Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock 9781463214814

Citation preview

Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock

Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock Edited by George A. Kiraz

Gorgias Press 2008

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2008 Copyright © 2008 by Gorgias Press LLC 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. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-59333-706-3

Gorgias Press

180 Centennial Ave., Suite 3, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone : studies in honor of Sebastian P. Brock / edited by George A. Kiraz. -- 1st Gorgias Press ed. p. cm. English, French, and German. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Syrian Church--Doctrines. 2. Eastern churches. I. Brock, Sebastian P. II. Kiraz, George Anton. BX176.3.M35 2008 281’.63--dc22 2008023278 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents....................................................................................................v Preface......................................................................................................................ix Bibliography of Sebastian Paul Brock...............................................................xiii Sebastian Brock, A Tribute ...............................................................................xlvii Siroturcica 1. The Önggüds and the Syriac Language Pier Giorgio Borbone ....................................................................................1 Découverte d’une inscription syriaque mentionnant l’évêque Rabbula Françoise Briquel Chatonnet, Alain Desreumaux, Joseph Moukarzel .............................................................................................19 Von Bischöfen, Ärzten und Asketen—Schnittpunkte von Christentum und Medizin im spätantiken Sasanidenreich Peter Bruns ....................................................................................................29 Virtuous Reading: Aphrahat’s Approach to Scripture J. W. Childers ................................................................................................43 Syriac Books Printed at the Dominican Press, Mosul J. F. Coakley & David G. K. Taylor ..........................................................71 Suivre l’étoile à Oxford: inédits sur la venue des Mages Muriel Debié................................................................................................111 Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq and the Kitāb Ādāb al-falāsifah: The Pursuit of Wisdom and a Humane Polity in Early Abbasid Baghdad Sidney H. Griffith.......................................................................................135 “Calling on the Name” in St. Ephrem: Roots and Influence Mary Hansbury ...........................................................................................161 Bride of Blood, Bride of Light: Biblical Women as Images of Church in Jacob of Serug Susan Ashbrook Harvey............................................................................177 Identifying the Syriac Vorlage of the Ethiopic History of Joseph Kristian S. Heal ...........................................................................................205 v

vi

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

Some Lexical and Legal Notes on a Syriac Loan Transfer of 240 CE John F. Healey.............................................................................................211 Approximation of the ‘traditions’ in Jacob of Edessa’s Revision of Isaiah Andreas Juckel ............................................................................................227 Zur Datierung nach christlicher Ära in den syrischen Kirchen Hubert Kaufhold ........................................................................................283 Biobibliographies of some Twentieth Century Syriac Writers George A. Kiraz..........................................................................................339 On the Road to Nineveh Dramatic Narrative in Jacob of Serug’s Mēmrā on Jonah Robert A. Kitchen ......................................................................................365 Greek Words in the Syriac Text of the Apology of Aristides Michael Lattke.............................................................................................383 A Neo-Aramaic Version of the Soghitha of the Sinful Woman and Satan Alessandro Mengozzi.................................................................................405 Jacob of Sarug, John of Tella and Paul of Edessa: ecclesiastical politics in Osrhoene 519–522 Volker Menze..............................................................................................421 “Though He cannot be eaten, we consume Him” Appeals to Liturgical Practice in the Christological Polemic of Philoxenos of Mabbug David Michelson.........................................................................................439 David’s Opening Speech (1 Sam 17:34–37a) according to Jacob of Serugh Craig E. Morrison.......................................................................................477 ‘The One Talent is the Words of the Teaching of our Lord’ The Gospel Translation and Commentary of Deacon Israel of Alqosh (Houghton Ms. Syr. 147, 1768/69) Heleen Murre-van den Berg .....................................................................497 The Cause of the Commemoration of Mary: Author, Date, and Christology G. J. Reinink ................................................................................................517 Ephrem and Jacob of Edessa in the Commentary of the Monk Severus Bas ter Haar Romeny.................................................................................535 The Peshitta of 2 Samuel 11–12 and its Reception History Alison Salvesen ...........................................................................................559

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

A Verse Homily of Jacob of Serugh on the Annunciation to the Mother of God Aho Shemunkasho .....................................................................................575 Yours, Mine, or Theirs? Historical Obersvations on the Use, Collection and Sharing of Manuscripts in Western Europe and the Christian Orient Columba Stewart ........................................................................................603 Transcribed Proper Names in Chinese Syriac Christian Documents Hidemi Takahashi.......................................................................................631 „J’ai commencé à étudier l’Allemand“ The ecumenism under the sign of the struggle against misery: Addai Sher writes to Johannes Lepsius. Martin Tamcke............................................................................................663 Between Christology and Kalām? The Life and Letters of George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes Jack Tannous...............................................................................................671 Severus of Antioch on the Forty Martyrs Translated by Iain Torrance (with notes in collaboration with Anna Wilson) .....................................................................................717 A Precious Gift to Deir al-Surian (AD 1211): Ms. Vat. Syr. 13 Lucas Van Rompay ....................................................................................735 Al-Fārābī and the History of the Syriac Organon John W. Watt...............................................................................................751 Illustrating Charms: a Syriac manuscript with magic drawings in the collection of the British Library Ewa Balicka-Witakowska ..........................................................................779 The Magi in Syriac tradition Witold Witakowski .....................................................................................809 An incalculable debt Robert Murray.............................................................................................845

PREFACE It is with great honor that I edit this Festschrift on the occasion of the Seventieth birthday of Malphono Sebastian Paul Brock. Indeed, he is Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone. This is the second Festschrift published in his honor; the first was edited by Shafiq AbouZayd in Aram (1993). I first met Sebastian at the Vtum Symposium Syriacum in Leuven in 1988. At the time I was an amateur enthusiast, formally majoring in Engineering. I remember walking up to Sebastian and asking him if there was a program I could join, after completing my engineering degree, that would give me formal training in Syriac studies. He pointed out the M.St. program at Oxford which was just introduced. I applied and went to Oxford in 1990. My intention at the time was to complete the one-year M.St. degree, and then go back to the US where I would work in the field of computer science. The first two weeks with Sebastian, however, changed my entire career path, and indeed changed my life. I decided to go on for graduate studies, and every step of the way—even after I defected from Oxford to the other place Cambridge in 1991—Sebastian was instrumental in nourishing my academic life. He continues to do so.

™ Sebastian Paul Brock was born on February 24, 1938 in London. His father, who loved music, named his eldest son after Sebastian Bach. Young Sebastian attended Eton, after which he studied at the University of Cambridge and received a B.A. degree in 1962 in Classics and Oriental languages, graduating with 1st Class rank. He then moved to the University of Oxford (Christ Church) for his graduate studies where he wrote a doctoral dissertation on the recessions of the Septuagint version of the first book of Samuel. After a successful viva, he received the D.Phil. degree in 1966 (as well as an M.A. from Cambridge in the same year). Also in 1966, he married Helen MacGill Charrington Hughes, a vivacious archaeologist with fervent interest in the Near East, and both embarked on their honeymoon to no place other than Tur ‛Abdin. It was to be a momentous ix

x

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

trip. There, the 28-year old Sebastian would meet the 73-year old Mor Philoxenos Yuḥanon Dolabani (1885-1969), Syriac Orthodox Bishop of Mardin. This had a lasting effect on the young scholar, and he would always recall how Dolabani demonstrated a model of scholarship and humility. Recently, Sebastian was instrumental in establishing the Oxford-based Dolabani Fund to help students of the Syriac tradition to study at Oxford. In 1964, Sebastian became Assistant Lecturer at the Department of Theology at the University of Birmingham, and in 1967 became a Lecturer in Hebrew, and then Hebrew and Aramaic, at the Faculty of Oriental Studies at the University of Cambridge, and became a Fellow of Selwyn College. In 1974, he moved back to Oxford where he became Lecturer in Aramaic and Syriac at the Oriental Institute, and became a Fellow of Wolfson College. Later he became Reader of Aramaic and Syriac Studies and held that position until his retirement in 2003. His first research student, indeed his ‫ܒ ܐ‬, was J. F. Coakley. Sebastian received many awards and accolades during a long distinguished career. He became a Fellow of the British Academy in 1977, and in 1979 became a Corresponding Member of the Syriac Section of the Iraqi Academy. In 1989, at the nomination of the Maronite Eparchy of St. Maron, USA, he was given the Order of St. Silvester from the Vatican. His Holiness Mor Ignatius Zakka I, Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, bestowed upon him the Order of Commander of St. Ephrem, and considered him one of the Church Doctors, ‫ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܬܐ‬. In 2003, Beth Mardutho (The Syriac Institute) named him Hadoyo of Syriac Studies. His other positions and activities include: 1979 Member of Editorial Board of Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review. 1982 Curator of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham. 1984 Placid Lectures, Centre for Indian and Inter-Religious Studies, Rome. 1986 Member of Editorial Committee, Translated Texts for Historians. 1986–90 Co-editor, Journal of Semitic Studies. 1987 Vice-Chairman of Aram Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies. 1988–90 British Academy Marc Fitch Research Readership. 1989 Advisory Editorial Board, Aram periodical. 1989 Schweich Lectures, British Academy.

PREFACE 1989 1992 1998 2004 2006

xi

ad hominem Readership in Aramaic and Syriac Studies, Oxford University Honorary Doctorate, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rome. Honorary D.Litt, University of Birmingham. Member of Editorial Board of Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies. Honorary Doctorate, St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (SEERI), Mahatma Gandhi University of Kottayam. Honorary Doctorate, Université Saint-Esprit de Kaslik, Lebanon. Aram Prize for Syriac Aramaic Literature.

Sebastian’s bibliography, compiled by him, lists thirty-nine books and more than four hundred scholarly articles, in addition to many very informative book reviews and encyclopedia articles. It is doubtful if any scholar in the past produced this much in the field of Syriac. Generations to come will be indebted to our Malphono. Those of us who studied directly with Sebastian did not only benefit academically, but also spiritually. Simply by observing his day-to-day activities, we learned lessons in life: humility… compassion… ‫ܐ ܘ‬ , selflessness… But I doubt that any of us, at least not this ‫ܐ‬ managed to attain all such virtues.

™ The papers in this Festschrift are arranged alphabetically by author. The collection of scholarly papers is preceded by a ‫ܓ ܐ‬ composed by Mor Polycarpus Awgin, and is followed by personal remarks by Robert Murray. I must beg the indulgence of those whom I did not approach to contribute. To give justice to Sebastian and those who know him, almost everyone in the field should have been approached, but that obviously would have made the project unmanageable. I have mainly approached students of Sebastian and younger scholars, with a few senior colleagues, as the first Festschrift covered most of Sebastian’s senior colleagues. Lastly, I would like to thank Helen Brock, Alison Salvesen, and David Taylor for their help preparing the pictures for this volume. April 23, 2008 The Feast of St. George George A. Kiraz

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SEBASTIAN P. BROCK BOOKS 1. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece: Testamentum Iobi (Leiden 1967). 2. The Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Nonnus Mythological Scholia (Cambridge 1971). 3. (With S. Jellicoe and C. T. Fritsch) A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (Leiden 1973). 4. The Harp of the Spirit: Twelve Poems of St Ephrem (London 1975; second, enlarged, edition 1983). [French translation of 1983 edition by D. Rance, in L’Oeil de Lumière, 1991; Arabic translation of 1975 edition by Fr. Maximous al-Antouny, Qitharatu ‚l-Ruḥi, Cairo 1989; Persian translation, Tehran c1996; Italian tr. by Maria Campatelli and Manel Nin, Rome 1999]. 5. The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Syrian Churches Series 9; Kottayam [Kerala India] 1979). [Persian translation, Tehran c1996]; new edition, Kerala 1998. 6. Soghyatha mgabbyatha [Select Dialogue Poems] (Monastery of St Ephrem, Holland 1982). 7. Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London 1984) [reprinted articles]. 8. Turgame shta d-qaddisha Mar Ya‛qub da-Srugh [Six Prose Homilies by Jacob of Serugh] (Monastery of St Ephrem, Holland 1984). 9. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (Rome 1985); new edition, Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, 1992. [French translation by D. Rance, L’Oeil de Lumière, la vision spirituelle de saint Ephrem (Spiritualité orientale 50, Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1991); Arabic translation by J. Tarzi, 1994; Persian translation, Tehran 1998; Romanian tr. by Ioan Ica jr, Sibiu 1998; Italian translation by Maria Campatelli, Rome 1999; Malayalam and Russian translations, forthcoming]. 10. Vetus Testamentum Syriace III,1: Liber Isaiae (Leiden 1987). 11. (With Susan Harvey), Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (Berkeley 1987; paperback, with new introduction, 1998). [Arabic translation, Beirut 2000]. 12. The Syrian Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Cistercian Studies 101; Kalamazoo 1987). [Malayalam adaptation by G. Chediath, 1990; Persian xiii

xiv

13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30.

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE tr. Tehran 1997(?); French translation of Introduction and selections by M. Moubarakah and J. Obeid, in PdO 26 (2001), 201–266; complete French translation forthcoming]. Studies in Syriac Spirituality (Syrian Churches Series 13; Kottayam 1988). Enlarged edition, Bangalore 2008. [Reprinted articles from Sobornost/ECR]. [Persian tr. Tehran 199?] Malpanuta d-abahata suryaye d-‛al slota [Teaching of the Syriac Fathers on Prayer] (Monastery of St Ephrem Holland 1988). The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (SEERI Correspondence Course no 1; Kottayam 1989). [Repr. serially in Sabro 2- [Burbank CA]; Persian tr. Tehran, c.1996; Turkish translation, tr. Giwargis Bulut, 2000; Syriac translation, tr. Awgen Aydin, 2002]. See 36 below. Spirituality in the Syriac Tradition (SEERI Correspondence Course no 2 = Moran ‚Etho Series no 2; Kottayam 1989); 2nd ed. Kottayam, 2005; Italian tr. by M. Campatelli and S. Staffuzza, Rome 2006). A Garland of Hymns from the Early Church, translated from Syriac (McLean Virginia 1989). Saint Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise (Introduction and Translation) (Crestwood NY 1990). Studies in Syriac Christianity (Variorum Reprints, 1992). [reprinted articles]. [Persian tr. Tehran 199?]. Burial Service for Nuns (Moran ‚Etho Series 4; Kottayam 1992). Luqata d-mimre d-‛al ktabay qudsha [Eight Syriac mimre on biblical themes] (Monastery of St Ephrem, Holland 1993). Bride of Light. Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches (Moran ‚Etho Series, 6; 1994). [Malayalam tr.]. Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian). ‘The Second Part,’ chapters IV-XLI (CSCO 554–5, Scr. Syri 224–5; 1995). Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (Athens 1995). The Wisdom of St Isaac (Kottayam 1995). [151 short sayings]; repr. with new introduction, Fairacres Publication 128, Oxford 1997. [Arabic translation 1998; Dutch tr. A. Parker, 2002; German tr. K. Pinggéra 2003]; bilingual ed. (Piscataway NJ 2006). The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of I Samuel (Quaderni di Henoch 9; 1996). Syriac Studies: A Classified Bibliography (1960–1990) (Kaslik 1996). A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran ‚Etho series 9; Kottayam 1997). From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity (Aldershot: Variorum CSS 664, 1999).

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xv

31. (With D. G. K. Taylor, E. Balicka-Witakowski, W. Witakowski), The Hidden Pearl. The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage. I, (with DGKT) The Ancient Aramaic Heritage; II, (with DGKT, EB-W, WW), The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage; III (with WW), At the Turn of the Third Millennium: the Syrian Orthodox Witness (Rome: Trans World Film Italia, 2001). 32. Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy (Aldershot: Variorum CSS 863, 2006). 33. The Wisdom of Isaac of Nineveh [Syriac-English] (Piscataway NJ 2006). 34. (Ed.), Reprint with additional sixth volume: P. Bedjan, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, I–VI (Piscataway NJ 2006). 35. (With G. A. Kiraz), Ephrem the Syrian, Select Poems (Provo 2006). 36. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (2nd revised ed.) Piscataway NJ 2006). [Italian translation of Part I, tr. Maria Campatelli, Rome 2008]. 37. An Introduction to Syriac Studies (Piscataway NJ 2006). 38. The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Piscataway NJ forthcoming). 39. The History of the Holy Mar Ma‘in with a Guide to the Persian Martyr Acts (Piscataway NJ forthcoming).

TRANSLATIONS CONTRIBUTED TO 1. R. N. Beshara, Mary, Ship of Treasures (Brooklyn NY 1988). 2. A. M. Allchin, The Heart of Compassion. Daily Readings with St Isaac of Syria (London, 1989). [Japanese translation, Tokyo 1990]. 3. T. M. Finn, Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: West and East (1992). 4. Syria (Message of the Fathers of the Church 5, Collegeville 1992). [Ephrem, H de Eccl.36, H de Fide 10, H de Epiph. 1, 6] 5. A. N. Palmer, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles (Translated Texts for Historians, Liverpool 1993). [Ps Methodius, excerpt] 6. C. Chaillot, Rôle des images et vénération des icônes dans les églises orthodoxes orientales (Geneva 1993). 7. T. Vivian, Witness to Holiness. Abba Daniel of Scetis (Kalamazoo 2008).

xvi

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

ARTICLES AB AAWG ABD ASP AS BO BJRL BSOAS BSAC BMGS CO CCO CCR CNS DR ECN ECR ER ExpTim GRBS HeyJ JAAR JAAS JCSSS JECS JIA JJS JSS JSJ JSOT JSA JTS KV Logos LM MQ MPIL

Analecta Bollandiana Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse Anchor Bible Dictionary Arabic Sciences and Philosophy Aramaic Studies Bibliotheca Orientalis Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Bulletin de la Societé d’archéologie copte Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Christian Orient Collectanea Christiana Orientalia Coptic Church Review Cristianesimo nella storia Downside Review Eastern Churches Newsletter Eastern Churches Review Ephrem to Romanos (1999) Expository Times Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Heythrop Journal Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Journal of the Iraqi Academy Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of the Syriac Academy Journal of Theological Studies Khristianskij Vostok Logos, a Welsh Journal of Theology Le Muséon The Milton Quarterly Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY NTS NT OBO OC OCA OCP OLA OLP OS PEQ PdO POC QS REA RHE RTL RM SCI SKCO SNTR SP SCH SSC Syriac Perspectives SSS TR VDI VT VC ZDMG ZNW

xvii

New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Oriens Christianus Orientalia Christiana Analecta Orientalia Christiana Periodica Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica Ostkirchliche Studien Palestine Exploration Quarterly Parole de l’Orient Proche Orient Chrétien Qolo Suryoyo Revue des études arméniennes Revue d’histoire eccléssiastique Revue théologique de Louvain Rheinisches Museum Scripta Classica Israelica Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients St. Nersess Theological Review Studia Patristica Studies in Church History Studies in Syriac Christianity (1992) Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (1984) Studies in Syriac Spirituality (1988) Theologische Realenzyklopädie Vestnili Drevnii Istorii Vetus Testamentum Vigiliae christianae Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

1. A note on Luke ix 16 (D), JTS 14 1963, 391–3. 2. An early Armenian palimpsest fragment of Hebrews, REA 2 1965, 124–34. 3. The Syriac manuscripts in the National Library Athens, LM 79 1966, 165–85. 4. Locusts and Camels, Ararat 28 1966, 42–4. 5. The Armenian and Syriac versions of the Ps-Nonnus mythological scholia, LM 79 1966, 401–28.

xviii

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

6. An Armenian pilgrim’s description of Constantinople, REA 4 1967, 81–102. 7. Greek words in the Syriac Gospels (VET and PE), LM 80 1967, 389– 426. 8. A note on the manuscripts of the Syriac Geoponicon, OC 51 1967, 186–7. 9. Alphonse Mingana and the Letter of Philoxenus to Abu Afr, BJRL 50 1967, 199–206. 10. Lucian redivivus. Some reflexions on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila, Studia Evangelica 5 = Texte und Untersuchungen 103 1968, 176– 81. 11. (With D. Diringer), Words and meanings in early Hebrew inscriptions, in Words and Meanings (ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars; Cambridge 1968), 39–45. 12. The provenance of BM Or. 8606, JTS 19 1968, 632–3. 13. A further fragment of the Sinai Sahdona manuscript, LM 81 1968, 139– 54. 14. A piece of wisdom literature in Syriac, JSS 13 1968, 212–7; repr. in SSC. 15. Nephelegereta = rkb ‛rpt, VT 18 1968, 395–7. 16. A fragment of Enoch in Syriac, JTS 19 1968, 626–31. 17. The phenomenon of biblical translation in antiquity, Alta 2:8 1969, 96– 102, repr. in S. Jellicoe (ed.), Studies in the Septuagint, New York 1974). 18. An additional fragment of 0106?, JTS 20 1969, 226–8. 19. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Nonnos zugeschriebenen mythologischen Scholien im Syrischen, ZDMG Supp. 1:2 1969, 458–62. 20. A Syriac version of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate, OCP 35 1969, 45–62. 21. L’Orient Syrien 1956–1967, Sobornost 5:8 1969, 601–2. 22. Rabban Sauma à Constantinople (1287), Mémorial Mgr G. KhouriSarkis (Louvain 1969), 245–53. 23. Notes on some texts in the Mingana Collection, JSS 14 1969, 205–26. 24. Origen’s aims as a textual critic of the Old Testament, SP 10 = Texte und Untersuchungen 107 (Berlin 1970), 215–8; repr. in S. Jellicoe (ed.), Studies in the Septuagint (New York 1974). 25. A new Syriac baptismal ordo attributed to Timothy of Alexandria, LM 83 1970, 367–431; repr. in part in J. Vellian (ed.), Studies on Syrian Baptismal Rites (Syrian Churches Series 6, 1973), 72–84. 26. The Baptist’s diet in Syriac sources, OC 54 1970, 113–24. 27. The Laments of the Philosophers over Alexander in Syriac, JSS 15 1970, 205–18; repr. in SSC.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xix

28. A Calendar attributed to Jacob of Edessa, PdO 1 1970, 415–29. 29. A fragment of the Acta Pilati in Christian Palestinian Aramaic, JTS 22 1971, 157–8. 30. Two Syriac manuscripts in the Library of Selwyn College Cambridge, OC 55 1971, 149–60. 31. The Nestorian Diptychs, a further manuscript, AB 89 1971, 177–85. 32. Didymus the Blind on Bardaisan, JTS 22 1971, 530–1. 33. A remarkable Syriac baptismal ordo (BM Add 14518), PdO 2 1971, 365–78. 34. The consecration of the water in the oldest manuscripts of the Syrian Orthodox baptismal liturgy, OCP 37 1971, 317–32. 35. A new testimonium to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, NTS 18 1971/2, 220–2. 36. The phenomenon of the Septuagint, Oudtestamentische Studiën 17 1972, 11–30. 37. Studies in the early history of the Syrian Orthodox baptismal liturgy, JTS 23 1972, 16–64; repr. in part in J. Vellian (ed.), Studies in Syrian Baptismal Rites (Syrian Churches Series 6, 1973), 100–118. 38. A short Melkite baptismal ordo, PdO 3 1972, 119–30. 39. (With J. A. L. Lee), A memorandum on the proposed LXX Lexicon Project, in R. A. Kraft (ed.), LXX and Cognate Studies 1: Septuagintal Lexicography, (Philadelphia 1972), 20–4. 40. Early Syrian Asceticism, Numen 20 1973, 1–19; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 41. An unrecognized occurrence of the month name Ziw (II Sam xxi 9), VT 23 1973, 99–103. 42. An unpublished letter of St Ephrem, PdO 4 1973, 317–23. 43. A Syriac fragment on the Sixth Council, OC 57 1973, 63–71; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 44. Syriac studies 1960–1970: a classified bibliography, PdO 4 1973, 393– 465. 45. An occidental view of the Bible, JAAR 41 1973, 406–12. 46. An early Syriac life of Maximus the Confessor, AB 91 1973, 299–346; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 47. Athanasiana Syriaca: notes on two manuscripts, LM 86 1973, 437–42. 48. The Epiklesis in the Antiochene baptismal ordines, in I Symposium Syriacum = OCA 197 1974, 183–218. 49. ΒΑΡΝΑΒΑΣ: ΥΙΟΣ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΣΕΩΣ, JTS 25 1974, 93–8. 50. Sarah and the Akedah, LM 87 1974, 67–77. 51. A Syriac Life of Abel, LM 87 1974, 467–92.

xx

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

52. World and Sacrament in the writings of the Syrian Fathers, Sobornost 6:10 1974, 685–96; repr. in SSS. 53. Some aspects of Greek words in Syriac, AAWG, III 96 1975, 80–108; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 54. Some new letters of the Patriarch Severus, SP 12 = Texte und Untersuchungen 115 1975, 17–24. 55. A doublet and its ramifications (I Sam 23:1 LXX), Biblica 56 1975, 550– 3. 56. St Isaac of Nineveh and Syriac spirituality, Sobornost 7:2 1975, 79–89; repr. in SSS. 57. The treatment of Greek particles in the Old Syriac Gospels with special reference to Luke, in J. K. Elliott (ed.), Studies in NT Language and Text = Suppl. to NT 44 1976, 80–6. 58. St Ephrem on Christ as light in Mary and in the Jordan: H. de Eccl.36, ECR 7 1976, 137–44. 59. Syriac sources for seventh-century history, BMGS 2 1976, 17–36; repr. in Syriac Perspectives; Arabic tr. in JIA, Syriac Corporation 13 1989, 71– 93. 60. The poetic artistry of St Ephrem: an analysis of H. Azym III, PdO 6–7 1975/5, 21–8. 61. The rebuilding of the Temple under Julian: a new source, PEQ 1976, 103–7. 62. The ancestry of the printed Hebrew Bible, in J. H. Eaton (ed.), Readings in Biblical Hebrew I, (Birmingham 1976), vii-xii. 63. Ephrem’s Letter to Publius, LM 89 1976, 261–305. 64. A hymn on the Nativity by Simeon the Potter, ECR 8 1976, 54–5. 65. Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies, JSA [Baghdad] 2 1976, 473–6. 66. (With Isa Gulcan), A Syrian Orthodox bishop and scholar: Mar Philoxenos Iohannan Dolaponu (1885–1969), OS 26 1977, 47–52. [Turkish and Syriac tr. in Heto 1:2 (1999), 6–11 (Turkish), 84–92 (Syriac)]. 67. Iconoclasm and the Monophysites, in A. A. M. Bryer and J. Herrin (eds.), Iconoclasm (Birmingham 1977), 53–7. 68. Limitations of Syriac in representing Greek, in B. M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford 1977), 83–98. 69. Some Syriac accounts of the Jewish sects, in A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus (Chicago 1977), 265–76. 70. Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek, JSA [Baghdad] 3 1977, 406– 22; repr. in Syriac Perspectives.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxi

71. A baptismal address attributed to Athanasius, OC 6 1977, 92–102. 72. A letter attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the rebuilding of the Temple under Julian, BSOAS 40 1977, 267–86; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 73. The poet as theologian [Ephrem], Sobornost 7:2 1977, 243–50; repr. in SSP. 74. Mary in Syriac tradition, Ecumenical Society of the BVM (Oxford 1977); repr. in A. Stacpoole (ed.), Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue (Slough 1982),182–91, and Sourozh 19 1985, 11–23. 75. Translated from Syriac: E. Gulcan, The renewal of monastic life for women in a monastery in Tur Abdin, Sobornost 7:4 1977, 288–98). 76. The anonymous baptismal ordo in Add.14518, PdO 8 1977/8, 311–46. 77. The Syriac baptismal ordines with special reference to the anointings, Studia Liturgica 12 1977, 177–83; German tr. in Liturgisches Jahrbuch 28 1978, 11–18. 78. Baptismal themes in the writings of Jacob of Serugh, in II Symposium Syriacum = OCA 205 1978, 325–47. 79. Syriac inscriptions: a preliminary checklist of European publications, Annali dell’Istituto Orientale, Napoli 38 1978, 255–71; repr. in SSC. 80. John of Nḥel: an episode in early seventh-century monastic history, OLP 9 1978, 95–119. 81. The Mysteries hidden in the side of Christ [Jn 19:34 in Syriac tradition], Sobornost 7:6 1978, 462–72; repr. in SSS. 82. Secundus the Silent Philosopher: some notes on the Syriac tradition, RM 121 1978, 94–100; repr. in SSC. 83. Abraham and the Ravens: a Syriac counterpart to Jubilees 11–12 and its implications, JSJ 9 1978, 135–52. 84. A martyr at the Sasanid court under Vahran II: Candida, AB 96 1978, 167–81; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 85. Severus’ Letter to John the Roman, in G. Wiessner (ed.), Erkenntnisse und Meinungen II (Wiesbaden 1978), 53–75. 86. A Syriac dispute between heaven and earth, LM 91 1978, 261–70. 87. The Queen of Sheba’s questions to Solomon: a Syriac version, LM 92 1979, 331–45. 88. A traditional numerical poem in Syriac, JSS 24 1979, 29–32. 89. The dispute poem: from Sumer to Syriac, Bayn al-Nahrayn 7:28 1979, 417–26. 90. Jewish traditions in Syriac sources, JJS 30 1979, 212–32; repr. in SSC. 91. The Syrian baptismal rites, Concilium 142 1979, (French ed., 123–9; German ed., 132–5).

xxii

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

92. Aspects of translation technique in antiquity, GRBS 20 1979, 69–87; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 93. The Fenqitho of the monastery of Mar Gabriel in Tur Abdin, OS 28 1979, 168–82. 94. Jacob of Edessa’s Discourse on the Myron, OC 63 1979, 20–36. 95. The Syriac Euthalian material and the Philoxenian version of the NT, ZNW 70 1979, 120–30. 96. John the Solitary, On Prayer, JTS 30 1979, 84–101. 97. Mary and the Eucharist: an oriental perspective, Sobornost/ECR 1:2 1979, 50–59; repr. in SSS. 98. Syriac historical writing: a survey of the main sources, JIA (Syriac Corporation) 5 1979/80, 297–326; repr. in SSC. 99. Some early Syriac baptismal commentaries, OCP 46 1980, 20–61. 100. An anonymous madrasha on faith, OC 64 1980, 48–64. 101. The Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox conversations of 532, Apostolos Varnavas 41 1980, 219–28; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 102. An introduction to Syriac studies, in J. H. Eaton (ed.), Horizons in Semitic Studies (Birmingham 1980), 1–33. 103. Bibelübersetzungen, AT, and Bibelhandschriften, AT, in TR 6:1/2 1980, 109–14, 161–216. 104. The Syrian Orthodox Church in Europe, Sobornost 2:2 1980, 66–7. 105. Notes on some monasteries on mount Izla, Abr Nahrain 19 1980/1, 1– 19; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 106. The conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532), OCP 47 1981, 87–121; repr. in SSC. 107. Genesis 22 in Syriac tradition, in Mélanges D. Barthélemy (OBO 38; 1981), 1–30. 108. Clavis Patrum Graecorum III 7717, JTS 32 1981, 176–8. 109. Some new Syriac texts attributed to Hippolytus, LM 94 1981, 177–200. 110. An anonymous Syriac homily on Abraham (Gen 22), OLP 12 1981, 225–60. 111. St Isaac of Nineveh, The Way (Jan 1981), 68–74. 112. The resolution of the Philoxenian/Harklean problem, in NT Textual Criticism: Essays in Honour of B. M. Metzger (Oxford 1981), 325–43. 113. The transition to a post-baptismal anointing in the Antiochene rite, in B. Spinks (ed.), The Sacrifice of Praise: Studies in Honour of A. H. Couratin (Rome 1981), 215–25. 114. Jacob of Serugh on the Veil of Moses, Sobornost/ECR 3:1 1981, 70–85; repr. in SSS.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxiii

115. Syriac studies 1971–80: a classified bibliography, PdO 10 1981/2, 291– 412. 116. The Syriac Life of John of Dailam, PdO 10 1981/2, 123–89. 117. Christians in the Sasanid Empire: a case of divided loyalties, SCH 18 1982, 1–19; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 118. A fourteenth-century polyglot Psalter, in G. E. Kadish and G. E. Freedman (eds.), Studies in Philology in Honour of R. J. Williams (Toronto 1982), 1–15. 119. Passover Annunciation and Epiclesis, NT 24 1982, 222–33. 120. The homily by Marutha of Tagrit on the Blessing of the Waters at Epiphany, OC 66 1982, 51–74. 121. Clothing metaphors as a means of theological expression in Syriac tradition, in M. Schmidt (ed.), Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter (Eichstätter Beiträge 4 1982), 11– 40; reprinted in SSC. 122. Syriac views of emergent Islam, in G. H. A. Juynboll (ed.), Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society (Carbondale/Edwardsville 1982), 9–21, 199–203; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 123. Some Syriac legends concerning Moses, JJS 33 1982, 237–55. 124. An early interpretation of Pasah: aggen in the Palestinian Targum, in J. A. Emerton and S. C. Reif (eds), Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal (Cambridge 1982), 27–34. 125. From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac attitudes to Greek learning, in N. Garsoian, T. Mathews and R. Thomson (eds), Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Washington DC 1982), 17–34; repr. in Syriac Perspectives. 126. (With M. Vasey), The liturgical portions of the Didascalia (Grove Liturgical Study 29 1982). 127. (With K. T. Ware), The Library of the House of St Gregory and St Macrina Oxford: the D. J. Chitty papers, Sobornost/ECR 4:1 1982, 56–8. 128. The prayer of the heart in Syriac tradition, Sobornost/ECR 4:2 1982, 131–42; repr. in SSS. 129. A Syriac collection of prophecies of the pagan philosophers, OLP 14 1983, 303–46; repr. in SSC. 130. Dialogue hymns of the Syriac churches, Sobornost/ECR 5:2 1983, 35–45; repr. in SSS. 131. The Syriac churches: some recent books from India, Sobornost/ECR 5:2 1983, 74–80. 132. Mary and the Gardener: an East Syrian dialogue soghitha, PdO 11 1983, 223–34.

xxiv

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

133. Towards a history of Syriac translation technique, in III Symposium Syriacum = OCA 221 1983, 1–14; repr. in SSC. 134. Articles on Ephrem, Macarian Homilies and Syrian Spirituality, in G. Wakefield (ed.), Dictionary of Spirituality (London 1983). 135. Some Syriac excerpts from Greek collections of pagan prophecies, VC 38 1984, 77–90. 136. East Syrian liturgical fragments from the Cairo Genizah, OC 68 1984, 58–79. 137. Tenth-century diptychs of the Coptic Orthodox Church in a Syriac manuscript, BSAC 26 1984, 23–9. 138. Syriac dialogue poems: marginalia to a recent edition, LM 97 1984, 29– 58. 139. Psalms of Solomon [revised translation], in H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford 1984), 654–82. 140. Genesis 22: where was Sarah?, ExpTim 96 1984, 14–7. 141. Syriac and Greek hymnography: problems of origins, SP 16 = Texte und Untersuchungen 129 1985, 77–81; repr. in SSC. 142. A Monothelete florilegium in Syriac, in C. Laga (ed.), After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to A. van Roey = OLA 18 1985, 35–45; repr. in SSC. 143. The christology of the Church of the East in the synods of the fifth to early seventh centuries: preliminary considerations and materials, in G. Dragas (ed.), Aksum-Thyateira: a Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios (London/Athens 1985), 125–42; repr. in SSC. 144. Hebrews 2:9b in Syriac tradition, NT 27 1985, 236–44. 145. A dispute of the months and some related texts in Syriac, JSS 30 1985, 181–211. 146. The contribution of the Assyrian Church of the East to European civilization, The Assyrian (London) 2:2–3 1985, 16–7. 147. The thrice-holy hymn in the liturgy, Sobornost/ECR 7:2 1985, 24–34; repr. in SSS. 148. Peshitta Institute Communication XVIII, VT 35 1985, 466–7. 149. Syriac manuscripts, in Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques, éthiopiens et arméniens, Studia Orientalia Christiana Collectanea 18 1985, 213–8. 150. The Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East: The monastery of St Ephrem in the Netherlands, Sobornost/ECR 7:1 1985, 53–5. 151. Syriac spirituality, in C. Jones, G. Wainwright, E. Yarnold (eds.), The Study of Spirituality (London 1986), 199–215.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxv

152. Two Syriac verse homilies on the binding of Isaac, LM 99 1986, 61– 129. 153. Two sets of monothelete questions to the Maximianists, OLP 17 1986, 119–40; repr. in SSC. 154. An early Syriac commentary on the liturgy, JTS 37 1986, 387–403. 155. Isaac of Nineveh, some newly discovered texts, Sobornost/ECR 8:1 1986, 28–33; repr. in SSS. 156. The eclectic character of Maronite tradition; A poetic Maronite spirituality; and The dramatic dimension of Syriac liturgical poetry, in The Maronites: A Living Icon (Brooklyn NY 1986), 1–13, 14–26, and 27– 41. 157. St Ephrem. A hymn on the Eucharist (Hymns on Faith no.10) [limited edition] (Lancaster 1986). 158. St Isaac of Nineveh, The Assyrian (London) 3:6 1986, 8–9. 159. Other manuscript discoveries, in R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta 1986), 157–73. 160. An early Maronite text on prayer, PdO 13 1986, 79–94. 161. Armenian in Syriac script, in D. Kouymjian (ed.), Armenian Studies in Memoriam Haig Berberian (Lisbon 1986), 75–80. 162. The published verse homilies of Isaac of Antioch, Jacob of Serugh and Narsai: index of incipits, JSS 32 1987, 279–313. 163. The Odes of Solomon, in G. Vermes and others (eds), [E. Schürer’s] The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ III.ii (Edinburgh 1987), 787–9. 164. Dramatic dialogue poems, in IV Symposium Syriacum = OCA 229 1987, 135–47. 165. The priesthood of the baptized: some Syriac perspectives, Sobornost/ECR 9:2 1987, 14–22; repr. in SSS. 166. Syriac Studies 1981–1985: a classified bibliography, PdO 14 1987, 289– 360. 167. The two poles of Syriac tradition, in C. Payngot (ed.), Hommage to Mar Cariattil (Rome 1987), 58–62; Malayalam tr. in J. Kallarangatt (ed.), Paurastya Daivasastra Darsanangal (Kottayam, 1997). 168. La festa nuziale di sangue sul Golgota. Un insolito aspetto di Gv 19,34 nella tradizione siriaca, in F. Vattioni (ed.), Atti della V Settimana di Studi ‘Sangue e antropologia nella Teologia’ 1987, 971–84. 169. A hymn of St Ephrem on the Eucharist, The Harp [Kottayam] 1 (1987), 61–8. 170. The Septuagint, Sourozh 29 1987, 32–44.

xxvi

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

171. North Mesopotamia in the late seventh century: Book XV of John bar Penkaye’s Rish Melle, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam [Festschrift for M. Kister] 9 1987, 51–75; repr. in SSC. 172. Basil’s Homily on Deut. xv 9: some remarks on the Syriac manuscript tradition, in J. Dummer (ed.), Texte und Textkritik: einer Aufsatzsammlung = Texte und Untersuchungen 133 1987, 57–66. 173. Sogiatha: Syriac Dialogue Poems (Syrian Churches Series 11, 1987). 174. Translating the Old Testament, in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge 1988), 87–98. 175. Syriac Christianity, in Dictionary of the Middle Ages 11 (1988), 562–7. 176. The Sinful Woman and Satan: two Syriac dialogue poems, OC 72 1988, 21–62. 177. Maggnanuta: a technical term in East Syrian spirituality, in Mélanges A. Guillaumont (Geneva 1988), 121–9. 178. The spirituality of the heart in Syriac tradition, The Harp 1:2/3 1988, 93–115. 179. Two recent editions of Syrian Orthodox Anaphoras, Ephemerides Liturgicae 102 1988, 435–45. 180. Text history and text division in Peshitta Isaiah, in P. B. Dirksen and M. J. Mulder (eds), The Peshitta: its Early Text and History (MPIL 4, 1988), 49–80. 181. The earliest Syriac translation of Porphyry’s Eisagoge. I, Edition, JIA, Syriac Corporation, 12 1988, 316–66. 182. St Isaac of Nineveh (St Isaac the Syrian), Sourozh 1988, repr. in SSS. 183. An anonymous hymn for Epiphany, PdO 15 (1988/9), 169–96. 184. A Syriac verse homily on Elijah and the widow of Sarepta, LM 102 1989, 93–113. 185. The St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Centre in Kerala (India), Sobornost/ECR 11:1/2 1989, 82–5. 186. Three thousand years of Aramaic literature, Aram 1:1 1989, 11–23. 187. The dispute between soul and body: an example of a long-lived Mesopotamian literary genre, Aram 1:1 1989, 53–64. 188. Arthur Vööbus’ contribution to Syriac studies, Aram 1:1 1989, 294–9. 189. Syriac culture in the seventh century, Aram 1:2 1989, 268–80. 190. The lost Old Syriac at Luke 1:35 and the earliest Syriac terms for the incarnation, in W. L. Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in the Second Century (Notre Dame, 1989), 117–31. 191. An extract from Jacob of Serugh in the East Syrian Hudra, OCP 55 1989, 339–43.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxvii

192. Some observations on the use of Classical Syriac in the late twentieth century, JSS 34 1989, 363–75. 193. An Epiphany hymn on the Church as the Bride of Christ, The Harp 2:3 1989, 131–40. 194. From Ephrem to Romanos, SP 20 1989, 139–51. 195. Some notes on the Syriac versions of Porphyry’s Eisagoge, in Mélanges en hommage au professeur et au penseur libanais Farid Jabre (Publications de l’Université libanaise, section d’études philosophiques et sociales 20 (1989), 41–50. 196. The Holy Spirit as feminine in early Syriac literature, in J. Martin Soskice (ed.), After Eve. Women, Theology and the Christian Tradition (London 1990), 73–88. 197. Syriac manuscripts copied on the Black Mountain, near Antioch, in R. Schulz and M. Görg (eds), Lingua Restituta Orientalis: Festgabe für Julius Assfalg (Aegypten und Altes Testament 20, 1990), 59–67. 198. Lost - and found: Part II of the works of St Isaac of Nineveh, SP 18:4 1990, 230–3. 199. Syriac poetry on biblical themes. l. The prophet Elijah and the Widow of Sarepta, The Harp 3:1–2 1990, 75–86. 200. A brief guide to the main editions and English translations of the works of St Ephrem, The Harp 3:1–2 1990, 7–29. 201. Syriac tradition, in R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houldon (eds), A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London, 1990), 664–5. 202. Diachronic aspects of Syriac word formation: an aid for dating anonymous texts, in R. Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum (OCA 236, 1990), 321–30. 203. Some further East Syrian liturgical fragments from the Cairo Genizah, OC 74 1990, 44–61. 204. The Two Ways and the Palestinian Targum, in P. R. Davies and R. T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes (JSOT Suppl. 100; 1990), 139–52. 205. The Syriac manuscripts; the Georgian manuscripts, in K. A. Manafis (ed.), Sinai: Treasures of the Monastery (Athens 1990), 358–9. 206. Humanity and the natural world in the Syriac tradition, Sobornost/ECR 12 1990, 131–42; repr. in CO 14 1993, 145–53. 207. Some important baptismal themes in the Syriac tradition, The Harp 4:1– 3 1991, 189–214. 208. The Syrian Orthodox reaction to the Council of Chalcedon: Jacob of Serugh’s Homily on the Council of Chalcedon, in Texts and Studies (Athens), 8/10 (1989/91), 448–59.

xxviii

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

209. Syriac dispute poems; the various types, in G. J. Reinink and H. L. J. Vanstiphout (eds), Dispute Poems and Dialogues (OLA 42, 1991), 109–19. 210. The Oriental Fathers, in I. Hazlett (Ed.), Early Christianity. Origins and Evolution to AD 600 (London 1991), 163–72. 211. Bible text (OT), in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids, 1991). 212. The Oriental Orthodox tradition, Sophia [Manchester] 1 (1991), 44–51. 213. Chronicle of Edessa, in Encyclopaedia Iranica 5 (1991), 549–50. 214. Mar Awgen, in V. M. George (ed.), Parisudha Mor Augen Bavayude Jeevithavum Albuthangalum (Maraventhuruth, Kerala: Manakunnam Mor Augen Youth Association, 1991), 13–18. 215. Satan and the Sinful Woman: a dialogue poem from the Syriac Churches, Sobornost/ECR 13:2 (1992), 33–44. 216. A dialogue between Joseph and Mary from the Christian Orient, Logos, 1:3 [1992], 4–11. 217. Some notes on dating formulae in Middle Aramaic inscriptions and in early Syriac manuscripts, in Z. J. Kapera (ed.), Intertestamental Essays in Honour of J. T. Milik (Krakow 1992), 253–64. 218. To revise or not to revise: attitudes to Jewish biblical translation, in G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (LXX and Cognate Studies 33 (1992), 301–38. 219. A palimpsest folio of Matt.20:23–31 (Peshitta) in Sinai Ar. 514 (‘Codex Arabicus’), Orientalia 61 (1992), 102–5. 220. Syriac Versions, in ABD 6 (1992), 794–9. 221. (With S. Hopkins), A verse homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt: Syriac original and early Arabic translation, LM 105 (1992), 87–146. 222. The Church’s Bridal Feast: A Syriac Hymn for Epiphany (Jericho Press, Oxford, 1992 [limited edition]). 223. Eusebius and Syriac Christianity, in H. Attridge and G. Hata (eds), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Detroit 1992), 212–34. 224. Developments in editing Biblical texts, in P. Davison (ed.), The Book Encompassed: Studies in Twentieth-Century Bibliography (Cambridge 1992), 236–43. 225. (With G. A. Kiraz), Buḥono, in [G. A. Kiraz] (ed.), Purosh Qeryone dEgroto/Lectionary of the Syriac Epistles (Bar Hebraeus Verlag 1992), G–J [vii-x]. 226. ‘Come, compassionate Mother..., come, Holy Spirit’: a forgotten aspect of early Eastern Christian imagery, Aram 3 1991 [1993], 249–57. 227. Some new Syriac documents from the third century AD, Aram 3 1991 [1993], 259–67.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxix

228. The Syriac background to Hunayn’s translation techniques, Aram 3 1991 [1993], 139–62. 229. The Syriac commentary tradition, in C. Burnett (ed.), Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 23, 1993), 3–18. 230. Anointing in the Syriac tradition, in M. Dudley and G. Rowell (eds), The Oil of Gladness. Anointing in the Christian Tradition (London 1993), 92–100. 231. Two Syriac poems on the Invention of the Cross, in N. El-Khoury, H. Crouzel, R. Reinhardt (eds), Lebendige Überlieferung: Festschrift für H-J. Vogt (Beirut/Ostfildern 1993), 55–82. 232. Syrische Marienklage, in Marienlexikon 5 1993, 249–50. 233. Christ “the Hostage”: a theme in the East Syriac liturgical tradition and its origin, in H. C. Brennecke, E. L. Grasmuck, C. Markschies (eds), Logos: Festschrift für Luise Abramowski (Beihefte zur ZNW 67, Berlin 1993), 472–85. 234. Fire from heaven: from Abel’s sacrifice to the Eucharist. A theme in Syriac Christianity, in SP 25 (1993), 229–43. 235. From Annunciation to Pentecost: the travels of a technical term, in Eulogema: Studies in Honor of R. Taft S.J. (Studia Anselmiana 110, 1993), 71–91. 236. Translations, ancient languages, in B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (eds), The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York/Oxford 1993), 752– 4. 237. (With G. Campbell), Milton’s Syriac, MQ 27:2 (1993), 74–7. 238. ‘The Wedding Feast of Blood on Golgotha.’ An unusual aspect of John 19:34 in Syriac tradition, The Harp 6:2 (1993), 121–34. 239. The prayers of Saint Isaac the Syrian, Sobornost/ECR 16:1 (1994), 20– 31. 240. Greek and Syriac in Late Antique Syria, in A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf (eds), Literacy and Power in the Ancient World (Cambridge 1994), 149–60. 241. Reading between the lines. Sarah and the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis ch.22). in L. Archer, S. Fischler, M. Wyke (eds), Women in Ancient Societies (London 1994), 167–80. 242. Ephrem’s verse homily on Jonah and the repentance of Nineveh: notes on the textual tradition, in A. Schoors and P. van Deun (eds), Polyhistor: Miscellanea in honorem C. Laga (OLA 60, 1994), 71–86. 243. The development of Syriac studies, in K. J. Cathcart (ed.), The Edward Hincks Bicentenary Lectures (Dublin 1994), 94–113.

xxx

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

244. Syriac studies in the last three decades: some reflections, in R. Lavenant (ed.), VI Symposium Syriacum 1992 (OCA 247, 1994), 13–29. 245. André de Halleux, Sobornost/ECR 16:2 (1994), 49–52. 246. La contribution du Prof. A. de Halleux aux études syriaques, RTL 25 (1994), 433–7. 247. Pro Oriente’s Consultation on the theology of the Church of the East, held in Vienna, 24th–29th June 1994, Sobornost/ECR 16:2 (1994), 59– 67. 248. Syriac poetry on biblical themes. 2, A dialogue poem on the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22), The Harp 7 (1994), 55–72. 249. Etude des 4 manuscrits 12/17, 12/18, 12/19, 12/20, in Y. Dolabani, R. Lavenant, S. Brock, Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du Patriarcat Syrien Orthodoxe à Homs (aujourd’hui à Damas), PdO 19 (1994), 555–661, esp. 608–27. 250. The Persian Church up to the sixth century and its absence from the Councils in the Roman Empire, in Syriac Dialogue (Pro Oriente, Vienna 1994), 69–86. 251. Syriac studies 1986–1990: a classified bibliography, PdO 17 (1992 [1995]), 211–301. 252. The Syriac background, in M. Lapidge (ed.), Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on his Life and Influence (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 11, 1995), 30–53. [Repr. in From Ephrem to Romanos]. 253. The Syriac Fathers and New Testament textual criticism, in B. D. Ehrman and M. W. Holmes (eds), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (Studies and Documents 46, 1995), 224–36. 254. Mingana Syr. 628: a folio from a revision of the Peshitta Song of Songs, JSS 40 (1995), 39–56. 255. Les poèmes dialogues dans la tradition liturgique syriaque, in Le Génie de la Messe Syriaque, Actes du Colloque II (Antelias 1995), 11–24. 256. Poésie et Bible dans la tradition syriaque, in Le Génie de la Messe Syriaque, Actes du Colloque II (Antelias 1995), 25–41. 257. The christology of the Church of the East [in Russian, tr. A. Muraviev], VDI 2 (213) (1995), 39–53. [For English, see under 1996]. 258. The baptismal anointings according to the Anonymous Expositio Officiorum, in G. Karukaparampil (ed.), Tuvaik: Studies in Honour of Rev. Jacob Vellian (Syrian Churches Series 16, 1995), 27–37. 259. Notulae Syriacae: some miscellaneous identifications, LM 108 (1995), 69–78.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxxi

260. St Theodore of Canterbury, the Canterbury School and the Christian East, HeyJ 36 (1995), 431–8. [Festschrift for Robert Murray SJ]. 261. A Palestinian Targum feature in Syriac, JJS 46 (1995), 271–82. [Festschrift for Geza Vermes]. 262. Syriac liturgical poetry: a resource for today, The Harp (Kottayam) 8/9 (1995/6), 53–66. 263. Some uses of the term Theoria in the writings of Isaac of Nineveh, PdO 20 (1995 [1996]), 407–19. 264. A Syriac narratio attributed to Abba Daniel, AB 113 (1995), 269–80. 265. Two Syriac papyrus fragments from the Schoyen Collection, OC 79 (1995), 9–22. 266. Bar Shabba, Mar Shabbay, first bishop of Merv, in M. Tamcke, W. Schwaigert, E. Schlarb (eds), Syrisches Christentum weltweit. Festschrift W. Hage (Munster 1995), 190–201. 267. The scribe reaches harbour, Byzantinische Forschungen 21 (1995) [Festschrift C. Mango], 195–202. [Repr. in From Ephrem to Romanos]. 268. The tale of two brothers: Syriac dialogues between Body and Soul, in L. S. B. MacCoull (ed.), Studies in the Christian East in Memory of Mirrit Boutros Ghali (Washington DC 1995), 29–38. [Repr. in From Ephrem to Romanos]. 269. Deaconesses in the Syriac tradition, in Sr Prasanna Vazheeparampil (ed.), Woman in Prism and Focus (Rome: Mar Thoma Yogam 1995), 205– 17. 270. (Tr.) Prayer for the sanctification of icons, pp. 86–94 in C. Chaillot, Some comments on the pray of consecration of icons in the Syriac tradition, The Harp 8/9 (1995/6), 67–94. 271. Les racines du sacrement de l’initiation dans les anciens manuscrits syriaques, in CERP, Le sacrement de l’Initiation: Origines et Prospective. Patrimoine Syriaque, Actes du Colloque III (Antelias 1996), 58–65. 272. Greek words in Syriac. Some general features, SCI 15 (1996), 251–62. [= vol. In Memoriam A. Wasserstein] [Repr. in From Ephrem to Romanos]. 273. A venerable manuscript collection, in O. Baddeley and E. Brunner (eds), The Monastery of Saint Catherine (London 1966), 85–97. 274. “The daughter of Ma‛nyo”: a holy woman of Arbela, in Annales du Département des Lettres Arabes (Université Saint-Joseph) 6B (1991/2 [1996]), 121–8. [= vol. In Memoriam J-M. Fiey]. 275. The christology of the Church of the East, in D. Afinogenov and A. Muraviev (eds), Traditions and Heritage of the Christian East (Moscow

xxxii

276. 277. 278.

279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287.

288. 289. 290. 291.

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

1996), 159–79. [Russian tr. in Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1995, no 2, 39– 53]. Tash‛ita d-Mar Aksenaya [History of Philoxenos], QS 110 (July/August 1996), 253–244. Pro Oriente’s consultations on Dialogue within the Syriac tradition [in Arabic, tr. J. Habbi], Bayn al-Nahrayn (Baghdad) 95/6 (24) (1996), 338– 48. What’s in a word? An intriguing choice in the Syriac Diatessaron, in C. Fletcher-Louis (ed.), Understanding, Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton [(Oxford 1966), 230–38], reissued as JSNT Supp.153 (Sheffield 1998), 180–87. Some remarks on the use of the construct in Classical Syriac, in E. Wardini (ed.), Built on Solid Rock: Studies in Honour of Professor E. E. Knudsen (Oslo 1997), 44–60. Two unpublished texts by St Isaac the Syrian, Sobornost/ECR 19 (1997), 7–33. Pro Oriente’s Second Consultation on Dialogue within the Syriac tradition, Sobornost/ECR 19 (1997), 78–85. L’arrière-plan du mot Husoyo, in Patrimoine Syriaque: Colloque IV (Antelias 1997), 161–167. The ‘Nestorian’ Church: a lamentable misnomer, BJRL 78 (1996 [1997]), 53–66. The transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe in the Syriac liturgical tradition, SP 33 (1997), 490–505. The monastery of Mor Gabriel 397–1997, Stimme des Tur Abdin 9 (June 1997), 7–9. André de Halleux’s contributions to Syriac studies, Aram 6 (1994 [1997]), 449–56. The Jewish inscriptions in Aramaic and Hebrew, in C. Dauphin et alii, Païens, juifs, judéo-chrétiens, chrétiens et musulmans en Gaulanitide: Les inscriptions de Na‛aran, Kafr Naffakh, Farj et Er-Ramthaniyye, POC 46 (1996), (305–40) 307–12. The Gates/Bars of Sheol revisited, in W. L. Petersen, J. S. Vos, H. J. de Jonge (eds), Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and non-canonical. Essays in honour of T. Baarda (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 89; 1997), 7–24. J-M. Fiey O.P. (1914–1995), RHE 92 (1997), 736–8. Select Bibliography, in T. Muraoka, Classical Syriac (Wiesbaden 1997), 124–47. Syriac Culture 337–425, in The Cambridge Ancient History XIII, The Late Empire A.D. 337–425 (Cambridge 1998), 708–19.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxxiii

292. The importance and potential of SEERI in an international context, The Harp 10:1–2 (1997), 45–50. 293. A monastic anthology from twelfth-century Edessa, Symposium Syriacum VII (OCA 256; 1998), 221–31. 294. Translating the New Testament into Syriac (Classical and Modern), in J. Krasovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible (Ljubljana 1998), 371–85. 295. Le monachisme syriaque: histoire et spiritualité, Patrimoine Syriaque: Actes du Colloque V (Antelias 1998). 296. The Peshitta Old Testament: between Judaism and Christianity, CNS 19 (1988), 483–502. 297. St Ephrem in the eyes of later Syriac liturgical tradition, Hugoye 1:2 (1999). 298. Syriac studies: a classified bibliography (1991–1995), PdO 23 (1998), 241–350. 299. A Syriac dispute poem: the river Pishon and the river Jordan, PdO 23 (1998), 3–12. 300. The Robe of Glory: a biblical image in the Syriac tradition, The Way 39 (1999) [Spirituality and Clothing], 247–59. 301. A Syriac letter on Papyrus: P. Berol. Inv. 8285, Hugoye 2:2 (1999). 302. Two Letters of the Patriarch Timothy from the late eighth century on translation from Greek, ASP 9 (1999), 233–46. 303. The Ruaḥ Elōhīm of Gen.1,2 and its reception history in the Syriac tradition, in J-M. Auwers and A. Wénin, Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (Bibl. Ephem. Theol. Lov. 144; Leuven, 1999), 327–49. 304. The earliest known manuscript written in the monastery of Mar Gabriel, Stimme des Tur Abdin 5(18) (1999), 6–8. 305. Aspects oecuméniques de saint Isaac le Syrien, in Le Monachisme Syriaque du VIIe siècle à nos jours (Patrimoine Syriaque, Actes du colloque VI; Antelias: CERO, 1999), 121–7. 306. Stomathalassa, Dandamis and Secundus in a Syriac monastic anthology, in G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist (eds), After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers (OLA 89, 1999), 35–50. 307. Hedley Frederick Davis Sparks [Memoir], in 1998 Lectures and Memoirs, Proceedings of the British Academy 101 (1999), 513–36. 308. Fragments of Ps.-John Chrysostom, Homily on the Prodigal Son, in Christian Palestinian Aramaic, LM 112 (1999), 335–362. 309. The importance of the Syriac traditions in ecumenical dialogue on christology, CO 20 (1999), 189–197.

xxxiv

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

310. Syriac writers from Beth Qatraye, Aram 11–12 (1999/2000), 85–96. 311. From Qatar to Tokyo, by way of Mar Saba: the translations of Isaac of Beth Qatraye (Isaac the Syrian), Aram 11–12 (1999/2000), 475–84. 312. Greek words in Ephrem and Narsai: a comparative sampling, Aram 11– 12 (1999/2000), 439–49. 313. Towards a typology of the Epicleses in the West Syrian Anaphoras, in H-J. Feulner, E. Velskovska, and R. F. Taft (eds), Crossroad of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler (OCA 260; Rome 2000), 173–192. 314. Two millennia of Syriac literature, [in Syriac and Turkish translations] Heto [Orebro], 2000. 315. The Syriac Churches in recent theological dialogue, ECN 45 (2000), 21–38. 316. St Ephraim, St Isaac, in G. Speake (ed.), Encyclopedia of Greece and the Hellenic Tradition (London/Chicago 2000), I, 559–60, 825–7. 317. Two Syriac dialogue poems on Abel and Cain, Le Muséon 113 (2000), 333–375. 318. The background to some terms in the Syriac eucharistic epicleses, The Harp 13 (2000), 1–12. 319. (With A. Muraviev), The fragments of the Syriac Julian Romance from the manuscript Paris syr. 378, KV 2 (VIII) (2000 [2001]), 14–34. 320. Prayer of the heart in the Syriac tradition, Alliance for International Monasticism, Bulletin 72 (2001), 49–57. 321. An acrostic poem on the soul by Jacob of Serugh, Sobornost/ECR 23 (2001), 40–44. 322. Madrosho d-Mor Ya‛qub Malfono d-‛al naphsho, QS 133 (2001), 227– 30. 323. Traduzioni siriache degli scritti di Basilio, in E. Baudry, S. Brock, M. Cortesi et alii, Basilio tra Oriente e Occidente (Magnano, Communita di Bose: Qiqajon, 2001), 165–180. 324. Hellenike kai Suriake, He metaphrase sten archaioteta, Hellenike kai Suriake: metaphrase, in A-Ph Christides, Historia tes hellenikes glossas (Saloniki, 2001), 610–615, 649–661, 691–701. 325. Text divisions in the Syriac translations of Isaiah, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts. Essays om Memory of M. P. Weitzman (Sheffield 2001), 200–221. 326. The Dispute Poem: from Sumer to Syriac, JCSSS 1 (2001), 3–10. 327. The rise of Christian thought: the theological schools of Antioch, Edessa and Nisibis [in Arabic tr], in al-Masīḥiyya ‛ind tārīkihā fi al-Mashriq

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

328. 329.

330. 331. 332. 333.

334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339.

340. 341.

342.

xxxv

(Beirut, 2001), 143–164. English in Christianity. A History in the Middle East (Beirut, 2005), 143–160. Golinduch, Encyclopaedia Iranica 11:1 (2001), 95–6. Invocations to/for the Holy Spirit in Syriac liturgical texts: some comparative approaches, in R. F. Taft and G. Winkler (eds), Comparative Liturgy fifty years after Anton Baumstark (1872–1948), (OCA 265, 2001), 377–406. Syriac into Greek at Mar Saba: the translation of Isaac the Syrian, in J. Patrich (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present (OLA 98; 2001), 201–8. Two Syriac translations of the Life of Epiphanius, in J. Herrin, M. Mullett and C. Otten-Fox (eds), Mosaic: Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw (British School at Athens Studies 8; 2001 [publ. 2002]), 19–25. Some basic annotation to The Hidden Pearl: The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage, I-III; in Hugoye 5:1 (2002). The seeds of liturgical drama in Syriac?, in A. Chehwan and A. Kassis (eds), Etudes Bibliques et Proche-Orient ancien. Mélanges offerts au Père Paul Feghali (Fédération Biblique, Subsidia 1; Dekouaneh/Jounieh, 2002), 323–41. The dispute between the Cherub and the Thief, Hugoye 5:2 (2002). Jacob of Serugh’s verse homily on Tamar (Gen. 38), LM 115 (2002), 279–315. “About heresies and the syllabus errorum of Pope Shenuda III”. Some comments on a recent article by Professor Meinardus, CCR 23:4 (2002), 98–102. Syriac Dialogue: an example from the past, The Harp 15 (2002) [Mar Aprem Festschrift], 305–18. An excerpt from a letter to the people of Homs, wrongly attributed to Ephrem, OC 86 (2002), 1–12. The changing faces of St Ephrem as read in the West, in J. Behr, A. Louth, D. Conomos (eds), Abba. The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West. Festschrift for Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia (Crestwood NY 2003), 65–80. Dieu Amour et Amour de Dieu chez Jacques de Saroug, in Patrimoine Syriaque, Actes du colloque VIII (Antelias 2003), 175–82. Some diachronic features of Classical Syriac, in M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen (eds), Hamlet on a hill. Semitic and Greek Studies presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (OLA 118; 2003), 95–111. Gabriel of Qatar’s Commentary on the Liturgy, Hugoye 6:2 (2003).

xxxvi

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

343. A prayer song by St Jacob of Serugh recovered, The Harp 16 (2003), 349–54. [G. Panicker Festschrift. Syriac text missing!]. 344. Syriac on Sinai: the main connections, in V. Ruggieri and L. Pieralli (eds), Eukosmia: Studi miscellanei per il 75o di Vincenzo Poggi S.J. (Soveria Mannelli 2003), 103–17. 345. Syriac lexicography: reflections on resources and sources, AS 1:2 (2003), 165–78; also in A. D. Forbes and D. G. K. Taylor (eds), Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I (Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1; Piscataway NJ 2005), 195–208. 346. Syriac tradition, in L. Houlden (ed.), Jesus in History, Thought and Culture. An Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara/Denver/Oxford 2003), II, 824–29. 347. The earliest Syriac literature; Ephrem and the Syriac Tradition, in F. Young, L. Ayres, A. Louth (eds), The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (Cambridge 2004), 161–72, 362–72, 513–15. 348. A neglected revision of the Peshitta Psalter [by Mar Clemens Joseph David, 1877], in C. McCarthy and J. F. Healey (eds), Biblical and Near Eastern Essays. Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart (JSOT Suppl. 375; London 2004), 131–42. 349. The Syriac Churches in ecumenical dialogue on christology, in A. O’Mahony (ed.), Eastern Christianity. Studies in Modern History, Religion and Politics (London 2004), 44–65. 350. Secondary formations from Greek loanwords in Syriac, in H. Juusola, J. Laulainen and H. Palva (eds), Verbum et Calamus. Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of Professor T. Harviainen (Studia Orientalia 99; 2004), 31–9. 351. Changing fashions in Syriac translation technique: the background to Syriac translations under the Abbasids, JCSSS 4 (2004), 3–14. 352. Some early witnesses to the East Syriac liturgical tradition, JAAS 18:1 (2004), 9–45. 353. Transformations of the Edessa portrait of Christ, JAAS 18:1 (2004), 46–56. 354. Syriac Dialogue: an example from the past, JAAS 18:1 (2004), 57–70. [= Mar Aprem Fs, reprinted with small alteration]. 355. The Syriac Churches and Dialogue with the Catholic Church, HeyJ 45 (2004), 466–76. 356. The New Finds—and a new language! Sinaiticus 2004, 12. 357. Syriac Studies: a Classified Bibliography 1996–2000, PdO 29 (2004), 263–410.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxxvii

358. Crossing the boundaries: an ecumenical role played by Syriac monastic literature, in M. Bielawski and D. Hombergen (eds), Il monachesimo tra eredità e aperture (Studia Anselmiana 140; 2004), 221–38. 359. A neglected witness to the East Syriac New Testament Commentary tradition, Sinai Arabic ms 151, in R. Ebied and H. Teule (eds), Studies on the Christian Arabic Heritage [Festschrift Samir Khalil] (Eastern Christian Studies 5; Leuven 2004), 205–215. 360. The earliest Syriac manuscript of the Martyrdom of Philemon and companions, in U. Zanetti and E. Lucchesi (eds), Aegyptus Christiana. Mélanges d’hagiographie égyptienne et orientale dédiés à la mémoire du P. Paul Devos Bollandiste (Cahiers d’Orientalisme 25; Geneva 2004), 29–42. 361. Without Mushe of Nisibis where would we be? Some reflections on the transmission of Syriac literature, in R. Ebied and H. Teule (eds), VIIIth Symposium Syriacum = JECS 56 (2004), 15–24. 362. Etch Miadzin: describing the Ineffable in the Teaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator and in the Syriac tradition, SNTR 9 (2004), 47–54. 363. Du grec en syriaque: l’art de la traduction chez les syriaques, in Les Syriaques transmetteurs de civilisations. L’expérience du Bilad el-Sham à l’époque omeyyade (Patrimoine Syriaque: Actes du Colloque IX; Antelias/Paris, 2005), 11–34. 364. Introduction, Liturgical Texts, Poetry, Secular Literature, Appendix 1– 2, in Nos Sources: Art et Littérature Syriaques (Sources Syriaques 1; Antelias, 2005), 9–20, 291–313, 315–338, 451–474, 581–592. 365. The spirituality of Syriac liturgy, in Bethany Ashram: 50 Glorious Years. Souvenir (Pune 2005), 31–36. 366. The Syriac Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles: an English translation, in J. Getcha and A. Lossky (eds), Thysia aineseos: Mélanges liturgiques offerts à la mémoire de l’archévêque Georges Wagner (1930–1993), (Analecta Sergiana 2; Paris 2005), 65–75. 367. Greek and Latin words in Palmyrene inscriptions: a comparison with Syriac, in E. Cussini (ed.), A Journey to Palmyra. Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers (Leiden 2005), 11–25. 368. Il dibattito cristologico del V e VI secolo nel contesto del dialogo teologico moderno, in E. Vergani and S. Chialà (eds), Le Chiese sire tra IV e VI secolo: dibattito dottrinale e ricerca spirituale (Milano 2005), 73–92. 369. Sobria ebrietas according to some Syriac texts, Aram 17 (2005), 185–91. 370. The Syriac Orient: a third ‘lung’ for the Church?, OCP 71 (2005), 5–20. [Russian tr. in Stranitsi 10:4 (2005), 520–535].

xxxviii

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

371. Dinah in a Syriac poem on Joseph, in G. Khan (ed.), Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorff (Leiden 2005), 222–235. 372. The Syriac inscription of Androna/al-Andarin, in A. Schmidt and S. Westphalen (eds), Christliche Wandmalereien in Syrien. Qara und das Kloster Mar Yakub (SKCO 14; Wiesbaden 2005), 199–202. 373. The Bridal Chamber of Light: a distinctive feature of the Syriac liturgical tradition, The Harp 18 (2005), 179–191. 374. Ktibto bdahbo: ewangeliya mdahbe, Kurkmo 1:2–3 (2005), 35–39. 375. Judah Benzion Segal, Proceedings of the British Academy 130, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows, IV (2005), 210–12. 376. Zwei Jahrtausende syrische Literatur, Der christliche Osten 60:5 (2005), 287–92. 377. The Instructions of Anton, Plato’s Physician, in Studia Semitica (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 16; 2005), 129–38. 378. The imagery of the spiritual mirror in Syriac literature, JCSSS 5 (2005), 3–17. 379. The use of Hijra dating in Syriac manuscripts: a preliminary investigation, in J. J. van Ginkel, H. L. Murre-van den Berg, and T. M. van Lint (eds), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam (OLA 134, 2005), 275–290. 380. Mor Julius Yeshu Çiçek (1942–2005): Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Middle Europe, Sobornost/ECR 27:2 (2005), 57–62. 381. H. E. Mor Julius Yeshu‛ Çiçek: an appreciation, Qolo Suryoyo 147 (2005), 41–45. 382. The ecumenical role played by monastic literature: the case of St Isaac the Syrian, One in Christ 40:4 (2005), 53–58. 383. The Catholic Church and dialogue with the Syriac Churches, One in Christ 40:4 (2005), 34–38. 384. An unknown Syriac version of Isaiah 1:1–2:21, in W. Th. van Peursen and R. B. Ter Haar Romeny (eds), Text, Translation, and Tradition. Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (MPIL 14, 2006), 11–23. 385. A fragment of the Harklean version of St Matthew’s Gospel in the Monastery of Mar Musa, CCO 3 (2006), 337–342. 386. St Aninas/Mar Hanina and his monastery, AB 124 (2006), 5–10. 387. A concordance to Bedjan’s Breviarium Chaldaicum and Darmo’s Hudra, The Harp 19 (2006) [Festschrift J. Madey], 117–136. 388. The Dialogue between the Two Thieves (Luke 23:39–41), The Harp 20 (2006) [Festschrift J. Thekeparampil], 151–170.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxxix

389. The origins of the qanona ‘Holy God, holy Mighty, holy Immortal’ according to Gabriel of Qatar (early 7th century), The Harp 21 (2006) [Festschrift E. Thelly], 173–185. 390. The Lives of the Prophets in Syriac: some soundings, in C. Hempel and J. M. Lieu (eds), Biblical Traditions in Transmission. Essays in Honour of M. A. Knibb (JSJ Suppl. 111; Leiden 2006), 21–37. 391. Syriac literature: a crossroads of cultures, PdO 31 (2006), 17–35. 392. Manuscrits liturgiques en syriaque, in F. Cassingena- Trévedy and I. Jurasz (eds), Les liturgies syriaques (Études syriaques 3; 2006), 267–83. 393. Syriac sources and resources for Byzantinists, in Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 2006 (Aldershot: Ashgate 2006), I, 193–210. 394. The genealogy of the Virgin Mary in Sinai Syr. 16, Scrinium 2 (=Universum Hagiographicum: Mémorial R.P. Michel van Esbroeck sj; 2006), 58–71. 395. Mary and the Angel, and other Syriac dialogue poems, Marianum 68 (2006), 117–151. 396. An archaic Syriac prayer over baptismal oil, SP 41 (2006), 3–12. 397. The use of the Syriac versions in the Liturgy, in B. ter Haar Romeny (ed.), The Peshitta: its Use in Literature and Liturgy (MPIL 15, 2006), 3–25. 398. (With L. Van Rompay), The Syriac manuscripts of Deir al-Surian: some first impressions, The Newsletter of The Levantine Foundation 1 (September 2006), 3–4. 399. (With H. Goldfus and A. Kofsky), The Syriac inscriptions at the entrance to the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, Aram 18/19 (2006/7), 415– 38. 400. East Syriac pilgrims to Jerusalem in the early Ottoman period, Aram 18/19 (2006/7), 189–201. 401. A further funerary mosaic from Osrhoene, Aram 18/19 (2006/7), 715– 21. 402. The Fenqitho: a source for theologizing in the Syriac Church. The present state of study, in J. Puthuparampil (ed.), Theologizing in the Malankara Catholic Church (Pune 2007), 233–250. 403. A Syriac intermediary to the Arabic Theology of Aristotle? In search of a chimera. in C. D’Ancona (ed.), The Libraries of the Neoplatonists (Philosophia Antiqua 107; 2007), 293–306. 404. St Ephrem the Syrian on reading scripture, DR 438 (Jan. 2007), 37–50. 405. The contribution of deceased Syriacists, 1997–2006, Hugoye 10:1 (2007). 406. Syria and Mesopotamia: the shared term Malka Mshiha, in M. Bockmuehl and J. Carleton Paget (eds), Redemption and Resistance. The

xl

407. 408.

409. 410.

411.

412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420.

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (London 2007), 171– 182. Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife: two anonymous dispute poems, in W. J. van Bekkum, J. W. Drijvers and A. C. Klugkist (eds), Syriac Polemics. Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink (OLA 170, 2007), 41–57. A Syriac list of Mongol rulers, in S. G. Vashalomidze and L. Greisiger (eds), Der Christliche Orient und seine Umwelt. Gesammelte Studien zu Ehren Jürgen Tubachs anlässlich seines 60. Geburtstags (Studies in Oriental Religions 56; Wiesbaden, 2007), 327–337. L’apport des Pères grecs à la littérature syriaque, in A. Schmidt and D. Gonnet (eds), Les Pères grecs dans la tradition syriaque (Études syriaques 4; Paris 2007), 9–26. In search of St Ephrem; St Ephrem on women in the Old Testament; A brief guide to the main editions and translations of the works of St Ephrem (with 5 Appendices), in Saint Éphrem. Un poète pour notre temps (Patrimoine syriaque: Actes du Colloque XI; CERO, Antélias 2007), 11–25, 35–44; 281–338. Jacob of Serugh’s poem on the Sleepers of Ephesus, in P. Allen, M. Franzmann, R. Strelan (eds), ‘I sowed fruits into hearts’ (Odes Sol. 17:13. Festschrift for Michael Lattke (Early Christian Studies 12; Strathfield NSW 2007), 13–30. The Syrian Orthodox Church in modern history, in A. O’Mahony (ed.), Christianity in the Middle East. Studies in Modern History, Theology and Politics (London 2007), 17–38. Early dated manuscripts of the Church of the East, 7th to 13th century, JAAS 21:2 (2007), 8–34. About Mushe and the Poll Tax, The Newsletter of The Levantine Foundation 2 (September 2007), 2–3. Saints in Syriac: A Little-Tapped Resource, JECS 16 (2008), 181–196. Poetry and Hymnography (3): Syriac, in S. Ashbrook Harvey and D. G. Hunter (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2008), 657–71. [St Ephrem and his importance for today], Harp 22 (2007) [2008], 6–17. The Ancient of Days: the Father or the Son?, The Harp 22 (2007) [2008], 121–130. Two editions of a new Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 48/49 (2005/6) [2008], 7–18. St Marina and Satan: a Syriac dialogue poem, Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 5 (2008), 35–57.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xli

421. The use of the New Testament in the writings of Mor Ephrem, in Sh. Cherian (ed.), Bringing Light to the World, Syriac Tradition Re-visited. Essays in honour of the Very Revd Dr Adai Jacob Chorepiscopa (Tiruvalla, 2008), 103–18. 422. Various entries in Der Neue Pauly, including the following from Brill’s New Pauly: Enyana Mar Aba Estrangelā Maruthas Onitha Doctrina Addai Cyrillonas Edessa Chronicle Madrasha Bardesanes Martyrologium Narsai Edessenum Isaac Memra Jacob Baradaeus Arbela Chronicle Jacob of Serugh Balai Jacob of Edessa Ephrem Aphrahat Elias of Nisibis Išōʿyahb III Joshua Stylites 423. Various entries in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche (3rd ed., 1993– 2001) Dionysios bar Ṣalībī Johannes I. d. Sedrē-Dichter Gregor ibn al-‛Ibrī Marutha v. Tagrīt Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq Qarṭmīn Ignatios Aprem I. Barsom Rahmani, Ignatios Ephraem Isaak v. Ninive Šubḥalmaran Jakobos v. Nisibis Syrische Sprache u. Literatur Johannes v. Apameia Vööbus, Arthur Johannes bar Zo‛bi Johannes v. Dailam

FORTHCOMING (YEAR OF SUBMISSION): DELAYED OLDER ITEMS! 1. Materials for the study of the writings of St Ephrem (1978, for Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt). 2. Some recent Syriac contributions to theological studies (1984, for Festschrift for J. Papin). 3. The XL Martyrs in Syriac tradition (1986, for Proceedings of Belfast Byzantine Symposium). 4. Christian Syriac (1989, for Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics).

xlii

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

5. Saba, the scribe ‘who never made a blotted tau’ (1992, Manuscripts of the Middle East). 6. Historical fiction in fifth-century Edessa (1994, Proceedings of Brown University Syriac Conference, 1991). 7. Isaac le Syrien (1994; chapter for La théologie byzantine, ed. C. G. Conticello). 8. Syriac, vi 1999; Handbook of Aramaic.

REVIEWS (A SELECTION OF MORE DETAILED REVIEWS ONLY) 1. B. Johnson, Die hexaplarische Rezension des 1. Samuelbuches der Septuaginta, in JTS 15 1964, 112–7. 2. B. M. Metzger, The Text of the NT, in JTS 16 1965, 484–7. 3. C. Burchard, Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth, in JTS 18 1967, 179– 82. 4. G. Wiessner, Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II, in JTS 19 1968, 300–309. 5. J. Lebon, Le moine saint Marcien, in JTS 20 1969, 646–9. 6. S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, in JTS 20 1969, 574–81. 7. M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aseneth, in JTS 20 1969, 588–91. 8. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.), in JTS 20 1969, 274–8. 9. B. Johnson, Die armenische Bibelübersetzung als hexaplarischer Zeuge im I. Samuelbuch, in JTS 21 1970, 443–6. 10. J-M. Sauget, Premières recherches sur l’origine et les caractéristiques des synaxaires melkites, in JTS 21 1970, 497–9. 11. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 1–4, 6–9: Didymos der Blinde, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57 1971, 240–2. 12. J. P. Brown, The Lebanon and Phoenicia I, in JSS 16 1971, 111–3. 13. J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions I, in JTS 23 1972, 155–7. 14. K. Aland (ed.), Die alten Übersetzungen des NTs, in JTS 24 1973, 565–70. 15. H. J. W. Drijvers, Old-Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions, in BSOAS 36 1973, 133–4. 16. J. H. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon, in Journal of Biblical Literature 93 1974, 623–5. 17. E. Reymond and J. Barns, Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices, in Heythrop Journal 15 1974, 339–41. 18. R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, in JTS 27 1976, 219–23. 19. M. D. Koster, The Peshitta of Exodus, in JTS 29 1978, 549–51.

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY

xliii

20. R. Macuch, Geschichte der spät- und neusyrischen Literatur, in JSS 23 1978, 129–38. 21. W. Strothmann, Syrische Hymnen zur Myron-Weihe, in BSOAS 42 1979, 561–2. 22. J. Fitzmyer and D. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic, in JSS 35 1980, 252–5. 23. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, Syriac Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library, in JSS 26 1981, 317–21. 24. W. Selb, Orientalisches Kirchenrecht I, Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Nestorianer, in Abr Nahrain 21 1982/3, 73–5. 25. J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I, II, in JJS 35 1984, 200–209 and 38 1987, 107–14. 26. E. Malki, Die syrische Handschrift Berlin Sachau 220, in JSS 30 1985, 298– 301. 27. D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament I, in JJS 36 1985, 107–9. 28. L. Diez Merino, Targum de Salmos, Job, Proverbios, in JJS 36 1985, 246–8. 29. E. Schürer, (revised ed. by G. Vermes and others), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III.i, in JJS 37 1986, 246–8. 30. J. L. Trafton, The Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon. A critical Evaluation, in JSS 32 1987, 204–7. 31. M. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, in JSS 33 1988, 279–81. 32. W. Strothmann, Konkordanz zur syrischen Bibel, Der Pentateuch, in JSS 33 1988, 133–9. 33. J. Y. Cicek (ed.), Bar ‛Ebroya, Hudoye, in JSS 33 1988, 286–8. 34. J. Y. Cicek, Tenhoto d-Tur ‛Abdin, in JSS 34 1989, 216–8. 35. H. Suermann, Die geschichtstheologische Reaktion auf die einfallenden Muslime in der edessenischen Apokalyptik des 7. Jahrhunderts, in BO 44 1987 [1989], 813–6. 36. P. Gignoux, Incantations magiques syriaques, in JJS 34 1989, 121–4. 37. P. Dirksen, An Annotated Bibliography of the Peshitta Old Testament, in JSJ 21 1990, 104–8. 38. W. Strothmann, Syrische Passionslieder, in JSS 36 1991, 201–4. 39. G. A. M. Rouwhorst, Les hymnes paschales d’Ephrem de Nisibe, in JTS 42 1991, 740–44. 40. A. Desreumaux, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits syriaques, in JTS 44 1993, 331–5. 41. J. Martikainen, Johannes I. Sedra, in JTS 45 (1994), 364–8.

xliv

MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE

42. B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung, II.1, in BO 53 (1996), 182–9. II.2, in BO 56 (1999), 177–9. 43. J. J. S. Weitenberg, Parallel aligned text and bilingual concordance of the Armenian and Greek versions of the book of Jonah, in Journal of Armenian Studies 7 (1994 [1997]), 149–51. 44. B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das NT in syrischer Überlieferung, II.2, in BO 56 (1999), 177–9. 45. A. Desreumaux, Codex Zosimi Rescriptus, in JTS 50 (1999), 763–7. 46. R. W. Thomson, The Teaching of St Gregory (revised edn), in JTS 54 (2003), 340–42. 47. R. Ebied, J. Noret, A. van Roey, L. Wickham, Petri Callinicensis Tractatus contra Damianum, IV, in JTS 56 (2005), 702–6. 48. D. Lane, Šubḥalmaran, The Book of Gifts, in OCP 72 (2006), 224–29. 49. W. Selb and H. Kaufhold, Das syrisch-römische Rechtsbuch, in JSS 52 (2007), 161–4.

ARTICLES IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY OF THE SYRIAC HERITAGE An updated list of Brock’s contributions to EDSH can be found at http://www.bethmardutho.org/wikisyriaca. Abraham bar Lipeh Christian Palestinian Aramaic Aḥiqar Louis Costaz Aḥudemmeh William Cureton Aithallaha Cyril of Alexandria Alexander cycle Cyril of Jerusalem Aristides Cyrillona Joseph Simon Assemani Cyrus of Edessa Dadisho‛ Qaṭraya Athanasius of Alexandria Babai the Great Clemens Joseph David Babai of Nisibis André de Halleux Balai Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite Bardaiṣan Dionysius bar Ṣalibi Basil of Caesarea Dioscorus of Gozarto Anton Baumstark René Draguet Edmund Beck Ephrem the Syrian Ernest Walter Brooks Epiphanius Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Euphemia and the Goth Budge Eusebius of Caesarea Francis Crawford Burkitt Jean-Maurice Fiey Gabriel Qaṭraya Chaldean Syrian Church

BROCK BIBLIOGRAPHY Pseudo-George of Arbela René Graffin Greek literature in Syriac Gregory of Cyprus Gregory Nazianzen Gregory of Nyssa Hippolytus Ignatius of Antioch Isaac of Nineveh Isaiah of Scetis Isho‛dnaḥ Isho‛yahb II of Gedala Isho‛yahb III of Adiabene Isho‛yahb IV Jacob Baradaeus Jacob of Serugh Jacob bar Shakko John of Dailam John of Dara John bar Penkaye John bar Sarapion John bar Zo‛bi Kalila and Dimnah Louis Leloir

xlv

Liturgy Mark the Monk Martyrs and persecutions Marutha of Maiperqaṭ Marutha of Tagrit Mary in Syriac tradition Pseudo-Methodius Nilus the Solitary Jessie Payne Smith Robert Payne Smith Physiologus Poetry Efrem II Raḥmani Sahdona Sergius of Resh‛aina Severus of Antioch Simeon the Potter Syro-Malabar Catholic Church Syro-Malankara Catholic Church Thomas Christians Timothy II Titus of Bostra Syriac texts from Turfan William Wright

‫‪SEBASTIAN BROCK, A TRIBUTE‬‬ ‫ܓ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܒ ‪:‬‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬

‫ܐܢ ܘܗ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬

‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܳ ܽ ܘ ܶ ܐ ܬܘ ܽܨܘܬܘ ܰ ‪ ܶ :‬ܒ ܶܗ ܶ ܺ ܘ ܶ ܰܒ‬ ‫ܰ ܰܳ‬ ‫ܰܙ ܳ‬ ‫ܳ ܐ ܺܒ ܳ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܓܐ ܒ ܺ ܳ ܐ ܘ ܰ ܺ ܳ ܐ ‪ :‬ܕ ܰ ̱ ܒ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܶ ܰܒ ܶ ܐ ܰ ܒ ܰ ܰ ̈ ܽ ܘܢ ‪ܰ :‬ܘܒ ܺ ܶ ܳ ܽ ܰ ̈ ܽ ܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘ ܺܐ ܰ ܶ ܽܕ ܳ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܰ ܽ ܘܢ ‪ :‬ܘ ܶ ܶ ܶ ܐ ܘܬ ܳ‬ ‫ܘ̈ܪܓ ܽ ܰ ܽ ܘܢ܀‬ ‫ܰ ܰ‬ ‫ܓܒ ܳ ܬ ܺ ܳ ܐ ‪ ܳ ܳ :‬ܐ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܳ ܘ ܺ ܳ ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܶ ܰܒ ܰ ܐܢ‬ ‫ܰ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܕ ܽ ܪ ܳ ܽ ܬܐ ‪ܺ :‬‬ ‫ܽ ܳ ܰ ܳܽ‬ ‫ܰ ܳܒܐ ܘ ܽ ܳ ܬܐ܀ ܰ ܽ ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܶܗ ܶ ܺ ܕ ܽ ܬ ܽ ܺ ܳ ܐ ‪ :‬ܒ ܳܐ ܒ ̇‬ ‫ܪܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰܘܐܪ ܶ ܳ ܶ ܳ ܳܓ ܣ ܺ ܬܐ ‪ :‬ܕ ܰ ܳ ܽ ܬܐ ܰ ܺ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܓ ‪ܶ ܰ :‬ܒ ܶ ܳ ܶ ܰܕ ܰ‬ ‫ܳ ܐ ܐܢ ܺܐ ܰ ܰ ܰܙ ܰ‬ ‫ܪܓ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܶ ܺ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܶ ܶ ܐ ܐ ܽ ܢ ܳ ܰ ‪ܰ :‬ܕ ܰ ܽ ܢ ܘܪ ܳ ܐ ܳ ܰ ܀‬ ‫‪ .‬܀ ‪ .‬܀ ܰ ‪ .‬܀ ܳ‪.‬‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ :‬ܐܘ ܰ ܺܒ ܳܒܐ ܶ ܰܒ ܰ ܐܢ ‪ܳ ܳ ܽ :‬ܒܐ ܐ ̱ ܕ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ ܰ ܫ ܽ ̱ܗܘ ܳܒ ܶ ̈ ܳ ܬܐ ‪ܰ :‬ܘܪ ܺ ܽ ̱ܗܘ ܒ ܶ ܰܒ ܴ̈ ܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܐܢ‪ܰ :‬ܒ ̱ܬ ܺ ܝ ܽ ܺ ܶܐ ܺ ܐ ‪ ܶ :‬ܕ ܶ ܓ ܶ ܶܒ ܰܒܒ ܺ ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܽ ܒ ܶ‬ ‫ܰ ܐ ܳܐ ܐ ܰ‬ ‫ܰ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܺܶ ܶ ܀‬ ‫ܬܒ ܶ ‪ܰ :‬ܘܒ ܽ ܶܒ‬ ‫̱‬ ‫ܰܓܒ ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫̱ܗܘ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ ‫̱ܗܘ ‪ :‬ܘ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫ܶ ܶ ܰ ܺ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‪ ܽ :‬ܪܒ ܙ‬ ‫ܘ ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܐܢ‪ܰ :‬ܕ ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܪ ܒ ̣ܗܘ ܙ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܪܒܐ ܕ ܽ ܒܐ ܗ̣ܘ ܕܪܫ ‪ :‬ܘ‬ ‫ܳ ܬ ܳ ܝ ܽ ܰ ܳ ܰܗܕ ܰ ‪ܰ :‬ܗܘ ܰܕ ܺ ܘ ܰ ܺ ܶ ܰ ܰܪ ܶ ܀‬ ‫‪ܳ :‬ܗܐ ܶ ܰܗܘ ܰܙܒ ܳ ܐ ܶܪ ܓ ܶ ‪ :‬ܕ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܳ ܐ ܳ‬ ‫ܶ ܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܰܐܢ‪.‬‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬

‫‪xlvii‬‬

‫‪MALPHONO W-RABO D-MALPHONE‬‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ‬

‫‪xlviii‬‬

‫ܶ‬ ‫ܘ ܽ ܪ ܳ ܽ ܳܬܐ ܰ ̱ ܒ ܳ ܳ ܟ ‪ :‬ܕܬܶ ܰ‬ ‫ܳܒ ̇ ܒ ܽ ܰ ܰ ܳ ܀‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ ܺ ܐ ܶ ܙܬܝ ‪ܰ :‬ܘ ܶ ܒ ܶ ܳ ܶ ܕ ܳ ܝ ܐܶܕܪ ܳܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܢ‪ܰ :‬ܘܳܪܕܐ ܺܕ‬ ‫ܰ ܳܪ ܺ ܳ ܐ ‪ܶ :‬ܕܐ ܰ‬ ‫ܳ ܕ ܺ ܽ ܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܘ ܶ ܰ ܰܒ‬ ‫‪ܰ :‬ܙ ܳ ܐ ܽܕܪܘ ܳ ܐ ܰ ܶܒ ܳ ‪ܰ :‬‬ ‫ܘܒ ܳ ܒ ܽ ܳ ܳܐ ܘ ܰ ܳ ܳ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܰ ܳ ܳ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܶ ܳ ܽ ܳܘܙܐ ‪ :‬ܕ ܽ ܳܒܐ ܰܘ ܳ ܽ ܬ ܺ ̱ܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰܳ‬ ‫ܐܢ‪̱ ܽ ܰ :‬ܗܘ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܳ ܐ ‪ܰ :‬ܕ ܰ ܺܒ ܽܪܘ ܳ ܐ ܰ ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܶܪ ܶ ܶܕܐ ܽ ܚ ܰ‬ ‫ܒܓ ܰ ܳ ܐ ‪ܰ ܶ :‬ܨ ܳ ܐ ܰ ܳ ܐ ܰ ܳ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܶ ܰܒ ܰ ܐܢ ܪ ܺ ܳ ܐ ‪ܰ :‬ܕ ܰ‬ ‫‪ܰ ܽ :‬‬ ‫ܒ ܰ ܶ ܰܕ ܺ ܳ ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܶܘܐܬ ܺ‬ ‫ܳ ܐܳܒܐ ܒ ܺ ܳ ܐ ‪ ܳ ܰ ܺ ܰ ܶ :‬ܐ ܺܒ ܳ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܳ ܳܐ ܳ‬ ‫ܐܢ‪ ܺ ܰ :‬ܝ ܳܗܕ ܽ ܳ ̇ ܕ ܶ ܶ ܬ ‪ :‬ܒ ܺ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ ܰܘܒ ܳ ܽ ܶܒ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܺ ̈ܶ ܶ ܶ ܶ ܰ‬ ‫ܶ ܐ ܰܒܺ ܀‬ ‫ܺܕܪ ‪ :‬ܘ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܶ ܬܪ ܳܬܪ‬ ‫ܘܒܐ ܐ ܶ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܽ ܳ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬ ‫ܕܕ‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫ܰ ܰ ܺ ܳ ܳ ܽ ܳ‬ ‫ܶ ܶ ܳ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫ܐܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܐ ̱ ‪ :‬ܕܐ ܚ‬ ‫ܐܢ‪ܰ ܶ :‬ܗܘ‬ ‫̈ ܰ ̈‪.‬‬ ‫ܰ ܰܶ ܽ ܶ‬ ‫ܶ ܶܒ ܀‬ ‫ܕܰ ܪ ܰ ܕܳ ܰ ܰ ܶ ‪:‬ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܶ ܽ ܶ‬ ‫ܶ ܒ ܰ ܶ ܳܒܐ ܐ̱ ܳ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ܳ ܳ :‬ܐ ܕ ܶ ܽܗܘ ܳ ܓ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܐ̱ ܳ ‪ :‬ܘ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܳ ܐ ܳ‬ ‫ܶ ܐ ܳܕܐ ܰ ܬ ‪ܰ :‬‬ ‫ܰ ܳ ܐ ܐ̱ ܳ‬ ‫ܒܒ ܶ ܶ ܰ ܚ܀‬ ‫ܘܗܘ ܳ ܐ ܰܕ ܺ ܶܘ ܰ‬ ‫ܐܢ‪ܴ̈ ܰ ̈ ܰ ܰ ܰ :‬ܐ ܰ ܒ ܺ ‪ܰ :‬‬ ‫ܐܬܗܺܓ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܽ ܽ ܘܢ ܶ ܶ ܐ ܳ ܕ ܳ ܺܕ ‪ܰ :‬‬ ‫ܕܒ ܳ ܰܐ ܽ ܒ ܳ ܐ ܕ ܳ ܶ ܗ ܺ ܀‬ ‫ܶ ܳ ܟ ܳܗ ܳ ܰ ܰ ̱ ܶ ܕ ܺ ‪ܰ :‬ܘ ܳ ܺ ܝ ܳܐ ܶ ܳܪ ܶ ܺ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܕ ܺ ܽ ܐ ܐ̱ ܰ ܶܕܬ ܳ ܰ ‪ ܶ :‬ܘܒ ܰܒ ܺ ܳܟ ܶ ܰ ܰ ܀ ܶ‬ ‫ܒ ܶ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪:‬ܘ ܐܕ‬ ‫̱ܗ ܳܘ ܰܗܘ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܐܢ‪:‬‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܘ ܬܐ ܐ ̱ ܝ ܒ ̇ ܒ ܰ‬ ‫ܴܬ ܀‬ ‫ܰ ‪ ܰ :‬ܘ ܳܪ ܳ ܐ ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫ܺ ܳ ܐ ܐ̱ ܳ ܶܓ ܺܕ ܰ ܳ ܟ ‪ :‬ܘ ܳ ܐ ܐ̱‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܟ ‪ :‬ܕ ܒ ̇ܗ ܒ ܬ ܒ ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܐܢ‪ܰ :‬ܨ̈ܘܶܒܐ ܶ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܪܕ ‪ :‬ܒ ܰ ܓ ܡ ܘܪ ̱ܳܗܘ ܘ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ܺ ܰ ܒ ܳ ܐ ܰ ܺ ܳ ܐ ܶ ‪ܰ :‬ܘ ܰ ̱ܗܝ ܐ ܶ ܶ ܰ ܳ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܶ ܰ̈‬ ‫‪ܳ ܽ :‬‬ ‫̈ܪܒ ܰ‬ ‫ܶܘܕܒ ܰ ̈‬ ‫ܺ ̈ ‪ :‬ܕܰ ܺ‬ ‫ܺ ܶ ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܰ ܶ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܽ ܳ‬ ‫ܘܪܗܝ ܰܘ ܺ ܺܒ ܀‬ ‫ܕܒ ܰ ̈ܪ ܺܘ ܽ ܘܕ ܘ ܰ ܳ ܢ ‪:‬‬

‫‪xlix‬‬

‫‪SEBASTIAN BROCK: A TRIBUTE‬‬

‫ܪܒ ‪ܰ :‬‬ ‫ܒ ܐܢ‪ܽ :‬ܪܘ ܳ ܐ ܰܕܐܓ ܰ ܰ ܽ ܳ‬ ‫ܘܗܕ ܰ ܺ ܰܒܐ ܶ ܳ ܺܘܐ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ ܺ‬ ‫ܺܗܝ ܳ‬ ‫ܰ ܒ ܳ ܻ ܐ ‪ ܰ :‬ܒ ܶ ܰ ܝ ܽܪܘ ܳ ܐ ܽ ܘ ܰ ܽܕܘܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܬ ̈ ܐ‪ ܽ :‬ܒ ܳ ܐ ̱ ܳܪܳܙܐ ܬ ܺ ܰ ܳ ܐ ‪ܰ :‬ܕ ܚ ܰ ܰ ܒ ܳ ܐ ܒ ܘ ܳ ܳ ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܳ ܶ ܳ ܰ ܽ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܘܢ ܰ ܀‬ ‫ܽ ܒ ܽ ܰ ܢ ܶ ܺܪ ܐܘ ܶ ܰ ‪ :‬ܐܒܐ ܘܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܰܳ‬ ‫‪ :‬ܬܺܘܕ ܳ ܐ ܳ‬ ‫ܰ ܢ ‪ܶ ܳ :‬ܗ ܶ ܳ ܺ ܳ ܘ ܶ ܰܒ ܰ ܐܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܬܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܳ ܽ ܰ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܽ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫‪ :‬ܒ ܒ ܬܟ ܐ ܐ ܕ ‪.‬܀‪.‬܀‪.‬܀‪.‬‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫‪.‬܀ ‪.‬܀ ‪.‬܀ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܰܕܙ ܺ ܐܳ‬ ‫ܽ ܺܓ ܳ ܐ ܕ ܰ‬ ‫ܶ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܶ ܰ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܶ ܺ‬ ‫ܶ ܰܒ ܰ ܐܢ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܺ ܳ‬ ‫̱ܒ‬ ‫ܰܒ ܳܒ‬ ‫ܳ ܺ ܰ ܳ ܣ ܡ ܒ ܽ ܡ ܰ ܒ ܰ ܳܒܐ‬ ‫ܺܕܐ ܰ ܘܗܝ ܰ ܳ ܐ ܒ ܺ ܳ ܐ ܕ ܺ ܐܕ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܕ ܰ ܒ ܺ‬ ‫ܺ ̈ ܰ ܕ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܶ ܰܒ‬ ‫̱‬ ‫ܐܙܕ ܰ ܬ ܽ ܺܓ ܳ ܐ ܳܗܶܕܐ ܽ ܡ ܐܪܒ ܳ ܐ ܒ ܰ ܳܒܐ ܒ ܽ‬ ‫ܰ ܰ ܒ ܽ ‪ܶ .‬ܘ ܰ‬ ‫ܰ‬ ‫ܘܓܐ ܰܒ ܳ ܐ ܶ ܰܒ ܰܐܢ ܶ‬ ‫ܶܕܐܬܬ ܺ ܺ ܳ ܰܙ ܳ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܶ ܺ ܶ ܬ ܺ ̈ ܶ ܐ ܳܘ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܺܕ ܽ ܘܢ ܰܒ ܺ ܰ ܐ ܳ ܪܕ ܰ ܰ ܰܒܐ ܳ ܳ ܐ܀‬ ‫‪.‬܀ ‪.‬܀ ‪.‬܀ ‪.‬‬

‫ܳ ‪.‬‬

‫ܝ‬ ‫ܳ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܰ ܐܢ‬ ‫ܳܐ‬ ‫ܶܐ‬

SYROTURCICA 1. THE ÖNGGÜDS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE PIER GIORGIO BORBONE

UNIVERSITÀ DI PISA—DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE STORICHE DEL MONDO ANTICO [email protected] When, in 1281, Mar Yahballaha was elected to the dignity of catholicos of the Church of the East, he tried to turn down his appointment by pronouncing the following words: “I am lacking in education and Church doctrine, and the member of my tongue is afflicted; and how can I become this? For I am not even acquainted with your Syriac language, which is a matter of universal necessity.”1 Mar Yahballaha had been born about 1245 and baptized with the name of Marqos in “Košang,” the capital city of the kingdom of the Önggüds (Öŋġüd), a Turco-Mongol people among whom the Christian religion had been adopted by the ruling dynasty and the population at large. The anonymous author of his biography—from which the above quotation is drawn—says that Marqos, the youngest son of Archdeacon Bainiel, was

ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ :‫ܕܘܬܐ ݇ܐ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵܬ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܘܗܕ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬ Transl. Montgomery 1927: 44 ( : ܼ ‫ܓ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܿ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ݇ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܝ ܕ ܼ ܐ‬:‫ܢ ܼ ܪ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܐ ̤ܗܝ ܐ‬ ܸ ‫ ܐܦ ܹܓ ܒ‬.‫ܗܕܐ ܸ ܘܐ‬ ܹ ܸ ‫) ܼܐ ܼ ܐ‬. A similar opinion was expressed by Barhebraeus: “Mar Yahballaha, though feeble regarding the doctrine and competence in the Syriac language, is a good-natured man, full of fear of God, who shows deep affection towards us and towards our people” (Abbeloos-Lamy 1872–77: II, 453: ͖ΑΈ;‫ͼ͔ ܘ‬Έ͵ͣͯ͗ ͷͯͦ͸ ͽ·‫ܝ ͓ͮ͗͢͵͕͢ ܐ‬Α͸ ͽͮ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ ݂ ̈ ͽ͹΄ Ͱͼ͘͵‫ܘ‬ ͽ͵ ‫ͳ͔ͯͦ ͗͢ ܘ͔ͥͣ͗ ;͓͕͛ͯ ͥͣܝ‬Β ͕͢Ξ ΕͶͥ‫͖ ̇ܗܘ ͔ͨ͘ ͗ͳͼͯ͢ ܘܕ‬Α͚͘ Ζ‫);ͣܪ͔ͮͯ ܐ‬. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Geng Shimin (Beijing), Prof. Alessandro Mengozzi (Bergamo) and Dr. Marco Guglielminotti Trivel (Torino), with whom I discussed the topic of this paper, and to Dr. Laura E. Parodi (Oxford), for correcting and improving the English text. 1

.̇

1

2

BORBONE

“instructed in the Doctrines of the Church beyond all his [three] brothers.”2 Such a statement would seem to contradict the very opinion of Marqos/Yahballaha regarding his own knowledge and culture; but if we take the author’s words literally, his primacy would seem to have been restricted to the circle of his brothers. Our aim in this essay is that of determining the extent to which the Syriac language was known and used among the Christians of Mar Yahballaha’s native country. To this effect we shall refer to the linguistic evidence found in the region where the Önggüds lived.3 Such evidence consists of short texts, more precisely funerary inscriptions on gravestones, mainly found in Inner Mongolia, in the Yinshan Mountains region. They are all from urban cemeteries, associated with large cities (Olon Sume, Muhu’er Suobu’erga, Wangmuliang). Burials found in such cemeteries are of two types: circles of stones and cenotaphs. The former occasionally comprise a stele decorated with crosses and bearing inscriptions in Syriac letters, originally erected outside the stone circle, in correspondance with the deceased’s head. Currently, about half a dozen fragments of stelae have been discovered in association with this kind of burial.4 Much higher in number are the cenotaphs, whose shape recalls that of a sarcophagus, with a “head” bearing crosses and/or a rosette, and an oblong “body” decorated by vegetal scrolls.5 Very often the “body” bears on its upper side a short inscription in Syriac letters. It is difficult to say how many cenotaphs have been discovered: the necropolis of Muhu’er Suobu’erga, one of the most important in Inner Mongolia, consists of about 380 lined up burials, each provided with a cenotaph. Only a few of them remain in situ today: the most refined ones have been removed over the course of time by the villagers—who used the stone cenotaphs to strengthen their buildings, houses or enclosures—and only a small number are preserved in local archaeological survey offices.6 The most comprehensive archaeological and historical study on the Önggüds of Inner Mongolia is Gai Shanlin’s book “The Önggüds of the Yin ܿܿ ܵ ܵ Montgomery 1927: 30–31 (‫ܿܘܢ ܼܿܐ ܵ ̈ ܗܝ‬ ݂ ܼ ܿ ܼ ‫ܐܬܕܪܫ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܬ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫) ܵܗ ܵ ܐ‬. 3 A remarkably large area, ranging from North Gansu to North Hebei, and including Inner Mongolia (see Guglielminotti Trivel 2004: 93). 4 Gai 1992: pl. 157–160. 5 A pictorial survey of the relics, as complete as currently available evidence allows for, is given by Halbertsma 2005. 6 See the narrative of the first discovery by Owen Lattimore (1934) and Desmond Martin (1937–38). 2

SYROTURCICA 1

3

Mountains,” from which we derived the reproductions for most inscriptions;7 pictures of the cenotaphs and rubbings are also reproduced by Tjalling Halberstma, and a few inscriptions are published by Niu Ruji.8 Soon after their first discovery,9 it became clear that the inscriptions on the cenotaphs were in the Syriac script, but in a Turkic language. Their text is extremely short, and invariably consists of the same formulaic expression: “This is the tomb of PN [+ title].” Let us take two cenotaphs as an example: 1. (Gai 1992: pl. 161,2)

‫ܐܘܠ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫ܐܪ‬

‫ܒ ܐ ܓ ܪܓ‬

pw qbr‚ gwrgys ‚rkydyqwn nyng ‚wl bu qavra Givargis arkedyaqon-nïŋ ol This is the tomb of George, the archdeacon 2. (Gai 1992: pl. 161,43)

‫ܐܘܠ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒܐ‬

pw qbr‚ ‛mnw‚yl qšyš‚ nyng ‚wl bu qavra Emanuel qašiša-nïŋ ol This is the tomb of Emanuel, the priest

The sentence, featuring the demonstrative (bu) before the subject, the name of the deceased (+ his title) followed by the genitive ending (-niŋ/-nïŋ) and the copula (ol),10 is genuinely Turkic; more specifically, it recalls the 7 Gai Shanlin’s work, though not taking into account the content of the inscriptions, is very useful as it reproduces several pictures and rubbings. 8 Halbertsma 2005; 2006; Niu 2006; 2006a. Halbertsma, like Gai, does not discuss the texts. But the excellent picture and rubbing featured in his essay (Halbertsma 2005: 188) provide us with an opportunity to correct a reading given by Niu (2006: 224; 2006a: 321): instead of ‫ܐܘܠ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܘܬܐ‬ / pw qbr‚ qdwt‚ kwšṭ‚nṣ nyng ‚wl / bu qavra qadota qušṭanč-nïŋ ol: “This is the tomb of instructness Qadota” (thus in Niu), one should read ‫ܐܒ ܐ ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܠ‬ / pw qbr‚ ḥdwt‚ kwšṭ‚nṣ nyng ‚wl / bu qavra Ḥadūtā qušṭanč-nïŋ ol: “This is the tomb of Joy, the teacher.” The Syriac feminine personal name ‫“ ܘܬܐ‬Joy” is also recorded on a gravestone from Semireč’e (Chwolson 1897: 48 [N. 277]; see also Chabot 1906: 289). 9 Grønbech 1939–40; a short description of the linguistic features of the Turkic language spoken by the Önggüds is given by Mansuroğlu 1959. 10 The use of ol as the copula distinguishes the Turkic formula used by the Önggüds from that used by the Christians of Semireč’e on their gravestones, where

4

BORBONE

formulae adopted in the Uyghur juridical texts found in Turfan and dating from the 10th to the 13th century: bu nišan-mən tanuq Anč-nïŋ ol This is my mark, of the witness Anč11 bu tamġa-mən Bulmïš-nïŋ ol This is my seal, of Bolmiš12 The only Syriac elements in this formula are the technical term for “tomb, grave,” qavra,13 and the ecclesiastical titles (priest, archdeacon etc.). The presence of such lexical borrowings does not allow, even in so short a sentence, to describe its language as “Syro-Turkic.” The formula is found also on the square-shaped fragment of a stele: 3. (Gai 1992: pl. 157,8)

‫ܐܘܠ‬

‫ܒܐ‬

pw qbr‚ ywḥnn pyg nyng ‚wl bu qavra Yohannan bäg-niŋ ol This is the tomb of John, the prince. Here the title of the deceased is a Turkic one: bäg “prince, chief.” But two lines of text, carved in smaller letters within a square in low relief placed between the two main lines of the inscription, although difficult to decipher, certainly contain the Syriac word ‫ܐ‬ “deacon.” the copula is turur (bu qavra… nïŋ turur). According to Grønbech, this linguistic feature shows that the Önggüd language was related to the Eastern Turkic dialects (1939–40: 306). Nevertheless, a “western-type” copula turur is found once in Quanzhou, South-Eastern China; see Niu 2006: 236–238; Niu 2006a: 333–335. 11 Malov 1951: 206. An identical formula was written in the Syriac script by a “Priest Särgis” in the “White Pagoda,” see P. G. Borbone, “Syroturcica 2. The Priest Sargis in the White Pagoda,” Monumenta Serica 56 (2008). 12 Von Le Coq 1919: 107. 13 The word ‫( قهبره‬also spelled ‫ )قهۋره‬qävrä for “tomb” in modern Uyghur (spoken in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, PRC) is probably the last linguistic relic of the mission of the Church of the East in Inner Asia and China.

SYROTURCICA 1

5

In other stelae—more often than not, fragments of stelae—the formula is integrated within a more or less ample context, depending on the amount of text surviving, but invariably and unmistakably recognizable as Turkic. A particularly important, though fragmentary, stele is the one said to be “trilingual”; it is also a noteworthy piece of art, due to its refined decoration. It was originally part of a large gravestone, whose upper portion alone was found in Olon Sume.14 The fragment, decorated with a cross in its centre, contains three texts written out in parallel columns—left to right, in the Syriac script (four lines); (under the cross) in the Uyghur script (six lines); and in Chinese characters (four lines). The text in the Syriac script begins with the usual formula: 4. (Gai 1992: pl. 158; Halbertsma 2005: 218–224; Niu 2006: 217–220; Niu 2006a: 312–316)

...‫ܐܘܠ‬

‫ܪܣ‬

‫ܒ ܐ ܐܒ ܗܡ‬

pw qbr‚ ‚brhm ṭwmwrs nyng ‚wl… bu qavra Avraham Tömüräs-niŋ ol…

and continues, for the remaining lines, in Turkic. The text in the Uyghur script begins with the same formula (bu qavra Abraham Tömüräs-niŋ ol…), being largely identical to that in the Syriac script. In its turn, the content of the text in Chinese characters and language corresponds to the preceding one. To call the inscription “trilingual” would obviously be misleading: it is a Turkic-Chinese bilingual inscription in three scripts, Syriac and Uyghur for Turkic, and Chinese characters for the Chinese language. The deceased, Abraham Tömüräs, was an important officer, the governor of the ‫ ܓ ܐܘ‬/ kngč ‚w[pw] / Jingzhaofu 京兆府 prefecture, who died on 13th July, 1327. Because of his high rank, his gravestone is rich in decoration and textual apparatuses, providing information about his life and career in two languages and three scripts.15 The reason for the apparently redundant double Turkic text is not difficult to find: Abraham Our sources contain discordant information about its size: according to Halberstma (2005: 218) 100 × 85 cm; according to Niu (2005: 217; 2006a: 313) 120 × 45 cm. 15 For an English translation of the complete Turkic and Chinese texts, see Niu 2006: 218–219; 2006a: 314–315: 316. 14

6

BORBONE

Tömuräs was a Christian, and the Syriac script was intended as a mark of his faith and religious affiliation. Another stele, unearthed by Gai Shanlin in 1974 inside the walls of Olon Sume but currently impossible to locate, displays twelve vertical lines of text in the Syriac script. The first line begins in Syriac: 5. (Gai 1992: pl. 159; Niu 2006: 220–222; Niu 2006a: 316–318)

‫ܐܒܐ ܘܒ ܐ ܘܪܘ ܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

bšm ‚b‚ wbr‚ wrwḥ‚ dqwdš‚ In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit but the texts continues in Turkic:

‫ܐܢ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ـܐܒ ܐܨ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬

‫ܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܘܣ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܙ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬ …

mqdwny‚ p‚lklk pylyps k‚n ‚wkly ‚lksndrws ‚ylyg k‚n s‚kyšy myng ‚lṭy ywz ‚yky yylynṭ‚ ṭ‚bk‚ṣ s‚kyšy p‚rw yyl ‚wnwnṣ … Maqadonya balïqlïq Pilipüs kan oġlï Aläqsandros ilig kan saqïšï mïŋ altï yüz iki yïlïnta tabġač saqïšï bars yïl onunč … In the reckoning of Alexander Ilig-khan, son of Philip, from the city of Macedonia, year 1602, in the Chinese reckoning the year of the Tiger [= 1290 AD]... and ends (l. 12) with the Syriac liturgical formula:

‫ܘܐ‬

‚mn w‚mn Amen and amen!

‫ܐ‬

SYROTURCICA 1

7

Could this inscription be regarded as bilingual? In our opinion the answer should be negative: the beginning and the end reproduce quotations from Syriac liturgical formulae, which should be considered as extra-textual fixed elements. The documents thus far examined do not support the hypothesis that Syriac was known among the Önggüd Christians: all texts are in the Turkic language, and besides Syriac liturgical formulae and ecclesiastical titles, they do not feature more than a lexical loanword for “tomb.” To this evidence little can be added: the fragments of a few stelae and a funerary inscription on brick discovered in the easternmost part of Inner Mongolia, near the city of Chifeng. The fragments (Gai 1992: pl. 157,6.7) feature the formula bu qavra… in the Syriac script, invariably incomplete but apparently in a Turkic context. On the other hand, the Turkic text of the Chifeng inscription (Hamilton-Niu 1994) is written in the Uyghur script (the deceased, a Yawnan “Jonas,” was a Christian officer who died in 1253 AD); the brick is decorated with a cross, and a Syriac inscription (in the Syriac script)—a quotation from Psalm 34:6—is written on its sides.16 Again, we would not describe the Chifeng inscription as “bilingual”: the language of the text is Turkic only, the Syriac sentence being just a very short and standard Biblical quotation to be understood as an extra-textual element, just as the liturgical formulae found in the Olon Sume stele. Having not found any linguistic evidence in the Önggüds’ inscriptions, apart from a few loanwords and liturgical formulae, we could conclude that their knowledge of Syriac consisted at the best of a passive competence in the liturgical use, without any active competence: a situation quite similar to that of the Catholic faithful in the (more or less recent) past, who had a certain familiarity with Latin in the liturgy, without being able to understand the language out of it, and even less to speak or write it. In the light of the epigraphic evidence, the statement of Mar Yahballaha becomes fully understandable: in his native land it was indeed impossible to reach the fluency in the Syriac language which would have been required of a catholicos. Nevertheless, two short cenotaph texts seem to suggest that at least someone from among the Önggüds tried to produce Syriac sentences. The first is reproduced in Halbersma (2005: 186):17

16 17

See Borbone 2006. For a color picture, see Briquel Chatonnet-Debié-Desreumax 2004: pl. VII,1.

8

BORBONE

6.

‫ܢ‬

‫ܐܪ‬

‫ܓ‬

‫ܒܗ‬

hnw qbrh srgys ‚rkdyqwn nyng hānāw qavrēh Särgis arkedyaqon-nïŋ This is his grave, of Archidiacon Sargis

‫ܗ‬

The first two words and their syntax are purely Syriac, and so are the PN and the title; but the genitive ending connected to the latter is Turkic. The author of the short text apparently wanted to introduce a variation in the standard Turkic formula, by resorting to Syriac, but proved unable to build a complete clause in that language. Indeed, to produce the desired result, he should have used the particle d- before the PN, whose meaning is given instead by the Turkic genitive ending, which should naturally have been omitted in a Syriac sentence (hānāw qavrēh d-Särgis arkedyaqon). The omission of the Turkic copula ol18 means perhaps that the scribe was aware of the value of hānāw as demonstrative + copula. A second case, similar but non identical, is found on another cenotaph (Gai 1992: pl. 157; see also Niu 2006: 223; 2006a: 319): 7.

‫ܐܘܠ‬

‫ܒܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܣ‬

hnw ‚sṭpnws qšyš‚ nyng qbr‚sy ‚wl hānāw esṭepanos qašiša-nïŋ qavrasï ol This is the tomb of Stephen, the priest

‫ܐ‬

‫ܗ‬

Again we find here the use of the Syriac compound hānāw (demonstrative + copula) instead of the Turkic bu; but the scribe seems to ignore the proper value of hānāw, because he also includes the Turkic copula at the end of the line. If, in the former example, it was reasonable to suggest that the author was fully aware of the meaning of hānāw as the equivalent of bu + ol, this is apparently not the case here. It would suffice to delete hānāw to turn this into a pure Turkic sentence: esṭepanos qašiša-nïŋ qavrasï ol.19 In the Turkic sentence the possessive case is expressed, besides the genitive ending On the basis of the reproduction published by Halbertsma, there is no reason to doubt that the inscription is preserved in its integrity. 19 As we shall see, in such an expression the Turkic demonstrative pronoun is not needed, at least in the language of the Turkic Christian inscriptions (see note 20). 18

SYROTURCICA 1

9

(-nïŋ), by the pronominal suffix for the third person singular, -i/-ï, connected to qavra, the syntax being affected by this choice, which demands that qavrasï “tomb-his” is placed after the PN + title. This formulation for the possessive case (PN [+ title] -niŋ/-nïŋ name-i/ï [copula]), though standard in Turkic, makes the inscription unique among all those carved on Önggüd cenotaphs, which, as we have seen, consistently follow a syntax (bu qavra PN + niŋ ol).20 Two unusual phenomena appear in one and the same inscription: the Syriac demonstrative + copula hānāw and a Turkic syntactic expression which, although common, has no parallel in the other Önggüd inscriptions.21 In the two examples we have quoted, neither sentence is really Syriac or genuinely Turkic. These two incomplete attempts show, in our opinion, that someone from among the Önggüds attempted to write in Syriac, or perhaps to “Syriacize” the standard formula for funerary inscriptions. When this happened is not clear, because the texts on the cenotaphs are not dated. As we have seen, only the richer texts on the stelae give dates and information about the deceased: the years mentioned are 1253, 1290 and 1327. Consequently, it seems quite reasonable to date the cenotaph inscriptions to the Mongol period and to the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), Among the Christian Turkic inscriptions from Inner Asia and China, there is only one other example of the syntactic pattern “PN-title-niŋ qabrasï” for the expression of the possessive relationship. In a famous Chinese-Turkic bilingual inscription from Quanzhou (South-East China; Wu 2005: 395–403 [B 37]; see Enoki 1964: 62 and Lieu 2006: 290–291) the Turkic text begins as follows: ...‫ܒ ܐ ܐܘܠ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐܪ‬ ‫ ܐ‬mḥy‚yl-l‚rnyng mry ḥsy‚ mry šlymwn ‚psqwp‚nyng qbr‚sy ‚wl… The bishop Mar Šlīmūn was apparently supervising both the Christians and the Manichaeans (see Lieu 1998: 180–188); but for us here it is more interesting to point out the way in which the possessive relationship is expressed, in the same way as in our second example of “Syriacized” Önggüd formula. 21 Considering the Turkic qavrasï and the Syriac qavrēh exactly mirror each other, one might be tempted to suggest that the use of the former here could be related to the attempt at “Syriacizing” the sentence—as the Syriac qavrēh was used in the previous case. But such a suggestion is perhaps too far-fetched, because the syntactical frame in which the two forms are employed is very different in the two languages. It is worth mentioning a hypothesis suggested independently by my colleagues Alessandro Mengozzi (Bergamo) and Elio Provasi (Pisa), according to which hānāw might have here, and in the previous example, the value of an “ideogram,” like the Aramaic words used in writing Iranian languages (see P. Oktor Skjærvo, ‘Aramaic Scripts for Iranian Languages,’ in Daniels-Bright 1996: 515–535). 20

10

BORBONE

although some Önggüd necropolises where the documents were found originate as early as the Jin dynasty (1115–1234; see Guglielminotti Trivel 2004: 94). The attempt to “Syriacize” these texts was not successful, as is shown by the case of the commemorative inscription for the Christian high officer who died in 1327, where, in the absence of someone capable of, or willing to, write in the Syriac language, only the Syriac script, as customary, was used.22 There is thus no doubt that evidence hardly supports a statement such as the following, according to which the Christian Önggüds of Inner Mongolia were “a substantive community… well versed in many languages and scripts” (Halbertsma 2005: 128): the active competence was apparently limited to two languages, Turkic and Chinese, Syriac being restricted to the liturgical use.23 Let us now try and specify the linguistic source which inspired this attempt to “Syriacize” the language, and argue whether, after all, it is possibile to speak of “Syriacization” at all. From the end of the 19th century onwards, hundreds of “Nestorian” gravestones were discovered by Russian explorers and archaeologists in Semireč’e, a province of the Russian Empire in Russian Turkestan, the greater part of which now corresponds to Kyrgyzstan.24 About six hundred epigraphs have been published;25 they are all written in the Syriac script and for the most part also in the Syriac language; some are in Turkic.26 The following are good examples of the Syriac inscriptions carved on the Semireč’e gravestones: This is also a strong argument against the possibility that the Gospel book written in 1298 for “Sara, called Äräoġul,” sister of George, the king of the Önggüds, was copied in the Önggüd homeland; see Borbone 2003; 2006a. 23 To be precise, as we do not have any evidence of liturgical books related to the Önggüd Christians of the 13th–14th century, this remanis a theoretical, though quite reasonable, assumption, the factual ground of which lies in the finding of Syriac liturgical manuscripts datable to the 9th century in the Inner Asian milieu. Indeed, the oldest dated MSS of the East Syriac ḥudrā were found in Inner Asia (see Macomber 1970). 24 The most accurate summary of the history of the discovery of the “Nestorian” gravestones is found in Thacker 1966–67. 25 The main portion of the corpus, 568 inscriptions, was published already in the 19th century: see Chwolson 1886; 1890; 1897; Sluckij 1890; 1891. Some of the gravestones found their way from Russia to Western Europe, see Nau 1913; Thacker 1966–67. Recent discoveries in Kyrgyzstan are published in Klein 2000; see also Klein 2004. 26 These number about 30; see Džumagulov 1971. 22

SYROTURCICA 1

11

8. (Klein 2000: 158)

‫ܒܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܥ‬

hnw qbrh yšw‛ ‛lym‚ This is the tomb [of] the youth Išo‛ 9. (Džumagulov 1987: 44)

‫ܐܬܪܐ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ ܓ ܪܓ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܪ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ ܐ ܘܢ ܪ ܬܐ‬

bšnt ‚rt‚ ‚rnb‚ hnw qbrh gwrgys rš‛dt‚ brh ‚ntwn rš‛dt‚ In the year 1601, [year of the] hare. This is the tomb [of] George, head of the church son [of] Anton, head of the church. The first example features the same formula as the Önggüd cenotaphs (“This is the tomb of PN”), and its language is apparently Syriac. But the second example is much more significant, and representative of the most common textual typology of the Semireč’e gravestones, where a date, given according to the Seleucid era and the Turkic animal cycle calendar, precedes the formula.27 The longer text allows for the language to be more clearly recognizable as Syriac. In both cases, it can be observed that the formula does not follow a correct Syriac grammatical pattern, due to the lack of the particle d- before the personal name. Indeed, in our two examples we would expect, in good Syriac, hnw qbrh dyšw‛ ‛lym‚ and hnw qbrh dgwrgys. As we have On the dating system of the Semireč’e inscriptions, see Bazin 1991: 413–429 (‘Le double calendrier des Turcs nestoriens’). 27

12

BORBONE

seen, the same happens in the “Syriacized” Önggüd formula. The lack of the particle d- in such a formula is a common feature in the vast majority of the Semireč’e gravestones (meaning several hundreds of cases).28 When we look carefully at the second example, we see that the lack of d- is not restricted to the standard formula for the attribution of the tomb, because it occurs in another expression of genitival relationship: brh ‚ntwn “son [of] Anton,” instead of brh d‚ntwn. From this we may conclude that the omission of d- to express the genitival relationship was a feature of the Syriac in use with the Christian Turks of Semireč’e, at least in their gravestone texts.29 The implication, with reference to the Önggüd attemps at “Syriacizing” the Turkic formula, is that we cannot explain the expression hnw qbrh srgys (instead of hnw qbrh dsrgys), found in the first one, simply as a mistake ascribable to the “Syriacizer”: we could, indeed, suggest that he adopted a formula that was customary in the westward Turkic milieu of the Semireč’e region.30 This suggestion would entail that the very source for the “Syriacization” of the Önggüd formula is not be found in some knowledge of genuine Syriac, but in the Syro-Turkic use. Again, evidence is on the side of Mar Yahballaha: the Önggüds never used Syriac as a written or spoken language. Since the texts in Syriac script found on the Yangzhou (Geng 2006) and Quanzhou gravestones (Wu 2005; Franzmann-Lieu 2006) are exclusively Turkic,31 we may conclude that the easternmost evidence for a knowledge of the Syriac language among the Turkic Christians is to be located in Semireč’e, an area comprising parts of present-day Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the North-Western region of Xinjiang (China).

Among the inscriptions published by Chwolson, only a few follow the regular Syriac pattern (Chwolson 1897: 7 [Nrs. 5, 8], 10 [Nr. 18], 50 [Nr. 304]). 29 A feature that was obvioulsy pointed out already by the first editors of these texts, D. Chwolson and S. S. Sluckij. 30 Approximately 2900 km as the crow flies separate this region from the Önggüd site of Olon Sume, but as they were connected by the “Silk Road” this distance does not hinder frequent communication. 31 The only portions of the texts that are in the Syriac language are the common extra-textual liturgical formulae at the beginning (such as ‫ܐܒܐ ܘܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ )ܘܪܘ ܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ‬and at the end (such as ‫)ܐ‬. 28

SYROTURCICA 1

13

Fig. 1: Two Önggüd cenotaphs from Muhu‚er Suobu‚erga (Inner Mongolia) (Photo M. Guglielminotti Trivel).

14

BORBONE

Fig. 2: A gravestone from Tokmak (Kyrgyzstan), dated 1328–29 AD (Photo P. G. Borbone).

SYROTURCICA 1

15

REFERENCES Abbeloos, J. B. and Lamy, T. J. (1872–77). Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon ecclesiasticum, quod e codici Musei Britannici descriptum conjuncta opera ediderunt, Latinitate donarunt annotationibusque theologicis, historicis, geographicis et archaeologicis illustrarunt, I-III, Lovanii. Bazin, L. (1991). Les systèmes chronologiques dans le monde turc ancien, BudapestParis. Borbone, P. G. (2003). ‘I Vangeli per la principessa Sara. Un manoscritto siriaco crisografato, gli öngüt cristiani e il principe Giorgio.’ Egitto e Vicino Oriente 26: 63–82. Borbone, P. G. (2006). ‘Peshitta Ps 34:6 from Syria to China.’ In: W. Th. Van Peursen and R. B. Ter Haar Romeny (eds.), Text, Translation and Tradition. Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Leiden: 1–10. Borbone, P. G. (2006a). ‘Princess Sara’s Gospel Book. A Syriac Manuscript Written in Inner Mongolia?’ In: R. Malek and P. Hofrichter (eds.), Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: 347–348. Briquel Chatonnet, F., Debié, M. and Desreumaux, A. (eds.) (2004). Les inscriptions syriaques, Paris. Chabot, J.-B. (1906). ‘Contribution à l’onomastique syriaque.’ Journal Asiatique X.8: 286–293. Chwolson, D. (1886). Syrische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie, St. Petersburg. Chwolson, D. (1890). Syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. St. Petersburg. Chwolson, D. (1897). Syrisch-nestorianische Inschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge. St. Petersburg. Daniels, P. T. and Bright, W. (eds.), (1996). The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford. Desreumaux, A., Marsone, P. and Niu, Ruji (2004). ‘Les inscriptions syriaques de Chine.’ In: F. Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié, and A. Desreumaux (eds.), Les inscriptions syriaques, Paris: 143–153. Džumagulov, Č. (1971). Jazyk siro-tjurkskih (nestorianskih) pamjatnikov Kirgizii. Frunze. Džumagulov, Č. (1987). Epigrafika Kirgizii 3. Frunze. Enoki K. (1964). ‘The Nestorian Christianism in China in Mediaeval Time According to Recent Historical and Archaeological Researches.’ In: Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul tema: l’Oriente cristiano nella storia della civiltà, Roma: 45–83.

16

BORBONE

Franzmann, M. and Lieu, S. N. C. (2006). ‘A New Nestorian Tombstone from Quanzhou: Epitaph of the Lady Kejamtâ.’ In: R. Malek and P. Hofrichter (eds.), Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: 293–302. Gai Shanlin 盖山林 (1992). Yinshan Wanggu 阴山汪古 (The Önggüds of the Yin Mountains), Hohhot. Geng Shimin 耿世民 (2006). ‘Reexamination of the Nestorian Inscription from Yangzhou.’ In: R. Malek and P. Hofrichter (eds.), Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: 243–255. Grønbech, K. (1939–40). ‘Turkish Inscriptions from Inner Mongolia.’ Monumenta Serica 4: 305–307. Guglielminotti Trivel M. (2004). ‘Sepolture e riti funerari degli Onguti in Mongolia Interna.’ G. Airaldi, P. Mortari Vergara Caffarelli, L. E. Parodi (eds.), I Mongoli dal Pacifico al Mediterraneo. Atti del convegno internazionale, Genova, palazzo Doria Spinola, 7–8 maggio 2002, Genova: 93–108. Halbertsma, T. (2005). ‘Some Field Notes and Images of Stone Material from Graves of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China. With additional rubbings of seven stones by Wei Jian.’ Monumenta Serica 53: 113–244. Halbertsma, T. (2006). ‘Some Notes on Past and Present Field Research on Gravestones and Related Stone Material of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China. With 21 Illustrations of the HulsewéWazniewski Project in Inner Mongolia.’ In: R. Malek and P. Hofrichter (eds.), Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: 303–320. Hamilton, J. and Niu, R. (1994). ‘Deux inscriptions funéraires turques nestoriennes de la Chine orientale.’ Journal asiatique 282: 147–164. Klein, W. (2000). Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. Turnhout. Klein, W. (2004). ‘Les inscriptions syriaques des républiques d’Asie centrale.’ In: F. Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié, and A. Desreumaux (eds.), Les inscriptions syriaques, Paris: 125–141. Lattimore, O. (1934). ‘A ruined Nestorian City in Inner Mongolia.’ The Geographical Journal 84: 481–497. Lieu, S. N. C. (1998). Manichaeism in Central Asia and China, Leiden. Lieu, S. N. C. (2006). ‘Nestorian Remains from Zaitun (Quanzhou), South China.’ In: R. Malek and P. Hofrichter (eds.), Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: 277–291.

