Investigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula of Edessa 9781463232818

Citation preview

Investigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula of Edessa

Syriac Studies Library

231

Sériés Editors Monica Blanchard Cari Griffïn Kristian Heal George Anton Kiraz David G.K. Taylor

The Syriac Studies Library brings back to active circulation major reference works in the field of Syriac studies, including dictionaries, grammars, text editions, manuscript catalogues, and monographs. The books were reproduced from originals at The Catholic University of America, one of the largest collections of Eastern Christianity in North America. The project is a collaboration between CUA, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, and Brigham Young University.

Investigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula of Edessa

Arthur Vööbus

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com G&C Kiraz is an imprint of Gorgias Press LLC Copyright © 2012 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1947 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

2012

ISBN 978-1-61143-616-7

Reprinted from the 1947 Pinneberg edition.

Digitized by Brigham Young University. Printed in the United States of America.

Series Foreword

This series provides reference works in Syriac studies from original books digitized at the ICOR library of The Catholic University of America under the supervision of Monica Blanchard, ICOR's librarian. The project was carried out by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Brigham Young University. About 675 books were digitized, most of which will appear in this series. Our aim is to present the volumes as they have been digitized, preserving images of the covers, front matter, and back matter (if any). Marks by patrons, which may shed some light on the history of the library and its users, have been retained. In some cases, even inserts have been digitized and appear here in the location where they were found. The books digitized by Brigham Young University are in color, even when the original text is not. These have been produced here in grayscale for economic reasons. The grayscale images retain original colors in the form of gray shades. The books digitized by Beth Mardutho and black on white. We are grateful to the head librarian at CUA, Adele R. Chwalek, who was kind enough to permit this project. "We are custodians, not owners of this collection," she generously said at a small gathering that celebrated the completion of the project. We are also grateful to Sidney Griffith who supported the project.

Index: Introduction

pag1

I. The position of the problem

5

II. Relations of the quotations in Cyril's Greek original and Rabbula's Syriac translation 10 III. Relations between the quotations in Rabbula and those in the Peshitta 15 IV. The deviations of the Gospel text in the light of ancient text traditions

1S

V. The deviations of the Apostolos text in the light of ancient text traditions 28 VI. The time of the use of Vetus Syra by Rabbula

34

Conclusions

38

40

••

Contributions of Baltic University No. 5 9

Pinneberg, 1 9 4 7

Investigations into the Text of the New Testament Used by Rabbuia of Edessa by

Prof. Dr. Arthur Vööbus

Introduction. Since it assumed its form in the Semitic idiom, the New Testament has undergone special development and has a history in itself in districts not far east from the cradle of Christianity. Although these Syriac versions have been allotted a significant place beside others, and have been abundantly discussed and written of, yet little attention has been devoted to their investigation. They have had to content themselves with, as it were, an orphan's share in this respect. It is therefore by no means superfluous if something is said here about the importance of such investigations. To a student of Christian history this branch is of wide significance and amply justifies efforts in this direction. Without presuming to be exhaustive, one need only mention some points of what tbi study of the New Testament in this idiom may signify; there we deal with traditions of the life and utterances of Jesus Christ in a language which must have been very similar to that in which these words came from the lips of the Master himself and how they were told and retold in the circle of his disciples. When inquiring into the oldest translation of the Greek original, we must take recourse to the Syriac idiom. Let us recall here what Eusebius has preserved about this. He speaks of how Hegesipp cites the Gospel to the Hebrews, as well as the Syriac Gospel 1 ). Here we ' ' E x TE TOU x a i P 'Eßpacoix; EùayysXio\> x a l TOÖ S u p i a x o ü , x a l ìSiw? e x TÌJ-, 'Eßpa'tSoi; SIOCXSXTOO -uvà - u S - ^ C U V , s j j ^ A I V C O V èZ, ' E ß p a i w v éauTÒv 7ts7riaTeuxsvai H i s t o r i a ecclesiastjca IV, 22, 8 M i g n e , Patrologia graeca, X X , 3 8 4 A .

