permettait à des missionnaires judéo-chrétiens pas particuliérement doués linguistiquement de s'adresser à des gens qui pouvaient les comprendre.

Si on

tient

compte

de

la christologie

fortement

ébionisante

du

Coran,

il semble qu'il faudrait donner la préférence aux Juifs palestiniens. RONCAGLIA, Hist. de l'Église Copte IV, 245-256; H.J. ScHoEPs, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen

1949), 334-342.

?? C'est-à-dire jusqu'à la fin du II* siécle. La thése d'un Urevangelium en langue hébraique ou araméenne semble étre confirmée aussi par le savant israélien Shlomo Pines, «The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source». [Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2, Nr. 13] (Jerusalem 1966). L'auteur arabe musulman ‘ABD AL-GABBAR : Tabi, dala'il nubuwwat sayyidnä Muhammad (C. BROCKELMANN, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. Erster

Supplementband, Leiden 1937, 343) reproduit une polémique entre judéo-chrétiens et ethno-chrétiens d'un manuscrit perdu, daté du V* siécle environ. Le ms. devait étre en araméen et fait mention du Nouveau Testament en hébreu. Voir aussi M.P. RonCAGLIA, «La recherche eigente d'ibn Qutaiba, premier traducteur de la Bible en arabe», dans L'Orient,

Dimanche

27 mars

1966, p. 13, et Johannis Evangelium

Apocryphum

in

lucem edidit, latine convertit, Praefatione et Commentario instruxit lohannes GALBIATI (Mediolani

1957)

et notre

recension

dans

Oriens

15 (1962)

474-478 : ce texte

serait

originaire de l'Arabie du Sud et dans sa traduction arabe il contient nombre d'araméismes du texte original. 28 C'est la méthode de l'enseignement ésotérique juif et judéo-chrétien, voir Morton SMITH, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, Mass. 1973), 29, 36, 37.

PANTÉNE ET LE DIDASCALÉE D'ALEXANDRIE

219

Quelles sont ces réformes qu'il introduisit dans l'enseignement du Didascalée? Comment se caractérise son enseignement? Nous le verrons dans les analyses qui vont suivre. DOCTRINES ET SPECULATIONS DE PANTENE

Panténe a-t-il écrit? L'historien Eusébe de Césarée l'affirme sans restriction lorsqu'il nous assure que Panténe exposait «oralement et par écrits les trésors des dogmes divins»??. Sur quoi base-t-il son affirmation péremptoire? I] doit avoir lu cela chez d'autres auteurs ou bien il donne comme certain ce qui n'est qu'une supposition fort probable.

En effet, un maitre laisse généralement

des écrits. En

tout

cas Eusébe n'eut entre ses mains aucun de ces «écrits» dont il fait mention, car lui, qui est toujours si curieux de tout ce qui touche à

Panténe, n'aurait certainement pas manqué

de nous en donner du

moins les titres et peut-étre des extraits, selon son habitude. De méme saint Jéróme, qui avec un manque souverain de sens critique amplifie les notes qu'il recueille et glane un peu partout ??, affirme que «Huius (scil. Pantaeni) multi quidam in sanctam Scripturam extant commen-

tarii»?!. Nous

sommes

presque certains que saint Jérôme

amplifie

ici Eusébe de Césarée, mais qu'il n'a rien vu de ces «multi commentarii». Il est en effet bien incapable de préciser lesquels des saints Livres Panténe aurait commenté. A s'en tenir à Clément d'Alexandrie, qui reste la source la plus süre, il apparait, au contraire, que Panténe

n'avait rien laissé d'écrit "2. Du moins est-il certain qu'il a exercé par son enseignement oral, par ses spéculations et ses exégéses basées sur les traditions orales «apostoliques» des Presbytres ou Anciens une influence judéo-chrétienne durable sur l'ensemble du Didascalée, sur Clément en particu?? Eusesius, Hist. Eccl. V. 10, 4. A Diognete. Introduction, édition critique, traduction et commentaire par

H.-I.

MARROU.

[Sources

Chrétiennes

33] (1952),

266-267

voit

en

PANTÈNE l'auteur de l'épilogue de cet écrit. Voici ce que C. MONDÉSERT, l'un des responsables de la collection Sources Chrétiennes nous répondait de Lyon, en date du 24 Mai 1965: «La réponse à votre question est simple: dire que PANTÉNE est l'auteur de la Lettre à Diognéte n'est qu'une hypothèse—hypothèse qui a plus de vraisemblance qu'une autre, mais il n'y a absolument aucune preuve... au moins pour le moment».

30 Ce reproche lui est fait aussi par HARNACK, Geschichte I, 294. 31 HIERONYMUS, De viris inlustribus 36. 32 CLEMENS ALEX., Strom. 1, 1, 11; Ecologae propheticae 27: οὐκ πρεσβύτεροι, ce qui SMITH, op. cit., 31.

s'entend

aussi

pour

PANTENE.

HARNACK,

ἔγραφον

Geschichte

δὲ οἱ 1,

293;

220

M. P. RONCAGLIA

lier, voire sur Origene. La personnalité de Panténe devait être bien marquante si l'autorité ecclésiastique lui confia la täche d'introduire de «nombreuses réformes» dans le Didascalée. Origéne, pour se justifier contre les attaques d'adversaires qui lui reprochaient d'avoir lu (sans doute enseigné) les philosophes grecs, se réfère au comportement

de Panténe. Or, il est évident qu'Origéne ne pouvait pas se justifier en se référant à un personnage sans autorité. Faute de posséder des écrits de Panténe, il serait du moins intéressant de pouvoir discerner dans les écrits de Clément d'Alexandrie ce qui refléte d'une maniére certaine l'enseignement de Panténe, son maitre. Récemment on a cru retrouver une partie de cette influence

dans l'épilogue de la lettre A Diognéte?? : les arguments

apportés

méritent d'étre retenus dans leur ensemble tout en évitant de se prononcer apodictiquement. Depuis un certain temps on avait avancé l'hypothèse d’après laquelle les Eclogae propheticae et les Extraits de Théodote ainsi que le livre VIII des Stromates de Clément d'Alexandrie, qui a un caractére inachevé, presque de notes de cours, devaient étre considérés comme des exégéses et des spéculations judéo-chré-

tiennes de Panténe**.

Cette hypothèse

a trouvé des adversaires ??,

mais une révision des positions critiques à la lumiére des nouvelles connaissances sur la théologie judéo-chrétienne s'impose d'elle-méme. En tout cas, nos recherches personnelles nous ont mis sur la trace de filons judéo-chrétiens dans la théologie alexandrine qui doivent remonter à Panténe et méme avant lui, lorsque l'intelligentsia religieuse d'Alexandrie était, par la force des circonstances, pratiquement entre les mains de Juifs de la diaspora passés au christianisme. En usant d'une méthode plus prudente, momentanément nous mettrons sur le compte de Panténe d'abord la remarque sur l'emploi des temps dans les saintes Ecritures, attribuée explicitement à Pantene par Clément d'Alexandrie : «Mais notre Panténe disait de la prophétie qu'elle transpose

invisiblement

ses expressions, en sorte que, le plus souvent, elle se sert du présent au lieu du futur, ou inversement du présent au lieu du passe»°®.

A remarquer que cette norme exégétique est encore acceptée dans l'exégèse biblique catholique et orthodoxe de nos jours, car cela est ?* 4 Diognete (éd. MARROU), 266-267. >* BOUSSET, op. cit., 190-198. 335 J. MUNCK, Untersuchungen über Klemens von Alexandria [Forschungen zur Kirchenund Geistesgeschichte 2] (Stuttgart 1933),

3% Eclogae propheticae 27, 56.

151-204.

PANTENE ET LE DIDASCALÉE D'ALEXANDRIE

221

un héritage rabbinique caractérisé qui sera appliqué surtout dans la théorie de la typologie, si chére à l'école alexandrine. Anastase

le Sinaite

(Anastasius

Sinaita),

abbé

du

monastére

de

Sainte Catherine, vers 640, écrivait que : «les plus anciens exégétes des Eglises... ont interprété dans un sens spirituel

l'histoire du Paradis, en l'appliquant à l'Église du Christ...» ?7. et parmi ces exégétes, outre Philon d'Alexandrie, Papias, Irénée de Lyon et Justin, il nomme Panténe et Clément. D'ailleurs nous savons maintenant que cette méthode exégétique, ainsi que la préférence donnée au livre de la Genése, appartiennent aux spéculations de la théologie judéo-chrétienne. Clément d'Alexandrie rapporte à son tour l'avis d'un Ancien ou Presbytre, que les patrologues et les historiens identifient généralement avec Panténe, sur des questions dogmatico-exégétiques : «[Pantaenus] dicebat autem animam in hac vita etc.» °°.

iterum:

Numquam

reverti secundo

ad corpus

Et ailleurs il rapporte de Panténe ces propos : «Quod ergo dicit ab initio [be-resit] hoc modo presbyter (scil. Pantaenus] exponebat, quod principium generationis separatum ab opificis Principio non est. Cum enim dicit quod erat ab initio generationem tangit sine principio Filii cum Patre simul extantis. »??

Clément d'Alexandrie fait à plusieurs reprises allusion à cet enseignement ou à ces traditions d'un sage (σοφός) ou d'un vénérable Ancien (πρεσβύτερος). D'aprés le style, la maniére de s'exprimer et les signes de respects dont il entoure son maitre, bien connu des personnes auxquelles il s'adressait dans ses écrits, nul doute que Clément cite le sage et le vénérable vieillard (de sainte mémoire) Panténe. C'est sans doute à ce dernier qu'il se réfère là où il écrit : Mais, pour ma part, j'ai entendu dire à un sage ce qui suit: Le conseil des impies (Psaume 1, 1) désigne les Gentils; /e chemin des pécheurs, la croyance juive; et /a chaire des pestiférés, les hérésies. Telle est son interprétation » *°.

37 ANASTASIUS, Contemplationes in Hexaémeron 1. Ses œuvres sont éditées chez MiGNE, PG 89, 35-1288; G. Barby, «La littérature patristique des Quaestiones et Responsiones sur l'Ecriture sainte : Anastase le Sinaite», dans Revue Biblique 42 (1933), 339-343; M. JUGIE, «Anastasio»,

dans Enciclopedia Cattolica (1949), I, col.

1157-1158.

38 CLEMENS Alex., Adumbrationes in I Petri. 39 CLEMENS Alex., Adumbrationes in I Johannis. *9 A relever le caractére midrashique de cette exégése, voir aussi CLEMENS

ALEX.,

Strom. 11, 67; au § 68 CLEMENT rapporte la spéculation d'un sage qui utilise le Kerygma Petri, apocryphe du [I* siécle, vraisembiablement issu d'un milieu judéo-chrétien

égyptien. Quelques fragments dans Strom. 1, 29, 182.

222

M.P. RONCAGLIA

D'autres textes, οὐ l'on cite des spéculations midrashiques d'un presbytre non autrement identifié*!, ne nous permettent pas de penser qu'il s'agisse toujours de Panténe, car les traditions orales recueillies par Clément d'Alexandrie peuvent trés bien étre attribuées à Panténe ou à d'autres presbytres cités par Panténe dans son enseignement. Malgré tout il y a toujours un grande vraisemblance en faveur d'une identification avec Panténe qui est le seul nommément cite—comme nous l'avons déjà vu—dans les Eclogae et dans les Hypotyposes. Les Stromates ne nous apportent pas plus de lumiére. Nous savons que Clément d'Alexandrie n'a d'autres prétentions que de nous présenter des notes et des réflexions : André Méhat, Étude sur les « Stromates » de Clément d'Alexandrie [Patristica Sorbonensia, 7] (Paris 1966). ἢ a noté ce qu'il se rappelait pour le sauver de l'oubli (il admet avoir beaucoup oublié et omis des traditions orales qui auraient pu choquer les non initiés). Certes, il y a une part de style conventionnel dans cette maniére de présenter les choses. Clément veut s'expliquer et s'évertue surtout à prouver que plusieurs points obscurs et difficiles de la doctrine des Stromates ne doivent pas étre regardés comme des innovations dangéreuses ou suspectes, car tout lui vient de la tradition orale «apostolique» (ésotérique) des Presbytres alexandrins : Origene

aussi devra se défendre dans ce sens*?. Nous aurions donc tort de prendre les déclarations précautionnelles de Clément au pied de la lettre et croire qu'il a reçu de ses maîtres ou plus précisément de la tradition orale des presbytres tout ce qu'il note dans son ouvrage. Depuis l'époque où il écoutait Panténe et travailla avec lui, il a étudié, travaillé et réfléchi pour son propre compte, il a médité personnellement sur les saintes Ecritures, lu les nombreux auteurs de tous bords qu'il cite*?. Aprés tout cela, il était impossible que les Stromates fussent, quoiqu'il en dise, le simple reflet de l'enseignement qu'il avait regu de son maitre, bien que, naturellement, il le suppose dans ses lignes générales de la méthode exégétique encore liée à l'esprit judéo-chrétien traditionnel ** et à l'influence juive alexandrine par le trüchement de *!

HARNACK,

“2 P. NAUTIN,

Geschichte 1, 292-296.

Lettres et écrivains chrétiens du IP

et ΠΝ

siècles.

[Patristica

2]

(Paris 1961), 126-132, 139-140.

“3 C. MONDESERT, Clément d'Alexandrie. Introduction à l'étude de sa pensée religieuse

d partir de lÉcriture. [Théologie 4] (Paris 1944).

** QUASTEN, Patrology, op. cit., 4-5: «The attempt to discover the literary work of Pantaenus or some of it in Clement of Alexandria must be pronounced unsuccessful ».

PANTÉNE ET LE DIDASCALÉE D'ALEXANDRIE

223

Philon d'Alexandrie. Néanmoins on ne saurait impunément rejeter en bloc son attestation de la dette qu'il avait contractée avec l'enseignement de Panténe. Malgré les positions négatives de Munck, de Casey, de Kretschmar, de Quasten et d'autres, on ne peut pas nier que chez Clément d'Alexandrie il y ait des influences, des fragments, des expressions tirés de l'enseignement oral de Panténe, mais toute la difficulté réside dans la détermination de ces fragments, influences, citations, etc. Th. Camelot, Foi et Gnose. Introduction à l'étude de la connais-

sance mystique chez Clément d'Alexandrie. [Études de Théologie et d'Histoire de la Spiritualité III] (Paris 1945), a voulu voir dans la méthode interprétative de Clément une espéce de gnose chrétienne ésotérique. Nous croyons plutót y déceler l'influence encore forte d'une méthode exégétique rabbinique et judéo-chrétienne qui, à grande peine,

cherche une nouvelle identité. Le Didascalée était en pleine transition, il cherchait son chemin pour s'insérer, tout en prétextant toujours sa fidélité à la tradition ecclesiale*°, dans le courant hellénistique, qui était la réalité ambiante du christianisme alexandrin. Or, cet effort, avec tous les risques que cela comportait, ne pouvait pas étre vu d'un bon œil par la hiérarchie ecclésiastique qui avait ses idées bien arrêtées en ce qui concernait la culture «grecque». Nous ne sommes pas trés bien renseignés, mais il faut croire que, malgré ses «ouvertures» aux nouvelles exigences culturelles, Panténe ne s'est jamais éloigné de l'exégése traditionnelle judéo-chrétienne. PANTÉNE ET LE LIVRE DE LA GENÉSE

L'exégése apocalyptique s'est particuliérement occupée du livre de la Genése. D'ailleurs, l'intérét pour les spéculations sur la Genése semble

avoir persisté dans le christianisme primitif, voire jusqu'au IV* siécle. «Le premier livre de Moise a joué dans les premiers siécles de l'histoire de l'Église un rôle immense». De fait nous savons par Eusébe de Césarée que plusieurs auteurs avaient écrit des commentaires sur le *3 CLEMENS ALEX., Strom. I, 1. Cette influence judéo-chrétienne nous est témoignée par la préoccupation constante de CLEMENT de se montrer fidéle aux traditions orales «apostoliques». Detail à ne pas négliger : l'influence du judaisme alexandrin et philonien se fait sentir d'une manière indiscutable à partir de l'œuvre écrite de CLEMENT, qui nous a transmis l'enseignement oral de PANTENE. Philon d'Alexandrie. Lyon 11-15 septembre 1966 [Colloques Nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scienti-

fique] (Paris 1967), 32.

“© G. KRETSCHMAR, Studien zur frühchristlichen Trinitätstheologie (Tübingen 31.

1956),

224

M.P. RONCAGLIA

livre, comme Rhodon ^', Apion et Candidus*®. Le sujet semble avoir tenu en particulier une place de choix chez les gnostiques*®. Mais surtout les écrits des premiers écrivains ecclésiastiques contiennent de nombreux passages qui constituent des spéculations exégétiques de la Genese, oü les influences juives sont facilement discernables. Nous pouvons remarquer que déjà les auteurs du Nouveau Testament témoignent de l'existence de ces spéculations??. Le Prologue de l'Évangile selon saint Jean se référe de toute évidence au début de la Genese. Et les mots ἐν ἀρχῇ témoignent de maniére certaine cette

analogie. Par ailleurs, l'Építre aux Éphésiens nous montre Paul présentant l'union de l'homme et de la femme comme une figure du Christ et de l'Église et designant cette union comme un μυστήριον, c'est-à-dire un secret caché qui n'a été dévoilé que dans les derniers temps. Ces deux exemples nous introduisent à deux types de spéculations sur la Genése, l'un qui concerne les réalités préexistantes, l'autre qui annonce les réalités eschatologiques. Nous les retrouvons chez les Judéo-chrétiens, oü elles sont attestées d'abord chez les Presbytres et leurs traditions orales «apostoliques». «Papias—rapporte Anastase le Sinaite—interprétait tout l'hexaéméron (en fonction) du Christ et de l'Église» 51, exactement comme le faisait Panténe. Nous avons, peutétre, l'écho de ces spéculations de Panténe dans les Eclogae propheticae de Clément d'Alexandrie, qui représentent des traditions exégétiques judéo-chrétiennes, transmises oralement selon la méthode des tradi-

tions apostoliques??. Les premiers extraits sont en grande partie consacrés à la Genése: «Au commencement Dieu créa le ciel et la terre, les choses terrestres et les choses célestes»5?. Ciel et terre représentent donc ici non les réalités matérielles, mais, comme

la suite le montre,

deux catégories d'esprits. D'autre part les saintes Ecritures emploient pour désigner des Puissances pures les mots cieux et eaux, comme *" EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl. V, 13, 8. 45 EustBIUS, Hist. Eccl. V, 27. “9 M.P. RONCAGLIA, «Histoire de la littérature copte 111" siécle», dans al-Machrig 61 (1967) 103-133, et du MÉME

des origines

à la fin du

auteur : Histoire de l'Église

Copte, op. cit., IV, pp. 85-205. 50 J. DANIÉLOU,

Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme

aussi M.P. RONCAGLIA, «Essai de Theologie primitif» dans ai-Machriq 61 (1967) 603-628. 5!

E. PREUSCHEN, Antilegomena (Giessen

(Paris

1958),

de la Femme

dans

122,

123,

129; voir

le Christianisme

1905), 96.

32 E. AMAND DE MENDIETA, The ‘Unwritten’ and ‘Secret’ Apostolic Traditions in the Theological Thought of St Basil of Caesarea [Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers 13] (Edinburgh & London 1965). 53. Eclogae propheticae MI, 1.

PANTENE ET LE DIDASCALEE D’ALEXANDRIE

225

on le voit aussi dans la Genése**. Ainsi «les cieux» et «les eaux» supérieures désignent la création des anges. On sait que la création des anges est antérieure à celle du Judaisme officiel ou mieux traditionnel. Pour celui-ci les anges sont des étres de feux, ils sont créés aprés le feu, comme les poissons aprés la mer ou les quadrupédes aprés la terre. C'est la méme conception que nous rencontrons

ailleurs, par exemple

chez IJ Hénoch

xvi, 3, où

la créa-

tion des anges, des poissons et des animaux vient aprés celle du monde

dans son cadre matériel 55. Dans cette perspective les anges étaient créés seulement —d'aprés les apocryphes juifs—le quatrième jour de la création. Mais le texte de Clément d'Alexandrie témoigne d'un autre courant, dont Panténe était sans doute le véhicule, qui interpréte de manière allégorique le texte de la Genese. Et ce courant parait bien

avoir existé dans le judaïsme lui-même ?$. On retrouve la même affirmation chez Théophile d'Antioche??, voire dans les Recognitiones de Clément de Rome. Nous sommes dans une perspective différente dans une autre spéculation exégétique que donne Clément d'Alexandrie, mais qui est sans doute celle de Panténe 5? : «De méme c'est par l'eau et l'Esprit que se fait la régénération (= baptéme), comme aussi la Genese tout entiére, car l'Esprit de Dieu planait sur l'eau (Gen. 1, 2)». Ce verset a reçu les explications les plus diverses, mais celle de Clément (regue sans doute de Panténe par voie directe) se retrouve ailleurs, par ex. chez Tertullien, De Baptismo III, 4, et IV, 1. A travers Clément d'Alexandrie, Panténe présente une exégése paralléle à propos des «eaux qui sont au dessus du ciel» (Gen. 1, 7). En effet, voilà comment il s'exprime : «Puisque le baptéme est produit par l'eau et l'Esprit, étant un reméde contre le double feu, celui qui atteint les choses visibles et celui qui atteint les choses invisibles, il est nécessaire qu'il y ait dans l'eau l'élément spirituel et l'élément sensible, reméde contre la double nature du feu. Et l'eau qui est sur la terre lave le corps, tandis que l'eau qui est au-dessus du ciel, parce que spirituelle et invisible, signifie l'Esprit-Saint, purificateur des choses invisibles» 5°. ** Eclogae propheticae 1, 2. 55 H.B. KuHN, «The Angelology of the Non-Canonical Jewish Apocalypses», dans Journal of Biblical Literature 67 (1948), 219 s.

** La traduction des Septante suggere ce sens pour Gen. I, 1. Voir R. M. GRANT, «Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus», dans Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947), 237, qui renvoit aussi aux Rabbins tannaites.

57 KRETSCHMAR, op. cit., 58-59. 55 Eclogae propheticae VII, 1. °° Eclogae propheticae ΝΠ], 1-2.

226

On

M.P. RONCAGLIA

Ici les eaux d'au-dessus du ciel sont un symbole de l'Esprit-Saint. remarquera la présence de ces références aux personnes divines

dans

la spéculation

de ces versets de la Genese,

οὐ

ruah

elohim,

le

souffle ou le vent de Dieu, est tout simplement appliqué à la troisiéme personne

de la trinité.

Clément

d'Alexandrie,

grec

et de

formation

grecque, n'aurait jamais pu se livrer à de telles spéculations typiques des milieux judéo-chrétiens: il les a donc regues de la tradition des presbytres alexandrins. Il n'est pas sans intérét d'insister sur l'extréme importance de chaque élément qui puisse nous mettre sur la piste pour suivre les développements de la théologie judéo-chrétienne de Panténe à travers son éléve et collaborateur direct, Clément,

et à travers les influences

regues et retransmises par Origéne. Ces développements renferment les traditions du milieu judéo-chrétien des presbytres d'Alexandrie et nous renseignent, par ricochet, sur le contenu de l'enseignement catéchétique du Didascalée avant Clément et avant Origéne. Nous avons remarqué que les spéculations bibliques de Panténe portent principalement sur l'Église (du moins à l'état rudimentaire de notre documentation actuelle). Nous avons déjà donné le témoignage de Papias, dont Anastase le Sinaite dit qu'il «interprétait spirituellement le Paradis (dans le sens) de l'Église du Christ». Papias représente sans doute ici une spéculation asianique dont témoigne par ailleurs l'Apocalypse, attribuée à Jean, où les images de la Fiancée, de la Cité et du Paradis désignent l'Église eschatologique®°; pour Irénée de

Lyon, un autre asianique, le Paradis désigne parfois l'Église présente‘. La méme interprétation est attestée pour Alexandrie. Anastase le Sinaite—se basant sur une source qui nous échappe—renvoie, en effet, à Panténe. Nous retrouvons la méme spéculation dans la Lettre à Diognéte (xii, 2), dans les Odes de Salomon (xi, 14) et chez Justin qui témoigne pour la Syrie. Elle est aussi chez Tertullien (Adversus Marcionem

Il, 4).

Ce que nous rencontrons dans les exégéses bibliques à Alexandrie était donc en accord avec les courants judéo-chrétiens de la Gaule, de Rome, de la Syrie et de l'Afrique du Nord: tout cela devait remonter à des traditions judéo-chrétiennes archaiques qui rayonnaient d'Antioche et d'Alexandrie.

*9 PREUSCHEN, op. cit.. 96. 61

TRENAEUS, Adversus haereses V. 10, |.

PANTENE ET LE DIDASCALÉE D'ALEXANDRIE

227

PANTENE ET L'EPtrRE aux HÉBREUX

L'Épitre aux Hébreux ne porte pas l'inscription «Paul, apótre etc.». Ce détail est retenu comme tout à fait normal par Clément d'Alexandrie, et voici l'explication qu'il en donne: «... en l'adressant aux Hebreux qui étaient prévenus contre lui et qui le soupgonnaient, ce fut d'une maniére trés prudente qu'il ne les rebuta pas dés le début, en y mettant son nom». L'explication est vraiment simpliste mais dans ces mêmes Hypotyposes i| poursuit ainsi: «Déjà, comme le disait le bienheureux presbytre 53, puisque le Seigneur, qui était apótre du Tout-puissant$?, fut envoyé aux Hébreux, ce fut par modestie que Paul, comme il avait été envoyé aux Gentils, ne s'intitula pas apótre des Hébreux, à la fois à cause du respect pour le Seigneur et parce qu'il s'adressait

lui aussi

aux

Hébreux

(tout

en)

étant

le héraut

et

l'apótre des Gentils». Cette maniére catéchétique, plus qu'exégétique, de donner la raison de l'absence du nom de l'apótre, montre qu'il s'agit ici d'une tradition orale. Du point de vue critique on ne saurait dire de quel presbytre on parle ici, mais il est presque évident que Clément n'aurait pas pu s'exprimer de la sorte si ses auditeurs ou ses lecteurs n'étaient pas en condition de l'individuer sans difficulté en Panténe, son maitre, et qui avait laissé une empreinte si forte dans

le Didascalée55. EssA!

DE CHRONOLOGIE

Après Clément d'Alexandrie, qui l’eut maître, et Origene, qui eut à le citer pour se disculper, tous les témoignages que nous pouvons recueillir sur Pantène, ne nous sont d’aucune utilité pour le situer chronologiquement. Même lorsque Eusébe nous dit qu'il a vécu sous l'empereur Commode (180-192), nous ne pouvons retenir son assertion comme absolument sûre, car la chronologie d'Eusébe de Césarée est conditionnée par les rapports Pantène-Clément et la succession de

62 L. Spica, L'Épitre aux Hébreux (Paris collaboration de l'alexandrin APOLLO).

1952), 1. 170, et 370-378 (sur une possible

$? On peut faire remarquer que cette expression est ébionite, ou judéo-chrétienne des milieux hiérosolymitains. 54 CLEMENT D'ALEXANDRIE dans ses Hypotyposes parle encore d'autres presbytres et de leurs traditions orales sur les évangiles, etc. EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl. VI, 14, 1-4. Sur

les presbytres

dans

l'Église

d'Alexandrie,

voir

H.

HAUSSCHILDT,

«Πρεσβύτεροι

in Ägypten im 1-111. Jahrhundert nach Chr.», dans Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 4 (1903) 235-242.

228

M.P. RONCAGLIA

ce dernier à la téte du Didascalée. Les Stromates ayant été rédigés aprés la mort de Commode, survenue en 192, Eusébe crut pouvoir conclure que donc Pantene avait dü vivre sous le régne de cet empereur. Toutefois il est fort possible qu'un intervalle plus long sépare l’epoque de la composition des Stromates de l'époque οὐ Clément avait été l'auditeur, le disciple ou le collaborateur de Pantene. Panténe füt-il mort méme avant l'avénement de Commode, Clément pourrait encore avoir été son disciple. Origéne, qui n'était pas très éloigné de Panténe dans le temps, le situe à une époque antérieure à la sienne (τὸν πρὸ ἡμῶν) par opposition à Héraklas son contemporain (τὸν νῦν). Il n'a sans doute pas connu personnellement Panténe, mais il en parle d'aprés la réputation qu'il avait laissé derriére lui$5. Les auteurs modernes ne sont pas encore trés bien fixés. Adolf Harnack semble accepter comme vraisemblable l'opinion de Theodor Zahn «dass Pantänus c. 10-12 Jahre mit Clemens zusammen an der Katechetenschule gewirkt hat, er als Hauptlehrer und Leiter, Clemens als Nebenlehrer ; um 200 muss Pantánus gestorben sein» $9. Berthold Altaner fait commencer l'activité de Panténe conformément aux données chronologiques de l'historien Eusébe de Césarée : «Ins Licht der Geschichte tritt die theologische Schule von Alexandrien erst um 180, als Pantánus aus Sizilien sie leitete» ©’. Johannes Quasten s'en tient aussi aux données chronologiques traditionnelles: «The first known rector of the school of Alexandria was Pantaenus... Most probably about the year A.D. 180 he came to Alexandria and was soon appointed head of the school of catechumens in that city... He remained in charge of this institution until he died shortly before the year A.D.

200» 55, PANTÉNE «STOICIEN »

Eusébe de Césarée rapporte que Panténe «était issu de l'école philosophique de ceux qu'on appelle Stoiciens» 5?. D'oü tient-il ce renseignement? Étant philosophe, ce n'était pas, pour un chrétien, la seule école possible: donc cela peut étre en faveur d'une source qui nous est inconnue, mais qui a existé. En tout cas le stoicisme 65 EustaiUs, Hist. Eccl. VI, 19, 12-14; NAUTIN, op. cit., 128. 66 HARNACK, Geschichte, 1, 293; Th. ZAHN, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (3. Auflage, Erlangen 1884), 156-176. 9? B. ALTANER, Patrologie, op. cit., 167. $* J. QUASTEN, Patrology, op. cit., II, 4. 69 EusEBIUS, Hist. Eccl. V, 10, 1.

PANTENE ET LE DIDASCALEE D’ALEXANDRIE

229

est l'un des systémes philosophiques les plus complets et les plus proches de la mentalité d'un judéo-chrétien: il developpait un sens appréciable de l'égalité parmi les hommes, une vision cosmopolite de la société humaine. Une autre caractéristique du stoicisme était un sens aigü de la divinité et de la providence qui gouverne le monde et ne laisse rien au hasard 70, Voilà ce que pouvait étre plus ou moins la formation stoicienne de Panténe. On n'était pas loin du christianisme, et des esprits ouverts et sensibles aux valeurs de la raison pouvaient bien aborder une telle philosophie. Dans les milieux alexandrins devait étre accepté le principe de Philon d'Alexandrie, selon qui la Philosophie (stoicienne) et la Religion (juive, et—par extention—judéo-chrétienne) étaient en harmonie. LA SIGNIFICATION DES RÉFORMES DE PANTÉNE ET LE DIDASCALÉE

Nous avons essayé de réunir et d'analyser les éléments essentiels qui peuvent nous aider à comprendre et à saisir la personnalité de Panténe. Vers la fin du deuxiéme siécle, la littérature ecclésiastique donne des signes d'une vitalité extraordinaire et cherche son chemin pour une nouvelle orientation tout en conservant son identité. Cela nous permet de comprendre comment un hellénisant comme Clément d'Alexandrie et un Origéne, beaucoup plus complexe dans ses orientations et ses options, n'ont pas rompu tous les ponts avec les courants judéo-chrétiens, qui formaient encore, malgré tout, l'élément le plus authentique de la catéchése alexandrine ?!. Cela signifie nouvelles orientations, ou mieux adaptations aux temps et aux milieux, mais aussi fidélité à la Bible’?, sous les points de vue critique, orthodoxe, gnostique, hétérodoxe, qui se transforment peu à peu en des concepts ecclésiologiques, voire théologiques. Hors de l'Égypte, au deuxième siècle, la littérature ecclésiastique était dominée par la lutte idéologique de l’Église contre ses persécuteurs et ses détracteurs : de là son allure 79 V. BARTH, Die Stoa (5. l'Église Copte 11, 26-27. ?! QUASTEN, op. cit., II, 1-2.

Auflage,

Stuttgart

1941):

RONCAGLIA,

Histoire

de

7? D. VAN DEN EYNDE, Les normes de l'enseignement chrétien dans la littérature patristique des trois premiers siècles (Paris 1933); L. ALLEvi, Ellenismo e Cristianesimo (Milano 1934); H. von CAMPENHAUSEN, Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums. Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts (Tübingen 1963), 152-196 :

«Das Alte Testament als Bibel der Kirche vom Entstehung des Neuen Testaments ».

Ausgang des Urchristentums bis zur

230

M.P. RONCAGLIA

apologétique et polémique. En Égypte et dans les autres zones d’influence hiérosolymitaine s'accomplissait une évolution progressive mais irréversible vers une forme de christianisme idéologiquement de moins en moins lié aux traditions orales «apostoliques», qui étaient à la base des spéculations théologiques judéo-chrétiennes 7°. Alexandrie avait hérité la culture hellénistique d’Athenes et d’Antioches. L'élément grec prenait peu à peu le dessus au sein de l'Église d'Alexandrie, sans secousses intérieures. De Panténe, judéo-chrétien et stoicien, à Clément d'Alexandrie, d'une «akute Hellenisierung» (comme écrit A. Harnack), le passage doit avoir été préparé fermement mais sans secousses, car nous n'avons pas memoire de difficultés rencontrées par Clément de la part de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique, pourtant trés soucieuse devant la culture «grecque». L'hellénisme chassé par la porte par les juifs et les judéo-chrétiens de la «strictioris Observantiae», rentrait par la fenétre ouverte par Clément et son maitre, Panténe. Une évolution se faisait dans le silence et qui devint une révolution dans les siécles suivants: c'est à ce moment que les fondements dialectiques remplacent des méthodes midrashiques, incompréhensibles aux nouveaux venus. Justin, vers 150, parle d'un enseignement spécial donné aux candidats au baptéme, mais il ne semble pas qu'il y ait eu pour autant une organisation particuliére pour cela. Par contre chez Hippolyte «de Rome»

(ca 170-ca 236), on peut voir le catéchuménat comme

une insti-

tution dont les cérémonies ont pris forme et possédent des régles techniques. On peut donc dater des derniéres années du deuxiéme siécle la transformation du catéchuménat en une institution ecclésiale, régie par des lois et des traditions locales. I] se peut méme que nous ayions dans la Tradition Apostolique d'Hippolyte des reminiscences de l'organisation qu'avait le catéchuménat

d'Alexandrie?*.

Voici,

donc,

com-

ΤΣ Sur la «tradition» des rabbins et des presbytres alexandrins jusqu'à PANTÉNE, ainsi que sur leurs méthodes et techniques, voir M.P. RONCAGLIA, Histoire de l'Église Copte Il, 33-41. — 74 Sur les origines du catéchuménat, voir H. CHIRAT, L'Assemblée chrétienne à l'âge apostolique [Lex Orandi 10] (Paris 1949), 87-116. Il y a des raisons de croire qu'HiPPOLYTE «de Rome» n'était pas d'origine romaine ni méme latine. Sa connaissance étonnante de la philosophie grecque, des origines jusqu'à son époque, sa familiarité avec les cultes des mystères grecs (à l'instar de CLEMENT D'ALEXANDRIE). sa psychologie religieuse tout entiére, indiquent une origine orientale. Ses positions théologiques et la parenté de sa doctrine du Logos avec celle des théologiens grecs prouvent qu'il regut une formation hellénistique et entretint des rapports avec Alexandrie. Lorsque ORIGENE visita Rome en 212, il alla écouter dans une église HIPPOLYTE qui préchait «Sur la louange de notre Seigneur et sauveur»; est-il allé voir une vieille connais-

PANTENE ET LE DIDASCALÉE D'ALEXANDRIE

2331

ment se présente l'organisation ecclésiastique chez Hippolyte: ceux qui sollicitaient leur admission dans le christianisme se faisaient recommander par un répondant (sponsor) qui en prenait en quelque sorte le parrainage : usage encore trés courant en Orient dans les rapports sociaux, en arabe «wasta» et en français «pistonnage». Aprés avoir passé un premier examen sur leur conduite et leurs intentions, ils

étaient confié au catéchuménat, ordinairement durant trois ans. Un professeur ou didáskalos (d’oü le terme Didaskaléion), qui pouvait méme étre un laic, comme c'est le cas pour Panténe et sans doute pour Clément d'Alexandrie, les initiait par l'Écriture sainte aux doctrines fondamentales de la foi chrétienne et les exhortait à mener une vie morale. Un nouvel examen introduisait la seconde phase de leur catéchuménat, plus étroitement rattaché à la direction du magistére ecclesiastique. Les candidats portaient alors le nom d'electi (élus) ou de competentes et à Alexandrie de φωτιζόμενοι ou illuminés. Ce stade,

bref à l'origine, était destiné à approfondir la foi (traditio symboli), mais surtout à préparer directement au baptéme. C'est certainement pour ce second stade que Panténe a dü introduire au Didascalée ses «nombreuses réformes», et οὐ Clément d'Alexandrie et Origene ont pu donner leurs développements doctrinaux et leurs exégéses

bibliques 75. En empruntant les secours de l'intelligence pour la présentation de la foi, voire pour l'exhortation à l'embrasser, Panténe, Clément et Origéne ouvriront la voie à l'étude scientifique (autant que cet adjectif

peut étre justifié en théologie) de la Révélation. Il est évident qu'il ne faut pas se laisser tenter de penser tout cela selon nos catégories de la pensée théologique occidentale et moderne. Toutefois, malgré le recours à l'application des ressources de la dialectique et aux artifices de l'art littéraire grec, la pensée chrétienne ne s'est pas encore tout à fait décantée des ses traditions judéo-chrétiennes des presbytres, de ses légendes, de ses mythes gnostiques et rabbiniques, de l'apocalypsance? J. (München Vouloir analogues

BETZ, «Taufe», dans H. Fries (ed.), Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe 1963), II, 619-620. déceler dans l'institution du catéchuménat une influence des dispositions du noviciat de Qumrän (I QS VI, 13-23: The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's 1951), plate VI), cela reléve

sans

doute de l'enthousiasme initial du panqumränisme des origines chrétiennes. 75 Curiosité érudite. Dans la Tradition Apostolique d'HIPPOLYTE, il est dit

Monastery, ed. M.

que

pendant

le baptéme

Burrows

et al., II (New

les catéchuménes

Haven

renongaient

à Satan

en pronongant

un

serment

tournés vers l'Occident. En copte Occident-Satan-Enfer est désigné par un seul mot: AMENTE. Dans cette cérémonie y aurait-il une réminiscence copte?

232

M.P. RONCAGLIA

tique judaique et judéo-chrétienne, car cela impliquerait un risque d'autodestruction. La mére de la théologie d'hier et d'aujourd'hui, ainsi que de demain, reste l'apocalyptique judaique et judéo-chrétienne plus et mieux que notre théologie démythologisée moderne 75. Personne n'avait eu l'audace jusqu'alors de considérer la masse de tout ce matériel alluvional, descendu du fleuve majestueux de la Bible à travers les mille et une rigoles de la littérature apocalyptique et gnostique et d'en faire un ensemble présentable à une société intellectuellement et artistiquement évoluée comme celle d'Alexandrie 77. Depuis Panténe75, mais spécialement aprés lui, on commencera méme à systématiser tout ce fratras dans le respect de la tradition judéochrétienne de plus en plus engagée dans le dialogue avec la culture hellénistique alexandrine 75. Nous ignorons en concret quelles furent les «nombreuses réformes» introduites par Panténe dans le Didascalée, mais Origéne nous le fait savoir en partie en s'appelant à l'autorité de Panténe pour se défendre contre l'étude et l'enseignement de la philosophie grecque. Donc Panténe avait ouvert le dialogue entre la 79 R.

BULTMANN,

dans Apophoreta. testamentliche

«Ist die

Apokalyptik

die

Mutter

Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen.

der

christlichen

Theologie?»,

[Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neu-

Wissenschaft 30] (Berlin 1964), 64-69.

77 J. DANIÉLOU, Theologie du Judéo-christianisme, op. cit.: R. M. GRANT, La Gnose et les origines chrétiennes. Traduit de l'anglais par J. H. Marrou (Paris 1964); F.C. Burkitt, Church and Gnosis. A Study of Christian Thought in the Second Century (Cambridge 1932). 78 Un point de vue assez particulier, mais qui est révélateur de l'importance de PANTENE, est celui de J. DANIELOU, Le IF siècle. Clement et Origene (Institut Catholique de Paris. Faculté de Théologie. Notes prises au Cours par les Eléves, Paris 1958), page 2a: «L'école fondée par Panténe était, comme celle de Justin de Rome, une

école de philosophie chrétienne, privée, à l'image de celles des philosophes paiens. Il faut la distinguer de l'école catéchétique. Il faut distinguer l'une et l'autre de ce qu'on appelle l'école d'Alexandrie, en tant que groupe de penseurs (comme on parle de l'école

platonicienne

ou

de

l'école

cartésienne)».

Une

telle

distinction

se

trouve

en

contradiction avec les témoignages historiques que nous possédons, et surtout de ORIGENE, qui n'aurait jamais pu se justifier de l'accusation de s'occuper de philosophie grecque en apportant la tradition d'un philosophe ... privé. CLEMENT D'ALEXANDRIE et EUSEBE DE CESAREE ignorent, eux aussi, cette distinction. D'aprés les sources,

PANTÉNE

n'a

pas

fondé

une

«école

de

philosophie

chrétienne»,

mais

il

a introduit «de nombreuses réformes» dans l'école alexandrine qui existait bien avant lui, car on ne réforme pas ce qu'on vient de fonder et surtout si cette fondation est privée et, par surcroit, philosophique. D'ailleurs, que cette école était l'école catéchétique, le didaskaléion alexandrin pour ceux qui se préparaient au baptéme,

cela ressort aussi

des exégéses et spéculations judéo-chrétiennes sur la Bible, relatées par CLEMENT, tandis que ce dernier ne souffle pas mot sur aucune des théories philosophiques (s'il en a jamais

eu) de son

vénéré

maitre:

et ce n'est

pas l'occasion

qui

79. Voir l'excellente étude analytique de F. PERICOLI-RIDOLFINI, Scuola di Alessandria », dans Rivista degli Studi Orientali 37 (Roma

lui aurait

manquée.

«Les origini della 1962) 211-230.

PANTÉNE ET LE DIDASCALÉE D'ALEXANDRIE

233

culture judéo-chrétienne et la pensée grecque. Le comportement, sans géne en matiére de philosophie grecque et pensée chrétienne, de Clément d'Alexandrie, successeur immédiat de Panténe, nous témoigne que le dialogue fut instauré immédiatement et sans les réticences et les précautions d'un Philon d'Alexandrie.

PANTAENUS AND THE DIDASKALEION OF ALEXANDRIA: FROM JEWISH CHRISTIANITY TO HELLENISTIC CHRISTIANITY Clement and Origen cite their predecessor Pantaenus as an authority. Pantaenus apparently came from Sicily, had had Stoic training, became rector of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, died around 200 A.D.

The church at Alexandria had deep and long-lasting Jewish roots. Though no writings of Pantaenus have come down to us, it is possible to infer his influence by finding the veins of Jewish Christian ore that persist in Alexandrian theology, e.g. certain hermeneutical observations and midrashic doctrinal speculations. Genesis was a favorite source for Jewish Christian speculations, which were often applied to the church. Toward the end of the second century the catechumenate was being transformed into an ecclesial institution which included advanced theological studies. Pantaenus’ "numerous reforms" must have helped to shape the transition. He doubtless clung to the traditional Jewish Christian style of exegesis, but he helped promote the dialogue with Hellenistic culture. His successors Clement and Origen, always pleading fidelity to the tradition, worked to bring the Didaskaleion into the stream of Hellenized thought.

L’EUCHARISTIE ET LE SAINT ESPRIT D’APRES SAINT EPHREM DE NISIBE Pierre Yousir Mossoul, Iraq

L'Eucharistie,

sacrement

du

Christ,

est

accordé,

en

nourriture

vivifiante, aux hommes bien disposés, par l'intermédiaire de l'Église et par l’œuvre de l'Esprit Saint. La réalité vécue du Mystère eucharistique comporte donc ce cheminement à la suite de son institution historique par le Christ : l'action de l'Esprit qui sanctifie l'offrande du pain et du vin, dans l'ensemble de l'Église, en reméde de vie pour les hommes qui esperent le Salut. Dom Beck! considére l'Esprit Saint plutót en relation avec les effets de l'Eucharistie. Ici nous situerons la troisiéme Personne de la Trinité suivant sa relation avec tout le Mystére eucharistique. En effet, l'Esprit Saint est à l'origine de l'Eucharistie car il la sanctifie; il y est présent, car il y est contenu; et il en explicite les fruits car il sanctifie l'homme par elle; ainsi il est le lien entre la réalité sacramentelle et ses fruits répandus dans l'Église. Si, suivant un processus d'action historique, avec des dimensions d'espace et de temps, l'auteur de l'Eucharistie semble étre exclusivement le Christ,

dans le déroulement intime des ceuvres de Dieu, l'Esprit est toujours présent et actif. Ceci n'a pas besoin d'étre démontré dans les liturgies orientales de langue syriaque pour lesquelles Ephrem est sans doute un des meilleurs inspirateurs?. Prenons un exemple: une simple lecture de la 70* Hymne sur la foi nous montre la place de l'Esprit Saint et son róle dans l'accomplissement du Mystére de la vie du Christ et dans la réalisation des sacrements de l'Église. L'Esprit-Feu y est présent et agissant comme Il l'a été dans les grands événements qui constituent toute l'histoire du Salut dés le premier abord de la création, jusqu'à la derniére étape dans le christianisme: grands événements, ceuvre de * E. Beck, «Die Eucharistie bei Ephräm, » Oriens Christianus 38 (1954), p. 62. 2 Voir, par exemple, pour la liturgie syrienne d'Antioche, l'ouvrage d'E. SIMAN, L'expérience de l'Esprit par l'Église d'aprés la tradition syrienne d'Antioche [Collection Théologie historique 15) (Paris 1971), surtout p. 214 ss.

236

P. YOUSIF

l'Esprit qui ont constitué les prémices, le départ et la fondation de la nouvelle ère: l'Incarnation, le Baptême du Christ et la Pentecôte continués dans la vie de l'Église. Par là, l'Esprit Saint continue à agir dans cette réalité qui est pour ainsi dire transférée en nous: Il est Feu: et Esprit dans notre baptéme et dans l'Eucharistie. Alors, nous aussi, par lui, renaissons, et sommes divinisés, lui étant le Feu purifiant et l'Esprit qui féconde (cf. HdF X, 10). Voyons cela plus en détail en parcourant surtout le Commentaire d'Ephrem sur le Diatessaron ?. Dans l'Incarnation, l'Esprit a la mission de sanctifier «les édifices souillés » (Diat I, 25; p. 53). Par sa «mission », le Fils est congu (ib. Il, 1; p. 66), et Marie devient «la demeure de l'Esprit » (ib. II, 6; p. 69).

Au Baptéme, l'Esprit reposa sur Jésus (ib. IV, 3; p. 94) et Il repose sur nous (ib. p. 95). Dans sa tentation, le Fils de Dieu (ib. VI; p. 98)

est revétu du Saint Esprit pour combattre (ib. V; p. 96). Au moment

de la Passion, l'Esprit déchire le voile pour ouvrir la nouvelle ére et commence

les nouveaux Ministéres (ib. XXI, 6; pp. 377-8).

A la Pentecóte, le Pére envoie aux hommes « un gage issu de sa propre nature, l'Esprit-Paraclet, gage de vie» (Diat XXI, 23; p. 393), qui poursuit son ceuvre dans l'Église, selon la promesse du Christ (ib.

XIX, 14-15; pp. 338-340). Nous sommes devenus l'habitacle de l'Esprit 3 Pour le reste de l'article, notre recherche se porte sur toutes les œuvres éditées d'EPHREM dans le Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium de Louvain, et la Patrologia Orientalis, etc. (qui pratiquement englobent tout EPHREM). Ici nous mention-

nons seulement celles qui touchent plus directement notre sujet : Ed. et trad. all. de Dom E. Beck : Hymnen de Fide (CSCO 154, Syr. 73; 155, Syr. 74] (1955): (= HdF); Hymnen contra Haereses [CSCO 169, Syr. 76; 170, Syr. 77] (1957) : (=

HcHaer):

Hymnen de Nativitate (-- Epiphania et Sogiata, d'authenticité moins certaine) [CSCO 186, Syr. 82; 187, Syr. 83] (1959): (= Nat; Epiph; Sog); Carmina Nisibena I [CSCO 218, Syr. 92; 219, Syr. 93] (1961); ZI [CSCO 240, Syr. 102;

241, Syr. 103] (1963) : (= CNis); Hymnen de Virginitate (CSCO 223, Syr. 94; 224, Syr. 95] (1962) : (= Virg); Paschahymnen [CSCO 248, Syr. 108; 249, Syr. 109] (1964): ce volume comprend Hymnen de Azymis (=

Az), etc. ;

Sermones III (d'authenticité probable) [CSCO 320, Syr. 138; 321, Syr. 139] (1972): (2 Sermon); Hymnen auf Abraham

Kidunaya

und

Julianos

Saba

(d'authenticité

peu

probable)

[CSCO 322, Syr. 140; 323, Syr. 141] (1972) : (= A.K.; Jul-Sab). En outre : R. TONNEAU (éd. et tr. lat.), Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii

[CSCO 152, Syr. 71; 153, Syr. 72] (1955) : (= GET); L. LELOIR (tr. fr.), Commentaire de l'Évangile concordant ou le Diatessaron [Sources chrétiennes 121] (Paris 1966) : (= Diat); L. MaRiES et Ch. MERCIER (éd. et tr. lat.), Hymnes de Saint Ephrem conservées en version arménienne [Patrologia Orientalis 30, 1] (Paris 1961): (= H.A.).

SAINT EPHREM

DE NISIBE

237

(ib. p. 340; cf. aussi Diat VI, 20; p. 133; HdF XVIII, 7). Dans la vie

de chaque jour, l'Esprit, source de fécondité, vivifie le chrétien qui marche à l'exemple du Christ crucifié (HdF XVIII, 7). Par l'Eucharistie, l'Esprit est en nous et accomplit son ceuvre (HdF XVIII, 10): C'est par l'Esprit qui réside dans le voile de lin Que les corps habités par les âmes reçoivent la vie*.

Pour résumer la pensée d'Ephrem sur la place de l'Esprit Saint dans la vie de l'Église et des chrétiens, nous rappelons la belle 74° Hymne sur la Foi qui est précisément une Hymne au Saint Esprit. Là, Ephrem, sous l'image du soleil (v. 1) nous décrit l’œuvre de ce divin Esprit dans

l'Église et dans l’äme. Sa chaleur qui se répand sans étre divisée (v. 2) est dans toutes choses sans s'éparpiller (v. 3-4). Et chaque chose en recoit autant qu'elle en est capable

(v. 5). Comme

par la chaleur on

cuit, de méme par la chaleur de l'Esprit Saint les étres sont sanctifiés (v. 9) et purifiés (v. 10). L'Esprit a envoyé les Apótres (v. 7), et par lui ils ont trouvé la vitalité d'un dynamisme permanent (v. 12); l'Esprit continue son ceuvre dans l'Église en la vivifiant et en la fécondant de sa chaleur (v. 15): La chaleur réveille les entrailles de la terre endormie,

Comme le fait l'Esprit Saint avec l'Église sainte. Par le don des langues il a mis fin au silence des Apótres (v. 19-20), afin qu'ils puissent précher (v. 24) et poursuivre l’œuvre de la sanctification des fidéles. L'Esprit Saint embrasse donc toute l'action, l'activité de l'Église dont l'Eucharistie et la Parole de Dieu sont les principales réalisations : Il anime cette activité, lui donne vie et consistance. Le Saint Esprit et les Mystéres L'œuvre de l'Esprit se poursuit dans l'ensemble des rites sensibles qui forment le culte chrétien et les moyens de sanctification que Dieu a accordés au peuple de la nouvelle Alliance. L'Esprit agit dans les Mysteres, c'est-à-dire dans les sacrements. Alors l'Esprit est mélé à la matiére, contenu en elle, « mangé » avec elle. Nous sommes en face d'un processus du devenir-visible de Dieu, processus par lequel l'Infini devient, pour ainsi dire, tangible. Ceci se passe d'abord dans l'Incarnation : HdF VI, 2: Par son Fils est devenu visible

l'Etre invisible.

* Voir F. GRAFFIN, « L'Eucharistie chez Saint Ephrem, » Parole de l'Orient 4 (1973), pp. 105-106.

238

P. YOUSIF

Ce processus continue dans l’&conomie sacramentaire : la puissance divine se rend visible, prend des similitudes pour étre saisie par les hommes. Dans la méme Hymne, strophe 3, nous constatons cette réalisation:

Étant donné que rien

ne peut le dessiner exactement

Il est conçu par des similitudes Par l'intermédiaire de ses secours

afin que nous l'apprenions par notre capacité divins

Le terme «conçu » (sir) signifie exactement rendu en image, représenté, pensé comme tel. Par ces images qui lui ressemblent, nous le saisissons. Tout en sauvegardant l'inaccessibilité de Dieu, Ephrem nous découvre le chemin tracé par Dieu pour que les hommes puissent le ‘concevoir’. L'homme peut le concevoir, c'est-à-dire, en faire l'image, non pas en lui-même, mais par des similitudes (demwatä), des images qui lui ressemblent (ne sommes-nous pas prés du concept de l'analogie?). Ceci pour une raison de pédagogie divine : prenant les dimensions de notre imagination, nous pouvons saisir le divin dans notre sensibilité. Les moyens, ces similitudes de Dieu ce sont les secours divins, c'est-à-dire les sacrements de l'Eglise, ainsi HdF VI, 4 (cf. plus bas) cite les trois sacrements : l'Eucharistie, le Saint Chréme et l'Évangile (car dans l'Évangile aussi la Parole de Dieu est devenue un signe sensible et sanctifiant). Les sacrements sont des moyens de condescendance et d'adaptation divines à notre petit esprit. Cette puissance, c'est le Saint Esprit en personne comme il apparaît dans la 40* HdF, 9-10, citée plus bas et de la 70* HdF 7-10. Quant au Baptême, c'est aussi l'Esprit qui le réalise: Epiph XIII, 3: L'Esprit Saint, dans l'eau

a tissé de beaux vétements.

Cette image de vétements évoque l'idée de baptéme comme vétement exprimée dans Saint Paul (Gal 3, 27). Ephrem exprime cet acte de l'Esprit de la méme facon quand il parle de l'Incarnation qu'il attribue, bien entendu, au Saint Esprit : C'est lui qui a tissé un vétement dans le sein de Marie : Nat 21, 5, 2: La divinité, dans le ventre

S'est tissé un vétement.

Alors la vision d'Ephrem transcende les dimensions du temps présent pour voir l'action de l'Esprit Saint englober toute l'économie du Salut à partir de l'Ancien Testament: Az 5, 22: parlant des Mystéres de l'Ancien Testament, il dit : La perfection est entrée et a revétu Les Mystéres que le Saint Esprit a tissés.

SAINT EPHREM

DE NISIBE

239

La descente de l'Esprit L'action de l'Esprit, en accord avec la Tradition de la Bible et de l'Église, est d'abord symbolisée par Ephrem comme une descente. Ici la pensée éphrémienne évoque l'image de l'Esprit qui plane sur les eaux (Gn 1, 2)° et de l'Esprit-colombe qui descend sur Jésus au Baptéme (Mt 3, 16) pour en faire une synthése et les appliquer aux ceuvres de l'Esprit dans la messe. L'Esprit habite fondamentalement les cieux, il descend et sanctifie les dons sans changer de lieu, étant donné qu'il n'est pas sujet au mouvement dans l'espace. Ainsi dans la 48° H.A. 7, nous lisons : La droite du prétre saint l'invoque, Il est toujours à sa disposition ; Il descend (Mt 3, 7) voletant (Gr 1, 2) (tel une colombe)

Sans changer de lieu 5.

Nous sommes dans la ligne de toute la théologie orientale qui voit la conversion des éléments eucharistiques, dans la messe, comme œuvre de l'Esprit Saint. Et non seulement dans l'Eucharistie, mais aussi, comme nous l'avons dit, dans les autres sacrements. Décrivant le rite de l'initiation chrétienne de son temps", Ephrem nous montre que,

avec le concours de toute la Trinité?, c'est plus particuliérement à l'Esprit Saint qu'appartient cette action: dans la 7* Hymne sur la Virginité, strophe 8, Ephrem, décrivant ce rite, dit à propos des Fonts baptismaux : C'est le sacerdoce qui est au service de ses entrailles quand elles engendrent. L'onction les précéde L’Esprit Saint volette sur leurs épanchements.

Cette descente se situe aussi durant le sacrifice eucharistique à la suite et comme effet de l'invocation du Saint Esprit par le prétre * Voir E. Beck, « Die Eucharistie,» art. cit., p. 52. $ Commentant Genese 1, 2, cf. Sect I, 7 (GET, p. 11), EPHREM mauvais de Dieu, et il rappelle le cas de Saül (/ Sam

16,

parle d'un esprit

14); son argument

s'appuie

sur la création des volatiles de par l'eau (cinquième jour) où l'Esprit Saint est totalement absent.

Je crois que,

ce texte

mis

à

part,

l'expression

d'EPHREM

'Mrahhep'

est

de

Genese 1, 2, et elle se trouve utilisée ailleurs par EPHREM, comme on le voit dans ce qui suit dans cette étude. Pourtant, il est vrai que le Baptéme de Jésus suffirait à expliquer

l'origine de cette image dans la pensée d'EPHREM. 7 E. Beck, « Die Eucharistie, » art. cit., p. 55; IDEM, « Le baptéme chez Saint Ephrem, » L'Orient Syrien 1 (1956), p. 115 ss. * Voir HdF 77, 20, cité en correspondance de note 10 dans cette étude.

240

P. YOUSIF

celebrant; c'est le moment le plus solennel de la messe (cf. H.A. 48, 7, cité plus haut) Encore, dans Sermon Ill, 4, 137, probablement authentique, Ephrem avertit : Grand malheur à ce moment-là (du jugement dernier)

A celui qui reste assis (pendant la messe) dans les places publiques Lorsque le prétre appelle, Le Saint Esprit qui descend sur lui.

Comme on peut le voir, l'épiclése est prise comme partie qui représente l'ensemble de la messe, car les Mystéres, tels qu'ils se perpétuent dans l'Église, sont l’œuvre du Saint Esprit. Leur point culminant sera donc, la descente de ce Divin Esprit. De là on comprend aussi comment le ministére sacerdotal a comme activité essentielle et primordiale d'étre l'intermédiaire de cette présence de l'Esprit qui ensuite constitue une ceuvre de propitiation... Au-delà donc des questions classiques, concernant la ‘forme’ de l'Eucharistie, il faut tout simplement dire que celle-ci est, pour Ephrem, l’œuvre du Saint Esprit qui vient sanctifier les dons. Dans le /7* Carmen de CNis, strophe 6, Ephrem résume bien cette idée. S'adressant

à Mar Abraham, évéque de Nisibe,

il dit : Tes mains sont dignes de planer (/-rühhapä) (sur l'offrande)

Ton offrande (gürbänd) est digne de mériter la propitiation.

Comme on le voit, cette action de l'Esprit est symbolisée par les gestes de voleter ou de planer. Le terme, emprunté au premier chapitre de la Genése (v. 2), signifie, dans la Bible, le geste de l'oiseau qui vole en tournoyant au-dessus du nid oü sont ses petits?. En syriaque il signifie aussi : couvaison, échauffement !?. Ephrem semble l'employer dans les trois sens. L'Esprit (rühä) alors est au féminin, genre de la colombe qui le symbolise, comme elle a été aussi dans le Baptéme du Christ. L'Esprit, comme la colombe, plane sur les dons; étant amour, il les couve comme une mére-oiseau, et étant Feu (voir plus bas) il les réchauffe, c'est-à-dire il leur insuffle vie, fécondité et chaleur en les transformant dans le corps et le sang du Christ. En effet, n’est-il pas, lui, l'Esprit de vie et de chaleur divine? D'autre part, le geste des

mains ? Voir

du

prétre,

gardé

Bible de Jérusalem

dans (éd.

les liturgies

1956) ad locum;

de

aussi

langue Dt

32,

syriaque,

11, et la note

qui de

la

Traduction ecumenique de la Bible sur ce dernier texte. 19 Voir par exemple L. CosTAZ, Dictionnaire Syr. Fr-Angl-Arabe (Beyrouth 1963), p. 344. De même R. P. SMITH, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford 1957), p. 538; W. GESENIUS, Hebräisches und Aramdisches Heidelberg 1962), p. 756.

Handwórterbuch,

17* éd. (Berlin-Göttingen-

SAINT EPHREM

DE NISIBE

241

consiste dans l’agitation du voile, ou dans l'imposition des mains, symbolise, avec beauté, l'action de la colombe-Esprit. De cette facon,

le symbole et les termes gardent leur pleine signification !!. de

Cette action sanctificatrice comporte, comme conséquence, la présence l'Esprit dans les nappes de l'autel!?. Ephrem est trés clair:

HdF X, 16 : Voilà la puissance cachée dans le voile du Saint Esprit ; Puissance qu'aucune pensée n'a saisie : Son Amour s'est abaissé, est descendu et a plané,

Sur le voile de l'autel de la réconciliation.

Ainsi l'Esprit devient à la portée de la main de l'homme! Cet Esprit insaisissable habite parmi les hommes, mais toujours ‘cache’ dans un voile : avec le Fils de Dieu, il descend et habite les nappes de l'autel, et dans d'autres voiles: dans celui du Saint des saints (HdF X, 16 qu'on vient de citer); dans le sein de Marie, qu'Ephrem compare à un navire gonflé par le vent (ib. 17) et dans le voile avec lequel les femmes

entourent leurs mains pour communier (ib. 15) !?. De tout ce que nous venons de dire, on peut constater que l'Esprit est présent et toujours à l’œuvre, et cela de deux façons : la premiere dans la réalisation des Mystéres divins, surtout de l'Eucharistie; la deuxiéme dans la sanctification des chrétiens que l'Esprit accomplit au jour le jour en tant que Feu qui purifie et qui donne la vie, ce qui fait l'objet de la considération suivante. Le Feu divin

L'idée d'échauffement rappelle que l'Esprit est Feu et qu'il est comme tel dans

l'Eucharistie.

L'idée

positive

d'Esprit-Feu

11 Unc fois, à ce que je sache, l'action de ‘planer’ est d'une descente de Rédemption-Réconciliation réalisée par pas dans le sens de sanctification, propre à l'Esprit Saint: Plus que toute heure, que cette heure soit honorée dans vos esprits ; Car le Fils est descendu planer sur l'autel de réconciliation. Le terme est employé aussi pour la Trinité qui, entiére,

est,

doute,

attribuée au Fils dans le sens le sacrifice de l'autel et non #.A. 42, 15:

plane sur le Mystére réalisé

par le baptéme : HdF 77, 22 :

Les noms du Pére, du Fils et de l'Esprit Saint, sont pareils et unis dans leur descente (litt. volettement)

Au moment du baptéme. 1? Voir HdF 18, 10 cité plus haut. "3 F, GRAFFIN, art. cit., p. 105, n. 14.

sans

242

P. YOUSIF

empruntée par Ephrem à l'événement de la Pentecöte (Act 2, 3) avec des reminiscences de l’apparition de Dieu comme Feu dans l’Ancien Testament (le Buisson ardent, Ex 3, 2 ss.). En effet, le feu qui, par

sa chaleur, purifie et donne la vie!*, est une figure bien faible de l'Esprit Saint et de son œuvre dans la sanctification du chrétien, œuvre divine réalisée avec les autres Personnes divines. C'est spécialement dans la 40* HdF qu'Ephrem nous en parle. Le Feu est le symbole de toute la Trinité, mais son œuvre évoque surtout celle de l'Esprit Saint : 9. Le Feu (...) qui

s'envole dans le pain Et il habite en toutes choses 10. Dans (le feu) repose le symbole de

entre en toutes choses librement,

et se méle dans l'eau dans sa plénitude ! 5. et le type du Saint Esprit,

l'Esprit

qui se méle dans l'eau

afin qu'elle devienne (moyen) de purification ;

Il est mélangé au pain Le feu restant lui-méme

afin qu'il devienne (matiére) l'Offrande (gürbänä); en toutes choses.

Il est pourtant trés loin

de pouvoir figurer

Les Mystéres trinitaires

qui n'ont jamais été congus.

pour

Le mélange du feu avec le pain (quand il est cuit) et avec l'eau (quand elle est chauffée pour le baptéme) symbolise, pour Ephrem, l'insertion de l'Esprit Saint dans ces deux éléments pour les rendre aptes à se transformer en moyens de Salut du chrétien. L'eau devient purificatrice dans le sacrement du Baptéme et le pain se transforme en victime divine dans la Sainte Messe. Ces «Mystères trinitaires » signifient la Trinité en tant que symbolisée par le feu dont nous parlons.

Dans la 11* strophe, on explicite mieux cette similitude avec le feu. Ephrem dit que le feu est composé de trois éléments unis : la lumiére, la chaleur et la substance de la braise, union qui symbolise les trois Personnes divines dans un seul et méme Étre. Dans les Hymnes sur Julianos-Saba, 8, 13, attribuées à Saint Ephrem, nous voyons cette idée de pain-feu-Esprit : Le Pain de vie, c'est du feu que Saba tenait dans ses mains,

Contenant ainsi dans ses paumes l'Esprit de Feu. 14 HdF 74, 3. 15 On dirait qu'on entend le philosophe grec HÉRACLITE! S'agit-il d'une influence ou d'une ‘réminiscence’ d'une philosophie grecque? EPHREM pourtant est trés suspicieux vis-à-vis du monde grec «en qui il voit déjà le berceau des premières hérésies » (HdF 79, 3; HcHaer 14, 17; 23, 7; 24, 11). Voir A. DE HALLEUX, «Mar Ephrem théologien, » Parole de l'Orient 4 (1973), p. 54.

SAINT EPHREM DE NISIBE

243

Ainsi ce feu designe plus specialement le Saint Esprit. C’est lui donc qui est dans l'Eucharistie comme Feu, car celle-ci est l'effet de l'acte de l'Esprit Saint et du don du Christ à l’äme qui y adhère. Ainsi, dans la HdF X, 8, Ephrem dit : Dans ton Pain est caché Dans ton Vin habite le L'Esprit dans ton Pain, Merveilie singulière que

l'Esprit qui (de sa nature) ne se mange pas: Feu qui ne peut étre bu. le Feu dans ton Vin, nos lèvres ont reçue!

Désormais, les hommes mangent le Feu divin. Ceci nous montre comment dans l'ère du Christ, le Feu se manifestera: Ephrem ne manque pas de signaler le contraste entre l'action de ce Feu divin et celle du feu relaté dans plusieurs événements de l'Ancien Testament. Dans la 70° HdF 12, Ephrem nous dit que ce feu était autrefois descendu pour chátier les pécheurs de Sodome (Gn 19, 24) ou pour confondre les prêtres de Baal à la suite de la prière du prophète Elie (/ Rois 18, 38). Sur l'autel, le Feu divin a un autre visage: il est «le Feu de la miséricorde ». Alors au lieu de consumer les personnes et les offrandes,

il se laisse manger ... Et c'est nous qui le mangeons : HdF X, 13: Le feu descendit sur le sacrifice d’Elie et le consuma (4. Rois 18, 38);

Le feu de la miséricorde est devenu notre sacrifice vivant. Le feu a consumé le sacrifice (d'Elie) (Mais) dans ton offrande, Seigneur, nous avons mangé ton Feu. Feu divin, Feu purificateur, Feu de miséricorde. Il n'est plus comme la divinité isolée et lointaine, mais, avec l'Esprit, il est dans les hommes. En effet, ceux-ci ont été sauvés par ce mélange, en eux, du Feu et de

l'Esprit. Voici une autre optique qui compléte ce que nous avons dit au début de ce chapitre, et cela à deux niveaux harmonieusement combinés et coordonnés : d'abord soit par la présence de Dieu, en

à l'intérieur des hommes mémes, eux, par la gráce et l'amoureuse

complaisance divine, soit, d'une façon plus concrète, physique et historique, par l'Incarnation, c'est-à-dire par la Présence réelle et sanctificatrice du Verbe dans le sein de Marie !5; ensuite, dans les 16 Et Jésus, conçu de l'Esprit, est feu en Marie: Sog 2, 2-3: La fille était pauvre et devenue mére, du Riche dont l'amour l'a pressé (de s'incarner)—

Le feu dans le scin de la Vierge et de ses flammes elle ne se consume pas. Elle a embrassé et contenu la braise et elle n'a pas été atteinte quand elle l'a célébrée. La flamme s’est incarnée et dans les mains de Marie est demeurée.

244

P. YOUSIF

sacrements, par l'inhabitation mystérieuse de l'Esprit et la réalisation du Salut qu'ils opérent dans les hommes qui y prennent part. Nous savons bien que la «mixtio» de Feu et de l'Esprit est pour Ephrem symbole de l'union de la divinité et de l'humanité dans le Christ, et de l'union à lui par la gräce et les sacrements. Dans son Hymne sur la Virginité 37, 2, Ephrem nous dit que le Salut est réalisé par l'union du Christ tout entier à nous par l'intermédiaire de son Corps et de son Sang, de sa Voix (l’Evangile) et de sa manifestation: «par sa clémence, lui, tout entier, s'est mêlé à nous tous».