SYROTURCICA 1

17

Macomber, W. F. (1970). ‘A List of the Known Manuscripts of the Chaldean ḥudrā.’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 36: 120–134. Malov, S. E. (1951). Pamjatniki drevnetjurkskoj pis’mennosti. Teksty i issledovanija, Moskva. Mansuroğlu, M. (1959). ‘Die Inschriften von Semireč’e und die ÖngütTürken.’ In: J. Deny, K. Grønbech, H. Schel, and Z. Velidi Togan (eds.). Philologiae turcicae fundamenta I, Aquis Mattiacis: 108–112. Martin, D. (1937–38). ‘Preliminary Report on Nestorian Remains north of Kuei-Hua, Suiyüan.’ Monumenta Serica 3: 232–256. Montgomery, J. A. (1927). The History of Yaballaha III, Nestorian Patriarch, and of His Vicar Bar Sauma, Mongol Ambassador to the Frankish Court at the End of the Thirteenth Century, New York [repr. New York 1966; Piscataway 2006]. Murayama, S. (1964). ‘Eine nestorianische Grabinschrift in türkischer Sprache aus Zaiton.’ Ural-Altaischer Jahrbüche 35: 394–396. Nau, F. (1913). ‘Les pierres tombales nestoriennes du Musée Guimet.’ Revue de l’Orient chrétien 12: 3–35; 325–327. Niu Ruji 牛汝汲 (2006). ‘Nestorian Inscriptions from China (13th–14th Centuries).’ In: R. Malek and P. Hofrichter (eds.), Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: 209–242. Niu Ruji 牛汝汲 (2006a). ‘Nestorian Inscriptions from China (13th–14th Centuries).’ In Niu Ruji (ed.), Wenhua de lüzhou. Si lu yuyan yu Xiyu wenming 文化的绿洲 丝路语言与西域文明 (Oasis of culture. Silk Road Language and the Western Region). Urumqi: 303–341. Sluckij, S. S. (1890). ‘Semirečenskie nestorianskie nadpisi.’ Drevnosti Vostočnye 1: 1–66. Sluckij S. S. (1891). ‘K semirečenskim nestorianskim nadpisjam.’ Drevnosti Vostočnye 1: 176–194. Thacker, T. W. (1966–67). ‘A Nestorian gravestone from Central Asia in the Gulbenkian Museum Durham University.’ Durham University Journal 59: 94–107. Von Le Coq, A. (1919). ‘Kurze Einführung in die uigurische Schriftkunde.’ Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen an der Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität zu Berlin, 22: 93–107. Wu Wenliang 吴文良 and Wu Youxiong 吴幼雄 (2005). Quanzhou zongjiao shike 泉州宗教石刻 (Quanzhou Religious Inscriptions), Beijing.

DÉCOUVERTE D’UNE INSCRIPTION SYRIAQUE MENTIONNANT L’ÉVÊQUE RABBULA FRANÇOISE BRIQUEL-CHATONNET (CNRS, PARIS, FRANCE)

ALAIN DESREUMAUX (CNRS, PARIS, FRANCE)

JOSEPH MOUKARZEL

(UNIVERSITÉ SAINT-ESPRIT, KASLIK, LIBAN) Publication of a Syriac inscription on a stone of unknown provenance. It is dated to 737 Seleucid Era i.e. 425–426 AD and mentions bishop Rabbula. Apart from this very important mention which refers most probably to the bishop of Edessa, the main interest lies in the fact it is one of the most ancient Syriac Christian inscriptions and the insight it gives on palaeography.

Une inscription syriaque ancienne vient récemment d’être mise au jour dans une collection particulière au Proche-Orient. Nous remercions son propriétaire de nous avoir autorisés à la publier. L’intérêt de son contenu et son origine inconnue pourraient éveiller une certaine méfiance quant à son authenticité, mais un examen attentif du monument lui-même et la forme non conventionnelle de certaines lettres, qu’un faussaire n’aurait guère pu imaginer, nous inclinent à penser qu’elle est ancienne. Il nous a alors semblé juste que le célèbre évêque d’Édesse soit associé à cet hommage rendu à notre maître et ami Sebastian Brock.

L’INSCRIPTION L’inscription est située sur un épais moellon de beau basalte noir à grain moyen, à patine uniforme, qui n’a été apprêté que sur la face inscrite et la marge supérieure des quatre faces latérales. Le bloc d’appareil était donc 19

20

BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, DESREUMAUX, MOUKARZEL

probablement inséré dans un mur dont il dépassait peut-être légèrement. L’inscription est gravée dans un cartouche en queue d’aronde qui occupe toute la longueur de la pierre. Un cartouche en tabula ansata est normalement horizontal, ce qui indique le sens dans lequel le bloc était disposé. Ce n’est pas un cas unique puisqu’on en trouve des exemples in situ à Basufan (dans une église datée de 491–496 AD) et à Babisqa (inscription sur deux plaques de balustrade de stoa, datée de 596 de l’ère d’Antioche, soit 547 AD) dans le massif Calcaire de Syrie du Nord-Ouest1 et à Heshterek dans le Tur Abdin (inscription datée de 771–772 AD).2 La hauteur de la pierre est donc de 55 cm, la longueur de 69 cm et l’épaisseur de 12 cm. Le cartouche, en comprenant les anses, mesure 68 x 40 cm. Le rectangle luimême, en comprenant l’épaisseur de la gravure du cadre (1,5 à 2 cm), est d’une longueur de 50 cm ; l’intérieur du cartouche mesure 37 x 46 cm. Les marges de situation du cartouche sur la surface du bloc sont de 11 cm à gauche et à droite, 8 cm en haut et 9 cm en bas (fig. 1). L’inscription est constituée de 5 lignes gravées verticalement avec une légère pente vers la droite. Les lignes se suivent de gauche à droite. La surface d’écriture est de 36 x 40 cm. De petites marges sont reserves : en haut de 2–2,5 cm, à gauche de 2 cm, à droite de 3–4 cm, en bas l’inscription touche le cadre (fig. 2 : photo). Le trait de gravure, large (5–10 mm) et profond, est relativement régulier. Mais la forme des lettres l’est beaucoup moins. On ne peut définir un module régulier des letters : la hauteur de celles-ci varie de 35 mm (‛ê, riš) à 80 mm pour les plus développées (beth, taw) (fig. 3 : dessin de l’inscription). Le texte est le suivant :

‫ܒ‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܘܬ‬

Basufan : H. Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul, Paris, 1907, no 21, p. 60, lecture reprise et améliorée par E. Littmann, «Semitic Inscriptions», Syria. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909, Division IV, Leiden, Brill, 1934, no 50. Babisqa : E. Littmann, «Semitic Inscriptions», dans Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899–1900, Part IV, New York-London, 1905, no 14–15, p. 33–38. 2 Pognon 1907, no 96, inscription réétudiée par Andrew N. Palmer, «A Corpus of Inscriptions from Tur ‛Abdin and Environs», Oriens Christianus 71, 1987, no A5, p. 64. 1

DÉCOUVERTE D’UNE INSCRIPTION SYRIAQUE

21

‫ܒ ܒ ܘ ܡ‬ ‫ܪܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ Nous proposons de le lire ainsi :

‫ܒ ܡ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܬ > < ܘ‬ < ‫ܒ ܒ > ܝ‬ ‫>ܝ< ܪܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ Soit

ܝ‬

ܝ‬

‫ܘ ܒ‬

< > ‫ܘܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܪܒ ܐ ܐ‬

Que l’on transcrit

BŠNT ŠB‛M‚ WTLTN WŠB‛ BWM MR RBWL‚ ‚PSQP On traduit : «En l’an sept cent trente-sept, aux jours de Mar Rabbula évêque». On notera que cette interprétation implique la restitution de quatre ‫ܬ‬, à une époque très ancienne, pouvait peut-être yudh. Si celui du pluriel ne pas s’écrire,3 celui de ‫ ܝ‬est radical et devait donc normalement l’être. devant un nom On trouve cependant au moins un exemple de la forme propre dans l’inscription de Kafr Antīn.4 De fait, cette inscription ne porte On a l’exemple de (texte supérieur, l. X) à côté de avec yudh (texte supérieur, l. IX et texte inférieur, l. 17, 19, 22) dans un parchemin du IIIe siècle. Voir J. Teixidor, «Deux documents syriaque du IIIe siècle après J.-C., provenant du moyen Euphrate», Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 1990, p. 146–166. S. P. Brock, «Some New Syriac Documents from the Third Century AD», Aram 3, 1991, p. 259–267. H. J. W. Drijvers & J. F. Healey, The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene. Texts, Translations and Commentary (Handbuch der Orientalistik I, 42), Leiden, New York, Köln, 1999, p. 237. 4 Littmann 1934, no 61, p. 52–55. 3

22

BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, DESREUMAUX, MOUKARZEL

aucun yudh. C’est ce qui nous permet de poser l’hypothèse que deux autres yudh ont été omis dans le mot : ‫ܒ‬. On peut penser que cette lettre, qui se marque généralement par une très légère indentation, n’a pas été repérée par le graveur lorsqu’il a recopié son modèle, qu’il ne comprenait sans doute pas. Il aurait ainsi oublié systématiquement de noter cette lettre. Cela suppose que les seyome aussi ont été omis. De fait, l’écriture présente des particularités très notables. Certaines lettres sont disproportionnées : c’est le cas des beth à la première ligne. Le mim, en croissant de lune ouvert à gauche avec un trait au milieu qui sert de ligature, est maintenant connu dans les parchemins du MoyenEuphrate au milieu du IIIe siècle.5 Il est également attesté dans une inscription sur mosaïque trouvée récemment près de Bab en Syrie, dans la région de Jérablous, qui date du début du Ve siècle.6 Il s’agit d’une forme cursive, ce qui n’étonne pas sur une mosaïque. Le waw fermé est également d’origine cursive comme sans doute le qoph trapézoïdal et quasi-triangulaire ou le šin un peu maladroit. Le ṣade lié par le bas trouve un parallèle dans l’inscription de Dahis.7 Mais les lettres les plus curieuses sont les olaph et les taw. Les taw, dont la hampe repose sur un simple trait arrondi, sans boucle fermée, ont perdu l’essentiel de leur structure. Ils reproduisent clairement les taw des parchemins du Moyen-Euphrate. Il s’agit donc encore d’une forme cursive héritée de l’écriture quotidienne. Les olaph surtout ont été difficiles à identifier car ils sont sans parallèle. Mais on peut en rendre compte en les interprétant aussi comme des formes cursives analogues à celles que l’on peut voir dans les parchemins du IIIe siècle. Ils ont une forme de grande boucle qui, à l’encre, est tracée d’un seul trait de plume en faisant une hampe verticale de bas en haut puis de haut en bas. De telles formes se

5 Les deux parchemins sont présentés dans J. Teixidor, «Les derniers rois d’Édesse d’après deux nouveaux documents syriaques», Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 76, 1989, p. 219–222. Le premier est édité dans Teixidor 1990 et le second dans J. Teixidor, «Un document syriaque de fermage de 242 après J.-C.», Semitica 41–42, 1993, p. 195–208. Voir également sur ces documents Brock 1991 et Drijvers & Healey 1999. 6 J. Balty, F. Briquel Chatonnet, A. Desreumaux, R. Sabbag, Le martyrion SaintJean dans la moyenne-vallée de l'Euphrate. Fouilles de la direction générale des antiquités à Nabkha au NE de Jerablous (Documents d’archéologie syrienne), Damas, sous presse. 7 Littmann 1905, no 8, p. 25.

DÉCOUVERTE D’UNE INSCRIPTION SYRIAQUE

23

trouvent encore au VIe siècle dans les colophons de certains manuscrits qui sont écrits avec un caractère moins formel que le texte principal. En tout état de cause, la graphie correspond à celle d’une inscription très ancienne. La césure au milieu du mot ‫ ܒ ܐ‬est placée arbitrairement entre les deux dernières lettres, sans lien avec la structure du mot. Les ligatures sont irrégulières et plusieurs mots sont liés entre eux : on notera particulièrement, à la deuxième ligne, que le mot ‫ ܬ ܢ‬est lié au waw suivant et donc que le nun final a une forme médiane. L’orthographe est également assez archaïque et ne présente pas les critères de normalisation ultérieurs. Le mot «cent», ‫ ܐܐ‬, est écrit avec un seul olaph, forme qui n’est pas attestée dans la literature.8 Le waw est absent ‫ ܐ‬qui ne porte à la fin ni le olaph de la forme déterminée, dans le mot si le mot est syriacisé, ni le semkhat de la forme transcrite du grec, que l’on attendrait à cette époque ancienne. Le texte est inhabituel, puisqu’il comprend en fait seulement une formule de datation, sans mention de l’événement qui est ici commémoré, achèvement d’une construction, réparation, dédicace ou consécration.

UNE MENTION DE RABBULA Cette inscription présente un intérêt à un double point de vue. Sur le plan historique, cet intérêt réside dans la mention de Rabbula, que l’on est tenté d’identifier au célèbre évêque d’Édesse.9 En effet, la date indiquée, 737, est sûrement comptée d’après l’ère séleucide puisque celle-ci était en usage exclusif en Osrhoène et que l’usage de l’ère d’Antioche, dans l’hypothèse que ce serait l’origine de l’inscription, donnerait la date de 688–689 de l’ère chrétienne, qui est exclue par la paléographie. L’inscription peut donc être datée de 425–426 de l’ère chrétienne, ce qui correspond à l’époque où Rabbula était sur le siège épiscopal d’Édesse, puisqu’il a été consacré en 412 et qu’il est mort en 435–436. Or il n’est pas impossible mais peu vraisemblable que deux évêques contemporains et voisins aient porté ce même nom. L’écriture clairement édessénienne plaide également en faveur de l’identification avec l’évêque d’Édesse. L’inscription se rapporte donc bien à lui et il s’agit de la première attestation d’époque de son épiscopat : R. Payne-Smith, Thesaurus syriacus, 1877–1901, col. 1984–1985. J. B. Segal, Edessa. ‘The Blessed City,’ Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1970 (réed. Gorgias Press 2001), p. 91–93. Georg Günter Blum, Rabbula von Edessa: der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 300, Subsidia 34), Louvain, 1969. 8 9

24

BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, DESREUMAUX, MOUKARZEL

elle provient sans doute du diocèse d’Édesse, où elle devait être insérée dans le mur d’un édifice ecclésiastique, sinon d’une église. Il existe également une inscription sur une balustrade ornée trouvée à Zabad, qui mentionne un personnage nommé Rabbula.10 Mais, si l’inscription elle-même n’est pas datée, l’étude du dossier prosopographique par Littmann l’amenait à penser que cette inscription pouvait remonter au 2e quart du IVe siècle, ce qui excluait qu’il s’agisse de l’évêque d’Édesse. Certes, une telle date pour ce monument semble difficile. Mais, en tout état de cause, rien n’indique qu’il s’agisse, pour Zabad, de l’évêque d’Édesse. L’inscription que nous publions ici prend place parmi les plus anciennes inscriptions syriaques chrétiennes portant une date. Jusqu’à une époque récente, on considérait que la plus ancienne était celle de Dar Qita en Syrie, dans le Jabal Barisha, datée de 482 de l’ère d’Antioche, soit 433– 434 de l’ère chrétienne.11 Une inscription sur mosaïque, trouvée récemment près de Bab en Syrie, est selon toute probabilité datée de 718 de l’ère séleucide, soit 406–407 de l’ère chrétienne.12 L’inscription de Rabbula serait la première immédiatement postérieure.

UN CHAÎNON PALÉOGRAPHIQUE L’écriture est également particulièrement intéressante : alors que toutes les inscriptions syriaques très anciennes sont très bien écrites et d’une magnifique calligraphie, monumentale et régulière (balustrade de Zabad, Dar Qita, Dahis, Khirbet Hassan…), celle-ci n’est pas régulière dans la hauteur des lettres et présente des formes d’origine manifestement cursive (mim en demi-lune, waw fermé, olaph et taw). Les parallèles ne sont pas ceux de l’écriture des inscriptions ni même celle des manuscrits de la même époque : le rapprochement le plus clair est dans le ductus des documents de la pratique, tel qu’il est attesté au IIIe siècle et, encore en partie, au début du VIe dans des colophons de manuscrits.13 Il s’agit donc d’une écriture de tous les jours, informelle, dont cette reproduction sur pierre fournit un chaînon Voir Littmann 1905, p. 45–54. Littmann 1934, no 4. 12 J. Balty, F. Briquel Chatonnet, A. Desreumaux, R. Sabbag, Le martyrion SaintJean dans la moyenne-vallée de l'Euphrate. Fouilles de la direction générale des antiquités à Nabkha au NE de Jerablous (Documents d’archéologie syrienne), Damas, sous presse. 13 J. F. Healey, «The Early History of the Syriac Script : A Reassessment», Journal of Semitic Studies 45, 2000, p. 55–67; F. Briquel Chatonnet, «De l’écriture édessénienne à l’estrangelā et au sertō», Semitica 50, 2001, p. 81–90. 10 11

DÉCOUVERTE D’UNE INSCRIPTION SYRIAQUE

25

entre le IIIe et le VIe siècle et dont il faut prendre en compte l’existence dans l’étude de l’origine tant de l’estrangelo que du serto. Le lapicide a sans doute reproduit un modèle cursif qui lui avait été fourni. Il est même possible qu’il n’ait pas été capable de le comprendre. La technique elle-même n’est pas d’une qualité supérieure, même en tenant compte des grandes difficultés de gravure dans le basalte. On peut alors poser l’hypothèse que ce monument ne provient pas d’Édesse ellemême, mais plutôt d’un site périphérique de la province et du diocèse. On possède peu de documents historiques sur cette période de l’histoire d’Édesse, aussi est-il vraiment dommage que l’on ne dispose pas d’indication sur la provenance exacte et le contexte archéologique de ce monument épigraphique exceptionnel.

26

BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, DESREUMAUX, MOUKARZEL

Fig. 1 : schéma du bloc

DÉCOUVERTE D’UNE INSCRIPTION SYRIAQUE

Fig. 2 : photo

27

28

BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, DESREUMAUX, MOUKARZEL

Fig. 3 : dessin de l’inscription

VON BISCHÖFEN, ÄRZTEN UND ASKETEN— SCHNITTPUNKTE VON CHRISTENTUM UND MEDIZIN IM SPÄTANTIKEN SASANIDENREICH PETER BRUNS Zwischen der Heilkunst und dem Christentum lassen sich in der Spätantike zahlreiche, zuweilen überraschende Berührungspunkte ausmachen, die in der jüngeren Zeit in den Blickpunkt des Forschungsinteresses1 gerückt sind. Ein innerer Bezugspunkt zwischen der Heiltätigkeit eines Arztes und dem übernatürlichen Heil der Religion ist mit ihrer Analogie und Parallelität gegeben, welche im Herrenwort Mk 2,17 zum Ausdruck gebracht werden. Das Bild vom Arzt und der zu heilenden Krankheit deckt im Rahmen einer christlich verstandenen Heilslehre die Unfähigkeit des Menschen auf, sich selbst zu heilen, sprich sich selbst zu erlösen. Am Anfang der Christusverkündigung im syrischen Raum (IgnEph 7,2) steht daher monumental das ausschließende Bekenntnis zur alleinigen Heilsmittlerschaft Jesu Christi, welcher der einzige Arzt und Erlöser des Menschengeschlechtes ist. Neben der christologischen Arzttitulatur sind es vor allem die Sakramente der Eucharistie und der Beichte, deren Heilsbedeutung mit Hilfe medizinischer Metaphern2 veranschaulicht wird. Darüber hinaus 1 Vgl. Otto Hiltbrunner, Die gesellschaftliche Stellung der Ärzte und ihre Rolle bei der Ausbreitung des frühen Christentums nach Asien: Blümer/Henke/Mülke (Hgg.), Alvarium (FS Chr. Gnilka = JAC.E 33), Münster 2002, 197–204. Hiltbrunners Aufsatz ist sehr anregend, enthält aber leider keine Angaben zu den Primärquellen. Vgl. zuletzt auch Christian Schulze, Medizin und Christentum in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter, Tübingen 2005, der gerade für die Orientalen nicht immer die Primärquellen parat hält. 2 Vgl. Michael Dörnemann, Krankheit und Heilung in der Theologie der Kirchenväter (= STAC 20), Tübingen 2003; zur frühsyrischen Literatur vgl. auch Peter Bruns, Das Christusbild Aphrahats des Persischen Weisen, Bonn 1990, 166– 169; Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge 1975, 89–91, 199–203.

29

30

BRUNS

nennen die syro-persischen Quellen einzelne charismatische Gestalten, die als Bischöfe oder Mönche durch ihre besondere Gabe der Heilkunst von sich reden machten und Gegenstand der folgenden Untersuchung sein sollen. *

BHO 244: DANIEL MEDICUS, MONACHUS IN PERSIDE (SAEC. IV.?) Es gehört zu den Kuriositäten des äthiopischen Synaxars,3 daß es für den 14. Ḫedâr (10. November) neben dem hl. Martin(us), dessen Name über das Arabische im Geez zu einem gewissen „Qonitos“ völlig verballhornt wurde, auch einen längeren Eintrag bezüglich eines gewissen Mönches Abbâ Daniel enthält. Der verwunderte Leser wird sich fragen, wie ausgerechnet ein persischer Heiliger in den Kalender der äthiopischorthodoxen Kirche gelangt ist. Von unserem Daniel weiß nämlich die Legende zu berichten, daß er am Negusch von Fârs (Persien) Wunder gewirkt habe und ihn zum Glauben an den Namen Jesu Christi geführt habe. Der namentlich nicht genannte König habe an einer mysteriösen, unheilbaren Bauchkrankheit gelitten, welche seine Hofärzte nicht zu kurieren vermochten. Entsprechend dem orientalischen Brauch4 verlangt nun der König von seinem stümperhaften Hofarzt den Kopf. Dieser schlägt vor, um den eigenen zu retten, ein Kind armer (christlicher?) Leute statt seiner zu schlachten (Isaak-Motiv?). Das ebenfalls namentlich nicht genannte Kind wendet sich nun angesichts der Bedrohung für Leib und Leben im Gebet vertrauensvoll an den Herrn, der daraufhin das Herz des Königs bekehrt, so daß dieser von seinem ursprünglichen Vorhaben abläßt. Der Mönch Daniel wird nun von Gott aufgeboten und zur Heilung des Perserkönigs entsandt. Schließlich, so die Vita, habe Daniel durch seine Wundertätigkeit den König nicht nur von seinem physischen Leiden geheilt, PO 44,304–307: E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church, Cambridge 1928, 244f. Im arabisch-koptischen Synaxar (PO 3,293–298) hingegen sucht man unter dem 14. Hedar vergebens nach Daniel. 4 Vgl. Dietrich Brandenburg, Priesterärzte und Heilkunst im alten Persien, Stuttgart 1969, 19–21. Wie sich die Honorierung nach dem gesellschaftlichen Rang der behandelten Person richtete, so konnte der Arzt bei Mißerfolg wegen „vorsätzlicher Körperverletzung“ haftbar gemacht werden. Bei einem Adeligen hatte dies hochnotpeinliche Folgen für den behandelnden Arzt, bei einem Bauern hingegen kam er weit glimpflicher davon. 3

VON BISCHÖFEN, ÄRZTEN UND ASKETEN

31

sondern ihn zugleich bekehrt und zusammen mit seinem ganzen Volk getauft. Nur wenig später sei Daniel wieder in sein Heimatland (Ägypten?) zurückgekehrt, habe noch viele asketische Kämpfe ausgefochten und sei friedlich entschlafen. Soweit die äthiopische Vita. Der Bezug unserer Legende zur syrischen Hagiographie ist durch die Person ebenjenes Daniel medicus gegeben, dessen Vita seinerzeit von Bedjan in die große Ausgabe der Märtyrer- und Heiligenakten5 aufgenommen wurde. Der Herausgeber der Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis entschied sich auf Grund einer Jahresangabe im Text6 für das vierte Jahrhundert als Entstehungszeit. Eine ganze Reihe von Anachronismen im Text lassen indes eine gänzlich andere, wesentlich spätere Datierung wahrscheinlicher erscheinen. Wenn beispielsweise der Bischof der Königsstadt— bezeichnenderweise nicht Seleukia-Ktesiphon, sondern Beth-Lapat in Huzistan (= Gundeschapur)—„unser Vater, Patriarch des Ostens“7 ( ‫ܐܒ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ) genannt wird, dann gehört eine solch beeindruckende Titulatur gewiß in die zweite Hälfte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Für die hier postulierte Frühzeit ist sie völlig anachronistisch. Der Patriarch thront auf dem apostolischen Stuhl (sic!) und nennt sich „Oberhirt und Haupt aller Hauptleute, Vater der Orthodoxen, Lehrer der Wahrheit, Katholikos aller Rechtgläubigen“.8 Auch die hier beschriebene Errichtung neuer Diözesen und Hierarchien setzt ein gewisses Bewußtsein von apostolischer Vollmacht voraus, wie es Anfang des vierten Jahrhunderts, so die Datierung Sel. 632, noch nicht ausgeprägt ist. Die gigantische Bautätigkeit des Bischofs Miles, der eine Hauptkirche mit vielen Annexen, Konchen und einem angegliedertem Bischofshaus mitsamt Hospital errichten ließ, spiegelt eine völlig andere gesellschaftliche Situation des persischen Christentums wider als in der von religiöser Verfolgung und Unterdrückung gekennzeichneten Schapur-Ära. Der Text der Danielvita ist nach dem bekannten Strickmuster syrischer Hagiographie gewoben. Zahlreich sind die literarischen Topoi der biblischen und monastischen Literatur. Der Anfang enthält eine 5 Vgl. Paul Bedjan, Acta martyrum et sanctorum II-IV (= AMS), Lutetiae Parisiorum 1891–1894. Der bislang noch unübersetzte syrische Text findet sich in AMS III,481–510. 6 Sel. 632? (AMS III,506), was eindeutig zu früh ist. Der Herausgeber schlägt deshalb die Jahreszahl 492–495 vor. 7 AMS III,506. 8 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܪܒܐ ܕ ̈ܐ ܘܪ ܐ ܕܪ ̈ܐ ܘܐܒܐ ܕܐܪܬܘ ̈ ܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܘ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܬܪ ܝ‬ ‫ܕ ܪ ܐ‬

32

BRUNS

ausführliche Exhorte an die Mönche9 und markiert den paränetischen Kontext der Vita im Rahmen der monastischen Erbauungsliteratur. Daniel war von heidnischer Abkunft und trug, obwohl die Geschichte in der ägyptischen Thebais spielt, ursprünglich den iranisch klingenden Namen Mehrestos10 (‫ܣ‬ ‫) ܪ‬, nahm aber bei seiner Taufe den biblischen Vornamen an. Diesen Ehrennamen erhielt er nicht zuletzt wegen seiner zahlreichen Visionen und Auditionen,11 in denen er ganz dem biblischen Vorbild glich. Mit der Bekehrung zum Christentum verband sich für Daniel zunächst eine missionarische Tätigkeit12 in seiner Heimat, hernach die bewußte Hinwendung zum Mönchtum. Er tritt in das berühmte Pachomius-Kloster in Tabennisi ein, empfängt dort den Habit und führt von nun an etwa zehn Jahre lang ein entbehrungsreiches Leben.13 Der Erzähler bringt—freilich etwas unbeholfen und abrupt—unseren Helden mit dem hl. Mar Eugen14 in Verbindung. Beide hätten sich in Ägypten15 kennengelernt und den Gedanken gefaßt, Persien zu missionieren. Ein kleiner kirchengeschichtlicher Exkurs16 mit wirrer Chronologie vom Ende der Kirchenverfolgung im Römerreich, über Schapur II. und die Verfolgung der Kirche im Sasanidenreich, über den Tod des Julian I. Apostata bis hin zur Herausgabe der Grenzfeste Nisibis endet mit der Übersiedlung des Mar Eugen nach Persien. Auf dem Berg Izla17 angekommen, führt er dort das Vgl. AMS III,481–484. AMS III,485. In dieser Form finde ich ihn bei Ferdinand Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg 1985, nicht bezeugt. Die Schreibung iranischer Namen im Syrischen ist nicht immer sehr einfach. Deutlich erkennbar ist der erste Bestandteil „Mihr“ für Mithra (rst vielleicht für „Sproß“ mit angehängter griechischer Endung?); denkbar wäre aber auch eine syrische Verballhornung von Mihrxwast („der Mithras’ Willen tut“), vgl. Justi 205b. 11 Vgl. AMS III,486. Der biblische Daniel war bei den Syrern ein sehr populärer Heiliger, vgl. die Demonstrationes des Aphrahat (Register bei Parisot I,2,440f). 12 Vgl. AMS III,486f. 13 Vgl. AMS III,488–490. 14 Zum Legendenkreis vgl. Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1922, 235f. Auf die einzelnen Traditionsstränge kann an dieser Stelle nicht eingegangen werden. Baumstark legt einen Zeitraum vom 5. bis zum 8. Jahrhundert zugrunde. 15 Vgl. AMS III,490f. 16 Vgl. AMS III,491–494. 17 Es handelt sich hierbei sicherlich um eine spätere Tradition, welche die autochthone monastische (Aphrahat der Persische Weise) überlagert. Zum 9

10

VON BISCHÖFEN, ÄRZTEN UND ASKETEN

33

Mönchtum nach ägyptischem Vorbild ein und heilt in Nisibis die Söhne Schapurs, welche an den Dämonen Manis18 litten. Der Mönch Daniel setzt zusammen mit Mar Michael das Werk des Mar Eugen fort und läßt sich für zehn weitere Jahre in einem verlassenen Kastell19—wohl in Anspielung auf die Antonius-Vita—nieder. Zu den anrührenden Szenen der DanielLegende zählt die Geschichte von der Heilung eines Löwenjungen20 durch den Mönch. Sie erinnert in Inhalt und Form stark an den ägyptischen Altvater Macarius,21 der einst dem Blindgeborenen einer Hyäne das Augenlicht schenkte und dafür von der dankbaren Mutter mit einem Fell belohnt wurde. Der vollkommene Asket lebt mit sich und der ihn umgebenden Natur im Reinen. Er herrscht wie Adam vor dem Sündenfall im Paradies22 über die Tiere des Feldes; oder in Vorwegnahme des endzeitlichen Tierfriedens (Jes 11,1–9), der als Rückkehr des Paradieses gedacht wird, leben die Raubtiere der Wüste in Gemeinschaft mit den Eremiten als ihre willigen Helfer oder als ihre gelehrigen Schüler. In diesem Sinne ist denn auch die Bezwingung des Drachens bzw. des Krokodils zu verstehen, die von unserem Daniel23 überliefert wird. Eine völlig neue Ebene wird in unserer Erzählung mit der Bekehrung des Vitaxa (Satrapen) Chasch, welcher die Region zwischen den beiden Zabflüssen östlich des Tigris (unweit der nicht näher zu identifizierenden Stadt Tel-Chasch24) regiert, erreicht. Der Name des Herrschers ist im persischen Königsbuch25 nicht eben häufig verbürgt, außerdem sind die hier syrischen Mönchtum im allgemeinen und dem auf dem Berg Izla im besonderen vgl. die grundlegenden Aufsätze I (Early Syrian Ascetism), XIV (John of Nḥel: an Episode in Early Seventh-Century Monastic History), XV (Notes on Some Monasteries on Mount Izla) von Sebastian P. Brock in: Ders., Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, London 1984. 18 Vgl. AMS III,494. 19 Vgl. AMS III,495. 20 Vgl. AMS III,496f. 21 Vgl. hist. mon. 28,15f (Preuschen 89f). 22 Vgl. zu diesem Motiv Peter Nagel, Die Motivierung der Askese in der Alten Kirche und der Ursprung des Mönchtums, Berlin 1966, 55–62. 23 Vgl. AMS III,497. 24 Im Syrischen vielleicht nur eine Kombination aus Tel („Hügel“) mit dem Eigennamen Chasch. 25 Vgl. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 171a. So heißt der Bruder des Afschîn bei Tabari. Bei Theodor Nöldeke, Tabari. Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden, Leiden 1879 (repr. Leiden 1973), konnte ich keinen Hinweis auf Chasch entdecken.

34

BRUNS

geschilderten näheren Umstände, welche zur Bekehrung führten, vollkommen legendär, so daß wir nicht an eine konkrete historische Persönlichkeit zu denken haben. Die seit ihrer Geburt schwerbehinderte Tochter des Satrapen führt ein karges Dasein, bis der Vitaxa mit seinem Gefolge sich auf die Jagd26 begibt und dank göttlicher Führung dem Wild nachstellt und es bis in die Höhle des Seligen hinein verfolgt. Dort sieht er den Mönch im Habit friedlich mit den wilden Tieren lebend. Neugierig geworden, läßt er sich vom Greis über die Vorzüge des christlichen Glaubens belehren und bittet diesen, die Höhle zu verlassen und seine schwerkranke Tochter zu heilen. Daniel willigt schließlich nach einem längeren Disput über die wahre Religion ein und begleitet den König nach Tel-Chasch. Er läßt die kranke Tochter27 zu sich rufen, dreht ihr Haupt gen Osten (sic!), beschwört den Dämon und heilt sie durch die Bezeichnung mit dem Kreuz. Im iranischen Milieu stellt eine solche Vorgehensweise durchaus nichts Ungewöhnliches dar. Nach awestischer Kosmologie stammt die gute Schöpfung von Ahura Mazda, während Krankheit, Tod und andere Mängel auf das Konto des bösen Ahriman gehen. Aus diesem Grunde läßt sich jede Krankheit durch die von Priesterärzten vollzogene „mystische Therapie“28 kurieren. Indes stellt sich der Mönch Daniel durch diese Praxis bewußt in Konkurrenz zu den Magiern,29 die er durch seine bloße Anwesenheit in der Stadt provoziert. Mit seinem Heilungswunder gelingt ihm das Kunststück, den religiösen Widersacher auf dessen ureigenstem Terrain zu schlagen. Der medizinische Erfolg gibt der Verkündigung des neuen Glaubens recht. In Scharen (achttausend Seelen)30 wenden sich nun die Bewohner der Stadt dem Christentum zu und lassen sich willig von Daniel taufen. Da das Honorar des behandelnden Arztes sich nach dem sozialen Status des behandelten Patienten richtet, steht dem Mönch eine fürstliche Belohnung zu, auf die er allerdings aus Liebe zur christlichen Armut verzichtet. Der dankbare König stellt daher Geld und Grundstück für die Errichtung eines gewaltigen Kirchenkomplexes zur Verfügung, dessen einzelne Bauphasen31 ausführlich beschrieben werden. 26 Vgl. AMS III,498–501. Ein sehr geläufiges Motiv in der syrischen Hagiographie, vgl. dazu zuletzt Joel Th. Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh. Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq, Berkeley 2006, 131–140. 27 Vgl. AMS III,501f. 28 Vgl. Brandenburg, Priesterärzte, 39–42. 29 Vgl. AMS III,501. 30 Vgl. AMS III,502f. 31 Vgl. AMS III,504–506.

VON BISCHÖFEN, ÄRZTEN UND ASKETEN

35

Die angebliche Fertigstellung für das Jahr Sel. 632 ist ebenso wie die prunkvolle Titulatur des Patriarchen bereits oben als Anachronismus entlarvt worden. Die Vita Danielis setzt eine gesellschaftliche Situation des persischen Christentums voraus, wie sie in der zweiten Hälfte des sechsten und Anfang des siebten Jahrhunderts unter den Großkönigen Chosrau I. und II. gegeben war. Von ihrem literarischen Charakter her ist sie eine typische Missionsschrift, vergleichbar mit der Qardagh-Legende, die ihr räumlich und zeitlich nahesteht. Im sechsten Jahrhundert hatte das Christentum in Persien aufgehört, eine Religion der Kriegsgefangenen und niederen Handwerker zu sein. Es war salonfähig geworden, und selbst in den höheren Adelsrängen war die traditionelle Stellung des Zoroastrismus keineswegs mehr unangefochten. Gerade in dem weltanschaulich offenen Klima Chosraus I. Anoschurwan konnten viele spektakuläre Bekehrungen gedeihen. Zwar war eine öffentliche Konversion eines Adeligen noch immer mit schweren persönlichen Nachteilen bis hin zur Todesstrafe verbunden, doch geschah sie nach dem Zeugnis der syro-persischen Märtyrerakten immer häufiger. Die Hoffnung auf Bekehrung eines Satrapen oder Vizekönigs wie im Falle von Chasch und Qardagh waren deshalb keine reinen Wunschvorstellungen, sondern entsprachen durchaus den realen Verhältnissen der Christen bei Hofe. Einen persischen Konstantin hat es nie gegeben und konnte es wohl auch nicht geben, da das Großkönigtum viel zu eng mit der zoroastrischen Religion verknüpft war. Nachdem der letzte Sasanide, Jazdegerd III.,32 militärisch erfolglos gegen die muslimischen Eroberer operierend, seine Krone endgültig verloren hatte und das sakrale Königtum Irans mit ihm erlosch, konnte sich die Legende verbreiten, daß er am Ende seiner Flucht in den Osten vom Metropoliten von Merw ein christliches Begräbnis (ein Unding für einen gläubigen Zoroastrier) erhalten hätte, was freilich Bekehrung und Taufe des letzten Großkönigs voraussetzt. Das irdische Königtum war verloren, das himmlische stand ihm durch die Sakramente der Kirche offen. Für unsere Erzählung bedeutet dies, daß wir mit dem Einfall der Araber einen sicheren

Vgl. die Chronik von Seert XCIV (PO 13,4,580f) mit den Parallelen aus Barhebräus, Mari und Amr, sowie Michael dem Syrer; die Darstellung bei Tabari vom Ende des letzten Großkönigs, vgl. auch Nöldeke, Tabari, 397–399, beflügelt noch heute die Phantasie populärwissenschaftlicher Autoren wie Nahal Tajadod, Die Träger des Lichts. Magier, Ketzer und Christen im alten Persien, Solothurn/Düsseldorf 1995, 300–303. 32

36

BRUNS

Terminus ante erhalten, denn nach der islamischen Eroberung Irans war an einen Religionswechsel der Herrscher nicht mehr zu denken. In unserer Erzählung schließt sich nun die Errichtung der Diözese Tel-Chasch durch den Patriarchen des Ostens an; der Mönch Miles wird als erster Oberhirte des neuerrichteten Sprengels33 eingesetzt. Nachdem Daniel seinen irdischen Lauf vollendet und den guten Kampf gekämpft hat, läßt ihn der Erzähler im Alter von fünfundneunzig Jahren aus diesem Leben34 scheiden. Daniels Grab wird zu einem Wallfahrtsort und zur Wirkstätte zahlreicher postumer Wunder. Sein Gedächtnis fällt auf den ersten Sonntag im Monat Iyar (Mai).35 Ein Nachtragskapitel36 beschäftigt sich mit dem Ableben der Nebenfiguren unserer Erzählung: des Königs Chasch und des Bischofs Miles. König Chasch erduldet eine heftige Verfolgung durch die heidnischen Nachbarkönige des Perserreiches, wird schließlich enthauptet und in der von ihm gestifteten Kirche beigesetzt. Die genaueren Umstände des Martyriums bleiben auffallend unbestimmt; historisch verbürgt ist einzig der Umstand (wie übrigens auch in der Qardagh-Legende), daß prominente Konvertiten zum Christentum mit dem Tode bestraft wurden, eine barbarische orientalische Sitte, welche in islamischer Zeit eifrige Nachahmer37 finden sollte. Chaschs Gedächtnis fällt auf den 2. Tamuz (Juli). Nur wenig später folgt ihm Bischof Miles nach fünfjähriger Amtszeit nach. Er wird vom heidnischen Pöbel der Stadt erbarmungslos gesteinigt; seine Krönung zum Martyrium ereignet sich am 3. Haziran (Juni). *

33 Vgl. AMS III,506f. Der Name Miles war in Persien weitverbreitet, vgl. Justi, Namenbuch, 206b. 34 Vgl. AMS III,508. 35 Den Herausgebern der BHO war entgangen, daß die Vita Danielis bereits auf AMS III,508 endet, das Datum vom 3. Haziran somit auf das Martyrium des Bischofs Miles zu beziehen ist. 36 Vgl. AMS III,509. 37 Dies war offensichtlich die gängige Praxis im Perserreich seit Chosrau I., vgl. Nöldeke, Tabari, 287, Anm. 3. Nöldeke verweist in diesem Zusammenhang auf die Tatsache, daß der Islam die Todesstrafe für Apostaten beibehalten hat. Diese drakonische Strafmaßnahme hat sich als Kennzeichen orientalischer Despotie bis auf den heutigen Tag erhalten. Die „Magier“ besaßen, durchaus vergleichbar mit den modernen Mullahs, die man trotz ihres laikalen Charakters als deren Erben anzusehen hat, eine machtvolle Exekutivgewalt, die sie gegen Christen und andere Andersgläubige brutal ausspielten, vgl. Nöldeke, Tabari, 450f.

VON BISCHÖFEN, ÄRZTEN UND ASKETEN

37

BISCHOF MAR SCHAPURBARĀZ UND DIE MÄRTYRER VON KARKA DE BETH SELOKH Historisch halbwegs sicheren Grund betreten wir mit der Geschichte von Karka de Beth Selokh und ihrer Märtyrer.38 Es handelt sich hierbei um eine anonym überlieferte Schrift,39 die in gewissem Grad für Karka de Beth Selokh, die Metropole der Provinz Beth Garmai, das Bischofsbuch abgibt. In Sprache und Inhalt weist sie große Ähnlichkeiten mit der sog. „Chronik von Arbela“ auf, deren Seitenstück sie darstellt. Die Schrift enthält eine kurzgefaßte Geschichte der Stadt Karka de Beth Selokh (des heutigen Kirkuk), angefangen von ihrer Gründung durch die Assyrer, und eine ausführliche Lebensbeschreibung ihrer Bischöfe unter Einschluß der christlichen Martyrien des fünften Jahrhunderts. Die Lokalkirche von Karka reklamiert apostolischen Ursprung für sich. Durch die Ankunft der heiligen Apostel Addai und Mari40 sei die gute Saat des Evangeliums gesät worden. Hernach hätten in der Mitte des dritten Jahrhunderts die Apostel Manis ihr Gift auf dem Acker Christi verspritzt. Unser Chronist macht sodann einen zeitlichen Sprung41 zurück zum Anfang des zweiten Jahrhunderts (oder Ende des zweiten Jahrhunderts), wenn er einen Bischof namens Theokrit als Flüchtling aus dem Westen einführt. Dieser folgt unmittelbar auf die Apostel Addai und Mari, welche einen gewissen Joseph bekehrt und das gleichnamige Kloster gegründet hätten. Theokrit soll denn auch die erste Kirche des Ortes errichtet haben, welche später von Bischof Johannes42 renoviert wurde. Wenn gleich darauf der Chronist behauptet, die Apostel Vgl. AMS II,507–539. Eine deutsche, leider nicht ganz vollständige Übersetzung findet sich bei Georg Hoffmann, Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer, (Leipzig 1880) repr. Nendeln 1966, 43–60. 39 Vgl. Baumstark, Geschichte, 135. 40 Vgl. AMS II,512. Der Text nennt einen Zeitraum von neunzig zwischen König Balasch (Vologeses IV., 147/48–191/2) und dem zwanzigsten Regierungsjahr Schapurs I. (um 260). Zur Chronologie vgl. Josef Wiesehöfer, Das antike Persien, Düsseldorf 2005. Die Angaben des Chronisten konkurrieren mit den nachfolgenden Bemerkungen zu Hadrian und Ard(a)wân (Artabanos). Im zweiten Jahrhundert heißen fast alle Arsakidenkönige Balasch (Vologeses). 41 Artabanos (III.) und Kaiser Hadrian waren keine Zeitgenossen, wie unser Text suggeriert. Auch sind die Angaben hinsichtlich einer Christenverfolgung im Römerreich recht ungenau. 42 Die in der Chronik beschriebenen Orte sind längst entweiht und in Moscheen verwandelt worden, vgl. Hoffmann, Auszüge, 269. Von den drei Moscheen auf der ehemaligen Akropolis sind mindestens zwei zuvor Kirchen gewesen. 38

38

BRUNS

hätten die Metropolitanwürde (sic!) von Antiochien dem Sitz von Schahrgerd verliehen, wobei stillschweigend vorausgesetzt wird, daß diese dann an Karka übergegangen sei, dann befinden wir uns mitten in den Rangstreitigkeiten des sechsten Jahrhunderts.43 Nicht zu unrecht hat Baumstark44 aus diesem Befund geschlossen, daß die Endredaktion unserer Chronik nicht vor dieser Zeit anzusetzen ist. Einen Einschnitt in die Kirchengeschichte des Ortes Karka de Beth Selokh markiert die Christenverfolgung unter Schapur II.45 in der Mitte des vierten Jahrhunderts. Ihr fiel neben dem ehrwürdigen Bischof Mana46 auch der Konvent der Bundestöchter unter ihrer Oberin Thekla zum Opfer. Aus dem blutigen Martyrium ersproß indes ein Heiltum für Leib und Seele, für die Sünder wie für die Kranken, welche sich ihm gläubig nahten, wie das Martyrologium von Karka de Beth Selokh erläutert: „Und durch ihr Blut ersproß ein Feigenbaum und wurde zum ḥenânâ (Gnadenstaub) und zur Heilung viele Jahre hindurch. Aus Neid rissen ihn die unreinen Manichäer aus. So wurde der Hauch der Löwenkrankheit über sie gesandt und tilgte sie aus. Sie aber (die Christen) dankten, daß solches ihnen widerfuhr und an ihnen ein großes Wunder offenbar geworden war.“47 Der Chronist beeilt Vgl. hierzu Hoffmann, Auszüge, 270f. Karka ist Metropolitansitz erst seit Katholikos Mar Aba (536–552). Damit erhalten wir einen sicheren Terminus post quem für unsere Datierung. 44 Vgl. Baumstark, Geschichte, 135. 45 Vgl. AMS II,513. 46 Die Bischofsliste ist recht lückenhaft. Wir kennen aus der apostolischen Frühzeit lediglich die Namen Addai und Mari (Ende 1./Anfang 2. Jh.), Theokrit, Abdischo… und schließlich Mana für die Schapurzeit. 47 Bedjan, AMS II,289. In der Stadtchronik stoßen wir außerdem noch auf eine alte Namensätiologie des unweit vom Stadtzentrum befindlichen Feigenhains: „Und nach der Krönung der heiligen Frauen sproßte an der Stelle, an welcher sie gekrönt worden waren, aus ihrem Blut ein Feigenbaum auf und diente denjenigen, die zu ihm ihre Zuflucht nahmen, zur Heilung. Als aber die Manichäer das vom Feigenbaum gewirkte Wunder sahen, fällten sie ihn und verbrannten jenen Ort mit Feuer. Gott aber, dessen Barmherzigkeit es nicht zuläßt, daß sie (die Heiligen) von den Feinden geschändet würden, ließ sie von der Löwenkrankheit (die lepramatöse Lepra mit ihrer charakteristischen facies leontina) überwältigt werden, welche sie dermaßen siech machte, daß sie vollständig aus der Stadt verschwanden. Eben der Ort, an welchem die heiligen Frauen verherrlicht wurden, heißt Bêth-Têttâ (Feigenbaumhausen) bis auf den heutigen Tag, und dient jetzt allen Gläubigen als Zufluchtsstätte, jahraus, jahrein, wenn sie das Andenken an den großen Tag der Kreuzigung feiern und zum ‚Großen Märtyrerhaus’ hinaufziehen nach dem Brauch 43

VON BISCHÖFEN, ÄRZTEN UND ASKETEN

39

sich noch hinzuzufügen, daß das Christentum in Karka beinahe ausgerottet worden wäre. Bischof Mana wurde von den Häschern gestellt, als er im Begriffe stand, das Allerheiligste aus der Kirche in ein nahes Landgut in Sicherheit zu bringen. Er wurde unweit von Ḥaṣṣa an einem Abhang der Ortschaft gesteinigt. Seinem unmittelbaren Nachfolger Isaak erging es nicht besser. Auch er wurde gesteinigt: an der Relaisstation Niqator auf dem Hügel des Dorfes Kanar48 fand er durch die Hand abgefallener Christen und einiger fanatisierter Bürger von Karka den Tod. Der Chronist nennt als Nachfolger des Märtyrerbischofs Isaaks einen gewissen Johannes, der mit Jakob von Nisibis zusammen am Konzil von Nicaea49 teilgenommen habe. Doch dürfte es sich hierbei um eine Doppelung mit dem gleichnamigen Bischof von Arbela handeln, die in den Listen der Konzilsteilnehmer nur unter dem einen Johannes von Persien50 bekannt sind. Die Diözesen Arbela und Karka streiten sich um das Privileg, am ersten Ökumenischen Konzil der Kirche teilgenommen und die Persis vertreten zu haben! Mit dem jungen Konvertiten Aqeballaha, dem Sohn eines einflußreichen Hofbeamten, gerät das Schifflein der Kirche von Karka wieder in ruhigere Gewässer. Mit dem von den Eltern ererbten Vermögen stellt er die in den Tagen des Bischofs Mana zerstörte Kirche wieder her und stattet sie reichlich mit seidenen Paramenten und goldenen Gefäßen aus. Sein apostolisches Wirken unter den Vertriebenen aus der Provinz Maischan, dem Mündungsgebiet von Euphrat und Tigris, war vom Erfolg der Stadt: die ganze Kirchengemeinde, der Hirt und seine Herde in all ihren Ständen, an ihrer Spitze voran das Kreuz, biegen sie nach Bêth-Têttâ mit großer Feierlichkeit ab, unter Lobgesängen und heiligen Dankliedern, wie sie sich für den allherrschenden Gott geziemen, zur Beschämung der Ungläubigen und zur Verherrlichung der Gläubigen. Über uns Sünder (komme) Barmherzigkeit, Gnade und Erlösung. Amen.“ Bedjan, AMS II,514; Hoffmann, Auszüge, 47. Die Beschreibung des Chronisten setzt eine Friedenszeit (vielleicht die Toleranzphase unter Chosrau I.) voraus, in der die Christen ihren Märtyrerkult ungehindert ausüben konnten. Das Mitführen des Kreuzes am „großen Tag der Kreuzigung“ (Karfreitag) läßt erkennen, daß man die heidnische Öffentlichkeit nicht zu scheuen brauchte. 48 Vgl. AMS II,514f. Die Angaben des Martyrologiums (AMS II,286–289) lassen sich nicht immer leicht mit denen der Chronik versöhnen. Neben den Bischöfen von Karka sind auch weitere Oberhirten aus der Umgegend in der Provinzhauptstadt hingerichtet worden. 49 Vgl. AMS II,515. 50 Vgl. Heinrich Gelzer u. a. (Hgg.), Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina, Stuttgart 1898, Nr. 82 in der griech. und der arab. Überlieferung.

40

BRUNS

zahlreicher Konversionen gekrönt. Ganze Siedlungen, vor allem jene, die aus dem Erbgut seines Vaters stammten, nahmen den christlichen Glauben an. Die heftige Verfolgung unter Schapur II. (309–379) war abgeklungen; die Legende weiß zu berichten, daß Aqeballaha („Gottforscher“), die Kontakte seines Vaters zum Hofe geschickt nutzend, das Vertrauen des Großkönigs Vahrâm bar Schapur51 gewann, indem er dessen Tochter von ihren dämonischen Krämpfen durch Handauflegung heilte. Im Gegenzug sicherte er sich die freie Religionsausübung für die christlichen Untertanen des Reiches zu, zu der auch der Neubau von Kirchen und die Renovierung der alten, zerstörten Gebäude gehörten. Aqeballahas Hirtensorge galt auch der Festigung der rechten Lehre und dem Kampf gegen manichäistische und mazdakitische Umtriebe. Die häretischen Übel seiner Zeit konnte der eifrige Seelenarzt indes nicht vollständig kurieren, sondern lediglich lindern. Ein Durchbruch in der Pastoral scheint erst unter Chosrau I. erfolgt zu sein, dem es gelang, mit Hilfe der Christen die Manichäer endgültig aus Karka zu vertreiben. Die Sukzessionsliste unseres Chronisten hält sodann die Namen Barhadbeschabba („Sonntagskind“) und Aksenaya (entspricht dem griech. Philoxenos) als Nachfolger des Aqeballaha bereit. Doch scheinen sich mit diesen Figuren keine erwähnenswerten Ereignisse in der Lokalgeschichte Karkas verbunden zu haben. Einen Höhepunkt markiert indes der Pontifikat des aus wohlhabender und alteingesessener Familie stammenden Bischofs Schapurbarâz.52 Sein Pontifikat fällt mit Sicherheit in die späten Lebensjahre Vahrâms IV. (gest. 399) oder in die frühen Regierungsjahre Jazdegerds I. (399–421), der einen grundlegenden Wandel in der persischen Religionspolitik vollzog. 410 durften sich die Bischöfe des Sasanidenreiches in der Residenz Seleukia-Ktesiphon versammeln und eine Synode abhalten, auf der das religiöse Leben nach der langen Verfolgungszeit neugeordnet werden sollte. Vor allem ging es um die Wahl eines Bischofs für den vakanten Stuhl der Reichshauptstadt. In diese Zeit der Restauration fiel der Pontifikat unseres Bischofs Schapurbarâz, der weitläufig mit dem Hause Ardaschir53 verwandt war und eine spektakuläre Bekehrung zum Christentum vollzog. Bemerkenswerterweise legte er seinen heidnischen Vahrâm IV. (388–399), Sohn Schapurs III. (383–388), also nicht der unmittelbare Nachfolger auf Schapur II. Vgl. AMS II,516. 52 Vgl. Schulze, Medizin, S. 129, Nr. 174. Schulzes Datierung des Schapurbarâz auf die Jahre 340/360 ist absolut nicht nachvollziehbar. 53 Vgl. AMS II,517f. 51

VON BISCHÖFEN, ÄRZTEN UND ASKETEN

41

Namen („Schapurs Eber“)54 nicht ab, sondern bekannte sich freimütig zu seiner persischen Herkunft. Schapurbarâz erhielt seine geistliche Ausbildung im sog. „Kloster der Trauernden (der Büßer)“. Gegen die Erzrivalen des Christentums, die Anhänger Manis, führte er einen heiligen Streit. Eine nicht unbeträchtliche Zahl konnte er mit der Kirche wiederversöhnen. Ob er den Umschwung zur Christenverfolgung in den letzten Regierungsjahren Jazdegerds (um 420), als der Adel und die heidnische Geistlichkeit offen revoltierte und der eigene Sohn Bahrâm V. Gor („der Wildesel“) nach der Krone griff, noch persönlich miterlebt hat, ist eher unwahrscheinlich. Laut den Angaben unserer Chronik entschlief er friedlich, während der Nachfolger Johannes das Martyrium erlitt. Die pastorale Tätigkeit Schapurbarâz’ fällt demnach in die kurze Friedensperiode des zweiten Jahrzehnts des fünften Jahrhunderts. In dieser Zeit reiste Bischof Marutha von Maipherkat aus der römisch-persischen Grenzregion (wohl noch im Auftrag des Kaisers Arcadius I.) in den Osten, um die Verhältnisse neu zu ordnen, Bischöfe für die vakanten Stühle zu weihen und vor allem neue Kirchen zu errichten, für die er Weihegeschenke mit sich führte. Das umfangreiche Bauprogramm, das Schapurbarâz nicht zuletzt dank des ererbten Familienvermögens verwirklichen konnte, war ohnehin nur in einer Zeit des äußeren Friedens und der allgemeinen Prosperität zu bewerkstelligen. Im einzelnen „errichtete er aus ihrer (sc. der Eltern) Erbschaft ein Haus für die Fremden, in dem Kranke, Bedrängte, Arme und Notleidende Aufnahme und Erquickung fanden. Er spendete dem Haus und teilte ihm Besitztum zu als Lohn für die dort stattfindenden Heilungen und zur Bestreitung jener Dinge, welche für heilungsbedürftige Personen erforderlich sind.“55 Ob Schapurbarâz selbst als Arzt fungierte, ist damit freilich nicht gesagt. Ein gewisses medizinisches Interesse wird man dem Seelsorger indes nicht absprechen können. Mit der Krankenhausstiftung (Xenodochion) hat er die ökonomischen Grundlagen für die kirchliche Caritas in Karka gelegt und bleibende Maßstäbe für die Zukunft gesetzt. Leider erfahren wir keine Details über die Finanzierung dieses ehrgeizigen Projekts, über die Honorare der angestellten Ärzte, die Liegenschaften des Unternehmens, die Eigenbeiträge der Patienten etc. Auch wüßte man gerne mehr über die nähere Organisation des Hauses, ihre

54 Vgl. Justi, Namenbuch, 287b. Der Eber ist ein Wappentier der Sasaniden, das oft auf den Standarten und den Silbertellern des Hofes dargestellt wurde. 55 AMS II,518,4–8.

42

BRUNS

Vorbilder in der (griechischen) Welt und ihre Verankerung im persischen Stiftungsrecht. * Dieser kurze Streifzug durch zwei Märtyrerviten, der gewiß um die eine oder andere Facette noch hätte bereichert werden können, bestätigt den andernorts56 bereits konstatierten Befund: Heilkunst und Christentum waren im antiken Alltag Persiens eng durchdrungen. Die allgegenwärtige Verwendung medizinischer Metaphern in der Hagiographie bestätigt dies. Der charismatische Heiler, der christliche Mönch, beerbt den zoroastrischen Magier; das persische Heidentum resp. die manichäische Häresie wird ins Bild der Krankheit gefaßt, von der die christliche Religion mit ihrer orthodoxen Lehre als Therapie die Seele erlösen will. Neben der Liturgie und dem Glaubenszeugnis, das bis zur blutigen Lebenshingabe gesteigert werden kann, bildet die Sorge um die Kranken und die Ausübung der Heilkunst eine weitere feste Säule bischöflicher Hirtengewalt.

56

Schulze, Medizin und Christentum, 204–6.

VIRTUOUS READING: APHRAHAT’S APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE J. W. CHILDERS

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY A DISCIPLE OF SCRIPTURE A self-professed “disciple of the sacred scriptures,”1 Aphrahat the Persian Sage (270–ca.345)2 leans heavily on the biblical text,3 and the use of it in his Demonstrations has been the subject of sustained investigations. An apparently influential Christian ascetic leader and churchman in fourthcentury Persia,4 Aphrahat displays a breathtaking grasp of the biblical texts; 1 Demonstration 22.26 (I, 1049:3–4). I defer to the conventional method for citing Aphrahat, by volume, column, and line numbers of J. Parisot’s edition, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (Patrologia Syriaca, vols. 1, 2; Paris, 1894, 1907). 2 Sebastian Brock introduced me to Aphrahat. We read together Aphrahat’s Demonstration 23, “On the Grape Cluster” in the very first class of the Michaelmas term in my first year at Oxford. One could ask for no better guide to Aphrahat nor a more generous mentor in Syriac studies. It is with deep admiration and lasting appreciation that I dedicate the present study to my teacher, Sebastian Brock. 3 With over 1500 occurrences in Aphrahat’s 23 Demonstrations, the saturation of biblical citations and allusions is one of the most prominent characteristics of his corpus. See Tjitze Baarda, The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage. I. Aphrahat’s Text of the Fourth Gospel (Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 1975), 9; Jean Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” in Robert H. Fischer, ed., A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology, 1977), 192, n.4. 4 Aphrahat composed 23 Demonstrations in Syriac on various Chistian theological and spiritual topics, between the years 337–345. For basic discussions of the identity of the “Persian Sage” and the setting of his work, see S. P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran ‚Etho Series 9; St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute: Kottayam, 1991), 19–22; idem, An Introduction to Syriac Studies (Gorgias Handbooks 4; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006), 7–8; Marie-Joseph Pierre,

43

44

CHILDERS

in places he handles scripture as though he were “threading beads on a string, so numerous are the passages which he adduces from both the Old and New Testament.”5 In other places the images and language of scripture flow fluidly from his pen, as naturally as if he had been breathing them in during his long sojourns within the world of the biblical text: “the better versed his disciples (both ancient and modern) are in the Bible, the better they can catch the allusions and citations as they fly by.”6 Investigations of Aphrahat’s handling of scripture have taken different tacks. Textual critics, intrigued by his early date and apparent isolation from Greek influence, have tried to determine the form of his biblical source text and sought his assistance in writing the history of the early Syriac textual tradition.7 Others have explored Aphrahat’s reliance on certain bodies of biblical material, such as the Gospel parables, the Pauline corpus or the book of Daniel.8 Robert Murray has studied Aphrahat’s deployment of Aphraate le sage persan. Les exposés (Source Chrétienne 349; Paris, 1988), 1.13–202; Peter Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen (Fontes Christiani 5.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 1.35–73; Naomi Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia: A Reconstructed Conversation” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1993), 18–34. 5 Baarda, Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat, 10. 6 Craig E. Morrison, “The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Aphrahat’s Fifth Demonstration, ‘On Wars,’” Hugoye 7 (January 2004), 3; accessed 17 October 2007, online: http://www.bethmardutho.org/ hugoye; See Stephen S. Taylor, “Paul and the Persian Sage: Some Observations on Aphrahat’s Use of the Pauline Corpus,” in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 318. 7 E.g. Baarda, Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat; Robert J. Owens, The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 3; Leiden, Brill, 1983); idem, “Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Text of Leviticus,” in Peter B. Dirksen and Martin J. Mulder, eds., The Peshitta: its Early Text and History: Papers Read at the Peshitta Symposium, Leiden, Aug 1985 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 1–48; idem, “The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat,” Journal of Semitic Studies 34 (1989): 39–75; Marinus D. Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of His Old Testament,” in Bas ter Haar Romeny, ed., The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy. Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 15; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 131–41. 8 E.g. Kuriakose Antony Valavanolickal, The Use of the Gospel Parables in the Writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem (Studies in the Religion and History of Early Christianity 2; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Land, 1996); John H. Corbett, “The Pauline Tradition in Aphrahat,” in H. J. W. Drijvers et al., eds., IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229;

VIRTUOUS READING

45

biblical imagery.9 Of particular interest have been Aphrahat’s methods of biblical interpretation—especially within the context of patristic exegesis10 and in comparison to the Jewish hermeneutics of his day. Although the question of whether and to what extent Aphrahat knew and used identifiable Rabbinic traditions is debated,11 most see in him a practitioner of interpretive methods very like those employed by many ancient Jewish exegetes—and presumably by other ancient Semitic Christian exegetes as well.12 One area that has not received much attention is that of the role of Aphrahat’s epistemological assumptions.13 Hermeneutically, Aphrahat is not Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987), 13–32; Taylor, “Paul and the Persian Sage,” 312–31; D. J. Lane, “Of Wars and Rumours of Peace: Apocalyptic Material in Aphrahat and Subhalmaran,” in Peter J. Harland and Robert Hayward, eds., New Heaven and New Earth—Prophecy and the Millenium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 229–45; Craig E. Morrison, “The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Aphrahat’s Fifth Demonstration.” 9 Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: University Press, 1975). 10 E.g. Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” 191–202; J. C. McCullough, “Aphrahat the Biblical Exegete,” Studia Patristica 18 (1990): 263–68; Shinichi Muto, “Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers,” in ter Haar Romeny, The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy, 207–22. 11 Earlier scholarship found numerous instances of direct reliance on Rabbinic exegetical traditions—e.g. S. Funk, Die haggadischen Elemente in den Homilien des Aphraates (Vienna, 1891), and Frank Gavin, “Aphraates and the Jews,” Journal of the Society of Oriental Research 7 (1923): 95–166. Following a more restrained method for identifying dependency, Jacob Neusner concluded that Aphrahat had little or no direct contact with rabbinical Jews—Aphrahat and Judaism. The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran (Leiden: Brill, 1971); see Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 281–88; J. G. Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” in J. A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif, eds., Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal (Cambridge: University Press, 1982), 235–50. More recent scholarship indicates that Aphrahat probably was acquainted with rabbinic traditions—see the survey in Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 5– 13. 12 See Gavin, “Aphraates,” 162–63; Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 2; Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of his Old Testament,” 140; Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” 238; William L. Petersen, “The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on the 17th Demonstration,” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 249–50. 13 See the preliminary remarks in J. W. Childers, “‘Humility Begets Wisdom and Discernment:’ Character and True Knowledge in Aphrahat,” Studia Patristica 41

46

CHILDERS

an especially self-conscious practitioner. He shows little interest in displaying or discussing his hermeneutical principles. He famously practices a fairly straightforward exegetical method, one that recognizes a difference between interior and exterior aspects of the text yet mainly cites and applies scripture in a literal or “plain-sense” fashion.14 He does not seek authorization by appealing to other patristic authors, to systematizing theological rationales, or to philosophical frameworks.15 Yet beneath his hermeneutics lie epistemological assumptions that have a profound effect on his use of scripture. Like other ancient authors, Aphrahat believes that moral behavior is fundamental not only to the Christian life, but that it is also tied to the performance of the intellect. This is as much a matter of practice as of theory or assumptions. Aphrahat believes the mind is crucial to the development of moral character and that cultivating certain virtues will enhance the functioning of the mind, whereas the practice of vices will impair judgment and injure the mind’s capacities. In other words, Aphrahat exhibits what may be called a virtue approach to knowledge.16 His approach is grounded in an optimistic doctrine of creation and the conviction that salvation in Jesus Christ involves the disciple in a dynamic process of (2006): 13–22, portions of which have been adapted for the present, more extended study. I am also indebted to the participants of the program unit, “The Bible in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” that met during the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, who offered helpful feedback on a presentation of material from this study. 14 See Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.117–22; Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” 192, 195–96; Koster, “Aphrahat’s use of his Old Testament,” 140; Gavin, “Aphraates,” 162–63. 15 Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.117; Valavanolickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 140, 323. 16 Virtue epistemologists prescribe a change in the direction of analysis for epistemic justification—from properties of beliefs to properties of persons. They commonly notice parallels between their own assumptions and those of ancient authors, who commonly correlate knowledge and virtue, linking sound cognitive processes to the exercise of praiseworthy dispositions. For basic orientation to the major current developments in virtue epistemology, see Guy Axtell, “Recent Work in Virtue Epistemology,” American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (1997): 1–27; idem, ed. Knowledge, Belief, and Character. Readings in Virtue Epistemology (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), xi–xxix; Abrol Fairweather and Linda Zagzebski, eds., Virtue Epistemology. Essays on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3–14.

VIRTUOUS READING

47

transformation—a kind of divinization—including the transformation of the mind. Since for Aphrahat no more fitting object of intellectual inquiry exists than the biblical text, his epistemological assumptions show themselves most frequently in his exegeses and in his rare but pointed treatments of how to handle scripture.17 The present study considers the impact of Aphrahat’s epistemology of virtue on his approach to scripture, highlighting those virtues that seem to have the greatest epistemic implications for him. The exploration begins with Aphrahat’s epistemological foundations—a telling of salvation history in which the origins, wanderings, and ultimate potential of the human mind feature notably.

CONCEIVED IN THE MIND OF GOD: CREATED TO KNOW WELL In the biblical creation narrative Aphrahat perceives a pronounced tension between humanity’s potential to share in the divine nature and its arrogant tendency to usurp the divine glory and power.18 The tension between these aspects of human experience has a direct bearing on the quest for knowledge. In Demonstration 17, “On Christ the Son of God,”19 Aphrahat expounds a lofty view of human intellectual potential: And you know, my beloved, that all creatures above and below were created first, and after all them, the man. For when God determined to create the world with all its things, first he conceived and formed Adam within his own mind, and after Adam was conceived in his thought, then he conceived the (other) creatures, as he said: “Before the mountains were conceived and the earth laboured in childbirth”; because the man is older in conception he precedes the creatures, but in birth the creatures are older and precede Adam. Adam was conceived 17 Such passages tend to occur at the beginnings and ends of discrete portions of the Demonstrations, in the forms of Aphrahat’s own commentary on his discussions and as advice to the reader, e.g. Demonstrations 1.1; 5.25; 10.9; 12.13; 22.26; 23.1. 18 See Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen, 1.67–8; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.157–8. 19 Aphrahat’s discussion of Adam in this context serves his larger purpose in Demonstration 17 of showing the appropriateness of calling Jesus the “Son of God” since scripture uses this title for others also—including Adam. See Petersen, “The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on the 17th Demonstration.”

48

CHILDERS and dwelt in the thought of God. And while in conception (Adam) was enclosed in his mind, by the word of his mouth God created all creatures… And after that God brought forth Adam from within his thought, fashioned him, and breathed into him of his Spirit, giving him the knowledge of discernment, that he might discern good from evil and know that God made him. And inasmuch as he knew his maker, God was formed and conceived within the thought of the man and he became a temple for God his maker, as it is written, “You are God’s temple.” And he also said, “I will dwell in them and walk in them.” Yet as for the children of Adam who do not know their maker, he is not formed within them and does not dwell in them, nor is he conceived in their thought. Instead, they are regarded before him as a beast, and like the rest of the creatures.20

In spite of Adam’s belated appearance on earth he was originally preeminent over other creatures.21 This is underscored by the observation that before coming into earthly existence, humanity had a genuine existence within God’s mind. “Adam was conceived and dwelt in the thought of God,” prior to his earthly birth. According to Aphrahat, once humanity was born into earthly existence, it enjoyed the benefit of a special capacity for knowledge.22 Adam had the “knowledge of discernment,” the capacity to distinguish good from evil and to know that God was his creator. The proper exercise of this original knowledge perpetuates the mental connection inherent in the primal relationship between human and creator. Aphrahat explains, “inasmuch as he knew his maker, God was formed and Demonstration 17.7 (1, 796:18–797:8; 800:2–16). Aphrahat’s presumptions of Adam’s preexistence with respect to other creatures bears affinities with some ancient Jewish interpretive traditions, though the emphasis on the mental connection between primal Adam and the Creator is particularly strong in the early Syriac tradition (i.e., Aphrahat, Ephrem, Liber Graduum). See the notes in Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1925) 5.79, n.22; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 2.736, n.15; see also Tryggve Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1–11 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian with Particular Reference to the Influence of Jewish Exegetical Tradition (Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 11; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1978), 46–51. 22 Echoes of the traditional association of primal humanity and Wisdom may be detected in Job 15:7 (“Are you the firstborn of humanity?”) and Proverbs 8:25 (“Before the mountains were formed, before the hills I was brought forth…”). See ibid. 20 21

VIRTUOUS READING

49

conceived within the thought of the man and he became a temple for God his maker.” On the one hand, Aphrahat is explicating the Genesis narrative, yet his reference to “the children of Adam” remind the reader of the universal implications of the primal narrative. The passage exploits the dual meaning of ‫ܒ‬. As with the English “conceive/concept,” ‫“( ܒ‬conceive”) and its cognate ‫“( ܒ ܐ‬conception”) can refer literally to physical conception or metaphorically to the act of conceiving intellectually.23 In Aphrahat’s understanding, humans were designed to be in a relationship of reciprocal conception with their maker, in which the mind of the human—once an inhabitant of God’s mind—in turn becomes a habitation for God when a person’s conceptual faculties consecrate that space for God.24 People are meant to experience a natural mental harmony with their maker, a sharing of minds that is linked to full human existence and is associated with knowledge. Aphrahat indicates that if a person does not know the creator, then God does not dwell in that person’s mind—he or she is therefore “like the beasts, like the other creatures.” Fundamentally, Aphrahat assumes that God is the ultimate ground and source of knowledge, and that truly human intelligence exists only in a mind that is structured as a temple for God, because otherwise it lacks the ennobling vital component of the divine presence. Adam’s disobedience injured human potential and disastrously complicated the human endeavour to get knowledge, as Aphrahat explains in Demonstration 23, “On the Grape Cluster”: Because the first man presented his disobedience to the serpent, he received the punishment of the curse and became food for the serpent, and the curse has continued against all his descendants. For because he ate from the Tree of Knowledge he was withheld from the fruit of the Tree of Life, so that he would not eat of it and live forever. By this we know that because the man transgressed the commandment by the deception of the evil one and prematurely took pride for himself in 23 See Karl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (2d ed. reprint; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1995), 67. The term ‫ ܒ‬in this context carries a similar force, since it can mean, “to travail (in labour),” or “to conceive (in the mind)” (ibid., 210). 24 Cf. Demonstration 23.59: “We have formed you in our heart and we depicted your image in our mind. Our thought has beheld you and we have called you God. We have named you Father because you gave us birth” (2, 119.21–23; see Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 2.945, n.260).

50

CHILDERS order to be equal with his maker—and in the discernment of knowledge which he received a fence came into being between him and the Tree of Life—that as a result of the evil one’s cunning he was kept from its fruit… [Yet] in its kindness this very Tree of Life was not withheld from the needy, so that they might eat from it and live. Lengthening its boughs, it put forth its tendrils and extended its branches over the fence and graciously put its fruit over the protective barrier encircling it. And people, on account of the confused and harmful knowledge that they had seized prematurely, along with many torments, had the promise of the curse taken away from them by this healing device.25

When Adam seized the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, he was seeking not simply a share in the divine nature, for which he had apparently been destined anyway, but was pridefully seeking “to be equal with his maker.” Furthermore, because of the willful way in which Adam acquired the fruit, and because of his arrogant motives, the knowledge he got was “confused and harmful knowledge… taken prematurely.” It brought discrimination and differentiation, an important function of knowledge—but this differentiation took the form of a barrier separating humanity from the Tree of Life. The reward was the curse and a life full of torments. Yet the mercy of the Tree of Life was such that it extended itself beyond the barrier so as to make its salvific fruit available to those who would eat of it and accordingly become “a cluster in the bunch,” a source of blessing for the remainder of humanity until the coming of Christ. Decades later, Ephrem would develop a similar interpretation,26 the parallel trajectory of which may help clarify some of the theological implications of Aphrahat’s presentation. In his Commentary on Genesis 2.23, Ephrem maintains that God intended humans to participate fully in the divine nature by eating both fruits—provided they are humble enough to be obedient and do so appropriately: If the serpent had been rejected along with sin, Adam and Eve would have eaten from the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge would not have been withheld from them; from the one they would have gained infallible knowledge and from the other they would have received Demonstration 23.3 (2, 5.9–22; 8.17–19). Alongside parallel Jewish traditions (see n. 21 above), Ephrem taught that Adam came into existence before other creatures—Carmina Nisibena 38.9–10; Hymns on the Church 47.11 (see Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1–11, 48–49). 25 26

VIRTUOUS READING

51

immortal life. They would have acquired divinity with their humanity, and if they had acquired infallible knowledge and immortal life, they would have possessed them in those same bodies.27

It appears that for Aphrahat as for Ephrem, the restriction regarding the tree of Knowledge was temporary, designed to clarify and test the human potential to enjoy full fellowship with God. In Hymns on Paradise 12, Ephrem laments: Two trees did God place in paradise, the Tree of Life and that of Wisdom, a pair of blessed fountains, source of every good; by means of this glorious pair the human person can become the likeness of God, endowed with immortal life and wisdom that does not err. If only he had conquered just for one moment, he would have eaten of the one tree and lived, eaten of the other and gained knowledge; his life would have been protected from harm, and his wisdom would have been unshakeable…28

The story of creation and of humanity’s tragic Eden experience provides Aphrahat and Ephrem29 with a narrative framework for understanding the predicament of the human intellect, with all its promise and pitfalls. Sharing a native kinship with the divine mind, the human intellect finds itself situated between its lofty potential to ascertain divine knowledge and the baser impulses that prompt it to seek knowledge “prematurely,” in proud and selfish ways. This is a crucial aspect of the 27 Edward G. Mathews and Joseph P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works (Fathers of the Church 91; Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 1994), 114. 28 Hymns on Paradise 12.15, 17 (translation from Brock, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990], 167, 168). 29 A similar yet distinct understanding occurs in Liber Graduum 21.1–9, where the anonymous author teaches that prior to Adam’s sin, his mind was situated directly in God’s presence in heaven, while his body inhabited the earth. The ascetic disciplines and practices of the Perfect in that author’s community are designed to recover and sustain the mind’s original heavenly orientation. See Childers, “A Broken Mind: the Path to Knowledge in Liber Graduum,” in Robert Kitchen and Kristian Heal, eds., Breaking the Mind: New Perspectives on the Syriac Book of Steps (forthcoming).

52

CHILDERS

situation that Jesus Christ came to remedy, inviting humanity to rediscover the mind’s proper orientation and functioning as a temple for its creator.

THE SAGE: ELEVATED WISDOM AND HOLY HABITATION Since the Tree of Life put out its branches beyond the barrier, the loss of paradise has made realizing the divine status only difficult, not impossible (Demonstration 23.3).30 Within Aphrahat’s optimistic anthropology, being a human soul implies the possession of a measure of discernment, free will, culpability, and the capacity to participate in divinity by means of God’s Spirit.31 Jesus Christ capitalizes on that potential, opening up the possibility for humans to share in the divine nature as originally intended. By humbly descending to take up human nature and by elevating that nature into heaven as a pledge, Christ enables people who belong to the nature of this earth to participate in the nature of heaven also.32 Along with the other benefits, such people have “spiritual senses of the mind,”33 a capacity for perception akin to that of God so that they are cognizant of spiritual truth. In short, in Christ the human potential for divinization is recovered and the process is underway, with attendant consequences—and expectations—for the operation and responsibilities of the mind. Aphrahat vividly brings together these notions of knowledge and divinization in his mystical picture of the Sage in Demonstration 14.35. He casts the experience of progressive human salvation as a quest for knowledge and wisdom: “Who has perceived the place of knowledge, and who has attained to the roots of wisdom? Who has regarded the place of ) diligently seeks the deep treasuries of understanding?”34 The Sage (‫ܐ‬ divine knowledge and truth, thereby gaining wisdom and becoming the dwelling place of the divine presence, an exemplary moral agent and a point of access to the divine for other people.35 This portrait serves a specific Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen, 1.61–62. Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.185. 32 Demonstration 6.10, 18; see A. F. J. Klijn, “The Word kejan in Aphraates,” Vigiliae Christianae 12 (1958): 62–65. 33 Demonstration 1.1 (1, 5.14). 34 Demonstration 14.35 (1, 660.23–25). 35 See especially Alexander Golitzin, “The Place of the Presence of God: Aphrahat of Persia’s Portrait of the Christian Holy Man. An Essay in Honor of Archimandrite Aimilianos of the Monastery of Simonos Petras, Mount Athos,” Interdisciplinary Seminar on the Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism (28 January 2003); accessed 27 October 2007, online: http://www.marquette.edu 30 31

VIRTUOUS READING

53

purpose in the context of Demonstration 14, which is concerned primarily with moral problems among Persian church leaders. But the description of the Sage’s exercise of both intellectual and moral virtues within a process of personal ascent and transformation further illuminate Aphrahat’s epistemology, especially if Golitizin is correct in his contention that the Sage represents the best of everything Aphrahat commends in his Demonstrations.36 Given Aphrahat’s optimistic creation theology and his dynamic soteriology, the distinctions between spiritual knowledge associated with salvation, normal knowledge associated with living in the world, and ecstatic knowledge associated with the divine vision are blurred as the corresponding practices, virtues, and results converge into a single portrait of unified Christian experience. In Aphrahat’s picture, knowledge and wisdom are a treasure that is available to “the one who unfolds the wings of his mind” to accommodate it.37 The diligent exercise of perceptive faculties is rewarded with the discovery of wondrous treasures. As the Sage studies different aspects of creation,38 including the skies and seas and all creatures, his study of these things enlarges him to such an extent that he becomes “the great temple of his creator.”39 He is struck by wonder and amazement at the marvelous things he sees and learns, including rare and ecstatic visions of the divine as he is being transformed into the very place of God’s presence.40 The Sage is /maqom/aimilianos; also Adam Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions to Law-Observance in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 14 (2006): 168. 36 Golitzin notices that Demonstration 14.35 parallels other spiritual-mystical texts but shows that Aphrahat’s portrait of the Sage has distinctive characteristics and functions (“Place of the Presence of God,” 3.1; 10.4). He asserts, “The model Christian as ‘temple’ of God can therefore justly be considered the great leitmotif of Aphrahat’s efforts, from the opening section of his first Demonstration to the conclusion of the twenty-third and last” (ibid., 10.1). Golitizin may be straining overmuch in his attempt to use Aphrahat as a means of tracing more developed Greek notions of theosis directly back to primitive Christianity and “the deepest layers of the Hebrew scriptures” (ibid., 11.3), but the elements of his explication of the Sage as Aphrahat’s mystical sketch of divinization resonate with themes and images found throughout the Demonstrations. 37 1, 661.7–8. 38 The preceding section also extols the marvels of God’s creation (Demonstration 14.34). 39 1, 661.17–18. 40 See 1, 661.22–664.1.

54

CHILDERS

fully engaged in this transforming experience, but especially in his perceptive and inner intellectual capacities: Aphrahat speaks of his ‫̈ ܐ‬ ܿ (touching), ‫( ܿܐܪ‬gazing), ‫( ܒܐ‬heart), (eyes), ‫( ̈ܪܓ ܐ‬perceptions), ‫ܐܫ‬ ‫( ܪ ܐ‬mind/intellect), ‫( ܬܪ ܐ‬mind), ‫ܒ ܐ‬ (thought), ‫ܐ‬ ܿ (reflection), ‫( ܐܬܒ ܐ‬contemplating), ‫( ܓܐܫ‬touching) and ‫ܒܐ‬ (innermost being). Yet the adventure transforms his moral character as well: “then his thought is elevated, and his heart conceives and gives birth to every good thing…”41 In keeping with Aphrahat’s christological model of self-emptying humility, “the Sage grows strong in his thought. Though he is small in appearance, and (he makes himself) even smaller, he is infused and filled with a mighty treasure.”42 An inverse relationship exists between the Sage’s smallness and his capacity to take in and shine forth the vastness of the divine presence.43 Thus enriched, in his smallness he becomes a boundless reserve of God’s riches for others: His mind touches all the foundations and brings him a treasure of knowledge… When he gives from his own, he suffers no loss, and the poor are enriched from him treasure. There is no limit to his mind, which is gathered up and dwells in his innermost being. The place where the King dwells and is ministered to, who could calculate its treasure for you?44

Aphrahat’s picture of the Sage is not a strictly epistemological portrait and it resonates clearly with other meditations on Wisdom, yet it is construed in largely intellectual terms and its various elements correspond to epistemological elements occurring elsewhere in the Demonstrations, as we shall see. Aphrahat’s picture of salvation and divine experience entail the categories of mind and knowledge as major pieces. From the passages in Demonstrations 17, 23, and 14, it is apparent that for Aphrahat, the proper functioning of the mind is necessarily tied to salvation and the realization of the divine character in a human life. Consequently, the acquisition and use of knowledge have integral moral and even salvific dimensions—there are intellectually-grounded vices to overcome and Christlike virtues to enact. Given the central function of Christ within this soteriological scheme, it is unsurprising that the matter of 1, 664.12–13. 1, 664.18–20. 43 See Golitzin, “Place of the Presence of God,” 7; 8.3. 44 1, 664.22–23; 665.3–7. 41 42

VIRTUOUS READING

55

virtuous practices in emulation of Christ become immediately significant. For Aphrahat, a person’s ‫ܐ‬ (“nature”) is not, as for many Greek writers (cf. φύσις), her hidden essence, an objective reality somewhat removed from the surface features of her life; instead, for Aphrahat a person’s nature is phenomenally evident and manifests itself directly in her activity.45 Aphrahat’s ideal human is fully integrated, whose inner dispositions and habits are coming to cohere with exterior practices as the entire person— mind and body—inseparably experiences transformation in Christ.

PRACTICAL VIRTUE: HANDLING SCRIPTURE WELL Aphrahat’s epistemological assumptions bear particular implications for handling scripture. The remainder of this study surveys certain virtues prominent in Aphrahat’s discussions, showing that his ideals for approaching and handling scripture are shaped and regulated by the assumptions of his virtue approach to epistemology. Some of these virtues Aphrahat explicitly emphasizes or enjoins upon his readers, while others function more implicitly as values that are deeply embedded in his apparent epistemic practices as a Bible scholar. Sincere Truth-Seeking & Disciplined Inquiry One implication for epistemic virtue is the importance of truth-seeking and an openness to learning. Aphrahat begins his Demonstrations by encouraging the reader to “open the inner eyes of [his] heart.”46 At the close of Demonstration 10, he depicts the vastness of scripture’s treasury, but warns, “Whoever is not thirsty, cannot drink. Whoever is not hungry, cannot eat.”47 Aphrahat has a high view of human free will48 and believes that only people who are honestly and diligently seeking the truth are able to discover it. In Aphrahat’s picture of the Sage, knowledge and wisdom are a “treasure” that is “open and permitted to those who ask for it.”49 He declares that “the one who has opened the door of his heart finds it, and the one who unfolds the wings of his mind possesses it. It resides in the diligent person.”50 Aphrahat himself models such diligence. His exceptional Klijn, “The Word kejan in Aphraates,” 66. Demonstration 1.1 (1, 5.13–14). 47 1, 460.16–18. 48 Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen, 1.61–62; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.185. 49 1, 661.1–2. 50 1, 661.6–9. 45 46

56

CHILDERS

grasp on scripture is obviously the result of laborious and systematic study. He likens the careful student of scripture to the well-tilled field, ready to receive the good seed and to enjoy the rewards of abundant produce in knowledge (Demonstration 1.20).51 But stubborn attitudes thwart the intellect. At the end of Demonstration 22, Aphrahat declares, “If (the reader) will read and hear with persuasion, good! But if not, I should explain that I wrote for those open to persuasion and not for the scornful.”52 Willful prejudice on the part of the reader reflects Adam’s prideful grasping, not the kenotic surrender of Christ. Aphrahat values conscientious intellectual inquiry. Throughout the Demonstrations he constructs his arguments carefully, taking up pieces of evidence in scripture and meticulously treating them in a disciplined fashion. He entertains questions about the evidence and treats objections to his interpretations as he articulates the logic by which he understands the evidence to lend its support to his argument, exhorting his audience to “read and learn, know and perceive.”53 Upon analyzing an interpretation and finding it unsatisfactory, he concludes that the erring interpreter “does ‫̇ ܕ‬ ‫) ܐ ̇ ܥ‬.54 not know the force of the word” in question (‫ܐ‬ Yet although Aphrahat advocates and models careful methods of inquiry and argumentation, he insists they cannot substitute for purity of heart and the desire to follow truth. For instance, when discussing the timing of paschal observance, Aphrahat carefully examines the complex issues associated with biblical Passover prescriptions and the relative chronology of the Gospel texts (Demonstration 12.1–12). Yet he concludes his investigations by reminding the reader, “you are not commanded to be vexed with bickering over words, in which there is no profit, but (to have) a pure heart that keeps the commandment and the festival and the times of the day’s observances” (Demonstration 12.13).55 After painstakingly weighing the evidence he admonishes the reader not to become exasperated by the complexity of it all: “Now if we become vexed at these things and about the fourteenth alone, let us be diligent—but not concerning the seasonal custom. Let us delight in keeping the fourteenth of every month and mourning on 1, 45.11–14. 1, 1045.2–5. 53 1, 360.15–16. 54 Demonstration 3.12 (1, 125.4). 55 1, 540.3–5. 51 52

VIRTUOUS READING

57

the Friday of every week. Thus all the days of the week we ought to do what is pleasing before the Lord our God.”56

Thorough research on the paschal mystery is beneficial and synoptic chronology can be irksome, but investigation must cohere with the essential practices of keeping a pure heart, maintaining genuine paschal praxis, and doing right each day.57 The reason to study scripture is for the sake of embodying it in the world. “Pure Scholarship” Embodiment is marked by personal integrity. The consonance of the interior and exterior person is basic to the proper functioning of human faculties.58 “Whoever knows his master’s will should do his will.”59 Although Aphrahat upholds literal understandings of spiritual disciplines, he takes pains to probe them for deeper, moral meanings. “Pure prayer” expresses itself in aid for the needy (Demonstration 4.14, 15) and “pure fasting” means avoiding evil practices (Demonstration 3.1);60 similarly, true Sabbath-keeping is a matter of giving rest to the burdened (Demonstration 13.13). One could say that for Aphrahat, “pure biblical scholarship” requires that the combination of inner intellectual activity and exterior effort must yield appropriate moral action. “Mysteries are revealed in love, knowledge is completed in love, and faith is established in love.”61 Any 1, 537.20–1, 540.1. “This demand for purity of heart does not do away with the observance, but rather transposes it to a new key. The observance of the festival is now placed within the larger context of doing good on every day before God” (Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 179). 58 Aphrahat uses various terms to describe the human person (e.g. body, soul, spirit, heart, flesh), but these do not refer to separate components out of which the person is constructed. Rather, “ce sont des modalités du vivant unifié qui désignent son activité, sa production—et même ses potentialités et ses infirmités” (Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.181). 59 Demonstration 6.1 (1, 252.5–6). 60 Lehto credits Aphrahat with “an activist spirituality,” in which purity of heart is evidenced by one’s actions (“Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4 [2004]: 48); a proper inward disposition must express itself in acts of service, while practices of ascetic humility are incomplete if they do not produce moral action (idem., “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 173–74). 61 Demonstration 2.16 (1, 84.1–3). 56 57

58

CHILDERS

learned scholar can make observations based on clear evidence, e.g., that death comes to every person; but responding to these observations with appropriate behavior indicates the operation of a deeper quality, that of wisdom (see Demonstration 22.11). Near the beginning of his rich and complex Demonstration 23, “On the Grape Cluster,” he remarks, “It is good to learn and to consider closely the investigation of words, but it is especially fitting for us with a pure heart to fear God, the giver of the texts, who wrote and set them before us…”62 The inevitable connection between the inner and outer life means that the biblical exegete must attend to the cultivation of the inner life. For Aphrahat, prayer is a vital practice. As an integrative practice of epistemic virtue, prayer provides an environment in which to check and refine one’s inner motivations and the extent to which one’s dispositions translate into attendant behaviors (see Demonstration 4.1, 13). Hence, the regular selfexamination connected to such practices as prayer and penance is an important cognitive habit. Practices such as these can be epistemic virtues because they assist one in achieving coherence between the inner and outer person; they help integrate a person’s cognitive practices with their behavior according to the normative contours of his or her beliefs. Faith As content and as action, faith is fundamental to knowledge, particularly faith in Christ. For Aphrahat, Christ supplies the lens by which to interpret the human situation, define knowledge, and work out the goals and patterns of proper mental functioning. The “steward” that ushers the scholar into the king’s treasury so that he or she may acquire wisdom turns out to be “our Lord Jesus Christ”63 and, “when he is the steward of wisdom, he is the 62 2, 3.5–8. Unlike Ephrem, Aphrahat has few such “warnings against illicit theological investigations” (Lehto, “Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith,” 57). His most severe rebuke is in Demonstration 23.60:

We are of Adam, and here we perceive little. We know only this: there is one God, one Christ, one Spirit, one faith, and one baptism. Saying more than this is of no advantage to us. If we speak we will fall short and if we pry we will be injured. There are many who have forgotten the path and left the road and travelled in a trackless waste, on a path of scandals. They have conceived and meditated on corrupt words; they have prophesied falsehood and abandoned God. Because they desire to understand, they have become people without discernment, darkened in intellect, groping in the gloom. (2, 124.10–21) 63

Demonstration 10.8 (1, 464.6).

VIRTUOUS READING

59

wisdom, as the Apostle said: ‘Christ is the power of God and his wisdom.’ And this very wisdom has been distributed to many, yet lacks nothing.”64 Christ is the agent and goal of mental progress. In his first Demonstration, Aphrahat confesses, “the foundation of our whole faith is the true stone, our Lord Jesus Christ. And upon this very stone, the faith is laid. And upon the faith, the whole building rises until it is perfected. The foundation is the beginning of the whole building.”65 As Aphrahat constructs his metaphor, he depicts Christ as the foundation and the capstone; he even resides within the house as king. Christ is the “herald and apostle of the Most High,” to whose words Christians will attend so as to become “children of his mystery” (‫)ܒ ̈ ܐܪܙܗ‬.66 He is the key to knowledge. For Aphrahat Christ functions as a presumption and basic control for learning, interpretation, teaching, and practice.67 This means, first of all, that the traditional teaching about Jesus is to be learned and rehearsed routinely, since it provides normative insight into the biblical text. The regula fidei68 supplies hermeneutical keys for interpreting scripture. Although Aphrahat does not appeal to other known Christian interpreters outisde scripture, it is apparent that he relies on a received narratival and doctrinal tradition for his understanding of the Christian faith, along with various exegetical traditions.69 This deposit of faith enables Aphrahat to trust that scripture can be heard to speak as the word of God and that he will find within it relevant paradigms for addressing present situations. He trusts that the content of his faith will illuminate for him the inner coherence of the biblical narrative and to discover the vital correspondences between the world of scripture and his own. Hence, his treatises are “Demonstrations”— 1, 464.8–12. Demonstration 1.2 (1, 8.4–10). 66 Demonstration 14.39 (1, 684.10–12); see Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of His Old Testament,” 139. 67 It has long been recognized that Aphrahat’s interpretations, like that of other ancient Christian exegetes, employ Christ as a basic hermeneutical key. See Muto, “Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers.” 68 In Demonstration 1, “On Faith” (1.19), Aphrahat rehearses the basic items of the Christian faith. See Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.144–56. 69 See Gavin, “Aphraates,” 163; Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 279–80; idem, “Some Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature,” in Fischer, ed., Tribute to Arthur Vööbus, 110–24; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.66, 112, 117–18; Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 338–42; Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of His Old Testament,” 131–32, 139–40; cf. Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 96. 64 65

60

CHILDERS

simply exhibitions of biblical facts that show forth their relevance for a given situation, with a minimum of complex hermeneutical mechanism.70 “And all these things that I have listed for you were created in the word of God,” he announces to his readers in Demonstration 5.25.71 When Aphrahat says, “as it is written…” this declaration “is often the decisive word in his arguments….”72 The content of Aphrahat’s faith helps him achieve coherence, an important function of any epistemology. Scripture is both a source of his authorizing narrative and, as an object of study, is subject to it. Upon the foundation of this faith, other virtues of Christ arise, especially love and humility,73 shaping moral action:74 “first a person believes, and when he has believed he loves”;75 and “through faith true love is established.”76 Right belief necessarily produces corresponding right action. The teaching and example of Christ give decisive shape to the aims and practices of the human mind attempting to recover its vital connection to the creator. Conducting oneself according to the impulses of these virtues underscores the centrality of faith and confirms the efficacy of the authorizing narrative to which Aphrahat attends and regularly explicates. Apart from ethical practices, liturgical practices and the sacraments are also constitutive of faith as an epistemic foundation. The sacraments of baptism and the eucharist are very important to Aphrahat.77 Seen as practices that are formative of cognitive processes, they involve the practitioners in the specific content of Christian truth, over time forming the structures of their thought and behavior according to the contours of that knowledge and the priorities of its values. Their rehearsal involves Christians in the enactment of key facts and experiences associated with the Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.65–66. 1, 236.27–237.1 (see Morrison, “Reception of the Book of Daniel,” 3, n.9). 72 Baarda, Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat, 10. 73 Faith, love, and humility are primary virtues in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations (see Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 51–52). 74 Lehto notices that for Aphrahat “faith” has multiple functions (“Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith,” 48–49). 75 Demonstration 1.3 (1, 8.21–22). 76 Demonstration 2.11 (1, 72.17–18). 77 See Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 107–11; 174–7; Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen, 62–7; Edward J. Duncan, Baptism in the Demonstrations of Aphraates the Persian Sage (Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity 8; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 1945). Duncan treats questions regarding Aphrahat’s baptismal terminology, imagery, and practices, not so much the theology or spirituality associated with baptism in Aphrahat. 70 71

VIRTUOUS READING

61

beliefs they hold to be normative. Most importantly, the sacraments are a means of participating in Jesus himself, embodying the practitioner’s conformity to their virtuous exemplar and involving them in his work of reclaiming the human person (including the intellect) for its intended destiny of sharing abundantly in the divine nature. Similarly, for īḥīdayē78 like Aphrahat the ascetic lifestyle is also a practice of identification with Jesus. In it, the dedicated īḥīdayā embodies the singular devotion of the one-andonly Son to his Father, emulating his mind’s unwavering concentration on heavenly things (see especially Demonstration 6). Informed by faith and forming faith, practices such as these impact the mental functions of the Christian biblical scholar. Humility The seemingly paradoxical correspondence of small-to-vast in Aphrahat’s portrait of the Sage points to the importance of humble self-emptying as a prerequisite to knowledge.79 For Aphrahat, humility is the most important

78 ‫ܐ‬ (īḥīdayā) translates μονογενής in the Syriac New Testament. It is the title of Jesus Christ as the “one-and-only” Son of God and is also used to designate ascetics who have consecrated themselves to lives of single devotion to ̈‫ ܒ‬/ ̈‫ܒ‬ God in imitation of Christ within the community—also known a ‫ܐ‬ (bnay/bnaṯ qyāmā—“sons/daughters of the covenant”). Aphrahat is a principal witness for understanding the role and significance of īḥīdayē in early Syriac Christianity. On the distinctive features of early Syrian asceticism, see Brock, “Early Syrian Asceticism,” Numen 20 (1973): 10–19; Robert Murray, “The Features of the Earliest Christian Asceticism,” in Peter Brooks, ed., Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honour of Gordon Rupp (London: SCM, 1975), 72–73; Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, (CSCO 184; Louvain: Sécretariat du CSCO, 1958), 1.178–84, 190–94; vol. 3 (CSCO 500; Louvain: Peeters, 1988), 1–18; Shafiz AbouZayd, Iḥidayutha. A Study of the Life of Singleness in the Syrian Orient (Oxford: ARAM Society for SyroMesopotamian Studies, 1993); see also Thomas Koonamakkal, “Ephrem’s Ideas on Singleness,” Hugoye 2 (January 1999), 4–15; accessed 24 November 2007, online: http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye; Sidney H. Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria: The Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism,” in Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis, eds., Asceticism (New York: Oxford, 1995), 220– 45. 79 The sections leading up to Aphrahat’s meditation on the Sage (Demonstration 14.31–33) emphasize humility. They explore implications of the death of Christ, the kenotic imagery of Philippians 2:5–11, and the tendency of God to exalt the lowly.

62

CHILDERS

epistemic virtue, a source of many other virtues.80 Humility is the obvious remedy for the pride of Adam, who sought to usurp God’s place by pridefully seizing “premature” knowledge. In contrast to Adam’s willful and self-interested presumptiousness, “the humble person drinks up instruction like water; it enters into his veins like oil.”81 Lowering oneself in humility elevates one’s heart and mind, so that one is perceptive of heavenly things (Demonstration 9.4). It is the humble who are best able to follow Jesus as teacher.82 A humble and penitent posture gains access to the reservoir of illuminating light hidden within the olive fruit of the Tree of Life,83 enhancing perceptiveness.84 Aphrahat says simply, “humility begets wisdom and discernment.”85 Humility is an intellectual virtue because it helps the truth-seeking mind retain a receptive and flexible posture. The sense of wonder a person experiences when encountering God’s infinite wisdom brings not only delight, but also a keener awareness of one’s own limitations. In Demonstration 10.8 Aphrahat compares that experience to that of a person shown a vast treasure or brought to an unabating flow of spring-water—it is more than anyone could account for or ever hope to control. “The treasure does not fail, for it is the wisdom of God”;86 it is inexhaustible. An experience with such treasure affects behavior. Having worked through a learned text, the wise person realizes there is no shame in acknowledging, “What is written is written well, but I have not attained the understanding of it,” since no human is capable of comprehending all truth, even if he or she had “all the days of the world from Adam to the end of the ages” to study it, since “no human can rise up to the wisdom of God….”87 Humility also helps a person guard against the presumption of having exhausted every possible interpretation. Only a fool presumes to be speaking the last word, since God is the ground of all knowledge and his

See Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 170–71. Demonstration 9.2 (1, 409.25–412.1). 82 Demonstration 9.6 (1, 420.13–15). 83 Demonstration 23.3 (2, 9.7–8). 84 Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 171. 85 Demonstration 9.2 (1, 409.10–11). 86 1, 464.4–6. 87 Demonstration 22.26 (1, 1045.24–25; 1, 1048.13–17). See Gavin, “Aphraates,” 165–66; Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 323–24; Muto, “Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers,” 220. 80 81

VIRTUOUS READING

63

riches cannot be counted or depleted. After sifting through the complexities of Daniel, Aphrahat acknowledges, These things that I have written to you, my beloved, (and) what is written in Daniel, I have not brought to an end, but to this side of the end… For a foolish person says, “The words reach this far—there is nothing to add to them or take away from them.” The riches of God are incalculable and unlimited, for if you take water from the sea, its loss is not known… and if you partake from the Spirit of Christ, Christ lacks nothing at all.88

In this context Aphrahat maintains that although Christ dwells within the faithful exegete, Christ is not contained by or limited to that person, just as “if the sun enters through the windows of your house, the whole sun does not come to you.”89 The wise and humble reader will remain open to further learning and to the thinking of others.90 She realizes that the goal of finally exhausting the search for truth is beyond human reach, and behaves accordingly. The latter observation leads to a more detailed consideration of the way in which humility conditions a person’s treatment of other exegetes. Humility is incompatible with envy or contentiousness (Demonstration 9.4, 7, 8). Arrogant behavior towards others signals intellectual pride and pride impairs the intellect. In Demonstration 5.25 Aphrahat warns the reader to beware of anyone who mocks the views of another while maintaining, “Mine are wise.”91 The arrogance of such a person shows that their thinking is suspect, since a refusal to listen to others hinders the search for knowledge. Aphrahat’s priorities in this area are most clear in the conclusion to Demonstration 22: Again, if the reader finds us speaking one way and another sage speaking another way, he should not be disturbed by this, for everyone speaks to his hearers according to what he can attain to. So I, who have written these things—even if some of (my) words do not agree with those of another speaker—I say this: “Those sages have spoken well, but it Demonstration 5.25 (1, 236.7–9, 13–18, 23–24). 1, 236.26–27; see Morrison, “Reception of the Book of Daniel,” 32. 90 Murray notes that in comparison with Greek theologians, early Syriac writers are less concerned with precise definitions or with achieving total clarity, and therefore enjoy a broader theological vision (Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 346–47). 91 1, 237.9. 88 89

64

CHILDERS seemed to me that I should speak like this.” And if anyone will speak and demonstrate to me about any subject, I will receive it from him without contention. Everyone who reads the sacred scriptures, former and latter, in both testaments, and reads with persuasion, will learn and teach. But if he is contentious about something that he does not comprehend, his mind will not receive instruction. If he finds words that are too hard for him so that he does not comprehend their force, he should speak like this: “What is written is written well, but I have not attained the understanding of it.” If he asks discerning sages who inquire into teaching about matters that are too hard for him, then when ten sages give him ten views on a single matter, he should accept what pleases him. And as for what does not please him, he should not scorn the sages, for the word of God is like a pearl that has a beautiful appearance on every side that you turn it. And remember, O student, what David said: “I have learned from all my teachers.”92

According to Aphrahat, the best teachers are also humble learners. “Instruction is found with the humble, and their lips pour forth knowledge.”93 Aphrahat desires to remain open to other insights, entertaining divergent points of view and acknowledging that there may be more than one legitimate way to see or explain a passage.94 Aphrahat is undaunted by rigorous discussion, but he warns against the opposing vices of contentiousness and pride, since they harden one’s intellect against the reception of sound teaching. Furthermore, he seems unwilling to engage in coercive discourse, preferring instead to leave final decisions up to individual interpreters. Communal Investment and Accountability At the end of Demonstration 22, Aphrahat explains: I have written these things according to what I have attained to. If anyone reads these memre and discovers matters that are not in agreement with his own thinking, he should not be scornful. For what is written in these chapters was not written according to the thinking of

Demonstration 22.26 (1, 1045.13–1048.9). Demonstration 9.2 (1, 409. 8–10). 94 See Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 323–29. 92 93

VIRTUOUS READING

65

one person, nor for the persuasion of one reader, but according to the thinking of all the church and for the persuasion of all faith.95

Aphrahat does his biblical research as one responsible to a community. He does not read scripture solely for his own benefit or to promote a private opinion. In his studies he has visited the treasury of wisdom repeatedly and drunk deeply of the fountain of knowledge and has become convinced that, “the one who receives by grace ought to give graciously.”96 He does his scholarly work with reference to the community’s needs and he writes to benefit that community,97 in response to the challenges they face, such as persecution, clerical corruption, the problem of theodicy, and the lure of the Jewish synagogue. Furthermore, he sees himself as part of a living tradition—a contributor perhaps, but one who contributes from within a tradition that is larger than himself, the momentum of which compels him to submit his conclusions to his colleagues and to the faithful of the church to seek consensus.98 Aphrahat sees himself as a collaborator with others in his community, each of which has something to contribute to the process of applying biblical knowledge for the sake of the group: These (memre) are not enough, but hear these things from me without contention, and discuss them with our brothers, who share the same conviction. Accept everything you hear that truly builds up, but pull down and utterly demolish anything that builds up strange doctrines. For contentiousness cannot build up. My beloved, like a stone-cutter I have delivered stones for the building. Let the wise stone-masons carve them and fit them into the building. And all the workers who labour on the building will receive wages from the Lord of the house.99

Aphrahat understands his work as one contribution to a project to which others also contribute; indeed, even his own contribution stands subject to the assessment and refinement of the others. Interpretations of scripture are Demonstration 22.26 (1, 1044.21–1045.2). Demonstration 1.1 (1, 5.7–9). 97 See Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 321, 323, 325–36; Becker, “AntiJudaism and Care for the Poor,” 324. 98 Gavin, “Aphraates,” 163–66; Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 279–347; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.112. Aphrahat’s reliance on tradition does not negate his creativity (Gavin, “Aphraates,” 163; Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 96). 99 Demonstration 10.9 (1, 465.8–19). 95 96

66

CHILDERS

validated partly by their coherence with the community’s tradition but partly also by their value to the community as an adaptation of that tradition to a given situation. As we have already seen, the virtue of humility leads Aphrahat to encourage behaviors of openness to new learning and appreciation for the thinking of others. Whereas Antiochene exegesis has an approach to scripture that may be described as author-oriented, in which the Bible is seen as a self-interpreting text that yields a finite range of meanings, early Syrian exegetes have a more reader-oriented approach, since for them “there is no single proper interpretation valid for everyone at the same time,” and “since God has bestowed many images of the biblical words in proportion to the preferences of interpreters, they understand only a tiny proportion of the whole.”100 Whereas for the Antiochenes, biblical interpreters are differentiated from mere readers because of their expertise in handling texts, in early Syriac hermeneutics anyone in the church may be an interpreter. Ephrem displays this orientation by focusing on the experience of the individual interpreter, who moves with delight from one meaning to the next. But for Aphrahat, the focus is more on “the variety of individuals within the Christian community…” and he “is more inclined to accept the opinions of others in the Church.”101 Aphrahat displays a respect for the role of the community in receiving, discussing, evaluating, and certifying interpretations of the text. His reader-orientation accentuates the importance of the interpreter’s virtue, since his practices make no appeal to the efficacy of a guaranteed reading strategy. It also accentuates the need for virtuous Bible interpreters to inhabit authentic Christian community. Within the community, the virtuous interpreter plays an important role. The Sage of Aphrahat’s vision in Demonstration 14.35 becomes a manifestation of the presence of God, “a theophany”102 within his or her community. Due to the mystical breadth and depth of the source of wisdom being mined, the virtuous scholar can be lavish in giving away knowledge freely, without fear of impoverishment.103 Aphrahat makes this point many times and in various ways, translating the inexhaustibility of 100

221.

Muto, “Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers,”

Ibid., 220, n.57. Golitizin, “Place of the Presence of God,” 7.2. 103 See Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 168; Morrison, “Reception of the Book of Daniel,” 32. 101 102

VIRTUOUS READING

67

God’s wisdom not only into behaviors of humility but also into behaviors of generosity on the part of the teacher. His quest for biblical truth obliges him to share what he has discovered for the benefit of others. Indeed, he is eager to do so: “even that which you have not asked of me, I will importune God and instruct you about,”104 he tells his readers at the beginning of the Demonstrations. Diligent students of scripture become teachers, even while they remain in the humble posture of learners: “Everyone who reads the sacred scriptures, former and latter, in both testaments, and reads with persuasion, will learn and teach.”105 The ideal Christian community is one in which relationships are characterized by practices of mutual teaching and learning. īḥīdayē such as Aphrahat, having consecrated themselves to lives of single devotion, can devote themselves more singularly to study, learning, and teaching, so that their ascetic calling becomes a blessing to the larger community:106 “Let us be poor in the world so that we may enrich many with the teaching of our Lord.”107 The Jews as Intellectual Opponents Given Aphrahat’s apparent commitment to open-mindedness, alternative perspectives, and respectful discourse, his confident rejection of the opinions of the Jews is striking.108 At first glance, this might seem like just another instance of the prejudiced, so-called anti-semitic polemic common to Christian authors of the period109—and indeed Aphrahat does apply strongly negative rhetoric from time to time, characterizing Jews who might Demonstration 1.1 (1, 5.11–12). Demonstration 22.26 (1, 1045.17–20). 106 See Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Yokes of the Holy-Ones: The Embodiment of a Christian Vocation,” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 205–18. 107 Demonstration 6.1 (1, 244.22–23). 108 The Jews’ favoured situation in Persia during a period in which Christians were being persecuted may have encouraged Christian defection. This and other possible factors are discussed in T. D. Barnes, “Constantine and the Christians of Persia,” Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985): 122–36; Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” 235–38; Lane, “Of Wars and Rumours of Peace,” 236–37, 239–40; Morrison, “Reception of the Book of Daniel,” 29; Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 13–14, 35–67; Becker, “Anti-Judaism and Care for the Poor,” 325–27. 109 On the subject of patristic anti-semitism, see Marcel Simon, Verus Israel. A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (AD 135–425), trans. H. McKeating (Oxford: University Press, 1986). 104 105

68

CHILDERS

disagree with him as foolish and unlearned (Demonstrations 13.11; 15.1, 8). He does not neglect to emphasize that much of Israel’s history was conditioned by their penchant for wickedness, a point he develops at some length in order to explicate the origins of various, outmoded laws (Demonstrations 15–16). Yet in his polemical treatment of Jews Aphrahat actually compares favorably to other patristic writers.110 In comparison to the virulent tone of the likes of Chrysostom, for instance, Aphrahat’s use of pejorative language is sparing,111 nor does he resort to the easy device of slander and ad hominem argumentation. Instead, even in his pretended112 dialogues with Jewish opponents, he prefers to face evidence openly and honestly, arguing his points carefully. Not only does he appeal consistently to a source of evidence universally acknowledged by Jews and Christians, the Old Testament, but he employs a plain-sense approach to the text that bears many similarities to rabbinic reading strategies and does not require the enigmatic, in-house methods used by many Christian allegorizers in their polemics against Jewish interpretations of scripture.113 With characteristic enthusiasm, Jacob Neusner remarks: Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 214–244; Cf. J. E. Seaver, who describes Aphrahat as “violently anti-Semitic,” in Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire [300–434] (Kansas University Humanistic Studies 30; Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas 1952), 38; cf. Simon, who notices that Seaver’s view is based on a very limited reading of two Demonstrations and suffers from a superficial understanding of Aphrahat’s thought and polemical purposes (Verus Israel, 401). Louis Ginzberg credited Aphrahat’s relatively irenic manner: 110

[T]o his honor be it said, that, unlike other ancient Christian apologetes, such as Origen and Jerome, who owed much to Jewish teachers, his writings are almost entirely free from any bitterness toward them personally… Aphraates showed not the slightest traces of personal ill-feeling toward the Jews; and his calm, dispassionate tone proves that it was only his firm conviction of Christianity that caused him to assail Judaism.

(“Aphraates, the Persian Sage,” in Isidore Singer, ed. Jewish Encyclopedia [New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901], 1.665). 111 Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” 198. 112 Opinions vary as to whether Aphrahat’s interlocutor is a real person (or persons), a merely rhetorical device, or fictitious composites “dependent on live encounters” (Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 12). 113 Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 6, 7, 144, 187; Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” 247–48; Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian

VIRTUOUS READING

69

Of all parties to the argument between Judaism and Christianity in late antiquity, Aphrahat therefore is most impressive for his reasonable arguments, his careful attention to materials held in common by both sides, and the articulated and wholly lucid, worldly character of his argumentation. On the Christian side, he stands practically alone for his interest in the opinions of actual, not imaginary Jewish opponents.114

In Robert Murray’s words, “Aphrahat hits hard, but it is a clean fight; in general, he lets Scripture speak for him.”115 Aphrahat is confident that he can slay his opponent through diligent argumentation and a trust in God’s revelation, without resorting to character assassination. Yet he cannot avoid surmising that moral defects are partly responsible for his opponents’ faulty thinking. For his part, Aphrahat believes himself to be open to instruction, even by Jewish scholars—provided they exhibit the virtues of honesty and careful handling of evidence: “If you will argue against me from the scriptures about any of these things I will accept it from you. But I will not listen to anything you have devised out of your own mind” (Demonstration 18.7).116 He suspects his Jewish “opponent” of willfully inventing counterarguments rather than genuinely and humbly seeking truth.

CONCLUSION Aphrahat’s epistemology presumes that the human mind and the task of biblical interpretation are embedded within an ongoing experience of Christian spiritual transformation. The human intellect, tragically caught between its potential to share in the divine nature and its tendency towards the prideful and independent control of knowledge, has been given the opportunity in Christ to recover its place as the temple of God. Intellectual activities such as reading, learning, reasoning, discussion, and teaching are

Mesopotamia,” 96–97; Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 333–35; Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” 192; Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of His Old Testament,” 139; Pierre, Aphraate la sage persan, 1.112– 20; McCullough, “Aphrahat the Biblical Exegete,” 264–65. 114 Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 244. 115 Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 41. Simon maintains, “When Aphraates takes issue with the Jews, he fights… with their own weapons and on ground they themselves have chosen” (Verus Israel, 320). 116 1, 836.14–18.

70

CHILDERS

necessarily moral acts, grounded in and partly constituent of the process of saving transformation in which the Christian intellect is engaged. Cultivating certain inner and outer virtues will assist the mind’s functioning in these endeavours, whereas the practice of vices will be detrimental. The well-formed intellect will be a fund of praiseworthy moral action in the Christian’s life, but it will also be well-formed partly as a result of such moral action. Virtuous inner dispositions—such as a genuine desire for truth, humility, an awareness of one’s limitations, open-mindedness, and generosity—must cohere with virtuous interpretive practices, such as the careful and disciplined handling of biblical evidence, participation in respectful discourse, communal investment and accountability, teaching, prayerful self-examination, an openness to correction, and the embodiment of biblical interpretation in life. Certain other practices may support these virtues, conforming them to the specific contours of Christian thought structure—practices such as the sacraments and the ascetic lifestyle. In short, good Bible interpretation requires nothing less than the total person—the inner and the outer, in community and before God. This, for Aphrahat, is what it means to be “a disciple of the sacred scriptures.”

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL J. F. COAKLEY & DAVID G. K. TAYLOR A constant theme of Sebastian Brock’s teaching career, reflected in many of his publications, has been his emphasis on the importance of scholarly collaboration between western scholars of Syriac and their colleagues in the Assyrian and Syrian churches of the Middle East, India, and the modern diasporas. Although this is now taken for granted at many international conferences, and is reflected in the lists of contributors to scholarly volumes, this development (still far from complete) has only been achieved by overcoming significant resistance and suspicion from both parties, and Sebastian’s own example has played a key role in this. Sebastian has also pioneered the study of such key liturgical texts as the Syrian Catholic Mosul Fenqitho of 1886–96 (item no. 26 in our bibliography below) as a rich source of early exegetical and theological traditions; he has repeatedly drawn attention to the continuation of the Syriac literary tradition up to the present day; and he has encouraged all of his graduate students to make use of Syriac lexica produced in the Middle East, most notably the indispensable Simta of Thoma Audo (item no. 52 below) which so frequently contains lexical items which are to be found in ancient Syriac manuscripts but remain unrecorded in even the largest European lexica. It seemed appropriate, therefore, to the authors to offer him this bibliography of the publications in Syriac script, both Syriac and neo-Aramaic, of the Dominican Press of Mosul, which played such a major role in the formation of Chaldean and Syrian Catholic intellectuals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and was a melting pot of Syriac and Latin theological traditions. Happily, this bibliography also provides a link with the paper by the late, and much regretted, Jean-Maurice Fiey in the previous Festschrift offered to Sebastian Brock in 1993, in which he provided a history of the Dominican Press in Mosul from 1860 to 1914, and which should be read in conjunction with this paper.

71

72

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR

THE DOMINICAN MISSION AND PRESS Although Dominican friars had been engaged in missionary work in Mesopotamia since the first half of the thirteenth century, their mission house in Mosul (in what is now northern Iraq) was not established until 1750.1 (They succeeded a Capuchin mission in the city which had lasted, with breaks, from 1663/4 until 1724.) This early Dominican mission was provided with missionaries and financial support by various Italian provinces of the order, and it survived until 1856 (with a break from 1815 to 1841), although it was profoundly weakened as a consequence of the Italian wars of independence which began in 1848. In September 1856 the Dominican province of France assumed responsibility for the Mosul mission. A number of new missionaries were sent to Mosul, and among these was Fr Hyacinthe Besson, the first French superior of the mission, who centralised the running of the numerous schools founded in Mosul by his predecessors, and expanded the curriculum to include history, geography, and mathematics, as well as Arabic, French, and both Eastern and Western varieties of Syriac. Having no means of printing the necessary school books he acquired a lithographic press to produce some basic teaching materials. (A few of those documents which included texts in Syriac are listed below, items 1–3.) In April 1860 this simple equipment was supplemented by Fr Amanton who returned from France with a ‘Marinoni’ printing press, and Syriac and Arabic types, paid for by l’Oeuvre d’Orient. To enable the Dominicans to get the new press up and running, the Franciscan Press in Jerusalem seconded to them a young Franciscan of Chaldean origin named Joseph of Diyarbakir who was an experienced printer. He travelled to Mosul, got the press into working order, trained assistants, and set up a type foundry. At the same time a Dominican named Raymond Mizon had been serving as an apprentice in the press at Jerusalem, and so after about a year he was able to replace Joseph. The Syrian Catholic priest Joseph David, then a secondary school teacher for the Mission, was employed to superintend the printing of Arabic 1 For the early history of the Dominicans in this region see B.-M. Goormachtigh, ‘Histoire de la mission dominicaine en Mésopotamie et en Kurdistan depuis ses premières origines jusques à nos jours,’ Analecta Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum 2 (1895–6), 271–83, 405–19; 3 (1897–8), 79–88, 141–58, 197– 214, 533–45. This series of articles breaks off at the year 1864: later chapters written by the author were said to have caused offence in some quarters and were never published.

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

73

and Syriac. (As an author and editor of texts, he remained associated with the Press after his elevation to be Chorepiscopus of Mosul in 1863 and then to be Archbishop Clement-Joseph David of Damascus in 1879.) The numbers of other staff grew steadily, as did the available equipment. In 1870 stereotyping began, and in the 1880s an electrotyping apparatus was bought. The typographical stock also grew remarkably. To mention here only Syriac: the foundry made a more elaborate West Syriac type to supersede the font sent out from Paris; East Syriac type was acquired from the Lazarists in Urmia, then enhanced and supplemented with several other fonts; and a distinctive so-called strangueli was made and used freely on titlepages and for rubrics. Unfortunately 1860 was also the beginning of a period of severe crisis in Chaldean-Roman relations. Patriarch Joseph VI Audo (1848–78) had insisted upon his right to ordain bishops for the Syro-Malabar Catholics in India, and the Dominicans forcefully backed the official Roman line against him. As a consequence the Patriarch issued various decrees restricting Chaldean contacts with the Dominicans. In 1869 the Bull ‘Reversurus’ was imposed upon the Chaldeans (although it had already provoked a schism in Armenia in 1867), but Joseph Audo stood his ground and refused to ordain two bishops appointed in Rome. In September 1876 he was threatened with excommunication by a papal Encyclical, but he eventually managed to overcome this crisis, and was reconciled with Pius IX shortly before his death in 1878. Tensions steadily reduced under his successors Elias XII Abolionan (1878–94), George ‛Abdisho‛ V Khayyath (1894–9), and Joseph Emmanuel II Thomas (1900–47). These events had a major impact upon the Dominican mission and upon Syriac printing in Mosul. In 1860 Joseph Audo founded, with the aid of funds from a wealthy Chaldean deacon named Raphael Mazadji, son of the priest Peter from Amida, St. Peter’s Chaldean Seminary which remained in Mosul until 1960 when it was transferred to Baghdad. This ‘Patriarchal Seminary,’ as it was known, was independent of the Dominicans and their influence. At approximately the same date, and with the same financial backer, the ‘Press of the Chaldeans’ was established in the same area of Mosul, and went on to print a rather fine Psalter in East Syriac type, as well as a copy of the Qdām w-Bāthar (an office-book), in 1866. This press is said by Joseph Tfinkdji2 to have come to an end with the death of Mazadji in ‘L’Église chaldéenne catholique autrefois et aujourd’hui,’ Annuaire pontifical catholique (Paris, 1913), [449–525], 479. 2

74

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR

1867,3 although according to Oussani a Syriac grammar by Giwargis ‛Abdisho‛ Khayyat was issued there in 1869.4 As a consequence of this ecclesiastical rivalry, it was the Syrian Catholic community who became the first beneficiaries of the Press’s Syriac publications. In these publications, from 1868 through to the end of 1878, it is nearly always West Syriac type that we find.5 Although there is as yet no full bibliography of Arabic books published at the Dominican Press, a search through Albin’s preliminary work suggests that the majority of these too were produced by and for Syrian Catholics, although there are a few exceptions. In 1878, after the death of Joseph Audo and the appointment of a new patriarch, the Dominicans founded a second seminary, the SyroChaldean Seminary of St John, which, as its name suggests, was set up to train both Syrian Catholics and Chaldeans.6 This initiative required the production of Syriac grammar books employing both scripts, West Syriac (‘syriaque’) and East Syriac (‘chaldéen’), and hence Joseph David’s grammar of 1879 (item no. 13 below). At regular intervals thereafter further grammars were printed in both dialects, whether expanded editions of David’s work, or new grammars by other teachers at St John’s seminary, such as Manna and Mingana. Printing in East Syriac type steadily increased over the years, and soon far outstripped printing in West Syriac type (with the notable exception of the Fenqitho of 1886–96), as would be expected given the discrepancy in size of the Chaldean and Syrian Catholic churches. In response to the use of neo-Aramaic in religious publications by the Presbyterian and Anglican missionaries in Urmia, the Dominican Press also started to print books in ‘Soureth,’ or ‘Chaldéen vulgaire’ from 1885, although as the Dominican Jacques Rhétoré, who founded the mission in Van in 1881, later noted, ‘dans la plaine de Mossoul, les travaux pour le Soureth eurent moins d’élan; on restait plus attaché à la langue classique, comme langue d’instruction.’7 Under the influence of Rhétoré increasing numbers of books were published in neo-Aramaic, including four of the last books in Syriac type to be printed at the press. 3 Mazadji is still commemorated by a funerary epitaph in the church of Shamoun al-Safa, that is, St Peter, in Mosul. 4 Éléments de grammaire et de lecture en langue Syriaque; Oussani, 85. 5 An exception is no. 6 below. 6 It received official approval in 1882, a date given for its foundation in some sources. 7 Rhétoré, Grammaire (no. 74 below), xv.

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

75

The outbreak of the first world war in November 1914 was the end of the Press. The Turkish authorities, long hostile to the printing activities of the Dominicans—although many of their own papers and official documents were printed by them—moved immediately to seize the printing equipment and demolish the buildings of the Press. (The official reason given was that the building was in the way of a new street to be constructed across the city.) On the 24th February 1915 the French Dominicans were expelled from Mosul, and although there were plans to reestablish the Press after the war they were never realised. Some of the printing types did survive, and passed into the possession of other local printers in Mosul. It must be one or more of these printers who produced the handful of titles bearing imprints like ‘Mossoul: Chez les Pères Dominicains’ with dates down to 1954.8

THE BIBLIOGRAPHY Works included. We include books printed wholly or partly in Syriac letters. This includes one (no. 14 below) that is in Karshuni Arabic, and several (4, 6, 10, 74 etc.) that are in Arabic or French but have significant quotations, either grammatical or liturgical, in Syriac. In spite of the fact that the Press issued catalogues of its publications in the west, and sold them through one or more booksellers in Paris, many of its Syriac publications are not to be found in existence today—not, anyhow, in any libraries or private collections that we can discover. Some others that do exist we have been unable to see. We have included such publications when they are more or less precisely referred to in secondary sources, but have marked their entries with a *. Others we have omitted, for example, the third edition of the Syriac reading-book, whose existence is only an inference from the fact that there was a fourth edition (no. 35); and the monthly magazine in Syriac that the Press is said to have published for a while,9 for which we do not know even a title. Dates. The items are listed chronologically according to the year of their publication. Multi-volume works are listed in the year of their first volume. The year of publication may be assumed to come from the titleFor the survival of the types, see Fiey, 174, and Coakley, 223 n. 65. One font may also be seen in the books of the ‘Diqlath Press’ operated by the decidedly nonCatholic printer and schoolmaster Yosip Kelaita: see Coakley, 231 n. 78 and 235–7. 9 Rhétoré, Grammaire (no. 74 below), xv: ‘une petite Revue religieuse qui dura quelques années.’ It was being printed in 1905; cf. Fiey, 170. 8

76

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR

page of the item unless a note explains otherwise. Some items known only from the catalogues of the Press and other references are unfortunately not datable. These are listed in the sequence according to their latest likely date. Seven items datable only to the period 1897–1914 are at the end of the sequence (nos. 77–83). Titles. When possible, titles are transcribed from title-pages, including the statement of responsibility (i.e., usually including the author’s name). If there is a Syriac title, we give this first, and where we have seen the volume, or a copy of the title-page, we use the font that most closely approximates to the original type face.10 This is followed by Arabic, French, and Latin titles, where these exist. When we cannot transcribe the title-page, we supply a title in square brackets, often from the Press’s catalogues, or a French title from another source, or failing that, an English title. Dimensions. Following library practice, we give the vertical dimension of each item, rounded up to the next centimeter. Usually this will be the size of the least cut-down bound copy we have seen. For some items not seen, we copy the format ‘8°,’ ‘12°,’ etc., from the catalogues. Type. We simply indicate whether a volume is printed primarily in West Syriac type (WS) or East Syriac type (ES). Copies. This bibliography does not aim to be a census of copies. We have limited ourselves, as a general rule, to indicating the presence of reference copies in two collections in the United Kingdom (the British Library [= BL] and the Bodleian Library, Oxford [= Bod]); one in the United States (the Institute of Christian Oriental Research of the Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C. [= ICOR]); and one in Lebanon (the Université Saint-Joseph [=USJ]). These libraries appear to have the largest collections of Mosul imprints outside seminary or monastic libraries in the Middle East, to which we have not had access.11 To these are added references to WorldCat12 (= OCLC) for those imprints held by multiple libraries. When a copy is not held by one of these libraries, but we have identified a copy in another library, details of this are given. The library 10 Including a Meltho font, Estrangelo Quenneshrin, closely modelled on the Mosul strangueli (really an East Syriac type with certain estrangela features); cf. Coakley, 178. 11 Surprisingly, the French Dominican archives at Saulchoir, Paris, preserve very few copies of these books, and neither are many to be found in other French libraries known to us. 12 On WorldCat, to which many libraries subscribe, see http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

77

of the École biblique in Jerusalem (a historically Dominican institution), and the Goussen collection at the library of Bonn University, should be mentioned as having significant collections.13

REFERENCES Albin, M., ‘Preliminary bibliography of Arabic books printed by the Dominican fathers, Mosul,’ Mélanges—Institut dominicain d’études orientales du Caire 16 (1983), 247–60. Coakley, J. F., The typography of Syriac (New Castle, Delaware, and London 2006). Darlow, T. H. and Moule, H. F., Historical catalogue of the printed editions of Holy Scripture in the library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, (2 vols. in 4, London 1903). Ellis, A. G., Catalogue of Arabic books in the British Museum (3 vols., London 1894–1935). Fiey, J.-M., ‘L’imprimerie des Dominicains de Mossoul 1860–1914,’ Aram 5 (1993), 163–74. Graf, G., Geschichte der christlichen-arabischen Literatur (5 vols., Vatican City 1944–1953). Macuch, R., Geschichte der spät- und neusyrischen Literatur (Berlin 1976). Martin, J. P. P., La Chaldée: Esquisse historique; suivie de quelques réflexions sur l’Orient (Paris 1867). Moss, C., Catalogue of Syriac printed books and related literature in the British Museum (London 1962). Nestle, E., Syrische Grammatik mit Litteratur, Chrestomathie und Glossar (Berlin 1888), ‘Litteratura Syriaca,’ 63 pp. The same section appears in the English translation (London 1889). Oussani, G., ‘The modern Chaldeans and Nestorians, and the study of Syriac among them,’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 22 (1901), 79– 96. Vosté, J.-M., ‘Clement-Joseph David, Archevêque syrien de Damas (23 mai 1829–4 août 1890): notes bio-bibliographiques,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 14 (1948), 219–302.

We are pleased to thank Amy Phillips for searching the holdings of the library of the École biblique and making copies of title-pages for us. 13

78

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR

Catalogues of the press: C1 Catalogue des livres imprimés chez les Pères Dominicains à Mossoul, 1878. C2 same title, 1889. C3 Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains à Mossoul: Langues orientales, 1892. C4 same title, 1897. C5 Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains de la Mission de Mossoul: Catalogue mentionnant les publications en langues orientales, Arabe, Chaldéen, Syriaque, Turc, Avril 1914. C5R reissue of C5 overstamped with new prices etc., 1932. (The title-page bears the stamp: ‘Les anciens prix sont annulés.’) Copies of the first four catalogues are kept together as BL 14598.c.15. A copy of C5R is preserved in the Syrian Catholic patriarchal library at Charfet, Lebanon.14 between 1857 and 1860 *1

[Méthode pour répondre à la messe en Syriaque.] References: Martin, 212. Notes: Lithographed.