have to do with the oldest translation of the New Testament, at a time when the old Latin translation was still in an embryonic state. Besides this, the study of Syriac versions also offers interest from the point of view of the general history of the human mind. These versions originated at a time and in circumstances where Syrian Christendom in Mesopotamia was still untouched by Hellenic influences. But their further development forms a journey by stages, which is perpetually accompanied by a tendency to supersede their peculiarities and to conform them to the Greek original. T h e history of the Syriac New Testament is simultaneously the history of western influence in the Orient. Here is a curve, following which we can perceive a wave of Hellenization moving from the Occident towards the Orient. T h i s is a chapter of the history of spiritual evolution, which with the help of the Bible text we can trace for quite a long time. A magnificent spectacle of the struggle between the Hellenistic and the Syrian spirit presents itself, the latter being forced to retreat step by step before the grandiose onset of Hellenism. T h e investigation of Syriac versions of the New Testament is closely connected with the research of Syrian ecclesiastical history. T h e Syriac versions are densely interwoven with the ecclesiastical and religious life of the Syrians. These old versions once resounded in churches and cloisters which are now ruins, they were perused in monks cells, taught in schools and memorized by the congregations- of the f a i t h f u l , thus becoming most intimately connected with the every-day life of the people. T h e y form, as it were, a commentary upon the history and development of the Syriac-speaking Church. These investigations give us an insight into an essential chapter of the ecclesiastical history of the Syrians. Last, but not least, the investigation of these versions has a certain specific value. T h e old Syriac Versions are namely of the highest importance respecting the textual criticism of the New Testament. T h i s aspect, first considered of only partial importance, tends to claim even independent momentousness. I t is regrettable that one must admit that, in spite of the intentions having been evinced in the use of these versions, the part played by them has as yet not been correctly estimated. T h e textual-critical values of Syriac versions lie mostly in totally different domains. W h a t is even more important, they o f f e r much wider prospects. I t will certainly still demand much assiduity, but I am convinced that the day cannot be very far when the oldest Syriac version, the first attempt at reconstruction of the Diatessaron T a t i a n ' s which has until now been merely a vague hope, will have become a reality. T h i s is an outlook which surpasses all previous possibilities and enables us to approach some great problems more rapidly than ever 2

before. T h e investigation of the O l d Syriac versions may lead us to that secret path which also promises us access behind the oldest Greek manuscripts. T h e r e is no doubt that in this way a real service could be rendered to New Testament criticism. T h r o u g h the Syrian medium we see tangibly before us the text of the Gospel which T a t i a n , on becoming a convert to Christianity in Rome in the middle of the second century, first took in hand and upon which he later on founded his Gospel Harmony. T h r o u g h the Diatesisaron the investigator is often confronted with observations, in which a specific form of the text stands before us, displaying original features in the Synoptic Gospels as well as in St. John. For the textual investigator these are interesting variants and peculiarities, which are vainly sought after in the Greek manuscript tradition at our disposal to-day. These variants and peculiarities, however, make the text of the Diatessaron particularly interesting. W h a t a glorious outlook for this research work, once the day is near when we can hold this complete text in. our hands! T h i s consideration .alone ought to suffice to keep those problems actual which promise us so rich a harvest for the criticism of the text; of the New Testament. These are single points which might be especially emphasized when dealing with the investigation of Old Syriac versions, points which justify much greater attention being given to this field of research than has hitherto been the case. As already mentioned, they have been almost completely overlooked. I myself have often observed what vast fields of research lie quite fallow and uncultivated. I have stated how in cases where it is possible to attain historical certainty, it has been preferred to let widely divergent hypotheses suffice. I n the various problems of the history of the Syriac New Testament the ideas of the English scholar, Professor F. C. Burkitt hold a dominant position to-day. T h e y acquired axiomatic value long ago. I t is clear that whoever wishes to utter a dictum in these questions must have regard for facts in his research work, facts which have already been proved as such and do not require repeated proof. But this refers only to notions which have been proved as facts. T h e ideas of Burkitt are not proved. O n closer investigation of Burkitt's opinions, it cannot remain unnoticed that from a purely methodological standpoint they already provoke criticism. His whole construction is based upon a very narrow and meagre fundament which merely sustains a narrow edge of the huge edifice above it, leaving everything else suspended, as it were, in the air. All the theories concerning anterior and posterior periods, which Burkitt heaps upon this basis, have to be uphold by one single document.

3

On that this phase of tation is

turning to the substance of his opinions, it becomes evident is a case of the projection of later period into the oldest: the history of the New Testament, and thus the argumencomparable to a purely theoretical operation.

There are two roads, on which scientists wend their way. Some work deductively, others work inductively. The former bring a complete architectural design with them and then select suitable stones for their edifice, even carving and cutting them to make them fit. The latter build up their constructions by carrying the stones together without knowing beforehand what result will eventuate. The first might be called the scientific-artistic, the second the purely scientific method. Burkitt took the first road and derived his information about the Old Syriac versions while employing this method. I have preferred to take the second road. During the long years which I have devoted to the study of Syrian ecclesiastical history, the enticing charm of the Syriac versions of the New Testament has attracted me more and more. M y researches have been accompanied on the one side by the conviction that existent hypotheses can neither be eliminated by new ones nor is the cause served by so-doing, and on the other side by the firm belief that nothing but exact material from the original sources and the investigation of it can give us a nearer approach to actual reality. This point of view has necessitated more thorough patristic researches with the object of enlarging the bulk and range of proof-material and of following more closely the use of old versions as far as our sources still show traces of them. This patristic research is comparable to plunging into dark passages without knowing beforehand where they may lead us, and it has required 3. great deal of time to accustom oneself and not lose one's way in them. But steady pursuit has been compensated by various discoveries, which have taught us to view the complex of problems now under discussion from a different aspect. What has appeared on our horizon as the result of patristic investigations is new and surprising, — and it throws fundamentally new light upon the Diatessaron, Old Syriac versions and the Peshitta. The present work is intended as a starting-point for further inquiries, in which I shall demonstrate the results of my investigations. They will, I hope, augment our present information on the history of the text of the Syriac New Testament from the abovementioned point of view. The history of the text of the New Testament will find new data for the history of the Syriac Gospel texts. The last point regarding the Diatessaron is included, for I hope to present disclosures, by which a reconstruction of the Diatessaron can be effected. In conclusion one word more about the road taken in this work. The attainment of these conceptions has not been an easy task. It is a

