The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy : Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium [1 ed.] 9789047418894, 9789004156586

Citation preview

The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy

Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden Studies in the Syriac Versions of the Bible and their Cultural Contexts Editorial Board

s.p. brock – s.h. griffith – k.d. jenner a. van der kooij – t. muraoka – w.th. van peursen

Executive Editor

R.B. ter Haar Romeny

VOLUME 15

The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium

Edited by

Bas ter Haar Romeny

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2006

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN 0169-9008 ISBN 978 90 04 15658 6 © Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

IN MEMORIAM DAVID J. LANE 1935–2005

\\_z l‡«P |djª‹‡ [n —jQTkTc P]rP ‘S Q„¬ P[dv^ l{T¨r Q„S‹SZ pjP ]¬S av^ ¡ tn —kdv ]{kwj Qhk”‡^ . lSPZ ¦\_ojÑS ^– . ^– ^– . ‘vP^ . ]S_c And suddenly the Son of God calls out in kindness, his face radiant with light, the hand that gives life to all is extended, and he beckons with it as with a finger to those who have his love, and says, ‘Come, come, come, you blessed of my Father.’ — Shubh . almaran, The Book of Gifts 6.IX.7 (ed. D.J. Lane)

CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Konrad D. Jenner Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii KEYNOTE LECTURES

The Use of the Syriac Versions in the Liturgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Sebastian P. Brock Between the School and the Monk’s Cell: The Syriac Old Testament Commentary Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Lucas Van Rompay Problems in the Syriac New Testament and How Syrian Exegetes Solved Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 William L. Petersen PAPERS

The Biblical Text in the Disputation of Sergius the Stylite against a Jew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 A. Peter Hayman Reworking the Biblical Text in the Dramatic Dialogue Poems on the Old Testament Patriarch Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Kristian Heal The Old Testament in the New: The Syriac Versions of the New Testament as a Witness to the Text of the Old Testament Peshitta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Jan Joosten The ‘Syriac Masora’ and the New Testament Peshitta . . . . . . . . . . 107 Andreas Juckel The Four Kingdoms in Peshitta Daniel 7 in the Light of the Early History of Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Arie van der Kooij Aphrahat’s Use of his Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Marinus D. Koster

viii

CONTENTS

‘There is No Need of Turtle-Doves or Young Pigeons . . .’ (Jacob of Sarug). Quotations and Non-Quotations of Leviticus in Selected Syriac Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 David J. Lane Ephrem, his School, and the Yawnaya: Some Remarks on the Early Syriac Versions of the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Christian Lange Ishodad’s Knowledge of Hebrew as Evidenced from his Treatment of Peshitta Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Jerome A. Lund The Text of the New Testament in the Acts of Judas Thomas . . . 187 Craig E. Morrison, O.Carm. Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Shinichi Muto The Book of Proverbs in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Robert J. Owens Sirach Quotations in the Discourses of Philoxenus of Mabbug: Text and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Wido van Peursen The Reception of Peshitta Chronicles: Some Elements for Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 David Phillips The Greek vs. the Peshitta in a West Syrian Exegetical Collection (BL Add. 12168) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Bas ter Haar Romeny The Peshitta and Biblical Quotations in the Longer Syriac Version of the Commentary of Athanasius on the Psalms (BL Add. 14568), with special attention to Psalm 23 (24) and 102 (103) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Harry F. van Rooy The Reception of the Peshitta Psalter in Bar Salibi’s Commentary on the Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Stephen D. Ryan, O.P. Obscure Words in the Peshitta of Samuel, according to Theodore bar Koni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Alison Salvesen

CONTENTS

ix

New Testament Quotations in the Breviary of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Example: The Annunciation (Luke 1:26–38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Aho Shemunkasho The Psalm Headings in the West Syrian Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 David G.K. Taylor Peshitta New Testament Quotations in the West Syrian Anaphoras: Some General Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 Baby Varghese Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

ABBREVIATIONS For abbreviated titles of series and periodicals, see S.M. Schwertner, Internationales Abk¨ urzungsverzeichnis f¨ ur Theologie und Grenzgebiete (2nd ed.; Berlin–New York, 1992), also published as the Abk¨ urzungsverzeichnis of the Theologische Realenzyklop¨ adie.

FOREWORD

As one of the conveners of the Third Peshitta Symposium, I feel thankful and deeply satisfied that this volume is now actually appearing, and not least because we have been able to make it a tribute to the memory of our friend, the late David J. Lane. In his lifetime he was regularly an esteemed and respected guest at the Peshitta Institute. Moreover for me, he functioned as a sounding-board during my research on the Syriac Bible, in particular, with regard to the relationship with liturgy and the annotated translation of the Peshitta in English. Furthermore the publication of this book represents for me the fulfilment of a long-held wish. Because of unexpected and unforeseen difficulties, this publication has long hung in the balance. I would like to express my gratitude to the contributors for their sympathetic and prompt compliance with the request of the editor to update the copy which they had sent in a few years ago, to accord with their present level of research. This they accomplished within a short time-span. There should be no uncertainty surrounding the publication of this book. It would certainly never have appeared without the singular dedication of Bas ter Haar Romeny. At the time he not only took on the lion’s share of the organization of the Third Peshitta Symposium, but also not so long ago he agreed to my request that he should carry out the redaction of the book on his own. For my part this meant not only a vote of confidence in him, but also release from an obligation that demanded from me more time and energy than I could bring to it. The theme of the Third Peshitta Symposium fitted in perfectly with the fields of research of the two conveners. Indeed that is still the case. Bas ter Haar Romeny was then involved with the preparations for a longterm research project in the field of the Syriac commentary literature, with a fellowship from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (knaw). My own research was centred on the various forms in which the Bible was used in hymnic and liturgical literature with related sources. Bas and I saw the Third Peshitta Symposium as a convenient opportunity and a superb chance to draw up new lines of research for future study in the field of the Bible in the Syriac Churches and Syriac culture. We envisaged initiating with this symposium an institutional and structural ‘cross-fertilization’ in the research of two fields of interest which at that point in time were still separate: biblical research on the one hand and Syriac patristics on the other. For us, an example of this

xii

FOREWORD

cross-fertilization was to be found in the work of Dr Sebastian P. Brock, who was able to combine these fields in a magnificent manner in his approach. Moreover we hoped with the symposium to be able to take the first step in finding a way out of the methodological impasse of the time. While G. Diettrich had argued that a critical edition of the Peshitta had to be based on the study of all the available sources, M.H. GoshenGottstein was of the opinion that this should be limited to only a representative selection of primary sources. The time had come to see whether the progress of the past decades both in the fields of biblical research and Syriac patristics could break through this stalemate. It seemed important to us to include with these also the developments in the field of New Testament studies. Looking back at the Peshitta Symposium with this compilation of articles in front of me, I conclude that our plea for the importance of this subject is still as strong as ever. With thanks to all the participants at the Third Peshitta Symposium, Konrad D. Jenner Leiden, November 2006

PREFACE

In the late 1950s, the Leiden Peshitta Institute undertook the publication of the Peshitta of the Old Testament on behalf of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (iosot). Fourteen volumes have been published so far and four more are to come. In addition, several detailed studies of Peshitta manuscripts have given us a picture of the development of the Peshitta text. There is, however, still an important desideratum. The apparatus of the Leiden Peshitta edition is based only on biblical manuscripts. Major editions of other versions, such as the G¨ ottingen edition of the Septuagint, also quote readings culled from the Fathers. The choice not to include the Syriac Fathers in the Peshitta edition was not an oversight, however. Right at the beginning of the project, it was even noted that a much better knowledge of the Old Testament texts preserved in the patristic literature of the Syriac Churches was a prerequisite for obtaining a full picture of the text history, if only because the manuscripts we have are very few in number and not necessarily representative.1 The witness of the Fathers had also played an important role in discussions on the origins of the Peshitta in the scholarly literature of the period before the publication of the first volumes. However, it was determined that the lack of critical editions of a large part of this literature precluded the inclusion of this material at that stage. Exegetical literature was considered a field of study in its own right, where in many cases even the most basic editing work had not yet been done. In discussions at the Peshitta Institute at the end of the 1990s, the idea took hold that the time might have come to fill the gap just described and to include the witness of the Syriac Fathers into the Peshitta project. An important role in this development was played by Lucas Van Rompay, then Professor of Aramaic at Leiden University, and by Konrad Jenner, then Director of the Peshitta Institute. It was decided that I would carry out a pilot project on the quotations from Genesis, Psalms, and Isaiah in Syriac exegetical literature. This would establish the agenda for what is to become Section VI of the Leiden Peshitta Edition: an edition and study of the quotations of the Syriac Fathers. 1 See, for example, the General Preface of The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshit.ta Version. Sample edition: Song of Songs – Tobit – 4 Ezra (Leiden, 1966), vi, and cf. P.A.H. de Boer, ‘Towards an Edition of the Syriac Version of the Old Testament’ (PIC 16), VT 31 (1981), 346–357, esp. 355.

xiv

PREFACE

In addition, Jenner and I organized a conference: the Third Peshitta Symposium, held at the Castle ‘Oud Poelgeest’ near Leiden from 12 to 15 August, 2001. The present volume contains fully updated versions of the papers read on this occasion. Now that these contributions finally appear in print, it is good to look back and remind ourselves of the goals we set ourselves when we invited scholars to this conference, and to see whether it answered the questions we set out with. In our call for papers, Jenner and I observed that much progress had been made in the study of the Syriac Fathers since the beginning of the Peshitta project. It was time to see where we stood: to get a picture of what had been done thus far in this respect and what still needed to be done. In addition, we wanted to know how the results of this research could be integrated into the picture that had been formed on the basis of the study of biblical manuscripts. Though the significance of the Fathers in discussions on the origins of the Peshitta pointed to their importance, and the pioneering work of Gustav Diettrich already called for a full study of the Syriac patristic sources,2 we were also aware of Moshe Goshen-Gottstein’s warning that ‘it cannot be said that any of the early commentaries, etc., consistently quotes the Peshitta text verbatim from written copies’.3 He also pointed out the problem that not a few quotations seemed to belong to a tradition different from the Peshitta. In his opinion, the Fathers could yield only corroborating evidence. He maintained that for an editio minor, ‘the gains from a perusal of the commentaries and homilies . . . would hardly justify the effort’.4 Jenner and I were curious to see whether the developments of the last decades had brought any new insight that could break the deadlock.5 We also suggested broaching a different, but related subject at the Symposium. Peshitta scholars, we observed, have come to appreciate the importance of providing a context for the textual history of the Peshitta. On the one hand, this is the context of church history. Peshitta manuscripts should be linked, if possible, to their place of origin or use. 2 Cf. the Preface in G. Diettrich, Apparatus criticus zur Peˇsitto zum Propheten Jesaia (BZAW 8; Gießen, 1905). 3 M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Peshitta’, in his Text and Language in Bible and Qumran (Jerusalem, 1960), 163–204, esp. 197; reprinted in Ch. Rabin, Studies in the Bible (Scripta Hierosolymitana 8; Jerusalem, 1961), 26–67, esp. 60. 4 Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Prolegomena to a Critical Edition’, 199 (reprint, 62). 5 Cf. also K.D. Jenner, W.Th. van Peursen, and E. Talstra, ‘calap: An Interdisciplinary Debate between Textual Criticism, Textual History and Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis’, in P.S.F. van Keulen and W.Th. van Peursen, Corpus Linguistics and Textual History: A Computer-Assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshitta (SSN 48; Assen, 2006), 13–44, esp. 36–39.

PREFACE

xv

The development of the text is an event within the history of the Syriac Churches, as the late David Lane used to say.6 The witness of the Syriac Fathers can also be of great importance in this respect. On the other hand, we should think of the history of exegesis and liturgy. It is not only the text of the readings that is of interest; we should also investigate the way in which the Peshitta was received and assessed by its users, whether in exegetical or historical literature or in liturgy. Finally, Jenner and I decided also to open the Symposium to contributions on the New Testament, as we were convinced that the relevance of the issues just mentioned would not be limited to the Old Testament. The volume opens with three keynote addresses, which give a full survey of the field. Sebastian Brock discusses the lectionary systems of the various Syriac traditions and the use of the Bible in Syriac liturgy, Lucas Van Rompay treats the Syriac commentaries on the Old Testament, and Bill Petersen introduces us to the complicated world of the Syriac versions of the New Testament, stressing their value and that of the Syriac commentators. The latter offer us alternative, sometimes ancient forms of the text, as well as glimpses of ancient theologies that go back to the first centuries. Several of these issues and additional ones are treated in the twenty-one papers which follow. If one browses through this volume, it becomes apparent that no one fully shares Goshen-Gottstein’s negative attitude towards patristic quotations. We should mention David Lane’s pessimism, however. His study of quotations of Leviticus in a number of writers showed him first and foremost that quotation is a genre of rhetoric. Its focus is on meaning rather than wording. Though there may be errors in quotations through failure of memory, more often the argument in which it is deployed determines its form. ‘Ignorance of an author’s aim and method invalidates use of that author’s quotations as evidence for a particular reading or type of text’ is Lane’s first law, and ‘The character of the literature quoted influences its choice and handling’ his first amendment. These rules do not make the use of quotations completely impossible, but they do warn us to apply the utmost care. More optimistic is Bob Owens, who takes up the gauntlet and argues that in recent years a number of careful studies of Syriac Bible quotations have succeeded in discovering a coherent textual profile in the corpus analysed.7 Most patristic authors did not abandon the intention of reproducing their 6 Cf. D.J. Lane, The Peshit.ta of Leviticus (MPIL 6; Leiden, 1994), as well as his ‘Text, Scholar, and Church: The Place of the Leiden Peshit.ta within the Context of Scholastically and Ecclesiastically Definitive Versions’, JSSt 38 (1993), 33–47. 7 See note 27 on pp. 240–241 of the present volume.

xvi

PREFACE

biblical text when quoting Scripture, he maintains. His own study of the use of Proverbs in Aphrahat shows firm agreement of this author’s text with that of the majority of biblical manuscripts. Lane and Owens would seem to agree that a good knowledge of an author’s method, of the demands of his argument, and of the genre of the material quoted are conditions that should be met before we even start thinking of collecting his biblical quotations. There is, however, an additional issue we should keep in mind: that of the genre of the text in which the Bible is quoted. Thus Lucas Van Rompay singles out commentaries as being especially useful to scholars of the Peshitta text. They have the closest relationship to the biblical text, which they follow in their structure and composition. He explains that the sceptical attitude towards patristic quotations, as exemplified by Goshen-Gottstein, is related to the indiscriminate and uncritical use of quotations from all sorts of sources. Commentaries, Van Rompay stresses, differ from homilies and other genres. The role of the biblical text in them requires us to study them as a separate class of material. In an appendix he lists the commentaries that should be taken into account in an edition of the Peshitta Old Testament. This list is also most helpful to those who are preparing the English translation of the Peshitta, The Bible of Edessa. But is the study of these commentaries indeed worth the trouble, and what do they contribute to our knowledge of the text history? Just an example: according to Van Rompay Ephrem had a biblical manuscript to hand when he was writing his commentaries on Genesis and Exodus. His biblical text can be positioned between 5b1 and the later Peshitta. One cannot discern a linear development from 5b1 to Ephrem and then on to 7a1, however. Ephrem’s text should rather be viewed as a witness to an early stage of the tradition that was characterized by diversity: gradually the textual tradition moved away from the Hebrew original, but this development took place at different places and in different ways. This demonstrates how the evidence of a Father can add to a picture which was based only on biblical manuscripts. Even late authors appear to have preserved variant readings that go back to the earliest stage of the tradition. In addition, Van Rompay shows how the Fathers can illustrate and correct our picture of such developments as the transition from the btr text of the second stage of the tradition to the Textus Receptus (tr) or later standard text. In his contribution on Sergius the Stylite’s Disputation against a Jew, Peter Hayman divides the nature of its biblical quotations into a number of categories. He shows that even in this type of polemical literature, one group of quotations consisted of direct, exact quotations of the Peshitta. A study of these shows that the Disputation was written

PREFACE

xvii

at a time just before tr readings began to spread across the textual tradition. His samples make it clear that it is worth trawling even other patristic genres for readings which demonstrate that 5b1, 6b1, and 9a1 are not unique and isolated, as long as this is done with care. If we are seeking the oldest witnesses to the Peshitta text, Jan Joosten rightly calls our attention to the fact that the first patristic author to quote the Old Testament Peshitta is Tatian, the author of the Diatessaron, in the second century. Joosten explores the Syriac versions of the New Testament as witnesses to the Syriac Old Testament. He demonstrates that the earliest translators tended to follow the Peshitta in their renderings of Old Testament quotations. It was the later tradition that corrected the readings in accordance with the Greek text of the New Testament. In the meantime, the Acts of Judas Thomas offer us a window into the third century. They do not offer literal quotations of the Old Testament, but according to Craig Morrison they can tell us more about the New Testament. Interestingly, the two citations he studied do not seem to derive from the Diatessaron. One case even seems to suggest that the author of the Acts borrowed the text from the Vetus Syra. Christian Lange, on the other hand, suggests that Edessan Christians were still working on the translation of the separate Gospels during Ephrem’s lifetime. The readings of ‘the Greek’ in the ‘basic version’ of the Commentary on the Diatessaron would seem to reflect the Vetus Syra, whereas his disciples may have known a ‘Pre-Peshitta’ text. With Lange’s study, we have returned to the ‘safe ground’ of the genre of the commentary. A different type of literature which is perhaps even closer to the biblical text is introduced by Andreas Juckel: the so-called Syriac Masora. He argues that on the orthographical and textual levels, we can distinguish a revisional ‘pre-masoretic’ period and a philological ‘masoretic’ one in the text history of the New Testament Peshitta: before the seventh century, the text and orthography were not regularized; after it, they are in elaborate condition. This points us to the need for a study of the Old Testament ‘Masora’: there might also be a connection between these traditions and the standardization of the Old Testament Peshitta. Especially difficult to use for the study of the biblical text are the various liturgical genres. In his keynote address, Sebastian Brock warns us that liturgical texts are full of allusions to biblical passages, but also deliberately change the wording in order to establish links with other passages. He gives examples of how easily the textual critic may be misled by the transfer of key terms from the liturgy to quotations of related biblical passages. On the other hand, he also shows the richness of this material, in imagery, but also in remnants of Diatessaronic readings,

xviii

PREFACE

Targumic traditions, and exegetical connections. Aho Shemunkasho explains in his contribution that the Breviary of the Syrian Orthodox Church often presents a conflation of various verses from the New Testament in various translations. Though one can find readings of the Harclean, the Old Syriac, and possibly even the Diatessaron, the genre of the prayer book often presents the biblical text freely, in such a way that it fits the poetic context and can speak to the heart of the person reciting it. A first step in making this material available would be the edition of a critical text and a study of the sources used in the Breviary. An excellent example of such a critical study of liturgical texts is found in Baby Varghese’s contribution on New Testament quotations in the West Syrian anaphoras. Though the nature of commentaries makes them more fit for the study of the biblical text, Van Rompay agrees with Lane and Owens that before one can cull quotations from a text, one has to familiarize oneself with the style and technique of the author. Thus one should distinguish Ephrem’s summarizing paragraphs, where the biblical text appears in an edited form, from the full quotations at the beginning of each paragraph. As one cannot study the biblical quotations without a good picture of the use of the text and the exegetical method followed, the two issues we broached at the conference—the history of the biblical text and the context of its use and reception—can indeed not be separated. Van Rompay himself describes Ephrem’s genre and method, which are unparalleled in Greek or later Syriac commentaries. These later works are strongly influenced by Greek traditions, which divided East and West Syrians. An inquiry into the hermeneutical characteristics of the Syriac Fathers and the Greek Antiochene exegetes is found in Shinichi Muto’s paper. He likewise stresses the original features of early Syriac exegetes such as Ephrem and Aphrahat. Whereas the Antiochenes seem to follow an author-oriented approach, for the early Syrians the meaning for the readers is most important. According to the Antiochenes, the sense of the Bible is plain and Scripture interprets itself. According to the Syrians, an interpreter understands just a tiny number of the images in the text. For them, interpretation includes application. Aphrahat’s exegetical method is also the subject of Marinus Koster’s paper on his use of the Old Testament. He observes specifically Jewish features in his exegesis. Aphrahat combined these, through the use of typology, with specifically Christian ideas: typology allowed him to compare New Testament characters to Old Testament ones. Kristian Heal points to the genre of the dramatic dialogue poems on the Old Testament. In his study of the material on the patriarch Joseph,

PREFACE

xix

he explains how they often expanded the biblical narrative in response to exegetical questions, using traditional motifs in a creative manner. Further study should establish the extent of the interrelatedness of the Syriac sources, as well as the relationship with Jewish exegetical material. Alison Salvesen draws our attention to lexical issues, which represent the ‘micro’ level of biblical interpretation. The lists of obscure words in Theodore bar Koni’s Scholion remind us that the Peshitta text contained Hebraistic renderings, archaisms, and obscure technical terms that needed to be explained to readers in later centuries. They can be compared with the lexical changes in Jacob of Edessa’s revision of the Old Testament. The translators of the Bible of Edessa project will be pleased to know that they are not the only ones who are perplexed by some of the Peshitta’s expressions—though what Theodore and Jacob found difficult is not always what we do not understand. Questions of canonicity come up in David Phillips’ contribution. The patristic and biblical manuscript evidence can balance our view of the traditions regarding the acceptance of Chronicles in the Syriac Churches. Until now, scholars have depended too much on the statements of the ancient ‘theoreticians’ of canonicity. Thus it appears that the East Syrian Church did not simply reject Chronicles, as is often assumed. At the time of Abdisho, but possibly earlier, it had become fully incorporated into its canon. This point brings us to the influence of the readers of a text on its tradition. A special case of such influence is formed by ‘paratextual’ details such as those studied by David Taylor. He surveys the complicated situation of the Psalm headings in the West Syrian tradition. The earliest distinctive West Syrian headings derive from Daniel of S.alah.’s commentary. Taylor argues that the headings used before were actually those of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Later West Syrian authors such as Dionysius bar S.alibi and Barhebraeus returned to this (now anonymous) tradition. A third source was formed by a list of hypotheseis attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea. Arie van der Kooij discusses the historical explanations we find in manuscripts of the Peshitta of Daniel, and in particular the identification of the four kingdoms in Daniel 7. They have been added to the Syriac text, probably under the influence of Greek exegetical traditions, at a later date. This must have happened after Aphrahat, but before the sixth century. A striking feature of Syriac commentaries, related to the cultural and linguistic position of the Syriac Churches, is their awareness of the existence of various alternative versions of the biblical text. They often

xx

PREFACE

refer to the readings of ‘the Hebrew’ and ‘the Greek’. Jerry Lund studied the references to ‘the Hebrew’ in Ishodad of Merv’s commentary on Ezekiel. He concludes that the term was probably used for information derived by whatever route from the Hebrew Bible or Jewish tradition. His knowledge of isolated Hebrew words and readings appears to be secondary. Ishodad derived this knowledge in part from his sources and in part from an informant. He did not know Hebrew himself. The Greek Bible gained popularity among the Syrians, to such an extent that it became a serious rival to the Peshitta. However, in my own contribution I show how the Peshitta remained influential among the West Syrians, even in the seventh century, when the popularity of the Syro-Hexapla was at its highest. Translators and editors of Greek commentaries had replaced the Peshitta as the source of Old Testament readings first by the biblical text of the commentaries themselves, and later by the Syro-Hexapla. Still, a typical seventh-century composition such as the London Collection could not completely do without the Peshitta. Therefore it gives the impression of being a Greek companion to the Syriac Bible. One of the texts used by the London compiler is a shortened version of the Syriac version of Athanasius’ Exposition of the Psalms. Harry van Rooy studied the biblical quotations in the longer version which formed its basis. He maintains that these quotations have been taken from a proto-Hexaplaric, probably Philoxenian version of the Psalter. An important argument for him is the parallel with the West Syrian translations of New Testament commentaries: it has been suggested that their translators consulted the Philoxenian version when rendering the biblical text of their models. Philoxenus of Mabbug himself is studied by Wido van Peursen, who analysed the four quotations from Sirach in his Discourses. These show remarkable differences from the Peshitta. However, neither the idea that Philoxenus quoted the Peshitta in a loose manner, nor the thesis that he used a Philoxenian version of Sirach are satisfactory solutions. Further investigation of the quotations from other books in the Discourses is necessary. Interestingly, it appears that Philoxenus is very well aware of the context of the quotations he gives, as he uses words and themes of the surrounding verses in his argument. The use of different versions is also an issue in Dionysius bar S.alibi’s Commentary on the Psalms. It has long been thought that his choice of biblical version—Peshitta or a Syriac version based on the Greek— was related to another principle that governed the form and structure of this work: the division between factual and spiritual commentaries. Steve Ryan shows that this is not the case. In fact, the Syro-Hexapla plays only a minor role. The Peshitta can also be used for spiritual

PREFACE

xxi

interpretations. Rather than by a conviction on the right translation of the Bible, the choice between the versions may have been dictated by Dionysius’ sources. In sum, we can say that the members of this Symposium were eager to explore the Syriac patristic and liturgical texts. The biblical manuscripts handed down to us are merely a small sample of those once current in the Middle East; this sample is accidental, and not necessarily representative. The oldest extant manuscripts were actually written centuries after the Peshitta was translated. Therefore we are just not in a position to discard any additional evidence. Moreover, the quotations from the Fathers can help us to place a certain text form in its chronological and geographical context, and help us to interpret the difficulties in the Peshitta text. Perhaps even more importantly, we would not like to be deprived of the richness of their comparisons and their imagery. The history of research also teaches us, however, that the study of the biblical text of these sources should be done with the utmost care, with a clear picture of the nature of the source material, the approach to the Bible, and the exegetical method used. The publication of this volume would not have been possible without the assistance of Abigail Rousseau and Mirjam Croughs, who helped me with the editorial work and the typesetting of the articles. I thank the contributors for their patience and their willingness to revise and update their articles. I also owe a special debt of gratitude to my colleague Dr Konrad Jenner, with whom I organized the Third Peshitta Symposium. Although he was eventually not able to act as editor of this volume himself, he stimulated me to finish the project which we started together, and helped in selecting the contributions and in proofreading. Together we decided to dedicate this volume to the memory of our friend David J. Lane. In the second half of the 1960s, David Lane became associated with the Leiden Peshitta Institute, and he began to make regular visits to Leiden. Here he worked on several volumes of the Peshitta edition and other publications, including his monograph on the Peshitta of Leviticus and his edition of Shubh.almaran’s Book of Gifts, and he befriended several generations of Leiden Peshitta scholars. Most of the contributors to this volume have also enjoyed his oratory talent at conferences and meetings, his sense of humour, and above all his warm and loyal friendship. Personally I remember with gratitude the support he gave me as a young scholar from our very first meeting at the Cambridge Symposium Syriacum in 1992. His sudden death in India,

xxii

PREFACE

where he volunteered to teach at the Saint Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, shocked all of us. For yet another reason it seems fitting to dedicate this volume to David Lane. It was he who stressed the importance of taking Peshitta studies, initially mainly directed towards the needs of students of biblical exegesis and textual criticism, into the wider field of Syriac church history and liturgy. His study of Peshitta Leviticus not only suggested the theme of the Second Peshitta Symposium, but was also a source of inspiration to the discussions at the Peshitta Institute which I mentioned at the beginning of this Preface, and which led to the Third Peshitta Symposium of which this volume contains the papers. In his contribution Lucas Van Rompay states that ‘Peshitta studies have become fully integrated into the field of Syriac studies, and the Syriac Bible, as the object of our scholarly endeavours, is now being fully restored to its proper domain: the Syriac Christian communities, the Syriac schools, monasteries, and churches.’ If this is true, we have indeed realized David Lane’s vision. Bas ter Haar Romeny Leiden, November 2006

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Sebastian P. Brock, formerly Reader in Syriac Studies in the University of Oxford, is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford. A. Peter Hayman, formerly Senior Lecturer in Hebrew and Jewish Studies, is an Honorary Fellow in the School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. Kristian S. Heal is a Research Scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University and Director of the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts. Konrad D. Jenner was formerly University Lecturer in Old Testament Studies at Leiden University and Director of the Peshitta Institute. Jan Joosten is Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at the Facult´e de Th´eologie Protestante of the Marc Bloch University in Strasbourg, France. Andreas Juckel is a Research Associate at the Oriental Department of the the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, M¨ unster, Westphalia. Arie van der Kooij is Professor of Old Testament at Leiden University and Director of the Peshitta Institute. Marinus D. Koster was formerly Minister of the Remonstrantse Broederschap in Meppel and Zwolle, Hengelo, and Rotterdam; now emeritus in Bathmen, the Netherlands. David J. Lane taught in the Universities of Oxford and Toronto and was Principal of the College of the Resurrection, Mirfield, West Yorkshire. He passed away on the 9th of January, 2005. Christian Lange is Lecturer at the University of Bamberg and Managing Director of the Arbeitsstelle f¨ ur die Kunde des Christlichen Orients ¨ und der Ostkirchlichen Okumene. Jerome A. Lund is Senior Research Associate at the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon project, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Craig E. Morrison, O.Carm., is Associate Professor of Syriac and Aramaic at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome.

xxiv

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Shinichi Muto is Associate Professor at Osaka Prefectural College of Technology, Japan. Robert J. Owens is Professor of Old Testament and Director of the Center for Jewish-Christian Studies and Relations, The General Theological Seminary in New York. William L. Petersen is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the Pennsylvania State University, located in University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. Wido van Peursen is a Research Fellow at the Peshitta Institute Leiden and director of the turgama project. David Phillips is a freelance researcher in the field of Syriac studies and lives in Court-Saint-Etienne, Belgium. Bas ter Haar Romeny is Professor of Old Testament and Eastern Christian Traditions at Leiden University. Harry F. van Rooy is Professor of Old Testament at North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus), Potchefstroom, South Africa. Stephen D. Ryan, O.P., is Associate Professor of Scripture at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, dc. Alison Salvesen is a University Research Lecturer at the Oriental Institute, University of Oxford, and Fellow in Jewish Bible Versions at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. Aho Shemunkasho is a University Research Lecturer in Church History and Patristics at the University of Salzburg, Austria. David G.K. Taylor is University Lecturer in Aramaic and Syriac at the Oriental Institute, University of Oxford. Lucas Van Rompay is Professor of Eastern Christianity at Duke University, North Carolina. Baby Varghese is Priest of the Malankara Orthodox Church, Professor of Liturgical Studies at the Orthodox Theological Seminary and at seeri, both in Kottayam, Kerala, India.