Voilà l'ébauche d'une théologie du Salut qui, au-delà d'une conception juridique, étroite et extrinséque de celui-ci, nous le présente comme transformation et justification intérieure, comme vivification et purification par l'action incessante de l'Esprit qui est vie et fécondité. Cette œuvre de Salut englobe toute l'économie divine (mdabränütä) de la nouvelle création—et de la premiere déjà dans la Genèse—où Dieu faconne les hommes d'une facon nouvelle : en feu et en Esprit. Ainsi dans la /0* Hymne sur la Foi, strophe 9, Ephrem dit : Quand le Seigneur est descendu sur terre chez les mortels, Il les faconna d'une création nouvelle, comme celle des anges (2 Co 5:17 et par) Il méla le feu et l'Esprit en eux, Pour les rendre, de l'intérieur, feu et Esprit.

Cette union salvatrice de feu et de l'Esprit se réalise donc dans les sacrements, surtout celui de l'Eucharistie, du Saint Chréme et par l'Évangile, oü le Christ unit sa divinité à des moyens relevant de la condition des hommes. C'est là une mise en cuvre de la pédagogie de condescendance propre au 'style' de l'Incarnation, comme nous l'avons

souvent

dit, pour

que

les hommes,

à travers

leur

condition

précaire, puissent communier à la transcendance intangible et à la gráce non créée des sacrements, dira la théologie, et à la Parole divine, ce que le coeur de l'homme n'est pas, de soi, capable de percevoir. L'homme ainsi devient semblable aux anges parce que capable de recevoir en lui l'Esprit Saint et ses gráces. Faisant écho au HdF X, 8, Ephrem nous dit dans la 6° HdF 4:

Jésus est feu dans le baptéme (Sog 5, 2): Jean-Baptiste dit à Jésus qui demande à étre baptisé par lui : Comment est-il possible que la paille tienne du feu dans ses mains? O Feu, aie pitié de moi et ne t'approche pas de moi, Car il m'est bien difficile de te baptiser.

SAINT

EPHREM

DE

NISIBE

245

Car dans le Pain on mange une force qu'on ne mange pas; dans le Vin on boit La puissance qu'on ne boit pas; dans l'huile nous nous oignons, avec un pouvoir qui ne peut étre (conféré par) l'onction. Et comme il s'est rendu tendre à la bouche, afin qu'elle en prenne goüt et le mange,

De méme a-t-il adapté sa vue pour les yeux afin qu'ils le voient ; Et il a adapté sa puissance dans la parole afin que l'oreille puisse l'entendre.

Plus catégorique dans la 17* strophe de la méme Hymne qui compléte bien notre vue : feu et Esprit se retrouvent dans les principales étapes de la Rédemption réalisée par le Christ et continuée par le chrétien toujours par l’œuvre du Saint Esprit comme nous l'avons montré au début de ce chapitre, ainsi, dans l'Incarnation, le Baptéme et l'Eucharistie : Voilà feu et Esprit dans le sein de ta Mére (litt : celle qui t'a engendré); Voilà feu et Esprit dans le fleuve où Tu as été baptisé !". Feu et Esprit dans notre baptéme (Lc 3, 16); Dans le Pain et dans la Coupe, feu et Esprit Saint.

Ce feu qui provient de l'autel est donc l'Eucharistie que les fidéles regoivent et mangent, merveille qui dépasse toute approche humaine. Feu et Esprit, souffle et vent dans les mains des étres matériels. Ephrem ici aime faire un jeu de mots qui concerne le terme ruhd qui signifie en syriaque vent, souffle ou Esprit (Saint). Le point de départ est un texte de la Bible, l'interrogation du sage : Prov 30, 4, qu'Ephrem relate tout spontanément dans le verset du poème:

la rühä, ici signifiant le vent,

ne peut étre, d'aprés Salomon, tenue dans le creux de la main. Mais, dans l'Eucharistie, Ephrem nous dit que cela est réalisé. Cela bien sür dépasse les mesures de la nature aussi bien que les prévisions du plus grand des sages, Salomon, car il s'agit de l’œuvre du Christ, maitre, non seulement de Salomon, mais de son pére aussi: HdF X, 14: «Qui a jamais tenu le vent (ruha) dans ses mains?" (Prov 30, 4).

Viens voir, Salomon, ce que le Seigneur de ton pére (Ps 110, 1) a fait! Feu et Esprit, contrairement à leur nature, Il les a mélés et versés dans les paumes de ses disciples. *” Selon le Diatessaron, il y a du feu avec de l'eau au moment du Baptême de Jesus: cf. Evangeliarium Rabbulae, éd. C. CECCHELLI, G. FURLANI et M. SALMI (Olten/Lausanne

1959), fol. 46, et commentaire, pp. 55-56.

246

P. YOUSIF

Voilà quelques traits de la théologie eucharistique d'Ephrem dans sa

relation avec le Saint Esprit. Elle nous montre que, dans ce divin sacrement, en union avec les autres canaux de la gráce, l'Esprit divin est présent, à l'euvre, dans chaque pas de la vie du Christ et du chrétien, et dans chaque mystére. Ephrem nous laisse penser que l'Église est, par ses rites, dans une Pentecóte continue. Vision totalement axée sur la voie qui nous fait voir et percevoir les profondeurs divines

sous-jacentes au-dessus des signes liturgiques. Voilà un christianisme pneumatique, et une théologie de la gráce qui est d'autant plus concréte que les symboles qu'elle utilise sont simples et directs.

EUCHARIST

AND

HOLY

SPIRIT ACCORDING OF NISIBIS

TO

ST.

EPHREM

Especially through Ephrem's hymns one sees how deeply he influenced Syriac liturgies. For him the Holy Spirit is present and active throughout the Eucharistic mystery, indeed in God's plan of salvation from beginning to end. The divine power made visible in the sacraments is the Spirit himself. In them

his descent

is portrayed through the imagery of the dove, and his hidden presence is affirmed behind the altar veils. The Spirit is presented also as the purifying and life-giving divine Fire, connected with the water of baptism and the bread of oblation. Fire is the symbol of the union of divinity and humanity in Christ, and the union

of Christ and his believers through the sacraments. We have here not a juridical theology but a pneumatic theology of interior transformation through the Holy Spirit as “Fire and Spirit." It is a concrete theology of grace : through its rites the church lives in a continual Pentecost.

PART

FOUR

STUDIES IN ECCLESIASTICAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY

EXORCISM

AND

BAPTISM

John BowMAN Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

In Judaism in New Testament times there was baptism of a proselyte, who according to M. Gen. R. XXXIV was made ‘a new creature’. There is no evidence that the proselyte to Judaism was exorcised, before baptism. Have we indeed any clear evidence from the N.T. that exorcism was a prerequisite to baptism? The Synoptic Gospels claim that Jesus cast out evil spirits or demons and that he gave his disciples authority to cast them out. Jewish Rabbis also acted as exorcists: e.g. Simon ben Yohai drove the demon out of the daughter of a Roman Emperor, so T.B. Me‘ilah 170. R. Johanan ben Zakkai speaking of a person into whom an evil spirit had entered, said, “Take root of herbs, burn them under him and surround him with water, whereupon the spirit will flee’, so Pesikta ed. Buber 40a. In the Talmud Shab. 104b Jesus wrought his miracles by means of magic formulae; in the Toledot Yeshua, however, by having unlawfully obtained the secret Name of God could he perform them. The rabbinic exorcists shared the same belief as the Synoptic Gospels that physical disoders and diseases were caused by malignant spirits: e.g. Shabriri the demon of blindness, T.B. Pes. 112a; T.B.Ab. Zar. 12b; ruah zeradah the spirit of catalepsy, ruah palga the spirit of headache or migraine, T.B.Pes. 111b; Hul. 105b; Git. 68b!. Nestorius himself left a prayer to use to exorcise

the demon

of migraine?. The

! See further I. BROYDÉ, & London

Rabbis

art. ‘Demonology’,

believed Jewish

in the prophylactic

Encyclopedia

IV (New

York

1906), p. 517.

2 See ‘Conjuration de Nestorius contre les Migraines’, tr. F. NAU, Patrologia Orientalis 13 (1916), pp. 318-320. Nestorius addresses the spirit of migraine, telling it that it is impossible for it to attack the head of the one who carries these words: ‘I bind you by the prayers of the holy prophets and of the apostles and of my Lady Mary, mother of Christ, and of all the saints of our Lord’. Ibid., preceding this, he binds evil and

black

spirits (who

cause

headaches,

migraines,

etc.)

by

the chariot

of the

cherubim, by the rod of Moses, by the harp of David and by the ring of Solomon—all of which shows how much Christian exorcism owes to Jewish exorcists. JosEPHUS, Antiquities VIII, 2, 5, ascribes to King Solomon the credit for leaving to posterity methods of exorcising demons.

250

J. BOWMAN

power of the Torah, and knowledge thereof, against demons, cf. T.B.Pes. 112b; even to repeat a portion of the Torah especially the Shema kept away evil spirits, cf. T.B.Ber. 5a. But the Synoptic Gospels alone stress the spiritual malaise of the sufferers as well as the disease inflicted by the demon. The Babylonian Talmud by the amount of space devoted in it to Demonology witnesses to the great interest if not indeed concern felt therein by the Rabbis in the early Christian centuries. If one approach the Synoptic Gospels purely objectively, it is undeniable that those who produced these Gospels took demon possession very seriously. Modern Christians, scholars as well as laity, may as twentieth century people have come to be more than a little embarrassed by the frequent presence in the pages of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke of apparent psychosomatic illnesses being categorised as cases of demon possession. Dr. J. Macquarrie in his article on ‘Demons and Demonology’ in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Revised Edition? states, "The Synoptic Gospels represent the demons primarily as producing physical evils (including madness). Yet they are under the rule of the prince of demons whose activities are more definitely in the moral sphere. It is he who tempts Christ’. Earlier on the same page he says of the fairly common expression in the Synoptic Gospels, ‘unclean spirit’ : ‘We may suppose that the adjective ‘unclean’ refers rather to the wretched state of the victim than to moral or ceremonial defilement'. The present writer thinks that such a division between spiritual and physical may tell us more about a modern theologian's attitudes than those of the writers of the Gospels who still had a more unified view of life, physical and spiritual, as part of their Jewish heritage. Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, but Jesus also confronted Satan's minions. In Lk. 13:11-17 Jesus in a Synagogue on the Sabbath saw a woman who had a ‘spirit of infirmity’ for

eighteen years, and was

bent over and could

not fully straighten

herself. He called her and said (v. 2), “Woman, you are loosed from your infirmity’. ‘Loosed’ (Saryat) in the Syriac Peshitto is a technical term when exorcised of an evil spirit. Then (v. 13) ‘he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight and glorified God'. In justifying this action on the Sabbath day (v. 16) he said, 'And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan (Syriac Peshitto reialar ) the adversary (of God) bound (in Syriac Pes3 Ed. F.C. GRANT and H.H. RowLeY (Edinburgh 1963).

EXORCISM AND BAPTISM

251

hitto or a technical term for a demon to possess anyone) for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? Jesus, Lk. 13:32, clearly claims to cast out demons. The Pharisees warn Jesus (v. 31 in the Peshitto) à A ana ‘get out and depart’. Jesus (v. 32) says in reply, re ur aan ‘I cast out demons’, a pun on the verb mas. Is the Synoptic picture of the power of Jesus over evil spirits, and that of his disciples given the power by him, not a dramatic picture of the cosmic struggle between the Holy Spirit in him and the Spirit of Evil and the related satanic powers? Lk.

10:17,

18 seem to point in that direction. On hearing that the demons were subject to them in his name, his response is ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven'. Satan is the enemy over all whose powers he has given them authority. Note that the Spirit in all three Synoptic Gospels comes on him at Baptism by John. In the Fourth Gospel John the Baptist is recorded as saying, Jn. 1:33a, ‘He who sent me to baptize with water, said to me, "He on whom you see the Spirit $5 descending, and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit" '. Could it appear to the Christians of the Church for which the Fourth Gospel was written that the essential difference between the baptism of Jesus and any other baptized was that the Spirit remained on him?* Is this story in the Fourth Gospel a justification for a later linking of Baptism and the Holy Spirit? * [n the synoptics the coming of the Spirit on Jesus at baptism serves inter alia to prepare the way for the wilderness contest with Satan. There is no wilderness temptation in the Fourth Gospel. In the prologue. John 1:5 already has stated the spiritual conflict between light and darkness, and that darkness cannot overcome the light. The Fourth Gospel (19:30) makes more explicit than Lk. 23:46 that Christ's mission was accomplished before on the cross "he gave up the spirit". Not many Christians managed to keep the spirit bestowed at baptism. As for the Jews, the shekinah is the true Jewish parallel to the Christian Holy Spirit. T.B.Tamid 32b teaches that whoever engages in the study of the Torah by night, has the shekinah before him. But in T.B.Zebahim 118b only in three places had the shekinah rested on Israel—in

Shiloh,

Nob

or Gibeon,

and

the temple—and

portion of Benjamin; for it is said (Deut. 32:12): all the day long". The temple, however, had written. T.B.Yoma 9b says that on the death of the Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel; of the bath kol or heavenly echo, synoptic parallels) which as in the

all these

three

were

in the

"The Lord shall cover him [Benjamin] gone when the Fourth Gospel was last prophets. Haggai, Zechariah and but they still could avail themselves

cf. the ‘voice from heaven’ of Mt. 3:16 (and message at Jesus’ baptism in the synoptics was

sometimes based on a scripture verse or verses. In the OT and in Judaism, the Holy Spirit was the spirit of prophecy. This sense is reflected in the synoptic baptismal ‘voice from heaven’. If the Fourth Gospel wanted to stress Holy Spirit = shekinah, it would naturally omit in Jn. 12:28.

the incident of the ‘heavenly

voice' here, though

it is utilized

252

J. BOWMAN

But in Mark Jesus having received the Spirit at Baptism is immed-

iately driven into the wilderness by the same Spirit to be tempted by Satan. In Mark after the forty days in the wilderness tempted by Satan he comes into Galilee, Mk. 1:14, 15, declaring that the Kingdom of

God is at hand. The following Sabbath in the Capernaum Synagogue he causes an ‘unclean spirit’ to come out of a man in that Synagogue after he had taught there. Before coming out the ‘unclean spirit’ (v. 24) testifies to who Jesus is: ‘Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God’. In Matthew after the Spirit descended on him at Baptism he (Mt. 4:1) ‘was led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil’. The Syriac has here 'the adversary' but perhaps the Peshitto like the Greek text is being explicit about the Tempter as the adversary of God who had in Mt. 3:17 recognised Jesus as His beloved Son, with whom God was well pleased. Mt. 4:13-16 sees in Jesus’ going to Capernaum the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, Isa. 9:1-2, about the people who dwelt in darkness seeing a great light. ‘Light’ can be a Messianic term in Rabbinic works, cf. Pesikta Rabbati 36 $1, commenting on Isa. 60:1 and Ps. 36:10. Luke's Gospel even more than Matthew and Mark stresses the Spirit’s involvement in the Temptation, yet significantly states Lk. 4:13 that the Devil's departure from Jesus was only 'until an opportune time'. For Luke the struggle between Jesus 'full of the Spirit’, and the Adversary was not resolved. Luke like Mark does highlight the people's amazement at his authority over unclean spirits (Lk. 4:36; Mk. 1:27). In Mk. 3:14; Mt. 10:1; Lk. 9:1 Jesus gives his twelve disciples authority over demons (Mt. unclean spirits). All three Synoptics have the Beelzebul controversy, Matthew and Luke adapting the Marcan account in a similar manner, e.g. both omitting the statement by Jesus that the Beelzebul allegation was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and an unforgivable sin. On the other hand both Matthew and Luke make the claim explicit that Jesus casts out demons by “the Spirit of God" (Lk. 11:20 ‘the finger of God"), ie. the Spirit he had received at the Baptism by John. Matthew's Jesus sees the fact of his casting out demons by the Spirit of God as evidence that the Kingdom of God has come. On the other hand, v. 27 does seem to suggest that those who brought the allegation were them-

EXORCISM AND BAPTISM

selves not unacquainted with the idea of making

253

use of the devil,

There is the statement (Pesikta Rabbati 6 87) that demons are willing

to help the King of Kings and the implication that they helped build Solomon's Temple. But the allegation against Jesus, that he was in league with Beelzebul, denotes for Mark a new phase in the struggle between Law and Gospel, the Scribes and the Pharisees over against Jesus: the implication may be that they were the really possessed, and not the demoniacs and even demons who acknowledged Jesus. The emphasis in Mark's Gospel thereafter shifts from a struggle with Satan and demons to an intensive struggle with Scribes and Pharisees. To the writer of Mark's Gospel there may have been a real thought connection. We must say however that the struggle with Satan and his minions is not explicit in the rest of Mark's Gospel. In Luke and in Matthew the Beelzebul allegation has perhaps not the prominence that attached to it in Mark. But then their attitude to the Torah is not as sharply opposed as Mark's. In Mark, Jesus' fate is sealed when the Scribes from Jerusalem decided he was possessed by Beelzebul and that he wrought his exorcisms by Satanic agency. On the basis of Dt. 13:1-5 considering his attitude to the Torah, he should be killed. For Mark the professional exponents and practitioners of the Torah take the place of the Adversary and his minions, as indeed did Peter (Mk. 8:33) when he sought to prevent him from clashing with the Chief Priests and Scribes and Pharisees. 'Begone, Satan', were Jesus' words to Peter, an expression reminiscent of that used by Matthew in Jesus’ dismissal of Satan in his Temptation narrative. The expression reminds one of the use of Zech. 3:2 by a Jewish Exorcist in T.B.Ber 51a, 'The LORD rebuke you', but cf. also Pesikta Rabbati 40 $6 Satan tempting Isaac to dissuade him from letting himself be offered. In Luke 10:17 one should mark the reaction of Jesus to the reports of the Seventy disciples who returned joyously declaring (v. 18), 'even the demons are subject to us through your name'. To that Jesus replied, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven”. Jesus according to Luke saw the Seventy's success over demons as the overthrow of Satan and the establishment of the kingdom of God, not at the temptation wrought by himself alone, but by his * In M. Lev. R. par. 5 and T.B. Git. 68a it is held that whoever has the king of evil spirits as his friend would have all other evil spirits subject to him.

254

J. BOWMAN

seventy disciples. It may be objected that in the Synoptics, even in Luke, there is not an explicit follow-through of the coming .of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at Baptism. May this be the result of later theological assumptions as to the Person of Christ? However in Lk. 23:46 on the Cross Jesus says: ‘Father into thy hands I commit my spirit. Was he giving back the Spirit given at baptism? Aphraates® knows of two spirits of man. One is the fleshly spirit, the other is the spirit of Christ given at baptism. The first stays with the body in the grave, the second abides with Christ on the Tree of Life until the Resurrection. Could not later views on baptism have influence even in Luke's Gospel? In the Synoptics the Law and its administrators are the oppressors from whom Jesus and his death give deliverance. Might it not be said that for Mark, Torah is the cause of demonic activity and gives Satan his control over men through sin which in the context of Torah Judaism was offence against the Divine Law. In the Synoptics the Cross and Passion are not shown to be part of the contest with Spiritual Powers, which they are in the Fourth Gospel. Although in the Fourth Gospel there is no clear statement of Jesus' baptism, the Baptist (Jn. 1:32) claimed to have seen the Spirit descending and remaining on him and to have been informed (v. 33) that He was the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. There is no Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness by Satan. Jesus in the Fourth Gospel does not baptize with water though his disciples do. Jesus stresses to Nicodemus the necessity, before entering the Kingdom of God, of rebirth by water and spirit (Jn. 3:5), which may be a metaphorical reference to baptism. Jesus does not give his disciples authority to cast out demons, but after the Resurrection he gives the Holy Spirit and with that the power to forgive or to retain the sins of any. This latter reminds one of the power given to Peter (Mt. 16:19) to bind and to loose. The reference in Matthew is usually understood in the sense of Jn. 20:23 but the terminology of binding and loosing is that of exorcism’: binding the demon and loosing * See APHRAATES, De Monachis Vl, ed. 1. PARISOT, Patrologia Syriaca Pars 1, tom. | (Paris 1894), p. 293. ? See also note 2 for NEsrORIUS' use of bind in the sense of the exorcist's subduing the evil spirit. For a similar assessment of the commission to St. Peter (Mt. 16:19,

and

to all

Jesus’

disciples,

Mt.

18:18),

see

F.C.

CONYBEARE

in Jewish

Quar-

terly Review 9 (1897), p. 468, in the third of his four articles on Christian demonology (the first, JQR 8 (1896), pp. 576-608, is entitled ‘Demonology of the New Testament’).

EXORCISM AND BAPTISM

255

his victim. Actually demon possession is not unknown to the Fourth Gospel. In three instances in the Fourth Gospel, Jn. 7:20, Jn. 8:48 and Jn. 10:20, 21, Jesus' opponents say that he has a demon, and in Jn. 8:44 Jesus tells them because they will not accept his claims of coming forth from God that they are of ‘your father the Devil’. In Jn. 8 Jews and the Devil are lined up against God and Jesus re-presenting a Christian Church attitude to the Jews at the end of the first century. It is therefore not surprising that the Betrayer of Jesus, Judas Iscariot, is in the Fourth Gospel possessed by Satan himself (Jn. 13:27). In the Fourth Gospel there is considerable parallelism between Jn. 12:23-33 and Jn. 13:26-32 with especial reference to Jn. 13:23, 27, 28 and Jn. 13:31, 32. Jn. 12:31, 32 link up the casting out of the prince of this world, i.e. Satan, with Jesus' death;

Jn.

13:31, 32 proclaim

the glorification of the Son

of Man,

and

in him God, since Satan had (Jn. 13:26) ‘entered into’ Judas who after receiving the morsel from Jesus had (v. 30) gone out into the night. The ensuing crucifixion, Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 12:32) sees as drawing all men to him—viz. away from the control of Satan®. In Jn. 8:34 Jesus speaks of the sinner as a slave of sin, and in v. 36 promises freedom. It may not be accidental that in v. 44 those addressed in v. 34 are now termed ‘of your father the Devil’. In the Martyrdom of Simon bar Sabba'e, Simon speaking of what Christ has done (for Christians) teaches that men were slaves to Sin and that

Christ paid the price of our freedom?.

In Rom.

5 Paul taught that

Sin had been in the world since Adam's transgression. Death came as a result. All his descendants died because of sin, their sin, but had not been conscious of sin, until the Torah convicted them of sin and made them realise their guilt, but provided no remedy. Through this Chapter Paul is contrasting condemnation of all men by the offense of one (Adam), cf. Rom. 5:17, with the Divine gift by grace, by one man

Jesus Christ, which

* Justin

MARTYR

was

in Apol.

for mankind.

II, 45a writes,

‘Jesus

and overthrow the demons’ (cited by CoNvBEARE

Paul (Rom. became

man

in ‘Demonology

5:20) asserts to save

believers

of the NT”. JOR

8,

p. 599). * Ed. M. Kmosko, Patrol. Syriaca Pars I, tom. 2 (1907), p. 787. ‘Sin’ in the context here may be a synonym for Satan, who is mentioned above in that section. In T.B. B.B. 16a Satan, the evil impulse, and the angel of death are stated to be identical. In Mk.

10:45

(cf.

also

Mt.

20:28)

mention

is made

of the

Son

of Man's

purpose

in coming as ‘to minister and to give his life a ransom for many’. While it is customary to take ransom in association with the idea of sacrificial atonement, does that text warrant this?

256

J. BOWMAN

that sin increased because of the Torah, but ‘grace abounded all the more’. He was writing to Christians. They (Rom. 6:8) are dead to sin because

(v. 3) they were baptized

into the death

of Jesus Christ.

Buried (v. 4) with him in the waters of baptism they were raised up (as the one baptized was raised from the waters) just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of God the Father, so that the baptized should walk in newness of life. Paul finds release from sin in sharing in Jesus’ death, equating crucifixion and the going under the water in baptism, which latter was figuratively death. Sin (Rom. 6:6) in this Pauline midrash is virtually personified: cf. v. 6 ‘that henceforth we should not serve (or be enslaved to) sin'. Even in v. 7 this personification is present: ‘For he who is dead is freed from sin'—as from a master. Rom. 6:8 however asserts: ‘Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him'. Rom. 6:9 sees the fact that Jesus Christ died, as that 'he died to sin once”. His death is interpreted as a victory over sin as well as actual death in that (v. 9) he was raised from the dead, and 'death has no more dominion over him'. The baptized Christians are like Christ (v. 11) to reckon themselves as 'dead to sin, but alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord'. The baptized (v. 13) are to yield themselves to God as alive

from

the

dead.

Paul

emphasises

(v.

14)

that

sin

will

not

have dominion over them. Sin and Torah are related. The reason why sin cannot have dominion over them is that they are not under the Torah, 'but under grace'. Rom. 6:17 may indicate Paul's method of exorcism: ‘You were the servants of sin, but you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you'. (V. 18) ‘Being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness’. Just as ‘sin’ in Romans 6 with its repetition of the phrase 'servants of sin' may not only be a personification of sin, but an identification of sin and the Devil, so also 'servants of righteousness’ may be equivalent to saying ‘servants of God’: cf. v. 22, ‘But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God'. Paul (Acts 26:18) in his speech before King Agrippa quotes the Risen Lord as defining his mission (to the Gentiles) as ‘to open their eyes and to turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God...' In Acts 16:18 Paul said to the spirit (in the female soothsayer), “1 charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And he came out that very hour.' This led to her Jewish masters having Paul and Silas put in to prison at Thyatira. It does not say that she was afterwards baptized; however, the keeper of the

EXORCISM AND BAPTISM

257

prison there was (v. 32) instructed before being baptized, e.g. ‘And they spoke the word of the Lord to him’. Yet Paul (I Cor. 10:20) held that what pagans sacrifice, they offer to demons (i.e. pagan gods were demons).

Midrash Pesikta Rabbati 31 $1, the Torah is called the fountain of life and it is on account of the Torah that Israel is destined to enjoy God’s light, the Messiah, in the time to come. The light of the Messiah is identified too by that source, with the light that God approved in Gen. 1:4, and which according to Pesikta Rabbati, He put under His throne. Satan asked God for whom was the light put away under His throne of glory. God told him it was for the one who would turn Satan back and confound him utterly. On Satan asking to see such a one, God showed him, and Satan in amazement said ‘Surely, this is the Messiah who will cause me and all the counterparts in heaven of the princes of earth’s nations to be swallowed

up in Gehenna, as it is said: "He will swallow up death for ever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces" (Isa. 25:8). Pesikta Rabbati ibid. tells of God commissioning His Messiah here called Ephraim, to a mission of seven years of suffering for sinners, before the coming of the Son of David. As for the Messiah he says that gladly he takes this suffering upon himself, provided that nobody in Israel perish. He declares his desire to save in addition to those alive in his days, also those ‘who died from the days of Adam up to the time of redemption'. God, according to Pesikta, assigns to the Mes-

siah the four hayyoth who will carry the Messiah's throne of glory. (cf. Ezek.

1 and also Mk.

1:12).

Then,

the Pesikta

continues,

Mes-

siah's enemies and the heavenly counterparts of the princes of the earthly kingdoms bring accusations against the generation who would be in the world at the same time as the Messiah. But God rejects the charges and applies to that whole generation words which remind one of the Divine acceptance!? of Jesus at his baptism. Indeed, in Pesikta Rabbati Isa. 42:1 is cited by God: 'Behold My servant, whom I uphold, Mine elect in whom My soul delighteth : I have put My Spirit upon him'. This refers here to those of Messiah's generation. The significant thing is not only the vicarious suffering of the Messiah, but the evidence that this Midrash supplies (a) for the casting 19 The synoptics (Mt. 2:17. Mk. 1:11, Lk. 3:22) conflate substituting ‘my Son’ for ‘my servant’ of Isa. 42:1.

Ps. 2:7

with

Isa. 42:1.

258

J. BOWMAN

down of Satan and his angels to Hell by the Messiah (cf. Lk. Jn.

12:31) (b) for an attempt

to prevent

Messiah's

10:18;

redemptive

work

by bringing accusations against those he would save. This Rabbinic haggada here, like the N.T. writings, was still influenced by the concept of Satan in Job!!. Theodore of Mopsuestia!? thought much of the Apostie Paul; in his catechetical lectures on Baptism his doctrine of the Fall of Man

and its consequences,

and God's

response to man's

plight largely

follows Romans chs. 5 & 6. Theodore (ibid. p. 26) regarded Church Membership as citizenship of the heavenly city. But before the cate-

chumens could be enrolled ‘a great judgment’, as he terms the exorcism, takes place on their behalf. According to him the judgment has to be given against the Tyrant, i.e. Satan, who is fighting the case against them and who is always envious of their deliverance and salvation.

Theodore

tells

his

catechumens

that

Satan

(ibid.

p.

27)

‘endeavours to bring us into the judgment hall as if we had not right to be outside his ownership'. God is the Judge. Satan pleads that men belong to him by right. His case is that Adam listened to him and by his own will rejected his Creator, preferring to serve Satan. God who drove him out of paradise pronounced the death sentence on him and condemned him to the servitude of this world!?. Therefore argues Satan (ibid. p. 28), ‘He clearly seems to belong to me, as I am (cf. Eph. 2:2) the prince of the power of the air, and work in the children of disobedience. How then is it possible that this man should be taken away from that world and from its life and from my lordship also, which he himself chose willingly, and should become immortal, ... and be seen in the life and citizenship of the abode of heaven, a thing which does not pertain to men or to beings which have this (human) nature from which those who are endowed with a higher nature are different?’ Theodore maintains that Satan !! Job 1:6-12, esp. v. 6, where Satan appears among ‘the sons of God’ before Yahweh. In v. 12, while all that Job has is put into Satan's power by God, he was not to 'put forth his hand’ on Job himself. In Pirke de R. Eliezer 46 Sammael (=

Satan)

says

to

God:

‘Thou

world, but over Israel, Thou

hast

given

me

power

over

all

the

nations

of the

hast not given me power'. The midrash next has God

say to Sammael that he has power over even Israel on the day of atonement—if they have any sin. Pirke de R. Eliezer (ibid.) gives this as a reason why (Lev. 16:26) one

goat on

the day of atonement

accuse Israel. 12 Ed. and trans. by A.

was offered

MINGANA

13 On the basis of Gen. 3:18-19.

to Azazel:

[Woodbrooke

viz., so that he should

Studies 6] (Cambridge

1933).

.

not

EXORCISM AND BAPTISM

259

envies the catechumens whom he is addressing, all the more because ‘we expect to receive this ineffable enrolment’, i.e. Baptism. He therefore tells them (ibid. p. 28), ‘We must run with all diligence to the judge (i.e. God) and show and establish the title which we possess'. Here follows the defence which states that mankind did not originally belong to Satan but rather to God who created man from nothing and in His own image. Through the wickedness of the Tyrant and through man's own negligence, man lost both the honour and greatness of the image of God and because of sinfulness received the punishment of death. Satan's hold became stronger as time passed, and mankind living for so long in cruel servitude found sinful acts pleasing and thereby strengthened Satan's power. Then comes a formal recital of God's (ibid. p. 29) providential act in restraining the Tyrant (Satan) from harming man ‘until the end’: ‘He also abolished our sins and our transgressions against Him and wished by His grace to straighten our affairs. For this He took one of us and in him (ie. Jesus) made the beginning of all our good things, and permitted Him to receive the impact of all the trials of the wickedness of Satan but showed him also to be high above his wickedness and his power to harm, and although he allowed him to be even in his death the victim of Satan's stratagems, which he had been drawn to combat, He now receives on our behalf and against Satan, the intercession of the One who was assumed', i.e. Jesus. Theodore

(ibid.

p.

29)

after

finishing

the

recital

of man's

brief

says, 'God, however, who was listening to all the story, condemned the Tyrant for the ill-will of which he had made use against Christ

and against our race, and pronounced judgment against him, while He raised Christ our Lord from the dead, and made Him immortal and immutable and took him up to heaven. And he vouchsafed to all the (human) race, while still on the earth, the joy of (his) gifts so that no room might be left to Satan from which to inflict injuries on us'. Two things may be said here: (a) Theodore is in effect setting out his doctrine of Redemption. God does not demand from man satisfaction, rather it is Satan who demands the price of redemption. God indicated the redemption by assuming or taking the man Jesus, the perfect man on whom God allowed Satan to bring an unjust death, but thereby condemned Satan and rewarded Christ for his fidelity, and accepted his intercession for mankind. (b) The picture of the lawsuit between the Devil and mankind before God is by him in-

260

J. BOWMAN

extricably linked with tually bringing him to be allowed that this older than Theodore.

Satan’s scheming against Jesus and his evenan unjust death. The strong probability should description of the case Satan versus man is Even Theodore the Interpreter did not dare to

initiate new doctrine. As he himself elsewhere '*, speaking of the Interpreter’s office in the Church, makes plain, originality was not appreciated, but rather, faithfulness in handing down the Mashlamutha, the tradition as received from the Apostles and Church Fathers. Theodore's description of Satan's indictment of man before God has the appearance of a Christianized Midrash, the original of which may have had a Jewish prototype. In Pesikta Rabbati 45 $2 Satan accuses Israel on the Day of Atonement, but God removes the iniquities and covers them with His mercy, according to the Midrash on

the basis of Jer. 50:20; Ps. 85:3; Ps. 32:1. In Pesikta Rabbati 47 84 Satan the accuser is foiled by the merit of the Fathers, by the merit of the Torah

and by the merit of Israel itself. In Pirke de R.

Eliezer

ch. 46 we find: 'Just as the ministering angels are innocent of all sin on the Day of Atonement, so too are the Israelites innocent of all sin on the Day of Atonement. The Holy One, blessed be He, hears the testimony of Israel rather than their accuser (Kategór), and He makes atonement for the altar, the sanctuary, for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation both great and small'. In the Jewish Midrash Satan as Accuser (Katégór) is accusing Israel

before God. In Theodore's version Satan as Kategör is accusing the Christian catechumens before God. In both cases Satan is urging that the people concerned are unworthy of enjoying the convenantal mercies of God. In the Christian version the Church is the new Israel of God. In the Exorcism before Baptism, the individual Christian is supported by the Exorcist in his struggle with Satan. Theodore informs us (ibid. p. 31), while there may be some relationship between the catechumens' pre-baptismal exorcism and what is commonly called the Temptation in the Wilderness when Jesus was confronted by the Tempter, there is a significant difference; he exorcised the latter by himself. Theodore will not allow that anyone other than Christ could

dispense with

an

Exorcist.

!* See Theodore on the Nicene (Cambridge

1932), pp. 24,

15 eA, n ie

125, 72,

Later!

he uses

Creed, ed. A. 185.

pp. 31, 160; pp. 33, 162.

MiNGANA

‘advocate’

instead

[Woodbrooke

Studies

of 5]

EXORCISM

AND

BAPTISM

261

‘exorcist’. In Jewish Haggada while Satan is called Kategór who accuses Israel before God, Michael acts as advocate for Israel. The term used in Hebrew is P*raklit (in Syriac Paraklita) = παράκλητος in the sense of advocate as in I John; the translation of Para-

clete used were the

in the Fourth Gospel by ‘advocate’ instead of ‘comforter’ was in the Vulgate, however, and indeed could be justified if we to allow that the Fourth Gospel was aware of the use of both terms xatnyop and παράκλητος in Jewish haggadic midrash.

(Cf. Satan accusing Israel on the Day of Atonement

Pesikta

Rabbati

45 82 commenting on Ps. 85:3, cf. also Pesikta Rabbati 47 64.) There is more of a parallel between the crucifixion of Jesus as a contest with Satan, than in the Temptation story. Theodore (ibid. pp. 29-34) himself quotes Jn. 12:31, "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, with draw all men to myself. Theodore (ibid. p. 30) on speaking of the forensic case, Devil versus man before God, His intervention through the agency of Christ, his death and resurrection, and God's judgment for Christ and His accepting Christ's intercession for man, insists: 'We must believe now that all these things have happened and taken place, and that in nothing shall we appear henceforth to belong to the Devil'. So the teaching, the doctrine of the deliverance of man from subjection to the Devil is part of catechetical instruction and is the mythos of Exorcism whereas the actual Exorcism before the Sacrament of Baptism is the drama. This latter

takes

place

with

the

candidates

(ibid.

p.

31)

standing

with

outstretched arms symbolising the slave of Satan praying for deliverance. At the Exorcism the catechumens stand barefoot on sackcloth divested of their outer garment with eyes downcast and arms outstretched (ibid. p. 31). By their stance and garb they depict their state of servitude to the Devil and show penitence for their own sins and those of their fathers. Theodore makes it plain that Exorcism is by an exorcist per se. Indeed Theodore (ibid. p. 33) treats the exorcism as separate from the confession of faith by the catechumens and the abjuration

of Satan.

Theodore

(ibid. p. 35) claims that the cere-

monies which he deals with prior to the Sacrament of Baptism ‘according to an early tradition’. ‘When’, says Theodore (ibid. p. 'you go to be enrolled in the hope of acquiring the abode citizenship of heaven, you have in the ceremony of exorcism, a of lawsuit with the Demon, and by a Divine verdict you receive

are 35), and kind your

262

J. BOWMAN

freedom from his servitude’. But it is only when the catechumens are free from servitude of the Devil by the words of exorcism (ibid. p. 35) that they can of their own free will make their solemn engagements to God in confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, to glory of God His Father, and pray to God to be delivered from ‘the ancient fall’. While confessing Jesus as Lord and praying, they genuflect (cf. Phil. 2:10-11), a different posture from that during the exorcism. This confession of faith and prayer is made before the priest (ibid. p. 33) to whom they had been brought after having been exorcised. Only when assured by ‘the persons appointed for the service’ who say, ‘Your prayers have been heard and your supplications answered’, do the catechumens, prompted by the deacons (ibid. p. 37) say before the priest, ‘I abjure Satan and all his angels, and all his service, and all his deception, and all his worldly glamor; and I engage myself, and believe, and am baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'. This is not the Exorcism. According to Theodore it comes after the exorcism. It is an abjuration or renunciation of Satan, cf. the Anglican Baptismal Rite 1662 and its renouncing of the Devil and all his works. Theodore (ibid. p. 39) defines ‘I abjure’ as meaning ‘I will no more choose and accept any communion with him'. After the abjuration of Satan the priest signs the candidate on the forehead with the holy Chrism and says: 'So and So is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit’. Theodore explains the sign as being stamped as ‘a lamb of Christ and as a soldier of the heavenly King'. After the Chrism the godfather spread a linen orarium on the crown of his head as an emblem of freedom and the candidate is raised erect as no longer a slave. Theodore just as clearly distinguishes ‘the engagements and promises' from the Sacrament of Baptism, as the former had been clearly separated from the exorcism. For the Sacrament all the candidates' garments are divested and he is anointed all over with the holy Chrism. The Priest says: 'So and So is anointed in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’. The Priest places his hand on the one who has descended into the water and says: 'So and So is baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’. After the threefold immersion, the baptised is clothed in a radiant garment and the priest signs him on the forehead and says: ‘So and So is signed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’.

EXORCISM

AND BAPTISM

263

It is not the present writer's purpose to compare the various Baptismal rites ancient and modern of the East and the West. We have taken Theodore's description of the ceremonies related to Baptism because Theodore reflects the Antiochian practice of his time and his opinions and practices were valued in the ancient Syriac Church of the East outside the Roman Empire. Though Exorcism in the strict sense has not survived as a preparation for Baptism, the abjuration of the Devil which has been and is an integral part of the Orthodox and Roman and Anglican rites points to the polarity of Devil and Christ, and to the decision to renounce the one for the other, which is the choice there set before the would-be Christian. The reality of the Devil is there assumed. Theodore's catechumens were instructed by him in the cosmic nature of the struggle by Satan for continued dominion over men; Theodore's identifications'® of who were Satan's angels and what constituted the service of Satan, and what is meant by ‘all his deception and all his wordly glamor’ could still be studied with profit by ordinands today. Theodore while being faithful to the mythos—which may be older than the Gospel— updated it in terms!” of his time, which reflecting city life as they do are nearer to the city life of today than the demon possession of the pages of the Gospels, and may be nearer to us than the European medievalism of some aspects of Catholic Christianity. However, with the revival of interest in the occult and in exorcism in particular it is important to see from what men believed that they were freeing themselves, as well as the contribution Christian men believed Baptism made to those so freed, not only to prevent them lapsing into the old fears, but really to enter a new life with new vistas, new hopes, and,

they believed, an inner power to implement

their idea of freedom

from fear. They did not confuse Exorcism with Abjuration. Exorcism, something done to one, was felt to be a reality leading to the possibility of a real deliverance from the power of Evil, but the important step, abjuration of the Devil by the conscious choice of the individual, was vital, and a positive choosing of Christ essential. Then only followed Baptism. If Exorcism fell into the background, it was because it was displaced by new theologies which minimized the power of spiritual evil, and perhaps unintentionally, but actually, threatened to neutralize the spiritual significance of Baptism itself. 16 Theodore on Baptism, pp. 39ff. 17 However, it would be argued that THEODORE was not conscious of in any way going beyond Paul even here, cf. II Cor. 11:3 and I Tim. 4:1.

SOME

SYRIAC ACCOUNTS

OF THE JEWISH SECTS

Sebastian P. Brock Oxford, England

One

of the

many

Syriac

writers

whose

manuscript

tradition

has

been so richly illuminated by Professor Vööbus’ researches is Dionysios bar Salibi, metropolitan of Amid, and among the most learned figures of the Syrian Orthodox ‘renaissance’ of the twelfth century!. In the first chapter of his interesting little treatise Against the Jews Dionysios gives a list of eight Jewish sects, each with a brief description of their tenets?. The sects enumerated are : (1) Scribes, (2) Pharisees, (3) Sadducees, (4) Hemerobaptists, (5) Essenes, (6) Ossaioi, (7) Nasaraioi, and (8) Herodians. The presence of the Ossaioi immediately

provides a pointer to Dionysios' ultimate source, for this sect is mentioned in Greek writers only by Epiphanius, in his Panarion. Epiphanius himself lists only seven Jewish sects, and in a different order: Sadducees, Scribes, Pharisees, Hemerobaptists, Nasaraioi, Ossaioi and Herodians; the Anakephalaiosis of Book I, however, gives the seven sects in the same order as Dionysios, although it still omits the Essenes from this list. The content of the list confirms the impression given by the order: Dionysios’ material for the seven sects is almost entirely dependent on the Anakephalaiosis, the only two exceptions being some additional information on the Pharisees and the Sadducees; this,

together

with

the

additional

section

on

the

Essenes?,

can

(as

will be seen below) be traced back to Josephus' Jewish War.

! Τῆς eloquent doctor, the star of his generation’ was how MICHAEL THE SYRIAN described

2 The

him (Chronicle XIX,

Treatise

8).

of. Dionysius

bar Salibi against

the Jews

I, 4-11, ed.

J. DE

ZWAAN

(Leiden 1906), pp. 3-5. There is an unpublished English translation by R. H. PETERSEN (Duke University dissertation 1964 [non vidi]) A brief analysis of the work will be found in A. Lukyn WiLLiAMS, Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge 1935), pp. 109-112. The

manuscript

used

by DE

Zwaan

(olim Harris 83) is now

in the

Houghton

Library,

Harvard University; I have checked the printed text against two other recent manuscripts, Mingana syr. 89 and 215. ? The Anakephalaiosis has a quite different entry on the Essenes, listed under the Samaritan heresies.

266

S.P. BROCK

The Anakephalaiosis to the Panarion is hardly likely to go back to Epiphanius* himself, but it was certainly attached to the work at an early date, for it was already used by Augustine in 428, in his de Haeresibus?. In fact the Anakephalaiosis proved a more popular work

than the Panarion itself, for it was taken over wholesale by John of Damascus in the eighth century, and Pognon long ago saw that there must have been a Syriac translation available, since he had identified the Anakephalaiosis as one of Theodore bar Koni's sources for Book XI

of his Liber Scholiorum’. Happily the actual text of the Syriac translation survives, in BM Add. 12156, ff. 129-136, of A.D. 562, and this will serve as the basis of our translation below. Dionysios again made use of the Anakephalaiosis for a list of the Jewish sects in his Commentary on Matthew; there, however, the additional entry on the Essenes is absent?. Nor was he the only Syriac writer to make use of the Anakephalaiosis for material on the Jewish sects; thus, for example, notices of the seven sects, very largely based on the Anakephalaiosis, turn up in Book V of Theodore bar Koni's Liber Scholiorum?, and in another anonymous East Syrian compilation

contained in London, India Office ms. 9 19, The number of seven seems to have become a canonical one for the Jewish sects at an early date, although the contents of the various lists differ considerably : In Greek, Justin (Dial. 80, 4) gives Sadducees, Genistai, Meristai, Galilaioi, Hellenianoi, Pharisees and Hemero-

baptistai, while Hegesippus (apud Euseb., H.E. IV, 22) provides Essaioi, Galilaioi, Hemerobaptistai, Masbotheoi, Samaritans, Sadducees and Pharisees!!. In Syriac tradition a supplement to Ephrem's Com“Cf. K. Hort, Die handschrifiliche Ueberlieferung des Epiphanios (Ancoratus und Panarion) [Texte und Untersuchungen 36] (Leipzig 1910), pp. 95-98. * [n MiGNE,

Patrologia Latina 42, col. 21-50 (Christian heresies only).

© [n MiGNE. Parrologia Graeca 94, col. 685-688 (Jewish sects). ? H. PoGNON, Inscriptions mandaites des coupes de Khouabir (Paris 1898), pp. 106107. * Ed. J. SEDLACEK and J.B. CHasot (CSCO 15, Syr. 15; 16, Syr. 16) (1906), p.

147

(text)

=

p.

110

(translation),

on

Matt.

3:7.

DioNvsios

gives

another

attributed to JosEPHUS, when commenting on Matt. 22:23, ed. A.. VASCHALDE 95, Syr. 47; 98, Syr.

49) (1933),

p. 24 (text)

=

p.

19 (translation);

here

list,

[CSCO

he gives

a

cross reference to his ‘exposition of the baptism’, evidently meaning his commentary on Matt. 3:7, rather than his (unpublished) Commentary on Baptism, which contains nothing on the Jewish sects.

* Ed. A. SCHER, I [CSCO 55, Syr. 19] (1910), pp. 366-368. 10 F. 52" (on Sadducees), ff. 54"- 55. (seven sects, with section on Sadducees This is closely related to the text of THEODORE BAR KONI).

!! On the identifications of these sects, see M. BLACK, ‘The of Jewish Sectarianism', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 41

repeated.

Patristic Accounts (1958/9), pp. 285-

JEWISH SECTS

267

mentary on the Diatessaron (preserved only in Armenian translation) contains a different selection !?: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Galilaeans, Masbotheoi, Samaritans and 'Hapionites'. Several further Syriac writers claim to derive a list of seven sects from ‘Josephus’; Josephus himself, of course, only mentions three, and perhaps ‘Josephus’ here hides the name Hegesippus!?, although the contents of the Syriac lists (given below) do not correspond to Hegesippus’ seven !*. Two variant Syriac lists are to be found : the first turns up in Dionysios himself, and features in the Commentary on Matthew as an alternative to the list derived from the Anakephalaiosis!5; this list, which was already available to Isho'dad of Merv in the ninth century!$, runs as follows : Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, 'ny'!", Herodians, Hemerobaptists and Nasaraioi. The second list occurs in Michael the Syrian's

Chronicle !5 ; it reads : Scribes, Levites, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists, Nasaraioi, Judaeans. It is not difficult to discern in these two lists, both attributed to ‘Josephus’, at least partial adaptation to the list in the Anakephalaiosis, and this impression is confirmed by an examination of the contents, which turn out to be largely abbrevia-

tions of the Anakephalaiosis and of little interest '?. 303, and M. Sımon, 'Les sectes juives d'aprés les témoinages patristiques', Studia Patristica | [Texte und Untersuchungen 63] (Berlin 1967), pp. 526-539. HtGEsiPPUS again mentions the ‘seven sects’ in his account of James’ death (in Eusesius, H.E. Il, 8). '2 Ed. L. LetoiR [CSCO 137, Arm. 1; 145, Arm. 2] (1953-4), pp. 350-351 (text) = pp. 248-249 (translation); the 'Hapionites' may be the Ebionites, who feature in the list of six Jewish (Paderborn

1905),

heresies in Constitutiones

Apostolorum

VI, 6, 4, ed.

F.X. FUNK

I, p. 315.

13 A less likely candidate is the Hypomnestikon biblion of 'JosEPPOS' (of uncertain date and

provenance).

'* In Eusesius,

since this lists only

H.E.

IV,

22 (the

five Jewish

Syriac

sects (PG

translation

follows

106,

col.

the

Greek

157-160).

closely

in this passage).

15 See note 8. 16. Commenting on Matt. 22, ed. 1911-16), p. 146 (text) =

17 This

unidentified

M. D. GiBsoN [Horae Semiticae 5-6] (Cambridge

p. 87 (translation).

sect also occurs

in the very

Lexicon, under the entry yudaye (here, however, are replaced by ‘Jews and Samaritans’). R. PAYNE

similar

list in

Bar

BAHLUL'S

the Hemerobaptists and Nasaraioi SMITH, Thesaurus Syriacus (Oxford

1879-1901), col. 2934, suggests this is a corruption of ‘nay’, Ananites (i.e. Qaraites), who

are mentioned

T.J.

Lamy

by Bar

(Paris-Louvain

HEBRAEUS, 1872-77),

view of the consistent spelling 'ny". 18 Chronicle Vl, 1 (the Armenian

Chronicon

col.

365,

but

translation

Ecclesiasticum, ed. J. B. ABBELOOSthis

does

is close

not

to

the

seem

very

Syriac

likely

here)

in

This

is the only Syriac testimonium to feature in A. ADAM, Antike Berichte über die Essener [Kleine Texte 182, 2nd edition by C. BURCHARD] (Berlin 1972), text no. 19. A slightly different list, but one which also mentions the Levites, appears in AcAPtUs. "Unwän, ed. A. VASILIEV, Patrologia Orientalis 7, 4 (Paris 1909), p. 489.

19 Note, however, on the Sadducees

the use of EUSEBIUS (and JosePHus,

found

in Isuo'Dap and

Dionysios

Kitäb al

Antiquities?) in the entry

(see translation,

III (c). below).

268

S.P. BROCK

While almost everything in the Syriac tradition can thus be traced back to the Syriac translation of the Anakephalaiosis, there are a few elements present which require special comment, including, of course, the extra material given by Dionysios in his work against the Jews. In the various texts dependent on the Anakephalaiosis we find a number of translation variants of particular Greek terms : (a) nomikoi: spiray namosa BM Add. 12156 malpane d-namosa Theodore bar Koni = India Office ms 9 qaryay namosa Dionysios, Against the Jews nomige Dionysios, Comm. on Matt. 3:7 (b) aphórismenoi : d-parre$(w) napshon BM Add. 12156 = Dionysios, Against the Jews

metrahqane Theodore — India Office ms 9 (c) itamótatoi : qSayya BM Add. 12156 = Dionysios, Against the Jews — Theodore gumdane Dionysios, Comm. on Matt. 3:7 (d) apheniastai: | nzire BM Add. 12156 = Dionysios, Against the Jews marode Dionysios, Comm. on Matt. 3:7 hsilay men saggi'ata Theodore = India Office ms 9. These variants do not necessarily imply that there were several Syriac translations of the Anakephalaiosis available; the fact that they all concern the interpretations given to the names of the sects would suggest, rather, that at an early stage in the Syriac transmission of the text alternative renderings for these key terms were current. It is very unlikely that our late writers had direct access to the Greek text. The recension of the list of sects in Theodore

bar Koni

(on whom

India Office ms 9 probably depends) contains several individualities (see I, II, III, V, VI, VII). On the whole

it would seem that Theodore

represents a reworking of the material in the Anakephalaiosis, bringing in relevant material from the gospel texts. The linking of the Nasaraioi/Nazirites with the Pythagoreans (on the basis of their vegetarian-

ism) is no more than a learned guess??, Much more important is the material in Dionysios’ work Against the Jews. Here, as we have seen, not only do we have an additional entry, on the Essenes, but there are extra paragraphs on the Pharisees 29 Compare

the famous

PHUS, Antiquities XV, NILUS OF ANCYRA

passage

about

the Essenes and

the Pythagoreans

in JOsE-

371; similar comparisons are to be found in HiPPOLYTUS

(ADAM, Antike Berichte, pp. 49. 57).

and

JEWISH SECTS

269

and Sadducees, as well as shorter additions on the Nasaraioi Herodians (these would seem to be no more than attempts to material to the gospels). Dionysios’ source for this additional turns out to be Josephus’ Jewish War II, 160-166?', as can by juxtaposing the texts:

and the link the material be seen

Josephus

Dionysios

...And [the Pharisees] separate up and cut up the law, leaving aside many things from it, but performing others outside it. 163

And they say that the soul is cor-

ψυχὴν τὲ πᾶσαν μὲν ἄφθαρτον,

ruptible, and that a good soul travels

μεταβαίνειν δὲ εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα τὴν

from one body to another, while a wicked one receives punishment the moment it leaves the body.??

τῶν ἀγαθῶν μόνην, τὰς δὲ τῶν φαύλων αἰδίῳ τιμωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι.

... [The Sadducees] justify themselves in everything, and they oppose others in a bodily manner and fiercely, in that they are ardent zealots for the

166 ... πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὸ ἦθος ἀγριώτερον, αἴ τε ἐπιμιξίαι πρὸς τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀπηνεῖς ... 164 ...xai τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν

law. For they say that God does not love evil, and does not allow it to

τι κακὸν À ἐφορᾶν τίθενται. 165 ψυχῆς τε τὴν διαμονὴν καὶ

exist. Concerning the soul, they say that it does not receive punishment because it is subtile. The

Essenes,

or "pure."

For

τὰς καθ᾽ ἄδου ἀναιροῦσιν.

τιμωρίας

καὶ τιμὰς

they

were called Essenes because of the purity which they preserved. For they used to say of those who continually had intercourse that they were im-

ται τοῦ βίου μέρος, τὴν διαδοχήν,

pure, while those who did not have

τοὺς

intercourse at all were the enemies of the commandments of God.

πάντες

And for three years their wives without [then] once they had they did not come

161 δοκιμάζοντες μέντοι τριετίᾳ τὰς γαμετάς, ἐπειδὰν τρὶς καθαρθῶσιν εἰς πεῖραν τοῦ δύνασθαι τίκ-

(compare 120?) 160 μέγιστον γὰρ ἀποκόπτειν olovμὴ

γαμοῦντας,

τὸ αὐτὸ

μᾶλλον

δέ,

φρονήσειαν,

εἰ

ἐκλι-

πεῖν ἂν τὸ γένος τάχιστα.

they would leave intercourse; and become pregnant near them again,

lust did they do this, but so as to

τειν, οὕτως ἄγονται. ταῖς δ᾽ ἐγκύμοσιν οὐχ ὁμιλοῦσιν, ἐνδεικνύμενοι τὸ μὴ δι᾽ ἡδονὴν ἀλλὰ τέκνων

establish children.

χρείαν γαμεῖν.

[thus] demonstrating that not out of

2! no.

Rather

than

the parallel

account

in

HiPPOLYTUS

(ADAM,

Antike

Berichte,

text

10).

22 For the wording. compare the description of the Masbothaioi in Apostolic Constitutions VI, 6.

270

S.P. BROCK

These sections of Dionysios’ account are doubly interesting : (a) in each case the transitional/introductory material is not obviously based on Josephus, and appears to have no exact parallels in other surviving accounts of these sects. (b) Dionysios' access to Book II of Josephus' Jewish War (probably not direct) implies that this work was once available in Syriac translation in its entirety, whereas today we only have Book VI, surviving in the famous Ambrosian manuscript of the Peshitta. In fact Dionysios was by no means the only Syriac writer to make use of the earlier books of the Jewish War, and A.P. Hayman has recently collected the evidence for the existence of a Syriac trans-

lation of the whole work 23. In conclusion it may be said that, of the various Syriac accounts, it is Dionysios’ which proves the most intriguing, and his entry on the Essenes certainly deserves a place in any future edition of A. Adam's Antike Berichte über die Essener. In the translation that follows, I use as a basis the Syriac version of the Anakephalaiosis, and give the main variants of the two fullest Syriac accounts, by Theodore and by Dionysios in his Against the Jews; material from the other Syriac accounts is only included where this is of some interest. In the comments that accompany each entry, I am not concerned with the sources of the Anakephalaiosis (not wholly the Panarion!), but where the Syriac accounts differ from the Anakephalaiosis Y have tried to indicate as far as possible their derivation. The following abbreviations are employed : A = Syriac translation of Anakephalaiosis in BM Add. 12156 Da = Dionysios, Against the Jews 1, 4-11 Db = Dionysios, Comm. on Matt. 3:7 (ed. Sedläèek, p. 147) Dc

=

IM

=

IO

=

MS

=

T

=

Dionysios,

Comm.

on

Matt.

22:23

(ed.

Vaschalde,

p.

24)

(list attributed to Josephus; very close to IM) Isho'dad, Comm. on Matt. 22:23 (ed. Gibson, p. 146) (list attributed to Josephus) List of Jewish sects in India Office ms syr. 9, ff. 527, 54-55 (closely related to T) Michael the Syrian, Chronicle VI, 1 (ed. Chabot, IV, p. 94) (attributed to Josephus, but most of contents derive from

A) Theodore bar Koni, Liber Scholiorum V (ed. Scher, I, pp. 366368)

23 The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite against a Jew, ed. A.P. 339, Syr. 153] (1973), pp. 32*-47*.

HAYMAN

[CSCO

JEWISH SECTS

271

The contents and ordering of these lists are as follows: A T IM Da Db Dc 1 Scribes

Ι

2 Pharisees

3 Sadducees 4 Hemerobaptists 5 Ossenes 6 Nasaraioi 7 Herodians

IO

MS

-

|

Ι

-

]

]

2

]

2

2

1

2

3

3 4

2 6

3 4

3 4

2 (69

3 4

4 5

5 6 7

3 7 5

6 7 8

5 6 7

3 (7) 5

5 6 7

6 -

(Da has the Essenes as no. 5; IM

and

Dc have 'ny' as no. 4; M

has Levites as no. 2, and Judeans as no. 7.) I. SCRIBES

(aA

Da

T

The scribes were skilled ins the law ‘and transmitters of the traditions of the elders among theme. Wanting to perform’ something special in their religion, they used to keep customs which they had not? learnt by means of the law, but which they had laid down for themselves, observances and ordinances of law-giving [i.e. of a legal nature]. a. Da ‘readers of’; T ‘teachers of (see also p. 268 above).

b. T omits. c. Da T 'show'. From this point to the end T provides: '[wanting to show] their skill, among themselves they added extra commandments to the law, such as the purification of cups and jugs [xestai],

and [the obligation] to wash and be baptized before they ate; likewise, that to swear by the temple is nothing, but to swear by the gold inside it is binding?*. To these our Saviour said??: "Every plant that my Father who is in heaven has not planted shall be rooted

out". They bind, he says?$, heavy burdens and place them on the shoulders of men. They deny the resurrection and angels’. d. The printed text of Da does not have the negative, but this is to be found in Mingana syr. 215. (b) MS The scribes who were called the scribes of truth. (The other lists are all abbreviations of I, a.) 24 Mark 7:4; Matt. 23:16f. 23 Matt. 15:13 (Peshitta).

26 Matt. 23:4.

272

S.P. BROCK II. PHARISEES

(a)

A

Da

^R^T58

Pharisees ‘are interpreted ‘those who have separated themselves’. Their way of life is exalted, 'and they are superior to the others. And they acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, like the scribes, and agree that there are angels and the Holy Spirit; but they differ in their way of life, for they preserve virginity ‘and continence?’ for a specific period, and they fast twice a week. They perform purifications of jugs ‘and of platters and of cups, just as the scribes do too‘, and [they have] tithes ‘and firstfruits and continuous* prayers; ‘and they make garments [schémata] for their clothing which indicate their religion by means of attires of robes [stoíai] and tunics [kolobi6nes), and width of tephillim, that is, strips of purple and embroidery and tassels on the borders of their cloaks. These serve as a sign of [their] preserving continence for a period. They introduce horoscopes [/it. birth]: and fate and destiny. Da ‘these separated themselves, in that...’ Da omits, Da omits. Da omits. Da omits. f. Da omits, and has instead: 'and a [special] garment [schéma] and width of tephillim’. g. Da omits. h. Da adds: 'And they separate up and cut up the law, leaving aside many things from it, but perform others outside it??. And they say that the soul is corruptible, and that a good soul travels from one body to another, while a wicked one receives punishment the moment it leaves the body’. (The last sentence is taken from Josephus, Jewish War Il, 163.)

(b) T Pharisees are interpreted 'removed', as being more perfect. They acknowledge the resurrection and angels. There is a period when they used to keep virginity; and they used to fast twice a week. They broadened their tephillim. "They wrote the ten commandments and hung them on their neck, in accordance with the commandment of ?? gaddisuta (Greek egkrateia). 24 Compare Mark 7:9?

JEWISH SECTS

Moses.

273

They also used to hang tassels on their girdles [perizömata].

The blessed Paul was from their number??. a. Scher's text omits this sentence, but see his apparatus (IO has abbreviated T's account into a couple of lines); cf. Deut. 6:8. (c) IM

Dc

The Pharisees acknowledge the resurrection, but after the resurrection [they say people] perform the same actions, eating, drinking,

marriage, etc.?? (d) MS

The Pharisees acknowledge the resurrection, like the scribes, and say that there are angels and the Spirit. And they fast twice a week, and purify jugs and platters, and they introduce fate and horoscopes. (Based on A; mistranslated by Chabot and Adam; cf. already H. Pognon, Une version syriaque des Aphorismes d'Hippocrate (Leipzig 1903), p. X note.) Ill. SADDUCEES (a

A

Da

The Sadducees, who are interpreted ‘upright’. These were from the race of the Samaritans, at the same time [deriving] from a priest named Zadoq. They deny the resurrection of the dead, and do not accept either the angels or the Spirit. "In everything they are Jews^. a. Da 'say there is no..." b. Da omits, and adds instead : ‘They justify themselves in everything, and they oppose others in a bodily manner and fiercely, in that they are ardent zealots for the law. For they say that God does not love evil, and does not allow it to exist. Concerning the soul, they say that it does not receive punishment because it is subtile'. (This is mostly based on Josephus, Jewish War II, 166, 164165.) (D T

IO

And the Sadducees: as it is said, they originate from Zadoq the priest in the time of David; and after the return of their race there arose priests, following Joshua son of Jozadeq. They are interpreted 79 Acts 23:6. *9 Contrast Matt. 22:30?

274

S.P. BROCK

‘upright’. And some say they are from the race of the they received their heresy from the Greeks, denying and the angels and the Spirit, after the manner of the a. IO adds : ‘But they [were] held in honour by the they were upright and zealous in religious matters'. (c IM

Dc

Samaritans, but the resurrection pagans-. people, because

(with some verbal differences)

The Sadducees were named after Zadoq, the originator of their teaching. And they stirred up many persecutions against the gospel, and it was they who caused disturbances over James, our Lord's brother, arresting him with the result that he was killed; and they were the cause why the Davidic family was investigated by the Romans. They only hold the five books of the law, like the Samaritans. They do not agree with the prophets, and deny the resurrection and angels and the rest of what is invisible^. a. Dc ‘Moses’. b. The printed text of IM credits the last sentence to the scribes and Hemerobaptists, but the other two manuscripts provide the correct text, omitting this attribution. (This account evidently makes use of material from Eusebius, H.E. II, 23, 21-22 = Josephus, Ant. XX, 197-200, and Eusebius, H.E. III, 12; note that, whereas Hegesippus (apud Euseb., H.E. Il, 23, 4-18) attributes James’ death to the scribes and Pharisees, Josephus by implication puts the blame on the Sadducees: IM and DC must go back to a source that was aware of Josephus' account in its own right.)

(d) MS The Sadducees deny the resurrection and angels and the Spirit; and they received their name from a priest called Zadoq. a. Read kwny' for pwny'. (Abbreviated from A.) IV. A

HEMEROBAPTISTS

DaT

The Hemerobaptists, "who are interpreted? ‘daily baptizers’. These are Jews in everything. Now they say that no one is worthy of eternal life unless: he is baptized daily. a. Da ‘or’.

JEWISH

SECTS

275

b. Da ‘every day’ (!); T ‘in some things’ (v. 1 ‘other’ =

c. In the edition of Da the negative however, in Mingana syr. 89 and 215.

is missing;

(All the other accounts are abbreviations of this; in MS

IO).

it is present, the words ‘is

worthy of eternal life’ have been dropped out through scribal carelessness.) V.

A

Da

Db

T

Ossenes/Ossaioi

IO?!

The Ossaioi, who are interpreted ‘hard’. "These are fulfillers of the law in everything; they also use the other books [that come] after the law, but? most of the prophets who follow they reject. a. T IO 'Ossenes'. Db begins : "The bold, who fulfil..." b. T IO omit, and have instead: 'They fulfil many things from the law; but they receive small revelations from the scriptures, and...’ c. Da adds: ‘For these people used to live [/it. stand] hardly on behalf of the law, so that it should not be despised; and they rejected all the books that follow the law”. T IO add : ‘according to the teaching of the Samaritans’. (An entry on the Ossenes is to be found in Bar Bahlul's Lexicon, ed. R. Duval, col. 232-233, derived from the unknown Bar Hatim; textually Bar Bahlul agrees with T IO against A Da. Da prefaces his notice on the Ossaioi with a separate entry on the Essenes, absent from A; this will be found translated on pp. 269.) VI. (a A

NASARAIO!

Da

The Nasaraioi, ‘who are interpretede Nazirites. These reject ‘all food [deriving from} flesh, and they do not touch: at all anything that has life [/it. soul] in it. Up to Moses and Joshua son of Nun ‘they make use of and? believe in the names ‘of the patriarchs: listed in the Five Books—I mean Abraham, "Isaac and Jacob’ and those before them, ‘as well as Moses and Aaron ands Joshua. But they deny that the books of the law are by Moses; however they assert that there are others by him apart from these’. a. Da ‘or’. b. Da omits. ?! The

printed

text of IM

probably an addition.

identifies

this sect with

the

Maccabees,

but

this

is

276

S.P. BROCK

c. Lit. ‘taste’; Da ‘eat’ (cf. T, below).

d. Da omits. (De Zwaan has mistakenly relegated the text of the manuscript to his footnote 2 for this passage; there is nothing wrong with the text. But read mhymnyn for mhymn'.) e. Da omits. f. Da omits. g. Da ‘up to’. h. Da ‘book’ (cf. T, below).

i. Da adds: ‘And they deny that there is a resurrection; and if there is a resurrection, then there is also marriage. Those who put the question to Christ about the woman with seven husbands belonged to them’ 52. (Db has a shortened version of A, but calls the sect marode, 'rebels'.)??

(b T

10

The Nazirites are interpreted ‘refrainers from many things’. They derived their not eating flesh or any thing that has life in it from the Pythagoreans. They say that the book of the law does not belong to Moses, and they have revelations attributed to Enoch and Abra-

ham?*, VII. (a

A

HERODIANS

Da

"The Herodians, who were Jews in everything, were expecting Herod as the Messiah: and gave [him] this honour and title of Messiah. "Immediately the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ took place, and it met with the above-mentioned seven heresies in Jerusalem’. a. Da has 'The Herodians: these, holding to the custom of the Jews, considered Herod to be the Messiah, and were expecting him'. b. Da omits, and has instead : 'Some of them asked Christ if it was

lawful to pay poll-tax to Caesar or not'?5.

(b T

IO

The Herodians: they named themselves after Herod, son of Antipater, who slew the children in Bethlehem. a. IO adds: ‘And it is said that the blessed Apostle was from the Pharisees by descent’. 32 Matt. 22 and parallels. 33 See p. 268. 3* This statement appears

to be without

parallel

monium to the Apocalypse of Abraham is of interest.

33 Matt. 22:17 = Mark. 12:14.

elsewhere,

and

the

new

testi-

PETER OF ANTIOCH THE

AND

END

OF

DAMIAN A

OF ALEXANDRIA:

FRIENDSHIP

R. Y.

ΕΒΙΕΡ

Leeds,

England

Everybody, or at least everybody who is interested in reading about the controversy between Peter (Callinicus) the ‘monophysite’ patriarch of Antioch (581-591)! and Damian (578-605) his counterpart and spiritual superior of Alexandria, will know that they fell out and that they fell out over the doctrine of the Trinity. When the dust had settled on their graves and when churchmen turned their minds to assuaging the bitterness of the rift between fellow-believers, men pronounced the

whole quarrel a mere logomachy, a battle of words in which the contestants had been at cross-purposes?. No doubt these churchmen were in part, at least, right—even if in matters of this kind, ecclesiastical diplomacy, as so often happens, puts ἀκρίβεια to flight and remoulds the past to its own liking. No doubt too as Gregory the Theologian observes (and that for both our contestants, Peter and Damian, is almost the equal of a divine utterance) men

must have something to

blaspheme or life would be unlivable"?——or, to paraphrase more charitably, a living theology demands adventurous debate, and the adventure runs the perpetual risk of turning into temerarious blasphemy. No doubt, moreover, a calm student of church affairs would have good cause to point to this quarrel as one further symptom of the rickety structure of a monophysite church which lacked secular authority to moderate its internal doctrinal disagreements. All that would be true, or at least, partly true. Yet it would all, also, be beside the point. Peter and Damian were in dispute about the substance of the faith. ! Not 578 as is usually given for the date of his assumption of the See of Antioch (cf. W. WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature, Amsterdam 1966, p. 113). See A. van Roey, "Het Dossier van Proba en Jubannan Barboer," Scrinium Lovaniense

(1961), p. 183, n. 2. 2 Chronique

de Michel le Syrien,

1963), p. 391, col. 1. 3 Oratio xxxi, 2.

ed.