4

burdensome road, as are all those which textual-historical and textualcritical work force us to take. It is inevitable that whoever wishes to accompany the investigator on the rough and thorny path of textualhistorical research must share some of his difficulties. The reader, too, will not be spared them and must needs participate in our-toil. I have preferred to lay out before him at least a part of the valuable material which keeps us on historical ground in the pursuit of these problems, helps us in our struggle onward, and avoids the domain of hypotheses. I have not the gift, so frequently displayed in other scientists' works, of diminishing the aridity of these data. But once we have put our trust in these facts and have become fellow-travellers, our toil will be recompensed by discoveries the correctness of which can be proved by evidence. I. The Position of the Problem. Westcott and Hort spoke of the Peshitta as of "the Syriac Vulgate." And, in fact, among the Syrian Christians the Peshitta takes the place which the Vulgate has in the Latin church. All the Syrian churches, Jakobites and Nestorians, Maronites and Melkites, employ it as the canonical text. The Peshitta thus holds a very prominent place, being the connecting spiritual link between the rival movements. This clearly indicates that its beginnings must date back to the common origin of all these fractions. Our knowledge about this in many respects very remarkable text has been gathered very slowly. W e now know that the Peshitta is not a translation, but a revision of an Old Syriac version. W e know, too, that its text has been copied with great mi luteness and handed down from generation to generation more correctly than the Bible text has been transmitted in any other version. This is proved by tiig Peshitta itself and its manuscript tradition. But Syriac literature has not preserved any information of more than legendary value about the time and the circumstances of the origination of the Peshitta. All problems connected whith the oiigin of the Peshitta have been laid by writers of Syrian history on the shoulders of modern criticism. I t is simple enough to find out how criticism has acted here. It is unnecessary to write the history of the problem, — here we have to deal with the views of one man only, who effected a change on problems which had been hitherto only approached cautiously and mostly left u n d e c i d e d . U p to the present all information about the ) „We a private Peshitta: version.1

do not as yet know, however, whether this revision wns m e r e l y effort or what influence, if anv, it exerciscd on the history of the m o r e likely it was a first step in the direction of the Philoxenian. W . Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London 1894) 11.

5

burdensome road, as are all those which textual-historical and textualcritical work force us to take. It is inevitable that whoever wishes to accompany the investigator on the rough and thorny path of textualhistorical research must share some of his difficulties. The reader, too, will not be spared them and must needs participate in our-toil. I have preferred to lay out before him at least a part of the valuable material which keeps us on historical ground in the pursuit of these problems, helps us in our struggle onward, and avoids the domain of hypotheses. I have not the gift, so frequently displayed in other scientists' works, of diminishing the aridity of these data. But once we have put our trust in these facts and have become fellow-travellers, our toil will be recompensed by discoveries the correctness of which can be proved by evidence. I. The Position of the Problem. Westcott and Hort spoke of the Peshitta as of "the Syriac Vulgate." And, in fact, among the Syrian Christians the Peshitta takes the place which the Vulgate has in the Latin church. All the Syrian churches, Jakobites and Nestorians, Maronites and Melkites, employ it as the canonical text. The Peshitta thus holds a very prominent place, being the connecting spiritual link between the rival movements. This clearly indicates that its beginnings must date back to the common origin of all these fractions. Our knowledge about this in many respects very remarkable text has been gathered very slowly. W e now know that the Peshitta is not a translation, but a revision of an Old Syriac version. W e know, too, that its text has been copied with great mi luteness and handed down from generation to generation more correctly than the Bible text has been transmitted in any other version. This is proved by tiig Peshitta itself and its manuscript tradition. But Syriac literature has not preserved any information of more than legendary value about the time and the circumstances of the origination of the Peshitta. All problems connected whith the oiigin of the Peshitta have been laid by writers of Syrian history on the shoulders of modern criticism. I t is simple enough to find out how criticism has acted here. It is unnecessary to write the history of the problem, — here we have to deal with the views of one man only, who effected a change on problems which had been hitherto only approached cautiously and mostly left u n d e c i d e d . U p to the present all information about the ) „We a private Peshitta: version.1

do not as yet know, however, whether this revision wns m e r e l y effort or what influence, if anv, it exerciscd on the history of the m o r e likely it was a first step in the direction of the Philoxenian. W . Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London 1894) 11.