KEYNOTE LECTURES

THE USE OF THE SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY Sebastian P. Brock

Today we are so used to having readily at hand printed copies of the entire Bible that it requires at least a momentary effort of the imagination to think back to the experience of members of the Syriac Churches over the centuries. Complete Peshitta Bibles (or indeed just complete Peshitta Old Testaments) are of course very rare, and the commonest Syriac biblical manuscripts contain just the Psalter or the Gospels. Furthermore, most people’s familiarity with the biblical text would be through its use in a liturgical context. This would most obviously be through the cycle of Biblical Lections or Readings throughout the liturgical year. But beside this direct contact, the biblical text would be encountered indirectly in many different ways: – through homilies (and here one thinks above all of the characteristically Syriac phenomenon of the verse homily, which had such outstanding practitioners as Narsai and Jacob of Serugh; – through innumerable clear allusions incorporated into the liturgical texts (direct quotations are rare); – through technical terms and phraseology in the liturgical texts which have their origins in the Syriac Bible. (Here one might observe that the Peshitta has had an influence on later Syriac writers that is analogous to that of the King James Version on subsequent English literature.) In this paper I will be looking at both the direct and the indirect ways in which the Syriac Bible has been used in the Syriac liturgical tradition—or rather, traditions in the plural, for we are dealing with several different traditions each of which developed and changed over the course of time: firstly, the East Syriac liturgical tradition of the Church of the East and the Chaldean Church; and then the three West Syriac traditions, the Syrian Orthodox (and Syrian Catholic), the Maronite and the Melkite. (It is important not to forget this last tradition, the Melkite, since Syriac provides virtually the only witness to its original Antiochene form, and even after the rite had been Byzantinized (from about the 10th cent. onwards), Syriac remained one of the languages of this rite, alongside Arabic and Greek, until the early 17th century.) In this paper, however, I shall be drawing almost all my material from the

4

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

two traditions for which the evidence is most extensive, namely those of the Church of the East and the Syrian Orthodox. 1. The Direct Use: Biblical Lections In our surviving Syriac biblical manuscripts there is specific evidence for the existence of fixed readings for particular occasions from the sixth century onwards. Initially readings probably only covered the main liturgical Feasts and particular occasions (such as Baptism, or the Consecration of a church), but already by the sixth century they had been extended to Sundays and further Feasts, as well as all the days of the weeks before and after the Resurrection (Easter) and the middle week of Lent;1 and then, in the early Middle Ages, specified readings for all the days of Lent, as well as for various other occasions, would also be provided. None of the many different Syriac lectionary cycles,2 however, ever went on to provide lections for all the days of the year.3 Normally the biblical passages are selected for their appropriateness to the liturgical occasion,4 and the principle of ‘lectio continua’—reading a biblical book from beginning to end—seems to be found only in the later lectionary cycles, such as those covering all the days of Lent. 1

This is already the case in the fifth-century index of lections, mentioned below. The main studies are A. Baumstark, Nichtevangelische syrische Perikopenordnungen des ersten Jahrhunderts (Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 3; M¨ unster, 1921); F.C. Burkitt, ‘The Early Syriac Lectionary System’, Proceedings of the British Academy (1921–23), 301–338; W.F. Macomber, ‘The Chaldean Lectionary System of the Cathedral Church of Kokhe’, OCP 33 (1967), 483–516; P. Kannookadan, The East Syrian Lectionary. A Historico-Liturgical Study (Rome, 1991); K.D. Jenner, De Perikopentitels van de ge¨ıllustreerde Syrische kanselbijbel van Parijs (Diss. Leiden, 1993); idem, ‘The Development of the Syriac Lectionary Systems’, The Harp 10 (1997), 9–24; and idem, ‘The Relationship between Biblical Text and Lectionary Systems in the Eastern Church’, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of M.P. Weitzman (JSOT.S 333; Sheffield, 2001), 376–411. 3 The East Syriac tradition formerly had separate monastic and non-monastic (‘Cathedral’) lectionary systems, but ultimately the former became the norm: it can most readily be found in A.J. Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices (London, 1894; reprinted Farnborough, 1969), 264–290, or in Mar Aprem, Nestorian Lectionary and Julian Calendar (Trichur, 1982); the old Cathedral system is given in Macomber, ‘The Chaldean Lectionary System’. A concordance of Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholic systems, based on printed sources, is given by L. Chidiac, G. KhouriSarkis, and P. Vermeulen, ‘Tableau des p´ericopes bibliques dans les ´eglises de langue syriaque’, OrSyr 3 (1958), 359–386; 12 (1967), 211–240, 371–388, 525–548. 4 It is interesting to note that the incipits often do not coincide with the earlier paragraph breaks of the biblical manuscripts. 2

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

5

This of course means that a certain number of biblical books never get read at all in a liturgical context, and this applies to all of the four main Syriac liturgical traditions. Thus, while it is not surprising that books which originally did not belong to the early Syriac New Testament biblical canon, such as Revelation, never feature in any Syriac lectionary cycle, the total absence, for example, of anything from Leviticus, the Song of Songs, or James in the remarkably full fifth-century list of lections in the British Library is striking.5 Though Leviticus does feature in the later East Syriac lectionary cycle, the Song of Songs and James are still absent, and so are quite a number of OT books, including 2 Samuel, Proverbs, and Hosea.6 On the other hand, lections might at times be taken from books that, from a western point of view, fall quite outside the OT canon; thus the fifth-century list of lections includes, not only a passage from Ben Sira, but also one from ‘The Hypomnemata of Simon Peter and Paul’ (probably the Clementine Recognitions), and the Martyrdom of Thekla. This is not the place—or time—to elaborate on the content of the different lectionary cycles that come down to us. Here, all that is necessary to observe is that the East Syriac system is far more stable than the West Syriac ones.7 In the Syrian Orthodox Church, for example, it is only within the last half century or so that one particular cycle has become the dominant one.8 What I would, however, like to dwell on here a little is, not so much the contents as the mechanics of how the lections were identified; in other words, the practical question of how did the Lector or Reader find the place? Over the course of the centuries five main stages can be distinguished.

5 Edited by Burkitt, ‘The Early Syriac Lectionary System’. An earlier date, (second half of the fourth century) has been proposed by M. Merras, ‘The Date of the Earliest Syriac Lectionary, Br.M. 14528’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (OCA 256; Rome, 1998), 565–585. 6 See Mar Aprem, Nestorian Lectionary, 63, 84–85. 7 The contents of the large lectionary of 824 in Add. 14485–14487 are described by O. Heiming, ‘Ein jakobitisches Doppellektionar des Jahres 824 aus Harran in den HSS Add. 14485 bis 14487’, in P. Granfield and J.A. Jungmann (eds.), Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten 2 (M¨ unster, 1970), 768–799. Also in the British Library is a very individual lectionary devised by Patriarch Athanasius V, preserved in Add. 12139 (dated ad 999/1000), whose contents are listed by W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since 1838 1 (London, 1870), 154–159. 8 This goes back to the printed list produced by M.H. Dolap¨ on¨ u, Mukaddes ayrılların fihristi/P—kn^Z–P P—kj_~ P–[„S |j‘—vZ Q{jÑZ Q{j_dv (Mardin, 1954; 2nd ed., 1984).

6

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

1. The earliest evidence in biblical manuscripts comes from the sixth century. (It seems that the few definitely fifth-century biblical manuscripts have no lectionary indications at all.) In sixth-century biblical manuscripts, whether of books of the Old or of the New Testament, it is quite common to find an occasional lectionary rubric inserted into the body of the biblical text.9 Thus of the two surviving sixth-century mss of Peshitta Isaiah, 6h3 provides 16 such lectionary rubrics incorporated into the text,10 while 6h5 has 19 (and many others added later in the margin).11 Even earlier than the sixth century, however, is the unique list, mentioned above, giving just the references to which passages are to be read in the course of the liturgical year. The list runs from the Nativity to Pentecost, and then continues with special commemorations or occasions (e.g. ordinations). The middle week of Lent, Holy Week, and the ‘Week of Rest’ (following the Feast of the Resurrection) all already have provision for each day of the week. Two surprising facets are worth mentioning in passing: first, the quantity of lections listed for each liturgical occasion (e.g. Epiphany has 17 lections, 14 from the OT, the remainder one each from Acts, the Pauline Epistles and Gospels); and secondly, the great length of many of the passages specified: Burkitt, who made a remarkable study of the manuscript, calculated that the lections for Ascension Day worked out at no less than 444 verses!12 But of much greater relevance from our present point of view is how passages are indicated. Two systems are used: for the Gospels, the passages are identified first by using the Eusebian canon numbers, and then by giving the opening and closing words. Outside the Gospels, where no such convenient system of reference such as the Eusebian canon numbers was yet available, the passages are simply identified by their opening and final words. This of course required a good knowledge of the biblical book in question in order to locate the passage, but already 9 Much material on this in early manuscripts in the British Library is collected by Burkitt, ‘The Early Syriac Lectionary System’; lists for Gospel readings in individual early manuscripts can be found in A. Merk, ‘Das ¨ alteste Perikopensystem des Rabbulakodex’, ZKTh 37 (1913), 202–214; A. Allgeier, ‘Cod. syr. Phillipps 1388 und seine ¨ altesten Perikopenmerke’, OrChr ns 6 (1916), 147–152; A. R¨ ucker, ‘Ein weiterer Zeuge der ¨ alteren Perikopenordnung der syrischen Jakobiten’, OrChr ns 7–8 (1918), 146–153. 10 Listed in S.P. Brock (ed.), The Old Testament in Syriac 3.1 Isaiah (Leiden, 1987), ix (for Isa 52:13, read ‘Thursday of Mysteries’ (not ‘Sunday’); similarly in the table in Jenner, Perikopentitels, 402). 11 Listed in Brock, Isaiah, x (for Isa 63:1, read ‘Tuesday of Holy Week’; the indication at Isa 1:1 is in a later hand). 12 ‘The Early Syriac Lectionary System’, 320.

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

7

in the sixth century we find the practice of placing at appropriate places in the margins of biblical manuscripts a qoph (for Q{j‘, ‘lection’) to indicate the beginning of a reading, and (less frequently) a shin (for xs“, ‘it is ended’) to indicate the end. 2. The second stage belongs to the seventh/eighth century. For the purposes of liturgical use an ordinary biblical manuscript will now be provided with a table at the beginning, listing the lections according to the sequence of the liturgical year; their place in the manuscript will in each case be indicated by the number of the quire, or gathering (normally of 10 folios) [m = Q~_n], followed by the number of the opening [† = Qc—‡]. In the biblical text itself, at the relevant opening, there will be a qoph and shin for easy identification of the beginning and ending. 3. A revolutionary change in practice is the hallmark of the third stage. The passages to be read are now excerpted from biblical manuscripts and then put together in the sequence in which they are to be read in the course of the liturgical year. In other words, the genre of the Lectionary proper is now created. In the Syriac ecclesiastical traditions this seems to have occurred in the eighth or early ninth century, for the earliest surviving Lectionary manuscripts belong to the ninth century. Remarkably enough, this not only coincides with the widespread introduction of Lectionary manuscripts in the Greek tradition, but it also seems to coincide more or less with the introduction of the serto script in the West Syriac tradition and the minuscule script in Greek. It is also the time when many earlier manuscripts were reused, thus producing palimpsests. What all these disparate developments have in common is the fact that they all take up less writing material (at this period still vellum); in other words, the motivating factor will have been economic, due to the widespread scarcity and thus, no doubt, high price of vellum at this particular period. For practical purposes of size, lectionary manuscripts are usually specialised according to different parts of the Bible, the three main groupings being Old Testament Lections, Lections from Acts and the Epistles, and those from the Gospels. Gospel Lectionaries, above all in the late twelfth and the thirteenth century, were sometimes illustrated, and these illuminated manuscripts constitute one of the chief glories of the Syriac artistic tradition. The creation of a separate lectionary manuscript required a choice of a specific biblical text. In the case of the Church of the East, whose only Syriac biblical version was the Peshitta, the matter was straightforward,

8

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

but for the Syrian Orthodox there was a plethora of versions available by c.800, besides the Peshitta: in the Old Testament, there was the Syro-Hexapla, and for certain books, a version often known as the ‘Syro-Lucianic’ (which may well be associated with Philoxenus), and Jacob of Edessa’s remarkable revision, made right at the end of his life. For the New Testament, though the Old Syriac Gospels were no longer in circulation, the revision of the NT sponsored by Philoxenus may have been, and the Harclean certainly was. In the surviving OT lectionaries, readings taken from the Syro-Hexapla are indeed sometimes found,13 while only a single passage has been identified as coming from Jacob’s revision,14 this despite the fact that the early manuscripts containing his revision are all provided throughout with lectionary rubrics and initial tables of lections.15 Straightforward biblical manuscripts containing books of the Syro-Hexapla likewise from an early date were sometimes provided with lectionary rubrics, thus indicating that a precedent for the use of the Syro-Hexapla was already in existence before the invention of the lectionary manuscript proper.16 In the case of New Testament lectionary manuscripts, it was only in Gospel lectionaries that use seems to have been made of the Harclean, either alongside passages from the Peshitta, or constituting the sole text. An intriguing early development, once the idea of a special Gospel lectionary had come into existence, was the creation of harmonised lections, based on all four Gospels, for use during Holy Week. This seems to be the creation of Daniel of Batin in the ninth century.17 Once the idea of a separate Lectionary manuscript for liturgical use had come into fashion, one might have supposed that it would have continued uninterrupted until the present day, when Lectionary manuscripts are in widespread use in the different Churches. This, however, was not the case, at least in the Syrian Orthodox Church, for at an uncertain date, but definitely by the twelfth century, a fourth 13

See, for example, W. Baars, New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts (Leiden, 1968). Published by W. Baars, ‘Ein neugefundenes Bruchst¨ uck aus der syrischen Bibelrevision des Jakob von Edessa’, VT 18 (1968), 548–554; it contains Wis 2:12–24. 15 For the manuscript of his revision of Samuel, see A.G. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (MPIL 10; Leiden, 1999), xlii–xliii. 16 An early example is provided by Add. 12134 (Exodus Syh), dated 696/7. 17 The system has been studied by A.-S. Marmardji, Le Diatessaron de Tatien (Beirut, 1935), Appendice, 1*–75* (with an edition), and M.A. Weigelt, Diatessaric Harmonies of the Passion Narrative in the Harclean Syriac Version (dissertation Princeton Theological Seminary, 1969). Some harmonised lections are to be found for the Thursday and Friday of Holy Week in the East Syriac Cathedral lectionary system: see Macomber, ‘The Chaldean Lectionary System’, 504. 14

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

9

system had come into use, even though the previous system, of separate lectionary mss, also continued in use. 4. This fourth stage, which seems to have been confined to the New Testament, consists in a return to the use of straightforward biblical manuscripts for liturgical purposes, but providing these with a new referencing system for finding the appropriate lection for a particular day. The lections would be numbered, following the order of their occurrence in the Bible; the opening would be provided with the relevant rubric, and a shin would indicate the end. The liturgical key, as it were, to finding the right lesson for the right day was then provided at the beginning or the end of the manuscript, where a table of feasts and commemorations, arranged according to the sequence of the liturgical year, would indicate the appropriate lection, identifying it simply by means of its number—a beautifully simple and effective system. These tables would sometimes be presented in a highly decorative way. Quite often medieval scribes would insert into the margins of a much older manuscript indications of numbered lections, in accordance with the practice of this fourth stage. One might well wonder why there should be this reversion to an older system, albeit in a much refined form. Perhaps the explanation lies in the great variety in the choice of lections that is to be found in Syrian Orthodox manuscripts: whereas a lectionary manuscript would confine its users to one particular choice of lections throughout the year, the system employing biblical manuscripts with numbered lections was far more flexible. 5. In modern times, two printed editions containing liturgical readings from the New Testament have been produced by the Syrian Orthodox Church in Europe, both the work of Mor Julius C ¸ i¸cek. The first is a beautifully calligraphed Gospel lectionary,18 in the bishop’s own hand (the colophon tells how long he took to write it out). Although, being a lectionary manuscript proper, with the lections arranged in liturgical sequence, a table of lections is added for good measure, even though it is not strictly necessary. In the case of the other edition, with lections from the Pauline Epistles,19 the sequence is again according to the liturgical year. An innovation is that the lections are numbered, thus making 18 19

Qkz—{“ Qkn^‘n ]sor Q”j[ y_ksXz^P (Mor Ephrem Monastery, Glane, 1987). P–ÑWPZ Q{jÑ ’_‡/Lectionary of the Syriac Epistles (Mor Ephrem Monastery,

Glane, 1992).

10

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

possible an index of passages listed in their biblical sequence. In effect, this neatly combines stages three and four.20 2. Indirect Use I have already indicated the variety of Syriac liturgical rites, with considerable variation over time and space within each of the different ecclesial bodies. But there is also great variety in the different sorts of liturgical books. These range from the many Eucharist Anaphoras (over 70 in the Syrian Orthodox tradition!) to services for particular occasions, baptism, marriage, funerals etc; but especially important are the service books for the different parts of the liturgical year, constituting huge compendia of prose and, above all, poetry. In printed form these run to over 3000 pages in the East Syriac tradition,21 and to some 4000 pages in the West Syriac.22 In all of these texts biblical allusions and reminiscences abound. Accordingly, out of this vast embarras de richesses I shall concentrate on three different aspects: (1) the biblical sources of certain distinctive terms that are recurrent in the liturgical texts; (2) some problems concerning the textual basis of certain terms; and (3) a few exegetical aspects. 1. Before turning to a selection of important terms, it might be noted in passing that a number of other renderings specific to the Peshitta have given rise to phrases that are recurrent in Syriac liturgical texts as well as in Syriac literature in general—phrases such as ‘new life’ (Rom 6:4, Greek ‘newness of life’), ‘new world/new age’ (Matt 18:28, Greek ‘rebirth’).23 In early Syriac texts Baptism is often referred to as the Qw“^, or ‘mark’, and this remains a key term in the liturgical baptismal rites, where it is used alongside another term Qv—c, or ‘seal’, corresponding to the Greek sfrag–c, which is the Greek counterpart to the Syriac term Qw“^ in early texts. In passing one might note that juxtapositions 20

This innovation was made at the suggestion of G.A. Kiraz. T. Darmo (ed.), PZ_c (3 vols.; Trichur, 1960–1962), cited as Hudra. This contains rather more texts than the better known Chaldean edition by P. Bedjan, Breviarium iuxta Ritum Syrorum Orientalium id est Chaldaeorum (3 vols.; Paris, 1886–1887; reprinted Rome, 1938). For a concordance, see The Harp 19 (2006), 117–136. 22 Breviarium iuxta Ritum Ecclesiae Antiochenae Syrorum (7 vols.; Mosul, 1886– 1896), cited as Fenqitho. There is also a shorter Indian edition, edited by A. Konat (3 vols.; Pampakuda, 1962–1963). 23 Likewise for some standard monastic terms such as P—knZ P–_rŠ ‘pure prayer’ (1 Chr 16:42). 21

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

11

of two different terms, one originally of Syriac, the other of Greek, origin, is common in the liturgical texts, whose present form can only rarely be taken back earlier than about the 7th century. Where does Qw“^ come from? The biblical source can in fact be identified with reasonable certainty: it is Ezekiel 9:4, where the prophet is told to make a mark (Qw“^ u_“ in the Peshitta) on the foreheads of those to be preserved from destruction; that the mark was to be in the shape of a palaeo-Hebrew tau, that is, a cross-shape, made the term all the more suitable for the early Syriac Church to take over, since in the earliest references available to the baptismal rite, Qw“^ refers to the cross-wise anointing of the forehead with oil in the pre-baptismal anointing that was understood (among other things) as a mark of ownership on entry into the flock of Christ—as the accompanying formula in the Maronite rite still indicates: ‘N in marked as a lamb in the flock of Christ’. In the Eucharistic Anaphoras one of the most important elements is the Invocation, or Epiclesis, of the Holy Spirit. In the course of this invocation a whole variety of verbs is used in connection with what the Spirit is invoked to do: beside such verbs as ‘bless’, ‘make holy’ etc, found in Epicleses in other languages as well, there are three verbs which are distinctive to the Syriac liturgical traditions. The origin of one of these, ‰c, is clearly Genesis 1:2, where this verb is used, in the Peshitta as well as in the Hebrew, of the activity of the µyhwla jwr over the primordial waters. It is true that the root occurs rather more frequently in the Peshitta OT than it does in the Hebrew, but only in Gen 1:2 does it feature with Qc^ as subject, and—despite an exegetical problem to which I shall come—this must be the point of origin for the liturgical technical term, where the Spirit is almost always the subject of the verb. The exegetical problem just referred to is exactly the same as the one encountered by modern biblical translators: is µyhwla jwr to be translated by ‘the Spirit of God’ or by ‘a wind from God’, or even ‘a strong wind’ ? Syriac exegetical tradition is divided over this: thus, while the earliest Syriac reference to Gen 1:2, in the Acts of Thomas,24 takes the Qc^ to be the Holy Spirit, Ephrem on two separate occasions states that it was not, and this was also the view (though for different reasons) of both Narsai and Jacob of Serugh, following the opinion of Theodore of Mopsuestia.25 The combined authority of Ephrem and Theodore, the Exegete par excellence, ensured that the 24 W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Syriac 1 (London, 1871), 209; Vol. 2, 181 (= Chap. 39). 25 For the details see my ‘The Ruah. El¯ oh¯ım of Gen 1:2 and its Reception History in the Syriac Tradition’, in J.-M. Auwers and A. Wenin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (BETL 144; Leuven, 1999), 327–349, esp.

12

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

later East Syriac tradition denied that the P]rPZ ]c^ in Gen 1:2 was the Holy Spirit. Many later West Syriac exegetes, however, following the view attributed by Basil of Caesarea to ‘a learned Syrian’, held that Gen 1:2 did indeed refer to the Holy Spirit. The weight of this opinion was enhanced by the (incorrect) identification, made by Severus of Antioch and others, of the Syrian with Ephrem.26 The fact that Ephrem, Narsai, and Jacob are all quite happy to employ the verb ‰c, and the noun Qˆc^, in connection with the Holy Spirit when the context is not that of Gen 1:2, shows that these terms had already become well established in connection with the Holy Spirit long before the exegetical problem over the identity of the Qc^ in Gen 1:2 had been raised. It so happens that the effects of the controversy in a liturgical context can be excellently illustrated from some West Syriac baptismal services, one Maronite (and still in use) and the other two Syrian Orthodox (no longer employed):27 these three services share quite a number of elements, including the prayer for the sanctification of the baptismal water. In two of these services this prayer includes the following: . . . Cause (this water) to acquire the power of the Holy Spirit. Instead of the womb of Eve which bore as fruit children who were mortal and corruptible, may this baptismal womb of water bear as fruit heavenly and incorruptible children. And just as the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters at the establishment of creation, and they bore as fruit animals and reptiles of all sorts, so, O Lord God, may the Holy Spirit hover over this baptismal font, which is a spiritual womb, and may she reside in it and sanctify it and may it bear as fruit, instead of Adam made of dust, the heavenly Adam; and may those who go down and are baptized in it receive in you lasting change: instead of corporality, spirituality; instead of visibleness, communion with the invisible; and instead of the weak soul, your Holy Spirit. And may your living and Holy Spirit come, Lord and reside in this water . . . and kindle it with his mighty power, and may he sanctify it and make it like the water which flowed from the side of the Only-Begotten on the Cross.

330–335, reprinted in Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy (Aldershot, 2006), Chap. XIV. 26 See my ‘The Ruah. El¯ oh¯ım’, 332, 335–339. The true identity of Basil’s Syrian is now known to be Eusebius of Emesa; see L. van Rompay, ‘L’informateur syrien de Basile de C´ esar´ ee. A propos de Gen`ese 1,2’, OCP 58 (1992), 245–251. See also R.B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress. The Use of Greek, Hebrew and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis (TEG 6; Leuven, 1997), 174–183. 27 The Maronite text is given in J.A. Assemani (ed.), Codex Liturgicus 2 (Rome, 1749; reprinted 1968), 339–41; the two Syrian Orthodox texts are edited in S.P. Brock, ‘A New Syriac Baptismal Order Attributed to Timothy of Alexandria’, Mus 83 (1970), 367–431, esp. 388–389; and ‘The Anonymous Syriac Baptismal Ordo in Add. 14518’, ParOr 8 (1977–78), 311–346, esp. 320, 329.

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

13

In the one of the two Syrian Orthodox services (that attributed to Timothy), the whole passage referring to the activity of the Holy Spirit over the primordial waters has been entirely cut out—no doubt in response to exegetical objections to this interpretation that were current in some, though not all, Syrian Orthodox circles. Another distinctive verb likewise came, from an early date, to be associated with the action of the Holy Spirit, especially in a liturgical context: |WP, a verb difficult to translate, but for which I shall use here ‘tabernacle’.28 In the Peshitta of Acts the Syriac translator employs this twice in places where the Greek speaks of the Spirit ‘falling’ upon someone (Acts 10:44, 11:15). Even more surprising is the use of this verb in two passages of fundamental importance in the Gospels, Luke 1:35, where Mary is told that the Power of the Most High will (in the Greek) ‘overshadow’ (‚piskiàsei) her, and John 1:14, where the divine Word is described as (in the Greek) having ‘tabernacled (‚sk†nwsen) among/in us’. In neither passage is |WP a straight translation of the Greek; even more remarkable is the fact that |WP is found in all the different Syriac versions at these two points, starting from the Diatessaron and ending with the Harclean (which one might have expected to render more exactly). What is the reason for this? Already in the Peshitta Old Testament the verb |WP has a specialised usage, referring only to God’s activity, usually of a saving and/or protective nature, and this precedent might have been sufficient reason for its choice by the Syriac translator of Acts, but it is hardly a satisfactory explanation for the choice of |WP at Luke 1:35 and John 1:14. However, there may be a more intriguing reason, but I shall leave this until I come to deal with the creative interaction of different biblical passages. A third verb that is sometimes used in Syriac epicleses of the activity of the Holy Spirit is P‘“, ‘to reside’, though it is in fact much more often used in connection with the incarnation of the divine Word. Indeed, unless they are quoting Luke 1:35 and John 1:14 directly, early Syriac writers regularly employ P‘“, rather than |WP of all the Syriac Gospel versions, when alluding to these passages,29 and this practice is still 28

I have discussed this term on a number of occasions, see ‘An Early Interpretation of p¯ asah.: agg¯ en 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; ‘Passover, Annunciation and Epiclesis: Some Remarks on the Term aggen in the Syriac Versions of Lk. 1:35’, NT 24 (1982), 222–233; and ‘From Annunciation to Pentecost: the Travels of a Technical Term’, in E. Carr et al. (eds.), Eulogema: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft SJ (Studia Anselmiana 110; Rome, 1993), 71–91. These are all reprinted in Fire from Heaven, Chap. XI–XIII, respectively. 29 For the evidence see my ‘The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1:35 and the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation’, in W.L. Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in

14

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

preserved in many of the liturgical texts for the Feast of the Nativity (and elsewhere). Thus in the East Syriac Hudra (I, 568), ‘Blessed is the eternal Child who came to us from heaven and dwelt (P‘“) in a pure womb’. And in the West Syriac Fenqitho (II, 271b), ‘Praise to the holy Father who sent his holy Son who descended and dwelt (P‘“) in holy fashion in a pure and holy womb’. Like ‰c and |WP, P‘“ too has roots in the Peshitta Old Testament, though there is only a single reasonably close precedent to be found, namely in God’s utterance to Solomon on the completion of the Temple (1 Kings 6:13), ‘I will reside (P‘“P) in the midst of the children of Israel’. The Afel, ¦‘“P, is in fact more common in the Peshitta Old Testament, either with ‘my name’ or (in 2 Chr) ‘my shekhina’ as object, and this usage has been the model for a few liturgical contexts, most notably in the West Syriac ordination service, where the following prayer is found: O Holy One who caused his Shekhina to reside (\—{ko“ ¦‘“PZ) on Mount Sinai and sanctified it, cause your Shekhina to reside on your servant and may he be made holy . . .30

The Afel, however, does not explain the use of the Peal in connection with the incarnation. Elsewhere31 I have suggested that the frequent use by early writers of P‘“, rather than |WP, in connection with the incarnation could perhaps be explained as a survival of the very earliest, oral, Syriac terminology that was used to describe the incarnation, prior to the shift to |WP of the written Syriac Gospel texts. In support for this suggestion one might point to the frequent use of the Peal, P‘“, in the Palestinian Targum tradition, above all in connection with God’s htnyk rqy as subject.32 At first sight such a link between earliest Syriac Christianity and the Palestinian Targum tradition will seem implausible,

the Second Century (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 3; Notre Dame, 1989), 117–131, reprinted in Fire from Heaven, Chap. X. 30 Ed. R. Graffin, in ROC 1 (1896), 10. Even though P—{ko“ does not feature in Peshitta Exodus, it is also used in connection with Sinai in Hudra III, 161. The term P—{ko“ in fact occurs rather frequently in the liturgical texts in a number of different contexts; for some very striking examples, where the Shekhina is described as being carried in a litter (|kkhr), see my ‘Some aspects of Greek words in Syriac’, in A. Dietrich (ed.), Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet (AAWG.PH 3.96; G¨ ottingen, 1975), 106–107 (reprinted in my Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity [London, 1984], Chap. IV). 31 In ‘The Lost Old Syriac’. 32 E.g. Neofiti at Gen 49:27; Exod 17:7; 20:21; 24:16; Lev 15:31; 16:16; Num 11:20; 35:34; Deut 3:24; 4:39; 31:17; 33:12; also with ‘spirit of holiness’ as subject (Gen 41:38; Num 11:26).

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

15

but as we shall see, there are a number of other features which point in the same direction. Before coming to these, however, there is one more distinctive Syriac phrase used in connection with the incarnation that should be included here. Thanks to the researches of Andr´e de Halleux and others,33 it is now clear that the earliest translation of Greek sarkwjËnta in the Nicene Creed was P‘X‡ •Tr, ’He put on the body’. Though in current liturgical use the translation of the creed has been altered to the calque ‘S–P, he was enfleshed, the old terminology still features very frequently in liturgical texts, in a variety of different forms (e.g. the Word put on our body, our mortal body, our humanity etc.).34 To cite but one example, the archaic East Syriac anaphora of Addai and Mari, in a passage in common with its Maronite counterpart, the Third Anaphora of Peter,35 Christ is addressed with the following words: ‘you put on our humanity in order to give us life in your divinity’. That this clothing imagery was already used at an early date in connection with the incarnation is shown by the Peshitta’s rendering of two passages in Hebrews: at 5:7 where, corresponding to the Greek ‘in the days of his flesh’, the Syriac has ‘when he was clothed in flesh’;36 then again, at 10:5 (quoting Ps 40:7), where the Greek has ‘a body did you prepare for me’, the Peshitta again introduces clothing imagery, ‘a body did you clothe me with’. This rendering in the Peshitta New Testament happens to go completely against the Peshitta Psalms.37 However, another passage in the Peshitta Psalter does indicate a predilection for clothing imagery already at a very early stage in Syriac tradition: in 33 A. de Halleux, ‘La philox´ enienne du symbole’, in Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA 205; Rome 1978), 295–315; idem, ‘Le symbole des ´evˆ eques perses au synode de S´ eleucie-Ct´esiphon (410)’, in G. Wiessner (ed.), Erkenntnisse und Meinungen 2 (GOF, Syriaca 17 (1979), 161–190; and J. Gribomont, ‘Le symbole de la foi de S´ eleucie-Ct´esiphon (410)’, in R. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur V¨ oo ¨bus (Chicago, 1977), 283–294. 34 ‘Our body’: e.g. Fenqitho VI, 180a, 324a, 403b; VII, 206a; Hudra I, 150, 562, 690; ‘our mortal body’: Hudra II, 517, 594; ‘us’: Fenqitho VI, 183b; III, 274a; Hudra I, 187; II, 129, 267; ‘our humanity’: Hudra I, 142; II, 436; ‘the body of our humanity’: Fenqitho IV, 676a; VI, 148b, 155b; ‘our image’: Fenqitho II, 571a [= Ephrem, H. de Nativ. 23:4]; V, 74a; Hudra II, 346, 469, 680. 35 For critical editions of the texts see W.F. Macomber, ‘The Oldest Known Text of the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari’, OCP 32 (1966), 335–371 (here 362); and J.-M. Sauget, Anaphorae Syriacae 2.3 (Rome, 1973), 273–329 (here 298, lines 13–14). 36 This is a rendering to which Philoxenus objected in his Commentary on the Prologue of John (see my ‘The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem’, in E. Epp and G. Fee (eds.), New Testament Textual Criticism. Essays in Honour of B.M. Metzger [Oxford, 1981], 325–343). 37 ‘You pierced ears for me’, as in the Hebrew.