J.-B.

CHABOT,

vol.

ii (Paris

1901,

reprinted

278

R.Y. EBIED

That is what they believed and, if we are to understand them, what we must try to believe too. When Peter called Damian a 'Sabellian' and Damian retorted by calling Peter a ‘tritheist’, each meant what he said. What caused the trouble? The immediate cause was the publication by Damian of a work against the tritheists ca. A.D. 586—and by *tritheists' are meant theologians of the school of John Philoponus, who is a cause at one remove. Behind him stands the much more obscure figure of John Ascotzanges (‘Bottle boots") who can safely, for our present purposes, be disregarded. Let us look briefly at Philoponus first. According to both Damian and Peter he taught that ‘substance’ in the generic sense was not actual; it was a mental construct. From which it follows that there is no actual divine substance, in the common

or generic sense. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each actually God, each actually a divine substance with a different mode of being, and there is no objection to affirming three Godheads, substances, Gods in

this sense. (So Peter reports John as writing in Against Themistius). This line of argument, squaring as it did with the catch-phrase μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένῃ, and vigorously propounded, as it was, by ἃ distinguished philosopher, found acceptance with an important minority of monophysites. James Baradaeus raised two supporters of it to the episcopate, Conon and Eugenius, forty years before our story begins, and both in Egypt (one may suppose) and amongst the monophysites in the patriarchate of Antioch it threatened the traditional doctrinal settlement. Damian thought he knew how to deal with it (and here we return to the immediate cause) and said so

in a book. Peter also thought he knew and moreover that Damian's way gave aid and comfort to the enemy. The arguments Damian had used to rout tritheism were essentially Sabellian, Peter alleged. He had spoken of the common substance of the Godhead but in such a way that the persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) were made abstractions

—Ingeneracy, Begottenness and Procession—without foothold in the divine substance. That seems to be the burden of Peter's complaint, made with the help of a vast series of extensive quotations from standard authorities (the Cappadocians, Athanasius, Theodosius of Alexandria, Severus and the rest) all of which, individually and collectively, proved Damian's total misunderstanding (as Peter judges it) of patristic divinity. To refute Damian, he wrote a work in 3 books ^. * A critical edition of this hitherto unpublished work, together with an Introduction and English translation, is being prepared by A. van Roey (Louvain), L. R. WICKHAM

PETER OF ANTIOCH AND DAMIAN OF ALEXANDRIA

279

Blessediy (for what we possess is long, long-winded and repetitive to an almost unbelievable degree) only the third book, preserved in a number of MSS in the British Museum, the Vatican Library and Berlin,

about half of the second, preserved in B.M. MS Richiani 7197, and none of the first, survive. Besides this technical work? there survives also a short work (like the remaining parts of Against Damian in Syriac translation) bearing the title : “‘Rebuttal of those who are charged with Sabellianism and who therefore maliciously spread the libellous report about us of holding the heathen dogmas of the tritheists”. The work, which has survived uniquely in B.M. Add. 12, 155, fols. 231v-238r, is evidently incomplete (it may even, indeed, be a portion of the lost Book One of Against Damian) but it is the dossier of documents (prefaced by a short Introduction) assembled by Peter to show how he and Damian were once friends, how they have fallen out and how shamefully he (Peter) has been maltreated and slandered. Peter will

prove that so far from being a tritheist himself, as Damian alleges, he has been a highly successful combatant of tritheists with one outstanding convert

to show

for it; besides which

Damian

in earlier

days wrote him extremely flattering letters, congratulating him on his prowess in the battle. Morcover, when Peter had arranged to meet Damian to sort the issues out in Egypt, the whole thing turned out to

be a fiasco, for which Damian was to blame. That in outline, is the subject matter. Let us now describe and summarize the piece in greater detail. Heretics (Peter says) always accuse their orthodox opponents of holding the heresy opposite to theirs. Gregory of Nyssa was accused of Sabellianism by Eunomius, Cyril and Severus of Apollinarianism by Nestorians. In the same way, and with the same ludicrous inappositeness, the Sabellians are now accusing him of tritheism. How false this is can be seen “from the fact that up to the time when we took our stand against newfangled doctrines the very people who now slander us admired us almost more than anybody else for the struggle and conflict with the tritheists, acclaimed our victories over them with praise and publicized them as best they could". Now begins the dossier of (Southampton) and the present writer. It is hoped that the first volume

of this edition

will be published in the near future. 5 For this work and the other literary products of PETER CALLINICUS, see WRIGHT, op. cit., p. 113; A. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922), p. 177; R. Y. EBiED and L.R. WickHAM, "The Discourse of Mar Peter Callinicus on the Crucifixion,"

The Journal of Theological Studies (N.S.), vol. 26, part

1 (1975), p. 23.

280

R.Y. EBIED

documents, starting with Peter’s synodical letter to Damian, dating, presumably, from the first months of his accession in 581. It is a piece very similar to Damian's synodical epistle to the orientals after his enthronement in 578, though the corresponding Christological confession in Peter's is omitted. The decisions of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus (431) are reaffirmed, Sabellianism and Arianism repudiated

and John Philoponus' tritheism (six short quotations are adduced from his work Against Themistius—perhaps Themistius the agnoete) disavowed. A part of Damian's effusively eulogistic reply now follows. It starts : “Because, then, the Redeemer has summoned your priestly head to this exalted and elect ministry, inasmuch as he greatly loved it, therefore also has he opened your mouth for his words, setting them upon your lips like a swallow rearing her chicks—as your holiness’ synodical letter, despatched to us in accordance with the Church’s laws, bears witness, because it contains nothing mundane,

but heavenly and

sublime insights and dogmas of theology which embolden the hearers to tread the air”. It goes on to declare the unanimity of Damian with Peter, an unanimity so complete that it renders a reply by Damian not merely superfluous but even harmful for it suggests a duality where there is but one mind. But the church’s rule and public order require it, and so he has written. Could friendship go further than that? The next piece comes from a letter by Peter to Damian belonging to some time in 582 or 583. Peter tells Damian that overtures have been made to him by churchpeople in Cilicia Secunda. Peter has answered that he will not act without Damian’s approval and that the conditions for reunion are the acceptance of formulae repudiating John Philoponus’ tritheism ; of Damian's and his predecessor Peter IV's synodical letters; and of Theodosius’ Discourse on the Doctrine of God. Should he require anything more of them if fuller discussions take place? ‘No’, answers Damian in the next piece which repeats the substance of the formulae to be accepted in slightly different terms $. The next item, dating from some time after the Summer of 585, reports the mixed outcome of negotiations with the tritheists. There had been, three years earlier, a public debate over the question. The chief spokesman for the dissidents gave the game away and they had sat there dumbfounded when he had yielded the validity of Theodosius' ruling (that is, Theodosius of Alexandria in the previously mentioned work) © The letter's opening ran “Having received a good while ago your beatitude's letter". Evidently PETER's letter had rested for some time in the 6th century equivalent of an ‘in-tray’.

PETER OF ANTIOCH AND DAMIAN OF ALEXANDRIA

281

on the inadmissibility of ‘consubstantial substances and natures’. The point was well taken by an influential bishop, Elias, and when the tritheist delegation had returned home he carried on the good work and succeeded in persuading a certain archimandrite, Theodore, to return with him, under a mandate from the tritheist leaders, Conon and Antony, for further discussions. The main points were agreed. Theodore and Elias returned home once more, but Conon and Antony refused to

accept the terms. Theodore reneged on the agreement, but Elias has signed a recantation and has been received back into the fold, his status as a bishop

intact and

Peter hopes

to be able to find him a

cure of

souls. Two documents from Elias are appended, the first dated (Saturday) 2151 July A. D. 585 (by our modern reckoning). An ecstatic eulogy from Damian follows by way of reply to this news from Peter. The friendship between the two, Peter and Damian, is at its warmest.

The next two items, alas, reveal a quite different situation and an atmosphere fraught with tension. The first is part of a letter by Peter addressed to the body of the holy Church of Alexandria, urging the need either for a planned agreement or, if that is impossible, for a meeting between Pope Damian and himself (at a suitable venue like Alexandria) to discuss at leisure the doctrinal issues and so to restore concord between Egypt and the orientals. He will take no notice for the moment of the contentious remarks made about his orthodoxy in a letter emanating from the Church of Alexandria, beyond repeating the usual repudiations of Sabellius, Arius and John Philoponus and his general adherence to patristic teaching. The next and final item, part of a letter addressed to the monastery of the Antonines and the Periodeutae Isidore and Theodore (the location and persons are unknown) tells the rest of the sorry story. Peter is explaining how matters stand. Contradictory slanders are circulating about him. In some places he is being accused of Sabellianism, in other places of tritheism. What happened was this: people had got hold of the chapters Damian wrote against the tritheists and were tarring him with the brush of Damian's Sabellianism. He travelled to Egypt, meaning to go to Alexandria, thrash the matter out and get a full explanation from the Pope. That did not happen. He was barred from Alexandria, forced to stay at Paralos, 3 days journey away from it, where he remained subjected to gross indignities for four months, without Damian's offering any proper excuse. Peter has been made to defend himself on the charge of uttering propositions he never dreamed of saying, whereas Damian has done nothing to repudiate various

282

R.Y. EBIED

publications containing statements capable of undermining the whole fabric of the Christian Church. Peter is ready to answer any charges and will produce a critique of a document of agreement composed by Damian when he gets back to the East. A council will be held there and he asks the recipients to despatch representatives who can carry back its decisions. Meanwhile, they can rest assured that he believes the hypostases of the Trinity to be real and not abstractions or empty names and relationships bereft of the realities (like Damian). Let them take no notice of slanders, he will never be scared into admitting false doctrines utterly alien to patristic tradition. The friends have fallen out for good. There was to be no renewing of love. Unforgivable things had been said, surely, on both sides. Worse was to happen when another conference was convened at Gabita 7. Our dossier, though, closes before that second, even more disastrous, affair took place. There is no doubt that the doctrinal disagreement was exacerbated by wounded feelings and a sense of humiliation by both parties. How presumptuous of Peter to criticize the much better established patriarch of Alexandria—did not all patriarchs of Alexandria in antiquity enjoy the sort of reputation for infallibility only nowadays ascribed to medical practitioners? What a discourteous way for Damian to treat Peter. Paralos, indeed—it was like holding a gathering of heads of state at Miami Beach! But this is not solely a tale of broken friendships and bitter emotions. Peter, when he got back was to put together his work Against Damian. What that work reveals is that the patristic doctrine of the Trinity inherited by Peter and Damian alike was, if not actually inconsistent, at least expressed in various and genuinely puzzling ways. When a person ventures beyond the repetition of the patristic formulae (especially if Aristotle, so to say, is knocking at the back door) when he tries to explain the relationship between the divine substance and the persons of the Trinity, all is not plain and the royal highway (to use the familiar Biblical metaphor) seems to run out into heathland. The disagreement of Peter and Damian was real and about a real dilemma. But their method of appeal to patristic texts, patristic theology, will not and could not resolve it.

? Chronique de Michel le Syrien, vol. ii, pp. 364ff.

LE SYMBOLE

DE

FOI

DE SELEUCIE-CTESIPHON

(410)

Jean GRIBOMONT, OSB Rome, Italie

Sobrement et sans commentaires, les collections canoniques alignent des documents d'importance, destinés en leur temps à résoudre les principales crises, occasion parfois d'une nouvelle flambée de discussions. L'intérét de ces piéces ne se limite pas à leur état original, il n'est pas moins lié aux incidents de leur publication, de leur insertion dans des dossiers qui les mettent en valeur, ce qui appartient, on le sait depuis les enquétes d'E. Schwartz, à la Publizistik, à l'art d'interpréter l'histoire au service de la politique. Les travaux de A. Vóóbus permettent enfin de connaitre les manuscrits canoniques syriaques, mais il reste à faire pour les forcer à livrer leurs secrets. Or, méme sans parler des jalons à poser pour l'histoire de l'Orient, ces études sont indispensables pour donner la clé des dossiers grecs, dont les traducteurs ont eu entre les mains des formes archaiques. Si un manuscrit oriental a depuis des siécles attiré l'attention des historiens, c'est bien le Paris. syr. 62 (=

E), du IX‘ siècle. Au début,

la Didascalie, copiée (f. 8%) par le diacre Abraham de Kaunys Qnv; puis, ff. 90-292, d'une autre main, un corpus canonum, en bonne partie traduit du grec. Une note de la main du scribe (f. 113) nomme le propriétaire, un Abbas évéque Athanase, non identifié. La piece la plus récente est le synode de Bet Bätin (794). Au XV* s., le manuscrit appartenait au patriarche jacobite "Aziz Sabta, qui en fit don au monastére de S. Jacques à Salah’. Au début du XVII‘ s., il était en Italie; des 1599 si j'en crois J. B. Pitra, en tout cas avant 1631, un savant maronite en tira, pour l'usage du card. F. Borromée, la traduction et peut-étre la copie des Actes de Séleucie-Ctésiphon; cette traduction, qui porta à l'Ambrosienne le n? 347 (toujours d'aprés Pitra), fut imprimée ! A une dizaine de km.

au sud d'Amid,

selon

E. HONIGMANN,

Le couvent de Bar-

sauma et le patriarcat jacobite [CSCO 146, Subs. 7] (Louvain 1954), p. 162.

284

J. GRIBOMONT

successivement par L.A. Muratori, D. Mansi, et J.B. Pitra (1740, 1748 et 1759, 1864)?. Quant au codex du IX* siécle, E. Renaudot l'étudia à la Bibliothéque Médicis, à Florence, en tira parti pour ses

études sur les liturgies?, et finalement l'obtint en cadeau de la part du Grand Duc. Par Saint-Germain-des-Prés*, le volume passa alors à la Bibliothéque Nationale de Paris?. Des les années 1840, W. Cureton y eut recours, pour en tirer des fragments d'Ignace?; en 1854 et 1856, P. de Lagarde en édita, sans traduction, les deux sections les plus importantes". Puis T.J. Lamy édita, traduisit, commenta des documents jacobites, dans sa Dissertatio de Syrorum fide et disciplina in re eucharistica®. Dans la seconde moitié du siécle, B. H. Cowper, H. Zotenberg, P. Martin, C. Kayser, LE. Rahmani, puis C. Kuberczyk et F. Nau? en tirérent parti pour des éditions ou des traductions, en le complétant de plus en plus gráce à d'autres témoins, de Londres, du Vatican, d'Orient. Enfin,

en 1908, J. Schuithess put l'utiliser de façon critique!?. en le comparant aux autres manuscrits canoniques alors accessibles.

2 L. A. MURATORI,

la version

latine du

Antiquitates

symbole

Italicae

Medii

et des canons

Aevi

Ii

de Seleucie,

(Milan

1740),

d'après

un

973-80,

édite

manuscrit

de

l'Ambrosienne dont il ne donne pas la signature. J. D. Mansı, Sanctorum conciliorum ... Supplementum 1 (Lucques 1748), 286, puis de nouveau Amplissima collectio... WI

(Florence

1759), 1165, réimprime MURATORI.

historia et monumenta

| (Rome

Credo, sans les canons, p. XLVI,

1864),

a vu

J.B. PITRA, Juris ecclesiastici graecorum le manuscrit

milanais;

mais grace à l'aide de P. ZiNGERLE

il n'édite

que

le

il donne aussi

le texte syriaque (emprunté au manuscrit Paris. syr. 62?). * E. RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio 11. Jacobitarum syrorum liturgiae...

(Paris 1716), p. 56, 124. 226, 272, 380, 491. Le synode de Séleucie est cité p. 272. * Sangermanensis 38. 5 Avant d'obtenir la signature syr. 62, il fut compté suppl. 29. * W.

CURETON,

Corpus

Ignatianum (Londres

1849): description du manuscrit

341 -

348, édition 197-201. traduction 232-235. La premiére édition était de 1845, je n'ai pu la voir. mais rien n'indique qu'elle n'ait pas connu déjà le manuscrit parisien. L'auteur remercie M. MUNK qui le lui signala. 7 iuris * *

P. DE LAGARDE, Didascalia Apostolorum syriace (Leipzig 1854); IDEM, Reliquiae ecclesiastici antiquissimae syriace (Leipzig 1856). T.J. Lamy, Dissertatio... (Louvain 1859). ΒΗ. Cowper, Syriac Miscellanies (Londres 1861); H. ZOTENBERG, Catalogue des

manuscrits syriaques et sabéens de la Bibliothéque Nationale (Paris 1874); P. MARTIN dans J.B. PITRA, Analecta Sacra IV (Tusculum 1883); C. Kayser, Die Canones Jacob's von Edessa (Leipzig 1886): LE. RAHMANI. Testamentum Domini nostri lesu Christi (Mayence 1899); C. KUBERCZYK, Canones lohannis Bar Cursus (Leipzig 1901); F. NAu, Ancienne Littérature canonique syriaque I1-IV (Paris 1906-13), reprenant des articles du Canoniste Contemporain (1903-13), et de la Revue de l'Orient Chrétien (1906-7).

19 F. SCHULTHESS, Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalkedon [Abh. der Ges. der Wiss. zu Göttingen, NF 10] (Göttingen 1908).

SELEUCIE-CTESIPHON

285

De cette etude, il resulte que E s’appuie sur une vieille collection

canonique jacobite, antérieure à 641, Lond.

Add.

14526 (=

B)!!,

mais en remaniant la traduction et en puisant à diverses sources, dont l'une donnait aux mois leurs noms latins'?. De son côté, E. Schwartz avait noté en 1905 l'intérét exceptionnel de document antiochiens, joints en E au soi-disant concile des Encénies (341), mais qui appartenaient à un synode d'Antioche qui prépara Nicée (324)—exemple typique de piéces qui ne sont conservées que dans une seule version orientale, et sont vouées au scepticisme des historiens qui refusent de s'avouer la pauvreté de la tradition grecque pour tout ce qui s'écarte de la ligne des conventions hagiographiques. Schwartz observait à ce propos!?: «Dem syrischen Gelehrten, der den berühmten Cod. Par. syr. 62 zusammenstellte, muss eine griechische Kanonessammlung vorgelegen haben, die zu den in allen griechischen, lateinischen und syrischen Sammlungen sich findenden Stücken verschiedenartiges Material, darunter sehr wertvolles, hinzugefügt hatte, so dass diese Handschrift in der Überlieferungsgeschichte der kirchenrechtlichen Urkunden eine singuläre Stellung einnimmt». Ainsi, plus le manuscrit E est observé et analysé, plus il suscite la curiosité. D'où peut-il tenir des sources d'information si exceptionnelles? F. Nau!*, qui avait traduit attentivement une bonne partie de la collection, y avait déjà reconnu la main de Jacques d'Édesse (t 708). C'est ce que confirment les brillantes découvertes de A. Vöö-

bus!5, qui énumére jusqu'à

12 témoins

de notre collection, et les

répartit en quatre états qui se succédent. Il apparait maintenant qu'il s'agit du Synodicon officiel de l'Église syro-occidentale (jacobite), mis au point par ce Jacques d'Édesse, un des meilleurs érudits de l'antiquité. L'étude scientifique des sources, syriaques et grecques, est désormais possible, et elle permettrait d'utiliser avec discernement les éditions dont nous avons parlé. !! F, SCHULTHESS, p. X-XI. 12 Ibid., p. XI. 15 E, SCHWARTZ, «Zur Geschichte des Athanasius» [Nachr. der Ges. der Wiss. zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. K1.] (1905), Le document est aussi dans H. G. 38-41, et son authenticité vient Synode von Antiochien 324-25 (1975), 356-66.

272-9 = Gesammelte Schriften 111 (Berlin 1959), 136-43. Opitz, Athanasius’ Werke, 111. Urkunden (Berlin 1934), d'étre solidement établie par L. ABRAMOWSKI, «Die und ihr Symbol», Zeitschr. für Kirchengeschichte 86

'* F. NAU, Ancienne littérature canonique syriaque HI (Paris 1909), p. 2. n. 1. 'S A. VOOBUS, Syrische Kanonessammlungen, I. Westsyrische Originalurkunden I, B [CSCO 317, Subs. 38] (Louvain 1970), 440-87, notamment 456-8. L'auteur renvoie à

ses propres publications de textes tirés du Paris. syr. 62.

286

1. GRIBOMONT

Il existe d'ailleurs un autre Synodicon, celui de la tradition orientale

(nestorienne)'$. Déjà Renaudot en avait deviné l'existence, à travers les allusions d'un manuscrit arabe de la Laurentienne, et c'est peutétre au cours de ces recherches qu'il rencontra E. Dans sa Bibliotheca Orientalis, 1.5. Assemani en dit aussi quelque chose, en utilisant la compilation juridique d" Abdiso. Le manuscrit 169 (olim 90) du monastere de Rabban Ormizd, à Alqoë, en conservait un exemplaire du XIV* s., dont le début était en désordre (folios mal reliés? désordre du modele?); vers 1850, C.J. David en fit faire une copie, maintenant

Vat. Borg. syr. 82 (= F; olim K. VI, 4); 'Abdiso Khayyath en fit faire en 1895 une autre copie partielle, maintenant Paris syr. 332. Un exemplaire apparenté à celui d'Alqos existait à Seert, ms. 65 (XVII* s.?), dont le début était en ordre; le Var. syr. 501, daté de 1927, en est une

copie indirecte et partielle'’. Ce dernier témoin n'a guère été utilisé, mais Mgr L. Duchesne obtint de J.B. Chabot, en 1902, une bonne édition de la partie centrale !? de F, soit la collection des treize synodes patriarcaux, du V* à la fin du VIII* s. D'autres pages de F ont été

publiées ailleurs, notamment par Chabot et par Schulthess !?. *

*

*

Chaque Synodicon posséde son matériel propre, mais ils ont en commun le corpus canonum grec, dont chacun donne sa traduction propre, et aussi les documents syriaques antérieurs à la division des Églises. On est surpris de trouver, méme ici, des différences. Le premier synode de l'Église de Perse se tint dans la capitale, Séleucie-Ctésiphon, en 410, à l'issue d'une période de persécutions et de schismes internes, en la onziéme année de Yazdegerd I, dont la politique était alors particuliérement amicale envers les forces byzantines affaiblies, et envers les chrétiens de ses États. Gráce à l'influence de l'évéque Marouta de Maipherkat, délégué par Porphyre

d'Antioche et d'autres évéques occidentaux?°

(Alep,

Edesse, Tella,

16 Ed. J.B. CuABOT, Synodicon orientale [Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques 37] (Paris renseigne sur RENAUDOT, ASSEMANI, et sur les manuscrits.

17 Cf. A. van

LANTSCHOOT,

1902).

L'introduction,

/nventaire des manuscrits syriaques des fonds

(460-631), Barberini Oriental et Neofiti [Studi e Testi 243] (Vatican

1-15.

Vatican

1965), 34-5.

15. Dans la préface de son édition de cette partie, J.B. CuABor fait la liste des publications d'autres éléments de la méme collection. 1° Cf. plus haut, n. 10. 2° Cf. J.B. CHABOT, Synodicon orientale, 255. Le nom de MAROUTA ct la liste de ses collègues aide à discerner d'où le synode tenait son texte nicéen.

SELEUCIE-CTESIPHON

287

Amid), le catholicos Isaac put réunir ses collégues de Perse, et résoudre les problémes locaux sur la base des décisions de Nicée, qui avaient pour lors acquis autorité à Antioche et en général dans l'empire byzantin. Les deux éditions du Synodicon syriaque, orientale et occidentale, ont leurs informations sur ce synode, «assemblée constituante» de l'Église perse organisée. Mais le Credo nicéen qu'elles lui attribuent différe profondément d'un document à l'autre; or un seul de ces documents peut étre tenu pour authentique. Aprés F. Borromée, Muratori, Mansi, Pitra, qui furent énumérés au début de cet article, c'est T.J. Lamy qui s'intéressa le plus à la formule donnée par E. Sa Dissertatio eucharistique?! de 1859 avait été basée sur ce manuscrit, et des 1858 il en avait transcrit les Actes de Séleucie. En 1868, il publia une monographie, Concilium Seleuciae et Ctesiphonti habitum anno 410??. Il revint sur le sujet en 1894, lors d'un congrés scientifique international??, en insistant sur une attestation inespérée du Filioque trinitaire. Ne connaissant pas la recension du Synodicon oriental, il n'avait aucune raison de mettre en doute l'authenticité du texte de E. Peu aprés, J. B. Chabot publia l'autre texte, dans le cadre apparemment trés solide du Synodicon orientale?*, au milieu des canons fort bien conservés du concile de Séleucie; il se borna à une affirmation rapide et catégorique pour écarter la recension concurrente, «texte remanie»?°. Son but était de «mettre les documents à la portée des historiens» 26, et il s'abstenait d'en entreprendre le commentaire théologique, historique ou philologique. Lamy étant décédé peu aprés, personne ne se leva pour défendre son Credo. En 1972 enfin, A. Vóóbus donna l'édition critique du symbole occidental de Séleucie?". En passant, il toucha le probléme de sa relation avec la recension orientale (F). Il reconnut

l'antériorité de la

21 Cf. plus haut. n. 8. 22 ΤΙ}

Lamy,

Concilium Seleuciae et Ctesiphonti habitum anno 410 (Louvain

1868).

L'auteur précise (en polémique avec PITRA) qu'il avait pris copie du Paris. 62 dés 1858. 23 T.J. Lamy, «Le concile tenu à Séleucie-Ctésiphon en 410», dans le Compterendu du IIF congrès scientifique international des catholiques, tenu à Bruxelles du 3 au ἃ sept. 1894. II. Sciences religieuses (Bruxelles 1895), 268. ?* J. B. CHABOT, Synodicon orientale, 22-3 (trad. 262-3).

25 ]bid., 16; cf. 263, n. 5. 2° Ibid., 16. A. νδόβυς, «New Sources for the Symbol Vigiliae Christianae 26 (1972), 291-6.

in Early Syrian Christianity», dans

288

J. GRIBOMONT

formule occidentale, mais sans mettre en discussion l'authenticité de l'autre, ni chercher à les situer avec précision dans l'histoire 25. Pour discerner ce qu'il en est, il faut se rappeler que la fidélité scrupuleuse à la lettre de Nicée suppose une idéalisation de cette règle de foi, qui a demandé du temps. Aux origines, on se rendait encore compte que Nicée avait tiré parti d'une formule préexistante, avec quelques additions anti-ariennes. Chaque église conservait sa formulation traditionnelle propre, il suffisait d'y introduire l'homoousios et quelques autres mots caractéristiques, pour donner un Nicaenum fort convenable??. C'est seulement Cyrille d'Alexandrie qui, contre Nestorius, a exigé un Nícaenum pur, et cette vue ne s'est imposée que progressivement. Or, que constatons-nous? La formule orientale de Séleucie, comme le fait attendre le titre, «définition de foi des 318

évêques», est une version scrupuleuse du Nicaenum. Quant à la recension occidentale, elle comporte sans doute les traits caractéristiques de Nicée, mais dans un ensemble original??. Elle est donc postérieure à l'alignement sur Nicée, mais vraisemblablement antérieure à la recension orientale. Il y a plus. La formule orientale n'est pas seulement fidele au Nicaenum grec; elle est identique à une version déterminée du Nicaenum, et cette version a toute chance de provenir de la version syriaque des Actes de Chalcédoine, longtemps donc aprés 410. Voici, en bref, les éléments du dossier, que je compte étudier plus longuement ailleurs.

?* Ibid., 292: «Lamy suggested that we have to do with an ancient symbol of Eastern Syrian Christianity—one which was part of the archaic heritage of that ecclesiastical community—which

had

to recede

before

the

weight

of the

Nicene

symbol

in

the wake of reform. This would explain the absence of the ancient creed from the official acts of the synod [= le Synodicon orientale; en fait, Lamy ignorait encore ce document]. However, Ms. Par. syr. 62 indicates that the new symbol must have been placed side by side with the ancient one». Au fond, cette solution n'est pas éloignée de celle

que

nous

proposerons,

sauf que

l'insertion

du

Nicaenum

pur

nous

parait

bien postérieure à 410, et que nous distinguons plus nettement la tradition des deux collections canoniques.

29 Les variations dans la formulation du Nicaenum ont été mises en relief E. SCHWARTZ, «Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode Chaikedon», Zeitschr. für die neutest. Wissenschaft 25 (1926), 38-88; le dossier élargi et interprété par J. LEBON, «Les anciens symboles de foi dans la définition Chalcédoine»,

Revue d'Hist. Ecclésiastique 32 (1936), 809-66,

Il Simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli 260-84. 3° Nous présentons ce texte plus bas.

(Rome

1967),

puis par G.L.

notamment

par von fut de

DossetT1,

ses conclusions,

SELEUCIE-CTESIPHON

289

Ni en 325 ni en 381, il n'y eut d'édition officielle des Actes de Nicée ou de Constantinople. Les canons de ces deux conciles finirent par étre joints à une collection, d'origine peu nicéenne, des canons d'Ancyre, Néocésarée, Gangres, etc.?! ; mais les symboles de foi, qui circulaient à part, n'entrérent qu'assez tard dans ce corpus. La promulgation officielle des deux symboles, unis, se fit à Chalcédoine*?, aux sessions 2 et 5. Le vieux corpus canonum grec, noyau du Synodicon syriaque, y est reçu

en

deux

versions,

l'une

occidentale,

l'autre

orientale**.

Nous

connaissons déjà la première, attestée par le manuscrit B (Add. 14526), puis revue et corrigée par Jacques d'Édesse et transmise par E et ses semblables. L'autre version, qui aboutit au Synodicon nestorien, fut faite à Mabboug en 501 et est attestée par un manuscrit de trés peu postérieur, Lond. Add. 14528 (= A). Quelles que soient les différences entre ces versions A et B, elles s'accordent, étrangement, pour la traduction des symboles de Nicée et de Constantinople. Or dans le manuscrit B, f. 36, aussi bien que dans le Synodicon oriental, F, f. 94, les deux symboles de Nicée et de Constantinople se font suite et figurent dans le cadre de Chalcédoine. Dans le manuscrit A, f. 16, ils sont passés ensemble à Nicée, mais le symbole de Constantinople, qui n'a rien à y faire, montre assez qu'il y a eu transposition. Enfin, dans la copie récente du Synodicon oriental, Vat. Syr. 501, f. 3, et dans le Synodicon occidental remis en ordre par Jacques

d'Édesse?* (Paris. syr. 62, f. 122v; Borg. syr. 148, f. 114*; Vat. syr. 495, f. 1"), le Nicaenum a rejoint sa place logique, Nicée. En dehors des manuscrits canoniques, deux ouvrages anciens de polémique anti-

chalcédonienne, Lond. Add. 12156?5, VI* s., f. 36*, et Var. syr. 139?6, VIII“ s., f. 3, unissent version, aux

les deux

Actes de Chalcédoine.

symboles, Dans

toujours

dans

la méme

tous ces documents,

méme

en A, il n'est guére douteux que le texte de nos symboles ne provienne des Actes de Chalcédoine. On peut évidemment supposer que 31 L'histoire du Corpus canonum grec a été débrouillée par E. ScHwARTZ, «Die Kanonessammlungen der alten Reichskirche», Zeitschr. der Savigny-Stiftung 56, Kan. Abi. 25 (1936), 1-114 — Gesammelte Schriften IV (Berlin 1960), 159-275. 32 Cf. G.L. Dossetmi, 0.1. (n. 29), 113-73. 53 Cf. F. SCHULTHESS, o./. (n. 10), p. I-XII. 34 Je cite seulement les manuscrits que j'ai consultés. 35 Cf. C.P. Caspari, Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel 1 (Christiania 1866), 101. L. ABRAMOWSKI a promis une étude d'ensemble sur ce manuscrit. ?* Ed. R. HESPEL, Severe d'Antioche. Le Philalethe [CSCO 133, Syr. 68] (1952), 2.

290

J. GRIBOMONT

le traducteur des Actes de Chalcédoine n'a fait que reprendre une version antérieure des symboles, celle dont le concile de Seleucie, dans la tradition orientale, serait dés 410 le plus ancien témoin. Mais la grande fidélité de la version ne favorise guére cette hypothese. De toute facon, la version dont il est ici question différe profondément des deux versions liturgiques, orientale (qui s'apparente de prés au Credo com-

mente par Théodore de Mopsueste dans ses homélies catéchétiques)* et occidentale ??. En somme, l'uniformité de traduction de nos symboles dans les deux versions du corpus canonum montre à l'évidence que l'une au moins de ces versions (vraisemblablement A) ignorait les symboles, peut-étre parce que son modele grec ne s'intéressait qu'aux dispositions disciplinaires; elle a emprunté le Nicaenum et le Constantinopolitanum à l'autre recension—que cet emprunt soit le fait du traducteur lui-méme ou d'un recenseur plus tardif. Or l'autre recension avait ces textes dans le cadre de Chalcédoine, elle ne peut donc étre antérieure à la seconde moitié du V* siécle. Cette version exacte du Nicaenum a été introduite ensuite par le compilateur du Synodicon oriental jusque dans les Actes de Seleucie, sans aucune intention de fraude : puisque les Péres de Séleucie annongaient leur ralliement à Nicée, il devait sembler tout indiqué de leur attribuer, non un demi-Nicée, mais un texte pur et fidéle. Une telle substitution ne jette pas une ombre de suspicion sur le Synodicon oriental, elle confirme seulement le principe selon lequel aucune collection de documents ne doit étre acceptée les yeux fermés, une question critique se posant sur la valeur de chaque piéce. Le Synodicon occidental, passé par les mains de Jacques d'Édesse, est plus suspect a priori, car l'érudition du com37 Éditions du symbole oriental: C.P. Casrarı, o./. (plus haut, n. 35), 116 = A. et G. L. Hann, Bibliothek der Symbole (Breslau 1897), $132, p. 144, en version grecque; Liturgia SS. Apostolorum

Adaei et Maris

(Urmi

1890), 8; Missale

Chaldaicum

(Rome

1901), 21, et (Bagdad 1971), 17; Pontificale Chaldaicum (Rome 1957), 33: G. DIETTRICH, Die nestorianische Taufliturgie (Giessen 1903), 31. Le plus ancien manuscrit que je connaisse n'est que du XIII* s., Lond. Add. 17219, mais les citations de THEODORE DE MOPSUESTE (et de sa version syriaque, déjà identique au symbole oriental), de

Narsal, et, en arabe, de SEVERE IBN AL-MOQAFFA', montrent que l'absence de manuscrits anciens n'est duc qu'à la pauvreté de manuscrits nestoriens anciens. 3% Ed. dans les missels syriens (Rome 1843), 16, et (Charfeh 1922), 15, ainsi que dans le bréviaire de Mossoul (1886) I, 12. On trouve ce symbole dans JEAN DE Dara, De oblatione, ed. J. Saver [CSCO 308, Syr. 132) (1970), 51; Denys Bar SALIBI,

Expositio liturgiae, ed. H. LABOURT

[CSCO

13, Syr.

13] (1903), 34; BAR

HEBRAEUS,

Candélabre du Sanctuaire IV, 5, 2, 25, ed. J. KHOURY, Patrol. Orientalis 31 (Paris 1964), 166; et dans de nombreux manuscrits, depuis le Lond. Add. 17115, IX-XI° s. Les manuscrits les plus anciens ont un état plus pur que les éditions, qui représentent

une recension due à Jacques D'ÉDESSE.

SELEUCIE-CTESIPHON

291

pilateur a pu mélanger de nombreuses sources. Il n'en est que plus intéressant de constater que les origines de l'Église de Perse ne l'intéressent pas moins que les orientaux, il s'en juge l'héritier légitime et il en posséde les archives. +

+

+

Passons à l’analyse interne du symbole occidental, car il ne suffirait pas d’avoir rejeté la recension concurrente. Le texte étant accessible

dans l'excellente édition de Vóóbus??,

il suffira de la traduire, en-

mettant en italiques les éléments paralléles au Nicaenum. Le titre «La foi qui fut établie par les évéques de Perse» est une addition éditoriale *°, postérieure à 410. l. Nous croyons en un seul Dieu Pere, lui qui en son Fils a fait le ciel et la terre, et en lui a établi les mondes d'en haut et d'en bas, et en lui a fait résurrection et renouveau pour toute la création.

2. Et en son Fils unique engendré de lui, c'est-à-dire de l'Essence de son Pere; Dieu de

Dieu,

lumiére

de lumiére,

vrai Dieu de

vrai Dieu;

il est engendré

et

non pas fait, lui qui est consubstantiel à son Père; lui qui à cause de nous les hommes, qui par lui fümes créés, et à cause de notre salut, descendit et revétit un corps et devint fils d'homme, et souffrit et ressuscita le troisième jour et monta au ciel, et siège à la droite de son Père; et il vient pour juger les morts et les vivants.

3. Et nous confessons l'Esprit vivant et saint, le Paraclet vivant qui (vient) du Pére et du Fils. en une Essence, en une Trinité, en une Volonte. Nous confirmons ainsi la foi des 318 évêques,

qui

advint

dans

la ville de

Nicée.

Si l'on compare l'art. 2 aux différentes formes du symbole, il apparait trés lié à Nicée. La «session à la droite du Pére» pourrait faire penser à Constantinople, mais elle se trouve en fait dans presque tous les symboles connus; il ne manque méme pas de manuscrits qui l'interpolent dans le Nicaenum*! ; l'absence totale des caractéristiques du Constantinopolitanum*?, lesquelles pénétrent déjà nettement, par 39 Cf. plus haut, n. 27. *? La mention de la Perse suggere que ce titre fut créé en Syrie occidentale; on peut penser que ce titre figurait déjà dans le document avant que JACQUES D'EDESSE ne l'insére dans le Synodicon. *! Cf. L.G. Dossettt, o./. (plus haut, n. 29), p. 234 en apparat.

41 Aucune

mention, par exemple, de la création

du ciel et de la terre (ce qu'en

dit l'art. I est conçu en termes différents), de la Vierge et de l'Esprit lors de la conception

du Christ, de la mort, de Ponce

Pilate, de l'ensevelissement, de la conformité

aux

Ecritures, du règne sans fin, de l'adoration de l'Esprit. de l'Église, du baptême, de la rémission des péchés, de la vie éternelle.

292

J. GRIBOMONT

exemple, dans les versions liturgiques syriaques du symbole, impose une date assez haute. Non pas nécessairement avant 381, car le Constantinopolitanum ne s'est guère diffusé qu'aprés Chalcédoine ** ; mais l'an 410 conviendrait parfaitement. Pour expliquer le caractére mixte de notre texte, on peut concevoir deux hypothéses : un Nicaenum avec des interpolations orientales, ou un texte oriental conformé à Nicée. La premiére hypothése est peu vraisemblable : aurait-on éliminé des éléments simples et satisfaisants

tels que Tout-Puissant et unique Seigneur Jésus Christ, pour créer un art. 1 neuf et compliqué? A

l'inverse, l'élimination pure et simple de

l'art. 2, à première vue fort radicale, se montre satisfaisante, car l'art. |

comporte déjà une doctrine du Fils et de la rédemption, aprés laquelle on passe tout naturellement à une mention de l'Esprit. Certes, le schéma ainsi reconstitué ignore la confession trinitaire, ou du moins le modèle de la trine formule baptismale; il s'intéresse à la création, dans le Fils, et à la régénération, plus qu'aux mysteres intra-trinitaires, ou méme qu'à l'histoire de l'incarnation. Dans une perspective judéochrétienne bien attestée **, l'art. 1 s'appuie sur Gn. 1, 1, et interprète

le principe comme le Fils; puis, en passant par Hb 1, 2*5, il confesse l'Esprit de vie et d'immortalité ^6. Une formule de ce type ne manque

pas de cohérence37. Dans les art. 1 et 3, les quelques mots communs avec Nicée résultent-ils d'un emprunt? Il deviendrait alors difficile de reconstruire le substrat archaique, d'autant que la confession finale et l'unique Trinité appartiennent probablement au travail rédactionnel de 410. Le substrat oriental parait beaucoup moins attentif à connumérer

“> Cf. L.G. DossETTI (plus haut, n. 29), p. 169, 175, 191; A. M. RirrER, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol (Göttingen 1965), 195-208.

** Cf. J. DanıtLou, le Kérygme

Theologie du judéo-christianisme (Tournai 1958), 220-2, qui cite

de Pierre, THEOPHILE

D'ANTIOCHE,

ARISTON

DE

PELLA,

JUSTIN,

TATIEN,

etc.

Notre symbole, à charactére officiel, ajoute un témoignage d'un grand intérét. *5 L'addition «d'en haut et d'en bas» aux «mondes» (ou «siècles», ce qui serait le seul sens de l'original grec; il est clair que l'addition est propre à un texte syriaque)

rappelle Col.

1, 16, qui est rappelé, sous différentes formes («le ciel et la terre» ou «les

choses visibles et invisibles») dans les différents symboles. ** On peut comparer à cette théologie le commentaire d'EPHREM sur le Diatessaron I, 4-6 et XXI, 33. 47 Les traces d'un ancien symbole syrien ont été rassemblées par R. H. CONNOLLY, «The Early Syrian Creed», Zeitschr. für die neutest. Wissenschaft 7 (1906), 202-23,

et «On Aphraates, Hom. I, 19», Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908). 572-6. Ces textes ne ressemblent guère au nôtre, peut-être parce que la récolte du matériel a été faite en fonction d'un type de symbole plus classique.

SELEUCIE-CTESIPHON

293

les Trois qu'à relever l'unité du Père, de l’Essence*® et de la Volonté. Quant au Paraclct, sa procession ne se rattache évidemment que de facon superficielle à la théologie latine du Filioque, mais on n'a aucune raison de rejeter la mention du Fils, qui se situe sur le plan des

manifestations dans l'histoire du salut *?. Aprés avoir considéré les formules en elles-mémes, il reste à dire un mot de la terminologie syriaque en laquelle elles s'expriment. S'incarner est rendu à la facon d'Aphraate et des plus anciens documents °°, ein yal. Pour le reste, notre texte est proche du symbole liturgique nestorien*', ce qui est preuve d’archaisme pour un document transmis par les Jacobites. +

*

*

Malgré Muratori, Mansi, Pitra, et l'insistance de Lamy, ce document n'a guère été utilisé??, par suite des doutes que l'on avait sur sa transmission, et de la condamnation rapide portée par Chabot. Il est + Rhode’

: le mot est cher à saint EPHREM, cf. E. BECK, «Die Theologie des

hl. Ephraem in seinen Hymnen über den Glauben» (Studia Anselmiana 21] (Rome 1949), 5-13; IDEM, «Ephraems Reden über den Glauben» (Studia Anselmiana 33] (1953). 1-4. ^? J'ai traduit «qui (vient)» pour rendre le syriaque. S'il y avait une allusion à Jo. 15, 26, le verbe procéder serait presque certainement explicite, comme dans beau-

coup d'autres Credos.

Il faut pourtant reconnaitre que le mot

notre art. 3, figure dans ce méme verset (et ailleurs). Méme sion n'imposerait point une problématique intra-trinitaire.

Paraclet, voisin dans l'allusion

*9 Cf. APHRAATE, VII, 1; XXI, 9 et 20; XXII, 4; XXIII, 20. On formule

dans

la Doctrine d’Addai,

ed. G.

PriLLirs

(Londres

1876),

à une proces-

trouve la méme 19 (bis),

et dans

les Actes de Thomas. ed. W. WRIGHT, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Londres 1871), Il, 217 et 242. Les formules de foi inspirées de Nicée ont en général des termes différents, plus proches du grec. 5! Deux inversions, que l'on constate méme en traduction, sont charactéristiques, à l'art. 2: unique, engendré: et les moris et les vivants. En outre, il est engendré et non pas fait, au mode personnel et non au participe: consubstantiel = mca io;

par qui nous fümes arzala ,ishre frc. La méme

créés

=

4x io re

máx

m3

est proche

de

,mó x re »1

: devint fils d'homme = τόπο in om: il vient (pour juger) = traduction de consubstantiel et de devint fils d'homme se retrouve,

à la vérité, dans le symbole liturgique occidental. sous sa forme ancienne. Il est bien curieux que Jacques D'ÉDESSE précisément ait corrigé ces expressions dans sa revision du symbole liturgique, censé traduit du Nicaenum grec, mais les ait conservées dans son exemplaire du symbole de Séleucie, sans doute parce qu'il considerait celui-ci

comme un document historique plus que comme une traduction à améliorer. Ce respect est tout à l'honneur de son sens historique, et inspire confiance en son texte.

52 Je n'en vois aucune

mention

n. 37), ni dans les nombreux

dans

HAHN.

travaux de C.P.

Bibliothek der Symbole

Caspari.

Dans

apostolische Symbol Il (Leipzig 1900), p. 276, la version française de Lamy citée en appendice. avec scepticisme, et sans aucune étude.

(plus

F. KarrENBUSCH,

haut, Das

(1895) est

294

J. GRIBOMONT

pourtant fondamental pour la constitution de l'Église perse, et pour la diffusion, plus lente qu'on ne veut parfois l'imaginer, du Nicaenum; il représente, tel qu'il est, une affirmation majeure d'œcuménicité, les Églises byzantines admettant volontiers un symbole adapté à l'Orient, la Perse acceptant tout naturellement la substance de la foi nicéenne. Maintenant que Vóóbus en a établi critiquement le texte et l'a rattaché au Synodicon des Églises de Syrie, on devrait en tirer pleinement parti, comme de tant de documents précieux exhumés par ce chercheur infatigable.

THE

SELEUCIA—CTESIPHON

SYMBOL

Both the Jacobite (West Syrian) Synodicon

OF

FAITH,

and the Nestorian

410 (East Syrian)

Synodicon contain the Greek collection of canons and early Syrian documents, but

with

differences,

particularly

in their

versions

of the

creed.

It must

be

remembered that the faith of Nicaea allowed for local verbal variations until Cyril of Alexandria in opposing Nestorius insisted on the pure Nicene wording. The first synod of the church in Persia took place at Seleucia-Ctesiphon, 410. The Nestorian version of the Seleucia creed scrupulously reproduces the Nicaenum. The Jacobite version gives it a peculiar wording; thus it is apparently earlier. The Nestorian formula probably comes from the Syriac version of the Acts of Chalcedon. The Greek collection of canons was received in Syria in a western and an

eastern version. The translators must have worked not from Chalcedon but from earlier models; both versions doubtless used Seleucia. The western text shows the influence of the Jewish Christian emphasizing creation, the Son, regeneration, and the spirit of life and rather than the inner-trinitarian relations.

the Acts of the Acts of environment, immortality,

TROIS SYNODES IMPÉRIAUX DU DANS UNE CHRONIQUE SYRIAQUE

VI‘ S. INÉDITE

André DE HALLEUX Louvain, Belgique

Le prof. Vööbus a consacré la part de sa carrière scientifique qu'il considère sans doute comme la plus passionnante à la recherche de sources syriaques inconnues, et le bilan de ses découvertes le consacre comme le spécialiste contemporain ayant le plus enrichi nos connaissances en ce domaine. Je le prie de bien vouloir accepter ma modeste contribution à ce volume d’hommage comme un témoignage de ma

profonde estime pour l’homme et de ma grande admiration pour le savant. Les trois courtes notices et fragments syriaques d’actes synodaux que je lui présente ne se rattachent pas aux synodica qu'il a lui-même magistralement étudiés, mais, chose plus rare peut-être, elles appartiennent à la tradition byzantine post-chalcédonienne. Les conciles en cause sont tous trois constantinopolitains et du VI* s. : bien connus,

celui de 536 et le cinquiéme cecuménique de 553, tenus sous Justinien; pratiquement ignoré, celui de 571, sous Justin II. Les trois piéces constituent la fin d'une bréve chronique syro-chalcédonienne inédite, préservée dans le ms. Sinai syr. 10 (VIII* ou IXe s.)!, f. 42-53. Ce document fut probablement adapté à partir d'un modèle perdu, avec l'intention majeure de situer le monophysisme sévérien dans l'histoire des «scandales æœcuméniques » et de souligner sa condamnation par le nomocanon de la Grande Église. Il présente une étroite parenté littéraire avec une chronique jacobite du IX* 5.2, affinité que l'examen comparé de la biographie de Philoxéne de Mabbog permet

' A. SMITH Lewis, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss. in the Convent of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai [Studia Semitica 1] (London 1894), p. 4; K.W. CLARK, Checklist of Manuscripts in St. Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, Microfilmed for the Library of Congress, 1950 (Washington 1952), p. 17; M. KAMIL, Catalogue of all Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai (Wiesbaden 1970), p. 153, n° 57. ? Chronicon anonymum ad A.D. 846 pertinens, éd. E. W. Brooks [CSCO 3, Syr. 3] (1904), p. 157-238; trad. J.-B. CHABOT [CSCO 4, Syr. 4], p. 121-80.

296

A. DE HALLEUX

de déterminer dans le sens d'une priorité du modéle melkite?. ailleurs, l'analyse de sa notice sur Sévére d'Antioche manifeste renseignements inédits qui, bien que déformés, n'en proviennent moins de données historiques précises et anciennes*. Autant de jugés favorables pour l'étude des fragments synodaux en question I.

Le synode

RU

πάν

NT

de Constantinople,

καλοῦν

Lire

>

536 (ms. Sin. syr. 10, f. 51v-52v)

sin

la

Par des pas préici.

xao:

c»

ar’

riaw

nao

liam

am

iris

wi

Rains am au aX aso αὶ masculoons ea m V wr o .m»mda réaisil a cimiaw’ c» häss

wim

Isa

wom

wish

χὰ

etos

sod oko ira mannmiar ὁ ima. + has ale abe dime [f. 527 eoo Isa

ah

miam

des

ar ana m

roms

my

.qums\is

:

ioa

905

«d»

« ααλς

ar

mAXSo eom …omhasmle Dei

risa Also

mom

„nAasla

c

: Coen

nr

ar

ia TA:

iho

mio

mV

qiio

isa

mala

anda

sure

ar

warmamı

HS

eL cac

ON

ne

Ms

LA

WAL

: ur

ems

Dur

ul

man,

‚mm

ons

im

Ax:

M1

eV

cots

Kamas;

warn

πλοία

p50

si

Minar

ulmi

amla _

nmi

babe

us

Miata

Omas

um

: air dax

Ja nsi. amiss

dures ole

can τὸ I

mms

no

xpo

uio mami ust) am or qulance

nie:

urn

has

+ mhaalmı

ar eas:

mals

eco

Walo kesh

m uai

am

au

οὶ

:

als

& war in e» alo σι 130

ἡ warmıam

wanmiawms

mise *, “Ὁ

run

‚kurs ma

mana

aa

Qcad

λον MR E UPS

small

Qamımı

a [f. 52*]

ur

> A. DE HALLEUX, «A la source d'une biographie expurgée de Philoxéne de Mabbog », dans Miscellanea in honorem Josephi Vergote — Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 6-7 (1975-6), p. 253-66. * A. DE HALLEUX, «Une notice syro-chalcédonienne sur Sévére d'Antioche», à paraître dans les Mélanges Fr. Graffin, = Parole de l'Orient 7 (Kaslik, Liban 1976).

UNE CHRONIQUE SYRIAQUE INÉDITE

mM -izaı he

dio um,

emo

masks

297

mia * aa

a asc war Manamiar ni rA nce ὁ nun‘ ‚min‘ mCaccami Se^ . omla masmo ‚nun δΞοοϊο ons $c

is

oom]

LOMA

dur

ummina

Ans h

Quant à Sévére, s'étant enfui d'Antioche, il émigra à Alexandrie. Et ayant suscité, là aussi, toutes [sortes de] désordres, il s'en vint à Constantinople. Et, bien qu'ayant été condamné d'anathéme par le patriarche Hormisdas de Rome, il s'arrangeait encore pour remplir le globe de soulévements et de troubles. Et c'est pourquoi des requétes étaient présentées de partout

évêques et des moines.

Et l'empereur,

par des

ayant appris par elles ce qui s'était]

produit, en la dix[ieme] année de son règne, assembla un synode, en l'année 849. Et là, selon le décret et selon la sentence du synode contre Severe et

contre sa doctrine, l'empereur lui aussi ayant défini, [Sévére] fut anathématisé, et avec lui Anthime aussi. Et l'empereur aussi ordonna par un édit que personne ne püt non plus lire aucunement dans ses livres. Sentence du synode.—Adhérant, nous aussi, au décret des saints Péres et suivant le canon de l'Évangile, mais recevant aussi nos fréres vénérables et nos collégues et la sentence portée par eux contre les susdit(s] Sévére, Pierre et Za'óra, avec tous ceux qui sont leurs partisans et adeptes, [voici] que, par

Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ, notre Dieu véritable, nous chassons ceux qui ont envahi comme des loups le bercail du Christ. Et nous nous associons au décret

avec nos fréres vénérables et nos collégues.

Et ce Sévére et Pierre et leurs

doctrines, nous les transpercons d'un anathéme terrible. Et tout ce qui a été écrit par eux, nous le rendons étranger, en tant que le venin du dragon y est caché, par lequel ils blessent les ämes des simples. Signature.—Ménas, archevêque de Constantinople, j'ai défini et j'ai signé. Et ainsi tous les évéques définirent et signérent, qui étaient au nombre de 92.

Biaisée par son hostilité contre Sévére d'Antioche, cette présentation des événements qui aboutirent au synode constantinopolitain de 536 n'en reste pas moins historiquement fondée. La fuite à Alexandrie, déjà évoquée par le chroniqueur dans sa notice sur Sévére?, se trouve unanimement attestée par la tradition. La mention des désordres que le patriarche exilé aurait suscités en Égypte ne doit pas se rapporter à sa controverse avec Julien d'Halicarnasse, affaire interne au monophysisme, mais elle se rattache plutót aux «soulévements» et aux «troubles» universels dont le chroniqueur charge l'exilé aprés avoir noté sa venue à Constantinople, et ces allegations reposent sans doute sur les requétes des évéques et des moines, mentionnées à ce propos. Il pourrait s'agir concrétement du 5 Ci-dessus, note 4.

298

A. DE HALLEUX

libelle de l'épiscopat de la Syrie II* à Justinien, ainsi que de celui des moines de Constantinople, de Jérusalem, de la Syrie II‘, du Sinai et des trois Palestines au méme empereur. Ces deux piéces se trouvent insérées, entre autres, dans les actes du synode de 5365, que le chroniqueur connait, puisqu'il en cite un extrait significatif. La condamnation préalable de Sévére par le pape Hormisdas, sou-

lignée un peu plus haut, ne vise pas le formulaire imposé en 519 pour la liquidation du schisme acacien’. Elle renvoie plutôt à un document que le chroniqueur présente immédiatement aprés sa notice sur le pape Agapit (f. 51"): la lettre qu'Hormisdas adressa, le 10 février 518, aux prétres, diacres et archimandrites de la Syrie II‘, en réponse

à leur

dénonciation

des

massacres

de

l'automne

de

517

prés

du

monastere de Saint-Syméon le Stylite. Cette lettre fut, elle aussi, insérée dans les actes du synode de 536, à la demande des Occidentaux?.

La venue de Sévére à Constantinople en 535 est présentée comme une initiative agressive de l'ancien patriarche d'Antioche. En réalité, ce dernier avait été invité et recu avec honneur dans la capitale par Théodora et Justinien, et ce n'est que l'arrivée du pape Agapit, remplagant par Ménas le patriarche Anthime (13 mars 536), qui renversa la situation en défaveur du monophysisme?. Le chroniqueur n'ignore point ces événements, qu'il vient de relater avec précision dans une

courte notice sur Agapit!?. S'il ne les a pas liés au synode de 536, c'est sans doute qu'il suivait, ici et là, deux sources différentes, comme le montre encore le fait qu'il situe la venue du pape à Constantinople (début mars 536) en la douziéme année de Justinien et le synode, pourtant postérieur de deux mois (2 mai-4 juin 536) en la dixiéme année de l'empereur. Mais les autres données chronologiques qu'il fournit sur le régne de Justinien s’averent semblablement de valeur inégale. Sont correctes,

* Coll.

sabb.

V.

11

et

12,

Acta

Conciliorum

Oecumenicorum,

éd.

ED.

SCHWARTZ.

t. 3 (Berlin 1940), p. 30-8. 7 E. Stein, Histoire du Bas- Empire, t. 2 (Paris 1949), p. 228.

® Coll. sabh. V, 20, éd. SCHWARTZ, p. 52-6. > STEIN, p. 376-87. 19 «Et en la douzième] année de l'empereur Justinien, par l'initiative dudit empereur croyant, l'archevéque Agapit de Rome descendit à Constantinople. Et, ayant aidé par beaucoup [de choses] toute la communauté de l'Église, il dépouilla de sa

dignité Anthime, [archevêque] de ladite Ville, en tant qu'ayant été [re]connu [comme] étant adepte de Sévère: et Ménas fut placé en son lieu. Mais il y aurait eu d'autres choses à redresser entre ses mains, s'il n'avait été saisi par le terme humain. Et il acheva sa vie à Constantinople méme, ayant régi [l'église] onze mois.» (f. 5Ir-v)

UNE CHRONIQUE SYRIAQUE INEDITE

299

si l'on ne tient pas compte des mois, la somme des trente-neuf ans du règne (f. 53), calculé à partir de la mort de Justin I (f. Sir)!!, la mention de la dixiéme année du régne pour le synode de 536 (f. 51") et celle de la vingt-septiéme année pour celui de 553 (f. 52»). Mais le synchronisme de la dixiéme année du régne (aoüt 536-juillet 537) avec l'an 849 de l'ére séleucide (octobre 537-septembre 538) et celui de la vingt-septiéme année du régne (aoüt 553-juillet 554) avec l'an 867 des Séleucides (octobre 555-septembre 556) présentent chacun un décalage dont je n’aperçèis pas la raison. C'est dans les actes du synode de 536 que le chroniqueur a trouvé l'anathéme du patriarche Anthime de Constantinople, qu'il joint dans son récit à celui de Sévére d’Antioche'?. Quant à la participation de Justinien à la «définition» que constitua cette double condamnation, elle doit lui avoir été suggérée par la quarante-deuxiéme Novelle, du 6 aoüt 536, également insérée dans les actes!?. C'est d'ailleurs à ce méme document qu'il se référe immédiatement aprés, en le caractérisant comme un «édit» (diataxis) interdisant les «livres» de Sévére et d'Anthime. Les termes syriaques hürgäna («décret») et gzär-dina («sentence»), qui paraissaient distincts dans la présentation du synode, traduisent semblablement le grec pséphos dans le titre et le texte de l'extrait cité. Celui-ci est repris de la sentence synodale, décrétée lors de la cinquiéme actio, du 4 juin 536, et que l'intitulé des actes grecs attribue au président

Ménas'!*. Le chroniqueur a reproduit la signature de ce seul patriarche, mais il connaissait la liste des autres signataires, puisqu'il en compte quatre-vingt-douze, Ménas non compris, en parfaite concordance avec les actes ! 5. La version syriaque de l'extrait synodal me parait fidéle, sans étre servile. Bien qu'aucune de ses variantes ne soit attestée dans l'apparat critique de l'édition d'Ed. Schwartz, et bien que la plupart puissent s'expliquer comme une adaptation du chroniqueur ou par la négligence d'un copiste, j'en présente ici le relevé. Schwartz, p. 113, 1. 6 διὰ ταῦτα toryapovv: om. syr. (rédactionnel?) | l. 6 ψήφοις: sing. syr. (omission des syämé?) | |. 7 τὲ καὶ ratpikolc: om. syr. | I. 7 θεσμοῖς: sing. syr. (omission des syäme?) | L 10 τῆς ἀσεβείας... ἀνοσιουργίαις:

11 En fait, 38 ans et 106 jours: du août 527 à la nuit du 14 au 15 novembre 565 (Stein, p. 272 et 780).

12 Coll. sabb. V, 132, éd. SCHWARTZ, p. 186-9.

13 [bid., V, 41, p. 119-23.

'* Ibid. V, 39-40, p. 111-9; le fragment syriaque correspond à la p. 113, 1. 6-18. '5 Ibid. V, 40, p. 113-9.

300

A. DE HALLEUX

„omalaso, om e xl. (sic) syr. i1. 11 βαρεῖς: om. syr. | 1. 13 πολλάκις πρότερον: om. m [1.14 Tlétpov: _ oma dala (sic) aj. syr. |l. 14 τῷ ὁμοίῳ: re has syr. ! L 14-15 οὐκ αὐτοὺς... “ποιοῦντας: om. syr. | I. 16 συγγεγραμμένα: huis aj syr. (meilleur) | l. 16 ἀρχεκάκου: om. syr. | 1. 18 ἐλέει θεοῦ: om. syr. | 1. 18 ἐπίσκοπος: ec $onmzare gi syr. | |. 18 Ρώμης:

om. syr.

II.

Le synode de Constantinople,

har ΔΝ

œslasaut

‚ala

giam

Qulan cei

shitima

OMIA

„

Me»: : puhhre

gti he

Kar»

«ἴα.

ih

ass

wo „Ami

d

mna

an ir’

eo

Che

cm

[f. 53] ala

wamarton

SYhacoio

el

sal

wearss

As

rim

+ warmıawı

hs

ré

4 vun

“an

armnal

wäh

ham

manamiar

1l,manus

+ hazsa

Gaii iaredı

: WA

wmisarhia

ἰοσλο

10, f. 52v-53r)

aa

ve whanthhm

alc»

„amwishır

Sin. syr.

wasn

u

mal

:

d.e.

553 (ms.

mans a u\ .mlasa

rWharsum Δ

,la

SX03nlas3

ebrio

,m

A

ena

‚ma

ei

nma»

anal

oacmisπο ot mas tolaho rehash „am dures oimsaÿ m Amivhrea onum. Qo > ana Ax rna

Nos

n

whis

ésanmianr

Da

rami

: aimrvhe am

$ ari Et en

l'année

27 de l'empereur

Dol

Wheto

coioiomY

arco

mhaushamla

Xo m

Justinien,

qui est

l'année

am

Y asado

867,

une

motion

vint de l'empereur [pour] que fussent anathematises les livres d’Origene, de DYWMWS, de Théodore et d'Origéne. Et il rassembla pour ceci des évéques à Constantinople, qui étaient au nombre de 160. Sentence du synode.—Nous professons recevoir les quatre saints synodes, c'est-à-dire celui de Nicée et celui de Constantinople et le premier d'Éphése et celui de Chalcédoine. Et ce qui fut défini par eux au sujet de l'une et méme foi ortho[doxe], nous [l'avons proclamé et nous [le] proclamons. Mais ceux qui ne regoivent pas cela, nous estimons qu'ils sont étrangers à l'Église catholique. Mais nous condamnons et anathématisons, outre tous ceux qui furent condamnés et anathématisés par ces saints synodes susdits et par l'Église catholique et apostolique, aussi ce Théodore qui fut évéque à Mopsueste, et ses écrits impies.

UNE CHRONIQUE SYRIAQUE INÉDITE

301

L'introduction au bref extrait du synode constantinopolitain de 553 est beaucoup plus sommaire que celle à celui de 536. La pointe n'en est plus anti-sévérienne, et pour cause, puisque le cinquième concile cecuménique canonisa la christologie néochalcédonienne de Justinien. Le chroniqueur n'en a pas moins marqué son chalcédonisme strict dans l'extrait qu'il traduit, non seulement parce qu'il y inclut la réception du concile honni par tous les monophysites, mais aussi, peut-étre, parce qu'il arréte sa citation immédiatement aprés la mention de Théodore de Mopsueste, évitant ainsi d'approuver la condamnation de Théodoret de Cyr. Il pourrait donc avoir été un défenseur des Trois Chapitres, comme il s'en trouva en Occident jusqu'au VII‘ s., avec la tolérance du Saint-Siége. Son silence sur les palinodies des papes Vigile et Pélage, s'il ne traduit pas une ignorance, témoigne peut-étre d'un respect pour Rome, qu'il prouve ailleurs par ses nombreuses notices pontificales. Tout en demeurant, de la sorte, discrètement anti-sévérienne, la présentation du synode de 553 porte essentiellement sur l'origénisme, qui fut effectivement condamné par les péres déjà rassemblés à Constantinople, en quinze anathématismes répondant à une lettre de Justi-

nien!$. Les quatre noms d'hérétiques cités ici semblent en désordre, et deux au moins ont sans doute été défigurés accidentellement par un copiste. Si l'on admet que celui de DYWMWS ait originellement désigné Didyme l'Aveugle, et que la seconde mention de celui d'Origéne (WRGNYS) provienne d'une mauvaise lecture de celui d'Évagre le Pontique ((WGRY[WI]S), on obtient la trilogie d'Origéne, Didyme et Évagre, bien attestée par toute la tradition '”. On pourrait méme être tenté de rapporter à l'origéniste Théodore Askidas le nom de «Théodore», inséré entre ceux de DYWMWS = Didyme et d’Origene = Evagre'®. Mais ceci impliquerait que le chroniqueur ait mal interprété sa source, puisqu'il fait porter sa citation synodale correspondante sur l'évéque de Mopsueste, et non sur celui de Césarée. De

toute facon, le nom de Théodore n'est pas à sa place dans la liste des quatre hérétiques. 16 Fr. DIEKAMP, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das fünfte allgemeine Concil (Münster 1899), p. 82-98. 17 A. GUILLAUMONT, Les « Kephalaia gnostica» d'Évagre le Pontique et l'histoire de l'origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens [Patristica Sorbonensia 5] (Paris 1962), p. 136-9.

18 ÉvAGRE LE SCOLASTIQUE, Hist. eccl. IV, 38, éd. J. ΒΙΌΕΖ et L. PARMENTIER (London 1898), p. 187, 1. 11-3; les noms de THEODORE DE MOPSUESTE, THEODORET et IBAS suivent immédiatement, |. 14-5.

302

A. DE HALLEUX

J'ai déjà relevé l'aporie que constitue l'incohérence du synchronisme entre la vingt-septieme année de Justinien (aoüt 553-juillet 554) et l'an 867 de l'ére séleucide (octobre

555-septembre

556).

En revanche,

le chiffre des cent soixante évéques participants au cinquiéme concile cecuménique représente bien l'un des nombres traditionnels !?. La «sentence du synode», sans doute traduite sur les actes grecs, presque entiérement perdus, est extraite du décret porté lors de la huitiéme actio, du 2 juin 553. Elle recouvre dans sa totalité la version

latine ancienne et, dans sa dernière phrase, l'original grec conservé20, Ici encore, la version syriaque parait précise et intelligente. J'en reléve les variantes vis-à-vis de l'édition critique de J. Straub; elles sont toutes mineures, et peut-étre dues à un copiste. Straub, p. 214, 1. 14 definierunt: pass. syr. | 1. 14 fide: rh wih aj. syr. | p. 239, 1. 15 ἄλλοις = p. 214, 1. 16 aliis: om. syr. | p. 239, |. 16 τεσσάρων = p. 214, 1. 17 quattuor: om. syr. | p. 239, 1. 17 ἁγίας = p. 214, 1. 18 sancta:

om. syr.

III.

Un

$31

synode de Constantinople,

auıına

Nom.

Ace

sohn

is

Lamm rés Pork

nuihra Στ

Asa

AA Q3 hal

.aam pin

ur

mÉua

+ ἰῷ

ma,

+ plz

„uni

pi

waas

‚maus >

$ riamws

wana [f. 53']

Murti

sa

a

\\

Nha

V ı\ mans

Solow

ta woalyao

laoo

e

exa acus Va

pleinia

10, f. 53r-v)

ὁ asco mihs

mhaslom

wah

ἡ awa.

Wadia

(ms. Sin. syr.

alajhers

4 aa V eacus

muiumalrsa

no

mui X mo.

mala sah

om

,naals

571

5a

whores

aaa

miam

abs

ὁ usa 4 damit

MAI

Daas

Awl

πολ

émis

am

\\ >

Bash

4 «0o

En

mi omo

cM ὧὦν ar Jam a una cewek nein rhninva

Miami

: Wheto

ὁ md»

man c

ala xe dal cima : mde sale iho

19 STEIN, p. 660-1, note 1. 20 Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum sub lustiniano habitum, éd. J. STRAUB, Acta Concil. Oecumen. t. 4, 1 (1971), p. 214, 1. 2-19 et p. 239, 1. 15-18.

UNE CHRONIQUE SYRIAQUE INEDITE

ande ara © mire moie wera nm σὰ Manian

msi + 14

bad

œi, rénba

us

art suri

Netz. $34

moin

303

am maison

,mañan À\ >

rial wa. gue

e

Are

moas

9 n°

Vigile, ayant régi [l'église] 17 ans, Pélage se tint à sa place 4 [ans], et aprés lui Jean. Mais Justinien, ayant régné 39 ans, termina sa vie, et Justin, fils de sa sœur, reçut sa royauté. Mais, puisque œux qui avaient trébuché dans la doctrine souillée de Sévère ne consentaient pas à se tenir tranquilles, de nouveau l’empereur rassembla un synode à Constantinople. Et il y avait: de ladite Ville, Jean; et de Jérusalem, Jean; et d'Alexandrie, Jean; et d'Antioche, Anastase; et des légats de Jean de Rome.

Anathéme de Sévére, par Jean. —Puisque Sévére s'est chassé lui-même de la sainte Église et s'est soumis au chátiment,—et ceci est manifeste et connu de chacun,—suivant donc, nous aussi, les divins canons et les saints Péres, nous définissons que celui-ci est étranger (à l'Église. Et [puisqu'il a déjà été condamné par les divins canons, à cause de ses blasphémes impies, nous aussi l'anathématisons. Mais Justin régna 13 ans, Tibére 4, Maurice 20, Phocas 8, Héraclius 30 et 6 mois.