5

Peshitta has remained at the same stage as was reached by the English scientist Burkitt at the beginning of the century. Let us expound his views. On analysing Burkitt's opinions we find that the sustaining pillar of his theories was his assumption that there are sources which prove that the Peshitta obtained dominance in the time of ,the Bishop "Rabbula ( 4 1 1 — 4 3 5 A . D.). Feeling that he was on a solid basis, Burkitt wished to go even further, urged by the belief that great events in history must necessarily be connected with persons who can be historically ascertained. F o r the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe he chose Palut, the leader of the orthodox group in Edessa about the end of the second century. A n d then an author had also to be found for the Peshitta. T h u s Burkitt tried to collect data enabling him to invest Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, with this function. Although there had already been voices in favour of this theory, it was Burkitt who elaborated it: " " T h e inference is obvious that Rabbula had himself a chief share in the publication of the Peshitta. T h i s inference becomes to my mind something very like a certainty when we read that at the beginning of his episcopate "he translated by the wisdom of G o d that was in him the N e w Testament from Greek into Syriac, because of its variations, exactly as it was" (Overbeck 172)- A s we have seen, he was just the man to favour such a revision, and just the man to carry it through succesfully." " 2 ) One theory is readily prepared to support another. I f Rabbula was the author and creator of the Peshitta,' it was easy to imagine this bishop, of whom we know that he governed his diocese with severity, carrying the Peshitta into effect and making it predominant. T h e personality and energy of Rabbula were to make the spreading of the Peshitta comprehensible. A l l the more so as we possess canons f o r priests and clericals by Rabbula from which it appears that he had indeed set his heart upon supplanting the Diatessaron and replacing it by the Four-Gospel types. Burkitt could now show which was the text of the New Testament that Rabbula brought in everywhere instead of the Diatessaron — it was the Peshitta. " I believe that Evangelion daMepharreshe meant the Four Gospels as opposed to the Diatessaron, but not the Four Gospels in the Curetonian version as opposed to the Peshitta. I n fact, I know of no term in Syriac which was used to distinguish a copy of the Curetonian version from a copy of the Peshitta." 3 ) Such were Burkitt's theses about the origin and further fate of the Peshitta, drawn in rough lines, which he repeatedly presented to the scientific world. He first brought these views out in 1 9 0 1 . He then 2

) Early Eastern

s; ibid! 62.

6

Christianity

( L o n d o n 1904) 57.

perfected them and presented them again in f i n a l f o r m in 1904, when his " E a r l y Eastern C h r i s t i a n i t y " and the second volume of the " E v a n gelion d a - M e p h a r r e s h e " were published. H e r e he writes: " T h e s e words (the notice in the Syriac b i o g r a p h y ) I believe to be an account of the f i r s t publication of the Syriac V u l g a t e . R a b b u l a f o u n d the D i a t e s saron in general use; the f o u r G o s p e l s were little read and there was no standard text of them. T o bring the Syriac-speaking congregations into line with G r e e k thought and G r e e k praxis it was necessary to get rid of the Diatessaron. H i s f l o c k read the Diatessaron, but the other Churches of G o d had no such custom, and he resolved to get rid of it. T h e E v a n g e l i o n - d a - M e p h a r r e s h e was therefore revised by him into greater conformity w i t h the text current in A n t i o c h at the beginning of the 5 1?? century, and the use of this revised E v a n g e l i o n d a - M e p h a r reshe was enjoined by him. H i s e f f o r t s were eminently successful in this as in all his other undertakings. T h e Diatessaron was suppressed and the revised text of the F o u r G o s p e l s soon attained a position of unassailable s u p r e m a c y . " 4 ) I t was an excellent method of lending these problems actuality. B u r k i t t possessed the talent f o r treating them interestingly and attractively, so that they gained access to the general public and were p u t upon a candelabrum. I t was a m a g n i f i c e n t s i g n a l c a l l i n g f o r critical scrutiny and dissection of these important problems. I t is surprising, however ,that this latter did not ensue and that no thorough researches were made at all. T h e basic question which f o r m e d the f u n d a m e n t of all Burkitt's theories did not evoke, any discussion whatever, to say nothing of anybody evincing a desire to approach it more closely. O n l y very f e w voices have made themselves heard which i n f e r that everything does not quite f i t into the scheme . T h e canon of the Peshitta was decidedly shorter, and this is a sure sign that the canon of the Peshitta must be of an earlier date than R a b b u l a . T h e person of R a b b u l a was likewise n o t f e l t to be the most suitable and f o r t u n a t e candidate. T h e s e were the reasons w h y F . N a u did not f o l l o w B u r kitt's theories. A s an exception among his contemporaries, his opinion deserves special notice. 5 ) Subsequently J. B . C h a b o t seems to have shared the same scepticism. I n his H i s t o r y of Syriac literature he

) The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic Evidence. ( C a m b r i d g e 1905) II, 161 s q . 4

See also his last writing „Syriac-speaking Christianity" in

Ancient

History

The Cambridge

( C a m b r i d g e 1939) X I I , 502.