*2

[Tableaux muraux en Arabe et en Chaldéen.] References: Martin, 212. Notes: Lithographed.

*3

[Questionnaire du catéchisme historique de Fleuri, en Chaldéen.] References: Martin, 212. Notes: Lithographed. 1868

*4

‫ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ ﺍﻻﺷﺤﻴﻤﻲ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﺑﺎﺟﺎﺯﺓ ﺫﻯ ﺍﻟﻐﺒﻄﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺎﻛﻲ‬ [Service de la messe privée selon le rite syrien.] 239 pp., 12°. Arabic, with some WS.

We thank Muriel Debié of the Franco-Lebanese group cataloguing the Syriac manuscripts at Charfet for making a copy of this available to us. 14

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

79

References: C1.14 (75 cent.), Nestle, 33, Oussani, 93, Albin 259. Notes: 1. Date from Nestle, Oussani, Albin. Other data from Nestle. 2. ‘Approbatio, praefatio, titulus, rubricae arabice, verba administrantis syriace’ (Nestle). 3. This will be the Press’s first use of Syriac type (correcting Coakley, 114 n. 229, and 140). 4. An expanded edition is no. 15 below. 1872 5

‫ﻧﺒﺬﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻣﻨﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻘﺪّﺳﺔ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻛﻠﲑﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ‬ ‫ﰲ ﺍﺑﺮﺷﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻞ ﻭﺗﻮﺍﺑﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻥ ﳛﻔﻈﻮﻫﺎ ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﻬﺑﺎ‬ [Règlements pour le clergé syrien du Diocèse de Mossoul.] 49 pp., 22 cm. Arabic, with some WS. References: C1 (50 cent.), Albin no. 37. Notes: Preface by Cyrillos Behnam, drawn up by J. David. Copies: BL (14501.c.36(1), Ellis I.474). 1873

6

‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺟﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺧﻄﺐ ﻭﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺇﻟﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺑﺄﰊ ﺣﻠﻴﻢ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺑﻄﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺪﺍﻥ‬ ‫ ﺿﺒﻄﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻖ ﺣﻮﺍﺷﻴﻪ ﻭﻧﺎﻇﺮ ﻃﺒﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺪﺍﱐ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻠﻲ‬.‫ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﻃﺮﺓ‬

Discours religieux pour les principales fêtes de l’année, par Élie III, Patriarche des Nestoriens de l’Orient, corrigés et commentés par l’Abbé Yacoub, prêtre chaldéen de Mossoul. [4], 10, 315 pp., 24 cm. Arabic, with some ES. References: C1.12 (2 Fr. 50 cent.), C2. 9 (2 Fr.) , C3.5 (2 Fr. 50 cent.), C4.5 (2 Fr. 50 cent.), C5.3 (3 Fr.), C5R (110 Fils), Albin no. 8. Notes: 1. This volume contains the earliest use of ES type known to us at the Press in Mosul (in occasional citations of 2 or 3 lines in length, e.g., pp. 50, 57, 112, 205). 2. Patriarch Elias III, Abū Ḥalīm al-Ḥadīthī, (d. 1190), wrote a number of works in both Syriac and in Arabic, and these particular homilies were famed for their elegance.

80

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR 3. The commentary is by Ya‛qub Mikha‚il Na‛mu, first director of the Patriarchal Seminary and later archbishop of Seert.15 Copies: BL (14503.d.8, Ellis I.505). 1876

[‫̈ܐ‬

7

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫] ܒܐ‬

[Livre de lecture syrienne.] WS. References: C1.38 (50 cent.), Nestle, 14 no. 167, Coakley, 141 n. 279. Notes: 1. Date from Nestle. 2. ‘Ce syllabaire donne la prononciation syrienne d’après les règles de la grammaire, et non d’après l’usage établi dans certaines contrées.’ 3. By J. David: Vosté, 279 no. 15 and 278 n. 4. First edition. Later editions are nos. 12, 35, 51. Copies: Institut Catholique de Paris (Fels 25 560) 1877 8

‫ﻛﻠﻨﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻻﺑﺮﺷﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﳊﻖ ﺑﻪ ﲨﻴﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺬﻛﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺳﻴﻢ ﺍﳉﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺑﺮﺷﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﻗﻮﺭﻟﹼﺲ ﻬﺑﻨﺎﻡ ﺑﻨّﻲ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﺳﺎﻗﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻞ ﻭﺗﻮﺍﺑﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﳉﺰﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻣﺔ‬ Calendarium ad usum diœceseos Mausiliensis Syrorum recognitum et approbatum ad Ill.mo et Rev.mo P. D. D. Cyrillo Behnam Benni Archiepiscopo Mausiliensi Syrorum. 254 pp., 22 cm. Arabic, with some WS. References: Albin no. 5. Copies: ICOR (276.67 C149).

9

‫̈ ܐ ܐܬܬܪܨܘ‬ ‫ܬ ܒ ̈ ̈ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܒ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܪܐ ܕܕܘ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐܒ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܓܐܐ ܕܨ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܕ ܨܠ‬ ‫ܪܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܕܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̇ܓ ܐ ̣ܒ ܐ ܒܐ ̈ܝ‬ Psalterium Syriacum ad fidem plurium optimorum codicum habita 15

On him see Tfinkdji (n. 2 above), 495.

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

81

ratione potissimum Hebraici textus nunc accuratissime exactum a Josepho David chorepiscopo Syro Mausiliensi cui accedunt x cantica sacra. lvi, 376 pp., 23 cm. WS. References: C1.13 (3 Fr. 50 c.), C2.42 (3 Fr.), C3.29 (bottom; 5 Fr. 50 cent.), C4.34. Notes: 1. With a preface in Latin and Syriac by C. Behnam Benni, Archbishop of Mosul (pp. iv–xv), and in Arabic (pp. xvii–liv) by the editor. Pp. xxxiv–xlii contain a comparison of the West and East Syriac texts of the Psalter. 2. Edited by J. David: Vosté no. 38; cf. p. 280 n. 3. The Syriac text is revised according to the Hebrew text of Psalms, and so deviates significantly from the Peshitta text. 3. Alphabetical listing of first lines of Psalms at end (pp. 364–76). 4. Cf. no. 25 (1885) below. Copies: BL (753.hh.17; Moss, 138), Bod (Sem.3.399). ICOR (275.45 D249), OCLC 4558243 (where the date is wrongly given as 1876). 10

‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﺍﳌﺰﻣﲑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗُﺘﻠﹶﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﺑﺮﺷﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﰲ‬ ‫ﻣﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ‬ [‫̈ܪܐ‬ ‫] ܕ ܣܕ‬

[Table des Psaumes pour tous les jours de l’année, selon l’ordre dans laquel ils sont récités, pendant l’office divin, dans le diocèse syrien de Mossoul.] 42 pp., 22 cm. Arabic, with some WS. References: C1.13 (40 cent.), C2.43 (50 cent.), C3.30 (80 cent.), Albin no. 35. Notes: 1. French and Syriac titles from C1 etc., not the book itself. 2. An index to the Psalms in Arabic, compiled by order of Cyrillus Behnam Benni, Archbishop of Mosul. 3. Occasional Syriac, including the text of the Beatitudes. Copies: BL (14501.c.36(2), Ellis I.964), ICOR (275.63 F477).

*11

‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻭﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﱐ‬ [Table of lectionary readings.]

82

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR Arabic, with some WS. References: Albin p.260. Notes: Compiled by J. David. 1879

12

‫̈ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܒܐ‬

Livre de lecture syrienne. Nouvelle édition. 107 pp., 15 cm. WS. References: C2.45 (80 cent.) Notes: The first edition is no. 7 above (1876), and later editions nos. 35, 51 below. Copies: BL (753.a.7; Moss, 1049), USJ (105D2), OCLC (85222512). 13

ܰ ‫ܽܬ‬ ܺ ‫ܰ ܳܬܐ ܕ ܶ ܳ ܳܐ ܳ ܳܐܪ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܰܐܘ‬ ܺܺ ܰ ܰ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܬ̈ܪ ܽܘܢ ܶ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫̣ܽ ܪ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬ ̣ ܶ ܰ ܺ ܺ ‫ܕ ܰ ̈ ܳ ܶܐ ܺ ܘ ܰ ܳܒ ܶܐ ܰܕ ܒ ܺ ܳ ܐ ܳ ܝ‬ ܺ ‫ܰܒ ܰܕܘ‬ ܳ ̄ ܺ ܳ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܨ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܶ ̇ܘ ̇ ̣ ܐ ܽ ܪ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܰܕܕܪ ܽ ܩ‬ ‫ﺏ ﺍﻟﱡﻠﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻼ ﻣﺬﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑّﻴﲔ‬ ُ ‫ﻛﺘﺎ‬ ‫ﱐ ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴّﲔ ﻗﺪ ﲨﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﺍﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻠ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎ ﹼ‬ ‫ﺩﻣﺸﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻓﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮﻳّﺔ ﻭﺭﺗّﺒﻬﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﺒﻨﻴّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻭﺯﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﺑﻔﻮﺍﺋﺪ ﲨّﺔ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﻠﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻓﺘﺘﺤﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﺒﺬﺓ ﳐﺘﺼﺮﺓ ﰲ‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺁﺩﺍﻬﺑﺎ‬

Grammaire de la langue araméenne selon les deux dialectes syriaque et chaldaique, comparée avec l’arabe, l’hébreu et le babylonien, précedée d’un petit abrégé de l’histoire de la langue de l’écriture et de la littérature araméennes par Sa Grandeur Mgr David, Archevêque Syrien de Damas. 458, [6] pp., 22 cm. Arabic, with WS and ES. References: C2.44–5 (4 Fr.), Macuch, 424, Albin no. 43 (there dated 1876 by error), Vosté, 278 no. 131. Notes: 1. Three title-pages: French, Arabic, Syriac. 2. For the second edition see no. 49 below, and no. 48 for an expanded Latin translation. Copies: BL (753.b.19, Ellis I.475), Bod (Sem.3.590), ICOR (275.81 D249), OCLC (40974232).

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

83

1881 14

̈ ‫̇ܨ‬

‫ܐܪ‬ ̈

‫̈ܗ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܝ ܬܬ‬ ‫ܘܡ‬

‫ܐ ܐܬ‬

‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̈ ܐ‬

‫ܐܒ‬

Lectionarium Syriacum seu collectio orationum et lectionum quæ in horis canonicis per totum anni decursum excepto jejunio quadragesimali ab Ecclesiæ Syriacæ clero adhiberi solent. [xiv], 648 pp., 35 cm. WS. References: C2.43 (10 Fr.), C3.29 (26 Fr.!), C4.34 (same price), Oussani, 93. ̈ . With red Notes: 1. In Karshuni; the book known in Syriac as ‫ܐ‬ rubrics. 2. Edited by C.-J. David: Vosté, 283 no. 69. With a preface by Patriarch Ignatius Jirjis Shalhat. 3. The title-pages are dated 1879, but the preface of Patriarch Ignatius Jirjis Shalhat is dated Mardin 3rd October 1881, and the Latin imprimatur, by Fr Eugenius Ludovicus-Maria, 15 Oct 1881. 4. Numbered pages of text are all in double columns. Copies: BL (14501.f.3, Ellis I.963). 15

‫ܐ ܕ ܬܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

ܳ ‫ܕ ܺ ܳ ̈ܳ ̇ܗ‬

ܳ ܳܽ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܪܒܐ ܒ‬

‫ܒܐ ܕܬ‬ ܶ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܳ ܐ‬ ‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ ﲜﻤﻴﻊ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴّﺎﻬﺗﺎ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻃﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ‬

Service de la Messe selon le rit syrien avec les prières qui se disent pour les morts. Nouvelle édition. 384 pp., 16 cm. WS. References: C2.41 (2 Fr. 50 c.), C3.30 (4 Fr.), Albin p. 259. Notes: 1. In red and black. Rubrics, headlines and page numbers are also in Arabic. 2. Edited by C.-J. David: Vosté, 283 no. 62. With a preface (pp. 5– 6) in Arabic by Cyril Behnam Benni, Metropolitan of Mosul, dated Mosul 1880.

84

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR 3. This will be an expanded edition of no. 4 above: ‘contenant le propre du temps et des Saints; diverses prières pour les morts; etc.’ (C2). Copies: BL (753.a.95; Moss, 681–2), Bod (1380.f.5), USJ (24E3). 1882

16

‫ܼ ܪ ܵ ܵܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸܕ ܵ ܿ ܣ‬

ܵ ܿ ܼܿ ̣ ‫ܐܪܒ ܵܐ‬ ܼ

ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܹ ‫ܵ ܼܕܕܪܓ ܘܢ ܼܕܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵ ܐ ܬܿܐܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܕܘ‬ ܼ

̈ ܵ ‫ܿ ܕ ܵ ܵܐ ܕ ܵ ̈ܐ ܒ‬ ܼ ܹ ܿ ‫ܿܐ ܿ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܬܪܨܗ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ

Manuale Sacerdotum, ex operibus P. Segneri, S.J., excerptum, in Linguam Chaldaicum a D. Damiano, sacerdote Chaldaico olim translatum; nuper vero a D. Thoma Audo revisum. [8], 366, 6 pp., 22 cm. ES. References: C2.36 (4 Fr.), C3.24 (5 Fr.). Macuch, 103. Notes: 1. A Syriac translation of the Arabic Manuale Sacerdotum ex operibus P. Segneri, S.J. excerptum arabice versum ac editum (Rome 1860; cf. Ellis II.598), made by Fr. Damyānōs of Alqosh (d. 1855), and revised by Audo. 2. A second edition is no. 39 below. Copies: BL (753.e.15; Moss, 984), USJ (24E1). 1883 17

ܵ ‫ܼܿ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬

ܿ ̈ ܿ ̈ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫̈ܪ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܘ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܼܐܪ ܵܐ ܒ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܼܐܘ‬

Tableaux synoptiques des conjugaisons, des dérivés et des déclinations. 86 pp., 18 cm. ES. References: C2.38 (1 Fr.), C3.26 (1 Fr. 50 cent.). Notes: Reprinted in 1891: see no. 33 below. Copies: ICOR (275.87K96). 18

[ ‫̈ܪܐ ܕܕܘ‬

‫] ܒܐ ܕ‬

Psalterium iuxta exemplar apud Chaldæos usurpatum, et quod ab eorundem typis prodiit anno MDCCCLXVI. 207 pp., 18 cm. ES. References: C2.36 (3 Fr. 50 c.), C3. 24 (4 Fr.), C4.26 (4 Fr.), Darlow-Moule, 1548.

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

85

Notes: 1. Date from outer (Latin) title-page. The Syriac title-page has 1884. 2. ‘Deuxième édition’ according to C3, the first being presumably the 1866 edition mentioned in the title (in fact published by the Press of the Chaldeans: see the introduction above and Coakley, 218). 3. For later editions see nos. 36 and 83 below. Copies: ICOR (275.45 B582). *19

Abrégé d’histoire sainte (chaldéen vulgaire). ES. References: C2.38 (50 cent.). Notes: 1. Date from École biblique catalogue. 2. The fourth edition of an Arabic version was published by the press in the same year (Albin no. 3). 3. The second edition was published in 1890 (no. 32 below), the fourth edition between 1897 and 1914 (no. 82 below). Copies: École biblique (779.503).

*20 [Guide for deacons at the Holy Mass.] Arabic, with some WS. References: Albin p. 259. Notes: Compiled by C.-J. David.

‫ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﺱ ﰲ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺱ‬

1884 21

ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ܵ ܵܒܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܗܘܓ ܵܐ ܼ ܐ‬

Syllabaire chaldéen. Troisième édition. 48 pp., 12 cm. ES. References: C2.38 (50 cent.), C3.26 (80 cent.). Notes: This being the third edition, the first and second are unrecorded. For the fourth and seventh editions see nos. 38 and 81 below. Copies: École biblique (278.91). 22

‫ͣܥ‬Γͮ‫ ܕ‬Κͣͥ‫ܟ ܕܐ‬Α͘͸Αͯͻ ͔͗‫͔ ܕܐ‬͹ͯ; ͔ͼ͗‫ ܕܙ‬Κ͔Ϳ͸‫͔͗ ܕ‬ΕͲ

La balance du temps, par le Père J. Eusèbe Nieremberg, de la Compagnie de Jésus. [Traduction ancienne, revue et corrigée par D. Thomas Audo.]

86

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR 428, [4] pp., 25 cm. ES. References: C2.37 (4 Fr.), C3.25 (5 Fr. 50 cent.), C4.28 (5 Fr. 50 cent.), C5.23 (5.50 Fr.), C5R (Épuisé). Notes: 1. There is no preface, and no mention of Audo in the book or on the title-page. These details are taken from C2ff. 2. Classical Syriac translation of De la diferencia entre lo temporal y eterno (Madrid 1640) by Juan Eusebio Nieremberg, S.J. (1595–1658). An earlier Syriac translation was completed by ‛Abdišo‛ Doušo in 1840, the first part at Karmeleš, the second at the monastery of Rabban Hormizd (cf. J. Vosté, Catalogue de la bibliothèque syro-chaldéene du couvent de Notre-Dame des Semences [Rome 1929], codex CCLXIX, p.100). It is likely that this is the earlier translation which Audo revised, but it is not clear whether Doušo translated this widely republished work from Latin, French, or Arabic. (It was translated into Arabic by P. Fromage and printed at Dair Mar Yuhanna, Shuwair, in 1733–1734 [Ellis II.433].) Copies: BL (753.i.10; Moss, 820), ICOR (275.67N675), USJ (8F2), OCLC (41112058).

23

ܵ

ܿ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵܒܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܕܘܪܕ ܵܐ‬

Manuel du très-saint rosaire. 89, 2 pp., 15 cm. ES. References: C2.37 (50 cent.), C3.25 (75 cent.), C4.27 (75 cent.), C5.21 (0.75 Fr.), C5R (Épuisé). Notes: 1. ‘Un récit sur les origines de la dévotion au Rosaire, l’exposé des obligations de des indulgences accordées aux Confrères, des renseignements sur la manière de réciter le Rosaire, des cantiques appropriés aux quinze mystères et des chants en l’honneur de la Très-Sainte Vierge, telles sont les matières contenues dans ce petit livre’ (C2). ‘En chaldéen vulgaire.’ 2. Possibly an abbreviated version of Andrew Pradel (1822– ), Manuel du très-saint Rosaire renfermant les excellences de cette dévotion ses indulgences, ses pratiques et des miracles choisis (Paris 2nd ed. 1862), of which the press issued an Arabic version in 1867 (Albin no. 15). A correspondingly short Arabic manual of the same title was issued by the press in 1883 (Albin no. 33). Copies: BL (753.a.10; Moss, 726), ICOR (Min 275.59 M294), USJ (8F2).

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

87

1885 24

25

ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵܐ ܒ‬ ܼ ܼ

‫ܵ ܵܐ‬

ܵ ܼ ‫ܵܒܐ ܕ‬

Petit catéchisme en langue chaldéenne vulgaire. Deuxième tirage. [4], 36 pp., 14 cm. ES. References: C2.37 (30 cent.), C3.24 (75 cent.), C4.26 (75 cent.), Macuch, 111. Notes: 1. This being the second issue, the first is unrecorded. 2. For the fourth edition, see no. 73 below (1908). The third edition is unrecorded. Copies: BL (753.a.9; Moss, 235), ICOR (275.59 C357), USJ (8F2).

ΛͩͯΓ· ΛΏΈ͸ ͔ͯ͘ͻ‫ͳ͔ ܘ‬Ͷ͸ ͮ͠‫͖ ܕܕܘ‬Μͣ͸ͤ͸‫͔͗ ܕ‬ΕͲ ̈ ͔ͯͮΜͣ;‫ ܕ‬ΛΓͮ͠Ύ Κ͠΄‫ܘܣ ܕ‬ΑͯͶΎ Ͱͼ͗‫ܕ‬ ͔ͦΒͣͦ͵

Psalterium syriacum, juxta versionem simplicem, Pschittam vulgo dictam. Ad usum cleri ecclesiæ Antiochenæ Syrorum. xii, 351 pp., 23 cm. WS. References: C2.42 (3 Fr. 50 cent.), C3.29 (top; 5 Fr. 50 cent.), C4.34 (5 Fr. 50 cent.), C5.27 (5.50 Fr.), C5R (Épuisé), Darlow-Moule, 1548. Notes: 1. The editor was C.-J. David, as is stated in the preface (p.8) by Patriarch Ignatius Jirjis Shalhat. Cf. Vosté, 280 no. 39. 2. The preface is dated Aleppo 23 April 1884. 3. For an earlier Syrian catholic Psalter edited by David, cf. no. 9 above. Copies: BL (753.hh.16; Moss, 139), ICOR (275.45 B582), OCLC (66754518). 1886 26

̈ Κ͠΄‫ ܐͮʹ ͨͳͿ͔ ܕ‬ͺ͹ͮ‫Ͱ ܐ‬Ͷͯ͵‫ ܕ‬Λ̈ͯͻ‫ ΄͠ܬ‬Κͣ͵‫ܕܨ‬ ΛͯΏͼ· ͔ͯͮΜͣ;‫ ܕ‬ΛͯͲͣͯͩͻ‫ܐ‬

Breviarium juxta ritum ecclesiæ Antiochenæ Syrorum. 7 vols., 29 cm. WS. 1886–96, as follows: Volumen primum: Pars communis Λͯͻ͚ͣ Κͣ͛Ͷ·, [xii], 660, [iv] pp., 1886.

88

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR

Λͯ͸͠Ύ ΛͯͼͶͮ‫ ܕ‬Κͣ͛Ͷ· ͺͮ͠Ύ ‫͔ͯ ͗ͳͼͣܢ‬Ͷ͹Γ͸‫ܝ ܘ‬Αͥ‫ͮͽ ܐ‬ΑΒ‫ͽ ܬ‬͸ ͔ͮΑΓ͸‫ܕ‬, [xii], 593,

Volumen secundum: Pars autumnalis [vii] pp., 1886. Volumen tertium: Pars hiemalis

ΛͯͼͶͮ‫ܬͮͽ ܕ‬Μ‫ ܕܬ‬Κͣ͛Ͷ· ͪ͘Γ͗ ͔ͯͶ͹Γ͸‫ܝ ܘ‬Αͥ‫͢ ܕͲͼͣܢ ܐ‬Γͮ‫ͽ ܪ‬͸ ͔ͮΑΓ͸‫ܕ‬, [xii], 450, [ii] pp., 1889. Volumen quartum: Pars verna prima

ΛͯͼͶͮ‫ ܕ‬Λ͵‫ ܕܬ‬Κͣ͛Ͷ· ͔ͥΑͮ ‫͔ ܪ͔͗ ܕܐܪ͗΅ͯͽ ܘ͓͗ܕܪ‬͸‫͢ ܨܘ‬Ͷͳ͗ ͔ͯͶ͸ΕΓ͸‫ܕ‬,

[xii], 887, [v] pp., 1891. Volumen quintum: Pars verna secunda

ΛͯͼͶͮ‫ ܕ‬Ά͗‫ ܕܐܪ‬Κͣ͛Ͷ· ͖Μͣͥ‫ ܕ‬Λ͘Γ͗‫͔ͯ ܘ‬Ύ‫ܘ‬Α· ͔Γͥ‫ ܕ‬Λ͗‫ ܪ‬Λ͘Γ͗ ͔ͯͶ͸ΕΓ͸‫ܕ‬, [xii], 486, [ii] pp., 1892. Volumen sextum: Pars æstiva prima

ΛͯͼͶͮ‫ ܕ‬Δ͹ͥ‫ ܕ‬Κͣ͛Ͷ· ͦ͗͠ ͔͹ͶΓ͸‫ ܘ‬Λ͹ͯΎ ‫ܪ‬Ε͗‫͔͘ ܕܬܪͮͽ ܕ‬Γ͗ ͥ͠ ͽ͸ ͔ͮΑΓ͸‫ܕ‬ ͔͸͠΄ ͽͿͯͻ ‫ܚ‬Αͮ ͽ͸‫ͣ;ͩͰ ܘ‬Ώͩͼ· ‫ܪ‬Ε͗‫͔͘ ܕ ܙ ܕ‬Γ͗ ‫ͣܙ‬͸‫ܚ ܬ‬Αͮ ͺ͵ͣΓ͵, [xii], 353, [v] pp., 1895. Volumen septimum: Pars æstiva secunda ΛͮΕͮΕΒ Κͣ͛Ͷ· Ͱͩ;ͣΏͩͼ· ‫ܪ‬Ε͗‫ͼ͔ͯ ܕ‬͸‫͔͘ ܕܬ‬Γ͗ ͥ͠ ͽ͸ ͔ͮΑΓ͸‫ ܕ‬ΛͯͼͶͮ‫ܕ‬ ͺ͵ͣΓ͵ ͔͸͠΄ ͔ͥΑͮ ‫ ܐܒ‬Δͮ‫ͽ ܪ‬͸‫ ܘ‬Κ͠΄ ‫ͣܕܫ‬Ώ͵ ͔͸͠΄ ͺͮ͠Ύ ͽͮΑΒ‫ܬ‬, [xii], 526, [vi] pp., 1896.

References: C2.39–41 (vols. 1–3: 15, 18, 16 Fr. resp.), C3.22 (vols. 1–4: 15, 23, 19, 34 Fr. resp.), C5.26 (7 vols.; ouvrage complet, 100 Fr.; un volume séparé 15 Fr.), C5R (ouvrage complet, 3000 Fils; un volume séparé, 450 Fils), Vosté, 283 no. 70. Notes: 1. Preface by Patriarch Ignatius Jirjis Shalhat. 2. Five hundred copies were printed, at a cost of around 50,000 francs, of which 350 were distributed to Syriac churches (Fiey, 169). Copies: BL (753.i.34; Moss, 681), Bod (Syr.c.5), ICOR (275.63 A632), USJ (24E3). 1887 27

‫ﻛﻠﻨﺪﺍﺭ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻃﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺎﻛﻴّﺔ‬

Calendarium juxta ritum ecclesiæ Antiochenæ Syrorum. 140, 4 pp., 17 cm. Arabic, with some WS. References: C5.3 (1.50 Fr.), C5R (20 Fils). Copies: BL (14544.b.17, Ellis I.474), ICOR (275.67 C149).

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

89

ΛͩͯΓ· ͔ͮΑΎΕ͸‫ ܕ‬ΛΏΈ͸ ʹͮ‫ܒ ܐ‬ΕͲ ‫ܨܘܪܬ‬

28

Biblia sacra juxta versionem simplicem quae dicitur Pschitta. 3 vols., 32 cm. ES. 1887–91, as follows: 1. Genesis–Esther, vii, 712, i pp., 1887. 2. Job–2 Maccabees, vi, 681, ii pp., 1888. 3. New Testament, iv, 426, i pp., 1891. References: C2.33–5 (2 vols., i.e, the OT only, 30 Fr.), C3.22–3 (vols. 1 and 2: 25 Fr. each, vol. 3: 20 Fr.), C4.24–5 (same prices), C5.17 (same prices), C5R (all 3 vols., 6500 Fils), Vosté. Notes: Edited by C.-J. David (Vosté, 280 no. 41) and G. E. Khayyat. Printed in double columns. For the editorial history of this edition, cf. J. M. Vosté, ‘La Pešitta de Mossoul et la révision catholique des anciennes versions orientales de la Bible,’ in A. M. Albareda, ed., Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati I (Studi e testi 121; Vatican City 1946), 59–94. Copies: BL (753.k.5; Moss, 114), Bod (OI 735.MOS), ICOR (275.41), OCLC (348475, 66230625). Reprinted: Beirut 1951. 1888

ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ‫ܕܨ ܵ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܕ‬ ̈ ܼܿ ‫ܒܐ‬

29

Prières du matin et du soir en langue chaldéenne vulgaire. Deuxième tirage. 15, 1 pp., 17 cm. ES. References: C2.37 (30 cent.), C3.25 (25 cent.), C4.27 (25 cent.). Notes: 1. This being the second issue, the first is unrecorded. For the third edition see no. 60 below. 2. The ‘titles’ are printed on the ‘front’ and ‘back’ covers. Copies: BL (753.a.12; Moss, 641), ICOR (Min 275.59 P948). 1889 30

‫ܐ ܐܘ ܐ‬

‫ܪ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘܕܘ ܐ‬

Catechismus ex decreto concilii tridentini ad parochos a D. Thoma Audo. A latino textu Chaldaice versus.

90

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR [8], 686, [4] pp., 28 cm. ES. References: C2.35 (‘sous presse’), C3.24 (8 Fr.), C4.26 (8 Fr.), C5.19 (8 Fr.), C5R (175 Fils). Notes: 1. Translated by T. Audo. 2. Seven hundred copies were printed (Fiey, 168). Copies: ICOR (275.59 A916), USJ (18A1).

31

‫ܕ‬

‫ܬܐ ܕܪܒ ܗܘܪ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܐܒܐ ܐܪ ܐ‬

‫͔ ܕ‬ͶͶ͹͸ ‫ܬܘܪܨ‬

Grammaire chaldéenne par Jérémie Makdasi prêtre de la Congrégation de Saint Hormisdas. 225, [7] pp., 22 cm. ES. References: C3.26 (3 Fr. 50 cent.), C4.31 (3 Fr. 50 cent.), Macuch, 409. Notes: 1. The preface is dated Mosul, 9 August 1887. 2. The grammar, in classical Syriac, is derived from the works of Hunayn, Elia of Soba, John bar Zobi, and Bar Hebraeus (preface, p. 5). Copies: ICOR (275.82 M235), USJ (105D2). Reprinted: Atour Publications [2007]. 1890

ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܒ‬. ܵ ܵ ‫ܕܬܘܪ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܕܬܪܝ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ͔͗ΕͲ ܹ ܸ ܼ

32

Abrégé d’histoire sainte en langue chaldéenne vulgaire. Deuxième édition. 73, 3 pp., 16 cm. ES. References: C3.26 (75 cent.), C4.31 (75 cent.). Notes: The first edition was no. 19 above (1883), the fourth no. 82 below. Copies: BL (753.a.11; Moss, 120). 1891 33

‫̈ܐ‬

‫̈ܐ ܐܘ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܐ ܐܪ ܐ ܒ‬

‫̈ܪ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܘ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬

Tableaux synoptiques des conjugaisons, des dérivés et des déclinations. 86 pp., 22 cm. ES.

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

91

References: C4.30 (though does not say 2nd ed.; 1 Fr. 50 cent.), C5.24 (1.50 Fr.), C5R (30 Fils). Notes: Reprint of no. 17 above (1882). Copies: USJ (105D2). 34

‫ܵ ܵܐ‬

ܿ ‫͔͗ ܿܕ ̈ܨ ܵ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܿܕ ܿ ܿ ܒ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܿܐܕܝ‬ΕͲ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ

Livre des prières en langue chaldéenne, par Addé Ibrahina, Prêtre Chaldéen. 303 pp., 16 cm. ES. References: C3.25 (2 Fr. 50 cent.), C4.28 (2 Fr. 50 cent.), Macuch, 402. Notes: ‘Addé Ibrahina’ is Addai Scher, who came from the village of Šanqlāwā. Copies: John Rylands Library, Manchester (L248 Ab82), USJ (8F2). 35

‫̈ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܒܐ‬

Livre de lecture syrienne. Quatrième édition. 115 pp., 17 cm. WS. References: C3.30 (1 Fr. 20 cent.), Oussani, 93. Notes: 1. Other editions are nos. 7 (1st) and 12 (2nd) above, and 51 (5th) below. The third edition is unrecorded. 2. Contents include various short biblical passages, excerpts from Barhebraeus’ secular chronicle, some memrē attributed to Ephrem and his pupil Isaac, and Cyrillona on the crucifixion. Copies: OCLC (65712148). 36

ͮ͠‫͖ ܕܕܘ‬Μͣ͸ͤ͸‫͔͗ ܕ‬ΕͲ

Psalterium juxta exemplar apud Chaldæos usurpatum. 22 cm. ES. Notes: 1. Another edition of the text of 1883 (no. 18). The title-page of this item has the words ƣǤǔƧƸLjƦ njƽ‫ ܕܬܪܬ‬ƣǤNjƦ‫ܨܠ ܙ‬ƲLjƦ ǕƧƷ‫ܐܬ‬ ̈ , making it the second Dominican printing. Since ̈ ƣƾǂƾNjƾLJ‫ܕܘ‬ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƱƦ‫ܕܐ‬ item 18 called itself the ‘deuxième édition,’ that is, counting the 1866 Chaldean press book as the first, the present item becomes the third. For the fourth edition see no. 83 below. Copies: École biblique (351.21).

92

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR 1892

‫ܐ‬

*37

‫ܐ‬

Petit catéchisme. 52 pp., 32°. WS. References: C3.30 (35 cent.), C4.35 (35 cent.). Notes: 1. Might be earlier: date from appearance in C3. 2. This is a West Syriac catechism, different from the East Syriac one, nos. 24, 72.

ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ܵ ܵܒܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܗܘܓ ܵܐ ܼ ܐ‬

38

Syllabaire chaldéen. Quatrième édition. 48 pp., 13 cm. ES. References: C4.29 (80 cent.). Notes: 1. Page-count from École biblique catalogue. 2. For the third edition see no. 21 above, and for the seventh no. 81 below. Copies: École biblique (278.91; 4 copies). 1893 39

ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ‫ܿ ܕ ܵ ܵܐ ܕ ܵ ̈ܐ ܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܼܿ ̣ ‫ܐܪܒ ܵܐ ܼ ܪ ܵ ܵܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸܕ ܵ ܿ ܣ‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܹ ‫ܕܕܪܓ ܵܘܢ ܼܕܐ‬ ܵ ܼܿ ܵ ܹ ܿ ‫ܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܬܪܨܗ ܝ ܬܐܘ ܐ ܐܘܕܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܕܐܘܪ‬ ܹ ܼ

Manuale Sacerdotum ex operibus P. Segneri, S.J. excerptum in Linguam Chaldaicam a D. Damiano, sacerdote Chaldaico olim translatum; nuper vero a Rmo D. Thoma Audo archiepiscopo Urmiensi revisum. Editio secunda. [8], 366, [6] pp., 22 cm. ES. References: C4.26 (5 Fr.), C5.20 (5 Fr.), C5R (75 Fils), Macuch, 103. Notes: The first edition is no. 16 above. (Audo’s elevation to the episcopate is now acknowledged in the title.) Copies: BL (753.e.36; Moss, 984). 1895 40

ܵ ‫ܿܐܓ ܬܐ ܿ ܿܘ‬ ͔ͲΑͮΑͩ· ͔ͯΓͯ͹ͥ ‫ͣܥ‬Γͮ͘͠΄ ΀͚ͯ‫͚ͯͣܪ‬ ‫ܝ‬Α͸‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ̄ ̈ ̈ ̈ ͽͯͼͲΕ͸‫͔ͮͯ ܕ‬Μͣ; ͔ͥ‫͔ͮ͠ ܕ ܬ ܐ‬ͶͲ ‫͠ͻ͔ͦͯ ܗ‬͸ ͔ͯͮΜͣ;‫ ܕ‬ͷ͗͘‫ܕ‬

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

93

‫ ܕܐܒ ܢ ̈ ܒ ܢ‬ΛͯͦͯͶΒ ΚΑ͚‫ ܕܐ‬ΛΏΈ͸ ‫ͮͼ͔ ܘ ܐ ܪ ܐ‬ΜͣͩͿͻ ͔Ϳͳͨ ‫ܪܘܬ‬ ‫͖ ܪ͔͗ ܕ‬Α͸ͣͲ .ͮ͜ .͔Έ· ̈ ‫ܘܢ‬Ζ ‫ܝ‬Α͸̈ ‫ܒ‬ .͔ͯͦͻ͠͸‫ܘͨͣͲͿ͔ ܕ‬

[Lettre pastorale de S. B. MGR Ebed-Jésus Khayath, Patriarche Chaldéen au Patriarche, aux Évêques, Prêtres et Fidèles du rite nestorien.] 57 pp., 23 cm. ES. References: C5.21 (1.50 Fr.), C5R (25 Fils), Macuch, 401, Oussani, 85. Notes: 1. Date 1895 from p. 57. 2. Two different letters. The first letter, pp. 1–36, by Mar Gewargis ‛Abdisho V dated Mosul 24 April 1895 (p. 36), is addressed to the clergy and people of the Church of the East and advocates their union with Rome. The second letter, pp. 37–57, by Pope Leo XIII dated Rome 30 November 1894 (p.56), is a Syriac version of the Encyclical ‘Orientalium dignitas ecclesiarum,’ which guaranteed the right of the Oriental churches to preserve their own liturgies and customs. Copies: BL (753.g.21 (7); Moss, 412, 619), USJ (38B2).

41

‫ܪ ܐ ܒܐ ̈ܝ ܬܐܘ ܐ ܐܘܕܘ‬

‫ܐܪܒ ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܘܕ ܐ ܕܐܬܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܘܪ‬

‫ܒܐ ܕ‬

Kalila et Dimna. Fables indiennes traduites en langue chaldéenne par Mgr. Thomas Audo, Archevêque Chaldéen d’Ourmia. 273, [2] pp., 18 cm. ES. References: C4.30 (2 Fr.), C5.23 (2 Fr.), C5R (35 Fils). Notes: In his short preface Audo notes that he translated it anew from the Arabic version printed by the Dominicans at Mosul (Albin no. 46; first edition 1869, second 1876, third 1883). It is in simplified Syriac designed for young people, rather than in neo-Aramaic, or ‘chaldéen vulgaire.’ Copies: BL (753.a.62; Moss, 199), USJ (95B3). Reprinted: The Syriac text of this translation was reprinted in vocalized WS script by the Bar Hebraeus Verlag, Glane/Losser 1989. 42

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ͔͗‫ܵ ܹ ܕܐ‬

̇ ̈ ΚͣͼΈͶ͸ ̣ ͢Ώ·‫ ܕܐ‬Κ͠΄‫͚͔ ܕ‬Μ‫ͼͰ ܕ‬Γ͹Γ͹͵ ̣ Ͱ͸‫·ͣ͵͔ͯͩ ܕܐܘܪ‬Αͩ͸ ‫ܪ ܵ ܵܐ ܬܐܘ ܐ ܐܘܕܘ‬ Ͱͻ‫͵ͣͮ΀ ܬܘ‬

Instruction pour les ministres de l’Église d’après le P. Louis Togni. Ouvrage traduit du Latin en langue Chaldéenne par Mgr. Thomas Audo

94

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR archevêque chaldéen d’Ourmia. 283, 2 pp., 24 cm. ES. References: C4.27 (5 Fr.), C5.20 (5 Fr.), C5R (65 Fils). Notes: 1. The Latin original is Instructio pro sacris Ecclesiae ministris (1819 and frequently reprinted). 2. C4: ‘Depuis longtemps déjà les membres du clergé oriental, ceux d’entre eux surtout qui ne connaissent pas les langues européennes, désiraient un manuel sérieux et abrégé pour la solution de bien des cas difficiles qui se présentent dans la pratique du ministère. Aussi ont-ils salué avec joie l’apparition de ce nouvel ouvrage. La sûreté de doctrine de l’auteur, la fidélité et la clarté de la traduction, les hautes approbations qu’a reçues ce manuel, tout concourt à en faire le vade-mecum quotidien des prêtres orientaux.’ Copies: BL (753.ee.2; Moss, 1091), USJ (18A1).

[‫ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ‬

43

ܵ ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫̈ ܵ ܬܐ ܕ ܼ ̈ܪ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬

ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫] ܵܒܐ ܕ‬

[Suprématie du Pape prouvée par la tradition de l’église syro-chaldéenne, par Pierre Aziz Hoh, ouvrage trad. en chaldéen par Jacques Eugene.] 99 pp., 8°. ES. References: C4.29 (60 cent.), C5.20 (0.60 Fr.), C5R (15 Fils). Notes: 1. The transcription of the title-page depends on old notes and may not be exact. 2. In C4 the author is described as M. l’abbé Hoh Prêtre Chaldéen, and in C5 as S.G. Mgr Petros Hoh, Archevêque Chaldéen.16 ‘Jacques Eugene’ is Jacques Eugene Manna. Copies: Goussen 548. 1896

͔ΏΓΈ͸ ͔ͮ‫ܐ ;ͣܕ‬

44

̈ ‫ܘͥͼ͔ͯ ܒ‬Μ ͔ͦͮ͠͸‫ܕ‬ ͔͗ΕͲ

Recueil de chants religieux en langue chaldéenne vulgaire. 390, 6 pp., 20 cm. ES. References: C4.28–9 (2 Fr.), C5.22 (2 Fr.), C5R (Épuisé), Macuch, 105.

Oussani, 88, refers to Putrus Aziz Hoh, of Mosul, as being ‘at present’ (1901) in Aleppo, Syria. 16

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

95

Notes: 1. Part I (pp. 5–247) is said to be by David of Nuhadra, d. 1889; part 2 (p.248–390) by David Bareznaya of Khani Palan. 2. In fact, the real author of these songs may well have been the French Dominican missionary, Jacques Rhétoré. In the manuscript copy of the preface to his Grammaire de la langue soureth, which is rather longer than that printed (no. 74 below), he writes: ‘Lors de la publication des Fables et des Cantiques, je me trouvais attaché à l’École biblique de Jérusalem. L’impression se fit sans m’informer et on servit de textes écrits par des scribes ignorants auxquels joignirent leurs lumières des correcteurs sans méthode... De plus, les Fables et les Cantiques furent imprimés sous le nom de David l’Aveugle qui m’avait aidé dans mes compositions, et on donna à cela pour raison que, grâce au nom de David, ces livres seraient mieux accueillis par les indigènes. Je me trouvais ainsi dépouillé de mon travail personnel, et de plus je le voyais gâté.’17 The same authorship was also stated by Fr Berré, the superior of the mission, in a lecture he gave in Paris in February 1910.18 Copies: BL (753.a.54; Moss, 285), Bod (Syr.e.19). Reprinted: Mosul 1954. 45

̈ ̈ ƿDžƽ‫͔ ܕ‬ΏΓΈ͸ ͔ͮ‫ͼ͔ ;ͣܕ‬ΓͶ͗ ͔ͯ͵ͣͳ;‫ܐ‬ Κ ͔͵Ε͸‫ܕ‬ ͔͗ΕͲ݇ ̈ ƥ‫ܗܕܪ‬ƲNJ‫͔ ܕܘͮ͠ Ͳͣܪ͖ ܕ‬Γ͹Γ͵ ƥƯƾƧǓ

Fables en langue chaldéenne vulgaire par Daoud l’Aveugle de MarYacoub. 143 pp., 20 cm. ES. References: C4.30 (1 Fr.), Macuch, 105. Notes: 1. ‘Daoud l’Aveugle’ is David of Nuhadra, d. 1889; but the real author appears to have been Jacques Rhétoré, O.P. (see note 2 to the previous item). Copies: BL (753.a.55; Moss, 285), Bod (Syr.e.20), USJ (105D5). Reprinted: Mosul 1954 (ICOR 275.7 D269); Atour Publications [2005]. 46

ΛͩͯΓ· ΛΏΈ͸ ʹͮ‫ ܐ‬Κͥ͠ ͔ΎΕͮ‫͔͗ ܕܕ‬ΕͲ

Le Nouveau Testament d’après la Pschitta.

17 J. Rhétoré (ed. J. Alichoran), Les chrétiens aux bêtes: Souvenirs de la guerre sainte proclamée par les Turcs contre les chrétiens en 1915 (Paris 2005), 236. 18 Fiey, 171.

96

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR 2 vols., 18 cm. ES. 1896, 1898, as follows: *1. Les Saints Évangiles d’après la Pschitta.

ܿ ‫] ܵ ܵܒܐ‬ [‫ܕܐܘ ܿ ܼܓ ܼ ܿ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼܹ

568 pp., 1896. 2. Les Actes des Apôtres, les Épitres, l’Apocalypse d’après la Pschitta.

: ‫ܣܘ‬

̈ ̈ ‫ͨͣ͗ͼ͔ ܘܕܐܓ ܬܐ ܕ‬ ͔ͦͯͶΒ‫ܕ‬ ΀ͯͿͲΑ·‫͔͗ ܕ‬ΕͲ ΛͩͯΓ· ΛΏΈ͸ ‫ܘܕܓ ܐ ܐ‬

698, [2] pp., 1898. References: C4.38 (‘Le Saint Évangile,’ i.e., vol. 1 only; sous presse); C5.17 (each vol., 3 Fr.), C5R (each vol., 60 Fils). Notes: 1. The first volume appears to have 1896 on the title-page (but may actually have been printed in 1897; see comment in C4). The second volume is dated 1898 on the French title-page and 1897 on the Syriac title-page. It is not clear whether the two parts were ever issued together with a single title-page. 2. Not to be confused with no. 55 below, a West Syriac New Testament. Copies: Bibliothèque Œcuménique et Scientifique d’Études Bibliques (4913 PSC; vol. 1 only), Bod (N.T. Syr.e.2; vol. 2 only). 47

ܿ ‫ܬ̈ܪ ܿܘܢ ܸ ܹ̈ܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ̱ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܵܐ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼܬ‬

̈ ܵ ‫͔͗ ܕ ܵ ܿ ܹ̈ܐ ܓ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܕ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵܐܪ ܵ ܵܐ‬ΕͲ ‫ܘ ܿ ܼ ̱ ܵܒ ܹ ܐ‬

‫ﺏ ﺍﻻﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﳉﻠﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﻣﻴّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻼ ﻣﺬﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴّﲔ‬ ٌ ‫ﻛﺘٰﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴّﲔ ﺗﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻭﺟﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺪﺍﱐ‬

Cours de langue araméenne selon les deux dialectes syriaque et chaldaïque. 2, 352, 4 pp., 12°. References: C5.24 (5 Fr.), C5R (125 Fils), Macuch, 408. Notes: 1. The grammar is in Arabic, with Syriac paradigms. 2. On the non-French title-page, the Arabic title is written above the Syriac. 3. C5 describes this as ‘Cours élémentaire.’ 4. The author ‘Q. Jacob Awgen the Chaldean’ is J. A. Manna (see no. 57 below).

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

97

Copies: SOAS (QMI418/10030). Reprinted: Babel Center Publications, Beirut 1975. 48

49

Grammatica Aramaica seu Syriaca philologice exposita juxta utrumque systema, orientale scilicet et occidentale, collatis Arabica, Hebraica cæterisque linguis Semiticis, atque præmissis copiosissimis prolegomenis de variis quæstionibus linguam Syriacam respicientibus. Quam auctor C. J. David Archiepiscopus Syrus Damasii ex prima sua editione Arabica, collaborante in parte Aloysio Rahmani Archiepiscopo Syro Alepensi. Latinam fecit, magnopere locupletavit ac appendice de prosodia syriaca auxit. 729, 7 pp., 22 cm. Latin, with WS and ES. References: C4.38 (sous presse), C5.27 (12 Fr.), C5R (175 Fils), Vosté, 278– 9 no. 14. Notes: 1. There is no Syriac or Arabic title-page. 2. A Latin version of David’s grammar (no. 13), dedicated to him (he died in 1890). Copies: Bod (Syr.d.63), OCLC (3667291).

ܰ ‫ܽܬ‬ ‫ܬ̈ܪ ܽܘܢ‬ ̣

Α͗ Ή;ͣͮ

ܺ ‫ܳ ܐ ܰܐܘ‬ ‫̣ܽ ܪ ܳ ܳܐ‬ ܺ ܺ ‫ܒ ܺ ܳܐ ܳ ܝ‬

ܳ ‫ܳ ܳ ܐ ܳ ܳܐܪ‬ ‫ܳܒ ܶܐ ܰܕ‬

ܶ ‫ ܕ‬Κͥ͠ ͰΏͯͩ͹͸Α͚ ܰ ‫ܶ ̈ ܶ ܐ ܕ ܰ ̈ ܳ ܶܐ ܺ ܘ‬

‫Ϳͣܩ‬͸‫·ͣ͵͔ͯͩ ܕܕܪ‬Αͩͯ͸ ͮ͠‫ܕܘ‬

‫ﺏ ﺍﻟﱡﻠﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻼ ﻣﺬﻫﱯ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴّﲔ‬ ٌ ‫ﻛﺘٰﺎ‬ .‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴّﲔ ﺗﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﺍﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ ﻣﻄﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﻣﺸﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻘﹼﺤﺔ ﻭﻣﺰﺑﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﺬﻳّﻠﺔ ﲞﺎﲤﺔ ﰲ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ‬

Grammaire de la langue araméenne selon les deux dialectes syriaque et chaldaique précédée d’un abrégé de l’histoire de la langue de l’écriture et de la littérature araméennes par Sa Grandeur Mgr. David Archevêque syrien de Damas. Deuxième édition revue corrigée et augmentée. 2 vols., 23 cm. Arabic, with WS and ES. 1896–8, as follows: 1. Premier volume, ‫ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﹼﺪ ﺍﻻﻭّﻝ‬, 479, [3] pp., 1896. 2. Deuxième volume, ‫ﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﹼﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬, [6], 414, [6] pp., 1898. References: C4.38 (sous presse), C5.27 (chaque volume 7 Fr.; Même ouvrage en un seul volume 7 Fr.), C5R (chaque volume 100 Fils;

98

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR Même ouvrage en un seul volume 175 Fils), Macuch, 424, Vosté, 278 no. 132. Notes: 1. Vol. 1 is dated 1896. It is not clear whether the reference in C4 implies that it had not yet been finished by 1897, or just that the second volume had not yet been printed. 2. Title pages in order French, Arabic, Syriac. 3. An expanded edition of no. 13 above. See no. 48 for a Latin version. Copies: Bod (Syr.d.64), ICOR (275.82 D249). 1897

*50

[ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܵ ܵ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܘ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘܒ ܼ ̈ܪ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܼܿܕܐ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܼܿܕܘܪܕ ܵܐ‬

[La confrérie du Très-Saint Rosaire en chaldéen vulgaire.] 46 pp., 16°. ES. References: C4.28 (60 cent.), C5.22 (0.60 Fr.), C5R (10 Fils). Notes: May be earlier than 1897: date from appearance in C4. *51

ܿ

ܼ]

ܳ ܶ [‫] ܳܒܐ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܕ ܶ ܳ ܳ ܐ ܰ ܳ ̈ܐ‬

[Livre de lecture syrienne. Cinquième édition.] 115 pp., 8°. WS. References: C4.35 (1 Fr. 20 cent.), C5.27 (1.20 Fr.), C5R (Épuisé). Notes: 1. May be earlier than 1897: date from appearance in C4. 2. For earlier editions, see nos. 7, 12, 35 above. 52

͔ͩͯ͵ͣ·Αͩͯ͸ ‫͔ ܐܘܕܘ‬͸‫ܘ‬Κ ͯ͗͠ ͔ͯͮ‫ͼ͔ ;ͣܪ‬Γ͵‫ ܕ‬Λ͹ͯ; Ͱ͸‫ܕܐܘܪ‬

Dictionnaire de la langue chaldéenne par Monseigneur Thomas Audo Archevêque Chaldéen d’Ourmia. 2 vols., 35 cm. ES. 1897, 1901, as follows: ‫ܟ‬-‫ ܐ‬Λͯ͸͠Ύ Κͣ͛Ͷ·, Premier volume, 15, 492 pp., 1897. ‫ܬ‬-‫ ܠ‬Λͯͼͮ‫ ܬܪ‬Κͣ͛Ͷ·, Deuxième volume, 638 pp. (of which first 4 are title-pages; text starting on p.5), [1901]. References: C4.31 (chaque volume 25 Fr., ‘le premier volume seul a paru’), C5.25 (‘chaque volume 20 Fr.’), C5R (500 Fils)

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

99

Notes: 1. The introduction is printed in a single column, the text in double columns. 2. Both volumes have 1897 on the title-pages (both Syriac and French), but vol. 2 was almost certainly published in 1901. C4 (1897) mentions only vol. 1, and Oussani (1901, p. 86) states ‘The second volume of this very learned and important work ... is to appear this year.’ (The Bodleian accession date for vol. 1 is 7.2.1899, and for vol. 2 is 24.1.1902.) 3. This is one of the most important Syriac lexica yet published, and it contains significantly more items than the largest European lexica. Copies: Bod (OR RR Z.Sy.9), USJ (209A5), OCLC (4472320). Reprinted: It has been reprinted as a single volume three times: Assyrian Language and Culture Classes Incorporated (Chicago 1978); The Assyrian Federation in Sweden (Stockholm 1979); The Bar Hebraeus Press, St. Ephrem the Syrian Monastery (Losser [Netherlands] 1985). 1898 53

͔ͯͦͯΓ͸ ͔ͼΈ͵ͣͮ‫͔͗ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܵܐ ܕ‬ΕͲ

Explication abrégée de la doctrine chrétienne. 165, [8] pp., 14 cm. ES. Notes: 1. In Soureth. A catechism of questions and answers, in 3 sections. 2. An Arabic work of the same title was published by the press in 1863 (Albin no. 1), and a third edition in 1885 (Albin no. 11). Copies: Bod (Syr.f.7).

‫ܒܐ ܕ‬

54

Exercises de lecture chaldéenne. 256 pp., 22 cm. ES. Notes: Macuch, 403 ascribes a ‘chrestomathy and glossary’ to A. Scher, dated 1897 (not 1898); but perhaps this is it. Copies: USJ (105D2). 55

ΛͩͯΓ· ΛΏΈ͸ ʹͮ‫ ܐ‬Κͥ͠ ͔ΎΕͮ‫͔͗ ܕܕ‬ΕͲ

Le Nouveau Testament d’après la Pschitto.

100

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR 2 vols., 16 cm. WS. 1898–1900, as follows: *1. [Les Saints Évangiles]

[‫̣ ܐ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫] ܒܐ ܕܐܘ ܓ‬

688 pp., 1898. 2. Les Actes des Apôtres, les Épitres, et l’Apocalypse d’après la Pschitto.

‫ܐ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܒ ̈ܐ ܘܕܐܓ ܬܐ ܕ‬

‫̈ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫͔͗ ܕ‬ΕͲ] [‫ܘܕܓ ܐ‬

840 pp., 1900. References: C5.26 (vol.1, 4 Fr.; vol.2, 5 Fr.), C5R (each vol., 60 Fils). Notes: 1. The description of this item is tentative. We have seen copies of the title-pages of vol. 2, Syriac and French, both dated 1900; and of the corresponding two title-pages for the whole New Testament, both dated 1898. The title for vol. 1, and all page-counts, come from C5. 2. This item is to be distinguished from the East Syriac New Testament of 1896–8, no. 46 above. Copies: École biblique (352.01, both vols.). 1900 56

ܿ ‫ܵܐ‬ [‫ܘܐܘ ܿ ܼܓ ܼ ܿ ܹ̈ܐ‬ ܼܹ ܼ

‫ܿܣ‬

ܵ ‫] ܵ ܐ ܘܐܓ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܕ‬ ܸ ܹ ܸ

[Leçons, Épitres et Évangiles pour la messe chaldéenne.] 3 vols., 30 cm. ES. ̇ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܐͮʹ ΄͖ͯ͠ ܕ ܵܬܐ‬ΛͼΒ ͢ͶͲ‫ܕ‬ ̈ 1. ͔ΓͮΝ· Λ͸ͣͮ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ

̈ ͔ͮ͠ͶͲ ‫ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܕܗͻͣܢ‬

ܿ ͔ͼͮΝΎ ܼ ‫ܕ ܼ ̈ܪ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬

Lectiones quæ per totum anni decursum ab Ecclesia Syrorum Orientalium id est Chaldæorum in Missa adhiberi solent. [Old Testament and Acts] [iv], 195, 6 pp. *2. Epistolae apostoli Pauli quae per totum anni decursum ab Ecclesia Syrorum Orientalium id est Chaldæorum in missa leguntur. 151 pp. ̇ ̈ ̈ 3. ͔ͻͣͯͶ͛ͻ‫ܐܘ‬ ͖ͯ͠΄ ʹͮ‫ ܐ‬ΛͼΒ ͢ͶͲ‫ܕ‬ ͔ΓͮΝ· Λ͸ͣͮ‫ܕ‬

̈ ͔ͮ͠ͶͲ ‫ܕ ܹ ܿ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܼ ̈ܪ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܕܗͻͣܢ‬

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

101

Sancta evangelia quae per totum anni decursum ab Ecclesia Syrorum Orientalium id est Chaldæorum in missa leguntur. [4], 249, [7] pp. References: C5.18 (each vol. 10 Fr.), C5R (each vol. 500 Fils). Notes: Imprimaturs of vol.1 and of vol.3 are both dated 15 August 1900. Copies: BL (753.ee.23; Moss 641, vol.1 only), Goussen 46 (3 vols.), École biblique (363.41, vols. 2–3). Reprinted: vol.3 Paris 1977. 57

‫ܼܿ ܵܐ‬

ܵ ܿ ‫ܐܘܓ‬ ܹ ‫ܒ‬

ܼܿ ‫ܵ ܹ̈ ܐ ܕ ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬

ܵܵ ܿ ̣ ‫ܗܕ͓͕ͮ ܕ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܐܪ ܵ ܵܐ ܼ ܵ ܵܐ‬

‫ﱐ‬ ‫ ﰲ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﻣﻴﲔ ﺗﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻭﺟﲔ َﻣﻨّﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺪﺍ ﹼ‬: ‫ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻏﺒﲔ‬ ‫ﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻌﻠﹼﻤﻲ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻣﺎﺭ ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻻﻛﻠﲑﻳﻜﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻞ‬

Vocabulaire chaldéen-arabe par l’abbé Jacques Eugène Manna Professeur au Séminaire Syro-Chaldéen à Mossoul. 24, 873 pp., 23 cm. ES and Arabic. References: C5.25 (6 Fr.), C5R (300 Fils). Notes: French title-page before joint Syriac/Arabic title-page. Copies: BL (14589.a.19; Moss 706), Bod (Syr.e.25), ICOR (275.85 M282). Reprinted: Babel Center Publications (Beirut 1975), with a major appendix by Fr (later Patriarch) R. J. Bidawid. 1901

58

‫ܼ ܵܕ ܹ ̈ ܐ ܐͮʹ ΄͖ͯ͠ ܕ ܹ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܼ ̈ܪ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬

ܵ ܵ ‫ܙ͕ ܿ ܬ‬Μ‫ͨͳͿ͔ ܕܐ‬ ܼ ̈ ͔ͮ͠ͶͲ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܕܗͻͣܢ‬

Missale juxta ritum Ecclesiæ Syrorum Orientalium id est Chaldaeorum. ES. [ii], 406 pp., 29 cm. References: C5.18 (Avec Proprium, 18 Fr.; Sans Proprium, 5 Fr.), C5R (Avec Proprium, 675 Fils; Sans Proprium, 300 Fils); E.-K. Delly, ‘L’édition du Missel chaldéen de 1901,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 23 (1957), 159–70.; Oussani, 85. Notes: 1. Rubricated text; tailpieces; title-page in red and black in ornamental border. With added title-page in Syriac. 2. The Latin title-page is not included in the Syriac numbering of pages, unlike the Syriac title-page.

102

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR 3. Contents: ordinary of the mass (with the Chaldean adaptations of the three anaphoras of Addai and Mari, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius), pp. 1–96; proper of the mass, pp. 97– 406. The ordinary was also issued separately. 4. The title-page gives the date 1901, but the book was not issued until April 1902 (Delly, 170). The Syriac imprimatur (Joseph Emmanuel II) is dated 15 August 1900 (as also in no. 52 above, vols. 1, 3), the Latin imprimatur (Henricus Altmayer, Abp of Babylon) 22 October 1901. 5. According to Fiey, 169, in 1900 the Turkish authorities seized essential materials from the press, and interfered in various ways in its operation. The Turkish customs only released necessary printing supplies in July 1902, and it is likely that the discrepancy in the dates of the Syriac and Latin imprimaturs is due to such factors. (There are similar delays with the printing of other books at this period.) Copies: BL (753.g.101; Moss, 642), Bod (1380.c.3), ICOR (275.64 S995), USJ (24E2). Reprinted: Mosul 1936 (Delly, 170); Missel Chaldéen (Eglise catholique chaldéenne, Paris 1982) which reprints the 96 pp. of the ordinary, with 332 pp. of French translation and additional materials by F. Alichoran; Atour Publications [c. 2005] (96 pp. of the ordinary).

59

‫ܼܿ ܵܐ‬

ܵ ‫ܐܘܓ‬ ܹ ‫ܼܒ‬

̈ ܿ ܼ ‫͔ͯ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬͸Μ‫ ܕܐ‬Κ‫ܕܘ‬Α͸‫·͛ͯͼ͔ͯ ܕ‬ ͔͚Ν͸

‫ﺍﳌﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﻟﻨُﺰﻫﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺁﺩﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﻣﻴﺔ ﺗﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻭﺟﲔ َﻣﻨّﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺪﺍﱐ ﺍﺣﺪ ﺗﻼﻣﺬﺓ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﺮﻳﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻌﻠﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻣﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻻﻛﻠﲑﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻞ‬

Morceaux choisis de littérature araméenne par l’abbé Jacques Eugène Manna prêtre chaldéen à Mossoul. 2 vols., 22 cm. ES. 1901–2: vol. 1, [4], 353, [7] pp., 1901. vol. 2, [4], 450, [8] pp., 1902. References: C5.24 (les deux volumes, 8 Fr.), C5R (225 Fils). Notes: 1. Although the French and Syriac/Arabic title-pages of the second volume give the same year of publication as the first volume, 1901, the reproductions of these on the printed wrappers give the date as 1902.

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

103

2. An important collection of excerpts from Syriac authors. Vol. 1 contains selections from: Aphrahat, Ephrem, Marutha of Maipherqat, Isaac of Antioch, Cyrilona, Narsai, Jacob of Serugh, Yukhannan of Amid, Ishoyabh of Hedayab. Volume 2 contains selections from: Isaac of Nineveh, Jacob of Edessa, Patriarch Timothy I, Thomas of Marga, Honain ibn Ishaq, Anton Rhetor, Elia of Anbar, Emmanuel bar Shahare, Philoxenus of Mabbugh, Patriarch Elia III, Cause of all Causes, Gewargis Warda, Khamis bar Qardahe, Yuhannan bar Madani, Bar Hebraeus, and Abdisho of Nisibis. Copies: BL (753.d.3; Moss 706), Bod (Syr.d.62), ICOR (275.81 M282), OCLC (47917632, 40972822). Reprinted: Baghdad: Matabaat al-mašriq 1977. Atour Publications [c. 2006]. 1902

ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ‫ܕܨ ܵ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܕ‬ ̈ ܼܿ ‫ܵ ܵܒܐ‬

60

Prières du matin et du soir en langue chaldéenne vulgaire. Troisième édition. 16 pp., 15 cm. ES. References: C5.21 (0.25 Fr.), C5R (5 Fils). Notes: For the second edition see no. 29 above. Copy: École biblique (715.92). 1903 61

̈ Λ̈ͯͻ‫ ΄͠ܬ‬ΛΓ͹Β‫ܕܬ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ͮ͠ܥ‬Ε͸‫ ܘ‬Αͩ;‫͔ ܘܕ‬͹ͯͦΒ Λ͸ͣͮ‫ܕ‬ ͔Ϳͳͨ ‫ܪ‬Ε͗‫͠ܡ ܘܕ‬Ύ‫͔͗ ܕ‬ΕͲ

[Vespéral.] 244, 4 pp., 21 cm. ES. References: C5.18 (red and black ink, 7 Fr.; black ink only, 5 Fr.), C5R (relié, 140 Fils [only one price given]). Notes: The ordinary of the Chaldean daily offices, except the Psalter, known as Qdām w-bāthar. Copies: BL (753.b.59; Moss, 640).

104

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR 1904

62

͔ͼͲͣΒ ‫ܕ‬Α΅;‫ ܕ‬ΑͯΒ ‫͔ ܐܕܝ‬Ͷͯͦ͹͵ ͷ͚ͮ͠‫ ܕ‬ͺͮΑ͸ ‫ܬܝ‬Α͸‫͔ ܕ‬ͶͯͶͲ ͔͸ͣ͸ ͔͵‫ ܕ‬Εͼͯͩ͗ Λ͵‫ܘ‬Ε͘͵ ͔͸ͣͯ; ͽ͸

[La couronne de Marie. Recueil de textes d’auteurs syriaques à l’occasion de la Fête de l’Immaculée Conception.] Issued in two formats: (a) 4°: 59, 1 pp., 29 cm.; and (b) 8°: 68 pp., the latter not seen. ES. References: C5.22 (4°, 3 Fr.; 8°, 1.50 Fr.), C5R (8°, 25 Fils), Macuch, 403. Notes: 1. Title-page in red and gold; other page-borders in blue. 2. Many quotations from church fathers. Compiled by Addai Scher of Seert. Copies: BL (753.k.32; Moss, 970–1; = 4° form), USJ (8F2). 1905 63

̈ ܼ ‫ܿ ܼ ܿܘܢ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܿܕܙ‬ ܼ ̈ܵ ‫ܬܕܐ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵܣ‬ ܹ ܼ ̈ ‫ܵܬ ܵ ܵܐ ܼܕܐܒ ܬܐ ܕܘ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬

ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕ ܼܿ ܵ ܵܐ ܼ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܸ ‫;Ͱ ܿܐܘ‬Αͻ ܿ ‫ܘܬܪܨ ܸܵܐ ܵ ܿ ܵܢ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܡ ܸܐ ܿ ܢ ܵ ܵ ܼܒ ܹܪ‬ ܸ ܼܵܵ ܵ ܹ ‫ܒܒ ܕܪ ܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܸ ܐ ܐܪ ܐ‬

͔ͮΝͦ͸ ܵ ͖Ν͸͓͸ ‫ܙ ܿ ܼ ̈ ܿ ܒܐ ܼ ܵ ܿܐ ܵ ܼܿܕ ܵ ܵܒܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܪ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܼܕܒ ܸܨܠ‬

Narsai Doctoris Syri Homiliæ et Carmina primo edita cura et studio D. Alphonsi Mingana professoris linguae syriacæ in seminario fratrum prædicatorum mausiliensi cum præfatione editoris. 2 vols., 25 cm. ES. vol. 1, [2], 60, 368, [2] pp. vol. 2, [4], 411, [3] pp. References: C5.21 (16 Fr.), C5R (300 Fils), K. Samir, Alphonse Mingana 1878–1937 (Birmingham 1990), 8–9. Notes: 1. Mingana’s preface is dated 2 Dec. 1904. 2. Fiey, 170, states that the second volume was published in 1906, but Chabot reviewed both volumes in the Journal asiatique X.6 of July-August 1905, and Mingana’s response (no. 66 below) was itself printed in 1906. Copies: BL (753.ee.1; Moss 784), Bod (OI 735.61 NAR), ICOR (275.57 M664), OCLC (68740316). 64

Clef de la langue araméenne ou grammaire complète et pratique des deux dialectes syriaques occidental et oriental par L’Abbé Alphonse

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

105

Mingana, Professeur de syriaque au Séminaire syro-chaldéen de Mossoul. xvi, 197, 37 pp., 25 cm. French, ES, WS. References: C5.25 (5 Fr.), C5R (450 Fils). Notes: In the preface (dated 9 October 1905) it is noted that the French was corrected by Father Sébastien Scheil, OP. Copies: BL (753.b.60; Moss, 756), Bod (Syr. d.65), ICOR (275.82 M664) OCLC (28154742). Reprinted: Jerusalem: Makor c. 1975 (BnF [4–X-4277]). 65

Catalogue des mss. syriaques et arabes conservés dans la Bibliothèque épiscopale de Séert, Kurdistan, avec notes bibliographiques par Mgr. Addaï Scher. 101, 1 pp. Copies: BL (753.b.57; Moss 983), Bod (259046.3.Siirt 1.1), ICOR (Hyvernat Misc 81, 13), OCLC (4137557). 1906

66

Réponse à Mr l’Abbé J. B. Chabot à propos de la Chronique de Barḥadhbšabba par A. Mingana (Voir Journal Asiatique No Juillet-Août 1905). 19 pp., 22 cm. French with some use of ES. References: K. Samir, Alphonse Mingana (Birmingham 1990), 9–10. Notes: Mingana’s response to Chabot’s review article of his edition of Narsai (no. 63 above), published in the Journal asiatique X.6 (1905), 157–177. This was almost entirely dedicated to an (unfavourable) assessment of the historical value of a fragment attributed to Barḥadhbšabba relating to the early history of the School of Nisibis which Mingana included in his preface. Copies: BL (753.b.27(2); Moss, 758). 1907

67

ΛΓͮ͠Ύ Κ͠΄‫ ܐͮʹ ΄͖ͯ͠ ܕ‬ΛΓͮ͠Ύ̈ Λͮ‫ͣܕ‬͹΅͸‫ܕܐܪܙ͕ ܕ‬ ͔Ϳͳͨ ̈ ͔ͮ͠ͶͲ ‫͠ͻ͔ͦͯ ܕܗͻͣܢ‬͸ ͔ͯͮΜͣ;‫ܕ‬ [Baptismal service.] [2], 62 pp., 30 cm.

106

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR ES. Notes: 1. Subtitle on p. 1:

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܝܐ ܐ‬

‫ܝ‬

‫ܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܘܐܬ ܪ ܒ ܪ‬

2. In two columns, in black and red. P. 61 is in Karshuni (in East Syriac letters). 3. The imprimatur by Joseph Emmanuel II is dated Mosul 15 August 1907. Copies: BL (753.ee.22; Moss 643), ICOR (275.65C436). Reprinted: Atour Publications [c. 2005]. 68

‫̈ܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ ܕܗ ܢ‬

‫ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕ ܬܐ‬

‫ ܕܒ ܪ ܐ ܐ‬ƣǎǂƷ

[Marriage service.] 23 cm. ES. Copies: John Rylands Library, Manchester (R44214), USJ (24E2).

‫̈ܐ‬

69 [Burial service.] 30 cm. ES. Copies: Goussen 52, USJ (24E2).

‫ ܕ‬ƣǎǂƷ

̈ ̈ ͔ͻ͢Ͳ‫ܕ‬ ͔ͮͮ͠‫ܕܐ‬ ͔͗ΕͲ

70

[Occasional offices.] 93, 2 pp., 22 cm. ES. Notes: 1. Contents in detail are given by Moss (mostly anointings and blessings). 2. The preface by Joseph Emmanuel II is dated Mosul 15 August 1907. Copies: BL (753.ee.24; Moss, 643–4), ICOR (275.65 C436), USJ (24E1). *71

ܼܿ ܼܿ ‫ܼܿ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬

ܿ̈ ܼ ܵ

̣

ܼܿ

ܼܿ

̣

ܵܵ

ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫ܵܒܐ ܕ‬

Méditations pour chaque jour du mois de Marie, traduit de l’arabe par S. G. MGR Francis David. 268 pp., 16°. ES. References: C5.22 (2 Fr.), C5R (35 Fils), Macuch, 412. Notes: 1. Alfonse Muzzarelli (1749–1813), Il mese di Maria o sia di Maggio (Ferrara 1785), was translated into Arabic by Lebbaus al-Mutaini

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

107

(d.1790; cf. Graf III.473). It was first published in Rome in 1842, and subsequently in many editions in Jerusalem and Beirut, and by the press in Mosul in 1876 and 1883 (Albin no. 18). 2. C5 adds the note that David was an ‘Ancien Élève du Séminaire Syro-Chaldéen de Mossoul.’ Copies: OLRC, Selly Oak (MC H892.3). 1908 72

Sources syriaques. Vol. I. Mšiḥa-Zkha (texte et traduction), Bar-Penkayé (texte), par A. Mingana professeur de syriaque au Séminaire SyroChaldéen. xi, 271, viii, 204 pp., 21 cm. French and ES. References: K. Samir (see on no. 63 above), 12–14. Notes: 1. At bottom of the title-page is printed: ‘Se vend chez Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig.’ No further volumes were published. 2. Mingana’s preface to the first section is dated (p. xi) Mosul, June 1907. His preface to the second part (p.viii) is dated Mosul, January 1908. 3. The chronicle of Mšiḥa-Zkha runs to p.168. It is followed (pp.169–271) by a history in verse of the monastery of Beth Qoqa (text and translation). The second section of the volume (viii, 204 pp.) contains the Ktābā d-rish mellē of Yohannan bar Penkaye, with a French translation of chapter 15. 4. For a recent account of the controversial history of the chronicle of Mšiḥa-Zkha, or the Chronicle of Arbela, here first published by Mingana, see C. and F. Jullien, ‘La Chronique d’Arbèles. Propositions pour la fin d’une controverse,’ in Oriens Christianus 85 (2001), 41– 83. 5. A sentence in a note to Mingana’s translation (p.78 n.1) in which he questioned the historicity of Mar Mari infuriated the Chaldean Patriarch, who considered himself to be the heir to this apostle. The sentence had to be omitted from copies sold in the Middle East, and Mingana himself lost his position at the seminary. (Addaï Scher was also censured for having authorised the publication of the book.) Copies: BL (753.c.34; Moss, 758), OCLC (20060501).

108

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR

ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵܐ ܒ‬ ܼ ܼ

73

‫ܵ ܵܐ‬

ܵ ܼ ‫ܵܒܐ ܕ‬

Petit catéchisme en langue chaldéenne vulgaire. Quatrième tirage. 32 pp., 17 cm. ES. References: C5.19 (0.75 Fr), C5R (10 Fils). Notes: In 12 sections; different from the 1898 catechism. The 2nd ed. is no. 24 above. The 3rd ed. is unrecorded. Copies: Bod (Syr.f.8). 1912 74

Grammaire de la Langue Soureth ou Chaldéen Vulgaire selon le dialecte de la plaine de Mossoul et des pays adjacents. Par le P. J. Rhétoré des PP. Dominicains, Missionnaire en Kurdistan. [2], xxi, 276 pp., 22 cm. French and ES. References: C5.24 (3.50 Fr.), C5R (375 Fils [?]). Notes: In French. Includes a chrestomathy captioned ‘Appendice de Morceaux divers,’ pp. 239–60. Copies: BL (753.b.62; Moss, 924–5), Bod (Syr.e.58), ICOR (275.87R472), OCLC (7521462, 56008564). Reprinted: Atour Publications [2007]. 1913

75

‫ ܹ ܐ ܹ ܐ ܒ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹܪ‬.‫ܼ ܵ ܐ‬

ܿ ‫ ܕ ܵ ܼ ܢ ܼ ܿ ܥ‬ΚͣͯͶͨ ΑΈ;

Livre de l’enfance de Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Récits versifiés en langue Soureth. 72, [2] pp., 20 cm. ES. References: C5.19 (0.75 Fr.), C5R (30 Fils). Notes: By J. Rhétoré: the Syriac preface on pp. 7–9 (dated Mosul 15 May 1913) is addressed by Patriarch Joseph Emmanuel II to him. Copies: BL (753.b.61; Moss, 925). 1914 76

ܿ ̈ ̈ ͔ͦͮ͠͸‫ܕ‬ ͔͗ΕͲ ܼ ‫ܘͥͼ͔ͯ ܼܕ ܒ‬Μ ͔͗ΝΒ ͷ΄ ΛͦΒͣ͸‫ ܘ‬Λܵ ܵ ͯͲΜ‫ܘܕܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼܿ ‫ܐܒܐ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܒ ܹܪܗܬܘ ܹܪܐ ܕܘ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬

Cantiques et poesies diverses sur des sujets religieux en langue Soureth.

SYRIAC BOOKS PRINTED AT THE DOMINICAN PRESS, MOSUL

109

Par le P. Jacques Rhétoré des PP. Dominicains. [8], 207, [3] pp., 21 cm. ES. Notes: There is a lengthy printer’s note in Soureth on p. v. The preface by Joseph Emmanuel II (p. vii) is dated Mosul 15 June 1914. Copies: BL (753.ccc.16; Moss, 925). between 1897 and 1914 The following seven items appear in catalogue C5 (dated 1914) but not C4 (dated 1897). Their titles and other information come from C5. *77

[‫ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ‬

ܵ ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫̈ ܵ ܬܐ ܕ ܼ ̈ܪ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬

ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫] ܵܒܐ ܕ‬

[Calendarium juxta ritum ecclesiæ syrorum orientalium, id est Chaldæorum.] 16 pp. 8° ES. References: C5.20 (0.25 Fr.), C5R (5 Fils). *78

ܵ̄ ܿ [ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܒܐ̈ܪܙܐ ܼܿܕܘܪܕ ܵܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܹܐ‬

ܿ ܼ

[Méthode nouvelle pour réciter le Très-Saint Rosaire.] 48 pp. 32°. ES. References: C5.22 (0.20 Fr.), C5R (5 Fils). Notes: In ‘chaldéen vulgaire.’

‫]ܼܐܘܪ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܒ ܵ ܵܬܐ‬

ܵ [‫ܕܐܘܪ ܵܐ ܸܕܨ ܼ ܵܒܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫] ܵܒܐ ܕ ܸ ܵܒ ܹ ܐ‬

*79

[Chemin de la Croix, en Chaldéen vulgaire..] 48 pp., 18°. ES. References: C5.23 (0.60 Fr.), C5R (10 Fils). *80

[Tableaux de lecture Chaldéenne.] ‘Onze tableaux sur papier.’ ES. References: C5.23 (chaque tableau 0.25 Fr.), C5R (10 Fils).

*81 Syllabaire Chaldéen. Septième édition. 48 pp., 32°.

ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ܵ ܵܒܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܗܘܓ ܵܐ ܼ ܐ‬

110

COAKLEY AND TAYLOR ES. References: C5.23 (0.80 Fr.), C5R (10 Fils). Notes: For the third and fourth editions see nos. 21 and 38 above. We have found no record of the fifth and sixth editions.

*82

ܵ ܵ ͔͗ΕͲ . ܵ ܵ ܸ ‫ܕܬܘܪ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܒ‬

Abrégé d’histoire sainte en langue chaldéenne vulgaire. 53 pp., 16 cm. ES. References: C5.25 (0.75 Fr.), C5R (15 Fils). Notes: For the first and second editions see nos. 19 and 32 above. We have found no record of the third edition. *83

ͮ͠‫͖ ܕܕܘ‬Μͣ͸ͤ͸‫͔͗ ܕ‬ΕͲ

Psalterium juxta exemplar apud Chaldæos usurpatum. Quatrième édition. 248 pp. ES. References: C5.18 (4 Fr.), C5R (70 Fils). Notes: For earlier editions see nos. 18 and 36 above.

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD: INÉDITS SUR LA VENUE DES MAGES MURIEL DEBIÉ Accounts about the Magi can be found in all sorts of texts in Syriac, from Mesopotamia to far East China. Probably produced in the Sasanian Empire, they are built around the same topics: who where the Magi? How many were they? What were their names? How did they learn about Christ? Where were the prophecy and the offerings from Paradise kept? When did they come, and for how long? What happened when they came back to their native country? Those apocryphal weavings around common topoi are studied in order to help situate three very short passages here edited for the first time: The Magi who came from Persia, On the Names of the Magi, and an extract from the Testimonies about the Dispensation of our Lord. That popular story of the twelve Magi who brought back to Persia the good News of Christ’s birth was transmitted beyond the borders of the various Eastern Syriac Churches but it became part of the doctrine only in the Church of the East as a mean of enforcing the idea that there were believers in the Persian Empire 30 years before anywhere else. Setting forth an anti-Judaic argument, when pointing to the fact that the Zoroastrian Pagans were the first to recognise Christ’s divinity, it became in turn a tool for the missions to the East.

C’est bien à Oxford qu’il faut aller pour suivre l’étoile du syriaque et l’on pourra même y trouver dans l’un des manuscrits conservés à la Bodleian Library, un très court passage Sur les Mages venus de Perse ainsi que quelques lignes de chronologie donnant la date de la Nativité. C’est un bouquet de ce bref texte, d’un autre Sur les noms des Mages, contenu dans un manuscrit de la collection Mingana, accompagnés d’un extrait des Témoignages sur l’Économie du Christ, à resituer dans une tradition syriaque originale,1 que nous souhaitons offrir en témoignage d’amitié et d’admiration à Sebastian Brock. 1 Pour une étude quasi-exhaustive des traditions orientales sur les Mages, voir l’ouvrage d’U. Monneret de Villard, Le leggende orientali sui magi evangelici, Città del Vaticano, 1952 (Studi e Testi 163). Voir ici-même, pour le domaine syriaque, la

111

112

DEBIÉ

Le récit évangélique de Matthieu (II. 1–12) sur la venue des Mages est succinct et a donc laissé le champ libre pour des développements apocryphes,2 particulièrement nombreux dans les christianismes orientaux.3 Cette histoire a connu un succès tout particulier dans le christianisme de langue syriaque où elle est représentée dans tous les genres de texts.4 On sait que l’histoire des Mages repartis dans leur pays annoncer la Bonne nouvelle, sans doute originaire de Perse, s’est acclimatée dans l’Église de l’Orient au point d’en devenir la version officielle, comme en témoigne la correspondance5 du catholicos Timothée 1er (777–820). L’enjeu était de montrer que les origines de cette Église remontaient, en deçà des temps apostoliques, à la mission des douze mages-apôtres, car telle est bien la signification du nombre douze présent dans la tradition syriaque. Cette version trouve un écho chez Cosmas Indicopleustès,6 mais aussi dans un fragment sogdien sur les Mages retrouvé dans l’oasis de Turfan en Asie centrale7 et jusque sur la stèle de Xi’an-fu (781) qui rappelle dans son introduction à la doctrine chrétienne que les Perses les premiers suivirent l’étoile et allèrent porter le tribut au Messie. Cette opinion se répandit donc jusqu’aux extrémités de l’œcoumène, l’histoire de cette première mission chrétienne des Mages en habits apostoliques servant à la christianisation des confins. La version officielle était que l’Église de l’Orient précédait toutes les autres et occupait une place éminente dans l’histoire de l’Économie, contribution de Witold Witakowski, «The Magi in Syriac Tradition» (désormais cité The Magi), que nous remercions vivement d’avoir bien voulu nous communiquer son texte avant publication. On trouvera un survol dans le chapitre VII intitulé «La tradition des Mages», du livre Apôtres des confins, de C. Jullien et F. Jullien, Paris, 2002 (Res Orientales 15). 2 Cf. Les Apocryphes syriaques, M. Debié, A. Desreumaux, C. Jullien et F. Jullien, Paris, 2005 (Études syriaques 2). Les textes relatifs aux Mages n’y sont pas abordés. 3 Sur la tradition éthiopienne, voir W. Witakowski, «Magi in Ethiopic Tradition», Aethiopica: International Journal of Ethiopian Studies, 2 (1999), p. 69–89. 4 Voir le panorama dressé par W. Witakowski dans The Magi. 5 O. Braun, «Der Katholicos Timotheos I und seine Briefe», Oriens Christianus 1 (1901) p. 142–50 (tr. Latine, p. 96–102); «Lettre du patriarche Timothée à Maranzekha, évêque de Ninive», tr. française F. Briquel-Chatonnet et al., Journal asiatique 288/1 (2000), p. 10. 6 Cosmas Indicopleustès, Topographie chrétienne, I, W. Wanda-Conus, Paris, 1968, II, 76, p. 392–93 (Sources chrétiennes 141). 7 Il s’agit d’un fragment maintenant à Berlin (T. II. B. 29). W. Bang, «Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischer Georgspassion», Le Muséon 39 (1926), p. 44–49. Cf. U. Monneret de Villard, Le Leggende, p. 70–71.

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

113

alors même qu’elle était isolée, pour des raisons politiques autant que confessionnelles, de l’Église qui se disait universelle, catholique, et qu’elle était condamnée par celle-ci sous la dénomination infamante de «nestorienne». À usage interne, comme à l’égard des peuples à christianiser en Asie centrale et en Extrême-Orient, était ainsi assise la légitimité que donne une origine ancienne et bien attestée, fût-ce par une tradition d’abord apocryphe. Cette tradition s’est développée parallèlement aux récits de conversion apostoliques de la Doctrine d’Addaï en Mésopotamie du Nord, des Actes de Mar Mari en Perse, et des Actes de Thomas en Inde. Seule la Chronique de Zuqnin tente de concilier les différentes versions en montrant les Mages venus trouver Thomas qui les baptisa lorsqu’il arriva dans les régions de l’Orient. Les récits ayant horreur des blancs, les développements apocryphes se sont greffés dans tous les interstices du récit évangélique en réponse aux auditeurs curieux: qui a annoncé la naissance du Messie ? Qu’était-ce que cette étoile ? Qui étaient les Mages ? D’où venaient-ils ? Combien étaientils ? Quels étaient leurs noms ? Quand sont-ils arrivés ? Quel âge avait l’enfant Jésus lors de leur venue ? Ont-ils rapporté un souvenir de leur voyage ? Ces thèmes constituent la trame commune sur laquelle est tissée la diversité des récits. Sous leurs différences apparentes, il est possible d’identifier les points communs traités ensuite selon des modes propres à chacun. Si l’interprétation de la conversion des Mages et de la signification des offrandes8 est présente de manière attendue chez les premiers commentateurs syriaques Éphrem (Commentaire sur le Diatessaron,9 hymnes 21 et 22 Sur la Nativité) et Narsai (Memra sur la Nativité),10 comme chez les Pères U. Monneret de Villard, Le Leggende, p. 91–96, signale, à côté de l’interprétation traditionnelle chez les auteurs latins et grecs et certains auteurs syriaques, selon laquelle l’or fut donné à Jésus parce qu’il est roi, la myrrhe en signe de son ensevelissement et l’encens pour sa divinité, une version selon laquelle il reçut la myrrhe (qui est aussi utilisée en médecine) parce qu’il est le médecin véritable. Ce thème du sauveur médecin, d’origine mésopotamienne, est attesté dans les textes manichéens et mandéens. Il est également très fréquent dans la littérature syriaque, où le Christ est le bon médecin qui soigne sans herbes ni drogues selon La Doctrine d’Addaï par exemple, mais aussi les Actes de Thomas et La Caverne des Trésors. 9 A. de Halleux, «L’Adoration des mages dans le commentaire syriaque du Diatessaron», Le Muséon 104 (1991), p. 251–264. 10 Cf. W. Witakowski dans The Magi. 8

114

DEBIÉ

de l’Église grecque, les développements de la légende sont présents dans tous les genres littéraires. Des apocryphes bien sûr contiennent le récit, tous produits en milieu syro-oriental, au premier rang desquels la Caverne des Trésors,11 mais aussi l’Histoire de la Vierge Marie et de l’image du Christ que firent les Juifs,12 le Livre des Témoignages sur l’Économie du Christ (début VIIIe s.)13 et la compilation de Salomon de Bassorah, intitulée Le Livre de l’abeille (XIIIe s.).14 L’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, un texte latin (quelle qu’ait pu être sa langue d’origine) qui daterait de la deuxième moitié du Ve siècle, partage vraisemblablement avec la Chronique de Zuqnin une même source pour le récit sur les Mages.15 La littérature exégétique, syro-occidentale—les Commentaires sur le Nouveau Testament d’Isho‛dad de Merv (milieu IXe s.),16 le Commentaire sur les Évangiles de Denys Bar Ṣalibi (m. 1171)17 et le Commentaire sur les Évangiles de 11 La Caverne des Trésors: les deux recensions syriaques, CSCO 486–7/Syr. 207–8, 1987, éd. Andreas Su-Min Ri; id. Commentaire de la Caverne des Trésors: étude sur l’histoire du texte et de ses sources, CSCO 581/Subs. 103, Louvain, 2000, p. 445–460. 12 BHO 643 et 644. The History of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the History of the Likeness of Christ which the Jews of Tiberias made to mock at. The Syriac Texts ed. with Eng. tr. by E. A. W. Budge, London, 1899. Voir A. Desreumaux, «Les apocryphes syriaques sur Jésus et sa famille», p. 51–69, dans Les Apocryphes syriaques (cité n. 2), p. 62. 13 L’édition de ce texte, contenu dans un manuscrit de la Vaticane et un de la British Library, est en cours. A. Desreumaux en a réalisé une première traduction française inédite. Voir sur l’analyse du texte M. Debié «Muslim-Christian Controversy in an Unedited Syriac Text, Revelations and Testimonies about our Lord’s Dispensation», p. 225–236, dans The Encounter of Oriental Christianity with Early Islam, E. Grypeou, M. Swanson, D. Thomas, Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2006 (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations 5). 14 Salomon de Bassorah, The Book of the Bee, the Syriac text edited... with an engl. tr. by E. A. W. Budge, Oxford, 1886, ch. 37. 15 L’étude la plus récente sur le texte est celle de J. Van Banning dans son édition, Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, Turnhout, 1988 (Corpus Christianorum, series latina 87b). Voir W. Witakowski, The Magi, pour une mise au point sur les rapports entre ce texte et la Chronique de Zuqnin. 16 Isho‛dad of Merv, Commentaries on the New Testament, éd. et tr. M. Dunlop Gibson, 5 vols, Cambridge, 1911–1916 (réimpr. Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2005), I, Commentary on Matthew, p. 15–20. 17 Dionysii Bar Ṣalibi, Commentarii in Evangelia I, éd. et tr. I. Sedlaček & J.B. Chabot, CSCO II 98 (= CSCO 15/Syr. 15 T; 16/Syr. 16 V), Paris, 1906, p. 87– 110;

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

115

Barhebraeus (1225–1286)18—comme syro-orientale, Le Livre du Scholion de Théodore bar Koni (m. après 792),19 s’est également penchée sur cet épisode. Il en va de même des textes historiques dont nombre d’entre eux insèrent à leur place chronologique, au moment de la Naissance du Christ, des excursus plus ou moins longs sur le sujet, qui sont liés à des questions de chronologie universelle. La Nativité représente en effet un nœud central de synchronisme chronologique, établi à partir de la date de la Création du monde, ou ère mondiale, mais aussi selon l’ère en vigueur des Séleucides20 et la chronologie relative des années de règne de l’empereur romain régnant (43e année d’Auguste21 ou sous Hadrien22 selon les textes), voire d’Hérode.23 Les légendes relatives aux Mages sont ainsi présentes à des degrés divers

18 Gregory Abu‛l Faraj commonly called Bar-Hebraeus, Commentary on the Gospels from the Horreum mysteriorum, éd. et tr. W. E. W. Carr, London, 1925, p. 7–8, 10. 19 Theodorus Bar Koni, Liber Scholiorum, éd. A. Scher, CSCO II 65–66 (= CSCO 55, 69/Syr. 19, 26, Paris, 1910–1912; Théodore Bar Koni, Livre des Scolies (recension de Séert) I, tr. R. Hespel & R. Draguet, CSCO 431–32/Syr. 187–188, Louvain, 1981– 1982, p. 72–73/51–52. 20 Sur la tradition édessénienne de datation de la Nativité en 309 AG, voir M. Debié, «Temps linéaire, temps circulaire. Chronologie et histoire dans les chroniques syriaques», p. 177–196 dans Temps vécu, temps pensé dans le Proche-Orient ancien, F. Briquel-Chatonnet & H. Lozachmeur éds, Paris, 1998, (Antiquités sémitiques 3). 21 La Caverne des Trésors, ch. XLV. Chronique de Zuqnin, p. 96 T/p. 73 V. Chronique d’Édesse de 1234, p. 124 T/p. 98 V, Théodore Bar Koni, Livre des Scolies, p. 72 T/p. 51 V. La 44e année selon la Chronique maronite (p. 55 T/p. 47 V). Eusèbe la place, sans doute en suivant Africanus, la 42e année d’Auguste (HE 1,5,2) comme l’extrait sur les Mages édité plus bas. 22 Histoire de la Vierge où la Nativité est datée du mercredi 25 décembre de l’an 304 AG. 23 Théodore Bar Koni, Livre des Scolies, p. 72 T/p. 51 V, date l’arrivée des Mages de la 36e année d’Hérode, au «mois des fleurs», c’est-à-dire Nisan, ce qui est une tradition originale en ce qui concerne la période de l’année. U. Monneret de Villard, Le Leggende, p. 60–61 établit un parallèle avec le VIIe mois du calendrier avestique durant lequel est célébrée la fête de Mithra. L’Histoire de la Vierge met en relation la date de la fête célébrée par les Mages en Perse et la Nativité et les place le 25 décembre, un mercredi, comme on peut le déduire du fait que la circoncision a lieu huit jours plus tard, un jeudi. Isho‛dad situe la Nativité la 35e année d’Hérode, également le mercredi 25 décembre (Commentaries, p. 15), de même que le court texte sur les noms des Mages (cf. plus bas p. 137–38).

116

DEBIÉ

d’élaboration dans la Chronique maronite de 664,24 la Chronique de Zuqnin de 775,25 celle de Michel le Syrien (1166–1199),26 la Chronique d’Édesse de 1234,27 la Chronographie et L’Histoire des dynasties de Barhebraeus.28 En dehors même des textes historiques cette question de la datation est un point important des récits. La liturgie n’est pas en reste (hymnes des offices de la nuit syroorientaux).29 Un soghito, met en scène un dialogue entre Marie et les Mages30 et un texte d’incantation contre les maladies reprend l’Histoire de la Vierge.31 Des traces restent vivantes également dans le folklore.32

1. QUELQUES TOPOI DANS CES RÉCITS a. Les prophéties Afin de répondre à la question de savoir comment les lointains mages païens avaient été informés de la venue du Messie, il est fait appel à des prophéties, souvent dans une perspective anti-judaïque (texte Sur l’étoile attribué à Eusèbe de Césarée, poèmes d’Éphrem, texte grec du De gestis in 24 Chronicon maroniticum, éd. E. W. Brooks, p. 43–74 dans Chronica minora, CSCO III, t. 4, Paris, 1903, fasc. 2; tr. J.-B. Chabot, p. 35–57. 25 Incerti auctoris chronicon anonymum Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum I, éd. J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 91/Syr. 43 T, 1927, CSCO 121/Syr. 66 V, Louvain, 1949. 26 Chronique de Michel le Syrien patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199), éd. et tr. J.-B. Chabot, Paris, 1899–1924. Réédition en 4 vol., 1963. 27 Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I, éd. J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 81/Syr. 36 (= CSCO ser. III, 14 T), Louvain, 1920 (Réimpression anastatique Louvain, 1953), tr. J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 109/Syr. 56 (= CSCO 109, Syr. III, 14 V), Louvain, 1937 (Réimpression anastatique Louvain, 1952). 28 The Chronography of Gregory Abu‚l Faraj... known as Barhebraeus..., tr. E. A. W. Budge, London, 1932, réimpr. Amsterdam 1976 et Piscataway (Gorgias Press) 2003; Ta‚rikh mukhtaṣar al-duwal, éd. A. Ṣahlani, Beyrouth, 1890; éd./trad. E. Pococke, Historia compendiosa dynastarium, Oxford, 1663. 29 A. Rücker, «Zwei nestorianische Hymnen über die Magier», Oriens Christianus n.s. 10–11 (1920–21), p. 33–55. Cf. U. Monneret de Villard, Le Leggende, p. 90. 30 Une édition de ce texte par S. P. Brock est annoncée chez Gorgias Press: Mary and Joseph, and Other Dialogue Poems on Mary. 31 U. Monneret de Villard, Le Leggende, p. 74. 32 Voir les avatars contemporains de cette histoire dans l’article de W. Witakowki, The Magi. Sur cette histoire locale, cf. aussi H. Anschütz, Die Syrischen Christen vom Tur Abdin, Wurzburg, 1984, p. 98 (cité par C. et F. Jullien, Apôtres des Confins [voir n. 1], p. 114, n. 25).

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

117

Perside,33 Commentaire d’Isho‛dad de Merv), montrant que les Juifs n’ont pas su reconnaître la divinité du Christ alors que des païens ont été jugés dignes d’en recevoir la révélation et en ont reconnu la vérité. Ces prophéties sont donc mises dans la bouche de personnages bibliques, faisant ainsi entrer les mages païens dans l’histoire du salut, ou bien dans la bouche de Zoroastre, le fondateur de la religion mazdéenne, qui devient alors le prophète de la conversion de la nation perse au christianisme.34 Cette dernière version devait avoir dans l’Église de Perse des résonances toutes particulières en contexte mazdéen. Une prophétie faite par Daniel s’adresse aux mages qui visitèrent Babylone à son époque pour offrir des présents à Nabuchodonosor (Témoignages sur l’Économie du Christ, Commentaires d’Isho‛dad de Merv et de Denys Bar Ṣalibi). La tradition qui fait de Baruch, le «disciple» de Jérémie, Zardosht (Zoroastre) est aussi évoquée par Isho‛dad: accablé par le fait qu’il ne recevait pas le don de prophétie et par la prise de Jérusalem, il aurait appris douze langues et écrit «le venin» de l’Avesta. L’exégèse de Nm 24,17 permet de dire que Balaam, qui est censé être l’ancêtre des Mages, aurait prophétisé à sa descendance l’apparition de l’étoile et l’aurait encouragée à aller offrir des présents le moment venu (texte Sur l’Étoile attribué à Eusèbe, Eusèbe et Grégoire de Nysse selon Denys Bar Ṣalibi, repris par Michel le Syrien, Éphrem dans Nat 24, 4 et 20). Nemrod en tant que personnage biblique, mais aussi, selon La Caverne des Trésors, fondateur de la religion du feu,35 est l’un de ceux à qui l’on attribue la prédiction de la naissance du Christ. La reconnaissance par la 33 Nouvelle édition critique, traduction et commentaire de ce texte énigmatique par Madame Pauline Bringel dans son mémoire de doctorat, élaboré sous la direction de M. Jean Gascou et soutenu en novembre 2007 à Paris IV-Sorbonne: Une polémique religieuse à la cour de Perse: le De gestis in Perside. Histoire du texte, édition critique et traduction. Cf. U. Monneret de Villard, p. 107–110. 34 Cf. J. Bidez & F. Cumont, Les mages hellénisés: Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystapse d’après la tradition grecque, Paris, 1973. J.-C. Picard, dans Le continent apocryphe: essai sur les littératures apocryphes juive et chrétienne, Turnhout, 1999 (Instrumenta Patristica 36), chapitre «Les rois mages. Une autre lecture du récit de l’évangile de Marc», p. 265– 270, interprète ces récits comme une tentative de l’Église «nestorienne» pour présenter les anciennes divinités d’une religion païenne, sous la forme des Mages, venues adorer le nouveau dieu représenté par Jésus-Christ, la nouvelle religion mettant un terme à l’ancienne. Cf. G. Messina, I Magi a Betlemme e una predizione di Zoroastro, Roma, 1933 (Sacra Scriptura antiquitatibus orientalibus illustrata 3). 35 Voir Le Leggende orientali (cité n. 2), p. 125.

118

DEBIÉ

religion mazdéenne de la nouvelle religion est donc ainsi ancrée dans le texte biblique. Zardosht, c’est-à-dire Zoroastre, annonce lui aussi la naissance divine, mais dans ce cas, on cherche souvent à l’identifier avec un personnage biblique, comme Baruch «le scribe» (Le Livre de l’abeille; version évoquée aussi par Isho‛dad où Baruch est assimilé à Zardosht) ou Balaam. C’est ainsi que Théodore Bar Koni l’appelle le «second Balaam» et reprend une généalogie fantaisiste qui en fait un membre du peuple juif, reversant ainsi dans l’histoire sainte le prophète mazdéen. Isho‛dad de Merv connaît cette même source puisqu’il évoque la version selon laquelle Zardosht était d’origine juive et connaissait les Écritures. Dans son Histoire des dynasties, Barhebraeus en fait un disciple d’Élie.36 On est donc loin ici de l’opinion, répandue en milieu grec, chez Clément d’Alexandrie ou dans le De gestis in Perside,37 selon laquelle les païens avaient pu avoir la prescience du christianisme, manifestée dans leurs oracles. Dans les versions syriaques, les mazdéens sont le plus souvent récupérés dans l’histoire sainte puisqu’ils seraient en réalité des Juifs qui s’ignorent, mais de bons Juifs, qui ont accepté la révélation et sont donc de futurs chrétiens.38 Dans l’Histoire de la Bienheureuse Vierge Marie, c’est un ange qui apparaît aux Perses sous la forme de l’étoile et que les prêtres mazdéens interprètent comme étant l’un de leurs dieux. b. Les livres où sont consignées les prophéties Le phénomène littéraire bien connu dans les romans, de la correspondance ou du manuscrit retrouvé qui atteste de la véracité de l’histoire qui est racontée, est souvent à l’œuvre dans ces récits: on prétend qu’ils sont tirés de sources bien identifiées, dans un souci à la fois littéraire et de véridicité historique censée leur donner une crédibilité plus grande. Au-delà, peut-être faut-il y voir un moyen de se démarquer de la tradition païenne en général (philosophie), et zoroastrienne en particulier, où la transmission se faisait 36 Historia compendiosa Dynastiarum, p. 82–83, citée par U. Monneret de Villard, Le Leggende, p. 133. 37 Les références à ces deux textes sont données par U. Monneret de Villard, Le Leggende, p. 128; il s’agit de Strom. I, 15, 17 et p. 11 dans l’édition de E. Bratke, Das sogennante Religionspräch am Hof der Sassaniden, Leipzig, 1899 (TU n.s. 4,3). 38 Selon La Caverne des Trésors un fils du roi de Sheba (qui est l’un des trois rois mages) fut envoyé par son père auprès d’un rabbin qui lui apprit à lire les livres juifs (ch. XLVI).

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

119

oralement de maître à disciple dans le premier cas, de père à fils dans le second.39 Le commentaire d’Éphrem au Diatessaron dit bien que le signe de l’étoile remplaçait les livres des Prophètes que les païens ne connaissaient pas. Les versions apocryphes répondent à cette aporie en inventant les autorités scripturaires qui font défaut, quitte à mettre les Mages à l’école des Hébreux. La Caverne des Trésors dit que c’est dans leurs livres de sagesse que les Chaldéens lurent la prophétie de Nemrod: ce dernier l’avait en effet mise par écrit dans des livres qui leur étaient destinés. Un fils du roi de Sheba dit aussi à ses compagnons avoir trouvé l’annonce de la naissance dans «les livres de généalogies», c’est-à-dire des livres hébreux.40 Il précise, après avoir adoré l’enfant à Bethléem, que c’est dans le livre d’Isaïe, lu à «l’école des Hébreux», qu’il avait eu connaissance de la prophétie et qu’il en reconnaissait la vérité. Pour paraphraser le titre du livre bien connu, les mages sont hébraïsés avant d’être christianisés, à la différence des Juifs qui ne comprennent pas l’annonce. Pour assurer la véridicité du récit, le texte Sur l’étoile, attribué à Eusèbe de Césarée,41 prétend l’avoir emprunté à un texte historique, une chronique non canonique («négligée» par Moïse), écrite à Arnon, à la frontière entre les Moabites et les Ammonites, et déposée dans la forteresse d’Achmethan.42 Cette chronique serait une chronique des faits et gestes des rois de Perse («leurs rois», ce qui suppose une source qui n’est pas perse) selon ce qui est dit à la fin du récit. La référence à ces pseudo-chroniques royales perses est un moyen de dire que la tradition a été conservée intacte en dehors de l’empire romain, dans un lieu sûr où elle n’a pu être corrompue. Les Mages qui entendirent la prophétie de Daniel la mirent aussi par écrit dans leurs documents gardés dans des archives selon le Commentaire d’Isho‛dad de Merv. La Chronique maronite de 664 est le témoin d’une version où le récit se présente sous la forme, courante dans les apocryphes, d’une correspondance. Un échange de lettres entre un sage romain, Longin, et U. Monneret de Villard, p. 55, n. 1 sur l’enseignement de père à fils. Ch. XLV, p. 142. 41 W. Wright, «Eusebius of Caesarea on the Star», Journal of Sacred Literature, n. s. IX (1866), p. 117–136 T/p. 151–164 V. M. Debié, D. Gonnet, «Les Pères grecs disparus», dans Les Pères grecs dans la tradition syriaque, D. Gonnet, A. Schmidt (éds), Paris, 2007, p. 132–133 (Études syriaques 4). 42 W. Witakowski dans The Magi identifie ce lieu avec Hamadan, capitale de la Médie. 39 40

120

DEBIÉ

l’empereur Auguste, serait contenu dans un livre dû à Longin lui-même: le livre troisième de son ouvrage Sur la guerre entre les Romains et leur victoire sur Antioche de Syrie. Là encore, c’est un livre d’histoire qui est invoqué comme source.43 Cette correspondance est présente, de manière plus développée, dans Le Livre du Scholion de Théodore bar Koni, elle apparaît aussi dans Le Livre de l’abeille de Salomon de Bassorah et dans l’Histoire arabe chrétienne d’Agapius de Membij (qui repose sur des sources syriaques).44 Le récit contenu dans la Chronique de Zuqnin (ca 775) prétend venir des Livres des commandements ou Livres des mystères cachés dans lesquels Seth plaça les commandements reçus d’Adam et qu’il déposa dans la montagne des Victoires et des Mystères cachés, à l’est de la terre de Shir, dans la Caverne des trésors. Cette même tradition est attestée dans l’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum qui semble reposer sur la même source et qui parle d’un «livre de Seth».45 Outre le fait que le récit est censé être tiré d’un livre biblique ou même d’un livre reconnu comme apocryphe ou d’un ouvrage supposé historique, l’affirmation, dans plusieurs cas, que l’ouvrage qui le contenait avait été déposé dans un endroit sûr (caverne, archives ou forteresse) semble avoir joué un rôle dans la garantie de son authenticité et de son intégrité: le texte n’a pas pu être corrompu depuis qu’il a été mis par écrit et a conservé toute la valeur des informations qu’il contenait. c. L’identité des Mages On a cherché à préciser l’identité des Mages, compris comme des «sages» (Chronique de Zuqnin), ou, plus souvent comme des rois et fils de rois (Jacques d’Édesse, les récits contenus dans les différentes chroniques, Commentaire d’Isho‛dad de Merv) ou des mages au sens propre, c’est-à-dire des prêtres mazdéens (Histoire de la Vierge Marie; ils sont appelés «rois et mages chaldéens» dans La Caverne des Trésors qui oscille entre les deux interprétations). Une origine ethnique ou géographique, qui repose en partie sur les tables des peuples d’après le livre de la Genèse, leur a également été

Voir W. Witakowski dans ce volume pour les détails sur cet apocryphe. Kitāb al-ʽUnwan, éd. A. Vasiliev, PO VII, p. 464–67 et Agapius episcopus Mabbugensis. Historia Universalis/Kitab al-ʽunwán, éd. L. Cheikho, CSCO 65/Ar. 10, Paris, 1912. 45 PG 56, col. 637–638. 43 44

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

121

attribuée car il convenait de savoir d’où ils venaient46: Chaldéens ou Assyriens chez Narsai, ils venaient d’Élam et étaient descendants de Sem selon Jacques d’Édesse; ils venaient de Perse d’après La Caverne des Trésors, de Seba et Sheba (Commentaires d’Isho‛dad de Merv et de Denys Bar Ṣalibi)—ces deux derniers lieux permettant de montrer que la prophétie du Ps 71,10 s’était réalisée en eux—et ils étaient descendants de Ham selon La Caverne des Trésors; ils venaient de la mystérieuse terre de Shir selon la Chronique de Zuqnin. d. Leur nombre et leur nom Le nombre des mages a donné lieu à des spéculations: si la tradition occidentale en a retenu trois, d’après le nombre des offrandes, les traditions syriaques, dont certaines n’ignorent pas ce nombre (La Caverne des Trésors, commentaire et poèmes d’Éphrem), en comptent parfois huit (correspondant à la prophétie de Michée V,5, tradition citée dans le commentaire de Denys Bar Ṣalibi repris par Michel le Syrien et Barhebraeus), mais s’accordent généralement sur celui de douze, parfois organisés en trois groupes de quatre (Livre de l’Abeille de Salomon de Bassorah), ou bien trois d’entre eux seulement portent les offrandes (extrait du manuscrit Pococke, Livre des Témoignages), ou alors ils sont trois rois et neuf hommes les accompagnent (Histoire de la Bienheureuse Vierge Marie, Commentaires d’Isho‛dad de Merv et de Denys Bar Ṣalibi). Le nombre symbolique de douze admis pour des raisons apologétiques devait en effet être combiné avec le chiffre de trois qui correspondait sans doute à une tradition plus ancienne, en tout cas à une explication liée directement au texte de l’évangile. Mais une fois leur nombre connu, il convenait de connaître leurs noms. Les personnages bibliques ont en effet vu leur insupportable anonymat levé dans la tradition apocryphe.47 S’il avait toujours été important de pouvoir inscrire un personnage de la Bible dans une généalogie, avec l’avènement d’une relation personnelle à Jésus, il semble qu’il devenait indispensable de connaître par leur nom les personnes qui W. Witakowski, «The Division of the Earth between the Descendants of Noah in Syriac Tradition», ARAM 5 (1993, publ. 1996) (= A Festschrift for Sebastian P. Brock), p. 635–656. 47 Voir B. Metzger, «Names for the nameless in the New Testament: a study in the growth of Christian tradition», p. 79–99 dans Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, P. Granfield & J. A. Jungmann, I, Munster, 1970. 46

122

DEBIÉ

jouèrent un rôle dans l’histoire du salut. Les Mages ne sont pas les seuls concernés, les bergers, les apôtres (dès les textes néo-testamentaires), les soixante-dix/douze disciples, les larrons, les femmes dans l’entourage du Christ ... reçoivent un nom.48 La plupart des textes syriaques présentent ainsi pour les Mages une liste de noms: trois dans La Caverne des Trésors, douze en principe ailleurs, mais parfois onze seulement comme chez Michel le Syrien ou dans l’extrait sur Les noms des Mages qui suit, sans doute en raison des hasards de la transmission. Comme ils sont rois, fils de rois, le nom de leur père est également mentionné, portant à vingt-quatre le nombre de noms cités. Ces listes ont déjà été publiées à maintes reprises, extraites des textes auxquels elles appartenaient.49 Il s’agit de noms iraniens au sens large,50 de noms de rois achéménides ou sassanides, de noms de divinités babyloniennes… Des variations nombreuses ont affecté ces noms étrangers au lexique syriaque.51 e. La nature de l’étoile D’autres éléments ont fait l’objet d’élaborations: si c’est une étoile qui fut choisie pour guider les Mages, c’est parce que mazdéisme et astrologie sont associés par les auteurs syriaques. Les Mages sont interprétés comme des Perses ou des Chaldéens et donc des astrologues qui attribuent aux étoiles 48 Cette entreprise de nomination s’étend aussi aux personnages de l’Ancien Testament: L’Apocalypse du Pseudo-Méthode (Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius, éd. et tr. G. J. Reinink, CSCO 540–41/Syr. 220–221, Louvain, 1983) donne la liste des noms des vingt-deux peuples de Gog et Magog enfermés par Alexandre le Grand derrière les portes du Nord qui s’ouvriront à la fin des temps; La Caverne des Trésors donne le nom des douze rois qui se rassemblèrent autour de Melchisédeq et lui bâtirent une ville, Jérusalem (ch. XXX), les noms aussi des ascendants de Melchisédeq (ch. XXXI) et des sept rois qui fondèrent Jéricho (ch.XXXI). 49 E. Nestle en a publié trois dans Marginalien und Materialien, Tübingen, 1893, p. 65–63 et donne la bibliographie antérieure. Voir aussi H. Kehrer, Die heiligen Drei Könige in Literatur und Kunst. Erster Band: Literarischer Teil, Leipzig, 1908, p. 72–73. Une étude des noms donnés dans La Caverne des Trésors, le lexique de Bar Bahlul, Le Livre de l’abeille, la Chronique de Zuqnin, celle de Michel le Syrien et le commentaire de Denys Bar Ṣalibi est due à J. Marquart, ch. «Die Namen der Magier», p. 5–19, dans Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran, Hft 1, Göttingen, 1896. Voir le tableau établi par W. Witakowski, The Magi. 50 P. Gignoux, en collaboration avec C. Jullien et F. Jullien, achève l’étude des formes de ces noms dans les différentes listes. 51 On trouve une liste dans le lexique de Bar Bahlul (milieu Xe s.): Lexicon Syriacum, auctore Hassano Bar Bahlule, éd. R. Duval, II, Paris, 1909, col. 1003.

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

123

une influence sur le monde terrestre, ainsi qu’un rôle dans le déchiffrement de l’avenir. Isho‛dad précise que c’est parce que les mazdéens adoraient un dieu par l’intermédiaire d’une étoile qu’ils appelaient Nanæa que Dieu choisit une étoile pour les conduire à la foi véritable. Il donne aussi une interprétation spirituelle: c’est pour qu’ils soient guidés vers le soleil véritable par une étoile dont la clarté décroîtrait à mesure qu’ils approcheraient de la vraie lumière. Il précise que Dieu a donné la lumière aux Juifs par les bergers et aux païens par les Mages. Mais cette étoile qui ressemblait à une étoile n’en était pas toujours une: c’était un ange selon le Commentaire d’Isho‛dad, l’un des ‛onyatha ou selon l’Histoire de la Vierge Marie (interprété dans ce cas par les prêtres païens, comme étant l’un des dieux du mazdéisme venu les informer). Quand elle est vraiment une étoile, sa course montre qu’elle ne suit pas le mouvement ordinaire des astres et donc qu’elle n’est pas une étoile comme les autres (Éphrem, Commentaire d’Isho‛dad). Elle porte d’ailleurs la forme d’un petit enfant avec une sorte de croix au-dessus de lui selon l’Opus Imperfectum; une image de la Vierge avec l’enfant sur les genoux, selon La Caverne des Trésors, le Commentaire d’Isho‛dad et la Chronique d’Édesse de 1234. La version de la Caverne des Trésors où l’enfant porte le diadème royal est proche de celle d’Éphrem qui explique que l’étoile cache le corps de l’enfant pour le soustraire à la haine d’Hérode mais révèle aux Mages la couronne du Fils du Roi.52 f. L’histoire des offrandes Il n’y a pas de surprise sur les offrandes apportées qui sont à peu près la seule information fournie par le texte évangélique. L’ordre n’est pas le même cependant que dans le récit évangélique puisque Mt 2,11 a: «l’or, l’encens et la myrrhe» et le syriaque «l’or, la myrrhe et l’encens». Selon A. de Halleux, cet ordre serait celui du Diatessaron qui serait resté dans la Peshiṭta.53 Leur histoire en revanche fait l’objet d’un vrai roman dans La Caverne des Trésors (et la littérature qui l’utilise). Ces offrandes viendraient en effet du Paradis, ou, plus exactement, de sa «bordure», d’où Adam les emporta quand il en sortit.54 Il les cacha ensuite dans la Caverne dont il fit une

A de Halleux, «L’adoration des Mages», p. 260–261. Nat. 24,5. Cf. A de Halleux, «L’adoration des Mages», p. 259. 54 D’après le Livre des Témoignages (Test. 1), Adam les emporta par la porte du Paradis. 52 53

124

DEBIÉ

maison de prière.55 La montagne des Victoires sur les terres orientales entre le grand océan et la terre de Nod (ou Nur), à l’Orient du Paradis, serait le lieu où elles demeurèrent du vivant d’Adam. Elles auraient échappé au déluge car Dieu ordonna à Noé de les placer, avec le corps d’Adam, à l’Orient de l’arche.56 Sem, le fils de Noé, reçut de Dieu le commandement d’enterrer Adam avec les offrandes au centre de la terre qui est le Golgotha, lieu du crâne, ainsi appelé parce qu’il contient le «chef de tous les hommes». Lorsque les Mages lurent la prophétie de Nemrod, ils montèrent sur le mont Nebo ou Nod, au delà des frontières du nord, pour y prendre l’or la myrrhe et l’encens. Le Livre des Témoignages (qui utilise La Caverne),57 ajoute le chaînon manquant pour expliquer comment les dons retournèrent en Perse pour pouvoir en être rapportés: c’est Nabuchodonosor qui les ramena en Orient et les garda dans le «Trésor de Perse» où les Mages les prirent pour les emporter à Bethléem. Une colonne de lumière matérialisée, ou plutôt incarnée, en petit être humain devait montrer aux Mages où trouver la caverne contenant les offrandes selon le récit contenu dans la Chronique de Zuqnin (qui suppose donc une connaissance de la version de La Caverne des Trésors). L’idée que les offrandes venaient du Paradis et furent déposées par Seth dans la Caverne des trésors n’est pas, selon Isho‛dad58 admis dans les écoles, ce qui sousentend que c’était une version considérée comme apocryphe et cependant très répandue. En échange de ces dons, les Mages ne reçoivent rien de matériel dans la grande majorité des textes (sinon bien sûr le salut) et, dans La Caverne des Trésors, la Vierge et Joseph s’excusent même de n’avoir rien à leur offrir (mais ces riches rois qui s’attendaient à un déploiement de faste peuvent vivre sur les provisions qu’ils avaient apportées). L’Histoire de la Vierge Marie, cependant, raconte que celle-ci leur fit don d’un saint lange, qui, heureusement pour eux, fut miraculeusement purifié par le feu qu’avec les prêtres ils allumèrent à leur retour et, non seulement ne fut pas consumé, mais fut blanchi. Ils se couvrirent ensuite la bouche du saint lange selon l’usage des prêtres mazdéens, soucieux de ne pas polluer par leur haleine le feu sacré.59 Étonnamment, ces Mages convertis sont porteurs de la Bonne La Caverne des Trésors, ch. V. La Caverne des Trésors, Ms or. ch. XVI. 57 Test. 31. 58 Commentaries, p. 21. 59 Voir à ce sujet W. Witakowski dans The Magi. 55 56

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

125

Nouvelle du salut mais continuent leurs activités de prêtres du feu. Selon le De gestis, c’est une image de la Vierge et l’enfant qu’ils emportèrent; d’après le texte uigur, ils reçurent de l’enfant Jésus une pierre, mais intransportable, et d’après l’histoire qui continue à circuler dans la tradition orale, ils reçurent un morceau du vêtement de l’enfant Jésus, qu’ils ne purent se partager (on pense ici à la tunique sans couture de la crucifixion60) et durent brûler pour se partager les cendres dans lesquelles ils trouvèrent des symboles.61 g. La date de l’arrivée et l’âge de l’enfant La question de la concordance entre l’apparition de l’étoile, l’arrivée des Mages et l’âge de l’enfant, compte tenu éventuellement du temps nécessaire pour le voyage depuis la Perse, suscita aussi des réponses variées, comme d’ailleurs en Occident. Ces différents éléments sont combinés de façon souvent maladroite dans les textes. L’Histoire de la Vierge dit que les Mages partirent le 25 décembre, jour où ils célébraient une de leur fête, «au chant du coq» et arrivèrent au point du jour à Jérusalem et à la troisième heure à Bethléem après avoir parlé avec Hérode.62 Cette tradition de la naissance avant le chant du coq est attestée aussi par le Commentaire d’Isho‛dad et le court passage Sur les noms des Mages. Isho‛dad rapporte aussi que Babaï «le Perse» dit qu’ils arrivèrent la nuit ou le jour même de la naissance et non pas deux ans après. Selon La Caverne des Trésors, l’enfant avait huit jours quand les Mages apportèrent les dons, mais l’étoile était apparue deux ans avant la naissance. La Chronique d’Édesse de 1234 dit aussi qu’ils arrivèrent quand l’enfant avait huit jours et ajoute que c’était le jour de sa circoncision. Les Mages repartirent avant la circoncision d’après l’Histoire de la Vierge. Selon la Chronique maronite l’enfant avait deux ans; c’est aussi ce que dit le catholicos Timothée qui en conclut que l’Église de l’Orient adora trente ans avant le reste du monde. Denys Bar Ṣalibi (repris par Barhebraeus dans son Horreum mysteriorum) cite l’opinion de Cyrille d’Alexandrie et de Jean Chrysostome selon lesquels l’étoile était apparue aux Mages huit jours avant la Nativité, mais aussi d’Épiphane et de Jacques de Sarug selon lesquels le divin enfant était plus âgé. Il conclut du fait que, d’après l’évangile, c’est dans une M. Aubineau, «La tunique sans couture du Christ: exégèse patristique de Jn 19, 23–24», Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, P. Granfield & J. A. Jungmann, I, Munster, 1970. 61 Voir W. Witakowski, The Magi. 62 Histoire de la Vierge, p. 36. 60

126

DEBIÉ

maison, et non une grotte, que les Mages entrèrent pour adorer un garçon, et non un bébé, que Jésus avait deux ans.

2. TROIS TEXTES INÉDITS Les brefs textes qui suivent brodent autour du même canevas et apportent chacun leur touche propre. a. Un Bref hymne sur les Mages est conservé dans le manuscrit de la Bodleian Library Pococke 333 (220 ff.), à dater peut-être du 16e siècle. Le manuscrit contient un Beth Gazzo ou office des fêtes des Syro-orthodoxes (ff. 1–83) puis des cantiques et des hymnes divers suivis de poèmes variés (f. 207 et ss.). C’est dans ces miscellanées finales que se trouvent un très court poème sur les Mages venus de Perse (ff. 207v, 17–208, 14) et quelques lignes de chronologie.63 Les noms des Mages ne sont pas vocalisés de manière systématique, la restitution des voyelles est donc partiellement hypothétique. ̄ ̣ܰ ‫ܓ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ :‫ܣ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܘ‬ ̣ ̱ ‫ ܘ ܼܿ ܪ‬.‫̇ ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ ܕ ܼܿ ܪ ܐ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܐ‬.‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܼܿ ܒܐ ܕܬܪ‬.‫ܼܿ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܩ‬ ‫ ܕ ܒ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܐ‬.‫̈ܪܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ܼ ܿ 208r ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ܵ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ܪܗܕ ܘ ܘܕ ܒ‬ ‫̈ ܘܢ ܗ‬ .‫ܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܳܙܪܕܘܫ ܕܐ‬ ܼ ‫ ܙ‬.‫ܐ ܢ‬ ܿ ܿ ܳ ܼܰ ‫ܐܪ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܱ . ‫ ܐ ܼܘܦ ܗܘܐ ܕ ܗܘ ܒ ܓ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܻ ܢ‬ ܺ ܿ ̇ .‫ܿ ܬܘܩ‬ ܶ ܿ ܽ .‫ܼ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܼ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܼ ܕ‬ ‫ܘܙܪ‬ ܼ ܱ . ܼ ‫ܗܘ ܒ ܘܪ‬ ܳ ‫ܬܘܡ‬ .‫ܼ ܢ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܦ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ . ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܱ ܼ ܻ ܼ ܻ ܰ ܿ ܰ .‫ܗܘ ܒ ܰܒ ܐܢ‬ ‫ ܰܨܪܕܢ ܓ‬.‫ܼ ܐܫ ܒ ܰܨ ܼܰܒܐܢ‬ .‫ܗܘܐܡ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ܿ ܿ ̇ ܿ ܰ ‫ܗ‬ . ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܘܟ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬.‫ܼ ܪ ܼ ܐ ܻ ܒ ܪ‬ ܼ ̈ ‫ ܘ ̈ ܐ‬.‫̈ ܙ ̈ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܬ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ܼ ܳ ܰ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܗܘܘ ܕ ܐ‬ .‫ܬ ܼܿ ܪܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܰܒ ܐ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫̈ܪ ܐ ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܙ ̣ ܗ‬. ‫ܒܐܘܪ‬ ̈ .‫ܐܬܪܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐܘܒ ̣ ܳܕ ̈ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ̄ܗ ܘܗ‬ Bref hymne sur les mages qui vinrent de Perse, écoutez et comprenez, ô sages ! par l’histoire des 12 rois qu’envoya le roi Pîrshabûr. Il envoya avec eux des offrandes à présenter au roi messie qu’avait annoncé Zardôsh, ce qui est dans les prophéties.64 Leurs noms sont: Zârhâd, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae pars sexta, codices syriacos, carshunicos, mendaeos, éd. R. Payne Smith, Oxford, 1864, n° 48, col. 175–178. 64 Je souhaite remercier tout particulièrement David Taylor le temps qu’il a bien voulu consacrer à une recherche sur la forme inhabituelle du mot ‫ ܒ ̈ ܐ‬en syriaque et que je résume ici (et pour laquelle je reste seule responsable de toute 63

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

127

Nâdôd fils de Ṭîmôn, Êshtûph fils de Gûddâphar, Ârshak fils de Mahtôq et Zarnadên fils de Ôrnaqad, le roi Âriû fils de Kesrôn, Ârṭaḥashît fils de Ḥûlîd et Eshtôphôbâzôn fils de Shîrshôn, Mahtôm fils de Hawâm, Ḥashîrâsh fils de Ṣaḥbân et Ṣârdân fils de Baldân; avec eux Mardôk fils de Bêl. Ce sont eux que le roi Pîrshabûr envoya. Et il y avait avec chacun d’eux trois mille fantassins [porteurs d’armures] et cinq mille cavaliers [porteurs de courrier]. Lorsqu’ils arrivèrent au-delà du fleuve, ils apprirent qu’il y avait une famine à Jérusalem. Ces trois chefs—il y avait avec eux environ cinq mille hommes—allèrent présenter les offrandes, au Christ, allélouia ! Puis ils retournèrent dans leur pays.

̄ ‫ܘܐ‬ :‫ܐ ܬܐ ܒ ̣ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܢ‬ .‫ܐܘ ܳܒ ̈ܘ ܐ‬ ̄‫ܢ ܗ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ ‫ܱ ̈ ܐ ܕܐܒ ̈ ܬܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕܡ‬ .‫̈ ܐ‬ ܿ ܳ ̈ ‫ ܘ ̣ ܪ ܘܢ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ ܘܬ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬.‫ܐ ̈ ܐ ܘܐ̈ܪܒ ܐܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܦ ̣ ܘ ܐܬ ܘܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕܡ ܘ‬ .‫ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܰ .‫ܐ ܐܒ ܗܡ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ܐ ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܗܡ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫̄ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ̈ܪܒ ܳ ܐܐ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬208v ܼܿ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܬܗ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ܼ ‫ܘܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܐ ̈ ܐܐ ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ ̣ ܐ‬.‫̇ ܐ‬ ܰ .‫ܪܘܣ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܢ ܬܘܒ ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܆ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ ܬ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪܘܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘܬ ̈ ܐ‬ ̄ ̈‫ܬ‬ .‫ܐܘ ̇ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫̄ܗ‬ Autre [hymne] dans le [premier] ton. Entendez et comprenez, vous qui cherchez à savoir combien sont les années fixées par nos Pères qui nous ont précédés: d’Adam à Notre Seigneur: 5489 ans; les sommes intermédiares [des années] sont ainsi: d’Adam au déluge: 2256; et du déluge à Abraham, 1081; et d’Abraham jusqu’à Moïse, au total, 425; et Moïse vécut 120 ans et il mourut; et de sa mort à Alexandre: 1298; et d’Alexandre au Christ: 309. Alléluia, Ô plein de discernement !

Le court récit correspond à l’une des traditions que cite Michel le Syrien (d’après Denys Bar Ṣalibi) dans le résumé qu’il donne des différentes mésinterprétation). La forme normale de la racine en arabe et en araméen occidental est QSM et ‫ ܡ‬en syriaque, mais il existe des variations dialectales aussi bien en araméen occidental qu’oriental, même si aucune occurrence n’a été notée jusqu’à présent en syriaque. La forme du mot divination en syriaque est ‫ ܶ ܳ ܐ‬, ou ‫ ܳ ܽ ܘ ܽ ܳܬܐ‬mais Audo (453) signale dans les formes dérivées du Pael ‫ ܽ ܳܨ ܳ ܐ‬, avec le même sens que le Peal. Il s’agirait de cette forme mais écrite avec un semkath au lieu d’un sodhe sous l’influence de l’arabe ou d’un dialecte.