Le chroniqueur introduit sa relation d'un synode de Constantinople sous Justin II (565-578) par une courte liste de successions papales et impériales. Si les pontificats de Vigile (29 mars 537-7 juin 555)?! et de Pélage (16 avril 556-3 mars 561)?? s'y trouvent raccourcis chacun d'une année, en revanche, je l'ai dit, les trente-neuf ans de régne assignés à Justinien le sont correctement, et il est également exact que son successeur Justin était le fils d'une de ses scurs??. Que les traditions historiographiques grecque et syriaque n'aient rien retenu du synode attesté ici ne saurait surprendre, car la premiére est particuliérement pauvre pour le règne de Justin, et ce que la seconde permet d'y suppléer se raméne pratiquement au seul Jean d'Éphése, connu directement ou à travers le patriarche Michel le Syrien, et qui se plaint lui-méme des lacunes et du désordre, bien excusables, de son histoire ecclésiastique?^*. Il se pourrait, néanmoins, 2! Stein, p. 387 et 669. 22 [bid., p. 671 et 674. 23 Ci-dessus, note Il et STEIN,

p. 743-4.—Les

durées

indiquées

à la fin

de la

chronique pour les régnes de Justin II à HERACLIUS sont toutes correctes.

?* JEAN D'EPHÉSE, Hist. eccl. ITI, I, 50, éd. E. W. Brooks {CSCO 106, Syr. 55] (1936), p. 115-6.

304

A. DE HALLEUX

que la chronique arabe nestorienne sous Justin II un souvenir provenant assure, à propos du patriarche Jean qui était orthodoxe, convoqua les

de Séert ait conservé du synode d'une source melkite, lorsqu'elle III de Constantinople : «Celui-ci, Péres et anathématisa les jaco-

bites»?5. De toute façon, le témoignage du chroniqueur syro-chalcédonien est formel, et il s'appuie sur un extrait des actes: en effet, l’«anatheme de Sévère par Jean», d'ailleurs rédigé en style collégial, représentait évidemment à ses yeux le décret du synode dont il venait de parler. L'authenticité avérée des deux extraits d'actes cités précédemment porte à admettre celle du présent fragment, et avec elle l'historicité de l'assemblée dont il émana. La date de ce synode n'est pas précisée par le chroniqueur, mais on peut tenter de la cerner gráce au synchronisme des patriarches orthodoxes, par la présence desquels il entendait probablement symboliser la dimension œcuménique de l'événement : Jean III le Scolastique (= Jean Malalas?), que les syriaques appellent Jean de Sermin, fut évêque de Constantinople du 1 février 565 au 31 août 57726;

Jean IV de Jérusalem régna probablement de 570 à 58127, et Jean IV d'Alexandrie, de 570 à 581 également ??; Anastase fut évêque d'Antioche, de 559 à 570, puis, aprés son exil, de 593 à 59829;

et le pape

Jean III regna du 17 juillet 561 au 13 juillet 574?9, Ce synchronisme implique une contradiction, puisque, tout en bornant le synode entre 570 (début des régnes de Jean de Jérusalem et de Jean d'Alexandrie) et 574 (mort du pape Jean), il exclut simultanément les années

570-593

(exil

d'Anastase

d'Antioche).

On

est

donc

tenté

de

supposer que le chroniqueur, ou sa source, imitant peut-étre en cela

25 Chronique p. 190.

de Séert

Il, 34, éd.

A.

ScHER,

Patrologia

Orientalis

7 (Paris

1910),

76 STEIN, op. cit., p. 688, note 1. 2” Contrairement aux dates 574-594, généralement acceptées depuis M. LE QuiEN, Oriens christianus (Paris 1740, réimpression Graz 1958), t. 3, col. 242-6. le synchronisme de la chronique appuie le calcul de D. PAPEBROCH. De episcopis et patriarchis sanctae hierosolymitanae

suivant

Ecclesiae,

une correction

dans

Acta

des chiffres

Sanctorum,

donnés

par

Maii

t.

3 (Anvers

NiCÉPHORE

CALLISTE

1680),

pour

p.

xxix,

les patri-

arches MACAIRE et EUSTOCHIUS, correction acceptée, pour sa part, par DIEKAMP, p. 30. ?5 J. Anasiase tique des 29 G.

MasPERO, Histoire des patriarches d'Alexandrie depuis la mort de l'empereur jusqu'à la réconciliation des Églises jacobites (518-616) [Bibl. de l'École PraHautes-Études 237] (Paris 1923), p. 256-9. Weiss, Studia Anastasiana | [Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 1] (München

1965). p. 1-5. 30 E, Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums herrschaft. τ. 2 (Göttingen 1933), p. 350-2.

von den

Anfängen

bis zur Höhe

der

Welt-

UNE CHRONIQUE SYRIAQUE INEDITE

305

le pape Grégoire le Grand, considerait comme anticanonique, sinon comme nulle et non avenue, la déposition d'Anastase, apparemment décidée par une simple mesure de la police impériale, sans aucun jugement ecclésiastique?!. C'est, en tout cas, au printemps de 571 que le synode sous Justin II trouve le mieux sa place. Le refus des sévériens de «se tenir tranquilles» est présenté comme le motif de la convocation de l'assemblée. Si cette indication ne recouvre pas qu'une clause de style, on peut y voir une allusion, soit aux dissensions entre monophysites lors de la conférence pour l'union tenue à Callinique en 567, sur ordre impérial, par le patrice Jean Comentiolos, soit aux querelles entre jacobites et trithéites, que l'empereur chargea le patriarche Jean d'arbitrer à Constantinople en 570, soit enfin à la résistance des évéques sévériens, emprisonnés en 571, contre l'édit impérial d'union??, Quant au synode lui-méme, le fait qu'il condamne nettement Sévére porte à le situer postérieurement à la politique unioniste de Justin II, laquelle se marque jusque dans l'édit de 571, encore trés conciliant sur la doctrine et discret sur les personnes??. Le nouvel anathéme annonce, s'il ne la suppose déjà, la répression des monophysites que le patriarche Jean obtint de l'empereur excédé, sans doute immediatement aprés leur refus de d'édit?*. Jean d’Ephese a daté avec précision la reprise de la persécution, aprés quarante ans de paix, en la sixiéme année de Justin la veille du dimanche de caréme dit des Hosanna (21 mars 571)?5. Le chroniqueur semble postuler, d'une fagon peu vraisemblable et peut-étre purement symbolique, la présence des patriarches orientaux au synode constantinopolitain. En fait, on ne sait pratiquement rien ?! Weiss, p. 30-2.

32 E. HONIGMANN, Évéques et évéchés monophysites d'Asie antérieure au VF siècle [CSCO 127, Subs. 2] (Louvain 1951), p. 184, 198, 211-2. 33 Texte grec chez ÉVAGRE LE SCOLASTIQUE, Hist. eccl. V, 4, éd. BipEz et ParMENTIER, p. 197-201 et NICÉPHORE CALLISTE, Hist. eccl. XVI. 35, MiGNE, PG 146, col. 308-13; texte syriaque chez JEAN D’EPHESE, Hist. eccl. III. I, 19. éd. Brooks. p. 23-6 et chez MICHEL, Chronique X, 4, éd. J.-B. CHABOT, t. IV (Paris 1924),

p. 338-41. 34 HoNIGMANN, p. 211-2. 35 JEAN D'ÉPHÈSE, Hist. eccl. paix commencent

HI, 1, 5, éd. Brooks,

avec le revirement

pro-monophysite

p. 6. Les quarante

de JUSTINIEN,

ans de

dans l'été de 531

(STEIN, p. 377). J'ai calculé la date du 21 mars 571 d'aprés les tables de V. GRUMEL, Traité d'études byzantines 1, La Chronologie [= Bibliothéque byzantine] (Paris 1958), P. 311 et 270, en supposant que le monophysite JEAN D'EPHÉSE veut parler du dimanche des Rameaux selon le cycle liturgique byzantin.

306

A. DE HALLEUX

de concret sur Jean d’Alexandrie et Jean de Jerusalem. Anastase d'Antioche, lui, se trouvait probablement exile à Constantinople ?5; mais, déposé par l'empereur, conservait-il le droit de participer à un synode? Quant à la mention des légats du pape Jean III, elle pourrait s'expliquer par la présence, dans la capitale byzantine, des apocrisiaires permanents que le Saint-Siége avait repris, depuis l'époque d'Agapit, la coutume d'y entretenir>’. Le souci de Justin II de ne pas heurter Rome dans sa politique d'union avec les monophysites se trouve, en tout cas, relevé par les historiens Jean d'Éphése et

Michel le Syrien 35. L'«anathéme de Sévére par Jean» est probablement extrait de la sentence synodale du patriarche de Constantinople. D'un style semblable à la «sentence de Ménas» au synode de 536, il ne faisait peut-étre que la renouveler, puisque les monophysites, dés la conférence de Callinique de 567, avaient précisément exigé, et peut-étre obtenu,

la levée de la diataxis de 536??. Quoi qu'il en soit, le nouveau fragment vient suppléer, füt-ce dans une mesure trés modeste, à une lacune des actes conciliaires et des regestes patriarcaux de Constantinople *°. Des trois notices synodales qui terminent la chronique syro-chalcédonienne abrégée du ms. Sinai syr. 10, f. 42-53, la dernière apporte donc des données historiques nouvelles. En revanche, les extraits qu'elles citent ne témoignent pas nécessairement de la préexistence d'une version syriaque des actes conciliaires, car on peut imaginer un compilateur, bilingue comme l'étaient beaucoup d'araméens cultivés, ayant procédé lui-méme à la traduction de ses morceaux choisis. Quelques indices convergents permettent, par ailleurs, de conjecturer le milieu et l'époque οὐ vivait cet historien melkite. On a constaté, en effet, lors de l'analyse de la premiére notice, que son auteur manifeste une bonne connaissance des actes du synode de 536. Or la collection qui a conservé ceux-ci est attribuée par son dernier éditeur aux cercles monastiques chalcédoniens et anti-origénistes des laures de Palestine*!. Il est vrai que les sources des deux autres notices, qui portent jusqu'en 571, sont bien postérieures à la 36 Weiss, p. 33.4. 37 STEIN, p. 388. 39 JEAN D'EPHÈSE,

Hist. eccl. III, 1, 24, éd. BROOKS,

p. 34; MICHEL,

Chronique

X, 5, éd. CHABOT, t. IV, p. 338-9. ** MICHEL, Chronique X, 2, p. 334 (pétition des évéques) et 335 («edit impérial»). *9 V, GRUMEL, Les Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, fasc. 1,

Les Regestes de 381 à 715 (Kadiköy 1932), p. 185, n° 254. *! Acta Concil. Oecumen., t. 3, éd. SCHWARTZ, p. VIII-XI.

UNE CHRONIQUE

SYRIAQUE

INEDITE

307

Collectio sabbaitica, laquelle remonterait à l'an 542 ou peu aprés; mais rien n'interdit que le chroniqueur syriaque ait trouvé toute sa documentation dans le méme milieu. Sa résidence palestinienne expliquerait bien, en tout cas, son information sur le siége romain, son sentiment pro-occidental dans l'affaire des Trois Chapitres, et avant tout la conjonction de son chalcédonisme strict et de son anti-origénisme. Certes, on ne saurait exclure d'autres centres, comme la Syrie II*, ni surtout le Sinaï, car les monastères chalcédoniens de ces régions étaient étroitement unis, au VI* s., avec ceux de la Palestine, dans la résistance aux hérésies, et ils entretenaient d'étroits échanges littéraires*?. Il convient toutefois de dissocier de la chronique originelle

le ms. Sinai syr. 10, qui n'en conserve qu'une recension abrégée et dont rien ne prouve d'ailleurs l'origine sinaitique. D'autre part, le souci d'un palestinien «synodite»

d'expression

syriaque de combattre les «diacrinomenes» sévériens en faisant appel à l'Église pentarchique et impériale se comprend mieux tant que le régime musulman n'avait pas encore spirituellement éloigné de Constantinople et de Rome les patriarcats orientaux. Que l'auteur chalcédonien ait probablement écrit directement en syriaque^? prouve que la nouvelle culture dominante n'avait pas encore conduit les orthodoxes à l'usage exclusif de l'arabe chrétien, autrement dit, que la littérature melkite disposait toujours d'un public suffisant, dont le fait que la chronique ait pu servir de modéle à un jacobite du Tür 'Abdin^* montre d'ailleurs qu'il ne fut pas uniquement chalcédonien. Est-ce donc un hasard si la derniére chronologie de notre texte s'arrête au règne de l'empereur Héraclius (610-641), sous lequel, précisément, les provinces orientales changérent définitivement de maitres? THREE

IMPERIAL SYNODS OF THE SIXTH CENTURY IN AN UNEDITED SYRIAC CHRONICLE

A Syriac chronicle (preserved in the ms Sinai syr 10) contains reports of three. synods held in Constantinople, in 536, 553 (Fifth Ecumenical) and 571. De Halleux

gives the text and translation of all three. The chronicler perhaps indicates a peculiar view of the “Three Chapters" issue at the council of 553. So little known is the synod of 571 that our chronicle offers new historical data. De Halleux conjectures that the chronicler was a Melkite from Palestine, respectful of Rome, upholding a strictly Chalcedonian and anti-Origenist theology, writing before the Muslims became dominant about the middle of the 7th century. +2 Ci-dessus, note 6. *3 pe HALLEUX, «A la source... », op. cit., p. 253, note 4.

** [bid., p. 266.

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: SOME NOTES AND QUERIES Edward R. Harpy Cambridge, England

The questions raised by the similarities of the baptism of Jewish proselytes and that of Christian neophytes have been of interest for some centuries, I suppose ever since Christian students became acquainted with talmudic material in any detail. One of the early treatises specifically on the subject was a Disquisitio Philologico- Theologica delivered on the 7th of November in 1703 to a distinguished audience of scholars and ecclesiastics at Hamburg by a learned Gymnasiallehrer, Peter Zorn!. His discourse, which is still of interest and not without value, was largely based on the work of John Lightfoot and other distinguished Hebraists of the previous century. Some of his points may now seem rather quaint, such as the suggestion that the zeal of the Pharisees to initiate converts into their traditions rather than the pure Word of God may be compared to the misguided zeal of papist missionaries?. But in general he is aware of the points still

raised

in

this

connection;

he

has

heard,

for

instance,

of the

rather amusing problem of the pregnant proselyte, whose child will have been conceived as a Gentile, but born as a Jew—a question which still confronts a contemporary rabbi, since it affects the form of the prospective circumcision?. Whether the custom is ancient remains uncertain. It seems stretching a point to find it in the purifica-

tion of Jacob's household (Genesis 35:2); but washing may be implied when Moses sprinkled the people (Exodus 24:8)—still more perhaps

! De Baptismo Proselytorum Judaico Sacramento (Leipzig 1704), 71 pp. ? Ibid., p. 9. 3 [bid.,

SoLoMoN

pp.

15-6;

Tractate

Gerim

(Minor

Tractates

B. FREEHOF, Modern Reform Responsa (Hebrew

cinnati 1971), pp. 143-8.

of the

Talmud)

Il,

1;

and

Union College Press, Cin-

310

E.R. HARDY

when they washed their garments, and perhaps also themselves, at the approach to Mount Sinai. (Exodus 19:14)*. Talmudic authority agrees that Israel was

initiated

into the

Mosaic

covenant

at Sinai,

and St. Paul was presumably reporting a similar tradition in saying that our fathers were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea (1 Corinthians 10:2). On the other hand the custom, not referred to in the Torah, may be much later—perhaps, says Zorn, adopted to distinguish Jews from Samaritans, or even in imitation of Christian baptism. A similar late date, in the last days of the Second Temple, is suggested by a modern Jewish scholar; but there is a mishnaic reference from the time of Hillel and Shammai$. Baptism is not referred to in connection with the forced conversion of the Idumeans under John Hyrcanus, although possibly implied in the reference to their adopting circumcision and other Jewish customs 7. The fact that John the Baptist’s administering a baptismal rite does not seem to have surprised the authorities in itself suggests that the custom was known in his time; Zorn notes as a matter of incidental interest an Ethiopic reading in Matthew 23:7—‘*You compass heaven and earth to baptize one proselyte"—Aalthough, doubtless rightly, considering it no more than a late scribal variation®. We may I think agree that what John the Baptist did was to invite penitent Jews to put themselves in the position of proselytes for whom a ritual bath was the appropriate symbol of the putting-away of past iniquity. Whether he thought of this as a once-for-all act at the moment of conversion and adherence to his community, or as a more intense occasion of the ritual bathing which might for observant Jews, then as now, be a common experience as often as ceremonial impurity was contracted, is a question which was probably not formally asked then and cannot be answered now. The Qumran sect and the Essenes (whether similar or, as I think, identical) had both solemn

initiations and repeated bathings?. But for proselytes the experience was a single and unrepeatable one, and as such passes from this background into Christian practice. + ZORN. op. cit., pp. 18-30. * Babylonian

Talmud. Tractate Yebamoth 46b.

* S. ΖΕΙΤΕΙ͂Ν, quoted in W.G. BRAUDE, Jewish Proselvting in the First Five Centuries of the Common

Era (Providence,

R.I.

1940), p. 74; Mishnah

Pesahim

8. 8--see

p. 312, n. 20; Zorn, op. cit. pp. 39-49. 7 JOsEPHUS, Antiquities Xil, 257-8; ZORN, op. cit., p. 46. * ZORN, op. cit. p. 46. * JostPHUS, Jewish War 11, 129, 138; Qumran Community

Rule 3 (4-9), 5.

below,

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

311

Il Both parallels and differences are to be found in ancient prescriptions for Jewish and Christian initiatory rites. The earliest detailed Christian descriptions are those of Justin Martyr and the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, representing Roman practice in the middle second and early third century; to these must be added the references

in earlier

documents

from

the

New

Testament

onwards,

and the indications of somewhat different customs in the Syrian Church. Jewish descriptions are in later documents, the talmudic tractate Yebamoth, and Gerim, the brief tractate specifically on proselytes among the minor tractates of the Talmud. The latter in its present form may come from the geonic (early medieval) period, but represents a systematization of earlier customs!°. And neither modern Christian nor modern Jewish practices have changed in essentials. Three actions were involved in the reception of a Jewish proselyte—circumcision (where relevant, obviously), the ritual bath, and the offering of a sacrifice!!. The last of these dropped out of Jewish practice after 70 A.D., but remained in Christian in the form of participation in the Eucharist, for which Hippolytus directs that neophytes are to bring their offerings!?. A fourth (or third) necessity was the requisite instruction, which indeed modern Reform, or Liberal,

Judaism considers to be the essential part of the process!?. A minimum was to inform the neophyte of some of the lighter and some of the weightier commandments which he will now have to accept!*. The process thus begun could of course continue until full knowledge of Torah was achieved; such seems to be the meaning of Hillel’s famous word to an enquirer that the essence of the law is the golden rule (presented in its negative form)—the rest is but commentary, go and

learn

it!5. The

Two

Ways

document,

best

known

from

its in-

clusion in the Didache, can easily be read, and I think correctly, as a manual of conduct for Jewish proselytes, edited for Christian use by slight omissions and additions. It seems to outline the essentials 19 See note in The Minor Tractates of the Talmud, ed. A. COHEN

(London

1965).

Gerim, p. vi.

!! Gerim tl, 5; cf. BRAUDE, op. cit., pp. 74-5. 12 Apostolic Tradition xx, 10. Chapter numbers (reissue London

as in edition

by

13 FREEHOF, Op. cit.. pp. 154-8: case of the "Incomplete Conversion" unable for family reasons to finish a course of instruction.

!4 Yebamoth 47a; Gerim t, 3-4. 'S Babylonian

Gregory

Dix

1968).

Talmud, Sanhedrin 31a; cf. BRAUDE, op. cit., pp. 11-2.

of

a woman

312

E.R. HARDY

of the law, with special reference to the problems of life in the GrecoRoman world, adding that one should keep the whole "yoke of the Lord" if possible, but if not, do as much as one can. With regard to food in particular do as much (of kosher rules?) as one can bear, but in any case avoid food offered to idols (Didache 6). This last is of course one of St. Paul's main problems in First Corinthians, much of which has the character of a series of responsa, the halakhic discussion of a Christian rabbi addressed to a congregation of Christian proselytes. The Epistle of James reflects a Judeo-Christian attitude in saying that the whole law is to be kept, though the writer may have had in mind primarily the Ten Commandments (James 2:11). In each case the convert's sincerity was enquired into—the prospective Jewish convert was warned of the dangers to which Israel is subject «at the present time», and similarly Hippolytus' enquirer was told how to behave if persecution should break out—confess the faith boldly, prepared if necessary for the baptism of blood. Moral instruction is implied in a list of forbidden occupations!$. Even in the fourth century the Didache, though excluded from the canon of Scripture, was considered useful for catechumens, as was Ecclesiasti-

cus with its treatment of manners and morals!". More dogmatic instruction was then given by the bishop or his representative during the weeks before the great paschal baptism, followed by lectures on the meaning of the Christian mysteries after they had been experienced—as represented in the several series of catechetical instructions preserved in the names of leading fathers of the church '®. In each case, Jewish or Christian, the neophyte proceeds to share in the life of the holy community according to its rules. Justin and Hippolytus are typical in describing how he at once does four things which had been closed to him even as a catechumen—shares in the prayers of the faithful, exchanges the kiss of peace, and offers and receives at the eucharistic feast!?. A close parallel is the decision ascribed to the school of Shammai that a man who had become a proselyte on the day before passover could at once immerse himself and share in the paschal meal ?°. 16 Yebamoth 47a; HIPPOLYTUS XVI, XIX, 2. 17 ATHANASIUS, Festal Epistles 39, 7. 18 Cf. AMBROSE,

De Mysteriis 1-1.

19 Justin MARTYR, First Apology 65; HIPPOLYTUS XXII-XXIIL, cf. xvin, 3: "Their kiss is not yet pure”.

20 Mishnah

Pesahim

HiLLEL was less generous.

8. 8: this was

one

of the points

on

which

the school

of

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

313

At the ceremony itself the Jewish rules prescribe that two or three sages, constituting a court, preside at the actual immersion. Peter Zorn saw in these witnesses a parallel to the Christian custom of godparents?!; but they correspond in fact to the officiants at a Christian baptism, whether a single baptizer as in the Didache or the whole body of the clergy discharging different functions as in Hippolytus' detailed description. There are interesting parallels in certain rules about the baptism of women. The modesty typical of the Semitic world leads to the Jewish rule that men will immerse men and women women—in the latter case the officiants may sit outside, or behind a curtain, reciting appropriate extracts from the Torah 22. Similarly the Didascalia Apostolorum, from third-century Syria, introduces a deaconess for the anointing of the body which in Syrian custom preceded the immersion. She, or should no deaconess be available another woman if possible, apparently presided at the actual baptism as well, while a presbyter or deacon recited the threefold name??. As a recent writer observes, "her most important function was the assistance at the baptism of women, at which, for reasons of propriety, many of the ceremonies could not be performed by the deacons’’?*. Chrysostom's baptismal homilies seem to imply a similar custom in fourth-century Antioch; the bishop anoints the forehead and then causes the candidate to be anointed all over and to descend into the water—where however the priest (bishop) imposes his hand at the actual immersion?*. The Latin West did not feel this difficulty, perhaps because even Christian Romans would be used to frequenting the great public baths : Hippolytus sends a deacon into the water with the naked candidates?$, and two centuries later Augustine merely directs his nuns at Hippo to make their monthly visit to the bath in groups of three or more?’. The Didascalia had suggested that in towns where there was not a separate women's bath women should ?! Op. cit., p. 15. ?? Yebamoth 47b; Gerim 1, 8. ?* Didascalia

Apostolorum

XVI,

tr. R.H.

CONNOLLY

(Oxford

1929),

pp.

146-7.

?* F.L. Cross in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross (London & New

York

1957), s.v. "Deaconess".

25 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Baptismal Instructions, tr. Paul W. Harkins [Ancient Christian

Writers

31]

PP.

169-170,

however,

(Westminster,

Md.

the priest

&

London

1963),

anoints—perhaps

the baptism of men.

26 Apostolic Tradition xxi, 3, 11. ?? Epistle 211 (Regula Sancti Augustini), 13.

II,

JoHN

24,

was

p.

52;

thinking

in

XI,

27-28,

in terms

of

314

E.R. HARDY

go in the late afternoon—at the tenth hour, by which time many men

would have left for dinner 25. ΠῚ The ceremony of religious initiation, to use the most general term, is both a crucial experience for the individual and entrance into the holy community. In Gerim this is expressed in what has been called an “address of congratulation"— To whom are you cleaving? Happy are you! [You are cleaving] to him who spoke and the world came into being, blessed be he; for the world was created only for the sake of Israel; only Israel are called "sons of God", and only Israel are [described as] "beloved of God". All the things that we have said to you we have said only to increase your reward ??.

We

may

parallel this with Chrysostom's

indication that there was

more than a formal greeting after baptism— As soon as they come forth from those sacred waters, all who are present embrace them, greet them, kiss them, rejoice with them, and congratulate them,

because those who were heretofore slaves and captives have suddenly become free men and sons and have been invited to the royal table °°.

As the Jewish proselyte becomes one of the people of Israel, so the Christian convert becomes a member of the church universal. For both this is a new beginning, as expressed in the rabbinical saying that the proselyte is like a new-born child ?!. Whatever this means in terms of personal experience, it indicates that old sins are wiped away and new obligations undertaken. The former idolater or unbeliever now enjoys the privileges and is subject to the duties of the children of God. Rabbinical discussions dealt with various ways in which the past might still affect the present; could one for instance presume the virginity of a female proselyte? to which the answer was,

not if she was over three at the time ??—"such were some of you” as St. Paul

says (I Corinthians

6:11).

One

of St. Jerome's

responsa

deals with a question of this kind; was a convert who had been married before baptism and again afterwards eligible for the episcopate, in spite of the interpretation then generally accepted of the rule 29. Didascalia III (Connolly p. 26); similarly men are to go to a men's bath, II (p. 14). 29 FRANK Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments (London 1928)—from Gerim 1, 5. I am glad to be able to refer to the teacher to whom I owe

my introduction to and interest in this subject. 39 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, op. cit., II, 27 (p. 53). 31

Yebamoth 48b; Gerim ıı, 6; cf. discussion in GAVIN, op. cit., pp. 51-4.

*? Mishnah Ketuboth 1, 2: cf. comment in BRAUDE, op. cit. p. 118.

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM that a bishop

must

be

the

husband

of one

wife

315 (I Timothy

3:2)?

The usually austere father gives a positive answer; if sins before baptism do not affect one's later status, surely virtuous actions of one's

pagan days ought not to be penalized ??. A Roman proselyte would find himself a member of the Jewish community of the city, and might naturally attach himself to one of its synagogues. There would be obvious Christian parallels. Another religious unit more significant in ancient times than today is the believing household—not only the limited family in our sense, but the ancient familia including dependents and slaves as well as relatives. Thus Luke believed it credible that at Philippi Lydia, the seller of purple, was baptized with her household, and later the jailer with his (Acts 16:15, 33). Such familiae were perhaps the first cells of the Philippian church. St. Paul confirms such possibilities by mentioning that at Corinth he baptized the household of Stephanas, who later became the firstfruits of Achea, and occupied collectively some kind of ministerial position— perhaps Stephanas was as close as they had to a bishop, while he and his engaged in diakonia (1 Corinthians 1:16, 16:15). Similarly Jewish rules envisage the admission of family groups, whose junior members will be immersed under the authority of parents or of the ad hoc court formed for the occasion. The reservation is made that at maturity such persons may repudiate the promises made in their name without being considered as apostates ?^. Our old friend Dr. Zorn had heard of this possibility, but interprets it in terms of the imaginary picture constructed by some of the reformers of confirmation in the early church, as a profession of faith after instruction, which became the model of Lutheran and Anglican prac-

tice ?5. The Jewish promise would be the acceptance, express or implied, of the Torah, and only of belief as involved in it. The children of proselytes are “born in holiness”, even in the ambiguous case of the pregnant proselyte, at least if she had been immersed before their birth?®. St. Paul's casual phrase that "your children are holy" (I Corinthians 7:14) seems similar. It may be that we should not ask

in this connection, Did the early church baptize infants? but rather, When

was

it first considered

necessary

to baptize

33 Epistle 69, 2. 34 Babylonian Talmud, Ketuboth 11a. 33 Op. cit., pp. 69-70. ?* Cf. FREEHOF, op. cit., p. 147; BRAUDE, op. cit., pp. 125-7.

the children

of

316

E.R. HARDY

Christian parents? This seems to be one of the interesting developments which our documents do not happen to record. That the familia should be a religious unit is expressed by the talmudic rule that if a slave refuses to be circumcised after a year he should be sold to a gentile>’. It is permissible to attend fairs at pagan festivals not only for the redemption of captives but for the purchase of pagan slaves who will thus, as a modern commentator has observed, receive the benefit of being introduced to the principles

of true religion?*. How much pressure might be exercised in such cases would doubtless vary??; but the possibility will explain at least in part why the church protested against the ownership of Christian slaves by Jews, and when able to do so secured imperial legislation against it*°. A similar situation appears in Hippolytus' rule that the slave of a Christian must have his master's recommendation for admission as a catechumen; presumably he expected that a Christian master would welcome this step, unlike some of the plantation owners of modern times‘). In both cases we are dealing with the relatively benign domestic slavery reflected in both Jewish and Christian documents of the early centuries of the present era. It was however necessary to make clear that the baptism of the slave-proselyte was not intended as part of a ceremony of manumission*?. In another sphere of life I have heard the suggestion that the inscriptions which record the admission of travelling Romans and their dependents to the mysteries of Samothrace may suggest that they would continue the cult at home, as a kind of Samothracian house church. And later in relations between Christian sects the same idea of the religious unity of the familia occurs in the incident which distressed St. Augustine of the Donatist bishop who on acquiring an estate had his eighty tenants rebaptized in the Donatist church—a kind of proceeding (though not involving rebaptism) which Augustine considered com-

mendable in the case of a Catholic landowner‘. 57 Yebamoth 48b. ?* Babylonian Talmud, Abodah translation (London 1935), p. 69.

Zarah

13a-b; comment

by A.

MISCHON

in Soncino

39 Yebamoth 48a implies there might be some. *9 Theodosian Code XVI. 9, 1-5: though an edict of 415 (XVI, 9. 3) Jews to keep Christian slaves if they were permitted to practice their religion.

*! Apostolic Tradition xvi, 4. *? Yebamoth 46a; and cf. in Gerim whose slaves were immersed before manumit, and some afterwards.

45 Epistle 66.

her.

1t, 4 the story of "Queen and

so

presumably

with

allowed

Valeria". some of the

intention

to

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

317

The Jewish convert, ancient or modern, is in principle accepting the yoke of the Torah, whatever that (joyful) obligation may mean in a particular Jewish tradition. Similarly the Christian convert renounces evil—the devil and all his works, by which the ancient church felt itself visibly surrounded—and accepts the Christian standard of faith and life, however that may be understood in a particular tradition. In ancient times the baptized were sometimes thought of as a band of devotees, committed to a rigid standard difficult for those living “in the world”, knowing that in those days there was only one, hesitantly offered, chance of absolution after a serious failure. There were good as well as unworthy reasons for the postponement of baptism of which Constantine is the most famous example. Arthur Vööbus has called attention to the hints in Syriac documents that (some parts at least of) the early Syrian church may have limited baptism to those prepared to take vows of chastity. The logical development of this was the Manichean practice by which full membership in the sect was limited to its ascetics—later revived by the medieval Albigenses in the form that lay adherents were given the consolamentum only at the point of death. There was certainly a widespread tendency to recommend, if not absolutely to require, the Pauline standard that each should abide in the calling in which he was called (I Corinthians 7:20). It appears in the baptismal exhortation quoted by the fourth-century Aphrahat which tells those who

intend to marry to do so before baptism *^*, and in one of Athanasius’ letters which seems to divide Christians into those lawfully yoked in youth and those who lead lives of perfect chastity*?. The discipline once expected of adult converts is still required of the priests of the

Eastern churches, who

are allowed

to remain

married

but not to

enter into the married state—an example of the not unknown situation that the clergy are expected to follow a rule which has lapsed in regard to the laity. To return to Jewish parallels: the court for admitting a proselyte can be constituted by any two or three sufficiently informed (male) Israelites. May not a similar informal practice be reflected in such stories in Acts as the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, who does not seem to be related to any community (Acts 8:39)? The legen** A.

VOOBUS,

Celibacy,

A

Requirement for Admission

to Baptism

in the

Syrian Church [Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 1) (Stockholm

discussion of APHRAHAT's Seventh Homily, pp. 49-51. *5 Epistle 48, to AMUN.

Early 1951):

318

E.R. HARDY

dary accounts in the apocryphal Acts give a picture of wandering preachers baptizing individuals or groups of converts with little suggestion of any church fellowship to follow. Their pattern is that of the Syrian rite in which the only anointing preceded the baptism in water; while not omitting the latter these stories give this ceremony the main emphasis, perhaps by way of deliberate variation from the general

practice

of the church,

and

follow

with

encratite

eucharists

in bread and water, or perhaps in bread alone*$. Such initiations, and the rather exciting but confusing Gnostic invocations that appear with them, may well have been the practice of some of the Gnostic sects. It is also conceivable that the house-churches which we hear of in the epistles may have administered their own baptisms. There was at least a danger that they could become the centers of divergent or eccentric groups—as could also be the case of the local congregations which seem to have existed at Rome from the beginning among Christians as among Jews. Such possibilities would be the background of St. Ignatius' insistence that it would not be lawful to baptize "apart from the bishop" (Smyrneans 8)—as well as of further developments by which the bishop was expected to preside in person at public baptisms even in such large churches as those of Rome and Antioch. Judaism does not seem to have felt this particular danger, perhaps because of its different basis of unity. But for both Jews and Christians the "bath

of rebirth”

(Titus 3:5) continued

and

continues to have the double significance of a new beginning for the individual and entrance into the fellowship of the people of God.

** Especially Acts of Thomas 25-29, 49-50, 132-133; cf. comments of G.W.H. LAMPE, The Seal of the Spirit (2nd ed. London 1967), pp. 120-30. 187-9, and L.L. MiTCHELL, Baptismal Anointing (London 1966), pp. 33-4.

LE DEIR ES-ZAPHARAN ET LE «SIEGE D'ANTIOCHE» Jules Leroy Paris, France

Dans ses nombreux voyages érudits en Turquie orientale, le savant jubilaire auquel est dédié ce volume a eu souvent l'occasion de

descendre au couvent de Mar Hanania, plus connu sous le nom de Couvent du Safran (Deir zafaranin. Bien des fois transférée à l'archevéché bles! et lui-méme en a précieuses lumiéres sur

Ce

magnifique

es-Zapharan), dont les Turcs ont fait Deyrulsa bibliothéque, dont la majeure partie a été de Mardin, lui a offert des textes remarquafait connaitre qui apportent de nouvelles et son histoire tant matérielle que spirituelle?.

ensemble

d'édifices jalousement

conservés

forme

une masse ocre—d'oü son nom populaire—qui se détache sur l'horizon, à quelque sept km. au sud-est de Mardin? ; elle est posée sur une élévation jadis occupée par un cháteau (Kasr) romain. C'est certainement un des plus beaux et des plus émouvants couvents de cette région et de la région avoisinante du Tür 'Abdin *, autrefois couverte de monas! Citons par exemple, sans vouloir être complet, A. VööBus, «Découverte du commentaire de Moise bar Kepha sur l'évangile de Matthieu», Revue Biblique 80 (1973), P. 359s.; Syriac Manuscripts from the Treasury of the Monastery of Mär Hanänyä or Deir Za'farán [PETSE] (Stockholm, in press). ? A. VOOBUS, «Neues Licht über das Restaurationswerk des Jöhannän von Mardé», Oriens Christianus 47 (1963), p. 129-38; «Eine wichtige Urkunde über die Geschichte des Mär Hanànja Klosters», OrChr 53 (1969), p. 246-52; «Die Entdeckung des Panegyrikus des Patriarchen Mika'el über Jöhannän von Mardé», OrChr 55 (1971), p. 204-

13, d'aprés un manuscrit de Damas «écrit au Deir Zapha'ran, 1166-1167 ». > Sur l'importance chrétienne de cet endroit, voir V. ΜΙΝΟΆΞΚΙ, art. Mardin, dans L'Encyclopédie de l'Islam, III (Leyde 1936), p. 290-293. * A. Socin, «Zur Geographie des Tür-'Abdin», Zeitschr. der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 34 (1881), p. 237-69; L. DILLEMANN,

Haute-Mésopotamie

orien-

tale et pays adjacents (Paris 1962), passim, voir index; H. ANSCHUTZ, «Die heutige Situation der Westsyrischen Christen (Jakobiten) in Tür 'Abdin», Ostkirchliche Studien 16 (1967), p. 151-99. Sur les couvents qui, au dire de C. NiEBUHR, Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und anderen anliegenden Ländern 11 (Copenhague 1778), p. 387-8, étaient au nombre de 70 (chiffre exagéré), voir J. S. AssEMANI, Dissertatio de Monophysitis, Bibliotheca Orientalis 11 (Rome 1721); P. KROGER, Das syrisch-monophysitische Mónch-

320

J. LEROY

teres dont seuls demeurent en exercice le nótre et le monastére de Kartamin®. Il a tenu une large place dans les destinées de l'Église Syro-orthodoxe puisque depuis 1166 jusqu'à la fin de la guerre 19141918 il fut, sauf à de rares moments, le siége du patriarcat, maintenant établi à Damas après l'avoir été à Homs (Syrie)$. Aujourd'hui encore il garde quelque chose de son importance dans la vie de l'Église syriaque, puisqu'il sert d'école de formation religieuse et cléricale à quelques jeunes gens destinés au clergé soit monastique soit séculier. Beaucoup de voyageurs l'ont abordé et ont laissé des témoignages, souvent sous forme de simples notes, qui permettent d'en suivre l'histoire, mais seulement dans ses grandes lignes, tant sont fréquents les vides et les blancs dans une existence multiséculaire. Les histoires complétes sont rares et trés abrégées, fondées parfois sur des textes inconnus des historiens occidentaux". Les plus récentes permettent de compléter les renseignements fournis par les textes plus anciennement connus?. *

+

*

Dans sont état actuel il est, comme tous les couvents d'Orient, le résultat de réfections, d’additions, de restaurations dont c’est le devoir de l'archéologue de dire l’âge, vu l'absence de textes explicites sur les travaux dont il a été l’objet. Tâche difficile, pour ne pas dire impossible, des sondages dans les murs et les fondations ne pouvant se faire puisque le monastère est toujours occupé. D'une manière générale son histoire nous échappe dans les détails: la date même de sa construction nous est inconnue. Ce qui apparaît avec le plus de netteté, c'est que l'actuel couvent en remplace un plus ancien existant déjà au V* siècle où l'abbé Benjamin déposa le corps de saint Eugène (Awgin) et de 1200 Martyrs, d’oü le nom qu'il porte alors conjointetum in Tur " Ab( h)din von seinen Anfängen bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts (Münster i. W. 1937), à completer par Orientalia Christiana Periodica 4 (Rome 1938), p. 5-46, sous le méme titre; EPHREM BARSAUME, Histoire du Tur 'Abdin (en arabe, Bagdad

1963), traduite par G.P.

BEHNAM,

οἵα.

dala

ihre

Jar

hou

hac

Jounieh, Liban 1964. 5 P. KRÜGER, op. cit., p. 28-79. * J.B. ABBELOOS-Th. Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Louvain 1872), Praef. p. xvin.

7 Patriarche BARSAUME, ran (Deir Zapharan

Histoire du couvent de S. Hanania appelé Deir uz-Zapha-

1917) (en arabe, non consulté);

M.H.

DoLAPONU,

ligi Deyrulzafaranin muhtasar tahiri (Mardin 1955). ® ASSEMANI, Bibl. Orient., op. cit, IL, 154, 210, 215; KROGER,

Zafaran

Fidan-

op. cit., p. 19-23.

DEIR ES-ZAPHARAN

321

ment avec celui de Mar Slimo. Ces faits sont consignés dans une addition, du XVII* siécle, à la Vie de Benjamin publiée par le P. Scheil?. Nous y apprenons aussi que, tombé en ruine, le couvent fut l'objet de la faveur de Mar Hanania, moine de Mar Mattai !? : «il le mit par

terre et le renouvela».

M y réunit

des

moines,

quatre-vingt

en tout, qu'il dota d'une riche bibliothéque. C'est alors que le couvent prit le nom de Mar Hanania, qui évinga celui de Mar Slimo. On en voit la preuve en 1234, époque de la Chronique anonyme autrefois publiée par J.B. Chabot !! et récemment traduite par le P. Abouna '?. A l'année 882 des Grecs (= 571 A.D.) il place l'ordination au patriarcat de Pierre de Callinique «au couvent de Mar Hanania» qui n'existait pas encore. Preuve aussi que la premiére appellation était totalement oubliée!?. Plusieurs dates de fondation sous Hanania sont avancées: 793 A.D. par Michel le Grand d'aprés une Chronique nestorienne qu'il ne conteste pas!^, date à laquelle semble se rallier

Bar Hebraeus ! 5; 811 d’après l'auteur anonyme de 1234 !°, date retenue par le Patriarche Barsaume 7. Donc, grosso modo; fin du VIII, début

du IX* siécle. On peut d'ailleurs penser que ces différences de datations s'explique par la durée des travaux qui n'ont pas dü étre faits d'un seul coup. On en voit la preuve dans l'architecture de l'église et de la Beith Qadisé. Celle-ci est antérieure à l'église dont la construction a bouché une fenétre dans le mur nord. Les différents auteurs qui

en parlent ont donc été sensibles soit à la fondation de Mar Hanania, soit à la terminaison des travaux. De l'époque de la fondation nous possédons une précieuse relique. C'est le tétraévangile n? 33 de la collection des manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothéque Nationale de Paris qu'une note ajoutée attribue au couvent de Mar Hanania !?. Précédé des Canons d'Eusébe illustrés ? P. SCHEIL, «La

vie de Benjamin»,

Zeitschr. für Assyriologie

12 (1897),

19 E. A. W. BUDGE, Chronography of Gregor Abul Faraj, v. I (Oxford

p. 62-96.

1932), p. iv-

xx11: J. Leroy, Moines et monastères du Proche-Orient (Paris 1958), p. 228-33.

!! Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad A.C. 1234 pertinens, éd. J. B. CHABoT [CSCO 82, Syr. 37] (1916). 12 [CSCO 354, Syr. 154] (1974). 13 A. ABOUNA, ibid., p. 193. Même constatation à propos de l'ensevelissement du patriarche DENvs en 728, ibid., p. 215-6. 14 Chronique

de Michel,

éd.

J.B.

CHABOT,

4 vols.

(Paris

1899-1910,

réimpression

Bruxelles 1963), IH, p. 19-20; texte IV, 488-9. 13 ABBELOOS-LAMY, op. cit., p. 330. 16 A. ABOUNA, op. cit., p. 45. ' Histoire du Tur ‘Abdin, op. cit., p. 18-20; P. KRÜGER, op. cit, p. 22, note 3. 18 J. LEROY, Manuscrits syriaques à peintures (Paris 1964), p. 198 ss.

322

J. LEROY

il appartient à toute une classe de livres apparentés par leur forme

et leur contenu que j'ai cru pouvoir attribuer aux VI*-VIII* siécles !?. A la méme classe appartient le tétraévangile de Saint Jacques de Diarbakir??. Ce vénérable témoin a conservé, ce qui est assez rare, sa liste des lectures évangéliques qui mériterait d'étre publiée intégralement comme point de départ à une étude approfondie du systéme des lectures chez les Jacobites, táche déjà abordée pour l'Ancien Testament par Burkitt?!. Le 33 de la Bibliothéque Nationale n'a pas été écrit pour le monastére de Mar Hanania; il est antérieur à sa fondation. On aime à penser que ce fut une des acquisitions du fondateur pour la bibliothéque de son monastere. Dans ses premiers temps celui-ci ne parait pas avoir laissé beaucoup de traces dans la littérature. On le reconnait dans une mention de Sabusti dans sa liste des couvents??. Mais c'est surtout à partir du

XIII* siècle qu'il en est fait mention, soit dans l'Anonyme de 1234??, soit dans la Chronique de Michel?*. C'est aussi à cette époque que se rapporte l’activité de Mar Jean à laquelle il est fait allusion plus haut?5. La dernière mention du Moyen Age semble apparaitre dans le récit du voyage de Mar Yabalaha et de son compagnon Barsauma. Chabot? croit qu'il est question de notre couvent dans celui, riche en reliques, que visitérent les deux voyageurs nestoriens dans les environs de Diarbakir. A peu prés ignoré dans les siécles suivants, sauf au XVIII* oü Assemani lui consacra quelques bonnes pages de sa Bibliotheca Orientalis??, le couvent réapparaît au XIX* dans les récits de voyageurs

du Sud-est turc qui se multiplient ??. Ils sont, semble-t-il, comme 19 J. Leroy, «Notes sur trois manuscrits syriaques Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47 (1964). p. 154-6.

de la John

Rylands

en

Library»,

20 A. VOOBUS, « Neuentdeckung sehr alter syrischer Evangelienhandschriften», OrChr 57 (1973), p. 57-8. 2! F.C. Burkitt, The Early Academy 11] (London 1923).

Syriac

Lectionary

System

[Proceedings

of the

British

22 E. SACHAU, Vom Klosterbuch des Sabusti [Abhandl. der Preussischen Akademie, Phil.-Hist. Klasse] (Berlin 1919), p. 13. 23 A. ABOUNA, op. cit, p. 45. 193, 213, 216, 232, 237, 241, 242, 247, 251, 253. ?* J.B. CHABOT, op. cit., voir index, s.v. «Hanania (couvent de Mar)». ?* Voir note 2. supra.

26 Histoire de Mar Jabalaha III, (Paris 1895), p. 31, note 5. 27 ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis 11, cf. note 8, supra. ?* Liste

dans

M.

STRECK,

art.

Jur

‘Abdin,

dans

L'Encyclopédie

de

l'Islam,

IV

(Leyde 1937), p. 915-922, et J. LEROY, «Recherches archéologiques sur les églises du Tur ‘Abdin» [Comptes-rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres] (Paris

1967). p. 326-7.

DEIR ES-ZAPHARAN

323

Égypte?° attirés par les livres. Curiosité d'ailleurs mal satisfaite comme en témoignent W.E. Ainsworth °°, puis Badger?! qui n'y trouve en 1842 qu'une armoire poussiéreuse contenant une centaine de volumes. Parmi eux une portion des écrits de saint Chrysostome, la plupart des écrits de Bar Hebraeus, tout l'Ephrem syriaque et un compendium des œuvres anténicéennes. L'ensemble datant dés l'année 1000. «II est clair, ajoute le narrateur au vu de la poussiére couvrant les livres, que les moines n'en font guére usage». Méme écho encore moins encourageant, quarante ans plus tard, au cours du voyage d'E. Sachau en Orient (1878/79). Recu au monastére, oü il y avait alors 10 moines, il ne fit qu'une courte halte à la bibliothéque. Elle ne possédait guére

que 15 à 20 manuscrits dont il ne put prendre la liste??. La rareté des livres s'explique, aux yeux de l'orientaliste par le transfert de la majorité à Mardin. Ceux qui restaient sont sans doute ceux dont

O.H. Parry donne le catalogue??. Au début de notre siécle, à partir des années 1909-1910 la curiosité change d'objet et les visiteurs, Miss G. Bell et C. Preusser?^, portent leur attention surtout sur l'aspect artistique et architectural des édifices dont ils relévent l'intérét pour l'histoire culturelle de la région. Preusser est le premier à donner le plan de l'église que Pognon ?° avait négligée, n'ayant d'yeux que pour les inscriptions. Il reparaitra dans l'ouvrage d'U. Monneret de Villard?5 qui n'alla jamais dans ces coins éloignés et se borna à vulgariser les résultats de Bell et de Preusser. Sans y étre jamais allé non plus, S. Guyer?" eut souvent l'occasion d'en parler d'une manière scientifique dans ses études plus générales sur l’architecture arménienne??. Mais il faut bien reconnaitre que les résultats obtenus par ces voyageurs curieux ne sont pas en rapport avec l'importance du sujet. Preusser, par exemple, n'a pas dit un mot de la 29 O. VoLKOFF, A la recherche de manuscrits en Egypte (Le Caire 1970). 30 W.E. AINSWORTH, Travels and Researches in Asia Minor Il (Londres 1842), p. 345. ?! G.P. BADGER, The Nestorians and Their Rituals 1 (Londres 1852), p. 51. 32 E, SACHAU, Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien (Leipzig 1883), p. 396.

33 O.H. Parry, Six Months in a Syrian Monastery (Londres 34 G. BELL, Churches and Monasteries of the Tur Abdin

1895), p. 337.

and Neighbouring

Districts

(Heidelberg 1913), p. 62, 96, 97, 99, 106; C. PREUSSER, Nordmesopotamische Baudenkmáler altchristlicher und islamischer Zeit (Leipzig 1911). 35 H. PoGNON, /nscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul (Paris 1887), p. 99, 188.

** U. MONNERET DE ViLLARD, Le Chiese della Mesopotamia (Rome 1940), p. 40. 37 H. ScHAETTI-GUYER, Reise durch Mesopotamien (Zürich 1968), p. 152. 3® S, GUYER, « Amida» [Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 38] (Berlin 1915), p. 194237, surtout p. 205, 211, etc.

324

J. LEROY

salle placée au sud de l'église, la Beith Qadisé, ou chambre mortuaire qui se signale par son architecture autant que par ses ornements. Il est vrai que lors de sa visite elle n'avait pas retrouvé toute sa beauté cachée sous des couches de plátre que les moines ont fait tomber ces derniéres années. C'est dans ces conditions que deux expéditions financées par la Commission des fouilles de Paris, se sont rendues au couvent en 1967

et 1968 afin de se consacrer à son étude archéologique ??. *

»*

Ce n'est pas ici le lieu ni le moment de donner sur les constructions qui constituent l'actuel couvent les données recueillies alors. La place qui nous est impartie s'y oppose et une étude compléte, digne du monument, exige des plans, des dessins, des coupes, des relevés, seuls capables de mettre en relief l'importance archéologique de ce monastére unique, surtout celle de son église. Nous nous attacherons donc à n'en connaitre pour l'instant qu'un point, mais un point dont la valeur artistique et émotionnelle n'échappera pas à ceux qui connaissent l'histoire mouvementée de l'Église syro-jacobite. Au premier étage du cloitre nord, faisant suite à une longue salle qui a servi d'école, s'en éléve une autre presque carrée surmontée d'une coupole. Ce n'est pas, malgré son apparence extérieure, une chapelle, mais une salle de réunion qui a souvent rassemblé les évéques à l'occasion de synodes. L'élément le plus frappant est constitué par une grande pierre en calcaire tendre, terminée en arc de cercle, décorée d'une grande croix plantée sur quatre marches*? qui se détache sur un fond de feuillage. De part et d'autre de la croix centrale deux quadrupédes se prosternent ou s'avancent dans un mouvement qui ne peut étre que d'adoration. L'excroissance importante de la queue fait penser que ce sont deux moutons, de ces moutons d'Orient caractérisés par ce détail anatomique qui frappe tous les voyageurs d'Occident. La pierre, haute de 60 cm. et de méme largeur, est l'objet d'une vénération qui se manifeste dans les deux arcs trilobés dans lesquels

39 J, LEROY, «L'état présent des monuments chrétiens du sud-est de la Turquie» [Comptes-rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres] (1968). p. 478-93. J. Jarry. «Inscriptions syriaques et arabes inédites du Tur 'Abdin». Annales islamologiques 11 (1972), p. 213-7.

40 Sur ce type de croix, K. Ericson, gramma », Jahrbuch der Oester.

«The Cross on Steps and the Silver Hexa-

Byzantinischen

Gesellschaft

17 (1968),

p. 149-64.

ἘΣ DEIR ES-ZAPHARAN

325

elle est introduite. Celui de l’exterieur porte une inscription estranghelo moderne en lettres noires empruntée à l'évangile (Matth. 13-15 et évangiles paralléles). Tu es Pierre et sur cette pierre ... (pl. 1 et 2).

Δ P. CLiPET, del.

Cette salle avait déjà attiré l'attention de Badger qui vit en elle "a small square chapel, called Koorsi, or throne, containing a stone altar, behind which is an ornamental marble altar-piece surmounted by a cross believed to have been consecrated by S. Peter at Antioch and to have continued in the possession of his successor the Syrian Patriarch until the present day»*!. Méme constatation chez Parry qui ajoute ce détail fort intéressant que la cérémonie de la consécration d'un nouveau patriarche—cérémo*!

BADGER, op. cit. p. 50-1.

326

J. LEROY

nie dont il donne le détail *?—se termine devant cette pierre dont il

ne sait reconnaitre le symbolisme du decor*?. Toute cette tradition est toujours vivante; elle me fut répétée par l'actuel supérieur du Deir, le P. Gabriel. Selon son récit la pierre a été apportée d'Antioche et elle a suivi le patriarcat dans tous ses déplacements. πὰ +

Il importe beaucoup de donner attention aux mémoires monastiques, généralement trés informées de ce qui touche leur passé. Ici les données rassemblées par Badger et Parry—qui sont évidemment un écho de ce qu'ils ont entendu—ainsi que l'honneur accordé, architecturalement, à la pierre sculptée, nous invitent à voir en celle-ci non seulement un symbole mais une «relique» authentique, un reste matériel de ce qui fut autrefois le Siége d'Antioche sur lequel s'asseyait le patriarche, assurant ainsi sa lignée apostolique. Il n'en reste plus que le dossier. Sa forme haute, droite, arrondie nous assure qu'il appartenait à ce que les anciens Grecs appelaient le 0povóc, le terme cathedra s'appliquant indistinctement à tout siege**. On ignorera toujours quelle forme avait le bas maintenat disparu. Conservation autant que culte des siéges épiscopaux, différent de

celui des «trónes des martyrs» *5, sont des faits généraux de l'histoire des institutions et de la liturgie chez les chrétiens. Il suffit d'évoquer ici la Cathedra Petri et la fête qui l'honore au calendrier romain *5, ou encore les mentions faites de la Chaire de saint Jacques, frére du Seigneur, à Jérusalem 7 ou, à Sinope de celle de saint André et de saint Pierre*®. Le Siege est la marque la plus irrécusable de l'apos-

*2 ©. Parry, op. cit, p. 111. Sur cette cérémonie, D. B. DE Smet, «Le Rituel du sacre des évéques et des patriarches de l'Église syrienne d'Antioche», Orient Syrien 8 (1963),

p.

164-212.

43 O. Parry,

L'intronisation

sur le trône y est signalée,

p.

172,

note

4.

ibid. : «I know no explanation of the curious design carved upon it

and originally painted ».

** H. LECLERCQ,

art. «Chaire

épiscopale»

dans

Dictionnaire

d'Archéologie

Chre-

tienne et de Liturgie III, | (Paris 1913), col. 19. *5 A. GRABAR, «Le tróne des martyrs» [Cahiers archéologiques 6] (Paris 1952), P. 31-41. ** Martyrologium Romanum ad formam editionis typicae scholiis instructum. Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Decembris, ed. H. DELEHAYE et alii (Bruxelles 1940), p. 26,

72. 47 Eus£BE, Hist. eccl. VII. 19, MiGNE, PG 20, 68. ** Vita de Saint André (VIII*/IX* s.), MiGNE, PG GRABAR, op. cit., p. 33.

120, 126, 220. Réferences dans

DEIR ES-ZAPHARAN

327

tolicité et de la succession. Il ne faut pas s'étonner alors que le patriarcat de l'Église syrienne ait mis tant de sollicitude à conserver dans ses multiples déplacements le tróne apostolique d'Antioche, assurant ainsi sa légitimité. Il convient en effet d'accorder à ce dossier une haute antiquité et une utilisation longue. L'usure qu'il manifeste—les contours des basreliefs sont en effet à peine lisibles—est la preuve d'une emploi constant au cours des siécles. Quant au sujet de son décor il s'accorde assez bien avec ce que les documents iconographiques de ces hautes époques nous apportent. En fait il est impossible de mettre en face de la croix adorée par deux moutons un monument identique. Celui qui s'en rapproche le plus est la scéne ornant la capsella argentea africana trouvée dans un autel de la petite basilique de Ain-Zirara (entre Tébessa et Constantine) qui remonte sans doute au V* siécle^?. Entre nos deux documents il y a des analogies montrant que les décors de l'un et l'autre sont de méme inspiration. La capsella africaine destinée à recevoir les reliques mises sous la pierre d'autel offre la scéne de deux moutons, dans la méme position que ceux du dossier, s'abreuvant à quatre fleuves qui s'écoulent au dessous d'un chrisme. Le geste d'agenouillement est ici plus compréhensible que sur la pierre sculptée de Deir es-Zapharan; la capsella reproduit en effet un theme symbolique du baptéme, oü souvent les brebis sont remplacés par des cerfs, selon le psaume XLI, 1-2, appliqué au sacrement. On voit par le document de notre couvent combien le passage des cerfs aux brebis était facile. Ici toute allusion au baptéme est disparu; mais la scéne garde sa saveur paradisiaque attestée, dans la capsella par la présence d'arbres, ici par la magnifique plante évasée sur laquelle est inscrite la croix. Le symbolisme qui l'inspire n'est d'ailleurs pas inconnu sur un autre monument sculpté dont la parenté avec notre dossier éclate dés qu'on les rapproche. Il s'agit de la fameuse

Sedia di San Marco??

conservée dans le trésor de la basilique de

Venise. C'est la reproduction d'un tróne épiscopal destiné non à l'usage de l'évéque, mais à la conservation de reliques. De son usage primitif il garde la forme et le décor. Or il est curieux de retrouver ici, sur la face intérieure du dossier, une iconographie dont les liens avec

+? H. LECLERCQ, art. «Afrique (Archéologie de 1)» dans DACL I, 1. col. fig. 148 d'aprés G. B. De Rossi, La capsella argentea africana (Rome 1889).

711-2,

5° A. GRABAR, «La 'Sedia di S. Marco’ à Venise» [Cahiers arch. 7] (1954), p. 1944.

328

J. LEROY

celle de notre monument est indéniable. Au dessous d'une croix tenue par les apótre Pierre et Paul, inscrite dans un disque surmontant le dossier proprement dit, s'étend la surface ornée d'un arbre immense d’ou partent quatre fleuves sortant d'un rocher sur lequel est planté l'arbre. Sur lui également se tient un mouton immobile qui masque en grande partie le tronc. Curieuse iconographie paléochrétienne qui explique l'emploi qui en est fait sur le monument de Deir es-Zapharan, dont l'antiquité se trouve ainsi confirmée, la Sedia de Venise remontant, sans qu'on puisse l'affirmer absolument 5!, au VI*-VIII* siècle. Toutes ces constatations permettent donc de donner à la pierre de la salle du Kursi de Deir es-Zapharan une valeur symbolique et historique qui la place sur le rang de la Chaire de Saint-Pierre à laquelle le Bernin a donné son cadre prestigieux. Historiquement elle lui est méme supérieure, les études récentes ayant montré que le Siége de Saint-Pierre ne peut guère prétendre à être antérieure à l'époque carolingienne52.

DEIR

ES-ZAPHARAN

AND

THE

"THRONE

OF

ANTIOCH"

The ancient Monastery of Mar Hanania in eastern Turkey, also known as Deir es-Zapharan ("Saffron Monastery"), was from the twelfth to the early twentieth century—with interruptions—the seat of the Syrian Orthodox patriarchate now located at Damascus. Through the centuries it has often been mentioned in the records. Paris Syriac ms 33, containing the four gospels, dates from the era of its foundation. The monastery attracted much attention from 19th-20th C. travelers. But only recently has its unique architecture received careful study by two French expeditions (1967-8). Its most striking artistic feature is a panel of carved limestone, 60 cm high and 60 wide, depicting a cross and two sheep in a posture of adoration. This panel must have formed the back of

the episcopal throne which for centuries served as a sign of the patriarchate's apostolic lineage. The nearest approximations to this ancient design are the 5th C. capsella argentea africana at Ain-Zirara, and the Sedia di San Marco at Venice (probably 6th-8th C.). The "throne of Antioch" thus is older than the "chair of St. Peter" for which Bernini created his marvelous embellishment. 5! Ibid., p. 33. . 5? [a Cattedra Lignea di S. Pietro in Vaticano [Atti della

Pontificia

Accademia

Romana di Archaeologia, ser. III, Memorie X] (1971) (œuvre collective). Ce que nous avons dit montre qu'il ne convient pas de faire entrer le Siége d'Antioche dans la

catégorie des trónes vides, objets de vénération, dont la tradition remonte à l'antiquité paienne et méme à l’antiquité juive. Voir C. PICARD, «Le trône vide d'Alexandre et le culte du

p.

1-19;

tróne vide à travers

E. SroMMEL,

Christentum

le monde

«Bischofsstuhl

| (1958), p. 52-78.

und

gréco-romain»

Hoher

Thron»,

[Cahiers

arch.

7] (1954),

Jahrbuch für Antike

und

ι

veh

2 Fig. 1.

|

- Deir es-Zapharan. Niche du Dossier (cl. J. LEROY)

^ s

Fig. 2. -- Deir es-Zapharan. Dossier du Siège (cl. J. LEROY)

TWO

UNUSUAL LITURGICAL CEREMONIES OF THE CHALDEAN RITE William F. MACOMBER Collegeville, Minnesota, USA

The great majority of Chaldean liturgical manuscripts conform to a very limited number of types. Differences among them are usually confined to variants of texts and rubrics. To come across completely new ceremonies is exceedingly rare. The two I present here differ considerably in their nature from one another. One is a sacramental ceremony, the signing of an unbaptized person, while the other is a procession in honor of the martyrs. The ceremony of signing is found in a priest's ritual dated 1726 A.D., MS. 37 of the Chaldean Patriarchate in Baghdad (formerly located in Mosul)!. It is quite short, not even occupying two full pages of the manuscript (ff. 130b-131b). Its structure is very simple. It begins with an invitation to pray by the deacon and a short sacerdotal prayer. This is followed by the chanting of Psalm 84 (83 in the Vulgate), farced with a "special hallelujah” [b-hullálà prisa]. Next, the priest recites a prayer of imposition [syamidä], while placing his hand on the heads of those to be signed. Afterwards, he signs the forehead of each with the oil of anointing [b-mesha da-msihuta], making a cross with his forefinger, from down upwards and from right to left, and saying: "So and so is signed with the oil of anointing, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Finally, anthems ['ónyátá] are chanted, the priest signs a cross over the children and all return home. A comparison with the rite of baptism reveals that our ceremony of signing is merely the initial signing of baptism detached from the rest of the rite. The central nucleus is formed by the prayer of ' Described by A. SCHER, "Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothéque du Patriarcat chaldéen de Mossoul", in Revue des Bibliothéques 17 (1907), p. 2338.

330

W.F. MACOMBER

imposition and the signing with the oil of anointing. Both are found in the rite of baptism?. Psalm 84 is also found there in virtually the same position relative to the prayer of imposition and the signing; the difference is that the sacerdotal prayer which in many texts of the rite of baptism separates the psalm from the prayer of imposition? precedes the psalm in our ceremony. Indeed, there are only three notable differences, all of which are found either at the beginning or at the end of the rite of signing. Where the rite of baptism continues after the signing with two diaconal proclamations and the rest of the rite, our ceremony terminates with a series of anthems that in baptism are chanted during the procession from the sanctuary to the baptistery after the post-baptismal prayer of imposition and signing*. Secondly, the priest adds a sign of the cross over those that have been signed at the conclusion of the ceremony, which I would interpret as a substitute for the solemn, chanted blessing [huttama] that normally concludes Chaldean offices and ceremonies. The third difference is that the ceremony of signing begins, not with the chanting of the “Glory be to God on high" and of the Our Father, as is the case with baptism and most offices and ceremonies of the Chaldean rite, but with a simple invitation to pray by the deacon. This last difference may possibly be significant. We have to ask ourselves, with regard to this ceremony, whether it is one that was excogitated in relatively recent times by some individual bishop or priest, or whether it may not be ancient ceremony that has fallen into desuetude, but which was presumably found in some ancient ritual and was copied, though obsolete, ne pereat. 1 would suggest rather tentatively that the latter alternative may represent the truth and that one sign of the ceremony's antiquity is the fact that it begins with the diaconal invitation to pray. This was apparently the ? Cf. The Liturgy of the Apostles Adai and Mari ... and the Order of Baptism (London 1893/New York 1970), pp. 63f.. and H. DENZINGER, Ritus Orientalium, Coptorum, Syrorum et Armenorum, in administrandis sacramentis 1 (Würzburg 1863).

pp. 365f. and 377. Even the rubrics are the same. 3 Cf. The Liturgy, p. 63, and Denzincer I, 377. The ASSEMANI's text, which DENZINGER

prayer is lacking

in J.S.

reproduces in translation, ibid., 365.

* Cf. The Liturgy. pp. 80f.. and DENZINGER

I. 376 and 381f. The Syriac text occurs

in the ceremony of the paschal kiss of peace: Breviarium iuxta ritum Syrorum Orientalium, id est Chaldaeorum 11 (Paris 1886/Rome 1938), p. 399: 12-25. The order of the anthems differs notably in the different sources. 5 There is none in the rite of baptism, but, for the eucharistic liturgy cf. The Liturgy, pp. 37f.. and F.E. BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western |, Eastern

Liturgies (Oxford 1896). pp. 303f.

CHALDEAN

RITE

331

manner in which all Chaldean offices and ceremonies began until the patriarchate of Timothy I (780-823). My suggestion is strengthened by two references in liturgical sources to a separate rite of signing. One is in the Chaldean funeral ritual for laymen. Many of the older manuscripts of the ritual add a note after the rite for children that indicates what is to be done in the case of children “who have not received baptism, but only a signing"7. The note is reproduced in the funeral ritual recently published by the Orthodox, despite the fact that there is no longer any provision in the baptismal ritual for a separate rite of signing. The other possible reference is much less sure. It is contained among the acclamations of dismissal during the eucharistic liturgy : ''"Whoever has not received baptism, let him depart! Whoever has not received the sign of life, let him depart! Whoever does not receive it (i.e. the Eucharist), let him depart!" ? The first dismissal excludes the unbaptized, and the third is rather clearly aimed against the excommunicated. It is the second dismissal that is difficult to interpret, especially in such a way that a logical progression is observed from the unbaptized to the excommunicated. If confirmation had been administered separately from baptism in the Chaldean rite, or if there had been drawn among these Christians a sharp distinction between baptism and confirmation, one could interpret this second dismissal as excluding the

unconfirmed,

but neither of our conditions

is verified19. Another

possible interpretation might be to hypothesize the existence among the ancient followers of the Chaldean rite of two categories of penitents, those who

had received a signing, but were

still excluded

from

receiving communion, and those who had not yet been signed, but I,

© Cf. W.C. VAN UNNIK, Nestorian Questions on the Eucharist (Amsterdam 1937/ 1970), p. 181 (questions 105ff.). Cf. also R. H. CONNOLLY, Anonymi auctoris Expositio officiorum Ecclesiae [CSCO 71, 76, Syr. 28, 32] (Paris 1913, 1915/Louvain 1953, 1954), vol. I, pp. 121-5, and vol. II. pp. 82f. ? Taksä da-ıläye d-lä qabbel(w) ‘mada, ella rusmä balhöd. For such children, one

nocturn of the vigil office is chanted, plus a few anthems, “until the burial is finished". At

the end,

those

present

are blessed

[w-härmin].

In

the case

of children

who

have

not even received this signing, on the other hand, no funeral rite is permitted, except that a priest walks ahead of the body saying nothing and recites a brief prayer, not in the name of Christ, as he casts the first bit of earth to commence burial. * Kiaba d-kurrästä d-'annidé bnay ‘älmä (Trichur 1954). p. 188.

* The Liturgy, p. 12; BRIGHTMAN, p. 267. '9 Cf. A. Rags, "Οὐ se trouve la Confirmation L'Orient Syrien | (1956), pp. 239-54.

dans

the

actual

le rite syro-oriental?"

in

332

W.F. MACOMBER

at least, know of no evidence to support the hypothesis. A third possibility would be that it refers to a pre-baptismal rite of signing such as Chaldean Patriarchate MS. 37 has alone preserved for us. The procession in honor of the martyrs is preserved in two manuscripts, Harvard Syriac MS. 142!!, a copy of the festal antiphonary called the Treasury [Gazzä], dated 1667 A.D. '?, and Vatican Borgia Syriac MS. 87, an undated copy of the Treasury, probably copied during the latter half of the 19th century. The relatively recent date of the latter manuscript is, however, misleading. It and Vatican Borgia Syriac MS. 86 clearly make up two volumes of a single collection that was copied for the purposes of research and study or, perhaps, for the preparation of the printed liturgical book, but not for current use in the celebration of the liturgy. The first volume was copied from an ancient manuscript, for large blank spaces have been left here and there where the text of the original was either missing or illegible. As for the second volume, Borgia Syriac 87, it was copied from more than one source. Pages 1-64 continue the same manuscript that was used for the first volume. Pages 65-363 are taken from a Catholic manuscript and contain the offices that were introduced by the Catholic Patriarch Joseph II (1696-1712). Pages 363-595 draw from a third source, undoubtedly Orthodox, for it gives a different version of the offices for Saints Barbara and Pethyon from what is found in the Catholic source, together with a series of common offices for commemorations of our Lady Mary, apostles, martyrs, bishops, doctors and confessors!?. Finally, a concluding group of pages numbered 2-17 represent a gathering of leaves that was obviously intended to be bound at the beginning of the first volume of the collection, for they contain the beginning of the office for Christmas that is lacking in the first volume. The two versions of the procession in honor of the martyrs have a general similarity to one another, but the particular differences are rather considerable. In Harvard Syriac 142 (q. 35, f. lab), the procession takes place on the Friday after Easter, called the Friday of the !! Kept in the Houghton Rare Book Library, Harvard University, but the property of the Semitic Museum. !2 The name of the place where the manuscript was copied ever, the scribe came from Gärökhyä on the Euphrates.

has been erased.