16

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

Ps 8:5, where the Hebrew and the Septuagint have God ‘crowning man with honour and glory’, in the Peshitta God has ‘clothed him in honour and glory’ (¦]j—ˆhƒP). It is possible that the reason for the Peshitta’s choice of wording here was influenced by the early tradition, already attested in first-century Judaism, that Adam and Eve were originally created with ‘garments of glory’, which they subsequently lost, at the Fall.38 This imagery of ‘the robe of glory’ was picked up in early Syriac tradition and applied to all the main stages in the history of salvation— with Christ depositing the lost robe of glory in the River Jordan at his baptism, and it being put on, in potential by Christians at baptism, but only fully realized at the Eschaton.39 Innumerable instances of this imagery still survive in the liturgical services of all the Syriac Churches. 2. I come now to the second aspect I would like to touch upon, though more briefly, since it is rather too complicated a topic to discuss here in any detail. It concerns the textual basis. Although the vast majority of Syriac liturgical texts were originally composed in Syriac and draw primarily on the Peshitta, there are a certain number, especially in the West Syriac tradition, which are translated from Greek, and so any biblical references and allusions will be based on the Greek, rather than the Syriac Bible.40 Other phraseology of Greek biblical origin may also have entered the Syriac liturgical tradition indirectly, through familiarity with translations of Greek patristic writings.41 And then, of course, for the Syrian Orthodox liturgical tradition, there is the Syro-Hexapla as another possible transmitter of distinctive Septuagint terminology, while the Harclean New Testament (above all, the Harclean Gospels) provided a closer link with the Greek. Since direct biblical quotations are extremely rare in liturgical texts, the matter of sorting out the 38

See my ‘Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac’, 80–108, esp. 98–104. See my ‘Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition’, in M. Schmidt (ed.), Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den o ¨stlichen V¨ atern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter (Regensburg, 1982), 125–142 (reprinted in Studies in Syriac Christianity [Aldershot, 1992], Chap. XI), and (more briefly) ‘The Robe of Glory: a Biblical Image in the Syriac Tradition’, in Spirituality and Clothing = The Way 39 (1999), 247–259. 40 As a single example out of many possible ones, one can take the title ‘Father of the world to come’, given as a title of Christ in Fenqitho VII, 91: this derives from an early correction towards the Hebrew in the Septuagint text of many manuscripts at Isa 9:5; it has also found its way into a number of early Peshitta manuscripts (6h5mg, 7a1, 8a1*, 9a1mg). 41 For some of the general problems, see my ‘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; Grand Rapids, 1995), 224–236. 39

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

17

precise sources of biblical allusions and references can be a very delicate matter, and this is not the place or time to go into detail here over these problems. Instead, I should like to look at a selection of particularly intriguing features, which can illustrate different aspects of the general problem. I take first a couple of short passages from the West Syriac Fenqitho, or Festal Hymnary; both address the Virgin Mary directly: Fenqitho III, 361b (15 Jan.): ‘O young Dove, in whose womb the Eagle, the Ancient of Days, took pride’.42 Fenqitho IV, 872b (Annunciation): ‘Hail to you, full of grace, mother of the Ancient of Days who willed to become an infant in your womb’.43

This identification of Christ, rather than the Father, with the Ancient of Days of Daniel 7:13 seems to be the norm in Syriac liturgical texts whenever the term Ancient of Days occurs; it can even be found in the West Syriac Anaphora attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus.44 Though this identification can be found already in Jacob of Serugh,45 it is not found in either Aphrahat or Ephrem, for both of whom the Ancient of Days is associated with the Father,46 as one would expect from the Peshitta rendering of Dan 7:13, where (as in the Aramaic) one like ‘a son of man came and reached the ancient of days’. Probably the best explanation for this altered identification of the Ancient of Days is to suppose that it has its roots in the well-known reading found in the Old Greek at this passage, where instead of the preposition Èwc, ‘up to’ (+ gen.) in the mainstream text (‘Theodotion’), one finds πc, ‘like’ (+ 42 The rather similar wording in VII, 369b (15 Aug.) can be identified as Hymns on Mary (ed. Lamy), 7:3 (translated in my Bride of Light: Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches (Moran Etho Series 6; Kottayam, 1994), 44; further examples can be found on pp. 74, 77, 84, 94, 128). ‘Ancient of Days’ will be found in the English translation of the West Syriac Shehimo (Weekday Office) by Francis Acharya in the services for Wednesday Ramsho and Sapro, and Thursday Lilyo (Prayer with the Harp of the Spirit 1 [Vagamon, 1980], 104, 118, 135), but the Syriac text in fact has PÐZ y^]r_n |v •k”, which also occurs in the Fenqitho (e.g. VII, 242a). Christ as Ancient of Days is also found in the Hudra, e.g. I, 558; III, 686. 43 Other passages in the Fenqitho include II, 91b, 110a, 132b, 166a, 239a. 44 I. Hausherr (ed.), Anaphorae Syriacae 1.2 (Rome, 1940), 116 (line 16). 45 E.g. P. Bedjan (ed.), Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (Paris–Leipzig, 1905–1910), vol. 1, 130 , 448; vol. 2, 191; vol. 5, 448; he uses Qv_¨j j—ƒ for metrical reasons. 46 Aphrahat, Demonstration V.6 (ed. Parisot, PS 1.1, col. 196, line 15); Ephrem, Carmina Nisibena 4:7; Hymni contra Haereses 32:5. Similarly in the earlier Greek Commentary tradition, for which see G.K. McKay, ‘The Eastern Christian Exegetical Tradition of Daniel’s Vision of the Ancient of Days’, JECL 7 (1999), 139–161 (curiously, no mention is made of the reading in the Old Greek!).

18

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

nom.),47 so that the ‘son of man’ and the ‘ancient of days’ are no longer two, but one. Although the Old Greek text of Daniel is very poorly attested, it is clear that this reading was long-lived, for it was still in the Greek manuscript from which Paul of Tella made the Syro-Hexapla; and in the medieval iconographical tradition of the Christian East in general Christ is not infrequently portrayed as the Ancient of Days. It seems likely that the association of the Ancient of Days with the Son did not reach Jacob of Serugh and later Syriac liturgical tradition directly from the Old Greek of Daniel, but indirectly, by way of some Greek liturgical or literary source. In any case, it entered the Syriac tradition long before the Syro-Hexapla. An indirect passage is even more likely in the case of certain phraseology that has parallels in the Targumim. In at least two passages in the West Syriac Fenqitho, both of which must belong to the seventh century or later, we encounter a quotation of Genesis 49:10 (the Blessings of Jacob) with the expansion at the end of ‘the kingdom’, absent from all early Peshitta manuscripts of Genesis,48 but which is found in the Targum tradition: Fenqitho IV, 697b (similarly 815b): ‘The staff shall not depart from Judah until there comes He to whom the kingdom belongs’.

In this particular case the immediate source for the addition can probably be identified as Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis (which on other grounds has a number of—no doubt indirect—links with Targum traditions), though it can also be found in Aphrahat.49 The Palestinian Targum of Gen 49:10, but not any of the Syriac quotations of it, goes on to identify the possessor of the kingdom as ajym aklm, ‘the anointed king’, or ‘king messiah’. This is in fact a term which is found quite frequently in the Palestinian Targum tradition50 — 47 Whether or not this is a corruption (as J. Ziegler in the G¨ ottingen Septuagint thought), or is due to the translator is disputed: see L. Stuckenbruck, ‘“One like a Son of Man as the Ancient of Days” in the Old Greek Recension of Dan 7:13: Scribal Error or Theological Translation?’, ZNW 86 (1995), 268–276. For the identification of the Ancient of Days with Christ in the later Greek commentary tradition, see McKay, ‘Eastern Christian Exegetical Tradition’. 48 It eventually found its way into the biblical text in 12d2 and in some lectionary manuscripts (9l5 margin, 11l4 and 11l5). T. Jansma, ‘Ephraem on Genesis XLIX, 10’, ParOr 4 (1973), 247–256, argued convincingly that the addition of P–_osv did not belong to the original Peshitta translation. 49 Dem. II.6, V.10. 50 In Neofiti it also occurs at Gen 3:15; there are several further occurrences in the Pentateuch in Ps.-Jonathan, and in the Targum to the Hagiographa, which can readily be found in S. Levey, The Messiah. An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targumim (Cincinnati, 1974); cf. also P. Alexander, ‘The

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

19

but it also turns up equally frequently in Syriac liturgical texts (both East and West Syriac). A typical example is: Fenqitho II, 238b:51 ‘At your Nativity, o King Messiah, the watchers soared down to Bethlehem and sang praise there saying, Holy, Holy’.

That this title is not a Christian innovation (like Christ the King in western Christian tradition), but has its roots in the Jewish origins of part of Syriac Christian tradition is strongly suggested by the fact that it is quite common in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations.52 Yet another example of this sort of ‘Targumic’ survival is found very often in references to Genesis 22:13. In the Peshitta here, the ram that saves Isaac gets caught in a ‘branch’, but in the Targum—and very frequently in Syriac literature from Ephrem onwards—it is in a ‘tree’ (Q{sjP).53 Thus, for example, in the Hudra (III, 705; Finding of Cross) we find: Abraham in a revelation beheld this mystery in the lamb that was hung54 upon the tree (Q{sjP), through which salvation came to his son.

Similarly in the Fenqitho II, 524b (26 Dec.):55 Blessed are you, young woman who carried the Lion’s Cub about whom Jacob wrote. For he made himself lowly and sucked pure milk from you, by which he grew up. Like a lamb from a virgin ewe he went up to the pyre to deliver us. In you, (Mary), was depicted that tree (Q{sjP) which provided the ram by which Isaac was saved.

Yet another link with characteristically Targumic terminology is the phrase ‘second death’, referring to those condemned at the Last JudgeKing Messiah in Rabbinic Judaism’, in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOT.S 270; Sheffield, 1998), 456–473. 51 Elsewhere, e.g. Fenqitho III, 84a, 185a; Hudra I, 176, 559. 52 Dem. I.4 (col.13, line 6); V.15 (col. 312, lines 1–2, 13, 22); IX.8 (col. 428, line 14); XIV.3 (col. 649, line 27), 40 (col. 692, line 7); XIX.10 (col. 877, line 18, quoting Dan 9:25, but altering the word order from Qosv Qdk”¥v to Qdk”¥v Qosv, as in the lectionary 9l6), 10 (col. 880, line 26, quoting Dan 9:25 exactly in ms B, but A has Qdk”¥v Qosv); XXII.3 (col. 997, line 7). In Ephrem the title occurs only in H. de Virginitate 6:6 and in the Refrain to H. de Azymis 6 (where it may not go back to Ephrem himself). It is also striking that the Old Syriac and Peshitta also provide Qdk”¥v Qosv at Luke 23:2, reversing the Greek word order. 53 Thus Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis XX; see further, my ‘Genesis 22 in Syriac tradition’, in P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker (eds.), M´ elanges D. Barth´ elemy (OBO 38; Friburg/G¨ ottingen, 1981), 16–17. 54 ‘Hung’, instead of ‘held, caught’ of the Peshitta, is derived from Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13, and is a deliberate alteration (frequently found) whose aim was to bring out the parallelism with the crucifixion (cf. my ‘Genesis 22 in Syriac tradition’, 28–29, note 82). 55 The passage derives from the Hymns on Mary (ed. Lamy) 9:3. For other examples, see Fenqitho II, 166a, 524b; III, 2b, 362b–363a; Hudra I, 589, 593.

20

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

ment.56 Here again, numerous examples can be found in the liturgical texts. Thus, for example, on Saturday in Holy Week we find the following in the West Syriac Fenqitho V, 305a:57 Paul wrote for us that the dead who are in Christ will not taste death (1 Cor 15:18 influenced by John 8:52!): how well did you proclaim, o skilled scribe, for those who sleep in Christ will not ever taste Second Death.

In the light of this Targumic backdrop to these various phrases and terms, it is worth going back a moment to the verb |WP , for, although precedents for its use can be found in the Peshitta Old Testament, it is a term that is considerably more widely found in the Palestinian Targums, and in Neofiti it is actually the term used to translate the problematic verb jsp in Exodus 12.58 Could an awareness of this conceivably have been in the mind of the person (whether or not he was Tatian)59 who employed |WP in Luke 1:35 and John 1:14, the choice being dictated by a desire to bring out the typological parallelism between the Paschal Lamb and Christ the True Lamb? This parallelism was certainly of great importance for Ephrem in his Madrashe on Unleavened Bread,60 and in his Commentary on Exodus where he points out the exact correspondence in dates: just as the paschal lamb was confined on the tenth of Nisan and sacrificed on the fourteenth, so Christ the True Lamb was conceived on the tenth of Nisan61 and sacrificed on the fourteenth. That the person responsible for the Syriac Diatessaron was interested in typology is shown by another choice of wording which has widely influenced the Syriac liturgical tradition. In the West Syriac Fenqitho the following phrase turns up a number of times, with the Church 56 For this, see my ‘Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources’, JJSt 30 (1979), 212–232, esp. 220–221 (reprinted in Studies in Syriac Christianity, Chap. IV). Yet a further instance of the survival in the liturgical texts of phraseology which has its roots in the Palestinian Targum is the construction l[ ylgta, ‘was revealed over’, e.g. Fenqitho VII, 202b; this, however, will have come through certain passages in the Peshitta Old Testament; cf. my ‘A Palestinian Targum Feature in Syriac’, JJSt 46 (1995), 271–282. 57 Other examples can be found at I, 30b; V, 234a, 287b, 367b; VII, 351a etc. 58 See my ‘An Early Interpretation of p¯ asah.’ (n. 28). 59 None of the Diatessaron features mentioned in this paper ever have any Western attestation, and so are all evidently specific to the Eastern Diatessaron tradition. 60 Excerpts from many of which are to be found in the Fenqitho (e.g. V, 45 [= stanzas from H. de Az. 3, 4 and 1], 95 [= stanzas from 6, 12, and 5], 128 [= stanzas from 9 and 8], 158 [= stanzas from 3, 5 and 6], 554 [= stanzas from 16]; VI, 143 [= stanzas from 16, 3, 4, 13 and 3], 286 [= stanzas from 3, 5 and 6]; also Hudra II, 463, 469 [= stanzas from 3 and 5, respectively]). 61 This is the standard date for the Annunciation in early Syriac writers, and is calculated from Luke 1:10–11 (taken to refer to the Day of Atonement, 10 Tishri) and 1:26 (‘In the sixth month’); see my ‘Passover, Annunciation and Epiclesis’ (n. 28).

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

21

addressed either directly or indirectly: ‘He (Christ) promised you that the bars (Q¥sn¨_v) of Sheol will not overcome you’.62 The allusion is of course to Matt 16:18, where the Greek text, followed by the Old Syriac, Peshitta, and Harclean, has ‘gates of Hades/Sheol’. That Q¥sn¨_v (from Greek moqlo–) is the reading of the Diatessaron is clear from the Commentary on the Diatessaron (XIV.1) under Ephrem’s name and early quotations.63 What was the aim of the change? The frequent use of Q¥sn¨_v in the liturgical texts in connection with the Descent of Christ into Sheol points to the answer: time and time again we find passages such as the following: When you went up [from Sheol] you shattered the gates of bronze and hewed down the bolts of iron,64 or You broke the bars and gates of Sheol.65

The allusion to Ps 107 (106):16 and Isa 45:2 is clear. These two related passages (where no mention is made of Sheol) were understood as referring to the Descent of Christ into Sheol already by the late second century, and it would seem that it was in order to link Matt 16:18 as well with the Descent that the author of the Syriac Diatessaron introduced Q¥sn¨_v there. The survival of this Diatessaron reading in the late liturgical texts does not, of course, mean that the compilers of these texts still had access to the Diatessaron: from an early date certain Diatessaron readings will have taken on a separate life of their own, totally divorced from the Diatessaron text itself. It is likely, though not certain, that the Syriac Diatessaron is also the origin of another very common set of liturgical phrases that seem to be distinctive to the Syriac tradition. In the liturgical texts of both East and West Syriac tradition one very frequently comes across references to the eschatological ‘Bridal Chamber’, especially in phrases such as ‘Bridal Chamber of light’, or ‘of joys’, ‘of blessings’, or ‘of the Kingdom’.66 Thus, for example: 62

Fenqitho VI, 345b; similarly II, 25a, 35a, 39a, 42a; also Hudra III, 569. See my ‘The Gates/Bars of Sheol Revisited’, in W.L. Petersen, J.S. Vos, and H.J. de Jonge (eds.), Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical. Essays in Honour of T. Baarda (NT.S 89; Leiden, 1997), 7–24, esp. 15–17. 64 Fenqitho VI, 87a; similarly V, 304b, 433a; VI, 104a, 135b etc. 65 Hudra II, 651; similarly II, 626, 586, 604, 637; III, 244 etc. 66 ‘Of light’ (already in Bardaisan, apud Ephrem, Prose Refutations 2, 64): Fenqitho V, 340a, 406a, 449a, etc; Hudra I, 257; II, 640; III, 356, 642, 650 etc. ‘Of joys’: (already Ephrem, H. de Virginitate 24:3) Fenqitho II, 41a; III, 170a; V, 32b etc.; Hudra I, 240; II, 582; III, 334 etc. ‘Of blessings’: Fenqitho III, 165a; Hudra III, 330, etc.; ‘Of the Kingdom’: Fenqitho VI, 443b; Hudra II, 678 = 691; III, 336, 356, 615 etc. 63

22

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK Fenqitho VI, 443b: ‘May your Church be held worthy to enter the glorious bridal chamber of your kingdom on the day of your being revealed’.

Indeed, in the West Syriac Weekday Office in both the Syrian Orthodox and in the Maronite rite ‘Bridal Chamber’ is by far the most common term used in connection with the eschatological Kingdom of Heaven. Though the term ‘bridal chamber’ (Qz_{W ) features a number of times in the Syriac Bible, the source of this imagery is quite certainly a Gospel passage where the term does not in fact occur in either the Old Syriac or the Peshitta, namely Matt 25:10 (the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins). In the Old Syriac and Peshitta, just as in the Greek, it is the marriage feast that the Wise Virgins enter, and not the bridal chamber. A very large number of early quotations and references to this verse, however, substitute Qz_{W , ‘bridal chamber’,67 and it is a reasonable assumption that this reading originates in the Syriac Diatessaron.68 Very often the original context is remembered; the following passage from the East Syriac Hudra (II, 281) is typical: What will you do, o soul, at the coming of the Son of the Good One? for you have not kept your lamp alight with the oil of compassion. How will the glorious Bridegroom let you enter the Bridal Chamber when you do not have garments worthy of the wedding feast.

(Here the ‘wedding feast’ does not refer to the Greek or Peshitta text of Matt 25:10, but to the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matt 22:11–12.) 3. I come finally—and briefly—to a couple of points connected with the exegesis of the Syriac Bible in the liturgical texts. The first point is linked to my previous section since it also contains a word of warning to scholars working on the text of the Syriac Bible. Liturgical texts are not 67 Thus, for example, Acts of Thomas (ed. Wright) 1, 182, line 5 (Chap. 12); Aphrahat, Dem. VI.1, 6 (cols. 248, 269); Ephrem, H. de Fide 11:18, etc.; cf. also A. V¨ o¨ obus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac 1 (CSCO 128, Subs. 3; Leuven, 1951), 111. (I hope in due course to write up a paper on this theme, entitled ‘The Heavenly Bridal Chamber: a Theme in Early Syriac Christianity’, given at the 13th International Conference on Patristic Studies [Oxford, 1999]. In the meantime, see my ‘The Bridal Chamber of Light: a Distinctive Feature of the Syriac Liturgical Tradition’, The Harp 18 (2005), 179–191.) 68 Another late trace of a Diatessaron reading can be found in Fenqitho III, 273b and VII, 96a, which allude to the light that shone out at the Baptism of Christ. Compare the ‘fire’ mentioned by Jacob of Serugh on several occasions, for which see my ‘Baptismal themes in the writings of Jacob of Serugh’, in Symposium Syriacum 1976, 325–347, esp. 326 with n. 6; the fire is actually depicted in the marginal illustration of the Baptism of Christ in the illustrated Rabbula Gospels of 586; fire imagery frequently features in the liturgical texts for Epiphany (Baptism of Christ), e.g. Fenqitho III, 253b, 260a, 289a; Hudra I, 634.

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

23

only full of allusions to biblical passages, but they will often deliberately alter the wording in order to link them up with other passages. This will above all be the case in connection with a verse of central importance to the Syriac tradition, namely John 19:34, the piercing of the side of Christ on the Cross.69 Almost every word in this verse is understood as having resonances, typological or otherwise, with passages elsewhere in the Syriac Bible, and these links are liable to be brought out in the liturgical texts by means of the interchange of specific terms. Although the Old Syriac is not available for this verse, to judge by 20:20, where it is known, it is likely that the Old Syriac used the term P‘h~ for the side of Christ, instead of the Peshitta’s Q{‡Z. Since the side of Christ the Second Adam is regularly associated typologically with the side of the First Adam in Gen 2:22 (Q„rP in the Peshitta), liturgical texts will every now and then transfer P‘h~ to this passage and use it with reference to Adam’s side.70 Of course no variant reading can be claimed for Gen 2:22. This transfer of key terms can mislead the textual critic in other ways too. A notable example concerns the term |WP which we have already met in connection with Luke 1:35 and John 1:14. Because |WP came to be used as a technical term for the activity of the Holy Spirit, in liturgical texts (as in early poetry) it would frequently come to be used in other contexts, such as the Baptism of Christ, or Pentecost, as well as the Annunciation, its original context.71 This liturgical use can then, in turn, influence Syriac authors referring to these other biblical passages, who—probably unconsciously—substitute the liturgical term |WP for the verb actually found in the biblical text. Thus, several scholars, including the late Arthur V¨ o¨ obus, have claimed, on the basis of such quotations, that |WP represents the hypothetical Old Syriac text of Acts 2:3 (in place of Peshitta _S—j), ‘settled’, = Greek).72 In 69 For the network of typological links see (for example) my ‘The Mysteries Hidden in the Side of Christ’, Sobornost 7:6 (1978), 462–472, and ‘“The Wedding Feast of Blood on Golgotha”: an Unusual Aspect of John 19:34 in Syriac Tradition’, The Harp 6 (1993), 121–134. 70 Thus Fenqitho II, 74b; IV, 171a. In a similar way the terms for the lance in John 19:34 and the sword guarding Paradise in Gen 3:24 are liable to get interchanged. In the same verse of John the verb _ˆz ‘issued’, is often replaced in allusions by ^Z, ‘flowed’, in order to associate the passage with a Christological interpretation of John 7:38 (for which, see R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition [Cambridge, 1975], 213). Some other examples of the interchange of vocabulary have already be encountered early in this paper. 71 For this, see my ‘From Annunciation to Pentecost’ (n. 28). 72 ¨ A. V¨ o¨ obus, ‘Die Entdeckung von Uberresten der altsyrischen Apostelgeschichte’, OrChr 64 (1980), 32–35 (cf. also his Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in

24

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

view of the pattern of attestation, however, this suggestion seems most implausible. 3. Conclusion By way of conclusion I should like to draw attention to the many— often very beautiful—pieces of exegetical poetry that are to be found in certain of the liturgical books. In the printed books, it is true, these are often given in a very fragmentary or truncated form, and to get back to the full, or at least a fuller, form one needs to consult the manuscript tradition in its earliest surviving form. A notable example of the incorporation of narrative poetry in liturgical texts concerns Ephrem’s memra on Jonah, large parts of which will be found in both the East Syriac and West Syriac services P_{kzZ P–_„S (Supplication of Nineveh), which falls between Epiphany and Lent.73 Large numbers of madrashe, often on biblical topics, feature in the Fenqitho (for the Night Offices); in the printed edition these are almost all attributed to Ephrem, but many are definitely by later authors, and those that can be identified as genuinely Ephrem’s are almost always in a truncated or altered form.74 Quite a number of dialogue soghyatha, involving pairs of biblical characters, are also to be found, above all in the seasons of the Nativity and Epiphany, and during Holy Week.75 These have suffered particularly badly in the printed editions, and sometimes it is only the verses of one of the two speakers that are given! But let me end by quoting a fragment of a moving and otherwise unknown narrative poem on Genesis 22, the Sacrifice of Isaac, which is to be found in a Syriac 2 [CSCO 496, Subs. 79; Leuven, 1987], 208); similarly J.-L.Simonet, ‘Les citations des Actes des Apˆ otres dans les chapitres ´ edit´ es du K etˆ abˆ a d erˆ eˇs mellˆ e de Jean bar Penkaye’, Mus 114 (2001), 104. 73 The passages in the printed editions are identified in my ‘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 Septuagenarii (OLA 60; Leuven, 1994), 71–86 (reprinted in From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity [Aldershot, 1999], Chap. V). Fragments of other narrative poems on biblical topics can be found in the Hudra: I, 431–434 (Sinful Woman who anointed Christ); 667–670 (John the Baptist); II, 236–237 (Judgement of Solomon); 428–429 (Raising of Lazarus); III, 164–165 (Samaritan woman); 342–343, 346–351 (Maccabaean martyrs). 74 See my ‘The Transmission of Ephrem’s Madrashe in the Syriac Liturgical Tradition’, in E. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 33 (Leuven, 1997), 490–505. 75 For these, see my ‘Syriac dispute poems: the various types’, in G.J. Reinink and H. Vanstiphout (eds.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Medieval Near East (OLA 42; Leuven, 1991), 109–119 (reprinted in From Ephrem to Romanos, Chap. VII).

SYRIAC VERSIONS IN THE LITURGY

25

manuscript, copied in 1735 in Tergawar (north west Iran), containing an East Syriac Burial Service for children:76 Sarah said to Abraham, ‘Where are you taking this our only son, whom the Lord [has given us? Are you going up to the mountain? I will go with you. Are you wanting to slay him? I will die on his behalf. But if it is his Lord who is requesting him, let us supplicate him with tears That he will leave an heir for his parents, for they do not have any other one’. Abraham took the knife and fire, along with the wood, And led off Isaac his only-begotten, taking him up to the mountain. His mother saw him and fell into his arms [lit. on his chest], Kissing him and saying to him as follows: ‘My son, after ninety-nine years the Lord gave you to us, but now that your Lord desires you, go off in peace’. 76

The excerpt is given by I. Hall, ‘Specimens from the Nestorian Burial Service’, Hebraica 4 (1897–98), 193–200 (here, 196–197). The prominence given to Sarah is a feature found in other poems on Gen 22: see my ‘Two Syriac verse homilies on the binding of Isaac’, Mus 99 (1986), 61–129, esp. 70–76, (reprinted in From Ephrem to Romanos, Chap. VI), and (for the dialogue poem on the topic), ‘Syriac Poetry on Biblical Themes 2. A Dialogue Poem on the Sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22)’, The Harp 7 (1994), 55–72.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL: THE SYRIAC OLD TESTAMENT COMMENTARY TRADITION Lucas Van Rompay

Wenn nicht sehr viel ¨ altere Handschriften im Orient gefunden werden k¨ onnen, empfiehlt es sich, erst die Kommentare herauszugeben, ehe man an eine textkritische Ausgabe der Peschitta geht. — G. Diettrich, as quoted in L. Haefeli, Die Peschitta des Alten Testaments (M¨ unster i.W., 1927), 115. We maintain, therefore, that in order to keep our work within the necessary minimum limits, this material (i.e., commentaries and homilies) can be dispensed with without any considerable loss. — M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Peshitta’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1960), 62.

The primary goal of this Symposium, as outlined by its conveners, is to gain a fuller picture of the textual history of the Peshitta, on the one hand, and to provide a context for this textual history, on the other, by investigating the way the Peshitta was received and assessed by its users, whether in exegetical or historical literature or in liturgy.1 Even though we are dealing here with two different issues, the organizers were right in bringing them together, for they are closely interrelated. The theme of this Symposium, which in a natural way springs from the work done in the past decades, is also illustrative of a shift in the general orientation of the Peshitta project. The first generation of Peshitta scholars—in the Leiden sense of the word—consisted mainly of specialists of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. Their aim was to produce an edition that would satisfy ‘the needs of students of biblical exegesis and textual criticism’,2 while the Hebrew Bible always was the point of reference. In the course of the years, however, Peshitta scholars also became increasingly interested in the Sitz im Leben of the 1

See the Preface in the present volume. P.A.H. de Boer, Preface in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshit.ta Version 1.1 (Leiden, 1977), v. A few years earlier, in 1966 and in 1972, the aims of the new edition had been formulated in similar terms: ‘. . . to offer the student an objective tool for his study of the Bible text and its history, and possibly [this word omitted in 1972] provide him with a help [1972: an aid] for [1972: in] the exegesis of the Old Testament’: The Old Testament in Syriac. Sample Edition: Song of Songs – Tobit – 4 Ezra (Leiden, 1966), vi; The Old Testament in Syriac. General Preface (Leiden, 1972), vi. 2

28

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Peshitta. And the result of this process is what we are witnessing today: a happy mixture of biblical scholars and Syriac scholars! Indeed, the two groups are no longer distinguishable from one another. Peshitta studies have become fully integrated into the field of Syriac studies, and the Syriac Bible, as the object of our scholarly endeavours, is now being fully restored to its proper domain: the Syriac Christian communities, the Syriac schools, monasteries, and churches. In the earlier Peshitta editions, the term ‘inner-Syriac deviation’ was often used in a slightly pejorative sense (i.e., not directly relevant to the study of the original text of the Bible), whereas for us nowadays ‘inner-Syriac deviation’ is our passion and our life! In this presentation I will not move very far beyond the biblical text itself. The very act of reading, understanding, and interpreting the biblical text is an integral part of its fixation and transmission. Part of this is inaccessible to us, since it belonged to the field of oral teaching and oral tradition.3 Another part, however, is reflected in the commentary tradition. After a few general observations on Syriac commentaries, I will first discuss their potential for the study of the biblical text and then, in the second part of my contribution, move to their wider historical and cultural contexts. Commentaries are only a small part of the vast literature dealing with biblical interpretation. In fact, each single Syriac composition will at some point shed light on the wider context of the Peshitta, since the whole of Syriac literature is steeped in biblical references and imagery. Commentaries, however, are of particular interest in that they are conceived and used as tools guiding the reader through the biblical text. They mirror the biblical text in their structure and composition, while their authors and readers intellectually oscillate between the biblical text and the commentary, importing pieces of information from the one to the other.4 By narrowing down the category of interpretative texts to the specific genre of commentaries, I am leaving aside such compositions as homilies on biblical themes, theological treatises incorporating biblical interpretation, and many other works. This is not to say that they are 3 The office of the maqry¯ an¯ a , the instructor in reading, comes to mind here as well as the tradition behind the later Masoretic manuscripts. On the maqry¯ an¯ a , see A. V¨ o¨ obus, History of the School of Nisibis (CSCO 266, Subs. 26; Louvain, 1965), 100; on the range of activities of one of the most well-known maqry¯ an¯ e , Joseph Huzaya, see L. Van Rompay, art. ‘Joseph Huzaya’, in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de g´ eographie eccl´ esiastiques 28 (Paris, 2003), 208b–209a. 4 For some important observations on the dynamics of the genre of biblical commentary, see E.A. Clark, Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton, nj, 1999), 5–11.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

29

not relevant to the theme of the Symposium. On the contrary! In a number of papers it will be shown how important they are. I would like to argue, however, that as far as the general policy of Peshitta scholars is concerned, there is much reason to prioritize commentaries, since they have a closer relationship to the biblical text than any of the other compositions and, as a general rule, were neither written nor read without the biblical text at hand. Although Peshitta scholars in the past occasionally turned to commentaries for biblical quotations, the importance of commentaries has generally been underrated in Peshitta studies.5 Commentaries were often seen as just one part of the huge body of literature capable of providing ‘patristic citations’—a phrase which since the days of Haefeli and Goshen-Gottstein,6 has been surrounded with a mist of unease and caution.7 This skeptical attitude is understandable, for the indiscriminate and uncritical use of quotations has, in the past, contributed to misconceived theories about the earliest history of the Peshitta. It is, however, not entirely justified. Scholars in the past often did not make a proper distinction between commentaries, in the strict sense of the word, and other compositions. Robert Owens’ exemplary studies on the quotations in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations 8 have made us aware of the many pitfalls quotations present to the biblical students. Commentaries though are different from homiletic works and need to be studied in their own right. They may have their own pitfalls, but the role of the biblical text in commentaries is different from that in other compositions. 5 There have been some notable exceptions, such as G. Diettrich, whose opinion is quoted at the beginning of the present paper. Faithful to his conviction, Diettrich worked towards the publication of a number of commentaries, in particular those of Daniel of S.alah., Moses bar Kepha, and Ishodad of Merv. 6 L. Haefeli, Die Peschitta des Alten Testaments. Mit R¨ ucksicht auf ihre textkritische Bearbeitung und Herausgabe (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 11.1; M¨ unster i.W., 1927), 87–94, where the following authors are listed: Aphrahat, Ephrem, Philoxenus of Mabbog, Daniel of S.alah., Thomas of Marga, Ishodad of Merv, Dionysius bar S.alibi, and Barhebraeus. For Goshen-Gottstein, see the quotation at the beginning of this paper. Although Goshen-Gottstein’s indiscriminate treatment of ‘Syrian Fathers and commentators’ is problematic, he did not deny the potential importance of this type of evidence; see ‘Prolegomena’, 59–62, with footnote 169 on p. 62. 7 The phrase ‘patristic citation’ is also used in M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction (UCOP 56; Cambridge, 1999), esp. 130–139. 8 R.J. Owens, The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (MPIL 3; Leiden, 1983); idem, ‘Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Text of Leviticus’, in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder (eds.), The Peshit.ta: Its Early Text and History. Papers read at the Peshit.ta Symposium held at Leiden 30–31 August 1985 (MPIL 4; Leiden, 1988), 1–48; idem, ‘The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat’, JSSt 34 (1989), 39–75; as well as Owens’ contribution to the present volume.