128

DEBIÉ

versions qu’il connaissait sur le sujet,65 celle qu’il dit venir des «écrits des Perses». Michel conserve un détail que n’a pas notre texte sur l’itinéraire des Mages en précisant que c’est en arrivant à Callinice, «qui est Raqah», qu’ils entendirent parler de la famine, placée ici en Judée et non pas à Jérusalem comme dans l’extrait. Jacques d’Édesse est un autre témoin de cette version qui donne aux Mages une nombreuse escorte militaire.66 Dans le Commentaire d’Isho‛dad ces armées viennent au-devant d’eux quand ils approchent des villes afin de les accueillir. Il est possible que cette tradition soit en effet d’origine perse, comme le laisse penser l’allusion à la prophétie de Zardosht. Si, comme le remarque justement W. Witakowski,67 cette version circule exclusivement en milieu syro-orthodoxe, il est probable qu’elle remonte à une source syro-orientale qui se trouve derrière les textes de Jacques, de Denys puis de Michel et de l’extrait, mais excerptée un peu différemment. La liste des noms est à peu de choses près la même que celle que l’on trouve dans les autres textes.68 Ce n’est pas un hasard si un bref synchronisme chronologique suit immédiatement l’histoire des mages car histoire et datation de la Nativité sont liées. Il convient de remarquer que la Nativité est ici datée de 309 de l’ère Séleucide. Cet extrait témoigne donc de la diffusion de cette datation d’origine édessénienne dans l’ensemble de la tradition syro-occidentale. b. Un autre bref récit intitulé Les noms des Mages circulait de manière indépendante. On le trouve dans le manuscrit syro-oriental Mingana 148 qui date de 1612 (1924 AG).69 Ce manuscrit (écrit sur deux colonnes, ce qui suppose sans doute un modèle assez ancien) contient un livre de «Généalogies» de Moses Karkhaya (Karkha de Piruz), un auteur de la fin du VIe siècle (ff. 1b–2b, 5, 7a–13a), un traité sur l’histoire de chacun des douze apôtres et soixante-dix disciples (ff. 3b–4, 6a–7a) et les noms des Mages (f. 3v). Suivent un Nouveau Testament (évangiles, Actes et épîtres MS V, 10, t. 4, p. 90 T; t. 1, p. 141 V. Sur la question de savoir si la visite du roi Tiridate d’Arménie accompagné d’une nombreuse et fastueuse suite, en 66 de l’è. chr. a pu être à l’origine de cette tradition, voir les avis contradictoires de W. Witakowski, The Magi, et C. et F. Jullien, Apôtres des confins, p. 111. 67 W. Witakowski, The Magi. 68 On pourra se reporter au très commode tableau comparatif des listes présentes chez les auteurs syriaques dans l’article de W. Witakowski, The Magi. 69 Catalogue of the Mingana collection of manuscripts…, vol. 1 Syriac and Garshuni Manuscripts, éd. A. Mingana, Cambridge, 1933, col. 340–345. 65 66

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

129

catholiques puis épîtres pauliniennes) dans la version de la Peshiṭta d’après un manuscrit massorétique (ff. 13b–328a), un traité attribué à Eusèbe sur l’histoire et le martyr de chacun des douze apôtres et soixante-dix disciples (ff. 328a–331b); une liste des lettres de l’alphabet d’après Éphrem, Narsaï, Simon le Mage, Bardesane et les neuf lettres indiennes (f. 332). ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫̈ܪܒ ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܕ ܓ ܐ ܕܐ‬ .‫ܣ‬ ‫ܕܐܓ‬ ‫ܘܬ̈ܪܬ‬ ‫ܐܪܒ‬ ‫ܪܘܣ ܕܗܝ‬ ‫ܘܬ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܪܒ ܒ ܒܐܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܒ ̣ ܚ‬.[‫ܐ‬ ‫܀ ]ܕܗܪܘܕܣ‬ ‫ܒܒ‬ ‫ܬܪ ܓ ܐ ܐܬ‬ ̣ ‫ܒ‬ . ‫ ܗܘܪ ܕ ܒ‬. ‫ܐ ܒ ܀܀ ܙ ܘ ܕ ܒ ܐܪ ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ .‫ܪܘܩ܀ ܪܘܗܪܘ ܕ ܒ ܪܘܕܙ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܐܪ‬. ‫ܒ ܓ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ ܐ ܘܓܒܢ ܒ‬. ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܐܪ‬.‫ܿ ܿܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܫ ܒ ܨܒ ܀ ܨܪܕ ܒ ܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܗܡ܀ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܘܩ ܒ‬ .‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܢ܀ ܘܕܟ ܒ ܒ ܢ܀܀‬ Noms des Mages qui ont apporté les offrandes au Christ. En l’an 308 d’Alexandre qui est la 42e année d’Auguste, et en l’an trente-cinq, [du roi Hérode], le 25 du mois de Kanun premier (décembre) le mercredi, la nuit, avant que chante le coq, il naquit à Bethléem. Zîzwîzad fils d’Arṭaban, Hôrmîzd fils de Seṭrôsh, Gûshnasaph, fils de Gôndnaphar, Ârshak fils de Mahrôq, Rôhrôndad fils de Rôdaz, Ândanahû fils de Kôsrô, Ârṭaḥashîsht fils de Ḥôlat, Eshtôngaabôn fils de Shîshrôn, Mahrôq fils de Ḥûham, Âḥshîrash fils de Ṣabîak, Ṣardalaḥabran fils de Baʽaldan, Marôdak, fils de Baldan.

La date de 308 AG pour la Nativité n’est pas attestée ailleurs (Isho‛dad donne aussi une date qui n’a pas de parallèle, 307 AG70 et l’Histoire de la Vierge a 304 AG71). La datation au 25 décembre est postérieure au troisième quart du IVe siècle, quand se répand en Orient la tradition occidentale de célébrer la Nativité ce jour-là.72 Éphrem témoigne encore d’une datation ancienne au 6 janvier, jour de l’Épiphanie.73 C’est aussi la date donnée par l’Histoire de la Vierge. L’an trente-cinq doit être compris en années de règne d’Hérode.74 L’ordre des mots doit en effet être restitué ainsi : les mots «du Commentary, p. 15. Histoire de la Vierge, p. 28 T qui donne cette date pour le décret d’Auguste. 72 Cf. F. Cassingena-Trévedy, Éphrem de Nisibe. Hymnes sur la Nativité, Paris, 2007 (Sources chrétiennes 459), p. 9, n. 2. 73 Nat. 27, 3, 3. 74 cf. plus haut, note 23. 70 71

130

DEBIÉ

roi Hérode» et la suite de la datation ont glissé en syriaque à la ligne suivante, après Bethléem, mais dont ils sont séparés par un quadruple point et où ils n’offrent pas de sens satisfaisant. Bethléem n’est en effet jamais appelée la ville d’Hérode et la mention de la date et du mois est attendue avant celle du jour de la semaine et du moment de la journée. La date du mercredi est présente aussi dans l’Histoire de la Vierge. La liste de noms, assez conforme aux autres versions, ne comporte que onze noms. La présence de ce court texte est cohérente avec le contenu du manuscrit consacré aux généalogies bibliques et aux noms des personnages du Nouveau Testament (douze apôtres et soixante-dix disciples). c. Le Livre des Témoignages sur l’Économie du Christ présente une version originale de l’épisode des Mages.75 Ce texte a été composé en milieu syrooriental, vraisemblablement dans les toutes premières décennies du VIIIe siècle.76 Le texte est contenu dans deux manuscrits récents (XVIIIe siècle), conservés, l’un à Londres (le BL Add. 25 875: B, ff. 58v–77v), l’autre à la Vaticane (le Vat. sir. 164: V, ff. 79–109). Tous les deux sont des manuscrits en écriture nestorienne, datés respectivement de 1702 et 1709 de l’è. chr. Ils ont été copiés tous les deux sensiblement au même moment, sous le patriarche Élie, dans la région de Mossoul. Ce passage se trouve aux ff. 97r– 98r dans le manuscrit du Vatican, au f. 70r–v dans le manuscrit de Londres. ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܙܒ ܐ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܒܒ‬.‫ܢ ܒܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬.‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒ‬. ‫ܗ ܕܕܘ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܙܠ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܪܘܕܣ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܕܐ ܒ‬ ‫̈ ܪܒ ܐ ܒܐ ̈ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫̈ ܐ ܕ ܣ ܬܪ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ‬. ‫ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܘܐܙ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗܐ‬. ‫ ܐܙ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܒܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ .‫ܓ ܿܗ ܕ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܿܘܢ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܙܠ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ̣ ̈ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܘ ܓ ܘ‬ ‫ܿܗܝ ܕܒ ܐܬ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬ ܿ .‫̈ܪܒ ܐ ܕܗܒܐ ܘ ̣ ܪܐ ܘ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܬܝ‬ ‫ܕܘܕ ܒ ̣ ̈ܪ ܐ ܘܨ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܒ ̣ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܙܘ ܒ ܬܗ ܕ ܢ ܒ‬. ‫ܒ ̣ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫̣ ܗܕ ܘܢ ܒ ܐ ܘܒܐܪ ܐ ܕܥ‬ ‫ܐ ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ Ce texte a déjà été présenté par U. Monneret de Villard d’après une traduction de G. Levi della Vida, p. 120–123. 76 Voir M. Debié, «Muslim-Christian Controversy» (cit. n. 12). Les deux manuscrits sont du tout début du XVIIIe siècle: il s’agit du Vat. Sir. 164 et du BL Add. 25 875. 75

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

131

̈ ‫̣ ܐܪ‬ ‫ ܕ ̣ ̣ܘ ܪ ܒ‬:‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܪ‬ ‫̈ ܘܢ ܕܗ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܐܪ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܓ‬ ‫ܘܗܘܪ ܕܕ ܒ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘ ̣ ܓ‬.‫̣ ܪܘܓ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܐܪ ܵ ܿܘ ܒ‬.‫ܘܙܗܪܘ ܕ ܒ ܼܿܘܪܘܙ‬ .‫̣ ܪܘܩ‬ ܼ ̣ ܼ ‫ ܘܐܪ‬.‫ܘ‬ ܿ ‫ ܘܐ ̣ ܫ‬. ‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܘ ̣ ܪܘܩ ܒ‬. ‫̣ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ̣ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܿܘ‬. ‫ܒ ܒ ܕܢ‬ : ܼܿ ‫ܒ ܨ‬ ‫ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗ‬.‫ܘܕܟ ܒ ܒ ܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܘܨܪܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ̈ ܿ ‫ܿܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬ ܐ‬:‫̈ܪܒ ܐ‬ .‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܕ̈ܪ ܐ ܐ‬ . ̣ ‫ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܕܬܪ‬ ‫ܘ ܒܐ ܕ ܕܐ ̈ ܿܘܢ‬ .

Quand le temps passa et que furent accomplis 5500 ans, le Christ notre Seigneur naquit, dans le sixième millénaire, à Bethléem de Judée, dans la ville de David, aux jours du roi Hérode. Une étoile arriva, qui appela douze rois de Perse. Ils apportèrent dans leurs mains ces trois offrandes et allèrent à Jérusalem s’informer de l’endroit où le Christ était né. Quand ils eurent appris par les scribes et les Pharisiens que le Christ était né à Bethléem, ils y allèrent. Et voici que l’étoile allait devant les rois, jusqu’à ce qu’ils entrent dans la grotte où le Christ était né. Ils tombèrent face contre terre et l’adorèrent. Ils firent un feu et firent se consumer les trois offrandes, l’or, la myrrhe et l’encens. Ils repartirent en Perse dans l’allégresse munis des bénédictions et des prières de NotreDame la Bienheureuse Marie et de Joseph. Ils proclamèrent la Bonne nouvelle de Notre-Seigneur dans le monde entier et jusqu’à la fin du monde leur mémorial est inscrit dans le ciel et sur la terre. Faisons connaître les noms de ces douze rois: Dîrôndad fils de Qûârtaš, Hôrmîzdad fils de Sîṣrôg, Tîgranasapâ fils de Gôndapâ, Âršân fils de Mîharôq, Zahrwandad fils de Warôz, Ârîhô fils de Kesrô, Ârṭaḥašîšt fils de Ḥûlaḥad, Ešṭa‛bdôn fils de Šîrônaš, Mîharôq fils de Ḥûhîm, Âḥšîraš fils de Ṣapḥân, Ṣardalaḥ fils de Baldadan, Marôrak, fils de Baldan. Ces trois offrandes, ce sont les trois rois parmi eux qui les portaient parce qu’ils étaient princes (B) et le reste de leurs compagnons complétaient les douze rois.

Ce texte présente plusieurs originalités. Le nombre douze y est utilisé comme un symbole déjà dans un passage précédent, puisque ce sont douze rois (différents des rois mages, leurs noms sont donnés aussi et sont différents) qui construisirent Jérusalem au centre de la terre, du temps de Melchisédeq (V f. 88r; B f. 64ra). Des apôtres bâtisseurs, fondateurs de Jérusalem, précèdent donc les mages apôtres, fondateurs du christianisme iranien. Leur venue est annoncée par une prophétie de Daniel qui prédit la

132

DEBIÉ

venue du Christ dans le sixième millénaire, après 5500 ans77 (V f. 97r, B f. 70) et raconte comment Nabuchodonosor a rapporté en Perse les offrandes qui se trouvaient à Jérusalem. La confrontation des Mages avec les scribes et les pharisiens est présente déjà chez Éphrem, dans la perspective antijudaïque déjà mentionnée où les Mages seuls, ou au mieux, avant les Juifs, reconnaissent la divinité du Christ.78 Surtout, ce texte est le seul à dire que les Mages brûlèrent les offrandes. Le silence des autres sur ce que devinrent l’or, la myrrhe et l’encens en est d’autant plus criant. La théorie selon laquelle la forme sémitique dhb, «or», pourrait être lue ḏhb, c’est-à-dire comme une aromate, au même titre que la myrrhe et l’encens, conviendrait bien dans ce contexte.79 On comprendrait mieux que ce soit une troisième aromate et non de l’or qui s’exhale dans le feu. Ce passage est de toute évidence une référence au culte du feu mazdéen dont ces princes sont peut-être des prêtres (ce texte ne le dit pas), mais peut-être fait-il aussi allusion à l’holocauste de la tradition juive: c’est l’ultime sacrifice des religions anciennes, paganisme, mazdéisme et judaïsme, qui s’éteint devant la personne du Christ qui devient le sacrifice et la lumière véritables.

CONCLUSION Il est très difficile d’établir un arbre de transmission de ces traditions. Les commentateurs tardifs ont rassemblé les différentes versions dont ils avaient connaissance, aussi bien auprès des Pères grecs que de la tradition syriaque, ce qui montre bien une fois encore que les deux sont intimement liées et n’étaient pas séparées par les auteurs de langue syriaque. Si les récits sur les Mages ont vraisemblablement été produits en milieu syro-oriental où ils ont fini par être canonisés, ils n’y sont pas restés cantonnés mais ont circulé en milieu syro-orthodoxe, voire au-delà, dans les mondes de langue 77 Cette datation est traditionnelle depuis Julius Africanus dans le christianisme ancien et syriaque en particulier dans le schéma qui veut que ce monde dure six millénaires au terme desquels se produira la fin des temps. La venue du Christ se situe au milieu du VIe millénaire. W. Adler, «Eusebius Chronology and its Legacy», in Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, éd. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, Détroit, Wayne State University Press, 1992, p. 467–49. p. 468–9. Cf. M. Debié, «Temps linéaire, temps circulaire», p. 181. 78 A. de Halleux, «L’adoration des Mages», p. 255. 79 G. Ryckmans, «De l’or (?), de l’encens et de la myrrhe», Revue biblique LVIII, 1951, p 372–376. Cf. U. Monneret de Villard, Le Leggende, p. 1. On trouve ces trois aromates mentionnées sur les autels à parfum de Saba. L’interprétation de dhb comme désignant l’or se serait fixée dans le monde hellénistique.

SUIVRE L’ÉTOILE À OXFORD

133

grecque et latine. Ces apocryphes qui n’ont pas d’incidence du point de vue des querelles christologiques ont traversé sans peine les barrières confessionnelles. Ils ont été plutôt utilisés, en raison de leur théologie centrée sur la reconnaissance de la divinité du Christ, dans le cadre d’exégèses anti-judaïques puis anti-musulmanes (souvent abordées dans les habits de la controverse avec les Juifs pour laquelle les arguments avaient été fourbis depuis longtemps) comme le montre le Livre des Témoignages ou la présence dans la chronique en arabe de Barhebraeus, destinée entre autres à un public musulman.80 S’ils sont allés si loin, de la Perse à l’Asie centrale et la Chine, accompagnant les missionnaires de langue syriaque et sont restés si présents, jusque dans les histoires orales du Tur Abdin, c’est sans doute par la place centrale qu’ils occupent dans la définition identitaire de l’Église de l’Orient et plus largement du christianisme de langue syriaque dont ils constituent un des mythes des origines.

Barhebraeus ne reprend que dans la chronique en arabe les différentes versions données par Michel le Syrien d’après Denys Bar Ṣalibi, de manière plus détaillée donc que dans la chronique en syriaque. Or le public visé par ces deux textes n’est pas le même et l’on peut penser que cet épisode jouait un rôle apologétique dans ce contexte. 80

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ AND THE KITĀB ĀDĀB ALFALĀSIFAH: THE PURSUIT OF WISDOM AND A HUMANE POLITY IN EARLY ABBASID BAGHDAD SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH

INSTITUTE OF CHRISTIAN ORIENTAL RESEARCH THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA WASHINGTON, DC USA [email protected] I The interest on the part of the Abbasid elite of ninth-century Baghdad in Arabic translations of the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, and in Greek mathematical, scientific and medical texts by other writers, such as Galen (129–c.210), ushered in a whole new era for Christian intellectual life in Mesopotamia, where previously Syriac had been the language of learning. And since the Abbasid caliph’s capital was located in the historical heartland of the Assyrian Church of the East, it is no surprise that so-called ‘Nestorian’ Christians, including the famed Patriarch Timothy I (r.780– 823),1 quickly found their way to Baghdad to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new intellectual movement. Some were physicians, some were philosophers, and some were logicians, mathematicians, copyists or just translators.2 All of them contributed something to the newly flowering culture of the early days of the 1 See Hans Putman, L’église et l’islam sous Timothée I (780–823): étude sur l’église nestorienne au temps des premiers ‛abbāsides, avec nouvelle edition et traduction du dialogue entre Timothée et al-Mahdī (Beyrouth: Dar el-Machreq Éditeurs, 1975); Bénédicte Landron, Chrétiens et musulmans en Irak: Attitudes nestoriennes vis-à-vis de l’islam (Études Chrétiennes Arabes; Paris: Cariscript, 1994), pp. 46–53. 2 See Raymond Le Coz, Les médecins nestoriens au moyen âge: Les maîtres des arabes (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2004).

135

136

GRIFFITH

burgeoning classical period of Islamic civilization. But in no society-wide enterprise did these ‘Nestorian’ Christians take a more prominent role than they did in the famed, ‛Abbāsid translation movement. For, as Dimitri Gutas has rightly noted, the vast majority of the translators of Greek and Syriac texts into Arabic were Christians;3 their names and their undertakings have long been known and numerous scholarly studies have described their techniques and listed the works they translated.4 Interest in Greek learning and philosophy, particularly Aristotle’s logic, had been widespread in the Syriac-speaking communities already from the sixth century onward,5 including the ‘Nestorian’ school system in centers such as Nisibis,6 al-Ḥīra, the monastery of Dayr Qunnā7 and Jundisābūr.8 In the sixth century, Paul the Persian (fl.531–578), who had ties to the ancient school of Alexandria, was already cultivating Aristotelianism among the east Syrians, albeit that in the end he seems to have become a convert to 3 See Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ‛Abbāsid Society (2nd-4th/8th-10th centuries) (London & New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 136. 4 See Bénédicte Landron, “Les chrétiens arabes et les disciplines philosophiques,” Proche Orient Chrétien 36 (1986), pp. 23–45; Ephraem-Isa Yousif, Les philosophes et traducteurs syriaques; d’Athènes à Bagdad (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1997); Mirella Cassarino, Traduzioni e Traduttori Arabi dall’ VIII all’ XI Secolo (Roma: Salerno Editrice, 1998). 5 John Watt, “Grammar, Rhetoric, and the Enkyklios Paideia in Syriac,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 143 (1993), pp. 45–71; Javier Teixidor, Aristote en syriaque: Paul le Perse, logician du Vie siècle (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2003); Henri Hugonnard-Roche, La logique d’Aristote du grec au syriaque: Études sur la transmission des texts de l’Organon et leur interpretation philosophique (Textes et Traditions, 9; Paris: Librairie Philosophique Vrin, 2004). 6 See G. J. Reinink, “‘Edessa Grew Dim and Nisibis Shone Forth:’ The School of Nisibis at the Transition of the Sixth-Seventh Century,” in J. W. Drijvers & A. A. MacDonald (eds.), Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East (Studies in Intellectual History, 61; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 77–89; Adam H. Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006). 7 See Louis Massignon, “La politique islamo-chrétienne des scribes nestoriens de Deir Qunna à la cour de Bagdad au IXe siècle de notre ère,” Vivre et Penser 2 (1942), pp. 7–14, reprinted in L. Massignon, Opera Minora (ed. Y. Moubarac, 3 vols.; Beirut: Dar al-Maaref, 1963), vol. I, pp. 250–257. 8 See Heinz Herbert Schöffler, Die Adademie von Gondischapur: Aristoteles auf dem Wege in den Orient (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1980).

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

137

Zoroastrianism in Persia, at the court of Anūshirwān (531–579).9 By the mid-eighth century, ‘Nestorian’ scholars such as the well-known members of the Bukhtīshū‛ family, with their connections to Jundīsābūr, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (808–873), who hailed from the ‘Nestorian’ capital of the Lakhmids, al-Ḥīra, and Abū Bishr Mattā ibn Yūnus (d.940), from the flourishing monastery of Dayr Qunnā, not far from Baghdad, who became “the founder of the Aristotelian school in Baghdad early in the tenth century,”10 all soon came to be among the dominant Christian scholars in the GraecoArabic translation movement in early Abbasid times. In the ninth century, one of them in particular stands out as an early representative of the new breed of Christian intellectuals in Baghdad in the heyday of the translation movement, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq.

II Unlike Patriarch Timothy and the other Arabic-speaking, Christian apologists in earlier Abbasid times, who for all their accomplishments as controversialists, or even as translators, were primarily churchmen engaged in ecclesiastical affairs, men like the ‘Nestorian’ Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq in the ninth century, and the ‘Jacobite’ Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī (c.893–974) in the tenth century, were professional scholars who circulated at the highest levels of Baghdad’s learned elite. While they remained dedicated to the task of the systematic defense of the veracity of Christian doctrine and practice, and made major contributions to Christian apologetic literature in Arabic, as we shall see, these scholars also engaged wholeheartedly in the scientific, medical, and philosophical interests of contemporary Muslim intellectuals. Some of them even participated in the debates which roiled the Islamic religious establishment of the time over the proper role, if any, of the ‘foreign sciences,’ such as Aristotelian logic, in Arabic, Islamic religious discourse. What is more, intellectuals such as Ḥunayn and Yaḥyā vigorously cultivated a new line of Christian thinking in this milieu. They were prompted both by their interest in the Neo-Platonic Aristotelianism of sixth century Alexandria which, with the translation movement, had attained a new life in Baghdad, at the same time as they were also inspired by the intellectual concerns of early Muslim philosophers such as Ya‛qūb ibn Isḥāq 9 See Dimitri Gutas, “Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosophy: A Milestone between Alexandria and Bagdad,” Der Islam 60 (1983), pp. 231–267. 10 Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, p. 14.

138

GRIFFITH

al-Kindī (c.800–c.867)11 and Abū Na r al-Fārābī (c.870–950) respectively.12 This new line of Christian thinking in Arabic sought to promote a reasonbased, social ethic for the world in which the Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims lived. It would be open both to the claims of the Christian and the Islamic scriptures, and it would also foster the acquisition of personal and public virtues on the part of the leaders of society, whose charge it would be, according to these thinkers, to work for the common good of everyone in the body politic, especially the scholars, ascetics and religious teachers of both the church and the mosque.13 The most prominent and earliest of these new Christian intellectuals was Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq.14 He is well known to historians as the founder and central figure in a ninth-century, Baghdadī school of translators of Greek medical and scientific texts.15 In his day, he was also celebrated for the doggedness with which he studied Greek and pursued manuscripts from city to city, and perhaps even beyond the borders of the caliphate into the territory of the Romans. As a reputed physician, Ḥunayn was a familiar presence in the intellectual circles of the caliphal court from the time of alMa‚mūn (813–833) to that of al-Mu‛tamid (869–892), enjoying a particularly high-profile career during the days of the caliph al-Mutawakkil (847–861), whose sometime personal physician he was. Unlike earlier and contemporary Christian intellectuals such as Patriarch Timothy or the ‘Melkite’ Theodore Abū Qurrah (c.755–c.830), both of whom had been See Peter Adamson, Al-Kindī (Great Medieval Thinkers; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 12 See Philippe Vallat, Farabi et l’école d’Alexandrie: Des premises de la connaissance à la philosophie politique (Études Musulmanes, XXXVIII; Paris: J. Vrin, 2004). 13 See, e.g., the ideas put forward in the tenth century by the Christian Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī, The Reformation of Morals (ed. Samir Khalil Samir, trans. Sidney H. Griffith; Provo, UT: The Brigham Young University Press, 2002), and the Muslim Aḥmad ibn Miskawayh (d.1030), see Mohammed Arkoun (trans.), Miskawayh (320/1–420), Traité d’éthique (2nd ed.; Damas: Institut Français de Damas, 1988). 14 On Ḥunayn’s life and works, see G. C. Anawati, “Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq al‛Ibādī, Abū Zayd,” in Charles Coulton Gillispie (ed.) Dictionary of Scientific Biography (vol. 15, supplement, I; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1980), pp. 230–234, and Albert Z. Iskandar, “Ḥunayn the Translator,” & “Ḥunayn the Physician,” in Gillispie, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, pp. 234–249; Bénédicte Landron, Chrétiens et musulmans en Irak: Attitudes Nestoriennes vis-à-vis de l’islam (Études Chrétiennes Arabes; Paris: Cariscript, 1994), pp. 66–71; 15 See Myriam Salama-Carr, La traduction à l’époque abbaside: l’école de Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq et son importance pour la tradition (Paris: Didier, 1990). 11

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

139

involved in translation work for Muslim patrons,16 Ḥunayn was one of the first Christians whose scholarly undertakings were widely recounted in Arabic in the later annals of Muslim learning in Abbasid times, by both medieval and modern authors.17 In his day, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq was a public intellectual of record. Modern scholarship on Ḥunayn and his works has largely focused its attention on his professional activity, his translations of logical, philosophical, medical and scientific texts, and on some of his more colorful, personal exploits, the knowledge of some of which reportedly comes from his own pen.18 Relatively little attention has been paid to Ḥunayn’s own ideas, either in the realm of philosophy or of theology. And yet there is ample evidence that these were of the greatest importance to him. Like his somewhat older, Muslim contemporary, the philosopher alKindī (c.800–c.867), of whom Gerhard Endress has said that for al-Kindī the purpose of “philosophy was to vindicate the pursuit of rational activity as an activity in the service of Islam,”19 so one might say of Ḥunayn that for him the cultivation of science and philosophy was likewise for the sake of promoting the claims of reason in the service of both religion and public life. Compared to other contemporary Christian intellectuals, Ḥunayn did not write so much on religious topics that has survived, but what he did 16 See Sebastian Brock, “Two Letters of the Patriarch Timothy from the Late Eighth Century on Translations from Greek,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 9 (1999), pp. 233–246; Sidney H. Griffith, “Arab Christian Culture in the Early Abbasid Period,” Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies 1 (1999), pp. 25–44. 17 A case in point is the recent book published by a Muslim scholar in Saudi Arabia: Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‛Abd Allāh Dubyān, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq: Dirāsah tarīkhiyyah walughawiyyah (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Malik Fahd al-Wataniyyah, 1993). 18 For an English translation of portions of Ḥunayn’s so-called ‘autobiography’ see Dwight F. Reynolds et al. (eds.), Interpreting the Self: Autobiography in the Arabic Literary Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Presss, 2001), pp. 212ff. See also, Awad Awad, “Bayhaqī’s Tārīkh Ḥukamā‚ al-Islām: New Light on Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s Biography,” reported in abstract in the collected Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the American Oriental Society, San Antonio, Texas, 17–20 March 2007, pp. 39–40. 19 Gerhard Endress, “The Circle of al-Kindī: Early Arabic Translations from the Greek and the Rise of Islamic Philosophy,” in Gerhard Endress & Remke Kruk (eds.), The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism: Studies on the Transmission of Greek Philosophy and Sciences (Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies, 1997), p. 50.

140

GRIFFITH

write spoke to the major topics of the day, both Christian and Islamic. It is notable that, unlike other Christian writers of his own time and later, he did not engage in the church-dividing, inter-confessional, Christian controversies then currently flourishing. He did not, for example, so far as we know, write polemical tracts against the doctrinal views of the ‘Melkites’ or the ‘Jacobites,’ or in support of the Christological teaching of his own, so-called ‘Nestorian’ church.20 Rather, in works which we know for the most part only by title, as they are listed in early bibliographies, Ḥunayn addressed himself to issues such as why God created man in a state of need (muḥtājan), how one grasps the truths of religion, how to understand God’s fore-ordainment of the affairs of the world (al-qadar) in the light of the profession of monotheism (at-tawḥīd), and what are the criteria according to which the true religion might be discerned. The latter was a particularly important topic for both Muslims and Christians in Ḥunayn’s lifetime, as we shall see. In addition, in some sources Ḥunayn is said to have translated the Bible in its Septuagint version into Arabic21 and to have composed a history of the world from Adam to the time of the caliph al-Mutawakkil (d.861), including the kings of Israel, the Roman and Persian kings up to the time of Muḥammad, and the Muslim caliphs up to his own time. Unfortunately, this latter book has not survived. However, one should not underestimate the apologetic and even the polemic agenda of such books of history in the intellectual milieu of the time, when Muslim authors from Ibn Isḥāq (d.c.767) and Ibn Hishām (d.834) to al-Ya‛qūbī (d.897), perhaps following earlier Christian models, were presenting Muḥammad and his prophetic claims in terms of just such a biblio-historical narrative.22 20 See S. P. Brock, “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 78 (1996), pp. 23–35. 21 See the report in Abū l-Ḥasan ‛Alī al-Mas‛ūdī, Kitāb at-Tanbīh wa l-Ishrāf (ed. M. M. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum arabicorum, part 8; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1894), p. 112. 22 Already in the Syriac-speaking tradition, in the context of the doctrinal controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries, historians and chronographers were producing texts in this vein, a development which may well have inspired Muslim authors to buttress their religious claims in the same manner. See, e.g., the studies of Witold Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Maḥrē: A Study in the History of Historiography (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, 9; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987); Jan J. van Ginkel, John of Ephesus: A Monophysite Historian in Sixth-Century Byzantium (Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1995). This tradition continued among Syriac-speaking Christians well into the Middle Ages, with such works as the Chronicle of Michael

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

141

Ḥunayn’s may well have been the first Christian effort in this vein in the Islamic milieu, a work which would not be taken up again by an Arab Christian writer until the time of the ‘Melkite,’ Eutychios of Alexandria / Sa‛īd ibn Ba rīq (877–940).23 Later still, Elias of Nisibis (975–1046), like Ḥunayn a member of the so-called ‘Nestorian’ Church of the East, carried on this historical tradition in his Chronography (Kitāb al-Azminah).24 Luckily, one of Ḥunayn’s principal contributions to Christian apologetics in the Islamic milieu, his discussion of the reasons (al-asbāb) why people are likely to accept either what is true or what is false in religion, has survived in at least two forms, with some variation between them.25 In one form, the text was preserved by the medieval Coptic scholar, al-Mu‛taman ibn al-‛Assāl (fl. 1230–1260), who included it in his magisterial Summary of the Principles of Religion, together with a commentary on it by the twelfth century Coptic writer, Yuḥannā ibn Mīnā, who, according to Ibn al-‛Assāl, gathered his material “from the books of the scholars (ulamā‚) of the Christian sharī‛ah.”26 The other form of the text is included in Ḥunayn’s contribution the Syrian (1126–1199), the anonymous Chronicon ad annum 1234, and the Chronicle of Bar Hebraeus (1226–1286). 23 See Sidney H. Griffith, “Apologetics and Historiography in the Annals of Eutychios of Alexandria: Christian Self-Definition in the World of Islam,” in Rifaat Ebied & Herman Teule (eds.), Studies on the Christian Arabic Heritage: In Honor of Father Prof. Dr. Samir Khalil Samir (Eastern Christian Studies, 5; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), pp. 65–89. 24 See Samir Khalil Samir, “Élie de Nisibe (Iliyyā al-Na ībī) (975–1046),” Bibliographie du dialogue islamo-chrétien,” Islamochristiana 3 (1977), pp. 283–284. 25 See the discussions of this text in Rachid Haddad, “Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq apologiste Chrétien,” and Paul Nwiya, “Actualité du concept de religion chez Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq,” in Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq: Collection d’articles publiée à l’occasion du onzième centenaire de sa mort (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), pp. 292–302 & 313–317. See also the chapter on Ḥunayn in Dominique Urvoy, Les penseurs libres dans l’islam classique (Paris: Albin Michel, 1996), pp. 67–92; and Jean Maurice Fiey, Chrétiens Syriaques sous les Abbasides surtout à Bagdad (749–1258) (CSCO, vol. 420; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1980), pp. 101–104. It is interesting to note in passing that Ḥunayn’s list of reasons why people adopt a particular religion is comparable in many ways to the reasons presented in the work of the Iranian physician, Burzoy, which the Muslim free-thinker Ibn al-Muqaffa‛ translated into Arabic and published as the preface to his celebrated Kalīlah wa Dimnah. See Teixidor, Aristote en syriaque, p. 31. 26 Paul Sbath (ed.), Vingt traités philosophiques et apologétiques d’auteurs arabes chrétiens du IXe au XIVe siècle (Cairo: H. Friedrich et Co., 1929), p. 186. Ḥunayn’s text is republished in a modern, critical edition by Samir Khalil Samir, “Maqālah

142

GRIFFITH

to the correspondence between himself and his Muslim friend at the caliph’s court, Abū ‛Īsā ibn al-Munajjim (d.888), who had summoned him and their younger ‘Melkite’ colleague, Qus ā ibn Lūqā (d.c.912), to profess Islam.27 It seems to have been the case that contemporary and later Christian apologists made much use of Ḥunayn’s discussion of these matters in their own further and rather original elaborations of what they presented as the negative criteria, the absence of which in the acceptance of Christianity, they claimed, is indicative of its unique status as the true religion. These apologists argued that the true religion is that one of the contemporary options which would not be accepted for any or all of the six or seven, unworthy and therefore negative reasons, for which, according to Ḥunayn and the others, people might otherwise be inclined to accept the teachings of a given religion as true.28 But perhaps the most significant of the works usually attributed to Ḥunayn from the point of view of highlighting the new element in the intellectual culture of the Christian scholars of Baghdad from the ninth to the eleventh centuries, is one which has not in fact been much discussed by recent scholars. The new element was the systematic championship of the pursuit of wisdom and logical reasoning in defense of the credibility of Christian doctrines and in the discernment of both religious truth and right social behavior more generally in the body politic at large.29 And the now seldom studied work attributed to Ḥunayn is the Kitāb Ādāb al-falāsifah, or Nawādir al-falāsifah, as it is sometimes also called, a composite work in the form in which we have it, transmitted in a surviving compilation by a Muslim scholar of the late twelfth century, the otherwise unknown Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq fī kayfiyyat idrāk ḥaqīqat ad-diyānah,” al-Machriq 71 (1997), pp. 340–363. 27 Khalil Samir & Paul Nwyia (ed. & trans.), Une correspondence islamo-chrétienne entre Ibn al-Munağğim, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq et Qus ā ibn Lūqā (Patrologia Orientalis, tome 40, fasc., 4, no. 185; Turnhout: Brepols, 1981), pp. 686–701. 28 For more on the wider context of this Christian apologetic scheme, see Sidney H. Griffith, “Comparative Religion in the Apologetics of the First Christian Arabic Theologians,” Proceedings of the PMR Conference: Annual Publication of the Patristic, Mediaeval and Renaissance Conference, 4 (1979), pp. 63–87; reprinted in Sidney H. Griffith, The Beginnings of Christian Theology in Arabic: Muslim-Christian Encounters in the Early Islamic Period (Variorum Collected Studies Series; Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate/Variorum, 2002), no. I. 29 For the wider context in which these ideas appealed to both Christians and Muslims, see still Franz Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant: The Concept of Knowledge in Medieval Islam (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), esp. pp. 194–333.

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

143

Muḥammad ibn ‛Alī al-An ārī, whose name appears as the scribe in the extant manuscripts of text that has come down to us.30 Most commentators on this work have characterized it as belonging to a well-known and popular genre of the time, the collection of gnomological, aphoristic sayings attributed to the ancient philosophers and wise men, including the likes of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Galen, and the Persian Luqmān. This characterization is certainly true as far as it goes; the text is one of a number of Greek and Arabic compilations of wisdom sayings attributed to the ancient sages.31 The individual aphorisms, which in the ensemble have been the focus of most scholarly attention so far, can indeed be traced from one compilation to another and the contents of the several collections can be compared with one another to show a continuing tradition in the collection of gnomological sayings. But each compilation can also be studied in its own right, with attention paid to each compiler’s particular interests and concerns. Often the aphorisms are quoted within the context of an overarching narrative framework which expresses the principal concern of the compiler of each individual work. So, in the Ādāb al-falāsifah, the opening narrative speaks of the founding of philosophy and its social significance, of its various branches, of the coming to be of ‘houses of wisdom’ among various peoples in historical succession at the instigation of kings, not only among the ancient Greeks, but also among the ancient Persians, Jews, Christians and Muslims.32 The text speaks of the sages who transmitted the twin values of ‘knowledge’ (‛ilm) (or ‘wisdom’ (ḥikmah)), and ‘disciplinary practice’ (adab). It teaches that the pursuit of ‛ilm 30 The text has relatively recently been published by Abdurrahman Badawi (ed.), Hunain ibn Ishâq: Âdâb al-Falâsifa (Sentences des Philosophes) (Safat, Koweit: Éditions de l’Institut des Manuscrits Arabes, 1985). 31 See Dimitri Gutas, Greek Wisdom Literature in Arabic Translation: A Study of the Graeco-Arabic Gnomologia (American Oriental Series, vol. 60; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1975). 32 One recalls in passing, al-Fārābī’s reported interest in the history of philosophy and how it came to the world of Islam via the Christians. See the passage translated into English from al-Fārābī’s lost The Rise of Philosophy, as reported in Ibn Abī Usaybi‛ah’s ‘Uyūn al-anbā,’ by Majid Fakhry, Al-Fārābī: Founder of Islamic Neoplatonism; His Life, Works and Influence (Great Islamic Thinkers; Oxford: One World, 2002), pp. 158–160. See also al-Fārābī’s account of the origins of philosophy in its several schools in his essay, “On What Must Precede the Study of Philosophy,” in Friedrich Dieterici, Alfārābī’s philosophische Abhandlungen (Leiden: Brill, 1890; new printing, Osnabrück, 1982), pp. 49–50.

144

GRIFFITH

and adab constitutes the philosophical way of life; its practice promises happiness and harmony for both individuals and society as a whole.33 In the context of the burgeoning Christian intellectual life in Arabic in the ninth century, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s contributions to the Kitāb Ādāb alfalāsifah can be seen to have given voice to a new line of thinking for Christians living in the caliphate, which would be developed even further by Christian intellectuals in the next generations. In addition to the customary apologetic concerns of Patriarch Timothy and others, the new turn in Christian thought in Arabic involved the appropriation of Persian wisdom traditions as well as the Late Antique ideal of the philosophical way of life, as commended by the Neoplatonic Aristotelians of Athens and Alexandria in the sixth Christian century, as part and parcel of the Christian intellectual agenda in Islamic society. Of course, Syriac-speaking Christians in previous centuries, beginning with Paul the Persian in the sixth century,34 had adumbrated this development. But now Christian thinkers writing in Arabic would be taking part in a conversation with contemporary Muslim intellectuals who, in addition to heightening the role of reason in religious discourse, were also developing an interest not only in the improving literature of the old ‘mirror for princes’ tradition, but in moral development, the acquisition of virtues, and the beginnings of a community oriented, public philosophy,35 which would eventually bear fruit in the Islamic instance, in the philosopher al-Fārābī’s Principles of the Opinions of the Inhabitants of the Virtuous City,36 to mention only the most well known such

See Jean Jolivet, “L’idée de la sagesse et sa function dans la philosophie des 4e et 5e siècles,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 1 (1991), pp. 31–65, esp. 45–47. 34 See Dimitri Gutas, “Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosophy: A Milestone between Alexandria and Bagdad,” Der Islam 60 (1983), pp. 231–267; Teixidor, Aristote en syriaque. 35 See Patricia Crone, God’s Rule: Government and Islam; Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), pp. 148–196. 36 Muhsin S. Mahdi, Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001). On the intriguing suggestion that the ninth-century, Christian intellectual Anton of Tagrit could have paved the way for Alfarabi’s work, see John W. Watt, “From Themistius to al-Farabi: Platonic Political Philosophy and Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the East,” Rhetorica 13 (1995), pp. 17– 41. 33

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

145

work, and in the growth in the tenth and eleventh centuries of what some modern commentators have come to call Islamic humanism.37

III But for the moment, let us linger with the Kitāb Ādāb al-falāsifah. It is somewhat startling to realize that until very recently only one substantive study of the work in its original Arabic has appeared, the doctoral dissertation of Karl Merkle, submitted to the University of Munich in 1921.38 Merkle says that he had already prepared an edition of the Arabic text,39 but it seems never to have been published. This is the case, in spite of the earlier, scholarly popularity of this work and the fact that the thirteenth century, Andalusian, Hebrew translation of the Ādāb al-falāsifah was published in 1896,40 and scholars have subsequently gone on to study it and the work’s translation into Latin and other European languages in some detail.41 It was not until 1985 that Abdurraḥmān Badawī published the original Arabic text.42 Since then two important studies of the work have appeared.43 37 See Joel L. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam: The Cultural Revival during the Buyid Age (Leiden: Brill, 1986); Lenn E. Goodman, Islamic Humanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 38 Karl Merkle, Die Sittensprüche der Philosophen “Kitâb Âdâb al-falâsifa” von Ḥonein ibn Isḥâq in der Überarbeitung des Muḥammad ibn ‛Alî al-An ârî (Diss. München; Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz,1921; republished in Fuat Sezgin (ed.), Islamic Philosophy (vol. 17; Frankfurt: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 1999). 39 Merkle, Die Sittensprüche der Philosophen, p. 4. 40 Albert Loewenthal, Honein ibn Isḥâq, Sinnsprüche der Philosophen. Nach der hebräischen Übersetzung Charisi’s ins Deutsche übertragen und erläutert (Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1896), reprinted in Sezgin, Islamic Philosophy. 41 See Manuel Alonso, “Ḥunayn traducido al latín por Ibn Dāwūd Gundisalvo,” al-Andalus 16 (1951), pp. 37–47; John K. Walsh, “Versiones Peninsulares del “Kitāb Ādāb al-falāsifa” de Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq,” al-Andalus 41 (1978), pp. 355–384. 42 Badawi, Ḥunain ibn Isḥâq, Âdâb al-falâsifah. 43 O. Overwien, “Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, Ādāb al-falāsifa; Griechische Inhalte in einer arabischer Spruchsammlung,” in R. M. Piccione & M. Perkams (eds.), Selecta Colligere I: Akten des Kolloquiums “Sammeln, Neuordnen, heues Schaffen: Methoden der Überlieferung von Texten in der Spätantike und in Byzanz” (Jena, 21–23 November 2002; Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso, 2003), pp. 95–115; Mohsen Zakeri, “Ādāb al— falāsifa: The Persian Content of an Arabic Collection of Aphorisms,” in Emma

146

GRIFFITH

Muḥammad ibn ‛Alī al-An ārī’s presentation of Ādāb al-falāsifah, attributed to Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, is simple in outline; it is composed of several parts, including an opening narrative of the history of philosophy, and a collection of quotations from the major philosophers of the past. The text as we have it, seems to be a compilation of material drawn from an originally much longer original, including, as we have mentioned above, the prefatory, episodic history of the ‘houses of wisdom,’ of the discipline of philosophy, its branches and the names by which the several schools of thought were called in antiquity, including the rationale behind the choice of name for each group of philosophers. In ‛Alī al-An ārī’s edition of the text, extracts from Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s work of the same name begins with some variation of the notice that “Abū Zayd Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq has spoken as follows.” While much of the material thus provided is clearly legendary, and sometimes even inscrutable, a very interesting part of it, as we shall see, is Ḥunayn’s very brief account of how philosophy came to be among the Jews, Christians and Muslims. The bulk of the work is a collection of sayings of Greek and Persian sages and philosophers, transmitted from both ancient and seemingly contemporary, gnomological sources.44 The series begins with sayings attributed to Socrates, who is clearly the dominant figure, followed by the sayings of Plato and Aristotle, the latter’s famous ‘Letter to Alexander’ being included at the end of the section. There follows at this point a long dossier of Alexander material, including the famous letter of Alexander to his mother, her own speech following Alexander’s death and Aristotle’s letter to Alexander’s mother. References to this material appear frequently in contemporary and later, Muslim and Christian literature, especially in texts on the art of dispelling sorrow.45 Following the Alexander dossier in the Ādāb al-falāsifah, the collection of sayings continues under the names of ancient wise men, including Diogenes, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Galen, Ptolomey, Luqmān, Hermes, Homer, Solon and several more individuals. At the end there are several interesting selections of material, including one Gannagé et al. (eds.), The Greek Strand in Islamic Political Thought (Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph, vol. 57; Beirut: Université Saint Joseph, 2004), pp. 173– 190. 44 See Gutas, Greek Wisdom Literature in Arabic Translation; Zakeri, “Ādāb alfalāsifa.” 45 See Sidney H. Griffith, “The Muslim Philosopher al-Kindī and his Christian Readers: Three Arab Christian Texts on ‘The Dissipation of Sorrows,’” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 78 (1996), pp. 111–127.

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

147

entitled, ‘The Questions and Answers of the Philosophers,’ one on the ‘Correspondence of the Sages,’ and then finally two mini-collections called respectively, ‛Ādāb of the Philosopher Mahādharjīs or Hādharjīs, the Teacher,’46 and the ‛Ādāb of the Philosophers of the Jinn and What They Uttered in the Presence of Solomon, son of David.’ The Muslim, Muḥammad ibn ‛Alī al-An ārī’s presentation of the Ādāb al-falāsifah, much of it attributed to Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, ends abruptly at this point; he mentions that he finished writing it in the month of Dhū l-Qa‛dah, in the year 594, or 1198 A.D. He asks that God’s prayer be upon the prophet, Muḥammad. Questions have arisen about the authorship of this work as we have it. Merkle, after reviewing the several opinions advanced up to the beginning of the twentieth century, argued in behalf of the authenticity of the whole collection as a compilation of aphorisms put together originally by Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, save for the Alexander dossier, which seemed to him to have been a later addition.47 While the medieval, Muslim historian of famous physicians and other scholars, Ibn Abī U aybi‛ah, did report that Ḥunayn had composed a book called Ādāb al-falāsifah, and the text itself invokes Ḥunayn’s name for much of the material at the beginning of the book, the recent studies of Mohsen Zakeri have shown conclusively that in the ensemble the work is in fact a compilation of materials from a number of sources, including Persian ones, possibly originally translated by Ḥunayn himself, but put together in its present form by ‛Alī al-An ārī.48 From the point of view of the present inquiry there are two points of particular interest in Ḥunayn’s material in the Kitāb ādāb al-falāsifah: his remarks about Jews, Christians and Muslims, and their participation in There has been much speculation about the identity of this otherwise unknown figure, including the speculation that it refers to Ḥunayn himself. Merkle offered the rather unconvincing suggestion that since Ḥunayn is reported to have translated not only from Greek and Syriac into Arabic, but also from Hebrew, in the course of transmission some Hebrew letters became garbled and that originally the text read ‫המתרגים‬, i.e., ‘the translator,’ which was subsequently mistaken for a proper name. See Merkle, Die Sittensprüche der Philosophen, p. 10, with a reference in n. 1 to Loewenthal, Honein ibn Ishâk, Sinnsprüche, p. 50. Thanks to Mohsen Zakeri’s work, now we know that these misunderstood terms refer to a Persian work called Mahādharjis, by the Zoroastrian Mobed Mihr Ädharjushnasp. See Zakeri, “Ādāb alfalāsifa,” esp. p. 174. 47 See Merkle, Die Sittensprüche der Philosophen, pp. 7–11. 48 See Zakeri, “Ādāb al-falāsifa.” 46

148

GRIFFITH

philosophy, in the opening collection of reports, in the context of his account of the beginnings of philosophy and its several schools; and the general character and intellectual tenor of the numerous aphorisms attributed to the ancient sages and philosophers, which are transmitted in the rest of the work. A. Jews, Christians and Muslims in the History of Philosophy At the beginning of the account of the origins of philosophy and of its several branches, the material in the Ādāb al-falāsifah attributed to Ḥunayn classifies the various schools under seven general headings, according to the significance of the names by which the schools have come to be known. He says that these names are severally derived from: the name of the original teacher, the name of the teacher’s country, the name of the place in which the teacher used to teach, the teacher’s organization and view of knowledge, the definition of the goal, the practices of the philosopher, and in reference to the group’s highest aspirations.49 In the case of the Stoics, for example, Ḥunayn lists them among those who got their names from the name of the place where they taught. He says, “They are the ones who are known as ‘the members of the porch and portico’ (a ḥāb al-mi allah wa l-riwāq), which was in the city of Elea.”50 He goes on to describe how the portico was made of tarpaulins of canvas stretched over four poles, with side flaps, which, he says, the Arabs would call an ‘awning’ (a - ulal). It is at this somewhat improbable juncture in the narrative that Ḥunayn introduces his account of the philosophers of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, presumably because, as he will suggest, they too, like the Stoics, have distinctive places where their teachers study and transmit their knowledge. Ḥunayn says that the Jewish philosophers (falāsifah al-Yahūd) imitated the Stoics. They too, he says, occupied a porch / veranda (al-mi allah) made of trees and vine cuttings, where their sages used to gather every year, as on a feast, during a week appointed for consultations and disputations. Ḥunayn says that they used to decorate the place with various kinds of fruit and there, he says, their scholars (‛ulamā‚uhum) would confer about ‘knowledge’

See Badawi, Hunain ibn Isḥāq, Âdâb al-falâsifah, pp. 41–42, but see pp. 37–38 for some different wording. See also the similar description of the seven original branches of philosophy in al-Fārābī’s essay, “On What Must Precede the Study of Philosophy,” in Dieterici, Alfārābī’s philosophische Abhandlungen, pp. 49–50. 50 Badawi, Ḥunain ibn I ḥâq, Âdâb al-falâsifah, p. 40. 49

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

149

(‛ilm) and study the prescribed books of their ancestors.51 According to Ḥunayn, the meaning of their hanging fruit in the place was that “these [fruits] were the original maxims / wise sayings (al-ḥikam), the position (maqām) of which was the position of the fruit, with which souls are pleased and which hearts love.”52 Ḥunayn then goes on to speak of how the Stoics used to confer with one another about knowledge and studied their philosophy in their porticoes, all the while going in and out, so as to stir their minds and their ardor by the bodily movement. Similarly, he says, Jews and Christians occupied porticoes in gathering places (al-kanā‚is); they would gather in them to study the books they had, and to teach the young how to intone the chants and recite them; they would be moving around, both standing and sitting, to enkindle their ardor. The Jews do this to the present day.53

Ḥunayn then says that “the source (a l) of the chants of the Jews and the Christians is ‘Music’ (al-mūsīqā), from which they took the chants.”54 He mentions David and the Psalms and says that to this day the Christians intone the Psalms in the chants of David. Both the Jews and the Christians, he says, build sanctuaries and put pillars in front of them, and so it is that “the Muslims install pillars and porticos in mosques, where the teachers teach the Qur’ān to the youngsters. They recite it in a sing-song way and in chants.” “All this,” Ḥunayn says, “was taken from Music.”55 Finally, Ḥunayn offers a description of a church almost as if it were a philosophical academy and its priests and ministers were philosophers and their disciples and their liturgies were conferences of sages. He says, Ḥunayn seems to be alluding to some of the rites and practices of the Jewish feast of ‘Succoth,’ a term which is usually translated into English as ‘booths’ or ‘huts.’ See Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (Brown Judaic Series, 302; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 52 Badawi, Ḥunain ibn Isḥâq, Âdâb al-falâsifah, p. 40. 53 Badawi, Ḥunain ibn Isḥâq, Âdâb al-falâsifah, p. 40. 54 Badawi, Hunain ibn Isḥâq, Âdâb al-falâsifah, p. 40. Perhaps Ḥunayn’s ideas about ‘Music’ and its philosophical significance paralled those of his Muslim contemporary, the philosopher al-Kindī (c.800–c.867). See Adamson, al-Kindī, pp. 172–180, 201. See the discussion of the further aphorisms of the philosophers on Muslic, recorded in other MSS of Ādāb al-falāsifah not consulted by Badawi, in Zakeri, “Ādāb al-falāsifa,” pp. 177, 179. 55 Badawi, Hunain ibn Isḥâq, Âdâb al-falâsifah, p. 41. 51

150

GRIFFITH The Christians arrange the seats of the sanctuary (al-haykal) one rank above another. The seat of the major, spiritual master, the teacher, is in the center of the sanctuary, while the philosophers are in the highest rank, the lowest of them being the disciples, whose station in rank is according to their level in science and philosophy (al-‛ilm wa lfalsafah).56

Ḥunayn’s undertaking in early ‛Abbasid times, in these passages included in the Ādāb al-falāsifah, to make a place for the Jews, Christians and Muslims in his account of the history of ancient philosophy in its several branches, echoes the earlier efforts of Jewish and Christian intellectuals in Late Antique times, from Philo Judaeus (c.20 BCE-c.50 CE) and Origen of Alexandria (c.185–c254) onwards, to fold Jewish and Christian religious thinking into the wider discursive fabric of the Hellenistic philosophical schools.57 In the Islamic milieu of Baghdad in the ninth century, Ḥunayn’s curious accommodation of aspects of the public institutions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to his earlier representation of typical Stoic premises for philosophical study and practice, must reflect his efforts within his own Christian community at that time to bring the discussion of the truth claims of divine revelation into the realm of reason, as we shall discuss below, and to promote the primacy of philosophy in public discourse, especially in the religiously plural polity in which he lived. Having come to the end of his listing of the ancient philosophers, arranged according to the names of their schools, and having found a niche for the Jews, Christians and Muslims among them, Ḥunayn then tells how in antiquity kings provided ‘houses of gold’ for philosophers and sages as places for them to gather and confer about the sciences in their various languages. He tells how originally philosophy was an oral discipline, which the disciples of the old masters subsequently recorded; a development Badawi, Ḥunain ibn Isḥâq, Âdâb al-falâsifah, p. 41. For present purposes, see still Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947/1962). See also Anne-Marie Malingrey, Philosophia: Étude d’un groupe de mots dans la literature grecque, des présocratiques au IVe siècle après J.-C. (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1961), esp. pp. 289–301; H. Gregory Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews and Christians (London & New York: Routledge, 2000); Anthony Grafton & Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). 56 57

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

151

which, according to Ḥunayn, allowed the teachings to come down to his own time. He then offers an insight into his conception of his own vocation as a transmitter and translator of philosophy. He says, Then God, mighty and exalted be He, conferred a blessing on us and taught us Arabic, so that we might bring it out of Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek into the clear, Arabic language.58

In a subsequent report, Ḥunayn tells of his intention in the book that he is writing to transmit reports of the Greek poets and sages and of the philosophers of the ‘Romans’ (ar-Rūm), i.e., the Byzantines, their ‘choice sayings’ (nawādir), their ‘disciplines’ (ādāb), and their ‘politics’ (siyāsah).59 He says this is what he has set down in this “book of questions and answers.”60 He wants, he says, the book to be an imām for philosophers and researchers, and a teacher for anyone who comes after his time who wants to learn wisdom and philosophy, which he characterizes as “the knowledge of a heavenly, greater kingdom, . . ., the abode of paradise, along with the everliving spiritual masters.”61 This is presumably the book from which Muḥammad ibn ‛Alī al-An ārī excerpted the portions of the text we have before us. Clearly, for Ḥunayn and his associates philosophy was a realm of discourse in which Jews, Christians and Muslims could all share; he portrays each community as participating, each in its own way, in what he consistently calls the pursuit of wisdom, or knowledge, and the disciplines of the ancient sages. As we shall see, his thought is that dedication to these goals would promote both the good of the individual and the good of society at large.

Badawi, Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq, Âdâb al-Falâsifah, p. 43. It is worth noting in connection with these terms that at the beginning of the text Ḥunayn, or his son Isḥāq ibn Ḥunayn, says of his work, “These are the ‘choice sayings’ (nawādir) of the words (al-alfā ) of the wise philosophers and the ‘disciplines’ (ādāb) of the ancient teachers.” Badawi, Ḥunain ibn Isḥâq, Âdâb alfalâsifah, p. 37. In this connection, see Zakeri, “Ādāb al-falāsifa,” pp. 179, 183, 185– 186. 60 Clearly the text which al-An ārī presents is not in the form of questions and answers, which was nevertheless a popular literary form among the apologists, both Christian and Muslim, in Ḥunayn’s day. 61 Badawi, Ḥunain ibn Isḥâq, Âdâb al-falâsifah, p. 43. 58 59

152

GRIFFITH

B. The Aphorisms of the Philosophers The main body of the Kitāb Ādāb al-falāsifah as it has come down to us consists of the collection of sayings attributed to the ancient philosophers and sages, which is the part of the book which usually receives the most scholarly attention. The record begins with Socrates, the list of whose aphorisms is notably longer than that of any other figure, highlighting the fact that he was considered by both Muslims and Christians of the period as the philosopher and wise man par excellence. It is notable that almost all of the sayings which the work transmits, including the material in the Alexander dossier, are moral in character. This fact reminds the reader that while the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom is the heart of the matter, for the compiler, and for Ḥunayn and the other sages as well, the cultivation of the appropriate ādāb, or ‘disciplines,’ is the principal means of attaining the goal of happiness, both personal and societal. In this connection the sense of the polyvalent term adab would be more along the line of a suggested attitudinal adjustment and disciplinary practice than it would be simply to designate a gnomological saying, as it has often been interpreted in connection with Ḥunayn’s and others’ collections of aphorisms.62 In other words, in the ensemble the sayings of the philosophers and sages which the compiler collected from the ancient sources and presented anew in Arabic translation were meant to commend a philosophical way of contemporary life in Abbasid times, characterized by the manners and disciplines which the ancient philosophers had put forward as pertinent spiritual exercises for the promotion of a humane way of life.63 In the next generation, after the time of Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, Muslim and Christian intellectuals in Baghdad would characterize the way of life commended in the Ādāb al-falāsifah as the cultivation of a life of virtue and the suppression of vice, a program designed to promote that ‘humane-ness’ (al-insāniyyah) in society of which Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī would speak so engagingly in his Reformation of Morals. And in this work, Yaḥyā commended the practice of reading books on morals and deportment as a means of promoting a virtuous way of life. One imagines that such a work as the Ādāb al-falāsifah, with its many moral aphorisms, would have been of the sort he had in mind. Yaḥyā wrote: See, e.g., Gutas, Greek Wisdom Literature in Arabic Translation, passim. In this connection one follows the insights of Pierre Hadot, Philosophy As a Way of Life (trans. Michael Chase; Oxford: Blackwell, 1995); idem, What Is Ancient Philosophy? (trans., Michael Chase; Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2002). 62 63

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

153

When one studies the rational sciences, refines his study of them, examines the books on morality and deportment, and lingers over them, his soul will awaken, take cognizance of its appetites, recover from its indolence, perceive its virtues, and reject its vices.64

The Muslim scholar, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Miskawayh (932–1030) in his work of the same title as Yaḥya’s, albeit conceived in a different fashion, nevertheless commended the same values.65 For Ḥunayn, Yaḥyā, Miskawayh, and for other Christian and Muslim intellectuals in later generations, such as ‛Īsā ibn Zur‛a (943–1008) and Elias of Nisibis (975– 1046), this presentation of Christianity and Islam and their shared human values in philosophical dress, so evident in the Ādāb al-falāsifah, seems to have been a bid on the part of the philosophically inclined, Christian and Muslim intellectual elite in Abbasid Baghdad to find a shared moral discourse between Christians and Muslims which would leave their mutually incompatible, religious differences safely enshrined within a commonly accepted ethico/political framework which could then allow them to discuss these same doctrinal differences in philosophical terms which would have the potential to convey some clarity of political thought, though not a shared religious confession.66 It was, of course, in the end an apologetic undertaking which in its perceived foreignness would eventually alienate both the Muslim and seemingly even the Christian communities at large in the World of Islam, as we shall see.

IV A generation after the time of Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, the Christian logician and translator of the works of Aristotle and his commentators, Abū Bishr Mattā ibn Yūnus (d.940), a fellow ‘Nestorian’ from the monastery of Dayr Qunnā, became one of al-Fārābī’s two Christian teachers of logic, the other one being Yuḥannā ibn Ḥaylān (d.910). Abū Bishr was also the teacher of one Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī, The Reformation of Morals, pp. 83–85. In another place in the treatise, Yaḥyā specifies “books on morals, . . . books of biographies and of public policies (as-siyāsāt,” pp. 94–95. 65 See Mohammed Arkoun (trans.), Miskawayh (320/1–420, traité d’éthique (2nd ed.; Damas: Institut Français de Damas, 1988); idem, L’humanisme arabe au IVe/Xe siècle: Miskawayh, philosophe et historien (2nd rev. ed.; Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1982). 66 See the suggestive remarks of John Watt, “Syriac and Syrians as Mediators of Greek Political Thought to Islam,” in Gannagé, The Greek Strand, pp. 121–149. 64

154

GRIFFITH

of al-Fārābī’s own star pupils, the ‘Jacobite’ Christian, Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī (893– 974). Modern scholars claim Abū Bishr as the real “founder of the Aristotelian school in Baghdad early in the tenth century.”67 As such he is often remembered as the defender of philosophy and of the universal validity of Aristotelian logic against the counter claims of contemporary Muslim mutakallimūn in a debate with their spokesperson , Abū Sa‚īd asSīrāfī in the majlis of the caliph’s vizier in the year 937/8.68 In the tenth century, Abū Bishr’s student, Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī, became for a time Baghdad’s most notable Christian intellectual and, like Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq in the previous century, Yaḥyā was one of the major proponents of the philosophical way of life as a guarantor of interreligious harmony and of logic and philosophy as the most important tools for the Christian theologian and apologist in the Islamic milieu. Many of the same ideas can be found in the works of the churchman, Elias of Nisibis in the eleventh century.69 Altogether these Christian writers may be taken as representative of the new Christian intellectuals of Abbasid times, who for a season cultivated a new Christian intellectual culture in the Islamic milieu from the ninth to the eleventh centuries, based on the cultivation of philosophy, particularly in its Aristotelian dress.

V The new Christian intellectuals of Baghdad in early Abbasid times, like Ḥunayn and the others, who came to prominence in the heyday of the translation movement, made an unprecedented bid to participate in the intellectual life of the larger Islamic society of their day. It was the translation movement itself which provided them with the opportunity. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, p. 14. See also G. Endress, “Mattā b. Yūnus (Yūnān) al- unnā’ī, Abū Bishr,” in EI, new ed., vol. VI, pp. 844–846. 68 See Muhsin Mahdi, “Language and Logic in Classical Islam,” in G. E. von Grunebaum, Logic in Classical Islamic Culture (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1970), pp. 51–83; Gerhard Endress, “Grammatik und Logik: Arabische Philologie und griechischer Philosophie in Widerstreit,” in Burkard Mojsisch (ed.), Sphrachphilosophie in Antike und Mittelalter (Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie, 3; Amsterdam: Gruner, 1986), pp. 163–299. 69 See Samir Khalil Samir, Foi et culture en Irak: Elie de Nisibe et l’Islam (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 544; Aldershot, Hamps.: Ashgate Publishing, 1996). See in particular Elia di Nisibi (975–1046), Il Libro per Scacciare la Preoccupazione: Kitāb daf‛ alhamm (Tomo, I°, ed. Samir Khalil Samir, trans. Anna Pagnini, Patrimonio Culturale Arabo Cristiano, 9; Torino: Silvio Zamorani Editore, 2007). 67

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

155

Heretofore, modern scholars have certainly recognized the fact that the opportunity was one which allowed Christians like Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq and his associates to hire out their translation services to Muslim patrons who bought their contributions to Islamic scientific and philosophical interests.70 But historians have been slower to recognize that these same Christian translators were also scholars in their own right, building on earlier traditions in their own communities. They used their skills not only to translate, but also to employ philosophical and logical thought in support of their faith commitments and to commend the philosophical life itself as a fruitful development which might provide the social possibility for harmony between Christians and Muslims in the caliphate. According to Gerhard Endress, “The undisputed master of philosophy for the Christian schools of late Hellenism as well as for the Muslim transmitters of this tradition, was Aristotle: founder of the paradigms of rational discourse, and of a coherent system of the world.”71 This was certainly a point of view shared by a medieval Syriac-speaking chronicler from the ‘Jacobite’ community about the role of Aristotle among his fellow ‘Jacobites’ long before Islamic times. At the point in the anonymous Syriac Chronicon ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens at which the chronicler comes to the discussion of what he calls the ‘era of the Greeks,’ by which he means the time of Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) and his Seleucid successors in the Syriac-speaking frontier lands between the Roman and Persian empires, he has this to say about Aristotle and the importance of his works for the Christians: At this time, Aristotle, ‘the Philosopher,’ collected all the scattered kinds of philosophical doctrines and he made of them one great body, thick with powerful opinions and doctrines, since he separated the truth from falsehood. Without the reading of the book of logic [mlîlūthâ] that he made it is not possible to understand the knowledge of books, the meaning of doctrines, and the sense of the Holy Scriptures, on which depends the hope of the Christians, unless one is a man to whom,

See Gutas, Greek Thoutht, Arabic Culture, esp. 136–141. Endress, “The Circle of al-Kindī,” in Endress & Kruk, The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellensim, p. 52. 70 71

156

GRIFFITH because of the excellence of his [religious] practice, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given directly, the One who makes all wise.72

In Abbasid times there were more Christian thinkers interested in the philosophies and sciences of the Greeks than just those Aristotelians among the ‘Jacobites’ and the ‘Nestorians’ who took their texts and commentaries from the Alexandrian tradition. And there were more Muslims whose philosophical and scientific interests reached well beyond a single-minded devotion to Aristotle. Nevertheless these were the Christian and Muslim philosophers who shaped the intellectual milieu in which Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī and Elias of Nisibis, to name just the most well-known Christians among them, pursued their careers. And just as the Muslims in this generation of philosophers wanted “to vindicate the pursuit of rational activity as an activity in the service of Islam,” so did Ḥunayn, Yaḥyā and Elias and their associates intend to vindicate with the same philosophy the doctrines and practices of the Christians and the Christology of the ‘Nestorians’ and the ‘Jacobites’ respectively.73 What one notices as different in the works of Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī, and Elias of Nisibis, by comparison with the works of earlier and contemporary Christian apologists and theologians who wrote in Arabic, is their venture beyond the range of the logical works of Aristotle. The Organon and Porphyry’s Eisagoge had long been used by Christians in the explication of the terms of their various doctrinal formulae and the systematic defense of their several theologies. Ḥunayn, Yaḥyā and the others moved beyond the Organon into a larger Aristotelian, philosophical frame of reference which put a premium on the philosophical life itself, on the primacy of reason and the pursuit of happiness not only personally and individually but socially and politically as well. This was a new philosophical horizon for Christians in the east, which seems to have opened up in the Baghdadi intellectual milieu with the importation of Neoplatonic thought into the world of Syriac and Arabic Aristotelianism. Perhaps its most 72 I.-B. Chabot (ed.), Anonymi Auctoris Chronicon ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens (CSCO, vols. 82 & 109); Paris: J. Gabalda, 1920 & Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1952), vol. 81, pp. 104–105 (Syriac), vol. 109, P. 82 (Latin). 73 See John W. Watt, “The Strategy of the Baghdad Philosophers: The Aristotelian Tradition as a Common Motif in Christian and Islamic Thought,” in J. J. van Ginkel et al. (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 134; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2005), pp. 151–166.

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

157

eloquent marker is the so-called Theology of Aristotle, a paraphrase of portions of Plotinus’ Enneads, which also included some commentary and a collection of wisdom sayings.74 Its likely origins in its Arabic dress are probably to be sought in the circle of the philosopher al-Kindī and his Syrian Christian translators and associates. But the scholar whose person and works most readily embodied the new intellectual profile was undoubtedly the ‘Second Master’ (after Aristotle himself), the Muslim, Abū Na r al-Fārābī (c.870–950).75 Among Christian intellectuals, Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī inherited al-Fārābī’s mantle. The Muslim religious establishment came ultimately to distrust the philosophers. In the time frame of our considerations, this distrust was expressed most notably in Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad al-Ghazālī’s (1058– 1111) The Incoherence of the Philosophers,76 where his contempt for what he perceived to be the arrogant rationalism of the Muslim philosophers in matters of religious belief and practice is abundantly clear.77 But among Christians as well, not everyone was happy with the new direction in Christian intellectual culture which the Baghdad scholars introduced into their world. Evidence for this displeasure may be found in the texts written by Christians to defend the use of logic in religious discourse.78 And one may also see this displeasure recorded in a work of the late Mu‛tazilī 74 See F. W. Zimmerman, “The Origins of the So-Called Theology of Aristotle,” in J. Kraye et al. (eds.), Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts (XI, Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages; London: Warburg Institute, 1986), pp. 110–240; E. K. Rowson, “The Theology of Aristotle and Some Other Pseudo-Aristotelian Texts Reconsidered,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1992), pp. 478–484; Peter Adamson, The Arabic Plotinus: A Philosophical Study of the Theology of Aristotle (London: Duckworth, 2002). 75 See I. R. Netton, Al-Farabi and His School (Arabic Thought and Culture Series; London & New York: Routledge, 1992). 76 See al-Ghazālī, The Incoherence of the Philosophers: A Parallel English-Arabic Text (trans. Michael E. Marmura; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1997). 77 See Ebrahim Moosa, Ghazālī and the Poetics of Imagination (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005), esp. pp. 172–176, 200–208. 78 See, e.g., the texts written by ‛Isā ibn Zur‛a and ibn a - ayyib in defense of the study of logic: Nicholas Rescher, “A Tenth-Century Arab-Christian Apologia for Logic,” in Nicholas Rescher, Studies in the History of Arabic Logic (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963), pp. 55–63; “A Tenth-Century Arab-Christian Apologia for Logic,” Islamic Studies 2 (1963), pp. 1–16; S. M Stern, “Ibn al- ayyib’s Commentary on the Isagoge,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19 (1957), pp. 419–425.

158

GRIFFITH

scholar, ‛Abd al-Jabbār al-Hamdhānī (d.1025). In the course of his remarks against the influence of the philosophers in Islamic religious discourse, he mentioned by name the Christians, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq and Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī, along with the names of several other prominent Christian translators of originally Greek texts into Arabic. He accused them of helping to subvert the faith of the Muslims by the introduction of the books of Plato, Aristotle and others into Islam. He says these Christian translators were few in number and he further says that “they hide under the cover of Christianity, while the Christians themselves do not approve of them.”79 What is more ‛Abd al-Jabbār names a Christian source for this observation, the otherwise unknown Yuḥānna al-Qass, a lecturer on Euclid and a student of the Almagest, who, according to ‛Abd al-Jabbār, offered this criticism of the Christian translators: Those who transmitted these books left out much of their error, and the worst of their coarseness, out of a sense of solidarity with them, and to spare them. They gave them, as it were on loan, Islamic meanings and interpretations which they did not have.80

Obviously, Yuḥānna al-Qass did not approve of the solidarity which the Christian philosophers associated with the translation movement felt for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. How widely this feeling was shared among other Christians of the time is impossible to know at this remove. What we do know is that some modern commentators on the works of the likes of Ḥunayn, Yaḥyā and their colleagues have thought that they simply surrendered their Christian theology to Greek philosophy. For example, Joel Kraemer has written of Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī that he was “first and foremost a philosopher.” And he goes on to say, In consistency with Alfarabi’s philosophy of religion, according to which religious motifs are symbols of philosophical truths, Ibn ‛Adī treated theological notions as embodiments of philosophical concepts. … He interprets the persons of the Trinity as symbolic representations 79 ‛Abd al-Jabbār ibn Aḥmad al-Hamdhānī, Tathbīt dalā‚il an-nubuwwah (2 vols., ed. ‛Abd al-Karīm ‛Uthmān; Beirut: Dār al-‛Arabiyyah, 1966), vol. I, p.76; see also pp. 75–76 & 192–193. For more on ‛Abd al-Jabbār’s observations in this vein, see Gabriel Said Reynolds, A Muslim Theologian in the Sectarian Milieu: ‛Abd al-Jabbār and the Critique of Christian Origins (Islamic History and Civilization, Studies and Texts, vol. 56; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 80 ‛Abd al-Jabbār, Tathbīt dalā‚il an-nubuwwah, vol. I, p. 76.

ḤUNAYN IBN ISḤĀQ

159

of Aristotelian ideas: the Father symbolizes the intellect, the Son symbolizes the intellectually cognizing subject, and the Spirit symbolizes the intellectually cognized object.81

Observations such as this one seem to ignore the fact that Yaḥyā, like Ḥunayn in the previous century, were thinking and writing within a tradition that had long since learned to present the claims of their religious convictions in the Greek idiom of Aristotelian logic, even when translated into Syriac or Arabic. What is more, the doctrinal positions that Yaḥyā and other Christians defended in Syriac or Arabic were themselves initially formulated in Greek philosophical and logical terms, as all parties were well aware at the time. They were being defended by a constant appeal to the logical requirements of the proper definitions of these same originally Greek terms, even in their Syriac and Arabic versions. This agenda was still the operative one in the ninth and tenth centuries, in response to the religious claims of Islam, when the challenge for Christians was to develop an appropriately logical and philosophical, not to say theological, vocabulary in Arabic. But the real question here is the deeper one of the real source of religious truth; is it reason or revelation, or what is the relationship between reason and revelation? In the Muslim community in the ninth and tenth centuries, unlike philosophers such as al-Kindī or al-Fārābī, the mutakallimūn and others, like the followers of the jurist Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (780–855), rejected the ‘foreign sciences,’ while nevertheless being influenced by them in many ways. They adopted the view that divine revelation via prophecy was in the end the fundamental source and criterion of religious truth, and that one should certainly not interpret the Qur’ān in accordance with the rules of Greek speech.82 In the Syriac-speaking, Christian community, on the other hand, under the influence of Aristotelian Neoplatonism, this issue had already arisen in the sixth century, when Paul the Persian seems to have opted for the primacy of reason over revelation.83 And in the eleventh century, Yaḥyā’s ‘Nestorian’ student, Abū l-Faraj ibn a - ayyib (d.ca.1055) similarly proposed that a logical demonstration was superior to the evidence Joel L. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam: The Cultural Revival during the Buyid Age (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986), p. 107. 82 On these issues, see the in-depth studies of Josef van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra: Eine Geschichte des religiösen Denkens im frühen Islam (6 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991–1997). 83 See Teixidor, Aristote en syriaque, esp. pp. 34–41. 81

160

GRIFFITH

of the miracles recorded in the Gospels in affirming the divinity of Christ.84 But Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī himself, albeit that he was a student of al-Fārābī, clearly rejected this line of thinking. Yaḥyā taught that the Gospel miracles were the primary warrant for the spread of the Christian faith, and he has been quoted as having espoused the view that “ce n’est pas Aristote qui me quide quand il s’agit du christianisme.”85 As for Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, while he does not say as much, it seems that he was perhaps the first of the Arabic-speaking Christians to espouse the view that philosophy provides an intellectual space in which Christians and Muslims could enter a realm of common discourse about reason, ethics and public policy, if not about the credibility or incredibility of their distinctive religious ideas. That Ḥunayn encountered resistance to this program within his own ‘Church of the East’ is suggested in the opposing views of his own patriarch toward him, as we find them reported in the very different biographical traditions about Ḥunayn that have come down to us in largely Muslim sources.86 What is clear is that Ḥunayn was one of the better known Christian intellectuals of Baghdad in early ‛Abbasid times and that in the eleventh century it did not strain credibility for a Muslim compiler, alAn ārī, to attribute his entire compilation of wisdom aphorisms, drawn from a number of sources, exclusively to Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq.

See Landron, Chrétiens et musulmans en Irak, pp. 108–112. Emilio Platti, Yaḥyā ibn ‛Adī, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe: Sa théologie de l’Incarnation (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 14; Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuvan, Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1983), pp. 78–79. 86 See the discussion of the tangled relations between the patriarchs, Theodosius (853–858) and Sergius (860–872) in the time of the caliph alMutawakkil (847–861) in Fiey, Chrétiens Syriaques, pp. 83–105. Consider the contrary reports regarding Ḥunayn’s relationship with his patriarch in Islamic sources, mentioned in n. 17 above. 84 85

“CALLING ON THE NAME” IN ST. EPHREM: ROOTS AND INFLUENCE MARY HANSBURY O Jesus, the glorious name! The hidden bridge which causes to pass over from death to life. Towards You I have come and stood (still); at the yod, Your initial letter, I have stayed. Be a bridge to my word that it may pass over to your truth. Make Your love a bridge for Your servant. Through You let me pass over to your Father! Let me pass over and say: Blessed is He who mitigated His might through His Son! HdF 6.17

The beauty of this paragraph and its profound theological and soteriological sense has been attracting scholars for over fifty years. I. Hausherr, in his Name of Jesus, does not consider Ephrem to be a formal devotee of the tradition of calling on the Name,1 nevertheless he does include him in his analysis and outlines the aspects of Ephrem’s theory on the value of names: transcendence of God; condescension of the Logos; praise and thanksgiving centered on Christ.2 Robert Murray in his discussion of Ephrem’s theory of names says it would actually require a book in itself and in Symbols of Church and Kingdom he includes an appendix with all the names and titles of Christ in Ephrem and in other early Syriac writers. Elsewhere 1 The Jesus prayer probably originated among Coptic monks. See A. Guillaumont, “The Jesus Prayer among the Monks of Eygpt,” Eastern Churches Review (1974): 66–71. See also S. Brock , “Prayer of the Heart in the Syriac Tradition,” Christian Orient 26 (2205):125–131. Alfeyev in his analysis of the Jesus prayer includes a lengthy discussion of Ephrem’s use of Names, see H. Alfeyev, Le Nom Grand et Glorieux (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2007), 90–93. 2 I. Hausherr, The Name of Jesus, trans. Charles Cummings (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1978), 42–52.

161

162

HANSBURY

he interprets Ephrem in the Commentary on the Diatessaron I.25 as assuring that “God incarnate bears the personal name ‘Jesus,’” leading to “true access to the transcendent, incomprehensible and infinite Godhead itself,” which Murray considers to be “an early formulation of the doctrine of analogy.”3 He says in some respects it anticipates the symbolic theology of the Iconodule Fathers and classical Byzantine iconographical theory.4 E. Beck and T. Bou Mansour likewise have noted the enormous place Ephrem gives to a theory of names.5 But now there is the wonderful work of Thomas Koonammakkal which goes to the heart of the question, providing a very ample analysis of Ephrem’s theory of names. One finds in his unpublished dissertation,6 as well as in his fine articles, a close study of over fifty hymns of Ephrem, several of which are entirely dedicated to his theory of names. Koonammakkal basically considers Ephrem’s use of ‘ontological chasm’ and his theology of names. After describing the chasm (pehtâ) based on a scriptural insight but alluding to his possible awareness of this phenomenon in other traditions,7 he takes us along the Way that Ephrem outlines in the many hymns included here. Nature, Scripture and the Incarnation are the actual Way itself, with the prophets as milestones and the apostles as inns. Then out of the very dilemma of the chasm previously described with its inability to cross over, comes a description of Ephrem’s genius in depicting a divine pedagogy unfolding in our language, where titles and names of God become the bridges. And also how names teach about God and also how to invoke Him.

Robert Murray, “Symbolism in St. Ephrem’s Theology,” Parole de l’Orient (1975–76): 10. 4 R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge , 1975), 166. 5 E. Beck, Die Theologie des hl. Ephräm in seinen Hymnen uber den Glauben (Rome, 1949), 23–34, 65–68. T. Bou Mansour, La pensée symbolique de saint Ephrem le syrien (BUSE 16, Kaslik 1988), 8, 20, 72, 77, 130–132, 136–137, 159–162, 165–167, 169– 186, 528–529 (pages noted by Koonammakkal). 6 T. Koonammakkal, The Theology of Divine Names in the Genuine Works of Ephrem (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford, 1991). Unless otherwise noted quotes from Ephrem used in this paper are as found in the thesis. 7 Lk 16.26. Ephrem follows the Diatessaron pehtâ whereas the Peshitta and Old Syriac use hawtâ. Koonammakkal states that Ephrem was aware of other concepts of pehtâ than the scriptural one, particularly the Manichaean which itself absorbed other influences. See Koonammakkal, Theology, 29–40. 3

“CALLING ON THE NAME”

163

His names urge you how and what you should call Him. One name taught you that He is; another that He is the Creator. He showed you that He is also the Good; He made clear to you that He is the Just too. Again He is named and called the Father. The Scriptures have become the crucible... Hd F 44.1

The Names do not develop from human language but out of Scripture. The only access to the Threefold Names of the Father, the Son and the Spirit is through Scripture. One may not go beyond the Names to scrutinize the Natures as “Their nature is hidden”(Hd F 59.5). This may simply be an anti-Arian caution but it may also say something significant about the Names themselves in Ephrem’s theory of names “as the invocation of their names is in fact the revelation of ‘Their natures.’”8 The power (haylâ) of a name is revealed in and through the name and is active wherever the name is present or invoked. Saber who has also written on the symbolism of Ephrem characterizes it as typological, based on the unity of the two testaments which he says Ephrem constantly interprets in relation one to the other.9 And according to Saber not only in Ephrem is the OT a prototype of the NT but also of the sacraments and eschatological realities. While depicting eschatological truths in Christ, it also confirms the OT figures which are not suppressed or set aside but take on a higher value.10 The OT figures signify truth before it appears in history, accompany it in history and preach its plenitude in the

T. Koonammakkal, Theology, 139. Georges Saber, “ Typologie sacramentaire et baptismale de saint Éphrem,” Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973): 83–87. See also G. Saber, La théologie baptismale de saint Éphrem (Kaslik, 1974), 29–32. Yousif points to similar indications, e.g. HdV 8.23: “...les livres de Moise, par toi, seraient repandus dans l’Univers,” which Yousif interprets: “Avec le Christ, l’Ancien Testament trouve sa perfection et devient une verité vivante.” See Pierre Yousif, “Symbolisme Christologique dans la Bible et dans la nature chez S. Éphrem,” Parole de l’Orient 8 (1977/78): 5–60, esp. 10–23, 49. As noted by A. Halleux, “Saint Éphrem le Syrien,” Revue théologique de Louvain 14 (1983): 345–346. 10 The Syriac šrâ is sometimes translated as abolish in referring to old covenant/new covenant, e.g. HdV 8–10, but could just as easily be rendered by repeal or rescind which would describe more appropriately what Saber implies here. 8 9

164

HANSBURY

Sacraments11 such that Ephrem sees in the OT a continual tradition which is the origin of the sacraments. With such a unitive vision, it hardly seems possible that Ephrem would have looked far beyond this semitic world to form his theology of names. Koonammakkal considers his own work to be just the beginning. Building on his fine foundation one might hope that the rabbinic traditions which surrounded Ephrem might be more carefully scrutinized. In some cases one may find where both Ephrem and the rabbis took from prior Greek sources12 but perhaps it could be enlightening to view how they may have developed these influences differently. In the end it may be said that such was Ephrem’s genius, that he defied any systematization in developing his theory of names and transcended all influence.

JEWISH ROOTS For, His nature is too mighty for every mouth, and it is entirely alien from every tongue; and the senses have no idea how to depict it, for they do not have sufficient range to reach it. But the Books of the Prophets undertook the idea of depicting him in names. HdF 26.5

Calling on the Name in the Jewish tradition is synonymous with praying to God. Abraham called upon the name (Gen.13.4) as did Moses and Aaron, Samuel, Elijah and Elisha and so on throughout written Prohecy. However Scholem does not feel that there are mystical phenomena in the Prophets which later became incoporated into esoteric theory.13 Indeed, perhaps here

11 Saber quotes H. Azym 4: “Toutes les figure étaient présentes et habitaient dans le Saint des Saints, attendant Celui qui les accomplit toutes.” See “Typologie,” 84. 12 Koonammakkal notes that Ephrem does not denigrate Greek wisdom, only its misinterpretation, see Theology, 56. In his comments on Hd F 64 he notes that Ephrem was not unaware of the philosophical trends among his contemporaries but chose to stay with what is written in Scripture, paraphrasing Ephrem he says “just as fish can live only in water believers can survive only in ‘scriptural’ waters.” See Theology, 228–230. 13 See G. Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1974),10. I have frequently quoted Scholem in this article. Since his death there has been a fair amount of revisionist thinking regarding his work, though perhaps not concerning

“CALLING ON THE NAME”

165

Ephrem simply intended the titles in the Prophets that describe God’s nature such as: Creator of Israel; Mighty One of Israel; Holy One; Holy One of Israel; Shepherd of Israel; Rock; King or King of Israel; His Royal Majesty, as well as father, brother, friend and guide, etc.14 From the first to the tenth centuries there is in the Talmud, Hekhaloth and Midrash a tradition of calling on the Name, and a theory of names as shown in Scripture takes up a large portion of rabbinic reflection. Much of this enormous literature consists of commentaries on the books of the Bible. According to Scholem there was great interest in the symbolic nature of language in the pre-kabbalistic as well as in the kabbalistic periods which he characterizes in the following way: Speech reaches God because it comes from God. Man’s common language whose prima facie function, indeed, is only of an intellectual nature, reflects the creative language of God. All creation—and this is an important principle of most Kabbalists—is, from the point of view of God, nothing but an expression of His hidden self that begins and ends by giving itself a name, the holy name of God, the perpetual act of creation. All that lives is an expression of God’s language—and what is it that Revelation can reveal in the last resort if not the Name of God?15

This leads to the first text to be considered here, Sefer Yetsira, which various datings put between the 2nd and 5th or 6th centuries.16 It is a short, very mystical discourse. In it God created the world by means of thirty two paths of wisdom: the ten sefirot and twenty two letters of the Hebrew issues dealt with here. See Robert Alter, “Jewish Mysticism in Dispute,” Commentary (1989): 53–59. 14 In an interesting article, Chamberlain has made some observations on the Isaiah scroll in relation to the Massoretic tradition. There is already in the MT a tendency to personify qualities of God, “my saviour” becomes “my salvation,” etc. This tendency is heightened in the Isaiah scroll and “appears to make the transition from attribute of the Messiah to name of the Messiah.” Could Ephrem be thinking along these lines in HdF 26.5? See John V. Chamberlain “The Functions of God as Messianic Titles in the Complete Qumran Isaiah Scroll,” Vetus Testamentum 5 (1955): 366–372. See also the long lists of titles for Christ and for God found in the index of St. Ephrem the Syrian Selected Prose Works, tr. E. G. Mathews and Joseph P. Amar (Washington: CUA Press 1994). These titles might provide a clue as to Ephrem’s theory of Names being rooted in depictions in the Prophets. 15 See G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1961), 17. 16 Scholem prefers 3rd century, see Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. 21, 328–331.

166

HANSBURY

alphabet.17 The sefirot refer to numbers and there may have been neoPythagorean influence. In the strophe of Ephrem quoted at the beginning of the article: “Towards You I have come and stood (still); at the yod, Your (initial) letter, I have stayed...” the symbolism of yod appears here with its numerical value of ten, noted by Koonammakkal as also possibly influenced by the Pythagoreans.18 Of great importance during the period the Sefer Yetsira was written is the relation of the sefirot to the hidden ground of all being. Lawrence Fine notes: “Whereas the rabbis of the Talmudic period simply assert God’s existence, the kabbalists reflect, again and again, on the intricate process by which divine life moves from concealment to disclosure,” a process entirely within God. The unknowable God becomes knowable in the guise of the sefirot “which are called ‘garments,’ ‘colors,’ ‘faces,’ ‘limbs,’ ‘crowns’ and ‘names,’ among other things.” “The sefirot are outer layers of the hidden dimension of God to which they are bound, ways of naming that which is ultimately beyond naming.”19 Koonammakkal dedicates sixty pages of his thesis to hiddeness (kasyâtâ) and revelation (galyâtâ) in Ephrem building on the research of Noujaim.20 While Ephrem is quite clear that creation is revelation and never emanation, this distinction is not always made in Jewish esotericism. Still there is ground for comparison. An important concept here is tsimtsum which can mean concentration, contraction, withdrawal, retreat. In Jewish esoteric thought every manifestation is preceded by one of concentration or contraction. Exodus Rabbah, as early as the 3rd century, refers to God contracting Himself, commenting on Ex.24.10 which is the same proof test suggested for HdF 31: “He “The letters hover, as it were, on the boundary-line between the spiritual and the physical world; for the real existence of things is cognizable only by means of language, i.e. the human capacity for conceiving thought.” L. Ginzberg, “The Cabala” On Jewish law and lore (New York: Atheneum, 1970), 196. 18 Koonammakkal, Theology, 242–247. See also HdN 26.12; 27. Becker explores possible links of Ephrem with Neoplatonism, see Adam Becker, Fear of God and the beginning of wisdom: the School of Nisibis and Christian scholastic culture in late antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 150–154. 19 See Lawrence Fine, “Kabbalistic Texts,” ed. Barry W. Holtz, Back to the Sources (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 318–319. 20 See G. Noujaim, Anthropologie et économie de salut chez saint Éphrem autour des notions de Ghalyata, Kasyata et Kasya (unpublished dissertation, Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1980). On the manifestation/revelation aspect in Ephrem, see also A. de Halleux, “Mar Éphrem Théologien,” Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973): 45–47. 17

“CALLING ON THE NAME”

167

contracted Himself and stood on a tile of sapphire. He stretched Himself out and filled the heaven, while everything is in His palm.”21 In his article, after comparing Sefer Yezira to the Paradise Hymns, Sed22 finds links between Ephrem and early Jewish traditions. He proposes further study of termes techniques in both early Syriac texts and rabbinical texts. This might yield, according to Sed, a more accurate meaning of certain expressions which considered separately may appear to be only ‘unusual’ or ‘poetic,’ ignoring a deeper metaphysical or cosmological dimension.23 For example, an important concept in Ephrem’s symbolic theory of names is the term bridge (gašrâ), connected as it is to the ontological chasm. In the Ma‛aseh Merkabah the invocation of the Name occurs frequently and in two lengthy sections, bridge (gesher, Heb.) is referred to. As noted by Schäfer, the heavenly world throughout the Ma‛aseh Merkabah is described in great detail: bridges leading over rivers of fire; God is fire as well as his chambers; his servants; his throne, etc.24 Further research is needed to see what the term gesher actually implies. For example the Hebrew term for chasm (pahat) does not seem to be included. In 3 Enoch, which Alexander describes as perhaps having had some influence on Syriac Christian writers,25 the passages in the Ma‛aseh Merkabah with references to bridges occur again including the following:

Tsimtsum is an important concept in the book Bahir, an early kabbalistic text from Babylonia although not fully redacted until the 13th cent. in Provence. Scholem says the brief text is of great significance. See G. Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & co., 1962), 49–198. Selections of the Bahir may be found in Joseph Dan and Ronald Kiener, eds., The Early Kabbalah (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1986). Other aspects of concealment are explored by Halbertal, see Moshe Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation: esotericism in Jewish thought and its philosophical implications (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007). 22 N. Sed, “Les hymnes sur le Paradis de saint Éphrem et les traditions juives,” Le Muséon 81 (1968): 455–501. 23 This is the kind of research possible with Schäfer’s concordance. P. Schäfer, ed. Konkordanz zur Hekhalot-Literatur, vol.1, Tübingen, 1986 [TSAJ 12]; vol.2, Tübingen, 1988 [TSAJ,13]. 24 See P. Schäfer, The Hidden and Manifest God (New York: SUNY, 1992), 77– 121. 25 P. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 223–315. See Introd., 253. 21

168

HANSBURY R. Ismael said: Metatron, Prince of the Divine Presence, said to me: How do the angels stand on high? He said to me: Just as a bridge is laid across a river and every one crosses over it, so a bridge is laid from the beginning of the entrance to its end, and the ministering Angels go over it and recite the song before YHWH the God of Israel. In his presence fearsome warriors and dred captains stand. A thousand thousand and myriad chant praise and laud before YWHW, God of Israel.26

Another terme technique would be seal (hôtam, Heb) or sealing, as it is integral to calling on the Name in the Jewish esoteric tradition. Seals accompany one on the heavenly journey to appear before the divine throne. But this journey also requires knowledge of the Torah which is acquired “not through toil and labor ... but through the name of this seal.” Let me succeed in all my sealed limbs so that I may reflect upon the gates of wisdom examine the ways of understanding, behold the chambers of the Torah and reflect upon the hidden treasures of the blessing... Thus I will praise the holiness of your name forever and sanctify your holy and great name. May the great seal be on all of my limbs...27

Throughout the Ma‛aseh Merkabah there is a pattern of reciting the Name, uttering lists of Names and sealing or speaking of Names as a protective device.28 But not only protection, in addition the poems in which the seals are embedded are extremely lyrical in form and tone. They are songs of praise spoken by angels and even by the Throne of Glory itself. According to Gruenwald they are “outstanding specimens of Jewish poetry in Talmudic times,” in no way in opposition to rabbinic Judaism.29 Scholem’s later research says that these Hekhaloth hymns are much earlier than the piyyutim, at least as early as the 3rd century. In the groups where these hymns were written, the hymn was considered as the original mode in 26 I have used the text as found in N. Janowitz, The Poetics of Ascent: Theories of Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text (New York: SUNY, 1989), 117–118. In Janowitz the whole Ma‛aseh Merkabah text may be found. She gives it a Babylonian origin (p.24 ) and quotes Scholem’s dating, 1st to 4th centuries (p.4 ). 27 See Schäfer, Hidden and Manifest, 91. 28 On the protective aspect, see Aleaxander, 3 Enoch, 233. 29 I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 104.

“CALLING ON THE NAME”

169

which creatures communicated with God and in a redeemed world all would again sing hymns. Scholem quotes the Perek Shirah: “...all beings are gifted with language for the sole purpose that they may sing ... the praise of their Creator.”30 Fossum includes the Syriac tradition and its relation to earlier Jewish tendencies in his study of the Name and its relation to seal.31 He quotes Narsai saying that the priest in anointing the believers “signs (râšem) the flock with the sign (rûšmâ) of the Lord, and seals (mhâtem) upon it His Hidden Name (šem kasyûteh) by the outward mark (âtâ)!”32 Fossum says this is a direct reference to the Ineffable Name, or Hidden Name in Jewish tradition, shem ha-meforash.33And according to Fossum, quoting Narsai, the Hidden Power (haylâ kasyâ) in the oil is the Hidden Name: “with the Name hidden (šem kasyûteh) in it [the oil] he signs the visible body, and the sharp power (haylâ) of the Name (šmâ) enters even into the soul.”34 In pursuing this comparison of seal in Ephrem and in early Judaism, it is important not

30 The Pirak Shirah is a short midrashic text which includes hymns. The text suggests that even creation sings hymns of praise. See Scholem, Major Trends, 62. If he knew these hymns, Ephrem must have found their logic irresistible and it may very well have influenced his decision to write almost exclusively in hymns. Peter Schäfer promises a translation of the Hekhaloth material soon. For a review of David Halperin’s purely socio-historical analysis of the Hekhaloth material, see Rachel Elior, “Merkabah Mysticism,” Numen 39 (1990): 233–249. 31 Jarl Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985), 95–106. 32 Fossum, Name of God, 101. Fossum quotes Narsai’s Homily XXII, “On Baptism” in The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, trans. R. H.. Connolly, Texts and Studies 8.1, 33–45. Syriac found in Narsai Homiliae et carmina, ed. Alphonsus Mingana, 2 vols. (1905), vol.1, 356–368. 33 According to Scholem shem ha-meforash, the Ineffable Name, is a complex term having dimensions of both concealment and revelation. See G. Scholem, “The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbala,” Diogenes 79 (1972): 68. See also the previous discussion of hidden/revealed in relation to Notes 20 and 21. 34 Fossum, Name of God, 102. See Connolly, Homilies, 42. Fossum does not include Ephrem in his study and I have not been able to find Hidden Name (šmâ kasyâ) in Ephrem but according to Fossum there is no difference between Hidden Name and Threefold Name which in a plural form (šmâhe tlitâye) does occur in Ephrem: HdF 59.5, 60.11 and perhaps elsewhere. For Hidden Power (haylâ kasyâ/ haylâk, hayleh) see Ephrem: HdN 13.11, 16.2, 22.39, 27.11; H. Azym. 20.

170

HANSBURY

to confuse the Syriac terms: rûšmâ (mark, sign); hâtmâ (seal); tab‛â (signet, imprint).35 One final aspect of Koonammakkal’s work is his reflection on the ‘garment of names’ in Ephrem.36 Commenting on HdF 31 he says: “the incarnation is only the climax of divine speech and the ultimate means of divine communication and dialogue with us and in and through our language.”37 It is this image of ours that He put on, yet He did not put it on; He took it off, yet He did not take it off; when He was clad He was stripped of it; He put it on for our benefit, and stripped it off in exchange. But as He strips off and puts on every image, He teaches that this is not the image of His Being; because His Being is hidden He depicted it through visible things. HdF 31.3

“By bringing together the anthropomorphic language of the OT and the human experiences of Jesus, Ephrem seems to allude to the idea of the bodily incarnation of God as the continuation and culmination of God’s incarnation into human language.”38 And here Koonammakkal mentions the research of Neusner who has examined the Jewish experience from 70CE to 600, reflecting on the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash, rather than on esoteric materials. He quotes Neusner: “that the Judaism of the dual Brock speaks of the confusion from the mistranslation of rûšmâ as seal, see S. Brock, “The Syrian Baptismal Ordines (with special reference to the anointings),” Studia Liturgica 12 (1977):180. See also his The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition, Syrian Churches Series 9 (Poona, 1979), 93–106. See V. van Vossel, “Le terme et la notion de ‘sceau’ dans le rituel baptismal des syriens orientaux,” L’Orient Syrien 10 (1965): 237–260. In this article one finds a very good overview of the literature and many references to the hymns of Ephrem where rûšmâ, hâtmâ and tab‛â may be found. But van Vossel sometimes hesitates in translating rûšmâ as mark or seal, with a preference for seal as noted by Bou Mansour, Pensée symbolique, 346. 36 See S. Brock, The Luminous Eye, 60–65; idem, Hymns on Paradise, 45–49; idem, “The Robe of Glory: a biblical image in the Syriac tradition,” The Way 39:3 (1999): 247–259; idem, Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition,” ed. M. Schmidt, Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter (Regensburg: EB 4, 1982), 11–40. 37 Koonammakkal, Theology, 92. 38 Koonammakkal, Theology, 178–179. 35

“CALLING ON THE NAME”

171

Torah resorted to the incarnation of God ... that the incarnation of God formed part of the unfolding of the inner logic of that Judaism, as it does of any Judaic system spun out of the heritage of the Hebrew Scriptures.”39 This stunning conclusion merits further research even in regard to Ephrem. In his study, among his various comparisons of God with humanity “in our image and likeness,” Neusner opens and concludes with the following quote: Said R. Hoshaiah, “When the Holy One, blessed be he, came to create the first man, the ministering angels mistook him for God, since man was in God’s image, and wanted to say before him, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.’ What did the Holy One, blessed be he, do? He put him to sleep, so that everyone knew that he was a mere man. Genesis Rabbah VIII:X40

SYRIAC PRESENCE IN CHINA Anyone who is a practitioner of nienfo samadhi, whether ill or not at the eve of his death should properly prepare his own body and mind. He should face the west with a concentrated mind in order to visualize and meditate upon the Buddha Amitahba, that the functions of his mind and mouth might correspond each to the other in an unceasing invocation of the Buddha’s name. With determined resolution he should raise the thought of attaining rebirth [in the Pure Land], as he should also think of the platform of lotus flowers [on which he will be carried], and the saintly multitude who shall arrive to welcome him [into the Buddha’s country].41

These are the words of Shan-tao (613–681), one of the most important proponents of calling on or recitation of the name of Buddha, nien-fo, in Pure Land Buddhism. He was born in Lin-tzu, Shantung Province and entered monastic life very young, perhaps at ten years old. Initially he was 39 Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (University of South Florida, 1992), xi, 3, 222. 40 Possible dating, 400 CE. Genesis Rabbah quotes both Babylonian and Palestinian rabbis from 300–400 CE but was probably redacted in Palestine. See H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 300–308. 41 Text found in Ingram S. Seah, Shan-tao, His Life and Teachings (unpublished dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1975), 211.

172

HANSBURY

attracted to a philosophical approach to Buddhism. But eventually coming upon the Kuan wu-liang-shou-Fo ching,42 one of the most important Sutras of Pure Land Buddhism, he dedicated his life to it and for several years became a disciple of Tao-cho43 to deepen contemplation and ascetic life based on the worship of Amitahba according to the Kuan-ching. It was perhaps in 649 that Shantao moved to Ch’ang-an (Xian) where he taught and preached for thirty years. The temple where he frequently preached was three blocks from the Syriac monastery.44 Some have hypothesized about what contacts might have occurred between Shan-tao and the Syriac monks and a possible influence affecting the formation of Pure Land Buddhism.45 Shan-tao was not the founder of the Pure Land tradition. For example the Meditation Sutra, the Kuan-ching, on which he based his commentary was probably compiled in Central Asia, 42 See Julian Pas, “The Kuan-wu-liang-shou Fo-ching: Its Origin and Literary Criticism,” L. Kawamura, K. Scott, eds., Buddhist Thought and Asian Civilization (Emeryville, CA: Dharma Publishing, 1977), 194–218. Pas notes the use of the number “Ten” as a holy number in the Kuan-ching and in Buddhist literature in general, see p.207. Elsewhere Needham comments on a diffuse Chinese use of numerology and considers it as part of Chinese correlative thought processes as compared with Greek causative thinking. But he does consider the possibility of Pythagorean influence, not unlike what may have occurred in the Jewish and Syriac use of numbers. Actually, he suggests that it may be that the Chinese influenced Greece in this respect. See J. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, Vol.2: History of Scientific Thought (Cambridge, 1956), 216–345. 43 See David W. Chappell, “The Formation of the Pure Land Movement in China: Tao-cho and Shan-tao,” in J. Foard, M. Solomon, R. K. Payne, eds., The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development (Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series #3, 1996), 139–171. 44 When that Syriac monastery was founded in 638 there were 21 monks. For a rendered map of 7th century Ch’ang-an including the locations of Shan-tao’s temple and the Syriac monastery, see Seah, Shantao. The map may also be found in his “Nestorian Christianity and Pure Land Buddhism in T’ang China,” Taiwan Journal of Theology (1984): 90. 45 Puri says: “On the basis of manuscript finds, there is clear evidence of the co-existence of Buddhism and Christianity, and friendly relations between Buddhist and Christian priests in China.” He then speaks about the possibility of one tradition borrowing from the other in Central Asia as well. See B. N. Puri, Buddhism in Central Asia (Delhi, 1987),140. For a review of his book, see Jan Nattier, History of Religions (1991). On the existence of an East Syriac breviary in Chinese in T’ang China, see J. Foster, The Church of the Tang Dynasty (New York: Macmillan, 1939), 109–110.

“CALLING ON THE NAME”

173

translated into Chinese, ca. 424–453 and brought into China during the 5th and 6th centuries.46 The Syriac monks came to China across Central Asia, the same route along which Buddhism arrived in China more so than from India.47 But certain tendencies did in fact intensify during the time Shan-tao spent in Ch’ang-an in close proximity to the Syriac monks.48 That this may have been due to a Christian influence was mostly noted by Protestant missionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries.49 They based their conclusions on comparisons with the Syriac presence in China, a presence often ignored by Roman Catholic missionaries from the time of the Franciscans in the 13th century who developed an antipathy to the Syrians considering them to be heretical.50 Among those missionaries who have commented on this presence were Reichelt51 and Reischauer.52 See Allan A. Andrews, “Nembutsu in the Chinese Pure Land tradition,” The Eastern Buddhist (New Series) 3 (1970): 28. 47 See Hans-J. Klimkeit, “Christian-Buddhist Encounter in Medieval Central Asia,” ed. G. W. Houston, The Cross and the Lotus (Delhi, 1985), 9–24. Klimkeit describes the interrelationships that existed there. One awaits further information from the ongoing Central Asian Buddhist research. See Puri, Buddhism. Marvelous photographs of the area are in C. Baumer, Church of the East: an illustrated history of Assyrian Christianity (London: IB Tauris, 2006). For a guided tour of the area with historical awareness as well as a sensitivity to contemporary realities, see Colin Thubron, Shadow of the Silk Road (New York: HarperCollins, 2007). 48Of interest is the fact that Shan-tao was considered to be heretical by other Buddhists. Reischauer sees this as resulting from the Syriac Christian influence, see A. K. Reischauer, Studies in Japanese Buddhism (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 218. It is also true that Shan-tao used his gifts “to firmly organize Pure Land thought and practice to serve ordinary people...” insisting that the Kuan-ching was meant for common laymen which did not always sit well with the brethren, see Chappell, “Formation,” 159–166. In addition, he rejected a certain splendour and extravagance of Buddhist monastic life in T’ang society, see Seah, Shan-tao, 149– 152. These three factors may have combined to bring on the accusation of heresy. 49 See the work of S. Beal, A. Loyd, J. Edkins, K. Reichelt, A. Reischauer, T. Richard and C. Eliot. 50 See Foster, Church, 59–63. 51 K. Reichelt, Truth and Tradition in Chinese Buddhism: A Study of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism (Shanghai, 1934). Reichelt speaks of a “clear influence from the Christian mission [on Shan-tao] ... and ... just at this period, a quiet but sure inner process began to work within Chinese Mahayana, pointing to a more monotheistic Amitabha-concept,” see p. 132. Pas disagrees with Reichelt seeing only a possible Syriac influence at a later date, several hundred years later, long after the death of Shan-tao. When evaluating the Syriac presence, Pas may have been influenced by a 46

174

HANSBURY

As mentioned, one of the prime works of Shan-tao was his commentary on the Kuan-ching.53 It gives indications of how to attain the vision of the Buddha. This was to occur through visualization, i.e., creating a mental image (hsiang); inspecting the image with attention (kuan); the image appears as if present (chien); samadhi, hints at the possibility of a vision of the Buddha in this life.54 Not separate from any of this process is the calling on or recitation of the name of Buddha, nien-fo. This path towards visualization, already in Pure Land Buddhism at least from the time of T’an luan, grew stronger with Shantao. In part this may be due to his extraordinary artistic talents which drew him to the symbolism of the image.55 But one wonders if there may be some intrinsic link between theory of names and visualization much as Robert Murray speaks of concerning Ephrem, how his symbolic theory may have led to the Byzantine theory of icons.56 Probably cross-cultural influence is not at issue here, but perhaps rather a universal sense of a link between name and image. It is difficult to assess how Shan-tao thought about names (Name of Buddha and names of his attributes, perhaps what Ephrem calls kûnnâyê) negative judgement. He refers to the Syriac church as “a Christian heresy repudiated by the official church.” See J. Pas, Visions of Sukhavati: Shan-tao’s Commentary on the Kuan Wu-Liang-Shou-Fo Ching (New York: SUNY Press, 1995), 315–318. 52 Reischauer was perhaps more nuanced, stating that a theistic tendency might already have developed within Buddhism during the Central Asian period and that Syriac Christianity in China strengthened this tendency. He notes that Shan-tao’s teachings were eventually taken to Japan forming the practice of nembutsu (nien-fo) there as well as the Amida doctrine which Karl Barth called “Japanese Protestantism.” See Reischauer, Studies , 218. For the quote of Barth, see A. Bloom, Shinran’s Gospel of Pure Grace ( Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1987), vii. 53 Included is Shan-tao’s vivid parable of the White Path. Basically it describes the human dilemma between two rivers, one of fire and one of water, with a five inch wide bridge between them. Only by invocation of the name does one arrive at the Pure Land on the other side. See W. T. de Bary, ed., The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan (New York: Vintage Books, 1972), 204–207. 54 See Julian H. Pas, “Shan-tao’s Interpretation of the Meditative Vision of Buddha Amitayus,” History of Religions 14 (1974): 96–116. 55 Shan-tao was extremely gifted as a visual artist in calligraphy, painting, fresco painting and sculpture. He also composed liturgies and hymns in addition to his commentaires on the sutras. 56 See Notes 3 and 4.

“CALLING ON THE NAME”

175

and if he had a theory of names. But in the work of T’an-luan (ca. 476–542), on whose system Shan-tao built, one finds some clues as to how a theory might have functioned. According to Bloom, “T’an-luan was the first of the Pure Land patriarchs to present a theory of the name ... the name, according to his theory, embodied the total reality of the nature of Amida Buddha. Therefore when it was repeated, it had the power to cleanse and purify evil beings and to bring them great benefit.”57 When some said that a name is only an indicator, ‘like a finger pointing to the moon:’ but it is the moon, not the finger, that gives light. How then can a name enlighten our minds? T’an-luan replied: Names (ming) are of two classes: ‘names which are other than things (ming i fa), i.e., like labels, (‘like a finger pointing to the moon’), and names which are the same as things (ming chi fa)’ which are so intimately connected with objects that they effect what they signify. All the names of this latter class are in-t’zu, ‘audible words’ and ‘spoken phrases.’ It includes the Names of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, mantras, etc.58 Thus the Name Amitabha effects its essence which effects wisdom in the devotee when consciously appropriated.59 Further research in this theory of names in the land where Syriac monks laboured for 1000 years60 may also benefit 57See

Bloom, Shinran’s Gospel, 54. quotes from T’an-luan are blended from two sources. See R. J. Corless, “T’an-luan: The First Systematizer of Pure Land Buddhism,” in J. Foard, M. Solomon, R. K. Payne, eds., The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development (Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series #3, 1996), 127. Idem, “The Garland of Love: A History of Hermenneutics of Nembutsu Theory and Practice,” ed. A. K. Narain, Studies in Pali and Buddhism (Delhi: 1979), 55. Unfortunately I was unable to consult Corless’s dissertation, see R. J. Corless, T’an-luan’s Commentary on the Pure Land Discourse: An Annotated Translation and Soteriological Analysis of the Wang-sheng-lun chu (unpublished dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1973). See also Ch’ing-feng Hsiao, The Life and Teachings of T’an-luan (unpublished dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1967). 59 Corless likens this to the Catholic understanding of God dispensing grace which becomes active in the believer by faith. See Corless, “Garland,” 55. 60 For a chronology of this millennial presence see my “Nature as Soteric: Syriac and Buddhist Traditions,” Aram 5 (1993):197–202. Toynbee had a high estimate of this presence: “If Nestorian Christianity in Central Asia had been able to repel the Islamic assault, or had been screened from its incidence as Ireland was screened from the incidence of the English assault by a Welsh buffer, we may conjecture that in those circumstances Nestorian Christianity would have followed the same course in the Far East that Patrician Christianity actually followed in the Far West.” See A. Toynbee, A Study of History, vol.2 (London: Oxford University 58The

176

HANSBURY

study of the theory of Names in Ephrem, research begun by T. Koonammakkal. Antoine Guillaumont wrote an article on the phenomenology of certain aspects of early Christian monasticism, especially îhîdâyâ, and chose to close with the following Buddhist text. From his readings and discussions with Buddhist specialists he is led to think there are ‘connections’ between the early Christian and Buddhist traditions and that the search for unity and unification seems to be a universal phenomenon.61 If the sons and daughters of a good family desire to enter into this samadhi of Unity, let them come together in a solitary place, abandoning all thoughts which might disturb, not attaching themselves to forms or figures, let them have their spirit fixed on a unique Buddha and concentrate themselves exclusively to the recitation of his name.62

Press, 1956), 376. Further research is now made easier by the very useful 200 page bibliography, the work of Matteo Nicolini-Zani. See, “ Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia,” Collectanea Serica ed. Roman Malek (Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006). 61 A. Guillaumont, “Esquisse d’une Phénoménologie du Monachisme,” Numen 25 (1978): 51. 62 English translation as found in D. T. Suzuki, Essays on Zen Buddhism, 2nd series (Paris, 1972).

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT: BIBLICAL WOMEN AS IMAGES OF CHURCH IN JACOB OF SERUG SUSAN ASHBROOK HARVEY Sebastian Brock has enriched the study of Syriac for many years now with a series of articles devoted to different images that enliven and mark as distinctive the poetic writings of Syriac theologians, both known and anonymous. Among the most beloved of ancient Syriac images, and one on which Sebastian Brock has written on numerous occasions, is the cluster of bridal imagery frequently invoked by Syriac writers: Christ as Heavenly Bridegroom, the individual believer or the Church as Bride, and the place into which they enter to celebrate their wedding feast, the Bridal Chamber of the Heart, the Bridal Chamber of Light, the Bridal Chamber of Joy.1 Yet Dr. Brock has also written on a less well-known articulation of the divine-human marriage theme: that of “the wedding feast of blood on Golgotha.”2 Here, Syriac writers explored the resonances of John 19:34, the piercing of Christ’s side with the lance, to arrive at this jarringly discordant image. The piercing harkened back to Genesis 2:21–22 and the birth of Eve, the Mother of All Life, from the side of Adam; and to the sealing of Eden by the cherub with the lance upon the expulsion of Adam and Eve The imagery is famously treated in Brock’s foundational study, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1992), at pp. 115–30. See also idem, “The Bridal Chamber of Light: A Distinctive Feature of the Syriac Liturgical Tradition,” The Harp 18 (2005): 179–91; “An Anonymous Hymn for Epiphany,” Parole de l’Orient 15 (1988–9): 169–96. Also crucial for this imagery is Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, 2nd ed. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004), 131–58, 254– 62, 272. 2 S. P. Brock,“‘The Wedding Feast of Blood on Golgotha,’ an unusual aspect of John 19:34 in Syriac tradition,” The Harp 6 (1993): 121–34. 1

177

178

HARVEY

after the Fall (Gen. 3:24). The piercing also pointed forward, for the water and blood that issued from the side of Christ, the Second Adam, prefigured the birth of the Church (the Mother of All Life) with the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, removing the lance that had barred humanity’s return to Paradise.3 “The wedding feast of blood” presents an unnerving paradox of images to the modern eye: of nuptial joy intermixed with the specter of death. Nonetheless, as Sebastian Brock has shown, Syriac writers here drew upon rich typological traditions of biblical exegesis at the same time that they echoed very ancient Mediterranean notions of marriage as a meeting of life and death.4 Dr. Brock’s article on the wedding feast of blood samples a wide array of Syriac texts to explore the image, perhaps most notably the extensive treatment of the theme in Jacob of Serug’s homily on the Veil of Moses.5 However, one significant occurrence, also by Jacob of Serug, was not included: that of Jephthah’s Daughter as the Bride of Blood, a depiction central to Jacob’s homily on Judges 11.6 In this instance, however, it would appear that Jacob’s inspiration came from a different set of biblical passages, related to John 3:16 and the notions of sacrifice, devotion, martyrdom and virginity that attended the ascetic ideal in late antique Syriac Christianity. In this study I would like to take up Jacob’s arresting image of Jephthah’s Daughter as a contribution towards a fuller understanding of ancient Syriac Christological thought and the significance of its bridal imagery. The topic may seem an odd choice for a volume honoring our beloved teacher! But the discussion will also allow me to consider aspects of 3 See also Brock, “The Mysteries Hidden in the Side of Christ,” Sobornost 7 (1978): 462–72; Robert Murray, “The Lance which re-opened Paradise: a Mysterious reading in the early Syriac Fathers,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973): 224–34, 491. 4 Margaret Alexiou and Peter Dronke, “The lament of Jephtha’s daughter: themes, traditions, originality,” Studi medievali 12 (1971): 819–63. 5 The text is edited as Homily 79 in Paul Bedjan, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug/ Homiliae Selectae Mar Jacobi Sarugensis (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006) 3: 283– 305. It was translated by Sebastian Brock, “Jacob of Serugh on the Veil of Moses,” Sobornost 3 (1981): 70–85. The wedding imagery appears at lines 85–164. 6 Jacob of Serug, Homily 159, “On Jephthah’s Daughter,” ed. Bedjan, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 5: 306–30. I am preparing a translation of this homily with Ophir Muenz-Manor, to be published in the new bilingual edition of Jacob’s homilies now being edited by Sebastian Brock for Gorgias Press. Quotations are from this forthcoming translation, with references to page and line numbers in Bedjan’s edition.

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

179

Jacob’s poetic style that merit attention in their own right. And attention to Syriac poetics brings us close to the heart of Sebastian Brock’s legacy for the field of Syriac studies: an appreciation for the depth of interaction between cultures that Syriac allowed, as well as the distinctive qualities that granted Syriac Christianity its particular luminosity in late antiquity.

1. JACOB OF SERUG: THE HOMILETIC POET IN LITURGICAL CONTEXT A large number of the surviving mimre (verse homilies) by Jacob of Serug are devoted to presenting and interpreting biblical texts by re-telling their stories in the form of dramatic narratives. Often these mimre display Jacob’s artistry at its finest. In metered couplets of 7 + 7 or 12 + 12, Jacob would luxuriously reiterate a biblical account, punctuating the presentation with exquisite prayers addressed to God or Christ. Less exuberant as a poet than Ephrem, Jacob was nonetheless an artist of rare and delicate skill. With gracefully crafted lines, he drew deeply on earlier Syriac exegetical traditions while often rendering them in more fully fashioned form than previously found. In Syriac, exegetical literature appears in various genres: prose commentaries, hymns, homilies, even hagiography.7 There is a deep intertextuality to this literature, and Jacob’s homilies are a place where one can see the interweaving of the various exegetical and hermeneutical trajectories that preceded him. Jacob’s artistry lay in his ability to transmit tradition(s) with a lyricism of striking elegance. His portraits of biblical women are notably powerful; they perhaps show Jacob at his most original. In the well-loved fashion of Syriac liturgical poets, Jacob frequently employed imagined speech for biblical characters.8 Such speech was one means by which to present a biblical person as strong or authoritative. Jacob presented biblical characters in dialogue with one another, or in 7 E.g., Lucas Van Rompay, “The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: the History of its Interpretation Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), Part 1: Antiquity ed. Magne Saebo (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996), 612–41. 8 See especially the forthcoming study by Sebastian Brock, “Dramatic Narrative Poems on Biblical Topics in Syriac,” Studia Patristica (2009). Cf. also S. A. Harvey, “Spoken Words, Voiced Silence: Biblical Women in Syriac Tradition,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 105–31; eadem, “On Mary’s Voice: Gendered Words in Syriac Marian Tradition,” in The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies: Gender, Asceticism, and Historiography, ed. Dale Martin and Paatricia Cox Miller (Durham: Duke University Press, 2005), 63–86.

180

HARVEY

imagined interior monologues; speaking hypothetically (“if X had spoken, he would have said something like this:”) or following the model of the biblical text. In the case of biblical women, this meant granting their speech a greater prominence than the biblical accounts had done. However, the formal aspects of the mimra as a liturgical homily provided specific ritual and rhetorical constraints for such elaboration of the sacred text. The biblical pericope in question would be known to the congregation through its lectionary version, read as part of a sequence of scripture that would in and of itself provide guidance for the hearer’s understanding of each passage. The mimra would be presented to explicate the readings, whether in the first portion of a eucharistic liturgy (the Liturgy of the Word) or at a vigil service which would involve again a variety of readings, both scriptural and homiletic.9 Even when focusing his homily on one particular biblical episode, the homilist was lifting that episode out of the whole slate of readings given for that service. The story’s scriptural context was not that of

9 For the development of the Syriac liturgy and the daily offices in the context of eastern Christianity see, e.g., Juan Mateos, Lelya-Sapra: Essai d’interpretation des matines chaldeennes, OCA 156 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1959); idem, La célébration de la parole dans la liturgie Byzantine, OCA 191 (Rome, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 1971); Paul Bradshaw, Daily Prayer in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 72–110; Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: the Origins of the Divine Office and its Meaning for Today (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986), esp. 225–48. Useful bibliography in general may be found in C. Jones, G. Wainwright, E. Yarnold, and P. Bradshaw, The Study of Liturgy, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press/ London: SPCK, 1992), 219–29 (P. Cobb, “The Liturgy of the Word in the Early Church”), 230–44 (E. J. Yarnold, “The Liturgy of the Faithful in the Fourth and Early Fifth Century”); and see now Daniel Sheerin, “Eucharistic Liturgy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, ed. S. A. Harvey and D. G. Hunter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 711–43. The custom of reading homilies by great preachers at vigil services was well in place before Jacob of Serug’s time, and Jacob’s homilies were among those utilized far beyond their author’s lifetime. The practice continues: cf. Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, trans. Matti Moosa, 2nd ed. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003), 77. For interesting related work on Greek homiletics and the reception by congregations, see Mary Cunningham and Pauline Allen, Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics (Leiden: Brill, 1998).

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

181

the biblical book from which it was taken, but rather the lectionary grouping of passages and pericopes across a variety of biblical literature.10 Further, Jacob’s homilies included extensive narrative portions to frame the sections given to speech. He not only elaborated the biblical account at hand, adorning and embellishing the biblical text, but further would add explicit comments to the congregation (sometimes presented as if addressed to the biblical figures themselves) that allowed him to set the tone or quality of the character’s spoken words. In the case of biblical women, Jacob sometimes granted them speech of unusual boldness or authority in comparison with the expected social norms for late antique society. Yet the impact on the hearer, or the reception by the congregation, would have been strongly mediated. Intoned by the (male) homilist, embedded in the mimra’s poetically rendered narrative and expository framework, and contextualized within the larger liturgical structure of the service, such speech was not free standing. It is important when considering Jacob’s homilies to keep this performative context in view. The cluster of biblical passages with which the given story would have been associated through lectionary readings was one crucial component of the story’s impact. The ritual context of the liturgy itself was another; so, too, the point in the liturgical calendar of the year. A master of his craft, Jacob worked knowingly with these elements as he wove his homilies. Jacob’s mimre (not differently from other homilies of the time) were designed as vehicles for biblical instruction. Their purpose was to teach biblical content as well as right interpretation. In an age when few could or would have owned a Bible, the liturgy was the location where the majority of people gained their biblical knowledge. Biblical readings, the imagery of hymnography, the iconographic decoration of the church building, the structure of liturgical ritual, and the explication of the homilist all served to instill that knowledge. Rarely, then, was the biblical text itself the object of study or even scrutiny for most Christians. Instead, a homilist like Jacob cultivated a sense of “biblical memory,” by which people learned their Bible as the Christian story of salvation, within clearly defined ritual boundaries. For the Syriac lectionary, see F. C. Burkitt, “The Early Syriac Lectionary System,” Proceedings of the British Academy 10 (1923): 301–39; and the important study by Sebastian Brock, “The Use of the Syriac Versions in the Liturgy,” in The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy: Papers read at the Third Peshitta Symposium, ed. Bas ter Haar Romeny (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 3–25. 10

182

HARVEY

Jacob’s dramatic narratives were highly stylized presentations. The biblical characters were often represented through stereotypes, as caricatures or stock figures; or they might function as personifications of roles or positions. The pure virgin, the seductive sinner, the righteous wife, the resourceful widow, the penitent harlot: all were familiar narrative types Jacob used to represent the persons of biblical stories.11 This did not preclude powerful artistry on his part. Tragic elements of fear, dread, horror, recognition, and catharsis could be employed; humor, cunning, playfulness, could attend dialogic exchange. But the liturgical context was one that ensured the presentation of biblical persons as symbols, as ‘conventional types’ or ‘mythical figures’ whose citation provided a means of exegesis through which biblical instruction took place. In what follows, I suggest that Jacob employed biblical women as images of the Church, thereby serving basic ecclesiastical purposes. His homily on Jephthah’s Daughter provides an entry to the issues. Moreover, it opens connections with other homilies by him, notably those on Tamar the daughter-in-law of Judah and the Sinful Woman who washed Christ’s feet with her tears and anointed him with fine ointment. Brief consideration of these links will enable me to point out aspects of Jacob’s poetic technique, as well as to consider the role of biblical women in his exegetical method.

2. JACOB ON JEPHTHAH’S DAUGHTER The biblical story of Jephthah’s daughter has distressed and dismayed its readers, both Jewish and Christian, from their earliest commentaries down to the present time.12 Recounted in Judges 11, it is a short, shocking tale. Jephthah was one of the Judges who led the Hebrews in the era before the kings. Bastard son of a prostitute, he is depicted as a brash but mighty warrior, summoned by the Israelites despite his lowly origin to lead their charge against the Ammonites. In preparation for battle, Jephthah barters with God: if the Lord will grant him victory over the Ammonites, Jephthah Compare the parallel development of hagiography of holy women in eastern Christianity: Lynda Coon, Sacred Fictions: holy women and hagiography in late antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997); Stavroula Constantinou, Female Corporeal Performances: reading the body in Byzantine passions and lives of holy women (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2005). 12 The bibliography on Jephthah’s Daughter, whether the biblical text itself or its subsequent history, is vast. In what follows I cite only examples of especially important or recent scholarship. I am grateful to Ophir Meunz-Manor for his help with references and also for discussion of the problems. 11

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

183

will sacrifice the first person to come forth from his house upon his return as a burnt offering. Tragedy strikes when that person proves to be his young daughter, his only child, who had come out to greet him with timbrels and dance in celebration of his victory. Jephthah rends his garments with grief, but the daughter insists he uphold his vow, asking only that he grant her two months to mourn her virginity in the mountains with her companions. Following her mountain sojourn, the unnamed daughter willingly returns to her father, “who did with her according to his vow which he had made.” (Jud. 11:39 RSV) This story outraged ancient readers no less than it has inflamed modern feminists.13 It was frequently compared to the account of Abraham and the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22, with the glaring difference that Isaac was spared when the Lord provided a ram for sacrifice in his stead.14 Both patristic and rabbinic authors saw the problem of the story in the figure of Jephthah himself. His vow was almost invariably distained as brash, foolish, and even an insult to God. The fact that the story seemed to indicate the Lord’s acceptance of his sacrifice was by no means a sign that God countenanced human sacrifice. Rather, ancient commentators presumed God’s acceptance of the daughter’s death as tantamount to punishment of Jephthah for making such an ignoble vow in the first place.15 By contrast, 13 Perhaps most influential among feminist scholarship have been: Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress 1984), Ch. 4, “the Daughter of Jephthah: an Inhuman Sacrifice,” pp. 93– 116; Meike Bal, Anti-Covenant. Counter Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), “Between Altar and Wandering Rock: Toward a Feminist Philology,” pp. 211–31; and Esther Fuchs, “Marginalization, Ambiguity, Silencing: the Story of Jephthah’s Daughter,” in A Feminist Companion to Judges, ed. A. Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1993), 116–30. 14 E.g., Tal Ilan, “Gender Difference and the Rabbis: Bat Yiftah as Human Sacrifice,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Karen Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, K. F. Diethard Römheld, and Lance Lazar (Leiden: Brill 2007), 175– 89; Guy Stroumsa, “Christ’s Laughter: Docetic Origins Reconsidered,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12 (2004): 267–88. 15 As in Christian sources such as Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron 10.3; Jerome, Against Jovinian, 1.23; Augustine, Questions on Judges 49.1, 2–4, 6–7, Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.276–8; Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy 1.50.264, 3.12.78, 81; John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Statues 14.7. These are conveniently collected in Thomas Oden, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament, vol. 4: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel, ed. John R. Franke (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 136–40.

184

HARVEY

the daughter was universally admired for her steadfastness in remaining faithful to what was vowed to God.16 Although rabbinic commentators, in particular, granted her a tradition of lively and eloquent protest (a line medieval and early modern Christian writers would also pursue),17 yet her perfection of faith remained the constant point of contrast to a common condemnation of Jephthah’s boorish and violent character.18 Pseudo-Philo went so far as to provide her a name, Seilah, in an attempt to treat her with appropriate respect.19 Jacob of Serug inherited earlier Syriac traditions on Jephthah and his daughter. Both Aphrahat and Ephrem had commented on the story, if not extensively. Aphrahat had cited the episode in his Demonstration 21, On Persecution, where he presented Jephthah as a type for Christ, as one persecuted by his own household who yet arose to become leader of his

16 Michael Roberts, Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity ARCA 16 (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985), 181–9. 17 E.g., Elisheva Baumgarten, “‘Remember that glorious girl:’ Jephthah’s Daughter in Medieval Jewish Culture,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 97 (2007): 180– 209; Cornelis Houtman, “Rewriting a Dramatic Old Testament Story: the Story of Jephthah and his Daughter in some Examples of Christian Devotional Literature,” Biblical Interpretation 13 (2005): 167–90; Joshua Berman, “Medieval Monasticism and the Evolution of Jewish Interpretation to the Story of Jephthah’s Daughter,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 228–56; Deborah W. Rooke, “Sex and Death, or, the Death of Sex: Three Versions of Jephthah’s Daughter (Judges 11:29–40),” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 249–71. 18 Michaela Bauks, “The Theological Implications of Child Sacrifice: in and beyond the Biblical Context in Relation to Genesis 22 and Judges 11,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Karen Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, K. F. Diethard Römheld, and Lance Lazar (Leiden: Brill 2007), 65–86. For a fresh perspective on how Jewish and Christian traditions may have interacted, see Galit Hasan-Rokem, “Narratives in Dialogue: a Folk Literary Perspective on Interreligious Contacts in the Holy Land in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity,” in Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land, First—Fifteenth Centuries CE (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi 1998), 109–29. 19 Pieter W. Van der Horst, “Deborah and Seila in Ps-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity, ed. I. Gruenwald, S. Shaked, and G. G. Stroumsa (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 111–7. For the larger Rabbinic context, see Tal Ilan, “Biblical Women’s Names in the Apocryphal Tradition,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 11 (1993): 3–67.

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

185

people.20 More importantly, Aphrahat implied, Jephthah’s typological link to Christ was to be seen in the bloodshed of sacrifice, for “Jephthah vowed a vow and offered up his first-born daughter as a sacrifice, and Jesus went up [=was offered] as a sacrifice to his father in behalf of all the peoples.”21 Ephrem, by contrast, turned to Jephthah and his daughter in various works. In his Commentary on the Diatessaron, he cited the story as an admonitory event God had allowed so as to instruct against human sacrifice.22 In his Hymns on Virginity, he holds up the Daughter as exemplary for consecrated virgins, since she died willingly with the “pearl” of her virginity intact as consolation.23 Urging consecrated virgins to keep their vows to the Lord just as Jephthah had done, Ephrem follows Aphrahat in suggesting a typology by which Jephthah is likened to Christ, as one who shed his own blood (his daughter) out of love for his people. This Christological suggestion Ephrem pursued further in his Hymns on Nisibis 70.7–12. Here Ephrem speaks of Jephthah as praiseworthy for his sacrifice because he successfully suppressed his human love when offering his daughter to the Lord, while yet remaining sane (!). In Ephrem’s view, ‫)ܗ‬. Referring to the Daughter Jephthah was sustained by his faith (‫ܬܐ‬ as the “dove” who “gave [Jephthah] courage through her voice,” Ephrem =typos) of the presents the startling image of Jephthah as the type (‫ܐ‬ divine Christ: an upright priest (‫ ) ܐ‬who sacrificed with his own blood (his daughter) just as Christ would be both sacrificer and sacrificed.24 This brief but striking passage sets up the interpretation that Jacob of Serug will

20 Aphrahat, Demonstration 21.12. Trans. Jacob Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism: the Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 97–112, at p. 105. 21 Trans. Neusner, p. 105. 22 Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron, 10.3. Trans. Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the University of Manchester, 1993), at p. 166. 23 Ephrem, Hymns on Virginity 2.10–11; trans. Kathleen McVey, Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), at pp. 268–9. Ephrem here conveniently omits the biblical story’s emphasis on the Daughter’s two months of mourning precisely because of her virginity, on the mountains with her companions, prior to her death! 24 Hymns on Nisibis 70. 7–12, ed. Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena II, CSCO 240/ Scr. Syr. 10 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO 1963), p. 114.