5

) ,.M. Burkitt a déjà signalé quelques objections à sa théorie: a) Le canon de la Peschitto, qûi ne comprend ni l'Apocalypse ni quatre Épîtres catholiques semble indiquer une origine plus ancienne. M. Burkitt répond que l'Église d'Antioche ne les admettait pas non plus. cf. canon des Écritures, t. II. col. 175, et que- l'ancienne Église syrienne n'admettait

7

makes no mention whatever of Rabbula's share in the origin of the Peshitta. 6 ) B u t these are only single voices. I n the year 1 9 2 6 F . G . K e n y o n notices: " T h e conclusion is obvious, and is now generally accepted, that Rabbula's version was the Peshitto i t s e l f . " 7 ) Professor A . Rücker writes in the year 1 9 3 6 : „ F a s t allgemein wird angenommen, daß R a b bula der Urheber der neutestamentlichen syrischen Bibelübersetzung der Peshitta s e i . " 8 ) A n d thus this opinion prevails everywhere in current literature and manuals. (See T h e International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James O r r , J o h n L . Nuelsen, E d g a r Y . M u l l i n s , Chicago 1 9 3 0 , Vol. V , 2884 sq.). So the position of the problem is now exactly the same as stated by Burkitt. T h e excellent book of C. Peters „ D a s Diatessaron T a t i ans. Seine Überlieferung und sein Nachwirken im M o r g e n - und Abendland sowie der heutige Stand seiner E r f o r s c h u n g " , R o m e 1 9 3 9 is the most convenient way of gaining information about the present position. T h i s not only gives a good survey of the various research branches of Syriac versions, but also o f f e r s problems and future tasks. T h e chapter „ D i e altsyrischen Evangelienversionen und das Problem der P e s h i t t a " 9 ) makes it clear that Burkitt's opinions are still recognised as valid and that the necessity of a revision has not yet arisen on the general horizon. T h e same is testified by a new book published recently 1 0 ). probablement que« la loi, les prophètes, les évangiles, les lettres de Paul et les actes des douze Apôtres » dont la doctrine d'Addaï, conservée dans un manuscrit du Vie siècle, d i t : « Vous lirez ces livres dans l'église de Dieu et aucun autre. »II s'ensuivrait que l'auteur de la Peschitto aurait déjà assez élargi le canon syrien en y introduisant trois Épîtres catholiques et que même au Ve siècle, on ne pouvait lui demander plus. — b) Rabbula, d'abord favorable à Nestorius, devint ensuite le champion de saint Cyrille, et il n'est pas vraisemblable que les nestoriens auraient adopté la Peschitto si cette version était de lui. M. Burkitt suppose qu'elle était faite et adoptée avant le concile d'Éphèse . . . Il a pu y avoir un grand nombre de recensions syriaques particulières, comme cela avait lieu, d'après saint Jérôme, pour le latin où chacun compilait à son gré son propre exemplaire, il ne serait donc pas impossible que l'évangile « séparé » et la Peschitto soient contemporains, au lieu d'être successifs, et qu'ils procèdent de trois remaniements simultanés du Diatessuron, les deux premiers (Se et Ssc) n'étant, que des curiosités littéraires. La théorie de M. Burkitt n e s ' i m p o s e p a s . " Dictionnaire de la Bible ( P a r i s 1912) Vol. V, 2. col. 1926. 6 ) „La version Simple du Nouveau Testament est l'Ancien." Littérature syriaque, Paris 1934, 19. He ,.Nous avons dit les efforts qu'il fit pour substituer l'usage des églises, la version Simple des Ecritures." 7

) ) ) 10 ) 8 9

Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament ( L o n d o n 1 9 2 6 ) 1 6 3 . Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche ( F r e i b u r g 1 9 3 6 ) V I I I , c o l . 6 0 2 . Orientalia christiana analecta C X X I I I , 2 9 s q q . cf. 4 3 s q q . P . E . K a h l e , The Cairo Geniza. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy,

(London 1947) 2i0 sq.

8

postérieure à celle de sa'ys about Rabbula; au Diatessaron, dans ibid. 47.