How-

13 These offices are also singular. Ordinarily, manuscripts of the Treasury contain only an office “for any saint" [d-had parsöpä) that includes but a very small number of alternate pieces for martyrs. Cf. Breviarium I, 507-3].

CHALDEAN

RITE

333

Confessors, and is indicated as a distinct ceremony, separate from the office of matins [saprä], but serving as an introduction to the eucharistic liturgy. The initial rubrics direct the clergy and laity to gather (again) in chürch

after the conclusion

of matins,

the proces-

sion is preceded by the chanting of the Our Father, as at the beginning of most Chaldean offices and ceremonies and a final rubric states that the psalmody that is customarily chanted at mass after the initial Our Father [marmitä d-ráze] is not necessary when the procession is

held!*. In Borgia Syriac 87, on the contrary, the procession comes as a sort of appendix to the office of Saint Barbara. Instead of concluding matins normally with the Our Father and the final blessing, the priests and deacons are directed, after the trisagion, to enter the sanctuary and commence the psalmody that prepares for the procession; moreover, even though the procession ends in the church,

they

do not continue with the celebration of the eucharistic liturgy, but they terminate with the Our Father and a final blessing. The central core of the ceremony is a procession to the martyrium of the church [bet sähde], accompanied by the chanting of processional

hymns in honor of the martyrs [gäle d-sähdë]. This central core is basically the same in both versions of the procession ceremony, and in both the procession is preceded by psalmody. There, however, the similarities cease. In the Harvard manuscript, they begin, as I have indicated, by chanting the Our Father!?. The sacerdotal prayer that follows is the same that introduces the psalmody at the beginning of the eucharistic liturgy on commemorations and ferias!$. The rubric that follows is difficult to interpret: “They chant Psalm 147 (147B in the Jewish canon) with the second suyyaka. And they chant the suyyäkä’”. [Wa-mSarréyn Sabbah(y) b-suyyaka@ trayyänä. W-ämrin suyyäkä.) What is clear is that they chant Psalm 147. As for suyyakä, it is an ambiguous term that can designate the hallelujah or antiphon with which a psalm is farced or a supplementary section of psalms that is chanted during vespers on great feasts and at the beginning of the

14 Accordingly, the mass in this case begins with with the introit, versicle and response [aqqaptá] (omitted by BRIGHTMAN, p. 253:15). 15 Undoubtedly preceded by the "Glory to God in the highest" (BRIGHTMAN, p. 252:11-13;

The Liturgy,

p.

1). This is almost

never mentioned

in manuscripts,

is implicitly understood whenever the Our Father is prescribed at the beginning an office or ceremony. 16 The Liturgy, p. 2. BRIGHTMAN gives the festal liturgy and so lacks it.

but

of

334

W.F. MACOMBER

vigil office [gäle d-Sahrä] on Sundays and the ferias of the Fast!”. The "second suyyakà" would seem to refer to a farcing of Psalm 147, except that I cannot explain why it should be called the "second". The other occurrence of the term suyyäkä in this rubric, on the other hand, could refer to supplementary psalmody, in which case the three canticles of Moses that follow the section of psalms that begins with Psalm 147 are probably meant. The sacerdotal prayer that follows is the one that precedes the psalmody in the nocturn [le/ya] of Sundays and feasts!?; it seems to be intended here as a concluding collect. Next, they chant a long series of anthems ['ónyàátà] grouped in hymns [φᾶδ]. The first hymn is the one that comes at the beginning of the ceremony of the paschal kiss of peace [huggäyä da-Slämä da-qyämtä], “with its companions, together with the gälä d-gawá in its entirety’ !?. Then comes a series of martyrs’ hymns [gäle d-sähde], namely, numbers

1, 13, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the complete collection of fourteen hymns??. It is at this point that those taking part in the procession are directed to enter the martyrium. The precise point at which they are supposed to begin the procession is not indicated, but it is presumably when they begin to chant the first hymn or at least the first martyrs’ hymn. As they enter the martyrium, they are directed to chant two anthems taken from the office for "Our Father”, that is, the patron saint of the church whose relics are kept in the martyrium?!. They then add two more martyrs’ hymns, namely, numbers 7 and 8. The series of anthems then closes with a final anthem that is introduced by the 17 Cf. J. Mateos. Lelva-Sapra. Essai d'interprétation des matines chaldéennes [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 156] (Rome 1959), pp. 54f., 200 and 498. This work should

be consulted for the explanation of other technical liturgical terms that occur in this article.

'5 Breviarium UMM, '5 Breviarium Il. pp. seem to be meant: ibid., of anthems that celebrate

p. 24:16-18. 399-403. By its "companions". the two variants [$uhläpe] pp. 402:16-22 and 402:22-403:1. The galä d-gäwä (a group the principal mysteries of Christ's economy of salvation and

the chief saints that are commemorated

during the liturgical year) comes

before them :

ibid.. pp. 399:25-402:16. 20 The complete collection of the martyrs’ hymns has been edited in Krahä da-qdám wa-d-bätar, wa-d-hudrä, wa-d-kaskol, wa-d-gazzá. w-qälà d-‘udräné, ‘am kıabä d-mazmöre, 3 vols. (Trichur 1960-2). in each volume. Breviarium 1/IV/III, pp. 347*-373*, on the contrary, lacks numbers 13 and 14. These are the hymns assigned for Sunday matins on alternate weeks. They are lacking in a majority of the manuscripts of the Psalter. but are clearly quite ancient, for their melodies are considered pattern melodies

[rés qálé] for numerous anthems of the Chaldean office. 2! The particular anthems are not included in the office edited 507-31 (the same as the office for any saint).

in Breviarium

|,

CHALDEAN

RITE

335

chanting of the "Glory be to the Father..." Next comes a chosen psalm with antiphon [gänönä], which is to be the one that was chanted either at compline or at the vigil office, a hymn of praise [tesbohtá], namely, the one sung at the end of matins of the vigil office on commemorations, “Glory be to the good (God)" ??, and a litany [kärözütä], the one that begins, “The Father of mercies”, that is used at vespers and the eucharistic liturgy?*. Two sacerdotal prayers, apparently left to the choice of the priest, then follow. Then, instead of terminating the ceremony with the Our Father and the final blessing they resume the chanting of the martyrs' hymns with number 14, while proceeding to the courtyard [esrwá], and they continue with numbers 9 and 10. Next, they return to the nave of the church while chanting the hymn [gälä] that is used at vespers on the Ist Sunday of the Dedication ?*, when they enter the church for the office for the first time since Ascension Thursday. Finally, they terminate with the two anthems that are normally assigned as the entrance chant ['ómità d-qanké] for the 2nd Sunday of the Apostles?* and continue with the introit versicle and response [aqgapta] of the eucharistic liturgy. The ceremony as found in Borgia Syriac 87 is inserted, as I have indicated above, into the end of matins and lacks, consequently, an initial Our Father and sacerdotal prayer. Instead, the participants begin directly with the psalmody, namely, Psalms 22 (21 in the Vulgate) and 123 (124 in the Jewish canon), which they chant with special antiphons called giyyöre. Then comes a long series of anthems grouped in hymns, just as in the Harvard manuscript. The first hymn, in fact, is the same one, the one that is also chanted in the ceremony of the paschal kiss of peace, but nothing is said about its companion pieces. There again follows a series of martyrs' hymns, but their order and their collocation with respect to the movement of the procession is 7?

Breviarium UU

pp. 28:11-29:2.

23 Breviarium {{1|ΠΠ. pp. 341*-344* ; The Liturgy, pp. 6-11: BRIGHTMAN, pp. 262-6. ?* Breviarium Ill, pp. 391:4-393:24. Cf. also A.J. MACLEAN, East Syrian Daily Offices (London 1894/Farnborough 1969). pp. 6-10. This litany is actually made up of three distinct litanies, but was always considered to be only two (apparently because two of them were chanted by the same deacon), which are designated in the manuscripts as "The Father of mercies and its companion". Since the phrase. "its companion", is lacking here. it is not absolutely certain that the second and third litanies were included. It seems to me, nonetheless, much more probable that all three litanies were intended. for | have never seen any indication that the first litany was said

by itself. The current practice among the Orthodox, however, is to omit the second litany outside the Fast and to recite at other times only the first and the. third. 2° Breviarium IN, p. 98:10-13.

336

W.F. MACOMBER

different. They begin with numbers 1 and 12 while still in the church and continue, as they begin to move towards the martyrium and then around

it (doubtlessly

inside), with numbers

6, 5,

14, 8 and

3.

At the end, they add four anthems in honor of the cross. Next, they begin the return to the church while chanting two anthems from the reentry procession for the 1st Sunday of the Dedication and reenter while chanting two more. Inside the church, they conclude according to the pattern that is nearly standard for Chaldean offices, that is, with a ganöna—Psalm 44 (43 in the Vulgate) with an antiphon taken from the office for the Friday of the Confessors—a tesbohtà taken from

the same

office, a kärözütä,

the Our

Father

and

a huttämä.

How are we to interpret these two versions of the procession? It seems to me, at least, that, as regards the date of the procession, the one indicated by the Borgia manuscript is something of a local adaptation. If the martyrs are to be honored with a procession, the more natural day on which to hold it would seem to be, as in the Harvard manuscript, the Friday of the Confessors, when the commemoration of all the martyrs is celebrated. The fact that the Borgia manuscript puts it on the commemoration of Saint Barbara may be explained because she is the first martyr to be commemorated at the beginning of the liturgical year, or, perhaps rather, because the martyrium to which the procession was intended to proceed was the one where her relics were kept, that is, in the village of Karamlaiss near Mosul in northern Iraq. In any case, none of the prayers or hymns designated for the procession mentions her. One may also ask why there should have been any procession to honor the martyrs. As Mateos has indicated25, a procession to the martyrium was once a regular part of both vespers and matins in the Chaldean daily office, but has been lost, presumably because of excessive repetition; the presence of the martyrs' hymns in these offices indicates when the processions formerly took place. I would suggest, therefore, that, when the daily processions were abolished, it was decided, perhaps locally, to preserve the practice once a year. Accordingly, Borgia Syriac 87 places the procession precisely at the end of matins at the point where the daily procession took place. The tradition represented by the Harvard Syriac 142, on the contrary, has preferred to combine the procession with the entry procession of the eucharistic liturgy, possibly to encourage a greater participation by the faithful. 26 MATEOS, pp. 98ff.

THE PROBLEMATIC THRACIAN OF THE GOSPELS

VERSION

Bruce M. METZGER Princeton. New Jersey. USA

It is a pleasure to respond to an invitation to contribute to a Festschrift in honor of my friend and colleague Arthur Vööbus. Scholars throughout the world are indebted to him for the many books and articles that he has published over the years in a wide variety of literary and textual subjects. Like Phoebus the ancient god of light, Vööbus (whose name in his native Estonian, I understand, is derived from the same root that lies behind Φοῖβος and Phoebus) has brought welcome light from the East to bear on important aspects of the history, liturgy, and constitution of the developing Church. May he be spared many years to complete still more of his wide-ranging projects ! Textual critics of the New Testament frequently divide the early versions of the New Testament into categories. Sometimes the division is along geographical lines, the categories being eastern versions and western versions. In other cases the division is made in terms of the supposed importance of the versions, the categories being primary, secondary, and tertiary versions. If, on the other hand, the categories are drawn up as to whether the number of surviving copies of an early version are many or few, we would have to place the Latin and the Armenian versions on one side and the Sogdian and the Nubian versions on the other. For that kind of classification, however, yet another category is called for, comprising early versions of which, so far as is known, nothing remains. Such is the situation, for example, of the Caucasian Albanian version. Between the fifth and eleventh centuries of the Christian era, the Albans or Alvans, a people of

uncertain ethnic origin who lived in that part of the Caucasus which today is included within the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, developed a

338

B.M. METZGER

rich literature!. According to Armenian traditions?, during the latter part of the fifth century two of the disciples of St. Mashtotz (Mesrop), named Enoch and Dana, carried the Christian faith to Caucasian Albania. Not long afterward, as reported in the same traditions, a certain Bishop Jeremiah set his hand to translating the Scriptures into the language of the Albanians. Unfortunately nothing of this version has survived. In the case of another version that is no longer extant, the situation is still more tenuous. Not only does nothing remain of the text of the version, but it is not altogether certain that it was ever made. This is the so-called Hunnic version. According to information included in an anonymous supplement to the Chronicle of Zacharias Rhetor (d. after 536), about the middle of the sixth century Kardüsat, bishop of Arràn,

sent three (or seven) priests beyond

the Caspian

Gates

to

minister to those taken captive by the Huns from the land of the Romans. As a result of the work of the missionaries, not only were many of the captives baptized, but converts were made also among the Huns. The account closes with the statement that the priests "were there for a week of years, and there they translated books into the Hunnic tongue"?. Although the identity of those books is not disclosed, it is not difficult to suppose that the translators would have included one or more books of the Bible. Turning now to the subject of the present study, we find a situation that is still more problematic. In this case, we have no solid evidence that a Thracian version was ever made, and one's opinion concerning

! For discussions concerning the Caucasian Albanians see K.V. TREVER, "The Culture of the Caucasian Albanians. A Contribution to the Problem". [XXV International Congress of Orientalists; Papers presented by the USSR Delegation] (Moscow

1960); Robert H. Howsen, “On the Alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians,” Revue des études arméniennes, n.s. | (1964), pp. 427-432: and H.S. ANASSIAN, "Un mise au point relative à l'Albanie caucasienne," ibid. 6 (1969), pp. 298-330.

? KoniUN's Life of St. Mesrop XV, trans. by Simon Weser in Bibliothek der Kirchenväter 57 (Munich

1927), pp. 217-219, and Moses KALANKATUACI's

History of the Cau-

casian Albanians 1, 27, trans. by C.J.F. Dowsett (London 1961). pp. 54f. The latter work was written in the tenth century. > Bk. XII, ch. vit of the Syriac text ed. by E. W. Brooks [CSCO 84, Syr. 39] (1921), p. 216; Eng. trans. by F.J. HAMILTON and E. W. Brooks, The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachary of Mitylene (London 1899), p. 333. Although JEROME states in his letter to Laeta that "the Huns are learning the Psalter" (Ep. 107, 2). it appears that Christianity had made no appreciable influence upon them; see J. Otto MAENCHEN-HELFEN, The World of the Huns; Studies in Their History and Culture (Berkeley 1973), pp. 260-267.

THRACIAN VERSION OF THE GOSPELS

339

the matter must be based upon a consideration of a variety of kinds of information and probabilities. It is the purpose of the following discussion, after setting forth the confident statements of certain modern scholars on the question, to canvass what can be learned from patristic sources concerning the evangelization of the Thracian tribes that lived in what is now Bulgaria and southern Rumania. An attempt will be made to assess the data bearing upon the survival of the Thracian language into the early part of the Christian era, as well as the probable needs of Thracians for a version of the Scriptures in their own language. The problems considered in the following pages presented themselves when an attempt was made to discover the factual basis for certain statements published by reputable scholars on the subject of the Thracian version of the Scriptures. In 1972 Morton Smith of Columbia University wrote that by the end of the sixth century the four Gospels had been translated into the Thracian language*, though he provides no evidence to support the assertion. Several other scho-

lars (including Alexander Randa ?, A. H. M. Jones‘, and Veselin Beëevliev’), referring to a rhetorical statement made by John Chrysostom in a sermon preached A.D. 399, conclude that by that date the Thracians had translated the holy Scriptures into their mother tongue. It is the contention of the present writer, however, that Chrysostom's statement, strictly taken, provides no solid basis for supposing the existence of a Thracian version, and that no other evidence has come to light which makes it probable that the Thracians possessed their own translation of the Scriptures.

* The Columbia History of the World, ed. John A. Garraty and Peter Gay (New York 1972), p. 247. SMITH writes as follows: "By the end of the sixth century the Gospels had been translated into Coptic, Nubian,

Ethiopic, Syriac, Sogdian, Arme-

nian, Georgian, Gothic, Thracian, and Latin. In all of these languages except Sogdian, Latin, and perhaps Thracian, the translation was the first written literature; in almost all it was soon followed by translation of other Christian works of classical forms." 5 Der

Balkan,

Schlüsselraum

der

Weltgeschichte.

Von

Thrake

zu

Byzanz

(Graz-

Salzburg-Vienna 1949), p. 246. Although RANDA does not identify the passage from CHRYSOSTOM to which he refers, he doubtless has in mind a statement in CurysosTOM's sermon preached at Eastertime of 399 in the Church of St. Paul in Constantinople, 8 statement which, as will be shown below, is incapable of proving the point. * The Later Roman Empire, 184-602: a Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey II (Norman, Oklahoma 1964), p. 993 and p. 1402, n. 19. ? Untersuchungen über die Personennamen bei den Thrakern (Amsterdam 1970), p. 72.

340

B.M. METZGER

I Before giving consideration to patristic testimonies concerning the preaching and reception of the Christian faith among the Thracian tribes, it will be useful to set forth several details concerning the area they inhabited, their language, and certain ethnographic data mentioned by classical authors. The boundaries of Thrace varied at different times®. In the fifth century B.C. the kingdom of the Odrysae, the leading tribe of Thrace, extended over present-day Bulgaria and beyond. In the opinion of Herodotus (V. 8) the Thracians “are the biggest nation in the world, next to the Indians. Were they under one ruler, or united, they would be the strongest nation on earth". The Roman province of Thrace was bounded on the north by the Haemus mountain range, on the east by the Euxine (Black) Sea, on the south by the Propontis, Hellespont, and Aegean Sea, and on the west by the Nestus River. There were, however, Thracian tribes living outside the Roman province, notably in Scythia Minor, that area of present-day Rumania and Bulgaria east and south of the Danube known as the Dobrudja?. The Thracian language, which belongs to the Indo-European family of languages, appears to have been related to Daco-Mysian, Illyrian, Bithynian, and Phrygian!?. Only meager remains of the language survive today ! ; these may be classified as follows.

* Cf. Peter St. KoLEDAROV, "Thrace as a Name in Historical Geography." in Thracia. Primus congressus studiorum Thracicorum III, ed. V. I. GEORGIEV et al. [Academia litterarum Bulgarica] (Sofia 1974), pp. 111-118. ° For a comprehensive historical survey of the region, see Din istoria Dobrogei,

particularly vol.

2 by Radu

Vutpe,

Romanii la Dundrea de Jos. [Bibliotheca historia

Romaniae IV] (Bucharest 1968). 19 Cf. Dimitar DETSCHEW, “Charakteristik der thrakischen Sprache", Balkansko ezikoznanie 2 (1960), pp. 147-213; Vladimir I. GEORGIEV, /ntroduzione alla storia delle lingue indeuropee (Rome 1966), pp. 125-205; and 1.1. Russu, Die Sprache der ThrakoDaker (Bucharest 1969). For the earlier view that Thracian was closely related to Phrygian, see Paul KRETSCHMER, Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache

(Góttingen 1896). pp. 171-243. !! The standard monograph

on the subject is Die thrakischen Sprachreste, ed. by

Dimitar DETSCHEW [Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philos.-hist. Ki.: Schriften der Balkankommission, Linguistische Abteilung] (Vienna 1957). For other studies, see Zivka VELKOVA, "Die thrakische Sprache (Bibliographischer Anzeiger 1852-

1965)", Balkansko ezikoznanie

12 (1967). pp.

graphie sur l'archéologie et l'histoire above), vol. 1 (1972). pp. 327-346.

de

155-184, and

la Thrace

Kiril Jorpanov,

(1966-1970)".

Thracia

"Biblio(see

n.

8

THRACIAN

VERSION OF THE GOSPELS

(a) The only known specimens of several inscriptions, the longest being inscribed in Greek letters of the fifth ring found in 1912 at Ezerovo. The words and the interpretation of the

341

Thracian directly preserved are eight lines of scriptio continua century B.C. on a gold fingerdivision of the inscription into meaning of the words are still

disputed!?. Other inscriptions are preserved on seals, ceramic and metal

vessels,

and

a funerary

monument;

the

last

mentioned

com-

prises three lines of Greek letters on a stone found in 1965 at Kjol-

men in northern Bulgaria !*. Supplementary evidence for the Thracian language is provided through the following sources. (P) Numerous personal and place names are mentioned in ancient authors and scholiasts from Homer to early Byzantine times; in Greek and Latin inscriptions from the sixth century B.C. to the close of antiquity; in Greek papyri from the third century B.C. to the sixth century A.D.; and in the legends on coins from the eastern half of the Balkan peninsula and from the north-western part of Asia

Minor from the fifth century B.C. to the fourth century A.D.'* (c) About forty Dacian names of plants are given by Dioscorides Pedanius (a first-century army physician well versed in pharmacological literature)'* from a treatise, Περὶ Botávov, which had been drawn up by Pamphilus, a contemporary Alexandrian lexicographer. (d) About seventy-five Thracian glosses have been preserved by lexicographers, notably Hesychius and Photius. How far the enigmatic inscriptions on vases and other objects unearthed on Samothrace!$, dating from the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., may throw light on the problems of the Thracian language is

‘2 For more than a dozen attempts to interpret the inscription, see the survey of previous investigations in DETSCHEW, op. cit. pp. 566-582. For an enlarged photograph of the ring, see K. M. Danov, Drevna trakiva (Sofia 1968). p. 73. 13 Cf. Vladimir I. GEORGIEV, Trakiiskivat ezik (Sofia 1957); IDEM, "Die Deutung

der altertümlichen thrakischen Inschrift aus Kjolmen", Balkansko ezikoznanie XI, 1 (1966), pp. 9-23: and Robert SCHMITT-BRANDT, "Die thrakischen Inschriften”, Glotta 45 (1967). pp. 40-60.

'* On

Thracian

proper

discussion in his volume, (Amsterdam 1970).

names,

see besides

Untersuchungen

über

DETSCHEW's die

monograph,

Personennamen

'5 DioscoRIDES, Materia Medica, ed. by. M. WELLMANN

BESEVLIEV's

bei den

Thrakern

(Leipzig 1907-14); cf. also

IpEM. “Die Pflanzennamen des Dioskurides". Hermes 33 (1898). pp. 360-422.

'© For the texts see P.M.

Fraser. Samothrace

VM. 1 (New

York

1960). pp.

and Karl LEHMANN, Samothrace, Il, 2 (1960), pp. 45ff. Cf. also LEHMANN, of the Samothracian Language". Hesperia 24 (1955), pp. 93-100.

120f..

"Documents

342

B.M. METZGER

uncertain. In a preliminary analysis Bonfante points out, inter alia, the relatively high proportion of vowels to consonants in texts of both languages !?. Historical and ethnographic data concerning the ancient Thracians are diverse !#. On the one hand, Thrace was regarded as the home of poetry, music, and religion. From here came the earliest Greek poets, including Orpheus, Linus, and Musaeus. Poseidonius regarded music as a Thracian invention, and Orpheus with the Thracians is already a motif of vase painting in the fifth century. Besides the lesser known native gods, including Zalmoxis, Zbelsurdos, Kendrisia, and Derzelas, the Thracian-rider god, the famous Eleusinian mysteries in Attica were said to have been founded by Eumolpus, a Thracian. Herodotus (VII. 111) mentions that the Bessoi!?, a Thracian tribe, were in charge of a shrine sacred to Dionysus, and the excesses of ecstatic worship of Dionysus in Thrace were legendary ??. 17 Giuliano BONFANTE, “A Note on the Samothracian Language". Hesperia 24 (1955), pp. 101-109. 18 For a comprehensive conspectus of texts from HOMER to PROCOPIUS bearing on the

Thracians,

see

G.I.

Kazarow

et

al,

/zvori

za

starata

istorija

i geografija

na

Trakija i Makedonija [Bulgarska akademija na naukite] (Sofia 1949). For discussions of what is known of the ancient Thracians, see Wilhelm ToMascHEK, "Die alten Thraker.

Eine ethnologische

mie der Wissenschaften

Untersuchung"

(Sitzungsberichte der

zu Wien, philos.-hist.

Kl.

128, 4. Abt.

kaiserlichen

(1893);

131,

Akade-

1. Abt.

(1894); Gawril I. KAZAROW, Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte der Thraker (Sarajevo, 1916); W. BRANDENSTEIN and Kazarow, "Thrake", PAuLY-WissowA, Real-Encyclopddie für

Altertumswissenschaft Vl. A (1936), cols. 407ff.; Christo mic

Development

of the Ancient

Thracians",

Danov,

Études historiques

"Social and 1 (Sofia

Econo-

1960), pp. 3-

27; and Joseph Wiesner, Die Thraker. Studien zu einem versunkenen Volk des Balkanraumes (Stuttgart 1963). 1? On the Bessoi see W. TOMASCHEK,

(Bessi), a name that was used to refer to Thracians in general, "Über Brumalia und Rosalia, nebst über den bessischen Volks-

stamm" [Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, philos.-hist. Kl. 60] (1868), pp. 351-404; Gavril I. Kazarow, “Trakiiskite besi", /zvestiya na bulgarskoto istorichesko druzestvo 6 (1924), pp. 31-47; S. Casson, "Thracian Tribes in Scythia Minor", Journal of Roman Studies 17 (1927), pp. 97-101; G. CAN-

KOVA-PETKOVA,

"La

survivance

du

nom

des

Besses

au

Moyenne

Age",

Balkansko

ezokoznanie 2 (1960), pp. 93-95; and Em. ZAH and Al. SUCENEANU, "Bessi consistentes" (with a French résumé), Studii si cercetäri di istorie veche, 22 (1971), pp. 568-578.

On the etymology of the name

Bessi, see Todur SERAFOv, "L'Etymologie de nom

de

le tribu Thrace Bnoooi, Bessi," Thracia (see n. 8 above), pp. 135-138, who understands the word to mean "interpreter, prophet, sorcerer." 30 Cf. Leslie W. Jones, "The Cults of Dacia", University of California Publications in Classical Philology 9, 8 (1928), pp. 245-305; Raffaele PETTAZZONI, "La religione dell'antica Tracia", Serta Kazaroviana. Commentationes gratulatoriae Gabrielo Kazarov 1 (Bulletin de l'institut archéologique Bulgare 16] (Sofia 1950), pp. 291-299: Martin NiLSSON, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 2. Aufl.. I (Munich 1955), pp. 585ff:

THRACIAN VERSION OF THE GOSPELS

343

In other respects, the reputation enjoyed by the Thracians as a people was far from enviable. According to comments made by Herodotus (V. 3-8) and Thucydides (VII. 27 and 29f.), the Thracians were

commonly regarded as savage, cruel, rapacious, and warlike. Among the several Thracian tribes which Strabo mentions as being all very brigandish (πάντα μὲν οὖν ταῦτα λῃστρικώτατα ἔθνη), it was the Bessoi, with whom we shall have chiefly to do in the following pages, who, he says, "were called brigands even by the brigands" (kai ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν λῃσταὶ προσαγορεύονται) 2". Similar information comes from Ovid, who, having been banished in A.D. 8 by Augustus to Tomis,

a city

on

the

Euxine

laments the miseries to which

near

the

mouths

of the

Danube,

he is exposed, being "surrounded

by

the Sarmatians, a fierce people, and the Bessoi and Getae"??, In the light of the previously mentioned characteristics of the Thracians, it is perhaps not surprising to learn on the testimony of Latin

inscriptions?? and other sources?* that they formed a notable contingent in the Roman

army.

They

likewise were renowned

for their

work in mines, particularly gold mines 25.

and 5.1. ALEXANDRU, "Religa tracilor sud-Dunäreni”, Studii teologice, Ser. II, 20 (1968), pp. 576-588. For Dionysiac inscriptions from Istria in the second and third centuries, see D. M. Pippipt, in Dacia, n.s. III (1959), pp. 391-413, reprinted in his Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Berlin 1962), pp. 154-177; for Dionysiac inscriptions of earlier centuries see D.P. Dimitrov, “Neuentdeckte epigraphische Denkmäler über die Religion der Thraker

in den frühhellenistischen Epoche", Hommages

d Waldemar

Déonna [Collection Lato-

mus, vol. 28] (Brussels, 1957). pp. 181-193.

2! Geography VILv.12. 22 Tristia 111.x.5, "Sauromatae cingunt, fera gens, Bessique, Getaeque”; cf. IV.i.67, "vivere quam miserum est inter Bessosque Getasque". For discussions of these and other references made by Ovip to the Thracians, see N. Lascu, “Ovidiu in istoriografia

rominà"

(French

résumé,

“Ovide

dans

l'historiographie

roumaine"),

Omagiu

lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejul impliniri a 60 de ani (Bucharest 1960), and D. M. PiPPiDI, 1 greci nel basso Danubio dall'età arcaica alia conquista romana (Milan 1971), pp. 155-160. 23 Bessi are referred to in the following inscriptions: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin 1862ff) III, 104, 557f., 4378, 5796, 6109, 6233; III, p. 844, 22; 854, 31; 863, 25; V, 6733; VI, 2699, 3177, 3205; X, 1754. ?* E.g. the mid-fourth century Expositio totius mundi et gentes, $ 50: "Thracia prouincia ... maximos inde milites tolluntur"

habens uiros et fortes in bello; propter quod et [Sources chrétiennes 126) (Paris 1966), p. 186 and

frequenter VEGETIUS,

De re militari, II, 11, and IV, 24. 23 See, most recently, E. Maximov, "Der Erzbergbauder Bessen”, Thracia III (1974. see n. 11 above), pp. 111-118.

344

B.M. METZGER II

When it was that Christianity was first introduced among the Thracians it is difficult to say?9. Certainly Theodoret's inference?’ that the Apostle Paul had brought the teaching of the Gospel throughout Thrace—an inference based on the word κύκλῳ in Rom. 15:19 (‘as far round as Illyrium I have fully preached the Gospel")—is altogether without warrant. Of scarcely more credence is the tradition reported by Eusebius?® that the Apostle Andrew evangelized Scythia??, the territory bordering the Black Sea between the Danube and the Tanais. Tertullian and Origen present contradictory evidence. The former makes the rhetorical statement that the name of Christ currently reigns in such varied places as "the manifold confines of the Moors, all the limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons (haunts inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ), and of the Sarmatians, and Dacians, and Ger-

2° On

the Christianization

of the Balkans,

see Jacques ZEILLER.

Les origines chré-

tiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de l'empire romain (Paris 1918); C. Daicoviciu, “Existà monumente crestine i Dacia traianä din sec. II-III? (German résumé, "Gibt es christliche Denkmäler aus dem {-Π] Jahrhundert in trajanischer Dacien?"), Anuarul Institulului de studii clacice Cluj-Sibiu 2 (1933-35 [published 1936]), pp. 192-208, German

résumé, pp. 294-296 [there are no certain historical, epigraphical, or archaeological proofs of Christianity prior to the fourth century]: J. ZEILLER. "L'Expansion du christianisme dans la peninsula des Balkans du 1“ au V* siècle”, Revue internationale des études balkaniques 2 (1935), pp. 76-81; Eugen Lozovan, "Aux origines du christianisme Daco-Scythique", in Franz ALTHEIM, Geschichte der Hunnen IV (Berlin 1962). pp. 146-165; and D. M. PiPeiDi, “In jurul izvoarelor literare ale crestinismului dacoroman" (French résumé. "Autour des sources litteraires du christianisme daco-romain"),

Contribugii la istoria veche 569. 27 THEODORET,

28 Hist.

Eccl.

a romániei, 2nd ed. (Bucharest

1967), pp. 481-496 and 568-

Com. in Ep. ad Rom., XV (MIGNE, PG 82, 2138).

IlL.i.l. On

the question

here, relied on earlier traditions concerning

how

far ORIGEN,

the assignment

whom

EUSEBIUS

of missionary

quotes

areas to the

several apostles, see A. HARNACK, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 4. Aufl., 1 (Leipzig 1924), pp. 109f., which is condensed from HARNACK [Texte und Untersuchungen 42, 3] (1918). pp. 14-16. 2% For discussions of the legends concerning the work of the Apostle Andrew, see B. ZIMMERMANN in F. CABROL and H. LECLERCQ, Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie 1, 2 (1907), cols. 2031-2034; G.M. Ionescu, /storia Bisericii Románilor din Dacia Traiand (Bucharest 1906), pp. 48ff and 212ff.; Karl AuNER, "Predicat-a un Apostol in Románie?" Revista catolicä 1 (1912), pp. 40-58 (not available to the present writer); Francis Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, Mass. 1958), pp. 198-211; and Peter M. PETERSON,

Andrew, the Brother of Simon Peter, his History and Legend (Leiden

1958), pp. 6-23.

THRACIAN VERSION OF THE GOSPELS

mans,

and

provinces

Scythians, and

and

islands

of many

unknown

remote

to

us

and

345

nations, which

and

we

of many

can

scarcely

enumerate"°°. On the other hand, Tertullian's grandiloquent language is neutralized by Origen's much more cautious comment on the current status of the fulfillment of the promise made in Matt. 24:14 ("this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world...) : "What then shall we say concerning the Britons or the Germans, who are around the Ocean, or concerning the barbarian Dacians and Sarmatians and Scythians, of whom the most have not yet heard the word of the Gospel ...?'?! Neither testimony alone is very convincing, but taken together they show that a partial Christianization of some of the peoples named probably took place before the beginning of the third century. The earliest known bishop of Tomis, a man named Evangelicus, is dated by Gams about 290, and in 325 the bishop "de Tomis in Scythia" is

said to have been present at the Council of Nicaea??. The Passio St. Philippi??, written by a bilingual Thracian who apparently drew upon an eyewitness account, describes the persecution of Christians in the year 303-304 in the cities of Heraclea and Adrianople. Besides providing testimony as to the state of urban Christianity of that time, the author refers to not a few typical Thracian practices and customs?*, showing that the native population was not yet Romanized.

30 Adv. Judaeos, vii: "ut iam Getulorum varietates et Maurorum multi fines «et» Hispaniarum omnes termini et Galliarum diversae nationes, et Britannorum inaccessa Romanis

loca, Christo

vero

subdita, et Sarmatarum

et Dacorum

et Germanorum

et

Scytharum et abditarum multarum gentium et provinciarum et insularum multarum nobis ignotarum, [et], quae enumerare minus possumus?" (CSEL 70, Pars Il, ed. E. KROYMANN (1942), p. 273, 31-36). 31 In Matth. comment., ad Matth. 24, 9. (GCS 38. Origenes XI, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN, (1933), p. 76: “Quid autem dicamus de Britannis aut Germanis, qui sunt circa Oceanum, vel apud barbaros Dacos et Sarmatas et Scythas, quorum plurimi nondum

audierunt evangelii verbum ...?"' 32 Bonafatius Gams, Series episcoporum ecclesia catholice (Ratisbon 1873), p. 428. 33 "Martyrium SS. Philippi, episcopi Heracleensis, Severi presb. et Hermae diac. in Adrianopoli

& Rome Analecta

Thraciae

(a.

304)",

Acta

Sanctorum,

Octobris

t.

IX,

22

Oct.

(Paris

1869), pp. 545-553; cf. also H. Delehaye, "Saints de Thrace et de Mésie", Bollandiana

31

(1912),

pp.

161-300,

and

H.

LECLERCQ.

Dictionnaire

d'archéo-

logie chrétienne et de liturgie, XV. 2 (1953), cols. 2275f. 34 For

a discussion

of such

details,

see

bita na trakite prez IV B. ot N.E." (German weise

der

Thraker

im

4.

Jahrhundert

Deéev (Sofia 1958), pp. 731-741.

u.z."),

V.

VeLKov,

“Kim

vüprosa

za

eziku

résumé, "Über die Sprache und Lebens/zsledvanija

v cest

na

Akad.

Dimitdr

i

346

B.M.

METZGER

By the time of the Synod of Sardica (342/343), churches appear to have been established in the chief cities of Thrace, organized in a form of Christianity which seems to have been not visibly distinguish-

able from that of the Eastern or Greek church?5. The origin of a Thracian-Bulgarian national church was still in the future, and its rise depended in part upon the success of evangelizing those living in the countryside and mountainous regions. The difficulty encountered in attempting to reach such persons is hinted at by Macarius Magnes in his Apocriticus, written perhaps in the second half of the fourth century. The author states that the Gospel had not yet been preached in "the country of the Scythians, where twelve tribes of nomad bar-

barians live, of whose savage state Herodotus tells us” ?6. Toward the close of the fourth century, however, a vigorous effort was made to carry the Gospel to the Scythae, Getae, Bessi, and other

tribes that had not yet been reached. The missionary was Niceta ?", bishop of Remesiana (now Bela Palanka in Yugoslavia). Our knowledge, such as it is, of his preaching among the Thracians is derived from Paulinus of Nola, whom he visited in 398 and again in 402, and who wrote about his friend's work in two poems (nos. 17 and 27), composed for the feast of St. Felix. In well-turned Sapphic verses Paulinus celebrates Niceta's heroic efforts to bring the claims of Christ to the wild inhabitants of the frontier regions lying to the east of Remesiana.

“Τῆς

whole

area

of the

north,"

he

declares,

“calls

you father. The Scythians become gentle at your words; at war with each other, they abandon their aggressive spirit under your schooling. The Getae run to you, as do also the Dacians, both those who dwell in

the hinterland and the cap-wearers living on the bank of the Danube, rich in numbers of cattle". Niceta, he says, was successful in taming

33 So Carl SCHNEIDER, Geistesgeschichte des antiken Christentums | (Munich p. 649.

On

the council

at Sardica,

see

Friedrich

Loors,

"Zur

Synode

von

1954),

Sardica",

Theologische Studien und Kritiken 82 (1909), pp. 279-297; Jacques Zeiller, Les origines chrétiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de l'empire romain (Paris 1918), pp. 228258;

and

Ivan

RAMUREANU,

"Sinodul

de

la

Sardica

din

anul

343.

Importanta

lui

pentru istoria pätrunderii crestinismului la geto-daco-romani", Studii teologice, Ser. Il, 14 (1962), pp. 146-182. On the Thracian church in general, see Michael Le QUIEN, Oriens Christianus | (Paris 1740, reprinted Graz 1958). cols. 1091ff. 36 T. W. CRAFER, The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes (London

1919), p. 125.

7 See, e.g.. A. E. BURN, Niceta of Remesiana, his Life and Works (Cambridge 1905). pp. xxviff. and D. M. Pippioi, "Niceta din Remesiana si originile crestinismului dacoroman", Contribugii la istoria veche

a Romániei, 2nd ed. (Bucharest

1967), pp. 497-516.

THRACIAN VERSION OF THE GOSPELS

even “the Bessians, whose

minds are harder

than

347

their lands,

who

indeed are harder than their own snow”8. In due time the news of the conversion of Thracians to Christianity reached Jerome in Bethlehem. In a letter written A.D. 396 to Heliodorus, Jerome, in speaking of the progress that the Christian faith had made, mentions how “the savage Bessians and their host of skinclad tribes, who used to offer human sacrifices in honor of the dead, have now dissolved their harsh discord into the sweet music of the

Cross”??, From these and other patristic testimonies, rhetorical though they are, it may be concluded that by the beginning of the fifth century the Christian message had been proclaimed, with a certain amount of success, to even the more remote mountain tribes in Thrace, and that some even of the Bessi had responded to the Gospel. The literary evidence is corroborated by archaeology. Inscriptions *°, reliefs, gems, lamps bearing Christian symbols, and the like*!, testify to the dissemination of Christianity in Thrace during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. Although some of the artifacts may have been brought there from the West or from Byzantium, it is probable that at

least some of them are native to the region. In not a few places in Bulgaria remains of early Christian churches have been found, many

38 PAULINUS OF NoLA, Carmina xvii, 245-252, "te patrem dicit plaga tota Borrae, | ad tuos fatus Scytha mitigatur | et qui discors fera te magistro | pectora ponit. | et Getae currunt et uterque Dacus, | qui colit terrae medio uel ille | diuitis multo boue pilleatus | accola ripae", and 205-206, "nam simul terris animisque duri | et sua Bessi niue duriores". CSEL 30, ii (Vienna 1894), pp. 92f. and 91; Eng. trans. by P.G.

WALSH, The Poems of St. Paulinus of Nola (New York 1975), pp. 111 and 110. 39 Jerome. Epist. LX, 4, "Bessorum feritas et pellitorum turba populorum, qui mortuorum quondam inferiis homines immolabant, stridorum suum in dulce crucis fregerunt melos". CSEL 54 (1910). 533.

*9 Vasile PARVAN, Contribujii epigrafice la istoria crestinismului daco-roman (Bucharest 1911); Raymund NETZHAMMER, Die christlichen Alterthümer von Dobrudscha (Bucharest 1918); I. BARNEA, “Crestinismul in Scythia Minor dupa inscripti", Studi

teologice

1-2 (1954),

pp.

64-112

(not

available

to the

present

writer);

and

IDEM,

"Quelques considérations sur les inscriptions chrétiennes de la Scythie Mineure", Dacia,

n.s. 1 (1957), pp. 265-288. *! C. DAICOVICIU, "Au sujet des monuments chrétiens de la Dacie Trajane", Mélanges de philologie. de littérature et d'histoire anciennes offerts ἃ J. Marouzeau (Paris 1948), pp. 119-124; LI. Russu, "Materiale arheologice paleocrestine din Transilvania, con-

tributii la istorii crestinismului daco-roman," Studii teologice ser. 11, 10 (1958), pp. 311340: and I. BARNEA, “Vasile Párvan si problema crestinismului in Dacia traianà," ibid., pp. 93-105 (contrary to PARvAN's opinion, the earliest archaeological evidence

for Christianity in Dacia Trajana dates from the fourth or fifth century).

348

B.M. METZGER

of the basilica-type. The discovery of many Christian graves at Sardica (modern Sofia) dating from the fifth and sixth centuries indicates the presence of numerous Christian congregations at that period. IT] It is now necessary to inquire how far patristic testimonia may support the opinion that, along with their new faith, the Thracians

possessed their own

native

religious literature*?,

and

whether

any

part of the Scriptures had been translated into their language. The following data have been thought to bear on the subject. (1) In an interesting passage in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) the author mentions the variety of words for “heaven” in different languages. ''We call it οὐρανόν, the Hebrew shamain, the Roman caelum, and the Syrian, the Mede, the Cappadocian, the Maurusian, the Scythian, the Thracian, the Egyptian call it differently"45. In commenting on this statement BeSevliev argues that “in the mouth of a Church Father the word ‘heaven’ is plainly a term standing for the Christian religion (as, for example, the prayer ‘Our Father), which again testifies indirectly to the existence of prayers and other liturgical texts in the Thracian language" **. It must be observed, however, that Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon gives no example of such a metaphorical meaning of the word obpavóc, and it is extremely doubtful whether, in the context, Gregory intends to imply anything beyond a comment on the wide diversity of words meaning ''heaven" in the several languages that he mentions. In any case, he says nothing whatever about a Thracian version of the Scriptures. (2) At Eastertime in the year 399 John Chrysostom preached a sermon in the Church of St. Paul, a sanctuary assigned to the Goths who lived in Constantinople. Speaking through an interpreter, Chrysostom dealt with the theme of the divine call to pagans and barbarians to embrace Christianity. At the beginning of his sermon the preacher *? Such is the tentative hypothesis thrown out (in the form of a question) by N. IoRGA in his Histoire des roumains et de la romonité orientale, ii (Bucharest 1937). p. 276. LozovAN, op. cit. (n. 26, above), p. 150. n. 21 thinks such literature, if it existed at all, would have involved no more than the translation of some prayers. * Contra Eunomium, xii MiGNE, PG 45, 1045D: ᾿Ημεῖς οὐρανὸν τοῦτο λέγομεν. Σαμαὶμ ὁ “Ἑβραῖος. ὁ Ρωμαῖος Κελοῦμ. xai ἄλλως ὁ Σύρος. ὁ Μῆδος. ὁ Καππαδόκης. ὁ Μαυρούσιος. ὁ Σκύθης, ὁ Θρᾷξ. ὁ Αἰγούπτιος.

** Personennamen, p. 119.

THRACIAN

VERSION OF THE GOSPELS

349

expresses the wish that the pagan philosophers were present so that they could recognize the might of the crucified One and the vigor of the Christian faith and character. Warming up to his subject Chrysostom continues: "Where now are Plato, Pythagoras, and the other philosophers of Athens? Forgotten! Where are the teachings of the fishermen and the tentmakers? They are not merely in Judea, but they shine more brightly than the sun also in the language of the barbarians, as you have heard today. Scythians and Thracians and Sarmatians and Moors and Hindus and those who dwell at the extreme ends of the earth philosophize concerning these things that have been mentioned, having translated them each into his own native

language"*°. These words, a typical example of Chrysostom's characteristic oratory, have been taken to mean, as was mentioned earlier, that the Scriptures were translated into Thracian and other languages. Actually, however, all that Chrysostom states is that the several peoples whom he enumerates^$, having translated into their own language what was preached to them, now "philosophize" (that is, practice Christianity—see Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. φιλοσοφεῖν) in accord *5 Hom.

hab.

in eccl.

Pauli,

MIGNE,

PG

63,

499-501:

Ποῦ

τὰ

Πλάτωνος

xai

Πυθαγόρου καὶ τῶν ἐν ᾿Αθήναις: ἐσβέσθη. Ποῦ τὰ τῶν ἀλιέων xai oknvoroiov: οὐκ ἐν Ιουδαίᾳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν βαρβάρων γλώττῃ, καθὼς ἠκούσατε σήμερον, ἡλίου φανότερον διαλάμπει" καὶ Σκύθαι καὶ Θρᾷκες καὶ Σαυρομάται καὶ

Μαῦραι

καὶ Ἰνδοὶ

καὶ οἱ πρὸς

πρὸς τὴν οἰκείαν ἕκαστος

αὐτὰς

μεταβαλόντες

ἀπῳκισμένοι γλῶτταν,

τὰς ἐσχατιὰς

τὰ εἰρημένα

τῆς

οἰκουμένης,

φιλοσοφοῦσι

ταῦτα.

The supposition of several modern scholars that CHrysostoM here refers to the translation of the Bible seems to rest upon an uncritical acceptance of the inaccurate editorial heading in MIGNES Latin rendering of the passage: fidem conversae Scripturas in linguam suam converterunt (col. 501).

Barbarae

gentes

ad

** Cf. Curysostom’s reference to several of the same nations in his discussion of the gift of the plurality of languages bestowed by the Holy Spirit upon the apostles at Pentecost so that, "although originally using only one language. that of the Jews, they were able to convince the Scythian, the Indian, the Sarmatian, the Thracian" (Adversus ludaeos et gentiles, vii, MiGNE, PG 48, col. 822). In chapter vi he refers to Scythians, Thracians, Mauri, Indians, Sarmatians, and Persians being brought under

the yoke of Christ. (For two other lists of peoples to whom the Apostles preached, brought to my attention through the kindness of Dr. Margaret A. SCHATKIN, see CHRYSOSTOM,

Exp. in Ps. 44, 3, PG

54, 186, and

De sancto

Pentecoste

Hom.

I, 4, PG

50, 459). Whether such list of exotic names are the result of merely rhetorical fancy, different readers will estimate differently; cf.. however, the sensible comment of P. Peeters, "ll faut bien convenir que ces premiers catalogues des nations chrétiennes ont un tour un peu trop oratoire pour inspirer pleine confiance", Analecta Bollandiana

50 (1932), p. 12. Perhaps, as John G. GhRirrtTH, the Public Orator of Oxford, has suggested to the present writer, CHRYSOSTOM is simply using a popular tómoc or commonplace; cf. JUvENAL (III, 79) who links Maurus and Sarmata and Thrax.

350

B.M.

METZGER

with that doctrine. Furthermore, the reference to Sarmatians, Moors, and Hindus, and those who dwell at the extremities of the earth complicates matters. Are we to suppose that Chrysostom means that all these nations likewise possessed written translations of the Bible in their native languages? And if he does mean this, can we believe him? (3) In a scathing denunciation of the prevalence of inhumane practices current among the Scythians and Gepids, Salvian (who died about 480), a priest of Marseilles, asks, "Where is the catholic law that they believe? Where are the commandments of piety and chastity that they learn? They read the Gospels (evangelia legunt), and are unchaste; they hear the apostles, and get drunk. They follow Christ, and plunder..."*" Without raising the query how far Niceta's work of evangelization may have been localized and/or transient, what is of interest here is Salvian's statement, made in the second half of the fifth century, that Christians among the Scythians and Gepids ‘read the Gospels". Unfortunately nothing is said as to the language in which these two peoples were accustomed to read the Gospels—if indeed Salvian gave the matter a second thought. (4) Beginning in the sixth century we hear of the existence of monks and monasteries of the Bessoi in various localities outside Thrace. The Acts of the Council held in 536 at Constantinople refers to the presence in that city of many ethnic monasteries*®, including one of

the Bessoi, the abbot of which was named Andrew*?. (5) In 570 while Antoninus Placentinus was making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem he stopped off at the monastery at Mount Sinai, where he says he found three learned abbots who knew several languages,

namely Greek, Latin, Syriac, Egyptian [Coptic], and Bessian °°. *" De gubernatione Dei, IV, 17. MiGNE, SANDFORD (New York 1930), p. 127. 48 See Karl HoLL, "Das Fortleben

PL 53, col. 90; Engl. trans.

der Volkssprachen

in Kleinasien

by Eva

M.

in nachchrist-

licher Zeit". Hermes 43 (1908), pp. 241-254, esp. p. 245, and R. JANIN, "Les monastéres nationaux et provinciaux à Byzance", Échos d'Orient 32 (1933), p. 431, and IDEM, La géographie

ecclésiastique

de l'empire

byzantine

1, 3, Les

églises et les monastéres

(Paris 1953), p. 68. ** J.D.

1762;

Mansi,

reprinted

Sacrorum

Leipzig

conciliorum

1901),

col.

nova

et amplissima

987E-1009E

(by

collectio

accident,

VIII

it seems,

(Florence

the

word

Béccov has dropped out of the corresponding item in 1010E).

59 Antonini Placentini itinerarium xxxvii ed. Paul GEvER. CSEL 39 (1898), p. 184, "... tres abbates, scientes linguas, hoc est, latinas et graecas, syriacas et aegyptiacas et bessas". Another recension of the /tinerarium reads, "... hoc est latinam, graecam, syram, et aegyptiacam et bessam"

(GEYER,

p. 213); for bessam a tenth-century

manu-

THRACIAN VERSION OF THE GOSPELS (6) More

351

than one source refers to the presence of Bessian

monks

in Palestine. In the Life of St. Saba by Cyril of Scythopolis (6th century) the author relates an incident during the Origenastic controversy when Bessian monks came to the assistance of the Orthodox in Jerusalem 5', and John Moschus (d. 619) makes reference in his Pratum spirituale*? to the ZoófiBa τῶν Βεσσῶν near a Σούβιβα t&v Σύρων by the Jordan. (7) Still more to the point appears to be the testimony included by

Theodore

of

Petra

(c.

526)

in

his

Life

of St.

Theodosius

the

Coenobiarchius. In the monastery τοῦ Κουτιλᾶ (the name is Thracian ??), which was located on the eastern shore of the Jordan near the Dead

Sea, Theodosius

(who died in 529) established

four houses.

One of them, Theodore says, was used for the chronically ill; in the other three the monks would sing hymns and offer prayers to the Highest in their native languages, namely in Greek, Bessian, and Armenian **. How far such liturgical services may have involved books written in Bessian, including a translation of the Scriptures, we are not informed. Before summing up the preceding discussion, it is probably necessary to raise questions concerning the development of writing in Thrace. Did the common people there have an autochthonous script, and would this have been utilized in preparing a version of the Scriptures? script at Bern reads persam, which is adopted by Aubrey SrEwART in his translation in the Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society 11 (London 1887), p. 29. Because of difficulty

in believing that a Thracian dialect was understood by the abbots, various emendations have been proposed : Friedrich TucH suggested Arabic (Antoninus Martyr, seine Zeit und seine Pilgerfahrt

nach dem

Morgenland

(Leipzig

1864),

p. 29, n.);

Eberhard

NESTLE suggested Abyssinian or, still better, Iberian (i.c. Georgian) (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 61 (1907), pp. 500f.); and E. KuHN, following TOMASCHEK, proposed vulgar Latin (ibid.. p. 759). 5!

Cyril of Skythopolis, ed. E. Schwartz

[Texte und Untersuchungen

42, 2] (1939),

pp. 193f. 52 MiGNE, PG 87, 3, col. 30258. *3 Cf. DETSCHEW, Die thrakische Sprachreste, p. 265.

54 THEODORE'S statement concerning the Bessian section of the monastery

is as

follows: ἑτέραν δὲ ἔνθα κατὰ οἰκείαν γλῶσσαν γένος Βεσσῶν τῷ ὑψίστῳ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀποδίδωσιν. Vita S. Theodosii, ed. H. USENER

(Leipzig

Vita Theodosii Coenob. compiled

METAPHRASTES

(in ch.

xxxvi:

MIGNE,

PG

114,

by Simeon col.

505)

1890), p. 45, lines 4-12; cf. also

the account

(fl. c. 960), who repeats

about

the

four

houses

and

the singing of hyms in several languages, including Bessian. Once again, several scholars have proposed that by Bessian Simeon meant to refer to another language, in this case Slavonic; so L. ALLATIUS in MiGNE, PG 114, col. 506, n. 18: S. VAILHÉ, Revue de l'orient chrétien 5 (1900), p. 287; and col. 1941.

A.P.

Frutaz,

Enciclopedia

cattolica ΧΙ

(1953),

352

B.M. METZGER

The categorical statement of Androtion the atthidographer, that none of the ancient Thracians knew the alphabet (τῶν ἀρχαίων φασὶ Θρᾳκῶν μηδένα ἐπίστασθαι γράμματα)“5 applies to a time before the period that concerns us here. According to Herodotus (as was mentioned earlier) the Bessoi were in charge of a sanctuary of Dionysus which apparently provided written oracles?9. When Ovid, while

living at Tomis,

composed

a poem

in the Getic

language?",

we

would like to know whether it was written in a local alphabet. Most of the eighty or so “micro-inscriptions” discovered at the sacred enclosure at Sarmizegetusa in Dacia contain only Greek consonants, while others contain signs that are apparently not of the Greek al-

phabet“8. How far these latter were used in writing literary texts of greater extent than the scraps preserved in Thracian inscriptions we do not know. In any case, Lozovan is probably correct when he states : “It is rather illogical to believe that the population of Dacia and Scythia Minor would have had to wait until the beginning of the second millennium and contact with the Slavs in order to begin to write. Situated between the Huns and the Goths, on the margin of the Roman-Byzantine Empire, and Christian for a long time, they ought to have written before the X-XI centuries" 5?. IV It will have been observed more than once how scanty are the data bearing on our problem and how often they are susceptible of differing interpretations. Furthermore, the gaps in our knowledge are many, and it is far easier to raise questions than to answer them. The most certain datum that can be identified in the preceding testimonia is that the native Thracian language continued to be used, 55 Ap. AELIAN, Varia Historia, VIII, 6 (F. JacoBv, Die Fragmenta der griechischen Historiker, 111, B (Leiden 1950), p. 72, n. 54). 56 Cf. the discussion in George SOTIROFF, ''Y a-t-il eu une écriture autochtone en terre slave avant le temps de Cyrille (1967), pp. 79-94, esp. 91-93.

et

Méthode?"

Revue

Canadienne

d'études

slaves

|

57 Pont. IV .xiii.17-22. Cf. Henry S. GEHMAN, “Ovid's Experience with Languages at Tomi", Classical Journal ΧΙ (1915), pp. 50-55, and Francesco DELLA Corte, "Il ‘Geticus sermo' di Ovidio", announced for publication in Scritti in onore di Giuliano Bonfante 1 (Brescia, ca. 1977). 53 Cf. Hadrian Daicoviciu, Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea romana (Cluj 1972). pp. 224-232 (with French and German résumés). For a specimen of script found in Thrace, see Norbert Jokı in Max EBERT's Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte XUI (Berlin

1929). p. 297. 5° Op. cit. (n. 26 above), p. 164, n. 93.

THRACIAN VERSION OF THE GOSPELS

353

at least by some classes of the Bessian tribe, until the beginning of the seventh century of the Christian era®°. Nevertheless, the existence of 4000 to 4500 Greek and Latin inscriptions found thus far in Thrace and Moesia make it abundantly plain that at least the upper classes were accustomed to use the classical languages®'. If one tabulates the inscriptions from Dobrudja that can be identified as Christian, it is found that, of about seventy such inscriptions, three-fourths are in Greek, two in Greco-Latin, one in Slavo-Greek, and all the others in Latin??. Does this mean that Thracians who had been Christianized were also to some extent Hellenized and/or Romanized9? and therefore did not require a translation of the Scriptures in their own tongue?

The only patristic statement that can be taken with any degree of probability to testify to the existence of a Thracian version is Chrysostom's rhetorical statement in his Eastertide sermon at the Church of St. Paul$^, and this may prove too much—for in that case we would also have to assume that Chrysostom knew that versions of the Bible existed in the languages of the Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Mauritanians, and the Indians! In the absence of solid information, one can, of course, speculate. It is sometimes assumed that, when the Christian church was planted by missionaries and evangelists among a hitherto non-Christian people, an early production of a translation of the Bible into the local vernacular would have been not only natural but also necessary for the spiritual health and growth of the congregations. Such a supposition, however, is more congruent with the practice of modern missiology 6° This is recognized RADEMACHER,

Koine

by, e.g..

Hott,

[Sitzungsberichte

op. der

cit. (n. 48 above), Akademie

der

pp.

245f.;

Wissenschaften

Ludwig in

Wien.

phil.-hist. Kl., 224, Ste Abhandlung] (Vienna 1947), pp. 22f.: and 1.1. Russu, "Disparitia limbii si a populatiilor traco-dace"

(French

résumé,

"La disparition

de la langue

et des populations thraco-daces"'), Studii si cercétari de istorie veche 8 (1957), pp. 253265. 61 Cf.

BESEVLIEV,

Personennamen,

pp. 64ff.

and,

for

inscriptions

dating

from

the

fourth to the fourteenth century, IDEM, Spárgriechische und spätlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien (Berlin 1964). *? |. BARNEA, "Quelques considérations sur les inscriptions chrétiens de la Scythie Mineure", Dacia, n.s. 1 (1957), pp. 265-288. 63 This is not meant to suggest, as TOMASCHEK and his students have argued, that the Thracians were so completely Romanized as to have lost the use of their own language: see BESEVLIEV's well-taken strictures in his article. "Über manche ältere Theorien von der Romanisierung der Thraker", Etudes balkaniques | (1964). pp. 147158, and in his Personennamen, pp. 60-68.

64 See n. 45 above.

354

B.M. METZGER

than with what is known to have prevailed throughout the ancient Church. It is closer to the mark to observe, with Karl Holl, that “in the early period the official Christian Church everywhere relied only on the Cultursprachen, and allowed the Volkssprachen to be pushed aside and supplanted" 55. Although the number of ancient versions of the New Testament may seem to be considerable, there were many languages and dialects used by early Christians that never obtained a translation of even one book of the Scriptures. One thinks, for example, of the Lycaonians of Asia Minor, to whom Paul and Barnabas preached (cf. Acts 14:11); as late as the sixth century their national ecclesiastical life was flourishing to such an extent that of the monasteries in Constantinople which were identified as belonging to special groups, two were known as τῶν Λυκαόνων6. Yet we never hear of a Lycaonian version. In the west Irenaeus as bishop of Lyons complained that, living among the Celts and accustomed to use their barbarous dialect, he could not be expected to write elegant Greek’. Although he must have preached in the local language, he never indicates any need or desire to supply the national churches there with their own translation of the Bible. In fact, throughout the centuries Christianity spread throughout Gaul and also among the Celts of the British Isles without the help of a vernacular Bible. A similar situation prevailed in north Africa. The first martyr of the African Church (A.D. 180) bore the Punic name Namphamo$?. Comments in Augustine's writings indicate that whereas in Hippo not all members of the Church understood Punic, in the environs of the city this was the language regularly used by the peasants. Whole congregations would have understood next to no Latin at all, so that the local pastor as well as Augustine on his episcopal visits would have had to use the local language. Such must have been the conditions in oujlying districts of north Africa for centuries, when the Scripture lessons and the preaching would have been in Punic??. ** Op. cit. (n. 48 above), p. 249; similarly P. R. L. Brown, "Christianity and Local Culture in Late Roman Africa". Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968), pp. 85-95. 6% [bid., p. 245. *? [RENAEUS, Adv. Haer. | proem. 3; cf. also 1.10.2 and 11.4.2. 68 AUGUSTINE, Epist. 16. 2 (MAXIMUS

to AUGUSTINE) and AUGUSTINE

in the answer.

Epist. 17, 2. For the date and spelling of the name, cf. J. B. LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers. Part Il, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp | (London 1885), pp. 507f. ** For ample patristic references substantiating these statements, see Theodor ZAHN, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons | (Erlangen 1888), 40ff.

THRACIAN

VERSION OF THE GOSPELS

355

But as little is heard of a Punic Bible as of a Celtic Bible, and, as Zahn had pointed out long ago, “in this connection the silence of an

Augustine is a proof which cannot be gainsaid"7°. Conclusion

In view of the lack of any solid proof that there was ever a written version of the Bible in the Thracian language, and in accord with what can be deduced from historical and literary data bearing on the question, the most that one may conclude is that in Bessian congregations the Scripture lesson may have been provided through the medium of oral interpretation. There is no evidence for the existence of a Thracian Bible.

7° [bid., p. 42. For a rebuttal of F.C. MOovER's categorical statement that “the Punic Christians, who were for the most part Donatists, had their own translation of the Bible”. in J. S. ERSCH and schaften und Kunst, 3. Section, p. 41, n. 3.

J.G. GRUBER, Allgemeine Encyclopädie der WissenXXIV (Leipzig 1848), p. 434a, see ZAHN, op. cit.,

"THE THREE

CHAPTERS"

A COMMENT ON THE SURVIVAL OF ANTIOCHENE CHRISTOLOG Y Albert C. OuTLER Dallas, Texas, USA

The so-called “Affair of the Three Chapters" has typically been regarded as a minor incident on the turbulent way that stretches from the Fourth

Ecumenical

Council

(Chalcedon)

to the Fifth (Constanti-

nople II)!. It was, however, a good deal more than that. It was a massive attack by Byzantium's most powerful emperor against the memory and residues of the Antiochene insistence upon the full and actual humanity of Jesus Christ and their emphasis upon a truly historical hermeneutic in Gospel study. Viewed in this light, it may be seen as a repetition of Ephesus II (449). It may also be noticed that even this second attempt to extirpate the Antiochene Christology had no better than a short-run success. In the span of a compacted comment like this, a narration of the involuted story of the drama and its dramatis personae is, of course, impossible. What may be attempted is a précis of some of the events and issues in the drama,

plus the suggestion, by bare inference, that

the surviving remnants of the Antiochene theology are still significant for contemporary Christological reflection, whenever it intends to take the full weight of the Christological tradition seriously?. One should ! Cf. L. BRÉHIER,

in A. FLiCHE et V. MARTIN,

Histoire de l'Église (Paris

1937ff.),

IV, 460-62, 475. É. Amann, “Trois Chapitres", in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, ed. A. VACANT (Paris 1903-50), XV, 11, col. 1868-1924, has a much fuller and even more sympathetic treatment, H.-M, DiEPEN, Les Trois Chapitres (Oosterhout 1953), p. 123, defends the thesis that the “ancient Anatolian Christology” (i.e., the School of Antioch) was actually a “trahison” against Christological “‘orthodoxy” (cf. p. 121). Philip ScHAFF's 8-volume History of the Christian Church (New York 1886-1910) devotes four pages to the "affair" (commenting that "it has filled more volumes than it was worth lines"); cf. ΠῚ, 770. A. TovNBEE, Mankind and Mother Earth (1976), p. 346,

mentions it as "an ineffective gesture" by JUSTINIAN its objective : viz., to placate the Monophysites.

on the ground that it failed of

? Cf. Aloys GRILLMEIER, Christ in Christian Tradition (New York

1965), pp. 492-505.

358

A.C. OUTLER

apologize that details and nuances have been sacrificed so brusquely— for it is precisely in such details that the swirl of ambiguities in the business may be more nearly comprehended. Happily, something of this sort is available in Amann?. Nicea 1 and Constantinople I had "settled" the question of the shared mystery of the Godhead by Son and Father (homoousion to patri) and had affirmed the historical reality of the Incarnation (sarkothenta, enanthröpesanta). But it had left open the question of the shared mystery and divinity in Jesus Christ (anthröpoteta and theotéta). In their refutations of the Arians, it was the Antiochenes (from Eustathius onward) who had stressed divine transcendence and, concomitantly, the actual humanity of the Logos-Anthröpos*. It was Theodore of Mopsuestia who explained this metaphor as connoting a prima

statim plasmatione?. Over against this, the Alexandrines (from Apollinaris to Dioscorus, always with St. Cyril as their hero) had preferred the metaphor of Logos-Sarx, stressing the perichoresis of divine and human realities in Christ as their soteriological principle. In the Incarnation, the Logos *had united to himself a sarx animated by a mous in an ineffable and inconceivable manner”. From this it could be argued that God himself had "suffered" impassibly, since the Logos remains impassible in his divine physis even as it allows the flesh of Jesus to perish7. St. Cyril could write, ''The death which we proclaim is not that of a mere man but that of God made man who, while he suffered on our behalf in the flesh, as it is written, lived on as God, remaining impassible

in his own physis"9. What is clear enough here is that, for the Alexandrines, physis came close to being an equivalent for Aypostasis—which is why the Apollinarian dictum (attributed to St. Athanasius!), hé mia physis tou theou Logou sesarkömene, was understood to mean “one hypostasis" as well as "one nature". To the Antiochenes, however, physis meant something closer to “operation”, "energy", or "organized activity". Hence, a "two natures" formula seemed to them a more in? Op. cit. * Cf. ΒΑ. na 82] (Rome

SULLIVAN, The Theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia 1956), p. 169.

[Analecta Gregoria-

5 Contra Apollinarium IIl, in Theodori Episc. Mops. in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, ed. H. B. SwETE, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1880-2), II, 314. © CvRiL, Epistola 2, Ad Nestorium (MIGNE, PG 77, 40 c). ? Quod unus sit Christus, Dialogus, ed. P.E. Pusey (Oxford

* Apologeticus, ibid., 433.

1877),

VII, 402,

407.

ANTIOCHENE CHRISTOLOGY

359

telligible way of understanding the salvation history recounted in the Gospels. This distinctive anthropological perspective had already been laid out, long before the controversy turned violent, in Nemesius of Emesa's Peri Physeös Anthrôpou (c. 395): a psychophysical parallelism, in which the human soul is conceived as “a self-subsisting, rational, living creature, ceaselessly in motion, the indispensable force of the living body, dynamically involved in the natural process yet neither part nor product of it"?. To be fully human is to have (or be) such a human “nature”. This sense of physis as energeia may be seen from Nemesius through Theodoret on down to Maximus the Confessor. It was when

the rival "schools"

fell into mortal combat,

on other

grounds, that the good essence of their respective doctrines came to be misconstrued by the other, and this led to a genuinely tragic con-

fusion !®. St. Cyril was convinced that Nestorius meant to teach “two Christs, two Sons" united in mere juxtaposition (kata charin). This is the premise of his famous "Anathemata". The Antiochenes, in turn, feared that the Cyrillian concept of hypostatic union compromised all real distinctions between the divine and human “activities” in the integrated record of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. They were also fearful of the Mariological consequences of the theotokos. Ephesus I was a mixed triumph for the Alexandrines. It ruined Nestorius but left Alexandria and Antioch in mutual excommunication. The most signal and positive consequence of this was the "Union Formula" of 433—Antiochene in origin (drafted largely by Theodoret)

and yet also agreed to by the Alexandrines!!.

Here, if only for a

moment, there seemed to be the groundwork for a constructive reconciliation. But the jubilance of Laetentur Coeli was short-lived and the Alexandrine polemic became more violent than ever. In the turbulent atmosphere of Ephesus II'?, it was enough to show that ° NEMESIUS, delphia

Library of Christian Classics IV, ed. W. TELFER

1955), p. 280. Note

NEMESIUS'

(London

privative adverbs here ("unmixed,

&

Phila-

unconfused,

uncorrupted, untransformed”), p. 301; they foreshadow a crucial passage in the text of the Chalcedonian Definition. 10 Cf. R. V. SELLERS,

Two Ancient Christologies (London

!! Indeed, we have its text preserved Acta Conciliorum pp. 107-9.

Oecumenicorum,

ed.

E.

1954).

for us in St. Cyrit’s SCHWARTZ,

3 vols.

Laetentur

(Berlin

Coeli. Cf.

1926-74),

II,

1,

12 Cf. S.G.F. Perry. The Second Synod of Ephesus ... from the Syriac Acts (Dartford

1881); see also William

479-93.