186

HARVEY

later consider at length, working out its fuller implications with harrowing clarity. Jacob’s point of departure in his homily on Jepthah’s Daughter is the typological imagery immediately suggested by the Peshitta text of Judges 11, . This term is where Jephthah’s Daughter is called a Single One, ‫ܐ‬ otherwise used in the Peshitta for Isaac in Genesis 22 (Isaac is the ‫ܐ‬ , of God in John of Abraham) and of Jesus as the ‘single one,’ the ‫ܐ‬ , in the Peshitta was in and of itself 3:16.25 The use of this term, ‫ܐ‬ sufficient for Syriac biblical tradition to present Jephthah’s Daughter as a type of Christ, a tradition consistently represented in commentators from Aphrahat and Ephrem through Dionysius bar Salibi. Jacob of Serug strengthens this typological association with other strongly suggestive vocabulary. For example, Jacob refers repeatedly in his homily to the knife by which Jephthah would slay his daughter, a detail not mentioned in , the word used in the Peshitta of Judges 11. He uses the term ‫ܐ‬ Genesis 22 for the knife Abraham took up to sacrifice Isaac.26 Furthermore, Jacob uses the phrase “she stretched out her neck beneath the knife” ( ̇ ‫ܨܘܪܗ‬ ) (307:12)—a phrase not used by either Aphrahat or Ephrem. This phrase is not found in the Peshitta of Judges 11 or of Genesis 22, but was commonly used in the binding of Isaac in rabbinic traditions and in certain Syriac presentations of that episode.27 25 The Septuagint would connect the three passages through the use of agapetos, “most beloved.” See the excellent discussion in Catherine Brown Tkacz, “Women as types of Christ: Susanna and Jephthah’s Daughter,” Gregorianum 85 (2004): 278– 311; with interesting application in eadem, “‘Here Am I, Lord’—Preaching Jephthah’s Daughter as a Type of Christ,” Downside Review 434 (2006): 21–32. I am grateful to Prof. Stephen Ryan for discussing the connection with me, and alerting me to Prof. Tkacz’s work. 26 Interestingly, Ephrem does not use the word ‫ܐ‬ in Hymns on Nisibis 70, but rather the word ‫ ܐ‬, sword. Aphrahat, following Judges 11, uses neither, since the biblical text does not specify how the Daughter was killed. 27 E.g., Anonymous Memra 2:35, where the same wording is used; ed. and trans. in Sebastian Brock, “Two Syriac Verse Homilies on the Binding of Isaac,” Le Muséon 99 (1986): 61–129. For the intersections between Syriac and Jewish traditions, see esp. Sebastian P. Brock, “Genesis 22 in Syriac Tradition,” in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy: études bibliques offertes a l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire, ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 38 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires/ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981), 2–20. For a broader overview see, e.g., Edward Kessler, Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians, and the Sacrifice of Isaac (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Gedaliahu

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

187

Thus through his specific vocabulary choices, without ever mentioning the binding of Isaac directly, Jacob establishes Jephthah’s Daughter as the perfect Christological type—and more so than Isaac (the preferred Christological type throughout Christian history), since unlike Isaac, she was in fact sacrificed by her father. In Jacob’s treatment, the implications of this typology will bear not only on how we are to understand Jephthah and his Daughter, but further, on how we are to understand God’s own self in the event of Jesus’ crucifixion. From the first line of his homily, Jacob juxtaposes the images of sacrificial slaughter, singleness, and parent-child bond. His opening invocation lays out the typology at hand: “O Lord of the slain, whose own slaughter is life for his servants” (306:1). Indeed, Jacob intones, Christ is, ), to whom were offered Single Ones (‫”) ̈ ܐ‬ “the Single One (‫ܐ‬ (306:3), an allusion inclusive of both Genesis 22 and Judges 11. But soon Jacob states his point in the plainest of terms. Addressing Christ directly, he proclaims, “Your symbol (‫ )ܐܪܙܟ‬is the sacrifice of the only child by the hand of the father.” (307:5). His use here of the term ‫ ܐܪܙܐ‬for “symbol,” leads off a lengthy discussion of typology and the history of sacrifice, in ,‫ܐ‬ , and their related which the terms ‫ܐܪܙܐ‬, ‫ܨ ܐ‬, ‫ܕ ܬܐ‬, ‫ܐ‬ verbs, are used repeatedly and interchangeably to relate biblical images of blood sacrifice, virginity (“singleness”), Jephthah’s Daughter, and the death of Christ. In fact, the passage strongly parallels what Jacob has said elsewhere in a homily devoted to Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac (as we might expect from the vocabulary choices noted above).28 By a cascade of typological associations, we are prepared for its culmination: Jephthah is likened to God, as a father whose love for his child burns fervently, yet who offers up that same child in love for the sake of all people (307:9–10, 308:18–9). In fact, Jacob’s most distinctive contribution to the interpretive traditions for Judges 11 will come not in his presentation of the Daughter, but rather in his depiction of Jephthah. Ephrem had sketched this route in his Hymns on Nisibis 70, by naming Jephthah a priest (‫ ) ܐ‬whose act of Stroumsa, “Herméneutique Biblique et Identité: l’exemple d’Isaac,” Revue Biblique 99 (1992): 529–43. 28 See the splendid analysis of this terminology in Richard McCarron, “An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols: Jacob of Sarug’s Memra 109 on Abraham and his types,” Hugoye 1.1 (1998), http://www.bethmardutho. org/ hugoye. See also Johns Abraham Konat, “Typological Terminology of Jacob of Serug,” The Harp 18 (2005): 289–96.

188

HARVEY

sacrifice was sustained by faith (‫ܬܐ‬ ‫)ܒ‬. This imagery is also found in a late antique mosaic at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai, and again later at the Monastery of St. Anthony on the Red Sea in Egypt.29 Jacob expands and extends this image to become the framing motif of his entire homily. In his presentation, Jephthah is from the start a paragon of faith, one whose every action is undertaken rightly and with courage because he acts always and solely in faith. Deleted from this account is any reference to Jephthah’s own unseemly background (bastard child of a prostitute), or any hint of him as a reckless, brash, and impudent warrior, such as the biblical text portrayed. Instead, Jephthah in Jacob’s depiction is a “great laborer of faith” (309:7), “an athlete who wrestled with himself/ conquering” his [human] love for the sake of his love of God (309:15–16). In a term rich with meaning in Syriac ascetical literature, Jacob titles Jephthah “the discerning one” (‫( ) ܘ ܐ‬310:15), one who knew with clarity and wisdom that which the Lord desired. In fact, Jacob would claim that the entire war between the Hebrews and the Ammonites took place in order to provide a cause for Jephthah’s vow and sacrifice. (310:5) God had sought a means by which to prefigure perfectly in human history and experience the crucifixion of Jesus that would come as the world’s salvation. In Jephthah’s beloved only Daughter, sacrificed for the sake of the Hebrew peoples so that Jephthah could lead them to victory over the Ammonites, that perfect paradigm was found. Within this frame, Jacob presents the pivotal event of Jephthah’s vow—that same narrative moment almost invariably condemned by ancient biblical commentators, Jewish or Christian. In Jacob’s homily, Jephthah’s vow is an act of true faith, and the designation of his Daughter as the vow’s fulfillment a measure of her own surpassing worthiness in God’s eyes. Jephthah addresses a lengthy plea to the Lord, begging for victory and promising in return to offer to the Lord whomsoever the Lord himself should choose for his own. This vow Jephthah makes in terms that place entire responsibility on God:

Kurt Weitzmann, “The Jephthah Panel in the Bema of the Church of St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964): 341–52; Paul Van Moorsel, “Jephthah? Or, an Iconographical Discussion Continued,” Mélanges offerts à Jean Vercoutter, ed. Francis Geus and Florence Thill (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), 273–8. 29

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

189

I do not know whom you love, that he might be offered to you. Choose for yourself a sacrifice, and I will not spare even if the one is beloved. Set apart for yourself whomever is fitting and beautiful and choice and beloved. Whomever you set apart I will sacrifice without restraint, Whomever you choose from all that is mine I give to you. … … Let [the vow] be prepared according to your will. (311:6–17)

Enhancing the pathos of the situation, Jacob plays on the melodrama of Jephthah’s innocence, rendering the scene into one worthy of Greek tragedy. This is not the vow of a brash and arrogant warrior, but rather the fervent supplication of a faithful devotee. Jephthah seeks victory not for his own reputation as hero, but rather for the sake of the Hebrew people. By this very vow, Jacob claims, Jephthah rendered his bargain with God into an exchange of cosmic consequence: “The nation lived because she died on behalf of the whole nation/ as did the Son who for the sake of the world ascended the cross” (313:15). This is a stunning equation, and Jacob dwells on its power. Only now, with the die fatefully cast, does Jacob introduce the Daughter as an active agent rather than a token reference or image. When the Daughter emerges with timbrels and dance, leading her companions in victorious celebration, Jacob turns the outpouring into an unwitting sacrificial procession: “The sacrifice yearned for the priest who would offer her… the sacrificial calf walked to the priest on her own.” (314:11, 17).30 From her “concealed” place in the women’s quarters, the Daughter is “revealed” as she dances forth to greet her father: she is now the “bride of

30 It was important in the sacrificial systems of the ancient Mediterranean that the sacrificial animal be not only “pure” (unblemished), but also willing—a disposition ritually enabled, e.g., by sprinkling drops of water or a few grains on the forehead, causing the animal to nod its head up and down. Cf. Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 55–7. See esp. Stanley Stowers, “On the Comparison of Blood in Greek and Israelite Ritual,” in Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, ed. Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 179–94. The “willingness” was hence crucial to Christian sacrificial interpretation of the death of Jesus, as well as for both Rabbinic and Jewish traditions that presented an older Isaac, fully cognizant and willing to accept Abraham’s fulfillment of God’s command. For examples of texts, see Kessler, Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians, and the Sacrifice of Isaac.

190

HARVEY

blood” (‫) ܐ ܕܕ ܐ‬, “betrothed” by her father “to the crucifixion” ‫( )ܐܬ ܬ݀ ܗܘܬ‬315:7, 312:14). (‫ܬܐ‬ As with the imagery discussed by Sebastian Brock in his article on “The Wedding Feast of Blood,” Jacob joins the language of betrothal with , ‫ܘܬܐ‬ ). The imagery of feast and that of the wedding feast (‫ܐ‬ celebration is attached to the language of sacrifice in a strict sense, as an act of bloodshed in which the Daughter will die. The wedding feast is a sacrificial banquet. The Daughter is titled “betrothed to sufferings,” “the virgin of sufferings” (312:14, 315:12). Vowed to God, her death by sacrifice ) of her replaces marriage to any other husband. Her death is the price ( betrothal (313:1), a price Jephthah now owes and must repay. Returning his gaze to Jephthah, Jacob imagines him realizing the horror of the situation, wracked by unendurable grief. Jacob explains (echoing Ephrem’s Hymns on Nisibis 70) that only the divine Father could offer his single child for the sake of redemption without suffering; no human father could. Yet the Daughter is God’s chosen one, and Jacob depicts her as vividly worthy of that choice. In a remarkable pair of couplets, Jacob presents her with a stream of adjectives, the first couplet , ‫ܬ‬, ‫ܪ‬, evoking the vocabulary of biblical sacrificial law (‫ ܐ‬, ‫ ܐܐ‬, , ‫ܐܐ‬ , , ); and the second the vocabulary of ascetic virtues (by Jacob’s day, technical terms) (‫ܒ ܘܠ‬, ‫ܪ‬ , ,‫ ܐ‬, , ‫ܕ ܐ‬, ‫ ܒ‬, ‫ܙܗܐ‬, ‫ܬ‬, ). She is thus presented as the fulfillment of both the ideals of the biblical past and of the ecclesial present.

‫ܘܪܗ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܝ ܗܘܐ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܠ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܕ ܐ ܘ ܒ ܘܙܗܐ ܬ‬

[Jephthah] saw her as a sacrifice pure and innocent, guileless and beloved, Fair and comely, unsullied and precious, holy and honorable, Virgin and excellent, humble and quiet, young and adorned, Fair and pure, praiseworthy and splendid, wondrous and perfect. (316:5–8)

Jacob presents Jephthah’s response to this revelation quite literally as an interior battle as savage as the exterior one he has just survived in war. Before the Daughter has so much as spoken, or any words have been exchanged, a fierce debate takes place within Jephthah. Jacob negotiates Jephthah’s competing loyalties as a contest between Justice (‫ ) ܐ ܬܐ‬and

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

191

Nature (‫) ܐ‬. Justice is implacable: “The battle outside was God’s, this one (inside) is yours/ He conquered the hosts [of the Ammonites], now you [must] conquer the suffering and fulfill your vow.” (316:19) Jephthah’s anguish is poignant and palpable, as Jacob renders his speech to his daughter in short, jagged exclamations of pain. Torn between two truths— love of God, and love of child—he is the divided heart in extremis, raging in his devastation because he can see no alternative to the eloquence of Justice’s claim and he is unable to bear the loss. At no point does Jacob see this interior battle as indicating lack of faith, or lack of love—whether for God, or for the depth of human relation. Instead, he sees the conflict as one that allows Jephthah to be at once a devoted father and a devoted believer. “He repaid what belongs to fathers, he who wept for his daughter lovingly/ and he fulfilled what belongs to the priest, and accomplished his sacrifice honorably. …For the love of the Lord he killed a virgin and fulfilled his vow/ and for this beloved [daughter] he wept in pain as was fitting.” (318:9–10, 13–14). It is tempting to view this presentation with overtones from the Christological controversy raging in Jacob’s day, because of the vocabulary he employs. Only after this great drama of Jephthah’s heart does the Daughter finally speak, in the last third of the homily. As in the biblical account in Judges 11, she herself is a minor character in Jacob’s retelling of the story. But her place and purpose are central. At once she urges Jephthah to remain true to his vow. She is as serene in her acceptance of God’s will as he is agitated with surging conflict. “[God] gave me to you, and you should not be sad that he takes me again.” (320:5)31 More importantly, she states, Jephthah’s action in fulfilling his vow now changes irrevocably who they are for one another, and what their relationship is. She pronounces his new identity with assurance: I am your daughter. Because of me you are a father. [Now] I will be a sacrifice, and because of me you will be a priest. Until now you were named only a father, From this time forth you will be shown to be a father and a priest. (320:7–10, 321:1–2).

The Daughter thus reveals the truth of Jephthah’s identity: he is not the slayer of his child, but a true priest. She urges her father forward, expressing thanks that she is spared captivity as a war prisoner, and further 31

The line is reminiscent of Job 1:21.

192

HARVEY

that she is spared the transitory sorrows of the temporal world. She does not question the vow, or the revelation that she is its victim. She asks only to mourn her lost inheritance as Jephthath’s only child and her unborn children, the request she made in Judges 11. The scene of mourning in the mountains is interesting in its own right. The Daughter mourns the life she will not have, of marriage, partnership, and children, yet Jacob also presents her as taking up her betrothal to her heavenly bridegroom, just as the consecrated virgins of his own day. On the one hand he depicts her lamentation with pathos and melodrama: she weeps for the children she will never have, conceiving them in her thoughts and naming them with the names they will never bear. On the other, she chooses her course just as the holy women of Jacob’s time choose theirs: disdaining the ephemeral and illusory life of those married to mortality, trampling on the desire for what is merely human in order to seize desire for that which is divine and true. Against the backdrop of ascetic vocation as an active element in Jacob’s communities, the scene rings with contemporary significance for his congregations. Also intriguing is his depiction of the Hebrew maidens who accompany the Daughter, first in celebration, later in mourning, and finally in their own lamentation over her death.32 These he depicts in intertwined images of choirs and birds: they are a “brood of doves,” “moaning piteously/ for the beloved nestling” (324:11–12), “beautiful partridges” crying out “with their harps” (324:15–16). The imagery is strongly reminiscent of that Jacob uses elsewhere to depict the women’s choirs of consecrated virgins who, according to Jacob, had been founded by St. Ephrem to wage battle in song against the assaults of the heretics.33 Although he does not dwell long on this presentation, it rings hauntingly of that conjoining of biblical past and ecclesial present evoked by the ascetic imagery accompanying the Daughter at her first appearance, revealed as the perfect sacrifice. There is a vivid if subtle immediacy to the interface Cp. Norman H. Snaith, “The Song of Songs: The Dances of the Virgins,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 50 (1934): 129–42. 33 Joseph P. Amar, “A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serug.” PO 47 (1995): 5–76. On these choirs see S. A. Harvey, “Revisiting the Daughters of the Covenant: Women’s Choirs and Sacred Song in Ancient Syriac Christianity,” Hugoye 8.2 (2005), http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye; and now Kathleen McVey, “Ephrem the kitharode and proponent of women: Jacob of Serug’s portrait of a fourth-century churchman for the sixth-century viewer and its significance for the twenty-first century ecumenist” (forthcoming). 32

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

193

between the world of his narrative and that of his listeners. It is an interface Jacob deliberately cultivates. As Jacob turns to the final scene of sacrifice, he pauses to marvel at the story: its complexity, depth, and even the suffering borne by the listeners who hear it, further enhanced by the narrative detail that Jephthah waited another sixty days to perform his (un)holy sacrifice. Citing Hebrews 11:32, where Jephthah’s name is mentioned with no accompanying discussion, Jacob remarks on the brevity of the apostolic passage despite the enormity of Jephthah’s accomplishment. In this way, even as he lengthens the suspense of the pending slaughter, he claims to take the apostolic letter’s reticence as model for his own discourse! We are in the hands of a consummate storyteller, a master craftsman at his best. In the final scene, ironically, Jacob returns his characters to their more familiar biblical personalities. The Daughter is now silent, suddenly very young, frightened, and passive. Jepthath himself has become again the mighty warrior, this time triumphant in the battle for his own divided heart. “Waves of affection beat upon him in order that his hand be stopped/ but he lifted oars of love against the waves and despised them.” (328:13–4 ) The battle is ended: “love and love wrestled over which would conquer/ but that of the Lord conquered that of daughters, and undertook slaughter.” (328:21–2 ) With savage simplicity—and a graphic plainness wholly unlike the biblical account—Jacob depicts the death as piteous to all who see it, except for Jephthah himself. Having prevailed over his human nature, Jephthah stands bespattered and dripping with blood. He has become the image of a divine being, unmoved, unperturbed, and passionless. At this image—perhaps the most shocking of all in this disturbing biblical tale— Jacob’s homily storms to a sudden, stark end. There is perhaps a surprising boldness in Jacob’s rendering of the story of Jephthah and his Daughter. He has refused his congregation the standard response of dismay and critique. Yet, neither are they allowed unthinking acceptance of the notion of redemption through a sacrifice understood to be that of God’s own self, in the person of his only Son. It is this most haunting dimension of Jacob’s homily that remains in its aftermath: in the final achievement of sacrifice, the human Jephthah becomes the image of his divine Lord. But in turn, Jephthah’s Lord has been shown to be imaged in the crippling grief of a human father. At the center of this implied exchange of qualities stands the enigmatic (and nameless) figure of Jephthah’s Daughter: the only biblical character, at least by Jacob’s reckoning, who truly portrayed the image of Christ. The power of Jacob’s depiction is not untinged with horror.

194

HARVEY

3. POETRY AND LECTIONARY READING The account of Jephthah’s Daughter was part of the Syriac lectionary system long before Jacob of Serug wrote.34 If the early lectionary preserved in British Museum Add. 14528 may be taken as in any way representative, Judges 11:29–40 was included in the readings for the commemoration of martyrs, in a group of fifteen lections (!) that also included Genesis 22:1–19, the story of Abraham and the binding of Isaac.35 Both the location in the liturgical calendar, at the commemoration of martyrs, and the grouping with Genesis 22 would lend a strong emphasis to the sacrificial significance of the episode and its focus on the integrity of the blood offering as prefiguring Christ’s crucifixion. Such a liturgical setting would have framed Jacob’s presentation in terms rendering the story as glorious despite its horror. This larger lectionary context also served to remove the story from the realm of historical time, lifting it apart into the clearly (ritually) designated space of sacred or ‘mythical’ time, the biblical past. Joined to commemoration of the martyrs, the realm of biblical time segued into history as God’s salvific and providential plan. The worshipper, anchored in a mundane life beyond the church doors, could move through these ‘other’ times, awed, instructed, and ritually prepared to hear a story—even one so shocking as that of Jephthah and his Daughter—according to a logic different from that of the daily world outside. Moreover, church decoration might have reinforced Jacob’s narrative: the surviving mosaics of Jephthah as priest are located directly facing scenes of Abraham at the sacrifice of Isaac, flanking entry to the altar on which the eucharist would be set.36 The passage seems also to have been among the readings for Monday in the

Burkitt, “The Early Syriac Lectionary System,” dates British Museum Add. 14528 to late in the fifth century, Jacob’s own lifetime. The argument has been made to push it a century earlier, to the late fourth, in Merja Merras, “The Date of the Earliest Syriac Lectionary Br. M. Add. 14528,” in Symposium Syriacum VII, ed. René Lavenant, OCA 256 (Rome: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1998), 575–85. 35 Burkitt, “The Early Syriac Lectionary System,” 312, 326. Konrad Jenner has raised the important question of whether or not we can or should presume British Museum Add. 14528 to be representative of general Syriac practice, or whether it should be understood instead as one (local) collection of readings among a variety of possibilities. See K. Jenner, “The Development of Syriac Lectionary Systems,” The Harp 10 (1997): 9–24. 36 See above, n. 29. 34

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

195

Week of Rest, the week immediately following Easter, where it was triumphantly enthroned in the celebration of the Resurrection.37 These locational, performative aspects of Jacob’s recounting of the biblical tale contributed significantly to the interpretation of the story. They were a large part of what would make such a story culturally acceptable. The dismay of the biblical commentators took place in an entirely different context, in the confrontation with the narrative as text, with none of the surrounding frame of liturgical celebration. I would argue that Jacob offered his congregation a further aid in hearing such a story. This was the aid of his poetic craft. Much of the power of Jacob’s dramatic narratives depended on the dynamic, ever-shifting force of his typological presentations.38 His mimre abound with sheeting cascades of types, linking biblical figures, symbols and events, across the two Testaments, threading in and out of the liturgy, through the ecclesial life of the Church and deeply imprinted across both the history and the daily practices of the believing congregation. But a second form of typological association was at work through his poetry as a designated literary structure. The metered couplets of the mimra required discipline of practice and dexterity of rhetorical skills: deployment of metrical units, thematic patterns, and favored imagistic habits. The skilled metrical homilist was one who could command a vast store of familiar word patterns in precisely the necessary metrical units: not exactly as would an epic singer such as in Homeric tradition, but with an analogously practiced mode of presentation.39 Thus one often finds recurring patterns in different homilies by Jacob. Sometimes these clearly represent his habitually favored 37 Burkitt, “The Early Syriac Lectionary System,” 310, 326. It is perhaps worth noting that the story of Jephthah’s Daughter appears to have remained indelibly part of the Syriac lectionary tradition. As two random examples, see Arthur Vööbus, A Syriac Lectionary from the Church of the 40 Martyrs in Mardin, Tur Abdin, Mesopotamia, CSCO 485/ Sub. 76 (Louvain: Peeters, 1986), p. xxvi and fo. 111b115a, a sixteenth century manuscript listing Jud. 11:30–39 among five Old Testament readings and one New Testament (but not including Gen. 22 among them); and, for post-Vatican II practice, P. Vermeulen, “Péricopes bibliques des églises de langue syriaque,” L’Orient Syrien 12 (1967): 211–40, 371–88, 525–48, at p. 374 for Monday of Passion Week, where Jud. 11 occurs during the second Vigil, and then again at Safro together with Gen. 22. 38 See the excellent discussion in McCarron, “Abraham and his Types.” 39 Manolis Papoutsakis, “Formulaic Language in the Metrical Homilies of Jacob of Serugh,” Symposium Syriacum VII, ed. René Lavenant, OCA 256 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1998), 445–51.

196

HARVEY

words or themes. Sometimes they may happen by sheer practical necessity. But at times, I would suggest, Jacob utilized certain word units, associations, or themes, because he wanted his congregation to make connections between particular biblical stories. More subtle than articulating the relationships by naming the figures or episodes as types one of the other, the reuse of metrical units or key words allowed Jacob the possibility of nuanced suggestion without reifying the association into a concrete identification. Such poetically suggested intersections may be seen, I think, in his homilies on Jephthah’s Daughter, Tamar, and the Sinful Woman. I sketch these here only briefly, as suggestions for further exploration. Jacob wrote about Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah in a homily devoted to her story from Genesis 38.40 The topic was a challenging one for both Jewish and Christian commentators.41 In the Genesis account, the young widow Tamar is denied her rightful remarriage to her dead husband’s brother by her father-in-law Judah, leaving her husband without heir. Disguised as a prostitute, Tamar tricks Judah into sleeping with her unaware of her identity, and into leaving his ring, scarf, and staff as tokens of payment. Some months later when the pregnancy becomes apparent, Tamar is accused of harlotry and the scandalized Judah calls for her (lawful) death. Producing the tokens she has saved, Tamar announces that they belong to her child’s father. Shamed into admitting his injustice as well as his indiscretion, Judah proclaims Tamar’s righteousness and she is saved. From this unholy yet just encounter, the twins Perez and Zerah are born and the messianic line continued. Ephrem had addressed this tale of “holy impudence” in his Hymns on the Nativity, in the context of reflection on the genealogy of Matthew 1:1– 16.42 This genealogy, differently from that in Luke 3:23–38, includes the

Ed. and trans. Sebastian P. Brock, “Jacob of Serugh’s Verse Homily on Tamar (Gen. 38),” Le Muséon 115 (2002): 279–315. Citations are to the line numbers of this edition, and the page numbers of Brock’s translation. 41 Tryggve Kronholm, “Holy Adultery: the Interpretation of the Story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38) in the Genuine Hymns of Ephraem Syrus (ca. 306–373),” Orientalia Suecana 40 (1991): 149–63. See also Joan Goodnick Westenholz, “Tamar, Qdesa, Qadistu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia,” Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989): 245–66. 42 See especially Ephrem, Hymns on Nativity 1, 9, and 16. Compare Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis, sec. 24; trans. Joseph Amar and Edward Mathews, Jr., St. 40

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

197

names of four Old Testament women—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba—whose sexual exploits appeared shamelessly transgressive of biblical law (as well as Roman), yet whose actions made possible the continuation of the messianic lineage. By itself, Genesis 38 appears in no known Syriac lectionary, and thus Jacob’s homily on the story seems a puzzling choice.43 But since he also includes treatment of several of Ephrem’s themes on the topic, it would seem likely that the homily might have been preached at some point during the Nativity season, perhaps during the period of preparation for the feast, when the association with Matthew’s genealogy would have been familiar. As in his homily on Jephthah’s Daughter, Jacob begins his homily on Tamar with a powerful invocation of prayer that is also a summons to his audience. In both, he speaks of the narrative he is about to recount as a symbol or image of Christ among many revealed along the “road” (‫)ܐܘܪ ܐ‬ of salvation history. In the homily on Jephthah’s Daughter, Jacob admonishes that Christ’s symbol appeared repeatedly in the myriads of generations of blood sacrifice that marked this road with “miles of blood.” (308:3) In the mimra on Tamar, Jacob extols this same road as “exalted…and full of blessings,” marked out by “miles of peace.”44 The inversion is striking, and the more so for the bridal imagery Jacob grants to each of these women: the Daughter he names Bride of Blood, while Tamar he will term Bride of Light. In his homily on Tamar, Jacob extends the image of holy desire beyond the handful of women named in Matthew’s genealogy to include the contentious behavior of other biblical women whose offspring contributed to the divine lineage, “travel[ling] down all the generations/ transmitted mysteriously…so that God Himself might be mingled amongst humanity.”45 Indeed he notes that throughout the Old Testament “in various places women were yearning for the choice seed.” This holy thirst included the “straightforward women of integrity,” Leah and Rachel, sisters who competed to bear Jacob sons in Genesis 30. Inflamed with the fire of Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, FC 91 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1994), at pp.182–4. 43 Brock, “Jacob of Serugh’s Verse Homily on Tamar,” at pp. 304–5. 44 Lines 37–8; trans. Brock 294. The term for miles/milestones is the same in both homilies, mile. The image of the road as soteriological recurs repeatedly in Jacob’s homilies; see the discussion in Brock, ibid., pp. 308–9. 45 Lines 51–3; Brock p. 294. Ephrem had, of course, done the same thing in his Hymns on the Nativity, notably in Hymns 8, 10, 13, and 20.

198

HARVEY

divine love, these two had acted shamefully, impudently ( ‫ܐ‬ ), in ways “most hateful to chaste women,” as if they loved lust when in fact it was for the “divine seed” that they longed. So, too, Jacob recalled, had Ruth appeared to act “in the outward guise of wanton women” when she crawled under Boaz’s cloak. “She was not ashamed, chaste woman that she was, to seize hold of his legs,” Jacob insists, because it was really for the Son of God that she yearned. “It was not harlotry in the case of these sincere women, but love for the blessed seed that incited them.” Despite their carnal acts, Jacob intoned, these women “remained chaste,” since it was they who ensured that God’s plan was fulfilled in human history.46 Turning to Tamar, Jacob admits that the story defies every moral code: she acted as a prostitute, and with her own father-in-law! Yet, Jacob exhorts, the faithful will find another meaning in the text if only they will approach it with the right disposition. The following passage, in which Jacob offers profound advice on the reading of scripture, could well have prefaced his homily on Jephthah’s Daughter: In the case of all the mystery filled narratives of the Only-Begotten It is right to listen with great love, O discerning (reader), For if love does not open the gate of your ear, Then there is no passage to your hearing for the words. In the case of the story of Tamar, unless a mind that has faith Listens to it, the discerning woman will seem worthy of reproach, Whereas if an intellect that loves to listen to the mysteries Should hear this tale, it will render back in return for it praise. All the words that the Spirit of God has placed in Scripture Are filled with riches, like treasures, hidden in the (different) books. Moses the scribe set the story of Tamar Like a jewel in his Book so that its beauty might shine out amongst its lections. … Her action was (indeed) ugly, but her faith made it beautiful. And it was resplendent and dear because of the Mystery that was performed in her.47

By this narrative strategy, Jacob will go on to present Tamar as the image of the Church, whom he terms the Bride of Light, betrothed to 46 47

Lines 73–124; Brock, pp. 295–6. Lines 137–57; Trans. Brock, 296.

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

199

Christ her heavenly Bridegroom. In the process of this explication, he depicts Tamar, her shocking plan for conception, and her shrewd escape from the death penalty through images and vocabulary that evoke a striking series of biblical types: the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 and Christ’s passion (“She was treated unjustly, humiliated and put to shame,/ she was pained, broken and afflicted”);48 the Virgin Mary, unjustly doubted by Joseph and maligned by the townspeople for sexual promiscuity;49 and the Septuagint’s righteous Susanna, wrongly condemned to stoning for adultery, only to be rescued just as the crowd descends.50 (Susanna, like Jephthah’s Daughter, was treated by patristic writers as a type in the image of Christ.)51 Just as Tamar guarded the three tokens that proved her “innocence,” so too, Jacob exhorts, must the Church guard the three tokens her Lord left for her protection: faith, baptism, and the Cross of Light. By these, the “Bride of Light” (l.404) will arrive safely at Judgment Day. Jacob states plainly in the homily on Tamar that her character should be understood as an image of the Church, the true Bride of Light. The connections to Jephthah’s Daughter are not by any explicit statement or even parallel, but rather by the understated antitheses of the two opposing images, “miles of blood” and “miles of peace,” “Bride of Blood” and “Bride of Light.” Jacob’s emphasis in both homilies on the difficulty of accepting the biblical narratives, though for entirely different reasons, also serves as a motif to highlight an understated link between these two sacred Lines 204–5; trans. Brock 297–8. Isaiah 53:1–12 was among the lectionary readings for Friday of Passion Week; Burkitt, “The Early Syriac Lectionary System,” 309, 329. 49 Mt. 1:18–25; Protevangelion of James 13–6. The slandering of Mary by the Hebrew Women is a theme in Ephrem’s Hymns on the Nativity, esp. Hymns 12, 14, 16, and 17. 50 The story of Susanna, part of the Septuagint version of Daniel, is included in the group of Syriac texts titled “The Book of Women,” extant already in a sixth century Syriac manuscript. The Book of Women contains accounts of Ruth, Esther, Susanna, Judith, and Thecla. For a description of the manuscripts containing the Book of Women, see Catherine Burrus and Lucas Van Rompay, “Thecla in Syriac Christianity: Preliminary Observations,” Hugoye 5.2 (2002), http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye. 51 See Tkacz, “Women as types of Christ: Susanna and Jephthah’s Daughter.” Tkacz concentrates on Greek and Latin patristic texts, although she cites the learned Dionysius bar Salibi, a veritable repository of earlier Syriac tradition. But for example, Ephrem, Hymns on Virginity 2: 10–12, treats Jephthah’s Daughter together with Susanna. 48

200

HARVEY

but troubling stories. Certainly in both the audience is presented with an “ugly” action made “beautiful” by faith. What connection should the listeners make, and why? The homily on Tamar also presents suggestive resonances by other means with Jacob’s homily on the Sinful Woman. The Sinful Woman was a biblical character especially loved in Syriac tradition. Liturgically, the early lectionaries had the account from John read on the eve of Palm Sunday, that from Matthew read on Tuesday of Holy Week, while the version from Luke was read for the consecration of holy oil.52 A good number of Syriac homilies and hymns survive on her story, which in Syriac gained a fulsome narrative stretching considerably beyond the biblical accounts.53 Jacob’s homily is notable for its combination of all four canonical gospel accounts and little if any influence from the very popular Syriac extracanonical elaborations of her tale.54 Two passages from the homily are relevant to us here. The first is reminiscent of Jacob’s homily on Tamar, which had stressed the idea of “holy impudence,” the seemingly shameless carnality of the desire that compelled Tamar—and the other biblical women, whether righteous or scandalous, of Jesus’ lineage—to pursue the divine seed that would bring the incarnation into full humanity as God’s Son. It is clear from Jacob’s homily (as it had been in Ephrem’s Nativity hymns) that the very carnality of this desire was the shocking element in the story: the physical longing, the contrived deceits to bring conception, and the blessed birthing that enacted the single-minded and single-hearted focus of Tamar and the other women of the messianic genealogy. Desire, albeit holy, caused Burkitt, “The Early Syriac Lectionary System,” 332, 333, 334. For an overview of the extant texts, see S. A. Harvey, “Why the Perfume Mattered: The Sinful Woman in Syriac Exegetical Tradition,” in In Dominico Eloquio/ In Lordly Eloquence: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Wilken, ed. P. Blowers, A. R. Christman, D. Hunter, and R. D. Young (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 69–89. The source of the Syriac extracanonical traditions was a homily wrongly attributed to Ephrem, edited as Sermon 4, ed. Edmund Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers, Sermones II, CSCO 311/ Scr. Syr. 134 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1970), 78–91; German trans. idem, CSCO 312/ Scr. Syr. 135, 99–109; English trans. by John Gwynn, NPNF 13, 336–41. 54 Mt. 26:6–13, Mk. 14:3–9, Lk. 7:36–50, Jn. 12:1–11. See the discussion in Scott Johnson, “The Sinful Woman: A Memra by Jacob of Serugh,” Sobornost 24 (2002): 56–88, which includes an English translation of Jacob’s homily. The text is edited as Homily 51 in Bedjan, Select Homilies, 2: 402–28. Translations here are my own, cited by Bedjan’s page and line number. 52 53

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

201

Tamar (and the others) to play the part of a prostitute (‫)ܙ ܐ‬. Just such holy impudence characterizes Jacob’s depiction of another prostitute, whom he also designates with the term ‫ܙ ܐ‬: the Sinful Woman who came to Christ in the house of Simon the Pharisee. As the Woman poured out her fragrant oil on his head and feet, Jacob intoned: He gave Himself to the one full of blemishes that she might offer [them] to Him, And while she supplicated she embraced Him with discernment. She seized His head, but He did not restrain the polluted one, She caught hold of His feet and He allowed her to do as she wished. She sprinkled Him with her tears, and He did not turn from the wretched one. She kissed Him in suffering, she who was a prostitute, but He did not drive her away. All the while she beseeched, she approached [Him] impudently ( ‫ܐ‬ ), And because she trembled with love to approach, she was not hindered [by Him]. (414:8–15)

Like Tamar, the Sinful Woman was driven by a desire so intense that it compelled her to seek her Lord impudently and physically, no matter the scandal. Yet, as for Tamar, in Jacob’s telling the bodily expression of her desire demonstrated a love so perfect that its very physicality was rendered holy. “If she had been ashamed,” Jacob notes, “she would have gone forth without forgiveness.” (414:19) Body as well as soul were required for perfect devotion; anything less was incomplete and thereby ineffectual. If the carnality of the Woman’s love echoed the seeming scandal of Tamar’s bold demand for the divine seed, the ritual components of her approach to Christ render the occasion explicitly sacrificial. For Jacob, the entire encounter between the Woman and Christ was patterned upon liturgy. From the first moment of her entry into Simon’s house, the Woman’s actions had transformed the space of Simon’s banquet from the mundane to the sacred. The fragrance of her fine ointment had mingled with the fervor of her love to become an aroma that billowed forth as incense: “With the fire of her love she kindled her tears like ointment/ and the fragrance of her repentance was increasingly sweet.”(411:20–1) Just so, Jacob intoned, to the scent of ointment rendered holy by the very feet it would anoint, did the Woman add the sacrificial odors of a love that burned so fiercely she herself was transformed into the dual role of sacrificer and sacrificed.

202

HARVEY Weeping was for her a pure censer, and she brought it with her, And with groans she kindled it to smoke in the Holy of Holies ( ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ). She was for herself a priest (‫ܐ‬ ) who made petition for forgiveness, And willingly with contrition she made sacrifice for reconciliation. (410:12–15)

For Jacob, the Woman’s tears as she washed Christ’s feet became the baptismal waters consecrated by the chrism of her ointment. As she herself washed and anointed his holy feet, she entered into the “second womb of the Holy of Holies.” (415:7) Baptized there in the sea of Christ’s love, she found herself cleansed, purified, and born anew. Baptism and sacrifice converged as the Woman offered herself wholly on the altar of divine love: “Before the great flood of holiness she offered herself/ And He poured upon her waves of His love that she would be absolved by Him./ She offered her soul clothed in the body to the Living Fire;/ It kindled in the [sinful] thicket of her soul, and [the thicket] was wholly consumed.” (415:10–14) Jacob’s evocation of sacramental ritual lifted the Woman’s approach to Christ out of its narrative situation within the gospel story, and into the living liturgy of his congregation. The Woman in her actions imaged the spectrum of practices that defined the congregation as Christ’s own: she herself was priest and suppliant, offering and altar. Rendered such by Jacob’s chanted cadence, the Woman became yet another image of Christ: one who died to her old life and rose anew; the willing victim, as Jepthath’s daughter, betrothed wholly (and physically) to her heavenly Bridegroom. Impudent prostitute and supplicating priest; desire, bride, and bridegroom: these terms resonate across these homilies of the Sinful Woman, Tamar, and Jephthah’s Daughter. So, too, do the ritual, sacramental elements of each narrative. These same ritual elements return the homilist’s story to the ecclesial present of his congregation, the very church in which they stood to hear his poetic discourse. In each homily, a separate narrative was offered. Yet in each, echoes or memories of the others (and more still) were evoked, linking biblical stories and biblical characters across textual locations into patterned suggestions of shared imagery, shared types, and ever unfolding revelation.

4. CONCLUSION What, then, was the congregation to hear in the convergence of imagery that Jacob wove in and out of the figures of Jephthah’s Daughter, Tamar,

BRIDE OF BLOOD, BRIDE OF LIGHT

203

and the Sinful Woman? These were biblical women of starkly different narratives, poetically connected through craft, technical prowess, theological acumen, and ritual context. Yet surely Jacob presents all three as images of the Church who is the Bride, as he plainly states in the homily on Tamar. In these stories, love of the Bridegroom requires the whole of oneself, body no less than soul. The body might be slain in the martyr’s death. It might, instead, be wholly given to the Heavenly Bridegroom by the consecrated virgin’s vow of renunciation, or equally by the penitent harlot’s all consuming self-offering. The physicality of love for the Bridegroom was demonstrated in the physical transmission of the messianic lineage and the scandal suffered by its women, no less than by the physical suffering of the martyr’s death. In each case—the Daughter, Tamar, the Woman—the offering was freely given by the biblical woman herself, offered up bodily, in sacramental gesture and form. It has not been my intention in this essay to foreground the issue of gender in this constellation of images, although such consideration is clearly warranted. Jephthah’s Daughter appears almost stereotypically obedient and deferential at first glance. So, too, do Tamar and the Sinful Woman present conventional models of women whose sexual exploits appear scandalous, but whose motives and intentions reveal them to be nothing less than exemplary. In fact, all three homilies could be read—and no doubt, should be read—as ecclesiastical justifications for women’s monasticism, a location for women’s devotion that removed them safely from the general concerns of the public social domain or the public affairs of the ecclesiastical institution. Yet such would be a simplistic reading, whether of Jacob’s narrative poetry or the congregational context in which these homilies were received. That context may have been monastic, or it may have been civic: in the case of these particular homilies, we have no way of knowing. Certainly, in these homilies the Church is understood to offer its individual members a particular model of behavior: that of utter self-giving to the divine, in physical terms no less than spiritual. It was a model that served the entire congregation, male or female. Its paradigm was offered with particular force through the image of the female-gendered body: the pure virgin, obediently dedicated to her (divine) Spouse; the righteous widow, wholly obedient to her divine calling; the penitent harlot, whose love is finally turned aright to burn brilliantly—and obediently—for her (divine) Bridegroom. As models, these female figures match well the social norms of late antique eastern Mediterranean culture.

204

HARVEY

Nonetheless, historical and political circumstances could easily destabilize the normative impact of such narratives. Late antique Syriac hagiography and social history both provide suggestive instances of women whose devotional choices were not easily received in their own day, yet whose justifications could be found through just such holy models as these biblical women might be seen to provide.55 Adequate treatment of the gendered force of Jacob’s narrative poems on biblical women lies outside the primary concerns of this essay. One would need to give further attention to the dynamics of gender, space, authority, and participation. Jacob’s homilies must be considered in their liturgical context, in a setting inclusive of women’s choirs, of men and women both lay and religious, with exclusively male clergy and inclusively male and female instantiations of spiritual authority alongside it. I hope the present study makes clear how rich such inquiry would be. In Jacob’s renditions of Jephthah’s Daughter, Tamar, and the Sinful Woman, the Bride becomes one who stands in perfect witness to her Bridegroom: afflicted but unflinching, suffering tragedy yet remaining steadfast; wholly given, body and soul, to the One whose love redeems every suffering she must bear, turning every sorrow to new life. In the turbulent ecclesiastical and political upheaval of his times, himself champion for a theological cause that would bring sore tribulation upon his congregations,56 Jacob of Serug offered his narratives of biblical women. Their familiar stories allowed him time and again to cast fresh light on the place, the people, and the ritualized occasions at which they gathered. As images of Church, Jacob’s biblical women taught his listeners to rethink notions of bride and bridegroom, betrothal, priesthood and sacrifice: to learn anew the human-divine relationship and how they should live it. They were difficult portraits for difficult times, and they served him well.

Consider the accounts in S. P. Brock and S. A. Harvey, Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); or the suggestions in Harvey, “Spoken Words, Voiced Silence.” 56 Jacob’s role as a leading Miaphysite voice in the increasingly volatile protests over the Christological decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 is well-known, despite his own dislike of theological controversy. For an assessment of this larger context of upheaval and change, see Lucas Van Rompay, “Society and Community in the Christian East,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, ed. Michael Maas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 239–66. 55

IDENTIFYING THE SYRIAC VORLAGE OF THE ETHIOPIC HISTORY OF JOSEPH KRISTIAN S. HEAL

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY* INTRODUCTION Among early Christian writings about the Old Testament patriarch Joseph, it is works from the early Syriac tradition which explore this figure most extensively.1 Joseph appears prominently among biblical characters used in Aphrahat’s demonstrations, and of course Ephrem retells the narrative, with expansions, in his Genesis commentary.2 Yet the genre in which the story is most fully explored is the dramatic dialogue poem.3 We have five main works in this genre, varying from a single memra (verse homily) to an entire cycle of memre. As with the majority of dialogue poems, these works are early, almost all from the 6th century and earlier. Of these, the extensive cycle of twelve memre attributed to Ephrem,4 the collection of four memre attributed to Narsai (PsN),5 and the single genuine memra by Narsai6 have

* It is a pleasure to offer this brief note as a token of thanks to an inspiring teacher and scholar. 1 For references in the Greek and Latin patristic sources see, A. W. Argyle, “Joseph the Patriarch in Patristic Teaching.” Expository Times 67 (1956): 199–201. 2 I explore Aphrahat’s portrayal of Joseph as a type of Christ in my article, “Joseph as a Type of Christ in the Syriac Tradition,” BYU Studies 41.1 (2002): 29– 49. 3 Two essential treatments of the Syriac dramatic dialogue poems are Sebastian P. Brock, “Dramatic Dialogue Poems,” in H. J. W. Drijvers et al. (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium; Roma, 1987): 135–147; and idem, “Syriac Dialogue Poems: Marginalia to a Recent Edition,” Le Muséon 97 (1984): 29–58. 4 Paul Bedjan (ed.), Histoire complète de Joseph: poème en douze livres (2nd ed. Paris/Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1891). 5 Paul Bedjan (ed.), Homilae Mar Narsetis in Joseph (Paris/Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1901).

205

206

HEAL

been published. The short recension of the Ps. Narsai collection has been published in part,7 but the cycle of ten memre by Jacob of Serugh remains unedited.8 Further to these works that treat the whole life of Joseph, there are also several dispute poems that dramatize particular episodes from the narrative in alternating stanzas between two characters, such as Joseph’s encounter with Potiphar’s wife and Joseph’s reunion with Benjamin.9 Much interesting work has gone into the task of establishing the relationships between the various Syriac texts, primarily through a study of the expansions which punctuate and augment the narrative.10 These expansions appear already in Ephrem’s prose commentary, which though committed to being brief, still finds space to add episodes which have no counterpart in the biblical texts. The appearance of such expansions in the Syriac tradition raises a number of questions, not the least of which concerns their origins. Are they indigenous to the Syriac tradition, or were they borrowed from fecund Jewish imaginations? When, therefore, an Ethiopic History of Joseph was discovered, which had demonstrable connections to a number of the Syriac dialogue poems, it presented a very attractive and interesting member of this family of texts. In fact, since it was further argued that this text had a second temple Jewish Vorlage, it promised

6 Alphonse Mingana (ed.), Narsai doctoris Syri Homiliae et Carmina (Mausilii, 1905), vol. 2, 265–288. 7 Meier Engel, Die Geschichte Josephs nach einer Syrischen Handschrift der Konigl. Bibliothek in Berlin. Teil 1 (Berlin, 1895). 8 An edition of the cycle on Joseph by Jacob of Serugh is promised by Emmanuel Papoutsakis. I am preparing a new edition and translation of PsN, as well as a new study of the figure of Joseph in the Syriac tradition. 9 Sebastian Brock, “Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife (Genesis 39): Two Anonymous Dispute Poems,” in Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, eds. W. J. van Bekkum, J. W. Drijvers, and A. C. Klugkist (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 41–58. See also, Brock, “Marginalia to a Recent Edition,” which includes manuscript details and brief discussion of dialogue poems on Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife, and Joseph and Benjamin. 10 This is a significant component of the most important study to date on the Joseph narrative in Syriac literature: Heinrich Näf, Syrische Josef-Gedichte: Mit Uebersetzung des Gedichts von Narsai und Proben aus Balai und Jaqob von Sarug. (Zurich: Buchdrücherei A. Schwarzenbach, 1923). I explore three motifs in my, “Reworking the Biblical Text in the Dramatic Dialogue Poems on the Old Testament Patriarch Joseph,” in The Peshitta: Its use in Literature and Liturgy, ed. Bas Ter Haar Romeny (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 87–98.

IDENTIFYING THE SYRIAC VORLAGE

207

to be the source from which a number of the distinctive expansion in the Syriac Joseph tradition arose.

THE ETHIOPIC HISTORY OF JOSEPH The Ethiopic History of Joseph is a dramatic prose retelling of Genesis chapters 37, and 39–47:12. It is distinguished by a lively style and numerous narrative expansions to the biblical text. The History came to the attention of scholars thanks to the work of Ephrem Isaac.11 In 1990, Isaac made the work accessible by publishing a translation prefaced by a provisional, though interesting and provocative, study as the sixth issue of the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha.12 This journal was an apposite place to publish the translation if one accepts the claim that Isaac makes for the text at the end of his introduction: “Overall the preponderant characteristics of this work, whatever the Ethiopic Vorlage is, point to a Jewish work of the late Second Temple period from which a large number of our apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works come.”13 Indeed, if this is the case, the work deserves a great deal more attention than it has been given up to this point. However, our objective here is not to discuss whether or not this text stems from the second temple period, but rather to identify the text’s more immediate parentage.14

THE VORLAGE QUESTION Isaac suggested two possible responses to the question of the lineage of the History.15 He first pursued the idea that the work was of Syriac origin.16 Isaac first noticed the work in 1973 while researching among the manuscripts of the Ethiopian monastery of Dabra Bizon, but he was not able to study the work until 1980, when he obtained a copy from a 14th century manuscript, which was among the microfilm collections housed at the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library at St. John’s University, Minnesota. 12 Ephrem Isaac, “The Ethiopic History of Joseph,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 6 (1990): 3–125. 13 Isaac, “The Ethiopic History of Joseph,” 44. 14 On the problems inherent in identifying the origins of such texts see, James R. Davila, The provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005). 15 However, it should be noted that the rigor of these responses seem to be inhibited to some extent by his firm view that “the original work is undoubtedly of Jewish origin”; a position that is defended throughout the introduction as the 11

208

HEAL

While discussing the relationship with the Syriac tradition, Isaac refers to the succinct but thorough study of Heinrich Näf, which includes an overview of all of the Syriac Joseph material with the exception of the single genuine memra by Narsai. Nevertheless, his efforts to establish a Syriac provenance for the text only extended to a comparison between the History and the collection of four memre mis-attributed to Narsai. Though the Ps. Narsai collection is clearly not the Vorlage for the Ethiopic History, it does contain a large number of narrative expansions that correspond to those found in this text. Isaac therefore concludes that the Ps. Narsai retelling has all the signs of being “a commentary based on a text that is similar to this Ethiopic History of Joseph.”17 Beyond this, however, Isaac was not inclined to go. The second possibility that Isaac explored was that his Ethiopic text came through an Arabic intermediary or from an Arabic original. Isaac cites linguistic evidence that seemed to indicate that the Ethiopic text was translated from Arabic, and concluded that “the case for an Arabic Vorlage of the Ethiopic seems quite strong.”18 He notes the numerous Islamic texts on Joseph in an effort to buttress the likelihood of the case. However, he gives short shrift to the Christian Arabic sources, giving only a footnote reference to the appropriate place in Graf’s History of Christian Arabic Literature.19 An odd feature of this same footnote is the appearance of a lone name with no associated work: the note simply says, “Cf. also M. Weinberg.”20 This section concludes by stating that “we cannot at this stage rule out the possibility of a Syriac Vorlage for the Ethiopic.”21 following examples indicate: “It is my view that the Ethiopic History of Joseph is based, even if not directly, on one or more ancient Jewish works” (Isaac, “The Ethiopic History of Joseph,” 40); “Several ideas alluded to in the History reflect the theology of the late Second Temple period” (Isaac, ibid, 40); “The History of Joseph is full of many well-known rabbinic haggadic insights about the life of Joseph” (ibid; followed by 15 examples). 16 A point suggested earlier in the Introduction by a brief and unfruitful comparison between this text and the collection of memre attributed to Ephrem (ibid, 33–36). 17 Ibid, 40. 18 Ibid, 42. 19 Graf, Georg, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (Studi e Testi, 118, 133, 146, 147, 172; Città del Vaticano: Bibl. Apost. Vaticana, 1944–53): vol 1, 205– 6. 20 Isaac, “The Ethiopic History of Joseph,” 42 n. 3. 21 Ibid, 42.

IDENTIFYING THE SYRIAC VORLAGE

209

If one turns to the pages of Graf’s Geschichte cited by Isaac, there is, among the Garshuni manuscripts that contain works on Joseph, a reference to a Cambridge manuscript (Cambridge Addition 2886) containing a history of Joseph attributed to Basil the Great. Graf notes that this text has as its Grundlage a Syriac text, which was edited by Magnus Weinberg and published in Berlin in 1895 (in fact, Weinberg published only the first part of the text in 1893, the second being edited by Samuel Wolf Link and published in 1895).22 This latter text was taken from a late 17th century manuscript in the Berlin Royal Library, thought then to be a singulum, which Sachau had catalogued only a few years earlier. I can only imagine that this is the M. Weinberg referred to in Isaac’s footnote mentioned above. However, Isaac can not have had a chance to consult this rare work, else he would have discovered what he suspected might well exist, namely the Syriac Vorlage of his Ethiopic History of Joseph.23

THE SYRIAC VORLAGE The place of the Ps. Basil text in the Syriac tradition was already noted by Näf in his 1923 study. He pointed out that many of the distinctive narrative expansions in the Ps. Basil text reappear in the Ps. Narsai account and he clearly thinks one directly influenced the other.24 This becomes all the more apparent in the overlap of themes between the two texts in his section on the history of motifs.25 Therefore, when Näf concludes his study with his findings he identifies Ps. Basil as being one of the major sources for the Ps. Narsai collection.26 When we undertake a comparison between Ps. Basil and the Ethiopic history, we immediately find that we are confronted with two versions of precisely the same text. The relatively minor differences can be ascribed to the fact that we are dealing with late manuscripts of an early text in traditions that were not at all adverse to improving or correcting a work in Weinberg, Magnus, Die Geschichte Josefs Angeblich Verfasst Von Basilius Dem Grossen Aus Casarea (Halle: Druck von H. Itzkowski, 1893); Link, Samuel Wolf, Die Geschichte Josefs angeblich verfasst von Basilius dem Grossen aus Cäsarea (Berlin: H. Itskowski, 1895). 23 I did not know of the Syriac Vorlage when I wrote, “Reworking the Biblical Text in the Dramatic Dialogue Poems on the Old Testament Patriarch Joseph.” 24 Näf, Syrische Josef-Gedichte, 20. 25 Ibid, 53–84. 26 Ibid, 84. 22

210

HEAL

the course of transmission.27 Furthermore, it seems reasonable to suggest that the transmission occurred through an Arabic intermediary similar to that preserved in Cambridge 2886. Obviously more work needs to be done to establish the precise line of transmission and the relationship between the versions as they are known to us now; and such work will be essential to establishing the value of the versions as witnesses of the Syriac original. Having settled the question of the Vorlage of the Ethiopic History, we now have numerous questions to pose anew to the Ps. Basil text: What is the provenance of the text? Why was the text transmitted under the name of Basil? What is the relationship to the Jewish tradition? And, how was the text interpreted and reworked in the Syriac tradition? These and other questions demand careful consideration and more extensive answers than are appropriate to this note.28

An analogous example is the dramatic dialogue poem on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt. The Ethiopic recension of this text was first published in 1988 by André Caquot. The editor again was unaware of the existence of either the Arabic intermediary, or the Syriac original, but nevertheless suggested evidence that the attribution to Ephrem may well be genuine. Four years later, as part of an ongoing project to publish the unedited corpus of anonymous Syriac dramatic dialogue poems, Sebastian Brock and Simon Hopkins published a parallel Syriac and Arabic edition and translation of this work based on a number of manuscript witnesses. 28 I am preparing a translation of this text for a volume edited by James Davila and Richard Bauckham provisionally entitled, More Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. I also have a new critical edition of this text in preparation, based on the four known manuscript witnesses. The influence of this text in the Syriac tradition will be treated in my longer study of the Syriac Joseph sources. 27

SOME LEXICAL AND LEGAL NOTES ON A SYRIAC LOAN TRANSFER OF 240 CE JOHN F. HEALEY

UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER The Syriac “community,” academic, clerical and lay, shows its regard for Sebastian Brock through this Festschrift and it is an honour to be asked to contribute to it. I am sure that Sebastian will look kindly on a small effort, as he did, as I recall, when I attended some of his classes in Cambridge in 1970. Until 1988, only one pre-Christian Syriac legal text was known, the socalled Syriac Bill of Sale on parchment found at Dura-Europos (Torrey 1935; Bellinger and Welles 1935; Welles et al. 1959: 142–49). In that year two more such parchment texts came into the public arena through the antiquities market, along with seventeen other items in Greek: some of the Greek texts have brief Syriac subscriptions and signatures (for these see Feissel and Gascou 1989, 1995, 2000; Feissel et al. 1997 and, for the Syriac, Healey 2005). The collection probably originated in Appadana, a regional centre just north of Dura on the Middle Euphrates, and the dated texts range from 232 to 252 CE. The new Syriac discoveries, initially published by J. Teixidor (1989, 1990, 1991–92), created considerable interest at the time of publication. A follow-up article by Brock (1991) significantly improved the readings and the new texts were then included in a comprehensive collection of preChristian Syriac inscriptions (Drijvers and Healey 1999), where the three parchments were given the sigla P1, P2 and P3. P1 is the Dura parchment, P2 and P3 are the new ones. The most immediate impact of the two new parchments was in the area of linguistic study. They effectively tripled the quantity of Syriac prose of this type—P1 has 23 lines in the main text, P2 28 lines, P3 21 lines. The other surviving Syriac texts from pre-Christian Osrhoene and neighbourhood, on stone and set in mosaic, are all much shorter, often amounting to no more than a line or two. Since the parchments are dated to the 240s CE, they provide a very specific sampling of this early phase of 211

212

HEALEY

Syriac. This is reflected in the linguistic discussion in Drijvers and Healey (1999: 21–34), and in subsequent discussions (e.g., Healey forthcoming). The script of the new texts (and the Dura parchment) has also been incorporated into the recent study of the early Syriac script (Healey 2000). The content of the two new texts has not received nearly as much attention, not least because they are quite complicated legal documents. The Dura parchment had, however, received detailed legal evaluation (Torrey 1935; Brockelmann 1935; Bellinger and Welles 1935; Welles et al. 1959: 142–49; Goldstein 1966) and the general context of such study has considerably improved in recent times, with the re-edition of the Elephantine papyri (Porten and Yardeni 1986–99), the publication of the Samaria papyri (Gropp et al. 2001) and the publication of the Nabataean papyri along with many more Jewish legal texts from the Dead Sea region (Yadin et al. 2002; Cotton and Yardeni 1997, in addition to texts published earlier, as in Benoit et al. 1961). There is also a new edition of the so-called Syro-Roman Lawbook which had been used for comparison by Goldstein (Selb and Kaufhold 2002). The present paper attempts to provide some further discussion of legal and terminological aspects of P2. This parchment, originally designated P. Euphr. inv. 19 (Teixidor 1990: 144–54), measures 20 x 12.5 cm and, as already noted, probably comes from Appadana just north of Dura (Feissel and Gascou 1989: 540–45).

THE LEGAL SITUATION OF P2 The text records and enacts the transfer of a debt from one creditor to another, the new creditor perhaps having the role of a debt-collector. The transfer took place and the present document is dated 28th Former Kanun (= December), 552 in Seleucid dating (= 240 CE). The original obligation which is being transferred was incurred in a document dated 18th Elul (= September), 551 (= 240 CE). This obligation ought to have been discharged by the end of Latter Teshri (November) or the beginning of Former Kanun (December) of the same year (240 CE), but the original debtor had defaulted. Indeed he was not available: perhaps he had absconded! The creditor must have wanted a quick resolution before interest could accumulate, choosing to dispose of the debt within days of the default becoming clear. This creditor too is absent and has his servant or agent carry out the transaction for him. (Teixidor [1990: 152] understood the dates differently, as 18th September 239 and 28th December 240, leaving a much longer gap and an accumulation of a whole year’s interest [36 denarii according to line 18]. This would change the situation considerably, since

SOME LEXICAL AND LEGAL NOTES

213

the creditor would be losing out on the accrued interest. This interpretation of the dates is, however, implausible.) The named persons involved are as follows: the original transaction was between one Sha‛idu bar Shalman (creditor) and one Ba‛ishu bar Shamash‛aqab (debtor). Sha‛idu asked his servant and agent (also, rather confusingly, called Ba‛ishu, Ba‛ishu bar Abgar bar Shamishu) to seek payment of the debt and he tried to do so, but the debtor, the other Ba‛ishu, was absent and did not pay up, so the agent recovered the sum involved by quickly selling the debt on to one Worod bar Nishryahb, possibly a debtcollector or money-lender who appears also in P3 leasing property back to someone whose father had defaulted on a mortgage. The nature of the original transaction which gave rise to the debt is, however, obscure because the meaning of one key word, šwy‚ in lines vii, 13 and 16, is not clear. The reading of the word can be regarded as certain, as in Teixidor’s editio princeps—a fine piece of decipherment and interpretation in the face of an extremely difficult script—which reproduces šwy‚ ḥd in vii and 13 as one word: this text repeatedly joins the numeral/indefinite ḥd with its noun. The original debtor was supposed to return the šwy‚, which belonged to Sha‛idu (as is clear from line 13: dylh, “belonging to him”). This shows that the thing in question already existed and was not, as one might have speculated, something that Ba‛ishu was supposed to manufacture in return for the sum of money which is mentioned. Nor could the šwy‚ be simply a sum of money, a cash loan, since the text refers to the value or price of the šwy‚, dmwhy (150 denarii), and the fact that money is to be paid if the šwy‚ is not forthcoming (ix, 16). (I had reached this conclusion before the publication of Drijvers and Healey 1999, though in the brief commentary there, in a joint work, the tentative translation “loan” was given.) The only viable explanation of all this seems to be to assume that we are dealing with a loan of a movable item, that Sha‛idu lent the šwy‚ to Ba‛ishu and drew up a document in which Ba‛ishu promised that by the end of Latter Teshri he would hand back the šwy‚ or pay 150 denarii. If the 150 denarii were not paid, it would accrue interest at the rate of three denarii per month, though the interpretation of the rate is not entirely certain. The uncertainty lies in the meaning of lmly‚ ḥd. There is an analogy with an interest rate given in one of the Elephantine texts (also using the verb rb‚/y), Cowley 1923: text 10:4–5 = Porten and Yardeni 1986–99: B3.1:4–5: ḥlrn 2 ltql 1 lyrḥ 1, “at the rate of 2 ḥallur for one sheqel for one month” (see also Porten 1996: 203). There are similar expressions related to interest in

214

HEALEY

Cowley 11: 2–3 = Porten and Yardeni B4.2:2–3 (also Porten 1996: 257): ksp ḥlrn 2 lksp š(eqel) 1 lyrḥ‚, “the sum of 2 ḥallur for the sum of 1 sheqel per month,” and see also Cowley 35:9 = Porten and Yardeni B4.6:9 (Porten 1996: 265). These might suggest that the word mly‚ in our text might refer to the “full sum” or “principle”: “they will accrue interest at the rate of three denarii for a full sum for one month.” It is not, however, easy to understand why mly‚ is accompanied by ḥd here: the mly‚ would have to be the full sum. Perhaps the idea is that the interest accrued “for each full sum per month,” i.e., for each time a full sum was owing. One wonders, however, whether mly‚ might not have some other, more specific, meaning. From a modern point of view, it is perhaps slightly strange that Sha‛idu loaned the item without any charge, the only charge arising if the item is not returned on time. This might be explained on the basis that the item was otherwise unused, perhaps virtually indestructible and possibly the loan was between close family or friends or business associates. The 18th Elul document was drawn up simply as a protection of ownership, not as a commercial lease. This original contract would then fall more or less into the category of a legal “deposit” without any charge except in the case of failure to give the item back. Since not even a month had elapsed, Sha‛idu was not losing anything by selling the debt at the original agreed price. In any case deposit documents are a well-attested type. There are a couple among the Greek texts of this same Middle Euphrates collection. In P. Euphr. 12 (244 CE), a woman deposits property (dowry items) with another woman, pending its inheritance by the children of a third woman, who has died. There is no financial dimension to the document in question. In another case, P. Euphr. 13 (243 CE), we have an antichretic loan in which a man loans money to another, with a doorway (!) acting as surety and with certain interim conditions being fulfilled (antichresis). In this case it looks as though the lender’s real hope is that he will never get his money back, but will instead get control over the doorway—the problem appears to be an inconvenient doorway opening onto an awkward boundary area. In P2, however, the original document was simply the loan or deposit of an item, charges only arising if it was not returned several months later. It thus falls under the Roman Law category of commodatum, the deposit or loan of an item allowing use of the item without charge. At Dura we find in P. Dura 29 (texts in Welles et al. 1959) a deposit subject to recall on demand, as well as secured and antichretic loans in which goods or services are provided instead of interest (P. Dura 22 and 20, 21, 23, 24). Among the Naḥal Ḥever Greek documents there are deposits (Lewis 1989: P. Yadin 5 [110 CE] and 17 [128 CE]) and a hypothecated loan

SOME LEXICAL AND LEGAL NOTES

215

(11 [124 CE]), with a courtyard acting as security. Here we may note that Lewis (1989: 35) draws attention to the fact that deposits were often a fiction for some other kind of transaction which was prevented by other, restrictive laws. It is thus often impossible to work out what circumstances lie behind the deposit. In earlier times deposits of cash created the elements of a banking system (Jursa 2005: 44). In later times, there are regulations governing responsibilities for deposits in the Syro-Roman Lawbook (Selb and Kaufhold 2002: §112). We are left with the question of the nature of the šwy‚ which started this whole procedure. Rather than beginning with possible etymologies, it is worth resuming what is otherwise known. The item is: (a) movable—it is deposited with Ba‛ishu and to be handed back; (b) of relatively low value, 150 denarii—in P1 (243 CE) a slave costs 700 denarii and in P. Euphr. 10 (250 CE) a mare costs 750; (c) evidently dispensable so far as the lender is concerned—either he had many such items or this was one which had become redundant; the lender’s purpose may have been to get the compensation which would arise from non-return of the item: he was quick to sell the debt and probably not really interested in the return of the šwy‚; (d) probably of greater importance to the borrower—he is risking a sum which could quickly mount up because of interest.

One might suspect an agricultural implement of some sort or another tool, one that was needed on a short-term basis. We will return to the question below, but meanwhile the text and its translation are as follows. There are some minor corrections to the text as printed in Drijvers and Healey 1999: 237–42, and vertical lines have been added to demarcate legal sections.

RECTO i. byrḥ knwn qdm šnt 2 + 50 wḥmšm‚‚ bywm ii. tmny‚ w‛śryn | mwdn‚ b‛yšw br ‚bgr br šmyšw mn iii. myhrw ‛bd‚ dš‛ydw br šlmn br ṣ[..]n ṣḥby‚ iv. lwrwd br nšryhb mn byt pwryn bḥšbn šṭr‚ ḥd v. dktb b‛yšw br šmš‛qb br tymw mn krk‚ ḥdt‚ vi. w‛rbt bh btnny ‚ntth ‛rbt‚ lš‛ydw mry dyly ‚n‚ vii. b‛yšw w‚wdy lh bšwy‚ ḥd dntlwhy lh lmpqy tšry viii. ‚ḥry wlm‛ly knwn qdm w‚n ‛br zbn‚ wl‚ yhbh lh

216

HEALEY

ix. ntl lh dmwhy dynr‚ m‚‚ wḥmšyn wktyb byrḥ ‚lwl x. bšnt ḥmšm‚‚ wḥmšyn wḥd‚ bywm tmnt‛śr‚ 1. byrḥ knwn qdm šnt ḥmšm‚‚ wḥmšyn wtrtyn bšnt 2. tlt d‚wṭqrṭwr qsr mrqws ‚nṭwnyws gwrdynws 3. gdy‚ wzky‚ wbšnt trtyn d‚lyws spṭmyws ‚bgr mlk‚ 4. br m‛nw pṣgryb‚ br ‚bgr mlk‚ dmyqr bhpṭy‚ b‚rhy 5. b‚ds mdynt‚ rbt‚ ‚m‚ dmdynt‚ klhyn dbyt nhryn 6. ktyb šṭr‚ hn‚ bhykl‚ krk‚ ḥdt‚ dṣyd‚ d‚bgr mlk‚ 7. bywm tmny‚ w‛śryn | mwdn‚ b‛yšw br ‚bgr br šmyšw 8. mn myhrw qryt‚ ‛bd‚ dš‛ydw br šlmn ṣḥby‚ 9. lwrwd br nšryhb mn byt pwryn d‛mr bkrk‚ ḥdt‚ 10. bḥšbn šṭr‚ ḥd dktb b‛yšw br šmš‛qb br tymw 11. mn krk‚ ḥdt‚ dṣyd‚ w‛rbt bh btnny ‚ntth db‛yšw 12. lš‛ydw mry dyly ‚n‚ b‛yšw w‚wdy lh bh šṭr‚ 13. bšwy‚ ḥd dylh dš‛ydw mry dntlwhy lh lmpqy 14. tšry ‚ḥry wlm‛ly knwn qdm dylh dšnt‚ hd‚ dktyb 15. bh šṭr‚ hn‚ w‚n ‛br zbn‚ hn‚ wl‚ ntl ntl hw b‛yšw 16. br šmš‛qb lh lš‛ydw mry dmwhy dšwy‚ dynr‚ m‚‚ 17. wḥmšyn wktyb bh d‚n l‚ ntl dynr‚ hlyn m‚‚ wḥmšyn 18. nrbwn mn dynr‚ tlt‚ lmly‚ ḥd lyrḥ‚ ḥd wktyb hw 19. šṭr‚ byrḥ ‚lwl šnt ḥmšm‚‚ wḥmšyn wḥd‚ bywm 20. tmnt‛śr‚ | hkn‚ mwdn‚ lh lwrwd [m]ṭl d‚[mr] ly 21. š‛ydw mry d‚tb‛ mnh db‛yšw wl‚ qryb hw b‛yšw 22. tnn | qblt mnh dwrwd dynr‚ hlyn m‚‚ wḥmšyn dqr‚ 23. wknš mry(?) šṭr‚ | w‚qymth hw šṭr‚ ṭbth wbyšth 24. bgdh dwrwd dntb‛ywhy mnh db‛yšw wmn yr[tw]hy ‚ykn‚ 25. dhwt byntn | [2nd hand] mwdn‚ ḥš‚ br mty mn krk‚ ḥdt‚ dktbt 26. ḥlp b‛yšw br ‚bgr dspr‚ l‚ yd‛ dktb ‚wdy 27. bšṭr‚ hkn‚ lwrwd br nšryhb ‚yk dktyb 28. mn l‛l 29. | [1st hand] ‚n‚ brbs‚ spr‚ br 30. brb‛šmyn ktbt šṭr‚ hn‚ |

VERSO v1. [3rd hand] ‛rbt b‛yšw br tymw ‛l npšh śh[d] v2. [2nd hand] ‛rbt ḥš‚ br mty ḥtmt ‛l šṭr‚ hn[‚] v3. [4th hand] ‛rbt šlm br br‛t‚ śhd v4. [5th hand] ‛rbt ‛bdwk śhd v5. [3rd hand] ‛rbt b‛yšw br tymw ‛l npšh [śhd]

SOME LEXICAL AND LEGAL NOTES

217

UPPER TEXT [Date] In the month of Former Kanun of the year 52 and five hundred, on the twenty-eighth day, [Subjective Declaration] I, Ba‛ishu1 son of Abgar son of Shamishu from Myhrw,2 servant of Sha‛idu son of Shalman3 son of .... , of Ṣḥb, declare to Worod son of Nishryahb from Bet Purin on account of4 a certain document which Ba‛ishu son of Shamash‛aqab son of Taymu from NewTown5 wrote—and Batnannay his wife stood as surety6 for it—to Sha‛idu my master, i.e., me Ba‛ishu, and he [Ba‛ishu son of Shamash‛aqab] declared to him [Sha‛idu] with regard to a certain šwy‚ that he would give it to him at the end of Latter Teshri or the beginning7 of Former Kanun, and, if the Teixidor read bgšw, which is possible, though careful checking of g v. ‛ in the text suggests b‛šw, as already in Brock 1991: 260. 2 This place-name and the place-name Ṣḥb (in ṣḥby‚) are otherwise unknown. It may be noted, however, that it is a regular feature of these texts that the place of origin of the principals is mentioned: P1: 8–9 dyrt‚ ‚dysyt‚, “Edessene resident,” ḥrny‚, “Harranian”; P3: i-ii, 7–9 mn bt pwryn qryt‚, mn mrqpwls; also in the Middle Euphrates Greek documents, such as P.Euphr. 6–7 “Marcopolitan”; commonly in the Dura papyri (e.g. P. Dura 29: “Durene,” “Zeugman”; 18, 19, 22: “Europan”: see the index in Welles et al. 1959: 441). 3 Some of the personal names in this text are attested elsewhere in the early Syriac corpus (Abgar: common, e.g., in P1: 6, 8, etc.; Shalman in Drijvers and Healey 1999: As5: 3), though others are without precise parallel (Ba‛ishu [? Βαισας in P. Dura 18: 7, 25], Shamash‛aqab [Hatran], Shamishu, Sha‛idu [Nabataean], Taymu [Palmyrene and Nabataean]). For the name Worod see Ουορωδης: in P. Euphr. 1: 4. The Worod of P2 is the same person as the Worod in P3 and may be the same as the Worod in P. Euphr. 10: 2, 13 (see Feissel and Gascou 1995: 75). 4 The word ḥšbn is a little ambiguous (Teixidor 1990: 148–49, fn.6), but it is used elsewhere in phrases meaning simply “in connection with”: see P1: 13 ‛l ḥšbn ‚mt‚ hd‚, “on account of this slave-girl” (see also lḥšbn in Palmyrene: Hillers and Cussini 1996: 1421: 2); in the Aramaic at the end of Naḥal Ḥever P. Yadin 17 (128 CE) lḥšbn pqdwn ksp dnryn tltm‚h, “on account of a deposit of three hundred silver denarii,” though here we may have a calque on Greek εἰς λόγον παραθήκης, “on account of a deposit,” meaning “as a deposit” (Lewis 1989: 141). 5 Marcopolis (Teixidor 1990: 155–56). On geography see Feissel and Gascou 1989: 540–45. 6 For this verb, ‛rb, see lines 11 and v1–5; P3: vi, 14, 15 and e.g. Milik 1954: 183, line 11. 7 “end ... beginning”: this usage for the end and beginning of months is unique in the legal texts, but it is clear in temporal expressions in Classical Syriac (Payne Smith 1903: 292, 289). Note mpq and m‛l for “exit” and “entrance” in Jewish 1

218

HEALEY

time were to pass and he had not given it to him, he would give him its value, one hundred and fifty denarii; and it was written in the month of Elul in the year five hundred and fifty-one, on the eighteenth day.

LOWER TEXT [Date] In the month of Former Kanun of the year five hundred and fiftytwo, in the third year of Autokrator Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus the Fortunate and Victorious,8 and in the second year of Aelius Septimius Abgar the king son of Ma‛nu, crown prince, son of Abgar the king, who was honoured with consular rank in Urhoy, in Edessa, the great city, mother of all the cities of Bet Nahrin, this document was written in the palace, New-Town-of-Hunting, of Abgar the king, on the twenty-eighth day: [Subjective Declaration] I, Ba‛ishu son of Abgar son of Shamishu from the village of Myhrw, servant of Sha‛idu son of Shalman of Ṣḥb, declare to Worod son of Nishryahb from Bet Purin who lives in New-Town on account of a certain document [Historical account of earlier transaction] which Ba‛ishu son of Shamash‛aqab son of Taymu from NewTown-of-Hunting wrote—and Batnannay wife of Ba‛ishu stood as surety for it—to Sha‛idu my master—i.e., me Ba‛ishu—and he declared to him in the self-same document with regard to a certain šwy‚ belonging to Sha‛idu my master,9 that he would give it to him at the end of Latter Teshri or at the beginning of Former Kanun of this self-same year in which this document was written; and if this time were to pass and he were not to give (it), he, Ba‛ishu son of Shamash‛aqab, would give to Sha‛idu my master the equivalent value of the šwy‚, one hundred and fifty denarii; and it is written in it that if he did not pay these one hundred and fifty denarii, they would yield interest10 at three denarii for the full sum per month; and that document was written in the month of Elul of the year five hundred and fifty-one, on the eighteenth day.

Aramaic texts: Benoit et al. 1961: Mur. ar 25 I:3; Milik 1954: 183, line 10; Milik 1957: 259, line 6. 8 Emperor 238–44 CE. 9 This phrase shows clearly that the šwy‚ is something which existed from the start as Sha‛idu’s property. 10 nrbwn, “they (the 150 denarii) will increase, accrue interest.” This verb, rby/‚, is repeatedly used in this kind of context (Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995: 1053).

SOME LEXICAL AND LEGAL NOTES

219

[Resumed subjective declaration] Thus I11 declare to Worod: since Sha‛idu my master ordered me to exact payment12 from Ba‛ishu and the said Ba‛ishu was not present here, [Satisfaction] I have received from Worod these one hundred and fifty denarii which he [Sha‛idu] was demanding13 and my master14 collected15 the document and [Assignment of Debt Document] I have assigned that document for his good or his ill16 into the power17 of Worod, so that he might exact it from the same Ba‛ishu and from his heirs as it has been (arranged) between us. [Subscription of Substitute Signatory] I, Ḥashsha son of Mattay from New-Town, declare I have signed18 (this) on behalf of Ba‛ishu son of Abgar, who does not know how to write:19 he has written (and) declared in the document thus to Worod son of Nishryahb as written above. [Scribe] I, Bar Bassa, the scribe, son of Barba‛shamin wrote this document.

11

7.

Ba‛ishu son of Abgar, resuming the interrupted 1st person declaration of line

Verb tb‛ (Payne Smith 1903: 603–4). Not aph‛el as Teixidor 1990: 151 fn. 15. Verb qry/‚, “call.” 14 Reading uncertain. 15 The verb knš is a little unexpected and without parallel in this kind of context. It looks like a technical legal term. The verb occasionally means “compute” in Classical Syriac (Payne Smith 1903: 219) and the allusion might be to the accounting exercise which would establish the theoretical cash value of the outstanding debt, including interest. 16 The phrase appears to be a legal merism indicating “whatever happens,” “unconditionally.” 17 gd‚, “(good) fortune, possession, power” (see P1: 15, 18). The meaning “in the power of” is clear in a passage of Bardaiṣan (Drijvers 1965: 12: 20). 18 ktbt, but he is not the scribe. 19 spr‚, “the art of writing.” See Peshitta Acts 4: 13: dl‚ yd‛yn spr‚. 12 13

220

HEALEY

VERSO [Witnesses] I, Ba‛ishu20 son of Taymu, have acted as guarantor:21 he witnesses on his own behalf. I, Ḥashsha son of Mattay, have acted as guarantor: I have sealed this document. I, Shalam son of Bar‛ata, have acted as guarantor: he witnesses. I, ‛Abduk, have acted as guarantor: he witnesses. I, Ba‛ishu son of Taymu, have acted as guarantor: he witnesses on his own behalf.

A NOTE ON ŠWY‚ The šwy‚ presents a serious problem. The root involved is apparently ŠW‚, “be level, equal,” as recognized already by Teixidor (1990: 149, fn. 10). There are a number of possibilities, listed here in descending order of probability: 1. A concrete meaning which might fit could be provided by the šwy listed in an Elephantine papyrus (Cowley 1923: text 15: 15 = Porten and Yardeni 1986–99: B 2.6: 15–16) where among other things brought into a household by a newly married woman we find:

4 ‫ זי בה נעבצן אבן‬1 ‫שוי‬ This is translated by Porten as: “One papyrus-reed bed on which are 4 stone inlays” (with doubt on “inlays,” since n‛bṣn is obscure: see also Porten 1996: 179–80, fn. 32). This interpretation of the Elephantine text is favoured by most scholars (e.g., Fitzmyer 1971), though it is a little difficult to imagine a papyrus bed with stone inlays and Grelot, appealing to a possible Egyptian cognate, interpreted the word as “box, casket” (1971: 517–25; 1972: 194, fn. k; see also Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995: 1117–18). Giving strong support to the meaning “bed” in P2, however, is the fact that ‫ שׁויא‬appears in Targumic Aramaic, with a similar meaning: A third Ba‛ishu! The signatures on the verso are aligned with the knots sealing the “Upper Text,” which is regarded as a Roman practice (Welles et al. 1959: 145; see also Schiffman 2003). 21 For this verb ‛rb see above, but it is not otherwise used of the actions of witnesses. It may appear here because of the nature of the transaction: no real property changes hands, only a document. 20

SOME LEXICAL AND LEGAL NOTES

221

Targ. Y. Deut 3:11 (for Hebrew ‛ereś referring to Og’s bed); Targ. 1 Kgs 1:47 (for Hebrew miškāb referring to David’s bed); Targ. Ps 4:5 (for miškāb); Targ. Ps 6:7 (for miṭṭāh, “couch, bed”); Targ. Job 17:13 (for yāṣūa‛, “couch, bed” [poetic]). For these see Jastrow 1950: 1533. There is also, from the same root, the noun ‫ תשׁויתא‬meaning “bed, couch, covering”: Targ. Prov. 7:16 (“covering,” for Hebrew marbaddīm); Targ. Prov. 22:27 (for miškāb); Targ. Ezek. 43:13, 14, 17 (“base”[?], for the obscure Hebrew ḥēq). This word is found also in Syriac: ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܬ‬tešwītā) (Payne Smith 1903: 622, Brockelmann 1928: 761), with the meanings “coverlet, rug, mattress, bed.” In the Peshitta of 2 Sam 17:28 and Prov. 7:16 (see Targum above) the meaning seems to be “covering, coverlet,” while in Gen 49:4; 1 Chron. 5:1 the meaning is “bed” (other references in Brockelmann 1928: 761). 2. Another possibility, alluded to by Brock (1991: 262, fn. 23), is a connection with ‫ܐ‬ (šewyā), “hilt, handle, haft, shaft of a spear” (Payne Smith 1903: 564; Brockelmann 1928: 761). This is found in Peshitta 2 Sam 21:19 (šewyā dnayzkeh, “the shaft of his spear”) and 23:7 (šewyā dnārgā, “the haft of an axe”) (other references in Brockelmann 1928: 761). The difficulty here is in imagining that such an elaborate legal situation could have arisen over the (presumably wooden) handle of a weapon or implement. 3. Although I have argued above that the word cannot refer to a sum of money, one ought in passing to note Syriac šāwītā, “reduction, low price” (Payne Smith 1903: 565) and Arabic taswiyyah “levelling, settlement of bill” (Wehr 1971: 445). Both of these show that the root in question is susceptible to semantic developments in this direction, at least in Syriac and Arabic. Other suggestions would involve changing the reading of šwy‚ (Brock 1991: 262 fn. 23). Since no such change of reading can be justified epigraphically, the most likely meaning of šwy‚ on present evidence is “bed.”

LEGAL ASPECTS There are other aspects of the text which are interesting from a legal point of view. 1. In terms of overall structure it is to be noted that this document is of the “double-document” type (Koffmahn 1968; Lewis 1989: 6–10). The so-called “Upper Text” was designed to be sealed as an “Inner Text” which could be referred to in case of dispute. It was, however, gradually abbreviated, since it became redundant with the spread of archives in which registry copies of texts could be stored safely. Thus in P1: 18–19 (also a double-document) there is explicit reference to an archive copy of the text

222

HEALEY

being kept. P2 itself was unopened when first brought to light (see photographs in Teixidor 1990). 2. The various legal corpora (Elephantine, Samaria, Judean Desert) differ slightly with regard to their use of objective and subjective language. In Elephantine property transfers the main clauses are subjectively expressed and based on the vendor’s viewpoint (ex latere venditoris: “I have sold,” “I will not be able to reclaim”) (see Porten and Yardeni 1986–99 II: xiii-xiv; Gropp 2003: 27–28). In the slave-sales of the Samaria papyri the central declaration is objective in style, but the secondary clauses at the end (defension, against reneging, against demand for further payment) are subjective (Gropp 2003: 27). The Neo-Babylonian formulary for movables, on which the Samaria texts depend, was objective and expressed ex latere venditoris. The Judaean Desert texts vary somewhat, but we may note the subjective formulation, e.g., in the contract published by Milik (1954: 183) and in Nabataean (P. Yadin 2–3: Yadin et al. 2002: 201–44). In P2 (also P1: 7–10) we have a subjective formula, in Roman terms a “subjective homology” (Goldstein 1966: 9–11; Teixidor 1990: 150, fn. 13), though objective language is, of course, used in describing the history of the debt which is to be transferred. 3. The appearance of substitute signatories in the “subscription,” the formal declaration of agreement by the principal, is not unusual (Greenfield 1993; Cotton 1995; Cotton and Yardeni 1997: 144–46; Schiffman 2003: 184–85), though it may be noted that in the Near East this was occasioned by illiteracy, as in this case, and there was no requirement that a woman should use a male guardian as a legal substitute as was normal in Hellenistic and Roman law (see most recently Oudshoorn 2007: 354–66). Women clearly played a prominent role in transactions. In P1 a woman sells a slave (and is substituted in the subscription because of illiteracy); in P2 a woman acts as surety for the original transaction and might still have to step forward to cover the debt (and an illiterate man is substituted for in the subscription).

SOME LEXICAL AND LEGAL NOTES

223

REFERENCES Bellinger, A. R. and Welles, C. B. 1935. “A Third-century Contract of Sale from Edessa in Osrhoene.” Yale Classical Studies 5: 93–154. Benoit, P., Milik, J. T. and de Vaux, R. 1961. Les Grottes de Murabba‛ât (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Brock, S. P. 1991. “Some New Syriac Documents from the Third Century AD.” Aram 3: 259–267. Brockelmann, C. 1928 (2nd ed.). Lexicon Syriacum. Halle: Max Niemeyer (reprint 1982) Brockelmann, C. 1935. “Zu dem syrischen Kaufvertrag aus Edessa.” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 10: 163. Cotton, H. 1995. “Subscriptions and Signatures in the Papyri from the Judaean Desert: CEIROCRHCTHC.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 25: 29–40. Cotton, H. and Yardeni, A. 1997. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXVII). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cowley, A. 1923. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Drijvers, H. J. W. 1965. The Book of the Laws of Countries: dialogue on fate of Bardaiṣan of Edessa. Assen: van Gorcum. Drijvers, H. J. W. and Healey. J. F. 1999. The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene (HdO I/42). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Feissel, D. and J. Gascou. 1989. “Documents d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe siècle après J.-C.).” CRAIBL, 535–561. Feissel, D. and Gascou, J. 1995. “Documents d’archives romains inédits du moyen euphrate (IIIe s. après J.-C.). I. Les pétitions (P. Euphr. 1 à 5).” Journal des Savants, 65–119. Feissel, D. and Gascou, J. 2000. “Documents d’archives romains inédits du moyen euphrate (IIIe s. après J.-C.). III. Actes diverses et lettres (P. Euphr. 11 à 17).” Journal des Savants, 157–208. Feissel, D., Gascou, J. and Teixidor, J. 1997. “Documents d’archives romains inédits du moyen euphrate (IIe s. après J.-C.). II. Les actes de vente-achat (P. Euphr. 6 à 10).” Journal des Savants, 3–57. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1971. “A Re-Study of an Elephantine Aramaic Marriage Contract (AP 15).” Pp. 137–68 in H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins U.P.

224

HEALEY

Goldstein J. A. 1966. “The Syriac Bill of Sale from Dura-Europos.” JNES 25: 1–16. Greenfield, J. C. 1993. “‘Because He/She Did Not Know Letters:’ Remarks on a First Millennium C.E. Legal Expression.” JANES 22: 39–44. Grelot, P. 1971. “Études sur les textes araméens d’Éléphantine.” Revue Biblique 78: 515–44. Grelot, P. 1972. Documents araméens d’Égypte (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 5). Paris: le Cerf. Gropp, D. M. et al. 2001. Wadi Daliyeh II: the Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh and Qumran Cave 4. XXVVIII: miscellanea, part 2 (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXVIII). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gropp, D. M. 2003. “The Samaria Papyri and the Babylonio-Aramean Symbiosis.” Pp. 23–49 in L. H. Schiffman (ed.), Semitic Papyrology in Context: a climate of creativity. Papers from a New York University conference marking the retirement of Baruch A. Levine (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 14). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Healey, J. F. 2000. “The Early History of the Syriac Script: a Reassessment.” Journal of Semitic Studies 45: 55–67 Healey, J. F. 2005. “New evidence for the Aramaic Legal Tradition: from Elephantine to Edessa.” Pp. 115–127 in P. S. Alexander et al. (eds), Studia Semitica: the Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 16) Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005. Healey, J. F. forthcoming. “Variety in Early Syriac: the context in contemporary Aramaic.” (Leiden Aramaic Conference Proceedings, eds M. Folmer, H. Gzella). Hillers, D. R. and E. Cussini 1996. Palmyrene Aramaic Texts. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins U.P. Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (HdO I/31.1–2). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Jastrow, M. 1950. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Pardes (original 1903) Jursa, M. 2005. Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents: typology, contents and archives (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 1). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Koffmahn, E. 1968. Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wüste Juda: Recht und Praxis der jüdischen Papyri des 1. und 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 5). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Lewis, N. (ed. with contributions by Y. Yadin and J. C. Greenfield). 1989. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri

SOME LEXICAL AND LEGAL NOTES

225

(Judean Desert Studies). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University/Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum. Milik, J. T. 1954. “Un contrat juif de l’an 134 après J.-C.” Revue Biblique 61: 182–90. Milik, J. T. 1957. “Deux documents inédits du désert de Juda.” Biblica 38: 245–68. Oudshoorn, J. G. 2007. The Relationship between Roman and Local Law in the Babatha and Salome Komaise Archives: general analysis and three case studies on law of succession, guardianship and marriage (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 69). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Payne Smith, J. (ed.). 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Porten, B. (with others) 1996. The Elephantine Papyri in English: three millennia of cross-cultural continuity and change (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqua 22). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Porten, B and A. Yardeni 1986–99. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt 1–4 (Texts and Studies for Students). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University (Department of the History of the Jewish People). Selb, W. and H. Kaufhold 2002. Das syrisch-römische Rechtsbuch (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschrift 295). Vienna. Schiffman, L. H. 2003. “Witnesses and Signatures in the Hebrew and Aramaic Documents from the Bar Kokhba Caves.” Pp. 165–86 in L. H. Schiffman (ed.), Semitic Papyrology in Context: a climate of creativity. Papers from a New York University conference marking the retirement of Baruch A. Levine (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 14). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Teixidor, J. 1989. “Les dernier rois d’Édesse d’après deux nouveaux documents syriaques.” ZPE 76: 219–22. Teixidor, J. 1990. “Deux documents syriaques du IIIe siècle après J.-C., provenant du moyen Euphrate.” CRAIBL 146–66. Teixidor, J. 1991–92. “Un document syriaque de fermage de 242 après J.C.” Semitica 41–42: 195–208. Torrey, C. C. 1935. “A Syriac Parchment from Edessa of the Year 243 A.D.” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 10: 33–45. Wehr, H. 1971. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Welles, C. B., Fink, R. O. and Gilliam, J. F. 1959. The Excavations at DuraEuropos. Final Report V, Part I. The Parchments and Papyri. New Haven: Yale U.P.

226

HEALEY

Yadin, Y., Greenfield, J. C., Yardeni, A., and Levine, B. A. 2002. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri (Judean Desert Studies) (2 vols.). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University/Shrine of the Book. The files of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon were used to check some of the Targumic references.

APPROXIMATION OF THE ‘TRADITIONS’ IN JACOB OF EDESSA’S REVISION OF ISAIAH ANDREAS JUCKEL INTRODUCTION1 The Old Testament revision of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) is the last work in the history of biblical revisions undertaken in the Syrian Orthodox Church. Jacob prepared it in the monastery of Tel ‛Adda West of Aleppo in the years before 704/05.2 What survived of this revision is a small number of excellent manuscripts.3 In spite of the information on the main revisional principle given in the subscriptions of the single OT books,4 the revisional Writing this paper on Jacob of Edessa carries me back to 1999 when I was privileged to travel with Sebastian Brock and George Kiraz in Syria and Tur Abdin. On 15th of May the Syr.-orth. parish of Aleppo under its head H. E. Gregorios Yuḥanna Ibrahim invited us for a visit to the Monastery of Tel ‛Adda, the place where Jacob of Edessa prepared his Old Testament revision, where he died and where he was buried. It was a unique experience to share this trip with hundreds of Syrians to visit him and to see him still alive in the hearts of his people after so many centuries. 2 With regard to Ms B. N. syr. 26 (the Pentateuch of Jacob’s revision), F. Nau declares that the subscriptions to Gen, Ex, Lev and Num give the date 1015 GE (703/04 CE), the subscription to Dtn the date 1016 GE (704/05 CE); see F. Nau, ‘L’Araméen chrétien (Syriaque). Les traductions faites du grec en syriaque au viie siècle’, RHR 99 (1929) 263–65, esp. 271. 3 ‘Of this work there are but five volumes extant in Europe, four of which came from the Nitrian Desert and form parts of a set which was written in the years 719–720.’ W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature. London 1894 (Piscataway 2001), 17. 4 The subscription at the end of 1Kings (= 1Samuel) reads: ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܬܪܨ‬ ‫̈ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܆‬ ‫ܐ ܗܘܬ ܘ ܓ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܬܐ܆ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܒܐ ̈ ܝ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫̈ܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ‬ ‫̇ܗܝ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܆‬ ‫ ܒ ܐ ܪܒ ܐ ܕܬ ܐ܀‬.(...)‫ܐ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ܆‬ ‫‘ – ܐ‬This First Book of the 1

227

228

JUCKEL

intention of this work is not evident and is still a subject of debate. The reason for this lack of evidence is the obscure relation to the general history of the Syriac biblical revisions. The ‘patchwork-style’ (Wright5) of Jacob’s work and the combination of Syriac (Peshitta) and Greek (Syrohexapla/Septuagint) textual traditions reflect an unprecedented revisional principle beyond ‘greacisation’ or ‘degreacisation.’ Especially the fact that the Peshitta is heavily involved is a strange and new feature in the domain of biblical revisions. Scholars identified the Peshitta, the Syrohexapla, and the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint as the basic textual features of Jacob’s work,6 but they offered different interpretations. A. Rahlfs and M. Gottstein represent the two principal interpretative alternatives. The former considered Jacob’s work to be a revision of the Peshitta, heavily influenced by the Greek Lucianic recension and hardly by the Syrohexapla;7 the latter suggested a combination of the Peshitta and the Syrohexapla by the way of mutual revision.8 Recent research (R. J. Saley and A. Salvesen)9 determined the Peshitta as the revision’s base, which was corrected and supplemented by Greek material. The purpose of these changes, which resulted in numerous doublets and expansions, A. Salvesen explained mainly by

Kingdoms was corrected as far as possible and with much difficulty from the different traditions—from that of the Syrians and from those of the Greeks—by the holy Jacob, bishop of Edessa (…) in the great monastery of Tel ‛Adda ̦; text and translation of A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa [MPIL 10]. Leiden 1999, part I,90; part II 67. 5 W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature 17. 6 S. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of 1Samuel [Quaderni di Henoch 9]. Torino 1996, p. 26–27 7 A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuagintastudien 3). Göttingen 1911, 48–50. 8 ‘J[acob’s revision] ist nicht nur eine Überarbeitung von Syh – wie öfters behauptet – sondern auch eine von Pesch[itta]. Mit anderen Worten: Syh ist nicht immer die Grundlage, die verbessert wird, sondern die textkritisch überlegene, aber unsyrische Rezension, auf Grund derer Pesch[itta] oft ungearbeitet wird.’ M. H. Gottstein, ‘Neue Syrohexaplafragmente,’ Biblica 37 (1956), 162–183 (the quotation on p. 165). 9 R. J. Saley, The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa. A Study of its Underlying Textual Traditions [MPIL 9]. Leiden 1998; A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa [MPIL 10]. Leiden 1999.

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

229

exegetical considerations10 and by comparing Jacob’s intention with Origen’s revision of the Septuagint.11 R. J. Saley suggested a ‘masoretic’ intention of the revision.12 Finally, scholars cannot take for granted that the subscriptions to the single OT books derive from Jacob himself; it is more likely that they derive from the scribes, who produced them for identification of Jacob’s work. While preparing his revision in the monastery of Tel ‛Adda, Jacob was not bishop of Edessa; he had resigned this position more than ten years before. However, the inauthenticity of the subscriptions does not affect the information they give (see in note 4). To compare witnesses for textual criticism is not possible, because all extant OT books in Jacob’s revision are transmitted in one witness respectively.13 In addition, all witnesses seem to belong to the same set of

10 ‘The result of Jacob’s work was or created a kind of hybrid that amplified and clarified both the Peshitta and the Greek texts of Scripture, and from a purely exegetical viewpoint it could even be considered to be superior to either tradition on its own’ (‘Jacob of Edessa’s version of Exodus 1 and 28,’ Hugoye. Journal of Syriac Studies 8:1 [January 2005], paragr. 18 [http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye] ). 11 ‘However, it may be that by using the term “correction” Jacob indicates that he saw himself as following in the footsteps of Origen, who had attempted to “heal” the differences between the Septuagint manuscripts circulating in the churches by using the Greek minor versions and the Hebrew text of the third century, in order to produce a standardized Greek version. In contrast, Jacob’s concern would have been less focused on the differences between Greek manuscripts, and more on the gap between the Peshitta and the Septuagint traditions in many places in the Old Testament’ (A. Salvesen, ‘The Genesis Texts of Jacob of Edessa. A Study in Variety,’ in W. Th. van Peursen & R. B. ter Haar Romeny (Eds.), Text Translation, and Tradition. Studies in the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday [MPIL 14]. Leiden 2006, 177–188). 12 ‘While all of the intentions of J in compiling his text of the OT might not be obvious, it is, at least, certain that he sought to assemble a masoretic text for theological and liturgical use which incorporated the major strands known in the Syrian Monophysite Church, while giving space—in text or margin—for such other variants collected as seemed worthy of note. It is tempting to speculate that he intended this to be a new “authorized” version, aimed at settling controversy within the ecclesiastical community, but one cannot be certain of this’ (R. J. Saley, The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa, 122). 13 Detailed information on the manuscripts are in W. Baars, ‘Ein neugefundenes Bruchstück aus der syrischen Bibelrevision des Jakob von Edessa,’ Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968), 548.

230

JUCKEL

manuscripts.14 Eleven years after Jacob’s death, the manuscript tradition broke off; the chance for new manuscript findings is hardly given. Surprisingly, a long quotation from the Sapientia Salomonis was discovered in a lectionary dated 1569 CE.15 Moreover, the mainly short quotations from the revision preserved in Jacob’s commentary on the Hexaemeron16 (his latest work) do not offer the desired information about the use of the version by Jacob himself. However, Ms BL Add 17,134 preserved unexpected material for research on the genesis of Jacob’s revision. In the margins of this manuscript, ca. 600 Old Testament texts are explicitly quoted; they are part of Jacob’s revision of Severus’ hymns (dated by him to 674/75 CE)17 and reflect a preparatory stage of his definite revision.18 To set out the shift of Jacob’s revision from the earlier to the definite stage (with special attention to the emergence of doublets and expansions) is the purpose of this article. This shift reflects the approximation of the ‘traditions’ as the basic idea of Jacob’s revision. The texts of both stages presented side by side derive from the book of Isaiah,19 which offers excellent conditions for comparison with the Peshitta (ed. by S. Brock20) and the Syrohexapla (ed. by M. Ceriani21, A. Vööbus22).

14 W. Wright quoted in note 3. However, the Pentateuch manuscript in Paris (B. N. syr. 26) has a different lay-out (two columns) and might not belong to the same set. 15 W. Baars, ‘Ein neugefundenes Bruchstück aus der syrischen Bibelrevision des Jakob von Edessa,’ Vetus Testamentum 18 [1968], 548–55. 16 J.-B. Chabot, Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron seu in opus creationis libri septem [CSCO 92/syri 44]. Paris 1928; transl. by A. Vaschalde [CSCO 97/syri 48]. Paris 1932. 17 Ed. by E. W. Brooks, Jacob of Edessa. The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others (PO 6.1 and 7.5; Turnhout, 1910/1911). 18 On this earlier stage see A. Juckel, ‘Septuaginta and Peshitta. Jacob of Edessa quoting the Old Testament in Ms BL Add 17134,’ Hugoye. Journal of Syriac Studies 8:2 (July 2005) [http://www.bethmardutho. org/hugoye]. 19 W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838, 1 (London, 1870/Piscataway, 2003), 39 (no. lxi). 20 The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version, part III fasc. 1: Isaiah, prepared by S. P. Brock. Leiden 1987. 21 A. M. Ceriani, Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Anbrosianus photolithographice editus [Monumenta sacra et profana 7]. Mediolani, 1874. 22 A. Vööbus, The Book of Isaiah in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla. A facsimile edition of MS. St. Mark 1 in Jerusalem [CSCO 449/Subs. 68]. Louvain 1983.

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

231

A. THE SHIFT FROM THE EARLIER TO THE DEFINITE STAGE OF REVISION

1. Towards approximation of the ‘traditions’ Already on the earlier stage of revision, Jacob was anxious to produce a revision of the Peshitta, not of the Syrohexapla. This can be drawn from the quotations in the margins of Ms BL Add. 17,134, which are not ad-hoctranslations but reflect a developed and consistent principle of revision. Jacob’s intention was to put the graeca veritas (represented by the Septuagint recensions) into a Syriac dress by adoption, correction, and substitution of the Peshitta. This allowed for the adoption of unrevised Peshitta texts in all such cases where they are in rough congruence with the Greek. The numerous agreements of the Peshitta with the Lucianic Septuagint recension23 favoured this strategy of aligning the Peshitta with the Greek. Corrections of the Peshitta were comparatively few and minor in character on this earlier stage of revision. Substitutions of the Peshitta by a new translation of the Greek were frequent, but the Peshitta influenced both corrections and substitutions. In spite of the mutual influence of both ‘traditions,’ Jacob’s quotations of his earlier revision were either Peshitta texts or Septuagint texts. This earlier principle of adoption, correction, and substitution of the Peshitta continued in Jacob’s definite version; however, there were two innovative features: 1. the increased use of corrections of the Peshitta; and 2. the supplementation of the unrevised Peshitta to the substantial Greek text by means of doublets and expansions. The corrections allowed for flexibility in adjusting the Peshitta to the Greek ‘traditions’ and reduced the number of substitutions; the supplementation of unrevised Peshitta text considerably enlarged the Peshitta flavour of the definite revision and affected the accuracy of Jacob’s former new translations, by which he substituted the incongruent Peshitta. Both new features resulted in an approximation and mutual complementation of the ‘traditions.’ 2. Adoption, correction, and substitution of the Peshitta Adoption of the Peshitta is a basic feature of Jacob’s revision. There are total, partial, and modified adoptions, depending on the congruence of the Peshitta with the Greek. Jacob’s own modifications of both ‘traditions’ are 23

S. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of 1Samuel, 205–10.

232

JUCKEL

micro-adjustments, which he introduced for the improvement of translation technique. Partial adoptions reflect minor corrections according to the Greek. Total adoptions are not always justified by full agreement or full congruence with the Greek; frequently, they are based on a general congruence only, which is not considerate of all semantic differences. Full corrections of the Peshitta mainly affect the lexical level of single words or verse segments. Substitutions of segments or complete verses are necessary where the Peshitta is completely incongruent with the Greek. They are more frequent in Jacob’s revision of Isaiah than in the books of Samuel; the simple narrative of the latter Jacob could easily revise by adoptions and corrections, while the Peshitta text of the prophecies is often incongruent with the Greek and continually invited for a complete new translation. In principle, adoption, correction, and substitution of the Peshitta are directed by the Greek; frequently, they are influenced by the Peshitta itself. A special feature of adoption is the supplementation of the Peshitta to the substantial Greek text. According to the technique of supplementation, they are doublets and expansions, which are fixed to a word or an expression of the revised text. Their removal would not disturb the intelligibility of Jacob’s revision. Two samples shall illustrate Jacob’s technique of producing doublets and expansions. He certainly prepared a corrected Peshitta manuscript, from which he generated the definite version of his revision. Sample 1) The corrected Peshitta of Isa 14:11 (black text: Peshitta; grey text: Jacob’s corrections according to the Greek): ‫ܓ ܐܐ‬

‫ܬܬ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܟ܆‬

‫ܘܒ‬

‫ܘ‬ .‫ܬܘ ܐ‬

‫ܟ‬

‫ܠ ܬ ܒ‬

‫ܠ܆‬ ‫ܘܬ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܟ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

‫ܬܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܪ‬

The definite text of the revision (East Syriac type: doublets and expansions; see the comments below in part B)

.‫ܟ‬ǠNjǁ ǤƾLJ‫ܘ‬

‫ܓ ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܬܘ ܐ‬

‫ܟ܆ ܘܒ‬ǠǞƽ‫ܟ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܠ ܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܬܬ‬ ‫ܬܐ܆ ܘܬ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬ƤǤLJ‫ܪ‬

The Greek behind the definite revision:

‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬ ܬ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

233

kate/bh ei}j &$dou h{ do/xa sou, kai\ h{ pollh/ sou eu}frosu/nh; u{poka/tw sou strw/sousi sh~vin, kai\ to\ kataka/lumma/ sou skw/lhx.

Sample 2) The corrected Peshitta of Isa 29:14 (black text: Peshitta; grey text: Jacob’s corrections according to the Greek; see the comments below in part B): ‫ܗܐ‬

‫ܐ ܗ ܐ܆‬

‫ܐܐ‬

‫ܗܐ‬

‫ܘܐܘܒ‬

‫ܗܝ܆‬

̈

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܗܕܐ‬

‫ܘܐ ܐ ܐ ܢ‬

‫ܪܬܐ ܘܒ ܘ ܐ܆ ܘܬܐܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬

. ‫ܓ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܗܝ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬

The definite text of the revision (East Syriac type: doublets and expansions): ̇ ‫ܗܕܐ܁ ܗܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܫ ܘ ̇ ܐ‬ǠỤ̈́LjDŽ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܘܐܘܒ‬.ƥǠLJ‫ܘ‬ƯƦ‫ ܘ‬Ƥ‫ܪܬ‬ƲLJ‫ܕ‬ǤƦ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ̇ ‫̈ ܗܝ‬ .‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ The Greek behind the definite revision:

14 dia\ tou~to i}dou\ prosqh/sw tou~ metaqei~nai to\n lao\n tou~ton kai\ metaqh/sw au}tou\j kai\ a}polw~ th\n sofi/an tw~n sofw~n au}tou~ kai\ th\n su/nesin tw~n sunetw~n au}tou~ kru/vw.

a) Doublets ‘Doublet’ means a double Syriac translation of one single Greek word, expression, or verse (segment). The additional part derives from the Peshitta, often modified by Jacob. Usually the doublet is appended to the textual element of the revised text; in several cases, however, the doublet is coming first (mainly due to the adoption of Peshitta text). In semantic respect, the substituted Peshitta word or expression can be appended to and participate in the preferred translation by the either identical (see below 1Sam 3:14; 4:13; 9:6; 2Sam 13:12; Isa 25:1; 29:14; 61:7) or supplemental meaning (see below 1Sam 3:17.18; 2Sam 6:14; Isa 14:12; 21:4; 32:2.4; 61:8). In either case, the correct translation is not really affected, and the text reads fluently and inconspicuously. In the book of Isaiah, the parallelismus membrorum favoured the creation and disguise of doublets in Jacob’s text (see below Isa 32:2.5; 61:8). The following selection include some samples

234

JUCKEL

from 1/2 Samuel to illustrate the use of doublets in Jacob’s version throughout. The Greek texts are taken from the editions of Brooke-McLeanThackeray (1/2 Sam) and Ziegler (Isa); the Syriac texts and translations of the 1/2 Sam samples are taken from A. Salvesen (in note 4); the Syriac text of the Isa samples derives from Ms BL Add. 14,441 (see the fuller presentation of the samples and the textcritical comments below in part B); the translations are mine. – Framed passages are doublets drawn from the Peshitta. 1Sam 3:14 e}n qumia/mati kai\ e}n qusi/aij e$wj ai}w~noj

‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ ܘܒ ̈ܒ ܐ ܘܒ ̈ܪܒ ܐ‬

‫ܒܒ‬

(... shall never be expiated) by incense or sacrifices or offerings

1Sam 3:17 mh\ dh\ kru/v*j a}p’ e}mou~

‫ܐ ܬ ܐ ܘ ܐ ܬܒ ܬ‬

Do not conceal it and do not be in awe of me

1Sam 3:18 kai\ a}ph/ggeilen Samouh/l

. ‫ܐ‬

‫ܝ܁ ܘܐܘܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

Samuel told and informed him

1Sam 4:13 skopeu/wn th\n o{do/n

‫ܐܘܪ ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܘ ܐܪ ܗܘܐ ܘܕܐܩ‬

He was looking and peering towards the road

1Sam 9:6 kai\ o{ a!nqrwpoj e!ndoxoj

‫ܐ‬

̈ ‫ܒ‬

‫ܒ ܐ܆ ܘܓܒ ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܐ ܗܘ‬

‫ܘܗܘ ܒ‬ ̣

(...) and he is an illustrious person, and a man honoured in the eyes of all people

2Sam 6:14 kai\ Dauei\d a}nekrou/eto e}n o}rga/noij h{rmosme/noij e}nw/pion Kuri/ou

‫ܐ‬

‫ܡ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬

‫ܗܘܐ ܒܐܘ̈ܪܓ ܐ‬

̇ ‫ܐ܆ ܘ‬

‫ܗܘܐ ܒ‬

‫ܒ‬

David was praising mightily and playing harmonious instruments before the Lord

‫ܘܕܘ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

235

2Sam 13:12 kai\ ei#pen au}t+~ Mh/, a}delfe/ mou, mh\ tapeinw/s*j me

‫ܘܬ‬

‫ܐ̇ ܐ‬

‫ ܐ ܐ ܁ ܐ ܬܨ‬.

She said to him, “No, my brother, don’t dishonour and humiliate me!”

Isa 14:7 a}napau/sato (...) met’ eu}frosu/nhj

‫ܘܬܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫( ܒ‬...) ̇

̇ ̣‫ܘ‬

̣ ‫ܐܬܬ‬

(The whole earth) is at rest and quiet; (it breakes forth) into praise with joy

Isa 14:11 kate/bh de\ ei}j &$dou h{ do/xa sou, h{ pollh/ sou eu}frosu/nh; u{poka/tw sou strw/sousi sh~vin, kai\ to\ kataka/lumma/ sou skw/lhx

.‫ܟ‬

̣ ‫ܓ ܐܐ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܬܘ ܐ‬

‫ܟ ܘܐ ܟ܆ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܬܐ܆ ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܬ‬

‫̣ ̇ܬ‬ ‫ܬ ܬ‬

‫ܠ ܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ̣ ‫ܬܬ‬

Your pomp is brought down to Sheol and your glory, and your manyfold delight, and your harp is dead; beneath you will spread dust and corruption, and worms are your covering

Isa 14:12 sunetri/bh

̣ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

(The star of dawn) was shattered and fell

Isa 21:4 h{ kardi/a mou plana~tai

‫̣ ܐ ܒ ܘܨܘ̈ܪ ܐ ܐܙ‬

My heart is gone astray, horror has appalled me

Isa 25:1 ̇ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬

doxa/sw se

̇ ‫ܐܪ‬

I will exalt thee and I will praise thee

Isa 29:14 metaqei~nai to\n lao\n tou~ton (I will again) appoint and convert this people

‫ܐ ܗܐ‬

‫ܫ ܘ‬

236

JUCKEL

Isa 32:2 w{j potamo\j fero/menoj e}n g*~ divw/s*.

‫ܪܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܬ ܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܨܗ ܐ܆ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

(...) like streams of water in a dry land, and like the shade of a great rock in a weary land

Isa 32:4 prose/xei tou~ a}kou/ein

‫ܐ‬

‫܆ ܘ‬

‫ܪ‬

(The heart which was stupid) will look out for hearing and have good judgement

Isa 32:5 kai\ ou}ke/ti mh\ ei!pwsin t+~ mwr+~ a!rcein

‫ܘ ܐ‬

‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ܆ ܘܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕ ܘܐ‬

‫ܘܢ ܬܘܒ‬

‫ܘ ܐ‬

The fool will no more be called mighty, nor the vain said to be a saviour

Isa 49:19 o$ti ta\ e!rhma/ sou kai\ ta\ diefqarme/na

‫ܬ‬

‫ ܘܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬:

‫̈ܒ ܐ ܕ‬

‫܁ ܘ‬

̈ ‫ܘܨܕ‬

‫ܕ ܒ‬

Because of your waste and desolated land, your destroyed places and your devasted land

Isa 49:21 e}gw\ de\ a!teknoj kai\ ch/ra

.‫ܐ ܘ ܘܕܬܐ‬

‫ܓ‬

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܘܐܪ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܓ‬

‫ܐܐ ܕ‬

I am childless and a widow, exiled and troubled

Isa 58:1 a}nabo/hson e}n i}scu/i

‫ܒܓܓ ܬܟ ܐܙ‬

Cry out with your throat, shout with might

Isa 61:7 kai\ eu}frosu/nh ai}w/nioj (...) and everlasting joy and delight

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܘ ܘܬܐ ܘܒ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

237

Isa 61:8 e}gw\ ga/r ei}mi ku/rioj o{ a}gapw~n dikaiosu/nhn

‫ܬܐ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ܙܕ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ̣ܐ ܘ‬

̇ ‫ܐ ܝ‬

̇ ‫ܐ ܕܪ‬

‫ܐܐ ܓ‬

For I am the Lord who loves justice, and I like righteousness

b) Expansions The following selection of expansions illustrates the supplementation of additional Peshitta elements in Jacob’s text, which are unsupported by the Greek. Usually they are affixed to a Greek element, which they expand without substantial change of meaning. Few expansions are (roughly) covered by the Greek: Isa 24:16; 25:9; 57:20; 61:7 (excluded here, see below in part B). Again, samples from 1/2 Sam are included. The Greek texts are taken from the editions of Brooke-McLeanThackeray (1/2 Sam) and Ziegler (Isa); the Syriac texts and translations of the 1Sam samples are taken from A. Salvesen (in note 4); the Syriac text of the Isa samples derives from Ms BL Add. 14,441 (see the fuller presentation of the samples and the textcritical comments below in part B); the translations are mine. – Framed passages are expansions drawn from the Peshitta. 1Sam 2:8 kai\ qro/non do/xhj kataklhronomw~n au}toi~j

‫̈ ̇ ܕܐܪ ܐ܆ ܘ‬

‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

.‫ܪܬ ܗܝ‬

‫ܘ ܪ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬ . ‫ܐ ̈ ܐ ܕܬܒ‬

(...) and he will make him inherit a throne of glory. The Lord has roofed over the depth of the earth and set upon them the foundations of the world

1Sam 2:16 kai\ e!legon o{ a}nh\r o{ qu/wn Qumiasqh/tw prw~ton w{j kaqh/kei to\ ste/ar

‫ܐ ܘ ܬ‬

‫ܢ‬

.‫ܗܘܐ‬

̇ ‫ܕܕܒ‬ ‫ܓܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܙܕܩ܆‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܐ ̇ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܪܒܐ‬

The man who was sacrificing would say to him, “They may certainly take it today, but let the fat be burned first, as is right.”

1Sam 3:16 kai\ ei#pen }Hlei\ pro\j Samouh/l Eli called Samuel and said to him

.

̣ ‫ܘܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ̣ ܐ‬

238

JUCKEL

1Sam 4:17 kai\ a}pekri/qh to\ paida/rion kai\ ei#pen

‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬

̣ ‫ܒ ܐ ܘܐ‬

‫ܘ ̣ܐ‬

The young messenger answered and said

Isa 14:6 pai/wn e!qnoj plhgh\n qumou~, h% ou}k e}fei/sato

‫ܘܢ ܕ ܐ‬

̇ ‫ܘܪܕܦ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ܇‬

‫ܬܐ ܕ‬

̇ ‫ܘܪܕܐ ܗܘܐ ܒ ܘܓ ܐ‬

‫̈ܐ ܒ‬

(...) and with wrath chastised the nations with a blow of anger, and persecuted them without relenting

Isa 14:14 ‫̈ܐ‬

a}nabh/somai e}pa/nw tw~n nefelw~n

̇ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܪܘ ܐ ܕ‬

I will ascent above the height of the clouds

Isa 24:18 o{ feu/gwn to\n fo/bon

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܕ‬

‫ܘܩ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫܂‬

̇ ‫ܐܬ‬

He who flees from the sound of the terror

Isa 25:8 i}scu/saj Being mighty (he will swallow up death) in victory for ever

Isa 29:14 kai\ metaqh/sw au}tou\j kai\ a}polw~ th\n sofi/an tw~n sofw~n

‫ܗܝ‬

̈

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܪܬܐ ܘܒ ܘ ܐ ܘܐܘܒ‬ ̣

̇ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܐ ܢ ܒ ܕ‬

I will convert them by marvel and wonder and destroy the wisdom of (the nation’s) wise men

Isa 49:16 i}dou\ e}pi\ tw~n ceirw~n mou e}zwgra/fhsa/ sou ta\ tei/ch

‫̈ܪ‬ Behold, I have graven on the palms of my hands your walls

̇ ‫̈ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ ܝ ܪ‬

‫ܗ̣ܐ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

239

Isa 62:2 o% o{ ku/rioj o}noma/sei au}to/

‫ܗܝ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫̇ܗܘ ܕ‬

‫ܕ‬

(... and one will call you by a new name), which the mouth of the Lord will give

c) Additions from the Greek It will be useful to contrast the doublets and expansions with a different sort of supplemental texts, which derive from the Greek. The following samples refer to substantial differences between the Peshitta and the Greek. The Peshitta is not absent, but considerably shorter and sometimes different in meaning. Again, Jacob’s arrangement preserves the Peshitta as much as possible and introduces additions from the Greek only as far as necessary. This type of addition is more frequent in 1/2 Samuel, whence the majority of samples is taken. The remarkable features of the following samples are: 1. The additions from the Greek are carefully adjoined to the Peshitta, which suffers no mutilation (G after Pš: 1Sam 3:21; Isa 32:3; Pš after G: Isa 25:7); 2. The unmutilated Peshitta text includes words or passages without Greek support (1Sam 2:10; 4:1; 6:19, below marked with »«); 3. The Peshitta is preferred to the Greek when there is a textual overlap (1Sam 2:10.11; 4:1; 6:19); 4. Jacob always introduces translational modifications to the Peshitta (esp. 1Sam 6:19). Syriac text and translation of the 1Sam samples are taken from A. Salvesen (in note 4); the Syriac text of the Isa samples derives from Ms BL Add. 14,441 (see the fuller presentation of the samples below in part B), the translations are mine. – Grey type/italics = G; black type = Pš; underlined text = translational modifications by Jacob. 1Sam 2:10 ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ . ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܬܗ܆ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ܇‬ ‫ܘ ܥ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ܆‬ ‫ܒ ܪ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ «‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܝ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ ܐ » ܒ‬. ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ ܐ ܕܙܕ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ ܕܐܪ ܐ܆ ܐ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܐ ܒ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬:‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܒ ܕܐ‬.‫ܬܪܗ‬ ‫ܒ ܕ ܐ ܘܙܕ ܬܐ‬ ‫ ̣ܗܘ ܘܢ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܠ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬

But the Lord shall make his enemy weak. The Lord is the Holy One. Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, nor the strong man glory in his strength, nor the rich man glory in his riches, but let him that glories, glory in this, understanding and knowing the Lord, and practising justice and righteousness on the earth. The Lord shall break those who provoke him, and thunder against them in the heavens. He will judge the ends of the earth, as the one who is

240

JUCKEL

righteous. And he will give strength to his king, and lift up the horn of his anointed one.

1Sam 2:11 ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ܬܗ‬ .‫ܐ‬

‫ܗ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ܇ ܡ‬

‫ ܘܐܙ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܡ‬

‫ܡ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ ܒ ܗܝ ܬ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ܀ ܘ‬

They left Samuel there before the Lord, and Helqana and Hannah his wife went to Ramtha to his house. The boy Samuel was ministering before the Lord, before Eli the priest.

1Sam 3:21 ̈ ‫ܒ ܓ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܘܐܘ‬ . ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܐ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܆ ܘܐܬܗ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܓ‬ . ‫̣ ܘ ̣ܐܒ ܓ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܪ ܐ ܕܐܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܇‬ ‫ܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܒ ̈ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐܙ ܗܘܘ ܐܙܠ܆ ܘܒ ܐ ܗܘܬ ܐܘܪ ܘܢ ܡ‬ The Lord continued to be revealed once more at Shilo in his words to Samuel. Because the Lord revealed himself to Samuel, Samuel was trusted to become a prophet of the Lord throughout Israel, from one end of the land to the other. Eli grew old and very aged. His sons carried on, and their way was evil before the Lord.

‫ܘܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ ̣ » . ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܪ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܆« ܘ‬ . ‫̈ ܐ ̣ ܘ ܒܐ‬

1Sam 4:1 ̇ ̈ ‫ܐ ܗ ܢ܆ ܘܐܬ‬ ‫ܘܗܘܐ ܒ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܕܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ܆ ܘ ̣ ܘ‬

It happened in those days that the Philistines gathered for war against Israel. The word of Samuel was over all Israel, and Israel went out to meet them in battle. They encamped by the Rock of Help, and the Philistines encamped at Apheq.

‫ܒ ܬܗ‬ ‫܇ ܕ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܘ ܒܐܪܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̣ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

1Sam 6:19 ̈ ̇ ‫ܐ ܗ ܢ ܕܒܓܒ ܐ ܕܒ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ ܗܝ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫܁‬ ‫ ܘ ̣ ܐ ܒ ܘܢ܁ » ܐ ܒܓܒ ܐ ܕܒ‬.‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬܐܒ‬. ‫ܓܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ‬. ̈ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ «‫ܕ ܐ܆‬ .‫ܬܐ ܪܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬

The sons of Jechonia who were among the men of Beth Shemesh were not glad to see the Ark of the Lord, and the Lord struck the men of Beth Shemesh, because they did not rejoice over the Ark of the Lord – five thousand and seventy men.

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

241 Isa 25:7

‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ ܬܪ ܐ ܓ‬.‫̈ ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܗ ܐ܇‬ ̈‫ܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬

̣ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܪܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ̣ܒ‬. ܿ ̇ ‫ܐ ܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܇ ܒ‬

‫ܒ‬

On this mountain he handed over all this to the nations, this resolution (concerns) all nations. He will destroy on this mountain the mighty who was mighty over all nations by that veil which is spread over the face of all nations.

Isa 32:3 ‫܆ ܘ ܐ‬

̇ ‫ܕ‬ ‫܆‬

‫ܕ ̇ ܇ ܘܐܕ ̈ ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ‫̈ ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܐܕ ̈ ܘܢ‬.‫ܒ ̈ ܐ‬

‫ܘ ܐ ܬ ̈ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܘܘܢ ܬܘܒ ܬ‬

Then the eyes of those who see will not be closed, and the ears of those who hear. And not again they will trust in people but give their ears to listen.

Contrasting the doublets and expansions with the substantial additions from the Greek, the specific difference between these two types of additions is obvious: While the additions from the Greek contribute to the substantial text of Jacob’s revision, the doublets and expansions can be removed without affecting the comprehension of the text. 4. Approximation of the ‘traditions’ It is the general idea behind Jacob’s revision to approximate the Syriac and the Greek ‘traditions.’ This is what we learn from the new features of Jacob’s definite revision, especially from the introduction of doublets and expansions. They do not simply balance the substitutions, which the Peshitta suffered from the Greek; neither is their purpose refinement of translation technique, but complementary approximation of the Peshitta to the Greek (in Isaiah also disguised as parallelismus membrorum).24 They offer 24 I am well aware of the fact that doublets are a general feature of translation technique in the Septuagint and in the OT Peshitta, see S. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of 1Samuel 158–166; J. Joosten, ‘Doublet Translations in Peshitta Proverbs,’ in P. B. Dirksen, A. van Kooij (Eds.), The Peshitta As a Translation. Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August 1993 [MPIL 8]. Leiden 1995, 63–72. Nevertheless, I am grateful for discussing the phenomenon of doublets in Jacob’s OT revision with Prof. L. van Rompay (Duke University). He kindly directed my attention to the translational doublets in the Homiliae cathedrales, translated (revised) by Jacob in 700/01. The purpose of doublets in this translation (revision) is accuracy in representing all semantic nuances of the Greek word(s) in question and is part of his innovative translation technique, see L. van Rompay,

242

JUCKEL

‘modulations’ of the substantial Greek text, thus involving the Greek without supplementing substantial new information to it. This idea of approximation is not completely absent from the earlier stage of revision, but hardly developed. To put the graeca veritas into a Syriac dress by adoption, correction, and substitution of the Peshitta is the beginning of approximation. However, the characteristic feature of the earlier revision was to keep the Syriac and the Greek ‘traditions’ separate; adoption and substitution (not so much correction) of the Peshitta was the dominating principle of revision. In the definite version of his revision, Jacob gives way to the thorough correction of the Peshitta by the Greek, thus explicitely approximating the ‘traditions’. Approximation of the ‘traditions’ should not be reduced to ‘corrections’ of the Peshitta according to ‘the Greek’. How did Jacob use the Greek ‘traditions’? The evidence is inconclusive.25 The mutual approximation of the Greek textual families themselves might be one reason for this inconclusiveness. It is possible that Jacob used different Vorlagen of the Lucianic and Hexaplaric textual families respectively; it is also possible that he used one Lucianic manuscript only, which contained ‘Les versions syriaques,’ in F. Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode I: Fragments de Sévère d’Antioche [Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 9]. Louvain 1999, 111–208 (esp. 116–119); idem, ‘Les versions syriaques,’ in F. Petit, Sévère d’Antioche. Fragments grecs tirés des chaînes sur les derniers livres des l’Octateuque et sur les Règnes [Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 14]. Louvain 2006. 213–314 ; idem, ‘Jacob of Edessa and the Sixth-Century Translator of Severus of Antioch’s Cathedral Homilies,’ in Bas ter Haar Romeny & K. D. Jenner (eds.), Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day [MPIL]. Leiden (forthcoming). Being part of the translation technique, the doublets in the Homiliae cathedrales are of a different nature than the doublets based on the Peshitta in Jacob’s OT revision. The specific nature of the doublets in Jacob’s OT revision derives from the emphasis of the Peshitta in his revision and is related to the approximation of the ‘traditions.’ This emphasis has nothing to do with translation technique. 25 An important result of R. J. Saley, The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa is the detailed proof of this inconclusiveness. ‘The evidence seemed clearly to point to the utilization by J of a manuscript (or manuscripts) from the Lucianic tradition which, along with the older base, contained some hexaplaric revisions. It was impossible to be precise about the exact extent of these revisions, however, since there was no way of knowing how many of J’s readings showing complete agreement with G derived from SH. In addition, it was noted that the Lucianic influence in J was uneven and fairly conservative, with distinctive GL readings often being absent in J’ (119).

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

243

Hexaplaric (and additional) revisions. Moreover, the Greek is often corrected according to the Peshitta and Jacob himself introduces individual corrections to both ‘traditions’. For practical reason, the approximation of the ‘traditions’ must be given in terms of a Peshitta revision. As the Peshitta is one, and the Greek traditions are many, the Peshitta is the appropriate starting point. The following texts give the evidence for the shift from the earlier to the definite stage of Jacob’s revision. To visualize the approximation of the ‘traditions’ in Jacob’s definite revision, different Syriac fonts and different colours are used. The short comments set out Jacob’s adoption, correction, or substitution of the Peshitta and point to the existence of doublets and expansions.

B. TEXTS FROM ISAIAH In this second part, twenty texts (a total of 80 verses) extant in the earlier as well as in the definite stage of Jacob’s revision are presented side by side. Section I (1–10) will present those texts, which in the earlier stage derive from a substitution of the Peshitta by a new translation of the Greek. It is striking to see how Jacob ‘deteriorates’ his earlier good translation of the Septuagint in favour of the Peshitta. Section II (11–20) presents the texts that in the earlier stage derive from the (modified) adoption of the Peshitta, which deemed Jacob to be in good congruence with the Greek. These texts are much better adjusted to the Greek in the definite version; nevertheless, they show several Peshitta supplementations. From the comparison of the two stages, light sheds on Jacob’s principle to adjust the Peshitta to the Greek as much as necessary, and to adopt the (unrevised) Peshitta as much as possible. On the Isaiah manuscript Add. 14,441 of the British Library, see W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838, vol. 1 (London, 1870/Piscataway, 2003), 39 Isa 28:1–28; 45:7–16; 46:2–49:25 are printed in A. M. Ceriani, Monumenta Sacra et Profana 5,1. Mediolani 1868. From these texts, Isa 46:12–13 is presented below in I; Isa 28:16, 49:14–21 are presented below in II.

244

JUCKEL Sigla

G the Greek text of the OT in general GL the Lucianic family of Greek texts the Greek recension of Origen GO the Greek recension of the Catena magna in prophetas GC single Greek mss (S, B, V) GS,B,V J* the earlier stage of Jacob’s revision (in Ms BL Add. 17,134) the definite stage of Jacob’s revision (in Ms BL Add. 14,441) J+ Pš Peshitta SyrH Syrohexapla SyrL Syro-Lucianic translation Further sigla are given according to Rahlf’s and Ziegler’s editions.

Fonts Estrangela (black): Identical text of Pš and SyrH Estrangela (grey): SyrH Serṭo: Pš East Syriac: doublets and expansions from Pš Underlined text: modification by Jacob (i.e., neither Pš nor SyrH) The Septuagint is quoted according to the Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum; XIV: Isaias, ed. J. Ziegler (1939). The earlier stage of Jacob’s revision (J*) is quoted according to E. W. Brooks, Jacob of Edessa. The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others (PO 6:1 and 7:5; Paris, 1910/1911). The folio numbers refer to Ms BL Add. 17,134.