I am aware that we cannot attain decisive clarity about Rabbula's role as long as we are unable to decide f r o m his own works which New Testament text he used. But our first acquaintance with the relics of his works gives us no satisfaction at all. W h a t remains of them does not d i f f e r much f r o m ruins which stand before us as the last witnesses of what was once a great literature. A n d even that we must renounce, as they o f f e r so utterly few points of support as to quotations. T h e r e is one single f r a g m e n t of the homilies left. u ) F r o m a large correspondence only very little which does not contain some quotations. Rabbula's homily against the veneration of the dead is as yet unedited 1 2 ). Rabbula's share in the poetic pieces which are found in the Syriac breviary 1 3 ) is doubtful. I t is methodically correct to p u t these doubtful pieces completely aside, as their authenticity is not proved soundly enough. O n seeing how little the tooth of time has l e f t of Rabbula's original material and realising that this little does not help us on at all, almost all hope of proceeding further in this direction is extinguished. Yet all these deficiencies are amply rewarded by a certain work, although this does not come f r o m Rabbula himself and his part in it was only that of a translator. Doubts might easily arise as to what we could be searching for in this work. Evidently it was the same prejudice that caused this text to be l e f t unnoticed. But nevertheless this translation passed through his hands and it is not improbable that some traces of this contact are to be found in the text. Autopsy has often been recompensed past all expectations. T h i s work which has already roused our curiosity, is f r o m the pen of Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, and is his ITspi r/jc op07¡i> Tríaxswc14), a work of polemical-dogmatical character, the preservation of which is especially fortunate. W e even possess the Greek original text f r o m two sources. W e have it separately in the corpus of the works of Cyril and then in the acts of the Council of Ephesus 15 ). T h e service rendered us by this work is due to the f o r m which it has assumed in the Syriac idiom. Namely Cyril sent this work to Edessa to have it translated by Rabbula W e are in the fortunate position to have been able to gather closer details about the circumstances of this matter which are of the greatest interest. Cyril himself mentions them in the letter appended to the treatise he sent Rabbula. T h e Greek original of the letter is not extant and it is only known that it existed as u

)

S. Ephraemi

Syri Rabulae

episcopi

Edetseni

Baiati

aliorumque

Opera

selecta,

ed. J. J. Overbeck (Oxonii 1865) 239 sqq. J

)

")

,4 ) 15)

S t . E . A s s e m a n i , Bibliothecae

Msdiceae

Laurentianae

orìentalium catalogus (Florentiae 1742) 62, VILI. Breviarium

iuxta ritum ecclesiae

Antiochenae

Syrorum

Migne, Patrologia graeca LXXVI, col. 1133 sqq. M a n s i , Sacromm

"onciltorum

auva

tt amplissima

et Palatinae

codd.

(Mansi! ii 1886) I, 15

collectin.

mss. SCICI

IV. 617 s q q .

9

a fragment in the acts of the f i f t h C o u n c i l 1 6 ) ; Migne gives it in L a t i n 1 7 ) . In the Syriac translation it has been preserved as a whole 1 8 ). I n this letter Cyril refers to their cordial and frequent correspondence. N o w he sends his treatise to Rabbula with the request that it be translated, adapted, if necessary, and read to his congregation, clergy and brethren. He also mentions that he has done the same with Rabbula's epistles and read them to the bishops and the clergy in Alexandria. T h i s mutual exchange of opinions and works was the result of these two conspicuous figures having at last contacted each other on a common dogmatic platform. Rabbula, who was at home both in the Greek and the Syriac language translated Cyril's work into Syriac together with Cyril's accompanying epistle, and it may be easily presumed that he also read it to the congregation of Edessa. Simultaneously it formed an addition to the basic treasure of monophysic literature in Syriac, to which other works of C y r i l were added later on 1 9 ). A s the translations of C y r i l are extant as manuscripts, we possess the Syriac translation of this treatise in a printed edition 20). A n d herewith we may conclude our introductory remarks about from which side we can attempt to approach the whole problem.

II. Relations of the Quotations in Cyril's Greek Original and Rabbula's Syriac Translation. L e t us start by tracing in the treatise in question the technics of translation employed by Rabbula in the quotations from the N e w Testament. Here we cannot avoid giving a series of examples the dry enumeration of which w i l l subsequently be animated by the instructive observations they o f f e r us. Example i ; M t . 3,17 = M k . 1 , 1 1 =

L k . 3,22:

Cyril OUTOS eoi'.v ij TtOC ¡J.0U 0 a-fcntrfLoc, b>

Rabbula CQJ3.1

>n 1*1 »O

»XS

CW1 CO.1 btkJSL^r*

w I'JW/.TfiOL.