BRIGHT,

The Age of the Fathers,

2 vols. (London

1903),

360

A.C. OUTLER

someone had ever used even the phrase “two natures" and this, by itself, sufficed for his raucous condemnation !?. The Definition of Chalcedon had three chief aims and all three were largely achieved, as far as formularies are ever "achievements". In the first place, it blunted the extremes of the contending parties (asugchutós and atreptös against Dioscorus and the Eutycheans—and adiairetös and achoristós against the Nestorians). Secondly, it rehabilitated Pope Leo's authority and helped to reunite Constantinople and Rome. Thirdly, and most importantly, it reasserted the vital balance between the homoousion tó patri and the homoousion hemin (which is to say, the compounded witness of the New Testament to the mystery of Jesus Christ). Thus it was, in its way, a second "Formula of Reunion" ! 4! The utterly crucial importance of the Chalcedonian Definition was that it could not thereafter ever be readily rescinded—and in fact never was. Even so, it was perceived in Alexandria and Syria as a galling defeat—and a signal for schism. Ephesus II had set the See of St. Mark on the summit of the Christian world. Chalcedon had toppled it and had imposed the “two natures" doctrine on the church as ecumenical dogma. In the aftermath, therefore, three rival groups emerged. The first were the Melchite conservatives, content with the Definition and resistant to further speculative revisions. A second group included the truly radical Monophysites (with a galaxy of gifted thinkers—Philoxenus, Severus, Julian, et al.). Thirdly, there were the political pacifiers (most of them philomonophysite) who never understood why such well-meaning compromises as Zeno's Henoticon!? seemed only to alienate the contending parties still further. By the second decade of the sixth century, the interests of the neoCyrillians and the old Chalcedonians began to merge. From one side, Ephraim of Amida (Patriarch of Antioch, 529-45) vigorously rejected Nestorianism even as he also produced a catena of passages from

!! This, I suggest, is why LEO's epistle was not read in that council; convenient for DioscoRus to have had the Pope condemned just then.

14 Conventional wisdom in Western church history has always

seen

it was

in-

in Chalcedon

a belated victory for LEo's Tome. It was, in a way, but what has been largely ignored is the fact that every decisive phrase in the Definition may be found in Eastern docu-

ments that pre-date the Tome. This fact. and

its import, deserves

much

further in-

vestigation.

18 Cf. EvAGRIUS, Hist. Eccl. MI, 14. Eng. tr. in J.C. Ayer, Source Book for Ancient Church History (New York

1913. reprint

1952), 526-9.

ANTIOCHENE CHRISTOLOGY

361

both Antiochene and Alexandrine sources, arguing that they supported and complemented each other!$. From the other side, Leontius of Byzantium undertook to interpret the Definition in terms of an enhypostasia that he hoped would satisfy all but the most intransigent on either extreme. It was an uneasy peace, disturbed from time to time from one or another quarter. One particularly unfortunate episode—on the part of newly defiant Antiochenes—took place in Cyrhus, Theodoret's

old diocese, in 5191’. There Bishop Sergius seems to have sponsored a triumphant street procession in honor of all the older Antiochene worthies : Diodore, Theodore, Theodoret, and even "St. Nestorius”. The resulting scandal prompted the intervention of the civil authorities who went so far as to depose Sergius forthwith!?. This provocation also hardened their determination to "stabilize" the situation, by civil action if necessary. "Then", so Procopius tells us, "appeared the emperor Justinian, entrusted by God with a special commission: to become protector of

the entire Roman

Empire and, as far as possible, to remake it" !?.

Justinian's other ruling public passion was the unification of the church—an imperial will-o-the-wisp since the time of Constantine! In this, he was heavily pressured by the empress who was quite prepared to sacrifice the Chalcedonian Definition, and who believed that this might be done without unmanageable difficulties. Justinian, however, thought he saw a way to retain the Definition (after all, it was a dogmatic text—and an ecumenical norm), to discredit the troublesome Origenists in Palestine and Syria and, finally, to complete the ruination of the older Antiochene tradition—all in a single, coordi-

nated maneuver. His opening move was the condemnation (543) of ten kephalaia from the writings of Origen. The passages chosen for condemnation were not truly representative but the condemnation itself paved the way for further assaults upon Origen and Origenism

‘© EPHRAIM's work has survived in fragments but they render plausible Carl KRUM-

BACHER's conjecture that if more

were available,

might be compared with that of Leontius! 2 vols. (reprint New York 1962). I. 57.

EPHRAIM's

stature as a theologian

Cf. Geschichte der Byzantischen

17 Cf. BREHIER, op. cit., pp. 431-32. 18 Cf. Sacrorum Conciliorum... Collectio, ed. J.D.

MaNsi,

Litteratur,

53 vols. (Leipzig

1901-

27), IX, 348-65, see also L. DUCHESNE, L'Église au VF Siècle (Paris 1925), 677. 19 Cf. Buildings, M. vi. 3 (B 226), tr. H. B. DEwiNG ἃ G. Downey. Loeb Classical

Library (Cambridge 1954).

362

A.C. OUTLER

(as in the decrees of Constantinople II)?°. Justinian's second move was a revisionist history of the Christological controversy, in praise of the Alexandrines and in dispraise of the Antiochenes?!. But the climac-

tic stroke was a novella?? in which he singled out and condemned extended passages (kephalaia) from the writings of Theodore25, Theodoret and

Ibas of Edessa

(ie.

"The

Three

Chapters").

His stated

criterion in this document was any deviation from what he declared to be the true Cyrillian orthodoxy (i.e., mia physis ... sesarkömene)?*. By clear implication, this was an imperial bid to the Monophysites to accept the language of the Definition, as they might wish to reinterpret it. It was an ingenious and imaginative initiative, offering something to everybody—save, of course, the dead and defenceless Antiochenes. As it turned out, it was an exercise in futility. Many philomonophysites responded favorably but the radicals were unmoved. On the other side, the diophysite West was now provoked to real and vigorous

resistance. Decius of Milan

(in exile in Constantinople) questioned

the emperor's jurisdiction in such a matter and Facundus of Hermiane produced a Defensio Trium Capitulorum, in which he accused the emperor of subverting the intent and effect of Chalcedon itself. Finally, Pope Vigilius (who was also in Constantinople) issued a cautious Judicatum, in which he approved the emperor's choice of heterodox passages but rejected the conclusion that the Antiochenes stood, therefore, condemned as heretics—especially in light of Chalcedon's acknowledgment of their “orthodoxy”. As an effort at moderation this, too, was futile. Under harsh pressure from both extremes and in the face of hopeless odds, Vigilius retracted the Judicatum.

As quid pro quo, Justinian had promised a general council25. 30 Cf. F. Prat. Origene (Paris 1907) and his judgment that JUSTINIAN was more concerned with the Origenist monks in Saba, etc., than with ORIGEN himself. 7! 384.

Cf. J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman

Empire,

2 vols. (New York

1958), II,

22 It was 23 24

The date is uncertain—and that in the Paschal Chronicle (553) is clearly too late. closer to 545-48. Still widely revered as "The Interpreter". An unofficial text appears in EvAGRIUS, Hist. Eccl. IV, xxxviii. Another is re-

corded in the Acia of Constantinople II (cf. Mansı, IX, 455-87). See also C. HEFELE & H. LECLERCQ, Histoire des Conciles, 11 vols. (Paris 1907ff.), XI, 2, 1183-96, and

DucHESNE, op. cit., p. 172. 25 Williston WALKER, A History of the Christian Church (New York 1918), p. 157 (cf. revised edition by C. RICHARDSON, W. Pauck ἃ R. Hanpy, 1959, p. 143): "Vigilius was vacillating and utterly unheroic". So easily may a historian commend a pope to fruitless martyrdom!

ANTIOCHENE CHRISTOLOGY

363

Justinian then published his Confession of Faith (explicitly as a guideline for the coming council). In it he reasserted the imperial authority to defend the church against heresy and proceeded to list concrete examples of heresy—such as Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas. But this was, in effect, the “Three Chapters" all over again! Vigilius, Decius and Facundus (now in the name of the bishops of Gaul and Italy) protested this as a usurpation of their own authority--and as a false doctrine of the magisterium. In retaliation, Justinian ordered Menas and Theodore Askidas to drop the name of Zoilius (Melchite patriarch of Alexandria) from the triptychs—and replace it with that of his monophysite rival, Apollinaris. Vigilius! countermove here was to excommunicate Menas and Theodore. The furious emperor placed Vigilius and Decius under arrest. But Vigilius managed to escape across the Bosphorus to Chalcedon, whence he issued an excommunication of the entire Constantinopolitan hierarchy. This, obviously, was scarcely more than a brutum fulmen, and so presently, after a few face-saving concessions from Justinian, Vigilius lifted his ban, was returned to the capital, but at least made good his refusal to participate in the Council itself. The Council and its story lie beyond our present scope. It is enough

to note that for all its "irregularity" as an "ecumenical council” and for all its monophysite biases, Constantinople II refused to follow

the urgings of Theodora

(and the personal

desires of Justinian ?9)

to repudiate the Definition of Chalcedon. Its unrevised text was reaffirmed yet once more. Thus it was that the good essence of the Antiochene Christology (homoousion hémin kata ten anthrópotéta) remained lodged in the safest place it ever could have found: the text of a dogmatic formulary that had outlasted a century of assault and revision. The Monophysites perceived this clearly enough and promptly rejected all the other concessions offered them by Constantinople II. For all the bravado

of Justinian,

Theodora

and

Theodore

Askidas,

“two ‘natures’ in one 'person'" had been established as the norm of "orthodox" Christology along with the Antiochene prohibitions against all Alexandrine tendencies toward confusing or intermingling the divine and human "operations".

26 Which may be inferred from his subsequent theological adventures. In 565, ANASTASIUS of Antioch and 195 of his bishops were girded for a confrontation on the issue of JUSTINIAN's

avowed

apthartodocetism—which

peror's death. Cf. BREHIER, op. cir., 480-81.

was

avoided

only

by

the em-

364

A.C. OUTLER

In this curiously indirect way, then, the “Three Chapters" and Constantinople II failed in their attempts to nullify the Antiochene Christology. Its previous "victory" at Chalcedon had not been thwarted, even by a long succession of philomonophysite emperors and monophysite critics. In the process, the fame and reputations of the Antiochene theologians had been attainted but their essential interest had

already been secured. In the centuries since, whenever the historical and historiographical dimensions of the Christological problem have been urgent issues in Christological reflection, it is those maligned Antiochenes to whom we owe a debt of thanks. Grillmeier's thesis—that Chalcedon was more a "beginning" than “an end" ?"—is a useful reminder that the task of interpreting the Gospel mystery is inexhaustible and endless. But part of that task is to include the Antiochene emphases amongst the other valid elements in any full-orbed Christology. Whenever this is done, Theodore and Theodoret are rewarded in the only way that finally matters in the history of theology.

27 Op. cit, "Epilogue", p. 492ff.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANS AMIDST THEIR MUSLIM COMPATRIOTS Bertold SPULER Hamburg, German Federal Republic

When

the Muslims,

between

636 and 639 A.D.,

invaded

the Biläd

aS-Sa’m—a term which is understood here to mean the historic area of Syria, that is the countries of Syria, Palestine and Jordan of today together with some adjacent parts of ‘Iräq—the population was nearly exclusively Christian. This does not imply all Christians confessed the same

denomination.

To

understand

their situation,

we

have

to

look back a little to the history of Christianity in Syria. Here, this religion had spread within the first centuries of its existence, and the Syrian form of Christianity had some special traits and had its own theologians with partly so-called heretical views. Among them, we have to mention only Bardesanes (154-222), or Bar Daisän as he is called among the Arabs, who knew him very well during the Middle Ages. His followers as well as the representatives of other special views were absorbed in the long run by the general Church, the official denomination of the Roman and later on the Byzantine Empire. But the Church, from the very beginning, was ethnically divided into Greeks and Semites who had previously called themselves Aramaeans and who preferred now, as Christians, to be called Syrians. The dominant language within the Church of this area was for a long time Greek. The Aramaean language, now called Syriac, was by no means suppressed but remained the idiom of lower class Christ-

ians, living as craftsmen etc. in the towns or as farmers or bedouins; besides, paganism had survived in their midst for a long time. All these people belonged officially to the universal Church of the Empire, as long as this Church was regarded as a unity. Starting with the so-called CEcumenical

Councils

in the fourth

Century,

this

unity was lost and was never regained to the present day. The socalled schisms of the fourth Century, mainly Arianism, did not seriously affect the Syrian Christians. During the 5th Century, however, the Syrian Church was subdivided into three (main) branches existing

366

B. SPULER

until the 20th Century. The opinion, propagated—to some extent— by Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, regarded the mother of Christ (al-Masih)—as far as he was a human being—as “mother of Christ", not “mother of God". The followers of this opinion were excommunicated in 431, but not exterminated. They survived, organized

as a special church at the end of the 5th Century, within the territories of the Sassanian Empire, especiall in 'Iraq, under the name of Nestorians. At the other end of the spectrum of doctrinal possibilities, theologians had expressed their opinion that Jesus Christ had—to state it briefly—only a divine nature, not a human one. According to this definition, they were called Monophysites—adherents of only one nature. The followers of this opinion were excommunicated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but not exterminated. They organized themselves first in Egypt among the Copts, in the 5th, and among the majority of the Semitic population of Syria and northern Mesopotamia in the 6th Century. Their missionary here was Jacob Burde’änä (Baradaios); after him they were called Jacobites, especially by their adversaries. The Armenians, too, adhered to this denomination, and the Ethiopians were won over to it by the Copts on whom they depended ecclesiastically. All of them have remained Monophysites to the present day. I had just mentioned that especially the Semitic-speaking population of Syria adhered to the Monophysite doctrine and was not reconverted by the state to the official Byzantine doctrine. On the other hand, the majority of the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Syria, especially in the towns, adhered to the doctrine of the emperors (malké in Syriac)—and consequently were called ‘Melkites’ by the Monophysites. These Melkites, united with the Byzantine Church, adhered to the doctrine of two natures in Jesus Christ, the divine and the human,

and

called

themselves

Orthodox—true

believers,

as

the

members of the Byzantine Church (to the present day). Thus, Christianity was subdivided in Syria into three main branches, when the Muslims invaded the country : 1) The Monophysites or Jacobites, as far as we can see, the majority of the population in what is now Syria and Lebanon; 2) The Nestorians in Mesopotamia and Iran;

3) The Melkites or Orthodox, a large minority in Syria and Lebanon, but the majority of the population in Palestine protected until then by the Byzantine Empire—mostly (but not exclusively) —Greek-speak-

SYRIAN CHRISTIANS AMIDST MUSLIM COMPATRIOTS

367

ing people in the towns, especially on the seashore, but with many adherents among the Semites, too. In Syria, as well as in Egypt or in northern Africa, the majority of the Greeks left the country before or immediately after the conquest; the Arabs allowed them to do so if they wished. Seen from a religious point of view, this meant that a good many of the Melkites or Orthodox left the above-mentioned countries and returned to Anatolia or to Greece or—in the West—to Italy, where the Orthodox were called Catholics. Thus, Egypt became a nearly exclusively Monophysite— Coptic—country; Nubia (modern Sudan) and Ethiopia remained for the time being independent Christian empires with a Monophysite population. Syria was divided as before: an always growing majority was Monophysite and Syriac-speaking; but a not negligible minority was Orthodox (Melkite), now more and more speaking Syriac, like the Monophysites. Thus, the Monophysite Patriarchate was not the paramount church in Syria (as the Coptic Church was in Egypt); it had always co-religionists of another denomination at its side. Nevertheless, the Monophysite or Jacobite Church was the most important church in the northern part of ac] SX . Consequently, we shall deal mainly with this Church in this essay. The Jacobite Church had a special destiny: it was not, as we have seen, the paramount church of Syria. Additionally, it was surrounded by other Christian churches, partially also Monophysite, or by the Sea (on the West). Consequently, a missionary activity was possible only to a small extent : in the direction to the South, among the Arabs. Thus, the dynasty of the Ghassänids was won over, and a certain number of Arabic nomadic tribes had become Christian and were cared for partially by the activity of George the "Bishop of the Arabs" (as he is called, t 724). Some of the major poets of the gahiliya or early

Islamic period were Christians, as is well known (let me only mention for comparison's sake that the Orthodox Church had a large missionary field, especially among the Slavs, and that the Nestorians extended to central Asia and China and to southern India). The Syrian Monophysite or Jacobite Church had some doctrinal problems with the other Monophysite Churches, especially the Copts and the Armenians. They lasted until the 8th and 9th centuries A.D., when these difficulties were solved. Until then, the Jacobite Church was isolated even in the midst of the Monophysites. Thus, the success of the Jacobite Church among its neighbours was restricted. It won over a certain number of Nestorians, especially

368

B. SPULER

at the southern borderlands of Anatolia and in northern ‘Iraq; here, the Jacobites became the dominant Church in the 9th and 10th Centuries. Henceforth, ‘Iraq was religiously divided : the Jacobites occupied mostly the north, the Nestorians mostly the region around Baghdad and the south as well as Iran (where they always had been a minority). Christianity in this country was divided into two denominations, just as Islam became and remains divided in ‘Iraq into two denominations : Sunnites to the north, and Shiites from Baghdad to the south—a parallel phenomenon which, however, seems not to be a consequence of Christian bipolarity. In Syria, the situation is nearly the same, to mention this even now. In this country, too, Shiites are to be found side by side with Sunnites—as Orthodox (Melkites) side by side with Jacobites. And then Islam subdivided even more in this country, when the Druzes, the Nusairis, the Isma‘ilis came into existence; among the Christians, too, new subdivisions appeared: Maronites, Uniate Syrians, Uniate Melkites,

Roman

Catholics, even Protestants. Syria and Lebanon

are

countries of a very perceptible religious differentiation, among the Muslims as well as among the Christians. The south, namely Palestine, is more unified on both sides; there was only an Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem during the Middle Ages; the Armenian Patriarchate was founded not earlier than the 15th Cent. for immigrants of this nation. The large majority of the Muslims in this country were and still are Sunnites. (For comparison's sake: Anatolia is religiously unified : in former times Orthodox Greeks, now Sunnite Turks; as well as Egypt : Monophysite Copts side by side with Sunnites). Perhaps the situation of the Christians in Syria with their various denominations was to a certain extent rendered easier by the subdivisions of the Muslims—each denomination could become the ally of another one, especially during the Middle Ages, in the epoch of the Crusades.

But their situation was at the same time more difficult,

since the Christians could not speak with one voice. An even much more dangerous evolution was based on the fact that the Jacobite Church itself showed internal rifts again and again. Whenever a new patriarch or a new bishop was elected by the community, the defeated candidate very often did not resign, but addressed himself to the Islamic ruler—the caliph or a local prince—in order to get help from the state against his victorious adversary. Sometimes, such disputes lasted for years; sometimes the religious community itself split into two or even more factions which tried to seize the local church. In many

SYRIAN CHRISTIANS AMIDST MUSLIM COMPATRIOTS

369

cases, the Islamic state had to send troops or policemen to protect one of the two (mostly the elected candidate) against trouble even during the Holy Mass. It is easily understandable that the situation of the Jacobite Church (and

also

the

Nestorian,

where

the

same

events

occurred)

became

very bad, and that the influence of the non-Christian authorities increased more and more. They accepted bribes from the interested parties within the Church for publishing such and such a berät, for acknowledging this or that candidate. Many hierarchs were intimidated by this development: they did not dare to venture anything against their adversaries, they fulfilled all wishes of the state, they neglected the interests of their faithful. But disappointed candidates and disappointed members of the community had an additional possibility to protest against their adversaries, against the attitude of the hierarch, or the leaders : they could embrace Islam. Of course, this was only one reason for becoming a Muslim during these centuries. Other reasons were a new religious conviction, but also—as some Muslim authors themselves emphasize—the intention of becoming incorporated into the leading society of the state, of escaping the financial pressure of additional taxes levied as gizya in an increasing amount, was the wish to be married to a Muslim woman or a Muslim man: even if Islamic law tolerates the marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim woman. The children, in this case, become Muslim, and they enlarge the absolute and relative number of the Muslims within the state. This evolution was, however, not really precipitous. The last Christian Arabic tribe, the Banü Tanükh, became Muslims only around 780 A.D. As attractive as incorporation into the leading class often must have been, the state did not put pressure upon the Christians (or other denominations). Thus, the number of the Jacobite communities, dimin-

ished slowly; the number of dioceses, 130 in 451 A.D., was approximately 60 around 825, 18 of which were in ‘Iraq. The winning of

new converts to Christianity was nearly impossible: the reconversion of Muslims was not tolerated, and the shifting over of a Nestorian or a Jew occurred very seldom in these centuries and did not change the general situation. The number of the faithful and of the com-

munities during the Age of the Caliphs was, however, still remarkable. The existence of Christian churches was a fact the state had to reckon with, and the members of the churches had often very important positions within their Muslim environment.

370

B. SPULER

A large number of the doctors, of the merchants or other notables were Christians; they owned pharmacies, banks or handicraft shops,

they worked in the field of literature or of sciences. Their importance for the assimilation of the Hellenistic sciences—medicine, philosophy, natural sciences of all kinds, such as astronomy and mathematics—is very well known. Mostly, Nestorians were the intermediaries in this field, and it may be sufficient to mention here the famous Hunain b. Ishaq (t 873). The number of the Jacobites working in this field was restricted —] do not see a real reason for this fact which, however, is very well known. But the Christians were not only mediators of the knowledge of earlier generations—they produced a very important literature of their own, the Jacobites as well as the Nestorians (and more than the Copts). We cannot mention here the theological books in prose and poetry, the historical, grammatical and rhetorical works and all the other books written during these centuries. It may be sufficient not to omit the two important historians, Patriarch Michael I. (t 1199) and

Maphrian

Gregorius

Bar

Hebraeus

(f

1286)—author

of many

books of very different character. Anyone interested in further details may refer to Anton Baumstark's Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922), recently reprinted with additions in the Handbuch der Orientalistik vol. II (Leiden : Brill, 2. Aufl. 1964). Within the frame of this literature, the Syriac language was used, in two dialects little different from each other, for Jacobites and Nestorians—both forms of the idiom being perceptibly influenced by the Greek heritage. Syriac was also used in the liturgy of both Churches. But times changed, the number of the faithful diminished slowly but steadily, the patriarch had to live in different places—his representative in the eastern provinces (especially ‘Iräq) being the Maphrian, who resided normally in Takrit, to the south of Mosul. Within the Islamic world, religious minorities lived (and still live) normally in separate quarters which are, however, no ghetto—they can leave their quarter whenever they like. In this way, many contacts existed between Christians and Muslims, and many a Christian scholar became in this way the teacher of a Muslim or vice versa. This fact had the consequence that the Christians (primarily the male persons) learned Arabic—since only in this language was a conversation with

Muslims possible. Slowly but inevitably, Arabic became the everyday language of the Christians, and in the 12th, 13th and 14th Centuries they began to

SYRIAN CHRISTIANS AMIDST MUSLIM COMPATRIOTS

371

write their books in Arabic, the Copts as well as the Jacobites (Bar Hebraeus wrote an Arabic version of his history). The liturgical language of the Jacobites and Nestorians remained Syriac, however, and for the Copts, Coptic. Only the Melkites now use Arabic instead of Greek.

|

In the 13th Century it seemed that the slow decay of the Christian communities could be stopped. The Mongols were to a not too small percentage Nestorian Christians; and as long as the Tlkhans of Persia, who possessed also ‘Iraq and sometimes Syria, were Buddhists, the Christians in Mesopotamia, primarily the Nestorians, and the Jacobites of Syria (together with the Shiites) had a very favorable position in comparison with the Sunnites, the co-religionists of their Mamlük enemies. But times changed; the Ilkhans became Sunnite Muslims (and for some years Shiites) in 1295. The situation of the Christians now became more precarious than it had been before the conquest of Baghdad in 1258. Now many controversial pamphlets were published against the Christians, partly by newly converted Muslims, and many of them are preserved up to the present day. An interesting book about this literature has been published by Erdmann Fritsch, in Breslau, 1930. Both denominations, Nestorians as well as Jacobites, decreased in number and in scientific activity. The number of works written in the 14th and 15th Centuries is very restricted, and from then on nearly all that has been published—and this includes many things in the 19th and 20th Centuries—has been written in Arabic. Even if some Jacobites and Nestorians in remote parts of Syria, northern Mesopotamia and Persian Azerbaidjan can speak a modern dialect of Aramaic/ Syriac, the normal language of the Christians here and in Egypt is Arabic. (Quite recently, Rudolf Macuch, published Geschichte der Spátund Neusyrischen Literatur, Berlin/New York 1976. Walter de Gruyter. XXV, 511 pages). Insofar as the number of the Jacobites and the Nestorians of our days cannot be compared with the faithful of the 13th and l4th Century, the reason is not a change in the attitude of their Muslim compatriots against then. It is a consequence of the Mongol irruptions, especially the second one under Timür who devastated so many countries in the second half of the 14th Century, among them Iran, Mesopotamia, Syria, Caucasia and Anatolia. As is well known it was he who annihilated hundreds of thousands of people: Muslims as well as Christians. He was the grave-digger of the Jacobites and the

372

Nestorians. To very restricted are divided as Jacobites and See at Rome: 17th and 16th

B. SPULER

be sure, they survive to the present day, but they are in number and in literary productivity. Besides, they adherents of their religious and national heritage into Nestorians, and into 'Uniates', united with the Holy the Syrians and the Chaldaeans, existing since the Century respectively, and nearly as numerous as the

non-united Syrian Christians. This evolution is the starting point of the modern epoch, which

is not to be treated in the course of this

essay. Let me finish my survey of the life of the Christians within their Muslim environment with the statement that the Christians from the very beginning of Islamic history until the present day have been an integral element of Arab society—described in the Holy Koran in their relations to the Muslims by the following words: “Thou wilt surely find the nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say ‘We are Christians’; that, because some of them are priests and monks, and they wax not proud". (V, 85, Arberry translation— verse 82 according to the official Arabic Cairo edition).

LENTEN

FAST

OF

Jacob

THE

EAST

SYRIANS

VELLIAN

Kottayam, Kerala, India

The Apostolic community and the early Christians, following the example and teaching of Christ and the Apostles (Mt 6:16-18; Mk 9:28; Lk 5:33-35; Acts 9:9; 13:2-3), considered fasting a part of Christian discipline and life’. Down

the centuries, the churches of the

East developed and observed several fasts during the liturgical year?. This is particularly true of the East Syrians (Chaldeans, Nestorians and Malabar Christians), whose attachment to obligatory fasting astounded

the missionaries of the sixteenth century ?. ! To quote Tertullian: “Tradition authorized such a custom confirmed it, and faith observed it" (De Corona Militis 4:1).

(of fasting), practice

? 4 Broad Outline of the Traditional Fasts of Different Eastern Churches :

X

X

X

XX

X

X

x

XX

X

XXX

mKMK OM

Vigil of Epiphany

X

X Xxx

Ninivites The Nativity Vigil of Nativity

XXXX

Assumption

East Syrian Byzantine Armenian

XX

Lent Holy Week Heraclius The Apostles Peter and Paul

Antiochene

Xxx

Alexandrian

The Beheading of John XXX

the Baptist Exaltation of the Cross

Apparition of the Cross Prophet Elias

A Week Monthly The Virgins Transfiguration

X

X

XX

Wednesdays and Fridays

XX

St. Gregory Illuminator Jacob of Nisibis

X X

* "Süo (Christáos) amigo do jejun por obrigacáo", Silva REGO, Documentacdo para a Histöria des Missóes do Padroado Portugués do Oriente (Lisboa 1958), XII, 407.

374

J. VELLIAN

Traditionally,

the East Syrian church

observed,

in addition

to the

Lenten fast, (1) the fast of the Apostles which lasted for seven weeks beginning on the day following the Pentecost; (2) two weeks of fast prior to the feast of Assumption; (3) forty days of fast in preparation for the feast of the cross; (4) a fast beginning on the first of December in preparation for Christmas; (5) the fast of the Ninivites of three days held in the third week prior to Lent; (6) three days’ fast of the virgins observed from the day after Epiphany; (7) Wednesdays and Fridays were days of fast. But most important of all the fasts continues to be that of Lent*. Lent is called saumä rabbä (great fast) in Syriac. Saumä (fast) is derived from säm which means to abstain from food. But the word saumä is used in liturgical texts to indicate the period of fast as well as the fast itself. Lent begins on Monday of the seventh week before Easter. The Sunday before is called ‘Sunday of Entrance into Lent". The SeleuciaCtesiphon synod of 410 prescribed forty days of fast in seven weeks 5. It is interesting to note that the Apostolic Canons (Nr. 7) prescribe a fast for forty days before the Passion of our Lord, and it is compared with the forty-day fasts of Moses and Elias. A tenth century commentary on the East Syrian Liturgy notes: “Fast for forty days—nothing more, nothing less, that is six weeks with seven days. Since there is fasting on the Lord's day, we get thirty-six days. Four days are to be added from the seventh week. Friday is the end of the fasting" 5. This under* These are the fasts related to the liturgical year. For the fasts of the early Syrian ascetics, see Arthur VOOBUS, Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism [PETSE 11] (Stockholm 1960): “All the sons of the church shall

persevere in fasting ..." (p. 39); "It is right for the monks to fast from food as well as from wine on Wednesday and Friday ..." (p. 73); "Fasting is until the ninth hour, and,

if he can, the evening shall be continually (in fasting)" (p. 107); "About the fasting, that it shall not be ended except for the following reasons : illness of body, arrival of strangers, a long journey, hard work all the day. And whoever is found not in these (and) who ends (it) owing to his laxity, it shall be known that this is foreign to our community" (p. 161). A synthetic view of the fasting of the Syrian ascetics is given by the same author in his History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, Vol. II [CSCO 197, Subsidia 17] (1960), pp. 261-265 : In this the author mentions different types of fasting : the vegetarian monks using only grass, roots and fruits; those who did not use any cooked food at all; those who harvested their food with a sickle; the boskoi who lived on grass alone; those who did not use wine or any other artificially prepared drinks; those who loved to live on a limited quantity of water, or even on bitter water. Professor VOÖOBUS comments : "Whatever the means and the manners, the diversity of practices stemmed from a simple

aim towards which monks pressed, viz., the chastisement of the body” (ibid. p. 264). 5 J.B. CHABOT,

Synodicon Orientale (Paris 1902), p. 258.

© Anonymi auctoris expositio officiorum ecclesiae Georgio Arbelensi vulgo adscripta 1 [CSCO 71] (1954), p. 51.

LENTEN

FAST OF THE EAST SYRIANS

375

standing of fasting days can easily be discovered in the Liturgy of the Hours of this church even today. Lenten Liturgy of the Hours The East Syrian daily Office consists of Vespers (ramsa), Night Office (lelya) and Morning Office (saprà). On feast days and Sundays before the Morning Office, there is a Vigil Service (gala d’Sahrä), which is a Cathedral Office. In Lent, however, there are four more Hours: the Terce (quttd‘a), Sext ('eddana) and None and the Compline (subbda‘a), which according to Expositio Officiorum “we relate to the Fast and Passion”’. But the None is not seen as a separate Hour in modern liturgical books, and it appears that the initial psalmody of vespers is the ancient None which is now joined to Vespers?. It seems that the popular days of fast in Lent were limited to three weeks : the first, the middle and the last. The Vesperal services of those

days include special prayers referring to Holy Communion. Fasting was broken by the Communion service held at the end of the Vespersὃ. The Spirit of the Lenten Fast The fall of man and the reparation through fasting in the examples of the holy men of the Old Testament and of Christ himself are brought forward in this period. The Satan is pictured as the counterpart, the deceiver of mankind, whom Christ conquered through his fasting. The faithful are exhorted to follow the example of Christ. The Gospel reading of the Sunday of Entrance is Mt 4:1-11, which is the narration of the fast and temptation of Jesus in the desert. Christ is addressed as the one “who by your holy fast, conquered our nature...

sanctified our nature” !?; “who by his glorious fast saved the created ? Ibid., p. 107. * J, MATEOS, "L'Office Divin chez les Chaldéens", La Prière des Heures (Paris 1963), p. 258. ?* J. MATEOS, "Les ‘Semaines de Mystères’ du Caréme Chaldéen", L'Orient Syrien 4 (1959), 449-458. For details of the Lenten Vesperal Services, see J. VELLIAN, East Syrian Evening

Services

(Kottayam

1971).

Father

CORNEIRO

SJ

has

described

(1557)

the

beginning of the Evening Services of the Malabar Christians in the days of fast: “They keep their rites very scrupulously; they keep fast during Advent and Lent; and they eat in the evening; they go to the church with washed shirts, and there they give peace to one another, ...singing psalms..." J. Wicki, Documenta Indica 111 (Rome 1954), 804-805. 19 Breviarium juxta Ritum Syrorum Orientalium (Rome 1933), II, p. 78. This will be quoted hereafter as Breviarium.

376

J. VELLIAN

world from error, and set out in the desert to fight with Satan and conquered the whole human nature" !!. Fighting the Satan with his fast, Christ became triumphant in three battles: ‘‘avarice conquered, gluttony ceased to exist, and pride vanished" 2. "Blessed is your fast... which gave us the sign of victory, and taught us the way of the angels" !*. The Lenten prayers remind the faithful about the fast of the holy men of the Old Testament and exhort them to follow their example: "In his holy and pure fast our Lord glorified his just ones. The great light appeared to Moses who loved fasting and holiness (Ex 24:18; 34:28). Elias was lifted up (3 Kg 19:8, 4 Kg 2:11), Josue, the son of Nun, won the battle (Josue 10:1-13), Daniel shut the mouth of lions (Dn 6:22). The children of Babel put out the flame (Dn 3:49). "Lord, the love of the holy fast is the work of virtue. By it Moses was made worthy to receive the Law; Elias was lifted up in the chariot of fire; Josue became triumphant ...” !* “Brethren, let us also become similar to the image of Daniel, and become holy by imitating him in vigil, fast and

prayer" !5, The preaching of the prophet Jonas to do penance along with the forty-day fast of the Ninivites (Jonas 3:5-10) is also presented as a source of inspiration to fasting. "The Ninivites appeased you by fast, and you, O Lord, remitted their sins. The children fasted and abstained from milk, and the mothers were in tears. When you saw the fast made from their hearts, and prayer from their minds, your mercy was channeled into the penitents” ! 5, The results of the fast are manifold. Commenting on the fast of Moses, the third Sunday has the expression: "He fasted and his face was brightened. He prayed and his face was glorious. He ascended the mountain with human color, and descended with heavenly splendor. He went up with earthly color and came down with the angelic glory. He ascended like any other man, and descended like an incomparable

faster" 17. Fasting is considered a medicine that heals the maladies of the human

!! 12 13 14 !5 16 17

[bid Ibid. Ibid. [bid Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

p. p. p. p. p. p. p.

190. 252. 281. 132. 235. 121. 155.

LENTEN

FAST OF THE EAST SYRIANS

377

race : “For all diseases the medicine of fast is needed. The body that is broken up with intemperance is bound up by it; the soul trapped in the passions of lust is awakened, as if from sleep, for the race of righteousness” !®. “Through the medicine of your holy fast, deliver us, O Lord, from the three mortal passions : the desire for food which cast us out of paradise, vainglory and the desire for wealth. Instead of them restore in our hearts the three structures of mortification, humility and mercy by which you conquered our nature" !?. Fast is a spiritual food : "The holy fast is like a tree of life in the

church. Its fruits are edible, and its leaves healing. By it the mind is fed with spiritual meditation and the purity of mind is protected by the words. The body also gains fatness in God and it shines and

illumines like a lamp with the oil of mercy" 2°. The period of fast is considered an anticipation of eternal life: ""Through the fast he has clearly indicated for us our spiritual sojourning, because in his glorious Kingdom passions completely cease to be; through his fast he has shown the imperishable structure in which we shall live through the power of the Spirit, and shall praise him with the Father and the Spirit" ?! . External fasting should be an indication of the internal fasting. The soul should abstain from evil-doing. The scolding of the prophet (Is 58:1-12) toward the hypocrisy of fasters is brought to attention : "When the body keeps fast from bread, the soul shall keep fast from evil. A fast from bread is useless if the soul does not refrain from... evil". “The prophet, commanded by his Lord, preached and said among

18. Ibid. p. 138. 19 Ibid. p. 174. St EPHREM likewise comments on the fast : "Behold the salutary fast. Let us love its succour, and enjoy its medicine. The fast descended

from the mount

of

Sinai, into the tents stricken by swords, and healed the hidden pains of the soul and cured the deep wound of the mind. The fast sustained the people from collapsing in the desert. Let us give glory to the Mercy, because for us fasting is better than medicine". TJ. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones (Mechliniae

1882-1902), II, col. 686.

The seventh century East Syrian Mystic, Isaac OF NINIVE, extols the fruits of fasting: “Fasting is strengthening of all the virtues, the beginning of the struggle, the crown of the Nazarenes, the beauty of virginity and sanctity, the preservation of chastity, the beginning of the way of Christianity, the father of prayer, the fountain of placidity, the teacher of quiet, and the forerunner of all good qualities. As the delight of light belongs to sound eyes so the desire of prayer follows fasting with discernment". See Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Ninive : Translated from Bedjan's Syriac Text with an Introduction

and Registers by A.J. WENSINCK (Amsterdam 1923), pp. 160-161. ?9 Breviarium, p. 193. ?! [bid. p. 161.

378

J. VELLIAN

the gentiles: This is not the fast which I have chosen, namely the one from bread and wine alone, but also from wickedness" ??. A close look at the liturgical texts suggests that the East Syrian church, at least at certain times in the past, in its pastoral concern limited the Lenten fast to three weeks—the first, middle and last. Each day of this fast concluded with a liturgical celebration of the Vespers and Holy Communion. This helped people to understand the meaning and purpose of fasting as a Christian discipline with its constant reference to Scripture and with its indication that the true spirit of fasting was to abstain not only from food but also from all evil actions.

22 Ibid. p. 121. St EPHREM has classified very well these types of fast: "We are commanded to fast not only by mouth but also by heart, lest we refrain from bread and indulge in the pleasures in which are hidden the medicines of death... We have the Scriptures to serve as a mirror in fasting. Scriptures distinguish between fast and fast,

between prayer and prayer. God actually accepts (one) fast, and rejects (another) fast. Those who fast (can) make reconciliation with God, and (can) provoke Him to anger; there is the prayer which is sin, and the prayer which is medicine for life" (T. J. Lamy, op. cit. II, col. 68).

LUTHER

AND

“NEW TESTAMENT

APOCRYPHA"

Allen WIKGREN Chicago, Illinois, USA

In the period of the Reformation the questions about the biblical canon were reopened and vigorously discussed. This was quite natural since involved were such contemporary and vital problems as the relation of church to Scripture and the locus of religious and ecclesiastical authority. Stimulated and facilitated by humanistic studies, new attention was now given to the situation in the early church and to the canonical status of the books which then had been in dispute for one reason or another. In this dialogue the value judgments of such men as Erasmus and Luther with respect to the New Testament books are well known, and they led to some interesting consequences and repercussions which continued for a century and more even after these leaders had considerably modified their original views. Erasmus had freely expressed his doubts about the books disputed in the early church and made distinctions in their value. But he was led to subordinate these judg-

ments

to ecclesiastical

authority.

Likewise

Luther,

adding

as his

primary criterion the religious evaluation whether and how they “‘conveyed Christ", classified the books of the New Testament and distinguished levels of inspiration. As he himself recognized, his views were often personal and subjective, and he did not initially feel bound to the canon of the Roman church. His treatment of four New Testament

books

(Hebrews,

James,

Jude,

Revelation)

reflected

his early

doubts about their full canonicity. In the New Testament of 1522 they come at the end in the order noted above, and in his list of books they are separated by a space and given no numbers. But in time he modified his views and found more value in them, particularly Hebrews; and eventually he came to accept the canon of the medieval church. ! A

similar

evaluation

Testament Apocrypha. proposed

1534.

in his

was

applied

to

the

Old

Testament

books

and

the

Old

It is reflected, also, in the separation of the latter group, first

1523 publication of the Pentateuch

and

then effected

in the

Bible of

380

A. WIKGREN

Actually, of course, there was no question of omission

of the books,

but simply the indication of their secondary value. In this connection, to digress briefly, one should note that it is not quite correct to say that Luther placed the dubious quartet at the end of the New Testament, for in his chief exemplars, the Latin Vulgate and the Greek editions of Erasmus, Jude and Revelation were already

there. The Apocalypse, when it is found in early lists and manuscripts, almost always naturally stood at the end because of the nature of its contents. With respect to Jude the manuscript evidence is variable, but the Clementine Vulgate, doubtless reflecting majority treatment, had this order, and it is followed in the recently published Biblia Sacra Vulgata?. Thus Luther can be said at most to have demoted Hebrews from its usual place at the end of the Pauline corpus and James from where it ordinarily stood first among the Catholic Epistles. But even here there was good precedent in patristic and conciliar lists for his treatment of James. It is placed just before Jude by Philastrius (d. A.D. 387) and Augustine (d. A.D. 430), and in the lists of the Third Council of Carthage? (A.D. 397) and of the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546). The last reflects also the variety of opinions

expressed regarding treatment of disputed books, the full canonicity of James being particularly questioned. Actually in the early church in the West Jude was preferred to James, whereas the reverse was true

in the

East*.

Jerome,

however,

although

he

does

not

list the

books individually, named the Catholic Epistles in the order of James, Peter, John, Jude. Luther's initial evaluations, however, were adopted and given currency by his disciples and others, with much more attention also to the Erasmian and humanistic arguments derived from a knowledge of the usage and observations in the early church. Jerome was a main source for these data, and much of the controversy came to revolve about the question of apostolic authorship, although this was not the primary criterion for judgment by Luther himself. At all events, all seven of the anciently disputed or rejected books became subject to debate. ? Biblia Sacra luxta Vulgatam

Versionem, 2 vols. (Stuttgart 1969).

3 This had earlier been cited by critics of ERASMUS on behalf of the full canon of twenty-seven books.

* The three Catholics included in the Peshitta Syriac were I Peter, I John James. The same preference is indicated by Greek writers such as CHRYSOSTOM the CAPPADOCIANS. EUSEBIUS Peter, 1I and III John.

named

the disputed

books

in the order James,

Jude,

and and H

LUTHER AND “NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA"

381

Among the reformers who also distinguished the biblical books in value primary mention should be made of Karlstadt, who really anticipated Luther in declaring the Scriptures as of supreme authority vis-à-vis that of church, councils and pope. However, in reaction to Luther he emphasized the historical aspect of the canon, and in his significant work, de canonicis Scripturis Libellus (1520), he ranked the seven disputed New Testament books with the Old Testament Hagiographa. The Apocrypha he rejected as canonical, but even here he distinguished two groups in terms of value. Likewise Martin Chem-

nitz in his treatment of the Council of Trent, Examen Concilii Tridentini, published between 1565 and 1573, examined the problem of authority and canon and divided the New Testament books into the universally accepted (20) and the disputed (7). The latter, he feit, should be used for edification but not for proofs of doctrine. The tendency to make this distinction probably reflects the judgments of Rufinus and Jerome apropos the Old Testament Apocrypha. Johann Brenz designated the dubious seven as "apocryphal" in an apologia for the Wuerttemberg Confession, in the formulation of which he had been a chief participant. His remarks were published in 1590. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries one finds this term commonly applied to the seven antilegomena by various scholars and churchmen‘. Brenz had declared that these books were valuable for reading but were not canonical in the full sense and no council could make them so. Here he has in mind the decisions of the Council of Trent. He also held other criteria for judgment more significant than apostolic authorship, for he regarded II Peter as Petrine! The Calvinist reformers were in general more conservative in their

views. Calvin

himself,

although

also making

distinctions in value,

apparently accepted all of the disputed books with the possible exception of II and III John and the Apocalypse. He recognized a special

difficulty with II Peter, but, in contrast to Brenz, he declared that if the book is canonical the Petrine authorship must be accepted (though Peter himself did not actually write it), a rather inconclusive argument. While Zwingli seemed to have doubted only the full canonicity of the Apocalypse, the first Swiss-German Bibles published at 5. Treatment of these will be found

in J. LEIPOLDT,

Geschichte des neutestament-

lichen Kanons, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1907-08). Cf. H. H. HowoRTH, “Τῆς Canon of the Bible Among the Later Reformers", Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1908-09), 183-232.

By some the books

were considered

comparable

to the Old Testament

by others they were judged to be of superior authority.

Apocrypha;

382

A. WIKGREN

Zurich between 1524 and 1529, which were translations of Luther, treated the four New Testament books in the same fashion as in Luther’s version. This was also true of editions of 1530 and 1531; but a revision of the latter in 1542 moved Hebrews up to follow Titus. Johannes Oecolampadius, a friend of Zwingli, accorded an inferior status to all of the antilegomena except Hebrews. Among Catholics special mention may be made of Cardinal Cajetan (d. 1534), who went beyond Erasmus in distinguishing the disputed books and the canonical, defending only the full authority of II Peter. The others he regarded as inferior for the settlement of doctrinal controversies. The Council of Trent settled these matters for Catholics, but the deliberations and debates preceding the Tridentine actions in February-March, 1546 reveal the many differences of viewpoint which existed at that time. The unnecessarily extreme decisions reached, e.g., in the affirmation of apostolic authorship of the disputed books reflect a zealous reaction to such views as those of Erasmus and Cajetan, as well as of Luther and his followers. Yet some twenty years later Sextus Senensis in his Bibliotheca Sancta divides the biblical books into "Protocanonical" (undisputed in the early church) and *Deuterocanonical"

(disputed).

In the New

Testament

the latter con-

sisted of the usual seven plus the longer ending of Mark, Luke 22:43f and the Pericope adulterae. But he goes on to recognize that all are now of full canonical authority. The term "deuterocanonical", however, has among Catholics continued to be used of the Old Testament Apocrypha, although not of Esther, which Sextus had included in this category.

The influence of Luther and of his New Testament of 1522 in the treatment of his debatable quartet continued also for in fact for over two centuries, in certain printed editions other than the German. In the latter his order of books to the present day. Even the omission of numbers for

found as late as 1689.

a long time, of the Bible has persisted the books is

In keeping, however, with the modification

of Luther's views the prefaces were modified and eventually dropped or replaced by others. $ The

first edition

of the

1522

New

Testament

also

contained

285

notes,

nearly

half of which could be called propagandistic or polemical. These were drastically reduced in most editions published in LUTHER's lifetime except for an edition of 1530, which had 188. Others varied from 1 to 72. A detailed study and evaluation of them was made by G. F. HALL in an unpublished doctoral dissertation, ‘Some Interpretative Aspects of Luther's New Testament" (University of Chicago

1935).

LUTHER

AND

"NEW TESTAMENT

APOCRYPHA"

383

Of special interest here is a development beyond Luther in LowGerman and Swedish Bibles. Histories of the canon, especially in English, generally overlook these data, doubtless with the assumption—rightly enough as it turned out—that the New Testament was to all intents and purposes a settled matter. These histories, however, do take notice of the striking influence on Tyndale's English New Testament of 1525, the very format of which is very similar to that of Luther's edition. It is common knowledge, therefore, that the treatment of the four antilegomena both in position and in the Index of Contents is identical with Luther's. In addition Tyndale took over the latter's prefaces and notes’. The order of books was continued in the Coverdale Bible of 1535, as well as in its subsequent editions, the Nycolson Bible (1537), the Matthews or John Rogers Bible (1537), and the Taverner Bible (1539). Eventually in the authorized “Great Bible" of 1539 the pre-Lutheran order was restored. Immediately after the publication of Luther's New Testament the Low-German editions of the period reflect his canonical views. The first of these was published in 1523 at Hamburg by Simon Corver, and had Luther's prefaces and order of books, although the latter were not tabulated separately. Another and similar edition was issued in the same year by Melchior Lotther at Wittenberg. A Lübeck edition of 1533 omits numbers for the last four books, and subsequent Bibles display much variety with respect to numbering and separation in the tables of content. The most startling deviation here consisted in labelling the four with the title "Apocrypha" in a Bible published in 1596 at Hamburg by Jacob Lucius. A following explanation reads : "Det ys bóker de der andern hilligen schrifft nicht gelich geholden werden". This Bible was mentioned by Leipoldt. One can add another issued in 1614 at Goslar by J. Vogt, which has the same title and explanatory gloss except for minor orthographical variation. Also, Howorth noted a "Dutch Polyglot Bible" published at Hamburg in 1596 which went a step further and entitled the four books “un-

canonical"'*. In Holland the early printed Bibles reflect the contention between 7 A comparative study of the two was made New Testament and Luther (Burlington, lowa

by L.F. GRUBER,

The First English

1928).

* H.H. HowonTH, “The Canon of the Bible Among the Later Reformers", op. cit. 202f. The reference is a bit vague, but one might guess that David WOLDER, who signed the preface to the Lucius

edition of 1596, was involved.

In the same

year and

place

he edited a volume, Biblica Sacra, Graece, Latine & Germanice, also published by Lucius. WOLDER identified himself as “Prediger in Hamborch an der kerchen Petri".

384

A. WIKGREN

Lutheran and Reformed parties. However, the earliest New Testament (1523) has Luther’s prefaces and order of books, and the same order

is found in an edition of 1526. Bibles from 1562 and sporadically to as late as 1648 continue this. But soon thereafter even Lutheran Bibles conformed to the Reformed practice of following the Vulgate order of books. The progress of the Reformation in the Scandinavian countries also stimulated the translation and publication of the Bible, and here again the influence of Luther is apparent. Leipoldt gave a rather full account of the Swedish editio princeps of the New Testament (1526), even to the extent of reproducing the prefaces to the disputed books. But apparently he lacked data regarding subsequent early editions, for his assumption that Luther's New Testament criticism was soon forgotten was not true of the immediately following Swedish editions of the Bible. Actually, the influence of Luther and Lutheranism continued to grow throughout the crucial sixteenth century. When the 1526 New Testament appeared it was still impolitic to emphasize Lutheran connections. But in spite of the avoidance of such connections and the non-mention of Luther in the Preface, the influence of the latter and his work were apparent in various ways. The translation itself was based mainly upon his edition, although the Vulgate and Erasmus’ Greek text in its third edition (1522) were also consulted. The order of the books placed Hebrews and James with Jude and Revelation at the end of the New Testament, although in the listing of books no numbers are used at all and the four are not distinguished in any way from the others. The prefaces to them, however, are virtually those of Luther, Hebrews being verbally identical. The other three show certain departures but nothing of significance in regard to the viewpoints expressed. Reference is made to Erasmus' opinion of the Apocalypse as the work of John the theologue rather than of the apostle and to Jerome's observation of the

uncertain

status

of the

book

in

the

early

church.

The

writer,

perhaps Olavus Petri, notes also Eusebius’ unfavorable report on the book; and at the end he gives a brief summary regarding the four disputed books and their canonical status. Here the influence of Luther's value judgments is quite apparent. When a complete Bible eventually appeared, the Gustavus Vasa Bible of 1541, it was evident that the influence of Luther was growing. This is clear from the Introduction, notes, concordance, order of contents and other features. The Preface now definitely states that "the

LUTHER AND "NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA"

385

Latin Bible is not now so much followed as the German of doctor Martin Luther". In the New Testament various changes were made under the influence of the complete Luther Bible of 1534, and the Old Testament closely follows Luther's text, with no certainty that the Hebrew was as yet consulted. The Apocrypha were separated from the other books, and the Table of Contents now numbered the books, except for the debatable New Testament quartet at the end. Nearly eighty years elapsed before the publication of the next and official revision of the Bible. During that momentous period the Lutheran faith became firmly established despite various difficulties and an attempted counter-reformation movement under John III and Sigismund III in the latter half of the sixteenth century. The regency then again became favorable to the Protestant cause, first under Charles IX (1607-11), and then under his son and successor Gustavus II Adolphus (1611-32). In view of these developments it is not surprising that the new revision, the “Gustavus Adolphus Bible" of 1618, should reflect the growing influence of Luther and Lutheranism. In the Old Testament the books are divided into five sections exactly as in the Luther Bible of 1534. In the New Testament the same order of books is found, and in addition the same startling development to which we have alluded in the case of certain Low-German Bibles, namely, not only the separation of the four dubious books at the end of the table of contents, but their labelling with the caption "Apocr(yphal) N.T.” 5. Thus we have a threefold division in the New Testament: '*"Gospels and Acts", "Epistles and Holy Apostles", and "Apocryphal New Testament". This arrangement continued for nearly a century, and is exemplified by a half-dozen or more printings as well as a few other editions published in this period !?. In some of these the books are all listed with numbers consecutively in spite of the "Apocrypha" title. The Luther prefaces, as in German Bibles, are usually modified and occasionally dropped altogether. In all editions, however, the order of the books remains the same. It was not until the next official revision, the Charles XII Bible of

1703!!, that the arrangement of books was altered. The Epistle to ? It was quite possibly influenced by the Low-German Hamburg

edition

of

1596,

with

which

it shares

some

Bibles. especially Lucius'

typographical

characteristics.

‘© Among the latter, e.g.. Leipzig, Samuel Tauchs, 1622; Stockholm, Henrich Keiser, 1646 and 1674. !! Stockholm,

Henrick Keyser.

386

A. WIKGREN

the Hebrews was now moved up to follow Philemon in the Pauline corpus, and in the listing of books the three remaining at the end were not separated from the others. (This order of books has remained to the present day.) The prefaces have now become mainly summaries of contents; only in regard to Hebrews are doubts expressed, but here in order to counteract them by defending the value of the book and its inclusion in the Pauline collection. In early Danish Bibles—which also served for Norway in this period—the influence of Luther is again pervasive, although not as radical in regard to the separation of New Testament books in indices. Luther’s

order

of books,

however,

is followed,

and

in

the

earliest

N.T. (1524) his prefaces are also given!?. But a translation of the New Testament by Christian Pedersen, who was not in sympathy with Luther's extreme position, appeared anonymously in 1529, and omitted the prefaces and a listing of books. The first complete Bible (1550), issued under Christian III!?, also lacked the prefaces, but the books were now listed and the dubious four separated by a space. A 1558 edition restored the prefaces and also contained notes by Luther. The order of books in Danish and Norwegian Bibles has remained to this day. In Iceland a complete Bible first appeared in 1584, the work of Bishop Gudbranden Thorlakson. It also has Luther's order of books in the New Testament, although they are numbered consecutively with the other books in the listing and not separated. Thus the questions raised about canonical books were reflected in the Bibles of the period, and have left their traces even to the present day. The stirring up of the canonical waters was of course an aspect of that freedom of thought which was a characteristic of the Renaissance and Reformation movements. But the proposed intention of the Reformers to return in general to the faith and practice of the primitive church encountered a disconcerting variety of usage apropos the canon, especially as concerned the Catholic Epistles and the Apoc12 Published by son, Henrik SmitH that the translation 13 This possibly SEN

some

Melchior LoTTHER at Wittenberg. The translators were Hans MIKKELand Christian VINTER. In spite of the title page, which indicated was based on the Latin, the former two stayed close to LUTHER. was based on a translation from LuTHER's German made by PEDER-

seven years earlier; and it was then conformed

to the last German

edition

(1545) before LuTHER's death by a commission of seven men. Increasing influence of LUTHER is reflected in the fact that the Pentateuch also depends on the German, although a translation of it was available made from the Hebrew by Hans TAUSEN, first Professor of Hebrew in the University of Copenhagen.

LUTHER AND “NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA"

387

alypse. It was easier eventually to return to the canon of the medieval church and, aided and abetted by the developing dogmatic views of the Bible and its authority, to obliterate distinctions among the books. Curiously, therefore, this constituted a paradoxical movement, both toward and away from the Catholic positions. Inconsistently, also, the Old Testament Apocrypha, which had been part of the canon for centuries, were generally excluded in later Protestant praxis, even where no official pronouncements were made to that effect '*. A special point of interest here is the manner in which the term "apocrypha" was applied even to generally accepted New Testament books, especially when contrasted with the confusing use of the epithet in modern studies. When M. R. James published The Apocryphal New Testament in 1924 he apologetically but arbitrarily used the term of all kinds of early Christian literature not included in our present canon. For this he rather lamely cited the example of predecessors in similar publications. It has continued in use in thís manner, although works of some literary merit and historical value, such as the socalled "Apostolic Fathers" are usually distinguished from the rest. While *apocryphon" was originally used of a secret, private, esoteric writing, often with implications of special value, the association of such writings with heretical sects imparted a derogatory sense to the

term, and this is generally how it is used in the early church !5. It is not employed, however, of disputed or rejected books in the earliest period. To designate these a half-dozen and more other expressions

are used!9. When the title comes to be used in the late fourth and early fifth centuries with reference to potentially canonical books, it is chiefly applied to Jewish writings, sometimes including our Old Testament Apocrypha and sometimes not. Rufinus used it of books not to be read in the church, but not including here the Old Testament Apocrypha, for which he had a special category, “ecclesiastical”. Epiphanius (d. A.D. 403) refers to Jewish and Christian "apocrypha", but with no mention of our canonical books or of the Old Testament Apocrypha. Similarly, Athanasius (367 or earlier) and the Apostolic Constitutions (ca. 380) employ the term only for various pseudepig14 A few passages have continued in use, especially in the Anglican communion. H. H. HOWORTH has traced here in detail the decline in usage in the Prayer Book in an article, "The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon in the Anglican Church", JTS 8 (1906-07), 1ff. 15 Eg., IRENAEUS, apud EUSEBIUS (HE IV.22.9), ORIGEN (Ep. 1.19).

16 Eg., antilegomena, amphiballomena, amphilecta, notha, akanonista, episphaleis, exo or ektos (the canonical list), etc.

388

A. WIKGREN

rapha. Athanasius included Esther, the Didache and the Shepherd with four of our Old Testament Apocrypha as books which may be read by catechumens, but he distinguished these from "'apocryphal writings", which he regarded as “an invention of heretics". But several sources contemporary with the foregoing do use the term for rejected books, including here the Old Testament Apocrypha. This is apparently true of Cyril of Jerusalem (d. A.D. 386), who referred to apocrypha" as rejected books (not to be read publicly or privately); and to judge by his canonical list these would include our Apocrypha, except for Baruch and the Epistle attached to Jeremiah. Likewise Jerome (d. A.D. 420) at least once called the Old Testament

Apocrypha

"apocryphal writings" (including here also the Shepherd

of Hermas). Elsewhere, in a discussion of II Peter, he prefers “‘pseud-

epigrapha" to denominate five other writings ascribed to Peter. He also rather enigmatically avers that disputed books like Hebrews and the Apocalypse were not “used” as apocrypha !?. In the List of Sixty Books

(7th

cen.)

all the

writings

outside

of the

canonical

list

are

"apocrypha", including the Old Testament group. Similarly the Stichometry of Nicephorus (early 9th cen.) applies the term to rejected books, consisting of the Old Testament Apocrypha and certain of the Apostolic Fathers; but he also has a category of "disputed" books, among which are the Apocalypse of John and of Peter, Barnabas, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Out of this welter of varied usage of the term it came eventually to designate the Jewish writings which, though generally regarded as secondary in status, virtually attained a canonical positión in praxis notwithstanding protestations to the contrary. No such comparable group of "New Testament Apocrypha” was so designated. The modern use of the epithet gives here a misleading implication of parallelism between the two. Were one to designate such a New Testament group of books from the standpoint of intrinsic merit, early usage, and inclusion with canonical or deuterocanonical writings, certain of the "Apostolic Fathers" would qualify for consideration. Some of them were ranked with "apocrypha" in the early period!?, and in modern times the 17 While JEROME included the Old Testament Apocrypa in his Latin version, he was careful to note which in his opinion were not written in Hebrew. This appears to be his chief criterion for judging them uncanonical. 18 In the

East

the

Clementine

letters are

later

found

in

a

12th

century

MS

as

part of the N.T., located between the Catholics and Paul; and a 14th century writer,

LUTHER AND "NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA"

389

title was in fact applied to the whole group in an edition of Luther's New Testament published in 1711 in Hamburg by H.H. Holle. Here we have an appendix of "Apokryphische Bücher", consisting of our "Apostolic Fathers" plus (initially) "Paul to the Laodiceans”, Philo's and Agathapodis' Letter on the Martyrdom of Ignatius, and (finally) four doubtful letters of Ignatius. The title page indicates that the books were “by the disciples of the Lord and apostolic men, which were read of old in the early church in many congregations with profit and were attached to the canonical writings ..." But so far as our evidence indicates, the near-canonical or canonical status of certain of these did not, except sporadically, extend much beyond the fifth century. Actually, and particularly in the West, the Epistle to the Laodiceans would best qualify from long usage as at least a deuterocanonical book. It is found in about a hundred Vulgate MSS, including the oldest, Fuldensis

(A.D.

546), as well as in early Bohemian,

Flemish,

and English MSS. It appeared in the pre-Luther German printed Bibles and in what was the first complete German Reformation Bible, printed by Peter Schóffer at Worms in 1529 and in later editions in 1530, 1534 and 1537. It stands after Hebrews in a German New Testament published in 1603 at Kóln by Arnold Quentel. But when its pseudepigraphic character was recognized and its contents judged not to outweigh this consideration, it lost its cononical status. The opinion of Jerome, who rejected the document, was doubtless of influence here, as was also the fact that Luther omitted it from his German Bible. Some early fathers, e.g., Philastrius and Priscillian in the 4th century, had regarded it as genuine and yet not canonical, and this was also the view of Gregory the Great (d. A.D. 604)!?. In the Eastern Church the document excerpted from the Acts of Paul and known as III Corinthians had a similar history. Canonical status is witnessed by Ephrem Syrus (d. A.D. 373), Aphraates (4th ABU'L BARAKAT (d. A.D.

1363) refers to them as N.T. books.

In the West Hermas and

Barnabas were used for a long time. The former is found as late as the 9th century in an old-Latin MS. Codex Sangermanensis (g'), and the latter in the 10th or ΠῚ century codex of the Gospels, Corbeiensis (ff). 1% It is found in the Book of Armagh (807), the Gothic Bible of Toledo (8th century), several Wycliffite MS Bibles, and in the first Bohemian (Czech) Bible (1488) as well as subsequent editions as late as the 18th century. AELFRIC (ca. 1000) lists it with Paul's letters, and JOHN or SALISBURY (ca. 1165) regards it as Pauline. The new two-volume Biblia Sacra Vulgata has added it (along with Ps. 151) to the Clementine

Vulgate Appendix.

390

A. WIKGREN

century), Mesrob (Armenian Bible, early 5th century), and other early Armenian fathers. Ephrem wrote a commentary on it (extant in Armenian), and it is found in Armenian MS

Bibles as late as the fifteenth

century. The second Armenian printed Bible of Zohrab (1805) placed it in an Appendix together with Sirach, the Prayer of Manasses and Third Ezra. It should be noted that the total work, "The Acts of Paul", was highly regarded and often quoted as authentic in the

early church,

both

East and West?°.

Something

of the status of

III Cor. is reflected in the recently discovered (and earliest) Greek text of it in a Bodmer papyrus (V-IX), a miscellany of documents originally constituting a single codex of the third century. Here III Cor. is included with I and II Peter and Jude and other writings apparently popular at the time and/or of equivocal position with respect to canonical recognition. From length of usage as either canonical or near-canonical writings, this really leaves the seven disputed New Testament books as primary candidates for the title "New Testament Apocrypha". Churchmen and scholars of the early Reformation period were not far off the mark in so designating them, although modern critical evaluation would probably add others from the standpoint of the pseudepigraphic criterion. But, as we have seen, this was not necessarily a deciding factor in the matter. Ultimately the long ecclesiastical usage of the books and their cultural involvements militated against the tendency to demote them from full canonical status, and the church found itself without a separate corpus of books which would be legitimately comparable to the Old Testament Apocrypha ?!. 79 EusEBIUS refers to it once as “not undisputed”! (HE

IIL iii.5). The Acts of Paul

is included among "apocrypha" in the List of Sixty Books and among “N.T. apocrypha" in the Stichometry of NiCEPHORUS. In the stichometry of Codex Claromontanus (D? or Dj), perhaps representing Egyptian usage at ca. A.D. 300, it is found apparently as part of the New Testament. The list ends, without demarcation, (after

Jude) with Barnabas,

Revelation of John, Acts, Shepherd,

Acts of Paul,

Revelation

of Peter. However, a dash has been placed before the uncanonical books, perhaps a later hand. A dash also before I Peter may have been meant for II Peter (?).

by

2! | wish to thank the Universities of Uppsala and of Hamburg for the opportunity of examining the early Bibles in their collections, and the Deutsches Bibel Archiv for access to Bibles from German and Danish archives on display at an "Ausstellung

in der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg" in 1955. A convenient thesaurus of data regarding the important Bibles of the period may be found in Vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Bible, the West from the Reforma-

tion to the Present Day. ed. by S.L. GREENSLADE (Cambridge 1963). This may be consulted also for bibliography on the various vernacular Bibles. Except, however, for Luther and the English version, notice generally is not taken of book order in the New Testament.

WRITINGS BOOKS

OF ARTHUR AND

VÖÖBUS

MONOGRAPHS

1942 1. Munklus Süürias, Mesopotaamias ja Pärsias kuni X sajandini, selle tekkimine, ajalooline areng ja kultuurilooline tähendus (Monasticism in Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia to the 10th Century: Its Origin, Historical Development and Culture-historical Significance). Typewritten. Doctoral dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Theology and the Faculty of History at the University of Tartu. Tartu, Estonia. 475 pp. 1946 2. Kristlik teadvus ja eetos vanas kirikus enne Konstantiini (The Ethos of the Ancient Church before the Time of Constantine the Great). Geislingen. 20 pp. 1947 3. A Letter of Ephrem to the Mountaineers: A Literary-Critical Contribution to Syriac Literature [= Contributions of the Baltic University 25]. Pinneberg. 20 pp. 4. Les messaliens et les réformes de Bargauma de Nisibe dans l'église perse [= Contributions of the Baltic University 34]. Pinneberg. 30 pp. 5. Einiges über die karitative Tätigkeit des syrischen Mónchtums [= CBU 51]. Pinneberg. 28 pp. 6. Untersuchungen über die Authentizität einiger asketischer Texte, überliefert unter dem Namen “‘ Ephraem Syrus" [= CBU 57]. Pinneberg. 40 pp. 7. Investigations into the Text of the New Testament Used by Rabbula of Edessa [= CBU 59]. Pinneberg. 40 pp. 1948 8. La vie d'Alexandre en grec — un témoin d'une biographie inconnue de Rabboula écrite en syriaque [= CBU 62]. Pinneberg. 16 pp.

392

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

9, Fifth 10. texte

Researches on the Circulation of the Peshitta in the Middle of the Century [= CBU 64]. Pinneberg. 78 pp. Neue Ergebnisse in der Erforschung der Geschichte der Evangelienim Syrischen [= CBU 65]. Pinneberg. 16 pp. 1950

11. Communism's Challenge to Christianity. Maywood, Illinois. 98 pp.

1951 12. Communism's Challenge to Christianity. Second edition. Maywood. 100 pp. 13. Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac [= Corpus Scriptorum

Christianorum

Orientalium

128,

Subsidia

3]

Louvain.

xxvi 4- 220 pp. 14. Celibacy, a Requirement for Admission to Baptism in the Early Syrian Church [= Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 1]. Stockholm. 72 pp. 15. Die Spuren eines älteren äthiopischen Evangelientextes im Lichte der literarischen Monumente [= Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 2]. Stockholm. 40 pp. 16. Neue Angaben über die textgeschichtlichen Zustände in Edessa in den Jahren ca. 326-340: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des altsyrischen Tetraevangeliums [= PETSE 3]. Stockholm. 60 pp. 1952 (12) Communism's Challenge to Christianity. Reprinted. 100 pp.

Maywood.

1953 17. Zur Geschichte des altgeorgischen Evangelientextes [2 PETSE 4]. Stockholm. 40 pp. 18. Neue Materialien zur Geschichte der Vetus Syra in den Evangelienhandschriften [= PETSE 5]. Stockholm. 20 pp. 1954 19. Early Versions of the New Testament. Manuscript Studies : Oriental Texts and Facsimile Plates of Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, Ethiopic and Arabic Manuscripts [= PETSE 6]. Stockholm. xviii+ 412 pp.

BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

393

1955 20.

The

Communist

Menace,

the Present

Chaos

and

our

Christian

Responsibility [= PETSE Popular Series, 1]. New York. 64 pp.

1956 21. Quelques observations littéraires et historiques sur la vie syriaque

inédite de Mär Ahä [= PETSE 8]. Stockholm. 32 pp. 1957 22.

The

Communist

Menace,

the Present

Chaos

and

our

Christian

Responsibility. Second edition. New York. 114 pp.

1958 23. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient : A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East, vol. I. The Origin of Asceticism. Early Monasticism in Persia. [= Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 184, Subsidia 14]. Louvain. xxxvii + 342 pp. 24. Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs. Neues Licht zur Frage der Herkunft der Peschitta aus den altpalástinischen Targumim. Handschriftenstudien [= PETSE 9]. Stockholm. 150 pp. 25. Literary-Critical and Historical Studies in Ephrem the Syrian [= PETSE 10]. Stockholm. 146 pp.

1960 26. The Threat of Communism and the Task of Christians: A Stand against Dangerous Trends within Protestantism. New York. 32 pp. (Also reprinted in 1960). 27. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient : A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East, vol. II. Early Monasticism in Mesopotamia and Syria [= CSCO 197, Subsidia 17]. Louvain. xxxii+ 438 pp. 28. Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism : Syriac, Arabic and Karshuni Texts Edited, Translated and Furnished with Literary-Historical Introductions [= PETSE 11]. Stockholm. 226 pp. 1961 29. The Threat of Communism and the Task of Christians : A Stand

against Dangerous Trends within Protestantism. Second edition. New York. 32 pp.

394

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

1962 30. The Statutes of the School of Nisibis: The Syriac Text Edited, Translated and Furnished with a Literary-Historical Commentary [= PETSE 12]. Stockholm. 132 pp. 1963 31. The Department of Theology at the University of Tartu: Its Life and Work, Martyrdom and Annihilation. A Chapter of Contemporary Church History in Estonia [= PETSE 14]. Stockholm. 126 pp.

1965 32. History of the School of Nisibis [= CSCO

266, Subsidia 26].