I Peshitta texts substituted by the Septuagint in the earlier stage of revision Isa 21:3–4; 24:16–20; 24:23–25:1; 25:6–10; 26:9; 26:18–19; 30:18–19; 46:12–13; 57:19–21; 59:11–13 Left col.: Jacob’s translation of the Septuagint, the earlier stage of Jacob’s revision. Right col.: Text of Jacob’s definite revision. For comparative purpose the texts of the Septuagint (Ziegler) and of the Peshitta (Leiden edition) are given in full.

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

245

1) Isa 21:3-4 J*: PO 7:5 p. 744 [332] (fol. 66r)

‫ ܐܬ‬.

J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 14r,3

‫ܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬3 .‫ܕ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬

̇ 3 ‫[ ܕ ܐ‬Pš = ‫ ܙ‬mg ] ̣ ‫ܐ‬ ̇ . mg] ̣ ‫ܘܐ ܪܗܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̇ .‫[ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬Pš = ‫ܐܬܕ‬

LXX and Pš 3 (…) h}di/khsa to\ mh\ a}kou~sai, e}spou/dasa to\ mh\ ble/pein.

.‫ܕ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬

‫ ܘܐܬܕ‬.

a) J* corrects the verbs ‫ܙ‬/ ‫ ܘܐܬܕ‬of Pš to ‫ܐ‬/ bring them in line with h}di/khsa/ e}spou/dasa of G. ‫ܙ‬/ b) J+ corrects Pš, but quotes the corrected Pš verbs ‫( ܐܬ‬e}spou/dasa) of J* by ‫ܪܗܒ‬ margin. J+ replaces from Pš). – to/1] tou~ GLC J+? – to/2] tou~ GOL J+? ******

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܿ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒܐ ܕ‬4 .‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬

. .

‫ܕ ܐ ܐ‬

‫ ܐܬ‬in order to ‫( ܐܬܕ‬sic) in the ‫( ܘܐ‬the ‫ ܘ‬derives

‫ ܘܨܘ̈ܪ ܐ ܐܙ‬.Ͱ͘͵ ͔Ϊ ̣

‫̇ܒ ܐ‬

‫ܙ‬

‫ܬܐ‬ ̣ .‫ܐ‬

4

‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫̣ ̇ ܒ‬

LXX and Pš 4 h{ kardi/a mou plana~tai, kai\ h{ a}nomi/a me bapti/zei, h{ vuch/ mou e}fe/sthken ei}j fo/bon.

.‫ܪܕܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܨܒ‬

‫ ܘ‬.

‫ܐ ܒ ܘܨܘ̈ܪ ܐ ܐܙ‬

a) J* substitutes Pš by an almost literal wording of SyrH (which reads ‫) ܒ ܐ‬. b) J+ combines adoption and substitution of Pš. It adopts Pš at the beginning, although ‫( ̣ ܐ‬perfect tense) is not matching plana~tai (present tense) correctly. ‫ ܘܨܘ̈ܪ ܐ ܐܙ‬are a doublet of h{ kardi/a mou plana~tai. In the The words rest of this vs J+ substitutes Pš by taking over the rendering of J* (the reduction of the idependent possesiv pronoun to the suffix form is a frequent feature in J+).

246

JUCKEL 2) Isa 24:16–20 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 20r,19

J*: PO 7:5 p. 694 [282] (fol. 57v)

. ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ̈ . ܼ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܝ‬ ‫( ܘܐ‬sic) ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ܆‬

̈

16

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܆‬ 16 ‫ܒ ܿ ܕܐܪ ܐ܁ ܐܬܘܬܐ ܼ ܆‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ‬mg ] ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ̇ .ƿDŽ ‫ ܪܐܙܝ‬ƿDŽ ‫ ܪܐܙܝ‬ǠLJ‫[ ܕܐ‬Pš = ‫܇‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܘܢ܆ ܘܝ ̇ ܢ ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ .‫ܐ‬

LXX and Pš 16 (...) Ku/rie o{ qeo\j Israhl, a}po\ tw~n pteru/gwn th~j gh~j te/rata h}kou/samen }Elpi\j t+~ eu}sebei~. kai\ e}rou~sin Ou}ai\ toi~j a}qetou~sin, oi{ a}qetou~ntej to\n no/mon. ̈

.

‫ܐ‬

‫ܿ ܕܐܪ ܐ ܙ ܬܐ‬ ‫ ̈ ܐ‬. ‫̈ ܐ ܐ‬

. ‫ܕ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬ (...) ‫ ܐܘܝ‬. ‫ܪܐܙ‬ ‫ ܪܐܙ‬. ݁ ‫ܐ ܕܙܕ ܐ ܕܐ‬ . ‫ܐ‬

a) J* gives (by error?) toi~j a}sebe/sin for the correct t+~ eu}sebei~. b) J+ modifies Pš in the beginning to bring it in line with the Greek, adopts Pš in the middle, and substitutes Pš at the end. J+ does not follow J* but introduces ̈ is replaced by ̇ ‫ =( ܒ‬pera/twn ? GC ), 2. ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ several changes: 1. ̇ ‫ܕ‬ ) is given, 4. reflects the sg of Pš (‫)ܙ ܬܐ‬, 3. the correct t+~ eu}sebei~ (‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪܐܙܝ‬ ‫ ܕܐ ̇ ܪܐܙܝ‬is introduced from Pš/SyrHmg/GL: kai\ the addition ‫̇ ܢ ܕ‬ ei#pe(n) to\ musth/rio/n mou e}moi\ to\ musth/rio/n mou e}moi/; 5. ); oi{ a}qetou~ntej is rendered by a for toi~j a}qetou~sin improves J* (= af‛el of ‫)ܗ‬. different verb ( ̇ ‫ܕ‬ ******

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

‫ ܕ ܐ ܘܓ‬17 ‫ܢ ܿܗ ܢ ܕ‬ .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬

247

‫̣ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ܁ ܘܓ‬17 ‫ܢ܇ ܿܗ ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܐܬܐ‬ .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

LXX and Pš 17 fo/boj kai\ bo/qunoj kai\ pagi\j e}f’ u{ma~j tou~j e}noikou~ntaj e}pi\ th~j gh~j;

.‫ܪܐ܅ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬

‫܅‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܘ‬

‫ܐ ܘܓ‬

‫ܕ‬

a) For e}noikou~ntaj J* and J+ offer katoikou~ntaj with GS* + mss or oi}kou~ntaj withGL. b) J+ substitutes Pš in the second half by G/SyrH. J+ completely follows J* but deliberately adds ‫( ܐܬܐ‬Ziegler quotes h$xei post e}f’ u{ma~j from the Bohairic version). ******

‫ ܘ ܘܐ ܿܗܘ ܕ ܩ‬18 ‫ ܿܗܘ ܕ ܕ ܩ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܓ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̈ܐ‬ ܿ ̈‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘ ܬܙ‬. ̈ ‫ܐܬ‬ .‫ܕܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܘܩ܁‬Α΅ͻ‫ܘ ܘܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ̇ ̣ ‫ܐ܆‬

18

.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܓ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܕ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ܆‬ ‫ͽ ͚ͣ ܓ‬͸ ΐͿͻ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ͽ͸‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ̈ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܨ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܙܥ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܐܬ‬ ̣ ‫܆‬ .‫ܐ ̈ ܿ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬

LXX and Pš 18 kai\ e!stai o{ feu/gwn to\n fo/bon e}mpesei~tai ei}j to\n bo/qunon, o{ de\ e}kbai/nwn e}k tou~ boqu/nou a{lw/setai u{po\ th~j pagi/doj, o$ti quri/dej e}k tou~ ou}ranou~ h}n+/cqhsan, kai\ seisqh/setai ta\ qeme/lia th~j gh~j.

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܓ‬ .‫ܐ ̈ ̇ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬ ‫܆ ܘܙܥ‬

݁ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܓ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܐܬ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܘ ݁ ܕ ܘܩ‬ .‫ܬ ܒ ܐ‬

a) J* gives a correct translation of G. b) J+ is a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH and includes the expansion ‫ܐ ܕ‬ (Pš). ******

248

JUCKEL

‫ ܬܬܕ ܐܪ ܐ ܘܒ‬19 .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܬ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ ܥ ܬܙܘܥ ܐܪ ܐ܆ ܘ ̣ ܓ‬19 ‫ ܘ ܠ ܬܕܘܠ‬.‫ܬ ̣ ܓ ܐܪ ܐ‬ .͔΄‫ͣܛ ܐܪ‬͸‫ͪ ܬ‬͹͸‫ܐܪ ܐ܆ ܘ‬

LXX, Pš and SyrH 19 tarac*~ taracqh/setai h{ gh~, kai\ a}pori/& a}porhqh/setai h{ gh~;

.‫ܛ ܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ ܘ ܠ ܬܕܘܠ ܐܪ ܐ‬.‫ܥ ܬܙܘܥ ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܬ ܓ ܐܪ ܐ܆ ܘ ܒ ܘ ܬܒ ܪ ܐܪ ܐ܆‬

a) J* gives a good translation of G, although tarac*~ is not explicitly represented. b) J+ totally abandons J* by arranging segments of Pš and G in the sequence Pš–G– Pš–G. Segment 1 is a doublet of tarac*~ taracqh/setai h{ gh~. Segment 3 & 4 derive from Pš; segment 3 is a doublet of the Greek behind segment 4, which is covered by GL: kai\ klinome/n* kliqh/setai h{ gh~. Therefore, the Greek behind J+ reads tarac*~ taracqh/setai h{ gh~, kai\ klinome/n* kliqh/setai h{ gh~. ******

‫ ܬܨ ܐ ܘܬ ܛ ܘܬܙܘܥ‬20 ‫ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܙ ܐ ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ ܘ ܕܪ‬.‫ܕܪܘܐ‬ . ‫ܬ‬

‫ܬ ܕ ܐܪ ܐ܆ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬20 ‫ ܘܬ ܕ‬.‫ܐ ܐ ܕܪܘܐ ܘ ܕܪ‬ ‫ ̣ ܓ‬.‫ܙ ܐ ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫΄ͣܠܗ܆ ܘܬ ܂ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫܀‬ Ή;‫ܬܘ‬

LXX and Pš 20 e!kline kai\ seisqh/setai w{j o}pwrofula/kion h{ gh~ w{j o{ mequ/wn kai\ kraipalw~n kai\ pesei~tai kai\ ou} mh\ du/nhtai a}nasth~nai, kati/scuse ga\r e}p’ au}th~j h{ a}nomi/a.

.̇

̇

‫ ܘ‬.‫ܙ ܐ‬

‫ ܘܬ ܕ ܐ‬.‫ܪܘ ܐ‬

.

‫ܘ ܥ ܬܙܘܥ ܐܪ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܬܘ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

249

a) The Greek behind the beginning of J* is unclear; J* om. kati/scuse ga\r e}p’ au}th~j h{ a}nomi/a. b) J+ gives a correction of Pš according to GOL (om. e!kline!): kai\ sal+~ saleuqh/setai h{ gh~ w{j o{ mequ/wn kai\ kraipalw~n kai\ seisqh/setai w{j o}pwrofula/kion h{ gh~ (= GL cf. Pš); kati/scuse ga\r e}p’ au}th~j h{ a}nomi/a kai\ pesei~tai kai\ ou} mh\ du/nhtai a}nasth~nai (= GO Pš, transposition).

3) Isa 24:23–25:1 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 21r,3

J*: PO 7:5 p. 683 [271] (fol. 55v)

‫ܐ ܒ ܗ ܢ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܡ‬.

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ 23 ‫ܘܒܐܘܪ‬ ‫܆‬ ‫ܒ ܪܐ ܕܨܗ ܢ ܘܒܐܘܪ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ ܡ‬ . ‫ܒ‬ SyrH ‫̈ ܐ‬ mg] ‫ͣܗܝ‬Γͮ͠Ύ ‫=[ ̇ ܒ ܀‬ 23

LXX and Pš 23 (...) o$ti basileu/sei ku/rioj e}n Siwn kai\ e}n Ierousalhm kai\ e}nw/pion tw~n presbute/rwn doxasqh/setai.

‫ܗܝ‬

̈

‫ ܘ ܡ‬.

‫ܪܐ ܕܨܗ ܢ ܘܒܐܘܪ‬

‫ܐ ܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܀‬

a) J* is a correct translation of G and is identical with SyrH. b) J+ is an adoption of Pš (due to a tolerable congruence with G) with the ‫ ܕ‬which derives from G/SyrH. The word ‫ ܒ ܪܐ‬in J+ reflects exception of the variant t+~ o!rei ante Siwn represented by GQmg 88 SyrH, but more likely Pš. (Pš) is an expansion or a doublet of ku/rioj. The word ‫ܐ‬ ******

‫ܐ‬

̇

‫ ܐ ܒ‬. ‫ܐ ܐ ܝ ܐ‬ 1 ‫ ܐܪ‬.Εͻ‫͢ܝ ܐ‬Ξ ̇ ‫ ܕ ܒܬ‬. ‫ܘܐܘܕܐ‬ ‫ʹ܇ ܕ ̣ܒ ܬ‬͹Γ͵ ͖‫܂ ܘܐܘܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܪ ܐ ܪ‬.‫ܬ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ̈ ܐ܇ ܘܬܪ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܬܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫͔܇ ܬܗܘܐ‬Ώͥ‫ͽ ܪܘ‬͸ [ Pš =

‫ܐ‬ 1 ̇ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬mg]

250

JUCKEL

LXX and Pš 1 Ku/rie o{ qeo/j mou, doxa/sw se, u{mnh/sw to\ o!noma/ sou, o$ti e}poi/hsaj qaumasta\ pra/gmata, boulh\n a}rcai/an a}lhqinh/n; ge/noito, ku/rie.

‫ܐ‬

‫ ܕ ܒ ܬ ܕܘ ܐ ܘܬܪ‬.

‫ܘܐܘܕܐ‬

.

‫ ܐܪ‬. ‫ܐ ܐ ܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

a) J* again is a correct translation of G; kai/ ante u{mnh/sw Pš J* J+ SyrH and the Sahidic version. b) J+ gives a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH; a}rcai/an is represented by ‫ ;)ܪ‬and ‫ܬܐ‬ seems to replace ‫ =( ܪܘ ܐ‬Pš; J* gives the literal rendering ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ of Pš. – ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܐܪ‬is a doublet of doxa/sw se.

4) Isa 25:6–10 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 21v,7

J*: PO 7:5 p. 767 [355] (fol. 69v)

‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬

‫ܐ ܨܒܐܘܬ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܗ ܐ܆‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ ܘ ܒ‬6 ‫̈ܐ‬ .‫ܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܪܘܢ‬

‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܐ ܨܒܐܘܬ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܗ ܐ‬ .‫ܘܢ ̣ ܐ‬ .‫ܪܘܢ‬

‫ ܘ ܒ‬6 ‫̈ ܐ܆‬ ‫̣ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܢ‬

LXX and Pš 6 kai\ poih/sei ku/rioj sabawq pa~si toi~j e!qnesin e}pi\ to\ o!roj tou~to. pi/ontai eu}frosu/nhn, pi/ontai oi}non, cri/sontai mu/ron.

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ ܒ ܪܐ ܗ ܐ܆‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬

‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬

The only difference between J* and J+ is the translation of eu}frosu/nhn (‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ in J+ and SyrH). J* and J+ both give an almost complete substitution of Pš by G/SyrH. ******

‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ ܒ ܪܐ ܗ ܐ‬7 .‫ ܬܪ ܐ ܓ ܗܕܐ‬.‫̈ܐ‬ .ܿ ‫̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܗ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ ܒ ܪܐ ܗ ܐ‬7 ‫ ܬܪ ܐ ܓ‬.‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘ ̣ܒ ܒ ܪܐ ܗ ܐ܇‬. ܿ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ܝܗ ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܇ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

251

LXX and Pš 7 e}n t+~ o!rei tou/t+ para/doj tau~ta pa/nta toi~j e!qnesin; h{ ga\r boulh\ au$th e}pi\ pa/nta ta\ e!qnh. ̈

.‫̈ ܐ‬

‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܗܘܐ‬

.‫̈ ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܒ ܪܐ ܗ ܐ܇ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ‬ ̈‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬

a) J* is a correct translation of G. b) J+ completely substitutes Pš by G/SyrH, but adds the whole Pš verse with translational modifications. ******

̇ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܐܬ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ΆͶ͗Εͻ‫ܘ‬ 8 ܼ‫ܒ‬8 ̣ ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ca. 3 ] Α͘΅ͻ‫ ܘ‬. ‫܂‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ )ܕ‬ .‫ܨܘ ܐ‬ [ca. 3–4 words] ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬.[words ܿ .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫( ܐ ܒ‬Ms ex err. ca. ] ρ͸ [ca. 3–4 words] ͢͹΄‫ܕ‬ . ‫ܓ ܕ ܐ‬ . [3–4 words ‫ ܘܬܘܒ‬.

LXX and Pš 8 kate/pien o{ qa/natoj i}scu/saj, kai\ pa/lin a}fei~len o{ qeo\j pa~n da/kruon a}po\ panto\j prosw/pou; to\ o!neidoj tou~ laou~ a}fei~len a}po\ pa/shj th~j gh~j, to\ ga\r sto/ma kuri/ou e}la/lhse.

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬ . ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ‬. .‫̇ ܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܘ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ̈ ‫ܐ‬

a) J* is almost identical with SyrH, but omits ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ (ku/rioj o{ qeo/j = GSO) (= SyrH) to ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ after ‫( ܐ ܒ‬a}fei~len); and changes ‫ܗ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬in J* is scribal error, G: laou~). (‫ܐ‬ b) J+ is much damaged here; the few legible words and the spaces recommend Pš (Pš) are an for supplementation, not G/SyrH. – The words expansion. ******

‫ܐ ܿܗܘ܆ ܗܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܘܢ ܒ‬9 ‫ܒ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ ܿܗܘ ܕ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ‬. ‫ܘܪܘܙ ܗܘ ܒ ܪ‬ . ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ‬

ƲNJ‫ ܘ ܐ ܘܢ ܒ ܐ ܿܗܘ܆ ܗ‬9 ƱDŽ njNjƾǂǍ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܢ ܿܗܘ‬ƱDŽ‫ ܐ‬ƣƽǠLJ ̣ ‫͢ܢ ̇ܗܘ‬Ξ ͔ͮΑ͸ ͣͻ‫ ܗ‬.njǝǠǗNJ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ͖ͦ͠ͻ‫ ͻ͠ܘܨ ̣ ܘ‬. ‫ܗܘ ܒ‬

‫ܕ ̇ܒ‬

.͢ͼΎ‫ͣܪ‬Έ͗

252

JUCKEL

LXX and Pš 9 kai\ e}rou~si t*~ h{me/r& e}kei~n* }Idou\ o{ qeo\j h}mw~n, e}f’ +^ h}lpi/zomen kai\ h}galliw/meqa e}pi\ t*~ swthri/& h{mw~n.

‫ܐ ܐ ܢ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ܆ ܗ‬ . ‫ܘܨ ܘ ܐ ܒ ܪ‬

‫ ܗ‬.

‫ܒ‬ .

‫ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

a) J* is a good translation of G; after swthri/& h{mw~n ( ‫ ])ܒ ܪ‬+ ou^toj ku/rioj u{pemei/namen au}t+~ (vel a}uto\n) kai\ eu}franqhso/meqa (cf Pš and GLO). b) J+ gives a modified adoption of Pš and arranges segments from Pš and G in the sequence Pš–G–Pš–G. The whole construction is roughly covered by the Greek. ‫ ܕ‬... ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܗ‬is reflected by GO (after h}lpi/zomen!): kai\ sw/sei The text (Pš) h{ma~j ou^toj ku/rioj u}pomei/namen au}t+~ (vel au}to/n); the text ‫ܘܨ ܘ ܐ‬ ̣ is reflected by GL: h}galliw/meqa] h}galliasw/meqa kai\ eu}franqhso/meqa and by GAO: h}galliw/meqa] + kai\ eu}franqhso/meqa – o{ qeo/j] ku/rioj o{ qeo/j J+ GS. – h{mw~n2] au}tou~ J+ Pš. ******

‫ܪܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܠܐ‬

10

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܠ ܐ‬

.‫ܗ ܐ‬ LXX and Pš 10 o$ti a}na/pausin dw/sei o{ qeo\j e}pi\ to\ o!roj tou~to.

.‫ܪܐ ܗ ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܒ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬ρ͸ 10 ‫ܪܐ ܗ ܐ܆‬

‫ܐ ܗ ܕ‬

‫ܕܬܬ‬

a) o$ti] om. J* GOL. b) J+ gives a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH; J+ follows J* but adds o$ti ) from Pš (G). (‫ܕ‬

5) Isa 26:9 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 22v,17

J*: PO 6:1 p. 124 (fol. 28r)

‫ܬܟ‬ ‫ܐ ܪܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܗܪܐ ܐ ܢ‬ .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬

9

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆‬ ̈

‫ܐ‬

̇ ‫ ܘܐܦ‬.͔ͯι͗ ʹ͵ Ε͓͗ͮ‫ܐܬ‬ ̣ ͰΓΈͻ 9 ‫ܐ ܬܟ‬ ‫ܪܘͥͰ ͗͛ͣܝ‬ ‫ܕ ܗܪܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆‬ ̈ .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ʹͯͼͮ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

253

LXX and Pš 9 *^ e}piqumei~ h{ vuch\ h{mw~n. e}k nukto\j o}rqri/zei to\ pneu~ma/ mou pro\j se/, o{ qeo/j, dio/ti fw~j ta\ prosta/gmata/ sou e}pi\ th~j gh~j.

‫ܕܐ‬

.‫ܬܟ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒܓ ܝ‬

‫ ܘܐܦ ܪܘ‬.‫ܒ ܐ‬

‫ܐܬܐܘܐܒ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ܆‬

̈‫ܕ‬

a) J* starts with e}k nukto/j and is a good translation of G. b) J+ gives a corrected adoption of Pš, which includes mou (= Pš J+ GC ) for h{mw~n.

6) Isa 26:18–19 J*: PO 7:5 p. 700 [288] (fol. 58v)

‫ܢ ܿܗ ܢ‬

‫ܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬

J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 23v,6

‫ ܐ‬18 ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ ܐ ܐ‬. .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬

LXX and Pš 18 (...) a}lla\ pesou~ntai oi{ e}noikou~ntej e}pi\ th~j gh~j.

‫̈ܪ ̇ ܕܬܒ‬

̣

̇ ‫ ܐ‬18 ̇ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ܕ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫ܘ ܐ‬

J+ follows J* almost completely in substituting Pš by a fresh translation of the Greek. – a}lla/] ou} pesou/meqa a}lla/ J* J+ GScLC (cf Pš). ******

254

JUCKEL

‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ ̈ ܐ ܘ‬ 19 ‫ ܘ ܘܢ ܼܗ ܢ‬.‫ܿܗ ܢ ܕܒ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܓ ܿܗܘ ܕ‬ .‫ܕܒܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܟ܆ ܐ ܬܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ . ‫ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܕ̈ܪ ܐ ܬ‬.‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܢ ̈ ܐ܆ ܘ‬ 19 ‫ܘܢ‬Αͯ΄‫ܬ‬Εͻ‫ ܘ‬.‫̇ܗ ܢ ܕܒ ܒ ܐ‬ ̈ .͖ΑΈ΄ Ͱ͘ͳΒ ‫͢ܘܢ‬ΰ ‫ͦͣ͘ܢ‬Γͻ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܬܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܓ‬ ‫ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ . ‫̣ܐ ܬ‬ ‫ܕ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܢ‬

LXX and Pš 19 a}nasth/sontai oi{ nekroi/, kai\ e}gerqh/sontai oi{ e}n toi~j mnhmei/oij, kai\ eu}franqh/sontai oi{ e}n t*~ g*~; h{ ga\r dro/soj h{ para\ sou~ i!ama au}toi~j e}stin, h{ de\ gh~ tw~n a}sebw~n pesei~tai.

.‫ܐ‬

‫̈ܒ‬

̈ ‫ ܘ ܬ ܘܢ ܘ ܒ ܢ‬. ̈ ‫ܘ ̈ ܘܢ‬ . ‫ ܘܐܪ ܐ ܕܓ ܒ ܐ ܬ‬.‫ܐ ܗܘ ܕ ܗܪܐ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫ܕ‬

a) J* is a correct translation of G. b) J+ follows J* in substituting Pš by G/SyrH; but for kai\ eu}franqh/sontai oi{ ) without being congruent with G. e}n t*~ g*~ Pš is adopted (+ ‫ܘܢ‬

7) Isa 30:18–19 J*: PO 7:5 p. 768 [356] (fol. 69v)

‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܘܒ‬18 ‫ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ] ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܬܪ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܕܕ ܐ‬ [MS Ms ‫ ܘܐ ܐ )ܘܐ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫( ܒ ܩ‬ex err. ܿ ‫ܘܢ ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ . ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 32r,21

̇ ‫ ܘܬܘܒ‬18 ‫͖ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ΑΓͻ ͺͮ‫ܬܪ‬Εͻ ‫ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ܇ ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܕ ܐ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܢ܆ ܘܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܬ ̣ܒ ܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ̇ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ ̇ .͢͵ ͽͯͳͿ͸‫ܕ‬ ‫ܣ‬

LXX and Pš 18 kai\ pa/lin menei~ o{ qeo\j tou~ oi}ktirh~sai u{ma~j kai\ dia\ tou~to u{vwqh/setai tou~ e}leh~sai u{ma~j; dio/ti krith\j ku/rioj o{ qeo\j h{mw~n e}sti, kai\ pou~ katalei/vete th\n do/xan u}mw~n? maka/rioi oi{ e}mme/nontej e}n au}t+~.

.‫ܢ‬

.

‫ܢ܆ ܘ ܬܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܗܘ ܕ ̇ ܐ‬

a) J* is a good translation of G, but katalei/vete] katalei/vei J*.

‫ܕܐ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

255

b) J+ is a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH. Compared with J* there are translational changes; ‫ ̇ ܐ‬derives from Pš. Common readings with J*: maka/rioi] + pa/ntej (cf Pš) J* J+ GALC – oi{ e}mme/nontej e}n au}t+~] oi{ u{pome/nontej au}to/n Pš J* J+ GL. ******

‫ܐ‬

19

‫ܕ ܐ‬ .‫ܘܢ ܿ ܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

LXX and Pš 19 dio/ti lao\j a$gioj e}n Siwn oi}kh/sei.

.‫̇ ܒ‬

‫ܐ‬ .

19

‫ܕ‬

‫ܒ ܗ ܢ‬

‫ܐ ܒ ܗ ܢ‬

‫ܕ‬

J+ gives a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH and a better translation of ) than J* (= Pš). oi}kh/sei (

8) Isa 46:12–13 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 43v,19

J*: PO 7:5 p. 715 [303] (fol. 60v)

12 ‫ܕܐܘܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܿܗ ܢ ܕܐܒ ܘ ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܿܗ ܢ ܕ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܕ ܘܢ‬ .‫ܙܕ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫̇ܗ ܢ‬ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ܕܪ‬

12

‫ܒ ܘܢ܇‬ .‫ܙܕ ܬܐ‬

LXX and Pš 12 a}kou/sate/ mou, oi{ a}polwleko/tej th\n kardi/an oi{ makra\n a}po\ th~j dikaiosu/nhj.

.‫ܬܐ‬

‫ܙܕ‬

‫ܒܐ܅ ̈ܪ‬

̈

J* is more explicit in translating G than J+; both give a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH. – th\n kardi/an] + au}tw~n J* J+ SyrL. ******

‫ܕ ܬܐ ܕ‬ . ‫ܐ ܐ ܘ‬

13

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܪ‬

‫܀‬

‫ܘ‬

.͕‫͓ܬ‬͹͵ ‫ͣܬܝ‬Ώͮ‫ ̣ ܒ ̇ ܙܕ‬13 ‫ܘ ܪ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ̣ ܐ‬

LXX and Pš 13 h!ggisa th\n dikaiosu/nhn mou kai\ th\n swthri/an th\n par’ e}mou~ ou} bradunw~.

.

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܬܐ ܘ ܪ‬

‫ܬܝ‬

‫ܙܕ‬

‫ܒ‬

256

JUCKEL

a) J* is a good translation of G (although th\n par’ e}mou~ is rendered by a suffix only). b) J+ is a modified adoption of Pš; the (unattested) Greek would read: h!ggisa ... bradunw~] h!ggisen h{ dikaiosu/nh mou kai\ h{ swthri/a h{ par’ e}mou~ ou} bradunei~ Pš J+ SyrL.

9) Isa 57:19–21 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 52v,18

J*: PO 7:5 p. 710 [298] (fol. 60r)

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܐ ܐ‬

‫͔܁‬Ώͯͥυ͵ ̇ ‫͔܁‬͹ͶΒܿ ͔͹ͶΒ 19 .‫͔ͮ ܘܐ;͔ ܐͻͣܢ‬Α͸ Α͸‫͔ͮ͘ ܐ‬υΏ͵‫ܘ‬ ̣

‫ܐ‬ 19 ܿ ‫ܘ ܒܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ ܢ‬

LXX and Pš 19 ei}rh/nhn e}p’ ei}rh/nhn toi~j makrh\n kai\ toi~j e}ggu\j ou#si; kai\ ei#pe ku/rioj }Ia/somai au}tou/j.

̇ ‫ܒܐ ܐ‬

.‫ܐ ܘܐ ܐ ܐ ܢ‬

‫ܐ ܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

Pš, J* and J+ are identical and congruent with G.

.‫ܓ ܢ‬

‫ܗ ܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ ܕ‬

******

20

ʹͮ‫ܓ ܢ܁ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬20 ̇ ̈ njƾǂǖ‫ܢ܆ ܕܗ‬ƲƵDŽ‫ܕ‬ǤNJ ƣLjƽ ƣǢƴ‫ ܪ‬ǫƲLJ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̣ܬ‬ ‫܆ ܘ‬ƣNjƾǍ‫ܘ‬

LXX and Pš 20 oi{ de\ a!dikoi ou$twj kludwnisqh/sontai kai\ a}napau/sasqai ou} dunh/sontai. ̇

‫̈ ܗܝ ܪ ܐ‬

‫ ܘܗ‬.

‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

.

‫ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ̈ܪ ܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܘ ܐ‬

a) J* leaves out (obviously by error) the second half of this verse. b) J+ produces a textual arrangement G–Pš–G. The element drawn from Pš is roughly covered by GL (but in a different order): a!dikoi] + w{j qa/lassa a}nabrassome/nh and dunh/sontai] + o$ti a}poba/lletai to\ u$dwr au}th~j katapa/thma kai\ phlo/n. – ou$twj] om. J+ GO SyrH. ******

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬

̇‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ ܐ ܐ‬21 ܿ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬

257

͔͹ͶΒ

21

.‫ܐ‬

LXX and Pš 21 ou}k e!sti cai/rein toi~j a}sebe/sin, ei#pe ku/rioj o{ qeo/j.

.‫ܝ‬

‫ܐ‬

̇‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

a) J* is a good translation of G, but ei#pen] le/gei J* J+ mss. b) J+ is almost completely adopting Pš due to its congruence with G; ku/rioj] om. Pš J+ GOL.

10) Isa 59:11–13 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 55v,13

J*: PO 7:5 p. 699 [287] (fol. 58r)

‫ܐ ܘ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ . ‫ܘ ܐ ܐܬܪ‬

11 ‫ܪ ̣ܐ‬

‫ ܘ‬.

.‫ܪ ܐ‬

‫̣ ܐ܂ ܘ‬ .

̇ 11 ‫ܘܐܬܪ‬

LXX and Pš 11 (...) a}nemei/namen kri/sin kai\ ou}k e!stin; swthri/a makra\n a}fe/sthken a}f’ h{mw~n

.

‫ܪ ܐ ܘܐܬܪ‬

‫ ܘ‬.

‫ܐ ܘ‬

̇

a) J* is a good translation of G. b) J+ adopts Pš because of its congruence with G; the Greek makra/n has no explicit representation. ******

‫ܐ‬

‫ܓ ܐܐ ܓ‬ . ‫ܬܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܒ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܕ‬ . ‫̈ܢ ܓ ܒ ܐ‬ . ‫ܬܢ‬

12

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ͯʹ܆‬͸͠Ύ ͽ͵ͣ΄ ̣ Ͱ͛;‫ ܕ‬ρ͸ 12 ̈ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̣ ‫̈ ܬܐ ܓ ܕ ܒ ܆‬ .‫ܘ ̣ ̈ ܂ ͮͮ͠΅ͯͽ ܐͻͣܢ‬

258

JUCKEL

LXX and Pš 12 pollh\ ga\r h{mw~n h{ a}nomi/a e}nanti/on sou, kai\ ai{ a{marti/ai h{mw~n a}nte/sthsan h{mi~n; ai{ ga\r a}nomi/ai h{mw~n e}n h{mi~n, kai\ ta\ a}dikh/mata h{mw~n e!gnwmen.

̈

‫ ܘ‬.‫ܗܘ‬

‫ܕ‬

.‫ܕܘܢ‬

̈

‫܆ ܘ‬

‫ܕ ܓ‬ .‫ܐ ܢ‬

a) J* is a good translation of G; but a}dikh/mata] a}di/khma J*. b) J+ adopts Pš at the beginning and at the end of the verse due to the congruence witgh G. ******

‫ܘܐܪ‬

‫ܘܕܓ‬ .‫ܐ‬

‫ ܐܪ‬13 ‫͔ͮ܆‬Α͹͗ ‫܁ ܘܕܓ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܗ ܕ‬ .‫ܒ ܪ ܐ ܢ‬

13

‫ܐܪ‬

‫ܘܐܪ‬

LXX and Pš 13 h}sebh/samen kai\ e}veusa/meqa kai\ a}pe/sthmen a}po\ o!pisqen tou~ qeou~ h{mw~n.

.‫ܒ ܪܗ ܕܐ ܢ‬

‫ ܘܗ‬.‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܘܕܓ‬

‫ܐ‬

a) J* is a good translation of G, but replaces tou~ qeou~ h{mw~n by tou~ kuri/ou. b) J+ substitutes Pš by G/SyrH, but is influenced by Pš; e}veusa/meqa] + e}n kuri/+ Pš J+ GVL.

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

259

II. Peshitta texts adopted (and sometimes modified) in the earlier stage of revision Isa 12:2–3; 14:3–15; 28:16; 29:13–14; 32:1–6; 49:14–18, 18–21; 58:1–2; 61:3–8; 62:1–4 Left col.: The earlier stage of Jacob’s revision; with few exceptions (in grey) identical with Pš. Right col.: Text of Jacob’s definite revision.

11) Isa 12:2–3 J*: PO 6:1 p. 63 (fol. 14v)

J+: BL Add 14,441 fol. 4r,1

‫ܐ ܐ ܘ ܬ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬2 ‫ܕܬܘ‬ .‫ܐ ܐ ܘ ܐ ܐܙܘܥ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘܐ‬.‫ܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ‬ .‫ܪ ܐ‬

‫ܘܙܒ < ܒ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬... > 2 ‫Ͱ܁‬ΈΎ‫ܕܬܘ‬ . ‫ܘ ܐ ܐܕ‬ ͕‫ͣ͗ͦͰ ܐ ܗܘ܆ ܘͻ͢ܘ‬Β‫ܘ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ܆‬

LXX

2 i}dou\ o{ qeo/j mou swth/r mou ku/rioj, pepoiqw\j e!somai e}p’ au}t+~ kai\ ou} fobhqh/somai, dio/ti h{ do/xa mou kai\ h{ ai!nesi/j mou ku/rioj kai\ e}ge/neto/ moi ei}j swthri/an. J+ corrects Pš in vs 2a by adopting G/SyrH; in vs 2b J+ follows Pš in spite of the transposition of do/xa and ai!nesij and the rendering of e}ge/neto by the imperf. ‫ ܘܐ‬. – e}p’ au}t+~] + kai\ swqh/somai e}n au}t+~ J+ GSQBc (vel u{p’ au}tou~ GL). ******

‫ ܘܬ ܢ ̈ ܐ ܒ ܘܬܐ‬3 .‫ܒ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܐ‬

‫ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܕ ܢ ̈ ܐ ܒ‬3 ̣ .‫ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܐ‬

LXX

3 kai\ a}ntlh/sete u$dwr met’ eu}frosu/nhj e}k tw~n phgw~n tou~ swthri/ou. At the beginning J+ corrects Pš according to G/SyrH and adds syome to ‫ܐ‬ accordance with e}k tw~n phgw~n.

‫ ܒ‬in

260

JUCKEL 12) Isa 14:3–15

Isa 14:10–12 without deviation from J* below is in PO 6:1 p. 101 (fol. 23r) J+: BL Add 14,441 fol. 5v, 1

J*: PO 7:5 p. 599 [187] (fol. 40r)

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘܐ ܒ‬3 ‫ܬܟ ܘ ܪܘܓ ܟ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ ܬ܆‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬

‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ܆‬

‫ ܘ ܘܐ ܒ‬3 ‫ͮͣܬܟ܇ ܘ‬ΑͲ ‫ܐ ܐ ܟ‬ ‫͔ͯ ̇ܗܘ‬ΓΎ ͖͘͠΄ͣΒ ‫ܪܘ͚ͤܟ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ܀‬ ‫̣ܒ ܬ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬

LXX 3 kai\ e!stai e}n t*~ h{me/r& e}kei/n* a}napau/sei se o{ qeo\j e}k th~j o}du/nhj kai\ tou~ qumou~ sou kai\ th~j doulei/aj th~j sklhra~j, h^j e}dou/leusaj au}toi~j. J+ introduces corrections to Pš; o{ qeo/j] ku/rioj o{ qeo/j sou (‫ ) ܐ ܐ ܟ‬only in SyrH. – The adopted Pš-text is in congruence with G. – e}k th~j o}du/nhj] + sou Pš J* J+ GScaL ******

‫ܐ ܗܐ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ ܬ‬4 ‫ ܐ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܕܒܒ ܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬

mg ] ‫ܐܘ ܐ ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬4 ̇ ‫ܐ‬ [Pš = ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬

‫ܕܒܒ ܘܬܐ ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ܆‬ ρ͗‫ܘ‬ ̣ ‫ ܬܒ ܐ‬ρ̣͗ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬

LXX 4 kai\ lh/mv* to\n qrh~non tou~ton e}pi\ to\n basile/a Babulw~noj kai\ e}rei~j e}n t*~ h{me/r& e}kei/n* Pw~j a}nape/pautai o{ a}paitw~n kai\ a}nape/pautai o{ e}pispoudasth/j? J+ heavily corrects Pš to bring it in better line with G. – e}n t*~ h{me/r& e}kei/n* ‫ ])ܒ‬om. Pš J* GBO sub obel. (‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬ ******

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܪ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܇‬

‫ ܬܒ‬5 ‫ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬

261

‫ܐ ܐ ܕܪ‬ ‫ܬܒ‬ ̣ 5 ‫ܐ܇‬ ‫ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬

LXX 5 sune/triven o{ qeo\j to\n zugo\n tw~n a{martwlw~n, to\n zugo\n tw~n a}rco/ntwn. J+ almost completely adopts Pš, which is congruent with G; the only better translation of to\n zugo/n (‫ = ܐ‬G). – o{ qeo/j] ku/rioj (‫ܐ‬ SyrH GOLC – tw~n a{martwlw~n] J+ retains the singular ‫ ܕܪ ܐ‬of Pš – tw~n a}rco/ntwn] J+ follows Pš, which is incongruent with G (SyrH: ‫ܐ‬

change is a ) Pš J* J+ to\n zugo\n ‫) ܐ ܕ̈ܪ‬.

******

‫̈ ܐ ܒ ܐܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ ܗܘܐ‬6 ̇ ‫ ܘܪܕܐ ܗܘܐ‬.‫ܬܐ ܕ ܐ ܕܘ‬ ̇ ‫̈ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܪܕܦ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܓ ܐ‬ . ‫ܕ ܐ‬

‫͔ ܒ‬͹̈͹΄‫͔ͦ ܗܘ͕ ܠ‬͸‫ܕ‬ ̣ 6 ̇ ͕‫ܬܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܇ ܘܪܕ͖ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܓ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕ ܐ܇‬ ‫ܘܢ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܪܕܦ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

.ͽ;ͣͥ

LXX 6 pata/xaj e!qnoj qum+~ plhg*~ a}nia/t+, pai/wn e!qnoj plhgh\n qumou~, h% ou}k e}fei/sato. On the lexical level J+ corrects Pš according to G/SyrH; the words ‫( ܒ ܘܓ ܐ‬Pš) ‫( ܘܪܕܦ ܗܘܐ‬Pš) are expansions without Greek correspondence. and ‫ܘܢ‬ ******

.‫̇ ܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܘ‬ .‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ ܐܬܬ‬7 ‫ܘܕܨܬ ܒ‬

‫̇ ܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܒ ܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

̇ ̇ ǤƾDžǡ‫ܘ‬ ̣ 7 ̣ Εͦͯͻ‫ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܆‬ .‫ܘܬܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

262

JUCKEL

LXX 7 a}nepau/sato pepoiqw/j. pa~sa h{ gh~ bo&~ met’ eu}frosu/nhj,

‫ܐܬܬ‬. Neither Pš nor J+ give a According to J+ vs 7 starts with a}nepau/sato/ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̇ ܐܪ ܐ‬ . ‫ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܬ‬ satisfactory translation; SyrH does ( ‫) ܘܬܐ‬, but is not adopted in full. Probably the inclusion of the doublets from Pš ‫ܘ‬/‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܒ‬are doublets of caused the odd structure of J+. The words a}nepau/sato/met’ eu}frosu/nhj. ******

‫ ܐܦ ܒ ܘܬܐ ܘܐ̈ܪܙܐ ܕ ܒ‬8 ‫ܙܒ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܆‬ . .

‫ܐ‬

Ƥ‫ܙ‬ǯ‫ ܘ ̈ ܐ܁ ܘܐܦ ܐ‬Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ǠƦ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ‫܆‬ ̣

̇‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܆ ܐ‬ .

8

‫ܕܒ ܁‬ ‫ͽ ܙ͗ͼ͔ ܕܐ‬͸ ̇ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕ‬

LXX 8 kai\ ta\ xu/la tou~ Liba/nou hu}fra/nqhsan e}pi\ soi\ kai\ h{ ke/droj tou~ Liba/nou }Af’ ou^ su\ kekoi/mhsai, ou}k a}ne/bh o{ ko/ptwn h{ma~j. a) J* introduces minor changes into Pš; only ‫ ܐܦ‬is a Pš variant. b) J+ gives a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH. To introduce the direct speech ‫ܐ‬ which reflects the addition e}rou~si of GL after of the cedars, J+ adds L kai\ h{ ke/droj (G ai{ ke/droi) tou~ Liba/nou. – The words ‫( ܘܐܦ ܒ ܘܬܐ‬Pš) are an expansion, the words ‫( ܘܐܦ ܐ̈ܪܙܐ‬Pš ) a doublet of ta\ xu/la. ******

‫ܬ‬

‫̈ܐ‬

‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬ‬. ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬

‫ܠ‬

9

‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܓ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܪ ܐ ܕܐ‬ .‫̈ܪ ܬܗܘܢ‬ .‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫̇ܬ‬ ̣ ‫̣ ܐܬ‬ ̇ . ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫̣ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܠ‬

‫ܒ‬

9

‫ܐ ̣ ̇ܬ‬ ̈ ͔΄‫ͯͩͼ͔ ܕܐܪ‬ͶΒ ‫͢ܘܢ‬ΰ .‫ܓ ܒ ܐ‬ ͽ͸ Ε͹ͯΎ‫ܕܐ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫܇ ̇ܗ ܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ .‫;ͣܬܗܘܢ‬τͣͲ ‫̈ ܐ܁‬ ‫ܕ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

263

LXX 9 o{ &$dhj ka/twqen e}pikra/nqh sunanth/saj soi, sunhge/rqhsa/n soi pa/ntej oi{ gi/gantej oi{ a!rxantej th~j gh~j oi{ e}gei/rantej e}k tw~n qro/nwn au}tw~n pa/ntaj basilei~j e}qnw~n. J+ adopts Pš with few lexical modifications according to G/SyrH. The whole construction is not traceable in Greek and seems to be influenced by Jacob, ), and although it reflects elements of GL: gi/gantaj pa/ntaj (‫ܘܢ ܓ ܒ ܐ‬ ). – The words ‫ܒ‬ (Pš) are an die/geiran kata/ sou ( expansion. ******

‫ ܐܦ‬. ‫ܢ ܘ ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܬ ܗܬ ܐ ܬܢ ܘ ܬܢ‬ ‫܆‬

10

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫܆ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕܐܦ‬ ‫ܒ ܇‬

‫ ͻ΅ͼͣܢ܁ ܘ ܐ‬10 ‫ܐ ܐܬܬ ̣ ܬ‬ ̣ ‫܆ ܘܒ ܐܬ‬

10 pa/ntej a}pokriqh/sontai kai\ e}rou~si/ soi Kai\ su\ e{a/lwj w$sper kai\ h{mei~j, e}n h{mi~n de\ katelogi/sqhj. For pa/ntej a}pokriqh/sontai J+ adopts the free rendering of Pš (‫ ;) ܢ‬for e{a/lwj and the rest of the verse J+ gives a precise translation (SyrH: ‫)ܐܬܬܨ ܬ‬. – de/] om Pš J+ SyrH + mss. The ‫ ܘ‬ante ‫ ܒ‬probably derives from Pš. ******

‫ܐ‬

‫ܠ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܬܬ‬

‫ ܘܐ ܟ‬11 ‫ܟ܆ ܬ ܬ‬ .‫ܬܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬

‫ܟ‬ ‫ܠ ܬ ܒ‬ ‫ ̣ ̇ܬ‬11 ‫ܓ ܐܐ܆‬ ‫ܟ܆ ܘܒ‬ǠǞƽ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܬܬ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬ‬ . ‫ܟ‬ǠNjǁ ǤƾLJ‫ܘ‬ ̣ ̣ ʹͯͿͲ‫ܬܐ܆ ܘܬ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܪ‬ .‫ܬܘ ܐ‬

LXX 11 kate/bh de\ ei}j &$dou h{ do/xa sou, h{ pollh/ sou eu}frosu/nh; u{poka/tw sou strw/sousi sh~vin, kai\ to\ kataka/lumma/ sou skw/lhx. In the first half of this verse J+ substitutes Pš by G/SyrH; in the second half Pš is ‫ܘ‬/‫ܪ ܐ ܘ‬ congruent with G. – Pš is retained by the words ‫ܘܐ ܟ‬/‫ܟ‬ which are doublets of h{ do/xa sou/h{ pollh/ sou eu}frosu/nh/sh~vin. – J+ SyrH GBQL om. de/ post kate/bh – kai/ ante h{2 J+ GLC + mss. ******

264

JUCKEL

.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ ܐ‬12 .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܅ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬12 ̇ . ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܓ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕܒ‬ ‫ ܒܐܪ ܐ‬džǗNJ‫ܘ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܐ܇ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ܪ ܗܘܐ ܘ‬ .‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬ‬

LXX 12 pw~j e}xe/pesen e}k tou~ ou}ranou~ o{ e{wsfo/roj o{ prwi\ a}nate/llwn; sunetri/bh ei}j th\n gh~n o{ a}poste/llwn pro\j pa/nta ta\ e!qnh. J+ almost completely substitutes Pš by G/SyrH, but introduces a Peshitta doublet ). – o{ a}poste/llwn ( ‫ )ܘ‬of sunetri/bh and an expansion from Pš (‫ܐ‬ pro\j pa/nta ta\ e!qnh J+ deliberately expands by ‫ ܗܘܐ‬and ̇ ‫ܘ‬ ******

‫ ܐ ܐ ܬ ܒ ܒ ܕܐ‬13 ‫͘ʹ܆‬Ͷ͗ ‫ ܐ ܕ ܐ ̣ ܬ‬13 ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬܒ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬܒ‬.Ͱ;‫Ͳͣܪ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܒ ܪܐ ܕܒ‬ .‫ܓ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܪܐ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ .͔͸τ ͖τͣͩ͗ ‫̇ܗ ܢ ܕ ܬ ܓ ܒ ܐ܆‬ LXX 13 su\ de\ ei#paj e}n t*~ dianoi/& sou Ei}j to\n ou}rano\n a}nabh/somai, e}pa/nw tw~n a!strwn tou~ qeou~ qh/sw to\n qro/non mou, kaqiw~ e}n o!rei u{vhl+~ e}pi\ ta\ o!rh ta\ u{vhla\ ta\ pro\j borra~n.

‫ ܕܐ‬is a Pš variant. a) J* introduces minor changes into Pš, only b) J+ corrects Pš according to G/SyrH, but retains the plural ‫( ܒ ̈ܪܐ ̈ܪ ܐ‬Pš) for the singular e}n o!rei u{vhl+~. – dianoi/&] kardi/& Pš J+ GSC – tw~n a!strwn tou~ ‫( ܐ‬qh/sw) is qeou~ Cyprianus, Tyconius] tw~n a!. t. ou}ranou~ J+ SyrH G. – taken over from J* (Pš ‫)ܐܪ‬.

‫̈ܐ‬

******

‫ܪܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ܆‬

‫ ܘܐ‬14 ‫ܕ ̈ܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܐܬܕ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬

‫ܪܘ ܐ‬

̇ 14 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܗܘܐ ܕ ̇ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

265

LXX 14 a}nabh/somai e}pa/nw tw~n nefelw~n, e!somai o$moioj t+~ u{vi/st+. J+ substitutes Pš by G/SyrH, but introduces the expansion ‫ ܪܘ ܐ ܕ‬from it. – kai/ ante e!somai in minuscule 22c, but in J+ rather from Pš. – vss 13–14 are quoted in Jacob’s commentary on the Hexaemeron (ed. J.-B. Chabot in CSCO 92 p. 13 col. B); in vs 14 the expansion ‫ ܪܘ ܐ ܕ‬is omitted. ******

‫ܬ‬

‫ܠ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬15 .‫ܘ ܐ ܗ ܕܓ ܒܐ‬

‫ܬ܆‬

‫ ܗ ܐ ܕ‬15

‫ܠ ܬ‬

‫ܗ ܕ͚͔ͣ͗܇‬ΕΒΖ‫ܘ‬

LXX 15 nu~n de\ ei}j &$dou katabh/s* kai\ ei}j ta\ qeme/lia th~j gh~j. a) J* introduces a minor (unsupported) change into Pš. b) With the exception of the beginning, J+ adopts Pš.

13) Isa 28:16 J*: PO 7:5 p. 662 [250] (fol. 52v)

J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 26v,6

‫ܐܐ ܒ ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬16 ‫ ܐ ܐ ܒ ܬܐ ܒ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܪ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܬܐ‬ . ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܕ ܐ ܐ‬

‫ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ ܪ ̇ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬16 ‫ܒ ܐ ̈ ̇ ܕܨܗ ܢ܆ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܓܒ ܐ܁ ܪ‬.‫ܓ ܐܬ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܒ ܐ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܁‬ ‫ܓ‬ ̣ Ζ ‫ܒ̇܂‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܐ ܕ‬. ̇ ‫ܕ‬ = ‫ ܒ ܬ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬mg] ͷͥ͠ͻ .[‫؟‬

LXX 16 }Idou\ e}gw\ e}mbalw~ ei}j ta\ qeme/lia Siwn li/qon polutelh~ e}klekto\n a}krogwniai~on e!ntimon ei}j ta\ qeme/lia au}th~j, kai\ o{ pisteu/wn e}p’ au}t+~ ou} mh\ kataiscunq*~.

‫ ܐ‬at the end, J+ completely substitutes Pš by With the exception of G/SyrH. The origin of the marginal reading remains open (SyrH: ‫– ) ܐ ܒ ܬ‬ e}mbalw~] e}mba/llw J+ GBL SyrH SyrL

266

JUCKEL 14) Isa 29:13–14

J*: PO 7:5 p. 742 [330] (fol. 65v)

‫ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܒ ̈ ܬܗ‬ ‫܆ ܘܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬13 ‫ܐ ܗܐ ܒ‬ ‫܆ ܘܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܕ ܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܒ‬

J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 29r,20

.‫ܐ‬

.

.

‫ ܕ‬.‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬13 ‫͢܆‬͸ͣΈ͗ ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܒ ̈ ܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫̇ ܪܐ ܪ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܢ ܕ‬

̣ ̣κ͠ΎͣΈ͗ ‫ͼͰ܆‬͸ ‫ܗܘܢ‬ΕͶͥ‫ܘܗܘܬ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ mg] ͔Γͻ‫ͼ͔ ܕܐ‬Έ͵ͣͯ͗‫ܘ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬

̇

̇‫ܕ‬ .[SyrH =‫̈ ܐ ܕܒ ̈ ܐ‬ .

‫ܕ‬

LXX 13 kai\ ei#pe ku/rioj }Eggi/zei moi o{ lao\j ou^toj, toi~j cei/lesin au}tw~n timw~si/ me, h{ de\ kardi/a au}tw~n po/rrw a}pe/cei a}p’ e}mou~; ma/thn de\ se/bontai/ me dida/skontej e}nta/lmata a}nqrw/pwn kai\ didaskali/aj. In the first half of this verse J+ corrects Pš according to G/SyrH; in the second half (ma/thn ... didaskali/aj) J+ adopts Pš – ou^toj] + (e}n) t+~ sto/mati kai\ e}n Pš J* J+ GOL. ******

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

‫ܗܐ‬ 14 ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܒ ܕ ܪܬܐ ܘܒ ܘ ܐ܆ ܘܬܐܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܗܝ܆ ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ . ‫ܗܝ ܓ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬

267

κ‫ ܐ‬Ή;ͣ͸ ‫ܗܕܐ܁ ܗܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ܆‬

̇

‫ܐ‬

̈

14

̇ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐܘܒ‬.‫ܘܒ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬ΗͲͣ;‫ܕ ̈ ܗܝ܆ ܘ‬ ̇ (cf. 1Cor 1:20) ‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܕ‬ ̣

̣ ‫ܗܝ‬

‫̣ܫܘ‬

LXX 14 dia\ tou~to i}dou\ prosqh/sw tou~ metaqei~nai to\n lao\n tou~ton kai\ metaqh/sw au}tou\j kai\ a}polw~ th\n sofi/an tw~n sofw~n kai\ th\n su/nesin tw~n sunetw~n kru/vw. ) and an J+ corrects Pš but includes a doublet of tou~ metaqei~nai (‫ܫ ܘ‬ expansion (‫)ܒ ܕ ܪܬܐ ܘܒ ܘ ܐ‬, both from Pš. – sofw~n/sunetw~n] + au}tou~ Pš J+ GL – kru/vw is correctly translated by ‫ ܐ ܐ‬in SyrH; in J+ the translation ‫ ܐ ܐ‬is not a scribal error but more likely influenced by 1Cor 1:20.

15) Isa 32:1–6 J*: PO 7:5 p. 596 [184] (fol. 39v)

.‫̈ ܐ‬ .‫ܢ‬

J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 35r,20

‫ ܗܐ ܒ ܕ ܬܐ‬1 ‫ܘܪܘ̈ܪܒ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬

‫̇ ܐ ܙܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̣ܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ‬ ̣

‫ ܗܐ ܓ‬1 ‫̣ ܆ ܘ̈ܪ‬ .‫ܢ‬

LXX 1 i}dou\ ga\r basileu\j di/kaioj basileu/sei, kai\ a!rcontej meta\ kri/sewj a!rxousi. J+ substitutes Pš by a better translation of G. – kai\ a!rcontej] + au}tou~ J+ ******

268

JUCKEL

‫ܓ ܐ‬ .‫ܪ ܐ‬ .‫ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܘ ܘܐ ܓܒ ܐ ܐ‬2 ‫ܪܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬.‫ܘ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܬ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܪ ܐ‬

‫̣ܐ ܕ ̇ ܐ‬

‫ ܘ ܘܐ ̇ܗܘ ܒ‬2 ̈ ‫ܘ͔ͥ܆‬Α͵ ͔ͯͼ͚ ̣ ʹͮ‫ ̇ ܘͻ͢ܘ͕ ܐ‬.‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.͕ΕΈͮ‫ܪ͖ ͵ͤܪ‬Ε; ʹͮ‫ܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܪܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ ܢ܂ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ ܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܨܗ ܐ܆‬

ƤǤNjƾǢǓ ƣǖƢǁ‫ ܕ‬ƣDžDžƷ ǃƽ‫ܘܐ‬ .ƤǤǖǠƸLJ ƣǓ‫ܪ‬ƢƦ

LXX 2 kai\ e!stai o{ a!nqrwpoj kru/ptwn tou\j lo/gouj au}tou~ kai\ krubh/setai w{j a}f’ u$datoj ferome/nou; kai\ fanh/setai e}n Siwn w{j potamo/j fero/menoj e!ndoxoj e}n g*~ divw/s*. J+ combines segments of G–Pš–G–Pš. Segment 2 adopts the incongruent Pš for kai\ krubh/setai w{j a}f’ u$datoj ferome/nou; segment 4 is a doublet (Pš) of w{j potamo/j fero/menoj e!ndoxoj e}n g*~ divw/s* – e!ndoxoj] om. J+ SyrH. ******

̈ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܬ‬3 ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐܕ ̈ ܘܢ ܕܐ‬. ̇ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̈ ̇ .‫ܘܬܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬

̈ ̈ ‫΄ͯͼͯ͢ܘܢ‬ ‫ͯ΅ͽ ܬܘܒ‬Β‫ܬ‬Εͻ Ζ‫ ܘ‬3 ̇ ̈ ͽͯͶͮ‫ͯͽ ܕͥͤͮͽ܇ ܘܐܕͻͯ͢ܘܢ ܕܐ‬Ͷͮ‫ܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫΅ͯͽ܆ ܘ ܐ ܘܘܢ ܬܘܒ‬͹Β‫ܕ‬

‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫܆‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܕ ̈ ܘܢ‬

LXX 3 kai\ ou}ke/ti e!sontai pepoiqo/tej e}p’ a}nqrw/poij, a}lla\ ta\ w#ta dw/sousin a}kou/ein. J+ combines segments of Pš–G. Segment 1 is partly attested by GL: a}nqrw/poij] + kai\ ou}k a}maurwqh/sontai oi{ o}fqalmoi\ tw~n o{rw~ntwn. – w#ta] + au}tw~n J+ SyrH, + mss. ******

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪܗܒ‬

269

‫ ܘ ܒܐ ܕ‬4 ‫܆‬ ‫ܪ‬ ί;‫ܕ‬ ͔͘͵‫ ܘ‬4 ̣ ̇ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ ̈ܐ ̇ܗ ܢ ܘ ܐ ܕ ܓܐ‬. .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܕ ܓܓ ܆‬ .‫ܐ‬

LXX 4 kai\ h{ kardi/a tw~n a}sqenou/ntwn prose/xei tou~ a}kou/ein, kai\ ai{ glw~ssai ai{ velli/zousai tacu\ maqh/sontai lalei~n ei}rh/nhn. J+ almost completely substitutes Pš by G/SyrH, but includes a Pš doublet of ‫)ܘ‬. – GL: a}kou/ein] noei~n. a}kou/ein (‫ܐ‬ ******

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܢ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬5 ‫ ܘܐܦ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ .‫ܘܢ ܘ ܐ‬

‫͔ͩͯ ܕ ܘܐ‬Γ͵ ‫ܘܢ ܬܘܒ‬ΑΏͻ Ζ‫ ܘ‬5 ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫͔ͯͩ܆ ܘܐ ܐ‬ͶΒ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܬܘܒ ܐ ܘܢ‬.‫ܘ ܐ‬ .‫ܘܩ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕ‬

LXX 5 kai\ ou}ke/ti mh\ ei!pwsin t+~ mwr+~ a!rcein, kai\ ou}ke/ti mh\ ei!pwsin oi{ u{phre/tai sou Si/ga. a) ‫ ܘܐܦ‬in J* is a Pš variant.

270

JUCKEL

b) J+ almost completely adopts Pš and adds the longer text of G/SyrH. The words ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܐ‬are a doublet of kai\ ou}ke/ti mh\ ei!pwsin t+~ mwr+~ a!rcein.

‫ܘ ܐ‬

******

.

‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ܒ‬.‫ܐ‬ .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬ ̇

6

‫ܘܒ‬

‫ܬܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ܩ‬ . ‫ܕܨܗ ܐ ܓ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܓ‬ 6 . ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܗ܂‬ ‫ܬܐ܆‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐ܆‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ‬ .‫ܨܗ ̈ ܐ‬

‫܆‬

LXX 6 o{ ga\r mwro\j mwra\ lalh/sei, kai\ h{ kardi/a au}tou~ ma/taia noh/sei tou~ suntelei~n a!noma kai\ lalei~n pro\j ku/rion pla/nhsin, tou~ diaspei~rai vuca\j peinw/saj kai\ ta\j vuca\j ta\j divw/saj kena\j poih~sai. J+ substitutes Pš by G/SyrH. – diaspei~rai] diafqei~rai J+ GA + mss. – a!noma] a!nomon J+ (the singular derives from Pš). – kai\ ta\j vuca\j ta\j divw/saj kena\j poih~sai] the Greek behind J+ seems to read kai\ poih~sai kena\j ta\j vuca\j ta\j divw/saj (not attested).

16) Isa 49:14–18 J*: PO 7:5 p. 662 [250] (fol. 52r)

‫ ܕ ܒ‬.‫ ܘܐ ܬ ܨܗ ܢ‬14 . ‫ܐ ܘ ܐ‬

J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 48r,20

‫ܒ‬

̇ ‫ܢ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐ ̣ ܬ ܕ ܨܗ‬14 . ̣ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

271

LXX 14 ei#pe de\ Siwn }Egkate/lipe/ me ku/rioj, kai\ o{ ku/rioj e}pela/qeto/ mou. J+ adopts Pš with minor corrections. ******

‫ ܐܢ ̇ ܐ ܐ ܬܐ‬15 :‫ ܕ ܐ ̇ ܐ ܐ ܬܐ ܒ ̇ܗ‬15 ‫̈ ܿ܆ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̇܆ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ܐ ܕ‬ ͔͹ͥΑ͸ ‫ܐܘ ܐ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫܆‬ ‫ܐܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ ܬܐ܆‬ ‫ܐ ܁ ܘܬ ܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܐܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ̣ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ . ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬

:̇

LXX 15 mh\ e}pilh/setai mh/thr tou~ paidi/ou au}th~j tou~ mh\ e}leh~sai ta\ e!kgona th~j koili/aj au}th~j; ei} de\ kai\ e}pila/qoito tau~ta gunh/, a}ll’ e}gw\ ou}k e}pilh/somai sou~, ei#pe ku/rioj. a) J* includes a considerable non-attested expansion. J* GS* ms omit ei#pe ku/rioj. b) J+ gives a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH – mh/thr] gunh/ J* J+ GOLC – tou~2] h@ tou~ J+ G S*OLC – ei#pe] le/gei J+ GOLC SyrH.

‫̈ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ ܝ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫̈ܪ‬

******

‫ ܗܐ‬16 ‫܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ . ‫ܐ ܐ‬

̇ ‫ܐͮ͠ܝ ܪ‬ ̈ ‫̈ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ 16 ̣ ms ex ] ‫܁ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫̈ܪ‬ .‫[ ܒ ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ‬err

LXX 16 i}dou\ e}pi\ tw~n ceirw~n mou e}zwgra/fhsa/ sou ta\ tei/ch, kai\ e}nw/pio/n mou ei# dia\ panto/j; J+ gives a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH – ‫̈ܐ ܕ‬ ******

̈ ‫ܐܬܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ ܒ ܓ‬17 ̈ .‫ܢ‬

(Pš) is an expansion.

‫̇ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܓ ܬܬܒ‬17 ̇ ̣ ‫ ܘܗ ܢ ܕܐ ܒ‬.‫ܕܐ ̣ ܬܪܬܝ‬ .‫̣ ܢ‬

272

JUCKEL

LXX 17 kai\ tacu\ oi}kodomhqh/s* u{f’ w^n kaq*re/qhj, kai\ oi{ e}rhmw/sante/j se e}k sou~ e}xeleu/sontai. a) J* introduces ‫( ܐܬܘܢ‬no Pš variant). b) J+ substitutes Pš by G/SyrH. ******

̈ ‫̈ܪ ܆ ܘ ܝ‬ ‫ܐܪ‬ . ‫ܘܐܬ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ܆ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܬ‬. ‫ܨܒ ܐ ܬ ܒ‬ .‫ܐ‬

18

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܆ ܘ ܝ‬ ‫ܕܪܐ‬ ‫ ܐܪ‬18 ̇ ‫܂ ܘܐܬܘ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ܐܬ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܐ ܐܐ ܐ‬ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܨܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ܂ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ܂‬ ‫ܬܒ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܬ‬.‫ܐ ܢ‬ .‫ܨܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

LXX 18 a#ron ku/kl+ tou\j o}fqalmou/j sou kai\ i!de pa/ntaj, i}dou\ sunh/cqhsan kai\ h!lqosan pro\j se/; zw~ e}gw/, le/gei ku/rioj, o$ti pa/ntaj au}tou\j e}ndu/s* kai\ periqh/s* au}tou\j w{j ko/smon nu/mfhj. J+ is a correction of Pš, although Pš and G/SyrH have some text in common. – e}ndu/s*] w{j ko/smon e}ndu/s* Pš J+ GOC.

17) Isa 49:18–21 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 48v,9

J*: PO 6:1 p. 137 (fol. 31r)

̈ ‫̈ܪ ܆ ܘ ܝ‬ ‫ܐܪ‬ . ‫ܘܐܬ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܬܬ‬. ‫ܨܒ ܐ ܬ ܒ‬ .‫ܐ‬

18

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܆ ܘ ܝ‬ ‫ܕܪܐ‬ ‫ ܐܪ‬18 ̇ ‫ ܗܐ ܐܬ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܬܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܐ ܐܐ ܐ‬ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܨܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ܂ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬.‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܬܒ‬ .‫ܨܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

273

LXX 18 a#ron ku/kl+ tou\j o}fqalmou/j sou kai\ i!de pa/ntaj, i}dou\ sunh/cqhsan kai\ h!lqosan pro\j se/; zw~ e}gw/, le/gei ku/rioj, o$ti pa/ntaj au}tou\j e}ndu/s* kai\ periqh/s* au}tou\j w{j ko/smon nu/mfhj. J+ is a correction of Pš, although Pš and G/SyrH have some text in common. – e}ndu/s*] w{j ko/smon e}ndu/s* Pš J+ GOC. ******

̈ ‫ܘܨܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬

‫ܬ ܆‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܒܐ‬

‫ܕ ܒ‬

19

‫ܘܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܬܬܐ‬ . ̈ ‫ܒ‬

‫܁‬

̈ ‫ܘܨܕ‬ ‫ܘܐܪ ܐ‬

‫ܕ ܒ‬ 19 ̈ : ‫ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܕ ̈ ܒ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ܗ ܐ܆ ܐ ܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܗ ܢ‬ ‫ ܘ ܪ ܢ‬. ̇ ‫ܕ‬ ̇ . ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬

LXX 19 o$ti ta\ e!rhma/ sou kai\ ta\ diefqarme/na kai\ ta\ peptwko/ta nu~n stenocwrh/sei a}po\ tw~n katoikou/ntwn, kai\ makrunqh/sontai a}po\ sou~ oi{ katapi/nonte/j se. J+ gives a substitution of Pš by G/SyrH but includes Pš elements by means of ̈ ‫ܘܨܕ‬/ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬are doublets of ta\ e!rhma/ doublets. The words sou/ta\ diefqarme/na sou. – ta\ diefqarme/na] + sou J+ SyrH mss (cf Pš). ******

̈ ‫ܒ‬

̈ ‫ ܬܘܒ ܐ ܘܢ ܒܐܕ‬20 ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܓ ܬ ܆ ܐ‬ .‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܐܬ ܒ‬.‫ܐܬܪܐ‬

̈ ‫ܘ ܐ ܘܢ ܬܘܒ ͓͗ ܕ‬ ‫ͻͯͳͰ܁‬

20

‫ܕܐܘܒ ܬܝ܆ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ ܁ ̇ܗ ܢ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ̣ܒ ܝ‬.͖‫ܗܘ ͵ͽ ܐܬܪ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ . ‫ܕܐ‬

LXX 20 e}rou~si ga\r ei}j ta\ w^ta/ sou oi{ ui{oi/ sou ou%j a}polw/lekaj Steno/j moi o{ to/poj, poi/hso/n moi to/pon i$na katoikh/sw. a) J* shows the Pš variant ‫( ܐܬ ܒ‬for Pš ‫)ܐܬ ܒ‬. b) J+ is a correction of Pš. – moi] h{mi~n Pš J+. ******

274

JUCKEL

‫ܒܒ ܆‬ ‫ܘܬܐ‬ ‫܇ ܕܗܐ ܐ ܐ ܓ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ .‫ ܓ ܐ ܘ ܘܕܬܐ‬.‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܐ ܐ ܗܐ‬. ‫̇ ܪܒ‬ ‫ܬ‬

21

.‫ܐ ܐ ܗܘܘ‬

‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܗ‬.‫ܕܝ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫͘ͳͰ܆‬Ͷ͗ ‫ ܘܬܐ‬21 ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܗ ܇ ܐܐ ܕ‬ .Ƥ‫ܘܕܬ‬ƯLJ‫ ܘ‬ƤǤƾDžƪLJ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܪ‬ ͕‫ ܗ‬κ‫ ܐܢ ܐ‬. ‫̣ ܪܒ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ܒ ܕܝ܆ ܗ͵ͯͽ ܕ ܆‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫܀‬.‫ܘܢ ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ̣

̣

‫ܐ‬

LXX 21 kai\ e}rei~j e}n t*~ kardi/& sou Ti/j e}ge/nnhse/ moi tou/touj? e}gw\ de\ a!teknoj kai\ ch/ra, tou/touj de\ ti/j e}xe/qreve/ moi? e}gw\ de\ katelei/fqhn mo/nh, ou^toi de/ moi pou~ h#san? J+ gives a correction of Pš. The words ‫( ܓ ܐ ܘ ܘܕܬܐ‬Pš) seem to be a doublet of a!teknoj kai\ ch/ra; but there is a Greek background provided by GVLC: ch/ra] + pa/roikoj kai\ e}kkekleisme/nh – moi] om. Pš J+ + 1 Greek ms.

18) Isa 58:1–2 J+: BL Add. 17,134 fol. 53r,3

J*: PO 7:5 p. 710 [298] (fol. 60r)

.‫ ܝ ܒܓܓ ܬܟ ܘ ܐ ܬ ܣ‬1 .‫ܪܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܪ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ .‫̈ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬

‫̣ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ ܐܙ‬.‫ܬܟ‬

‫ܒܓܓ‬

1

ʹͮ‫ʹ܂ ܐ‬ͶΎ ͺͮ‫ ܘܐܪ‬.‫ܘ ܐ ܬ ܣ‬ ‫΄ͣ͵͢ܘܢ܆‬ ̣ Ͱ͹΅͵ ͕ͣͥ‫ ܘ‬.͖‫ͣܪ‬ΈͯΒ ̈ .‫ͥͩͮ͢͢ܘܢ‬ ‫ͣܒ‬Ώ΅ͮ έ͘͵‫ܘ‬

LXX 1 a}nabo/hson e}n i}scu/i kai\ mh\ fei/s*, w{j sa/lpigga u$vwson th\n fwnh/n sou kai\ a}na/ggeilon t+~ la+~ mou ta\ a{marth/mata au}tw~n kai\ t+~ oi!k+ Iakwb ta\j a}nomi/aj au}tw/n. a) J* shows the Pš variant ‫ܘ ܒ‬. b) J+ gives an almost full adoption of Pš, which is congruent with G. At the ) is substituted by G/SyrH but retained beginning the modified Pš (‫ܒܓܓ ܬܟ‬ in a doublet of a}nabo/hson e}n i}scu/i. ******

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

̇ ‫ܘܨܒ‬ .‫ܡ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ̇ܒ‬2 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܥ ܐܘ̈ܪ ܝ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ ܙܕ ܬܐ ܘ ܐ ܒ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܗ܇ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܙܕ ܬܐ܇ ܘܨܒ‬ .‫ܐ ܐ‬

275

̇ ‫ܘܨܒ‬ ‫ܡ܆‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ̇ܒ‬2 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܥ ܐܘ̈ܪ ܝ‬ ‫ܕ ̇ܒ ܙܕ ܬܐ܆ ܘ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܕ ̣ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̣ ܐ ܕܐ ܗ܆ ̇ܐ‬ ̇ ͕͢͵Ζ ͣ͗ΑΎΕ͹͵‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܙܕ ܬܐ܆‬ ̇ . ‫ܨܒ‬

LXX 2 e}me\ h{me/ran e}x h{me/raj zhtou~si kai\ gnw~nai/ mou ta\j o{dou\j e}piqumou~sin; w{j lao\j dikaiosu/nhn pepoihkw\j kai\ kri/sin qeou~ au}tou~ mh\ e}gkataleloipw\j ai}tou~si/ me nu~n kri/sin dikai/an kai\ e}ggi/zein qe+~ e}piqumou~si. As Pš is congruent with G, J+ gives an almost full adoption. Individual changes by ‫ ܒ‬and the order of the last three words – nu~n] om. Pš J* J+ GV. Jacob are

19) Isa 61:3–8 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 59r,2

J*: PO 7:5 p. 639 [227] (fol. 48r)

‫ܐܒ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܪܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬3 ‫ܘܢ‬ .‫ܘܢ ܕ ܐ ܕܙܕ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ ܕ ܐ‬

‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ ܕ‬

‫ܪܘ ܐ ܕ‬ 3 ‫ܕ̈ܪܐ ܕܙܕ ܬܐ܆‬ .͕Εͦ͘Γ͸

LXX 3 (...) a}nti\ pneu/matoj a}khdi/aj; kai\ klhqh/sontai Geneai\ dikaiosu/nhj, Fu/teuma kuri/ou ei}j do/xan. (no Pš variant). a) J* adds ‫ ܘ‬to b) J+ gives a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH – ‫ܐ‬ ‫) ܒ‬. (SyrH: ‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

derives from Pš

******

. ‫ ܘ ܒܢ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬4 .‫ܢ‬ ] ‫ܘܨܕ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܢ ̈ܪ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܘܨܕ ̈ ܐ‬ .[ ‫ܕܕܪܕܪ‬

‫܆‬ͺͶ΄ ͽ͸‫ ܘ ̣ܒ ܢ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬4 ̈ ͵‫ܘ‬ [SyrH = ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬mg] ͕ά‫ܕ‬΍ [SyrH = mg] ͕έΒ‫ͽ ܪ‬͸‫ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ܆ ܘ ܬܘܢ‬ .‫̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ܨܕ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬

276

JUCKEL

LXX 4 kai\ oi}kodomh/sousin e}rh/mouj ai}wni/aj, e}xhrhmwme/naj pro/teraj e}xanasth/sousi; kai\ kainiou~si po/leij e}rh/mouj e}xhrhmwme/naj ei}j genea/j. a) J* replaces ‫( ܘ ܒ ܢ‬Pš) by ‫ ܘ ܒ ܢ‬and by error (homoiotel.) omits the second half of the verse (which is supplemented here according to Pš). b) J+ almost fully adopts Pš in the first half, and substitutes it by G/SyrH in the second half. ******

‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘܘܢ‬

‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܢ‬ 5 ‫ܓ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܐ ܐ ܘ‬

‫ ܘ ܐܬܘܢ ܐ‬5 ̇ ‫ܕܪ‬ ‫ܒ ܆ ܘܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܘ‬

LXX 5 kai\ h$xousin a}llogenei~j poimai/nontej ta\ pro/bata/ sou, kai\ a}llo/fuloi a}roth~rej kai\ a}mpelourgoi/. a) After the omission in vs 4, J* continues with ‫ܢ‬ b) J+ completely substitutes Pš by G/SyrH. ******

‫ܘܗܝ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܘܢ‬6 ̈ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܬܬ ܘܢ ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܒܐ ܗܘܢ‬.‫ܐ ܬܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬ ܒ ܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

(no Pš variant).

‫̈ ܐ ܕ‬

‫ ܐ ܘܢ ܕ ܁‬6

̈ ‫͢ܢ‬Ξ‫ͼ͔ ܕ‬Γ͹Γ͸‫ܘ‬ ‫ܬܬ ܘܢ܆‬ ̈ ‫ͻͳͿͯ͢ܘܢ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܬܪܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ ܬܐ ܢ܆ ܘܒ‬ .‫͗ͦͣܢ‬ΕΒ‫ܘܢ ܬ‬

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

LXX 6 u{mei~j de\ i{erei~j kuri/ou klhqh/sesqe, leitourgoi\ qeou~; i}scu\n e}qnw~n kate/desqe kai\ e}n t+~ plou/t+ au}tw~n qaumasqh/sesqe.

‫( ܘ‬for ‫̈ ܗܝ‬ ‫)ܘ‬. a) J* shows the Pš variant ‫̈ ܐ‬ + b) J corrects Pš according to G/SyrH. – leitourgoi/] kai\ l. J* J+ Pš GA. – qeou~] + u{mw~n rhqh/setai u{mi~n J* J+ GVLC SyrH (u{mw~n SyrHmg); J+ follows Pš which reads (the unattested) qeou~ h{mw~n. – To represent qaumasqh/sesqe J+ adopts the incongruent ‫ ܬ ܒ ܢ‬of Pš instead of ‫ ܬܬܕ ܘܢ‬of SyrH. ******

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

‫ܒ ܬܬ ܢ ܘ‬ 7 ‫ ܪܬ ܐ ܬ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ .‫ܬܐܪܬܘܢ ܒܐܪ ܘܢ‬ .‫ܘܬ ܒ ܢ ܒ ܓ ܬܗܘܢ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܬܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܐ‬

277

ǘDžƴ‫ܢ܁ ܘ‬Ʋǁ‫ܬܬ‬ƱƦ ǘDžƴ 7 ‫ܢ܆ ܗ ܐ ܐܪ ܘܢ‬ƲǁǠǗƴ ‫ܢ‬ƲƵƦǤǡ‫ܕܬܪܬ ܐ ܬܐܪܬܘܢ܇ ܘܬ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘܬܐ‬.‫ܬܗܘܢ‬ƲƪDžǗƦ ͕‫̣ ܬܗܘ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܘܒ‬ .‫ܪ Ͳͣܢ‬

LXX 7 ou$twj e}k deute/raj klhronomh/sousin th\n gh~n, kai\ eu}frosu/nh ai}w/nioj u{pe\r kefalh~j au}tw~n. J+ is arranging segments of Pš–G–Pš–G. Both Pš segments give a continuous text similar to GVL: a}nti\ th~j ai}scu/nhj u{mw~n th~j di/plhj kai\ a}nti\ th~j e}ntroph~j a{gallia/setai me/rij au}tw~n. The first G segment reflects GOL: dia\ tou~to th\n gh~n au}tw~n e}k deute/rou klhronomh/sousi (ou$twj pro dia\ tou~to GO SyrH). – kefalh~j au}tw~n] kefalh~j u{mw~n Pš J+. – The word ‫ ܘ ܘܬܐ‬is a doublet of kai\ eu}frosu/nh. ******

̇ ‫ܐ ܕܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ 8 ̇ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ܇ ܘ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬܠ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ .‫ܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

̇ ‫ܕܪ‬

̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܝ‬ ‫ ܐܐ ܓ‬8 ‫ܐ ܐ ܙܕ ܬܐ܇‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ̣ܐ ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ ܘܐܬܠ‬.Ζͣ΄‫ܘ‬ κ‫ܘ;ͼ͔ ܐ‬ ̣ ͔ͯ·ͣͩͥ ̣ ͺͶ΅͵‫͔ ܕ‬͹ͯΎ‫ܘܢ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܘ‬ .‫ ͵ͳͣܢ‬ͺͯΎ‫ܐ‬

278

JUCKEL

LXX 8 e}gw\ ga/r ei}mi ku/rioj o{ a}gapw~n dikaiosu/nhn kai\ misw~n a{rpa/gmata e}x a}diki/aj; kai\ dw/sw to\n mo/cqon au}tw~n dikai/wj kai\ diaqh/khn ai}w/nion diaqh/somai au}toi~j. J+ gives a correction of Pš according to G/SyrH, but retains a considerable number of Pš elements. – a{rpa/gmata] a$pagma Pš J+ GC + mss – dikai/wj] dikai/oij J+ GOLC SyrH – au}toi~j] u{mi~n Pš J+ – for the representation of e}x a}diki/aj Pš ‫ )ܘ‬is adopted. The words ‫( ܕܪ ̇ ܐ ܐ ܕ ̣ ܐ‬Pš) are a doublet of o{ a}gapw~n (‫ܐ‬ dikaiosu/nhn.

20) Isa 62:1–4 J+: BL Add. 14,441 fol. 59v,18

J*: PO 6:1 p. 136 (fol. 31r)

.‫ܨܗ ܢ ܐ ܐ ܘܩ‬ 1 .‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܬܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܬ ܩ ܙܕ‬ ̇ ‫ܗܪܐ܇ ܘ ܪ‬ ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ‫܆‬

̇ ‫ܨܗ ܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ 1 ̇ ͔͸͠΄ .ΗΒ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗܪܐ ܙܕ ܬ̇ܗ܇‬ ‫ܕܬ·ͣܩ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܕܐ‬ < ‫ͼ͢ >ܐ‬Ύ‫ܘ·ͣܪ‬ .‫ܒ ܫ‬ .‫ܘܩ‬

LXX 1 Dia\ Siwn ou} siwph/somai kai\ dia\ Ierousalhm ou}k a}nh/sw, e$wj a}n e}xe/lq* w{j fw~j h{ dikaiosu/nh mou, to\ de\ swth/rio/n mou w{j lampa\j kauqh/setai. J+ gives an almost complete adoption of Pš; at the end Pš is corrected according to G/SyrH. – mou1] au}th~j Pš J+ GOL (SyrH ̇ ‫ – )ܕ‬to\ de/] kai\ to/ Pš J+ GLmss – mou2] au}th~j Pš J+ GVOmssL

‫̈ ܐ ܙܕ ܬ ܆‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ܆ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܝ‬

******

‫ ܘ ܘܢ‬2 ‫ܘ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬

‫ͣܬͲͰ܆‬Ώͮ‫̈ ܐ< ܙܕ‬ > ‫ ܘ ܘܢ‬2 ̈ . ‫ͳ͔ ܬ ܒ‬Ͷ͸ ‫͢ܘܢ‬ΰ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ܬܐ܆ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ .‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

279

LXX 2 kai\ o!vontai e!qnh th\n dikaiosu/nhn sou kai\ basilei~j th\n do/xan sou, kai\ kale/sei se to\ o!noma/ sou to\ kaino/n, o% o{ ku/rioj o}noma/sei au}to/. J+ gives a slightly corrected adoption of Pš. – basilei~j] pa/ntej oi{ b. Pš J+ GOmsss ‫( ܕ‬Pš) is an expansion. + mss – sou3] om. Pš J+ GOL SyrH – The word ******

‫ܐ‬ .

͕Εͥͣ͘Β‫ܐ ܕܬ‬

‫ܐ ܕܬ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܬܗܘ‬3 ‫ܒܐ ܗ ܕ ܐ܆ ܘܬܓܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܒܐ ܗ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ ܘܬܗܘ‬3 ‫ܒܐ ܗ ܕ ܐ܆ ܘܬܓܐ‬ .ͰͲ͢Ξ‫ܬܐ ͓͗ͮ͠ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

LXX 3 kai\ e!s* ste/fanoj ka/llouj e}n ceiri\ kuri/ou kai\ dia/dhma basilei/aj e}n ceiri\ qeou~ sou. J+ completely adopts Pš, which is congruent with G. ******

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܬܬ ܐ‬ . ‫ܨܒ‬ ‫ܕܨܒܐ‬ . ‫ܬܬܒ‬

‫ ܘܬܘܒ ܐ ܬܬ‬4 ‫ܐ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܘܐܪ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܬܬ‬.‫ܨܕ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܐܪ‬ ‫ ܘܐܪ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܬܬ‬Ζ ‫ ܘܬܘܒ‬4 ͕ά‫ ܬܬ ܐ ܨܕ‬Ζ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ̣ Ͱͳ΄‫ܘܐܪ‬ ‫ ܐ ܝ܁‬Ζ‫ ܐ‬.[SyrH = ‫ ܒ ܐ‬mg] Ͱͳ΄‫ͮͽ ܨ͗ͯͼͰ܆ ܘܐܪ‬ΑΎ‫ܬܬ‬ ‫ܕܨ͔͗ ܒ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ̣ . ̣ ‫ܘܐܪ΄ͳͰ ܬܬ‬ ‫ܐ܆‬ ̣ .‫ܐ‬

LXX 4 kai\ ou}ke/ti klhqh/s* Kataleleimme/nh, kai\ h{ gh~ sou ou} klhqh/setai !Erhmoj; soi\ ga\r klhqh/setai Qe/lhma e}mo/n, kai\ t*~ g*~ sou Oi}koume/nh. a) J* introduces the Pš variant ‫( ܐ ܬܘܒ‬for ‫)ܬܘܒ ܐ‬. b) J+ gives a slightly corrected adoption of Pš. – ou} klhqh/setai] ou}k e!ti kl. Pš ) is a better translation than Pš J* J+ GOmsssL – Oi}koume/nh] J+ (‫ܐ‬ ‫ ;)ܒ‬+ o$ti eu}do/khse ku/rioj e}n soi kai\ h{ gh~ sou sunoikisqh/setai Pš (‫ܐ‬ J+ GOLC – for soi\ ga\r klhqh/setai and kai\ t*~ g*~ sou J+ adopts the (slightly modified) Pš.

280

JUCKEL

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baars, W. ‘Ein neugefundenes Bruchstück aus der syrischen Bibelrevision des Jakob von Edessa,’ Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968), 548–55. Baumstark, A. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlichpalästinensischen Texte (Bonn, 1922). Brock, S. The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of 1Samuel [Quaderni di Henoch 9]. Torino, 1996. Brooks, E. W. Jacob of Edessa. The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others (PO 6.1 and 7.5; Turnhout, 1910/1911). Ceriani, A. M. Monumenta Sacra et Profana 5,1. Mediolani 1868. Gottstein, M. H. ‘Neue Syrohexaplafragmente,’ Biblica 37 (1956), 162–83. Graffin, F. ‘Jacques d’Édesse réviseur des Homélies de Sévère d’Antioche d’après le ms. syriaque B. M. Add. 12.159,’ in Symposium Syriacum 1976 ... (Roma, 1978) 243–255. Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day, ed. by Bas ter Haar Romeny & K. D. Jenner [MPIL]. Leiden (forthcoming). Joosten, J. ‘Doublet Translations in Peshitta Proverbs,’ in The Peshitta As a Translation. ... (Leiden, 1995) 63–72. Juckel, A. ‘Septuaginta and Peshitta. Jacob of Edessa quoting the Old Testament in Ms BL Add 17134,’ Hugoye. Journal of Syriac Studies 8:2 (July 2005) [http:// syrcom.bethmardutho/hugoye] Lash, C. J. A. ‘Techniques of a Translator: Work-notes on the Methods of Jacob of Edessa in translating the Homilies of Severus of Antioch,’ in Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen ... (Berlin, 1981) 365–83. Nau, F. ‘L’Araméen chrétien (Syriaque). Les traductions faites du grec en syriaque au viie siècle,’ RHR 99 (1929) 232–287. Petit, F. La chaîne sur l’Exode I: Fragments de Sévère d’Antioche [Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 9]. Louvain 1999. ________. Sévère d’Antioche. Fragments grecs tirés des chaînes sur les derniers livres des l’Octateuque et sur les Règnes [Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 14]. Louvain 2006. Rahlfs, A. Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuagintastudien 3). Göttingen, 1911. Rompay, L. van ‘Les versions syriaques,’ in F. Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode I ... (Louvain, 1999) 111–208. ________. ‘Les versions syriaques,’ in F. Petit, Sévère d’Antioche. Fragments grecs ... (Louvain, 2006) 213–314.

APPROXIMATION OF ‘TRADITIONS’

281

________. ‘Jacob of Edessa and the Sixth-Century Translator of Severus of Antioch’s Cathedral Homilies,’ in Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day ... [MPIL]. Leiden (forthcoming). Saley, R. J. The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa. A Study of its Underlying Textual Traditions [MPIL 9]. Leiden 1998. Salvesen, A. ‘The Genesis Texts of Jacob of Edessa. A Study in Variety,’ in Text Translation, and Tradition ...(Leiden 2006), 177–88. ________. The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (MPIL 10). Leiden, 1999. ________. ‘Jacob of Edessa’s version of Exodus 1 and 28,’ Hugoye. Journal of Syriac Studies 8:1 (January 2005) [http:// syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye]. Symposium Syriacum 1976, ed. by A. Guillaumont & F. Graffin [OCA 205]. Roma 1978. Text Translation, and Tradition. Studies in the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by W. Th. van Peursen & R. B. ter Haar Romeny [MPIL 14]. Leiden, 2006. The Peshitta As a Translation. Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August 1993, ed. by P. B. Dirksen & A. van Kooij [MPIL 8]. Leiden 1995. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. In Zusammenarbeit mit J. Dummer, J. Irmscher und K. Treu hrg. von F. Paschke [TU 125]. Berlin, 1981. Ugolini, M. ‘Il Ms. Vat. Sir. 5 e la recensione del V. T. di Giacomo d’Edessa,’ Oriens Christianus 2 (1902), 409–20. Vööbus, A. The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla [PETSE 22]. Stockholm, 1971. Wright, W. A Short History of Syriac Literature. London, 1894 (Piscataway, 2001). Wright, W. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838, vol. 1 (London, 1870/Piscataway, 2003).

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA IN DEN SYRISCHEN KIRCHEN HUBERT KAUFHOLD Until quite recently the members of the Syriac churches used the era of the Seleucids (of Alexander the Great) resp. the era of the creation of the world (of Adam). Since the 11th century we sometimes find the Christian era (Anno Domini) too. The article collects the oldest datations according to the Christian era which became more common since the 16th century. The Christian era in the Syriac and Arabic sources do not always correspond with the western calculation. In the last chapter some more sources for the era of the ascension are collected. Moreover the very different expressions for the Christian era are listed.

I. VORBEMERKUNGEN Bis in die jüngste Vergangenheit wurde bei Ost- und Westsyrern bekanntlich die Seleukidenära (Ära »der Griechen« oder »Alexanders« des Großen) und bei den Melkiten die Weltära (»nach Erschaffung der Welt« oder »nach Adam«) verwendet. Der Jubilar hat kürzlich einen Überblick über die Datierung syrischer Inschriften nach islamischer Zeitrechnung (Jahr der Hiǧra) gegeben.1 Im folgenden sollen die christlichen Ären betrachtet werden. W. H. P. Hatch erwähnt in seinem Buch »An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts«2 nur, daß »Syriac manuscripts are sometimes dated according to the Christian era«; manchmal würden mehrere Ären gleichzeitig verwendet. Nach Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet kommt die christliche Ära ziemlich spät auf, »à parti de la fin du XIIe siècle, en milieu syro-occidental, du XVIe en milieu syro-oriental«. Sie schreibt weiter: »Dans ce dernier cas, en outre, l’ère de la naissance du Christ n’est pas calculée selon le comput 1 2

Brock, The Use of Hijra Dating in Syriac Manuscripts. S. 19.

283

284

KAUFHOLD

de Denys le Petit; ... Enfin, la mention de l’ère chrétenne s’ajoute, mais ne se substitute pas, dans la plupart des cas, à l’ère séleucide. Inversement, au Kérala, où aucun manuscrit conservé n’est antérieur à l’arrivée des Portugais, l’ère séleucide est presque absente«.3 Auch Sebastian Brock weist in seinem erwähnten Beitrag darauf hin, daß im Orient die Ära der Geburt Christi »does not correspond with AD«.4 Einige arabische Handschriften hat Khalil Samir für seinem Aufsatz »L’ère de l’Incarnation dans les manuscrits arabes melkites du 11e au 14e siècle« herangezogen; er schreibt, er habe vor dem 17. Jh. die Inkarnationsära nur bei den Melkiten angetroffen, und zwar—abgesehen von einer Datierung auf 1015—nur in der Zeit zwischen 1243 und 1388.5 Eingehend befaßte sich Ludger Bernhard mit den verschiedenen Zeitrechnungen in seinen Büchern »Die Chronologie der Syrer«6 und »Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften«. Bei der Fülle der Quellen, die er herangezogen hat, und der Art der Untersuchung ist es allerdings nicht leicht, daraus einen Überblick zu gewinnen; seitdem sind auch weitere Belege verfügbar. Im Rahmen dieses Beitrags können die vielfältigen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der Datierung durch die Schreiber und bei der Behandlung der Daten in der modernen Literatur, die Bernhard anspricht, nicht aufgenommen werden. Mein Ziel ist bescheidener. Es soll vor allem darum gehen, wann die Datierung nach einer christlichen Ära bei den verschiedenen christlichen Kirchen syrischer Herkunft aufkam, wie die weitere Entwicklung verlief und wie zuverlässig sie ist. Der Himmelfahrtsära hat J.-M. Vosté eine eingehende Abhandlung gewidmet; darauf komme ich in Abschnitt VII zurück. Grundlage für meine folgenden Ausführungen sind vor allem Handschriftenkolophone, wobei sowohl syrische wie auch arabische Manuskripte berücksichtigt werden, weil beide sich—was die christliche Ära anbelangt—bei der Datierung nicht unterscheiden. Daneben werden auch sonstige Quellen herangezogen. Bei den Handschriften war ich weitgehend auf Kataloge angewiesen. Leider sind die meisten für diesen Zweck unzureichend. Das Alter der Handschriften wird darin in jedem Fall—und natürlich zu Recht—nach der Les manuscrits syriaques 48. S. 283. 5 S. 194. 6 Vgl. vor allem Kapitel 5, § 4: »Seleukidenära und Jahr der Geburt Christi bei den Syrern« (S. 119–125). 3 4

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

285

bei uns gebräuchlichen Zählung, die auf Dionysius Exiguus († nach 550) zurückgeht, also nach Christi Geburt (Anno Domini)7 angegeben. Es ist aber sehr oft nicht zu erkennen, ob diese Datierung bereits in der Handschrift steht oder ob es sich bloß um eine Umrechnung des Katalogverfassers handelt. Für diese Untersuchung waren deshalb nur die Beschreibungen verwendbar, in denen die Datierung im syrischen bzw. arabischen Originaltext oder wenigstens in vollständiger Übersetzung mitgeteilt wird.8 Daneben kann manchmal aus den Formulierungen im Katalog einigermaßen sicher geschlossen werden, welche Daten die Handschrift tatsächlich enthält.9 Die folgenden Beobachtungen können deshalb schon aus diesem Grund nur vorläufig sein. Texte, die ich selbst gesehen habe oder von denen mir Abbildungen zur Verfügung stehen, habe ich mit zwei Sternen (**) gekennzeichnet, solche, bei denen die Kataloge den Wortlaut genau wiedergeben, mit einem Stern (*). Es sollte künftig bei der Wiedergabe von Datierungen unbedingt immer zweifelsfrei angegeben Mit »AD« ist im folgenden immer die westliche Berechnung nach Dionysius Exiguus gemeint. Zur Unterscheidung wird die Angabe nach Christi Geburt in den Handschriften mit »Chr.« bezeichnet, gleichgültig ob sie mit der von Dionysius Exiguus übereinstimmt oder nicht. »H« (Hiǧra) bezeichnet die islamische Zeitrechnung. 8 So in den Katalogen der Vatikanischen Bibliothek von Assemani, der British Library von Rosen-Forshall und Wright, der Universitätsbibliothek Cambridge von Wright und Cook, der Berliner Staatsbibliothek von Sachau, der Handschriften im Kloster Scharfeh/Libanon von Armalet, der Petersburger syrischen Handschriften von Pigulevskaya, der syrischen Handschriften in Deutschland von Aßfalg, der Pariser Nationalbibliothek von Briquel-Chatonnet, der syrischen und arabischen Handschriften in Jerusalem, Dair az-Za˓faran u. a. von Dolabany oder des Trinity College in Dublin von Bcheiry. Dabei ist aber—soweit vorhanden—auf die syrischen Texte abzustellen, weil die Übersetzungen der Kolophone manchmal Jahreszahlen nach christlicher Zeitrechnung enthalten, die im Original nicht stehen. Im folgenden werden die Fundstellen in diesen bekannten Katalogen nur angegeben, wo es erforderlich erscheint. 9 Nämlich dann, wenn etwa die nur umgerechnete christliche Datierung in Klammern oder mit einem Gleichheitszeichen ( = ) hinzugesetzt ist. Allerdings bin ich nicht sicher, ob das Prinzip wirklich immer konsequent befolgt wurde. Umgekehrt halte ich es für möglich, daß manchmal die Zahlen, die so gekennzeichnet sind, in Wirklichkeit doch in der Handschrift stehen und der Verfasser die Jahreszahl nach christlicher Zeitrechnung konsequent, aber nicht sinnvoll, immer in Klammern oder mit Gleichheitszeichen anfügt. Unbefriedigend sind natürlich auch Kataloge, die sich durchweg auf die christliche Jahreszahl beschränken. 7

286

KAUFHOLD

werden, was tatsächlich in der Handschrift steht und was Ergänzung des Verfassers ist. Es ist bekannt, daß bei Datierungen häufig Unstimmigkeiten auftreten, nicht zuletzt dann, wenn ein Datum nach mehreren Ären angegeben wird. Die Schreiber haben sich zweifellos des öfteren geirrt. Das ist aber auch nicht erstaunlich. Jeder von uns wird schon erlebt haben, daß er das aktuelle Datum nicht auf Anhieb wußte. Die damaligen Schreiber, die in der Regel keine Fachleute für Kalenderfragen gewesen sein dürften, konnten sich weder durch einen Blick in den Taschenkalender noch in eine Zeitung vergewissern. Wie haben sie überhaupt ein Datum sicher feststellen können? Beim Wochentag, der in Kolophonen häufig genannt wird, war das aus ihrer liturgischen Praxis heraus wohl noch am einfachsten. Ferner ist zu berücksichtigen, daß die Anfänge der im Orient benutzten Ären nicht immer gleich berechnet werden, was natürlich zu Abweichungen führt.

II. WESTSYRER (ORTHODOXE UND KATHOLISCHE SYRER) Die älteste mir bekannte westsyrische Datierung nach christlicher Ära findet sich in der Hs. Dam. syr.-orth. 12/15*. Bischof Johannes von Mardin schenkte sie dem Kloster Dair az-Za‛farān bei Mardin »im Jahre 1156 (nach) der Geburt unseres Herrn im Fleisch, (im Jahr) der Griechen aber 1465«.10 Die Differenz zwischen den beiden Jahreszahlen beträgt 309, d. h. der Anfang der christlichen Ära fällt in das Jahr 309 der Seleukidenära. Dies entspricht nicht der üblichen Umrechnung, bei der von dem Jahr der Seleukidenära 311 bzw.—wegen des unterschiedlichen Jahresbeginns—bei Daten von Oktober bis Dezember 312 abzuziehen sind, um auf das Datum AD zu kommen. Im vorliegenden Fall ergäbe sich mit dieser Berechnung das Jahr 1154 AD. Ein Plus von zwei Jahren bei der Angabe der

Syrischer Text bei Vööbus, Handschriftliche Überlieferung I, 145, Fußnote 1. Die Jahreszahlen gibt auch Dolabany, Catalogue ... Za’faran Monastery, S. 45 der ersten Zählung (= Hs. 13/1) an. In einem unveröffentlichten syrischen Katalog der Sammlung des syrisch-orthodoxen Patriarchats, der dort aufbewahrt wird, und der darauf beruhenden arabischen Übersetzung von Gregorios Būlos Behnām, Ḥaiyāt al-baṭriyark Afrām 165 ist nur—und wohl fälschlich—die Jahreszahl 1150 angegeben. In dem nach den beiden letztgenannten Quellen bearbeiteten französischen Katalog fehlt dagegen jede Jahreszahl: Dōlabānī/Lavenant, Catalogue des manuscrits ... à Ḥomṣ 605. Französische Übersetzung des Vermerks bei Leroy, Les manuscrits syriaques à peinture 239. 10

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

287

christlichen Ära in den Handschriften wird uns im folgenden noch öfter beschäftigen.11 Die nächste unzweifelhafte Datierung nach Christus steht in der Hs. Dam. syr.-orth. 12/7*, »geschrieben ... zur Zeit des Patriarchen Mōr Michael und auf seine Veranlassung hin im Jahr 1484 der (Ära von) Griechenland (d-Yawān), im Jahr der Heilsgeschichte (da-mḏabrōnūṯō) aber 1170, ... im Kloster des Mōr Gurgīs im Westen12 der Stadt [Mardin] und in ihrer Nähe«.13 Hier beginnt also die christliche Ära im Jahr 314 der Seleukidenära. Bei der üblichen Umrechnung aus der Seleukidenära erhalten wir das Jahr 1172/73 AD, d. h. hier ist die westliche Zählung höher als die Zählung in der Handschrift, also umgekehrt wie im vorhergehenden Beispiel. Als zeitlich nächste folgt die Handschrift Paris syr. 39*. Ihr Schreiber Joseph vollendete sie im Kreuzkloster im Ṭūr ‛Aḇdīn »im Jahre 1506 der Griechen, das ist das Jahr 119[.] unseres Herrn«.14 Nach den Feststellungen von François Nau ist bei der zweiten Zahl der Einer radiert. Nau ergänzt im Hinblick auf die Jahresangabe nach der Seleukidenära gemäß der üblichen Umrechnungsformel zu »1195«, schreibt aber: »on peut seulement en conclure que Joseph ne savait pas très bien passer d’une date à l’autre, car il semble avoir écrit ‫ ܘܛ‬ou 1199 comme correspondant à 1506«; bei 1199 fiele der Beginn der christlichen Ära in das Jahr 307 der Seleukidenära. ‫ ܘܬ‬the word ‫ ܘ‬has Auch Hatch weist auf die Radierung hin: »after

Nach dem in der vorigen Fußnote genannten handschriftlichen Katalog und dessen Bearbeitungen soll Johannes von Mardin 1150 (Chr. ?) auch die Hs. Dam. syr.-orth. 12/13 dem Safrankloster geschenkt haben. Bei Vööbus, Handschriftliche Überlieferung 138–140 oder bei Dolabany, Catalogue ... Za’faran Monastery S. 59– 71 der ersten Zählung (= Hs. 14/2) steht davon nichts. In der arabischen Übersetzung und der französischen Bearbeitung des Katalogs steht die Zahl 1150 fälschlich (ein zweites Mal) beim Datum der Hs. Dam. syr.-orth. 12/13. Richtig ist dagegen—wie aus Vööbus und Dolabany aaO zu ersehen ist—die Jahreszahl 1342 AG, die dem Jahr 1031 AD entspricht. Sie fehlt im handschriftlichen Katalog. 12 Vgl. Assemani, Bibl. Or. II 221, 228; Barsaum, Histoire 514 (»im Süden von Mardin«). 13 Dolabani, Catalogue ... Za’faran Monastery, S. 8 (Nr. 4). Der handschriftliche syrische Katalog der Damaszener Handschriften und die darauf beruhenden Veröffentlichungen nennen nur das Jahr 1170. 14 Nau, Sur quelques autographes de Michel le Syrien 387. Das Datum der Seleukidenära fehlt bei Zotenberg, Catalogue, der nur »1190 de notre ère« angibt. 11

288

KAUFHOLD

been partly erased«.15 Wir können also nicht sicher sagen, welches christliche Datum der Schreiber tatsächlich angegeben hat. In seiner Kirchengeschichte verwendet Patriarch Michael der Syrer († 1199) in aller Regel die Seleukidenära, gelegentlich auch die Weltära, die islamische Zeitrechnung oder die Regierungszeit von Herrschern oder kirchlichen Amtsträgern, manchmal eine doppelte Datierung. Ich habe nur eine Stelle mit einem christlichen Datum gefunden (Buch VIII, Kapitel 4): Die erste Synode von Ephesos (431) fand statt »im 21. Regierungsjahr des Kaisers Theodosios, welches das Jahr 742 der Zählung der Griechen und das Jahr 423 unseres Herrn ist«.16 Vermutlich hat Michael dies so aus seiner Vorlage übernommen.17 Danach würde die christliche Ära im Jahr 319 der Seleukidenära beginnen, wir haben also wieder eine andere Differenz. Die Regierungszeit des Theodosios stimmt übrigens nicht, er regierte seit 408. Michael beginnt das betreffende Buch (= VII 1) mit den Worten »Im Jahre 708 der Griechen«. Nach dem Herausgeber Chabot steht in einer— offenbar nicht von Michael stammenden—Randbemerkung zusätzlich: »Dieses Jahr ist das Jahr 5902 nach Adam, das Jahr 392 nach unserem Herrn, 708 nach der Rechnung (der Griechen)«.18 5902 der (griechischen) Weltära wäre 394 AD. Zwischen Seleukidenära (= 397 AD) und der angegebenen christlichen Jahreszahl beträgt der Unterschied 316 Jahre. Die nächste westsyrische Datierung nach der christlichen Ära steht möglicherweise in der Hs. Paris syr. 176 (zweiter Teil). Angegeben ist die bloße Jahreszahl 1418, die Zotenberg als Datum nach Christi Geburt versteht: »(de J. C.)«. Es erscheint mir fraglich, daß ein Schreiber die damals noch unübliche christliche Zeitrechnung verwendet haben soll, ohne irgendwie darauf hinzuweisen. Es handelt sich deshalb eher um ein Datum nach der Seleukidenära, das 1116/7 AD entspräche. Ich muß die Frage, die allenfalls nach paläographischen Gesichtspunkten entschieden werden

An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, zu Plate LXXXVI. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien II 16 (Übersetzung); IV 172f. (Text). 17 Es handelt sich jedenfalls nicht—wie bei der gleich im Text zu besprechenden Stelle—um eine spätere Einfügung, weil die zeitgenössische armenische Bearbeitung ebenfalls eine dreifache Datierung und dieselben Jahreszahlen hat (Žamanakagrut˓iwn Teaṙn Miḫayeli Asorwoc˓ patriark˓i, Jerusalem 1871, 164 [Text]; Langlois, Chronique de Michel le Grand 148 [Übersetzung]). 18 Ebenda II 1, IV 163. In der armenischen Übersetzung kommt diese Stelle nicht vor. 15 16

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

289

kann, hier offenlassen. Schreiber war ein Priester Michael, den ich sonst nicht belegen kann;19 der Schreibort ist nicht genannt. Es folgt die Hs. Scharfeh syr. 9/38*, die ein nicht weiter bekannter ‛Abdannūr »im Jahre 1539 nach Christus, unserem Herrn« angefertigt hat.20 Mehr erfahren wir nicht. Auf das christliche Jahr 1544 ist die Hs. Rostock or. 193 (Teil I)*21 datiert. Außerdem findet sich eine Beischrift aus dem Jahr 1549 Chr. Die Herkunft der Handschrift ist unklar. Bisher ließen sich nur vereinzelte Datierungen solcher Art feststellen. Die christliche Zeitrechnung erscheint häufiger erst seit der Mitte des 16. Jh. und teilweise unter unmittelbarem westlich-lateinischem Einfluß, jedenfalls dann, wenn die betreffenden Handschriften in Europa entstanden sind. Die Hs. Brit. Libr. Nr. 283* hat u. a. folgendem bemerkenswerten Inhalt: »The principal offices of the Missale Romanum ... in the Latin language, but written in Syriac characters«.22 Geschrieben hat sie der bekannte syrisch-orthodoxe Emissär Moses von Mardin in Rom. Sie ist zum einen nach der Seleukidenära auf 1860 datiert, was nach der üblichen Umrechnung dem Jahr 1548/49 AD entspricht. An anderer Stelle schreibt Moses in einer Karšūnī-Notiz, er habe die Handschrift im Jahre 1550 »nach unserem Herrn Jesus Christus« im Stephanus-Kloster der Äthiopier bei St. Peter und Paul (!) in Rom23 zur Zeit des Papstes Paul III. geschrieben Das kann nicht stimmen, weil—wie schon Wright feststellte—dieser Papst bereits am 10. November 1549 starb. Entweder müssen wir davon ausgehen, daß hier wieder die in der Handschrift angegebene christliche Jahreszahl der üblichen um zwei Jahre vorgeht, so daß wir statt 1550 auf das Jahr 1548 AD kämen—was angesichts der Seleukidenära aber nur für die letzten drei Monate des Jahres stimmten würde – , oder wir müßten annehmen, daß Moses, obwohl er sich in Rom aufhielt, die christliche Zeitrechnung noch ungewohnt war. Tatsächlich war er wohl erst kurz vorher aus dem Orient gekommen.24 Ein Priester Michael hat 1135 die Hs. Paris syr. 64 restauriert; ob er als Schreiber in Frage kommt, müßte noch geprüft werden. 20 Armalet, Catalogue 203f. Vgl. auch Graf, Geschichte II 230. 21 Katalog: Aßfalg, Syrische Handschriften Nr. 38. 22 Beschreibung: Wright, Catalogue ... British Museum I 214–216. 23 D. h. im äthiopischen Kloster San Stefano dei Mori hinter der Peterskirche in den Vatikanischen Gärten. Von einer Kirche der hll. Petrus und Paulus in Rom ist auch im Kolophon der Hs. Cambr. Oo. 1. 15 die Rede (1691). 24 Das Datum ist nicht bekannt, vgl. Levi della Vida, Ricerche 142. 19

290

KAUFHOLD

In der in Wien kopierten Hs. Hamburg or. 278** gibt Moses von Mardin das griechische Datum 1866 und das christliche 1556 an.25 Letzteres wird durch eine lateinische Beischrift bestätigt (Januar 1556); das Seleukidenjahr ergäbe allerdings Oktober 1554 bis September 1555 und scheint hier nicht richtig zu sein. Zwei weitere Handschriften von ihm sind nur nach der christlichen Zeitrechnung datiert: München syr. 6** (Venedig, August 1553)26 und Wien syr. 1 (Wien, Juli bzw. August 1554).27 Chronologische Unstimmigkeiten ergeben sich bei ihnen nicht. Moses kehrte dann in den Orient zurück, wo er 1561 die Hs. Cambr. Dd. 10. 10* kopierte, wohl nur mit Datierung nach der Seleukidenära.28 1578 oder 1579 kam er—inzwischen Bischof mit dem Namen Athanasios—wieder nach Rom und fertigte dort syrische und arabische Handschriften an, die— soweit ein Datum vorhanden ist—nach der Seleukiden- und der christlichen Ära oder nur nach letzterer datiert sind.29 Merkwürdig ist die Hs. Vat. syr. 36, die Moses in Rom »im Jahr der Menschwerdung, koptisch 1576 und griechisch 1584« kopiert hat.30 Eine koptische Inkarnationsära ist nicht bekannt. Die Kopten datieren nach der Martyrerära oder nach islamischer Zeitrechnung. Da der Unterschied 8 Jahre beträgt, spielt vielleicht irgendwie die Weltära eine Rolle, die—wie wir noch sehen werden—z. T. um 8 Jahre von dem üblichen Datum abweicht; der Weg dahin ist allerdings schwer nachvollziehbar. Welches Datum AD gemeint ist, erschließt sich daraus nicht. 1576 scheidet jedoch aus, weil Moses damals noch nicht wieder in Rom war. In den gleichen Zeitraum fällt auch die Hs. Paris syr. 237, die der Kopist Abraham aus Rūmanīya 1553 in Kairo kopierte. Da er ausdrücklich 25 Von der Handschrift gibt es eine Abschrift, die 1645 Christian Huber in St. Gallen anfertigte (Rostock or. 192* = Aßfalg, Syrische Handschriften Nr. 31 II). Huber hat das christliche Datum seiner Vorlage richtig abgeschrieben, aber nicht das griechische, das keinen Sinn ergibt ( ‫)ܐܒ‬. Aus der Beschreibung der Hamburger Vorlage von Carl Brockelmann, Katalog 175-177 läßt es sich nicht entnehmen. Für die Beschaffung von Photographien der Hamburger Handschrift danke ich Frau Dr. Veronica Six und Herrn Dr. Hans-Walter Stork, Hamburg . 26 Schönfelder, Syrische Handschriften 114. 27 Severinus Grill, Die syrischen Handschriften der Nationalbibliothek in Wien 54. Es handelt sich wohl um die Vorlage für den Druck des Neuen Testaments 1554 in Wien. 28 Wright-Cook, Catalogue II 1000 ist nicht sicher zu entnehmen, ob auch die christliche Ära in der Handschrift angegeben ist. 29 Vgl. Levi della Vida, Ricerche 207–215. 30 Ebenda 209f.

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

291

angibt, nicht Arabisch zu können, und im Kolophon neben dem koptischen Patriarchen auch den syrischen sowie den Maphrian nennt, dürfte es sich um einen orthodoxen Syrer gehandelt haben. Warum er nur nach der christlichen Ära datierte—wenn die Angabe im Katalog Zotenbergs richtig ist!—kann ich nicht sagen. Schreiber der Hs. Aleppo, Syr.-orth. 49**, einer Sammlung von Anaphoren, ist der Priestermönch Pilatos aus Manṣūrīya (in der Nähe von Mardin). Seine Datierung lautet: »im Jahr 1877 nach Alexandros dem Makedonen und im Jahre 1568 nach der Geburt unseres Erlösers im Fleisch von der Jungfrau und im Jahre 973 der Araber«.31 1877 AG entspricht 1565/66 AD, das Jahr 974 der Hiǧra dauerte vom 29. Juli 1565 bis 18. Juli 1566. Das angegebene christliche Datum 1568 ergibt damit wohl wieder ein Plus von zwei Jahren gegenüber der westlichen Ära. Die Handschrift wurde sicherlich im Orient geschrieben, wahrscheinlich in einem Kloster bei Mardin.32 Bemerkenswert ist ein Brief, den der westsyrische Patriarch Ignatios Ni‛matallāh an Papst Pius IV. (1559–1565) schrieb. Er schließt in der zeitgenössischen italienischen Übersetzung wie folgt: »Scritta ... nel mezo del Mese d’agosto 1565. dalla Natività di Nostro Signore Giesu Christo ... et secondo un’altro compu. 1563«.33 Dieser Brief ist eine Antwort auf einen Brief Pius IV. an den Patriarchen vom 23. Juli 156234 und wird selbst wieder beantwortet mit einem Brief des Papstes vom 28. Februar 1565.35 Er kann also nur vom August 1563 AD stammen, nicht von 1565 AD. Patriarch Ni‛matallāh verwendet demnach zunächst die orientalische christliche Zählung, die um zwei Jahre höher ist, nennt aber dann noch die im Westen übliche Berechnung (»altro computamento«). Die Hs. Ming. syr. 607 enthält dagegen einen Vermerk von seiner Hand, der nur auf 1881 der

Bisher ist kein Katalog veröffentlicht. Die vermutlich vom selben Kopisten stammende Hs. Nr. 21 des früheren chaldäischen Patriarchats in Mosul ist anscheinend nur nach der Seleukidenära datiert (1878 der Griechen [= 1566/7 AD]), s. Vosté, Notes sur les manuscrits syriaques de Diarbekir 350. 33 Hayik, ˓Allaqāt 22 der zweiten Paginierung. Der arabische Text scheint nicht erhalten zu sein. 34 Vgl. Levi della Vida, Ricerche 194, Fußnote 2. Der Brief des syrischen Patriarchen von Mitte August 1563 war Levi della Vida offenbar nicht bekannt. 35 Veröffentlicht von Dib, Une mission en orient 273–276. 31 32

292

KAUFHOLD

Seleukidenära datiert ist [= 1570 AD]. Die Briefe seines Nachfolger Ignatios Dawūd richten sich wohl alle nach der westlichen Zählung.36 In Dair az-Za‛farān kopierte Behnām bar Šem‛ōn bar Ḥabīb die Hs. Scharfeh syr. 7/18* im Jahr 1888 AG, 1579 Chr. und 984 H. Das griechische Jahr läuft von Oktober 1576 bis September 1577 AD, das islamische von April 1576 bis März 1577. Die christliche Ära des Kolophons beginnt also vermutlich im Jahr 309 der Seleukidenära. Im selben Kloster vollendete ein Petros aus Aleppo die Hs. Scharfeh Patr. Nr. 774 am 24. Oktober 1888 AG, 1579 Chr. und 984 der Hiǧra.37 Das griechische Datum entspricht 1576 AD, womit auch das islamische Jahr 984 übereinstimmt. Die Differenz wischen dem seleukidischen Jahr und dem angegebenen christlichen beträgt 309, wobei allerdings der unterschiedliche Jahresanfang nicht beachtet ist. Nach einem Vermerk in der Hs. Brit. Libr. Nr. 850* wurde die Muttergotteskirche und die Patriarchatsresidenz in Amid am 26. Dezember »im Jahr 1890 (der Ära) von Griechenland und 1579 der Erlösung« geplündert.38 Der Unterschied beträgt 311 Jahre, würde also der üblichen Umrechnung entsprechen, wenn man unberücksichtigt läßt, daß das Datum in den Dezember fällt und man deshalb eigentlich 312 abziehen müßte. Die Datierung in der Hs. 2 der Sammlung Fehim Bek (»Leuchte des Heiligtums« von Barhebraeus)*, früher in Istanbul,39 entspricht gleichfalls nicht der üblichen Formel: geschrieben von Michael bar Barṣaum »im Jahr 1891 der Griechen und 1590 Chr. im Kloster des Mār Abḫai«. Rechnerisch richtig wäre 1580 AD. Daß sich Schreiber (und Katalogverfasser!) um einen Zehner (oder auch Hunderter) verrechnen, ist nicht ganz selten. Die Hs. Oxford syr. 172* wurde am 21. Februar 1901 AG oder 1592 Chr. beendet. Auch hier beträgt der Unterschied wieder 309 Jahre. Die beiden nächsten Belege stammen aus Rom. 1593 bzw. 1595 schrieb dort der Priester Melchisedek die Hss. Vat. syr. 10* und 230*, wobei er nur die christlichen Jahreszahlen angibt, wahrscheinlich nach westlicher Zählung. Er stammte aus Ḥiṣn Kēpā (Hasankeyf) am Tigris und unterrichtete ab 1593 Syrisch am römischen Collegio dei Neofiti.40 36 In einem Brief von 1581 verwendet er sogar den westlichen Monatsnamen »August«, s. Kuri, Monumenta I 355/357. 37 Sony, Le catalogue S. 278. 38 Wright, Catalogue II S. 901. 39 Dolabany, Catalogue ... Syrian Churches and Monasteries, S. 6. 40 Er hat in den Jahren 1593 bis 1598 weitere syrische Handschriften der Vatikanischen Bibliothek kopiert, s. Levi della Vida, Ricerche 255f.

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

293

Von der Hs. Dublin 1509* wissen wir aus einem kurzen Vermerk nur, daß sie 1625 und 1626 (ohne Angabe, aber wohl christlicher Ära) kopiert wurde. Die näheren Umstände sind nicht bekannt.41 Nach dem Katalog von Dolabany wurde die Hs. Jerusalem Markuskloster 5 im Jahr 1638 Chr. geschrieben, ein Datum nach der Seleukidenära ist nicht angegeben.42 Ob wir vom Jahr 1638 AD ausgehen können, läßt sich nicht sagen. Dem Schreiber Behnām43 verdanken wir mehrere Handschriften, die alle im Kloster des Mar Behnām bei Dair az-Za‛farān44 in der Südosttürkei entstanden sind. Er gibt mehrfach sowohl das Jahr nach der Seleukidenära wie das christliche Datum an: Hs. Mosul syr.-orth. 1/4245 Berlin syr. Nr. 184 Cambr. syr. 1987*47 Aleppo, Maronit. 212**48 Scharfeh Patr. Nr. 1749 Scharfeh Patr. Nr. 17850

41

21–23.

AG 1956 (II)46 1956 1958 1958 1959 1959

Chr. 1645 (?) 1645 (?) – 1649 1650 1650

Beschreibung: Bcheiry, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Trinity College

Dolabany, Catalogue ... St. Mark’s Monastery, S. 116f. Dies entspricht auch meinen eigenen Notizen, die ich bei einem Besuch 1986 angefertigt habe. 43 Es handelt sich um den Priestermönch Behnām b. Ḥabīb aus Bōtē im Ṭūr ˓Aḇdīn, der 1653 unter dem Namen Basileios Behnām Maphrian wurde und 1655 starb. 44 S. Barsom, Histoire Du Couvent De S. Hanania 158f.; Anschütz, Die syrischen Christen vom Tur ˓Abdin 158. 45 Beschreibung: Ibrāhīm, Maḫṭūṭāt ... fi ˒l-Mauṣil 192. Dort findet sich die irrtümliche Angabe, die Hs. sei im Kloster des Mār Behnām »in der Nähe von Mosul« geschrieben worden. 46 Hier und im folgenden wird mit der römischen Zahl der Monat bezeichnet, soweit er angegeben ist. 47 Beschreibung: Wright/Cook, A Catalogue I 314f. Dort steht zwar »that this MS. was written in the year 1958 = AD 1647«, doch ergibt sich aus dem anschließend abgedruckten Kolophon, daß in der Handschrift nur das Datum nach der Seleukidenära genannt ist. 48 Bisher kein Katalog. Datierung: ‫ܝ ܗܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܨ‬ . 49 Sony, Le catalogue, S. 16. 42

294

KAUFHOLD

Hs. AG Chr. Scharfeh Patr. Nr. 78551 1960 1651 ? 1652 Mosul syr.-kath.52 Qal‛atmara 553 ? 1652 Mosul syr.-orth. 1/7454 1962 (V) 1653 Mar Behnām 1/1*55 1963 1654 In seinen Handschriften ab 1649 beträgt die Differenz zwischen den Zeitrechnungen immer 309 Jahre. Nur bei den ersten beiden Handschriften ist sie »richtig« (311 Jahre). Den betreffenden Katalogen ist aber nicht sicher zu entnehmen, ob bei ihnen das genannte christliche Datum tatsächlich in der Handschrift steht oder ob es sich—was sehr wahrscheinlich ist—nur um die Umrechnung der modernen Katalogverfasser handelt. Vermutlich fehlt es in den Handschriften, wie auch bei der folgenden Hs. Cambr. syr. 1987, noch ganz. Es sieht so aus, als ob Behnām erst 1649 Chr. (d. h. 1647 AD) mit der Angabe eines christlichen Datums begonnen hat, es dann aber regelmäßig einsetzt. Bei den Hss. Mosul syr.-kath. und Qal‛atmara 5 ist in den knappen Katalogen allein das (wahrscheinlich um 2 zu hohe) christliche Datum vermerkt, in den Handschriften steht aber vermutlich auch das (richtige) Datum der Seleukidenära. Die christliche-Zeitrechnung tritt besonders bei syrisch-unierten Kopisten hervor, die natürlich unter westlichem Einfluß stehen. Der Bischof Athanasios Safar (um 1638–1728) hielt sich seit den 70er Jahren des Sony, Le catalogue S. 53. Als Ort gibt Sony an das »Kloster des Zahns« (Dair as-sinn). Nach Barṣom, Histoire 158 trug das Kloster des Behnām in der Tat auch diesen Namen (syrisch ‫ = ܐ‬Zahn). 51 Sony, Le catalogue, S. 292. 52 Beschreibung: Qāšā, Maḫṭūṭāt kanīsat Qarahqōš 150f. 53 Dolabany, Catalogue ... Syrian Churches and Monasteries 173f. (»Kloster des Zahns«). 54 Ibrāhīm, Maḫṭūṭāt ... fi ’l-Mauṣil 154. 55 Vgl. Vööbus, Nouvelles Sources de l’Octateuque Clémentin 105–109 (und öfter). Der Kolophon ist auszugsweise gedruckt und übersetzt in: Rahmani, Testamentum Domini Nostri S. IX. Abschriften der Handschrift sind Ming. syr. 12 und Borg. syr. 118. Die Beschreibung der Hs. Ming. syr. 12, in die auch der Kolophon der Vorlage aufgenommen wurde, enthält bei letzterem zwei Druckfehler: 1936 anstelle von 1963 und 1624 anstelle von 1654 (Mingana, Catalogue I Sp. 46). Aus der Handschrift Ming. syr. 12 ergibt sich daß die Handschrift im November beendet wurde, so daß der Unterschied der beiden Zeitrechnungen eigentlich nicht 309, sondern 310 Jahre betragen müßte. 50

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

295

17. Jh. in Rom auf56 und kopierte dort mehrere syrische Handschriften (Borg. syr. 48, 50, 56, 57, 59), die er alle nur nach der christlichen Ära datierte, vermutlich nach westlicher Art. In Aleppo entstand 1678 Chr. die Hs. Scharfeh syr. 5/13*, in der bei der Datierung Andreas Aḫiǧān als (syrisch-katholischer) Patriarch erwähnt wird. Da er aber schon im Sommer 1677 starb57 und sein Tod dem Kopisten schwerlich so lange unbekannt geblieben sein kann, wird man hier ebenfalls eine Abweichung von zwei Jahren annehmen und das Jahr 1676 AD ansetzen müssen. Auch die Hs. Cambr. syr. 2004*, geschrieben 1703 Chr. im Gefängnis in Adana, ist nur christlich datiert. Ihr Kopist, der aus Amid stammte und dessen Name im Kolophon ausradiert ist, war wohl einer der Leidensgenossen des syrisch-katholischen Patriarchen Ignatios Petros, der seit November 1701 zusammen mit einem Bischof und mehreren Priestern in der Zitadelle von Adana inhaftiert war und dort am 4. März 1702 starb.58 Einer der Gefangenen war der Priester Ni˓ma Qudsī aus Aleppo, der am 3. September 2005 AG (= 1704 AD) im Gefängnis von Adana die Hs. Scharfeh syr. 8/22 beendete. Die Haft der Überlebenden dauerte also über 1703 AD an,59 so daß die Cambridger Handschrift tatsächlich aus diesem Jahr stammen kann. Die Hs. Scharfeh syr. 7/1, geschrieben 1711 (ohne Angabe der Ära) von ˓Abdalaḥad Safar,60 dürfte—weil in Rom entstanden—nach westlicher Art datiert sein. Die Abweichung von zwei Jahren bei der christlichen Ära begegnet uns dagegen wieder bei einer Handschrift, die früher in Kharput war (Nr. 7*): »geschrieben 2013 AG und 1704 Chr.«, anscheinend im Ṭūr ˓Aḇdīn, weil dessen Patriarch an erster Stelle und weitere dortige Bischöfe genannt

Graf, Geschichte IV 51f. Graf, Geschichte IV 45: 14. Juni 1677. Nach de Vries, Dreihundert Jahre 155 starb er am 18. Juli 1677. 58 Graf, Geschichte IV 46f. Tarrazi, as-Salāsil 75, zählt die Gefangenen namentlich auf. Als Kopist käme am ehesten Rabban ˓Abdannūr al-Amīdī in Betracht. Er ist wohl mit dem gleichnamigen Mönch identisch, den Graf, Geschichte 29f. behandelt. 59 Nach Graf, Geschichte IV 57 währte die Haft von 1701 bis 1704. Dies geht wohl auf Armalet, Catalogue S. 436 zurück. Auch nach Tarrāzī, as-Salāsil 272 war Ni˓ma Qudsī bis Dezember 1704 inhaftiert. 60 Auch einer der Gefangenen von Adana. 56 57

296

KAUFHOLD

werden.61 Die Differenz beträgt 309 Jahre. Als Datum ist deshalb 1702 AD anzunehmen. Aber auch Nichtunierte beginnen, allein die christliche Ära zu verwenden, so Patriarch Isaak (1709–1723) in einem Leservermerk in der Hs. Aleppo syr.-orth. 89**, den er auf 1718 Chr. datiert. Die Hs. selbst ist nach einem kurzen Vermerk 1716 Chr. geschrieben. Möglicherweise müssen auch hier zwei Jahre abgezogen werden, wenn man auf das westliche Datum kommen will. Die Hs. Mardin syr.-orth. 3/73** wurde 2027 AG und 1719 Chr. in Jerusalem geschrieben. Damit erscheint eine Differenz von 308 zwischen den Jahresangaben. Allerdings ist die Jahreszahl AG über der Zeile zu 2028 verbessert. Legt man das zugrunde, ergäbe sich ein Abstand von 309 Jahren. Die Hs. Scharfeh Patr. Nr. 279 wurde 2034 AG oder 1723 Chr. geschrieben.62 Der Unterschied beträgt 311 Jahre, aber weil als Monat der November angegeben ist, kämen wir bei normaler Umrechnung (- 312) auf 1722 AD. Ob bei einer 1724 Chr. kopierten Handschrift63 von diesem Datum auszugehen ist oder ob zwei Jahre abgerechnet werden müssen, ist schwer zu sagen. In der Folgezeit beginnt nämlich die Reihe von Handschriften mit Doppeldatierung, in der offenbar die westliche Zählung (AD) verwendet wird, die Differenz zwischen AG und Chr. also überall 311 beträgt: Hs. AG Chr. (= AD) Scharfeh Patr. Nr. 80664 2035 1724 Kloster Naṭfā Nr. 2*65 2039 1728 Aleppo syr.-orth. 13** 2041 (VIII) 1730 Aleppo syr.-orth. 3** 2042 (VII) 1731 Aleppo syr.-orth. 20** 2044 (III) 1733 2067 (III) 1756 Scharfeh Patr. 39066 67 Jerusalem Markuskloster 16* 2071 (VIII) 1760 Dolabany, Catalogue ... Syrian Churches and Monasteries 62. Sony, Le catalogue, S. 101. 63 Dolabany, Catalogue ... Syrian Churches and Monasteries 17. 64 Sony, Le catalogue, S. 313. 65 Dolabany, Catalogue ... Syrian Churches and Monasteries 112. Der Kopist gibt erst die christliche Jahreszahl an, dann die nach der Seleukidenära. 66 Sony, Le catalogue S. 150. 61 62

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

297

Es kommen allerdings auch immer noch vereinzelt Fälle mit einer anderen Differenz vor, insbesondere von 309, wie sie uns bisher schon am meisten begegnet ist: Hs. Brit. Libr. Rich 7207*68 Mardin syr.-orth. 508** Scharfeh Patr. 87369 Scharfeh Patr. 36771 Mar Gabriel, Fanqīṯō72 Anhel, Fanqīṯō**

Anhel, Evangeliar**

AG 2041 (II) 2103 (IX) 2129

Chr. 1732

Differenz 309

1794

309

181970

310

2143 (IV) 2149 (VIII) 2153 (VI)

1831

312

1840

309

1844

309

2164 (IX)

1254 (!)74

310 (?)