30

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

The field of Syriac commentaries is not a very vast one. From the early period of Syriac Christianity, up to the fifth century, we have first and foremost two commentaries attributed to Ephrem: his puˇsˇsa ¯q¯ a on Genesis, and his turg¯ am¯ a on Exodus. To the early fifth century, in all likelihood, belongs the commentary (puˇsˇsa ¯q¯ a ) on Qohelet, attributed to John of Apamea. Subsequently, there is the parting of the ways. The East Syriac tradition relied heavily on the works of Greek-Antiochene exegetes, particularly on the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the West Syriac tradition showed a more variegated approach to biblical interpretation, using the writings of Alexandrian exegetes (Athanasius and Cyril), the Cappadocians, and John Chrysostom. Notwithstanding the heavy influence of Greek writings in both traditions, biblical interpretation became fully adapted to the Peshitta text, of Hebrew origin. This culturally and linguistically complex background—the Hebrew Bible and its indigenous Syriac reception, on the one hand, and the Greek works in Syriac translation guiding the interpretation, on the other—provides the framework within which authentic Syriac reading and interpretation of the Bible developed and flourished. In the appendix I have listed the main commentaries that are known to exist in Syriac, either published or unpublished, and in my estimation should be taken into account in the apparatus to a future Editio Maior of the Peshitta. By ‘commentaries’ I mean those compositions whose primary goal is the explanation of the biblical text, which is consistently quoted and whose narrative is strictly followed. The Syriac terms which I take to designate such works are puˇsˇsa ¯q¯ a ‘explanation’, nuhh¯ ar¯ a ‘elucidation’, sukk¯ al¯ a ‘creating and conveying meaning’, all nouns expressing an action of which the biblical text is the object, and, less frequently, turg¯ am¯ a ‘interpretative rendering’. Commentaries reflect the context of study, either in school or private. While they may include a great deal of theological reflection and edification, the primary interest of these commentaries is always the biblical text. With some hesitation, I have excluded exegetical homilies (m¯emr¯e ), like those by Jacob of Serug, Isaac of Antioch, and Narsai, for two reasons. First, edification and exhortation take an important part in them, which is also reflected in their language and composition. Second, their metrical form, which entails a great deal of reworking of the biblical text, adds to their character as independent literary works.9 9 For some general observations, see L. Van Rompay, ‘Antiochene Biblical Interpretation: Greek and Syriac’, in J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. A Collection of Essays (TEG 5; Louvain, 1997), 104–108. In retrospect I find the term ‘pure exegesis’ (as

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

31

In Syriac, most commentaries are of the selective type. Not all biblical verses are quoted; a number of verses and even some chapters are skipped; and explanations are provided for only a limited number of difficult passages. While in our earliest witness, Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis, the author upholds some sort of literary coherence, by adding introductions to the explanations, or by inserting connecting sentences or paragraphs, later commentaries do not usually attempt to create literary coherence. A verse, or part of a verse, is quoted, often followed by a formula of the type h¯ anaw, ‘id est’ , which introduces explanatory notes or a longer paragraph that may be a paraphrase of the biblical passage or a discussion of a specific problem. In addition to the standard commentary, there are others in the question-and-answer format.10 Both East and West Syriac commentaries of the later period tend to be of a more encyclopedic nature, in which comments of diverse content and origin are brought together. Indeed, they may sometimes be as heterogeneous, interminable, and poorly organized as footnotes in a present-day scholarly publication. 1. The Biblical Quotations The biblical quotations in Ephrem’s Commentaries on Genesis and Exodus have already received much scholarly attention and have even played a prominent role in the discussion on the original form of the Peshitta and its relationship to the Masoretic text and the Targumim. However, until 1955—the year in which Raymond Tonneau’s critical edition appeared11 —scholars had to rely on Peter Mubarrak’s edition in the 1737 Editio Romana of Ephrem’s works. This is unfortunate, since anyone working with this edition inevitably comes to the conclusion that it is unreliable for any type of scholarly research. Moreover, scholars have often studied the quotations in Ephrem’s commentaries alongside those in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations and in some other works, thereby opposed to ‘applied exegesis’), which I then borrowed from G. Vermes, unhelpful, as the supposed ‘purity’ cannot be measured and may not exist. Is exegesis not always ‘applied’ in some way? 10 See R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Question-and-Answer Collections in Syriac Literature’, in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 37; Louvain, 2004), 145–163. 11 R.M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii (CSCO 152, Syr. 71; Louvain, 1955). Important corrections to Tonneau’s text and translation (CSCO 153, Syr. 72) were made by T. Jansma in three successive articles, which appeared in OCP 37 (1971), 309–316; OrChr 56 (1972), 59–79; and OrChr 58 (1974), 121–131.

32

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

obscuring the important distinction that exists between a homiletic work, like Aphrahat’s, and Ephrem’s biblical commentaries. It is only in recent years that a more systematic research into the quotations in Ephrem’s commentaries has begun. In what follows, I rely on two recent Leiden Ph.D. dissertations, one by R.B. ter Haar Romeny12 and the other by A.G.P. Janson.13 With the publication of Tonneau’s critical edition one necessary condition for such a study had been fulfilled. There is, however, a second condition, without which no serious study of quotations in Ephrem’s commentaries, or indeed in any other commentary, can be undertaken. It has to do with what I would call the general profile of the commentary. Prior to using the evidence of the quotations one must come to grips with the style and the editorial technique of the author. Thus it is important to notice that Ephrem, unlike many of the later commentators, conceived his commentary as a coherent literary work in which the biblical narrative is reflected in its entirety. Some sections which he decided not to comment upon are not omitted altogether, but summarized in a few sentences in which select biblical words and phrases are incorporated and occasionally interspersed with a few words of commentary. These summarizing paragraphs are different from the full quotations at the beginning of each paragraph. They should not be regarded as free quotations or as quotations from memory, but they underwent Ephrem’s far-reaching editorial activity. Thus, one should exercise the highest caution when seeking to derive textual evidence from them. Ephrem’s actual quotations were copied, I believe, from a biblical manuscript that he had in front of him while writing the commentary. These quotations occasionally underwent slight editorial changes when they were adapted to the new context. The initial words of the quotation or the verb forms occasionally were affected, or some abridgment took place. In a few cases, Ephrem seems slightly to have updated the language, e.g., by avoiding the use of qeny¯ an¯ a with the meaning ‘cattle’, by avoiding the Hebraizing meaning ‘thing, or matter’ of petg¯ am¯ a and mellt¯ a , or, e.g., by replacing y(h)ab qy¯ am¯ a (Gen 17:2, comp. Hebr. n¯ atan 12 R.B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress. The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis (TEG 6; Louvain, 1997); see also idem, ‘Techniques of Translation and Transmission in the Earliest Text Forms of the Syriac Version of Genesis’, in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der 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), 177–185. 13 A.G.P. Janson, De Abrahamcyclus in de Genesiscommentaar van Efrem de Syri¨ er (Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden, 1998).

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

33

am¯ a ‘to make a covenant’.14 These b erit) with the more common aqim qy¯ strategies can be identified and described. We are dealing not with variant readings, but with the author’s working method. No rash conclusions should be drawn, therefore, about Ephrem’s biblical manuscript. More interesting for the biblical scholar is the fact that roughly for half of the instances in which ms British Library, Add. 14425 (the famous fifth-century ms 5b1) differs from the later Peshitta and in which Ephrem’s commentary provides positive evidence, Ephrem follows 5b1. Ephrem’s quotation of Gen 18:20 will serve as an example.15 mt Pesh. (7a1) 5b1 Ephrem 76,22

hbr yk hrm[w µds tq[z lv[ —s¿ƒ P_wƒZ^ u^[~Z P—„W —kX~ P_wƒZ^ u^[~Z P—„W —kX~ P_wƒZ^ u^[~Z xr P—„W

The reading —kX~, which closely corresponds to the Hebrew hbr, in all likelihood goes back to the earliest layer of the textual history of the Peshitta. This is not to say that Ephrem’s commentary supports the manuscript 5b1 as a whole, for in about half of the passages for which there is positive evidence, Ephrem disagrees with 5b1 and follows the later Peshitta. It is clear, therefore, that Ephrem’s Bible and ms 5b1 are independent witnesses to the same process determining the early history of the Peshitta.16 A number of Hebraizing readings were replaced with more idiomatic Syriac phrases, literal translations from the Hebrew were sometimes given up, and difficult passages were smoothed out or received an explanatory addition.17 This process must have been at work from the earliest period until the establishment of the standard text. Ms 5b1 and Ephrem’s Bible give their own partial reflections of the older Peshitta text as well as of this ongoing process. Ephrem’s Bible and ms 5b1 do not represent two different stages in one linear development, but rather reveal that the process of gradually moving away from the Hebrew was at work in different places and in different ways. Without the evidence of Ephrem’s commentary, this diversity would have been less visible. 14 Janson, De Abrahamcyclus, 81. One could argue that this type of editorial work comes close to the linguistic updates that took place within some biblical manuscripts. 15 Janson, De Abrahamcyclus, 56; Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 292. 16 The significant agreement between Ephrem and ms 5b1 should at the same time warn us not to regard the latter as a peripheral or lateral manuscript; see Ter Haar Romeny, ‘Techniques of Translation,’ 183–184. 17 Ter Haar Romeny, ‘Techniques of Translation’, 183.

34

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Early Peshitta readings which might possibly go back to the earliest stage of the history of the Peshitta may be retrieved from other commentaries as well. The Commentary on Qohelet attributed to John of Apamea preserves a few readings which are not attested in Peshitta mss and, in Strothmann’s words, should be regarded as ‘durch den hebr¨ aischen Text . . . beeinflußt’.18 An interesting example is the phrase b-rey¯ an¯ a d-lebbeh, quoted by John at Qoh 2:22,19 against Peshitta b-s.eby¯ an¯ a d-lebbeh. John’s reading reflects Hebrew b-rayon libbo ‘in the striving of his heart’. Strothmann ponders the question of whether John might have known enough Hebrew to consult the original text and to improve the Peshitta translation. This seems extremely unlikely, as he himself admits. It seems more plausible that b-rey¯ an¯ a is the original Peshitta reading. The replacement with b-s.eby¯ an¯ a fits within the general pattern outlined above, for while the original Peshitta translators may have used rey¯ an¯ a with the meaning ‘striving, desire’, the more common meaning in (later) Syriac is ‘thought’. This could have triggered the change. A process going on in different places and in different ways like this implies that at any given moment manuscripts were circulating which occupied their own position within the spectrum of the early Peshitta tradition. It would come as no surprise, then, that commentators sometimes knew different readings which they occasionally reproduced in their work. The following example may show something of this complexity. Gen 30:27 and 30 contain the same expression ‘the Lord has blessed me/you because of you/me’. The Masoretic text has slightly different renderings for the same idea, while the (later) Peshitta uses the preposition met..tol in both cases.20 Ephrem knew this Peshitta reading, as is shown in his quotation at the beginning of the paragraph, where usually an accurate quotation is found. A few lines further, however, in the midst of his explanatory paraphrase, he repeats this verse with a different reading at the end: b-regl¯ ak ‘in your foot’, which does not mirror the Hebrew of this verse (unless we suppose that a different Vorlage had been used), but which has its parallel in verse 30, both in the Hebrew text and in ms 5b1. Even if this second quotation might be the result of a conflation between the two verses, it is clear that Ephrem knew the reading of ms 5b1 and used it. It is noteworthy, in addition, 18 W. Strothmann, Kohelet-Kommentar des Johannes von Apamea (GOF 1.30; Wiesbaden, 1988), xxxiv. 19 Strothmann, Kohelet-Kommentar, 33,278–279. 20 Targum Onqelos has b-dil¯ ak and b-dili respectively. There is no connection, therefore, either between Onqelos and Peshitta, or between Onqelos and ms 5b1 (with Ephrem).

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

35

that Ephrem, in both instances, has the two verbs in parataxis, connected with the conjunction waw . Not attested in biblical manuscripts, this structure reflects the Hebrew and thus might represent the original Peshitta. Gen 30:27

Gen 30:30

mt Pesh. 5b1 Ephrem 92,1–2 Ephrem 92,12 mt Pesh. 5b1 Ephrem

ûllgb y ynkrbyw ytjn m—shv Qj‘v l{n‘SZ —k¬z

= Pesh. (mt -w) m—shv Qj‘v l{n‘S^ —kz (mt -w) psW‘S Qj‘v l{n‘S^ —kz

ylgrl ûta y ûrbyw ¦—shv Qj‘v pn‘S^ lsW‘S Qj‘v pn‘S^

not quoted

Additional evidence to this complex problem of the relationship between ms 5b1 and the rest of the Peshitta tradition has recently been adduced from an unexpected source. Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on the Octateuch, originally written in Greek and preserved in Armenian (in addition to a number of Greek fragments), contains a considerable number of quotations from ‘the Syrian’. For the book of Genesis, these quotations have been studied by Ter Haar Romeny.21 The author argues that the quotations of  S‘roc represent the Peshitta. Although their number is rather limited (for Genesis there are 59 cases of real quotation or concrete information on particular readings), there are some instances where  S‘roc supports ms 5b1 against the later tradition, while on one occasion (Gen 8:7)  S‘roc even helps to restore the original reading of ms 5b1. All this has been discussed in great detail by Ter Haar Romeny and should not be repeated here. There is one passage, however, which I cannot resist quoting. It deals with Gen 3:22, where mimmenn¯ u in the Hebrew is ambiguous: [rw bwf t[dl wnmm djak ‘as one of us, to know good and evil . . .’. According to the Armenian version, Eusebius has the following comment: Among the Syrians, some read as it is in our (text) (i.e., the Septuagint), and others in this manner: ‘See, Adam has become like one’, in the sense of saying: there is no refuge with any other, but he himself has authority over himself, which he desired. ‘See, Adam has become one, to have by himself knowledge of good and evil’.22

This alternative Syriac reading, which entails a different division of the sentence (‘as one, to know by himself . . .’) is very close to Targum 21

Ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress. Translation according to Ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian, 207; discussion 210 (with further references). Comp. Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 137–138. 22

36

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Onqelos as well as to Symmachus. It would go too far, perhaps, to reconstruct an early Peshitta reading on the basis of Eusebius’ sole witness. I would regard this as an interpretative variant, which must have circulated, borrowed perhaps from the Targum tradition, even if it is far from certain that it ever existed in a Peshitta manuscript. Such variants, examples of which may also be found in Ephrem’s commentary,23 may occasionally have found their way into biblical manuscripts. At the same time, they show us that ancient commentators were less strictly bound by one single text than we would be inclined to assume. This has nothing to do with free quotation or quotation from memory; it has to do with the commentators’ approach to the biblical text. It is true that these interpretative variants pose a special problem to those who want to use the evidence of the commentaries in their reconstruction of the early Peshitta. However, even without this category of variants, there is enough material that, after careful examination and evaluation, deserves to be incorporated into an apparatus to the Peshitta edition. Despite some excellent preparatory studies, this work still remains to be done. For the later commentary tradition, we are in a slightly better position since a greater number of commentaries have been preserved. Here again, quotations can never be taken at face value. For each commentator, we first have to study his working method, including the way in which he handles older material that is incorporated into his work, especially material of Greek origin. However, in most cases and to a certain extent, these questions can successfully be studied and answered, and eventually a great deal of solid evidence, directly relevant to the study of the Peshitta’s textual history, will become available. The work is potentially very important, since there are a number of commentaries from the period between the eighth and tenth centuries, a period of transition from the so-called btr text to the Textus Receptus (tr), which also witnessed the gradual merging of the supposedly eastern text into the western tradition. Many questions related to these developments are still awaiting an answer, and I am convinced that the data derived from the commentaries will play an important role in future discussions. There is quite a discernable difference between the scholarly study of the West and the East Syriac commentary tradition. There has been a lopsided interest by scholars in the East Syriac tradition. While a number of East Syriac texts are available in critical editions and annotated 23 See, e.g., Ephrem on Gen 6:2, 4: Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 309, and Ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian, 80–81; Ephrem on Gen 49:23: Van Rompay, ‘The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation’, in M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation 1.1 (G¨ ottingen, 1996), 614–615, and Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 137.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

37

translations, most of the West Syriac texts still remain unpublished and have received little attention. In the East Syriac tradition, we have to reckon with the pervasive influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentaries, which also had an impact on biblical quotations. Although in these commentaries the Septuagint is never very far away, it appears that the biblical text quoted at the beginning of the successive scholia basically is the author’s Peshitta text. The process of adapting Theodore’s commentaries to the Syriac context and of recasting the commentaries in Syriac must already have started with the earliest translations of Theodore’s works in the fifth century.24 In the eighth and ninth centuries we have reached a situation in which the commentaries are completely Peshitta-based and in which the commentator has a whole set of strategies, including that of alternative quotations explicitly attributed to ‘the Greek’, in order to bridge the possible gap between the Peshitta and Theodore’s Septuagint-based commentary. Ishodad of Merv’s commentary is a veritable gold mine, in which scholars occasionally have done some digging, but which still is largely unexplored. The late Father Van den Eynde’s invaluable footnotes provide an excellent starting point, even though he did not have the Leiden Peshitta edition at his disposal and had to rely on the Mosul edition. One very important aspect of this commentary is that it does not merely reflect one specific moment of the textual history. Ishodad shared our interest in the history of the Peshitta and often refers to variant readings. Two passages in Ishodad’s commentary on the Twelve Prophets (Amos 6:1 and Zech 11:4) already received scholarly attention from A. Gelston and Sebastian Brock.25 Both passages show that the author was familiar with variant readings existing ‘in old manuscripts’ (ba-s.h.¯ ah.¯e or ba-kt¯ ab¯e attiq¯e ), which in both cases most likely provide the original Peshitta reading, not attested in any of the preserved Peshitta manuscripts. In one of these cases, Zech 11:4, Ishodad first quotes the later Peshitta reading (P—{kh Q{„r lƒ ‘pasture the thin sheep’), the only one to be found in the Leiden Peshitta edition. He then quotes the Hebrew, which, he argues, has P—skh ‘killed’ (comp. mt: hgrhh ÷ax), and continues: 24 See the description in T. Jansma, ‘Th´eodore de Mopsueste. Interpr´etation du Livre de la Gen` ese. Fragments de la version syriaque (B.M. Add. 17,189, fol. 17–21)’, Mus´ eon 75 (1962), 82–83, as well as C. Leonhard, Ishodad of Merw’s Exegesis of the Psalms 119 and 139–147. A Study of his Interpretation in the Light of the Syriac Translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary (CSCO 585, Subs. 107; Louvain, 2001), 40–42. 25 A. Gelston, The Peshit.ta of the Twelve Prophets (Oxford, 1987), 96; S.P. Brock, ‘Text History and Text Division in Peshit.ta Isaiah’, in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder (eds.), The Peshit.ta: Its Early Text and History (MPIL 4; Leiden, 1988), 60.

38

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

‘and also in old books of the Syrian it is written thus and thus it is right to read’.26 That Ishodad was not the first Syrian interpreter to have problems with the reading qat..tint¯ a is proven by Theodore bar Koni who, a few decades earlier, in the section devoted to the ‘explanation of difficult words in the Twelve (Prophets)’, proposed the emendation to qt.ilt¯ a, without, however, referring to ‘old manuscripts’.27 Another interesting example is found at 1 Kgs 6:20,28 for which the Leiden Peshitta edition reads Q“Z_ —kS u‘^ ‘and he overlaid the sanctuary’, without any variant. Now Ishodad has the following: ‘The words in front of (qd¯ am) the sanctuary: it is not qd¯ am, but qram (‘he overlaid’), for he speaks about the decoration, not about the open space in front of it’.29 Ishodad’s starting point is the reading qd¯ am, which he subsequently corrects to qram. Now, in view of the Hebrew (rybdh ynplw), there can be no doubt that qd¯ am is the original Peshitta reading, which seems not to have survived in any of the pre-twelfthcentury Peshitta manuscripts. In Ishodad’s commentary we see the two readings competing with each other, the original reading losing ground to the newcomer qram. This and similar cases also remind us of the fact that for the earlier period we have far more West Syriac than East Syriac biblical manuscripts. East Syriac commentaries can partly make up for this imbalance. For the West Syriac commentary tradition, much less work has been done. Daniel of S.alah.’s sixth-century commentary on the Psalms is the earliest West Syriac commentary to have survived. It has hardly been used in the study of the textual history of the Psalms,30 for the simple reason that—with the exception of the explanation of the first two psalms31 —it has remained unpublished. Fortunately, David Taylor 26 C. Van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Iˇsodad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament 4. Isa¨ıe et les Douze (CSCO 303–304, Syr. 128–129; Louvain 1969), 128,28–129,4 (text) and 165,15–21 (transl.). See also Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 290–291 (where, however, the Syriac quotation is incorrect), and Gelston, The Peshit.ta of the Twelve Prophets, 96. 27 A. Scher, Theodorus bar Koni. Liber scholiorum (CSCO 55, Syr. 19; repr. Louvain, 1960), 296,15. 28 See already my review of ‘The Old Testament in Syriac’, BiOr 36 (1979), 354b. 29 C. Van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Iˇsodad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament 3. Livre des sessions (CSCO 229–230, Syr. 96–97; Louvain, 1962), 105,6–7 (text) and 123,36–124,2 (transl.). 30 The two first M¯ emr¯ e, published by Diettrich, were used in W.E. Barnes, The Peshitta Psalter according to the West Syrian Text (Cambridge, 1904), xxv. See Haefeli, Die Peschitta, 91. 31 G. Diettrich, Eine jakobitische Einleitung in den Psalter in Verbindung mit zwei Homilien aus dem grossen Psalmenkommentar des Daniel von S . alah. (BZAW 5; Giessen, 1901), 129–167.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

39

is now preparing an edition. Jacob of Edessa’s commentary on the Octateuch was identified as an independent work only a few years ago by Dirk Kruisheer, who is now preparing an edition.32 Soundings by Bas ter Haar Romeny into the Isaiah text of the monk Severus,33 who completed his biblical commentary in 861, have shown the potential richness of these materials. This work has been published in the Editio Romana of Ephrem’s works. However, here again, Peter Mubarrak’s interventions—both intentional and unintentional—make the edition unreliable. Awaiting a critical edition, one has to turn to the tenth-century ms Vaticanus Syriacus 103, which most probably is the direct or indirect source of all other copies of the work. Not unlike Ishodad, Severus must be studied on different levels: there is the text as it was found in the biblical manuscript he had at hand and chose to reproduce, on the one hand, and there is the text as found in the earlier sources which he incorporated into his work, on the other. For Isa 10:27, Severus knew the common Peshitta reading ‘and the yoke shall be destroyed from before the heifers’, but at the same time he reproduced an earlier scholion which supposes the reading meˇsh.¯ a ‘oil’ rather than muˇsh.¯e ‘heifers’. The reading meˇsh.¯ a must have been the original Peshitta reading, which has left no traces in the biblical manuscripts.34 As for Severus’ own Bible, Ter Haar Romeny noted a number of agreements with the Isaiah text of ms 9a1, which therefore becomes less isolated than it often has been thought to be. Moreover, the absence of agreements with the distinctive readings of the medieval standard text (tr) indicates that this text form, at the end of the ninth century, was not yet widely spread in West Syrian circles.35 Commentaries will not only shed additional light on the older layers of the Peshitta transmission, but will also help us to place the individual 32 D. Kruisheer, ‘Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa, and the Monk Severus. An Analysis of Ms. Vat. Syr. 103, ff. 1–72’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (OCA 256; Rome, 1998), 599–605. 33 R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta of Isaiah: Evidence from the Syriac Fathers’, 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; Leiden, 2006), 149–164; the discussion of Isa 10:27 is on p. 158. On this work, see also idem, ‘The Identity Formation of Syrian Orthodox Christians as Reflected in Two Exegetical Collections. First Soundings’, ParOr 29 (2004), 103–121. Ter Haar Romeny is preparing an edition of this text. 34 M.P. Weitzman’s observations on this passage (The Syriac Version, 290), based on the Editio Romana, need to be complemented and corrected in view of the information provided by Ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta of Isaiah’. 35 Ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta of Isaiah’, 158–159.

40

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

biblical manuscripts into their proper contexts. Once the study and collations of biblical manuscripts have been completed and provisional conclusions have been reached as to the relative position of the individual witnesses, commentaries can add a new dimension to the research. While biblical quotations in any given Syriac text may be relevant to the study of the textual history of the Peshitta, commentaries are relevant in a more direct, a more systematic, and a more cogent way. I would like to repeat, however, that the commentaries first need to be made available in critical editions (which presently is the case for perhaps half of the existing texts only) and that we first need to have a fair idea of the type of commentary we are dealing with and of the working method of the author. When these conditions are met, it will certainly be possible to produce—on the basis of the commentaries—an impressive apparatus criticus to the Peshitta text as presently edited. Although this would not straightforwardly lead us to a better knowledge of the original Peshitta, original readings will be recovered more than once. More importantly, such an apparatus would give us a much better insight into the complicated process of the transmission of the biblical text throughout the centuries, which involves not only the work of the scribe, but also that of the interpreter, the mpaˇsˇsq¯ an¯ a. However, such an apparatus criticus cannot be the final goal of our study of the commentaries. The texts are too rich and far too interesting to be cut into small pieces and to be relegated to the critical apparatus of even the most prestigious and expensive Peshitta edition. The phenomenon of the commentary itself, as the reflection of an interactive process of creating meaning that took place in the context of private study, school, and monastery, deserves our full attention.

2. Commentaries: Syriac and Greek Most Syriac commentaries can be connected in one way or another with the Greek commentary tradition. However, this does not hold true for the earliest preserved commentaries, those written by Ephrem. Although it would be incorrect to disconnect Ephrem’s works completely from the Greek Christian world, his commentaries have no parallel either in the Greek or in the later Syriac world. Although they have occasionally been related to the Antiochene commentary tradition, because of their focus on the biblical text as a historical record and their limited use of symbolic and typological interpretation, there is a world of difference, I think, between Ephrem’s commentaries and Greek Antiochene

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

41

commentaries.36 First, Ephrem’s commentaries, particularly the one on Genesis, display unity and a coherent literary structure—though not covering the entire biblical text and often skipping large sections, which in most cases are briefly summarized. Built up as a narrative in its own right, the commentary in principle can be read without the biblical text at hand. This literary independence vis-` a-vis the biblical text is not found in Greek commentaries. Moreover, in Ephrem’s commentaries there is no parallel for the philological approach of the Antiochenes, reflected in their remarks on the language of the biblical text and on the peculiarities of Scripture, in their awareness that the Greek translation does not faithfully render all the details of the Hebrew original, and in their interest in lexicography. Finally, Ephrem’s commentaries are characterized by the presence of a number of aggadic expansions, which, either in their content or in the approach, are reminiscent of Jewish tradition. We do not know what Ephrem’s sources were and whether he conformed to any existing literary genre. When looking for the closest parallels, we may think of the many fragmentary texts that have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.37 These display a wide variety, ranging from the straightforward pesher —known primarily from the Habakkuk Pesher —to the ‘rewritten Bible’, a name which has been given to such compositions as the Genesis Apocryphon, with many types in between.38 It has been suggested that most of the rewritten and rephrased biblical texts did not originate within the Qumran community39 and may, therefore, have been current in the Jewish world at large. Given the many connections which exist between Ephrem’s commentary and Jewish tradition, it seems legitimate to explore similarities with the Qumran literature, starting with the Genesis Apocryphon.40 It 36

See my ‘Antiochene Biblical Interpretation: Greek and Syriac’. Several of the so-called ‘parabiblical’ texts come to mind; see Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 8 (Oxford, 1994), 14 (1995), and 22 (1996). 38 Still very important is Ph.S. Alexander, ‘Retelling 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, SSF (Cambridge, 1988), 99–121. 39 E. Tov, ‘Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod’, in E. Ulrich & J. VanderKam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant. The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10; Notre Dame, in, 1994), esp. 111–112 and 134. 40 Existing studies of the Genesis Apocryphon already reveal a number of features which seem to have their parallel in Ephrem’s commentary; see Alexander, ‘Retelling’, 104–107; M.J. Bernstein, ‘Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon’, Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996), 37–57. For a broader presentation of the Qumran materials, see idem, ‘Contours of 37

42

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

must be admitted, though, that such a comparative study will be seriously hampered by the very fragmentary state of most of the Qumran documents. Although Ephrem’s commentaries on Genesis and Exodus have left their traces in the later tradition and are occasionally quoted in both the East and West Syriac traditions, the composition as such has not been imitated. It rather is the Greek Christian models that inspired the Syrian commentators. Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) is the author of the oldest Greek biblical commentaries that have survived (some parts of which exist in Syriac), but it is Origen who brought Christian biblical interpretation, in both its theory and its practice, to its full development. In many of his works he dealt with various aspects of the profession of the exegete, which also included the establishment of the text, and with a fully developed theory on the hermeneutic principles of interpretation. For the interpretation itself, he chose the genre of homilies more frequently than that of commentaries, although Origen’s homilies, as has been noted, ‘are nearer to lectures than most modern sermons’.41 Scholars have pointed to Origen’s indebtedness to Greek-Hellenistic grammatical and philological tradition, while Christian biblical commentary as a whole has been related to the pagan commentary tradition that developed around the writings of Homer. While the Greek Antiochene exegetes strongly rejected Origen’s approach to the Bible, particularly his fondness for allegorical interpretation, they nevertheless shared many of his philological interests. If allegorical interpretation may be described as ‘the more or less complete loss of the historical content of the text’, whereby ‘space and time are forgotten’ in the search of eternal truth,42 the Antiochenes did not want to disregard space and time. Despite their allowing different kinds of typological and hyperbolic interpretation, they always insisted first and foremost on understanding the text at Genesis Interpretation at Qumran: Contents, Context, and Nomenclature’, in J.L. Kugel (ed.), Studies in Ancient Midrash (s.l., 2001), 57–85; and ‘The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation’, in H. Najman and J.H. Newman (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation. Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJ.S 83; Leiden, 2004), 215–238. For some interesting reflections on the similarities and dissimilarities between ‘rewritten Bible’ and ‘scriptural commentary’, see S.D. Fraade, ‘Rewritten Bible and Rabbinic Midrash as Commentary’, in C. Bakhos (ed.), Current Trends in the Study of Midrash (JSJ.S 106; Leiden, 2006), 59–78. 41 M.F. Wiles, ‘Origen as Biblical Scholar’, in P.R. Ackroyd & C.F. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible 1. From the Beginnings to Jerome (Cambridge, 1970), 454. 42 F. Siegert, ‘Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style’ in Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 1.1, 141.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

43

hand (t‰ prÏqeiron) in what they saw, or constructed, as its historical context.43 The East Syrian commentators knew about Origen through Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is known for his fierce opposition to Origen,44 an opposition they were eager to share. None of Origen’s works were available to them. Even in the West Syrian tradition, where a similar resentment against Origen did not exist, his works hardly were known and used. With the exception of the Hexapla, there is no direct evidence of Origen’s works in Syriac. It is only through the works of Evagrius of Pontus, which were very popular in monastic circles, that some of Origen’s ideas and interpretations reached the Syriac literary world, both in the West and the East Syrian area, and had an impact on the exegetical tradition. For the East Syriac exegetical tradition, the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia may be regarded as the starting point. Translated in fifth-century Edessa and transferred from Edessa to the School of Nisibis in Persian territory, these writings were intensively studied and, in their Syriac dress, were fully appropriated by the East Syrian intellectuals. This process of adaptation, reworking, and appropriation—which also involved schematization and systematization—took place in the course of the fifth and sixth centuries.45 A number of sixth-century authors, students and teachers at the School of Nisibis, are known to have been involved in the work of translating, explaining, and summarizing Theodore’s works. Except for Narsai, the first director at Nisibis, none of their works have survived, although their names and a number 43 For some observations on the origins of the Antiochenes’ ‘historical’ approach and the presentation of some major texts, see F. Thome, Historia contra Mythos. Die Schriftauslegung Diodors von Tarsus und Theodors von Mopsuestia im Widerstreit zu Kaiser Julians und Salustius’ allegorischen Mythenverst¨ andnis (Hereditas. Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte 24; Bonn, 2004). 44 See Theodore’s ‘Treatise against the Allegorists’, in which Origen, along with Philo, is exposed for having initiated allegoric biblical interpretation: L. Van Rompay, Th´ eodore de Mopsueste. Fragments syriaques du Commentaire des Psaumes (Psaume 118 et Psaumes 138–148) (CSCO 435–436, Syr. 189–190; Louvain, 1982), 11–13 (text); 14–18 (transl.). 45 J. Frishman, The Ways and Means of the Divine Economy. An Edition, Translation and Study of Six Biblical Homilies by Narsai (Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden, 1992), 183–185. More recently, A.H. Becker, in the sixth chapter of his Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom. The School of Nisibis and Christian Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia, pa, 2006), provides a well-documented and insightful overview of ‘The Reception of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the School of Nisibis’ (113–125), highlighting both the pervasiveness of the process and its limitations, paying due attention to the philosophical background (dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 7), without losing sight ‘of the East Syrians’ agency and creativity in this process of reception’ (125).