Louvain. xvii + 352 pp. 1966 33. Exegetical Studies in The Gospels in Study and Preaching : Trinity Sunday to the Ninth Sunday after Trinity, by A. Vööbus and H.G. Davis. Philadelphia. xii+ 302 pp.

1968 34. Liturgical Traditions in the Didache [= PETSE 194 pp. 35.

16]. Stockholm.

The Prelude to the Lukan Passion Narrative. Tradition-, Redaction-,

Cult-, Motif-Historical Stockholm. 152 pp.

and

Source-Critical

Studies

[= PETSE

17].

1969 36. Studies in the History of the Estonian People : With Reference to Aspects of Social Conditions, in Particular, the Religious and Spiritual Life and the Educational Pursuit, vol. I [2 PETSE 18]. Stockholm. xxxii + 208 pp.

1970 37. Syrische Kanonessammlungen : Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde, I: Westsyrische Originalurkunden, 1, A [= CSCO 307, Subsidia 35]. Louvain. xxx + 262 pp. 38. Syrische Kanonessammlungen : Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde, I: Westsyrische Originalurkunden, 1, B [= CSCO 317, Subsidia 38]. Louvain. pp. 263-620.

BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

395

39. Studies in the History of the Estonian People : With Reference to Aspects of Social Conditions, in Particular, the Religious and Spiritual Life and the Educational Pursuit, vol. II [= PETSE 19]. Stockholm. x 4- 210 pp. 40. Discoveries of Very Important Manuscript Sources for the SyroHexapla : Contributions to the Research on the Septuagint [= PETSE 20]. Stockholm. xii 4- 52 pp. 1971 41. The Discovery of Very Important Manuscript Sources for the SyroRoman Lawbook : The Opening of a New Epoch of Research in This Unique Monument of Jurisprudence [= PETSE 21]. Stockholm. 32 pp. 42. The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla: Important Discoveries for Septuagint Research [= PETSE 22]. Stockholm. xii + 100 pp.

1972 43. On the Historical Importance of the Legacy of Pseudo-Macarius : New Observations about its Syriac Provenance [= PETSE 23]. Stockholm. 34 pp.

1973 44. Handschriftliche Überlieferung der Memre-Dichtung des Ja’göb von Serüg, Band 1: Sammlungen. Die Handschriften [2 CSCO 344,

Subsidia 39]. Louvain. xxvii+ 203 pp.

45. Handschriftliche Überlieferung der Mémré-Dichtung des Ja' qób von Serüg, Band II: Sammlungen. Der Bestand [= CSCO 345, Subsidia 40]. Louvain. v+ 224 pp. 46. Discoveries of Great Import on the Commentary on Luke by Cyril of Alexandria : The Emergence of New Manuscript Sources for the Syriac Version [2 PETSE 24]. Stockholm. 36 pp. 47. Discovery of the Exegetical Works of Mô$ë bar Kephä: The Unearthing of Very Important Sources for the Exegesis and History of the New Testament Text in the Version of the Vetus Syra [2 PETSE 25]. Stockholm. 36 pp.

1974 48. Studies in the History of the Estonian People : With Reference to Aspects of Social Conditions, in Particular, the Religious and Spiritual Life and the Educational Pursuit, vol. III [2 PETSE 26]. Stockholm. xiv 4- 268 pp.

396

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

1975 49. The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition: Discovery of a Unique Manuscript. Edition of the Syriac Text, vol. 1 [= CSCO 367, Scriptores Syri 161]. Louvain. viii + 284 pp. 50. The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition : Discovery of a Unique Manuscript. Translation, vol. I (2 CSCO 368, Scriptores Syri 162]. Louvain. xii+ 274 pp. 51. The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla : A Facsimile Edition of a Midyat Manuscript discovered 1964 [2 CSCO 369, Subsidia 45]. Louvain. liv+ 384 plates. 52. Important Manuscript Sources for the Islamic Law in Syriac: Contributions to the History of Jurisprudence in the Syrian Orient [= PETSE 27]. Stockholm. 36 pp. 1976 53. The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition: Discovery of a Unique Manuscript. Edition of the Syriac Text, vol. 11 [= CSCO 375, Scriptores Syri 163]. Louvain. 273 pp. 54. The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition: Discovery of a Unique Manuscript. Translation, vol. I [= CSCO 376, Scriptores Syri 164]. Louvain. xvi + 313 pp. 55. Discovery of an Unknown Recension of the Syro- Roman Lawbook : Facsimile Edition of Three Syriac Manuscripts with Translation and Annotations [= PETSE 28]. Stockholm. 80 pp. 56. The Threat of Communism and the Task of Christians: A Stand against. Dangerous Trends within Protestantism. New York. 32 pp. Reprinted in Toronto. 1977

57. The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac. Edition of the Syriac Text, vol. I [2 CSCO, Scriptores Syri]. Louvain. S8.

The

Didascalia

Apostolorum

in

Syriac.

Translation,

vol.

1

[= CSCO, Scriptores Syri]. Louvain. 59. The Martyrs in Estonia: The Suffering oj the Bloodwitnessing Churches in Estonia [= PETSE 29]. Stockholm. 50 pp. 60. New Important Manuscript Discoveries for the History of Syriac Literature. With Facsimile Plates [= PETSE 30]. Stockholm. 60 pp. 61. Studies in the History of the Estonian People : With Reference to Aspects of Social Conditions, in Particular, the Religious and Spiritual Life and the Educational Pursuit, vol. IV [= PETSE 31]. Stockholm. 202 pp.

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

397

New Works Accepted for Publication The Apocalypse in the Harklean Version: Discovery of a Unique Manuscript. Facsimile Edition [= CSCO, Subsidia]. Louvain. The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac. Edition of the Syriac Text, vol. II [= CSCO, Scriptores Syri]. Louvain. The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac. Translation, vol. II [= CSCO, Scriptores Syri]. Louvain.

Handschriftliche Überlieferung der Memre-Dichtung des Ja'qób von Serüg, Band III : Die zerstreuten Memre. Die Handschriften [= CSCO, Subsidia]. Louvain. Handschriftliche Überlieferung der Mémré-Dichtung des Ja'qób von Serüg,

Band

IV:

Die

zerstreuten

Mémré.

Der

Bestand

[= CSCO,

Subsidia]. Louvain. Early Syrian Spirituality (= The Syrian Churches Series). Kottayam, Kerala, India. Christian Conscience in the Face of the Current Confusion: The Dignity of the Christian vis-à-vis the Sovietization of the Mind [= PETSE]. Stockholm. Catalogues of Manuscripts of Unknown Collections in the Syrian Orient, vol. I: Syriac Manuscripts in Istanbul [2 PETSE].

Stockholm.

Catalogues of Manuscripts of Unknown Collections in the Syrian Orient, vol. II: Syriac Manuscripts in Anhel [= PETSE]. Stockholm. Catalogues of Manuscripts of Unknown Collections in the Syrian Orient, vol. III,1: Syriac Manuscripts from the Treasure of the Monastery of Mär Hanänyä or Deir Za'farán [= PETSE). Stockholm. Studies in the History of the Estonian People: With Reference to Aspects of Social Conditions, in Particular, the Religious and Spiritual Life and the Educational Pursuit, vol. V [2 PETSE]. Stockholm. History of Syriac Literature, vol. 1,1 [= PETSE]. Stockholm. ARTICLES

IN JOURNALS

The following list cannot claim completeness; regarding articles published in Estonia there are gaps which cannot be filled in. It was inevitable to reconstruct many a title by memory. 1935 1. “Koguduse elu ja selle korraldus süüria Didaskalia járgi" (The Life of the Congregation and its Regulation according to the Syriac Didascalia) : Tartu Pauluse Teise Koguduse Teated 1. Tartu, Estonia.

398

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

1936 2. “Kristlik vaimsus süüria Didaskalias” (Christian Spirituality in the Syriac Didascalia) : Tartu Pauluse Teise Koguduse Teated 2. Tartu. 1937 3. "Vana süüria kristluse eetos" (The Ethos of Ancient Christianity) : Tartu Pauluse Teise Koguduse Teated 3. Tartu.

Syrian

1938 4. "Kristluse algused Mesopotaamias" (The Beginnings of Christianity in Mesopotamia) : Tartu Pauluse Teise Koguduse Teated 4. Tartu. 5. "Askees juudakristlaste liikumises" (Asceticism in the Jewish Christian Movement) : Usuteadusline Ajakiri 12. Tartu.

1939 6. "Koguduse sotsiaalne tähendus apostlikkude kirikukordade valguses" (The Social Significance of the Congregations according to the Apostolic Church Orders) : Tartu Pauluse Teise Koguduse Teated 5. Tartu.

7. “Baptistlikud suunad judaismis" (Baptist Movements in Judaism): Usuteadusline Ajakiri 13. Tartu. 1940 8. "Vanimad Palestina pärimused kristluse tekkimisel Süürias ja Mesopotaamias" (The Archaic Palestinian Traditions on the Origin of Christianity in Syria and Mesopotamia) : Tartu Pauluse Teise Koguduse Teated 6. Tartu. (destroyed)

9. *"Táhtsad leiud vana süüria versiooni tile” (Important Discoveries on the Version of the Vetus Syra): Usuteadusline Ajakiri 14. Tartu. (destroyed)

1949 10. “Τῆς Old Syriac Version in a New Light and Urgent Tasks in

Textual Criticism of the New

Testament”:

Apophoreta

Tartuensia.

A Publication dedicated to the University of Tartu 1919-1940 by the Societas Litterarum Estonica in Svecia —Eesti Teaduslik Selts Rootsis. Stockholm. 11. “The Problem of the Diatessaron" : Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 54. Maywood, Illinois.

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

399

12. **Piiskop Dr. Johan Kópp Tartu Ülikooli Usuteaduskonnas” (The Role of Bishop Dr. Johan Kópp in the Department of Theology at the University of Tartu): Festschrift Johan Kópp: Jumala abiga edasi — Piiskop Dr. Johan Kópp'u 75 sünnipäevaks. Stockholm.

1950 13. "Some Notes on the Possible Aramaic Gospels": Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 55. Maywood.

Chicago

14. “The Oldest Extant Traces of the Syriac Peshitta" : Le Muséon. Revue d'Études Orientales 63. Louvain. 15. “La premiere traduction arménienne des Évangiles" : Recherches de Science religieuse 37. Paris. 195] 16. **Rediscovery of the Church in Contemporary Protestant Biblical Studies" : Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 56. Maywood. 17. “Origin of Monasticism in Mesopotamia”: Church History 20.

Chicago. 18. **Uus Testament arheoloogiliste leidude valguses" (The New Testament in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries) : Eesti Kirik 1. Uppsala. 19. “A Critical Apparatus for the Vetus Syra" : Journal of Biblical Literature 70. Philadelphia. 20. ‘““Ta’ämera Iyasus, Zeuge eines älteren äthiopischen Evangelientextes" : Orientalia Christiana Periodica 17. Roma. 21. "Neuentdecktes Textmaterial zur Vetus Syra": Theologische Zeitschrift 40. Basel.

1952 22. “Die Evangelienzitate in der Einleitung der persischen Märtyrerakten" : Biblica 32. Roma.

1953 23. "The Historical Setting of the Lord's Supper in the Light of Recent Research" : Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 58. Maywood. 24. "New Data for the Solution of the Problem Concerning the Philoxenian Version”: Festschrift K. Kundsing, Spiritus et Veritas. Eutin.

400

25. "Early Chicago.

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

Syrian

Fathers

on

Genesis":

Journal

of Religion

33.

1954 26. "Das

Alter der Peschitta" : Oriens

Christianus.

Hefte für die

Kunde des christlichen Orients 38. Wiesbaden.

27. "Estonian Theological Research”: Charisteria Iohanni Köpp octogenario oblata [= Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 7] Stockholm. 28. "Liber Graduum: Some Aspects of its Significance for the History of Early Syrian Asceticism" : ibid. 29. **Manichaeism and Christianity in Persia under the Sassanides” : Yearbook of the Estonian Learned Society in America 1. New York. 1955 30. “The Earliest Easter Account in the Light of Modern Research” : Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 60. Maywood. 31. “Kilde eksiil-kristlastest vana kirikuloo valguses" (The Contribution of the Deported Syrian Christians to the Growth of Ancient Christianity in Persia) : Eesti Kirik 5. Uppsala. 32. "Der Einfluss des altpalästinischen Targums in der Textgeschichte des syrischen Alten Testaments" : Le Muséon. Revue d'Études Orientales 68. Louvain. 33. “Beiträge zur kritischen Sichtung der asketischen Schriften, die unter dem Namen Ephraem des Syrers überliefert sind”: Oriens Christianus 39. Wiesbaden. 34. "Estonia": The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Grand Rapids. 35. *'Messalians" : ibid. 36. "Polycarp" : ibid. 37. "Socrates : Church Historian” : ibid. 38. “Syriac Literature" : ibid. 1956 39. “Tähtsaid käsikirjade leide Juuda körves” (Important Manuscript Discoveries in the Desert of Judah) : Eesti Kirik 6. Uppsala. 40. '"Vanim usutunnistuslik vormel” (The Earliest Creedal Formula in the Light of Modern Research) : ibid.

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

401

41. "Syrische Herkunft der Pseudo-Basilianischen Homilie über die Jungfrauenschaft” : Oriens Christianus 40. Wiesbaden. 1957 42. "Márkmeid käsikirjade retkeilt” (Comments on Manuscript Discoveries) : Eesti Kirik 7. Uppsala. 43. "Selbstanklagen Ephräms des Syrers in griechischer Uberlieferung— Beobachtungen über ihre Herkunft" : Oriens Christianus 41. Wiesbaden. 1958

44. “An Exegetical Study” [on Matthew 20:1-16]: Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 63. Maywood. 45. "Syrische Bibelübersetzungen" : Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 11. Freiburg. 46. “Ein neuer Text von Ephraem über das Mónchtum" : Oriens Christianus 42. Wiesbaden. 47. "Die Rolle der Regeln im syrischen Mónchtum des Altertums" : Orientalia Christiana Periodica 24. Roma. 48. "Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the History of Christianity" : Yearbook of the Estonian Learned Society in America 2. New York. 1959 49. "Avastatud koptikeelne Tooma evangeelium" (The Discovery of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) : Eesti Kirik 9. Uppsala. 50. “Igivana papüürus-ürik Johannese evangeeliumist" (The Earliest Papyrus Codex of the Fourth Gospel Discovered) : ibid. 51. “Iseseisva kirikumótte teoloogilised látted" (Theological Sources of the Mission of the Church) : ibid. 52. "Ein merkwürdiger Pentateuchtext in Pseudo-Klementinischer Schrift ‘De virginitate" : Oriens Christianus 43. Wiesbaden. 53. "Les reflets du monachisme primitif dans les écrits d'Éphrem le Syrien" : L'Orient syrien 4. Paris. 54. "Sur le développement de la phase cénobitique et la réaction

dans l'ancien monachisme syriaque" : Recherches de Science religieuse 47. Paris.

402

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR

VÖÖBUS

1960 55. “The Uniqueness of the Relation to Fellow Men in the Teaching of Jesus : A Contribution to the Interpretation of the Ethics of Jesus" : Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 65. Maywood. 56. "Óhtusóómaaja praksis ja tähendus ürgkristluse perspektiivis” (Practice and Meaning of the Eucharist from the Perspective of Primitive Christianity) : Eesti Kirik 10. Uppsala. 57. "Vaatlusi Jeesuse eetika aluste kohta" (Observations on the Foundations of the Ethics of Jesus) : ibid. 58. "Abgar" : Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago-Toronto-London. 59. ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia" : ibid.

60. "Die Anweisungen

von Aphrahat":

Jahrbuch für Antike und

Christentum 3. Bonn. 61. "'Beitráge zur estnischen Bibelübersetzung" : Moderne Bibelüber-

setzungen. Eine Übersicht, red. von J. Schmid. Wien. 62. “Das literarische Verhältnis zwischen der Biographie des Rabbülä und dem Pseudo-Amphilochianischen Panegyrikus über Basilius" : Oriens Christianus 44. Wiesbaden. 1961 63. "Pouring over Manuscripts": Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 66. Maywood. 64. "The Institution of the Benai Qeyama and Benat Qeyama in the Ancient Syrian Church": Church Hhistory 30. Chicago. 65. “The Diatessaron" : Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago-TorontoLondon. 66. “Τῆς Odes of Solomon” : ibid. 67. “The Eucharist in the Ancient Church" : in Meaning and Practice of the Lord's Supper, edited by H. T. Lehmann. Philadelphia. 1962 68. "Completion of the Vetus Syra Research Project": Biblical Research 7. Chicago. 69. "Abgar" : Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch 1. Göttingen. 70. “Curetonianus” : ibid. 71. "Philoxeniana" : ibid., Bd. II. 72. "Sinai-Syrer" : ibid., Bd. III. 73. "Kummargil kásikirjade kohal" (Poring over Manuscripts) : Eesti Kirik 12. Uppsala.

ARTICLES

IN JOURNALS

403

74. "Kirik ja selle olemus Uue Testamendi kuulutuses, ristikoguduse ajaloolises kujunemises ja kaasaja kristluses" (The Meaning of the Ecclesia in the New Testament Kerygma, in the Historical Development ofthe Church and in Contemporary Christianity): Festschrift J. O. Lauri: Issanda kiriku tööpöllul. Uppsala. 75. "Neues Licht zur Frage der Originalsprache der Oden Salomos" :

Le Muséon. Revue d'Études Orientales 75. Louvain. 76. "Det kommunistiska hotet och de kristnas upgift: Ett ställningstagande emot farliga tendenser inom protestantismen" : Nordvästra Skánes Tidningar. 77. *Methodologisches zum Studium der Anweisungen Aphrahats" : Oriens Christianus 46. Wiesbaden. 78. "Solution du probléme de l'auteur de la ‘Lettre à Gemellinos'" : L'Orient syrien 7. Paris. 1963 79. “An Exegetical Study of the Parable of the Great Invitation, Luke 14, 16-24" : Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record 68. Maywood. 80. "Uut

valgust tähendamissönale

suurest

banketist"

(New

Light

on the Parable of the Great Invitation) : Eesti Kirik 13. Uppsala. 81. "Rabbülà von Edessa" : Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche VIII. Freiburg. 82. "Neues Licht über das Restaurationswerk des Johannan von Marde" : Oriens Christianus 47. Wiesbaden. 1964 83. “Harclensis” : Biblisch-historisches Handwórterbuch 11. Göttingen. 84. "Regarding the Theological Anthropology of Theodore of Mopsuestia" : Church History 33. Chicago. 85. "Syrische Sprache und Literatur" : Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche IX. Freiburg. 86. "Neues Licht über die kirchlichen Reformbestrebungen des Patriarchen Dionysios von Tell Mahre" : Festschrift H. Engberding — Oriens Christianus 48. Wiesbaden. 87. "Le vestige d'une lettre de Narsai et son importance historique” : L'Orient syrien 9. Paris. 88. "Theological Reflections on Human Nature in Ancient Syrian Traditions" : in The Scope of Grace : Essays in Honor of Joseph Sittler, edited by P. J. Hefner. Philadelphia.

404

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR

VOOBUS

1965 89. "The Episode of the Washing of the Feet in the Johannine Tradition" : Chicago Lutheran Theologica! Seminary Record 70. Maywood. 90. "Ancient Bible Versions (Oriental)": The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church I, edited by J. Bodensieck. Minneapolis. 9]. “Christianization or War of Conquest? A Critical Appraisal of Myth and History in the Activities of Bishop Albert" : Estonia Christiana. Eximio Domino lohanni Kopp nonaginta annos feliciter explenti discipuli congratulantes dedicaverunt [2 PETSE 15]. Stockholm. 92. “Τῆς Department of Theology at the University of Tartu” : ibid. 93. "Reform-Attempts Initiated by Bishop Ihering" : ibid. 94. "Abraham de-Bét Rabban and His Role in the Hermeneutic Traditions of the School of Nisibis" : Harvard Theological Review S8. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 95. "The Department of Theology at the University of Tartu”: Lutheran News. New Haven. 1966 96. "Táhelepanekuid evangeelsete pärimuste kujunemisest" (Observations

on

the

Historical

Development

of the

Gospel

Traditions) :

Eesti Kirik 16. Uppsala. 97. "Rabbülà of Edessa": Encyclopaedia Britannica. ChicagoToronto-London. 98. “‘Esimene praostkond meie kiriku missioonis" (The First Deanery in the Mission of our Church): Oma Kirik 1. New York.

1967 99. “Syriac Literature" : Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago-TorontoLondon.

100. ‘‘Syriac Versions of the Bible" : New Catholic Encyclopedia 1]. New York-Toronto-London-Sydney. 101. **Diatessaron. The Gospel Harmony of Tatian” : ibid., vol. IV. 102. “Mis táhendab olla liige Kristuse kirikus" (The Meaning of Membership in the Church of Christ) : Oma Kirik 2. New York. 103. “‘Reorganisierung der westsyrischen Kirche in Persien. Neues Licht aus einer sehr wertvollen Urkunde": Oriens Christianus 51. Wiesbaden.

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

405

104. *"Neuerschlossene einzigartige Urkunden syrischer geschichte” : Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 78. Stuttgart.

Kirchen-

1968 105. "Kummargil kásikirjade Eesti Kirik 18. Uppsala.

kohal"

(Poring

over

Manuscripts):

106. "Emergence of the Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition”: Journal of Theological Studies, NS 19. Oxford. 107. "New Approach to the Problem of the Shorter and the Longer Text in Luke" : New Testament Studies 14. Cambridge. 108. '*Usupuhastuse esimesed kajastused eestlaste juures ja nende saatus" (The First Echoes of the Reformation among the Estonians and their Fate) : Oma Kirik 3. New York. 109. "Neue Angaben über die Regierungszeit des Patriarchen Qyriaqos" : Oriens Christianus 52. Wiesbaden. 110. “The Discovery of New Cycles of Canons and Resolutions composed by Ja'qób of Edessa”: Orientalia Christiana Periodica 34. Roma. 111. "Regarding the Background of the Liturgical Traditions in the Didache" : Vigiliae Christianae 22. Amsterdam. 112. "Contributions of the Herrnhuters to the Spiritual, Educational and Cultural Life in Estonia": Yearbook of the Estonian Learned Society in America 4. New York. 1969 113. "Discovery of New Exegetical Manuscript Sources Containing Commentaries of Dionysios bar Salibi on the Apostolos": AbrNahrain 9. Melbourne. 114. “Ääremärkusi ühe hindamatu ürgkristliku üriku tile. Didahe ja selle táhendus" (Notes on an Invaluable Primitive Christian Document : The Didache and its Significance) : Oma Kirik 4. New York.

115. “‘Muinaseestlaste suhted kristlusega" (The First Contacts of the Ancient Estonians with Christianity) : Oma Kirik 5. New York. 116. “Eine wichtige Urkunde über die Geschichte des Mär HanänjäKlosters. Die von Jöhannän von Mardé gegebenen Klosterregeln" : Oriens Christianus 53. Wiesbaden. 1970 117. "New Manuscript Discoveries on the Old Testament Exegetical Work of Mosé bar Képha" : Abr-Nahrain 10. Melbourne.

406

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR VOOBUS

118. “Ääremärkusi ühe väga haruldase arheoloogilise avastuse kohta Herculaneumis" (On a Very Extraordinary Archaeological Discovery in Herculaneum): Eesti Kirik 20. Uppsala. 119. "Origenes ja tema jäädav tähendus piibliteksti ajaloos" (Origen and His Permanent Importance in the History of the Biblical Text): ibid. 120. "Eesti kirikulaulu algustest ja selle kujunemisest" (On the Beginnings of Estonian Hymnody and its Development) : Oma Kirik 6. New York. 121. "Syrische Verordnungen für die Novizen und ihre handschriftliche Überlieferung" : Oriens Christianus 54. Wiesbaden. 122. "Kritische Beobachtungen über die lukanische Darstellung des Herrenmahls" : Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 61. Berlin. 1971 123. “Dura Europose freskomaalingute tähendusest ürgkristlikule kunstile : uut valgust ürgkristliku kunsti olemusele" (The Meaning of the Frescoes of Dura Europos in Primitive Christian Art: New Light on the Essence of Primitive Christian Art) : Eesti Kirik 21. Uppsala. 124. *Communism's Challenge in the Postwar World”: Makers of America IX : Refugees and Victims. Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation. Chicago. 125. "Découverte d'un memra de Giwargi évêque des arabes, sur Sévére d'Antioche" : Le Muséon. Revue d'Études orientales 84. Louvain. 126. “Die Entdeckung des Panegyrikus des Patriarchen Mika'el über Jöhannän von Marde" : Oriens Christianus 55. Wiesbaden. 127. "L'ascéticon syriaque d'abba Isaie": Revue d'Histoire ecclésiastique 82. Louvain. 128. ‘Search for Manuscript Sources for History and Literature in Syriac" : Yearbook 1971, American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia. 129. “Die Entdeckung des Lukaskommentars von Mosé bar Kepha" : Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 62. Berlin.

1972 130. “Discovery of Important Syriac Manuscripts on the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils" : Abr-Nahrain 12. Melbourne. 131. “Einzigartige Handschriftenfunde von der Syro-Hexapla" : Oriens Christianus 56. Wiesbaden.

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

132. "I86'

bar

Kirün:

A

Supplement

to

407

the

History

of Syriac

Literature" : Orientalia Christiana Periodica 38. Roma. 133. “Die Bedeutung neuentdeckter Handschriften für die Sammlungen der Mémré des Ja'qób von Serüg" : Ostkirchliche Studien 21. Würzburg. 134. '*Eine neue Schrift von Ishäq von Ninive" : ibid. 135. "Importante découverte pour les Hexaples syriaques: le pentateuque" : Revue Biblique 79. Paris.

136. "Ühe

teadusliku ürituse juubeli puhul"

(The Jubilee of a

Scholarly Project) : Tulimuld 23. Lund. 137. ‘‘New Sources for the Symbol of Early Syrian Christianity" : Vigiliae Christianae 26. Amsterdam. 138. "Entdeckung des Pentateuchs der Syro-Hexapla" : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 122. Wiesbaden. 139. "Die Entdeckung wichtiger Quellen für das syrisch-rómische Rechtsbuch" : Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung 89. Weimar. 140. “Neue Funde für die handschriftliche Überlieferung der alttestamentlichen Kommentare des Dionysios bar Salibi" : Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84. Berlin.

1973 141. "The Origin of the Monophysite Church in Syria and Mesopotamia" : Church History 42. Chicago. 142. ‘Pouring over Ancient Manuscripts" : Epistle (No. 8), Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. Chicago. 143. "Important Manuscript Discoveries for the Syro-Roman Law Book" : Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32. Chicago. 144. “Discovery of New Important Mémré of Giwargi, the Bishop of Arabs" : Journal of Semitic Studies 18. Manchester, England. 145. “Discovery of the Pentateuch in the Syro-Hexapla" : Journal of the American Oriental Society 93. New Haven. 146. "New Light on the Textual History of the Syro-Roman Lawbook” : Labeo. Rassegna di diritto romano 19. Napoli. 147. "Nouvelles sources de l'Octateuque clémentin syriaque" : Le

Muséon. Revue d'Études orientales 86. Louvain. 148. **Neuentdeckung sehr alter syrischer Evangelienhandschriften” : Oriens Christianus 57. Wiesbaden. 149. ‘Découverte du commentaire de M68é bar Képha sur l'Évangile de Matthieu" : Revue Biblique 80. Paris.

408

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

1974 150. Gannat 151. Roma. 152.

“New Manuscript Discoveries for the Commentary Called Büssame" : Abr-Nahrain 15. Melbourne. *Abramo di Kachkar" : Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione. “Babai il grande, vita e scritti" : ibid.

153. "Beth Abe” : ibid. 154. *Meie Isa palve ürgkristluses ja vanas kirikus" (The Lord's Prayer in Primitive Christianity and in the Ancient Church): Eesti Kirik 24. Uppsala. 155. "Asceticism" : Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago-TorontoLondon. 156. "Eastern Christianity : Independent Churches" : ibid. 157. “Aphrém and the School of "Ürhäi” : Ephram-Hunayn Festival, Baghdad. 4-7 February 1974. Baghdad. 158. ‘Discoveries of New Syriac Manuscripts on Hunain ibn Isháq" : ibid. 159. "Die Entdeckung des Briefkorpus des Dawid bar Paulos": Oriens Christianus 58. Wiesbaden. 160. “Die Entdeckung einer neuen Schrift des Mo3é bar Képha über das Priestertum” : Ostkirchliche Studien 23. Würzburg. 161. “Neue handschriftliche Funde für die Biographie des Ja'qob Bürd'ana" : ibid. 162. "Eine unbekannte Biographie des Ja'qób von Serüg" : Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 85. Stuttgart. 1975 163. "La biographie de Philoxéne: tradition des manuscrits syriaques" : Analecta Bollandiana 93. Bruxelles. 164, "Die Entdeckung von zwei Biographien des Severus von Antiochien” : Byzantinische Zeitschrift 68. München. 165. "Figli e figlie del Patto" : Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione. Roma.

166. ‘Giacomo di Edessa, vita e scritti" : ibid. 167. *Máàrkusi Qumrani ja ürgkristluse suhete üle" (Observations on the Relations between Qumran and Primitive Christianity): Elu 13. Toronto Peetri Kogudus. Toronto. 168. "Manuscripts of the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai" : Journal of the American Oriental Society 95. New Haven.

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

409

169. "New Light on the Text of the Canons in the Doctrine of Addai" : Journal of the Syriac Academy 1. Baghdad. 170. “A New Source for the Syro-Roman Law Book": Labeo. Rassegna di diritto romano 21. Napoli. 171. "Usupuhastuse esimesed viljakad ajed eestlaste vaimlisele isetegevusele" (The First Fruitful Impulses of the Reformation for the

Spiritual and Intellectual Activities of the Estonians): Oma Kirik 9. New York. 172. "Ein Zyklus der Verordnungen für die Ausbildung der Novizen im syrischen Mónchtum : Ein kulturhistorisches Dokument. Der syrische

Text

mit

einer

deutschen

Übersetzung":

Oriens

Christianus

59.

Wiesbaden. 173. "Newly Discovered Manuscript Sources for the Genre of Liturgical Commentaries by Mose bar Kepha" : Orientalia Christiana Periodica 41. Roma. 174. "Neue Entdeckungen für die Biographie des Severus von Antiochien von

Johannan von Bet Aphtünaja" : Ostkirchliche Studien 24.

Würzburg. 175. "Découverte d'une lettre de Sévére d'Antioche" : Revue des Études byzantines 33. Paris. 176. "Discovery of New Manuscript Sources for the Book of Hierotheos" : Rivista degli Studi orientali 49. Roma. 177. "Completion of the Project of a Repertory of the Extant Manuscripts of the Literary Heritage (Mémré) by Ja'qob of Serüg" : Yearbook 1975, American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia. 178. "Die Entdeckung wichtiger Urkunden für die syrische Mystik : Jöhannän von Daljata" : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 125. Wiesbaden. 179. “Die Entdeckung des Psalmenkommentars des Dawid bar "Abd al-Karim" : Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 87. Berlin. 1976 180. "Die Entdeckung einzigartiger liturgischer Urkunden: Der Gedáchtnistag des Severus von Antiochien in neuer Beleuchtung" : Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 18. Regensburg. 181. *Giacomo di Nisibe" : Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione. Roma. 182. “Il monastero di Izla" : ibid. 183. "Monachesimo siro: dagli inizi ad oggi, comprese regole siriache” : ibid.

410

WRITINGS OF ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

184. ““Ääremärkusi ihe väga väärtusliku vanakristliku üriku kohta :

Süüria Didaskalia” (Observations on a Very Precious Ancient Christian Document : The Syriac Didascalia): Elu 15. Toronto Peetri Kogudus. Toronto. 185. "Discovery of the Anaphora by Jöhannän of Qartamin": Ephemerides Liturgicae 90. Roma. 186. "New Manuscript Discoveries for the Literary Heritage of Mose bar Képha : The Genre of Theological Writings" : Harvard Theological Review 69. Missoula, Montana. 187. "Important Discoveries for the History of Syrian Mysticism : New Manuscript Sources for Athanasius Abü Ghalib" : Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35. Chicago. 188. "Important Manuscript Discoveries on Iwannis of Dara and His Literary Heritage": Journal of the American Oriental Society 96. New Haven. 189. “The Text of the Canons in the Doctrina Addai" : Journal of the Syriac Academy 2. Baghdad. 190. "Entdeckung des Kommentars über die eucharistische Liturgie von Theodoros bar Wahbün” : Kyrios. Vierteljahresschrift für Kirchenund Geistesgeschichte Osteuropas 15. Berlin. 191. “Découverte de la biographie de Théodote d'Amid par Sem'ón de Samosate" : Le Muséon. Revue d’Etudes orientales 89. Louvain.

192. “Die Entdeckung neuer Urkunden für das liturgiegeschichtliche Schrifttum des Mose bar Kepha" : Oriens Christianus 60. Wiesbaden. 193. "Die Entdeckung der Mémré des Qyriaqos von Antiochien" : Ostkirchliche Studien 25. Würzburg. 194. “Découverte de nouvelles sources de la Didascalie syriaque" : Recherches de Science religieuse 64. Paris. 195. “Découverte d'une nouvelle ceuvre de Grégoire de Chypre" : Revue de l'histoire de la spiritualité 52. Paris. 196. “Discovery of the Biography of Severus of Antioch by Qyriagos of Tagrit" : Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici 23. Roma. 197. “Important Discoveries for the Early Stage of the West Syrian Liturgico-Historical Genre: Lazar bar Sabeta": Sacris Erudiri 22. Steenbrugge. 198. “Syriac Versions of the Bible" : Supplementary Volume to the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville. 199. “Notes on the Chronicle of Balthasar Russow and its Author”: Yearbook of the Estonian Learned Society in America 5. New York.

ARTICLES

IN JOURNALS

411

1977 200. "Discovery of an Unknown Syrian Author: Methodios of Petra" : Abr-Nahrain 17. Melbourne. 201. "Découverte d'un panégyrique sur La'zar d'Harran" : Analecta Bollandiana 95. Bruxelles. 202. “Discovery of an Unknown Syrian Author : Teodota of Amid" : Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 8. Leeds. 203. "The Genre of Evangelical Precepts Arranged by the Syrian Fathers" (in Arabic) : Bayn al-Nahrain 5. Mosul. 204. "Entdeckung einer unbekannten Biographie des Athanasius von Alexandrien : Eine angeblich von Amphilochius von Ikonium verfasste Vita" : Byzantinische Zeitschrift 70. München. 205. “Quennechrin”: Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione. Roma. 206. "Tommaso di Marga, vita e scritti" : ibid. 207. “‘Evangeelse usu osa eestlaste vaimsuse kujundamisel : märkusi vennastekoguduse liikumise táhendusest" (The Role of the Evangelical Faith in the Formation of the Spirituality of the Estonians : Observations on the Importance of the Movement of the Brethren): Eesti Kirik 27. Uppsala. 208. ""Táhtsaid avastusi ürgkristluse tekkimisele : teine emakogudus Galileas" (Important Discoveries Regarding the Origin of Primitive Christianity : The Second Center in Galilee) : ibid. 209. "Uut valgust Jeruusalema ürgkogudusele: viimased arheoloogilised leiud ja nende tähendus” (New Light on the Mother Congregation in Jerusalem : The Latest Archeological Discoveries and Their Importance) : Elu. Toronto Peetri Kogudus. Toronto. 210. “The Acts of the Persian Martyrs”: Encyclopaedia Persica. Teheran. 211. "Entdeckung eines Florilegiums der asketischen und mystischen Schriften im Syrischen" : Festschrift Prof. W. Strothmann. Góttingen. 212. "Ja'qob von Serüg über das byzantinische Theaterwesen in Mesopotamien" : Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 20. Bonn. 213. "Discovery of an Unknown Recension of the Syro-Roman Lawbook" : Labeo. Rassegna di diritto romano 23. Napoli. 214. "Die Entdeckung der áltesten Urkunde für die syrische Übersetzung der apostolischen Kirchenordnung: Neue Quellen für die syrische Version" : Oriens Christianus 61. Wiesbaden. 215. "Important Manuscript Discoveries in the Syrian Orient”: Ile Symposium des Études syriaques, Chantilly 13-17 sept. 1976 — Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Roma.

412

WRITINGS

OF ARTHUR

VÖÖBUS

216. “Important Discoveries for the History of the Monastery of Qartamin : New Light on the Literary Tradition Regarding Its History" : Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 8. Louvain. 217. "Entdeckung einer Sammlung der mónchischen Beratungen : 218. "Discoveries for the Literary Heritage of Abü'l-Ma'ani: Very Important Finds for Syrian Mysticism" : Rivista degli Studi Orientali 51. Roma. 219. *Móningaid ääremärkusi vaimsuse osast Treffoonias" (Marginalia on the Role of Spirituality in the Academia Treffoniana): Treffoonia. New York. 220. "Entdeckung einer neuen Klosterregel über die Zusammenwirkung der klösterlichen Gemeinschaften, verfasst von Jöhannän

von

Marde" : Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 88. Stuttgart.

New Articles Accepted for Publication “Discovery of the mémré by Dawid the Phoenician”: Abr-Nahrain. Melbourne. "Découverte

de

l'histoire

de Jöhannän

de

Barah":

Analecta

Bol-

landiana. Bruxelles. "Découverte de histoire de Selrä de Nisibe" : ibid. "Rules for Christians under 'Aphrém's name" (in Arabic): Bayn al-Nahrain. Mosul. "Discovery of a Treatise about the Ecclesiastical Administration, Ascribed to Michael the Great : A Unique Document in the Literary Genre of Canon Law" : Church History. Chicago. ""Uued arheoloogilised avastused Kapernaumas ja nende tähendus” (New Archeological Discoveries in Capernaum and Their Significance) :

Eesti Kirik. Uppsala. “Discovery of the Anaphora of Mär Ishàq" : Ephemerides Liturgicae. Roma. “The Latin Versions of the Old and New Testament" : International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Grand Rapids. “The Oriental Versions of the Old and New Testament” : ibid.

“In Pursuit of Syriac Manuscripts" : Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago. "Découverte de la biographie de Dada, évéque de Tagrit": Le Muséon. Revue d'Études orientales. Louvain.

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

413

“Entdeckung der Überreste des Kommentars über die Apostelgeschichte verfasst von Dionysios bar Salibi": Oriens Christianus. Wiesbaden. “Entdeckung einer wichtigen Urkunde über die Ausbreitung der westsyrischen Eparchien” : Orientalia Christiana Periodica. Roma. “Discovery of the Biography of Mari of Bét Sahdé": Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. Louvain. "Entdeckung der angeblich von 'Aphrem verfassten Beratungen für die Kopisten”: Ostkirchliche Studien. Würzburg. *Ja'qoób von Serüg. Sein Leben und seine Schriftstellerische Tätigkeit" : Realenzyklopádie für Antike und Christentum. Bonn. “Discovery of an unknown work by Michael the Great: the memrä on Mär Barsaumä”: Rivista degli Studi Orientali. Roma.

“Discovery of an Unknown Syrian Author: Johannan Nagar. Remains of His Ascetic Writings": Vetera Christianorum. Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica. Università degli Studi Bari. Bari. "Entdeckung neuer Menologien: Neue Urkunden für die westsyrische Überlieferung" : Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. Stuttgart. Not included here are declarations in behalf communism, and in the journals, magazines and

the countless articles, letters, protests and of the suffering part of mankind under service of preserving freedom, published in newspapers, as well as separate publications.

GENERAL

'Abdiso

(Ebedjesu)

13th C. 42f, 45, Abgar, Ist Abraham, Abraham, Abraham, Plate 12 Abraham

bar

Berika

of Soba,

East Syrian author 29f, 40, 286, Plate 13 C. king of Edessa 402 4th C. bishop of Nisibis 240 Abba, desert ascetic 187f Mar, 6th C. East Syrian ascetic de-Bet

Rabban,

5-6th C. East

Syrian author 404 Abraham of Kaskar, 6th C.

East Syrian

monastery founder 408 Abu'l-Ma'ani, 15th C. West Syrian mystic 412 Acacian Schism, between Constantinople and Rome, 5-6th C.

298

Achlamu, ancient nation in Mesopotamia 97 Addai and Mari, apostles of the East 4], 290, 293 Adiabene, in northern Iraq 47f Aegean region 98, 102, 108 Aelfric, 11-12th C. author 389 Aelian, Greek historian

352

INDEX

Amida, in eastern Turkey Plate 19

Amoraim (see Jews) (Pseudo-) Amphilochius of Iconium, 4th C.

author 402, 411 Ananites, Jewish sect 267 Anastasius, 6th C. bishop of Antioch 302-306 Anastasius the Sinaite, 7th C. abbot 221, 224, 226 Anatolia, in Turkey 367f, 371 Ancyra, in Galatia (Turkey) 44, 289 Andrew, apostie

344

Andrew, 6th C. Bessian abbot 350 177 Andrew, 6th C. controversialist Androtion, atthidographer 352 Anhel, in eastern Turkey

Anthony, 6th C. tritheist

Anthony

Ain-Zirara (see Churches) Akkadia, Akkadian, ancient nation 97 f,108

Aphrahat, 4th C. author

12th C. sect in France

317

Algo§, in northern Plate 12

Iraq

41, 43, 46, 286,

Ambrose, 4th C. bishop of Milan 312

205,

West

Syrian

69

Antioch, in 277-282, 325-328, Antoninus 350

Alexander, 4-5th C. ascetic 391 Alexandria 49, 68, 181, 211-233, 277-282, 297, 358-364, 373

281

of Tagrit, 9th C.

Africa, North 102, 108, 226, 344, 349f, 354, 367 Agapetus, 6th C. bishopof Rome 298, 306 Agathapodis, 2nd C. author 389 Aha, Mar, 5th C. ascetic 393

Albigenses,

397

Anthimus, 6th C. bishop of Constantinople 55, 297-299 M, Anthony, 3rd-4th C. Egyptian monk 32f

author

Albans, Caucasian tribe 337f Albert, 13th C. bishop of Livonia (Riga) 404

265, 287, 360,

Syria 44, 47, 55, 61, 226, 230, 285, 287, 296-298, 313, 318, 357-364, 373 of Piacenza, 6th C. traveler 89, 93-95,

109-

131, 153-158, 191-202, 204f, 286, 292f, 317, 319, 322, 389, 402f "Aphrem (sce Ephrem) Apion, 2nd C. exegete, anti-Gnostic 224 Apollinaris, Apollinarianism, 4th C. author and sect

279, 358

Apollinaris, 6th C. bishop of Alexandria 363 Apologists, early theologians 177-183, 185 Apostolic Fathers, 2nd 179, 185, 193, 387

C.

theologians

416

GENERAL

INDEX

Apostolos, NT books following the gospels 10, 405

Azerbaijan

Arabia, Arabs, Arabic

Baba

98,

102,

105-108,

159-165, 217f, 319, 324, 365, 367, 369372, 392f, Plates 22, 24 Arameans, Aramaic, Semitic tribe & language 97-106, 108, 120, 159-166, 207, 306,

365,

Syriac:

371,

399,

Plate

East Aramaic,

9 (sec

and

Palestinian:

West Aramaic) Arbela (Erbil), in Adiabene Plate 6 Architecture (see Art)

Arianism, 4th C. sect

also

(Iraq)

47f,

of

337, 371

Harran,

pre-Christian

Babai

the

author Babylon,

Great,

6-7th

C.

East

Syrian

408 Babylonian

97,

113,

133,

194,

202, 208 Baghdad, in Iraq 35, 329, 362, 371, Plate 13 Balkan region 98, 108, 337-355 Baptism (see Church Life) Bar Bahlul, Hassan, 10th C.

280f, 288, 365

author

408

author

East

Syrian

43, 267, 275

Aristo of Pella, 2nd C. apologist 292 Aristotle, Greek philosopher 169, 282,

Bar Hatim, cited by Bar Bahlul 275 Bar Hebraeus, Gregory (Bar 'Ebraya), 13th C. West Syrian author 25, 27, 38-43,

Plate 23 Armenia, Armenian

52, 66f, 157, 267, 290, 320f, 323, 370f Bar Mari, Rabbah, Talmudic figure 155

Aristides, 2nd C. apologist

182f

50, 52, 103, 185-190,

236, 337f. 350f, 366-368, 373, 390, 392, 399 Arsenius, ascetic 188 Art and Architecture

Architecture Catacombs

320, 323f, 347f

Barbara, early martyr

118f

Chair, Episcopal

324-328

Mortuary

Bartholomew, apostle 218 Basil, 4th C. bishop of Caesarea

333-336 chamber

(Bet

Qadise)

321,

324

Asia, Central

180f

103, 367

Assyria, Assyrians, 102, 126, 213f

ancient

nation

401

Basilios bar-Com, Behiso of Kmol,

Asceticism (see Church Life & Cult)

97f,

31, 177,

224, 402 (Pseudo-) Basil

Asclepius, Greek god, healer

332f, 336

Bardaisan (Bardesanes), 3rd C. author 65, 170, 172, 208, 365 Barsauma, Sth C. bishop of Nisibis 391

Cup, Podgoritza 118 Frescoes, Paintings 106, 406 Iconography 109, 120, 324-328

Martyrium

Bar Salibi (see Dionysius bar Salibi) Bar Wahbun (see Theodore bar Wahbun) Baradaeus (Burd'ana), Jacob (see Jacob Baradaeus) Barakat, Abu'l, 14th C. author 389

15th C. maphrian 38 Mar, ascetical author

46 Beirut, in Lebanon

Plate 2]

Ben Tagla. Book of, Jewish writing

86

Astronomy (see Cultural Life)

Benai & Benat Qeyama (Sons and daughters

Athanasius, 4th C. bishop of Alexandria 177, 278, 285, 312, 317, 358, 363, 387f,

of the Covenant) 126, 402, 408 Benedict of Nursia, 6th C. monastery

411 Athanasius Abu Ghalib, 12th Syrian author 410 Atonement (see Doctrine)

founder 188f Benjamin, 5th C. abbot 320f Bessians (Thracians) 342f, 346f, 350-353,

C.

West

Augustine, 4-5th C. bishop of Hippo 175, 205f, 266. 313, 316. 354f, 380

169,

Augustus (Octavius), peror 343

em-

Ist C.

Roman

355 Bet Abe, in Iraq Bet Batin, in Syria

408 283

Bilad as-Sa'm, Arab name of region from Palestine & Syria to Iraq

365

GENERAL

Black Sea region

98, 340, 340, 343

Blathmac, 8th C. Irish poet 131 Boskoi, group of Syrian ascetics 374 Buddhists 371 Burd'ana

(see Jacob Baradaeus)

Byzantine Empire, Church

294-307, 357.

366, 373, 411 Callinicus,

in

Euphrates

province

(Iraq)

305f Cambyses, Persian emperor

Canaanites, Semitic tribe Candidus,

224 Canons,

2nd

C.

97

86, 102

exegete,

ecclesiastical

Cultural Life) Capernaum, in Galilee

anti-Gnostic

legislation

(see

252, 412

Cappadocians, 4th C. theologians 278 Carpocratianism, 2nd C. Gnostic sect 182

Caucasia, Caucasus

Church Life and Cult Anointing, Chrism, Signing 186, 238, 244, 313, 318, 329f ‘Agedah (sacrifice of Isaac) 130 Asceticism, Monasticism, Spirituality 45f, 107, 156, 185-190, 194, 208, 215, 298, 391, 393, 398-403, 405f, 408f, 411-413 (see also Celibacy, Commemoration, Fasting, Mysticism)

Baptism, Washing (Jewish & Christian) 114, 225, 230f, 235-246, 249-263, 291 f, 309-318, 329-332, 392, 399 Breviary (East Syrian) 330, 332-336, 375-377 Canons (see Cultural Life: Legislative; Post-biblical Writings: Synodicon) Catechization 229-233, 258-263, 311f, 316 Celibacy, Virginity 9, 392, 401, 408 Church, Church Life 397-399, 403f, 412

Carthage, in Africa 102, 380 Caspian region 98, 338

Circumcision 85-88, 309, 311 Commemoration, Martyr Procession, Funeral ritual, Menology 331-335, 361, 373, Plates 6, 11, 19 (see also

97f, 108, 337, 371

Celsus, 2nd C. pagan author Celts, western European race

417

INDEX

170 354

Chalcedon, in Bithynia (Turkey) 284. 288-292, 294, 300, 357, 360-364, 366 Chaldean (Nestorian, East Syrian) Christians 329-336, 372, Plate 12 Charfeh (see Sarfeh)

Confirmation 331 Consecration of Patriarchs 326 Creed, Early Christian 288, 292, 400, 407 (for later creeds, see various cities)

Charlemagne, Holy Roman emperor

Deaconesses

131

Eucharist

47, 110, 11 5f, 124, 173, 218,

227-233 Jewish 47,94, 104f, 109-130, 204, 207209, 211-233, 292-294, 311-313, 398 Palestinian

Plate 9 Primitive

94, 104, 208, 211, 398, 411 f,

101, 398-400, 402-406,

408,

411f

Christological Controversies 51f, 59f, 182f, 297-307, 357-364, 366f Anti-Judaistic 169-175, 191-202, 207f, 218 Christology 100, 241, 244, 246, 287, 291293 (see also Jesus, Doctrine) Chrysostom (see John Chrysostom)

313

Ethos and Ethic

China 367 Christianity, Early Hellenistic

Lectionary, Liturgical Year)

41,

391, 398, 402, 404, 411 101, 235-246,

311,

318,

331-336, 375, 378, 399, 402, 410, 412 Exorcism 117, 120, 124, 126, 249-263, 317 Fasting 373-378 Hymns, Anthems 44, 125-129, 131, 155, 171f, 175, 197, 235-246, 293, 330f, 333-336, 351, 375, 377 Lectionary

(see Literary Forms)

Liturgical Year Plates 11, ration)

44, 60f, 332, 335f, 373, 19 (see

also

Commemo-

Liturgy, Rites 40-46, SIf, 60, 63, 100, 109, 116-119, 123f, 126, 235-246, 284, 290, 293, 329-336, 373-378, 394, 405, 409f,

Plates

5-6,

18-19

(see

also

418

GENERAL

Clement I, 1st C. bishop of Rome 119, 225

Baptism, Eucharist, etc.) Aramaic 87 Byzantine 100, 131, 305

(Pseudo-) Clement Writings)

Early Christian 405 Jewish 109, 116f Pagan

109

Syriac 38, 40-46, 63, 117, 119, 235, 240, 284, 329-336, 374-378, 409 f Mariology (see Mary, Virgin) Mission, Evangelization, Conversion 48, 105f, 217f, 311, 338-340, 344-350, 352-355, 365-371, 405 (see also Proselytism) Monasticism

Mysticism

(see Asceticism)

203,

:207f,

INDEX

377,

— Post-biblical

Clement of Alexandria, 3rd C. theologian 174, 211-215, 217-233 Coelesyria, region south of Antioch 213f Commentaries, Biblical 38f, 63-71 on

Old

Testament

38,

93,

198,

Octateuch and Kings 58 Genesis 32, 64-67, 69, 173. 223-226, 400 Job

192, 221,

90-95

121-123

Plates 15-16 (see also Asceticism) Novitiate 231, 406

Psalter Sirach

Persecution 50, 52, 111-114, 125, 127f, 179, 286, 298, 305, 345, 371, 394, 396, 400 Prayer 111, 116-118, 123, 329f, 333f, 375-378, 408 Proselytism, Initiation 309-318 (see al-

Prophets Plate 13 Four Gospels 69 Matthew 69, 266, 268, 270, 407 Luke 64, 395, 406, Plates 9, 20

Purity Laws, Jewish

Washing

133-152

Churches in Ain-Zirara, Numidia

327f

339, 348, 354

in the Tur-Abdin

323

ofthe Forty Martyrs, Mardin

of Semon Safe, Mosul

Plate 9

46 328 327f

Cicero, Roman Claudios author

author

Ptolemaios, 67

361, 391, Plate 21 Constantinople 44,

280,

288-292,

295-

307, 339, 348, 350, 354, 357-360,

362-

364 (see also Byzantine)

of Mar Jaqob of Serug, Diyarbakir;

Midyat; Tel

of the

Keph

(see

Copts, Coptic 3-12, 231, 350, 366f, 392 (see also Egypt, Ethiopia, Monophysites) Councils, Synods (see various cities) Cult (see Church Life) Cultural Life and Sciences

169 Greek

211,

227f Communism, Russian 392f,396f, 403, 406 Conon, 6th C. tritheist 278 281 Constantine, Roman emperor 181, 317,

Church

Sacred Heart, Manuscripts)

128,

73-82

Commodus, 2nd C. Roman emperor

346-348

Smuni,

Diatessaron

Liturgical 409f "Paradise" 64-66

in Constantinople

of Mart

the

on (Pseudo-) Dionysius

(see Baptism)

of St. Peter, Vatican of St. Mark, Venice

on

207, 236, 2661, 292

235-246

in Arabia 106 in the Balkans

68, 174

Apostolos (NT books following gospels)

Commentaries

326f, 336

Sacraments

John

39, 63, 69, 409 157f

405, 472 Hebrews 227

so Baptism, Mission)

Relics

407,

Plate 8

Exodus

409-412,

(see

44, 51,

Astrology scientific

67

Astronomy

Botany

65, 67, 370

66, 341

GENERAL

Cosmography Drama

67

Daniel al-Qumisi, 9th C. Qaraite 198f Daniel of Salah, 6th C. West Syrian author

41]

Grammar, Lexicography 38, 40. 43, 341, 370 Historical Records, Biography 391, 393, 402, 405f, 408-413, Plates 6, 1113,

17,

19

(see

Literary

Forms:

Chronicle) Legislative Sources, Canons, Synodica Early Christian 48, 283f, 288, 398, 407, 409-411, Plate 5 Greek, Byzantine 289, 295-307, 406 Islamic 396, Plate 22 Syrian 391, 393, 401, 404-407, 409, 411 (see Post-biblical Writings) Syro-Roman

Lawbook

(see

Post-

biblical Writings) Literature, Syriac 38, 40f, 370, 396f, 400, 403f, 406f, Plates I, 11, 17 Mathematics 370 Medicine 341, 370, Plates 13, 24 Meteorology 65, 67 Philosophy 39, 42, 51, 63-65, 169-175, 217, 220f, 224-226, 228-230, 232f, 242, 278-281, 349, 358-364, 370, Plate 23 Physics 65 Zoology 64f Cyprian of Antioch, legendary magician and martyr 117, 119 Cyriacus, early martyr 121f Cyril, 5th C. bishop of Alexandria 44, 51, 57f, 68, 117, 170, 193, 279, 288, 294, 358f, 395, Plate 20 Cyril, 4th C. bishop of Jerusalem 388 Cyril of Scythopolis, 6th C. author 351 Cyrus, Persian emperor

419

INDEX

97

39, 63 Daniel of Tella, Syrian author, age known 39 Darius I, Persian emperor 98 Dawid

bar Abd

al-Karim,

Syrian author 409 Dawid bar Paulos, 8th author 408

C.

15th C. West

Dawid

the Phoenician, 15th Syrian author 412 Dayyenu, Jewish Passover song

not

West Syrian

C.

West

129

191Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran writings 202, 401 Decius, 6th C. bishop of Milan 362f Diadochus of Photice, 5th C. bishop, ascetic 204 Diatessaron; Didache;

Didascalia

(see

Post-biblical Writings) Didymus the Blind, 4th C. author 300f Dio Cassius, 3rd C. Greek historian 181

Diocletian, 3rd-4th C. Roman emperor 114 Diodore of Tarsus, 4th C. theologian 30, 361 Diognetus, Epistle to (see Post-biblical Writings)

Dionysios

of Teli

Syrian author

Dionysius,

Mahre,

8th

C.

West

403

3rd C. bishop of Alexandria

217

Dionysius, 2nd C. bishop of Corinth 179 Dionysius bar Salibi, 12th C. West Syrian author 25, 38, 51f, 64, 66-71, 157, 265270, 290, 405, 407, 412, Plate 8 (Pseudo-) Dionysius the Areopagite, 5th C.

Dacia, Dacians

(see Balkan)

Dada, 4-5th C. bishop of Tagrit 412 Dadiso, 6th C. East Syrian monastery founder Plate 12 Dadi3o Qatraya, 8th C. East Syrian author

13, 30f Damascus, inSyria 320, 328, Plates 10-11, 14, 20-21, 24 Damian, 6th C. bishop of Alexandria 277-282 Dana, 5th C. missionary 338

theologian 5], 73-82, 179 Dionysus, Greek god 342f Dioscorides Pedanius, Ist C. physician 341 Dioscorus, 5th C. bishop of Alexandria 358, 360 Doctrine

See Albigenses,

Apollinarians,

Arians, Carpocratians, Christology, Christological controversies, Church Life, Creed, Donatists, Ebionites, Elkesaites, Encratites, Essenes, Euty-

420

GENERAL

INDEX

chians, Gnostics, Hermogenes, Jews, Manicheans, ^ Marcion, Mariology, Monophysites, Montanists, Muslims,

Eugene

Mystery cults, Nestorians, Origenists, Priscillian, Qaraites, Qumran, Refor-

Eunomius, 4th C. Arian

mation, Sabellians, Shiites, Simonians, Sufis, Sunnites, Three Chapters, Trent, Trinity, Trinitarian controversies, Tritheists; see also various cities where 316, 355

47,93, 208,

286, 362, 392, Plate 5 Egypt 3, 11, 48, 91, 93, 98, 101-103, 105, 108, 117, 120, 127f, 190, 207, 213, 218, 227, 229f, 278f, 281, 297, 323, 348, 366f, 371 Elias, 6th C. bishop 28 Elkesai, Elkesaites, 1st-2nd C. sect 182, 208 94, 206, 318

Enoch, Sth C. missionary Ephesus,

300, 305f, 357, 359f Ephrem of Amida, 6th Antioch

Ephrem

338

in Asia (Turkey)

44,

C.

178, 280,

bishop

of

360f

of

Nisibis,

"The

"Aphrem), 4th C, author

Syrian"

(=

38f, 44f, 51,

64, 71, 89-95, 110, 112, 114, 116, 124-130, 153-155, 158, 169-175, 204, 207f, 211, 235-246, 292f, 321, 323, 3771, 389f, 391, 393, 400f, 408, 412f Epictetus, Roman philosopher 180 Epiphanius, 4th C. author 42, 265-268, 387 Erbil

(see Arbela)

Eriwan, in Armenia Essenes, Jewish sect 271, 275, 310 Estonia 412

278

279

Eusebius, 4th C. bishop historian 177-183, 204f, 223f, 227 f, 232, 267, 274, 387, 390 Eusebius of Thessalonica,

of Caesarea, 212-217, 219, 326, 344, 384, 6th C. author

Eutychians, 5th C. Monophysites Evagrius Ponticus, 4th C. ascetic Plate 16

406

218, 227, 267

Edessa, in Osrhoene (Turkey)

Encratites, 2nd C. sect

monastery

358

Eustathius, 6th C. monk 59f Eustochius, 6th C. bishop 304

Dura Europos, in Mesopotamia

Ebionites, early sect

legendary

177 Eustathius of Antioch, 4th C. bishop

creeds were produced

Donatists, 4th C. African sect Drosis, early martyr 60 Druzes, Muslim sect 368

(Awgin).

founder 320 Eugenius, 6th C. Monophysite bishop

103 93, 191, 265, 267, 269-

394-397, 399f, 402, 404-406, 409-

Ethiopia, Ethiopic 131, 159, 162f, 366f, 399 Eucharist (sce Church Life)

Evagrius Scholasticus, 305, 360, 362

6th

C.

360 31, 301,

historian

Evangelicus, 3rd C. bishop 345 Exegesis (see also Commentaries)

Greek 68, 192 Jewish 89-95, 193-202, 221 Jewish Christian 215, 217, 222f Syrian 38f, 64-71, 89-95, 153-158, 192202 Exorcism

(see Church Life)

Facundus

of

Hermiane,

6th

C.

author

362f Felix the Manichean, 4th C.

206f

Galilee 99, 411 Galileans, Jewish sect 266f Gannat Bussame, a commentary pericopes 158, 408 Gangra, in Paphlagonia (Turkey)

44, 289

Gemellinos, Letter to 403 George (Giwargi), 8th C. “Bishop of the Arabs" 65, 67, 155, 367, 406f George, 8th C. patriarch 367, Plate 10 George of Arbela, 10th C. East Syrian author 374f Georgia, Georgian, in Caucasus region 103, 351, 392 Ghassanids, Christian Arab tribe 367 Giwargi (see George) Giwargi of Be'eltan, 8th C. West Syrian author 69 Gnostics, early sect

170, 182f, 231, 318

God

129f,

112,

114-116,

163-165,

170-

GENERAL

421

INDEX

175, 186-190, 224-226, 237f, 241-243, 246, 257-262 (see also Trinity, Trinitarian

Hexapla, Origen's biblical work biblical Writings)

controversy)

Hierotheos,

Greece, Greek 99-102, 104, 169, 180, 213f, 315, 342, 350, 354, 367f (see also Byzantine, Versions)

Gregory I, 6th C. bishop of Rome 305, 389 Gregory of Cyprus, 4th C. ascetical author 410 Gregory of Nazianzus, “The Theologian”, 4th C. Cappadocian 44, 58, 119, 277 Gregory of Nyssa, 4th C. Cappadocian theologian 279, 348 Gregory the Illuminator, 3rd C. catholicos of Armenia 373 Hadrian, 2nd C. Romanemperor 177-183 Hammurabi, Babylonian lawgiver, king 97 "Hapionites", Jewish sect 267 Harkel, Thomas of (see Thomas Harkel)

of

epic

44 207

Hellenianoi, Jewish sect 266 Hemerobaptists, Jewish sect 265-267, 271, 274f Heraclitus, Greek philosopher 242 Heraclius, 7th C. Byzantine emperor 303, 307 Herculaneum, in Italy 406 Hermas, 2nd C. Apostolic father 174, 388, 390 Hermetica, Gnostic mystical literature 109 Hermogenes, 2nd C. Gnostic 174, 212f Herodians, Jewish sect 265, 267, 269, 271, 276f Herodotus, Greek historian 340, 342f, 352 Herrnhuters (Moravian Brethren) 405, Hesychius, lexicographer

341

Post-biblical

Hormisdas, 6th C. bishop of Rome Hunain

ibn

Ishaq,

9th

C.

East

scholar 67, 211, 370, 408 Huns, Asiatic migrating tribe Hyrcanus, John, Jewish ruler

297f Syrian

338, 352 310

Ibas, Sth C. bishop of Edessa Ibn Ezra, Jewish exegete 197

301, 362f 218

Idumeans, tribe in Palestine 310 Ignatius, 2nd C. bishop of Antioch 318, 354, 389 Ignatius Joseph bar Wahib, 14th C. West Syrian patriarch 50 371

India 35, 37, 45f, 96, 105, 108, 217f, 340, 349f, 353, 367 Inscriptions Greek, Thracian 180f, 316, 341-343, 347, 352f Latin 118, 341, 343, 353 Semitic (Aramaic, Mandaic, Syriac), 50,

97, 102f, 161-163, 266, 323 Iran, Iranian

Iraq

97, 371 (see also Persia)

35, 40, 42f, 46, 48, 108, 336, 365f,

368, 370f (see also Mesopotamia)

Irenaeus, 2nd C. bishop of Lyons 177, 182, 221, 226, 354, 387 Isaac, 5th C. catholicos

174,

287

Isaiah, Abba, Sth C. ascetic

Ishaq of Nineveh, 7th C. mystic

13, 31 f, 406

377, 407,

Plate 16

Ishaq, Mar, liturgical writer, era unknown 412

Islam

411

(see

Homilies, Homiliaries (see Sermons) Homs (= Emesa), in Syria 53, 320

Ilkhans, tribe in Persia 266f, 274

Helena, mother of Constantine Heliand, 9th C. Old Saxon

of

Writings) Hillel, 1st C. rabbi 310-312 Hindus 349f Hippolytus, 3rd C. author 49, 181, 230f, 268f, 311-313, 316 Hittites, ancient nation 105 Homer, Greek poet 341f

Ibn Qutaiba, Arab Bible translator

Hatra, in Iraq 161 Hazgiel, Mar, 7th-8th C. ascetic Plate 12 Hebrew language 88, 98f, 139-152, 159166. 193-201 Hegesippus, 2nd C. author

Book

(see Post-

(see Muslims)

Ismailis, Muslim sect

368

422 IS

GENERAL

bar

Kirun,

author

407

13-14th

C.

West

Syrian

Isodad of Merv, 9th C. East Syrian exegete 25, 157, 267, 270 Isodenah, 9th Plate 12

C.,

East

Syrian

historian

Itoyahb IH, 7th C. East Syrian catholicospatriarch 41 Istanbul 53, 397, Plate 1 (see also Constantinople, Byzantine) Iwannis (= John) of Dara, 9th C. West Syrian author

290, 410, Plate 17

Jacob Burd'ana (= bishop of Edessa

Baradaeus), 6th 278, 366, 408

C.

Jacob (or James) of Edessa, 7th C. West Syrian author 21,39, 51 55f, 61f, 64f,

67, 284f, 289-291, 293, 405, 408, 412 Jacob of Nisibis, 4th C. bishop 373, 409 Jacob of Serug, 5-6th C. West Syrian author 39, 44f, 57, 64, 71, 395, 397, 407-409, 411, 413, Plate 14 Jacobites (see Syrian Orthodox, West Syrians, Monophysites) 285, 294, 319,

322, 324, 366-372 Ja'qob

Jerome

(=

author 314, 338, Jerusalem 230, 253,

Hieronymus),

Johannan author Johannan Johannan ascetic Johannan

4th C.

West

Syrian

bar Butahi, West Syrian liturgical Plate 18 ben Zakkai, Ist C. rabbi 249 of Barah, 6-7th C. West Syrian 412 of Bet Aphtunaya, 6th C. West 409

Johannan of Dalyata (= Saba), 6th C. East

Roman

Syrian mystical author 409, Plate 15 Johannan of Mardin, 12th C. West Syrian ecclesiastical

reformer

52,

319,

322,

Johannan of Qartamin, !5th C. Syrian bishop, liturgical author

West 410,

403, 405f, 412, Plate 19

Plate 18

411

Jesu, Rabban, 12th C. West Syrian author 51 Jesus of Nazareth, Christ 31, 114, 119121, 124f, 128, 169f, 179-182, 205, 235246, 250-261, 271, 276, 375-377, 399-404, 406 (see also Atonement, Christology, Christological controversies, Trinity)

Hellenistic Palestinian

Johannan (= John) Nagar, ascetical author 413

into

of Bible

85, 104, 195, 204, 214f, 219, 347, 380f, 384. 388f. Plate 13 39, 101f, 117, 122, 195f, 201, 276, 298, 326, 350f, 368, 388,

Jews, Judaism 152, 398 Alexandrian Babylonian

Rabbinical thought and scholarship (influencing Christian thought) Amoraim 137, 155 Haggada 47, 93, 111, 130, 258, 261 Halacha 47, 200, 312 Midrash 86f, 89-95, 104, 112, 120, 122, 156, 162, 194f, 222, 230, 233, 257f, 260 Mishna 116, 133-152, 191, 194f, 197, 249-255, 257f, 260f, 310f, 314-316 Talmud 104, 124, 133-152, 155, 194, 249f, 309-311, 314-316 Tannaim 135, 137 Targums 88-95, 130, 195, 197, 393, 400 Torah 105, 199, 250f, 254-257, 260, 311, 315, 317

Syrian author

(see Jacob)

Jeremiah, 6th C. translator Albanian 338

INDEX

44, 98-100,

109-119,

220-225, 229, 231f 133, 194-196, 198-202 116, 124 94f, 218

133-

John

IV,

6th

C.

bishop

of

Alexandria

303f, 306 John ΠῚ, 6th C. bishop of Constantinople (= John Malalas, John of Sermin, Scholasticus) 303-305 John, 6th C. bishop of Ephesus 303, 305f John IV, 6th C. bishop of Jerusalem

303f,

306 John III, 6th C. bishop of Rome 306

303f,

John Ascotzanges, 6th C. tritheist

278

John Chrysostom, 4th C. presbyter of Antioch, then bishop of (5th C.) Constan-

GENERAL

tinople 31, 39, 68, 100, 177, 198, 202, 204, 313f, 323, 337, 348-350, 353, 380. John

Comentiolos,

patrician

6th

C.

Byzantine

305

John Malalas

nople) John Moschus, 6-7th C. monk

John Philoponus, 280f

6th

John

Ilth C.

patriarch Sif John of Damascus,

C.

351

tritheist

West

8th

C.