Hiǧra u. a.

1233 H (= 1817/8) 1254 H (= 1838/9) 1258 H (= 1842/3) 7358 Adam (= 1850)73

Noch ein Sonderfall: In der Hs. Scharfeh Patr. 819 sind folgende Jahre genannt: 1797 Chr., 2108 AG, 1211 H, 1246 der armenischen Zeitrechnung und 1795 Chr.75 Auffällig ist die Angabe zweier christlicher Jahreszahlen, die um zwei voneinander abweichen. Man vermutet zunächst, daß es sich um die uns schon häufig begegnete Differenz handelt und das niedrigere Datum 1795 unserer Zählung entspricht. Aber sowohl das seleukidische wie das islamische Jahr deuten auf (die erste Hälfte) 1797. Die erste Angabe Dolabany, Catalogue ... St. Mark’s Monastery 34. Rosen-Forshall, Catalogus codicum S. 109 (= Nr. Karsh. 6). 69 Sony, Le catalogue S. 342. 70 Wie sich aus den beiden anderen Datierungen ergibt, ist 1818 richtig. 71 Sony, Le catalogue S. 129. 72 Brock, The Fenqitho of the Monastery of Mar Gabriel 168. 73 Die Jahreszahl ist auf meinem Photo nicht deutlich lesbar. Da die Hs. nach AG und H wohl 1842 AD geschrieben wurde, hätten wir wieder eine Abweichung von 8 Jahren bei der Weltära. 74 Es sollte wohl 1854 heißen. 75 Sony, Le catalogue S. 320. 67 68

298

KAUFHOLD

eines christlichen Datums entspricht also der westlichen Zählung. Bei der zweiten christlichen Jahreszahl 1795 kommen wir auf eine Differenz zur Seleukidenära von 313. Bei der armenischen Zählung ist 552 hinzuzurechnen, was 1798 ergibt. Im folgenden eine Zusammenstellung der bei den Westsyrern bemerkenswert unterschiedlichen syrischen und arabischen (einschließlich karšūnī) Bezeichnungen für die christliche Ära: ‫ܗ ܕ ܢ ܕܒܒ‬ ‫» ܕ‬der Geburt unseres Herrn im Fleisch«: Dam syr.-orth. 12/15 (1154) ‫» ܕ ܒ ܬܐ ܕ‬im Jahr der Heilsgeschichte aber ...«: Dam. syr.-orth. 12/7 (1172/3) ‫» ܒ ܢ‬im (Jahr) unseres Herrn«: Paris syr. 39 (1195) ‫» ܕ ܢ‬unseres Herrn«: Scharfeh syr. 7/18 (1577); Mardin syr.-orth. 663 (1883) ‫ܐ ܢ‬ »nach Christus, unserem Herrn«: Scharfeh syr. 9/38 (1539) ‫ܐ‬ ‫» ܕ‬Christi«: Dolabany, Catalogue … Syrian Churches S. 6 (1590) ‫ܐ‬ »(im) christlichen (Jahr)«: Hamburg or. 278 (1556) (vgl. Aßfalg, Syr. Hss. Nr. 31 II); Vat. syr. 230 (1595); Mar Behnām 1/1 (1652); Scharfeh syr. 5/13 (1676); Cambr. syr. 2004 (1703); Berlin syr. Nr. 111 (1705); Dolabany Catalogue … Syrian Churches S. 112 (1728); Berlin syr. Nr. 221 (1743); Mardin syr.-orth. 508 (1794); Scharfeh syr. 13/25 (1803); Scharfeh syr. 3/3 (1805); Cambr. syr. 3269 (1812); Scharfeh syr. 3/4 (1826); Berlin syr. Nr. 236 (1826); Anhel, Fanqīṯō (1842); Berlin syr. Nr. 268 (1851); Anhel, Evangeliar (1853); Berlin syr. Nr. 178 (1862). – Abgekürzt: Cambr. syr. 1866 (1746) (?); Mardin syr.-orth. 660 (1847); Aleppo syr.-orth. 23 (1941); usw. ‫̈ ܐ‬ »(in den) christlichen (Jahren)«: Oxford syr. 172 (1590); Vat. syr. 10 (1593) ‫ܐ ܢ ܥ‬ »nach unserem Gott Jesus«: München syr. 6 (1553) ‫» ܕ ܘܬܗ ܕ ܘ‬der Geburt unseres Erlösers im Fleisch von ‫ܒ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒܒ‬der Jungfrau«: Aleppo syr.-orth. 49 (1566)

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA ‫ܐ‬ ̈

‫ܘ‬

, ‫مسيحية‬

‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫لسيدنا المسيح‬ ‫لسيدنا يسوع المسيح‬ ‫ܥ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܬܓ‬ ̈

‫ܓ‬

‫ ܓ‬... ̈ ‫ܥ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܒ ܐ‬ ‫لسنن التجسد‬ Ohne Angabe der Ära

299

»(im) erlösenden (Jahr): Brit. Libr. Nr. 850 (Vermerk) (1579) »(im) christlichen (Jahr)«: Rostock or. 193 (1544); Vat. arab. 48 (VIII) = Hāyik, ˓Allaqāt Nr. IX (1580); Kuri, Mon. I Nr. 145, 146 (1582); Kuri, Mon. III Nr. 36 (1585); Jerusalem Markuskloster 5 (1645); Aleppo, Maronit. 212 (1647); Aleppo syr.-orth. 89 (Vermerk) (1718); Jerusalem, Markuskloster 16 (1760); Mardin syr.-orth. 136 (1725); Aleppo syr.-orth. 13 (1730); Brit. Libr. Rich 7207 (1732); Jerusalem, Markuskloster 16 (1760); Berlin Nr. 327 (1793); Halle syr. 2 (1796); Mard. syr.-orth. 106 (1813); Mard. syr.-orth. 180 (1844); Halle syr. 7 (1851); Aleppo syr.-orth. 115 (1880); usw. »christliches Jahr«: Aleppo syr.-orth. 9 (1814) »nach unserem Herrn Christus«: Vat. arab. 902 (1580) »nach unserem Herrn Jesus Christus«: Brit. Libr. Nr. 283 (1548?) »nach unserem Herrn Jesus Christus«: Mardin syr.-orth. 38 (1691) »nach den christlichen Jahren«: Mardin syr.orth. 73 (1717) »im Jahr der Menschwerdung«: Vat. syr. 36 (1584?) »Jahr nach der Menschwerdung«: Aleppo syr.orth. 3 (1731) »Jahr nach der Menschwerdung unserers Meisters Christus«: Aleppo syr.-orth. 20 (1733) »nach den Jahren der Menschwerdung«: Scharfeh Patr. 390 (1756) Scharfeh syr. 8/22 (1704); 7/1 (1711)

Wir können feststellen, daß bei einem großen Teil der syrischen und arabischen Handschriften der Westsyrer die christliche Ära um zwei Jahre höher ist als bei uns. Das geht nicht auf Fehler der Kopisten zurück, wie

300

KAUFHOLD

manchmal angenommen wurde.76 Die Abweichung beruht ganz einfach darauf, daß nach syrischen und anderen orientalischen Quellen das Geburtsjahr Christi in das Jahr 309 der Seleukidenära fällt,77 nach westlicher Zählung dagegen in das Jahr 311. Ludger Bernhard hat die entsprechenden Belege—vor allem die historischen Werke—zusammengestellt und auf gelegentliche Abweichungen hingewiesen. Bei dem Geburtsjahr haben sich die Syrer an diese Festlegung in ihren Quellen gehalten, wie wir sie etwa auch bei Barhebraeus finden.78 Die oben z. T. auch dann noch festgestellten »falschen« Umrechnungen gehen aber wohl kaum auf Quellen mit einem anderen Geburtsjahr Christi zurück, sondern dürften eher auf Fehlern der Kopisten beruhen. Es sieht so aus, daß in der Regel auch von einem unterschiedlichen Jahresanfang auszugehen ist, so daß bei einem Datum nach dem 1. Oktober die Differenz um ein Jahr höher ist. Es ist aber auch gut möglich, daß—wie Ludger Bernhard ausführt—manchmal die »neben einem Griechenjahr in einem Abstand von 309 genannte Zahl eines ‘Jahres nach Christi Geburt’ ... überhaupt nicht der ... genaueren Datierung im strengen Sinne» dient, was sich darin zeige, daß der Jahreszahlenabstand fest sei und nicht entsprechend dem genannten Monat exakt berechnet werde.79 Wie der erwähnte Brief des Patriarchen Ni˓matallāh zeigt, war den Syrern der Unterschied bei der christlichen Zeitrechnung durchaus bewußt. Bei denjenigen, die in engerem Kontakt zur römischen Kirche standen, wird die westliche Zählung verwendet; das gilt vor allem für Handschriften, die in Europa kopiert wurden. Wenn ein Datum sowohl nach seleukidischer wie nach christlicher Ära angegeben ist, dürfte in der Regel die Jahreszahl nach der althergebrachten, den Schreibern vertrauten Seleukidenära, ihrer »Hauptzeitrechnung»,80 stimmen, und die übliche Umrechnung (d. h. minus 311 bzw. 312) die richtige Jahreszahl AD ergeben. Ist nur eine christliche Datierung vorhanden, ist die Sache schwieriger. Ob man 2 Jahre oder eine andere Zahl Vgl. etwa Rosen-Forshall, Catalogus codicum S. 109 (»sic«); Rahmani, Testamentum Domini Nostri S. IX (»1654 (?)»); Brock, The Fenqitho of the Monastery of Mar Gabriel 168 (»the figure for the Christian era ... is evidently incorrect«). 77 So schon Assemani, Bibl. Or. II 315 für Barhebraeus: »Quia nimirum Christum natum putat anno Gr[aecorum] 309. non 311«. 78 Vgl. etwa Assemani, Bibl. Or. II 315; Budge, Chronography I 89. 79 Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften 131. 80 Bernhard, Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften 128. 76

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

301

abziehen oder hinzufügen muß, um das wirkliche Datum nach der westlichen Zählung zu erhalten, ist im einzelnen zu prüfen. Zu sicheren Ergebnissen wird man wohl nicht immer kommen. Soweit der Schreiber einen Wochentag angibt, wäre festzustellen, ob er zu Tag, Monat und Jahr paßt oder nicht. Aber auch diese Prüfung ist kein Allheilmittel, weil den Schreibern auch dabei Fehler unterlaufen sind.

III. MARONITEN Mein erster Beleg für eine christliche Datierung in maronitischen Handschriften ist Bkerke II 20, falls diese Handschrift, ein Rituale, überhaupt maronitischen Ursprungs ist. Der Schreiber Ḥaušab (= Ḥadbšabbā) könnte auch der syrisch-orthodoxen Kirche angehört haben.81 Er gibt das Datum 1306 Chr. nur in einer Arabeske an.82 Die Hs. Bkerke I 92 wurde am 17. Februar 1354 Chr. von einem Kopisten geschrieben, der seinen Namen nicht nennt.83 Auch bei ihm wissen wir nicht genau, ob er Maronit war.84 Am 21. August 1400 Chr. entstand »in der Stadt Rom (Rūmīya), im Kloster des Marcellinus85« die Hs. Bkerke II 181.86 Näheres ist nicht bekannt. Ebenfalls liturgischen Inhalts und damit nicht ohne weiteres konfessionell einzuordnen ist die Hs. Bkerke I 73, beendet am 26. Juli 1468 Chr. von einem Diakon Abraham.87 Ǧumayil, an-Nussāḫ III 89f. führt ihn ohne weitere Angaben unter den maronitischen Kopisten auf (Nr. 1716). 82 Baissari, Catalogue 60–62. 83 Khalifé-Baissari, Catalogue 74. 84 Bei Ǧumayil, an-Nussāḫ, kommt in den chronologischen Registern der Handschriften das Jahr 1354 nicht vor. 85 Das römische Kloster der hll. Petrus und Marcellinus wurde erst 1724 den maronitischen Mönchen überlassen (Raphael, Le rôle du Collège maronite 148, 153; Mahfoud, L’organisation monastique 329), es scheint aber—wenn es mit dem in der Handschriften genannten identisch ist und die Jahreszahl stimmt—schon früher Beziehungen zu den Maroniten gegeben zu haben. Einen Hinweis darauf gibt auch die Hs. Vat. syr. 245, die der Maronit Michael Metoscita Ende des 17. Jh. von einer in der »Bibliotheca SS. Marcellini & Petri de Urbe« aufbewahrten Handschrift abgeschrieben hat. 86 Baissari, Catalogue 311. Ǧumayil, an-Nussāḫ, erwähnt die Handschrift, soweit ich sehe, nicht. 87 Khalifé-Baissari, Catalogue 63. Verzeichnet bei Ǧumayil, an-Nussāḫ II 678 (Nr. 1620). 81

302

KAUFHOLD

Die Hs. Vat. syr. 170* wurde im Jahr 1808 AG, d. h. 1497 Chr. geschrieben. Der betreffende Vermerk mit Umrechnung nach westlicher Art stammt allerdings von späterer Hand und läßt sich zeitlich nicht festlegen. Westlich datiert sind die Schreiben maronitischer Patriarchen an den Papst. Verwiesen sei z. B. auf den Brief des Patriarchen Simon Peter an Papst Leo X. von 1514.88 Weitere Schreiben maronitischer Patriarchen an Päpste stammen aus den Jahren 1542, 1564, 1566, 1577, 1578 usw.89 Da es sich um Übersetzungen handelt, kann allerdings nicht ausgeschlossen werden, daß das Original eine andere Datierung enthielt, auch wenn einige Formulierungen nahelegen, daß es sich um wörtliche Übersetzungen handelt. Sichere Feststellungen lassen sich nur treffen, soweit die arabische Fassung erhalten ist. Das gilt für einen Brief des Patriarchen Michael arRuzzī (Rizzi) an Papst Gregor XIII., der vom 20. 9. 1578 Chr. stammt.90 Die Akten der Libanesischen Synode, die unter Leitung des lateinischen Legaten Eliano stattfand, sind »nach der göttlichen Menschwerdung« richtig auf 1580 datiert,91 die Akten der Synode von 1644 nach westlichem Muster.92 Daß Handschriften, die in Europa entstanden sind, vor allem in Rom und Paris, nur ein Datum nach westlicher Art tragen, ist nachvollziehbar. Das gilt für die Arbeiten des Mönches Elias bar Abraham, der 1515 mit einer Gesandtschaft des maronitischen Patriarchen nach Rom gekommen war: Vat. syr. 265 (1517), Vat. syr. 9* (1518), Mailand A. 70 sup. (1518),93 Vat. syr. 15* (1519), Manchester syr. 7 (Kirche S. Maria della Pace, 1519) und Paris syr. 44 (1521).94 Seine erste römische Handschrift enthält freilich noch beide Ären: St. Petersburg 12*, geschrieben im Mai 1828 AG und 1518 Chr. Die beiden Daten stimmen um ein Jahr nicht überein, denn das seleukidische Jahr entspricht 1517 AD. Anaissi, Collectio documentorum maronitarum Nr. 35 (S. 42). Anaissi, Collectio documentorum maronitarum Nr. 37 (S. 47: anno de la incarnatione del nostro Signore Jesu Christo), 38, 39 (S. 50: a nativitate D. N. I. C.), 40 (S. 51: de anno Incarnatione Domini), 42, 44, 46. 90 Rabbath, Documents inédits I, Abbildung am Anfang und Abdruck auf S. 190–192. 91 Feghali, Histoire du droit 133 (arabisch), 203 (französische Übersetzung). 92 Ebenda 281 (Text), 295 (Übersetzung). 93 Galbiati, I fondi orientali minori 191. 94 Levi della Vida, Documenti 133ff. S. auch Ǧumayil, an-Nussāḫ II 679f. (Vat. syr. 9 und 15). 88 89

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

303

Auf Zypern schrieb Yamīn bar Sālim mindestens zwei Handschriften: die Vorlage von Borg. syr. 56 (1527 Chr.) sowie die Hs. Vat. syr. 29*, die auf Februar 1846 AG und 1536 Chr. datiert ist. Die Umrechnung geht nicht auf, das christliche Jahr ist auch bei ihm um 1 zu hoch. 1536 Chr. entstand auf Zypern weiterhin die Hs. Vat. syr. 276; ihr Schreiber Abraham war wohl auch Maronit.95 Beide Datierungen enthält die Hs. Vat. syr. 52*: 1848 AG und 1537 Chr., wenn auch in verschiedenen Kolophonen; die Jahreszahlen passen zueinander. Die Hs. Vat. syr. 405 ist deshalb ungewöhnlich, weil sie auch nach der Weltära datiert: 7064 Adam (= 1556 AD) oder 1868 AG (= 1557) oder 1556 Chr. Da sie Ende September beendet wurde, hat der Schreiber vielleicht voreilig schon das ab 1. Oktober beginnende nächste Seleukidenjahr genannt. Richtig wird jedenfalls 1556 sein, und die christliche Ära ist nach westlichem Muster gezählt. Die folgenden Handschriften sind nur christlich datiert: Dair al-Banāt 12496 1566 Paris syr. 85* 1582 (VI) 1583 Bkerke I 397 Oxford syr. 166* 1595 Oxford syr. 188* 1597 Cambridge Mm. 4. 18* 1601 Paris syr. 275 1606 1581 schreibt der maronitische Patriarch Sargīs ar-Ruzzī in seiner Residenz Qannūbīn einen Brief an den Papst, der stimmig auf 1581 Chr. und 1892 AG datiert ist.98 In derselben Zeit entstanden aber auch maronitische Handschriften, die nur ein Datum nach der Seleukidenära tragen: z. B. Bkerke I 98: 1613 AG (= 1302 AD),99 Paris arab. 68 (= 1340), Vat. syr. 133* (= 1402), 235* (= 1426), 48* (= 1507), Bkerke I 77: 1838 AG (= 1527),100 Vat. syr. 210*: 1867 AG (= 1556) und 49*: 1870 AG (= 1559). Ab dem Anfang des 17. Jh. wurde eine Reihe von Handschriften in Rom kopiert, wo 1584 das Maronitische Kolleg eröffnet worden war. Sie Allerdings nicht verzeichnet bei Ǧumayil, an-Nussāḫ. Nasrallah, Catalog … Liban II 232f. 97 Khalifé-Baissari, Catalogue 11f. 98 Kuri, Monumenta I Nr. 124. 99 Khalifé-Baissari, Catalogue 79f. 100 Ebenda 65f. 95 96

304

KAUFHOLD

sind nur nach der christlichen Zeitrechnung datiert: Borg. syr. 14 (1608), Mailand & 133 sup. (1609),101 Paris syr. 243 (1610), 250 (1627) und 248 (1637). Die Reihe ließe sich leicht fortsetzen.102 Im Libanon entstand die Hs. Brit. Libr. Nr. 304*, die noch ein Datum nach vier Ären trägt: 1701 Chr, 2012 AG, 1112 H und 7218 ( ‫)? ܙܒ‬ Adam. Das muslimische Jahr 1112 endete am 7. Januar 1701, die Handschrift müßte also in den ersten Tagen des Jahres geschrieben sein, vorausgesetzt, die Jahreszahlen sind richtig. Allmählich dürfte sich aber allein die christliche Ära durchgesetzt haben, wobei die Zählung nach westlicher Art verwendet wird. Mir ist jedenfalls keine spätere Datierung aufgefallen, in der eine andere Zeitrechnung vorkommt. Es ist daher wohl nicht richtig, wenn Ludger Bernhard meint, die damals in Rom weilenden Maroniten (die z. T. schon in früher Jugend dorthin gekommen sind) hätten »die Seleukidenära von Kindheit an als ihre gewöhnliche, täglich gebrauchte Zeitrechnung» gekannt.103 Die Maroniten verwendeten folgende syrische und arabische (einschließlich karšūnī) Bezeichnungen für die christliche Ära: ‫ܐ‬ ‫» ܒ ̈ ܕ ܢ ܥ‬in den Jahren unseres Herrn Jesus Christus«: St. Petersburg 12 (1517) ‫̈ ܕ ܢ‬ ... ‫» ܒ‬im Jahr … von den Jahren unseres ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܥ‬ Herrn Jesus Christus«: Vat. syr. 9 (1518); Vat. syr. 15 (1519) ‫» ܕ ܢ‬unseres Herrn«: Oxford syr. 188 (1597); Cambr. Mm. 4. 18 (1601) ‫ܐ‬ »(im) christlichen (Jahr)«: Scharfeh syr. 1/15 (Vermerk) (1624; Kuri, Mon. III Nr. 33 (1585); Oxford syr. 1 (1627), 19 (1628), usw. ̈ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܐ‬ »der christlichen, göttlichen (Jahre) des Herrn«: Vat. syr. 52 (1537)

Galbiati, I fondi orientali minori 191. S. die Ortsregister bei Ǧumayil, an-Nussāḫ, unter »Rom« (und auch »Paris«). Das Werk von Ǧumayil über die maronitischen Schreiber ist im übrigen leider für unsere Zwecke nicht brauchbar, weil ausnahmslos die Jahreszahlen AD vermerkt sind. 103 Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften 11. 101 102

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA ̈

‫ܝ‬

, ‫مسيحية‬

‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬

‫ܐ ܓ‬

‫للتجسد االلھي‬ ‫ܓ ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܪܒܐ‬, ‫ربانية‬ ‫ܪܒܐ‬

Ohne Angabe:

305

»christlich«: Vat. syr. 29 (1535); Oxford syr. 166 (1595); Libanesische Synode von 1644; Aleppo Maronit. 212 (1647); Cambr. syr. 2025 (1718); Berlin or. oct. 1427 (= Aßfalg, Syrische Handschriften Nr. 70) (1745); Berlin or. oct. 2063 (= Aßfalg Nr. 41) (1827); Kuri, Mon. I Nr. 32 (1577), 63 (1578), 124 (1581); usw. »seit der göttlichen Menschwerdung«: Rabbath, Documents I 192 (1578) »der göttlichen Menschwerdung«: Kuri, Mon. I Nr. 70 (1579); Paris syr. 85 (1582); Dair Mar ˓Abda 28 (= Nasrallah, Liban II 131) (1694); Brit. Libr. Nr. 304 (1701); Dair al-Banāt 51 (= Nasrallah, Liban II 193) (1726); 69 (= ebenda 205) (1863) »von den Jahren des Herrn«: Oxford syr. 2 (1614) »des Herrn«: Paris syr. 85 (1582); Missionaires Libanaises 6 (= Nasrallah, Liban II 12) (1701) »des Herrn«: Dair Mar ˓Abda 75 (= Nasrallah, Liban II 154) (1712); Dair alBanāt 6 (= Nasrallah, Liban II 167) (1732), 93 (= Nasrallah, Liban II 217) (1742) Wolfenbüttel (= Aßfalg Nr. 5, S. 14, Vermerk) (1666); Berlin or. oct. 1432 (= Aßfalg Nr. 75) (1674)

IV. MELKITEN Bei den melkitischen Handschriften setzt die Datierung nach der christlichen Zeitrechnung, soweit bisher bekannt, mit einer Handschrift vom Jahre 1017 AD ein. Eine durchgehende Reihe finden wir aber erst seit dem Anfang des 13. Jh. Hauptsächlich wird die Weltära (Adam) verwendet, aber auch die Seleukidenära und die islamische Zeitrechnung, zum Teil mehrere in unterschiedlicher Reihenfolge. Unter den zahlreichen Handschriften mit anderer Datierung finden sich auch bemerkenswert viele, die zusätzlich

306

KAUFHOLD

nach Christi Geburt datiert sind. In einigen wird sogar nur die christliche Zeitrechnung verwendet: Handschrift Sinai arab. NF pap. 105 51 Sinai syr. 128 Sinai syr. 81 Vat. arab. 645 (II) Vat. arab. 491 Sinai arab. 129 Sinai arab. 119 Sinai arab. 214 Sinai arab. 125 Sinai syr. 111 Paris syr. 134/5 Sinai syr. 237 Sinai syr. 220

Weltära

AG

6737 6740

6748

6751

1544

1551

1554 -

6766 6769

H

Chr.

[AD]

407106

1025 (IV)

= 1017

Differenz104 -8

1235 (VIII) 1240 (VII) 1242 (VIII) 1243 (XI) 1245 (XII) 1245 (IX) 1248 (V) 1250 (XII) 1251 (XII) 1256 (-) 1266 (VII) 1269 (IV)

= 1229

-6

= 1232

-8

= 1234 ?107 = 1234 ?108 =?

-8? -9 ?

=? = 1240

-8

=? = 1243

-8

=? = 1258

-8

= 1261

-8

= Differenz zwischen der in der Handschrift angegebenen christlichen Datierung und AD. 105 Meïmaris, Katalogos 50f. und 55 der arabischen Paginierung. 106 Ḏu ˒l-qa˓da 407 H = April 1017. 107 So Samir Khalil, L’ère de l’Incarnation 196. 108 So Samir Khalil, L’ère de l’Incarnation 195. 104

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA Handschrift Sinai arab. 66 Sinai arab. 285 (Vermerk) Sinai arab. 244 Sinai syr. 245 Sinai arab. 145 Sinai arab. 132 Sinai syr. 272 Sinai syr. 92 Vat. syr.112

Weltära

Sinai syr. 83 Sinai syr. 236 Sinai arab. 127 Sinai syr. 210 Sinai syr. 75

AG

H

Chr.

[AD]

664

. . 74109 (V) 1281 (I)

= 1266

1286 (IV) 1282 (VI) 1285 (XI) 1290 (IX) 1297 (VIII) 1300 (IX) 1300 (IX) 1301 (III) 1302 (III) 1302 (XI) 1303 (III) 1304 (IX)

= 1272 ?110 = 1274

- 14 ?

= 1276111

-9

= 1282

-8

= 1289

-8

= 1292

-8

= 1292

-8

= 1293

-8

= 1294

-8

= 1294113

-8

= 1295

-8

= 1296

-8

670 1585 675 6790

680

6797

1600

6800

1603

6800

1603

6801

1604

6802 6802

693

6803

1606

6804

1607

307 Differenz104 -8

=?

-8

Es sind nur der Zehner und der Einer angegeben. Samir Khalil, L’ère de l’Incarnation 197f., korrigiert zu 676 H = 1278 AD, so daß sich wieder eine Differenz von 8 ergäbe. 111 So Samir Khalil, L’ère de l’Incarnation 196f. 112 Rilliet, La bibliothèque 414. 113 Samir Khalil, L’ère de l’Incarnation 199 schlägt eine Korrektur zu 692 H vor = 1293 AD. 109 110

308

KAUFHOLD

Handschrift Beirut, Miniatur114 Sinai arab. 162 Sinai arab. 3

Ming. arab. chr. 262 Oxford syr. 38 Oxford syr. 75 Paris syr. 142 Balamand 117115 Paris syr. 128 Paris syr. 127 Beirut, Bibl. or. 912117

Oxford syr. 86

Weltära

AG

6852

6862

1670

[= 1354]

[= 1358/ 9]

H

Chr.

[AD]

?

1344 (-)

= 1344

1348 (III) 1358 (I)

=? = 1354 ?

-4?

= 1380

-8

= 1418

-8

6888

Differenz104 0

6926

1729

1388 (VII) 1426

6994

1797

1494

= 1486

-8

7031

1834 ?

1531 (-)

= 1523

-8

1437116

= 1537 (!)

+ 100

-

1562 (-)

=?

-

1569 (-)

=?

1573 (VII)

= 1565 ?

-8?

1601

= 1593

-8

7045

944

7073

977

[= 1565)

[= 1569]

7101

1904

Nasrallah, Chronologie des patriarches melchites d’Antioche 203; Separatdruck: S. 12. 115 al-Maḫṭūṭāṭ ... Lubnān, Balamand II S. 102f. 116 Daß sich Schreiber um ein ganzes Jahrhundert vertun, kommt öfter vor. 117 Khalifé, Catalogue S. 256. 114

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA Handschrift Bkerke 38118 Harissa 50120

Weltära I

Balamand Nr. 94121 Balamand Nr. 11122 Balamand Nr. 108123 Beirut, Bibl. or. 879124 Beirut, Bibl. or. 880125 Balamand Nr. 123126 Dair a-uwair 385127

AG

H

309

Chr.

[AD]

1612

= 1604119

Differenz104 -8

1646 (VIII)

= 1638

-8

7161

1653

= 1653

0

7162

1654

= 1654

0

7164

1656

= 1656

0

7167

1659 (III)

= 1659

0

7169

1661 (VIII)

= 1661

0

7169

1661

= 1661

0

1674 (VI)

= 1666

-8

1682

= 1682

0

7112 7146

7174

1050 [= 1640]

1075

[= 1664] Balamand Nr. 81128

7191

Khalifé-Baissari, Catalogue 39. Vgl. auch Nasrallah, Histoire III 2 S. 197 Fußnote 333. 120 Nasrallah, Catalogue … Liban I 84 (Fußnote 3: »Il y a une erreur manifeste dans la concordance des dates, aucune ne correspond à l’autre«). 121 al-Maḫṭūṭāṭ ... Lubnān, Balamand II S. 92. 122 al-Maḫṭūṭāṭ ... Lubnān, Balamand II S. 68. 123 al-Maḫṭūṭāṭ ... Lubnān, Balamand II S. 98f. 124 Khalifé, Catalogue S. 221. 125 Khalifé, Catalogue S. 223. 126 al-Maḫṭūṭāṭ ... Lubnān, Balamand II S. 107f. 127 Nasrallah, Catalogue … Liban III 264. 118 119

310

KAUFHOLD

Handschrift Beirut, Bibl. or. 908129 Balamand Nr. 111130 Balamand Nr. 112131 Ma˓lūf 4132

Weltära

AG

H

7204

7206

1110

7215 7228

1132

Chr.

[AD]

1687 (III)

= 1696

Differenz104 +9

1698

= 1698

0

1707

= 1707

0

1730 (III)

= 1720

+ 10

Es handelt sich sich überwiegend um arabische. Handschriften. Weitere Beispiele ließen sich sicher in arabischen Handschriftenkatalogen finden. Zu dieser Zeit werden Melkiten kaum noch syrische Handschriften kopiert haben. Sogar in einem Leservermerk, nämlich in der Hs. Vat. arab. 266, findet sich eine dreifache Datierung, die wohl von einem Melkiten stammt: Juli 7060 nach der Erschaffung der Welt, 1552 Chr. und 960 H.133 Die drei Daten passen nach üblicher Umrechnung zusammen. Wir sehen, daß meist die angegebene Zahl nach christlicher Ära um 8 höher ist als bei der üblichen Berechnung (vgl. die letzte Spalte der Tabelle oben). Das ist kein Fehler der Kopisten im Einzelfall.134 Wie der Vergleich mit der Weltära und—soweit angegeben—der Seleukidenära zeigt, fällt danach das Geburtsjahr Christi AD an sich in das Jahr 5508 nach Erschaffung der Welt. Dies entspricht einer der beiden byzantinischen Weltären.135 Zwischen der Weltära und dem in den Handschriften al-Maḫṭūṭāṭ ... Lubnān, Balamand II S. 88. Khalifé, Catalogue S. 248. 130 al-Maḫṭūṭāṭ ... Lubnān, Balamand II S. 101. 131 al-Maḫṭūṭāṭ ... Lubnān, Balamand II S. 101f. 132 Nasrallah, Catalogue … Liban IV 8. 133 Levi della Vida, Richerche 295. 134 So aber bezüglich der Hs. Bkerke I 38 Nasrallah, Histoire III 2 S. 197, Fußnote 333: »l’équivalence donnée par le copiste n’est qu’une erreur«; ders., Catatogue … Liban II 84, Fußnote 3: Il y a une ereur manifeste dans la concordance des dates, aucune ne correspond à l’autre.« (Weltära und abweichende christliche Ära stimmen überein, nicht aber H). 135 Bernhard, Die Chronologie der Syrer 128; ders., Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften 148. Bernhard weist dort auch darauf hin, daß es eine 128 129

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

311

angegebenen christlichen Datum beträgt dagegen der Unterschied regelmäßig 5500 Jahre,136 mit anderen Worten, die melkitischen Schreiber verlegen das Geburtsjahr Christi in das Jahr 5500 nach Erschaffung der Welt. Sie berücksichtigen dabei zumindest teilweise den unterschiedlichen Jahresanfang nicht, wenn sie dies auch in den Monaten Oktober bis Dezember tun. Im Verkehr mit dem Westen wurde die westliche Datierung verwandt. So schrieben z. B. 1584 Chr. die Melkiten aus Tripolis an Papst Gregor XIII.137 Auf den 15. Febraur 1663 ist der Brief datiert, den der melkitische Patriarch Makarios aus Aleppo an den französischen König Ludwig XIV. schrieb.138 An syrischen und arabischen (einschließlich karšūnī) Bezeichnungen für die christliche Ära begegnen uns bei den Melkiten die nachstehenden: ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ »seit der Geburt Christi unseres Herrn«: Sinai syr. 128 (1229) ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ »nach der Geburt Christi« : Sinai syr. 111 (1243) ‫ܗ ܕ ܥ ܒ ܓ‬ ‫» ܕ‬der Geburt Jesu im Leib«: Sinai syr. 220 (1261) ‫ܗ ܕ ܥ ܒ ܓ‬ »der Geburt Jesu im Leib«: Sinai syr. 210 (1295) ‫ܐ ܒ ܓ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ ܢ‬ »der Geburt unseres Herrn Jesus Christus im Leib«: Oxford syr. 38 (1426) ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܥ‬ »nach der Zählung Jesu Christi«: Sinai syr. 81 (1232) ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܘܬܗ ܕ ܢ‬ »der Geburt unseres Herrn Jesus ‫ ܒ ܓ ܐ‬Christus im Leib«: Sinai syr. 237 (1258) ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܓ‬ »nach der Fleischwerdung unseres Herrn Jesus Christus«: Oxford syr. 86 (1593) ‫ܐ‬ ‫» ܗܝ ܕ‬Christi«: Sinai syr. 245 (1274) andere Ära gibt, bei der die Geburt Christi in das Jahr 5009 nach Erschaffung der Welt fällt. 136 Siehe auch Bernhard, Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften 152. 137 Rabbath, Documents inédits I 186 (arabischer Text), 189 Übersetzung). 138 Rabbath, Documents inédits I 476 (französisch).

312

KAUFHOLD ‫ܐ ܒ ܓ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܓ‬

‫ܥ‬ ‫ܥ‬

‫̈ܐ ܕ‬

‫̈ܐ ܕ‬

‫̈ܐ ܓ ܗ ܕ ܢ‬ ... ... ‫ܘܐ ܢ ܘ ܘ ܘ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܥ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܓ‬

‫̈ܐ ܕ‬

‫̈ܐ ܕ ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܥ‬

‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬

‫لسيدنا نور العلم‬ ‫لسيد يسوع المسيح‬ ‫مسيحية‬

‫للتجسد االلھي‬

‫للتجسد ربنا‬ ‫للتجسد الكريم‬

»der Jahre Jesu Christi im Leib«: Sinai syr. 272 (1289) »von den Jahren Jesus Christi im Leib: Sinai syr. 92 (1292) »Jahr … von den Jahren des Leibes unseres Herrn und Gottes und Erlösers und Lebendigmachers …: Oxford syr. 75 (1494) »von den Jahren Christi«: Sinai syr. 83 (1293) »von den Jahren unseres Herrn Jesu Christi«: Sinai syr. 236 (1294) »nach unserem Herrn Jesus Christus im Leib«: Sinai syr. 75 (1296) »nach unserem Herrn«: Bkerke II 20 (1306) »unseres Herrn, des Lichtes der Welt«: Sinai arab. NF Papier 51 (1017) »des Herrn Jesus Christus«: Ma˓lūf 4 (1720) »christlich«: Vat. arab. 29 (1342); Brief der Melkiten an Papst Gregor XIII. (1584); Dair ašŠuwair 385 (1666); Bibl. or. 908 (1887); Sin. arab. 42 (1790) »der göttlichen Menschwer-dung«: Sin. arab. 119, 129 (1245), 125 (1250), 66 (1258), 244 (1272), 145 (1276), 132 (1282), 162 (1348); Beirut Bibl. or. 879 (1659), 1880 (1661) »der Menschwerdung unseres Herrn«: Sin. arab. 214 (1240) »der kostbaren Menschwer-dung«: Sin. arab. 285 (1281)

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA (‫للمسيح )سنة‬

313

»Jahr Christi«: Beirut, Miniatur (1344); Sin. arab. 3 (1359); Beirut Bibl. or. 912 (1565)

V. OSTSYRER (NESTORIANER UND CHALDÄER) Die älteste mir bekannte ostsyrische Handschrift, die eine Jahresangabe nach der christlichen Ära enthält, ist Vat. syr. 467. Nach dem Kolophon wurde sie im Eliaskloster bei Mosul139 geschrieben im Jahr 6679 nach der Erschaffung Adams,140 1055 Chr. und 582 H. Alle drei Datierungen passen nicht zusammen: 6679 Erschaffung Adams entspricht (nach der griechischen Weltära) 1171/2 AD und 582 islamischer Zeitrechnung fällt in die Jahre 1186/7 AD. Der Schreiber gibt an, daß im Jahr 581 H (= 1185/86 AD) Sultan Saladin die Stadt Mosul zum zweiten Mal vergeblich belagert habe. Das trifft für 1185 AD141 zu. Dem Kopisten war also offenbar die islamische Zeitrechnung vertraut (und vermutlich die unerwähnt gelassene Seleukidenära). Die Jahreszahl nach christlicher Zählung weicht so stark ab, daß sie wertlos ist; es ist auch nicht ersichtlich, wie der Schreiber auf die Zahl gekommen ist. Die Abweichung bei der Weltära erklärt sich sicherlich dadurch, daß er nicht nach der Weltära der Griechen rechnete, sondern nach der alexandrinischen Weltära, bei der man 16 addieren muß, so daß sich 1187/8 AD ergibt, was ungefähr stimmt. Die Hs. Vat. arab. 29*, ein arabisches Lektionar der Paulusbriefe »nach dem Brauch der nestorianischen Kirche« wurde am 10. Februar 1342 Chr. von dem Mönch Thomas, Sohn des aṣ-Ṣafī, geschrieben.142 Der Schreibort ist nicht genannt. Die Angabe nur der westlichen Ära erklärt sich wohl dadurch, daß die Handschrift für die Bibliothek des Sire (sīr) Franciscus (Ifrānsīs) geschrieben wurde. Abgesehen von der französischen Anrede »Sire« (= Seigneur) und dem westlichen Namen Franciscus zeigt sich das westliche Umfeld des Schreibers auch darin, daß die Jahreszahl mit griechischen Buchstaben geschrieben ist (ατμβ΄); darunter hat eine andere Auch Dair Sa˓īd, s. Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne II 639–659. Auffällig ist, daß der Schreiber mit der Weltära beginnt, die nur bei den Melkiten üblich ist. Da er im ostsyrischen Eliaskloster schrieb, kann er aber kaum Melkit gewesen sein. 141 Honigmann-Bosworth, al-Mauṣil 900. 142 Graf, Codices Vaticani Arabici, Druckfahnen S. 63–69. S. auch Graf, Ein nestorianisches Pauluslektionar 237f. = Graf, Christlicher Orient und schwäbische Heimat I 318f. (mit Diskussion des Datums). 139 140

314

KAUFHOLD

Hand die arabische Entsprechung ١٣٤٢ vermerkt. Ich kann die Personen sonst nicht belegen. Wegen des Inhalts könnte man an einen ostsyrischen Schreiber denken, die griechische Jahreszahl läßt aber an einen Melkiten denken. Dann würde der Beleg nicht hierher gehören. Häufiger erscheinen Datumsangaben nach christlicher Zeitrechnung erst ab der Mitte des 16. Jh. Das wird daran liegen, daß mit Johannes Sullāqa (1553–1555) der erste unierte ostsyrische Patriarch auftrat und es zu häufigeren Kontakten mit der lateinischen Kirche kam. Einen Brief an den Papst, der nur in lateinischer Übersetzung erhalten ist, datiert er auf 1553 AD,143 falls dies nicht bloß eine Umrechnung des damaligen Übersetzers ist. In seiner Zeit erscheint aber auch noch allein die Seleukidenära.144 Sein Nachfolger ˓Aḇdīšō˓ datierte ein Lobgedicht auf Papst Paul V. auf das Jahr 1556 Chr.,145 sein eigenes Glaubensbekenntnis auf 1562 Chr.,146 während ein Brief, den er zusammen mit seinen Bischöfen verfaßt hat, die Jahreszahlen 1891 AG und 1580 Chr. enthält.147 Noch ausführlicher ist ˓Aḇdīšō˓ in einem Brief an Papst Pius IV: Januar 7056 nach Adam, 1876 AG und 1565 Chr. Auch er benutzt wohl die alexandrinische Weltära (nach der griechischen wäre es das Jahr 7073). Sein 1567 geschriebener Brief an den Patriarchen von Goa trägt nur das Datum »dell’anno greco 1878«.148 Sein nestorianischer Konkurrent Katholikos Elias (VI. oder VII.; 1576–1591) verwendet 1586 in einem Brief an den Papst vom Dezember 1553 ebenfalls eine christliche Zeitrechnung, jedoch die Himmelfahrtsära (s. unten Abschnitt VII). Der erste Kopist, der mehrfach auch nach christlicher Ära datiert, ist der bekannte Archidiakon Jahḇallāhā (syrisch »Gott hat gegeben«), Sohn des Priesters Faraǧ, Sohn des Diakons Markos aus Alqoš, der in Gāzartā lebte und dort mindestens ab 1536 Handschriften anfertigte. Er bezeichnet sich manchmal auch mit der ins Arabische übersetzten Namensbedeutung ˓Aṭāya. Er verwendet allerdings meist nicht das Jahr nach Christi Geburt, sondern die Himmelfahrtsära. Es gibt aber auch frühe Handschriften von ihm, die er nicht nach der Himmelfahrtsära datiert hat, z. B. Mardin chald. Beltrami, La chiesa caldea 148. Vgl. z. B. Assemani, Bibl. Or. I 527f./528–530 (Bericht über die Reise des Johannes Sullāqā nach Rom); Vat. syr. 45* (1867 AG [= 1556 AD]). 145 Giamil, Genuinae relationes 29f. 146 Ebenda 41–58. 147 Ebenda 88–90. 148 Rabbath, Documents II 434. 143 144

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

315

17 (1847 AG = 1536 AD) oder Vat. syr. 83* (Oktober 1850 AG = 1538 AD). Ein Elias kopierte 1882/83 AG bzw. 1571/72 Chr. und 979 H in Jerusalem die Hs. Vat. syr. 84*, also mit »richtiger« Umrechnung.149 Bemerkenswert ist, daß sich bei der Hs. Brit. Libr. Rich. 7175*, einem ostsyrischen Evangeliar, die christliche Ära wie bei den Westsyrern abweicht (s. oben Abschnitt II). Beendet wurde sie im Gebiet von Gāzartā am 11. September 1885 AG, 1575 Chr., 981 H und 7066 »nach Beginn der Welt«.150 Die Seleukidenära ergibt 1574 und das islamische Jahr 1573, so daß das angegebene christliche Jahr wohl um zwei zu hoch ist. Die Weltära zeigt die bei den Melkiten übliche Abweichung von 8 Jahren (s. oben Abschnitt IV).151 Eine Besonderheit ist die Hs. Paris syr. 371 IV, datiert auf 1916 AG, das 180. Jahr des 14. großen Mondzyklus von 532 Jahren, 1606 nach Christi Geburt, 1573 der Himmelfahrtsära, dem Jahr 7096 der Weltära und 1013 H, was nach Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet152 auf 1604/5 AD hinausläuft. Ein langer Bericht zweier Ostsyrer über ihre Kirche, der für Rom bestimmt war und lateinisch erhalten ist, ist auf 1606 (AD) datiert;153 auch hier wissen wir nicht genau, ob das wohl vorauszusetzende syrische oder arabische Original diese westliche Datierung enthielt. Ein Brief des Katholikos Simeon V. (1662–1700) enthält neben dem Datum 20. April 1981 AG noch die christliche Jahreszahl 1670.154 Simeon beendete 1672 die Union mit Rom. Die von dem Metropoliten von Amid Joseph geschriebene Hs. Borg. syr. 37 trägt das Datum 27. Juni 1674. Von ihm stammt auch die Hs. Trichur 67**, die er nach dem Kolophon im Oktober 1693 Chr., 2005 AG und 1105 H in Amid abschloß. Er wurde später unter dem Namen Joseph II. chaldäischer Patriarch (1696–1712). Im Auftrag seines Vorgängers übersetzte er noch als Priester 1692 Chr. und 2003 AG in Amid einen Katechismus (Hs. Berlin Nr. 53). Die genannten Jahreszahlen passen nach der üblichen Berechnung zusammen. Es handelt sich um zwei Kolophone. Rosen-Forshall, Catalogus codicum Nr. 31. 151 Die Hs. Tellkeph 66 von 1739 ist nach der Seleukidenära und auf 7230 nach der Erschaffung der Welt datiert. Diese Jahreszahl ist gegenüber der griechischen Weltära gleichfalls um 8 zu hoch (1739 entspricht 7247 AD). 152 Manuscrits syriaques, S. 48. 153 Kuri, Monumenta III 219. 154 Giamil, Genuinae relationes 197–201. 149 150

316

KAUFHOLD

Seit dem Ende des 17. Jh. kopierten in Rom unierte Schreiber zahlreiche Handschriften, in denen die christliche Ära verwendet wird, u. a. der aus Amid stammende Metropolit Šem˓ōn 1691 Chr. die Hs. Cambr. Oo. 1.15*. Der unierte Patriarch Joseph I., der von 1681 bis 1695 amtierte und sich 1675/6 über ein Jahr in Rom aufgehalten hatte, richtete u. a. im Juli 1682 Chr.155 und April 1690 Chr.156 Briefe an den Papst. Außerdem kopierte 1683 Chr. in Amid die Hs. Brit. Libr. Nr. 305* und 1691 Chr. die Hs. Vat. syr. 44*. Auch Paris erscheint als Schreibort: Paris syr. 89 (1689; Jakob bar ˓Abd al-Masīḥ aus Mosul); Paris syr. 185 (1692), 200 (1692), 188 (1693), 1–5 (1695) (alle von dem chaldäischen Priester ˓Abd al-Aḥad bar David aus Amid). In Amid entstand 1693 Chr. die Hs. Diyarbakir 120. In der Folgezeit finden sich immer mehr Handschriften, die nach westlicher Art datiert sind. Diese Datierung setzt sich etwa ab der Mitte des 19. Jh. bei den Ostsyrern allgemein durch, auch wenn gelegentlich noch andere Ären verwandt werden. Die Ostsyrer verwenden ebenfalls viele verschiedene syrische und arabische (einschließlich karšūnī) Bezeichnungen für die christliche Ära: ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܕ ܓ‬... »im Jahr … der Menschwerdung ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ unseres Herrn Christus «: Giamil, Genuinae relationes 58 (1562) ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ »nach der Geburt Christi, unseres Herrn«: Brit. Libr. Rich. 7175 (1575) ‫ܗ ܕ ܢ‬ ‫» ܒ‬nach der Geburt unseres Herrn«: Brit. Libr. Nr. 305 (Rosen-Forshall Nr. 31) (1683) ‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ »nach der Geburt Christi«: Brit. Libr. Rich. 7151 (Rosen-Forshall Nr. 7) (1812)

Giamil, Genuinae relationes 205f. Lampart, Ein Märtyrer der Union, 2. Abbildung nach S. 223 (Faksimile des Briefes in Karšūnī). Weitere Briefe Josephs I. in Übersetzung mit westlicher Datierung: ebenda 299f., 305–323. Ein Brief des nestorianischen Katholikos Elias vom März 1694 ist dagegen nach der Seleukidenära datiert, ebenda 325. 155 156

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA ‫ܗ ܕܐ ܢ ܓ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܗ ܕ‬

‫ܥ‬

‫ܗ ܕ‬

‫ܗ ܕ ܢ ܘܐ ܐܗܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ ܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫ܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܥ ܢ‬

‫ܘܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

317

»nach der Geburt unseres verehrungswürdigen Gottes«: Brit. Libr. Rich. 7149 (Rosen-Forshall Nr. 5) (1816) »nach der Geburt Christi«: Brit. Libr. Rich. 7150 (Rosen-Forshall Nr. 6) (1820) »der Geburt Jesu Christi«: Cambr. 2811 (1883) »nach der Geburt unseres Herrn und Gottes Jesus Christus«: St. Petersburg 32 (1894) »nach der Geburt unseres Herrn«: Vat. syr. 84 (1571/72) »nach der Geburt unseres Herrn«: Cambr. Oo. 1.28 (1798) »nach dem Herrn«: Berlin or. fol. 3181 (Aßfalg, Syr. Hss., Nr. 30) (1778); Berlin or. oct. 1257 (Aßfalg Nr. 27) (1869); Berlin or. qu. 869 (Aßfalg Nr. 63) (1886); Berlin or. oct. 935) (Aßfalg Nr. 48, I, II) (1889); Berlin or. qu. 940 (Aßfalg Nr. 17) (1895); Berlin or. fol. 3125 (Aßfalg Nr. 7) (Vermerk S. 21) (1899) usw. »nach dem Herrn Christus«: Berlin or. fol. 3122 (Aßfalg Nr. 3, S. 5, Vermerk) (1899); Berlin or. oct. 1258 (Aßfalg Nr. 21) (1898) »unseres Herrn«: Berlin or. qu. 1168 (Aßfalg Nr. 19, S. 38) (1895) »(im Jahr) des Herrn«: Berlin or. fol. 2695 (Aßfalg Nr. 2) (1843) »(im Jahr) des Herrn«: Berlin Nr. 53 (1692); Trichur 67 (1693); Brit. Libr. Rich. 7197 (Vermerk S. 89a) (1696); Cambr. 1989 (1797) »nach der Geburt Jesu, unseres Herrn: Berlin Nr. 44 (1795) »nach Christus«: Berlin Nr. 73 (1862)

318

KAUFHOLD

‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

̈

, ‫مسيحية‬ ... ̈

‫ܐܒ ܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬ ̈ Ohne Angabe:

‫ܐ‬

»nach Christus unserem Herrn«: Berlin or. fol 2695 (Aßfalg Nr. 2) (1892) »christliches Jahr«: Cambridge 3218 (1725), 1966 (1826); St. Petersburg 35 (1842) »des christlichen Jahres«: Berlin or. qu. 1168 (Aßfalg Nr. 19) (1895) »im christlichen Jahr«: Cambr. 1963 (1843); Berlin 52 (1855) »christlich«: Vat. arab. 29 (1342); Berlin Nr. 112 (1730) »Jahr … nach der christlichen Rechnung«: Cambr. Oo. 1. 15 (1691) »Jahr Christi«: Brief des Katholikos Joseph I. an den Papst (1690) »von den Jahren Christi«: Berlin Nr. 326 (1715) Cambr. 2879 (1840); Berlin or. qu. 1871 (Aßfalg Nr. 13) (1897)

VI. INDER Die älteste bei den südindischen Thomaschristen in Malabar (Kerala) entstandene Handschrift, die wir kennen, ist Vat. syr. 22*. Sie wurde 1301 AD geschrieben und ist nach der Seleukidenära datiert. Sie stammt aus einer Zeit, als dort noch kein europäischer Einfluß vorhanden war. Sie ist der ostsyrischen Tradition zuzurechnen und nennt als Kirchenoberhaupt den ostsyrischen Katholikos Yahḇallāhā. In mehreren Handschriften aus Südindien, das zunächst unter portugiesischer Herrschaft stand, wird nach Christi Geburt datiert, z. T. zusätzlich nach der indischen Ära von Quilon (Kollam)157 oder der Seleukidenära: Hs. Datum Ort Vat. syr. 3* 1556 Chr = Quilon Angamali 773158 157 Die Ära beginnt 825 AD. Vgl. etwa van der Ploeg, The Christians of St. Thomas 99. 158 Dies ergäbe 1598 AD.

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA Hs. Vat. syr. 4* Vat. syr. 2*

Datum 1556 Chr 1558 Chr

Vat. syr. 85* Cambr. Oo 1. 7

1562 Chr.

Oxford syr. e 6** Oxford syr. 27 usw.160

1734 Chr.

= 1869 AG

= Quilon 773

319

Ort Parawur Angamali Angamali

1682 Chr.

= Quilon 857159 = 2045 AG

Mulandururti (Mulanthuruthy)

1821 Chr.

Auch drei Briefe des indischen Archidiakons nach Rom von 1599 und 1601 sind nach der westlichen Art datiert.161 Bei den Indern werden folgende Bezeichnungen für die christliche Ära verwendet: ‫ܗܕ ܢ ܥ‬ »der Geburt unseres Herrn Jesus«: Vat. syr. 4 (1556) ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܐܕ‬ »nach der fleischlichen Geburt des Wortes ‫ ܓ‬Gottes von der glückseligen Maria«: Cambridge Oo. 1.11 (1734) ̈ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܗܕ ܢܘ ܘ‬ »der Jahre nach der Geburt unseres Herrn ‫ܐ‬ und Erlösers Jesus Christus«: Vat. syr. 2 (1558); Vat. syr. 85 (1562) ‫ܥ‬

‫ܗܕ ܢܘ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

»der Geburt unseres Herrn und Erlösers Jesus Christus«: Vat. syr. 2 (1558) »der Geburt unseres Herrn«: Oxford syr. e. 6 (1734) »nach unserem Herrn«: Cambridge Oo. 1.7 (1682)

825 + 857 = 1682. Die Umrechnung ist also richtig. Vgl. Levi della Vida, Ricerche 187. 161 Vgl. Beltrami, La chiesa caldea, Nr. XXX (S. 256), XXXIII (S. 266), XXXIV (S. 269). 159 160

320

KAUFHOLD ‫ܕ ܢ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܐܕ‬

‫ܕ‬

»im Jahr unseres Herrn«: Cambridge 2973 (1869) »Jahr unseres Herrn«: Freising 111 (Aßfalg, Syr. Handschriften Nr. 65) (1885) »Christi, unseres Gottes«: Oxford syr. 27 (1821)

VII. HIMMELFAHRTSÄRA In seiner Untersuchung über die Himmelfahrtsära kommt J. M. Vosté zu dem Ergebnis, daß sie nur in ostsyrischen Handschriften gebraucht werde, insbesondere von den Nestorianern, und zwar ungefähr vom 16. bis zum 18. Jh.; der älteste Beleg stamme von 1558 AD. Es handele sich vor allem um liturgische Manuskripte, die in Gāzartā und Alqōš, damals den religiösen und literarischen Zentren, geschrieben worden seien. Die Berechnung stamme aus dem »Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum« des ˓Aḇdīšō˓ bar Brīḵā, der in einem chronologischen Abschnitt ausführt, daß von der Geburt Jesu bis zu seiner Himmelfahrt 33 Jahre vergangen seien und er im Jahre 342 AG in den Himmel aufgefahren sei;162 dies stimme mit den Angaben in den Handschriften überein;163 später hätten unverständige Schreiber die Himmelfahrtsära aber auch einfach mit der Zeitrechnung nach Christi Geburt gleichgesetzt oder eine abweichende Berechnung vorgenommen.164 Dem ist wenig hinzuzufügen. Ich kann einige weitere Handschriften nachweisen, auch eine arabische Quelle, aber keine früheren als Vosté. Ab dem Ende des 16. Jh. wird die Himmelfahrtsära nicht nur bei Bibeltexten und liturgischen Büchern verwendet, sondern auch für andere Literatur; als Schreibort erscheint Ende des 19. Jh zusätzlich noch Tellkeph im heutigen Iraq. Bemerkenswert ist, daß die Himmelfahrtsära—neben der Seleukidenära—auch bei der Datierung eines Briefes des Katholikos Elias an den Papst und bei seinem Glaubensbekenntnis Verwendung fand (Dezember 1658),165 also nicht auf Handschriften beschränkt ist. Bei fast allen Datierungen beträgt der Unterschied zwischen der Seleukiden- und der Himmelfahrtsära 342 Jahre. Die Schreiber haben also das bei ˓Aḇdīšō˓ bar Brīḵā angegebene Jahr 342 für die Himmelfahrt einfach Voste, „Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum“ 62. S. insbesondere Vosté, L’ère de l’Ascension 245–249. 164 Ebenda S. 243. 165 Samuel Giamil, Genuinae relationes 493–510 und S. XXXV. 162 163

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

321

von der jeweiligen Jahreszahl nach der Seleukidenära abgezogen, und das auch bei Daten aus den Monaten Oktober bis Dezember, also ohne Rücksicht auf den unterschiedlichen Jahresbeginn.166 Es gibt aber, wie schon Vosté feststellte, auch Unregelmäßigkeiten. – Beim Brief und Glaubensbekenntnis des Katholikos Elias beträgt der Unterschied 344 Jahre, was auch dann nicht stimmt, wenn man berücksichtigt, daß es sich um ein Datum im Dezember handelt. – Bei der Hs. Paris syr. 371 IV liegt ein Unterschied von 343 Jahren vor; die Datierung macht insgesamt Schwierigkeiten.167 In der Hs. Trichur 55 entspricht die Himmelfahrtsära – wie in der von Vosté schon berücksichtigten Handschrift des Mattai b. Paulos von 1918168 – fälschlich der normalen christlichen Ära, denn die Handschrift wurde beendet in Alqōš am 11. Juni 2222 AG [= 1911 AD] »und im Jahre 1911 nach der Himmelfahrt Christi, unseres Herrn und Gottes«.169 Entsprechendes gilt für die Hs. St. Petersburg 50, beendet in Tellkeph am 16. Mai »im Jahr 1888 nach der Himmelfahrt Christi«. Da dieser Tag nach dem Kolophon in die Zeit des Papstes Leo [XIII; 1878–1902] und des Katholikos Elias [Abu ˒l-Yaunān; 1879–1894] fällt, ist die Handschrift gewiß auf 1888 AD zu datieren. Bei der Hs. Berlin or. fol. 3125 (= Aßfalg, Syrische Handschriften Nr. 7) ist der ursprüngliche Kolophon nur in der Abschrift des Restaurators Elias Hōmō aus Alqōš vom Jahr 1899 erhalten. Danach soll die Handschrift im November 2037 AG und im Jahr 1724 nach der Himmelfahrt Christi beendet worden sein. Das Datum der Seleukidenära ergibt 1725 AD. Hier hätte also der Schreiber – es ist Yaldā bar ˓Aḇdīšō˓ aus Alqōš – bereits Anfang des 18. Jh. die Himmelfahrtsära (ungefähr) mit der Zählung nach Christi Geburt gleichgesetzt. Daß das schon so in der offenbar schlecht lesbaren170 Handschrift stand, ist unwahrscheinlich, denn wir wissen aus den Hss. Aqra 28 (1705), Bāṭnāyā 15 (1714) und Aqra 3 (1724), daß Yaldā Vosté, L’ère de l’Ascension 246f. Briquel-Chatonnet, Manuscrits syriaques 48. 168 Vosté, L’ère de l’Ascension 243. Es dürfte sich um die Hs. Vat. syr. 624 handeln. Allerdings erwähnt van Lantschoot die Himmelfahrtsära in seinem Katalog (Inventaire 155f.) nicht und gibt auch das etwas abweichende Datum 19. Oktober 1917 an. Sonst müßte der Kopist Mattai b. Paulos die gleiche Handschrift kurze Zeit später zum zweiten Mal kopiert haben. 169 Kaufhold, Syrische Handschriften 41f. 170 Sonst wäre der Kolophon bei der Restaurierung ja nicht durch eine Kopie ersetzt worden. 166 167

322

KAUFHOLD

bar ˓Aḇdīšō˓ darin die Ären durchaus unterschied. Wahrscheinlich hat der Restaurator nur das Datum der Himmelfahrtsära nicht entziffern können und ergänzt, wobei er—wie die zeitgenössischen Schreiber der beiden vorgenannten Beispiele—fälschlich davon ausging, daß Himmelfahrts- und Geburtsära identisch seien. In der folgenden Tabelle sind die neuen Belege kursiv gesetzt. AD/Hs. /Inhalt

Ort

Schreiber

AG/ Monat

Himmelfahrtsära

Alqōš u. Kloster Eugen

Metr. Isoyahb

1870 (X)

1528

1567: Mosul, Chald. 55

Gazartā

˓Aṭāyā (= Yahb- allāhā) b. Faraǧ

1879 (X)

1537

1568: Kerkuk 15 Pontificale

Gazartā

Yahballaha b. Faraǧ

1880 (XII)

1538

Kl. Johannes d. Ägypters

Joseph b. Johannes

1880

1538

Gazartā

˓Aṭāyā (= Yahballāhā)

1883 (XII)

1541

1558: Cambr. Add. 1988 Pontificale

1569: Diarbakir 59 Pontificale

1571: NDamSem 21 Evangeliar

Sonstiges

1569 Chr. ?

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA AD/Hs. /Inhalt 1572: Mardin, Chald. 11 Evangeliar = Dolabani III 31f. Evangeliar 1576: Borg. syr. 169

1585: Alqōš 96 Evangeliar

Vat. arab. 141 (s. Giamil, Gen. rel. S. XXXV) Giamil, Gen. rel. 493–510

323

Ort

Schreiber

AG/ Monat

Himmelfahrtsära

Sonstiges

Gazartā

˓Aṭāyā b. Faraǧ aus Alqōš

1883 (IX)

1541

980 H

Gazartā (?)

Yahballāhā b. Faraǧ aus Alqōš

1883 (IX)

1541

980 H

Gazartā

˓Aṭāyā b. Faraǧ

1888 (XII)

1546

985 H

Zaḇdaitā / Gazartā

˓Aṭāyā (Yahballāhā) b. Faraǧ aus Alqōš Katholikos Elias, Glaubensbeke nntnis

1896 (VII)

1554

Chr. 1585 993 H171

1897 (XII)

1553

Katholikos Elias, Brief an den Papst

1897 (XII)

1553

Sanā, Maḫṭūṭāt kanīsat Alqōš S. 262. Vosté, L’ère de l’Ascension 239 nennt nur AG und Himmelfahrtsära. 171

324 AD/Hs. /Inhalt 1587: Tellkeph 6

1591: Mardin, Chald. 90 Homilien (arab.)

1605: Par. syr. 371 IV Hymnen

1679: Jerusalem Patr. 1 Evangeliar 1698: ˓Aqra 5173

KAUFHOLD Ort

Schreiber

AG/ Monat

Himmelfahrtsära

Sonstiges

Zaḇdaitā/ Gazartā

Yahballāhā b. Faraǧ

1898 (IV)

1556 ?172

995 H

Gazartā

˓Aṭāyā b. Faraǧ

1903 (XI)

1561

?

Johannes Sako

1916

1573

1013 H 1606 Chr. XIV Zyklus 7096 Adam

Alqōš

Georg b. Israel

1990

1648

1086 H

Alqōš

Yaldā b. Daniel

2010 (XI)

1668

Evangeliar

172 Habbi, Maḫṭūṭāt 24 gibt die Jahreszahl 1586 Chr. an, schreibt aber in einer Anmerkung, daß die Datierungen nicht übereinstimmten. Er hat wohl die christliche Jahreszahl nach den anderen »verbessert«, aber nicht berücksichtigt, daß Yahballaha b. Farag nach der Himmelfahrtsära datiert. Es müßte dort 1556 stehen. 173 Vosté, Catalogue ... ˓Aqra 373: Habbi, Fihrist 15 (Nr. 9) gibt an: 2010 AG und fälschlich 1668 »Chr.« statt »der Himmelfahrtsära«. Trotz der richtigen Angabe im älteren Katalog von Vosté merkt Habbi an, daß griechisches und christliches Datum nicht übereinstimmten; er bevorzuge das griechische.

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA AD/Hs. /Inhalt 1723: Mar Ya˓qūb Evangeliar

Ort

Schreiber

AG/ Monat

Himmelfahrtsära

Alqōš

Elias b. Yaldā

2034

1692174

Alqōš

Yaldā b. ˓Aḇdīšō˓

2037 (XI)

1724

Alqōš

Yaldā b. Daniel

2039 (I)

1692

1734: ˓Aqra 28175 Hudra

?

Yaldā b. ˓Aḇdīšō˓

2046 (X)

1705

1737: Cambr., Jenks Or. 1294; Hudra

Alqōš, Rabban Hormizd

Joseph b. Gīwargīs

2048

1706

1725: Berlin or. fol. 3125 (= Aßfalg 7) Evangeliar 1728: Telleskof 1

325 Sonstiges

Evangeliar

S. Vosté, L’ère de l’Ascension 240. Vosté, Catalogue ... ˓Aqra 382f.; Habbi, Fihrist 31f. (Nr. 32). Der Kolophon ist unvollständig, Vosté, Catalogue ... ˓Aqra 382, ders. L’ère de l’Ascension 240 gibt kein Datum nach der Seleukidenära an, sondern nur 1700 der Himmelfahrtsära, weist aber darauf hin, daß der Zehner unleserlich sei. Nach Habbi, Fihrist 31, fehlt im Kolophon beim Datum der Seleukidenära der Einer (»204–«), beim christlichen Datum Zehner und Einer (»17–-«). Habbi hat in der Handschrift jedoch an anderer Stelle die Datierung 11. Oktober 2047 AG und 1705 der Himmelfahrtsära (er gibt jedoch wieder fälschlich »Chr.« an) gefunden. 174 175

326

KAUFHOLD

AD/Hs. /Inhalt 1745: Bāṭnāyā 15

1756: ˓Aqra 3176 Neues Testament

1875: Mosul, Chald. 26 = St. Petersburg 41177 Johannes b. Penkaye 1886: Göttingen syr. 16 (= Aßfalg Nr. 64) Gedichte

Ort

Schreiber

AG/ Monat

Himmelfahrtsära

Alqōš

Yaldā b. ˓Aḇdīšō˓ (u. a.)

2056

1714

Alqōš

Yaldā b. ˓Aḇdīšō˓

2067

1724

Kloster Beth Gause

Yaunan b. Daniel

2186 (X)

1840

Tellkeph

Petros b. Joseph

1905(X)

Sonstiges

1886 Chr.

Nicht bei Habbi, Fiḥrist, vgl. seine Liste der fehlenden Handschriften dort auf S. 71f. (u. a. Vosté Nr. 3). 177 Die Handschriften sind identisch, s. Kaufhold, Amerkungen zur Textüberlieferung. 176

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA AD/Hs. /Inhalt 1888:178 St. Petersburg 50 Viten u. a. 1911: Trichur 65179

1918: Abschrift von Mosul 55180

Ort

Schreiber

AG/ Monat

Himmelfahrtsära

Tellkeph

Fransis b. Gīwargīs

Alqōš

Joseph b. Thomas

2222

1911

?

Mattai b. Paulos

2229 (I)

1918

327 Sonstiges

1888

Die Bezeichnungen für die Himmelfahrtsära weichen nur leicht voneinander ab: ‫ܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬ ...

‫ܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܐ ܢ‬

‫ܕ‬ ...

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ ܢ‬ ...

‫ܒ‬

‫ܕ ܢ‬ ...

»Jahr nach der Himmelfahrt Christi unseres Herrn und Gottes«: Cambridge Add. 1888 (1558); Mosul chald. 55 (1567), 11 (1572); Borg. syr. 169 (1576); Jerusalem Patr. 1 (1679), Cambridge Jenks Or. 1294 (1737);181 Trichur 65 (1911) »Jahr nach der Himmelfahrt Christi unseres Herrn«: ˓Aqra 3 (1756) »im Jahr nach der Himmelfahrt unseres Herrn Christus«: Aßfalg 7 (1725) » nach der Himmelfahrt unseres Herrn«: Diarbakir 59 (1969), Mosul chald. 26 = St. Petersburg 41 (1875)

Geschrieben zur Zeit des Papstes Leo (XIII.; 1878–1903). Vgl. auch St. Petersburg 32: 1894. 179 Kaufhold, Syrische Handschriften 41f. 180 S. oben Fußnote 168. 181 Nach dem Katalog: … ‫ܘ‬ 178

328

KAUFHOLD

‫ܕ ܢ‬

... .‫ܐ‬ ... ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܢܘ ܘ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ... ‫ܒ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫من صعود سيدنا‬ ‫المسيح الى السما سنة‬

»Jahr nach der Himmelfahrt unseres Herrn in den Himmel«: Giamil, Gen. rel. 510 (1585) »des Jahres … nach der Himmelfahrt unseres Herrn und Erlösers Jesus Christus«: Aßfalg 64 (1886) »im Jahr … nach der Himmelfahrt Christi«: St. Petersburg 50 (1888) »Jahr nach der Himmelfahrt unseres Herrn Christus in den Himmel«: Giamil, Gen. rel. XXXV (1585)

VIII. SONSTIGE ÄREN IN SYRISCHEN HANDSCHRIFTEN Gelegentlich tauchen weitere christliche Datierungen auf. So nennt die im Damaskus entstandene Hs. Scharfeh syr. 4/2 den 22. Šawwāl »der Araber« (ohne Jahreszahl), den 17. Juni 1775 AG, den 23. Baūnah des Jahres 1173 »der Ägypter oder der Jahre der ägyptischen Martyrer« und das Jahr 833 »des Jazdegerd, des zweiten der persischen Könige«. 1775 AG entspricht 1464 AD., 1173 der von den Kopten verwendeten Martyrerära dagegen 1457 AD. Wie in sonstigen Fällen von Drei- und Mehrfachdatierungen, die kaum praktischen Nutzen haben, wollte der Schreiber damit wohl mit seinen Kenntnissen prunken. Die Hs. Scharfeh Patr. Nr. 764 wurde beendet in Bēṯ Man˓am im Jahre 1781 AG (= 1469/70 AD), 845 H (= 1440/41 AD) und 1166 der ägyptischen Zeitrechnung (= 1449/50 AD).182 Der in Abschnitt II schon genannte westsyrische Metropolit Athanasios, d. i. Moses von Mardin, kaufte die Hs. Vat. arab. 114 von dem ägyptischen Diakon Ġubair im Jahr 1888 AG und 1293 »der frommen Martyrer«. Beides ergibt 1577 AD.183 Die Hs. Alqōš 84 wurde beendet in Alqōš am 19. Mai 2186 AG, 1875 Chr. und im koptischen Jahr 1292.184 Das im Katalog angegeben Jahr der Martyrerära entspricht 1575/76. Richtig wäre also wohl 1592 der Martyrer.185 Sony, Le catalogue, S. 267f. Levi della Vida, Ricerche 206f. 184 Ṣanā u. a., Maḫṭūṭāt 255. 185 Die Hss. Brit. Libr. Nr. 400, 409 und 510 enthalten arabische Vermerke, die nach der Martyrerära datiert sind, ob von einem Syrer oder einem Kopten, läßt sich wohl nicht feststellen. 182 183

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

329

Eine Datierung nach der armenischen Ära wurde oben in Abschnitt II schon erwähnt (Hs. Scharfeh Patr. 819, 1795 AD). Auch in diesen Fällen wird man bei einer Abweichung der Jahreszahlen die Datierung nach der Seleukidenära vorziehen.

330

KAUFHOLD

BIBLIOGRAPHIE Anaissi, Tobias, Collectio documentorum Maronitarum, Livorno 1921 Anschütz, Helga, Die syrischen Christen vom Tur ˓Abdin, Würzburg 1984 Armalet, Isaac, Catalogue des manuscrits de Charfet, Jounieh 1936 (arabisch) Assemani, Joseph Simonius, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, Band 2, Rom 1721 Assemani, Stephan Evodius—Joseph Simonius Assemani, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum manuscriptorum Catalogus, Pars I, tomus 2 und 3, Rom 1758–1759 Aßfalg, Julius, Syrische Handschriften, Wiesbaden 1963 (= Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Band V) Atiya, Aziz Suryal, The Arabic manuscripts of Mount Sinai, Baltimore 1955 Baissari, Francis, Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits de la bibliothèque de la résidence patriarchale maronite (Bkerké). Deuxième Série: Fonds Bkerké, Beyrouth 1999 Barsaum, Ignatius Aphram, Histoire des sciences et de la littérature syriaque, 2. Aufl., Aleppo 1956 (arabisch) Barsom, Aphram, Histoire Du Couvent De S. Hanania Appelé Deir-uzZapharan, Dair az-Za˓farān 1917 (arabisch) Baumstark, Anton, Die liturgischen Handschriften des jakobitischen Markusklosters in Jerusalem, in: Oriens Christianus 9 (1911) 103–115, 286–314 Behnām, Gregorios Būlos, Haiyāt al-baṭriark Afrām, Mosul 1959 Bernhard, Ludger, Die Chronologie der Syrer, Wien 1969 (= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 264. Band, 3. Abhandlung) Bernhard, Ludger, Die Chronologie der syrischen Handschriften, Stuttgart 1972 (= Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Supplementband 14) Bcheiry, Iskandar, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Trinity College, Dublin, Kaslik/Libanon 2005 Beltrami, Giuseppe, La chiesa caldea nel secolo dell’Unione, Rom 1933 (= Orientalia Christiana, vol. XXIX) Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise, Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque nationale de France ... Catalogue, Paris 1997 Dies., Les manuscrits syriaques, in: Centre d’Études et de Recherches Orientales. Nos Soursces. Arts et Littérature Syriaques, Antelias (Libanon) 22005 (= Sources Syiaques) 39–58

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

331

Brock, Sebastian, The Fenqitho of the Monastery of Mar Gabriel in Tur ˓Abdin, Ostkirchliche Studien 28 (1979) 168–182 Ders., The Use of Hijra Dating in Syriac Manuscripts: A Preliminary Investigation, in: Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam, edited by J. J. van Ginkel, H. L. Murre—Van den Berg, T. M. van Lint, Leuven u. a. 2005, 275– 290 Brockelmann, Carl, Katalog der orientalischen Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg, Hamburg 1908 Budge, E. A. W., The Chronography of Gregory Abû˒l Faraj ... Bar Hebraeus, vol. I, Oxford/London 1932 Chabot, J.-B., Chronique de Michel le Syrien, 4 Bände, Paris 1899–1910 Coakley, J. F., A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, vol. 75, number 2, Manchester 1993, 105–207 Dib, Pierre, Une mission en Orient sous le Pontificat de Pie IV, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 19 (1914) 21–32, 266–277 Dōlabānī, Yūḥannā / René Lavenant, Sebastian Brock & Samir Khalil Samir, Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du patriarcat syrien orthodoxe à Ḥomṣ‚ (Auj. à Damas), Parole de l’Orient 19 (1994) 555– 661 Dolabany, Filoksinos Yohanna, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery, ed. by Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, Aleppo 1994 Ders., Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Za’faran Monastery, ed. by Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, Aleppo 1994 Ders., Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Syrian Churches and Monasteries, ed. by Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, Aleppo 1994 Feghali, Joseph, Histoire du droit de l’église maronite, tome I: Les conciles des XVIe et XVIIe siècles, Paris 1962 Fiey, Jean-Maurice, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 2, Beirut 1965 Ders., Nisibe, métropole syriaque orientale, Louvain 1977 (= CSCO 388) Galbiati, Enrico, I fondi orientali minori (siriaco, etiopico, armeno) dell’Ambrosiana, in: Istituto Lombardo, Accademia di Scienze e Lettere, Atti del Convegno di Studi su la Lombardia e l’Oriente, Milano, 11–15 Giugno 1962, Mailand 1963, 190–199 Giamil, Samuele, Genuinae relationes inter Sedem Apostolicam et Assyriorum Orientalium seu Chaldaeorum Ecclesiam ..., Rom 1902 Goodman, A. E., The Jenks Collection of Syriac Manuscripts in the University Library, Cambridge, in: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland for 1939, London 1939

332

KAUFHOLD

Graf, Georg, Codices Vaticani Arabici, unveröffentlichter und unvollständiger Katalog (Druckfahnen) Ders., Ein nestorianisches Pauluslektionar, Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 6 (1926) 237–242 (Nachdruck: G. Graf, Christlicher Orient und schwäbische Heimat. Kleine Schriften, Band 1, Beirut 2005, 317–326) Ders., Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, 2. Band, Vatikanstadt 1947; 4. Band 1951 (= Studi e Testi 133, 147) Grill, Severinus, Die syrischen Handschriften der Nationalbibliothek in Wien, in: Ders., Vergleichende Religionsgeschichte und Kirchenväter, Horn, N. Ö. 1959 al-Ǧumaiyil, Nāṣir, an-Nussāḫ al-mawārina wa-mansūḫātuhum, 5 Bde., Beirut 1997–2004 Habbi, Joseph, Fihrist maḫṭūṭāt abrašīyat ˓Aqra, in: Catalogue of The Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq, vol. II, Bagdad 1981, 6–73 ders., Maḫṭūṭāt kanīsat Tellkēf, in: Catalogue of The Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq, vol. I, Bagdad 1977, 21–49 Haddad, Butros, Maḫṭūṭāt kanīsat Bāṭnāyā, in: Catalogue of The Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq, vol. I, Bagdad 1977, 161–186 ders., Maḫṭūṭāt kanīsat Tellusquf, in: Catalogue of The Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq, vol. I, Bagdad 1977, 187–198 Hatch, W. H. P., An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, Boston, 1946 Hāyik, Iġnāṭiūs Anṭūn aṯ-ṯānī, ˓Allaqāt kanīsat as-suryān al-ya˓āqiba ma˓ alkursī ar-rasūlī min 1143–1656, Beirut 1985 Honigmann, E. (C. E. Bosworth), Art. al-Mawṣil, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2. Auflage, Band VI, Leiden 1991, 899–901 Husmann, Heinrich, Die syrischen Handschriften des Sinai-Klosters, Herkunft und Schreiber, Ostkirchliche Studien 24 (1975) 281–308 Ibrāhīm, Yūḥannā, Maḫṭūṭāt maṭrānīyat as-suryān al-urṯūḏuks fi ˒l-Mauṣil, in: Catalogue of The Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq, vol. II, Bagdad 1981, S. 145–203 Kaufhold, Hubert, Syrische Handschriften juristischen Inhalts in südindischen Bibliotheken, Wien 1989 (= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 535. Band) Ders., Anmerkungen zur Textüberlieferung der Chronik des Johannes bar Penkāyē, in: Oriens Christianus 87 (2003) 65–79 Khalifé, Ignace-Abdo, Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque orientale de l’Université Saint Josesph. Seconde série, in: Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph, tome 30 (1951–1952) 105–286 (auch separat)

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

333

Khalifé, Abdo-François Baissari, Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits de la bibliothèque de la résidence patriarchale maronite (Bkerké). Première Série: Fonds Bkerké, Beyrouth 1973 Khalil Samir, L’ère de l’Incarnation dans les manuscrits arabes melkites du 11e au 14e siècle, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 53 (1987) 193–201 Kuri, Sami, Monumenta Proximi-Orientis, I: Palestine—Liban—Syrie— Mésopotamie (1523–1583), Rom 1989; III: Palestine—Liban—Syrie— Mésopotamie (1583–1623), Rom 1994 (= Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, volumen 136, 147) Lampart, Albert, Ein Märtyrer der Union mit Rom. Joseph I. (1681–1696), Patriarch der Chaldäer, Einsiedeln 1966 Langlois, Victor, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Venedig 1868 van Landschoot, Arn., Inventaire des manuscrits syriaques des Fonds Vatican (490 [richtig: 460]—631) Barberini Oriental et Neofiti, Vatikanstadt 1965 (= Studi e Testi 243) Leroy, Jules, Les manuscrits syriaques à peinture conservés dans les bibliothèqes d’Europe et d’Orient, Paris 1964 Levi della Vida, Giorgio, Documenti intorno alle relazioni delle chiese orientali con la S. Sede duranti il pontificato de Gregorio XIII, Vatikanstadt 1948 (= Studi e Testi 143) Ders., Ricerche sulla formazione del più antico fondo dei manoscritti orientali della Biblioteca Vaticana, Vatikanstadt 1939 (= Studi e Testi 92) Mahfoud, Georges-Joseph, L’Organisation monastique dans l’église maronite. Étude historique, Beyrouth 1967 al-Maḫṭūṭāt al-˓arabīya fi ˓l-adyarat al-urṯūḏuksīyat al-Anṭākiya fī Lubnān. alǦuz’ aṯ-ṯānī: Dair Saiyida Balamand, Beirut 1994 Mai, Angelo, Codices chaldaici sive syriaci Vaticani Assemaniani, in: Ders., Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, tomus V, Rom 1931, 1–82 Meïmaris, I. E., Katalogos tōn neōn arabikōn cheirographōn tēs hieras monēs agias Aikaterinēs tou orous Sina, Athen 1985 Mingana, Alphonse, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection, vol. 1–3, Cambridge 1933–1939 Nasrallah, Joseph, Catalogue des manuscrits du Liban. II, Harissa 1963; III, Beirut 1961; IV, Beirut 1970 Ders., Chronologie des patriarches melchites d’Antioche de 1250 à 1500, in: Proche-Orient Chrétien 17 (1967) 192–229; separat: Jerusalem 1968 Ders., Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l’église melchite du Ve au XXe siècle, vol. III, tome 2 (1250–1516), Louvain-Paris 1981

334

KAUFHOLD

Nau, François, Sur quelques autographes de Michel le Syrien, in: Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 19 (1914) 378–397 Pigulevskaya, Nina, Katalog sirijskix rukopisej Leningrada, Palestinskij Sbornik 6 (69), Moskau/Leningrad 1960 van der Ploeg, J. P. M., The Christians of St. Thomas in South India and their Syriac Manuscripts, Bangalore 1983 Qāšā, Suhail, Maḫṭūṭāt maktabat kanīsat Qarahqōš, in: Catalogue of The Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq, vol. 1, Bagdad 1977, 115–159 Rabbath, Antoine, Documents inédits pour servir à l’histoire du Christianisme en Orient, 2 Bände, Paris-Leipzig 1905–1921 Rahmani, Ignatius Ephraem II, Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, Mainz 1899 Raphael, Pierre, Le rôle du Collège maronite romain dans l’orientalisme aux XVII et XVIII siècles, Beirut 1950 Rilliet, Frédéric, La bibliothèque de Ste-Catherine du Sinaï: nouveau fragments syriaques à la Bibliothèque Vaticane, in: VI Symposium Syriacum 1992, edited by René Lavenant, Rom 1994 (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247), 409–418 Rosen, F., J. Forshall, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum orientalium qui in Museo Britannico asservantur. Pars prima, Codices syriacos et carshunicos amplectens, London 1838 Sachau, Eduard, Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, 2. Band, Berlin 1899 Ṣanā, Hormizd u. a., Maḫṭūṭāt kanīsat Alqōš, in: Catalogue of The Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq, vol. 1, Bagdad 1977, 209–274 Scher, Addai, Notice sur les manuscrits syriaque conservés dans la bibliothèque du Patriarcat Chaldéen de Mosul, in: Revue des Bibliothèques 17 (1907) 237–260 Ders., Notice sur les manuscrits syriaque du Musée Borgia, aujourd’hui à la Bibliothèque Vaticane, in: Journal Asiatique, 10. Ser., 13 (1909) 249– 287 Ders., Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques et arabes conservés dans la bibliothèque d’évêché chaldéen de Mardin, in: Revue des Bibliothèques 18 (1908) 64–95 Schönfelder, Jos., Syrische Handschriften, in: Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München, München 1875, S. 109–119 Smith, Robert Payne, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bodleianae. Pars VI. Codices Syriacos, Carshunicos, Mandaeos complectens, Oxford 1864

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA

335

Sony, Behnām, Le catalogue des manuscrits du patriarcat au couvent de Charfet-Liban, Beirut 1993 (arabisch) Troupeau, Gérard, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes. Première partie: Manuscrits arabes, 2 Bände, Paris 1972, 1974 Vööbus, Arthur, Handschriftliche Überlieferung der Mēmrē-Dichtung des Ja˓qōb von Serūg, I. Sammlungen: Die Handschriften, Louvain 1973 (= CSCO 344) Ders., Nouvelles Sources de l’Octateuque Clémentin Syriaque, Le Muséon 86 (1973) 105–109 Vosté, Jacque-Marie, Catalogue des Manuscrits Syro-Chaldéens conservés dans la Bibliothèque Épiscopale de ˓Aqra (Iraq), in: Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5 (1939) 368–406 Ders., Catalogue des manuscrits syro-chaldéens conservés dans la bibliothèque de l’archevêché chaldéen de Kerkouk (Iraq), in: Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5 (1939) 72–102 Ders., L’ère de l’Ascension de Notre-Seigneur dans les manuscrits nestoriens, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 7 (1941) 233–250 Ders., Notes sur les manuscrits syriaques de Diarbekir et autres localités d’Orient, in: Le Muséon 50 (1937) 345–351 Ders.,„Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum“ collectus, dispositus, ordinatus et compositus a Mar ˓Abdišo˓ ..., latine interpretatus est notis illustravit Iacobus-M. Vosté, Vatikanstadt 1940 de Vries, Wilhelm, Dreihundert Jahre syrisch-katholische Hierarchie, Ostkirchliche Studien 5 (1956) 137–157 Wright, William, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum. Part I–III, London 1870–1872 Wright, William, Stanley Arthur Cook, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 2 Bde., Cambridge 1901 Zotenberg, H., Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibiothèque national, Paris 1874 Abgekürzt zitierte Handschriften Aleppo syr.-orth. Alqōš Anhel Balamand

Aleppo, Syrisch-orthodoxe Georgskirche (kein Katalog) s. Ṣanā, Maḫṭūṭāt kanīsat Alqōš Anḥel (Ṭūr ˓Aḇdīn), Syrischorthodoxe Kirche (kein Katalog) s. al-Maḫṭūṭāt al-˓arabīya

336 Bāṭnāyā Beirut, Bibl. or. Berlin syr. Bkerke I Bkerke II Borg. syr. Brit. Libr. Cambr. syr. Dam syr.-orth Dublin Jerusalem, Markuskloster Kerkuk Mailand Manchester syr. Mardin chald. Mardin syr.-orth. Ming. syr. und arab. Mosul chald. Mosul, syr.-kath. Mosul syr.-orth. Oxford syr. Paris arab. Paris syr. Scharfeh Patr. Scharfeh syr. Sin. arab. Sin. syr. St. Petersburg Telleskof Tellkeph Trichur

KAUFHOLD s. Haddad, Maḫṭūṭāt … Bāṭnāyā s. Khalifé, Catalogue s. Sachau, Verzeichnis s. Khalifé-Baissari, Catalogue s. Baissari, Catalogue s. Scher, Notice ... Musée Borgia s. Rosen, Forshall, Catalogus, und Wright, Catalogue s. Wright, Cook, A Catalogue; Goodman, The Jenks Collection s Dōlabānī/ Lavenant, Brock & Khalil Samir s Bcheiry, Catalogue s. Baumstark, Die liturgischen Handschriften; Dolabany, Catalogue ... St. Mark’s Monastery s. Vosté, Catalogue ... Kerkouk S. Galbiati, I fondi orientali minori s. Coakley, A Catalogue s. Scher, Notice ... Mardin Mardin, Syrisch-orthodoxe Metropolie (kein Katalog) s. Mingana, Catalogue s. Scher, Notice ... Mosul s. Qāšā, Maḫṭūṭāt s. Ibrāhīm, Maḫṭūṭāt s. Smith, Codices s. Troupeau, Catalogue s. Zotenberg, Catalogues s. Sony, Le catalogue s. Armalet, Catalogue s. Atiya, The Arabic manuscripts s. Husmann, Die syrischen Handschriften s. Pigulevskaya, Katalog s. Haddad, Maḫṭūṭāt … Tellusquf s. Maḫṭūṭāt kanīsat Tellkēf Trichur (Kerala), Metropolie der Kirche des Ostens (kein Katalog)

ZUR DATIERUNG NACH CHRISTLICHER ÄRA Vat. syr.

s. Assemani, Stephan Evodius und Joseph Simonius, Bibliothecae; Mai, Codices; van Lantschoot, Inventaire

337

BIO BIBLIOGRAPHIES OF SOME TWENTIETH CENTURY SYRIAC WRITERS GEORGE A. KIRAZ BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE There is hardly today a paper that appears on matters Syriac without at least one reference to a work by Sebastian P. Brock, and this includes the understudied subfield of Modern Literary Syriac. In his paper ‘Some Observations on the Use of Classical Syriac in the Late Twentieth Century,’1 Brock emphasized that Syriac literary production did not end in the thirteenth century or shortly thereafter, but continued in an unbroken tradition until modern times. I would like to complement his study, in this modest account, by providing bio bibliographies of some of the writers of the Twentieth Century. The first history of Syriac literature to account for twentieth century writers is that of Abbouna,2 written in Arabic in 1970. Macuch,3 relying mostly on Abbouna, made this information accessible to the western scholar in German. Awgen Mnofer Barsoum4 (hereinafter Mnofer) published in 1991 an account, also in Arabic, on modern Syriac Orthodox writers. Abbouna produced a second enlarged edition in 1996 utilizing Mnofer’s work. In turn, I primarily rely on these accounts. Whenever possible, I have added bibliographical data if it was available to me in cases of published works, relying mostly on books from my private collection (items found in my collection are marked with *). Many of the works listed here remain unpublished or, even worse, lost, and there is hardly any record on their Journal of Semitic Studies, XXXIV/2 (1989), 363–75. Albert Abbouna ‚adab al-lugha al-‚ārāmiyyah ‫( أدب اللغة اآلرامية‬Beirut: Dar alMachriq, 1970; 2nd enlarged ed. 1996). 3 R. Macuch, Geschichte der spät- und neusyrischen Literatur (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976). 4 Awgen Mnofer Barsoum, ‚ḍwā‚ ‛alā ‚adabunā al-suryānī al-ḥadīth ‫أضواء على أدبنا‬ ‫( السرياني الحديث‬Beirut: Dar Qinneshrin, 1991). 1 2

339

340

KIRAZ

whereabouts. In the case of translations into Syriac from European languages, I have attempted, whenever possible, to find the name of the original author and the title in the original language.5 Unlike the aforementioned works, I confined my account to authors who produced works in Modern Literary Syriac; hence, prolific scholars who did not produce, or produced very little in Modern Literary Syriac in the form of introductions to text editions, are omitted. When a scholar produced scholarly works in languages other than Syriac and at the same time produced literary works in Syriac, only the Syriac literary works are listed; e.g., I list only two works for the prolific scholar Patriarch Afram Barsoum. As was pointed out by Brock in his study, most of the twentieth century writers are Syriac Orthodox as the Assyrians and Chaldeans wrote mostly in Neo-Aramaic. Having said that, one finds among the Chaldeans and Syriac Catholics not a few writers, especially in the earlier period. I was able to find one Maronite writer, but none from the Church of the East. The following two charts illustrate the total number of authors per denomination and decade (based on the year of death). One notices that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, most of the writers were Chaldeans with hardly any Syriac Orthodox writers. The tide shifts to the advantage of the Syriac Orthodox by the mid twentieth century and culminating towards the last few decades. This may be attributed to a number of institutions and educators who were instrumental in producing writers. The Syriac Orthodox orphanage school of Taw Mim Simkath, first established in Adana just after the massacres of 1895 and 1915, with Yuḥanon Dolabani as an instructor, produced not a few authors. After the school moved to Lebanon, Isaac Armalah (Syriac Catholic) taught there and himself produced a number of good authors. The Syro-Chaldean Seminary of St. John in Mosul was also instrumental in producing good Chaldean and Syriac Catholic writers.

I would like to thank many of the participants of the Hugoye-list discussion group for providing me with information on some of the European works. 5

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

341

Figure 1. Total Number of Authors.

Figure 2. Authors by 1/4 century based on date of death.

Syriac Orthodox writers wrote mostly on secular topics, a departure from the traditional genres of the last few centuries. Their translations of western works were those of Shakespeare, Bernardin de Saint Pierre, and Benjamin

342

KIRAZ

Franklin, as well as Arabic writers such as Jibran Khalil Jibran, and Michael N‛emeh. Chaldean and Syriac Catholic writers, however, wrote predominantly on religious topics, but mostly in the form of translations of Catholic religious books from European languages. The following bio biographies are listed in chronological order sorted ‫ܐ ܠ‬ by the date of the author’s death (living authors, ‫ܘܢ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܓ ܐ‬, are excluded). Dates of birth may not always be accurate as until the early-mid twentieth century such dates were not recorded systematically in the Middle East, especially Turkey. The denomination of each author is given in square brackets in the headings. Authors who were born in the late nineteenth century but lived to see the twentieth century are included. Authors who produced more than three works have their works enumerated; otherwise, they are described in one paragraph. Titles of published works are given as they appear on the title page when the book is available to me; otherwise, I rely on Abbouna, Mnofer, or the online OCLC catalogue. In the case of unpublished works, the titles are sometimes mere descriptions of the work in question, and in most cases it is not clear if the work is in final or draft form; hence, these must be treated with caution (unlike works of ancient authors which were “published,” albeit in manuscript form by scribes). The same applies to works whose publication status is unknown. Motivated by Coakley & Taylor,6 I give the OCLC numbers when they are available. * = copy found in my private collection. (?) = unknown if work was published. ms = work was not published. nd = no date / = delimiter of multiple titles on the same cover or title page // = delimiter of front and back cover titles

ABBA SOLOMON [CHALDEAN] Solomon was born in Tkhuma and grew up in Kosraba. He studied at the Catholic Seminary in Salamas, after which he continued his studies in France where he joined the Lazarites, and was ordained to the priesthood. Solomon returned to Urmia and worked with the Lazarite missionaries. He was involved in the publications of the missionary press, and became an J. F. Coakley and David G. K. Taylor, “Syriac Books Printed at the Dominican Press, Mosul,” 71–110 (in this volume). 6

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

343

editor of the periodical ‫ ; ܐ ܕ ܪܐ‬many of its anonymous articles were written by him. He was a good botanist and discovered an unknown plant which was named after him. He wrote a grammar titled ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܐ‬ ‫( ܬܘܪܨ‬Urmia, 1901*). Macuch also lists two works, but does not specify if they are in Syriac or Neo-Aramaic: a commentary on the Gospels and Epistles (?), and a book titled ‫)?( ܒܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬. [Source: Macuch 215.]

SHMU‚EL JAMĪL (1847–1917) [CHALDEAN] He was born in Talkef of Shim‛un Jamīl and Farīdeh. In 1866 he joined the monastery of Rabban Hormozd, whose Abbot then was Elisha‛ Tīshā. In 1869, he accompanied his Abbot and Patriarch Yusuf Audo to the first Vatican Council, and there attended the Propaganda school until 1879. He was ordained a priest in 1879 for St. Mary’s Monastery near Alqosh, and established a school there in 1880. In 1885 he was appointed by Patriarch Elijah ‛Abū al-Yūnān to visit the faithful of the northern areas. He was appointed a vicar for the diocese of ‛Aqrah for one year. In 1892, he accompanied Tuma Audo on a pastoral visit to the mountain villages for purposes of unifying a split in the church. In 1895 he served as a delegate to the Vatican for Patriarch ‛Abdisho‛ Khayyāt for seven years. He was elected a general Abbot for the Chaldean monks three times (1881–1983/4, 1887– 1894, and 1900–1917). In addition to his numerous scholarly works in Arabic, Latin and Italian, he translated from Latin back into Syriac a theological book written originally in Syriac by Adam ‛Aqraya around 1610–1613 which was later translated into Latin (the original Syriac was lost) (?). [Sources: Abbouna 496–498; Macuch 405–407.]

TUMA AUDO (1855–1918) [CHALDEAN] He was born in Alqosh of qasha Hirmiz bar Michael, the brother of Patriarch Joseph Audo. Tuma’s brother Israel later became the bishop of Mardin. After completing his elementary studies in Alqosh, Tuma accompanied his uncle the patriarch to Rome where he attended the Propaganda school from 1869 to 1880. He was ordained a priest in 1880, and returned to Mosul where he served under his uncle’s successor Patriarch Elijah ‛Abū al-Yūnān. He served as patriarchal vicar to Aleppo in 1882 for four years, after which he returned to Mosul to take charge of St. Joseph Syro-Chaldean Seminary. He was consecrated bishop of Urmia and Salamas in 1892, and participated in the Synod that elected Patriarch

344

KIRAZ

‛Abdisho‛ Khayyāt in 1894. During the persecutions that followed WWI, he protected and provided shelter to many refugees, only to become a victim himself when he was assassinated, along with other priests and parishioners, on July 27, 1918. Audo was a prolific writer. His Syriac works are: 1. A Syriac-Syriac lexicon titled ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ / Dictionnaire de la langue chaldéenne, 2 vols, (Mosul 1897, [1901] [OCLC 4472320]) [Coakley & Taylor, item 52], with the following reprints where the Syriac title is maintained but the French title has been changed: a. Assyrian Dictionary by Mar Touma Oddo (Assyrian Language and Culture classes Incorporated, Chicago, 1978* [OCLC 216890109]), with a preface by Robert Paulissian, and an abridged translation from Syriac into English of the original preface by Louis Khodabakhsh. b. Dictionary of the Assyrian Language (The Assyrian Federation in Sweden, 1979 [OCLC 14038221]). c. Treasure of the Syriac Langauge (Glane, 1985* [OCLC 28083233, 64164924]), with a Syriac preface by Julius J. Çiçek. d. Treasure of the Syriac Langauge (Piscataway, 2008* [OCLC 171553813]), with an introduction by George A. Kiraz, and a list of abbreviations by Yuyoqim Unval. 2. A grammar of Swadaya Neo-Aramaic titled ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ‬/ Grammaire de Langue Chaléenne Moderne. Dialecte d-Ourmiah (Urmia, 1905; 2nd ed. 1911* [OCLC 182944529]; reprint of the 2nd ed. by the Assyrian Language and Culture Classes Inc., Chicago, 1978? [OCLC 51080198]). 3. A liturgy for the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, published by Bedjan in Breviarium Chaldaicum, vol. 3 (Paris, 1886–1887 [OCLC 162884089]). In addition, he translated from the Latin into Syriac: 4. J. P. Gury’s Compendium Theologia Moralis, 2 vols. (Mosul, 1896). 5. The Catechism of the Council of Trent titled ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ / Catechismus ex decreto concilii tridentini (Mosul, 1889) ‫ܐ‬ [Coakley & Taylor, item 30]. 6. Nieremberg’s La Balance du Temps titled ‫ܒܐ ܕ ܐܬܐ ܕܙܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܟ ܕܐ ܬܐ ܕ ܥ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܒܐ‬ (Mosul, 1884* [OCLC 41112058]) [Coakley & Taylor, item 22].

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

345

7. Louis Togni’s Instructio pro sacris Ecclesiae ministries ‫ܬܐ‬ / Instruction Pour Les Ministres de L’Église ‫̈ ܕ̈ܪܓܐ ܕ ܬܐ‬ (Mosul, 1895) [Coakley & Taylor, item 42]. He translated from the Arabic into Syriac: 8. The fables of Kalila and Dimna ‫ܐ ܘܕ ܐ ܕܐܬܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܪ ܐ ܒܐ ̈ ܝ ܬܐܘ ܐ ܐܘܕܘ‬

‫ܐܪܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐܘܪ‬/ Kalila et Dimna Fables Indienes (Mosul, 1895* [OCLC

67003619]; 2nd ed. Glane, 1989* [OCLC 212400294], with the English title Kalīla and Dimna Fables of Bidpai) [Coakley & Taylor, item 41]. 9. A work originally titled in Arabic kitāb al-lāhūt al-‚adabī (Urmia 1899). 10. Revised a translation made into Syriac by Damianos of Alqosh (d. 1855) of an Arabic version of Paolo Segneri’s Manuale Sacerdotum titled ‫ܐܪܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܕܪܓ ܘܢ ܕܐ‬

‫ܐ ܬܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܬܪܨܗ‬ ‫ܣ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܘܕܘ‬/ Manuale Sacredotum [etc.] (Mosul, 1882) [Coakley & Taylor, items 16, 39]. [Sources: Abbouna 498–500; Macuch 211–213; Suleiman Saigh, Tārikh alMosul (History of the Iraqi City of Mosul) (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008) 2: 276; David Taylor, Bibliography of Syriac Printed Lexica (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, forthcoming); Gabriel Oussani, ‘The Modern Chaldeans and Nestorians, and the Study of Syriac among them,’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 22 (1901) 79–96.]

AFRAM NAQQĀSHEH (1850–1920) [SYRIAC CATHOLIC] He was born in Mosul of ‛Abdulaḥad bin Eliās Naqqāsheh and Khāliṣah daughter of qas Boutros and given the baptismal name Behnam. He studied at Sharfeh from 1877 to 1867, then at Rome where he was ordained a priest in 1874 and was given the name Afram. He returned to Mosul, and in 1895 was consecrated a bishop for Edessa but did not stay there for long. He accompanied Patriarch Raḥmānī to Constantinople and Rome in 1899. In 1903 he became bishop of Aleppo until 1914 when he fell ill. He spent the last months of his life from 1919 to 1920 at Sharfeh. In addition to his Arabic writings, he composed in Syriac a sugitho (dialogue poem) between St. Ephrem and the Syriac nation (ms, copy by Aramalah in Shafreh (catalogue 281)), and translated from Latin into Syriac a theological book (Abbouna gives the Arabic title mukhtaṣar ‛ilm al-lāhūt al‚adabī [= the concise study of literary theology]) (ms). He also wrote a catechism in Syriac, Turkish and Kurdish (ms). [Sources: Abbouna 541–

346

KIRAZ

542; Macuch 428–429; Armalah, tārīkh dayr sayyidat al-najāt ‚ay dayr al-sharfeh (Junieh: Maṭba‛at al-‚Ābā‚ al-Mursalīn, 1946) 458–459.]

MATTA KONAT (1860–1927) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX (MALANKARA)] Konat was born in Pampakoda of a priestly family. He studied under his father Yuḥanon Konat, and then Gregorios of Parumala. He was ordained a priest in 1883, and a chorepiscopos in 1926. Between 1901 and 1911, he served as the Priest Trustee of the Malankara Association from 1901 to 1911, and continued in this position after the schism of 1911 (he sided with the patriarchal faction). He taught at the Old Seminary in Kotayam, and later established in his town a seminary, and Mar Julius Press where he published many liturgical books with prefaces in Syriac. Ignatius Peter III/IV bestowed upon him the title of Malankara Malpan, and may have been the first to hold this distinguished title. He published a periodical called ‫̈ ܐ‬ in Syriac and Malayalam (he composed most of its Syriac material). He composed, and scribed in a beautiful Serto hand, numerous letters from Malankara to the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate.7 He is also credited with most of the liturgical translations made from Syriac into Malayalam which are still used today. Konat’s Syriac writings include general rules (‫ ) ̈ ܐ ܓ ̈ ܐ‬on the Shḥimo daily offices, which he prefaced to his edition of this text (Pampakuda, 1915, 4th ed. 1977*, 5th ed. 1988*), and two brief accounts on the history of the Syriac Church in Malabar (?, may have been published in ‫̈ܐ‬ ). He also wrote a Syriac grammar, but it is not clear in what language (?). [Sources: Barsoum, al-Lu‚lu‚ al-Manthur 581; Abbouna 542–543; Mnofer 17–20; Macuch 481–482.]

JEREMIAH MAQDISĪ (1847–1929) [CHALDEAN] He was born in Alqosh and attended the monastery of Rabban Hormuzd in 1864. He studied at the Propaganda school from 1869 until 1879. In 1879 he was ordained a priest. In 1888 he became a patriarchal vicar for S‛irt, and in 1889 was consecrated a bishop for Zakho. In 1914 he started building a Cathedral there which was completed in 1919. He wrote a grammar titled ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܘܪܨ‬Grammaire chaldéenne (Mosul, 1889 [OCLC 41062799, 66280188]) [Coakley & Taylor, item 31], reprinted by the Iraqi Academy in 1978*, and again in 1997* in Serto script by George A. Kiraz, ‘The Credentials of Mar Julius Alvares, bishop of Ceylon, Goa and India Excluding Malabar’ in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 7 (2004), no. 2. 7

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

347

Barsaumo Samoil Dogan with the English title Turos Mamlo by Father Jeremia Pilgrim. He translated from Latin into Syriac a book on logic (ms), and another on literary theology (partly published according to Abbouna). [Sources: Abbouna 504–505; Macuch 408–409.]

NAOUM ELIAS PALAK [FĀ‚IQ] (1868–1930) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Diyarbakir of Eliās Jacob Palak and Saydeh Safar and was given the baptismal name Na‛‛ūm (he gave himself the nickname Fā‚iq). He studied in the local schools, and then taught from 1888 to 1912 at various community schools, mostly in Diyarbakir, but also for short periods in alBsheriyyeh, Urfa, Adyaman, and Homs. He witnessed the horrific massacres of 1895 in Diyarbakir. Fā‚iq was ordained a deacon in 1889 by Ignatius Peter III/IV. In 1908, after the Young Turk Revolution, he established in Diyarbakir the Jam‛iyyat al-‚Intibāh (known in Syriac by ‛Irutho), and shortly thereafter the newspaper Kawkab Madenḥo (1910–1912, 43 issues), published in Syriac, Garshuni Arabic and mostly Garshuni Turkish. He immigrated to the US in 1912 where he lived in NJ. There, he established the newspaper Beth Nahrin (1916–1921), and later became the editor of Ḥuyodo (Union) for one year (1921–1922, 39 issues), an organ of the Assyro-Chaldean Association, after which he reissued Beth Nahrin (1922–1930). He contributed to other periodicals such as ‚Intibāh (NY, ed. Gabriel Boyaji), Murshid Athurion (Kharput, ed. Ashur Yusuf), and Shiphuro (Diyarbakir, ed. Basshār Ḥilmī). According to his biographer, he wrote many books in Arabic and Turkish which remain unpublished, but it is not clear how many are in final form and how many are mere notes. His Syriac writings include: 1. A collection of national anthems in Syriac (but also in Turkish, and Arabic) (Diyarbakir 1908, 2nd ed. [NJ] 1913*). 2. A Syriac reader titled ‫( ܒܐ ܕ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܬܐ‬NJ, 1917* [OCLC 85222517]), designated as part 1 but probably no other parts where published. 3. A brief question-answer pedagogical work on mathematics (incomplete ms). 4. A pedagogical work on geography based on Salīm Sāmī Juqqī’s Arabic textbook al-Khawāṭir al-Wāfiyah fī ‚Uṣūl al-Jughrafyah (incomplete ms). 5. The sayings of Benjamin Franklin translated from Arabic into Syriac (ms). 6. A translation into Syriac from Persian—also making use of Arabic, Turkish and English versions—of the Quadrants of Omar

348

KIRAZ

Khayyam (ms, 10 stanzas published by Murād Juqqī*, pp. 300– 304). [Sources: Murād Fu‚ād Juqqī, Na‛‛ūm Fa‚iq Dhikrā wa-Takhlīd (Damascus: 1937); Barsoum, al-Lu‚lu‚ al-Manthūr (Aleppo: 2nd ed., 1956) 582; Abbouna 546–549; Mnofer 39–43; Macuch 432–433.]

JACOB SAKA (1864–1931) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Barṭelle. He studied Syriac under the Chaldean priest Buṭroṣ al-Karmalīsī. He taught Syriac at the village school, and then at the Monastery of St. Mathew. He was ordained a deacon in 1906, and a priest in 1929. He was a master scribe and produced over 70 manuscripts, found now mostly in churches and monasteries in Iraq. His Syriac writings consist of poems. He presented a 200-page manuscript of his poems to Afram Barsoum; a second copy was preserved ̈ in Barṭelle. A selection was published by Isḥāq Sākā in ‫ܓܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ (Aleppo: 1945*). [Sources: Mnofer 35–36; Abbouna 549; Barsoum 582; Macuch 433–434.]

FRANCIS DAOUD (1870–1939) [CHALDEAN] He was born in Ārādn near al-‛Amādiyyah, and in 1883 joined the SyroChaldean Seminary of St. John. He was ordained a priest in 1893 by Patriarch Elijah ‛Abū al-Yūnān, and in 1910 was consecrated bishop for al‛Amādiyyah by Patriarch Emmanuel Thoma. In 1914 and during WWI he was accused of being a spy against the government and was under home arrest in Mosul until he was proven innocent. Then he left to Ārādn where he died in 1939. He translated into Syriac Alfonse Muzzarelli’s Il mese di Maria o sia di Maggio (1785) from an Arabic version and published it under the title ‫ܒܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬/ Méditations pour chaque jour du mois de Marie (Mosul, 1907) [Coakley & Taylor, item 71]. [Sources: Abbouna 507; Macuch 412.]

JOSEPH ḤUBEIKA (1878–1944) [MARONITE] He was born of ‛Beid Salmān Ḥubeika in Baskintā in the region of Metn.8 He attended the school of St. Joseph in Baskintā, and learned Syriac at the 8 I am grateful to Ray Mouawad for providing me some information on Ḥubeika, and to Mariette AbdelHay of Kaslik for providing me with a digital copy of the biography of Ḥubeika.

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

349

school of Sayyidat Baskintā. In 1893 he joined the monastery of Mar Mūsā al-Dawwār in Metn and became a novice. He was sent to study Syriac, Arabic and French at the school of Deir Qabriyānos in Kfīfān, and theology at the Lebanese school of Qarnat Shahwān from 1897–1898. He was ordained a priest in 1898, and began teaching, especially Syriac, at a number of schools in the region. He performed a number of administrative positions in various schools and monasteries. In addition to his writings in al-Machriq (e.g., on Arabic names of villages derived from Syriac), he composed in Syriac a collection of poems under the Arabic title ‫ديوان شعر سرياني نظمه من جاھد نصف قرن في دراسة اللغة‬ ‫ =[ اآلرامية‬a collection of Syriac poetry composed by one who endeavored for half a century in studying the Aramaic langauge] / Recueil de Poemes Syriaques (nd*, but according to Abbouna published by his brother Peter Ḥubeika in 1952). He also wrote a pocket Syriac-Arabic lexicon ‫ܐ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫( ܒ ̈ ܐ‬1958*). [Source: Ḥayāt al-‚Akhawayn Buṭros Ḥobeika, Yūsef Ḥobeikak wa-Ma‚āthirhumā wa-‚Āthārahuma / La vie et les œuvres des deux frères Hobeika, le chorévêque pierre Hobeika [et] Père Joseph Hobeika (Beirut: Imprimerie Nassar, nd); Macuch 435–436; Ray Mouawad, personal communication.]

YUḤANNA QIRYO (1874–1946) [CHALDEAN] He was born in Alqosh. He studied at the Patriarchal Seminary and in 1899 was ordained as its priest. In 1906 he served in Mosul. In 1936 he was consecrated a corepiscopos, and in 1939 served in Ārādn until 1942 when he was consecrated bishop for al-‛Amādiyyah. He died in 1946 and was buried in Karmalīs. He translated from Italian into Syriac a number of books including a book on Alphonse Liguori (Abbouna gives the title in Arabic ‫فضائل القديس‬ ‫ =[ ألفونس ليغوري‬virtues of St. Alphonse Liguori) (?), a biography of St. Jirardis Magla (Mousel, 1932), a two-volume book by Liguori (Abbouna gives the title in Arabic ‫ =[ ھداية النفوس‬guidance of the souls]) (vol. 1 Mosul, 1934; vol. 2 ms). [Sources: Abbouna 507–508; Macuch 412–413.]

ATHANASIUS IGNATIUS NŪRĪ (1857–1947) [SYRIAC CATHOLIC] He was born in Mardin of Ni‛matallah Nūrī and Katherine daughter of ‛Abdulmasīḥ Tarzi, and was given the baptismal name Naṣrallah. He studied at Sharfeh from 1873, then was appointed a teacher of Syriac there. He was ordained a priest in 1881 and named Ignatius. He served at Deir al-Zor, then in other parishes. He was consecrated bishop of Baghdad in 1895 and named Athanasius. He traveled to India on a number of occasions, and in

350

KIRAZ

1913 was appointed as bishop for Cairo. Later he returned to Lebanon, and became an assistant to Patriarch Gabriel Tabbuni. He had a stroke in 1944 and died at Sharfeh in 1947. His Syriac writings include a catechism (?), and a collection of poems titled in Arabic ‫ =[ العقد الدري‬the twinkling/brilliant necklace] (?). [Sources: Abbouna 550–551; Macuch 436–437.]

ELIĀS AL-RĀHIB (DAYRAYA) (1860–1949) [CHALDEAN] He was born in Shaqlāwah of the Sher family. In 1876 he joined the monastery of Rabban Hormizd, became a monk in 1879, and was named Eliās. He was ordained priest in 1895. He composed in Syriac a history of the Chaldean patriarchs from Sulaqa onward (ms) which was later translated into Arabic by ‛Azīz Buṭros of Alqosh under the title ‫ =[ كتاب الرعاة‬the book of shepherds] (1952). He also composed a collection of 30 poems and anthems, following the ‫“ ܪ‬young bird without feathers” tradition of al-Ḥarīrī, and titled it ‫ܐ‬ which was his childhood nickname (ms). [Sources: Abbouna 508–509; Macuch 413–414.]

MICHAEL MURAD (1878–1952) [SYRIAC CATHOLIC] He was born in Mosul. He studied at the Syro-Chaldean seminary of St. John starting 1893. He was ordained a priest in 1904 for Qaraqosh where he served for three years, after which he returned to Mosul and taught at the seminary. He composed an Arabic-Syriac lexicon. The lemmas until sīn were ‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ published (nd), with a 2nd ed. published under -‫ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܪ ܐ‬/ Arabisk-Ass./Syr. Ordbok (1984*), with an introduction in Syriac and Swedish by Gabriel Isik. [Sources: Abbouna 551–552; Macuch 437.]

ISHAQ ARMALAH (1879–1954) [SYRIAC CATHOLIC] He was born in Mardin and was given the baptismal name Eliās. He studied at Sharfeh from 1895, was ordained a deacon in 1898 and given the name Isaac. In the same year he was ordained a priest by Patriarch Raḥmani and became his secretary. He taught at Mardin in 1910, and returned to Beirut in 1919. In 1929 he became the secretary of Patriarch Tabbuni who elevated him to chorepiscopos in 1930. From 1932 until 1954 he dedicated his time to writing and research.

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

351

In addition to his numerous other writings, he composed a Syriac ‫ ܪܓ‬in two volumes (Sharfeh, vol. 1, anthology for students titled ‫ܒ ܐ‬ 1907*; vol. 2 1908*). [Sources: Abbouna 555; Macuch 438–440.]

IGNATIUS AFRAM BARSOUM (1887–1957) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born of Stephan Barsoum and Susan Abdulnur. He studied at the Dominican School in Mosul then taught there after he graduated. He also studied Arabic literature and rhetoric at the hands of a local Muslim imām. He joined Deir al-Za‛faran where he was tonsured a monk in 1907 and named Afram, and later was ordained a priest in 1908. He taught at the school of the monastery, and became director of its printing press in 1911. In 1913, he embarked on a scholarly trip in the Tur ‛Abdin region collecting materials from manuscripts. He was consecrated bishop of Syria in 1918 and resided in Homs; later Lebanon was added to his diocese. In 1919 he represented his church at the Paris Peace Conference, and embarked on a second scholarly trip across Europe where he spent 17 months visiting libraries. In 1927, he embarked on a third scholarly trip visiting Europe and the US. There, he visited the University of Chicago where he worked at the Oriental Institute. In 1932 he became a member of the Syrian Academy. In 1933, he was elected and consecrated Patriarch, and transferred the Patriarchate first to Aleppo, then Homs. He established in 1939 the Seminary of Saint Ephrem. In addition to his numerous writings, he wrote in Syriac a history of ‫ܒ ܬܐ ܕ‬ , published with an Tur ‛Abdin titled ̈ ‫ܐܬܪܐ ܕ ܪ ܒ‬ Arabic translation by Gregorius Boulos Behnam (1964*9; 2nd ed. with Syriac text only, Galne, 1985 [OCLC 66278480]); Turkish translation (1996 [OCLC 35205199]). A collection of his prefaces and poems were published ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܕܬ ܝ ̈ ܒܐ‬ ‫̈ܪܒܐ܆‬ by T. George Saliba in ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܓ ܐ ܣ ܐ‬// Nurbe (Glane, 1989* [OCLC 156865121]) [Sources: Mnofer 44–48; Macuch 441]

BOUTROS SABA (1893–1961) [SYRIAC CATHOLIC] He was born in Barṭelle, studied at Sharfeh from 1906, and then at the Syriac Catholic Seminary in Jerusalem. In 1914 he returned to Mosul, and was ordained a priest in 1919. He taught at the Syro-Chaldean seminary of St. John in Mosul, then at Sharfeh from 1937. He then served in Baghdad. 9

In 2004 I met the typesetter Mr. Nofel Maḥfudh ‫ نوفل محفوظ‬in Lebanon.

352

KIRAZ

In addition to his other writings, he composed in Syriac a number of poems (a few published according to Abbouna). [Sources: Abbouna 562– 563; Macuch 445–446.]

YUḤANON DOLABANI (1885–1969) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born and raised in Mardin. In 1907, he joined Dayro d-Notpho above Deir al-Za‛faran, became a monk in 1908, and was ordained priest in 1918. He taught at the local school of Deir al-Za‛faran, at other monasteries, and at the Taw Mim Simkath orphanage in Adana. He accompanied Patriarch Eliās III on two pastoral tours in the Middle East: the first in 1919 prompted by the aftermath of World War I and the Sayfo massacres, and the second in 1925 to Aleppo and Jerusalem where he spent two years teaching at St. Mark’s Monastery. When the newly consecrated Patriarch Afram Barsaum moved the patriarchal seat from Mardin to Homs, the community leadership in Mardin desired to elect Dolabani as anti-Patriarch, but he publicly rejected the move and renounced rumors of any such election in the Turkish newspapers in 1934. In 1947, Mardin became a diocese and Dolabani was consecrated its bishop. He spent his last days at Deir al-Za‛faran and was buried there. Dolabani drew up a list of his writings consisting of 82 items, most of which remain unpublished. His Syriac works include: 1. Syriac reader titled ‫ ܐ‬// Dil, Süryanice in two volumes (vol. 1, Mardin, ?; 3rd ed. Mardin 1967*; vol. 2 Mardin ?; 2nd ed. Mardin 1968*). 2. A grammar in two volumes: vol. 1 ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫( ܕ ܐ‬Mardin, 1915; Glane, 1982*); vol. 2 ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܗ̈ܪܓܐ ܓ‬Glane 1997* [OCLC 68008293]). ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ // Die 3. History of the patriarchs titled ‫ܐ‬ Patriarchen de syrisch-orthodoxen Kirche von Antiochien (Glane, 1990* [OCLC 65868964]). 4. A book on the differences in faith between the Syriac Orthodox ‫̈ ܐ ܬܘܕ ̈ ܐ ܕܒ‬ tradition and other traditions titled ‫ܐ‬ // Shhlofe Tawdithonoye (Glane, 1997* [OCLC 68008160]). 5. Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts of St. Mark’s Monastery, published by Gregorios Yuhanna Ibrahim titled ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܪ‬-‫ܣ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܒ ܐ̈ܪ ܐ ܕܕ ܐ ܕ ܝ‬ // Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery (Aleppo, 1994* [OCLC 174650828]).

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

353

6. Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in Deir al-Za‛farān, published by Gregorios Yuhanna Ibrahim titled ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ܒܐ‬ ‫ܙ ܐܢ‬-‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒ ܐ̈ܪ ܐ ܕܕ ܐ ܕ ܝ‬// Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Za‛faran Monastery (Aleppo, 1994* [OCLC 174650852]). 7. Catalogue of Syriac manuscripts in various churches and monasteries, published by Gregorios Yuhanna Ibrahim titled

̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܝ ܐ̈ܪ ܐ ܕܕ ܬܐ ܘܕ ̈ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̈ܪ ܐ ܕܒ‬// Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Syrian

Churches and Monasteries (Aleppo, 1994* [OCLC 174650843]. 8. A history of Mor Gabriel monastery titled ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܬܐ ܕ‬ // (Mor Gabriel) Deyr-el-Umur Tarihi (Mardin 1959; ‫ܐ ܕ‬ 2nd ed. Glane,1991* [OCLC 65868912]). ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܗܒܒܐ ܕ‬ 9. A history of the monastery of Salaḥ titled ‫ܒ ܕܨ‬ ‫ܒ ܬܐ ܕܕ ܐ ܕ ܝ‬ (Lebanon, 1973*), published by George Saliba. 10. An anthology for school children titled ‫ ܒܐ ܕܕܒ ܪ ܐ‬in two volumes (vol. 1 ?; vol. 2 Mardin 1914, 2nd ed. Jerusalem 1981* with a Syriac introduction by Shem‛un Çan; 2nd [3rd] ed. Glane 1986* [OCLC 64947620, 156865120] with a Syriac introduction by Julius J Çiçek). 11. An auto biography, published in ‫ܕܘ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܐ‬ (The Assyrian Youth Federation, The Assyrian Federation, Södertälje, 2007 [OCLC 185262822]). 12. Memoires spread in many notebooks, some of which are now in Mardin and Jerusalem (some published in ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܬ‬cited in above, and in al-Ḥikmah Magazine of Jerusalem). He translated the following works from Arabic into Syriac: 13. Barsaum’s al-Lu‚l‚ al-Manthūr (Qamishli, 1967*; 2nd ed. Glane, 1992* (but 1991 on Syriac title page) [OCLC 65868938]). 14. Boulos Behnam’s drama Theodora (Glane, 1977*). ‫ܬܐܘ ܓ ܐ‬ 15. A book on theology by Michael Mina titled ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ ܒܐ‬/ Theologie Text Arabisch (Glane, 1990 [OCLC 66281771, 181898174]). [Sources: Ibrahim, Y. (1999), Dolabani the Ascetic Metropolitan of Mardin (Aleppo, 1999); Brock, “A Syrian Orthodox Bishop and Scholar: Mar Philoxenos Iohanna Dolaponu (1885–1996)”, Ostkircheiche Studien 26 (1977): 47–52; Mnofer 54–57; Abbouna 563–566; Macuch 446–449.]

354

KIRAZ

GEORGE DANHASH (1921–1969) [SYRIAC ORTHODOOX] He was born in Ṣadad. He joined the Taw Mim Simkath orphanage in Beirut when his father died where he studied Syriac under Armalah and Qarabashi. George later taught in the schools of ‛Āmūdah, Qamishli, and Aleppo. He composed a number of patriotic poems, the most popular of which ‫ܐܪ‬ which was later put to music by Gabriel As‛ad is ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ (Aleppo, 1935) (I recall learning it during my boy scout days in Bethlehem in the 1980s). Most of his writings remain unpublished. [Source: Mnofer 63–64].

ELIĀS SHA‛YA (1895–1970) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Barṭelle in 1895, ordained deacon by Athanasius Tuma Qaṣīr in 1928, and later a priest for Sanjār by Ignatius Eliās III. He later served as a priest in his village. He established a school and renovated the Syriac manuscripts of the Mart Shmuni Church. He served as an abbot of the Monastery of Mar Matta twice. He wrote on the wars of Ṭahmasab the Persian (?). He composed eight ̈ poems which were later published by Isḥaq Saka in ‫ܓܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕ ܬܐ ܕ ܬܝ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐܣ ܐ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫̈ ܗ ܕ ܪܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒܒ‬/ ‫قصائد مختارة لألب الخوري الياس شعيا كاھن كنيسة القديسة شموني في‬

‫( برطلي‬Mosul, 1962*). [Sources: Mnofer 65–66; Macuch 450–451].

FAVLOS (FAWLOS) GABRIEL (1912–1971) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] Born in Kharput, he joined the Taw Mim Semkath orphanage in Adana at an early age. After WWI, he lived in Beirut where he studied at the American College. In 1923, he became the principal of Taw Mim Semkath, now in Beirut. He died in Beirut. He wrote: 1. A chrestomathy and grammar (morphology) with Camille (Kamīl) Afrām al-Bustānī titled Langue Syriaque, Textes & Morphologie par Favlos Gabriel [&] Camille E. Boustany (Beirut, 1965* [OCLC 175120348]). 2. A second chrestomathy and grammar (syntax) with Kamīl Afrām al-Bustānī titled Langue Syriaque, Letters & Syntaxe par Favlos Gabriel [&] Camille E. Boustany (Beirut, 1966*). 3. A translation into Syriac, with Ghattas Maqdisi Eliās, of Bernardin de Saint Pierre’s romantic novel Paul et Virginie under the title

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

‫ܠ ܘ ܘ ܓ‬

‫ܪܘܬܐ ܐܘ‬

355

(Beirut 1955, 2nd ed. Glane

1986*). 4. Translations into Syriac of some of the works of Shakespeare and other French writers both in verse and prose (?). 5. A translation of Gilgamish, maybe from Arabic, in verse form (?). 6. Poems published in various journals and magazines, the most ̇ ‫ܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܒ‬ popular of which is ̈ in recognition of Taw Mim Semkath, later put to music by Gabriel As‛ad (1953). [Sources: Mnofer 67–70; Abbouna 573; Macuch 455.]

PAWLOS BIDĀRY (1887 [MACUCH 1890] –1974) [CHALDEAN] He was born in Bidār near Zakho, and joined the Syro-Chaldean Seminary of St. John in Mosul in 1900. He was ordained a priest in 1912. He lived in Syria most of his life, but returned to Iraq a few years before 1974. He wrote a grammar ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ ܐ ܐܘ ܬܘܪܨ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫( ܕ ܐ‬Mosul, 1923*). He composed many poems, only a ‫ ܐܘ ܐܘ ܐ ܪ‬and another few of which were published: one titled ‫ܐ‬ one on St. Ephrem (India, 1957). A few of his articles, written in Syriac, were published by the Iraqi Academy under the title ‫ ܐ ܐ ܓܒ ̈ ܐ‬/ ‫ مقاالت وقصائد مختارة‬// Selected articles & poems by Rev. Paulus Bidary (Baghdad, 1977* [OCLC 67846060]). [Sources: Abbouna 511–512; Macuch 414–415.]

MALKI AL-QAS AFRAM SOBO (1895–1979) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Arbo, Tur ‛Abdin. He was ordained a priest for Nisibin by Ignatius Eliās III in 1925, and later he migrated across the border to Qamishli. He composed in 1936 a liturgy for the celebration of the chrism which appeared at the Church of St. Jacob in Qamishli, including the hour offices and their husoye. He also composed a number of mimre. The liturgy and poems were published, with a biography of the author, by George Saliba in ‫( ܒ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬Beirut, 1984*). [Sources: Mnofer 74–75; Macuch 464.]

IGNATIUS JACOB III (1912–1980) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Barṭelleh of Tuma Gabriel Mari and Shmuni Isaac Mtūkā, and was given the baptismal name Shābā (‛Abdulaḥad). He attended the seminary at Deir Mar Matta in 1923, and in 1931 began teaching at Taw Mim Simkath in Beirut. He became a monk in 1933. He was sent to India in the same year where he was ordained a deacon and a priest. He returned in 1946 to Mosul. In 1950 he was consecrated a bishop for Beirut and Syria,

356

KIRAZ

then Patriarch in 1957. He transferred the patriarchate from Homs to Damascus. In addition to his other writings, he composed a collection of poems ̈ ‫( ܐ ܐ‬Aleppo, 1959*). [Sources: Mnofer 76– published under ‫ܓܒ ܐ‬ 78; Abbouna 570–572; Macuch 453–455.]

ḤANNA SALMĀN (1914–1981) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Ma‛sarteh and joined the Taw Mim Simkath orphanage in Adana. He taught Syriac, French and Arabic at the same institution, after it moved to Beirut. He graduated from the American University of Beirut, and then established in Tal Tamar, near al-Ḥasakeh, a school for the Assyrians. He became the principal of the Syriac Orthodox schools of Qamishli, and a manager of the Electrical Company of Qamishli after its nationalization. He returned to Beirut where he taught at the American University. He died in a car accident in 1981. He published with Yuḥanon Qashisho a set of Syriac readers (Qamishli, 1951). He composed more than 100 poems, mostly unpublished. He translated a novel/play from French into Syriac (Mnofer gives the titled transcribed in Arabic: janfīfāf ) (ms). [Sources: Mnofer 79–81; Abbouna 573– 574.]

‛ABD AL-MASĪḤ NU‛MĀN QARABASHĪ (1903–1983) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Qarabash near Diyarbakir. In 1911 his bishop Iwannis Eliās Shakir (later Patriarch) sent him to Deir al-Za‛faran where he learned Syriac (under Eliās Qoro and Dolabani), Arabic, and Turkish. In 1921 he went back to Diyarbakir, then escaped from the military service and went to Beirut, where he spent some time with Isaac Armalah. He taught in Beirut (1926, 1935–1936), Bethlehem (1937–1939), Jerusalem (1939–1951), Qamishli (1952–1976), and St. Ephrem Seminary in Beirut (1972–1975). He wrote: 1. A series of Syriac readers, ‫ܗ̈ܪܓܐ ܕ ܐ‬, from kindergarten until eighth grade which are still used today in the Middle East and the diaspora (reprinted many times). [George Kiraz published Key Olaph and Key Beth with an Arabic commentary (1983*); Eli Lahdo Shabo edited Key Olaph and grades 1–3 with an English commentary (2008*).] 2. A grammar ‫( ܪ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬Qamishli 1963, 2nd ed. Glane 1980*, 3rd ed. Glane 1986*).

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

357

3. Poems in the genre of ‫ܐ‬ ‘wine poems’ based on the Andalus Arabic tradition of al-khamriyyāt (Sweden, 1997 [OCLC 186054258]). 4. An account of Sayfo (not three romantic plays as described in ‫ܕ ܐ ܙ ܐ ܓ ̈ ܐ ܘ ܒܐ‬ Monfer) titled ‫̈ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ ܕܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܒ‬// Dmo Zliho (Vergossenes Blut) (Augsburg, 1997 [OCLC 74270490]; Glane 1999*); German translation by George Toro and Amill Gorgis titled Vergossenes Blut (Glane, 2002* [OCLC 71716141]); Dutch translation titled Vergoten Bloed (Glane, 2002 [OCLC 66191498]). Additionally, he translated the following works from Arabic into Syriac: 5. Jubran Khalil Jubran’s The Prophet and Jesus the Son of Man (?). 6. The quadrants of Al-Khayyam (?). 7. Michael Niema’s ‫)?( األوجه‬. 8. Gilgamish (?). 9. The sayings of Taghor from al-Bustani’s Arabic version (?). 10. The Codes of Hamurabi (?). 11. Addai Sher’s ‫)?( تاريخ كلدو وآشور‬. ‫ܐ ܕ ܒܐ‬ A collection of his writings was published in ‫̈ ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܘܕ‬ed. by Gabriel Afram ‫ܕܙܘ ܐ ܕܕ̈ܪܐ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܒ ̈ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ (Jönköping, 1994*). [Sources: Mnofer 85–92; Abbouna 567–568; Macuch 451.]