44

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

of their interpretations are preserved in the eighth- and ninth-century commentaries: Abraham and Yoh.annan d-Bet Rabban, Mar Aba Katholikos, Michael Badoqa, H . enana, and others. One important aspect of the transformation of Theodore’s commentaries was their adaptation to the Peshitta, with minor adjustments in cases of basic agreement between Peshitta and Septuagint, and with more far-reaching interventions whenever there was substantial disagreement between the two biblical versions. Another feature of these sixth-century activities was the creation or preservation of an oral tradition—the product of teaching and discussion in the school—in which elements from the earlier exegetical strand were kept alive along with alternative opinions concerning controversial issues. Here again, we have no contemporary evidence. It is in the eighth- and ninth-century commentaries, long after the heyday of the school of Nisibis, that we find several references to ‘the tradition of the school’ (maˇslm¯ anut¯ a d-eskol¯e). These commentaries appear to us as a somewhat strange mixture of fifth- and sixth-century materials re-arranged and remodeled by eighth- and ninth-century authors, who worked in their specific historical contexts and who must have had their specific readership in mind. It is only through these later works that we are able to look back on the earlier period. When studying these works, one must keep in mind three historical phases, each of which had a decisive influence on the compositions as they are now preserved: (1) Theodore’s works translated from Greek into Syriac; (2) Syriac exegetical activity of the fifth and sixth centuries; (3) the literary and historical context of the later commentaries’ final redaction. The West Syriac exegetical tradition cannot be linked to one main authority in the way this can be done for the East Syriac tradition. We also do not have such a string of commentaries as we have in the East, all going back to the same sources. Each of the West Syriac commentaries is a work of its own kind: Daniel of S.alah., Jacob of Edessa, the London collection, the Vatican collection, Moses bar Kepha. These works are not interrelated in the same way as the East Syriac commentaries are. The London and Vatican collections are not commentaries in the real sense of the word, but rather excerpts from existing commentaries, with the names of the original authors often attached to the fragments. In the London collection primarily Greek authors are quoted: Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Severus of Antioch, and Ephrem, along with the less well-known names of Olympiodorus of Alexandria, John bar Aphtonaya, and a certain Symmachus.46 Severus, 46

See Bas ter Haar Romeny’s contribution to the present volume.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

45

the monk whose work is preserved in the Vatican collection, collected fragments from the Syrian authors Ephrem and Jacob of Edessa. His continuator, Simeon of H . isn Mans.ur, added extracts from authors of both Greek and Syrian origin: Hippolytus of Rome, Isidore of Pelusium, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Symmachus, Daniel of S.alah., and George, bishop of the Arabs. Most of the same sources, both Greek and Syriac, are also found in Moses bar Kepha’s works. Unlike the previously mentioned collections, these were edited as real commentaries that were somewhat similar to those current in East Syrian circles of his day, with which he must have had some acquaintance. Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentaries contained a great deal of theological interpretation, and conveyed his theory on the two catastases and his views on biblical history as a manifestation of God’s pedagogic dealings with man. The later East Syriac commentaries include theological explanations, but only to a limited extent. With certain theologically sensitive biblical verses we see stock explanations popping up in various commentaries. They maintain the general Antiochene, Dyophysite, and Theodorean profile of the commentary. Otherwise, the later commentaries are primarily concerned with textual and historical an¯ ay¯ a ‘factual’ or explanation—a level of exegesis that is termed sur¯ taˇsit¯ an¯ ay¯ a ‘historical’, upon which many in both the East and the West Syriac traditions wished to superimpose some sort of spiritual understanding, a teoriya or a puˇsˇsa ¯q¯ a ruh.¯ an¯ ay¯ a ‘a spiritual explanation’. This distinction between the various levels of exegesis also may reflect, at least for the East Syriac tradition, the different contexts in which the commentaries were created and used. In the fifth and sixth centuries, the formative period of East Syriac exegesis, the schools played a prominent role in the study, fixation, and creation of biblical exegesis, first the School of Edessa and later on the School of Nisibis. After the crisis around H . enana at the end of the sixth century, the School of Nisibis gradually lost its leading position, bequeathing its legacy to smaller schools in the various provinces of the East Syrian area, at the end of the Persian and in the beginning of the Islamic period.47 Apart from the location of a few of these schools and the names of some of their teachers, we have little information about the type of work or teaching carried out within their walls. It seems reasonable to assume that these schools were linked to monastic communities more closely than was the case in Edessa and Nisibis.48 Dadisho Qat.raya’s 47

On the various types of East Syrian schools, see Becker, Fear of God, 155–168. The school and the monk’s cell as the foci of East Syriac literary culture are discussed now in much greater detail in Becker, Fear of God. See esp. his 48

46

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Commentary on the Asceticon of Isaiah of Scetis (a work which was extremely popular among West and East Syrian monks), shows us that monks in the seventh century were voicing their dissatisfaction with the predominance of historical exegesis. They were advocating a wider use of spiritual exegesis that, they claimed, was not incompatible with Theodore of Mopsuestia’s teachings.49 It appears that in this episode we are witnessing a shift from the school to the monastery as the main source of inspiration for biblical interpretation. This new orientation soon exerted its influence also on the commentary tradition. Isho bar Nun’s Questions and Answers provide a most interesting example in this respect.50 The commentators of the eighth and ninth centuries were affiliated either with monastic schools or with episcopal sees. These must have been the environments where libraries were available, and it would have been monks in the first place, either in a monastic context or in their individual cells, who were interested in using the commentaries. In the Syrian Orthodox tradition of the later period, the most high-ranking officials of the church, like Dionysius bar S.alibi and Barhebraeus, were the authors of biblical commentaries. In the course of time the centre of biblical studies apparently shifted from the independent school to a monastic setting, and finally to the episcopal or patriarchal residence. The later medieval authors were far removed from the roots of their exegetical traditions, the Greek works of the patristic era, and the Syriac works of the formative period, and were writing in cultural and historical contexts widely different from those of the pre-Islamic period. Chapter 9: ‘The Monastic Context of the East Syrian School Movement’ (169– 197). The growing influence of Evagrius Ponticus’ (expurgated) writings is seen as the background against which monks became increasingly skeptical of Theodore’s historical exegesis. 49 The relevant passages in Dadisho’s work—to be found in R. Draguet, Commentaire du Livre d’Abba Isa¨ıe (Logoi I-XV) par Dadiˇso Qatraya (VIIe si` ecle) (CSCO 326–327, Syr. 144–145; Louvain, 1972), esp. 129,1–130,2 and 153,1–156,12 (text); 99,4–30 and 117,34–120,27 (transl.)—have been discussed on several occasions. The following analyses are particularly helpful: R. Macina, ‘L’homme ` a l’´ ecole de Dieu. D’Antioche ` a Nisibe. Profil herm´eneutique, th´ eologique et k´erygmatique du mouvement scoliaste nestorien. Monographie programmatique’, POC 32 (1982), 56–72; P. Bettiolo, ‘Esegesi e purezza di cuore. La testimonianza di Dadiˇso Qat.raya (VII sec.), nestoriano e solitario’, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 3 (1986), 201–213; to be complemented with Becker, Fear of God, 188–194. 50 C. Molenberg, The Interpreter Interpreted. Iˇ so bar Nun’s Selected Questions on the Old Testament (Ph.D. dissertation, Groningen, 1990), esp. 341–345, where the introduction of spiritual exegesis in the East Syriac tradition is situated within its larger context.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

47

Nevertheless, there are a number of elements pointing to continuity, encompassing even the East and West Syriac traditions. One of these elements has to do with the way in which Syrian authors viewed their biblical text in relationship to other versions of the Bible.51 Having developed their biblical interpretation in a culturally and linguistically complex world, Syrian exegetes throughout the ages were particularly attentive to readings in other languages, either Hebrew or Greek. They could not ignore the importance of other versions, as they were aware that their Peshitta had been translated from Hebrew, and that traces of the Hebrew stratum of the tradition subsisted in it. At the same time they had adopted and appropriated commentaries based on the Greek Septuagint. The fifth-century translators of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentaries sometimes solved the discrepancy between the Peshitta and Theodore’s Septuagint by providing, next to the Peshitta quotation, an ad hoc translation of the same verse in Theodore’s text, labeling the latter as ‘the Greek’ (Yawn¯ ay¯ a ). A number of these double quotations were maintained in the later East Syriac tradition. Some disappeared, others were added. In some cases, the Peshitta quotation was provided with an explanation, which was juxtaposed to Theodore’s explanation of the Septuagint verse. Similarly, in the West Syriac tradition, awareness of the Greek version as one of the constituent elements of Syriac biblical interpretation was always present, along with a number of quotations from ‘the Greek’ or ‘the Seventy’. West Syrian exegetes even went one step further still. Once they had a full translation of the Septuagint at their disposal, which was the work of bishop Paul of Tella in the early seventh century, some of them made this version, the Syro-Hexapla, their starting point, or incorporated it into their commentaries. Examples of this practice can be found in the London collection52 as well as in some of Dionysius bar S.alibi’s commentaries.53 The Syro-Hexapla, of West Syrian origin, was introduced in the East Syrian Church around 80054 and found its way 51 See also R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta and its Rivals: On the Assessment of the Peshitta and Other Versions of the Old Testament in Syriac Exegetical Literature’, The Harp 11–12 (1998–1999), 21–31. 52 See Bas ter Haar Romeny’s contribution to this volume. 53 S.D. Ryan, Dionysius bar Salibi’s Factual and Spiritual Commentary on Psalms 73–82 (CRB 57; Paris, 2004), esp. 46–52, where some of the earlier misconceptions on Bar S.alibi’s use of the Syro-Hexapla are corrected. It should also be noticed that in Bar S.alibi’s commentaries, as in other works, citations from the Syro-Hexapla coexist with non-Syro-Hexaplaric citations based on the Septuagint. 54 See R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Biblical Studies in the Church of the East: The Case of Catholicos Timothy I’, in M.F. Wiles, E.J. Yarnold, and P.M. Parvis (eds.), Studia Patristica 34 (Louvain, 2001), 503–510.

48

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

into the biblical commentaries of Ishodad of Merv.55 Even when the knowledge of the Greek language had declined, or even had disappeared, the position of the Greek Bible remained unchallenged. Somewhat different are the quotations from ‘the Hebrew’ (Ebr¯ ay¯ a ), which are again found in most Syriac commentaries. However, they are less substantial and in some commentaries they are added at the end of a scholion, without carrying their own interpretation. It is not always possible to trace them back to a particular version. In some instances, they render the Masoretic text; in others, parallels can be found in one of the branches of the Targum tradition; still other quotations probably reflect oral traditions. There are patristic precedents for the phenomenon of quotations from the Hebrew, in Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eusebius of Emesa, and for the Latin world in some of Jerome’s works. Once the authority of the Septuagint or the Vulgate was fully established and generally accepted, the practice lost its relevance and gradually disappeared. In Syriac, however, the practice of quoting the Hebrew and of referring to it was kept alive. Each Syrian commentator seems to have had his own sources of information, enabling him to include in his work some pieces of information on the biblical text that was generally acknowledged to have been the source from which the Peshitta was translated and that also was known as the Bible of contemporary Jews. These quotations from ‘the Greek’ and from ‘the Hebrew’ in a world and in a period in which these languages were hardly known and no longer were studied are not merely fossilized remains of a vanished civilization, or signposts pointing to an imaginary world, in which Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek peacefully coexisted. Rather, they are firmly rooted in the worldview of the Syrian Christians. This is the only way we can explain why these seemingly peripheral elements did not in the course of the centuries disappear from the commentaries. When confronted with the quotations from other languages, the readers were not unprepared. A number of the commentaries—e.g., those of Theodore bar Koni, Moshe bar Kepha, and Ishodad—include in their introduction a discussion of the different versions of the Bible and of the interrelationship of the Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac Bibles. In this way, they created the awareness that the Peshitta had its place in the broader stream of the tradition of the biblical text. When Barhebraeus went one step further and introduced in some of his commentaries a number of quotations

55 The complicated picture of Ishodad’s ‘Greek’ citations is analysed in A. Salvesen, ‘Hexaplaric Readings in Iˇsodad of Merv’s Commentary on Genesis’, in Frishman and Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis, 229–252.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

49

from the Armenian and the Coptic Bible,56 this only further evinces the open-mindedness of the Maphrian as well as of Syriac culture of his day. The Bible, its reading, its study, its artistic representation, has more than anything else shaped Syriac Christian culture in the various forms of its expression. So much had been borrowed from other cultures, Christian and non-Christian. It is perhaps by creatively dealing with this variegated heritage that Syrian Christians, in East and West, were able to make their own distinctive contribution.57 ——— Appendix Syriac Old Testament Commentaries to Be Included in a Future EDITIO MAIOR of the Peshitta58 A. Fourth- and Fifth-Century Commentaries A.1. Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis [HBOT 1.1, 622–628] A.2. Ephrem, Commentary on Exodus [ibidem] A.3. John the Solitary, Commentary on Qohelet [HBOT 1.1, 631–632] B. Commentaries of the Syrian Orthodox Tradition B.1. Daniel of S.alah., Commentary on Psalms [HBOT 1.1, 639–640] Largely unpublished. Cf. D.G.K. Taylor, ‘The Manuscript Tradition of Daniel of S.alah.’s Psalm Commentary’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (OCA 256; Rome, 1998), 61–69. B.2. Jacob of Edessa, Commentary on the Octateuch [HBOT 1.2, 560– 562] 56 J. G¨ ottsberger, Barhebr¨ aus und seine Scholien zur Heiligen Schrift (Biblische Studien 5.4–5; Freiburg i.B., 1900), 147–148. 57 Pete Glickenhaus’ and Bas ter Haar Romeny’s help with the final redaction of this paper should be gratefully acknowledged. 58 All works listed here are briefly discussed in my two contributions: ‘The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation’, in M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation 1.1 (G¨ ottingen, 1996), 612–641 [= HBOT 1.1], and ‘Development of Biblical Interpretation in the Syrian Churches of the Middle Ages’, in 1.2 (G¨ ottingen, 2000), 559–577 [= HBOT 1.2]. When no further comments are provided here, full editions are available. Unpublished or partly published commentaries are marked as such. In all cases references are given in HBOT; more recent publications are added here. Syriac translations of commentaries originally written in Greek have not been included.

50

B.3.

B.4. B.5.

B.6.

B.7.

B.8. B.9.

B.10.

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Unpublished. Cf. D. Kruisheer, ‘Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa, and the Monk Severus. An Analysis of Ms. Vat. Syr. 103, ff. 1–72’, in Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII, 599–605. Jacob of Edessa, Scholia [ibidem] Partly published. Add: A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (MPIL 10; Leiden, 1999), xxi– xxv. Jacob of Edessa, Commentary on Hexaemeron [ibidem] Anonymous, Collection of ms Brit. Libr., Add. 12168 [HBOT 1.2, 564] Largely unpublished. Cf. R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Greek vs. the Peshitta in a West Syrian Exegetical Collection (BL Add. 12168)’, in the present volume. Collection of ms Vat. Syr. 103, ‘Catena Severi’ [HBOT 1.2, 564] Unsatisfactorily published. Cf. R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta of Isaiah: Evidence from the Syriac Fathers’ 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; Leiden, 2006), esp. 154–159. Moses bar Kepha, Commentary on Hexaemeron [HBOT 1.2, 562– 563] Largely unpublished. Moses bar Kepha, Introduction to Psalms [ibidem] Dionysius bar S.alibi, Commentaries on the Old Testament [HBOT 1.2, 573–574] Partly published. Add: S.D. Ryan, Dionysius bar Salibi’s Factual and Spiritual Commentary on Psalms 73–82 (CRB 57; Paris, 2004)—with further references. Barhebraeus, Commentaries on the Old Testament [HBOT 1.2, 574–576] Partly published. C. Commentaries of the East Syrian Tradition

C.1. Theodore bar Koni, Scholion (which includes large exegetical sections) [HBOT 1.2, 566] C.2. Anonymous, Commentary on Gen-Exod 9:32 in ms (olim) Diyarbakır 22 [HBOT 1.2, 568] C.3. Isho bar Nun, Selected Questions on the Old Testament [HBOT 1.2, 567] Partly published.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL

51

C.4. Anonymous, Commentary on Psalms in ms Sachau 215 [HBOT 1.2, 572] Unpublished. C.5. Denh.a-Grigor, Commentary on Psalms [HBOT 1.2, 572] Unpublished. C.6. Ishodad of Merv, Commentary on the Old Testament [HBOT 1.2, 569–570] C.7. Anonymous, Commentary on the Pentateuch [HBOT 1.2, 568– 569] Partly published. C.8. Anonymous, Commentary on the Old Testament in ms (olim) Diyarbakır 22 [ibidem] Unpublished (partly overlapping with C.7). C.9. Gannat Buss¯ am¯e [HBOT 1.2, 571] Partly published. C.10. ‘Opuscula Nestoriana’ [HBOT 1.2, 571] C.11. Extracts from Psalm Commentaries [HBOT 1.2, 572] Largely unpublished. Add: R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Hebrew and the Greek as Alternatives to the Syriac Version in Iˇsodad’s Commentary on the Psalms’, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg, Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOT.S 333; Sheffield, 2001), esp. 448–452 (on Ah.ob Qat.raya). C.12. Isaac Eshbadnaya, Prose Commentary on the Old Testament [HBOT 1.2, 572] Unpublished.

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT AND HOW SYRIAN EXEGETES SOLVED THEM William L. Petersen*

For more than four decades now, the members of the Peshitta Institute Leiden—and their collaborators throughout the world—have been engaged in preparing a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) in Syriac. The appearance of successive volumes over the years brings this enormous undertaking ever closer to its completion. Perhaps mindful of that, this Third Peshitta Symposium broadened its field of vision to include the use of the Christian Bible in Syriac—not just the Old Testament, but also the New Testament—in exegesis and liturgy. This chapter begins by listing some of the reasons why the Syriac New Testament remains an essential text for students of the New Testament. Next, it presents a conspectus of the history of the New Testament in Syriac, from the Diatessaron to the Harclean and its famous margin. This conspectus then serves as the basis for the third section of this chapter: a description of some of the differences between the Syriac version of the Hebrew Bible and the Syriac version of the New Testament. These differences lead us, in their turn, to our fourth and final section: an examination of some exegetical problems in the New Testament, and how they were solved by Syrian exegetes. 1. The Value of the Syriac New Testament There are many reasons why the Syriac New Testament is so important for the study of the New Testament. Here it is sufficient to single out only two. First, the Syriac New Testament is essential for understanding the textual complexion and history of the Greek and Latin New Testaments. An example will show why. Nearly fifteen years ago, your author was asked by a series editor to review a manuscript for a book. It was a study of the New Testament * Owing to Professor Petersen’s medical indisposition at the time when proofs were circulated, certain corrections and clarifications have been undertaken by the editor, at the author’s request.

54

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

citations of a well-known Greek father of the church, who wrote in Cappadocia. Time and again the monograph’s author described variants in this father’s text as ‘singular’ or ‘unsupported by any other witness’. This led the author to conclude that the father was ‘taking liberties in his citations’ or was ‘citing carelessly’, ‘from memory’. And, indeed, when this father’s quotations were compared with the extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, the author’s analysis seemed correct: the Greek manuscript tradition offered no parallels. However, when one compared this father’s quotations with the Vetus Syra and the Peshitta New Testament, one discovered that many of the variants were also present in the Syriac New Testament manuscript tradition. In his reader’s report to the series editor, your author noted it was a geographic fact that the distance (as the crow flies) between Caesarea Cappadociae and Nisibis was about 325 miles (c.525 km.). Further, the cities were linked by major trade routes1 and were, therefore, cultural cousins. We also knew that the Vorlage of the Syriac New Testament was Greek. And, given the geographic and cultural proximity, we could conjecture the provenance of that Greek Vorlage: it was not Alexandrian, but Palestinian and/or Antiochene. Finally, the existence of common, ‘singular’ variants (which now, of course, were no longer ‘singular’) confirmed textually what common sense suggested: the Vetus Syra and Peshitta had been translated from (and/or influenced by) the same Greek manuscript tradition used by our fourth-century Greek father writing in Cappadocia. Why, then, had the author of the book manuscript limited his comparisons to the Greek manuscript tradition, and ignored the Syriac? Not only was this selectivity arbitrary; it was also obviously self-defeating. Even worse, it led to incorrect conclusions. This case illustrates our first point. When investigating the early New Testament text, one must include the Syriac versions, or one risks writing nonsense. In the case just discussed, it would appear that parts of the Greek manuscript tradition known to and used by our Greekwriting father in Cappadocia survive today in only one other place: in the Syriac versions of the New Testament. In other words, although the entire Greek manuscript tradition has lost these indisputably early (fourth century!) readings, they still survive in one manuscript tradition: the Syriac.2 1 See, e.g., A.H.M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1971), 215–225, with the map facing 215. I owe this reference to my colleague, Prof. Paul B. Harvey. 2 This is hardly a new lesson, for Alexander Souter stated precisely the same thing nearly a century ago: ‘the versions may sometimes have retained the correct text, where all known Greek mss. have lost it’ (A. Souter, ‘Progress in the Textual

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

55

Second, the Syriac New Testament text is a treasure-trove of interesting, demonstrably archaic variant readings. These readings illuminate the theology, mindset, and world of early Christians and, by so doing, are invaluable guides to the scholar. As evidence, consider a reading discovered by the great Dutch Orientalist and New Testament scholar, Tjitze Baarda. In Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron, Baarda noted a very unusual reading in relation to Luke 4:29–31.3 The citizens of Nazareth, after hearing Jesus read from Isaiah in their synagogue, and then expound on the text (Isa 61:1–2 and 58:6), became enraged. According to our standard Greek text, [29] ka» Çnastàntec ‚xËbalon aŒt‰n Íxw t®c pÏlewc ka» ¢gagon aŒt‰n Èwc Êfr‘oc to‹ Órouc ‚f> o› ô pÏlic ∂kodÏmhto aŒt¿n πste katakrhmn–sai aŒtÏn; [30] aŒt‰c d‡ dielj∞n diÄ mËsou aŒt¿n ‚pore‘eto. [31] ka» kat®ljen e c Kafarnao‘m . . .

[29] And rising, they cast him out from the city and took him unto the pinnacle of a mountain on which their city was built that they might cast him down; [30] But passing through the middle of them, he went away. [31] And he went down to Capernaum . . .

What caught Baarda’s eye—and, to the best of my knowledge, his was the first eye to be caught by it—was Ephrem’s Syriac Commentary, XI.24: . ¦\^P[“ . . . ‘they were casting him down’, . tˆz Qr |jZ \–^]rP thv but because of his divinity he did not

fall. . \–[“ P–_c‘v |‡P Audacity was casting him down, P–[T„”¥v PP QrP but the air itself submitting bore him 4 . tˆz QrZ^ .\—sT ]¬kªˆ{n tƒ on its wings, and (this) that he did not

fall . . . Later in the Commentary, in the only remaining major lacuna since the discovery of the ‘folios additionnels’ published by Leloir in 1990, Criticism of the Gospels since Westcott and Hort’, in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to the Reverend Andrew Martin Fairbairn, D.D. [London, 1909], 349–364, here 363). 3 Tj. Baarda, ‘“The Flying Jesus”. Luke 4:29–30 in the Syriac Diatessaron’, VigChr 40 (1986), 313–341 (reprinted in: Tj. Baarda, Essays on the Diatessaron [Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 11; Kampen, 1994], 59–85). 4 ´ ´ The Syriac text is from L. Leloir (ed.), Saint Ephrem, Commentaire de l’Evangile concordant, texte syriaque (CBM 8; Dublin, 1963), 70 (line 21)–72 (line 1).

56

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

at XVIII.10, we read in the Armenian (which is a translation from the Syriac): Herod did not kill [the Lord] with the infants of Bethlehem, nor did the Nazarenes when they hurled him down from the mountain, since it was not possible for him to die outside of Jerusalem.5

In addition to these references to Jesus actually being thrown from the mountain peak by the Nazarenes, Baarda found seven additional explicit references in Ephrem’s hymns6 and an eighth in Aphrahat, Dem. II.20, where this earlier contemporary of Ephrem was commenting on Luke 4:16–30: \–_SZ Q¥skc ¦_c^ ¦Z—“P [n Qv_„r Qv^ |v loz–P Qr^

And he showed the power of his majesty when he was cast down from the height into the depth and was not hurt.7

The most striking discovery of all, however, was that the reading also survived in the West. The variant was known to the Manichaean Faustus, and Augustine quoted it in Contra Faustum 26.2, without protest or correction. It was also found in a Dutch source: Jacob van Maerlant’s Rijmbijbel , composed in 1271.8 This reading demonstrates three things: (1) The reading is undeniably archaic. It is attested by Aphrahat, who probably died c.355. It is presumably the reading of the Diatessaron, used by both Ephrem and Aphrahat (this would also account for the presence of the reading in the text of the Manichaean Faustus, and in the Middle Dutch Rijmbijbel of van Maerlant). If it stood in the Diatessaron, then the origin of the reading cannot be later than about 170 ce—the approximate date of composition of the Diatessaron. (2) The reading is an interesting example of how very minor changes in the text of the New Testament can create an entirely new episode. Compare the two texts: 5 Translated from the Latin translation of the Armenian text, given in L. Leloir ´ ´ (ed.), Saint Ephrem, Commentaire de l’Evangile concordant, version arm´ enienne (CSCO 145, Arm. 2; Louvain, 1954), 186 (lines 10–13). 6 Carm. Nis. 43.22; 45.16; 59.13; Hym. de Virg. 14.12; Hym. de Azy. 16.10–13; 16.29; and Serm. de Dom. Nos. 21. 7 The translation is that of Baarda, ‘“The Flying Jesus”’, 313 (reprint, 59); the Syriac text is from J. Parisot, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes in PS 1.1 (Paris, 1894), 93. 8 At lines 23442–23443: ‘Die liede in tlant ons Heren spronc,/ Al daer ons Here nederghinc . . .’ J. David (ed.) Rymbybel van Jacob van Maerlant 2 (Brussels, 1859), 504.

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

Standard Greek Text of Luke 4:29d-31a . . . so that they might cast him off the cliff. — — But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way. He went down to Capernaum . . .

57

The Diatessaron’s Text (as per Baarda) . . . in order to cast him down. When they cast him down He did not fall. Through their midst he passed — [and?] He flew and went down to Capernaum . . .

At a minimum, the Syriac version certainly gives a new appreciation of the standard Greek text of Luke 4:30: Ka» kat®ljen e c Kafarnao‘m . . . And finally, (3) this reading allows us a glimpse of the worldview of early Christians. Apparently, the idea of Jesus ‘flying’ did not bother them; indeed, it may be that it appealed to them, as another sign of Jesus’ marvelous powers and superhuman abilities. These points are not new—although they are often ignored. As long ago as 1894, James Rendel Harris remarked on similarities between the text of Galatians upon which Ephrem commented (in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles), and the text of Marcion (as preserved in Tertullian).9 If one is talking about a reading found in Marcion, then it is indeed an ancient (pre-150 ce) variant. 2. A Brief History of the Syriac Version of the New Testament The history of the Syriac New Testament is different from that of the Old Testament in Syriac. Therefore, it will be beneficial to lay out the history of this version, for it informs the remainder of our study. There are eight points, glossed with references to some important recent literature from the field of textual criticism. 1. The Diatessaron was, apparently, the earliest translation of the gospels into Syriac. As V¨o¨ obus speculated,10 Tatian may also have rendered the Acts of the Apostles into Syriac. Furthermore, Eusebius 9 See J.R. Harris, ‘The Old Syriac Text of Acts’, in his Four Lectures on the Western Text of the New Testament (London, 1894), 18–19. The reading involves Gal 4:21–27 in the Ephrem Commentary and Marcion’s text (found in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.4). More recently, U. Schmid (Marcion und sein Apostolos [ANTF 25; Berlin–New York, 1995], 117, 279, 280, 281) noted a unique variant common to Marcion and Aphrahat (apud 1 Cor 1:28). 10 A. V¨ o¨ obus, Early Versions of the New Testament. Manuscript Studies (PETSE 6; Stockholm, 1954), 27–28.

58

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

contains a cryptic report that Tatian ‘ventured to paraphrase some words of’ Paul,11 which suggests that Tatian’s hand—presumably in Syriac—may lie, au fond, behind the Syriac versions of at least parts of some of the Pauline epistles.12 2. The Diatessaron was probably compiled in Syriac, working from Greek manuscripts.13 In other words, Tatian probably sat down with Justin Martyr’s Greek harmony and Greek manuscripts of the separate gospels in front of him. Working pericope by pericope, he would study these Greek sources, and then, perhaps after making a Greek ‘rough draft’, he would create the Syriac text of the harmony.14 3. One of the main virtues of the Syriac versions for New Testament studies is that here and there they preserve particular variant readings from their Greek Vorlage. This is especially the case not only with the Diatessaron and the Vetus Syra, but also with later versions, such as the Peshitta (which we will address below). The Diatessaron must, by virtue of its date of composition (probably in the early 170s), reflect the text of the Greek gospel manuscripts that circulated in the middle of the second century. 4. The Diatessaron influenced all later Syriac gospel texts, including, especially, the Vetus Syra. Its readings are, however, still found, here and three, even in the Peshitta. This is one of the reasons why students of the New Testament so desperately need a new, critical edition of the Peshitta. An example of a Diatessaron reading surviving in the Peshitta occurs at Luke 1:29b, where the standard Greek reads: . . . ka» dielog–zeto potap‰c e“h  Çspasm‰c o›toc (‘. . . and she considered what sort this greeting might be’). Greek Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis [D; 05] (which has affinities with the Syriac text) and a very few 11 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 4.29.6 (Loeb edition [ed. K. Lake], Vol. 1, 396–397; GCS edition [ed. E. Schwarz], 392). 12 An affinity between Tatian and Paul is logical, since Tatian’s Encratism is a natural extension of Paul’s well-known asceticism (e.g. 1 Cor 7:25–27). Indeed, in the Acts of Paul and Thecla 5 (a late second-century work), Paul proclaims an Encratitic version of the Beatitudes. 13 See W.L. Petersen, ‘New Evidence for the Question of the Original Language of the Diatessaron’, in W. Schrage (ed.), Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments zum 80. Geburtstag Heinrich Greeven (BZNW 47; New York–Berlin, 1986), 325–343; cp. W.L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (SVigChr 25; Leiden, 1994), 428. 14 On the relationship with Justin’s harmony, see W.L. Petersen, ‘Textual Evidence of Tatian’s Dependence Upon Justin’s >Apomnhmone‘mata’, NTS 36 (1990), 512–534; see also Tj. Baarda, ‘“A Staff Only, Not a Stick”. Disharmony of the Gospels and the Harmony of Tatian (Matthew 10,9f.; Mark 6,8f.; Luke 9,3 and 10,4)’, in J.-M. Sevrin (ed.), The New Testament in Early Christianity (BEThL 86; Louvain, 1989), 195 (reprinted in Baarda’s Essays on the Diatessaron, 173–196).

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

59

other manuscripts interpolate ‚n ·aut¨, and a few more manuscripts interpolate ‚n ·aut¨ lËgousa (mss X Y 33 213 892 1241, etc.).15 But none of these reflected the reading of two Diatessaronic witnesses, which presupposed the interpolation of ‚n t¨ [ d–¯] kard–¯(‘[she considered] in her heart [what sort of greeting . . .]’).16 The reading of the Vetus Syra is unknown, for neither manuscript is extant at this point. The criticallyreconstructed Peshitta text of Pusey and Gwilliam’s edition agrees with the standard Greek text. But, buried in Pusey and Gwilliam’s apparatus, one discovers that ms 1, prima manus, interpolated ]TsS at this point—precisely the reading presupposed by the two Diatessaronic witnesses.17 It is precisely readings such as this which argue so forcefully for a new edition of the Peshitta. 5. Regarding the later versions: What we today call the Vetus Syra version probably arose around the middle of the third century. The relationship between the two extant manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, which is usually dated to the fourth century, and Codex Curetonianus, which dates from the fifth century, poses a complex puzzle. In 1951, V¨ o¨obus described the two manuscripts as ‘independent textual traditions of the same version. Each text . . . has lived a life of its own.’18 Later, in 1977, Metzger pointed out that while a majority of scholars felt that the two manuscripts represented ‘two revisions of a common original’, others felt that the two manuscripts were ‘the work of different translators living at different places and times’.19 He declined to choose between the two possibilities. A recent philological examination of the two manuscripts by Jan Joosten has, however, demonstrated that there must have been a common Old Syriac ancestor—an archetype Vetus Syra manuscript— from which both of our extant manuscripts derive.20 The most decisive evidence is of two sorts: first, places where both manuscripts of the Vetus 15 See The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project (eds.), The New Testament in Greek (NTG) 3. The Gospel according to St. Luke 1 (Oxford, 1984), 12. 16 Cp. Luke 2:51d. This variant is not logged in NTG (the publication of the International Greek New Testament Project—see supra, n. 15), because although the NTG used the text of the Peshitta as established in the edition of Pusey and Gwilliam, it ignored variants found in Pusey and Gwilliam’s apparatus. 17 The ms is BL Or. Add. 14455 (VI cent.); the variant is in P.E. Pusey and G.H. Gwilliam (eds.), Tetraevangelium Sanctum iuxta simplicem Syrorum versionem (Oxford, 1901), 321. Further to this reading, see W.L. Petersen, The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Melodist (CSCO 475, Subs. 74; Louvain, 1985), 115–117. 18 V¨ o¨ obus, Early Versions, 80. 19 B.M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, 1977), 39. 20 J. Joosten, The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew (SStLL 22; Leiden, 1996), 6–10.