" T h i s is my Son and my beloved in whom I am well pleased." 16 17

) )

18)

19

)

20)

10

Mansi, IX, 245 sq. Migne. Patrologia graeca LXXVII, col. 347 sq. Opera selecta, ed. Overbeck 226 sqq. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922) 71 sqq. Acta martyrum et sanctorum, ed. P. Bedjan (Parisiis 1895) V, 628 sqq.

a fragment in the acts of the f i f t h C o u n c i l 1 6 ) ; Migne gives it in L a t i n 1 7 ) . In the Syriac translation it has been preserved as a whole 1 8 ). I n this letter Cyril refers to their cordial and frequent correspondence. N o w he sends his treatise to Rabbula with the request that it be translated, adapted, if necessary, and read to his congregation, clergy and brethren. He also mentions that he has done the same with Rabbula's epistles and read them to the bishops and the clergy in Alexandria. T h i s mutual exchange of opinions and works was the result of these two conspicuous figures having at last contacted each other on a common dogmatic platform. Rabbula, who was at home both in the Greek and the Syriac language translated Cyril's work into Syriac together with Cyril's accompanying epistle, and it may be easily presumed that he also read it to the congregation of Edessa. Simultaneously it formed an addition to the basic treasure of monophysic literature in Syriac, to which other works of C y r i l were added later on 1 9 ). A s the translations of C y r i l are extant as manuscripts, we possess the Syriac translation of this treatise in a printed edition 20). A n d herewith we may conclude our introductory remarks about from which side we can attempt to approach the whole problem.

II. Relations of the Quotations in Cyril's Greek Original and Rabbula's Syriac Translation. L e t us start by tracing in the treatise in question the technics of translation employed by Rabbula in the quotations from the N e w Testament. Here we cannot avoid giving a series of examples the dry enumeration of which w i l l subsequently be animated by the instructive observations they o f f e r us. Example i ; M t . 3,17 = M k . 1 , 1 1 =

L k . 3,22:

Cyril OUTOS eoi'.v ij TtOC ¡J.0U 0 a-fcntrfLoc, b>

Rabbula CQJ3.1

>n 1*1 »O

»XS

CW1 CO.1 btkJSL^r*

w I'JW/.TfiOL.

" T h i s is my Son and my beloved in whom I am well pleased." 16 17

) )

18)

19

)

20)

10

Mansi, IX, 245 sq. Migne. Patrologia graeca LXXVII, col. 347 sq. Opera selecta, ed. Overbeck 226 sqq. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922) 71 sqq. Acta martyrum et sanctorum, ed. P. Bedjan (Parisiis 1895) V, 628 sqq.

W e immediately notice how Rabbula has treated the text of the Greek original, and that the Greek reading does not signify much to him. T h e Greek text reads an adjective*) but the Syriac text of Rabbula has altered it into a substantive and separated it by a conjunction 2 ). Example 2 ; M t . 28,19: ^opsuSevTs; |iaj>r(Te6oars ravra 7« s&v^.

aAt*

"go you, preach to all nations." Rabbulas peculiarity is in " 'akrezu", this means that R a b b u l a 3 ) has not rendered the Greek text 4 ) into Syriac because: ¡xa97]T£uoaT£ possesses the Syriac equivalent in ,,tCk)almedu". Instead of that, Rabbula has taken " 'akrezu' which is equal to Greek xvjpuc«". Example 3 ; Lk. 2, 12: /.at toulO u|j.tv ~o oTj[J.S10V. S'VjT-3-C Pps-for

^ ¿ i p^

«^CV^.A

" a n d this to you a sign that you f i n d the boy." Rabbula's r e n d e r i n g 5 ) of the Greek text 6 ) is not free f r o m objection, f o r Ppscooc has the Syriac equivalence in " 'uld". Rabbula's word means za[!5;ov, -a^aptov, za'.q1) which does not give Cyril's Ppscsoc exactly. Example 4 ; L k . 2 , 1 4 : Ko^a ts, tpaaiv, ev utjjicTOtQ 0S(O, y.al | - i T^C eipyjvyj.

ri'cnlrdi

K'iuiaax^

"glory to G o d in the highest and peace in earth." H e r e in spite of Cyril's text 8 ) the x«t ¿tti 77, c, which in Syriac is usually given otherwise, is rendered by Rabbula by means of a new preposition 9 ). Patrologia graeca L X X V I , col. 1185 C. Acta martyrumN, 681.

ibid. 638.