ANTOINE DABBŪS (1916–1983) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Fayrūzah near Homs, and studied at Taw Mim Simkath, graduating in 1934. He studied Syriac under Armalah and Qarabashi. He was the principal of the ‛Āmūda school, taught in Ras al-‛Ayn, and cofounded a school in his village. He wrote for a number of periodicals including Ḥdonoyutho Suryoyto (Buenos Aires, ed. Farīd Nuzhā) and Leshono d-‚Umtho (Beirut, ed.Ibrahim Haqwerdi). His compositions include a number of poems. He translated from Arabic Mu‚ayyid al-Dīn al-Ṭaghra‚ī’s ‫ المية العجم‬with the Syriac title ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܳ ܰ ܳ ܐ ܕ‬published in Mnofer), a short poem by Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941) titled “Clouds and Waves” (?), and Pierre Corneille’s French poem Le Cid (?). [Sources: Mnofer 93–98; Abbouna 574; Macuch 456.]

358

KIRAZ

STEVEN BELLO (1910–1989) [CHALDEAN] He was born in Alqosh of Jūnā Mīkhā Ballo and Teresa Mīkhā Sāko and given the baptismal name ‛Abdulaḥad (he is somewhat related to the family of Patriarch Yuḥanon Sulaqa). He became a monk in 1924, and in 1927 joined the Syro-Chaldean seminary in Mosul where he was ordained a priest in 1934. He studied in Rome from 1935 until 1940, the year of his return to Iraq. In 1958 he became a vicar for Aleppo, and in 1960 was consecrated a bishop for Syria. He died in Rome in 1989 and was buried in Iraq. ̈ He translated from Italian into Syriac a small book titled ‫ܐ ܐܘܪ ܐ‬ ‫( ܕܓ ܐ‬Mosul, 1957), wrote a chronicle titled ‫( ̈ܒܐ ̈ ܐ‬ms), and a book titled ‫( ܒܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ms). [Sources: Abbouna 514–515; Macuch 416.]

CYRIL JACOB (1912–199?) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in ‛Aynward in Tur ‛Abdin, and joined Deir al-Za‛farān in 1928. In 1930 he was sent to St. Jacob Monastery in Salaḥ were he was tonsured monk by Yuḥanna Kandūr, and then ordained a priest by Dionesius Abdulnūr of Amid. He then served in Midyat, Karburan, Dirbasiyyeh in Syria, Zaḥle in Lebanon, Jerusalem, and Ḥama. In 1959 he was consecrated bishop by Patriarch Jacob III, and in 1971 became the principal of St. Ephrem Seminary in ‛Aṭshane. In 1975 he assisted bishop Ivanius Afram in managing the diocese of Tur ‛Abdin. He immigrated to Europe and lived in Sweden for sometime, then Holland at St. Ephrem Monastery in the 1980s, then in Sweden again were he died. He co-authored with his brother Asmar al-Kouri a Ṭuroyo-Syriac ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ // The Guide, the First lexicon titled ‫ܪ ܐ ܘ ܕ ܐ‬ Literary-Colloquial Syriac Dictionary (Sweden, 1985*), and composed many poems (some published in Bahro Suryoyo). A collection of his writings was published in ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܒ ̈ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܪܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܝ ܪ ܣ‬ // Kutofe Çeşitli konular hakkında ŞİİRLER Yazan Mor Kurillos Yakup, ed. by Benjamin Atash (Glane, 1990*). [Sources: Mnofer 125–126; Macuch 471.]

MURAD SALIBA BARSOUM (1912–1996) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Miden and became an orphan at an early age. His family entrusted him to the care of St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem in 1925. There he studied Syriac under Dolabani, then taught at the schools of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Amman. During WW II, he worked as an interpreter for the British Government for the Assyrians who were deported from Iraq. After the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, Barsoum became a

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

359

refugee and lived in Bethlehem. In 1955 he immigrated to Jordan and in 1966 to U.S. where he lived first in NJ then Los Angeles. He is known for the translations he made into English of the orders of baptism, matrimony and burial (1974), and thirteen Anaphoras (1991). He wrote a pedagogical reader at the age of fifteen titled ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ (Jerusalem, 1927*). His other writings remain unpublished. [Sources: Mnofer 127–128; Macuch 470; eulogy by J. Tarzi (1996).]

GABRIEL AS‛AD (1907–1997) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Midyat and in 1914 joined Taw Mim Simkath where he studied under Dolabani, Paul John, an educator from Kharput, and Ibrahim Haqwirdi. In 1925 he immigrated to Beirut where he learned music and began putting to music the poems and anthems of the writers of this period. He taught in ‛Āmūda, Damascus, Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Qamishli. In 1953 he published ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ in musical notes, and in the 1970s produced two records. He immigrated to Sweden and died in Stockholm. [Sources: Mnofer 112–114; Abbouna 575; Macuch 469.]

BARSOUM AYYUB (AYOUB/EYOUB) (1932–1998) He was born of Yousif Daoud Ayyub and Latīfah Eliās Nu‛mān in Mosul and given the baptismal name Simon. He joined St. Ephrem seminary from 1946 until 1953. He taught in Dirbasiyyeh and became a principal of the school there for two years, then he taught in Aleppo. He was ordained a deacon in 1957 in Mosul, and then a priest for Aleppo in 1958 and a corepiscopos in 1968, both ordinations by Dionesios Jirjis Behnam. He became a patriarchal vicar of the Aleppo diocese from 1977 to 1979. He taught Syriac at the University of Aleppo in 1970 and 1975. In addition to his other writings, he composed a collection of poems titled ‫ ܙܗܪ ܐ‬// Zahrire (Glane, 1985* [OCLC 67728201]), and a poem titled ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܒܐ ܪܘ ܐ‬ // The Spiritual Love in “Truly Truly I Say to You” (Aleppo, 1997*). He also translated into Syriac Jibran Khalil Jibran’s al-Mawākib (ms). [Sources: Mnofer 175– 177; Abbouna 580–581; Macuch 464.]

NU‛MĀN AYDIN (1908–2001) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Kfarze in Tur ‛Abdin. During the Sayfo massacres of 1915, his family took refuge in ‛Aynward. He studied Syriac under Dolabani, was ordained deacon in 1933, and a priest by Dolabani in 1952. He was

360

KIRAZ

appointed a Patriarchal Vicar of Tur ‛Abdin from 1973 to 1980. In 1987 he immigrated to the US and settled in NJ. He was a masterful scribe. He wrote, 1. Homilies for Sundays and feast days (ms). 2. An anthology of poems (partly published in various magazines). 3. On the troubles of Tur ‛Abdin from 1914 to 1987 (parts were published in Bahro Suryoyo). 4. On the massacres of Tur ‛Abdin and the persecution of the Turkish government from 1941 to 1942 (parts in Bahro Suryoyo). 5. A history of the Patriarchs and Maphrians of recent times (probably those not covered by Dolabani) (ms). 6. Church hymnals (ms). 7. A commentary on the sacraments (ms). 8. The acts of St. ‛Zaza‚el (ms). 9. A history of Midyat, Kfarze, ‛Aynward, and other villages (ms). 10. Biographies of the bishops of Tur ‛Abdin from 1914 to 1985 (ms). 11. The destruction of the fourteen monasteries of Tur ‛Abdin from 1914 to 1987 under the title ‫ ܓ ̈ ܐ ܘ ̈ܒ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܒ‬/ Gedsche Ushabte d’Turabdin (Glane, 1997* [OCLC 68100139]). The content may be related and may include material from 3 and 4 above. [Sources: Mnofer 118–121; Abbouna 575–576; Macuch 469.]

YOHANON KASHISHO (YUḤANON QASHISHO) (1918–2001) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Azekh and immigrated to Qamishli where he studied Syriac under George Mā‛īlo. He taught in Aleppo, then lived in Bethlehem where his father was a priest. In 1948 he went to Syria where he taught, and worked in journalism. In 1970 he immigrated to Sweden. His writings include: 1. Readers in seven parts which were published in Qamishli, and an intermediary primer with Ḥanna Salmān. 2. A reader in 3 parts titled ‫ ܨ ܐ ܒܐ‬/ Safro Tobo (Sweden, 1983*, [OCLC 185345586]). 3. Two pocket dictionaries, one Syriac-Swedish, and the other Swedish-Syriac (I have no publication information). 4. A number of short stories for juveniles: a. ‫ܒܒܐ ܘܓ ̈ܒܐ ܐܪܒ ܆ ܨ ܐ ܘܐ ܬܗ܆‬ ‫ ܐ ܬܐ ܕܒ ܒ ܐ‬/ Tre assyriska barnsagor: Ali Baba Och de 40 Rövarna, Fiskaren Och Hans Hustru, Kökets Prinsessa (1983* [OCLC 185343919]).

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

361

b. ‫ܪ܆ ܐ ܐ ܕܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܬ ܙ ܘ‬/ Två assyriska barnsagor: Tammuz Och Ishtar Mullbärsträdet (1982* [OCLC 185758547]). c. ‫ܘܢ؟‬ ‫ܐ‬ / Shamo Lman Menhon: en assyrisk barnsaga (1982* [OCLC 185425502]). d. Mnofer lists other stories: ‫ܡ‬ , ‫ܕܘ ܒܐ‬, ‫ ܓ ܢ‬, ‫ܝ‬ (?). ‫ܐ‬, , ‫ܪܒ‬ 5. He wrote over 200 poems many of which are published in various periodicals, especially Ḥuyada, and in a collection titled ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܘ‬/ Dikt samling (1993 [OCLC 192029554, 186054188]). [Sources: Mnofer 142–144; Abbouna 577.]

ABROHOM SAWMA (1913–1996) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Midyat and joined Taw Mim Simkath in 1919 in Adana where he learned Syriac under Dolabani. He moved with the school to Beirut in 1923 and studied there under Armalah. He lived in Jerusalem in 1928 where he studied at St. Mark’s monastery, then joined public schools and graduated as an engineer in 1943. In 1948 he left Jerusalem and lived in Brazil. His Syriac writings include poems, some published in Ḥdoyutho Suryoyto (Buenos Aires, ed. Farīd Nozha), and an 11-volume set titled ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫( ܕ ܕܘܬܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬vol. 1 titled Historia de la Cultura de Los Asirianos Arameos, 1967*, but ‫ ܐܨ‬in Syriac [OCLC 67286934]; vols. 2–11 titled Evolução Cultural dos Povos Assirio-Arameos do Oriente, São Paulo: vol. 2, 1980*; vol. 3, 1983*; vol. 4, 1984* [OCLC 39827347]; vol. 5, 1985*; vol. 6, 1986*; vol. 7, 1987*; vol. 8, 1988*; vol. 9, 1988*; vol. 10, 1989*; vol. 11, 1990*). He also wrote ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܗܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܬܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ ܘ ܘ ܬ‬Assírios Em Todas Épocas (São Paulo 1996* [OCLC 186054228]). [Sources: Mnofer 129–131; Abbouna 576; Macuch 470.]

ASMAR KHOURY (1916–200?) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in ‛Aynward, and studied Syriac under Dolabani in Deir alZa‛farān from 1928 to 1931. He taught in ‛Aynward, Karburan, Gundekshukro, and in 1945 in Beirut until 1975 when he immigrated to Sweden. He is a master scribe and produced more than 130 mss, one of which is a beautiful illuminated lectionary of which an edition was made [OCLC 156907367]. His writings include,

362

KIRAZ

1. A reader titled ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬/ (‫رفيق الطالب إلى اللغة اآلرامية )السريانية‬ // A Student’s Companion to Syria [sic] in Syriac & Arabic and English (Beirut, 1972*). 2. A translation from the Arabic of Jibran Khalil Jibran’s al-Mawākīb (circulated in the author’s hand and dated 1978*). titled ‫̈ ܐ‬ 3. (With his brother Cyril Jacob) Syriac-Ṭuroyo lexicon (see under Cyril Jacob). 4. A history of Tur ‛Abdin titled ‫ܪ ܐ ܒܒ‬ ‫ܒܒܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫( ܪ‬Göteborg, 1998*). ‫ܨܘ ̈ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ 5. An account of the massacres titled ‫( ̈ܪ ܐ‬Göteborg, 1998*). 6. Poems, many of which he published in magazines, especially Bahro Suryoyo. 7. An Arabic-Syriac lexicon (ms). 8. A translation into Syriac of Shim‛un of Beth Man‛im’s Kurdish poem Lavij (?). 9. A collection of stories titled ‫ܐܘܪ ܐ ܬ ̈ ܐ ܘ ܐ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫( ܐܪ ܐ‬Södertälje, 1980*). 10. A history of the Arameans (?). [Sources: Mnofer: 132–134; Abbouna 577; Macuch 470.]

SULAYMAN ḤANNO (1918–2006) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Arkaḥ, and studied Syriac at the village school. In 1946, he migrated to Syria where he taught at Gharkishamo, Qubūr al-Bīḍ, and Qamishli. In 1962 he taught at Mor Gabriel Monastery where he was ordained a deacon, then a priest in 1963 for Arkaḥ, Arbo and Kafro. In 1965 he served in Qubūr al-Bīḍ. He wrote a book on the massacres of Tur ‛Abdin titled ‫ܓ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܒ‬// Schicksalschläge der syrischen Christen im Tur-Abdin-1915 (Glane, 1987* [OCLC 64924817]), and composed poems (?). He translated from Arabic into Syriac verse Afram Barsoum’s Qīthār al-Qulūb (a collection of poems) (1969*), and from Kurdish of Shim‛un of Beth Man‛im’s poem Lavij (?). [Sources: Mnofer 138–141; Macuch 469.]

JULIUS YESHU ÇIÇEK (1941–2005) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Upper Kafro and studied Syriac in Deir al-Za‛farān under Dolabani who ordained him a deacon in 1958. In 1961 he became a monk and became the principal of the seminary at Mor Gabriel Monastery in 1962. In 1977 he became a Patriarchal Vicar to Central Europe and was

BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHIES

363

consecrated a bishop in 1979. He established St. Ephrem Monastery in Holland, and was instrumental in the establishment of two other monasteries in Europe. He established Bar Hebraeus Verlag where he edited and published many books scribed in his own hand prior to the development of computer fonts, then moved to using computer fonts. He established and edited Kolo Süryoyo from 1978 until his death in 2005. Most of the anonymous editorials, articles and news reports written in Syriac in Kolo Süryoyo are by him, but he hardly published works under his own name [Sources: Mnofer 187–188; Abbouna 582.] GHATTĀS (DANḤO) MAQDASI ELIAS (1911–2008) [SYRIAC ORTHODOX] He was born in Midyat, and joined Taw Mim Simkath in Adana where he studied under Dolabani, then in Beirut when the school moved there until he graduated in 1930. He also completed the French high school curriculum in Damascus in 1932, and taught in Bab Tuma for two years. In 1933 he worked for the Syrian Customs. In 1979 he immigrated to Brazil.10 He wrote the following: 1. (With Favlos Gabriel) a translation of Bernardin de Saint Pierre’s romantic novel Paul et Virginie (Beirut 1955). 2. Poems and anthems many of which were published in al-Nahsrah al-Suryaniyyah (Aleppo), Beth Nahrin (NJ, ed. Na‛‛um Fāiq), Ḥuyada (NJ, ed. Na‛‛um Fāiq), Leshono d‚-Uumto (Beirut, ed. Ibrahim Hakwerdi), and Ḥdonoyutho Suryoyto (Buenos Aires, ed. Farīd Nozha). The most popular of his anthems is ‫ܬܘ‬, put to music by his cousin Gabriel As‛ad. 3. Collections of poems, letters and other writings appeared in the following publications edited by Gregorius Yuhanna Ibrahim and published by Dar Mardin: ̈ ‫( ܒ‬1994*). a. ‫ܓ ܐ ̈ܒ ܐ ܘܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ̈ܳ ̈ b. ‫( ܶ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܘܒ ̈ ܐ‬1996*). c. ‫( ̈ ܐ ܕ ܪܐ‬2001*). d. ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫( ܐ̈ܪܐ‬2007*). [Sources: Mnofer 122–124; Abbouna 576; Macuch 465.]

‘Assyrian Poet and Translator, Denho Moqdassi Elias, Passed Away in Brazil,’ Zinda Magazine [http://www.zindamagazine.com], May 23, 2008. 10

364

KIRAZ

APPENDIX There are a number of works which were published anonymously or by a ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܕܕܘ̈ܪܐ ܕ‬ committee. For instance, the Aleppo-based ‫ܐ‬ (committee of teachers of Christian study and language) ‫ܐ ܘܕ ܐ‬ translated from English into Syriac an abridged version of Shakespeare’s The Tempest (Aleppo, 1961*). Mar Julius Press in India published a 14-page report titled ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

ܰ ‫ܺ ܰܘܡ‬

:‫ܐ ܕ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܐܛ‬

‫ܐܘܣ ܐܘܓ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܬ ܒ ܐ‬

(Pampakuda 1932), and a 58-page historical tract by a monk called Matay ‫ܐܢ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܘ ݁ ܒ‬ containing five sections: 1. ‫ܐ‬ ܽ ܰ ‫ܓ ܪܓ‬, 2. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܒܗܕ‬ ‫ܬ‬, 3. ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ ܪܛ‬ ‫ܬ‬, 4. ‫ܘܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ̈ܪ ܐ ܘܬܒ ܘܬ‬ , 5. with no title on Patriarch ‛Abdulmasiḥ (Pampakuda 1953).

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH DRAMATIC NARRATIVE IN JACOB OF SERUG’S MĒMRĀ ON JONAH ROBERT A. KITCHEN

KNOX-METROPOLITAN UNITED CHURCH REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN [email protected]

Sebastian Brock has shown considerable interest and delight in the various occurrences of dramatic narrative in Syriac poetry.1 His special lecture2 at Some of the more important studies include: “A Syriac dispute between heaven and earth,” LM 91 1978, 261–70; “The dispute poem: from Sumer to Syriac,” Bayn al-Nahrayn 7:28 1979,417–26; “Dialogue hymns of the Syriac churches,” Sobornost/ECR 5:2 1983,35–45; “Mary and the Gardener: an East Syrian dialogue soghitha,” PdO 11 1983, 223–34; “Syriac dialogue poems: marginalia to a recent edition,” LM 97 1984, 29–58; “A dispute of the months and some related texts in Syriac,” JSS 30 1985, 181–211; “Dramatic Dialogue Poems,” (IV Symposium Syriacum) Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229 (1987), 135–147; “Sogiatha: Syriac Dialogue Poems” (Syrian Churches Series 11, 1987); “The Sinful Woman and Satan: two Syriac dialogue poems,” OC 72 1988, 21–62; “The dispute between soul and body: an example of a long-lived Mesopotamian literary genre,” Aram 1:1 1989, 53–64; “Syriac dispute poems; the various types,” in G. J. Reinink and H. L .J. Vanstiphout (eds), Dispute Poems and Dialogues (OLA 42, 1991), 109–19; “A dialogue between Joseph and Mary from the Christian Orient,” Logos, a Welsh Journal of Theology, 1:3 [1992], 4–11; “Syriac poetry on biblical themes. 2, A dialogue poem on the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22),” The Harp 7 (1994), 55–72; “Les poemes dialogues dans la tradition liturgique syriaque,” in La Genie de la Messe Syriaque, Actes du Colloque II (Antelias, 1995), 11–24; “The tale of two brothers: Syriac dialogues between Body and Soul,” in L. S. B. MacCoull (ed.), Studies in the Christian East in Memory of Mirrit Boutros Ghali (Washington DC 1995), 29–38; “A Syriac dispute poem: the river Pishon and the river Jordan,” Parole de l’Orient 23 (1998), 3–12; “Two Syriac dialogue poems on Abel and Cain,” Le Muséon 113 (2000), 333–375; “The Dispute Poem: from Sumer to Syriac,” JCSSS 1 (2001), 3–10; “The dispute between the Cherub and the Thief,” Hugoye 5:2 (2002); “Syriac Dialogue: an example from the past,” The Harp 15 (2002) [Mar Aprem Festschrift], 305–18 [also 1

365

366

KITCHEN

the 15th International Conference on Patristics, Oxford 2007, once again revisited the major types of these narratives for the benefit of future scholarship. One of the most colourful practitioners of dramatic narrative is Jacob of Serug (d. 521) who frequently plays with these devices to enliven and deepen the commentary in his innumerable mēmrē on Biblical characters and themes. Perhaps his longest mēmrā is the commentary on the Book of Jonah, number 122 in Paul Bedjan’s edition, 123 pages in length.3 Jacob exegetes the entire book in serial fashion, inserting a number of dramatic narratives into critical junctures of the canonical text. The following study of a selection of the dramatic narratives in the Jonah mēmrā is meant to be a preliminary sampler awaiting a more complete examination.4

THE MĒMRĀ Bedjan’s primary text of Jacob’s Jonah is British Library Additional 14623, ff. 31a-46a5, with Mardin 117, f. 117ff, as a secondary witness. The text is divided into 72 sections of 14–70 lines, a total of 2521 lines. Bedjan notes in his edition that in the British Library manuscript three major section breaks or divisions were included, therefore 4 divisions; the Mardin manuscript only included 2 breaks, so three divisions.6 Since Bedjan utilized BL Add. in JAAS 18:1 (2004), 57–70]; “The Dialogue between the Two Thieves (Luke 23:39–41),” The Harp 20 (2006) [Festschrift J. Thekeparampil], 151–170; “Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife (Genesis 39): Two Anonymous Dispute Poems,” in W. J. van Bekkum, J. W. Drijvers, and A. C. Klugkist (eds.), Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 41–58. 2 Sebastian P. Brock, “Dramatic Poems on Biblical Topics in Syriac,” August 10, 2007. 3 Jacob of Serug, Homiliae Selectae, edit. Paul Bedjan (Paris, 1908) vol. 4: 368– 490 (no. 122). 4 First, an article presenting an overview of Jacob of Serug’s mēmrā, “Jonah’s Oar: Christian Typology in Jacob of Serug’s mēmrā on Jonah,” (forthcoming in Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies); second, a bilingual edition of the mēmrā (Syriac text and English translation) with commentary and introduction, anticipated in the series Texts From Christian Late Antiquity, Gorgias Press. 5 The manuscript is dated 823 A.D. and consists of a collection of Syriac authors on a variety of topics. While this mēmrā is the only “metrical discourse” by Jacob of Serug in the manuscript, there are two letters and two penitential canticles ascribed to Jacob of Batnae. Cf. W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, Vol. 2 (London, 1871), DCCLXXXI 8, p. 764. 6 P. Bedjan, Homiliae Selectae, vol. 4, page xi, footnote 7.

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH

367

14623 as his base, he retained the four divisions. The first division ends at Section 15 with Jonah waking up in the hole of the ship, frightened by the storm. The second division ends at Section 34 with Jonah being successfully swallowed, not eaten, by the fish. The third division ends at Section 51 with the King of Nineveh exhorting his subjects to fight hard this new kind of battle of repentance. The fourth division is the longest and concludes with Section 72 in which Jacob points to God making Jonah a parable for the mercy of his creation. The most efficient way to summarize such a lengthy text is to note as above that Jacob marches through the entire canonical text, verse by verse in order. As Jacob amplifies and deepens the meaning of the familiar story, it is clear that he understands the Book of Jonah as essentially a Christian text, providing numerous typologies pointing towards Christ and the Christian experience of faith. Jonah, however, is not his favourite prophet. Jacob directly questions Jonah’s actions and judgments at a number of points which are not surprising to the modern reader. Jacob asks incredulously, “What was Jonah thinking when he thought he could physically run away from God?” (371:18–21). When Jonah finally returns to Nineveh and preaches to the Ninevites, Jacob is struck by the nonredemptive character of Jonah’s discourse and treatment of the sinful people (450:7–451:5). Likewise, Jonah’s deep distress that Nineveh was not destroyed on the fortieth day demonstrated no pleasure at the repentance of Nineveh and God’s salvation; indeed, a decided bitterness marks Jonah’s response (478:9–482:2). Finally, Jonah’s ironic disappointment over the wilted plant and how that reflects his relationship with God does not pass lightly by Jacob (484:10–486:5). Nevertheless, Jacob sees Christ and the Gospel filtering through Jonah’s tale and person. Jacob observes that when Jonah teaches the sailors about his Lord, Creator of heaven and earth, he is preaching what he should have preached to the Ninevites (407:17–409:19). The central typology, of course, is seen in Jonah’s descent to the depths of the sea/earth, somehow still alive in the belly of the great fish, and returning to full life after three days, prefiguring as literally as possible Jesus’ descent into hell and resurrection on the third day (413:16–415:19). This, however, was Jonah’s finest day, for after departing from the fish, Jacob’s portrayal of the prophet is as one who has lost the joy of the Gospel through the vehemence of his preaching and his own unrepentant attitude towards the redeemed of God and towards God himself. The last words of the long mēmrā state that “[God] made Jonah a parable for the mercy of his creation” (490:3). A parable may depict a conflicting set of

368

KITCHEN

images; it does not have to describe a saint, and Jonah is not one in Jacob’s vision. The character who comes out saintly is not surprisingly the king of Nineveh who leads his people by personal example in penance and fasting. The king, moreover, is assessed by Jacob to have a better understanding of the nature of God than our infamous prophet (450:13–14).

DRAMATIC NARRATIVES IN THE MĒMRĀ ON JONAH As is the case with many of Jacob’s mēmrē, his commentary on Biblical characters and events does not stop at the canonical text. Especially given the length of the Jonah mēmrā there are numerous detours, tangents, and creative recreations of conversations, both those recorded in the Biblical text and those that should have been according to the exegetical and theological imagination of Jacob. Sebastian Brock has identified several of these creative strategies in Syriac literature.7 The more famous genres of dispute and dialogue exchanges are not found in the Jonah mēmrā in their typical fashion, but Type V is found in abundance—“the introduction into the dramatized narrative of homiletic material, where the author may offer moralizing and exegetical comment, or he may address one of the characters directly (apostrophe).”8 Not surprisingly, most of the occurrences of dramatic narrative cluster around the principal events in this entertaining and familiar story. The first surrounds the discovery of Jonah’s culpability for the storm at sea and the ensuing monologues between Jonah, the sailors and the sea itself (397–414). This sequence could be labeled a dialogue in the broadest sense, mirroring the canonical text, but the monologues are lengthy and the transitions between speakers are weak. Once Jonah is in the belly of the great fish, Jacob expands Jonah’s contemplations and prayers beyond the traditional psalm in Jonah 2 (427:14–429:20). Jonah reflects upon the fact that he is still alive in the belly of the fish (424:1–16). Jonah concludes with a pointed address to his prophetic colleagues who do not want him to speak about the atoning one. Jonah demonstrates the foreknowledge that his journey is very similar to Christ’s (434:11–435:11). Now returning to Nineveh with no protest, Jonah’s lengthy and fiery sermon is filled out in great detail by Jacob (440:11–443:5), followed by Jonah’s rebuke of the Ninevites that the city 7 “Dramatic Dialogue Poems,” (IV Symposium Syriacum) Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229 (1987), 135–147. 8 op. cit., 137.

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH

369

has no real way of appeasing God and avoiding destruction (446:12– 448:10). The longest narrative unit in the mēmrā ensues, consisting of the various laments, call to penance, and witness to the good faith of Nineveh, led by its king. The king charges his army and people to fight this new kind of ascetic battle, knowing ironically that the Lord may yet redeem Nineveh in spite of what Jonah has said (449:11–451:5). A different kind of preacher is sent out by the king to relay his commandment for a universal fast (451:6–453:4). Finally, two poignant sections amplify the distress of the Ninevites: Nineveh’s collective prayer to God for mercy from destruction is offered (465:2–466:20); and an extra-canonical lament of a Ninevite mother directed to her young son on the eve of imminent destruction (469:13– 471:3). Nineveh, of course, is not destroyed and the remainder of the mēmrā centers around Jonah’s bitter complaints about God’s mercy (478:15– 479:21), his humiliation and ridicule before the Ninevites (480:1–482:2), and then the episode of the comforting plant which later wilts and dies offers him one more opportunity to complain to God (485:9–486:3). As in the canonical text, God has the last word to respond to Jonah’s series of complaints (486:6–488:2). A curious feature throughout is Jacob referring to the mēmrā in the third person as an actor in its own play. The mēmrā has its own agenda and urges and pushes the story along. Jacob, with perhaps tongue in cheek, complains that all he can do is hang on for the ride, for the powerful physics of the mēmrā are beyond his management, as if the mēmrā were divine. Jacob uses this personified mēmrā stratagem in more than a few of his verse homilies, the mēmrā on Jepthah’s Daughter being one instance.9 While this motif will be treated more thoroughly elsewhere, a few examples will illustrate what Jacob says the mēmrā is attempting to do. The mēmrā has been attributed with an odd function of guidance and supervision, standing over Jacob like an inquisitor (393:13–20). Its path appears as pre-ordained, yet the mēmrā journeys after him making sure that Jacob and Jonah head in the correct direction. Nevertheless, Jacob’s attempt P. Bedjan, Homiliae Selectae, No. 159, Vol. 5:306–330. Susan Ashbrook Harvey’s presentation at the 5th North American Syriac Symposium, University of Toronto, June 25–27, 2007, “Gendered Sanctity: Jacob of Serug on Jephthah’s Daughter,” pointed out this common motif. In this mēmrā, however, šarbā (‫) ܒܐ‬ “story” is the animated character driving Jacob forward. Cf. 324:3–4, 326:12–328:6. 9

370

KITCHEN

to keep on track and complete the mēmrā runs not so much into obstacles as much as detours and distractions (415:20–416:4). Yet Jacob is not able to tame the mēmrā totally. The great fish has swallowed Jonah, but the mēmrā keeps going despite Jacob’s attempt to limit and rein it in (427:14–15). Jonah’s soft prayer from the fish empowers the mēmrā (428:20–429:8), so now the principal actor is enabling the story about him to continue. Jacob now enters into the mēmrā and the Biblical narrative to pray that Jonah might be resurrected from the prison of the fish (429:9– 20). It is further along this latter type of dramatic narrative that I wish to pursue a little more carefully, that is, the personification by Jacob of intellectual concepts and non-human forces to interject important theological insights and commentary. The four that I have chosen to present below are in their appearance in the mēmrā: 1. Justice (‫) ܐ ܬܐ‬ condemning Jonah after the lot falls upon him; 2. The Sea (‫ ) ܐ‬telling the sailors they will survive only if they throw Jonah overboard; 3. The ̄ Symbol (‫ )ܐܪܙܐ‬calls upon Jonah to descend to the depths as a sign of his prefiguring Christ; 4. Grace (‫ ) ܒ ܬܐ‬receiving the prayers of the Ninevites and presenting their case before the judge in heaven. Regrettably, Jacob did not choose to give a voice to either the great fish or the plant, favourites of many readers. They simply retain their role as a third party to the dynamics of the narrative between God and Jonah.

SECTION 18. 397:1–14 (JUSTICE CONDEMNS JONAH BY MEANS OF LOTS) ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܬ ܒ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܕ ܩ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ̄ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐܪ‬ ̈ ‫ܬܒ ܐ܀܀‬ ‫ܒܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܬܬ‬ ̄ ̄ ‫ܗܝ ܪ ܬ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܬ ܐ ܬܐ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ ܕܐܪ ܀‬ ‫ܗ ܓܒ ܐ ܕ ܓ‬ ̈ ‫ܙܘ ܐ ܕܗܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܗ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ܢ܀‬ ‫ܓ ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܙ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܒ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ̈ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܗ ܐ ܓܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܓ ܐ ܘ̈ܪܘ ܐ ܕ ܘܕܘ ܝ܀‬ ‫ܘܒ ܪܗ ܪܗ‬ ‫ܐܬܪܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܘ‬ ‫ܗܐ ܒ ܐ ܩ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܗ ܪܘ ܐ ܕܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬

5

10

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH

371

TRANSLATION

5

10

They cast lots (‫ ) ̈ ܐ‬as they had prudently devised/ and the lot of Jonah who had fled from God came up. By the lots they had cast the sea revealed whom it was seeking/ and Jonah was seized like a debtor among creditors. Justice (‫ ) ܐ ܬܐ‬came and as with a finger pointed him out/ “This is the man who has disturbed the sea on the road in which he set out. This one is the cause of these quakings that, see, are increasing in severity/ On account of him the waves are piling up against your ship. On account of this a storm has arisen to swallow you up/ but if you should throw him from your ship, peace will be complete. This man has agitated the sea and the floods/ and the waves and the winds pursue him in order to capture him. This servant fled from his Lord and switched location/ but the wind went out after him to bring back the rebellious one.”

COMMENTS Dramatic narrative in Jacob of Serug’s hermeneutic climbs “inside the narrative” of the canonical text where no words are recorded, but which he finds pregnant with unexpressed meaning. Jacob uses personified forces of nature and intellectual concepts here to take a one-sided conversation deeper. His reflections and commentary come at critical points where due to the brevity and terseness of the text the narrative leaps from a declaration to an action, leaving unmentioned the inner process linking the two. (397:1–3) Casting lots were no longer acceptable in sixth century Syriac culture, though probably not unused (cf. The Book of Steps, Mēmrā 7.3, 14,10 for a late 4th century struggle with the various magical and occult practices). Obviously, an old convention from an ancient story not only conveys the abject and desperate paganism of the sailors, but how the 10 The Book of Steps The Syriac Liber Graduum, edit. Robert A. Kitchen & Martien F. G. Parmentier (Cistercian Studies 196; Cistercian Publications: Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2004), 67–69, 74–75.

372

KITCHEN

Hebrew God, the creator of heaven and earth, invades the casting of lots to use it towards a prophetic end. The lots were cast so that the sea would speak, and in the section below (406:6–21) Jacob will animate the sea as a divine messenger and prosecutor. (:5–14) Justice appears as the archetype of Jacob’s use of these personified concepts.11 The laconic Biblical text seems to employ the pagan lots as the chance method of discernment the sailors adopt. Jacob understands the story as a fundamentally Christian story in which nothing falls outside the purview of the Creator of heaven and earth. The immediate absence of some divine justice in the text is now filled and animated by Jacob. (:10) “peace will be full/complete” indicating a proper circle of administered justice. The sailors will receive peace if they follow Justice/the sea/God’s directions. (:14) “the rebellious one” (‫ܐ‬ ) indicating Jonah. Almost ‫ܘܕܐ‬ which is a rare term for Satan; perhaps the closeness was an intentional pun, hinting at the diabolic source of Jonah’s rebellion.

23. 406:6–21 (SEA TALKS AND THREATENS SAILORS TO RELEASE JONAH TO IT) ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̄ܗܘܘ ܕܒ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ̄ ‫ܗ ܐ ܐܚ ܐ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܓ ܡ‬ ‫ܙ ܐ ̄ ܘܢ ܐܢ ܨܒ ܐ ̄ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܓܒ ܐ ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܙܪ ܒܐ ̄ܗܝ ܐ ܐ ܕܬܘܒ ܬ‬10 ‫̈ܪܘ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܓ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܐ ܕܓ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܗܘ ܒ ܿ ̄ܗܘ‬ ܿ ‫܀‬ ‫ܗܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܨ ܒ ܐ ܐܬ ܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ܀‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܗܝ‬ 15 ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐܬ ܐܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܢ‬ ‫ܗ ܘܪܕܘ ܐ ̄ ܘܢ܀‬ ‫ܫ ܒ ܐ ܕܐܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܘ ̈ ܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܕ ܐ ̄ܗܝ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܘ ܐ ܕܬ ܘ ܝ ܪ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܀‬ ‫̈ܐ ܕ ܘ ܝ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ 20 Jacob’s mēmrā on Jepthah noted above also employs kēnūtā as a character, 316:11–14. 11

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH

‫ܕ ܀‬

‫ܐ ܕ ܐܙܠ‬

‫̄ܗܘܐ‬

373

‫ܘ ܐ ܐܪ‬

TRANSLATION They attempted to save Jonah by all means/ but the sea threatened, “If I do not receive him, I will not calm down. Abandon the one who flees and if you desire, depart and leave/ Cast from the ship the man who in fact has stirred up the tempests. 10 The ship is constrained so that it is buffeted still amidst the waves/ for if you do not cast Jonah from [the ship] it will not be set free. As long as he is in [the ship] the waves circle around beating against it/ for if [the waves] do not receive him they will not allow [the ship] to travel. If you plan to reach dry land/ 15 Abandon Jonah so that the road of your actions might become free. If you ardently desire a haven from the tossing about/ Make the Hebrew depart who rejected his Lord and you will journey. Look, you have learned what is the cause of your afflictions/ Why struggle for there is no way for you to save him.” 20 As long as there was a way the sailors sought to save him/ but the sea did not allow [the ship] to go while being disturbed.

COMMENTS The irony of this characterization should not escape the reader: the sea as primeval location of chaos is given rationality, working in concert with God. Again, Jacob draws out the rational justice he sees implicitly at play in the canonical tale, also rendering the pagan sailors part of the Christian scenario. They are drawn into relationship with God as evidenced by their sacrifice once back on dry land and conversion to the Hebrew God (412:19–413:15). (:8–17) The sea reiterates Justice’s judgment that the sailors need to cast Jonah over board to bring back the environment into equilibrium. The sacrifice of Jonah is required to dispel and order chaos. The sea, therefore, participates as an agent of divine justice.

374

KITCHEN

29. 413:16–414:12 (THE SYMBOL CALLS JONAH TO DESCEND TO DEPTHS) ‫ܐ ܕܒ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܪ‬ ‫̄ܗܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܕܒ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܘ ܘܐ ܐܬܐ‬ ̄ ‫̈ ܐ ܕ ܟ ܐܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܪܙܐ ܕ ܬ ܓ ܫ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ̈ ‫܀‬ ‫ܩ‬ ‫ܕ ܠ ܘ‬ ‫ܓܐܫ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܿܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܗܘ ܐ ܘܗܘܝ‬ 20 ‫ܕܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܗܘܝ ܒ ܐ‬ (414) ܿ ‫܀‬ ‫ܐܦ ܗܘ ܐܬ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܐܬܬ ܐ ܘܕܪܘܫ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܒ ܒ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫܀‬ ‫ܬܗ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܟ ܕܐܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܗܘܝ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ 5 ‫܀‬ ‫ܟ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ ܬܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ̄ ܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܟ ܕܐܦ ܗܘ ܐܬ܀‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫̈ ܝ ܕ ܐ ܪܒܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ ܓ ܐ ܘܒ ܝ‬ ܿ ‫܀‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܓܐܫ ܟ‬10 ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܨܘܪ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܕܗܕܐ ܐܬܐ ܐ ܐ ܒ ܟ ܐ‬ TRANSLATION Jonah descended so that he might portray the type of the Son of God/ and become a sign (‫ )ܐܬܐ‬of the murder of the son among the floods. ̄ ) called to him, “Descend, touch the depths The symbol (‫ܐܪܙܐ‬ because your Lord will come/ and descend and touch the depths of Sheol and empty it. 20 Descend to the deepest part and become the type of that son of the living one/ who descends to the whirlpool of the dead like a diver. (414) Come, become in the dead sea a living one without precedent/ because that one who makes everything live also dies that he might resurrect all. He dove and descended and prepared a path in the heart of the earth/ because your Lord who comes will descend to the lowest position of the earth.

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH

375

5

May the sea bury you and become a buried one who is incorruptible/ for it will be achieved in the tomb of your Lord when he descends to it. Be dead while you are alive and being destroyed you will not be destroyed/ for destruction will approach your Lord who also does not die. Become an explorer and investigate the depths of the great sea/ 10 for your Lord will touch the lake of the dead when he descends to it. Portray for us the type of the living dead one who is incorruptible/ for this sign (‫ )ܐܬܐ‬is not visible except in your Lord.”

COMMENTS Jacob brings a third actor into the sea drama of Jonah, this time an explicitly Christian theme. Jonah is invited and welcomed by the Symbol to become a type for the eventual journey of Jesus into the depths of death on Holy Saturday. Striking is how Jonah is summoned to precisely prefigure Christ, not participating in the entirety of the suffering of the Passion, but in the descent into hell or Sheol, which Christ will carry forward into “the harrowing of hell.” (413:16) Jonah is summoned to descend to the depths in order to become a type (‫ܐ‬ ) of the Son of God, a favourite motif of Jacob and other patristic Biblical exegetes. (:17) More than just being a type, a status almost many other Biblical figures share, Jonah becomes a sign (‫)ܐܬܐ‬, the “sign of Jonah” Jesus will point towards (Matthew 12:38–42; Luke 11:29–32). ̄ ) or Mystery (of God) is the new actor who (:18) The Symbol (‫ܐܪܙܐ‬ summons and redeems Jonah for a role as the one who prepares the way for the Lord. The Symbol’s function is to demonstrate to Jonah and the reader the larger significance of Jonah’s mission—“the part of God’s plan which the type signified.” [Cf. Robert Murray’s brief discussions regarding the Symbol in Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2004), 45 note, also 21, 53, 77, 166, 243– 244.] ) it (Sheol).” For the tradition (:18–21) “... and empties (‫ܩ‬ concerning Christ’s “harrowing of hell,” see Gary A. Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 155–158; also, “The Resurrection of

376

KITCHEN

Adam and Eve,” in In Dominico Eloquio—In Lordly Eloquency: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Louis Wilken, edit. Paul M. Blowers, Angela Russell Christman, David G. Hunter & Robin Darling Young (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 3–34. (414:1–2) The Symbol’s invitation is for Jonah to participate in and typify the resurrection. “... a living one without precedent...” (‫)ܕ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ suggests the concept that his living in the midst of death—the belly of the fish as a type of Christ’s tomb—is outside of natural and human norms. (:5) “... a buried one who is incorruptible...” is the status tendered to Jonah, and then (:11) described as “the type of the living dead one who is incorruptible.” (:7) “Be dead while you are alive...” is a motif of Syriac monastic and ascetical literature. Cf. The Book of Steps, Mēmrā 29.13, 18 [pp. 333–334, 336– 337].

61. 471:12–473:17 (GRACE RECEIVES PETITIONS OF NINEVEH AND PLEADS BEFORE JUDGE) ܿ ‫ܕܗܝ ܒ ܬܐ ܕܓ ܐ ̄ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̄ܗܘܐ‬ ̈ ܿ ̄ ‫ܐ ܀‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ̈ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬ ‫̈ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܪܘ ̄ܗܘܘ ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܿܝ‬ ‫ܓ ܿܗ‬ ‫ ܘ‬15 ܿ ‫ܬܗ ܕ ܐ ̈ܪ ܪܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܐ ܡ ܪܒ ܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܢ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܒܬ‬ ‫ܓ ̈ ܐܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܒ ܬܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܕܬ ܐܠ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ ܬ‬ ̄ ‫ܐܬܬ ܒ ܬܐ ̈ܪ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܕܒ ܕ ܐ‬ 20 ̄ ‫ܕܒ ܘܓ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܿܝ ܒ ܬܐ ܕܐ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܿܗ ܒ ܐ‬ (472) ܿ ‫ܕܬ‬ ܿ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܒܐ ܐ ܕܐ ܘܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܝ ܒ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܪܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܡ ܕ ܐ ܙ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܗܘܝ‬ ‫ܿ ܘ ̈ܓ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬5 ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ ܓܬ ܐ ܀‬ ‫ܗ̈ܪܘ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܘ‬ ‫ܪ ܿ ܘܓ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܡ ܕ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܕܗ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒܐܕ‬10 ‫ܐ ܕ ܪ ܐ ܿ܀‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܒ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ܿ ̈‫ܟ ܘ ܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܓ ̈ ܐܢ܀܀‬ ‫ܘܨ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܨܘܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܿܗ‬ ‫ܐ ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܘܨ‬

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH

‫܀‬

(473)

‫ܒ ܘ ܿ ܓܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܐܪ ܘܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܕ ܐ ܪܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܬ ܒ‬ ̄ ‫ܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܙ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܕܗܕܐ ܨ ܬܐ ܬܗ ܟ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܬܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܒ ܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܪܓ ܬ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܙܐܥ ܕ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܗܘ ܕܗ ܐ ܨܘ ܐ ܪܒܐ ܐ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܕܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܒ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܝ ܬ ܐ ܓܐܪܐ ܒ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܘ ܒ ܐܒ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܒܐ ̈ ܝ ܪܘܓ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܝ ܬ ܐ ܨܘ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ܀‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܢ ܘ ܝ ܘܓ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܗܐ ̈ ܕܐ ܕ‬ ‫̈ܒܐ‬ ‫ܒ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܨ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܗ ܕܓ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܒ ܀‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܒ ܟ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܒܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܐܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ ܒܐ ̈ܝ ܪܘܓ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܒܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫̈ܪ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

377

15

20

5

10

15

TRANSLATION The incense of that perfect petition ascended/ and among the angels its incense wafted fragrantly. Voices were sent to heaven by the debtors/ 15 and they ascended to disturb that dwelling of the heavenly ones. The hands of Nineveh’s prayer knocked at the gates of heaven/ and opened them and the shouting entered before Majesty. That petition from many formed an alliance/ and pressed forward to enter to ask for mercy from the judge. 20 Grace came to the gates of the hosts of the court and opened them for they were gripped as by the Wrath (‫)ܪܘܓ ܐ‬. (472) [Grace] carried that petition of the earthly ones in a book/ and entered to read it before that judgment seat of divinity. [Grace] accepted the tears which Nineveh had sent through that

378

KITCHEN petition/ and when [Grace] was pleading before the judge it shed [tears]. 5 [Grace] brought in with it the sighs which were poured forth/ and burned them like sweet spices in the palace of the king. [Grace] led it and full of virtues [the petition] came to repentance/ and bowed its head, groaning passionately before the judge. As these things were being spoken by Grace/ 10 into the ears of the Lord for the sake of Nineveh so that He might be reconciled to it. “My Lord, observe how excellent is the appearance of repentance/ and look down to see how many are the tears. Give heed to how lamentable are its soft whispers and its prayers/ Smell and be pleased by how sweet is its chosen fast. 15 If you do not receive the plea of Nineveh [it would be] a great crime/ for humanity is trembling [that] they are not convincing you concerning [their] transgression. Now if you should turn away while you have not examined this prayer/ all sinners will be afraid to pray to you. If this petition is not received at your gate/ 20 who will not tremble to seek [anything] from you when you have become angry? If this great fast does not please you/ (473) what argument can there be for the world to send to you? If you reject all this weeping of Nineveh/ Then whoever sins will laugh senselessly. Do not, my Lord, disparage12 sack cloth as something feeble/ 5 You have threatened iniquity, but now they have taken it off and put on mourning. May no person of Nineveh be delivered up into the hands of the Wrath/ May your compassion be a high wall and may they be delivered through it. 12

lit. “cast an arrow into”

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH

379

Do not, my Lord, reject the fast of the children which is full of13 suffering/ Receive them and drive back the Wrath which threatens them. 10 On account of these young and innocent ones have pity on the troublesome ones/ The old ones have sinned against you, but look, the infants are pure of iniquity. These who are not defiled at all by evil things/ and do not understand iniquity, what is there for them to speak against it? These for whom that beauty of your creation is alive/ 15 and whose innocent nature has not been destroyed by despicable evil. Let not the work of your hands be destroyed by the hands of the Wrath/ Mercy is becoming to you, pour it forth upon the debtors.”

COMMENTS Jacob moves on to another act in the Jonah drama, the repentance of Nineveh. Again, the canonical narrative is sparing of detail, so Jacob works to accomplish two things through his exegesis and commentary. One is to fill in the details of justice fully at play; and second is to draw the saga again within the Christian perspective. An imaginative apocryphal court room scene is depicted as Grace personified pleads the case of the repentant Ninevites. (471:12–13) Instead of the smoke of pagan animal sacrifices, the sweet smell of penitent prayers wafts up to the heavenly realms, evidence of the spiritual transformation taking place among the Ninevites, again in response to Jonah’s reluctant preaching. Susan Ashbrook Harvey’s extensive research on smell in Syriac and Late Antique religious culture can be found in Scenting Salvation: Ancient Christianity and the Olfactory Imagination (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006). Harvey (p. 82) points to the liturgical description of Jonah’s prayer in one of Ephrem’s poems: “A pure temple the fish became for [Jonah],/ and the mouth of Jonah [became] a censer./ The smell of incense rose up from within the abyss/ to the High One Who sits in the highest heaven.” Hymns on Virginity 42.31–32, translated by Kathleen

13

Bedjan’s text is written ‫ܐ‬

‫ܪ‬, read ‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

380

KITCHEN

E. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns (Classics of Western Spirituality; New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1989), 440. ).” (471:18) “That petition from many formed an alliance (‫ܐ‬ Alliance could be translated as “congregation,” “assembly,” implying by their prayer the establishment of a worshipping community of faith. (472:11–473:17) Grace pleads before the judge of heaven, challenging the judge to pay attention to these authentic prayers of repentance. Grace naturally argues for grace, compassion and mercy and reprimands the judge to be true to his reputation for mercy to sinners. (471:21, 473:6, 9, 16) “The Wrath” (‫ )ܪܘܓ ܐ‬is utilized as the technical term for the anticipated holocaust of Nineveh on the fortieth day after Jonah’s preaching. The Peshitta twice uses the expression ‫ܐ ܕܪܘܓ ܐ‬ (Jonah 3:9, 10—New Revised Standard Version: “calamity”).

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS The four examples of dramatic narrative selected are but a few of the many uses of this literary motif in the long mēmrā on Jonah by Jacob of Serug. As noted above, the four uses of abstract concepts and natural forces as animated characters inserted into the canonical narrative do share a common strategy by Jacob. The concise Biblical text does not offer much nuance to the story, so Jacob is concerned to demonstrate that the cause and effect of the events are not by chance, but through the conscious working of Judeo-Christian justice. Where there is an absence of evidence—a question of authentic justice at work—this is where Jacob consistently inserts these extra-canonical characters and addresses. The first three passages surround the dramatic revelation of Jonah’s identity and dereliction of duty and the consequent casting him overboard to save the ship and the innocent sailors. Lots are cast to determine who is the cause of this terrible storm, but lots are dubious pagan methods for an orthodox Christian in the time of Jacob. The character Justice appears to validate and consecrate the decisions as part of God’s sovereignty. Next, the Sea is given a voice as the mediator of Justice—this is not murder on the part of the sailors as they fear, but a necessary act which the Sea and God demand. Finally, the Symbol addresses Jonah and the reader in order to explain the divine rationale and purpose of Jonah’s near drowning—before he actually goes into the sea. Justice is proclaimed, mediated, and given larger significance, but only through the amplifications of Jacob’s dramatic narratives. The fourth dramatic narrative occurs at the juncture of Nineveh’s imminent condemnation and destruction. Most Christian readers

ON THE ROAD TO NINEVEH

381

understood Nineveh’s redemption—when God repented—as an implicit instance of God’s mercy and grace. Jacob again makes grace and justice explicit, with the portrayal of a personified Grace appearing before the judgment throne of heaven as the defense lawyer for the Ninevites. Grace is an aggressive advocate, berating a reluctant judge on the verge of imposing the all-consuming Wrath upon the denizens of that great and wicked city. This is not an isolated hermeneutical move by Jacob of Serug. Another example comes appropriately for this volume from Jacob’s mēmrā on Tamar (Genesis 38), edited and translated recently by Sebastian Brock.14 The critical moment in the Biblical text is Genesis 38:24–26, when Judah hears of Tamar’s pregnancy and reputed harlotry and condemns her to be burned, but Tamar produces the three objects belonging to Judah which he had given to her at the time of their encounter (vv. 13–18). Once again the Biblical narrative is concise and not elaborative, so here Jacob supplies voices to the three pledge objects who speak directly to Judah, calling for justice: the staff (‫ܐ‬ )—“I am yours: leave off judgment”; the scarf (‫ܐ‬ )—“Hold back the fire from the wretched woman”; and the ring )—“I am inscribed, and have been kept intact; my master knows (‫ܐ‬ me, and if I get lost, his name will testify for me. Stop the conflagration; remove the fire from this freeborn woman. Take the pledges, abandon the case, and pronounce innocence.”15 These few examples of dramatic narrative in Jacob of Serug merely scratch the surface. Jacob utilizes these dramatic insertions in the Biblical narrative not only to make justice explicit, but for a myriad of other interpretive purposes. The task of seeking them out and enjoying Jacob’s poetic imagination is also merely beginning.

14 Sebastian P. Brock, “Jacob of Serugh’s Verse Homily on Tamar (Gen. 38),” Le Muséon 115 (2002), 279–315. 15 op. cit., lines 351–356 (text, p. 290; translation, p. 301).

GREEK WORDS IN THE SYRIAC TEXT OF THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES MICHAEL LATTKE THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA In 1993 I contributed an article on the Greek words in the Syriac text of the Odes of Solomon to the Festschrift for Sebastian P. Brock.1 Fifteen years later it is again a great honour to contribute a kind of continuation of my earlier work to another Festschrift for Sebastian Brock, who has also dealt with Greek words in Syriac and Syriac attitudes to Greek learning.2 The present contribution is a preliminary study for a commentary on the Apology of Aristides.3 At the same time, it tries to supplement both Anton Schall’s groundbreaking and influential studies on Greek words in Syriac (Phil. Diss.

Michael Lattke, “Die griechischen Wörter im syrischen Text der Oden Salomos,” ARAM Periodical 5:1&2 (1993) 285–302; repr. in Michael Lattke, Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung für Neues Testament und Gnosis, vol. 4 [Ausgewählte Studien und Vorträge] (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 25/4; Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 133–50. Thanks to Marianne Ehrhardt for her assistance. 2 Sebastian Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (Collected Studies Series: CS 199; London: Variorum Reprints, 1984). Two of his studies are of particular interest, (1) “Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac,” originally published in 1975; (2) “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,” originally published in 1982. 3 Another preliminary study for this volume of the series ‘Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten’ was published last year: “War Aristides ein Mann von Bildung? Forschungsgeschichtliches Protokoll eines (nicht nur) deutschen Gelehrtenstreits in den ersten 40 Jahren der Aristides-Forschung,” in Ferdinand R. Prostmeier (ed.), Frühchristentum und Kultur (Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten, Ergänzungsband 2; Freiburg: Herder, 2007) 35–74. 1

383

384

LATTKE

Tübingen of November 5, 1948)4 and some entries in Syriac dictionaries, especially the Thesaurus Syriacus and its supplementary volume.5 The Apology of Aristides is one of “the earliest translations from Greek into Syriac”; those “translations would appear to have expanded considerably on their originals, adding extra material from Greek mythology which, one must presume, would have been meaningful to their readers.”6 With Schall I am convinced that Eine reinliche Scheidung in a) Lehnwörter, b) Fremdwörter, c) in Uebersetzungen vorkommende Wörter, wie sie Brockelmann in ZDMG 47 (1893), 1 ff. für die griechischen Elemente im Armenischen versuchte, ein Versuch, der … nicht überzeugte, ist auch für das Syrische unmöglich.7

In order to facilitate matters with regard to textual references it is necessary to show in a synoptic manner how my subdivision of the 17 chapters, which is based on the newest edition8 of the Apology, differs from that of Geffcken9 and Goodspeed10 (see Appendix). The Greek words which appear in the only Syriac MS.11 can be divided into three groups: 4 Anton Schall, Studien über griechische Fremdwörter im Syrischen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960). Anton Schall was born April 1, 1920 in Rottenburg and died September 28, 2007 in Heidelberg. 5 R. Payne Smith (ed.), Thesaurus Syriacus (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1879– 1901; repr. Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1981); J. P. Margoliouth, Supplement to the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927; repr. Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1981). Occasional reference is made to J. Payne Smith (Mrs. Margoliouth), A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903; repr. 1957, 1967, etc.). 6 Brock, Syriac Perspectives, V 19; cf. V 31 n. 24 on “the Semitic equivalents” of “Kronos” in 9,1b (‫[ ܢ‬Kēwān]; see 2.30), “Aphrodite” in 9,1c (‫[ ܐ ܪܐ‬ʾEstērā]; see 2.11), “Adonis” in 11,3a (‫[ ܬ ܙܐ‬Tāmmūzā]; see 2.1) and “Persephone” in 11,3b (‫ܠ‬ ‫[ ܒ ܬ‬bàṯ äyōl]; see 2.39). 7 Schall, Studien, 9; cf. Brock, Syriac Perspectives, IV 81. 8 Bernard Pouderon and Marie-Joseph Pierre, Aristide, Apologie (Sources chrétiennes 470; Paris: Cerf, 2003). 9 Johannes Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Kommentare zu griechischen und römischen Schriftstellern; Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1907; repr. Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1970) 1–96. 10 Edgar J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten: Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914; repr. 1984) 2–23. 11 “Codex Sinai Syriac 16” (SC 138 n. 1). Editio princeps: J. Rendel Harris, The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians from a Syriac MS. preserved on Mount Sinai ed.

GREEK WORDS

385

1. Greek names and other words in the Syriac headings and ending, 2. Names of Greek gods, demi-gods and heroes, 3. Other Greek words.

1. GREEK NAMES AND OTHER WORDS IN THE SYRIAC HEADINGS12 AND ENDING 1.1. Greek names 1.1.1. Ἀδριανός (Hadrian), in both headings: ‫( ܗܕܪ ܣ‬Haḏriyānos),13 part of the name of the Roman emperor to whom the Apology is addressed, i.e., Antoninus Pius. Reference to be added to PS 978 (s.v.) and 42 (s.v. ‫)ܐܕܪ ܣ‬. 1.1.2. Ἀντονίνος (Antoninus [Pius]), in the heading proper: ‫ܣ‬ ‫( ܐ‬ʾAnÅōnīnos). Reference to be added to PS 264 (s.v.). 1.1.3. Ἀριστείδης (Aristides), in both headings and in the subscription: ‫( ܐܪ‬ʾArisÅīḏs). This should be added to the entry ‫ ܐܪ‬Aristides apologiae pro Christianis scriptor” (PS 382); cf. the “ entry “‫ܘܣ‬ ‫ ܐ‬Aristides, legatus Tiberii Caesaris ad Abgarum” (PS 395).14 1.1.4. Μαρκιανός (Marcianus), in the second heading as part of the (Marqiyānos). Reference to be added to PS 2232 author’s name: ‫ܣ‬ (s.v.). with an introduction and translation. With an appendix containing the main portion of the original Greek text by J. Armitage Robinson (Texts and Studies 1,1; Cambridge: University Press, 1891; 21893). 12 The first heading written in red ink is peculiar to the MS. A Greek text is not available for the heading(s) and subscription. Otherwise reference will be made to the critical text (i.e., [ch.] 27, 1–295) of Robert Volk, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos (ed. by Byzantinisches Institut der Abtei Scheyern), vol. 6,2: Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph (spuria): Text und zehn Appendices (Patristische Texte und Studien 60; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2006) 264–84. Cf. also the Greek text of Barlaam and Ioasaph in vol. 34 of the Loeb Classical Library. 13 Transcription of the Syriac by Klaus Beyer; cf. Michael Lattke, Oden Salomos: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Teil 3: Oden 29–42. Transkription des Syrischen von Klaus Beyer (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 41,3; Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) xiii–xiv. “Griechische Wörter sollen nach den Regeln der Schulen den Erweichungs- und Verhärtungsregeln nicht unterworfen werden” (Nöldeke § 25). 14 The Syriac preference for the singular Greek nominative ending “ος” has resulted in a number of words ending in ‫ܘܣ‬- (-os); cf. Schall, Studien, 132 (‫)ܐܓ ܘ ܣ‬, 216 (‫ܣ‬ ), 244 (‫ܣ‬ ‫)ܐ‬.

386

LATTKE

1.1.5. Τίτος (Titus), in the second heading as part of the emperor’s name: ‫ܣ‬ (ÄiÅos). Reference to be added to PS 1457 (s.v.) and 1459 (s.v. ‫ܣ‬ ). 1.2. Other words 1.2.1. Ἀθηναῖος,15 plural, as often, in the second heading: ‫ܐܬ ̈ ܐ‬ (ʾAṯnāy). Reference to be added to PS 422 (s.v. ‫ܐܬ‬, ‫ ;)ܐܬ ܐ‬cf. 1.2.3 below. 1.2.2. Καῖσαρ (Caesar), in the second heading as title or part of the emperor’s name: (qēsar).16 Reference to be added to PS 3680 (s.v., also written and ‫ ܐ‬, even ‫) ܪ‬. 1.2.3. φιλόσοφος, in both headings and in the subscription: ÎīlōsōÎā ). Aristides claims to be “a philosopher of the Athenians” (cf. (‫ܐ‬ 1.2.1). References to be added to PS 3105 (s.v. ‫ܐ‬ ,‫ܐ‬ ); see also 3.1.7.

2. NAMES OF GREEK GODS, DEMI-GODS AND HEROES17 2.1. Ἄδωνις appears twice, in 11,3b as ‫( ܐܕ ܣ‬ʾAḏōnos), corrupted to ‫ ܐܕܘ‬in 11,3a.18 In both cases Ba has the accusative Ἄδωνιν (Volk 27,

162, 164). A separate entry is missing in both PS and Margoliouth. ‫( ܐܕܘ‬ʾAḏōnīs) is mentioned in PS 35 (s.v. ‫ ;)ܐܕܘ ܐ‬cf. also PS However, 4458 (s.v. ‫)ܬ ܙܐ‬. The question is whether the text should be emended ‫ ܐܕ‬or ‫( ܐܕܘ‬ʾAḏōnīs), or to ‫ ܐܕܘ‬or ‫( ܐܕܘ ܣ‬ʾAḏōnos).19 to 2.2. Αἴολος (2,2c), missing in Ba, should not be written ‫ܐ ܣ‬ (ʾEllos) but ‫( ܐܘ ܣ‬ʾAwlos). This figure is not “Aeolus rex ventorum” (PS 66, s.v.) but his grandfather of the same name. A note on the Apology should be added in PS 66. 2.3. Ἀλκμήνη (9,2c), missing in Ba, is misspelled as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬. Similar ‫( ܐ‬PS 221) it should be rewritten as ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܐ‬ʾAlqmn). to ‫ܐ‬ Greek nouns are normally given in the singular nominative form (exceptions: 2.35 and 2.45). 16 Cf. Schall, Studien, 40 and 83. 17 The names of Isis and Osiris listed by Volk in his “Namensindex” are not taken into consideration. Whether ‫ܕܘܣ‬ in 9,2c is “sans doute confusion avec Polydeukès, Pollux” (SC 211 n. 2) will be discussed in my commentary. Harris leaves this word untranslated, cf. Harris/Robinson 42. 18 This is not the only case where the MS. confuses ‫(ܢ‬n) and ‫( ܟ‬k); cf. 2.46. 19 See note on 1.1.3. 15

GREEK WORDS

387

2.4. Ἀμφίων (9,2c), in Ba accusative Ἀμφίονα (Volk 27, 121) which might explain the Syriac ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܐ‬ʾAmÎīyōnā).20 The entry is missing in both PS and Margoliouth; cf. 2.23. 2.5. Ἀντιόπη (9,2b, 2c), in Ba only once (9,2b) in the prepositional phrase πρὸς Ἀντιόπην (Volk 27, 119), appears in both cases as ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܐ‬ʾAnÅiyoṗ). Reference to be added to PS 266 (s.v.). 2.6. Ἀπόλλων (9,2c; 11,1a, 2a), in Ba only twice (9,2c; 11,1a) in the accusative Ἀπόλλωνα (Volk 27, 121, 153). In the first two instances the name is spelled ‫( ܐ ܢ‬ʾAṗollōn), in the third ‫( ܐ‬ʾAṗollō). References to be added to PS 345 (s.vv.). 2.7. Ἄρης (10,4a; 11,3a), in Ba in the nominative (10,4a) and accusative Ἄρην (Volk 27, 140, 162). In both cases the name is spelled ‫( ܐܪ‬ʾArs). References to be added to PS 381 (s.v.). 2.8. Ἄρτεμις (9,2c; 11,2a, 2b), in Ba only twice in the accusative Ἄρτεμιν (Volk 27, 121, 157). In all three cases the name is spelled ‫( ܐܪ‬ʾArÅemīs). References to be added to PS 377 (s.v.). 2.9. Ἀσκληπιός (10,3a, 3b), in Ba once in the nominative (10,3b) and once in the accusative Ἀσκληπιόν (Volk 27, 135, 138). The name of ʾAsqlṗes is spelled ‫( ܐ‬10,3b) but also ‫( ܐ‬10,3a), which should be added to PS 319 (s.v. ‫ܣ‬ ‫)ܐ‬. 2.10. Ἄτυς (11,5a), missing in Ba, appears twice as ‫( ܐ ܣ‬ʾAÅos). Reference should be added to PS Supplement 13a (s.v.): “Atys, lover of Rhea.” “Atys (Ἄτυς),” “Stammvater der Lyder,” “ist von Hause aus mit dem kleinasiat[ischen] Gott Attis identisch.”21 2.11. Ἀφροδίτη is mentioned six times (once in 9,1c and 11,3c; twice each in 10,4b and 11,3a). In Ba the name appears in the nominative in 9,1c (Volk 27, 112) and in the accusative Ἀφροδίτην (once in 10,4b, once in 11,3a; Volk 27, 141, 161). The spelling of the name in our MS. is always ‫( ܐ ܘܕ ܐ‬ʾAÎroḏīÅ), although quite a few different spellings are recorded (cf. PS 350, s.v.). 2.12. Γανυμήδης (9,2d), in Ba in the accusative Γανυμήδην (Volk 27, 124). The spelling ‫ ܓ ܕ ܣ‬in the MS. should be corrected to ‫ܘܣ‬ ‫‚( ܓ‬anumḏos) or ‫‚( ܓ‬anumḏs). Reference to be added to PS 753 (s.v. ‫)ܓ ܣ‬.

20 But cf. Schall, Studien, 102: “Nun aber geht die Entlehnung der Substantive öfter vom Akkusativ aus.” 21 Der Kleine Pauly 1 (1964) 727–28.

388

LATTKE

2.13. Δανάη (9,2b, 2c), in Ba only once in the prepositional phrase πρὸς Δανάην (Volk 27, 119), is spelled ‫( ܕ ܐܐ‬Ḏanaʾē). References to be added to PS 924 (s.v.). 2.14. Δαναός (2,2c), missing in Ba. The spelling ‫ ܕ ܐܘ‬in the MS. should be corrected to ‫( ܕ ܐܘܣ‬Ḏanaʾos). Reference to be added to PS 924 (s.v.). 2.15. Διόνυσος (2,2c; 9,2c; 10,5a, 5b), in Ba once in the nominative (10,5b) and twice in the accusative Διόνυσον (9,2c; 10,5a; Volk 27, 121, ‫( ܕ‬2,2c; 10,5a, 5b) but in 9,2c more correctly 144, 147), is spelled ‫ܣ‬ ‫( ܕ‬Ḏiyonūsos). References and different spelling to be added to PS 878 (s.v. ‫ܣ‬ ‫)ܕ‬. 2.16. Διός (genitive22 of Ζεύς): cf. 2.22. 2.17. Ἑλένη (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Ἑλένην (Volk 27, 122). The spelling ‫ ܐ ܐ‬of the MS. should be corrected to ‫( ܐ ܐ‬ʾElen). Reference to be added to PS 211 (s.v. ‫ ܐ‬et ‫)ܐ ܐ‬. 2.18. Ἕλλην (2,2c [bis]), missing in Ba (but cf. Volk 29, 8). Spelling ‫( ܐ ܣ‬ʾEllnos) and reference to be added to PS 205 (s.v. ‫)ܐ ܣ‬. 2.19. Ἑρμῆς (10,2a), in Ba in the accusative Ἑρμῆν (Volk 27, 132). ‫( ܐܪ‬PS 391) but ‫( ܗܪ‬Herms). This reference to The spelling is not be added to PS 1052 (s.v.). 2.20. Ἔρως (10,4b), in Ba in the prepositional phrase ὑπὸ τοῦ νηπίου Ἔρωτος (Volk 27, 142). This reference to ‫( ܐܪܘܣ‬ʾErōs) to be added to PS 373 (s.v.). 2.21. Εὐρώπη (9,2b, 2c), in Ba only once (9,2b) in the prepositional phrase πρὸς Εὐρώπην (Volk 27, 118). In both cases the spelling is ‫( ܐܘܪ ܐ‬ʾEwrōṗā) as mentioned in PS 94 (s.v. ‫ )ܐܘܪܘ ܐ‬and 97 (s.v. ‫)ܐܘܪ‬ where references to the Apology should be added. 2.22. Ζεύς (9,1b, 1c [bis], 2a), in Ba four times (Volk 27, 111, 113, 116, 137), but not always parallel to the Syriac text, i.e., missing in 9,1b, in 9,1c only once in the accusative Διά and in 9,2a in the nominative (Volk 27, 111, 116). In all four Syriac instances the spelling of the name is ‫( ܙܘܣ‬Zews), not ‫( ܙ ܣ‬cf. PS 1104 [s.v. ‫]ܙܘܣ‬, to which references should be added). In 9,1b ‫( ܕ ܣ‬Ḏiyos) is identified with ‫( ܙܘܣ‬Zews) which should be added to PS 878 (s.v. ‫)ܕ ܣ‬. This god “‫( ܕ ܣ‬Ḏiyos)” is also mentioned in 2,2c (missing in Ba) and 10,3a where Ba has the prepositional phrase ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός (Volk 27, 137); cf. 2.16.

22

See note on 1.1.3.

GREEK WORDS

389

2.23. Ζῆθος (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Ζῆθον (Volk 27, 121). An entry on ‫( ܙܬܘܣ‬Zṯos) is missing in both PS and Margoliouth; cf. 2.4. 2.24. Ἡρακλῆς (9,2c; 10,6a, 6b), in Ba only twice (9,2c; 10,6a) in the accusative Ἡρακλῆν (Volk 27, 121, 149). Both spellings listed in PS 1054 and 1055 without reference to the Apology appear in our MS., in 9,2c ‫( ܗܪ ܣ‬Hraqlos),23 in 10,6a and 6b ‫( ܗܪ‬Hraqls). 2.25. Ἥφαιστος (10,1a, 4b), in Ba once in the accusative Ἥφαιστον (10,1a) and once in the genitive Ἡφαίστου (Volk 27, 128, 142), appears as ‫ܣ‬ ‫( ܐ‬ʾEÎēsÅos). Spelling and references to be added to PS 341 (s.v. ‫ܣ‬ ‫)ܐ‬. 2.26. Ἴναχος (2,2c), missing in Ba. Spelling ‫ ܐ‬should be ‫( ܐ‬ʾInaḵos). Reference to be added to PS 160 (s.v.). corrected to ‫ܣ‬ 2.27. Κάδμος (2,2c), also missing in Ba. Spelling ‫ ܡ‬should be corrected to ‫ܣ‬ (Qaḏmos). Reference to be added to PS 3497 (s.v.). 2.28. Κάστωρ (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Κάστορα (Volk 27, (QasÅōr) in PS 3675 see 2.41 (Πολυδεύκης). 122). On the entry ‫ܪ‬ 2.29. Κόρη (11,6a), missing in Ba. Reference to ‫( ܪܐ‬Qōr) in the Apology of Aristides is already made in PS 3560 (s.v.). 2.30. Κρόνος (2,2c; 9,1b, 1c, 2a), only once (9,1b) in Ba (Volk 27, 119). The spelling ‫ܣ‬ in the Apology (2,2c; 9,1b, 1c) is mentioned in PS 3752, but no reference is made to ‫( ܘ ܣ‬Qronos) in 9,2a in PS 3735 (s.v.). 2.31. Λήδα (9,2b, 2c), only once in Ba (9,2b) in the prepositional phrase πρὸς Λήδαν (Volk 27, 119). The name is spelled both ‫( ܐ‬9,2c) and ‫( ܐܕܐ‬Lḏā). Spellings and references to be added to PS 1872 (s.v.). 2.32. Λητώ (9,2c), missing in Ba. The Syriac spelling in the MS. is (LÅō). Reference to be added to PS 1934 (s.v.). 2.33. Μίνως (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Μίνωα (Volk 27, 122) which might explain the spelling ‫ܐܐ‬ (Mīnōʾā) in the MS. instead of 24 ‫ܣ‬ (as in PS 2094). 2.34. Μνημοσύνη (9,2c). Although this name is missing in Ba and (Pnemsos) in the MS. we should first of all follow the corrupted to ‫ܣ‬ suggestion of the editio princeps that ‫ܣ‬ “seems to be a corruption.”25 (Μνημοσύνης),” as Harris suggests, But is it “a corruption of or rather a corruption of ‫ܐ‬ (Mnmosūn)? The original Greek probably had a preposition (ἐκ or ὑπό, e.g.) with the genitive of See note on 1.1.3. See note on 2.4. 25 Harris/Robinson, note on line 20 of the edition, p. 12. 23 24

390

LATTKE

Μνημοσύνη (cf. PS 2173, s.v. ‫ܐ‬ , where reference to the Apology should be added). 2.35. Μοῦσαι (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Μοῦσας (Volk 27, 124). The spelling (Mūsos) without reference to the Apology is listed in PS 26 2041 (s.v. ‫ܣ‬ ). (Qsīṯes) in 2.36. Ξοῦθος (2,2c), missing in Ba. Reference to ‫ܣ‬ the Apology of Aristides appears already in PS 3678 (s.v.). 2.37. Πασιφάη (9,2b), missing in Ba. An entry ‫ܐ‬ (asīÎā) is missing in both PS and Margoliouth. 2.38. Περσεύς (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Περσέα (Volk 27, 122) which might explain the spelling ‫ܐܐ‬ (erseʾā) in the MS. instead of ‫ܣ‬ (PS 3280).27 Spelling and reference should be added to the latter and not to “‫ܐܐ‬ περσέα, … arbor in Aegypto nascens” (PS 3280). 2.39. Περσεφόνη (11,3b), in Ba in the prepositional phrase ἀπὸ τῆς (rīsÎōnos). “Die Περσεφόνης (Volk 27, 164), appears as ‫ܣ‬ griechischen Endungen werden oft verkehrt angebracht.”28 An entry ‫ܣ‬ (rīsÎōnos) or similar is missing in both PS and Margoliouth. 2.40. Πλούτων (11,6a), missing in Ba. The use of the genitive Πλούτωνος after the preposition ὑπό in the Greek Vorlage of the Syriac translation is probably not the reason29 for the spelling (lūÅōnos); cf. 2.45. Reference and spelling to be added to PS 3145 (s.v. ‫ܢ‬ ). 2.41. Πολυδεύκης (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Πολυδεύκην (Volk 27, 122). Although a separate entry is missing in both PS and Margoliouth, the name ‫ܘ ܣ‬ (oluḏewqiyos) is mentioned in PS 3675 (s.v. ‫ܪ‬ ) where reference is made to the Apology; cf. 2.28. 2.42. Ῥαδάμανθυς (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Ῥαδάμανθυν ‫ ܕ‬in the MS. is “a corrupt form.”30 An (Volk 27, 123). The word ‫ܐ‬ entry ‫ܘܣ‬ ‫( ܪܕ‬Raḏamanṯos) or similar is missing in both PS and Margoliouth. 2.43. Ῥέα (2,2c; 9,1b; 11,5a), only once (9,1b) in Ba in the prepositional phrase ἐκ τῆς Ῥέας (Volk 27, 110). The phonetic spelling

Cf. Nöldeke § 89. See note on 2.4. 28 Nöldeke § 89. See also note on 1.1.3. 29 See note on 1.1.3. 30 Harris/Robinson, note on line 1 of the edition, p. 13. 26 27

GREEK WORDS

391

‫( ܗܪܐܐ‬11,5a) instead of ‫( ܪܐܐ‬Reʾā) is not mentioned in PS 3781 (s.v. ‫ )ܪܐܐ‬although reference is made to the Apology.

2.44. Σαρπηδών (9,2c), in Ba in the accusative Σαρπηδόνα (Volk (Sarṗḏōnā) instead of 27, 123) which might explain the spelling ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ in PS 2746 (s.v.) where reference to the Apology should be added.31 2.45. Τιτάν (?), Τιτᾶνες (10,5a), in Ba in the prepositional phrase ὑπὸ τῶν Τιτάνων (Volk 27, 146). This name is mostly used in the plural for a group of gods. Therefore the question arises whether the form ‫ܣ‬ (ÄīÅānos) used in the MS. is the equivalent of the singular genitive32 Τιτᾶνος (cf. PS 1459, s.v. ‫ܐܢ‬ ); cf. 2.40. If it is understood as a name it should be added to PS 1460 (s.v. ‫ܣ‬ ) where reference is made to “Tatianus haereticus.” 2.46. Τυνδάρεως (10,3a), in Ba in the prepositional phrase διὰ Τυνδάρεων Δακεδαίμονος υἱόν (Volk 27, 137–8); cf. 3.2.10. The of the MS. should be corrected to ‫ܪܐܘܣ‬ spelling ‫ܪܐܘܣ‬ (Äunḏareʾos).33 An entry on this mythological king of Sparta is missing in both PS and Margoliouth. 2.47. Τυφῶν (12,2a [bis], 3a, 3b), in Ba once (12,3b) in the nominative, once (12,2a) in the accusative Τυφῶνα, once (12,2a) in the genitive Τυφῶνος and once (12,3a) in the prepositional phrase ὑπὸ τοῦ in the first Τυφῶνος (Volk 27, 182, 184, 186). The spelling instance is later changed to ‫ܣ‬ (ÄīÎōnos).34 An entry or ‫ܣ‬ is missing in both PS and Margoliouth. 2.48. Φορωνεύς (2,2c), missing in Ba, appears as ‫ ܘ ܐܣ‬in the MS. Since there is no entry in either PS or Margoliouth, it is difficult to say whether this spelling should be corrected to ‫( ܘ ܣ‬Ëorōnews) or similar.

See note on 2.4. But see note on 1.1.3. As with similar cases one has to ask how familiar the Syriac translator and/or copyist was with Greek mythology. 33 Harris/Robinson, note on line 11 of the edition, p. 14; cf. note on 2.1 above. 34 See note on 1.1.3. 31 32

392

LATTKE

3. OTHER GREEK WORDS 3.1. Other Greek words appearing more than three times 3.1.1.35 ἄρα or ἆρα (10,1b, 3a; 11,1b).36 Although this particle appears five times in ch. 27 of Ba it is only twice sort of congruent with the use of ‫ܐܪܐ‬ (ʾara ḵay), viz. in 10,1b and 11,1b. In 10,3a the use of ‫ ܐܪܐ‬is equivalent even to γάρ.37 References to be added to PS 364 (s.v.). 3.1.2. βάρβαρος, always used in the plural (2,2b, 2c; 2,4i; 3,1a, 1b, 1d, 1f; 7,2a; 8,1b [bis]; 12,1b), missing in Ba, not only in ch. 27 but in the whole work. The spelling of the word is consistently ‫( ܒ ܒ ܐ‬ḇarḇrāyē); references to be added to PS 603 (s.v. ‫)ܒ ܒ ܐ‬. Unless a new fragment of the Apology is found we will not know with certainty whether the original

An extensive treatment of the particles γάρ/ ‫( ܓ‬gēr) and δέ/ ‫( ܕ‬dēn) which I included in my previous study (cf. Lattke, “Wörter,” 287–90 [repr. 135–38]) will be left out of this contribution for Professor Brock who has dealt with the Greek particles in the Old Syriac Gospels (cf. addendum to Brock, Syriac Perspectives, IV 89 n. 49). Although our Syriac text can only indirectly be compared with Ba (and the basis for a direct comparison with papyri fragments is too small) we can also say that “there is by no means a one for one equivalence of δέ/den, γάρ/ger” (Brock, Syriac Perspectives, I 89 n. 49). Quantitatively the ratio of Sy:Ba in both cases is approximately 1:1.15 (ca. 48:55 and 33:38 respectively); i.e., both particles are more frequently used in Ba than in our Syriac MS. There is more or less clear evidence for the equivalence of both δέ/ ‫( ܕ‬e.g. 1,1b; 4,1; 7,1a; 11,1a, 3a; 12,1a, 4b; 13,5b, 6; 15,7a; 16,6b) and γάρ/ ‫( ܓ‬e.g. 4,3c; 5,1b, 3b; 6,1b; 8,2b; 12,1b, 2a, 4b; 13,3b, 5a, 6; 15,3b; 17,3a). But there are also many cases in which δέ is the equivalent of other Syriac particles and constructions (e.g. 2,4a–b [cf. 15,1a–b]; 3,2b; 4,3a, 3d, 3e; 5,3a; 6,1a, 1c, 2a; 10,3a–b, 4a–b, 5a, 6a–b; 11,1a, 2a, 4a; 13,4a; 15,1a–b) and, less frequently, γάρ is the equivalent of other particles and conjunctions (e.g. 3,1b, 1e; 5,2b; 7,2b; 9,1b, 2b; 14,3a). There are even cases where γάρ is the equivalent of ‫( ܕ‬cf. 2,3 with 14,1) and δέ the equivalent of ‫( ܓ‬13,5a). There is no δέ in Ba where the Syriac text (9,1d, 3b; 10,1b, 2b; 12,2d) uses the expression ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܘܐܢ ܕ‬w-en dēn lā), etc. etc., cf. Sebastian P. Brock, “The Treatment of Greek Particles in the Old Syriac Gospels, with Special Reference to Luke,” in J. K. Elliott, Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 44; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976) 80–86, esp. 81–84. 36 Cf. Brock, Syriac Perspectives, IV 89. 37 Cf. Brock, “Particles,” 80–81. 35

GREEK WORDS

393

Greek text spoke of βάρβαροι (as in the Vorlage of the Armenian and Syriac versions) or Χαλδαῖοι (as in the Vorlage of Ba).38 3.1.3. γένος (2,1, 2a, 2c, 3 [bis], 4i; 8,1c [bis]; 11,4a; 17,2d, 3c), in Ba equivalent of the singular (2,1) and plural γένη (2,2a), otherwise missing (even in 14,1).39 With the exception of 8,1c40 ‫( ܓ ܐ‬ḡensā) and ‫ܓ ̈ ܐ‬ (ḡensē) are used to describe the human race(s) or nation(s). References to be added to PS 753 (s.v.). 3.1.4. νόμος (2,3; 13,5a [four times], 5b; 15,5a, 9d), in Ba in the plural nominative νόμοι (13,5a, 5b), plural accusative νόμους (13,5a), the prepositional phrases ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων νόμων (13,5a) and ἀπὸ πάσης συνουσίας ἀνόμου (15,5a, where Sy uses ‫ܣ‬ ‫[ ܕ ܐ‬d-lā nāmōs]); cf. the plural noun παράνομα (13,5a; Volk 27, 219–222, 273).41 Only in 2,3 ‫ܘܢ‬ (nāmōshōn), missing in Ba (even in 14,1), refers to the νόμος of the Jews. Ch. 15 speaks of the νόμος of the Christians (cf. 3.1.8), ch. 13 [nāmōsā]) and νόμοι (‫̈ ܐ‬ [nāmōsē]) of the of the νόμος (‫ܐ‬ Greeks. References to be added to PS 2383–4. 3.1.5. πεῖσαι (5,2c; 7,1a; 15,5b), missing in Ba, but (mṗīsīn) in 15,5b is preserved in the verb form πειθουσιν in one of the papyri (SC ). The 405 line 3); reference to be added to PS 3115 (s.v. Part. act. other two references, 5,2c with ‫ܐ‬ (mṗāsā) and 7,1a with (mṗās), ).42 belong to PS 3115 (s.v. Part. pass. 3.1.6. στοιχεῖον (3,1b, 2a [3 times], 2b; 4,1; 7,1a, 1b, 2b; 16,6b), only once (3,2a, missing in Ba) in the singular ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܐ‬ʾesÅuḵsā), otherwise ‫( ܐ‬ʾesÅuḵsē), even (in 7,1a, missing in Ba) in the plural ‫̈ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫( ܐ‬ʾesÅuḵsīn) which should also be added to PS 296 (s.v. ‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܐ‬.43 In Ba where this term is used only five times outside ch. 27 (Volk 7, 75, 95; 9, 64; 12, 249; 17, 94) we find the nominative plural στοιχεῖα together with φθαρτά in 3,2a–b, 4,1 and 7,2b (Volk 27, 33–37), the prepositional phrases ὀπίσω τῶν στοιχείων in 3,1b (Volk 27, 22; cf.

Since Χαλδαῖοι is only used twice outside of ch. 27 (cf. Volk’s “Namensindex”) it is not probable that the Greek translator who inserted ch. 27 changed βάρβαροι to Χαλδαῖοι. 39 Cf. Brock, Syriac Perspectives, IV 85 n. 28; Schall, Studien, 89, 119. 40 Cf. Lattke, “Wörter,” 290 (repr. 138–9). 41 Cf. Brock, Syriac Perspectives, IV 85 n. 28, 86, 91; Schall, Studien, 40, 54, 79, 90. 42 Cf. Brock, Syriac Perspectives, IV 85 n. 28, 88; XIV 119; Lattke, “Wörter,” 295–6 (repr. 144); Schall, Studien, 46, 55, 79–80, 85, 112. 43 Cf. Schall, Studien, 76–7. 38

394

LATTKE

also 25, an additional genitive construction) and ὑπό στοιχείων in 7,1b (Volk 27, 92). 3.1.7. φιλόσοφος, in contrast to headings and ending (see 1.2.3) always used in the plural (3,2a, 2c; 13,2a, 3a), in Ba only twice (3,2a; 13,2a) in the nominative φιλόσοφοι (Volk 27, 32, 206). Different spellings, viz. ‫̈ܐ‬ (ÎīlōsōÎē) in 13,2a, ‫̈ ܘܢ‬ (ÎīlōsōÎayhōn) in 3,2a and 2c as ̈ well as ‫ܘܢ‬ (ÎīlōsōÎayhōn) in 13,3a, appear already in PS 3105 (s.v.) where references should be added. 3.1.8. Χριστιανός, always used in the plural (2,2b, 4a, 4h, 4i; 15,3a, 5b, 9d; 16,3b, 6a; 17,2a, 2b, 2c [bis], 2d, 3a [bis]), in Ba only five times44 (Volk 27, 16, 249, 262, 284, 287) despite the frequent use of this noun in the Barlaam tale (cf. Volk’s “Namensindex”). In all instances the spelling is not ‫ܐ‬ as in PS 1821 (s.v. ‫ܐ‬ ) but ‫ܐ‬ (ḵresÅyānē) as in PS 1836 (s.v. ‫ܐ‬ ). References to be added to both entries.45 3.1.9. ὦ (1,1a; 2,2a; 3,2a; 4,1; 7,1a, 2a; 8,2a; 9,1d, 3a; 11,7a; 13,1a, 4a; 14,1a; 15,3a, 5a, 9d; 16,3a; 17,2a). Only in the first three instances the Greek letter ω appears on top of the interjection ‫( ܐܘ‬ʾō) which is “seit sehr alter Zeit üblich.”46 References to be added to PS 48 (s.v.). There is no congruence between Sy and Ba. In most cases ὦ is missing in Ba, sometimes together with the vocative βασιλεῦ addressing the king (the emperor in the Syriac text).47 3.2. Other Greek words appearing once or twice ̈ ‫ܐܓ‬ 3.2.1. ἀγωγός (5,1c), missing in Ba, is only used in the plural ‫ܓܐ‬ (ʾaḡōḡē). Reference to be added to PS 23 (s.v. ‫ ܐܓ ܓ‬etc.). 3.2.2. ἀήρ (6,1b), without equivalent in Ba. Reference to the MS. to be added to PS 23 (s.v.).48 The sentence in which ‫( ܐܐܪ‬ʾāʾar) occurs was probably not part of the original Greek text (see text of one of the papyri of the Apology in SC 403).

2,2b; 15,1a, 2c; 16,4, 5b (note the differences between Ba and Sy). Cf. Brock, Syriac Perspectives, IV 91–95. 46 Nöldeke § 9. 47 In ch. 27 of Ba the addresses “king” and “O king” appear half a dozen times each (cf. also the critical apparatus of Volk). In the remaining chapters the king is similarly addressed (ca. 40 times), in most cases together with the interjection. 48 Cf. Lattke, “Wörter,” 287 (repr. 135); Schall, Studien, 106. 44 45

GREEK WORDS

395

3.2.3. ἀνάγκη (6,1b), in Ba in the prepositional phrase κατὰ ἀνάγκην (Volk 27, 76).49 The variant reading κατ’ ἀνάγκην in Volk’s critical apparatus is backed up by papyrological evidence (SC 403 lines 5–6). Reference to ‫( ܐ ܐ‬ʾananq) to be added to PS 274 (s.v.).50 3.2.4. ἀσπίς (12,4b), in Ba in the accusative ἀσπίδα (Volk 27, 195). ‫( ܐ‬ʾesṗes) to be added to PS 316 (s.v.).51 Reference to 3.2.5. Βύβλος (12,2a), in Ba in the prepositional phrase εἰς Βύβλον τῆς Συρίας (Volk 27, 183). Reference to ‫( ܒ ܒ ܣ‬Ḇiḇlos) to be added to PS 516 (s.v.). 3.2.6. θήκη (4,3e), in Ba in the phrase θήκη σωμάτων (Volk 27, 57). The reference to ‫( ܬܐ ܐ ܓ ܐ‬ṯqā l-Îaḡrē) in the Apology is already listed in PS 4376 (s.v. ‫)ܬܐ ܐ‬. 3.2.7. κιθάρα (8,1c; 11,1c), in Ba plural in 8,1c missing, singular in the accusative κιθάραν (Volk 27, 154).52 References to plural ‫̈ܪܐ‬ (qīṯārē) (qīṯārā) to be added to PS 3613 (s.v.). and singular ‫ܪܐ‬ 3.2.8. κροκόδειλος (12,4b), in Ba in the accusative κροκόδειλον (Volk 27, 193; cf. different spellings of this animal’s name in the critical apparatus). PS 3561 (s.v. ‫ ) ܪܕ‬refers to the Apology of Aristides, but does not mention the different spelling ‫( ܪܕ ܣ‬qurḏīlos). 3.2.9. κύκνος (9,2b), in Ba in the prepositional phrase εἰς κύκνον (quqnos) in the Apology already given (Volk 27, 119). Reference to ‫ܣ‬ in PS 3559 (s.v.). 3.2.10. Λακεδαιμόνιος (10,3a), the Lacedaemonian, in Ba διὰ Τυνδάρεων, Λακεδαίμονος υἱόν (Volk 27, 138); see also 2.46. Reference to ‫ܐ‬ (laqeḏēmōnāyā) in the Apology to be added to PS 1967 (s.v.). There is no need for Geffcken’s conjecture Λακεδαιμόνιον in Ba, because a Lacedaemonian is a son of Lacedaemon (= Sparta). 3.2.11. λῃστής (3,1c), in Ba in the prepositional phrase ὑπὸ λῃστῶν (Volk 27, 27). Reference to the plural ‫̈ ܐ‬ (lesÅāyē) to be added to PS ). 1959 (s.v.

49 The phrase κατὰ ἀνάγκην occurs only in ch. 27 of Ba (seven times). In most cases the Greek text has no equivalent in Sy; in 1,1b the Syriac term ‫ܐ‬ (ʿeṣyānā) is used. 50 Cf. Schall, Studien, 75, 83, 89. 51 Cf. Schall, Studien, 102: “Die Übernahme im Nominativ ist wohl schon ein Zeichen dafür, dass das Wort nicht volkstümlich war.” 52 Cf. Brock, Syriac Perspectives, 85 n. 28; Lattke, “Wörter,” 291 (repr. 139–40).

396

LATTKE

3.2.12. ξένος (15,6c), in Ba in the singular accusative ξένον53 (Volk 27, 275). Reference to ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܐ‬ʾaksnāyā) in the Apology to be added to PS ‫ܐ‬, ‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܐ‬.54 188 (s.v. 3.2.13. σίλουρος (12,4b), missing in Ba. Reference to ‫ܪܐ‬ (sellūrā) in the Apology to be added to PS 2643 (s.v.), not to PS 2612 (s.v. ‫ܪܐ‬ , ‫ܪܘܣ‬ ). It is interesting to note so many different spellings of Greek names of fish and other animals. 3.2.14. σπληνίον (10,3a), missing in Ba. Reference to the plural ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫( ܐ‬ʾesṗlīnwāṯā) in the Apology to be added to PS 315 (s.v. ‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܐ‬. The spelling ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬instead of ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬is mentioned by Margoliouth 24b.55 3.2.15. συνήγορος (16,4), missing in Ba. Reference to ‫ܐܓ ܗܘܢ‬ (snḡrhōn) in the Apology to be added to PS 2672 (s.v. ‫ ܓ ܐ‬, ‫ ܐܓ ܐ‬, ‫) ܓ ܐ‬. 3.2.16. τύραννος (10,6a), also missing in Ba. Reference to ‫ܘ ܐ‬ (Årōnā) in the Apology to be added to PS 1513 (s.v.).56 In conclusion we should look at Schall’s “Aufgliederung der griechischen Fremdwörter nach Sachgruppen”57 and try to assign the Greek words in the Apology of Aristides to the areas used by Schall and to further areas not used by him (marked by +). In some cases a word has to be assigned to more than one area. Area (“Sachgebiet” [Schall]) Religion and mythology (“Religion,” “Kultus,” “Mythus”)

Sciences (“Wissenschaftliche Begriffe der Geisteswissensch[aft] u[nd] Naturwissenschaft”)

Nr. of Greek Word 2.1–48 (cf. Personal names)58 3.1.4 (cf. Ethics; Law) 3.2.5 (cf. Places) 3.2.7 (cf. Music) 3.2.10 (cf. Places) 1.2.3 and 3.1.7 3.1.6 3.2.3

53 The plural accusative ξενους in one of the papyri of the Apology does not agree with the following statement χαιρουσιν επ αυτω (SC 405 lines 20–23). 54 Cf. Brock, Syriac Perspectives, XIV 119; Lattke, “Wörter,” 294 (repr. 142–3); Schall, Studien, 57, 94. 55 In both PS and Margoliouth the spelling σπλήνιον should be corrected. 56 Cf. Schall, Studien, 54, 84. 57 Schall, Studien, 119–28 (cf. 246–7). 58 Greek names are not treated by Schall.

GREEK WORDS

397

Area (“Sachgebiet” [Schall]) Ethics (“Ethik, menschlicher Charakter”) Government and community (“Staat und Verwaltung,” “Gemeinwesen”)

Nr. of Greek Word 3.1.4 (cf. Religion and mythology; Law) 3.2.11 (cf. Family and society) 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.5 1.2.1 1.2.2 3.2.10 (cf. Places)

Law (“Rechtswesen”)

3.1.4 (cf. Religion and mythology; Ethics) 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.8 3.2.11 (cf. Ethics) 3.2.12

Family and society (“Familie und Gesellschaft”)

Personal names (+)

Places (+)

Arts and crafts (“Handwerke und Künste”) Healing (“Heilkunde”) Animals (“Tiere”)

1.1.1–5 (cf. Government and community) 1.2.2 (?) (cf. Government and community) 2.1–48 (cf. Religion and mythology) 3.2.5 (cf. Religion and mythology) 3.2.10 (cf. Religion and mythology) 3.2.1 3.2.14 3.2.4 3.2.8 3.2.9 3.2.13

Air, water and land (“Land,” “Wasser …, “Luftreich”) Music (+) Inhumation (+)

3.2.2 3.2.6 (cf. Inhumation) 3.2.7 (cf. Religion and mythology) 3.2.6 (cf. Air, water and land)

Greek roots as Syriac verb-forms (“Griechische Stämme in syr[ischer] Verbalform”)

3.1.5

398

LATTKE

Area (“Sachgebiet” [Schall]) Interjections and particles (“Interjektionen und Konjunktionen”)59

59

Except γάρ and δέ (see above).

Nr. of Greek Word 3.1.1 3.1.9

GREEK WORDS

399

ABBREVIATIONS Versions Ar Ba Sy

Armenian version of the Apology of Aristides. Greek version of Barlaam and Ioasaph. Syriac version of the Apology of Aristides.

Editions Harris/Robinson J. Rendel Harris, The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians from a Syriac MS. preserved on Mount Sinai ed. with an introduction and translation. With an appendix containing the main portion of the original Greek text by J. Armitage Robinson (Texts and Studies 1,1; Cambridge: University Press, 1891; 21893). SC Bernard Pouderon and Marie-Joseph Pierre, Aristide, Apologie (Sources chrétiennes 470; Paris: Cerf, 2003). Volk Robert Volk, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos (ed. by Byzantinisches Institut der Abtei Scheyern), vol. 6,2: Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph (spuria): Text und zehn Appendices (Patristische Texte und Studien 60; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2006). Grammar and Dictionaries Margoliouth J. Payne Smith (Mrs. Margoliouth), A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903; repr. 1957, 1967, etc.). Nöldeke Theodor Nöldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik (ed. Anton Schall; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966). PS R. Payne Smith (ed.), Thesaurus Syriacus (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1879–1901; repr. Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1981). PS Supplement J. P. Margoliouth, Supplement to the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927; repr. Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1981).

400

LATTKE

APPENDIX Synopsis of Subdivisions60 LATTKE

GOODSPEED

GEFFCKEN

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

1a

1

1

1b–c

2

2

2a–b

3

3

2c

4

4

2d–k

5

5

LATTKE Chapter 2 1 + 2a–c (from φανερὸν to προσκυνήσεως) 2c 3 4a–b 4c 4d–h 4i 4k

GOODSPEED Chapter 2 1 (Nr. 2 not used)

GEFFCKEN Chapter 2 1 (cf. ch. 15)

3*–4* 5* (cf. 14,1) 6* (cf. 15,1–3) 7* 8* 9* 10* GOODSPEED

LATTKE Chapter 3

Chapter 3

GEFFCKEN Chapter 3

1a

1

1

1b–f

2

2

2a–c

3

3 GOODSPEED

LATTKE

GEFFCKEN

Chapter 4

Chapter 4

Chapter 4

1

1

1

2a–f

2

2

3a–e

3

3

3f

4

4

60

An asterisk (*) denotes sections which appear in the critical apparatus.

GREEK WORDS

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 5 1–2 3 4–5

GEFFCKEN Chapter 5 1–2 3 4–5

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 6 1–2 3

GEFFCKEN Chapter 6 1–2 3

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 7 1–3 4

GEFFCKEN Chapter 7 1–3 4

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 8 1 2–3 4 5 6

GEFFCKEN Chapter 8 1 2–3 4 5 6

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 9 1 2–3 4 5 6 7 (*7b–9a of Ba) 8 9

GEFFCKEN Chapter 9 1 2–3 4 5 6 7 8 9

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 10 1 2 3 4 (*most of the text) 5 6 7 8 9 (Ba “etwas mehr Raum”)

GEFFCKEN Chapter 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Chapter 5 1a–d 2a–d 3a–c

Chapter 6 1a–d 2a–c

Chapter 7 1a–c 2a–b

Chapter 8 1a 1b–c 2a 2b 2c

Chapter 9 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b–d 3a 3b

Chapter 10 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b–c 4a–c 5a–b 6a–b

401

402

LATTKE

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

GEFFCKEN Chapter 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

GEFFCKEN Chapter 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

GEFFCKEN Chapter 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LATTKE

GOODSPEED Chapter 14 1 (contains 2,3 [= *2,5]) — (cf. 2,3–4 Ar and Sy) 2 3 4 (2–4 Ba)*

GEFFCKEN Chapter 14 1 (contains 2,3 [= *2,5]) — (cf. 2,3–4 Ar and Sy) 2 3 4 cf. critical apparatus

Chapter 11 1a–b 2a–b 3a–c 4a–b 5a–c 6a–c 7a–b

Chapter 12 1a–c 2a–b 2c–d 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 5

Chapter 13 1a 1b–c 2a 2b 3a–b 4a–b 5a–b + 6 7a–b

Chapter 14 1a (+ 1b) (1b +) 2a–c 3a 3b 4a–b

GREEK WORDS

403

GOODSPEED Chapter 15 1–2 on 1–2 cf. 2,4 Sy and Ar, but also 15,3c Ba and Sy, and 15,3a („writings“).

GEFFCKEN Chapter 15 1–2 cf. critical apparatus

(2b is an Indian addition) 3a–c 4a 4b–c 5a–b 6a–c 7a–b 7c (7b) + 8a–b 9a–c 9d

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

LATTKE Chapter 16 1a–b 2a–b 3a 3b 4 5a (Indian addition) 5b (part of addition?) 6a–c

GOODSPEED Chapter 16 1 2 3 4 (see below) 5 — (cf. * on 4) 6

GEFFCKEN Chapter 16 1 2 3 4 (see below) 5 — (cf. * on 4) 6

GOODSPEED Chapter 17 1 2–3 4 5 6–7 8

GEFFCKEN Chapter 17 1 2–3 4 5 6–7 8

LATTKE Chapter 15 1–2

LATTKE Chapter 17 1 2a–b 2c 2d 3a 3b–c

A NEO-ARAMAIC VERSION OF THE SOGHITHA OF THE SINFUL WOMAN AND SATAN ALESSANDRO MENGOZZI

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI BERGAMO [email protected] A description of the Classical Syriac soghitha of the Sinful Woman and Satan can be dispensed with here, thanks to the magnificent editions and studies devoted by Sebastian Brock to this very poem and the genre to which it belongs.1 Zetterstéen had published, in 1906, a Neo-Aramaic version of the East-Syriac dispute between Satan and the Sinful Woman, labelled as ‘Soghitha II’ in Brock’s critical edition (1988). Zetterstéen’s text (henceforth NA1) is based on the Berlin Sachau ms. 343, 22b-24b (NA1a) and the editor gave, in the apparatus, the variants of a second text preserved in the Berlin Sachau ms. 336, 87b-89a (NA1b).2

1 See Brock’s publications listed in the bibliography; for the genre in Syriac and other literatures, see the miscellaneous Reinink-Vanstiphout (1991), Murray (1995), and, more recently, Upson-Saia (2006). I would like to express my gratitude to Emanuela Braida, Mary McCann, and Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, Torino, and Mostapha El Sbik, Bergamo, for their valuable suggestions. 2 Zetterstéen (1906: 497) preferred NA 1a which, in his opinion, had better rhymes and a more popular flavour, vitiated in NA1b by a number of classical spellings. According to Lidzbarski (1896: xiv)—who erroneously entitled the poem Der Teufel und die Sünde ‘Satan and Sin ( ܼ ܼ )’—in ms. 343 (NA1a) Jeremiah Shamir, the well-known informant of Eduard Sachau, copied and translated into Arabic the ms. 336 (NA1b), written by the scribe Fransi Mîri. Zetterstéen apparently opted for the text preserved in the codex descriptus.

405

406

MENGOZZI

A manuscript of the Sachau Neo-Aramaic collection now in London (British Museum, Oriental and India Office Collection, ms. Or. 9321, 101b105b) preserves another Neo-Aramaic version (NA2) of the ‘Soghitha II.’3 An edition of the modern version NA2 will be proposed here, with translation and a few comments. Comparative remarks on the other known Classical and Modern Syriac versions will also be given.

CLASSICAL AND MODERN VERSIONS The Classical Syriac text (Soghitha II in Brock, 1988) is well preserved, with little variation between the two complete witnesses (B, dated 1849, and C, 1881). A third witness (A, 1549/50) does not contain the narrative prologue and, like NA2, starts with the dialogue. NA1 preserves one stanza of the prologue (st. 4 of the classical version), but does not include a few lines and three stanzas (18 and 21–22) at the end. The modern versions, NA1 and NA2, reflect original texts similar to those collated by Brock, but they do not seem to be related to one of them in particular. NA2 and A may witness an independent transmission of the dialogue section, without the four introductory stanzas. The first stanza of the dialogue (st. 5 of the classical text and 1 of NA2) contains a short narrative section of three lines, which could have been sufficient to introduce the dispute proper. The authors of the modern poetic translations are unknown. The author of NA2 respected the metrical form (stanzas of four seven-syllable lines) and the rhyme pattern (A, A, -ī, -nā) of the original text, whereas he did not maintain the alphabetic acrostic. Na1 exhibits various rhyme patterns (AAAA, AAAB, AABB, AABC) and, like NA2, did not maintain the acrostic.

3 The manuscript which contains NA was written in Baghdad by the scribe 2 Gabriel Jeremiah Shamir in the last years of the 19th century. For a general presentation of the London Sachau collection of Neo-Aramaic manuscripts see Mengozzi (1999). Prof J. F. Coakley, Harvard University, kindly informed me that according to John Guest (Survival among the Kurds, 1993: 148), Gabriel Jeremiah Shamir was the son of the famous Jeremiah, copyist of part of the manuscripts of the Berlin Sachau collection (Lidzbarski 1896). Prof. R. Y. Ebied, Sydney University, is preparing an edition of the London manuscript Or. 9326, a collection of Arabic, Neo-Aramaic and English letters sent to Eduard Sachau, most of them by Jeremiah Shamir (papers presented at the ARAM Conference, Chicago 10–12 April 2007 and the Syriac Studies Symposium, Toronto, June 25–27, 2007).

A NEO-ARAMAIC VERSION OF THE SOGHITHA

407

The Sitz im Leben of the modern texts is unfortunately unknown too. They could simply be exercises in poetic skills or they may have responded to an emerging demand for liturgical hymns in the vernacular. Another famous soghitha, that of the Cherub and the Thief, has been known since the 19th century in at least three different Neo-Aramaic versions, one of which still appears to be performed in the East-Syriac liturgy (Pennacchietti 1993).

NEO-ARAMAIC (NA2) AND CLASSICAL SYRIAC TEXTS For purposes of comparison, the left column displays stanzas 5–26 of the Classical Syriac text edited by Sebastian Brock (1988: 56–58, with critical apparatus and English translation), in synopsis with the modern version NA2 in the right column. Significant variants of NA1 are given in the footnotes. As regards the content, NA2 differs from the classical model in minor details: e.g., ‘Gehenna’ is preferred to ‘perdition’ in 4a and 12d; ‘Babylon’ is modernized as ‘Baghdad’ in 11c; and in 20a, ‘inheritance’ instead of ‘friendship’ is a variant which could have originated in a classical Vorlage different from those collated by Brock (1988). In a couple of cases, the translation is problematic: in 8a only one of the two objects mentioned in the classical text is translated in Neo-Aramaic (of ‘dust and ashes’ only ‘ashes’ remain); in 8b an obscure Neo-Aramaic rendering, šārā,4 corresponds to the hendiadys prīsā wa-saqqā in the classical language (lit. ‘cloak and sackcloth,’ ‘a sackcloth garment’ in Brock’s ܵ The word ‫ ܵ ܐܪܐ‬could be of Syriac or Kurdish origin. It might be a phonetic rendering—with Arabic spelling convention for long ā—of šārā, from Classical Syriac šahrā ‘vigil,’ hence ‘village festival’ in the modern language (Maclean 1901: 300). However, this meaning hardly suits the context. Alternatively, šārā could have been borrowed from Kurdish şar ‫‘ ﺷﺎﺭ‬headband, turban, black silken kerchief’ (Chyet 2003: 569). Another Kurdish etymon (çarşev or çarşef ‘veil, fabric, canvas, sackcloth;’ Chyet 2003: 100) gives a better rendering of the Classical Syriac text as we know it (‫ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‘mantle and sack’), but it is by far less plausible. Moreover, there could have been some confusion with a Syriac term occurring later on in the poem: 11c ‫‘ ܐܪ ܐ‬silks’ (according to Brock’s translation) or ‫‘ ܐܪܐ‬bracelet’ (according ܵ to the scribe who translated NA2 into Arabic). In 8b, the scribe read ‫ ܵ ܐܪܐ‬as šar-rē ‘cow-dung’ (Maclean 1901: 313) and accordingly translated it with Arabic az-zibl. Curiously, NA1 preserves here a text (see, further, n. 12), containing the word ‫ܐ‬ ‘hair’ which might have been confused with ‫ ܐܪܐ‬, and the Arabic-derived ‫ܙܒ‬ ܸ ܸ (zebel ‘dung’). 4

‫‪MENGOZZI‬‬

‫‪ as‬ܐ̈ܪ‬

‫‪408‬‬

‫‪translation); and in 11c the translator read the classical original‬‬ ‫‪ , in Brock’s translation).‬ܐܪ ܐ ‪‘your bracelets’ (‘your silks,’ from‬‬ ‫‪Neo-Aramaic‬‬ ‫)‪(NA2‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫ܵ ܵ ܵܐ‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫ܸ ܹ ܼ‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫ܵ ܵ ܵܐ‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫ܸ ܹ ܼ‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫ܐ‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫‪Classical Syriac‬‬ ‫’‪‘Soghitha II‬‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫ܪܐ ــــــ ܒ ܵ ــــــܐ ܒ ــــــ ܵ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸ ܹ‬ ‫ܸ ܹ‬ ‫ܕ ܿ ܵܒـــــــܐ ܕ ܿ ܵ ـــــــܐ‪ܿ 5‬ܬ ܵܒـــــــ ܵ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܵܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ‬ ‫ܵ ܿ‬ ‫ܹ ܹ ــــ ܒــــ ܬܐ ــــ ܦ ــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ ـــــ ܿ ܿܒ ܵـــــ ܿ‬ ‫ܒـــــܐܕ ܸ ܵ ܵ ـــــܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫ܵ‬

‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܼܒ ܼ ܵـــــــ ܘ ܼ ܵـــــــ ܸܬܐ ܸܐ ـــــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ـــܐ ܕ ܼ ܼܒـــ ܐ ܸ‬ ‫ܗܘ ـــ ـــ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘ ܵ ܵـــــــܐ ܸ ـــــــ ܼ ܟ ـــــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘ ܸ ܼ ـــــــ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܼܒـــــــ ܐ ـــــــܐ‬

‫)‪(5‬‬

‫ܿܒ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ــــܐ ܐ ــــܐ ܘ ــــ ܐ ــــ‬ ‫ـ ܙܒ ــܐ ܕ ܒ ـ ܐ ܗܘ ـ ـ‬ ‫ܒܒــܐ ܘ ــܐܐ ܗܘ ــ ــ‬ ‫ـــ ـــܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܨܒ ـــܐ ܐ ـــܐ܀‬

‫)‪(7‬‬

‫ܓ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ـــ ܐ ـــ ܢ‬ ‫̈ ـــ ܕܗܒـــܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ــــ ܬܝ ــــ‬ ‫ــــܐ ܗܐ‬ ‫ـــــܐ܀‬ ‫ـــــ ـــــ‬

‫)‪(8‬‬

‫ـــــــ ܐܒ ـــــــܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܒـــــــ‬ ‫ــــــܐ‬ ‫ــــــ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ــــــ‬ ‫ـــܐ ܿܒ ـــܐ ܐ ـــܐ ܕܬܬܠ ـــ‬ ‫ܘ ــ ܕܐ ــܐ ــ ܿ ܒــܐ ܐ ــܐ܀‬

‫)‪(6‬‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫ܵ‬

‫ܕܗܒــــــܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܼ ــــــ ܼ ̈ܙ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܟ ܵ‬ ‫ــــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ ܼ‬ ‫ܘ ܿ ܼܘ ܵ ـــــ ܐ ܵ ـــــܐ ـــــ ܼ ܒܵ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܹ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘ ܿ ـــــــــــ ܿ‬ ‫ـــــــــــ ܿ ܿ ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܕܗܐ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸܘ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܿ ــــــــــــ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܵ ــــــــــــܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܒـــــ ܼ ܟ ܸܐ ـــــ ܼ ܟ ܓ ܼ ܵ‬ ‫ܸ ܼ‬ ‫ܘ ܹ ܐ ـــــ ܼ ܟ ܸܐ ـــــ ܼ ܟ ܼ‬ ‫ܘ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܼܒـــــ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܵ ݇ ܸܒـــــ ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܘ ܵ ــــܐ ܵ ــــ ܼ ܟ ܕ ܵ ݇ ܼܵܒــــ‬

‫ܵ ـــــܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܵ ܵ ـــــܐ‬ ‫ـــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܵܐ ܵ ــــܐ‬

‫‪8‬‬

‫ܵ‬ ‫ܐܕܝ ـــــــــــ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܸ ـــــــــــ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܪܒـــــــــــ ܵ‬ ‫ܘܐܕ ܕ ـــــــــــ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܿ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼܼ ܸ ܸ‬ ‫ܼܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ ـــــــــــــ ܝ ܵ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܗܕܟ ܿ ܼ ܵـ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ــــــــــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ــــــــ ܿܕ ܼܿܗܪ ܼ ܸܒ ܵ ــــــــ ܵܐ ܵ ــــــــܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‪ 9‬ܕ ܿ ـــــــــ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܬ ܸܕ ܹ ـــــــــ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ‫ܼܹ‬ ‫ܹܵ ܼ‬

‫ܐܪܓــــــ ܒ ــــــܐ ܒ ــــــ‬ ‫ܕܒ ـــــــܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ـــــــܐ ܬ ܒـــــــ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ـ ܓ ـ ـ‬ ‫ܘܐ ـ ـ‬ ‫ـــܐ܀‬ ‫ـــܐ ـــ ܕܒ ـــ‬

‫)‪(9‬‬

‫)‪(10‬‬

‫ܗܕܐ ــــــــــــ ܿ ــــــــــــܐܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܒܒـــــــــــ ܬܐ ܪܒـــــــــــ‬ ‫ـــܐ ܿ ـــ ܘ ـــ ܬܝ ـــ‬ ‫ـــ ܐ ـــܐ ـــ ܪ ܿ ـــ ܐ ـــܐ܀‬ ‫ܿܘ ــــــــــܐ ܕܬܕܥ ܕ ــــــــــܐܬܟ‬

‫‪ (lit. ‘she wanted to be’) is possibly a dialectal variant: on various‬ܒܐ ܵ ܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܵܐ ‪NA1‬‬ ‫ܹ‬ ‫‪Neo-Aramaic forms of the verb ‘to want, love,’ see Maclean (1895: 121 and 1901:‬‬ ‫‪36); see also, further, n. 10.‬‬ ‫‪ ‘the Evil one,’ as in Classical Syriac.‬ܒ ܐ ‪6 NA , throughout the text:‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ܵ ܵ‬ ‫ܟ ܐ ܵ ܐ ‪7 NA is closer to the classical text here than NA :‬‬ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܵ ܼ‬ ‫‪ ܼ ‘when‬ܕ ܼ ܸ ܪܬܐ ܹ‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܐ ܐ( ’‪I became a girlfriend for you‬‬ ‫ܪܬܘܟ ܹ‬ ‫‪ in NA1a).‬ܕ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫‪ ‘to perdition,’ as in the classical text.‬ܐܒ ܐ ‪8 NA :‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫’‪ܵ ‘you should know.‬ܘܓ ܕ ܿ ܐܬ ‪9 NA :‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫̰ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫‪5‬‬

‫‪A NEO-ARAMAIC VERSION OF THE SOGHITHA‬‬

‫‪409‬‬

‫ܒ ܵ ــــــ ݇ ܵ ــــــ ܿ ܿ‬ ‫ܒــــــܐܬܘܟ‬ ‫ܹܼܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܢ ܼ ܵ ــ ܼ ܼܟ ــ ܼ ܼܕܝ ܹ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܒܒܐ ــ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܢ ܿ ܼܒܐ ܵ ــــــ ܼ ܟ ܒ ܵ ܹــــــܐ ܵܐ ܵ ــــــܐ‬ ‫ܸ‬

‫ܒـــܐ ܝܗ ـــ ـــ ܪ ـــ ܟ‬ ‫ܕܐܢ ܐ ـــ ـــ ܝ ܪ ܿ ـــ ـــ‬ ‫ـــܐ ܐ ـــܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܐܢ ܐܪ ـــ‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܸ ܵ ـــܐ ܸܒ ܵ ـــ ܼ ܼ ܹ ـــ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܸܘ ܵ ـــܐܪܐ ܼ ܗ ܵـــܐ ܹ ـــ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܐܪ̰ܓ ܐ ـــ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫̰ܓ ܼ ـــ ܼ ܟ ܼ‬ ‫ܕ ܸ ̈ ܹ ــــܐ ܿ ܼ ــــ ــــ‬

‫‪8‬‬

‫‪9‬‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫ـــــــ ܕܐ ـــــــ ‪ ܵ ̈ ܿ 11‬ـــــــ ܵ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸ ܸ‬ ‫ܸ ܸ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܪܓــــــــــــ ܵ ܐܢ ܕ ܿ ̈ ܵــــــــــــ ܵ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ̰‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܼ ـــــ ܹܬ ܼܐ ـــــ ܼ ܼ ـــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘ ܸ ـــــــــــ ܼ ܼ ܒ ܼ ـــــــــــܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܵ ـــ ܼ‬ ‫ܸܐ ـــ ܼ‬ ‫ـــ‬ ‫ܵ ܵ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ ܵ ــــܐ‬

‫)‪(11‬‬

‫ܙ ــــــ ̈ܪ ܕ ــــــ‬ ‫ܘܐ̈ܪܓ ـــــܐ ܕ ـــــ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ ‫̈ܪܓ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ــ ܬܝ ــ ܗ ــܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܐ ــ‬

‫)‪(12‬‬

‫ــــܐ ܘ ــــܐ ܒ ــــ ــــ‬ ‫ـــܐ ܘ ـــܐ ܪܓ ܓ ـــ ـــ‬ ‫ـ ـ‬ ‫ܒ ـ ̈ ܘܐ̈ܪܓ ـ‬ ‫ــــܐ܀‬ ‫ــــ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ ــــ‬

‫‪12‬‬

‫ܼ ܵܒــــــܐ‪ 13‬ܕ ܿ ــــــ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܪ ܼ ܵــــــܐ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘ ܼܿ ــــــ ܐ ܕ ܸ ــــــ ܿܘܣ ܹܪ ܵ ܵــــــܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ ‪14‬‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܸ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܿܪ ــــــــــ ܸܘ ܼ ــــــــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼ ـــــــܐ‬ ‫ــــــܐܕ ـــــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܒـ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ ܿ‬ ‫ܼ ܒ ـ ܼ ܟ ܵ ـܐ ܒ ܼ ܹ ̈ ـܐ ܿ ܼ ـ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܘܦ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘ ܼ ـــ ܼ ܼܟ ـــܐ ܼܓ ܹ ـــܐ ܼ ـــ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ ܼܒــ ܼ ܼܟ ܵܘ ܵــܐ ܼ ــ ܼ ܸ ܿܒ ܼ ــ ܼ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘ ܼܿ ـــــ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܿܒـــــ ܼ ܵܐܐ ܸܕ ܵ ܵ ـــــܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̈ ܵ‬ ‫݇ܿ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܼ ــــ ܼ ܒ ܗܘ ܹ ــــܐ ܓ ܼ ܼ ܼ ــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̰ܓـــ ܼ ܼ ܒ ܸ ܹܪ ـــ ܙ ܼ ـــ ܼܝ ـــ ܼ ‪.‬‬

‫̈ ــــــ‬ ‫̈ـــــ‬

‫)‪(13‬‬

‫)‪(14‬‬

‫)‪(15‬‬

‫̈ܒـــــــܐ ܕ ـــــــ ܿ ܪ ـــــــܐ‬ ‫ܘ ـــــ ܐ ܕ ـــــ ܘܣ ܪ ـــــܐ‬ ‫ـ ـ‬ ‫ـ ܘܐ ـ‬ ‫ܒـ‬ ‫ـــــــــܐ܀‬ ‫ـــــــــ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ـ ـ ـ ̈ܒ‬ ‫ــ‬ ‫ܘ ــ‬ ‫ـــ ̈ ܒ ܘ ـــܐ‬ ‫ܘ ـــــ ܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒ ̈‬

‫ــܐ ܒ ـ‬ ‫ــܐ ܓ ــ‬ ‫ܒ ـــ ـــ‬ ‫ـــــܐ ܕ ـــــܐ܀‬

‫ܒ ܗܘ ܐ ܓ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ ܙ ـ‬

‫ـ‬

‫’‪ ‘I love(d) my Lord.‬ܝ ܹܒܐ ܼ ‪NA1:‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܹ ‪NA1:‬‬ ‫?’‪ܼ ܼ ‘a judge who has...‬ܝ ܸ‬ ‫‪12 NA :‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫‪Hair and ashes befit me‬‬ ‫‪ ܼ 8‬ܐ ܘܸ ܐ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ‬ ‫‪Dust and dung I preferred‬‬ ‫ܘܙܒ‬ ‫ܼ ܹܗ ܼ‬ ‫ܼܐܘ ܐ ܸ ܸ‬ ‫‪The author of NA1 and NA2 appear to have trouble with the Classical Syriac‬‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܐ ‪ ‘dust’ and‬ܐ ‪words‬‬ ‫ܐ ‪‘mantle and sack.’ The word‬‬ ‫‪has a Modern‬‬ ‫’;‪Aramaic homophone which refers to a vile object (‘carpet of inferior quality, kilim‬‬ ‫‪Maclean 1901: 133) and may have confused the modern translators.‬‬ ‫̈ܒܐ ‪13 For‬‬ ‫‪ܼ ‘goods;’ the reading ā (zlāmā qašyā) of the seyāme may stem from a‬‬ ‫‪written source.‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܿ ܒ ܿ ܐ ‪14 NA :‬‬ ‫’‪‘you (f.) fetched me (m.), while you are hating me,‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ܼ ܸܵ ܼܼ ܸ ܼ‬ ‫’ ‪whereas we would expect ‘I (m., Satan speaking) fetched you(f.), ...‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫‪MENGOZZI‬‬ ‫ܵ ܿ‬ ‫ܒܒܓـــ ܵ ܕ‪ ܼ ܼ ܼ 15‬ـــ ܼ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘ ܹ ـــܐܪܟ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܐܬܝ ܼ ܼܐܕ ܸ ܐܘ ـــــــــܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܸܘ ܼ ـــــــــ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪13‬‬

‫ـــــܐ ܗܒ ـــــ ܿ ܐ ܵ ـــــܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܸ ܸ ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܵܵ‬ ‫ܘܓ ܼ‬ ‫ܘ ܸ ـ ـ ܸ ܼ ـ ܼܕܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ــ ܼ ܟ ܘ ــ ܼ ̰ܓ ܵ ܼܘܟ ܵ‬ ‫ܿܿ‬ ‫ـــ ܼ ܘ ـــ ܼ ـــ ܼ ܓ ܼ‬

‫ܵ ـــــܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܵ ــܐ‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫ــ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ ܵ ـــܐ‬

‫ܵ‬ ‫ܐ ــــ ܼ ܹܬ ܼ ܿ ܼ ̈ ܿ ܹــــܐ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܼ ــــ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ ̈ ܿ‬ ‫ܒ ܼܿ ــ ̈ ܼ ܹــܐ ܵ ܸ ــ ܼ ܕ ــ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܐܘܕܘܬܐ ܕ ܵ ـــــــ ܼ ܟ ܸ ܼ ـــــــ ܼ‬ ‫݇‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ ــــܐ ܼ ܼ ــــܐ ܐ ــــܐ ܒ ܼ ܼܒ ــــܐ‬

‫‪14‬‬

‫ܿ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܸ ܼ ܿ ـــــــــ ܼ ܼܟ ܸܐ ـــــــــ ܼ ܼܟ‬ ‫ܹܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ـــ ܼ ܼܟ ܼܗܡ ܼ ـــ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܘ ܹ ـــ‬ ‫ܿ ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܼܼܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܐܘܕܘܬܘܟ ـــــــــܐ ܼ ـــــــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼܿ ܼ ـــــ ܼ ــــــ ܥ ܒ ܘ ــــــܐ‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫ــــــ ܵ ܿ‬ ‫ܘܒܐ ــــــ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ ܿ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ ــــــ ܸ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܗܡ ܨ ܿ ـــــــــ ܵ‬ ‫ـــــــــ ܿܒ ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܿܿ‬ ‫݇ ̈‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܒܐ ̈ ܹــــܐ ܕܐ ܵ ܹ ــــܐ ܐܘ ܼ ــــ ܼ ܬ ــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܼ ܿ ــــــ ܿ ܿ ܹ ܿ ܼ ــــــ ܿ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܵ ــــــܐ‬

‫‪16‬‬

‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܬܘܟ‬ ‫ܹܐ ــــ ܼ ــــܐ ܼ ܹ ــــ ܿ ܼ ــــ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ ܵ ܵ ــــــــܐ ــــــــ ܼ ܼ ــــــــ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܬܝ‬ ‫ܹ‬ ‫ـــــܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼܒـــــ ܼܬ ܵ ܵـــــ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܟ ܸ ̰ܓܒ ـــــܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܼ ـــــ ܼ ܒܓـــــ ܼ ܼ‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪18‬‬

‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܓܒــــــــ ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܘܪ ܵܒــــــــ ܸ ܪ ܼܕܐܕ ܼ‬ ‫ܼܵ ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܓܒ ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܓܒ ܐ ܹ ܕ ܹ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܸܐ ܢ ܼ ܵـــ ܹ ܐ ܵ ܼ ـــ ܒ ܼܿ ܵـــܐ ـــ ܼ ‪.‬‬ ‫ܿܵ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܵ ــــܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܵ ܹ ܼ ــــ ܒ ܿ ܼ ܼ ــــ ܼ ܬܐ ܹ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܐܕܝ ܸܒـــــــ ܿ ܼܿܐܪ ܵ ܵ ـــــــܐ‬ ‫ܹܓ ܹܒـــــــ ܼ‬

‫‪410‬‬ ‫ܐ̈ܪ ـ ܒܒܒ ـ‬ ‫ܘ ــــ ــــ ܗܢ‬

‫)‪(16‬‬

‫)‪(17‬‬

‫ـ ـ‬ ‫ܪ ــــܐ܀‬

‫ـــܐ ܒـــ ـــ ܐ ـــܐ ـــ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ــــ ܒــــ ــــ ܐ ܘ ܒــــ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ـ ܘ ̈ ـ ܟ ـ ـ‬ ‫ـــ ܠ ܐ ـــ ܢ ܘܙܠ ܐܒ ـــܐ܀‬ ‫̈ ـــــܐ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܒ ـ ̈ ــܐ‬ ‫ܒــ ܘܬܐ ܕ‬ ‫ــܐ‬ ‫ــܐ‬

‫ـــــ‬

‫ـــــ ܐ‬ ‫ܒــܐ ܕ ـ‬ ‫ــܐ ــ‬ ‫ــ‬ ‫ܐ ـ ـ ܙܒ ــܐ܀‬

‫)‪(18‬‬

‫ܕ ــــــ‬ ‫ــــــ ܘܐ ــــــ‬ ‫ܘ ـــــ ܒ ـــــ ـــــ ܪ‬ ‫ــــܐ ــــ‬ ‫ܒــــ ܘܬܟ ــــܐ‬ ‫ـــ ܥ ܗܘ ـــܐ ܐ ـــܐ܀‬ ‫ܕܐ ـــ‬

‫)‪(19‬‬

‫ــــ ܘܪ ــــ‬ ‫ــــ‬ ‫ــــ ܘ ــــ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ــــ‬ ‫ܒ ـــ ܓ ̈ـــܐܐ ܒ ـــ ܬܝ ـــ‬ ‫ـــ ـــ ܗ ـــܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܐ ـــ‬

‫)‪(20‬‬

‫)‪(21‬‬

‫)‪(22‬‬

‫̈ ــــ ــــܐ ــــ ̈ܝ ܐ ــــ ܬܟ‬ ‫ــــــ ܬܟ‬ ‫ــــــܐ ــــــܐ‬ ‫ـ ܐـ ـ‬ ‫ــܐ ̈ ــܐ‬ ‫ـــܐ ܐ ـــ ـــ ܒـــ ܨܒ ـــܐ܀‬ ‫ـــ ـــ ܒـــ ܿ‬ ‫ܪܗ ܕܗܢ ܓܒـــ ܐ‬ ‫ܓܒـ ܐ‬ ‫ܓܒ ܐ ܗܘ ܕ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ــــܐ ــــ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܿ ــــ ܐ ــــ‬ ‫ــܐ܀‬ ‫ܕ ــ ܒ ــ ܒ ــ‬ ‫ܨܐܕܘܝܗ ܕܗ ـــــܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܪܗ ـــــܐ ܐ ـــــܐ‬

‫ܵ‬ ‫ܒܒܒ ‪NA1:‬‬ ‫‪ܸ ‘in Babylon,’ as in the classical text.‬‬ ‫‪On snā-lī (12c) = snāy-lī (8c) ‘I hated (them),’ see Mengozzi (2002: vol. 590,‬‬ ‫‪29; and 2006: 497).‬‬ ‫‪17 Na omits from l. 16d to 17c.‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬

‫‪A NEO-ARAMAIC VERSION OF THE SOGHITHA‬‬

‫‪411‬‬

‫ܵ‬ ‫ܸܘ ܿ ܼܒــــ ܼ ܹܪܗ ــــܐ ــــ ܵ ܐܪܢ ܵܐ ܵ ــــܐ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘ ـــــــ ܼ ܕ ܸܕ ܵ ـــــــܐ ܸ ـــــــ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܹܓ ـــــ ܸ ܸـــــ ܼ ܼܒـــــ ܐ ـــــܐ‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫‪20‬‬

‫‪21‬‬

‫‪22‬‬

‫ܿ ܿ‬ ‫ܐ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܸܒـ‬ ‫ـܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܐܬܗ ܬܪܐ ܿ ـــــــــ ܬܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸܹ‬ ‫ܸ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒ ܼ ܼ ܼ ــــــــ ܘܐܢ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܢ ܹܓ ܒ ܼ ــــ ܹ ܒــــ ܼ‬

‫ܼܒ ܼ ـ ܹ̈ܐ‬ ‫̈ـــــــــ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܼ ܵــــــــ ܼ‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܐ ــــܐ‬

‫ܿ‬ ‫ܬܘܬܘܟ‪ܵ ܿ ܼ ܿ 20‬ܒـــ > ܵܐ ܵ ـــܐ