60

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

Syra appear to have misread the Greek in the same manner (an unlikely chance event, suggesting instead a common Vetus Syra archetype), and, second, inconsequential variants, unattested elsewhere, in which the two manuscripts nevertheless agree (again suggesting a common archetype in Syriac). 6. The origins of the Peshitta New Testament are cloaked in mystery, as well. While Burkitt21 suggested that the severe enforcer of orthodoxy, bishop Rabbula of Edessa, was responsible, later researchers have rejected that view.22 The very careful analysis of the Peshitta text of the Major Catholic and Pauline epistles, undertaken as part of the preparation for the new editio criticia maior to be published by the Institut f¨ ur Neutestamentliche Textforschung in M¨ unster,23 came to five insights about the origins of its text. (A) There is an exceptional uniformity among Peshitta manuscripts of the Paulines. (B) When variants occur, they are mostly minor: particles, prepositions, pronouns, word order. (C) The few significant variations fall into four categories: (i) differences in translating the Greek, (ii) assimilation to the Greek text, (iii) a ‘freer’ rendering of the Greek (yes, this is the inverse of point ‘ii’), and (iv) reversion to the Vetus Syra reading (as reconstructed from the citations found in the older Syrian fathers). (D) Ironically, with the exception of two late East-Syrian manuscripts, these contradictory tendencies exist side by side in the same manuscript. (E) This high degree of uniformity suggests that the manuscripts represent a single Peshitta ‘mother’ text,

21 F.C. Burkitt, S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel (TaS 7.2; Cambridge, 1901 [reprinted: Nendeln, 1967]), 57: ‘. . . the great event [the issuance of the Peshitta] took place soon after 411 AD under the auspices of Rabbula, who had been in that year appointed bishop of Edessa. Rabbula’s first care . . . was for a more accurate version of the New Testament.’ 22 Most notably by A. V¨ o¨ obus, Investigations into the Text of the New Testament Used by Rabbula of Edessa (Contributions of the Baltic University 59; Pinneberg, 1947); see the discussion in Metzger, The Early Versions, 57–63, although this resume is now somewhat dated. Notably, in the first volume of Das Neue Testament ¨ in syrischer Uberlieferung 1. Die grossen Katholischen Briefe (ANTF 7; Berlin–New York, 1986), 97–104, its editor, Barbara Aland, reanimated the idea of Rabbulan authorship of the Peshitta. While acknowledging that—as V¨ o¨ obus demonstrated—the New Testament citations in Rabbula’s Syriac translations of Cyril of Alexandria’s De recta fide did not agree with the Peshitta (which argued against Rabbula’s connexion with the genesis of the Peshitta), the style and method of translation found in this Syriac translation of De recta fide did (which argued for some link between Rabbula—or his circle—and the genesis of the Peshitta). 23 Four volumes have appeared to date, all under the title Das Neue Testament ¨ in syrischer Uberlieferung, all appearing in the series ANTF (vols. 7, 14, 23, 32) (Berlin–New York, 1986, 1991, 1995, and 2002, respectively), with the first volume edited by B. Aland, and the other three co-edited by B. Aland and A. Juckel.

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

61

whose form was settled by the early fifth century; the Peshitta does not seem to have gone through a period of development.24 The evidence M¨ unster has so carefully collected and classified suggests that the creation of the Peshitta of the Paulines occurred either as a single event or, if there were multiple events, then they took place within a very brief interval. Put differently, it would appear that the translation of the Peshitta of the Pauline Epistles was the result of a single actor or group of actors working collaboratively. The translation, once issued, saw very little revision. If any revision of the Peshitta of the Paulines took place, then it occurred so close to the date of issuance that we, from our perspective, cannot distinguish between the issuance and this very early revision. 7. As for the Harclean and its famous margin, the research of Aland and Juckel—which thus far extends only to the Major Catholic and Pauline epistles—indicates that the Harclean is a revision of a revision— something Sebastian Brock demonstrated conclusively twenty years ago, in a Festschrift for Bruce Metzger.25 Philoxenus, the Jacobite bishop of Mabbug (Hierapolis), directed Polycarp, chorepiscopus in Mabbug, to revise the Peshitta. The Christological controversies of the fourth century, which reached a head in the deliberations of the Council of Chalcedon (451), seem to have been the motivating factor behind the activity of Polycarp and Philoxenus. This first revision (the ‘Philoxenian’), undertaken in 508, was itself later revised, by Thomas of H . arqel (who was also bishop of Mabbug), in 616 (the ‘Harclean’). By the time of Thomas, however, Christological concerns were no longer the driving force behind the revision; rather, Thomas’ aim seems to have been to bring the Syriac into as close conformity with the Greek as possible. A colophon in Cambridge Univ. Lib. ms Add. 1700 (anni 1169/1170) states that Thomas of H . arqel corrected the text of the Pauline epistles against two Greek manuscripts. The work of the M¨ unster Institut now permits the character of these two Greek manuscripts to be stipulated. The Harclean’s text in the Paulines is closest to Greek ms 2138 (anni 1072) and a group that includes mss 1505 (anni 1084) 1611 (XII cent.) and 2495 (XIV/XV cent.). ‘Bindefehler’ link the Harclean with this group26 —and 24 ¨ B. Aland and A. Juckel (eds.) Das Neue Testament in syrischer Uberlieferung 2. Die Paulinischen Briefe 1. R¨ omer- und 1. Korintherbrief (ANTF 14; Berlin–New York, 1991), 51. 25 S.P. Brock, ‘The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem’, in E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (eds.), New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford, 1981), 325–343, here 340–341. 26 ¨ B. Aland and A. Juckel (eds). Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Uberlieferung 2. Die Paulinischen Briefe 2. 2. Korintherbrief, Galaterbrief, Epheserbrief, Philipperbrief und Kolosserbrief (ANTF 23; Berlin–New York, 1995), 32–34.

62

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

common errors are, of course, the surest mark of a genetic relationship. We have no colophon to guide us in the case of the Major Catholic epistles, but the Insitut’s computer analysis showed that Thomas’ Greek base was akin to the text found in mss 2138 1505 1611 2495 2200 and 614—essentially the same text-type he used for the Paulines.27 8. Regarding the Harclean margin: in his 1977 study, The Early Versions of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger recorded Matthew Black’s suggestion that the margin consisted of rejected Philoxenian readings. Metzger was, however, unconvinced, noting that ‘[if this were so then one wonders] why [these ‘rejected’ Philoxenian readings] should have been kept at all’.28 Dissatisfied with Black’s suggestion, Metzger concluded that the relation of the marginalia ‘to the Syriac text has not been resolved. Obviously a great deal of work remains to be done on problems raised by the Harclean marginalia.’29 That work has now been done by Aland and Juckel. They found that, at least in the Pauline epistles, the margin contained three types of readings: (1) readings from the (now lost) Philoxenian version, which Thomas was revising (Black’s hypothesis was confirmed); (2) readings from the ‘second’ Greek tradition Thomas was using (i.e., when he adopted the reading of the ‘first’ Greek tradition, he sometimes put the reading of the ‘second’ Greek tradition in the margin)30 ; and (3) other (Greek) readings he wished to preserve.31 3. Differences between the Syriac Old Testament and the Syriac New Testament With this history of the Syriac New Testament in hand, we are now in a position to comment on some differences between it and the Syriac Old Testament. The first and most obvious difference is linguistic: Greek and Syriac are unrelated strangers, while Hebrew and Syriac are siblings. As a result, the degree of relative continuity (in vocabulary, word order, grammatical constructions, etc.) between the Greek New Testament 27 ¨ Das Neue Testament in syrischer Uberlieferung 1. Die grossen Katholischen Briefe, 90. 28 Early Versions, 70. 29 Ibidem. 30 These often aid the Syrian reader in identifying the semantic range of the Greek word, or in understanding why the translator chose a particular Syriac word. 31 ¨ Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Uberlieferung 1. Die Paulinischen Briefe 2, 34–38. See also 39 for an explanation of the ‘critical symbols’ (the obelus and asterisk) in Thomas’ text.

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

63

and its Syriac version is virtually nil, while the continuity between the Hebrew Bible and its Syriac version is great. A second difference is the relative age and textual stability of the respective Vorlagen from which the two testaments were translated. Although it was certainly not homogeneous,32 the textual contours of the Hebrew Bible were relatively well known and well established by the time it was translated into Syriac.33 The same cannot be said of the New Testament. Indeed, when the first portions of what later came to be known as the New Testament began to appear in Syriac (presumably about 172 ce, in the form of the Diatessaron), neither the textual form nor the canon of the New Testament had been established.34 This observation leads directly to a third difference. While the Peshitta Old Testament appears to be the first rendering of the Hebrew Bible into Syriac (and, therefore, had no competition), the Syriac translations of the New Testament had to compete with earlier versions—most notably, in the case of the gospels, with the Diatessaron, which apparently saw wide ecclesiastical use down through the early fifth century in Syriac-speaking parishes.35 Even in the case of the Pauline epistles, the Peshitta version had to dislodge the Old Syriac version of the epistles.36 32 One must be careful not to minimize the differences among textual streams within the Hebrew Bible (viz., the ‘Old Hebrew’, the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, Qumran texts, etc.) and, in the case of the Syriac Old Testament, the biases of its translators (cp. M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament [UCOP 56; Cambridge, 1999], 258–262). 33 Weitzman (The Syriac Version, 252–253, 258) suggests that the oldest parts of the Peshitta (Pentateuch, Psalms, and the Prophets) were translated about 150 ce, and the most recent parts (Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles) about 200 ce. Weitzman’s dating agrees with E. Tov’s broader second-century date (cp. E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis–Assen, 1992], 152). 34 The earliest that scholars begin to detect a ‘established’ textual form for the Greek New Testament corpus is about 180 ce, in the writings of Irenaeus (cf. K. and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament [translated from the second German edition; Grand Rapids, mi–Leiden, 1989], 55)—or about a decade after the appearance of Tatian’s Diatessaron in Syriac. The canon, of course, took much longer to be fixed: it was not until 367 that Athanasius first lists the 27 books of the New Testament and suggests their special status; the Syrian New Testament canon took even longer to become settled: around 700 ce is the date usually suggested, after the Quinisextine (or Trullan) Synod met in 692 (cf. the excellent treatment in P. Feine, J. Behm, and W.G. K¨ ummel, Introduction to the New Testament [translated from the 14th revised German edition; Nashville, 1966], 352–354). 35 Suppression of the Diatessaron and its removal from ‘reverential use’ in churches is documented in the first half of the fifth century. See Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 41–45. 36 J. Kerschensteiner, Der altsyrische Paulustext (CSCO 315, Subsidia 37; Louvain, 1970), esp. 182–193.

64

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

Finally, one may point to the difference in status between the Hebrew Bible (whose Hebrew text has always enjoyed unrivaled primacy, at least within Judaism) and the Greek New Testament (whose text has not enjoyed any special position within Christianity). Even today, Jewish children learn Hebrew, and read their sacred text in Hebrew. Christians do not. Christian theological debates rarely refer to the Greek New Testament; rather, they are carried out with reference to a vernacular translation—for much of Christian history in the West, the Latin Vulgate. The consequences of this for the preservation, translation, and even attitudes towards the two texts (the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, and the Greek New Testament) cannot be overstated. Thus far we have been speaking of major differences, existing at the grand scale of historical context or reception of the text. There are, however, more detailed differences as well, which are directly related to the format, nature and character of the New Testament itself. The New Testament offers special exegetical problems that either are not found, or are not found in such an acute fashion in the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. And that brings us to the kernel of our study: the presentation of some of these problems, and how Syrian exegetes dealt with them. 4. Three Problems and their Solutions Perhaps the most obvious (and greatest) exegetical problem in the New Testament is the existence of parallel accounts of Jesus’ life— in other words, the gospels, especially the Synoptic gospels. While doublets exist in the Old Testament,37 they do not stand ‘front and center’ to the degree that the life of Jesus does in the gospels. The inconsistencies among these gospel accounts are stunning. Tatian—and Justin Martyr before him—adopted one solution: harmonization of the multiple inconsistent accounts into a single, consistent account. Marcion took another tack: he discarded all of the gospels except Luke—which he himself then revised. Syrian commentators faced the same problem, but they dealt with these inconsistencies in a unique way, rarely found in Latin and Greek exegesis. Perhaps because of their proximity to Judaism and their comfortable familiarity with exegetical models current among Jews, Syrian exegetes enthusiastically adopted a form of commentary which not only permitted different, mutually-exclusive interpretations 37 Examples include: how David got into King Saul’s service (cp. 1 Sam 16:14–23 with 17:12–57); the two versions of the Ten Commandments (cp. Exod 20:3–17 and Deut 5:7–21); the books of Chronicles and those of Samuel and Kings; etc.

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

65

to stand side by side, but also permitted different, mutually-exclusive versions of the same event to stand side by side.38 These two features can best be illustrated by examples. First, as an example of allowing different interpretations to stand side by side, consider the following passage from Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron, apropos of Mark 15:38, when ‘the curtain was torn’ (at Jesus’ crucifixion): [§ 5] The curtain tore asunder their [i.e., the Jews’] ears, which were closed up, and gave glory to [him] whom they had denied. [§ 6] Or, [it was] because the Spirit, when it saw the Son, suspended and naked, lifted itself up and rent in two the garment of its adornment. Or, because the symbols, when they saw the Lamb of symbols, rent the curtain asunder and went out to meet him. Or, because the spirit of prophecy . . .39 —Ephrem, Comm. Diat. XXI.5–6

Just what the tearing of the Temple curtain symbolizes is left to the reader to discern. The symbol is polyvalent. Ephrem’s suggestions (the Commentary contains no fewer than ten alternative interpretations of this one verse fragment40 ) provide the reader with a palette of choices. In this example from Ephrem, the exegetical technique is rather benign, for it simply offers up for the reader’s consideration various possible interpretations of an event. Less benign is the following example, in which the exegete explains his way around a crux, allowing different, mutually exclusive historical versions of events to stand side by side. 38 However, the fact that one finds more interpretations side by side also appears to be characteristic of many of the exegetical works inspired by the traditions of the Greek grammarians. One finds this in Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Jerome, and others. See R.B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress: The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis (TEG 6; Leuven, 1997), 18–19, with further references. 39 ´ ´ The Syriac text is found in Leloir (ed.), Saint Ephrem, Commentaire de l’Evangile concordant, texte syriaque, 210. 40 The ten are found in Ephrem, Comm. Diat. XXI.4–6. The interpretations are: the rending of the Temple curtain (1) showed that the kingdom had been taken from the Jews, and been given to people who would bear fruit; (2) showed that the Temple would be destroyed, because the Spirit had left it (cp. Josephus ); (3) was God desecrating the door of the Temple through which Judas had entered; (4) was Jesus’ revenge for him being stripped of his garments; (5) represented God justly desecrating the Jewish Temple, because the Jews had unjustly caused Jesus to suffer; (6) was nature lamenting over the impending destruction of the Temple; (7) represented the symbolic ‘tearing open’ of the Jews’ ‘closed’ ears; (8) was the result of the Spirit ‘rending’ his ‘garments’ when he saw the naked Son crucified; (9) was the result of ‘the symbols’ going out to meet the ‘Lamb of symbols’; (10) was the spirit of prophecy, which had descended to earth in order to announce the Lord’s coming to humanity, ‘taking flight’ to ascend to the heavens, in order to announce the Lord’s ascent to heaven.

66

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

An example of this use is found in Ishodad of Merv, apropos of Matt 27:50–54. The standard Greek gospel text runs as follows (translated into English): [50] And Jesus, again crying out with a loud voice, released his spirit. [51] And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two, from top to bottom, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent, [52] and the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. [53] And going out from the tombs after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. [54] And the centurion and the ones with him guarding Jesus, seeing the earthquake and the things happening feared greatly, saying: ‘Truly this was [the] Son of God’.

Jesus has just died on the cross (verse 50) in what we will call ‘real time’. In verse 51, the Temple curtain is torn in two, the earth quakes, and the rocks are split; all this also takes place in ‘real time’. Then come the two verses which draw our attention, vv. 52 and 53; here the time frame suddenly becomes confused. Initially, the passage continues in ‘real time’: the tombs are opened and ‘many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep’ are ‘raised’. This miraculous event is, one presumes, intended to be part of the terrata surrounding Jesus’ death on the cross. However, we then find a curious slip out of ‘real time’ in verse 53, when we read that these resurrected saints do not manifest themselves until three days later: ‘after his resurrection’ ! Taking the text at face value, the tombs are opened and the ‘saints’ are resurrected when Jesus dies on the cross; but the ‘saints’ do not ‘appear in the holy city’ until three days later—until after Jesus has himself been resurrected. Nevertheless, in the next verse, verse 54, we find ourselves back in ‘real time’: the horrors/wonders that the centurion is witnessing cause him to offer his confession in ‘real time’. This inconsistency in chronology may well be a later theological correction introduced by a reviser of Matthew’s text. Recall that, according to Pauline theology, Jesus is the ‘first fruits’ of the resurrection (cp. 1 Cor 15:20, 23; Acts 26:23). In other words, according to Pauline theology, Jesus must be the first to ‘break the gates (or ‘bars’) of Sheol’.41 Seen in this perspective, the delay is a ‘necessary’ theological improvement, with Pauline overtones. Let us see how Ishodad, who probably based himself on one or more earlier sources (Syriac or Greek in Syriac translation), dealt with the rather obvious problem presented by this passage. What do 41 On this concept, see S. Brock, ‘The Gates/Bars of Sheol Revisited’, in W.L. Petersen, J.S. Vos, and H.J. de Jonge (eds.), Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical (NT.S 89; Leiden, 1997), 7–24.

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

67

these resurrected persons—who are, apparently, raised on ‘Good Friday’ afternoon—do until ‘Easter Sunday’ morning? Here are Ishodad’s words: And I consider that they [the resurrected persons] did not take food at all [i.e., during the three days after the tombs were opened, but before they were allowed to appear]; but they went about through Friday and the Sabbath, according as some say, they each stood by his grave and gave glory; others say, they assembled on the Mount of Olives where our Lord prayed; and others, that they departed to Paradise at the entrance of the soul of our Lord and that of the Thief; but those who say that they remained for a long time in life, and that a few of them lived till the kingdom of Titus, are not much inclined to truth.42 —Ishodad, Comm. Matt., ad loc.

In the space of these few lines, Ishodad offers no fewer than five separate versions of the event, one of which (the fourth: ‘that they departed to Paradise at the entrance of the soul of our Lord and that of the Thief’) is, interestingly enough, consistent with a completely ‘real time’ series of events—it lacks the chronological disjunction. (In passing, it should be noted that the reading of the Diatessaron appears to have been: ‘the tombs were opened, the dead were raised, and going into the holy city they appeared to many.’43 In the Diatessaron, everything seems to have taken place in ‘real time’.) Although he was writing in the ninth century, the style of commentary just described enabled Ishodad to accomplish two things: first, he could offer up—in a ‘safe’, non-judgemental way—multiple accounts of the same episode, one of which, it appears, presupposes a text of Matthew different from our current text44 ; and, second, he could finesse the awkward disjunction in chronology. Another example of the use of this technique as a tool for smoothing over a disjunction among the gospels is found in the so-called ‘Synoptic Apocalypse’. At Matt 24:15 (par. Mark 13:14) Jesus proclaims that the destruction of the Temple is near when ‘you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel’. Luke 21:20, however, has made this rather vague, retrospective 42 M.D. Gibson (ed.), The Commentaries of Ishodad of Merv (5 vols.; HSem 5–7, 10–11; Cambridge, 1911–1916); here, Vol. 1 (HSem 5), 114 (lines 31–39) (English translation); Vol. 2 (HSem 6), 191 (line 19)–192 (line 5) (Syriac text). 43 For this reconstruction of the Diatessaron’s text, see Petersen, The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus, 92–112. 44 The difference is in the ‘real time’ version of events: Ishodad’s report of these ‘dead’ (= the Diatessaron’s text) ‘departing to Paradise’ at the same time Jesus dies (= the Diatessaron’s text) precludes their appearance metÄ tòn Ígersin Çuto‹ (= Matt 27:53).

68

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

‘prediction’45 into a ‘true’ prophecy: Jesus states that the destruction of the Temple is near when ‘you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies’. It is generally presumed that Luke was writing after the events of 70 ce (when Vespasian’s son Titus sacked Jerusalem), and has turned the Matthean/Marcan look backward to the Maccabean Revolt into a vaticinum ex eventu. So we are left with two traditions in the gospels, one of which (in Matthew and Mark) looks backwards to the events which precipitated the Maccabean Revolt, and one (in Luke) which looks into the ‘future’ towards the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Ishodad of Merv (writing apud Matt 24:15) is clearly working with an eye on both traditions. At one point he suggests that the ‘desolating sacrilege’ was the introduction of ‘heads of swine’ into the Temple and/or the setting up of an image of Caesar in the Temple. Both of these connect with the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in 167 ce. Therefore, these references—like the texts of Matthew and Mark—seem to point backwards. But Ishodad then goes on to associate the introduction of the ‘heads of swine’ with Pilate (governor in 26–36 ce) and the erection of a statue of Caesar with Caligula (reigned 37–41 ce)—both ostensibly ‘future’ events46 when Jesus spoke. Neither action, however, requires that ‘Jerusalem’ be ‘surrounded by armies’, the explicit Lucan reading. It is here, linked by the ever-convenient ‘others say’ (|j‘vP QzÑcP), that Ishodad goes on to give still another interpretation: ‘others say’ that the ‘desolating sacrilege’ was Titus crushing the first Jewish Revolt in 70 ce. Without having to choose between the retrospective Matthean/Marcan version and the forward-looking Lucan version, Ishodad effectively accommodates both traditions, even though the two are very different, and their historical referents took place at vastly different dates.47 A second exegetical problem which confronted Syrian exegetes of the New Testament was the ever-changing nature of the Christian message. What was an unambiguous Dominical statement one day could require 45 It is usually understood as referencing the events of 167 bce, when Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) desecrated the Temple—events which led to the Maccabean Revolt; cf., e.g., W.D. Davies and D.C. Allinson, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 3 (ICC; Edinburgh, 1997), 345–346. 46 Neither episode seems to have been historical. On the charge against Pilate, see Davies and Allinson, Saint Matthew 3, 345 n. 115; on the claim concerning Caligula, see V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (2nd ed.; London, 1969), 511. 47 One should concede, however, that the combination of these traditions is also found in authors not writing in Syriac, and may reflect Ishodad’s source; cf., for example, Theodore of Heraclea, Fragments on Matthew ad 24:15, ed. J. Reuss, Matth¨ aus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche (TU 61; Berlin, 1957), 90–91.

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

69

judicious moderation the next; what was orthodoxy one day could be heresy the next. As partisans in these disputes, commentators were everready to facilitate such changes. Similar problems also arose with the Hebrew Bible: interpretations changed. But in the New Testament, the Dominical instructions were ‘fresh’ and ‘up to date’; they were not relics from a nomadic past, now some five hundred or a thousand years distant. One also had the problem that, in the New Testament, Jesus’ own words and actions were directly reported; they were not relayed through a prophet. When it came to explaining these, the style of exegesis described above does not seem to have been a popular vehicle, for one did not wish to allow multiple interpretations of Jesus’ words. Rather, only one interpretation was permissible: the ‘old’ (erroneous) understanding of Jesus’ words was debunked, and the ‘new’ understanding was presented as the obvious, always-existing understanding. Two examples will suffice. We know from early Christian reports that the earliest Christians, who were Jerusalemites, pooled their resources, claimed nothing for their own, and lived a communistic life together (cp. Acts 2:44–45; 4:32). This, coupled with Jesus’ frequent statements about how ‘blessed are the poor’ (Luke 6:20), his admonition to ‘sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor . . . then come, follow me’ (Luke 18:22 & parr.), and his lament ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God’ (Mark 10:23 & parr.), led to the rather obvious conclusion that fiscal poverty was mandatory for Christians. However, as time went on, and Christianity began to move ‘up-market’, into the middle- and upper-classes, such a rigorist understanding of Jesus’ words became unpopular and unpalatable. In the Greek world, Clement of Alexandria reinterpreted Jesus’ words. In Quis dives salvetur Clement makes the case that Mark 10 should not be interpreted ‘literally’, but should instead be taken as a caution against putting wealth in the ‘first’ place in one’s life—for that place should be reserved for God. Clement even cautions ‘So let no man destroy wealth, rather [let him destroy] the passions of the soul which are incompatible with the better use of wealth. . . . The renunciation, then, and the selling of all possessions, is to be understood as spoken of the passions of the soul’ (Q.d.s. 14).48 In the Syrian world, Ishodad of Merv does the same thing, writing in his Commentary on Matthew, apud Matt 19:21–23: ‘[Jesus spoke these words to the ‘scribe’ because] our Lord . . . knew [the scribe’s] mind, that he had not inclined to virtue, . . . [and that] he would murmur because of his lassitude and because of his attachment to 48 A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Christian Library 2 (Grand Rapids, MI–Edinburgh, 1986), 595.

70

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

earthly things . . .’ We, however, says Ishodad, should not apply Jesus’ words to ourselves; they were only intended for the ‘scribe’: ‘[Jesus] does not command us to disperse our possessions’; ‘[Jesus] does not call “rich” he who has possessions, but calls “rich” he who is very diligent in the collection of money, and who limits his hope to visible things, that is to say, a man unjustly rich.’49 In short, both in the Greek West and the Syrian East, ‘greed was good’, as long as greed was second to God. Another revision of Christian history concerns the target audience of earliest Christianity. Jesus’ own instructions to his disciples to ‘go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt 10:6), and his forbidding them from going to the Gentiles and Samaritans (10:5), make it clear that the disciples’ earliest intended audience was fellow Jews. At one point, Jesus even states that ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt 15:24), confirming his own Judaeocentric mission. This point need not be illustrated further, for the evidence is overwhelming and well known.50 How did Syrian exegetes deal with the disjunction between, on the one hand, Acts 10–11, Matt 10:5, and 15:24, and, on the other hand, the ‘Great Commission’ (Matt 28:19–20)? Regarding Peter’s reluctance to visit the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10:10–17, 10:28, 11:1–3, 11:18), and the necessity of a vision from God, pronouncing all things clean, to spur Peter on his way, Ishodad of Merv writes: . . . for the cause of the revelation that came to Peter was this; for because Simeon had forgotten that voice [which said] ‘Go and make disciples of all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost’, etc., he was well reminded by means of this revelation, not only of the former things, but also that the Gentiles were clean, and that God was not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.51 —Ishodad, Comm. on Acts, 9 49 Gibson (ed.), The Commentaries of Ishodad of Merv 1 (HSem 5), 76 (lines 5–20) (English translation); Vol. 2 (HSem 6), 128 (line 11)–129 (line 2) (Syriac text). 50 In the earliest post-ascension period, the disciples avoided all contact with Gentiles (Acts 10:28, 34–35, 44–46; 11:3, 18), continued worshipping in the Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1, 5:21, 5:42), circumcised (Gal 2:4, 6:12), and kept kosher (Acts 10:9–17). Even Paul, in his description of the Council of Jerusalem (in 49 ce) states that while he secured approval for his work with the Gentiles (‘we were to go to the Gentiles’), the apostles would restrict their mission field to the Jews (‘and they [the apostles] to the circumcised’ [Gal 2:9]). This decision conforms precisely with Jesus’ instructions to the Twelve, to ‘go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt 10:6)—but now one is speaking of the attitudes of the disciples in the year 49, not during some ‘preliminary’ mission work during Jesus lifetime. 51 Gibson (ed.), The Commentaries of Ishodad of Merv 4 (HSem 10), 20 (lines 15–21) (English translation); 28 (lines 2–7) (Syriac text).

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

71

Apparently—according to Ishodad’s explanation—Peter had forgotten the ‘Great Commission’, and this divine revelation reminded him of it. But what of the Dominical instruction to the disciples not to enter any pagan territory, nor to go to the Samaritans (Matt 10:5)? Ishodad explains it in the following manner: For this, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the cities of the Samaritans enter ye not, was very useful at that time; for because the Jews did not mix with the heathen, so that they might not have any defence to offer for their want of faith, that they preached equally to those who were without the Law and to us, therefore we are justly excused from it. He commanded about this for an hour, that they should not go among the heathen; whilst after His resurrection He commended them to go to all nations.52 —Ishodad, Comm. Matt, ad loc.

And of the Apostolic Decree, as given by Paul in Gal 2:9 (‘we were to go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised’), delivered in the year 49, Ishodad writes thus: We to the Gentiles, and they to the Circumcision; not that each of them was limited to one; for it is evident that Paul was sometimes teaching and making disciples of the Jews; and Peter was also teaching those from among the Gentiles and making them disciples; but [James, Cepha and John should go] to the Jews who would not consent to mix with the Gentiles on account of the ancient custom of the Law; because [the Jews] thought themselves separated, as they had received faith in the Christ by [messengers] from Peter, but those from the Gentiles by means of Paul; but they had afterwards one transmission and equality of Faith, which made them one.53 —Ishodad, Comm. Gal. 1

A more fanciful and optimistic reading of the simple text cannot be imagined. But it serves its purpose: Ishodad can aver that the mission is ‘one’, and that there was ‘one transmission and equality of Faith’. Despite such patent obfuscations and convenient claims of lapses of memory, we must also give credit where credit is due. Although our Syrian exegetes often bent with the prevailing winds—as Ishodad is doing here—there are also instances where they resisted change, and preserved relics from earliest Christianity in striking form. For our third and final exegetical problem, let us turn to Aphrahat who, although he composed his Demonstrations in 343/344 (that is, after the Council of Nicaea [325]), nevertheless transmits what must be one of the most ancient Judaic-Christian Christologies extant. 52 Ibidem, Vol. 1 (HSem 5), 45, lines 10–18 (English translation); Vol. 2 (HSem 6), 75 (line 14)–76 (line 1) (Syriac text). 53 Ibidem, Vol. 5.2 (HSem 11), 58 (line 29)–59 (line 6) (English translation); Vol. 5.1 (HSem 11), 88 (line 22)–89 (line 7) (Syriac text).

72

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

The key passage is in the 17th Demonstration, and its import will immediately be clear to all. Before we look at its text, however, let us recall the first post-ascension sermon found in the New Testament. It is given by Peter, to the assembled crowd at Pentecost, and begins thus (Acts 2:22): óAndrec >Israhlÿtai, Çko‘sate toÃc lÏgouc to‘touc; >Ihso‹n t‰n Nazwraÿon, ändra ÇpodedeigmËnon Çp‰ to‹ jeo‹ e c Õmêc dunàmesi ka» tËrasi ka» shme–oic oŸc ‚po–hsen di> aŒto‹ Â je‰c ‚n mËs˙ Õm¿n kaj¿c aŒto» o“date, . . .

Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man recommended to you from God by the mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in the midst of you, as you know, . . .

This is a primitive Christology: Jesus is simply, explicitly a ‘man’, one ‘through whom’ God did wonders. Jesus is—to the horror of Athanasius—just a pipe, through which God pours his water of mighty deeds. With this as background, now let us turn to Aphrahat. In the Demonstrations, Aphrahat offers advice on problems which Christians were encountering. In the 17th Demonstration, the problem is the charge leveled by Jews, who allege that Syrian Christians (XVII.1) . . . worship and serve a man (P‘TXr) who was begotten, a son of man who was crucified, and you [Christians] call a son of man ‘God’ (P]rP Q”zP ‘Tr). And although God (P]rQr) has no son (P‘S), you say about this crucified Jesus that he is the Son of God. Therefore, you are opposing God in that you call a man (Q”z‘Tr) God (P]rP).