278,

Syrian

Byzantine

author 266 John of Dara (See Iwannis)

John the Dwarf, ascetic 186 Josephus, Jewish historian 178, 249, 265-

274, 310 Joseppos, obscure author 267

Joshua son of Jehozadak, Sadducee 273

123,

Judeans, Jewish sect 267 Judah the Patriarch, traditional Mishna editor 136 Judas Maccabeus, Jewish leader 111,114, 118, 124 Julian of Halicarnassus, 6th C. radical

Monophysite 297, 360 Julian the Arian, exegete 121-123 Julianos Saba, 4th C. ascetic

Julitta, early martyr 121 Justin I, 6th C. Byzantine emperor Justin II, 6th C. emperor

299

295, 303-306

Justin Martyr, 2nd C. apologist 169f, 175, 181, 183, 221, 226, 230, 255, 266, 292, 311f Justinian, 6th C. emperor 55, 62, 298303, 305, 357, 361-363, Plate 21 (see Qaraites) (see Qardusat)

Kepharnabu, in Syria Kerala (=

Plate 10

Malabar, India)

Keret, Oriental epic figure

320-322,

338 (see also Cultural

Life: Historical) Diptychs Plate 6 Festal Tractates (Turgame)

35f, 39-43

163f

Koran (see Post-biblical Writings) Koriun, 5th C. Armenian author 338

63

Florilegia 51, 60, 177, 411 Hagiographa, Menologia 38, 321, 381, 413, Plates 11, 19 Lectionaries 26, 38, 40, 158, 322, Plates 56 Letters 39f, 42, 51, 59, 203f, 391, 403, 408f Martyrologies 326 Memre 30, 39, 44f, 62, 65, 406f, 409f, 413, Plate 14

Monastic

Counsels

— (Su'ale-punaye)

402f, 412 Panegyric 125, 319, 402, 406, 411 (see also Church Life: Hymns, Jews,

Manuscripts,

236, 242

Syrian

ascetic 411 Lebanon 52f, 102, 368 Leo I, 5th C. bishop of Rome 360 Leontius of Byzantium, 6th C. theologian 361 Levites, Jewish sect 267 Linus, Greek poet 342 Literary Forms Chronicle 182, 267, 270, 277, 282, 295307,

John of Mosul, 13th C. East Syrian author 158 John of Salisbury, 12th C. English bishop 389

Karaites Kardusat

Laodicea, in Phrygia (Turkey) 44 Lazarus bar Sabeta, 8-9th C. West Syrian author 410 Lazarus of Harran, 5-6th C. West

(see John III of Constanti-

bar Susan,

423

INDEX

Rhetorical

Forms,

Sermons & Homilies) Liturgy (see Church Life)

Ludolph of Saxony, medieval author 206 Lycaonians, nation in Asia Minor

Lydia, ancient nation

204, 354

97

Mabbug (= Hierapolis), in Euphrates province 289 (Pseudo-) Macarius, 4th C. Syrian ascetical

author 119, 203-209, 392 Macarius, patriarch 304 Macarius Magnus, 4-5th C. apologist 346 Maccabees, Jewish leaders 275 Macedonia 98 Magna Graecia, southern Italy 213f Maimonides, Moses, medieval Jewish philosopher 140, 142

424

GENERAL

INDEX

Malabar Christians, East Syrians in India 35-46, 373, 375

Midyat

Malayalam, language in India 35, 38, 40 Mamelukes, sultanate in Egypt 371 Mandaic Inscriptions (see Inscriptions) Mani, Manicheans, 3rd C. religious movement 170-172, 175, 206-208, 317, 400

"Mississippi Codex”

19f, 27, 396, Plate 2

Milan (Ambrosian) Montserrat Naples 10

Near

East

26, 153, 270, 284

ὁ

50-52, 54

libraries

52-54,

286,

295,

321-323 (see also Plates)

Manuscripts— Language Armenian 185-190 Coptic 3-12 Syriac Plates 1-24 ; editing of 13-18 (see also Location, Contents) Western biblical Mss 389

Nijmegen 54 New York 5,9 Oxford 10, 36 Paris 10, 32. 36, 47. 52, 65, 67, 283-289, 321f Seert 286

Manuscripts— Location

Tel Keph (near Mosul)

157,

Plate 6

Anhel 397 Baghdad 65, 329, Plate 13

Vatican/Rome 32, 36, 53, 56, 58, 69, 73-82, 158, 284, 286, 289, 332.336 (Plate 5)

Barcelona

Venice (Marcianus)

Algo

Berlin

Plate 12

6

6, 56, 58, 66, 158, 279

Birmingham

(Mingana)

65f, 265, 271,

275 3, 36, 52, 68

St. Catherine, Sinai

10

Apocryphal 44, 51, 153, 403, Plate 1 Ascetical, Spiritual, Mystical 29-34, 40,

295, 408

Cologne 206 Damascus 53, 57, 68, 319, Plates 10, 21, 24 Diyarbakir 322, Plates 5, 19 Dublin (Beatty)

6

206, 389

Geneva (Bodmer)

Harvard

Collection

Manuscripts, Syriac— Contents

87

Cambridge

32

10

Sir H. Thompson

Brooklyn

Fulda

Vienna 10 Washington

46, 216, 393, 395, 397, 400f, 405-412, Plates 12, 14-16

Biblical 38-40, 42f, 321 f, 392-396, 398f, 401, 403, 405-407, Plates 1-5, 7 (sec also Post-biblical Writings: Syrohexa-

pla) Commentaries, Exegetical 63-71, 73-82, 89-95, 157, 389, 395, 404f, 407, 409,

6, 390

21-26, 68, 265, 332-336

Homs 53 Istanbul 53, 397, Plate 4 Jerusalem 21, 39, Plates 3 (11) Kerala 36-46 Leyden 49f London (incl Curetonian and

Plates 8-9, 20

Florilegia 51 Lexical, Grammatical 38, 40, 43 Hagiographical 38, 42, 45, 51, 60, 392, Plates 11-12, 19 Sinai

Syriac) 10, 20, 26, 36, 52, 56f, 61, 65, 67-69, 73-82, 153, 204f, 268-270, 279, 284f, 289f, 295-307, 402 (Plates 6, 23) Mardin 22,38, 52f, 65, 323, Plates 7-9, 15, 17-18, 22-23 Mar Behnam (near Mosul)

Plate 1

Mar Hananya (Deir Za'faran) 319, 321-323, 397, Plates 11, 14, 18, 20 Mar Mattai (Maqlub)

38, Plate 16

Historical, Biographical 38, 40, 42f, 45, 295-307, 391, 393, 396, 402, 405413, Plates 1,6, 11-13, 17, 19 Homiletical

39, 43f, 55-62,

Plates

14,

20 Lectionaries

21, 40, 42, 158, 407f, Plate

6

Legislative, 45, 50f, 403-407, Liturgical

Canons, Synodica 40, 43283-294, 295-307, 393-396, 409-412, Plates 10, 21-22 21-23, 26, 38-46, 41-43, 46,

GENERAL

51f, 60f, 290, 329-336, 408-410, 412, Plates 11, 18-19 Medical Plate 24 Philosophical Plate 23 Theological-doctrinal

265f,

279,

38

395-397,

41 f, 44, SIf,

406f,

Plate 17 Miscellany 44-46, SIf Manuscripts, production

409-412,

413

170, 226

Mardin, in eastern Turkey 45, 50, 319 (see also Churches, Manuscripts, Mon-

Metaphrastes, Simeon

(see Simeon)

Methodius, early martyr

177

Methodius of Petra, 11th C. West

author

Mari of Bet Sahde, 6th C. ascetic 413 Mariology (see Mary, Virgin) Marius Maximus, Roman historian 181 Mark the Hermit, 5th C. ascetic 31 Maronites, subdivision of Syrian Christians 32, 53, 368

C. West Syrian patriarch 51, 227, 265, 267, 270, 277, 282, 305f, 319, 321f, 370, 406, 412f Midyat,

in eastern

Turkey

(see

(see Church Life)

Mashtotz (see Mesrop) Mathematics (see Cultural Life)

(see Church Life)

Monasteries

of Simeon the Stylite, near Aleppo 298 ofthe Antonines, Alexandria 281, Plate 7 of Rabban

Hormizd, Algo3

at Constantinople at Izla, Iraq 409

of St. Mark, Jerusalem

21, 39, Plates 3,

1

of Mar Behiso, Kmol 46 of Mar Mattai, Maqlub near 38, 321, Plate 16 of Mar Ephrem, Mardin 50

Mecca, in Arabia

at Qartamin,

Melkites, Syrian Christians in communion

Constantinople

296,

304,

306f,

360, 363, 366-368, 371

Menas, 6th C. bishop 297-299, 306, 363 Meristai, Jewish sect Mesopotamia 50, 94, 371, 391, 393, 398f, Iraq) Mesrop

(=

inventor 390

Plate 12

408

350

of Mar Yaqub, near Mardin

Media, Medes, ancient nation 97, 348 Melito of Sardis, 2nd C. apologist 125, 129

286

of Our Lady of Seeds, Algoë

Maximin Daia, 3rd C. Roman emperor 181 Maximus Confessor, 7th C. Greek author 359 105

Manu-

scripts, Churches)

at Bet Abe, northern Iraq

Maruta, 5th C. bishop of Martyropolis 286 Mary, Virgin, Theotokos, Mariology 44f, 57-62, 107f, 113, 126, 170, 206, 236, 238245, 249, 291, 332, 359, 366, 373f Masbotheoi, Jewish sect 266f, 269

with

Syrian

411

Mission, Evangelization

asteries)

Martyrs

Messalians, 4th C. radical ascetic movement 155f, 208, 391, 400

Michael I, “the Syrian"', "the Great", 12th

Marcion, 2nd C. leader of a radical religious movement

425

INDEX

Mosul

45

at Montserrat, Spain 50-52, 54 Plate 1 of Mar Behnam, near Mosul in Palestine 306, 351 in the

412, Plates 15, 18 at Qennesrin, in Syria

Tur

Abdin

320,

411

of Mar Jagob, Salah 283 of St. Catherine, Sinai 221, 295,

350,

408 of Mar Hananya (Deir Za'faran), in the

of Constantinople 266 207 f, 319, 323, 366, 407, 411 (see also

Mashtotz),

of Armenian

5th

C.

alphabet

author,

338,

Tur Abdin 50, 52f, 57, 319-328, 397, 405, Plates 11, 14, 18, 20 of Mar Slimo (=

earlier name

Hananya Monastery) 321 of Sargiseh (Mar Sargis and Plate 20 Monasticism

Mongols 371 Monophysites,

of Mar

Bakkos),

(see Church Life)

5th C. movement

63-71,

426 277-282,

GENERAL

297-307,

319,

360-369,

407,

Plates 1,9 (see Syrians (West), Jacobites, Armenians, Copts)

Montanists, 2nd C. sect Moschus, John

179

(see John Moschus)

Moses bar Kepha, 9th C. West Syrian author 38f, 63-71, 319, 395, 405-410, Plate 9 Mosul, in northern Iraq 38f, 43, 45, 53, 323, 329, 336, 370, Plates I, 6, 9, 16 Muhammad, prophet of Islam 105-108 Musaeus, Greek poet 342 Muslims 100, 106, 365-372, 396, Plates 15, 22 Mystery cults 115, 180, 230, 316, 342 Mysticism

(see Church Life)

Namphamo, early African martyr 354 Narsai, 5th C. East Syrian author 290, 403 Nasaraioi or Nazirites, Jewish sect 265, 267-269, 271, 275f Nemesius, 4th C. bishop of Emesa 359 Neo-Caesarea,

in

Pontus

(Turkey)

44,

289 Nestorians, 5th C. movement (sce Syrians, East) Nestorius, 5th C. bishop of Constantinople 30, 39, 44, 170, 249, 254, 288, 294, 359, 361, 366 Nicaea, in Bithynia (Turkey)

44, 51, 170,

280, 284-294, 300, 358 Nicephorus, 9th C. Greek author 388, 390 Nicephorus Callistus, 14th C. Byzantine author 304f Niceta, 4th C. bishop of Remesiana 346, 350 Nilus, 5th C. bishop of Ancyra 268 Nisibis, in Mesopotamia, now Turkey 29, 394, 404, 412 Nubia, modern Sudan 98, 108, 367 Nusairis, subdivision of Muslims 368 ‘NY’, Jewish sect 267 Origen, 3rdC. scholar

17f, 119, 170, 174f,

INDEX

181, 195, 211, 213, 215, 217, 233, 300, 344f, 361f, 387, 406, Origenists 300, 306f, 351, 361f Orpheus, legendary Greek poet Ossenes, Ossaioi, Jewish sect 275 Ovid, Roman

poet

220, 226Plates 2-3 342 265, 271,

343, 352

Pachomius, 4th C. monastery founder 11 Pakistan 103-108 Palestine 108, 190, 213, 218, 298, 307, 349, 351, 361, 365f, 368 (see also Christianity, Jews) Palmyra, in Syria

161

Pamphilus, Ist C. lexicographer 341 Phamphilus, 3rd C. author 215 Pantaenus, 2nd C. head of Catechetical School 211-233 178, Papias, 2nd C. bishop of Hierapolis 221, 224, 226 Paterica, sayings of Armenian Fathers (see Post-biblical Writings)

Paul, 6th C. West Syrian bishop of Callinicus 55 Paula, 4th C. ascetic 104 Paulinus, 4th C. bishop of Nola 347 Paulos of Tella, 7th C. West Syrian translator of Hexapla into Syriac Plate 2 Pelagius I, 6th C. bishop of Rome 30]303 Persia, Persian 48, 97f, 103, 108, 287, 291, 294, 349, 371, 391, 393, 400, 404 Peter, 4th C. bishop of Alexandria 217 Peter

IV,

6th

C.

bishop

of

Alexandria

Peter, 6th C. bishop. adherent

of Severus

280, 294 296f Peter Callinicus, 6th C. West Syrian bishop of Antioch 61, 277-282, 321 Pethyon, East Syrian martyr 332 Pharisees, Pharisaism, Jewish sect 137, 265-269, 271-274, 309 Philastrius, 4th C. exegete 380, 389 Philip of Side, 5th C. author 178 Philo of Alexandria, 1st C. Jewish philosopher 185, 217, 221-223, 229, 233 Philo and Agathapodis, early authors 389

GENERAL

Philoponus, John (see John Philoponus) Philosophy (see Cultural Life) Philoxenos of Mabbug, 6th C. West Syrian author 30, 51, 64, 68, 71, 295, 360, 402, 408, Plate 19 Phoenicia 86, 102, 161 (see Punic) Phokas, 8th C. West Syrian author 76, 78, 81f Photius, 9th C. Byzantine author 177, 215, 341 Plato, Greek philosopher 349 Pliny, Roman author 218 Plutarch, Greek historian 169 Poemen, Abba, 4th C. ascetic 33 Polycarp, 2nd C. bishop. martyr 178, 354, 400 Porphyry, 5th C. bishop of Antioch 286 Poseidonius, Greek author 342 Priscillian, 4th C. Western sectarian 389 Proclus, 5th C. bishop of Constantinople 177 Procopius of Caesarea,

historian

6th C.

Byzantine

361

Pseudo-Amphilochius (see Amphilochius) Pseudo-Basil (see Basil) Pseudo-Dionysius (see Dionysius) Pseudo-Macarius (see Macarius) Publius, early martyr 179 Punic

Pythagoras, Pythagoreans, Greek philosopher, philosophical sect 268, 276, 349 Qaraites (Karaites), Jewish sect in Babylonia 191, 193f, 197-202, 267 Qardusat (Kardusat), 6th C. bishop of Arran 338 Qirqisani, lOth C. Arab author 192, 198 Qumran,

Jewish

sectarian

177-183 center

in

Palestine 153, 191, 194, 197-202, 231, 310, 408 Qyriagos of Tagrit, 8-9th C. bishop of Antioch 405, 410 Rabbula, author

of Edessa, 5th C. 245, 391, 402-404

Red Sea region

117, 218

West

Reformation, 16th C. European Rhetorical Forms Apophthegm

Aretalogy

Syrian

379, 405

185-190, Plate 16

109, 115-127

Chain (Catena)

58-60, 114, 360

Exemplary sequence

110-131, 376

sequence) 195208 Paradox 169-175 Syncrisis 110-131, 376 Testimonium 110, 193, 215f, 267 (see also Literary Forms) Rhodon, 2nd C. anti-Marcionite 224 Roland, medieval legendary figure 130f Rome 29, 32, 51, 53, 118, 182, 226, 230, 297, 301, 307, 318, 328, 360 Rufinus of Aquileia, 5th C. Roman author 213, 381, 387 "Ladder"

(graduated

Sa'ar, in Palestine 24 Saba (= Johannan of Dalyata) Sabellians, 3rd C. sect 278-281

Sabuëti, 9th C. Arab author Sadducees, Jewish sect 273f

322

265-267, 269. 271,

Sahl ben Masliah, Qaraite 199 Salvian, Sth C. Roman historian Samaria, in Palestine 102, 310

Samaritans, Jewish sect

161, 354f (see Phoenician)

Quadratus, 2nd C. apologist

427

INDEX

350

265-267, 273f

Samothrace, in Macedonia 316, 341f Sardica, modern Sofia 346, 348

Sarfeh, in Lebanon

52f

Sargis, & C. East Syrian author Plate 13 Sarmatians, Balkan tribe 343-345, 349f,

353 Sassanians, Persian dynasty 366, 400 Satan,

Devil,

Demons,

Evil

42, 154, 296, Spirits

51,

112f, 120-124, 126f, 182, 186-190, 208, 232, 249-263, 293, 375-378 Scribes, Jewish sect 265, 267, 271 Scythians, tribe in Black Sea region 340, 344-346, 348-350, 352f Seert, in eastern Turkey 286, 304 Seleucia-Ctesiphon, in Persia (Iraq) 35, 283-294, 374

Selra of Nisibis, West Syrian ascetic Semitic

412

159-166 (see also Aramaic, Arab,

428

GENERAL

Assyrian,

Babylonian,

Jewish,

Pales-

tinian, Syrian)

Sem'on

(=

Simeon)

Huzzaye,

medical author, eranot known

Plate 24

Sem'on of Samosata, 8th C. West Syrian 410

Sem'on of Taibuta, 7-8th C. East Syrian author Plate 13 Sennacherib, Assyrian king IIIf, 126f Sergius, 6th C. bishop of Cyrus 361 Sergius the Stylite, 6-7th C. West Syrian author 193, 196, 270 Sermons and Homilies

Aphrahat

191-202

Daniel of Salah 39 Ephrem of Nisibis 125, 127, 130, 173-

175, 236, 240f John Chrysostom 68, 313 (Pseudo-) Macarius 119, 203-209

Melito 125, 129 Severus of Antioch

55-62

Severus ibn al-Moqaffa, writer in Arabic 290

10th

C.

$51,

Coptic

Severus Sebokt, 7th C. bishop of Qennesrin, West Syrian scholar 67 Shammai, Ist C. rabbi 310, 312

Shiites, Muslim sect 368, 371 Sicily 102, 214f, 228, 233 Simeon Metaphrastes, 10th

Socrates, 5th C. church historian Sodom, in Midian 195f

400

Solomon author

Syrian

of Basra, 40

C.

Ist C. sectarian

Greek

111 182

Spirit, Holy 170, 206-208, 225f, 235-246, 251f, 254, 261f, 291-293 (see also Trinity)

Spiritis, Evil (see Satan) Spirituality (see Church Life: Asceticism) Stoics, Greek philosophical school 169, 173, 217, 228-230, 233 Strabo, Greek geographer 218, 343 Suetonius, Roman historian 181 Sufis, Muslim mystics Plate 15 Suidas, 10th C. lexicographer 30

(see

249

Simonianism, sect following Simon

Magus

182

Post-biblical

Chaldeans, Syrian Catholics

307, 319-322, 324, 366-372, 394, 396, 405, 407, 410 Plates 8-10, 15, 17, 19-24 (see also Monophysites)

Syrian

Sirach

Syro-Roman Writings)

Apocry-

groups:

see

(see Post-biblical Writings) Lawbook

(see Post-biblical

Plate 6 367

Malabar

Christians, Maronites, — Melkites, Thomas Christians Syria Secunda, southern part of Syria 298,

307 Syro-Hexapla

&

—

368

West Syrians, Syrian Orthodox, Jacobites 36f, 40-42, 265, 285, 294, 304,

Sinai, in Arabia 298, 307, 310, 350 Sinope, in Pontus (Turkey) 326

Slavs, Asiatic migrating tribe

97

Syria, Syrian, Syriac 35-46, 54, 95, 102, 104f, 108, 159f, 190, 226, 290, 294, 313, 320, 324, 327, 348, 350, 360f, 365-372, 391-413, Plates 1-25 East Syrians, Nestorians, Chaldeans 29f, 35f, 40-43, 67, 158, 279, 286-294, 304, 321, 323, 329-336, 360, 366-378,

Other

Simon ben Yohai, Talmudic figure

pha) Sirin, Persian martyr

East

Syrian Protestants 368 Uniates (in communion with Rome),

Simon Maccabeus, Jewish leader

OT

C.

396, 405, 410, 412. Plates 6, 12-13

author 351 Simeon bar Sabba'e, 4th C. catholicos, martyr 124f, 255 Simon Catholicos, East Syrian author 39

(see References:

13th

Synodicon, Syrian Writings)

55-62, 278f, 289, 296-299, 303-307, 360, 406, 408-410, Plates 10, 20

Magus,

29, Plate 13 (see Nisi-

Sumer, Sumerians, ancient nation Sunnites, Muslim sect 368, 371

Homiliaries 55-62, Plates 14, 20 Severus, 6th C. bishop of Antioch

Simon

Soba (= Nisibis) bis)

of Bet

author

INDEX

Tacitus, Roman

historian

181

GENERAL

Tagrit, in Iraq 69, 370, 410 "Tannaim (see Jews) Tartu, in Estonia Estonia)

Tatian, 2nd 292, 404

394, 398, 404 (see also

429

INDEX

Thrace, Thracian, Balkan nation 98, 337355 "Three Chapters", 6th C. designation of passages

C. Syrian

author

203-209,

Tertullian, 2nd-3rd C. African author 207, 225f, 344f, 373

174,

from

three

Antiochene

theo-

logians 307, 357-364 Thucydides, Greek historian 343 Timothy I, 9th C. Chaldean catholicospatriarch

40, 331

Themistius, 6th C. agnoete? 278, 280 Theodora, 6th C. Byzantine empress 298,

Timur, 371

361, 363 Theodore Askidas, 6th C. Origenist

Titus of Bostra, 4th C. bishop 204 Trajan, 2nd C. Roman emperor 178

300f,

363 Theodore bar Koni, 8th C. East Syrian author, 154, 157, 266, 268, 270 Theodore bar Wahbun, Syrian author 51, 410

12th

C.

West

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 4th C. bishop, author

29-34,

68,

258-263,

290,

301,

4th

C.

Roman

emperor

6th C. bishop of Alexandria

278, 280f Theodosius the Coenobiarch, 6th C. ascetic

351 Theodote,

2nd

C.

conqueror

Syriac to Greek & Latin 204-211 Treffoniana, Academia, in Tartu 412 Trent, in Germany 380f Trinitarian Controversy

Trinity

316, Plate 21 Theodosius,

Mongolian

401, 406, Plates 2-3, 20-24

344, 359, 361-364 I,

C.

Transjordan, modern nation, region 218 Translation Literature Arabic to Syriac 396, Plate 22 Syriac to Arabic Plates 11, 24 Syriac to Armenian 114 Greek to Syriac 19-28, 55-62, 73-82, 183, 266, 270, 283-294, 295-307, 395,

358, 361-364, 402f Theodore of Petra, 6th C. author 351 Theodoret of Cyrus, 5th C. author 301, Theodosius

14th

Valentinian

Gnostic

220

278-282, 287-294

52, 226, 237, 239-244, 262, 291-

293, 329 (see also God)

Tritheism, philosophical doctrine 282, 305 Trypho (2 Tarphon), 2nd C. rabbi Tur

'Abdin,

in eastern Turkey

278-

169

50, 307,

319-324, Plate 20

Theodote

of Amida,

7th C.

West

bishop 410f Theodote of Ancyra, 5th C. author 175 Theodotion, 2nd C. biblica] scholar

Syrian

170, Plate

2 Theophilus

of Antioch,

2nd

C. apologist

Turkey, Turks

319, 322-324, 328

Urhai, in eastern Turkey

Ugaritic, Semitic language 166 Urmi (= Resafa), province 46

408

86, 159, 162f,

in southern

Euphrates

174, 183, 225, 292 Thomas, apostle

(= Mar Tuma or Thoma)

Thomas

of Harkel,

7th

C.

West

Syrian

biblical scholar 39, 403, Plate 7 Thomas of Marga, 9th C. East Syrian ascetical author 411 Thomas

35-46

“Queen Valeria", Talmudic figure

Vatican

35f, 45, 203

Christians, East Syrians in India

316

(see Manuscripts, Art)

Vegetius, 4th C. author 343 Venice (see Manuscripts, Art) Versions, Biblical 404, 412

Arabic Aramaic Armenian

218, 392 87, 104, 218, 399 337, 339, 390, 392, 399

430

GENERAL

Vigilius, 6th C. bishop of Rome 362f

Coptic 3-12, 339, 392, 401 Ethiopic 24, 310, 339, 392, 399 Georgian

Gothic Greek Hunnic

INDEX

301-303,

103f, 339, 392

339, 389 24, 87, 89-91, 104, 225, 380, 395 338

Latin 7, 85, 100f, 104, 206, 380, 384, 388f Nubian 337, 339 Sogdian 337, 339 Syriac 19-28, 42f, 88-91, 94, 155, 195-197, 250-252, 339, 398-401, 404, 407, 410, 412, Old Syriac 26, 104f, 204f, 398-402. Plates 4, 6 Philoxenian

Version

337, 339,

Xystus (= Sixtus Rome 51{

100, 153, 380, 392f, Plates 1-7 392, 395,

I1),

3rd

C.

bishop

of

Yabalaha, Mar, 13th C. East Syrian catho-

licos, traveler 322 Yazdegerd 1, Sth C. king of Persia 286 Yose, Rabbi, Talmudic figure 147

("Crawford")

399, 402, Plate 7 Harklean Version Plate 7 Western European

Western Europe 102, 226, 344f, 354, 379390 Wuerttemberg Confession, 16th C. Lutheran 381

Zacharias Rhetor, 6th C. chronicler

338

22, 39, 396, 403,

Zadoq, founder of Sadducees

languages

Zeno, Sth C. Byzantine emperor 360 Zoilius, 6th C. Melkite bishop of Alexandria 363

379-390 Vespasian, Roman emperor

181

204f,

273f

MODERN

Abbeloos, J.B., 50, 267, 320f Abd Al-Gabbar, 218 Abdullah Gülçe, 27 Abouna, A., 50, 321f Abraham, Mar (16th C. Chaldean bishop),

43 Abraham Ecchellensis, 29f, 32 Abramowski, L., 285, 289

Adam, A., Ainsworth, Aland, K.. Albeck, C.,

267-270, 273 W.E., 323 3-12 133, 140, 142

NAMES

Barnea, I., 347, 353 Bar Sawm (Patriarch Ignatius Aphram

Barton, G.A., 86 Basaranlar, T., 53, Plate 4 Bauer, W , 178

Baumgartner, W., 162 Baumstark, A., 30, 42, 47, SIf, 55, 60f, 63f, 69, 94, 106, 116f, 131, 279, 370 Baur, F.C., 177

Alexander, S.I., 343

Beatty, C., 6

Alfrink, B., 86

Bechara, Father, 53

Allatius, L., 351

Beck, E., 130, 155, 169-175, 235f, 239 Beck, H.-G., 55 Bedjan, P., 121, 377

Allaf, Gabriel, Abbot, 326 Allevi, L., 229

Beer, G., 89 Behnam, G.P., 320

Altaner, B., 215, 228

Altheim, F., 218, 344 Altmann, A., 120 Amand

de Mendieta,

E., 224

Amann, E., 357 Anassian, H.S., 338 Andriessen, P., 178 Aprem Mookan, Mar, 39f

Bell, Miss G., 323 Berthold, N., 203 Bertholet, A., 85 Bertinoro, O., 140

Besevliev, V., 339, 341, 348, 353 Betz, J., 231

Aristar, T., 164

Bevan, A. A., 169

Armalet, Isaac, 50

Aryathinal, Thomas, 43 Assemani, J. S., 29f, 63, 73f, 76, 82, 286, 319, 322, 330

Bidez, J., 301, 305 Bisara, Plate 11 Black, M., 193, 266 Boer, P. A.H. de, 85-88

Assemani, S. E., 73, 82

Bonfante, G., 342

Assfalg, J., 102, 158 Assif, S., 21

Boor, C. de, 178 Borromeo, F., 283, 287

Auner, K., 344

Botte, B., 48f, 61

Avinery, I., 21

Bouche, J., 31 Bousset, W., 217, 220

Ayer, J. C., 360

Baarda, T., 192 Baars, W., 19-22, 50, 52 Badger, G. P., 29f, 323, 325 Βακοξ, J., 64, 67 Bardy, G., 195, 213, 216, 221

I),

50, 52, 54, 320f Barth, V., 229 Barthélemy, D., 157

Bowman, J., 249-263 Bowman, R.A., 87 Brandenstein, W., 342 Braude, W.G., 310f, 314f Braun, O., 63

Bréhier, L., 357, 361, 363

432

MODERN

NAMES

Brenz, J., 381

Chirat, H., 230

Briere, M., 30, 55f, 60f Bright, W., 359 Brightman, F.E., 330f, 333, 335 Brock, S.P., 265-276

Christian III of Denmark, Clemons, J. T., 22f Cohen, A., 311

Brockelmann, C., 154, 157, 218 Brooke, A.E., 24f

Connolly, R. H., 47, 292, 313, 331 Conybeare, F.C., 254f

Brooks, E. W., 295, 303, 305f, 338

Cook, S. A., 68 Corneiro, Father 375 Corte, F. della 352 Corver, S., 383 Costa, A., 117 Costaz, L., 240 Cothenet, E., 197 Cowper, B. H., 284

Brown, P. R.L., 354 Broyde, I., 249 Buber, S., 249 Budde, K., 85 Budge, E.A. Wallis, 321 Bultmann, R., 232 Burchard, C., 267

386

Clark, K. W., 295

Burkitt, F.C., 169, 232, 322 Burn, A.E., 346

Crafer,

Burrows, M., 231 Bury, J.B., 362 Butcher, E.L., 211 Butler, C., 17

Cross, F.L., 215, 313 Cureton, W., 284

Cabrol, F., 344

Danby, H., 117, 141

Cajetan, T., 382

Daniélou, J., 217, 224, 232, 292

Calvin, J., 381 Camelot, T., 223 Campenhausen, H. von 229 Cankova-Petkova, G., 342 Cantalamessa, R., 115, 125 Caquot, A., 93 Carmignac, J., 197

Danov, C., 242 Danov, K.M., 341

T. W., 346

Crim, K. R., 115

Dahood, M. J., 86 Daicoviciu, C., 344, 347, 352

Daube, D., 130 Deichmann, F. W., 116 Delcor, M., 197 Delehaye, H., 326, 345 Denzinger, H., 330

Carney, J., 131 Casey, R.P., 223 Caspar, E., 304 Caspari, C. P., 289f, 293

Deppe, K., 158

Casson, S., 342 Cayré, F., 47

Dhorme,

Cecchelli, C., 245 Ceriani, A.M., 19, 26, 153

Diepen, H.-M., 357

Chabbouri, Mr., 53

Diez Macho, A., 130 Dillemann, L., 319 Dillmann, A., 162 Dimitrov, D. P., 343

Chabot, J. B., 51, 266, 270, 273, 277, 286f, 293, 295, 305f, 321f, 374 Chadwick, H., 181 Charles XII of Sweden, 385

Charles, R.H., 200 Chemnitz, M., 381 Childs, B.S., 115

Detschew, D., 340f, 351

Devreesse, R., 58f, 218 Dewing, H. B., 361 E., 89

Diekamp, F., 301, 304 Diettrich, G., 63, 158, 290

Dittenberger, W., 180 Dix, G., 311 Dolabani, J.P., 53, 320 Donaldson, J., 118

MODERN

433

NAMES

Donner, H., 102 Dorra-Haddad, J., 218 Dörries, H., 203 Dossetti, G.L., 288f, 291 f Downey, G., 361 Dowsett, C.J. F., 338 Draguet, R., 13-18, 30f

Gesenius, W., 240 Geyer, P., 350 Gibson, M.D., 267, 270 Ginsberg, H.L., 87, 153 Ginzberg, L., 120, 124, 195 Givargis, Iwanios, Mar, (Syro-Malankara

Drijvers, H.J. W., 65

Gloege,

Driver, G.R., 200

Golb, N., 200f Goodenough, E. R., 120 Gordis, R., 86 Gordon, C.H., 120, 159, 162f Goshen-Gottstein, M.H., 19-28 Grabar, A., 118, 326 Graenkel, M., 180 Graffin, F., 29-34, 56, 59, 62, 237, 241 Graffin, R., 56

Driver, S. R., 197

Duchesne, L., 216, 286, 361f Duval, R., 30, 56, 155, 275 Dvornik, F., 344 Ebert, M., 352 Ebied, R. Y., 277-282 Ecchellensis, A. (see Abraham) Edelstein, E.J. & L., 181

Erasmus of Rotterdam, 379f, 382, 384 Ericson, K., 324 Ersch, J. S., 355 Etheridge, J. W., 30 Fahd, R.P. Boutros, 53 Fell, J., 4 Ferrua, A., 118f

Festugiére, A.J.. 115 Field, F., 24 Fiey, J., 48 Filliozat, J., 218 Fitzmyer, J. A., 200 Fliche, A., 357 Fohrer, G., 193 Fraser, P. M., 341 Freehof, S. B., 309, 311, 315 Fries, H., 231

Fritsch, E., 371 Frutaz, A.P., 351

Funk, F. X., 118, 267 Funk, S.. 93f, 194f Furlani, G., 245 Galbiati, J., 218 Garraty, J. A., 339

Gavin, F.. 192f, 195, 314 Gay, P., 339 Geffcken, J., 183 Gehman, H.S., 352 Georgiev, V. T., 340f

metropolitan), 42 G.,

Graham,

174

W.C.,

25, 27, 66

Grant, F.C., 180, 250 Grant, R. M., 177-183, 225, 232 Gray, J., 86, 88 Greenslade,

S. L., 390

Gregory, Father, CMI, 41 Gregory, C. R., 4 Gressmann, H., 121f Gribomont, J., 283-294 Griffith, J. G., 349 Grillmeier, A., 357, 364 Grotius, H., 85 Gruber, J. G., 355 Gruber, L. F., 383 Grumel, V., 305f Grunebaum, G.E. von 212 Guilbert, P., 197 Guillaumont, A., 89-95, 301 Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden, 385 Gustavus Vasa of Sweden, 384

Guyer, S., 323 Gwynn, J., 19, 126 Hadassi, 200 Haddad, P., Plate 13 Haefeli, L., 192, 194 Hagedorn,

D.,

121,

123

Hahn, G.L., 290, 293 Halévi, J., 155 Hall, G. F., 382 de Halleux, A., 242, 295-307

434

MODERN

Hambye, E. R., 35-46 Hamilton, F.J., 338 Hanna Ibrahim, deacon, 53 Hanslik, R., 180 Hardy, E. R., 309-318 Harkins, P. W., 313

Harnack, A. von 212, 215, 217-219, 222, 228, 230, 344 Hartel, W., 119 Harvey, J., 115, 182 Hausschildt, H., 227 Hayman, A. P., 193, 196, 270 Hefele, C., 362 Helm, R., 181 Hertzberg, H. W., 85 Hespel, R., 289 Hintze, F., 6 Hjelt, A., 66 Hoffmann-Aleith, E., 212f Hoftijzer, J., 87, 161 Holl, K., 266, 350, 353 f Honigmann, E., 66, 283, 305 Horner, G., 4-7, 9 Hornus, J. M., 73f Hort, F.J.A., 3, 12 Howorth, H.H., 381, 383, 387 Howsen, R.H., 338 Hyvernat, H., 5 Ignatius Aphram, Mar (see Bar Sawm) Ihering, Bishop, 404 Ionescu, G. M., 344 lorga, N., 348 Isaac ben Armaleh (see Armalet) Isbell, C. D., 120 Jacoby, F., 352

Jaeger, W., 203 James, M.R., 387 Janin, R., 350

NAMES Joseph

II (17th

C.

catholicos-patriarch),

332 Jugie, M., 221 Kaatz, S., 157 Kahle, P., 194, 200 Kalankatuaci, M., 338 Kamil, M., 295 Karlstadt, A., 381 Kasser, R., 6 Kattenbusch, F., 293 Kautzsch, E., 85 Kayser, C., 284 Kazarow, G.l., 342 Keiser, H., 385 Kershkemeti, Madame, 32 Khoury, J., 290 Kittel, G., 99, 133 Klauser, T., 116 Klein, J., 174 Klijn, A.F.J., 120, 122, 124 Klostermann, E., 203, 345 Kmosko, M., 155f Koehler, L., 162 Koetschau, P., 119, 170 Koledarov, P.St., 340 Konat, Abraham, 37 Konat Family, 37, 39 Köpp, J.. 399f, 404

Kraeling, E.G., 87 Kretschmar, G., 223, 225 Kretschmer, P., 340 Kroeger, M., 203 Kroymann, E., 345 Krüger, P., 319-321 Krumbacher, C., 361 Kuberczyk, C., 284 Kuhn, E., 351 Kuhn, H. B., 225 Kundsins, K., 399

Jarry, J.. 324 Jastrow, M.. 161f Jean, C. F., 87, 161 Johnson, S. E., 180 Jokl, N., 352 Jones, A. H. M., 339 Jones, L. W., 342 Jordanov. K., 340

Labourt, H., 290 Lagarde, P. A. de 4, 19, 25 f. 47, 50f, 69, 153, 284 Lamadrid, A.G., 19 Lampe, G.W.H., 169, 178, 318, 348 Lamy, T.J., 50, 267, 284, 287f, 293. 320f. 377{

MODERN Lane, E.W., 160 Laporte, J., 29 Lascu, N., 343 Lash, C.J. A., 59, 62 Lebon, J., 288 Leclercq, H., 116, 326f, 344f, 362 Le Déaut, R., 130 Lehmann, K., 341 Leipoldt, J., 381, 383f Leloir, L., 128, 185-190, 267 Lemoine, E., 30 Le Quien, M., 304, 306 Leroy, J., 319-328 Levene, A., 94 Lévi, L., 155 Levi, P., 118 Lewis, A.S., 295 Liebermann, S., 200 Lightfoot, John, 309 Lightfoot, J. B., 3, 354 Lignée, H., 197 Littmann, E., 104 Loewe, R., 130 Loofs, F., 346 Lotther, M., 383, 386 Loretz, O., 88 Lowe, A.D.. 153 Lozovan, E., 344, 348, 352 Lucius, J., 383, 385 Luther, M., 379-390 Maclean, A.J., 335

Macomber, W. F., 329-336 Macquarrie, J., 250 Macuch, R., 371 Maenchen-Helfen, J. O., 338

Mai, A., 60 Malki, M., 57 Mann, J., 197f, 201 Mansi, J. D., 284, 287, 293, 350, 361 Maries, L., 236 Marriott, G.L.,

119, 203

Marrou, H.-I., 217, 219f, 232 Martin, P., 65, 284 Martin, V., 357 Masius, A., 19, 24f, 63f

Maspero, J., 304 Mateos, J., 334, 336, 375

435

NAMES Maximov, E., 343 McLean, N., 24f Meek, T.J., 88 Mercier, C.. 236 Mellus, Mar (Chaldean

metropolitan), 46

Mercati, G., 21 Messling, R., 69 Metzger, B.M., 337-355 Méhat, A., 222 Michaéli, F., 89 Michel, K., 109, 116f Mikkelson, H., 386 Mill, J., 4 Mingana, A., 30f, 52, 258, 260, 265, 271, 275 Minorski, V., 319 Mischon, A., 316 Mitchell, C. W., 169 Mitchell, L.L., 318 Moesinger, G.. 128 Molitor, J., 97-108

Mondésert, C., 216, 219, 222 Monneret de Villard, U., 323 Moule, C.F.D., 178 Mover, F.C., 355 Munck, J., 220, 223 Munk, M., 284 Muraoka, T., 24

Muratori, L., 284, 287, 293 Murphy-O’Connor, J., 191, 200 Murray, R., 109-131 Nallino, C. A., 218 Nau, F., 65, 67, 249, 284f Nautin, P., 179, 183, 212, 222 Nemoy, L., 197 Nestle, E., 351 Netzhammer, R., 347 Neusner, J., 110, 114, 133-152, 198 Newman, J.H., 119 Niebuhr, C., 319 Nilsson, M., 182, 342 Nock, A.D., 180 Nöldeke, T., 15, 65, 102 Norden, E., 109, 115

Oecolampadius, J., 382 Olphe-Gaillard, M., 185

191-195,

436

MODERN

Opitz. H.G., 285 Ortiz de Urbina, L, 47f, 192, 194 Otto, J. K. T., 170, 177 Ouellette, J., 191-202 Outler, A.C., 357-364 Outtier, B., 114

Papebroch, D., 304 Paramelle, J., 32, 34

Parisot, J., 93f, 110, 154, 193, 195, 254

NAMES Ramureanu, I., 346 Randa, A., 339 Reese, J.M.. 116 Rego, S., 373 Renaudot, E., 284, 286

Rengstorf,

K. H., 133

Richardson, C.C., 362 Richter, G., 193 Rickenbacher, O., 157

Parmentier, L., 301, 305

Riesenfeld, E. H., 105 Röllig, W., 102

Parry, O.H., 323, 325f

Roncaglia, M. P., 211-233

Párvan, V., 347 Paul, A., 194, 197-199

Rosenthal, F., 102

Perler, O., 125 Pedersen, C., 386 Peeters, P.. 349 Pericoli-Ridolfini, F., 216f, 232 Perry, S.G.F., 359 Pestman, P. W., 66 Petersen, R. H., 265 Peterson, E., 178, 215 Peterson, P.M., 344 Petri, O., 384 Pettazzoni, R., 342 Phillips, G., 293 Philonenko, M., 93 Picard, C., 328 Pines, S., 218 Pippidi, D. M., 343, 346 Pitra, J. B., 283f, 287, 293 Places, E. des 204 Pognon, H., 50, 266, 273, 323 Prat, F., 362 Preuschen, E., 174, 224, 226 Preusser, C., 323 Prigent, P., 216 Pusey, P. E., 358

Routh, M.J., 177 Rowley, H.H., 200, 250

Rüger, H.P., 153 Russow, B., 410 Russu, 1.1., 340, 347, 353 Ryssel, V., 65, 67, 155

Sachau. E., 56-58, 67, 322f Sader, J.. 290 Salmi, M., 245 Salmon ben Yeruhim, 200 Salmon, G., 177 Sanders, J. C.J., 47-54, 66 Sandford, E. M., 350 Sauget, J.-M., 29, 32, 55-62 Sayers, D.L., 131

Schäder, H.H., 103 Schaetti-Guyer, H., 323 Schaff, P., 357 Schall, A., 57 Schatkin, M.A., 349 Schechter, S., 200

Scheil, P., 321 Schenke, H.M., 6

Scher, A., 154, 266, 270, 273, 304, 329 Schermann, T., 117

Quasten, Quecke, Quentel, Quispel,

J., H., A., G.,

29, 215, 222f, 228f 6 389 203-209

Schlimme, L., 63-71

Schlingensiepen, H., 177 Schmidt, Margot, 155

Schmitt-Brandt, R., 341 Schneider, C., 346

Rademacher, L.. 353 Raes, A., 331

Rahlfs, A., 25 Rahmani, I. Ε.. 51, 284

Schoedel, W.R., 178 Schoeps, H. J., 218 Schóffer, P., 389 Schulthess, F., 104

MODERN

Schuithess, J., 284-286, 289 Schüssler, K., 6-8 Schwartz, E., 283, 285, 288f, 351, 359 Schwartze, M.G., 4 Scott, R.B.Y., 88 Scrivener, F.H. A.. 4 Sedlácek, J., 69, 266, 270

298f,

Sellers, R.V., 359 Serafov, T., 342 Sextus of Siena, 382 Shakespeare, W., 130 Siman, E., 235 Simon, M., 267 Slotki, Smet, Smith, Smith, Smith,

W., 142 D. B. de 326 Henrik, 386 Morton, 135, 218f, 339 R. Payne, 154, 160, 240. 267

Socin, A., 319 Soden, H. von 4 Sony, Behnam 53 Sotiroff, G.. 352 Spicq, L., 227

Spies, O., 106 Spijkerman, P.A., 193, 196 Sprengling. M., 25, 27, 66 Spuler, B.. 365-372 Stein, E., 298, 302-304, 306 Stewart, A., 351 Stewart, Z., 180 Stiehl, R., 218 Stommel, E., 328 Strack, H.L., 155 Straub, J., 302 Streck, M., 322 Strothmann, W., 63f, 153-158 Suceneanu, A., 342 Sullivan, F. A., 358

Swete, H.B., 358

306,

Thompson, J. A., 159-166 Thorlakson, G., 386 Thyen, H., 116 Till, W.C., 5 Tomaschek, W., 342. 351, 353 Tonneau, R. M., 90-92, 236 Torrey, C.C., 153 Towner, W.S., 192 Toynbee, A., 357 Trever, K. V.. 338 Tsereteli, M., 103 Tuch, F., 351

Tyndale, W., 383 Ubach, B., 50 Van Amersfoort, J.. 204 Van den Broek, R., 206

Van den Eynde, C., 25, 154 Van den Eynde, D., 229 Van der Aalst, A.J., 47

Van der Ploeg, J. P. M., 42, 86 Van Lantschoot, A., 286 Van Roey, A., 277f Van Unnik, W.C., 331

Vailhé, S., 61, 351 Valschalde, A., 5, 30, 65, 266, 270 Vasiliev, A., 267

Velkov, V., 345 Velkova, Z., 340

Vellian, J., 373-378 Vermes, G., 89 Vinter, C., 386

Vogt, J., 383 Vööbus, A., 17, 19-22, 27, 57f, 62-66, 68, 70f, 88, 155f, 159, 185, 190f, 203, 283-285, 287f, 291, 294f, 337, 374, Plates 1-25 Vosté, J. M., 63, 68 Vulpe, R., 340

Tattam, H., 4

Telfer, W., 359

Walker, W., 362

Tauchs, S., 385 Tausen, H., 386 Thiering, B., 194

Walsh, P.G., 347 Walton, B., 153 Waszink, J. H., 174

Thomas

Weber, S., 338 Weiss, G., 304f

Darmo, Mar, 40

Thompson, H.. 5f

437

NAMES

29, 48-50, 94, 109, 208, 211, 317, 319,

S2f, 133f, 265. 322,

438

MODERN

NAMES

Wellesz, E., 131 Wellmann, M., 341 Wendland, P., 182

Wright, W., 26, 65, 68f, 77. 82, 120, 153, 277, 279, 293

Wensinck, A., 377 Werner, E., 129

Young, G.D., 163f Yousif, P., 235-246

Westcott, B. F., 3f, 12 Westermann, C., 115 Wevers, J. W., 25 Wickham, L. R., 278f Wicki, J., 375 Wieder, N., 191, 193, 197-200 Wiesner, J., 342 Wiessner, G., 66, 73-82 Wikgren, A., 379-390 Wiles, M.F., 178 Wilken, R.L., 193, 198 Wilkins, D., 4 Williams, A.L., 265 Wolder, D., 383

Zah, E., 343 Zahn, T., 228, 354f Zeiller, J., 344, 346 Zeitlin, S., 310 Zimmermann, B., 344 Zingerle, P., 284 Zoéga, G.T., 4 Zorn, P., 309f, 313, 315 Zotenberg, H., 284 Zwaan, J. de 265, 276 Zwingli, H., 381 Zycha, J., 175

REFERENCES OLD

TESTAMENT

AND APOCRYPHA, NEW (See also Commentaries)

Pentateuch, 20, 393, 395f 401, 406f, Plate 2

Old Testament Apocrypha, Ben Tagla, 86 II Enoch, 225 IH Ezra, 390, Plate 1

153, 381, 387f

Prayer of Manasseh, 49, 390

13, Plate 8

Numbers 20: 23-29, 22, 26f 24 : 3-16, Plate 2

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), 86, 153-158, 390 Tobit, Plate I Wisdom, 187, Plate I

19-28

Joshua 24. 26-33, 22 1 Kings 18:38, 243 II Kings 18:26, 28, 98 Job 41: 25f. 123 Psalm 19:4 (Vg 18:5), 212 22 (Vg 21), 335 44 (Vg 43), 336 $4 (Vg 83), 329f 118: 22, 199 123, 335 139: 24, 164 147, 333f Proverbs 30:4, 245 Ecclesiastes 3:11, 165 12:12, 85-88 Isaiah, Plate 3 1, Plate 1

9:1f, 252 36:6-21,

Ezekiel 13, 199f 16: 1-14, 129 Amos 2:9-12, 129 Micah 6: 1-5, 129 Habakkuk 3:5, 164

Genesis, 223-226, 400 Genesis 1:1, 292 1:2, 239f 3:1, 188 21:33, 35, 165 25: 23, 277, 30, 59 Exodus 2:21f,92 3:2ff, 242 3:14, 172 4: 24-26, 89-95

Deuteronomy 34 : 1-8,

TESTAMENT

Plate 3

40: 28, 165 Jeremiah 6: 16, 164

10: 10, 165 Lamentations 3: 27-30, 32

Matthew 4 : Lff, 375 5:13, 124 6:9/f, 408 10: 22, 186 16:18, 325 20: 1-16, 401 22:17, 216 24: 14, 345 Mark 14:45-64, Plate 5 14:49-15:1,

Plate 4

14 : 54, 67-70, 99 Luke 4:33-35, Plate 9

4:38f, Plate 6 14: 16-24, 403 Passion narrative, 394 22: 14 ff, 405f 23:44-48, Plate 20 John 8: 56, 174 13:3ff. 404 14, 205-207 15: 26, 293 21 : 2-14, Plate 6 Acts 26:18,

256

440

REFERENCES

Aramaic in the Bible, 98-101. 104f

Romans 1: 19f, 173 5-6, 255f 15:19, 344 I Corinthians 10:12, 188 II Corinthians 5:17, 244 Ephesians 5: 21 ff, 224 Hebrews, 227 1:2. 292 Revelation, 396 18: 3-16, Plate 7

NEW

Canon, New Testament, 379-390 Coptic, Biblical books in 3-7, 9

Exemplary

sequences,

Biblical and

Apo-

calyptic figures 111-130

Exorcism in the Bible, 250-263 Fasting in the Bible, 376 Purification in the Bible, 309f, Textual readings in Matthew,

314f, 317f Luke and

John, 204-207

TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA AND POST-BIBLICAL WRITINGS

(See also individual authors, and Jews: Rabbinical Thought) Addai, Doctrine of

409f

Agathapodis, Letter of

Gemellinos, Letter to 403 Hebrews, Gospel of the 388 Hermas, "Shepherd" of 174, 388, 390 Hermetica 109

389

Anonymous

9th C. Jacobite chronicle

295

Chronicle of 1234 A.D. 321f Commentary on Abba Isaiah

13. 31

Exposition of the Offices of the Church 331, 374 13th

C.

Metereological

compendium

67

208f, 225, 388, 401

409

267

Damascus, Document of

389f

197, 199-202

105, 129, 203-209, 236, 245,

292, 398, 402, 404 Didache 101, 311f, 388, 394, 405 Didascalia 47-54, 284, 313f, 396-398, 410 Diognetus, Epistle to 178, 219f, 226 (Pseudo-) Dionysius 51, 73-82 Euchologion 117 Gannat Bussame 158, 408

Koran 22

97, 105-108,

120, 122

130, 218, 372, Plate

Laodiceans, Letter to the

389

Lausiac History 11, 13-17 Liber Graduum 153-158, 205, 207, 400 (Pseudo-) Macarius 203-209, 395 Martyrdom of Cyriacus and Julitta 121f Martyrdom of Ignatius, Letters of Philo & Agathapodis on the 389

48f, 407. Plate /

Commendatio Animae 117 Collectio Sabbaitica 298f, 307 Corinthians, Third Epistle to the Diatessaron

Hierotheos, Book of

Hypomnestikon biblion Judas Thomas, Acts of

Apostolic Canons 48f, 374 Apostolic Constitutions 49, 118, 123, 411 Archelaus, Acts of 205-207 Barnabas, Epistle of 216, 389f I Clement 51,119 Pseudo-Clementine Writings 39. 204. Octateuch

17, Plates 2-3 Hexapla, Origen’s 19-28, 86, 89, 395f, 406f, Syro-Hexapla Plates 1-3

Martyrdom

of Simon

bar Sabba'e

255 Octateuch (see Pseudo-Clementine) Odes of Solomon

226, 402f.

Paschal Chronicle

362

Paterica (Armenian)

185-190

Paul, Acts of 389f Peter. Kerygma of 221, 292 Peter. Revelation of Philip, Passion of

388. 390 345

124f,

NEW

Philo, Letter of Synodicon,

East

TESTAMENT

APOCRYPHA

389 Syrian

POST-BIBLICAL

39f,

48,

45,

Testamentum

Thomas, 48, 283-294, 394,

396, 405, 410, 412, Plate 10 Syro-Chalcedonian

Chronicle

Lawbook

WRITINGS

441

411, Plates 21-22 43,

286-294 Synodicon, West Syrian

Syro-Roman

AND

395f,

Domini

Apocryphal

49

writings

Vita b. Virginis Mariae rhythmica 295-307

407,

409,

of

204,

208f, 293, 318, 401 Miscellaneous

46, 51

writings

in

Syriac

206f 38,

44-

FACSIMILE

PLATES

FILMS OF SYRIAC FROM THE COLLECTION

MANUSCRIPTS, OF ARTHUR VÖÖBUS

With great pride we here present to the public a selection of plates from the Syriac manuscripts discovered by Professor Vööbus. He has chosen the examples with several considerations in mind. First, they give us a graphic sampling of his most cherished discoveries. The fruits of his tireless explorations, soberly catalogued in his bibliography and admiringly alluded to by his fellow-specialists, here become unforgettably apparent to us all. Secondly, the selection affords us a glimpse of the breathtaking panorama of Syrian culture which Dr. Vóóbus has helped to bring to view. Before our eyes march not only a vast range of religious literature : biblical manuscripts, lectionaries and commentaries—theological, homiletical, liturgical, devotional and historical works— ecclesiastical records and translation literature—but also other monuments of a rich culture: literature, jurisprudence, philosophy and medicine. Thirdly, through a choice of manuscripts covering more than a thousand years, Dr. Vóóbus here offers to the student a useful reader in Syriac paleography—and to even the casual beholder an impressive esthetic experience. The descriptions which follow have been prepared by Dr. Vóóbus with affectionate care.

Plate 1

The PeSittä Old Testament, from an Unusual Manuscript Ms. Mär Behnäm

1/1

The Monastery of Mär Behnàm, near Mosul, Iraq This manuscript, of extraordinary size and weight, is extraordinary also in content. It is rare to find the Old and New Testaments in a single codex.

Furthermore,

the text of the Old Testament

has incorporated

II Esdras and Tobit, which normally are not included in Syriac Bible manuscripts. In this codex the usual Syrian canonical books appear in the version of the PeSitta, III Esdras and Tobit in the SyroHexapla version. The New Testament part surprises us by the inclusion of the complete Clementine Octateuch. Added to these precious materials is a list of the works of the fathers of the Monophysite tradition, interesting from the viewpoint of the history of literature. The volume is written on Oriental paper in a regular and attractive West Syrian sertä script, leaving a grand impression in every respect. The facsimile plate shows the end of the Book of Wisdom and the beginning of Isaiah. The codex is furnished with two colophons, which state that the Old Testament part was completed at the beginning of the year 1963

in the era of Alexander the Great, ie. 1651 A.D., in the Monastery of Mar Behnam.

Plate 1.

Plate 2

An Old Testament Text in the Syro-Hexapla Version Ms. Midyat This manuscript presents to us a very great rarity, the Pentateuch translated from the fifth column of the Hexapla prepared by Origen soon after 200 A.D. The disappearance of Origen’s incredibly intensive study of the Old Testament text is one of history’s greatest losses. The story of the Hexapla, meanwhile, has proved to be an epic of breathtakingly dramatic quality. Shortly before the work perished, Paulos of Tellä translated the fifth column quite slavishly into Syriac. This scholarly translation too became lost, until a part of it came to light in 1571. Thereafter, according to a very remarkable timetable, portions of it have reemerged from oblivion at intervals of one century. Since in the past century scholars have had to be satisfied with only some tiny new fragments, the recent discovery of the nearly complete Pentateuch is an unbelievable stroke of fortune. The facsimile plate shows the Syro-Hexapla text of Numbers 24 :3-16. The textual apparatus in the margin has preserved variant readings from the ancient versions prepared by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion —all lost—and the sigla used by Origen. Written on soft Oriental paper, in a neat and attractive early sert script fully befitting the extraordinary literary monument, this manuscript can be assigned to the 12th century.

ee

:

Maes

ae Ar

Shas

ERT!

v

EP =)

TE

LS «erede

"

ys Oe Lots

Sa

PE

“Aber

i]. l. 3ues2os Sor bales 085 «iow 680972] lun qe dase Are

MEETS dus ve Lévis

Ree ER cR MSRP pes.UNES. L: whe

Wash

ων

br

LES

: 24

SNS

UA By

s

in

SS:

δ]

ees: SS

SEN

»4

ara]

hale

ot

NV

ande.

liim

eA

SCAN

TERRE

eee Lisle Sass. AQU

À . qt. T di

»! "P

πα εν RAR Re. πὺν εὶς, STE per ‘he: Le EZ, loei aso co VOS

v

1233). Perla

SAUT

So»

spas] oM

RISE

SRA

ases las. kiss

ass

el,

rase

Kal; NE

«eia Jos yadda 1194

VU] κοΐ,» Se HE

|

LI Ipoh }set zolsahno eiae lino

qu

"ha. s ertet eee

NS es NESTIle. RE INS. AMA

20

j

Karate

ΘΟ]

md

gel

LX yw? Qi

Cm

al: vele TESTER

ds Asso cordes] zd. {τ

hae»

S

eter Be

SUM.

.

ran.

a.

DI

Plate 2.

uates

s

Qa

Kae

1

ANNE DIEN “τὰν

beu whole ul ueniet län

SN

^

Plate 3

Isaiah in the Syro-Hexapla Version Ms. Jerusalem ] St. Mark's Syrian Monastery This manuscript has been well protected in its hiding place, having successfully eluded until now those few persons who have visited the famous monastery in order to see its manuscripts. The codex is indeed a rare phenomenon. It contains the Book of Isaiah in the version of the Syro-Hexapla, the Syriac translation of the text from the fifth column of Origen's Hexapla (which we encountered in the previous note). The facsimile plate presents the text of Isaiah 36:6-21, furnished with the Hexaplaric sigla and the apparatus of this scholarly edition. The manuscript is a vellum codex written in a solemn and impressive 'estrangelà script. It bears the marks of the vicissitudes of time, to which the colophon also has fallen victim. However, on paleographical grounds the ‘estrangela script can safely be ascribed to the 8th century.

Plate 4

An Early Tetraevangelium Influenced by the Vetus Syra Ms. Istanbul In the private possession of Tuma Basaranlar This beautiful volume containing a tetraevangelium throws new light on the transmission of the text of the gospels. It demonstrates in a surprising way the influence of the archaic traditions known as the Old Syriac. There are sections in which the manuscript textually goes its own way, presenting readings never encountered hitherto. It sheds further light on the transmission of the Pesittà version and on the period when hybrid forms of the text were in circulation in the lands of the Euphrates and the Tigris. The facsimile plate gives us the text of Mark 14:49-15:1. The manuscript is on a fine parchment, written in a very elegant 'estrangelà script. This form of the script belongs to an early period and can usually be seen in manuscripts which come from the 6th century.

‘+ Pid

Plate 5

An Early PeSittä Tetraevangelium Ms. Diyarbakir 1/2 In the Church of Mär Ja'qob of Serüg This aced by canons It is a

thick and impressive the letter of Eusebius of Eusebius. Here we very ancient witness

although

it

is

in

the

main

volume contains a tetraevangelium, prefabout parallel passages and the so-called have to do with a very precious record. to the version of the Pesittä. Textually, stream

of

this

version,

it

reveals

a

physiognomy marked by its own variants important for tracing the evolution of the biblical text. This manuscript, on a fine and expensive vellum, displays an elegant and beautiful 'estrangelà script. The character of the script, which represents its early form, is strikingly similar to that of another manuscript (Ms. Vat. Syr. 12) which was copied in the year 548 in Edessa, the metropolis of Mesopotamia. These observations are supported also by the system of liturgical lections which appears in the oldest Syriac manuscripts of the gospels and which has not yet reached its developed form. In the facsimile plate we find the text of Mark 14:45-64.

'$ Meld

Plate 6

An Early Nestorian Lectionary Ms. Tel Képh

1

In the Church of the Sacred Heart near Mosul, Iraq This manuscript is a very ancient example of the genre of lectionaries. Its text, taken from all four gospels, displays traditions which reflect the influence of the Old Syriac version, this important witness to the earliest form of the New Testament text. Occasionally it has preserved readings which do not appear in the known sources. Furthermore, through its liturgical rubrics the codex not only throws important light on the cuit of the saints, but also furnishes us with valuable historical and biographical data concerning eminent martyrs, monks, teachers and other dignitaries—data which help us to check references in the lectionaries and diptychs of later centuries. It is also our earliest testimony on the liturgical traditions of Arbél, a very ancient Christian center in Mesopotamia. This impressive vellum codex displays a very beautiful and elegant ‘estrangelä script which represents an early form of Nestorian writing. The ductus is very similar to that of a manuscript written in 599/600 A.D.

(Ms.

Br.

Mus.

Add.

14,460).

The

date

in the

rubrics

of this

lectionary compels us to reckon with the first part of the 7th century. Our facsimile shows the text of John 21:2-14 and Luke 4:38-39; the latter lection is used in connection with the commemoration of Martyr

Sirin.

e

mew

sm

EAT CAU

.

SN

POS

AN ed

ONU TI

Deko tir

*-

Ar

D

|

:

o on

. quon

vuv

vivo v

ese

"Vidi Vou

™

Bie

llic

|

VK

‘9 318]d

f

j

po, QE BEN

TH

IST

AI

A

URN

why VARRO,

A Dfor» orbi

ESTA UV LT

|

:

ν᾽

Plate 7

The Harklean Version of the Apocalypse Ms. Mardin 35 Syrian Orthodox Archbishopric This heavy folio-codex has concealed a very rare document, namely, the Apocalypse in the Harklean version. There has been a long controversy regarding the Syriac text of the Apocalypse, particularly since the emergence of the so-called Crawford Apocalypse". Now finally the entire text of Thomas of Harkel has emerged, after it had been waiting for centuries in its hiding place. In this codex, which contains the New Testament in the version of the PeSitta, the Apocalypse comes immediately after the Gospel of John. This scholarly version, moreover, is furnished not only with a textual critical apparatus but also with a colophon which for the first time informs us about the preparation of the version. The colophon relates that two Greek manuscripts were employed by "Tüma, the poor one and a sinner”; it was “collated in the month of ‘Ab in the year 927 according to Alexander in the fourth indiction, in the Monastery of the Antonians at the Enaton of the city of Alexandria", i.e. in August 616 A.D. Our facsimile presents the text of Revelation 18:3-16. The codex is on Oriental waxed paper, written in a clear and attractive West Syrian sertä script by a firm hand. This kind of script can be assigned to the 12th or 13th century.

AT

Jh IE

No fin e

fd

ἢ

| Lo

a)

AND»

os

oe

7

Se

»

,

Lex

zr

wos,

[roan Er

so

où» herpes

a

δ

lo

bs ^

|

hy

LENA

[od

bebe aa

NS

das “A9 vor 9/, pel ES δὸς,» EN EN Kerle II LES yale δὰ a3axo .

PG

AS

SN τῶν,

plas [91s

SN

a. oo

SSS NS pe - ls e itZA EN 2207 Lion od νων ἄμ ad^ RIDE S5ilo MN !later. 1)

REN HN

y

iso

OO

alte

D

Do

/No

eS

SENAT o»

Do

«3

: το,

δέον

VAE

Lvan

wor [Io

RA

»

| Ion

do

Xe. a

\

y Ie

al

PASSEN

N

TN er:

Dias

o.

coros.

a vrbe pre I

Joco. ixo/.5. PU

end.

ara

CAD Es

e Ne? δ

NS

ἡ

Sas

INT de lie

Ne

s aos [dl leo. Vins

ἀν ee Ee Tore ES x)

"Brauer

fs m

sun

Dres

P

-

(labs

m.

|

eA

20

ss. ANS

so Lax alec |

TRIS

JinSoo

NIIS oe 32530

risp

E

PO of ec

a

tere

des So As

De ῥα e

Iran yo

Plate 7.

/Ne

z

xe AN. NI A pa xA X) asd I

As

,

las:

103 Ne Dv»... [Io

\r/so i

(Io,

Plate 8

An Old Testament Commentary of Dionysios bar Salibi Ms. Mardin 66 Syrian Orthodox Archbishopric The exegetical work of Dionysios bar Salibi (12th cent.) occupies an important place in the hermeneutical traditions of the West Syrians. So very little has been at our disposal until now that it has not been sufficient for an edition. It is very gratifying, therefore, that the search has been crowned with the discovery of a dozen hitherto unknown manuscripts. A page from the oldest of these manuscripts is presented here, giving Dionysios’ comments on Exodus 13. This precious volume of gigantic size covers the commentaries on the Old Testament, beginning with Genesis and ending with Zephaniah, including both the pragmatic and the pneumatic commentaries in separate columns. The codex enables us to reach the oldest stream in the transmission of the text.

A professional calligrapher copied the volume on Oriental paper in a graceful and slender West Syrian sertä script. The colophon unfortunately has disappeared with the last folios. Paleographical considerations can reckon here with the 12th or 13th century.

‘8 eld

Plate 9

Mose bar Kephà's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke Ms. Mardin 102 Syrian Orthodox Archbishopric Discovery of this manuscript has rescued a very rare work of New Testament exegesis from oblivion. In the area of hermeneutical traditions there is no greater name among the West Syrians than Mosé bar Képhà (d.903). Not only was he the earliest exegete in the Monophysite fold, but his creative power enabled him to extend scholarly frontiers and bring to fruition an exegetical activity which rests on older strata. This manuscript, which contains a previously unknown commentary on the Gospel of Luke, lay hidden in the manuscript collection of the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Mardin. With the recovery of this volume a mine of wealth has emerged. First, it acquaints us with the exegetical work

of Mose

bar

Képha.

Further,

it discloses

older hermeneutical

traditions. Particularly precious among them are the elements which enable us to trace the veins of Palestinian Christian ore that persist in the most ancient exegetical traditions of the Syrians. There is a thrill that comes from the hope that in this way we may penetrate the lore inherited from the primitive Aramaic-speaking Christianity of Palestine. Thirdly, the gospel text which Moie employs proves to be very valuable because of its archaic elements. Our facsimile shows Mo&e's comments on Luke 4:33-35. The folio codex is written on soft Oriental paper in an impressively graceful and flowing West Syrian sertä script, with the commentary in black and the lemmata in red. A colophon at the end reveals that the manuscript was written by [ξδ΄, a deacon who was a teacher in a church in Mosul. The remaining part has been abraded, and only infra-red photography can reveal its secret.

|

ne? cam Se Jolin ST Ala vno ee ise riaNE tocos D pla1993 24 o0 te os Da

ES up

r

;

à

rf

τ

ened

laa, loo

ya

el). bo

Yet

+ 082

Koad

Jamie 2

ALLY

mas

o» yl Sonido am

con Do 90 4204 So

rosa vesirodasxs voll.

Pa Lo

ola, onda

SESS BST

o

wel x04!

mi ue Ple. /60 as euo

(ol

vs

. AG, adhe a «ood

sol 4? 2,22 ons 3 44] v δὲ Hu

.cf1xX

pog"

CES

=

ΤΑΙ

.

ΣΝ

Fear

[Ce

lean

perc

m A

3.-

em»

mr.

eo)tol-

Ee

"

ἍΝ

JL

900 vel 9 An

LS

“aces

PRETEREA

Plate 9.

rq

a

ad

Plate 10

The West Syrian Synodicon Ms. Damascus 8/11

Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate In this manuscript emerges something completely unheard of and unique. Here for the first time is revealed a corpus of the conciliar acts of the West Syrian Church, regarding whose existence there has been absolutely no inkling. The facsimile plate presents the very beginning of this corpus, namely, the beginning of the acts of the synod held under Patriarch Giwargi on May 22, 785 in Kepharnabü. Besides this unique material, the codex contains a large collection of other legislative sources, laws, canons, ordinances and rules. Indeed, it is unbelievable that one single collection of legislative documents could contain so many items which are priceless because of their historical uniqueness. The West Syrian sertä script displays elegance of style, performed by an artful, professional hand such as was cultivated in the scriptoria of the Syrian monasteries. However, it exhibits a ductus which does not appear in the examples of other dated manuscripts. This is evidence for the observation that for literary monuments of extraordinary importance specially qualified hands were used. There are special reasons for rejoicing that the folio-leaves which bear the colophon, so close to perdition (the end of the codex has perished), have survived and that authentic information has come down to us regarding the origin of this unique literary monument: it was completed on 'lyar 5 in the year 1515 A.Gr., i.e. on May 5 1204 A.D.

CV OY my

cem tx ud

v

€,

Mp

«ὦ -

us.

ur

u

. «t ΩΝ

ét beerM

re

M

er

M 1.8

eio €

er

v "E

ae

es MMC

een

wo

ET,

àne

^t

5

Emo

Ad

we

Lo vh ΟΝ:

MM

2c

z^

76

myer ers seen.

c

ὦχω er v ornat —

έτστ

i

al kmEenn

M

ym

ocr

rry

le

(S e.

« ML

Lp I

ὁ

pere

day

one

στίος

BET A

eee

e eoo

ave

ee rtg em

org:

Ce N

OY? vero

CE

I

sr

Ὁ, πὸ

dme TH

Tee

mie

:

s

fgg

OTTO

ον

OLY ieri eam

pres

Forti

ns:

Ric e

|

Ar x

emen

ΕΝ LYC A — εἰ

=

| IL

Ce

grey

coor gel ieorverm peor irn o«/ : Gies & 70$ τσ

D

LIT ARE μ᾿

OL NEld

Σ

PL

eT

MONDE

f

u‘

oN IM

EN qe

an

er

ST

.

ut

AME

tem

m

À oy

4 6in

art CO