Patrologia graeca L X X V I , col. 1144 B . Acta martyrum V, 639. Patrologia graeca L X X V I , col. 1144 C. P a y n e S m i t h , Thesaurus syriacus col. 1472. Patrologia graeca L X X V I , col. 1144 B . Acta martyrum V, 638. II

Example 5 ; Jn. 1,3: ~

«"¿lo

oco

coirs

nLuZrxs-

>030^^.1

c\cn

"and no man has ascended to hea"and no man has ascended to ven but he who descended from heaven, but he who descended heaven, the Son of man, who was from heave-n, the Son of man, in heaven." who is in heaven." W e should be prepared to expect to find this variation of Rabbula's in the Peshitta, for this addition is found in Peshitta, as it is also found in "Philoxeniana" and in the translation Thomas of Harcel's 4 ). But Rabbula goes his own way, giving something which is not to be 3

) 4 )

16

see Gwilliam. Sacrorum evaugeliorum versio syriaca Philoxeniana, ed. J . W h i t e __(Oxonii I 7 7 8 j . Das Heilige Evangelium des Johannes, syrisch in harklensischer Übersetzung v o n

G. H. Bernstein (Leipzig 1853).

found in any Greek or Syriac Peshitta-manuscripts 5 ), the material of which does not help us to explain Rabbula's variant. Example 7: ^CuJ ^n

AAu

pr^

K'^uc.asn

rciW

«SCfli

rdsuA >

"yix.

"but my Father will give you the bread of the truth from heaven."

"but my Father gives you the bread of the truth from heaven."

Again this variation of Rabbula's cannot ¡derive from the Peshitta which contains the present tense, as do also the "Philoxeniana" and Thomas of Harcel's version. In the utmost case it can be understood as perfect Be5coxsv, as the Arabic Diatessaron has rendered it 6 ). In this comparison the difference in tense deserves our special interest. Example 8: K'ia^

pas

000.1

rdl^CD r^jgk ^ oeo.i

"then, as we have dressed the form of him, who is from the corpse, we shall dress the form of him who is from the heaven."

K'^cwsai

^3.1 ocns .,r

"and as we have dressed image of him, who is from corpse, so we shall dress image of him who (is) from heaven."

the the the the

Here it is surprising that eixtbv is rendered twice. Contrary to Rabbula's reading, the Peshitta reads here correctly. Example 9: «Lsaa

r^.i.tn T.a.t

rd^n

irdn.l "that which in heaven and that which on earth."

rCo "either that on earth or that in heaven."

This transposition in Rabbula's text is very remarkable when we recollect that no Greek manuscript contains a parallel to his reading. 5)

6)

see critical apparatus in Tetraevangelium.

Tatiani evangeliorum

hartnoniae arabice,

ed. A. Ciasca (Romae 1888) 75.

17

Likewise neither the manuscripts of the Peshitta 7 ), nor other Syriac versions show any trace of it. Example 1 0 : T »1

^q^cru.l

Kfcni, rCi eb

,CO CV At-»

OCOCX P^OCOJ crtsa

K'orAr
ed Mobarrek (Romae 1737) I, .18 E. Liber graduum", ed. M. Kmosko, Patrologia syriaca I, 3, 917. Secundum synodum Ephesinam, ed. S. CT. F. Perry (Oxonii 1875) 142. Srboyn Ephremi matenagrowthiwnkh, (WenetiJi 1836) II. 4. The Armenian Version of Revelation and Cyril of Alexandria's Scholia on the Incarnation;ed. by F. C. Conybeare (London 1907) 100. Evangeliorum harmoniae arabice 1. 11 Diatessaron in volgare italiano 203. De Levens van Jezus in het Middelnederlandsch, ed. J. Bergsma. (Leiden 1898)4.

23

Greek manuscript 27 ). T h e Greek material does not help us to explain Rabbula's variant, but the O l d Syriac text-traditions again o f f e r the right explanation. Syr CUI reads: r g ' t T ) T ->

K'CVCP

"he who was in heaven". Syr s i n

»COCvAuPC.t

C»CO

has lost this peculiar element

28

).

Further investigation leads us to the Diatessaron. Aphrahat quotes the passage in the eighth homily 2 9 ) and in the authentic form ofl Tatian's specific structure. But the Diatessaron tradition affords no information about this. T h e Arabic Diatessaron cannot be methodically used here and the other texts conform to the Greek original. Having ascertained Rabbula's deviation as an authentic reading of Tatian's, we may recognize the same rendering elsewhere in ancient Christian Syriac literature. In the Syriac version of " D e f i d e " transmitted to us under the name of Apollinaris 3 0 ), we meet with the same remarkable text in the same particular form as we did in Aphrahat and Syrf UI . This' reading is one of those aggressive variants which had made an inroad into the Peshitta itself, that is in the manuscript Add. 1 4 , 453 saec. V — V I 3 1 ) . T h i s variant is even to be found outside the confines of Syriac literature. It is also used in Old Armenian Gospel texts. I n the Armenian translation of Aphrahat's homilies 3 2 ) we find it as follows: Aphrahat ¿¿»»H Ufdk $t

af. f,uli

lr£h

Jhl'kb%U

Zohrabian FUUb

j L r f r t g

np

jtrptflu

"and nobody ascends to heaven but he who descended from heaven, who himself was in heaven." 2

nL „,