Aphrahat’s advice as to how one should reply to such charges is powerful and direct—and so ‘Semitic’ and Judaic-Christian:54 (XVII.2) . . . while we [Christians] grant to them [the Jews] that he is a son of man (Q”zP ‘SZ), and at the same time we honor him and call him (¦]k{j‘^) God (P]rP) and Lord (Qj‘v^), it is not in any strange fashion that we so call him, nor do we apply to him a novel name (Qw“), which they [the Jews] themselves do not use. Yet it is a sure thing with us that Jesus our Lord is God (P]rP), the Son of God (P]rP ‘S), and the King, the King’s Son, Light from Light, Creator and Counselor, and Guide, and Way, and Redeemer, and Shepherd, Gatherer, and Door, and Pearl, and Lamp; and by many names (P]w”©S^) is he surnamed (l{n–P). But we shall leave aside all of them, and prove concerning him that he who comes from God is the Son of God and God. 54 These terms are used in the same way your author used them in W.L. Petersen, ‘The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on the 17th Demonstration’, VigChr 46 (1992), 241–256, esp. 249–251.

PROBLEMS IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT

73

(3) The venerated name (Qw“) of Godhead (P–^]rPZ) has been applied also to righteous men (QjZ©` Q”zP), and they have been held worthy to be called by it. And the men with whom God was well pleased, them he called ‘my sons’ (l{©S) and ‘my friends’ (lwcÐ^). When he chose Moses his friend and his beloved and made him chief and teacher and priest unto his people he called him (¦]j‘) God (]rP). For he said to him: ‘I have made you a God (]rP) unto Pharaoh’ [Exod 7:1]. And he gave him his priest for a prophet, ‘And Aaron your brother shall speak for you to Pharaoh, and you shall be unto him a God, and he shall be unto you an interpreter’. Thus not alone to the evil Pharaoh did he make Moses God (P]rP), but also unto Aaron, the holy priest, he made Moses God (P]rP). (4) Again, hear concerning the title Son of God, by which we have called him. They [the Jews] say that ‘though God has no son, you make that crucified Jesus, the firstborn son of God’. Yet he called Israel, ‘my firstborn’. I have said unto you, ‘Let my son go to serve me’ [Exod 4:22–23] . . . ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son’ [Hos 11:1]’ . . . So also we call the Christ, the Son of God, for through him we have gained the knowledge (¦]k{ƒ[j) of God; even as he called Israel, ‘my firstborn son’, and as he said concerning Solomon, ‘He shall be to me a son’ [1 Chr 22:10]. And we call him God, even as he surnamed Moses by his own name . . . (5) For the name (Qw“) of Godhead (P–^]rPZ) is given for the highest honour in the world, and with whomsoever God is well pleased, he applied it to him . . . (6) . . . Though he is the great King, he grudges not the name of Kingship to men. And though he is the great God, yet he grudged not the name (Qw“) of Godhead (P–^]rP) to the sons of flesh . . . (7) . . . no one should suppose that there is another God, either before or afterwards . . . (8) Now by these things the stubborn will be convinced that it is nothing strange that we call Christ the Son of God (P]rPZ \‘S). . . And they will be forced to admit that the name of Godhead also belongs to him [Christ], for he [God] associated the righteous also in the name of God (P]rP).55 —Aphrahat, Dem. XVII.1–8

Much of the high esteem your author accords Orientalists and grammarians stems from Theodor N¨ oldeke’s evaluation of this passage. For, after wading through a dozen attempts by church historians and theologians to obfuscate and deny what Aphrahat was saying,56 your author came across the following clear-eyed analysis of the grammarian: ‘Damit wird also die Gottheit Christi f¨ ur nicht viel mehr als einen Ehrentitel erkl¨ art.’57 And indeed, N¨oldeke is correct. This Christology—which parallels passages in Justin Martyr,58 the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions,59 and Peter’s first sermon in Acts (2:22)—is a precious relic from 55 The translation is based on the Syriac text of Parisot, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes in PS 1.1, 785–801. 56 Among them, I. Ortiz de Urbina, A. Hudal, J. Forget, P. Bruns. Their dissembling is quoted in my ‘The Christology of Aphrahat’, 244–246. 57 Th. N¨ oldeke, in a review of W. Wright, The Homilies of Aphraates, in GGA, without number (1896), 1524. 58 Dial. 126.1–127.4. 59 Rec. 2.41.3.

74

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

earliest Judaic-Christianity. And it survives in its most fullest, most complete form in the Syrian father, Aphrahat. Because of its unique and contentious history, the New Testament offers the exegete many special problems. The parallel accounts of the gospels are one (recall the ‘desolating sacrilege’ versus ‘Jerusalem surrounded by armies’); the inevitable necessity of theological revision is another (exemplified in Ishodad’s elision of the Jewish and Gentile missions, and in Aphrahat’s Christology); the actual creation and evolution of the text itself is still another (recall Baarda’s ‘flying Jesus’). It is in instances such as these that we see how valuable the Syriac New Testament and the great early Syrian commentators can be. When read carefully and critically, they shed great light on these problems. They offer us alternative, sometimes ancient forms of the text. They provide us with glimpses of ancient theologies, relics from the first Christian centuries. And, even at their worst, their awkwardness—Ishodad’s, for example, when he insists on the unity of the earliest mission activity of the church, to both Jews and Gentiles—signals to the attentive reader where the truth lies buried. It is only for us to excavate it.

PAPERS

THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN THE DISPUTATION OF SERGIUS THE STYLITE AGAINST A JEW A. Peter Hayman

The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite (S) is an eighth-century text which purports to record a written-up version of a dialogue between a Jewish rabbi and a Christian stylite. The discussion is located in Gousit, a place about which little is known, but which was somewhere near H . oms (Emesa) in southern Syria. The text is preserved in a single manuscript (BL Add. 17199) which William Wright dated to the eighth century on the basis of its ‘rather inelegant Estrangela’.1 The colophon is damaged and preserves only the name of the scribe (Romanus the abbot) and not the date of his work. The date of the actual Disputation is not in doubt since three times it refers to the seven hundred years which have passed since the Jews lost everything—prophets, priests, temple, etc.2 On Wright’s dating this makes the manuscript unusually close to the date of the original work. As in most Jewish-Christian dialogues from the ancient period the bulk of the Disputation is taken up with arguments about the relevance of biblical texts to the situations of the Christian Church and the Jewish people. It contains over 340 biblical quotations, the bulk of them (300) from the Old Testament. Some of these are quite extensive in scope. It also contains a number of quotations from an otherwise unattested Syriac version of books 1–5 of Josephus’ War of the Jews; book 6 of this version is preserved in 7a1 as the fifth Book of the Maccabees.3 The Old Testament biblical quotations in the Disputation fall naturally into four groups: 1. Direct, exact quotations from the Peshitta (c.130).

1 W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum 2 (London, 1871), 62. 2 A.P. Hayman (ed.), The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite Against a Jew (CSCO 338–339, Syr. 152–153; Louvain, 1973), Ch. viii.5, 6; xiv.5. 3 See Hayman, Disputation (trans.), 32*–47*. A more detailed treatment of these passages can be found in A.P. Hayman (ed.), An Unpublished Christian-Jewish Disputation Attributed to Sergius the Stylite edited from a Syriac Manuscript in the British Museum (BM. Add. 17,199) with translation and commentary (PhD thesis, Durham University, 1968), 73–97.

78

A. PETER HAYMAN

2. Old Testament quotations whose text is influenced by the form in which they are cited in the New Testament (14). 3. Quotations (from memory?) in which text and interpretation are intermingled, or contaminated by other biblical texts (c.75). 4. A striking series of agrapha based on a now lost book of testimony texts which consisted of a biography of Jesus in Old Testament texts.4 The hazards of drawing conclusions from patristic texts about the history of the biblical text have been well documented by many scholars. Notably, in the case of the Peshitta, we have the work of Robert Owens on the quotations of Aphrahat.5 Owens summarises Aphrahat’s technique for citing Scripture as follows: ‘Aphrahat indeed normally cites Scripture from memory, often inexactly, with a pronounced tendency toward accidental mixture of elements from different passages.’6 This corresponds to my third category of biblical quotations in Sergius’ Disputation. There are some interesting connections between some of these quotations in Aphrahat and the Disputation which suggest, along with the use of agrapha, that there existed a special tradition of the biblical text which was preserved and used almost exclusively in antiJewish polemical situations and writings.7 However, what I would like to concentrate on in this paper is the quotations which fall into my category 1: direct, exact quotations from the Peshitta. Some of these are quite lengthy, and when the Disputation has been citing word for word for half a page the exact text printed in the Leiden Peshitta we may presume that any variant has some considerable evidential value, particularly if it can also be found in the Leiden edition’s apparatus. My original work of editing Sergius’ Disputation was completed in 1968, though some slight revision was done prior to publication in 1973. Apart from the sample edition none of the Leiden Peshitta material was available at that time. It has been fascinating to revisit this text in the light of what we now know about the history of the Peshitta. What follows is a selection of the more important readings in the Disputation divided into five groups: 4

See Hayman, Disputation (trans.), 9*–32*. R.J. Owens, The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (MPIL 3; Leiden, 1983), and ‘Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Text of Leviticus’ in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder (eds.), The Peshit.ta: Its Early Text and History: Papers Read at the Peshit.ta Symposium Held at Leiden, 30–31 August 1985 (MPIL 4; Leiden, 1988), 1–48. 6 ‘Aphrahat as a Witness’, p. 11. 7 See Hayman, Disputation (trans.), 25*–30*. 5

THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN SERGIUS THE STYLITE

79

1. Readings which are supported by the earliest preserved, or most important, Peshitta manuscripts: Exod 3:13 (S xvi.7); Num 27:16–17 (S xxii.8); Num 27:20 (S xxii.8); Deut 18:19 (S xxii.9); Isa 42:10–12 (S xvi.22); Isa 65:4 (S x.5). 2. Readings without ancient ms support but which could possibly be genuine Peshitta variants: Gen 1:2 (S ii.2), Isa 11:2 (S i.10), Isa 26:19 (S 1:14); Ps 69:22 (S i.18), Ps 24:7 (S iii.1); Isa 43:24 (S vii.6); Isa 66:24 (S iii.4); Dan 12: 5–6 (S i.9); Num 27:12 (S xxii.8). 3. Readings where the tr diverges from the earlier Peshitta text and where we can plot to which side of the ninth-century watershed the Disputation and BL Add. 17199 belong: Num 27:12,16 (S xxii.8), Ps 11:5 (S xiv.5), 16:10 (S i.20), 50:3 (S iii.4), 69:22 (S i.18), 78:3f (S xvi.18), Isa 57:3–8 (S xx.3), 62:10–12 (S xx.11), 65:11 (S xx.12), etc.; Ps 139:22 (S xv.13). 4. Non-tr readings which first appear in Peshitta manuscripts after the date of the Disputation: Isa 65:12 (S xx.12); Pss 72:10 (S i.6) and 82:5 (S xv.20). 5. Readings which reflect Christianising influence on the text of the Peshitta Old Testament: Deut 6:5 (S i.2); Exod 9:16 (S xvi.17); Isa 28:16 (S xii.9); Dan 9:24 (S i.15); Ps 129:3 (S i.17), Ps 2:2 (S xv.15), Ps 47:10 (S xi. 15), and Ps 81:16 (S xv.13). 1. Ancient Readings Exod 3:13 Qj‘v] om 5b1 S (= mt). The importance of 5b1 for the history of the Peshitta text needs no emphasizing by me; I need only refer to M.D. Koster’s important monograph8 . It helps Koster’s case if we can find support in Syriac patristic texts for the readings of 5b1. Num 27:16 P—“_{n¼] \—“_{n¼ 7a1 8h3 | Num 27:17 QrZ] Qr^ 7a1 8h3. In both these cases the Disputation agrees with all the other manuscripts and thus reinforces the isolation of 7a1 and 8h3 in the Peshitta tradition of Numbers, a matter on which I commented in my edition.9 Num 27:20 ]z_„w”zZ] ]z_„w”z^ 6b1 S. A minor agreement, but any support for 6b1 is helpful in the light of the argument I presented in my review of Koster’s monograph10 and in 8 M.D. Koster, The Peshit.ta of Exodus: the Development of its Text in the Course of Fifteen Centuries (SSN 19; Assen, 1977). 9 A.P. Hayman (ed.), Numbers in The Old Testament in Syriac 1.2 and 2.1b (Leiden, 1991), xi. 10 A.P. Hayman, ‘The Peshitta Version of the Pentateuch’, JSSt 30 (1980), 263–270.

80

A. PETER HAYMAN

my introduction to Numbers in the Leiden Peshitta11 , namely, that the earliest available Peshitta text of Numbers is most likely to be found within the manuscript group 6b1, 7pj2, 9a1fam, and to a lesser extent in 5b1, 6pk9, 8b1. These three interesting readings from Peshitta Numbers appear in a long and accurate quotation from Num 27:12–20. So it is unlikely that they are accidental. Deut 18:19 tswzZ] tswvZ 6b1 9a1 11l1 S →. This is part of an extensive and very accurate quotation from Deut 18:13–15, 17–19. The Disputation has the same reading in Chapter xxii.18, though there the Peshitta text of Deuteronomy is contaminated by that of Acts 3:22f as it is in Chapters xvii.7 and xxii.7. Again, the agreement with 6b1and 9a1 is significant.12 Isa 42:12 \—d¨T“–^] \—c_T“– 9a1fam 11l4 (= mt); \—c_T“–^ S 12d1. Here the support of the Disputation reduces the isolation of 9a1 in the Peshitta tradition. Isa 65:4 Qj‘wr y^aW‘zZ Q”j[ Qwk ^Qwhwr^ Q~_wz P‘”¥wr] 6h3 7a1 8a1* 9a1 S 12d1. This addition to the Masoretic Text is found only in these manuscripts13 ; the rest (including 5ph1 6h5) do not have it. In Chapter xx.5 the Disputation exactly cites Isa 65:2–7 according to the Leiden edition. The addition makes precisely the point Sergius needs to convict the Jews of inconsistency over the keeping of the food laws. Does his Disputation reveal the context in which this addition to Isa 65:4 might have arisen? Either way, the Disputation should certainly be added to the list of attestations of this reading of Isa 65:4. There are a number of other minor variants where the Disputation follows readings attested in the ancient manuscripts. These few examples are, I hope, sufficient to demonstrate that the text of Sergius’ biblical quotations still maintains some contact with the earliest attested strata of the Peshitta, and so we can go on to consider some readings peculiar to the Disputation which might be considered worthy of inclusion in a fuller critical apparatus than that found in the Leiden edition. 11

Hayman, Numbers, iv–xi. For the probable sixth-century origin of 9a1’s readings in Deuteronomy see W.M. van Vliet’s introduction to Deuteronomy in The Old Testament in Syriac 1.2 and 2.1b, viii. 13 See G. Diettrich, Ein Apparatus criticus zur Peˇsitto zum Propheten Jesaia (BZAW 8, 1905), 213. 12

THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN SERGIUS THE STYLITE

81

2. Genuine Peshitta Variants? Gen 1:2 P]rPZ] Qj‘vZ S. | Isa 11:2 P]rPZ Qc^] Qj‘vZ Qc^ S = mt. | Isa 26:19 pj—kªv] add Qj‘v Aphrahat (Dem. I.382) S 12d2mg (vid ). These are unlikely to be genuine Peshitta variants. They originate probably from the greater Christian theological potential of the word Qj‘v. The shared variant in Isa 26:19 between Aphrahat and the Disputation suggests that these readings belong in that special Syriac anti-Jewish polemical tradition which I referred to earlier. Isa 26:19 is used as a testimony text to support the belief that Christ raised the dead; hence the need to insert Qj‘v to specify whose dead Isaiah is referring to. Ps 69:22 ¦—r_owS] om beth 6t1* (vid) S 8a1c (vid) 10t4 12t1.3.4 → | lj\‹r^] ¦\‹S^ S. In my edition of the Disputation I had assumed (for lack of evidence) that the two slight variations from the text of the Peshitta in Ps 69:22 were due to quotation from memory. Since one variant now turns out to be well attested throughout the Peshitta tradition perhaps I should now be cautious about concluding that ¦\‹S^ could not be a genuine Peshitta reading.14 Isa 43:24 pr_„S^] m—r_„S¨^ S (=mt). The agreement with the Masoretic Text is interesting. However, the Septuagint and the Syro-Hexapla have the plural, as has Dionysius bar S.alibi in his tractate Against the Jews. There is a close literary relationship between Dionysius’ work and Sergius’ Disputation. So this reading may be part of the Syriac anti-Jewish polemical tradition, or have come in via the Syro-Hexapla, or just be an accommodation to the plural pj\—c¨ in the previous clause in Isa 43:24. Isa 66:24 y^adz^ y_ˆz^] y^ac–^ y_‡–^ Aphrahat (Dem. I.32) S. Here we have another interesting shared reading between Aphrahat and the Disputation and, again, we have to ask: is it a genuine Peshitta variant or part of the Syriac anti-Jewish polemical tradition? I have discussed this reading at some length in my edition of the Disputation and given reasons for concluding that the latter alternative is the correct one.15 Dan 12:6 P‘TXr ^‘vP^] P‘TXr ‘vP^ 8a1 9l2 12d1 → (= mt): ‘vP^ P‘TW S. 14 15

Although we would need to correct it to lj\‹S^; cf. Hayman, Disputation (text), 4. Hayman, Disputation (trans.), 14*–15*, 28*–30*.

82

A. PETER HAYMAN

The rm,aYOw" at the beginning of Dan 12:6 is notoriously difficult; it is usually emended to rm'aow: following some Septuagint manuscripts. Neither of the two readings offered by the Peshitta tradition make sense, though Sergius and 8a1 etc. are closer to the Masoretic Text. Sergius’ omission of the lamadh before P‘TW makes good sense until we get to verse 7. Has Sergius devised his own solution here or is this an alternative Peshitta reading? It fits too well the context in the Disputation where it is cited as a prooftext for Jesus’ baptism by John. That rather suggests the first alternative. Finally, in the category of possible genuine Peshitta variants it might be worth considering the Disputation’s reading for the beginning of Num 27:12: Num 27:12 Q“_wr Qj‘v ‘vP^ = mt] ]r ‘vP^ Q“_v xƒ Qj‘v tsv^ S (= Sam)16 . Pier Borbone has drawn our attention to the fact that three times elsewhere in Numbers the Peshitta seems to have altered this introductory formula from that found in its Hebrew Vorlage. He attributes the variation to a stylistic preference on the part of the Syriac translator.17 However, in drawing this conclusion he did not take account of the variant readings in the Apparatus to the Leiden Peshitta. Let us review this evidence: Num 3:40 ]r . . . tsv^] Q“_wr Qj‘v ‘vP^ 8b1 9a1fam (= mt) Num 15:37 ]r . . . tsv^] Q“_wr Qj‘v ‘vP^ 5b1 (= mt) Num 31:25 rmal hm la hwhy rmayw] ]r ‘vP^ Q“_v xƒ Qj‘v tsv^ all P mss. When manuscripts like 8b1 9a1fam and 5b1 agree with the Masoretic Text I am reasonably confident that we have the original reading of the Peshitta version. Unfortunately, 7pj2 is not available at Num 31:25. If it was, I would be surprised if it did not read Q“_wr Qj‘v ‘vP^, given its penchant to agree with the Masoretic Text18 . In other words, these variants arose in the transmission stage of the Peshitta and are not due to a stylistic preference on the part of the translator. The original Peshitta stuck close to the Hebrew text. And that means, of 16

See also Sam in Num 27:6a. P.G. Borbone, ‘Correspondances Lexicales entre Peshitta et TM du Pentateuque: Les Racines Verbales’, in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der 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), 1–16, esp. 10–11. 18 See Hayman, Numbers, v. 17

THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN SERGIUS THE STYLITE

83

course, that the Disputation’s reading for Num 27:12 belongs also to the transmission stage and has no claim to preserve the original form of the Peshitta. It quite probably originates in contamination from the parallel passage in Deut 32:48. 3. BTR v.

TR

Readings

By and large, then, the search for genuine, hitherto unattested, Peshitta variants draws rather negative results. In an eighth-century text, that is no great surprise. What we would expect of an eighth-century text is that it should reflect what Koster calls the btr (‘the average text of the 7th and 8th century mss’)19 . As we now know, the history of the Peshitta version can be divided into three stages: that of the most ancient manuscripts, the btr, and the tr (virtually all manuscripts from the ninth century onwards). The chronology of ancient manuscripts and btr is difficult to fix precisely and varies for different biblical books, but the ninth-century emergence of tr is very clear. In Numbers it always begins with 8a1c and 9b1. Sergius’ Disputation dates to 730–770, with the only available manuscript dating to the eighth century according to Wright. It falls, therefore, just on the earlier side of this major dividing line in the history of the Peshitta. In my edition of the Disputation I expressed some doubts over Wright’s dating of BL Add. 17199.20 But we now have a means to test the date of the manuscript. If it comes from the end of the eighth century or, at the latest, the beginning of the ninth, it should reflect the btr text of the Peshitta and not tr. That is precisely the situation. In a whole string of passages where the tr diverges from btr, the Disputation always goes with the btr reading: Num 27:12, 16 (S xxii.8); Ps 11:5 (S xiv.5); 16:10 (S i.20); 50:3 (S iii.4); 69:22 (S i.18); 78:3f (S xvi.18); Isa 57:3–8 (S xx.3); 62:10–12 (S xx.11); 65:11 (S xx.12); etc. In only one case have I found the Disputation following tr (Ps 139:22 P–Q{~] pr waw S tr—a very insignificant variant). 4. TR or Reading First Attested in Late

MSS

Most significant for fixing the date of BL Add. 17199 is the reading at Isa 65:12: Isa 65:12 y_ok{vP] y_okdvP S 9l1 10d1 (vid) 12a1 12d2. This is clearly a scribal error and appears for the first time in Peshitta manuscripts in the ninth century. There are just a couple of other 19 20

Koster, The Peshit.ta of Exodus, 2. Hayman, Disputation (text), ix.

84

A. PETER HAYMAN

cases where the Disputation has a reading which appears in isolated post-ninth-century manuscripts: Ps 72:10 y_S‘z] add ]r S 11t1 12a1 →. Ps 82:5 lƒ`©^] om waw S 11t1 12a1 →. In the case of Ps 72:10 the Disputation proves that the reading existed two hundred years before it is first attested in a Peshitta manuscript. In the case of Ps 82:5 the omission of the waw fits the text better into its context in the Disputation. However, it may be significant that the same two manuscripts are involved in both cases. 5. Christianising Variants Deut 6:5 m]rP] add pskc ]r_n |v S | pTr] add pskc ]r_n |v^ 6b1 12b1 | p”ˆz] add pskc ]r_n |v^ 8b1. The Disputation cites Deut 6:4f twice. On the second occasion it follows exactly the text of Peshitta Deut 6:5 but the first citation follows neither Peshitta, Masoretic Text, Septuagint, nor the Peshitta or the Greek of Mark 12:30. However, it is clearly an amalgam of the Peshitta texts of Deuteronomy and Mark’s Gospel quoted from memory. However, the phenomenon of the contamination of the Old Testament Peshitta text here with that of the New Testament is also found in the manuscript tradition since 6b1 8b1 12b1 and the Disputation share the same addition of pskc ]r_n |v from Mark, albeit located in slightly different places in their text of Deut 6:5. A similar situation can be observed in the Disputation’s citation of Exod 9:16 and in the apparatus to the Leiden edition: Exod 9:16 pj_cPZ] pS pj_cPZ] 5b1c 8b1 S. Although the addition of ‘in you’ is found in the Septuagint, it is most likely that it has entered the Peshitta tradition via the text of Rom 9:17. When the Disputation cites Isa 28:16 (S xii.9) it mostly follows the text of Rom 9:33 and hence shares with 8a1 the addition of ]S after |wj]v. Again, although this reading originates in the Septuagint it probably came in via the New Testament; even in the Septuagint it may well be a Christianising reading since it is absent in Codex Vaticanus. Sebastian Brock has alerted us to the presence of New Testament influence in some Peshitta manuscripts of Isaiah.21 Finally, in Chapter i.15 the Disputation carries much further a process which may be present in the Peshitta text of Dan 9:24—Christianising an Old Testament text.22 21 S.P. Brock, ‘Text History and Text Division in Peshit.ta Isaiah’, in The Peshit.ta: Its Early Text and History, 49–80, esp. 64. 22 See M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament (UCOP 56; Cambridge, 1999), 133, 242. But note the cautionary stance with regard to the

THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN SERGIUS THE STYLITE

85

These examples of Christian influence on the text of the Peshitta are easy to spot since they mostly derive from the New Testament. However, there are some more subtle changes and readings which the Disputation may enable us to discern. There is an apparent orthographical variant in Ps 129:3 shared by the Disputation and by 12t4*.7 (^‘WP^] ‘WP^ S 12t4*.7 →). The effect of the change from the 3 pl. to 3 s. of the verb is to produce the meaning: the Jews caused Christ to be scourged, so God has prolonged his affliction of them. The plural reading found in nearly all Peshitta manuscripts would not serve nearly as well. Similar subtle alterations of the Peshitta text of the Psalms can be found in S xv.15 (Ps 2:2), xi. 15 (Ps 47:10), and xv.13 (Ps 81:16), but these have no support in Peshitta manuscripts. 6. Conclusion Most of the phenomena highlighted in this paper can be found in M.P. Weitzman’s more detailed treatment of the patristic citations from the Peshitta in his masterly work on the Syriac Version of the Old Testament.23 Like him I can find no connection with the Targums in these deviations from the mainstream Peshitta text. On the whole I concur with his conclusion that: there is no reason to believe that the biblical text known to the citing authors or translators differed from that of the P manuscripts. Almost all the divergences between citations and the text of the biblical manuscripts, can be viewed as adjustments, conscious and unconscious, of a text identical with the latter.24

However, I do think that it is worth trawling the patristic texts for readings which can show that manuscripts like 5b1, 6b1, and 9a1 are not as isolated as they may seem in the Peshitta tradition, especially if they may, in fact, be preserving the original form of the Peshitta version.25 Weitzman is slightly more sanguine than I am about the possibility of finding original Peshitta readings that have been lost from the biblical manuscripts. But, maybe, earlier texts than the Disputation would prove more fruitful in such a search. Patristic texts can certainly throw light on the factors generating many variants in the Peshitta manuscripts, apart from the usual catalogue of scribal errors. However, for me, perhaps the most interesting and useful finding of this piece of possible Christian influence on P Dan 9:24 of R.A. Taylor in The Peshit.ta of Daniel (MPIL 7; Leiden, 1994), 9–12, 322–324. 23 Weitzman, Syriac Version, 129–149. 24 Weitzman, Syriac Version, 148–9. 25 See, for example, Num 35:33 where Aphrahat (I.107) goes with 6b1 and 9a1fam in an accurate citation of P.

86

A. PETER HAYMAN

research was the correlation between the date of the Disputation (and the ms which preserves it) and the state of the Peshitta text in the late eighth century—just before tr readings begin to spread right across the textual tradition. We have here, then, a useful criterion for dating Syriac texts and manuscripts either side of this important watershed.

REWORKING THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN THE DRAMATIC DIALOGUE POEMS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT PATRIARCH JOSEPH Kristian Heal *

In his study of Old Testament interpretation in the Syriac tradition, Lucas Van Rompay noted that there were other categories of texts that deserved more attention than he was able to give in such a succinct survey.1 He pointed in particular to ‘the vast field of—mainly anonymous—homilies [in which] much work still remains to be done’.2 That is not to say that this field has been completely ignored; recent studies by Rodrigues Pereira3 and Ashbrook Harvey4 have developed our appreciation of this genre, and Sebastian Brock has contributed significantly with numerous new editions of anonymous memre 5 and a number of penetrating studies,6 particularly on the Aqedah in the

* I am grateful to Dr. David Taylor and my colleagues Elizabeth Watkins and Carl Griffin for improving this paper with their comments. Of course, I alone can claim credit for its deficiencies. 1 Lucas Van Rompay, ‘The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation’, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation 1.1 Antiquity (G¨ ottingen, 1996), 611–641; Idem, ‘Development of Biblical Interpretation in the Syrian Churches of the Middle Ages’, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation 1.2 The Middle Ages (G¨ ottingen, 2000), 559–577. 2 Van Rompay, ‘Syriac Tradition’, 641. 3 A.S. Rodrigues Pereira, ‘Two Syriac Verse Homilies on Joseph’, JEOL 31 (1989–90), 95–120. 4 Susan Ashbrook Harvey, ‘Spoken Words, Voiced Silence: Biblical Women in Syriac Tradition’, JECS 9 (2001), 105–131. 5 Sebastian P. Brock, ‘An Anonymous Syriac Homily on Abraham (Gen. 22)’, OLP 12 (1981), 225–260; idem, ‘A Syriac Verse Homily on Elijah and the Widow of Sarepta’, Mus 102 (1989), 93–113; idem, ‘Two Syriac Verse Homilies on the Binding of Isaac’, Mus 99 (1986), 61–129; idem, ‘The Sinful Woman and Satan: Two Syriac Dialogue Poems’, OrChr 72 (1988), 21–62; idem, ‘Two Syriac Dialogue Poems on Abel and Cain’, Mus 113 (2000), 333–375; Sebastian P. Brock and Simon Hopkins, ‘A Verse Homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt: Syriac Original with Early Arabic Translation’, Mus 105 (1992), 87–146. 6 Note in particular, Sebastian P. Brock, ‘Dramatic Dialogue Poems’, in H.J.W. Drijvers et al. (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Rome, 1987), 135–147; idem, ‘Syriac Dialogue Poems: Marginalia to a Recent Edition’, Mus 97 (1984), 29–58.

88

KRISTIAN HEAL

Syriac tradition.7 This paper is an attempt to continue this work with particular reference to exploring the exegesis of the dramatic dialogue poems on the Old Testament patriarch Joseph.8 In this study I have adopted the methodological approach taken by James Kugel for his study of the analogous material found in the Jewish tradition.9 The characteristic common to the Jewish retellings and the Syriac dialogue poems that makes Kugel’s approach so apposite is ‘literary innovation and inventiveness’.10 In both collections of material there are many examples of the biblical text being considerably reworked, whether by the insertion of additional dialogue or new episodes, which he calls narrative expansions, or by omitting passages altogether. The objective of Kugel’s approach is to identify the exegetical question(s) that prompted these interpretive narrative expansions, and he presents a three-step process by which this may be accomplished: first, identify potential interpretations by closely comparing the retelling and the biblical narrative; second, isolate each individual interpretation and identify the ‘exegetical motif’ that it embodies; third, treat each motif separately.11 This third step involves the process of ‘reverse engineering,’ or tracing back motifs that appear in several texts in an attempt to discover their priority and the question that sparked the expansion. The underlying assumption of this approach is that the biblical retelling is indeed exegetical in character.12 However, Kugel does point 7 Sebastian P. Brock, ‘Genesis 22 in Syriac Tradition’, in Pierre Casetti, Othmar ´ Keel, and Adrian Schenker (eds.), M´ elanges Dominique Barth´ elemy: Etudes bibliques offertes a ` l’occasion de son 60 e anniversaire (G¨ ottingen, 1981), 2–30; idem, ‘Genesis 22: Where Was Sarah?’, Expository Times 96 (1984), 14–17; idem, ‘Reading between the Lines. Sarah and the Sacrifice of Isaac’, in L´eonie J. Archer, Susan Fischler, and Maria Wyke (eds.), Women in Ancient Societies: An Illusion of the Night (Basingstoke, 1994), 167–180; idem, ‘Sarah and the Akedah’, Mus 87 (1974), 67–77. 8 The dramatic dialogue poems on Joseph appear under Type IV and V in Brock’s classification system (Brock, ‘Dramatic Dialogue Poems’, 137, 140). 9 James L. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (2nd ed.; Cambridge, ma, 1994). See in particular the Introduction and Chapter 9. 10 Brock, ‘Dramatic Dialogue Poems’, 147. 11 Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 5–9. 12 He shares this assumption with Geza Vermes who observed in a study of the haggadic insertions in Sefer ha-Yashar that ‘almost all the haggadic stories included in Yashar are intended as an answer to real exegetical questions.’ In Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Leiden, 1973), 95. Note, however, how Kugel qualifies this assumption: ‘Are we therefore to conclude that such narrative expansions constitute ‘pure’ exegesis, that they derive solely from the efforts of early exegetes to explain the meaning of biblical passages? Hardly. The early exegete was an expositor with an axe to grind.’ Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 248. Cf. also Ashbrook Harvey: ‘Late antique Syriac writers took profound delight in

REWORKING THE BIBLICAL TEXT

89

out that motifs were often traditional and that in many cases ‘the author of a given text does not make up the explanation himself, but simply passes on something he has heard or read’.13 In applying this methodology to the Syriac sources, therefore, it is important to ask whether a given narrative expansion was developed in response to an exegetical question raised by the author, or whether it was rather a piece of exegetical narrative inherited either from within the Syriac tradition or from an external, most likely Jewish, source.14 Furthermore, a comparison of the different occurrences of the same motif allows one to identify the authors’ distinctive innovations and thereby gain a clearer picture of their exegetical method and contribution. This paper will examine three exegetical motifs from the Syriac Joseph material. Whereas most dialogue poems retell a single incident from the Bible, each of the dialogue poems on Joseph retells the whole series of episodes from his dreams in Canaan to Jacob’s arrival in Egypt, ‘thus taking on the dimensions of an epic narrative’.15 Five dramatic dialogue poems on Joseph survive in Syriac literature, each of which varies considerably in length. Of these, the extensive cycle of twelve memre attributed to Ephrem,16 the collection of four memre attributed to Narsai,17 and the single genuine memra by Narsai18 have been published. The short recension of the Ps.-Narsai collection has been published in part,19 but the cycle of ten memre by Jacob of Serugh remains unedited.20 interpreting Scripture through the elaboration of biblical stories.’ Ashbrook Harvey, ‘Spoken Words’, 106. 13 Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 3. 14 On the prominence of Jewish sources in the early Syriac tradition, see Sebastian P. Brock, ‘Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources’, JJSt 30 (1979), 212–32. 15 Brock, ‘Dramatic Dialogue Poems’, 140. The exception are the two dispute poems on Joseph. For details, see Brock, ‘Syriac Dialogue Poems’, 41–42, 53. 16 Citations of Ps.-Ephrem, included in brackets, refer to memra and line number of Paulus Bedjan (ed.), Histoire compl` ete de Joseph: po` eme en douze livres (2nd ed.; Paris–Leipzig, 1891). 17 Citations of Ps.-Narsai, included in brackets, refer to page and line of Paulus Bedjan (ed.), Homilae Mar Narsetis in Joseph (Paris–Leipzig, 1901). 18 Citations of Narsai’s memra, included in brackets, refer to the line number of the edition published in Alphonse Mingana (ed.), Narsai doctoris Syri Homiliae et Carmina 2 (Mosul, 1905), 265–288. 19 Meier Engel, Die Geschichte Josephs nach einer syrischen Handschrift der K¨ onigl. Bibliothek in Berlin 1 (Berlin, 1895). 20 For a valuable overview of Joseph in the Syriac tradition, see Heinrich N¨ af, Syrische Josef-Gedichte: Mit Uebersetzung des Gedichts von Narsai und Proben aus Balai und Jaqob von Sarug (Zurich, 1923). An edition of the cycle on Joseph by Jacob of Serugh is promised by Emmanuel Papoutsakis. The present author is preparing new editions and translations of the Ps.-Narsai and Ps.-Ephrem cycles, as well as a comprehensive study of figure of Joseph in the Syriac tradition.

90

KRISTIAN HEAL

Motif 1: Joseph the Righteous The characterization of Joseph in the opening of the biblical narrative is terse indeed,21 and it is not surprising that there would be a general effort to make the characterization more explicit in the retellings. Yet the development of Joseph’s character in the memra by Narsai seems to have been prompted by a more specific concern.22 Narsai describes how all of the sons of Jacob were heirs to the tradition of righteousness handed down from Abraham [25–38], yet only Joseph enlisted in the labours of his fathers [41], desiring to strive earnestly on the stair of the Spirit [42–43]. Joseph set out on the path of righteousness in search of faith [44–45], taking aim at the spiritual targets that Love set up for him [47–48]. He girt himself in the armour of faith and took up the sword of the word of the Lord in his mind [49–50]. He was assiduous and constant at the hidden door of prayer [123] and learned from the law of discernment to love his Lord and his father [142]. He was filled with love for the Hidden One [87–91], who in turn strengthened his mind and gave him power from His hiddenness to see hidden things [153–54]. Narsai himself raises the question that must surely have prompted this narrative expansion: ‘To what end did the just one (Jacob) apportion his love to his children and anoint one with the oil of love better than his companions?’ [55–56]. Having developed Joseph’s character, Narsai is able to answer that Jacob ‘loved and hated with discernment’ [84]; having put ‘zeal in the mind of his children towards justice’, he informed them that ‘if they were declared righteous they would be loved like Joseph’ [85–86]. Joseph was loved by his father and ‘his body adorned with gorgeous robes’ [149] because Jacob saw that Joseph followed the path of righteousness in his own likeness [51]. For Narsai, then, the favour extended to Joseph by his father was deserved and was equally available to all those who would pursue the path that led to it. The Ps.-Ephrem cycle is the only other place where the problem of Jacob’s favouritism is answered by an exegetical narrative expansion.23 The text describes how Joseph was clothed with good actions in the

21 For a good overview of the characterization of the biblical Joseph, see Maren Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (AGJU 16; Leiden, 1992), 15–53. 22 This memra has received surprisingly little attention in the previous studies of Joseph in the Syriac tradition. It is mentioned only in Brock, ‘Dramatic Dialogue Poems’, 140. 23 The long and short recensions of the Ps.-Narsai collection deal with this question by simply omitting the passage; Ephrem takes the same approach in his commentary.

REWORKING THE BIBLICAL TEXT

91

likeness of his father [1:91–93]24 and that his fine beauty was simply a reflection of his beautiful mind [1:103–104]. Though he was the youngest brother, his wisdom made him richer than all of them in knowledge [1:115–116]. Joseph is the steadfast one (Q{–) [1:55] who loved his God [1:56] and was His friend [1:83] and taught His will in the land [1:56]. Having characterized Joseph in this way, the author asks, ‘How, then, could [Jacob] not love Joseph?’ [1:56–57]. For this author, Jacob acted justly in loving Joseph because Joseph’s actions were just [1:113–114], and ‘wherever there is justice, fine love accompanies it’ [1:111–112]. This narrative expansion in the Syriac sources has some similarities to the development of the narrative in the Jewish tradition. Genesis Rabba makes it clear that Jacob’s favouring of Joseph was seen as a problem in at least part of the Jewish tradition: ‘A man must not make a distinction among his children, for on account of the coat of many colours which our ancestor Jacob made for Joseph, they hated him.’25 This concern may have prompted authors to rework the narrative in the retellings, whether simply, as in Josephus: ‘Joseph, whom Jacob begat by Rachel, was beloved of his father above all his sons, alike for the beauty of his person that he owed to his birth and for the virtuous quality of his soul, for he was endowed with exceptional understanding’;26 or more creatively, as in Midrash ha-Gadol, where Joseph is portrayed as a student of Jacob and Isaac who became so learned that he could teach27 the law to his elder brethren.28 Though it is difficult without more detailed study to determine the relationship between the Jewish and Syriac sources, the gravamen of the narrative expansions in the two traditions is the same. Jacob acted appropriately in favouring Joseph, not because Joseph was the son of his old age [Gen. 37:3], but rather because Joseph was more deserving of his father’s love than his brothers. Where the traditions differ is in how Joseph’s character is developed. In the Jewish traditions there is an 24 Cf. the catalogue of similarities between Joseph and Jacob in Genesis Rabba 84:6, cited in Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 69. 25 H. Freedman, Maurice Simon, and Judah Jacob Slotki, Midrash Rabbah 2 (3rd ed.; London, 1983), 775. 26 H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books I–III (The Loeb Classical Library; London–Cambridge, ma, 1998), 173. Cf. Targum Onqelos for Gen 37:3, hyl awh µykj rb yra yhwnb lkm ¹swy ty µyjr laryw ‘And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons because he was wise.’ Alexander Sperber (ed.), The Bible in Aramaic 1. The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959), 61. 27 See also Ps.-Ephrem 1:56, where Joseph is presented as a teacher. 28 For references, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews 5 (Philadelphia, 1909–59), 324–325 nn. 3–6. Kugel quotes an older instance of this tradition from Artapanus (cited by Eusebius) and suggests how this motif may have developed from the biblical text. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 70.

92

KRISTIAN HEAL

effort to develop the motif of the ‘wise’ or ‘beautiful Joseph’, whereas the Syriac tradition tends to emphasize the righteousness of Joseph. In this respect, the Ps.-Ephrem account appears to be closer to the Jewish tradition: it contains some elements of the ‘wise’ or ‘beautiful Joseph’ motif, which emphasize Joseph’s beauty, both of body [1:103, 109] and mind [1:104]; Joseph being a teacher in the land [1:56]; and his having more knowledge and wisdom than his brothers, which was a cause of envy [1:116–118]. The motif is developed, however, to focus on the justice of Joseph [1:110], the brilliance of his actions, and his love of God [1:58, 94]. Narsai differs from Ps.-Ephrem in that he stresses the righteousness of Joseph. These two texts also differ from each other in how they treat the result of Jacob’s favouritism. The Ps.-Ephrem retelling follows Philo and Acts 7:9 in focusing on the envy of the brothers as being the prime emotion that led them to sell Joseph [1:1–24].29 The brothers’ envy was aroused partly because of Joseph’s brilliance [1:118] and partly because Jacob loved Joseph more than them [1:140–143]. This arousal of envy is viewed only in negative terms by the author, as can be seen by the series of comparisons between the fate of the envious and the envied in the introduction to the first memra [1:1–12]. The author asks how, if Jacob loved Joseph so much, he could make him enter the contest of envy that would no doubt arise because of his open displays of favouritism [1:95–96]. His response was that Jacob did not do this because he hated Joseph; rather he set him up as an example ‘so the world might see the purity of gold that has been stripped of its dross’ [1:97–98]. Narsai’s approach is subtly different. Like Ps.-Ephrem, he explicitly states that Jacob deliberately and knowingly aroused the brothers’ jealousy through the open displays of affection shown towards Joseph [119]. However, he strikes a new interpretive path by explaining that the purpose of this provocation was to encourage the brothers to also ‘make haste to the secret door that he might love them’ [120], thereby setting Joseph up not simply as the embodiment of purity but as an example to all those who are seeking for compassion [115]. Motif 2: Examine the Garment The ‘examine the garment’ motif is also found in both Jewish and Syriac sources. The earliest instance of this motif is found in Philo’s On Joseph. 29 Cf. Philo, who, in summarizing Gen 37:4, wrote, ‘But envy, ever the enemy of outstanding success, set to work also in this case and created division in a household where all parts had been flourishing’ (Philo, On Joseph 5).

REWORKING THE BIBLICAL TEXT

93

Philo recounts the accusation made by Potiphar’s wife against Joseph and notes that Potiphar believed the tale to be true and sent Joseph off to prison, thereby committing two great errors. The first was to give Joseph no opportunity for defense; the second was not to apprehend that ‘the raiment which his wife produced as left by the youth was a proof of violence not employed by him, but suffered at her hands. For if force were used by him, he would retain his mistress’s robe; if against him he would lose his own’ [Philo, On Joseph 52].30 In Narsai’s account, Potiphar hears his wife’s complaint and asks, ‘Who is your witness that he did this thing? [For] I do not wish to contend with him unjustly. Behold, his garment is in your hands, but you cry out that you are the vanquished one’ [483–486]. Potiphar is nevertheless strongly moved with jealousy as he continues to listen to his wife, and he decides to confine Joseph in prison [487–488]. In the Ps.-Narsai retelling the dialogue is expanded further. In response to his wife’s accusation Potiphar says: If you are pure, why does the garment of the slave remain with you? If Joseph audaciously came to lie with you, he would have taken your garment and not you his. Behold, your lack [of intelligence] is revealed together with your transgression. You did not cry out and you were not troubled and you did not raise your voice. I will call him and set you before each other, and I will look and observe your demeanors. From the look of your faces I will perceive and know that guilty one who did this thing. [24:1–9]

Potiphar’s wife nevertheless presses her petition and manages to convince Potiphar, seemingly by virtue of the fact that if Joseph is cast into prison she will never have to see him again [24:10–13]. This echoes the jealousy motif suggested by Narsai. Ps.-Ephrem gives an even fuller account. In this case, there seems to be strong evidence that the Syriac authors had adopted a traditional motif, though it is possible that the problem was recognized and narrative expanded similarly in both the Jewish and Syriac traditions.31 These narrative expansions are similar to comments found in three non–Syriac texts, which are nevertheless closely connected with the Syriac tradition. In the Sermon on Joseph the 30 For references to subsequent occurrences in Jewish sources, see Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 63 n. 39. 31 But cf. the comment by Ephrem in his Genesis commentary: ‘His master came and heard the words of his mistress and the witnesses [who] were confirming her sayings. He also saw Joseph’s garment, which was against Joseph [i.e., bore witness against Joseph], and he cast him in prison without a garment.’ R.M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii (CSCO 152–153, Syr. 71–72; Louvain, 1955), § XXXV.3

94

KRISTIAN HEAL

Most Virtuous, attributed to Ephrem Graecus, the author notes that, ‘without examination or enquiry [Potiphar] passed the unjust sentence against [Joseph]’.32 In the first kontakion on Joseph by Romanos, the question is more strongly put: If [Potiphar] had had wisdom, he would not have allowed the trick to deceive him. You are a foolish judge! As evidence you have Joseph’s robe; ask where it is, and consider if she is to be trusted. If she fled from him, then how does she possess his robe?33

In the Armenian commentary on Genesis, attributed to Ephrem, the author similarly addresses himself to Potiphar: But you, master of Joseph, would it not have been right for you to discover whose garments were found with whom? For if the garments of your wife had been found with Joseph, you would then have rightly believed your wife. But, since Joseph’s garments were found with your wife, is it not evident that she laid hands on him in order that he accomplish her will?34

It is interesting to observe that, whereas in these latter texts the ‘examine the garment’ motif is introduced as an exegetical comment on the text or as a direct comment to Potiphar (apostroph¯e ), in the dramatic dialogue poems the motif is introduced in the course of the dialogue. This is a distinctive feature of the exegesis of these dramatic dialogue poems, particularly those classified as type I–IV in Brock’s classification system. Motif 3: Who Is this Joseph? This is not the last that we hear from Potiphar and his wife in the Syriac retellings. Inserted between the descriptions of Joseph the regent going throughout the land of Egypt (cf. Gen 41:46) and that of the famine is an extended account of the reaction of Potiphar and his wife to the news of Joseph’s newly exalted position. Ephrem’s Genesis commentary contains the earliest account of this incident,35 which for an otherwise succinct retelling is surprisingly detailed. He begins by reporting that 32 Stephanus Evodius Assemani, Sancti patris nostri Ephraem syri opera omnia 2 (3 vols.; Rome, 1732–46), 33, lines 11–12. I quote, with permission, from the electronically published translation of Archimandrite Ephrem Lash, lines 567–568 (http://www.anastasis.org.uk). 33 Jos´ e Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le M´ elode: Hymnes 1 (5 vols; SC 99, 110, 114, 128, 283; Paris, 1964–1981), 216–218; English translation in R.J. Schork, Sacred Song from the Byzantine Pulpit: Romanos the Melodist (Gainesville, 1995), 88. 34 Edward G. Mathews, The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO. 573, Arm. 24; Louvain, 1998), 138, lines 16–21. 35 Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri, § XXXV.7–9. English translation in Edward G. Mathews and Joseph P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works (Fathers of the Church 91; Washington, dc, 1994) 187–188.

REWORKING THE BIBLICAL TEXT

95

Potiphar was actually among those who witnessed Pharaoh’s dreams being interpreted by Joseph. When Potiphar sees Joseph elevated to a position second only to Pharaoh, he runs home to tell his wife.36 He tells her of Joseph’s rise to power and his fear of meeting him. Potiphar’s wife confesses her guilt in assaulting Joseph and says that it is she whom Joseph will bring to grief, not him. Relying on Joseph’s justice, she says that he will not punish her either, because ‘if he had not been wronged, he would not have been imprisoned. If he had not been imprisoned, he would not have come to this royal dignity.’ Indeed, Potiphar goes to Joseph and is forgiven for this very reason. In the Ps.-Narsai account, Potiphar hears about Joseph’s appointment from the messengers crying in the streets and asks, ‘Who is this Joseph who has been made a king?’ [33:5]. On discovering that it is his former slave, he is racked with guilt and fear, thinking, ‘Perhaps [Joseph] will remember that thing I did to him and will do away with my life.’ He gathers his servants together and goes out to meet Joseph. Joseph forgives him, however, saying, ‘It was not your fault that this folly [ . . . ] came about’ [33:16]. Potiphar returns home to his wife and tells her that Joseph has become king and that he is fearful for his life. She responds by admonishing him not to flee and not to be afraid, ‘For [Joseph] is a just man and he will not remind us of [our] transgression’ [34:2]. She then confesses that she wronged Joseph and lied to Potiphar about him [34:3–12]. Potiphar then proceeds to tell of his encounter with Joseph [34:13–18]. On hearing this, Potiphar’s wife is perturbed; she fears for her life, and ‘storms gather [ . . . ] in her eyes’ [34:21]. In this state of agitation she goes out to her husband’s scribe and instructs him to write a letter to the king. The scribe is initially reluctant to write the petition but eventually concedes. He takes down her petition, in which she begs for forgiveness from Joseph, and she delivers it in person [35:6–37:5]. After reading the petition, Joseph ‘dismissed her with peace and her mind was at rest’ [37:5]. It is perhaps surprising to find that this motif is not even present in any surviving Jewish sources and, outside the Syriac tradition, can only be found in the late fourteenth-century Ethiopic History of Joseph.37 Though the modern translator of this work strongly suggests that it is of Jewish origin,38 he does concede that it may equally have come from 36 Ephrem cannot resist comparing the haste with which Potiphar returned home to tell of Joseph’s greatness with the haste with which his wife ran out to accuse Joseph. 37 For a translation and preliminary study, see Ephrem Isaac, ‘The Ethiopic History of Joseph’, JSPE 6 (1990), 3–125. 38 Isaac, History, 28–33.

96

KRISTIAN HEAL

a Syriac or Christian Arabic source.39 It is therefore problematic to see the History, or its antecedent, as a source for the Ps.-Narsai text.40 A comparison of the texts is of interest, however.41 In the History Potiphar hears of Joseph’s rise to power, is frightened, and flees from him. He returns home and blames his wife for ruining him, because he now sees that it was she who transgressed against Joseph.42 His wife confesses and promises to make Joseph love Potiphar more than all his colleagues. She then writes a letter to Joseph begging forgiveness for herself and her husband. Joseph grants her request by return of post and also sends gifts and appoints Potiphar as chief judge. It is of interest to note the affinities between the letter in the History and that in Ps.-Narsai. I have identified three parallel elements: How Potiphar’s wife describes herself,43 the epithet for Joseph44 with which both texts begin, and the fact that in both letters Potiphar’s wife adjures Joseph in the name of his father.45 Though more work is needed to establish the nature of the relationship between the History and the Ps.-Narsai text, it appears at least likely that they are related. The ‘Who is this Joseph?’ motif differs from the previous two in that there is no immediately discernible exegetic question to which the narrative expansion is responding. The occurrence of speeches and episodes in dramatic dialogue poems for which there is no biblical precedent is not unusual, but rather a frequently occurring result of the authors’ imaginative inventiveness.46 The question that prompted the narrative expansion may well simply have been, ‘What happened to Potiphar and his wife?’ However, one should not be too quick to deem this an arbitrary question but perhaps should see it in terms of the imagination and literary sensibilities of the author. Confronted with the task of retelling a biblical narrative of consummate sophistication, in which characters appear and reappear (Jacob, the brothers, the butler), the author may 39

Isaac, History, 42. A more thorough analysis of this text with respect to the Syriac tradition is in progress. 41 The narrative expansion is found in Isaac, History, 73–77. 42 The ‘examine the garment’ motif, not included earlier in the work, is present here in Potiphar’s accusation. Isaac, History, 74. 43 ‘The bold adulteress who has no shame.’ Isaac, History, 74; ‘The harlot and the debauched one full of impudence’ [35:20]. 44 ‘The pure virgin, quiet, kind-hearted, perfectly wiser than all the free people. He who flees sin.’ Isaac, History, 74; ‘The righteous and justified one, servant and lord, the chaste and pure one’ [35:18–19]. 45 Isaac, History, 75; [36:2–3]. 46 For a list of such speeches and episodes in the two homilies on the binding of Isaac, see Brock, ‘Two Syriac Verse Homilies’, 67–70. 40

REWORKING THE BIBLICAL TEXT

97

well have felt a literary imperative to bring Potiphar and his wife back into the story after they had previously played such an important role.47 The author is thereby also given an opportunity to explore the issues that the scene raises, such as the justice of Joseph verses the justice of Potiphar, and Joseph’s forgiveness of his wrongdoers, which adumbrates the later scenes with his brothers.48 The study of these narrative expansions has shed light on a number of different aspects of the exegesis of the dramatic dialogue poems which may enable us to very tentatively reconstruct the process of producing these works. In two of the three cases studied it is clear that the narrative was expanded in response to a recognized exegetical question. Each exegetical narrative expansion appears also in other sources, and there is strong evidence to suggest that they may have been traditional. We may imagine the Syriac author as having an awareness of numerous traditional motifs, which were selected, developed, and used in response to a perceived exegetical need and in accordance with the hermeneutical principles of the author. These motifs may be appropriated with no development, slight development or wholesale development. The development of a given motif may be in response to a desire either to expand its exegetical potential or to improve its dramatic or literary effect. However, to say that the Syriac author was simply a compiler of secondhand ideas is far too simplistic. It is clear that these early Syriac poet-exegetes were extremely capable and creative and possessed fecund imaginations.49 The reader should be willing to attribute originality to the authors of these texts and not simply be to see a Jewish parallel as a causal link between the Jewish and Syriac tradition.50 Further study of the dramatic dialogue poems will enable scholars more firmly to establish the extent of the interrelatedness of the Syriac sources, and 47 Another example of this phenomenon in the Ps.-Narsai retelling is the reappearance of the merchants [78:19–81:17]. 48 A further possibility, which I intend to explore elsewhere, is that the author of the Ps.-Narsai retelling may have inserted the scene in order to continue the typological connection made between Potiphar’s wife and the brothers, and the Jews who convicted Jesus. Both Potiphar’s wife and the brothers sought to convict Joseph though he had done no crime; both were petitioned; Joseph was convicted in both cases; and with the insertion of this scene, both were brought before Joseph and judged. 49 For the role of imagination in exegesis, with particular reference to the Syriac tradition, see Robert Murray, Exegesis and Imagination (London, 1988). 50 On the danger of seeing too much in parallels, see Samuel Sandmel, ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81 (1962), 1–13; and D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, 1984), 43–44, 136.

98

KRISTIAN HEAL

to describe in more detail the relationship with the Jewish material. By this means it will be possible to appreciate more fully the contribution of the dramatic dialogue poems in the early history of Syriac exegesis.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW THE SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WITNESS TO THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PESHITTA

Jan Joosten

The Old Testament Peshitta (otp) is not only an ancient text attested by a rich and complicated manuscript tradition (an aspect discussed at the first Peshitta Symposium), nor merely an ancient translation implying a source text, a target language and a translational procedure (a theme elaborated upon at the second Peshitta Symposium), but it is an ancient Bible translation, presupposing as such a religious community. The otp came into being within a community in order to answer its needs, its text has been cherished, preserved and transmitted throughout the ages by a community, and it is thanks to that transmission that it is available to us today. The organizers of the third Peshitta Symposium are to be congratulated for putting the historical and church-historical background of the Peshitta at the heart of discussions under the title ‘The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy’. The present paper will focus on the very first attestation of the otp’s use, on the earliest quotations of the Syriac Old Testament in another writing. These quotations come from a period about which almost nothing is known. They have been altered by factors that are only partially understood. And they reflect the otp text in a way that leaves many questions unanswered. Nevertheless, preceding as they do any later attestations of the otp by about a century and a half, they offer a unique window on the textual history of the otp in the earliest period. 1. Tatian’s Use of the

OTP

The first patristic author attesting knowledge of the otp is not Aphrahat or Ephrem, nor, in Greek dress, Eusebius of Emesa—all of whom belong to the first half of the fourth century—but Tatian, who lived in the second century. Not much is known about Tatian, except for what he tells of himself in his Oration to the Greeks, and for some biographical details transmitted by Irenaeus and Eusebius. Originating from ‘Assyria’, Tatian studied Greek literature and philosophy and travelled widely throughout the ancient world before converting to Christianity.

100

JAN JOOSTEN

For a while he was a student of Justin Martyr in Rome. After Justin’s death, sometime in the 160ies, Tatian fell out with the Roman church. Subsequently, he is said to have founded his own sect of the Encratites. Before 170 or so he most probably returned to his native country. Beyond that point, nothing else is told about him. According to an early tradition generally considered to be reliable, Tatian is also the author of the Diatessaron, a gospel harmony integrating the four canonical gospels into one writing.1 The original text of the Diatessaron is not extant and must in every instance be reconstructed from quotations in Syriac writings and from translations or daughter translations. For this reason, many questions regarding the nature and origin of the writing are hard to answer. Tatian may have produced his harmony in the East, after his return, but perhaps he composed it while still in Rome. According to one hypothesis he may even have created two slightly different editions. The original language was almost certainly Syriac—even although the oldest extant witness is a Greek text, the famous Dura Parchment dating from around the year 220.2 In all likelihood, Tatian created his Diatessaron in order to provide the Syriac speaking church with an accurate and comprehensive version of the gospels read and revered in the Greek speaking churches. The Diatessaron was the gospel for the Eastern Church until the beginning of the fifth century when it had to make way for more conventional ‘translations’ of the Greek tetra-evangelion. One of the many surprises the Diatessaron held in store for modernday researchers is the use of the otp in Old Testament quotations. Because of the great difficulty in reconstructing Tatian’s original composition, the discovery of this phenomenon emerged only gradually. The first scholar to formulate the hypothesis that the harmony followed the otp in Old Testament quotations was F.C. Burkitt.3 He based his surmise on a single quotation in Aphrahat, which he admitted was slim evidence. Seventy years later, S. Brock backed up this view with a quotation in the then recently published Syriac text of Ephrem’s commentary on the Diatessaron.4 W. Petersen added a few cases occurring 1

See, for everything pertaining to the Diatessaron, W.L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron. Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance and History in Scholarship, (SVigChr 25; Leiden, 1994). 2 The connection between the Dura Parchment and the Diatessaron has been doubted, unduly, by some scholars. For a defence of this connection, see J. Joosten, ‘The Dura Parchment and the Diatessaron’, VigChr 57 (2003), 159–175. 3 F.C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe 2. Introduction and Notes (Cambridge, 1904), 205–206. 4 S. Brock, in B.M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, 1977), 96–98.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW

101

in both eastern and western witnesses.5 After these excellent scholars, the present writer came to the same conclusion on the basis of a study of Old Testament quotations in the Old Syriac and Peshitta Gospels.6 The hypothesis has been attacked, in the 1999 issue of Novum Testamentum, by Robert Shedinger.7 Unable to find clear echoes of the Old Testament Peshitta in western witnesses to the Diatessaron, Shedinger judged the theory of Old Testament Peshitta use by Tatian to lack a proper foundation. It is rather his own criticisms that are unfounded, however. Traces of the Old Testament Peshitta do in fact appear in western gospel harmonies such as the Li`ege Diatessaron and the Venetian Harmony, in at least eight passages.8 Thus, it still seems likely that Tatian used the Old Testament Peshitta as one of his sources. Bent on making his harmony acceptable to the Syriac speaking church, Tatian, as it appears, made use of the local Old Testament text in Old Testament quotations. Later Syriac versions of the gospels, Old Syriac and Peshitta, have, as is widely recognized, taken over much of the wording of the Diatessaron. The influence of the Old Testament Peshitta on the Old Testament quotations in these versions—which is stronger in the Old Syriac than in the New Testament Peshitta—is part of their Diatessaronic colouring. This is shown most clearly by the harmonistic traits occurring in these Old Testament quotations. It is, in any case, unlikely that the translators of the Old Syriac and Peshitta gospels independently consulted the otp while rendering the Greek gospels. Their tendency was rather to bring the otp text in the quotations into line with the Greek text of the manuscripts they were working from. The traces of otp text in Old Testament quotations go back to the earliest stage of the Syriac gospel text. 2. Acts and Epistles Although much is still hypothetical with regard to the early history of the Syriac gospel text, and although that field would certainly benefit from more intensive study, the situation is far worse when it comes to 5

W.L. Petersen, ‘New Evidence for the Question of the Original Language of the Diatessaron’, in W. Schrage (ed.), Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (BZNW 47; Berlin, 1986), 325–43, esp. 333–339. 6 J. Joosten, ‘The Old Testament Quotations in the Old Syriac and Peshitta Gospels: A Contribution to the Study of the Diatessaron’, Textus 15 (1990), 55–76. 7 R.F. Shedinger, ‘Did Tatian Use the Old Testament Peshitta?’, NT 41 (1999), 265–279. 8 See J. Joosten, ‘Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Old Testament Peshitta’, JBL 120 (2001), 501–523.

102

JAN JOOSTEN

the other New Testament writings. Very little research has been done here. What is known is that the Peshitta version of Acts and Epistles, which is to be dated no later than the early fifth century, was preceded by an Old Syriac version, of which, however, no manuscripts have been preserved.9 The Old Syriac Acts and Epistles are known almost exclusively from quotations in early Syriac writings. It stands to reason—and reason is all we have to go on10 —that when the Syriac speaking church received a version of the Greek gospels, a translation of the Acts and Epistles would also be desired. We may submit, therefore, that the Old Syriac version of these writings is roughly contemporary with, or at least not much later than the Diatessaron. The Peshitta version of these books is a limited reworking of the Old Syriac basis. In grammar, style and translation technique, the Peshitta text of Acts and Epistles shows much similarity to that of the Gospels, in particular the Old Syriac gospels. One striking characteristic common to the gospels and the other writings is the influence of the otp on the text of Old Testament quotations. The traces of otp text in the quotations in Acts and Epistles are every bit as prominent as those in the Old Syriac Gospels.11 This phenomenon confirms the hypothesis of a relatively early date for the translation of the Acts and Epistles. 3. The Syriac New Testament’s Witness to the

OTP

The fact that the otp is quoted in the earliest Syriac versions of the New Testament has a number of implications that may briefly be spelled out. To begin with, quotation of the otp in the earliest Syriac versions of the New Testament starting with the Diatessaron provides a date ante quem for the Syriac Old Testament. If Tatian, around 170, was led to 9 See J. Kerschensteiner, Der altsyrische Paulustext (CSCO 315, Subs. 37; Leuven, 1970). 10 Unless we interpret a stray remark by Eusebius to mean that Tatian translated the Pauline corpus too, cf. Kerschensteiner, Paulustext. 11 Examples in F. Berg, The Influence of the Septuagint upon the Peshitta Psalter (Leipzig, 1895), 137–150. See also G.R. Davey, ‘Old Testament Quotations in the Syriac Version of I and II Peter’, ParOr 3 (1972), 353–64. It has recently bee argued that otp influence in the New Testament quotations is secondary, see B. Aland and ¨ A. Juckel (eds.), Das Neue Testament in syrischer Uberlieferung 2. Die paulinischen Briefe 3. 1./2. Thessalonicherbrief, 1./2. Timotheusbrief, Titusbrief, Philemonbrief und Hebr¨ aerbrief (ANTT 32; Berlin–New York, 2002), 10, 20. See, however, my review of this work in Hugoye 6.1 (2003), § 9.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW

103

adopt the otp instead of making a fresh translation of the Greek text of the Old Testament quotations, he must have done so under the weight of an Old Testament version that was already well established among the people he was writing for. This implies a date before 150 ce, at the latest, for the production of the otp. More accurately, this date is valid for those books that are quoted in the gospels, notably the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets and Psalms. Other biblical books may have been translated somewhat later.12 Secondly, if the otp is quoted in the earliest versions of the New Testament, it must have come into existence well before these versions. The fact that the Old Testament, or the larger part of it, was translated into Syriac before the Gospels, Acts and the main Epistles, makes it very likely that the otp originated in a Jewish milieu. It is hard to envisage a Christian community in the second century translating the entire Pentateuch, the Prophets and Psalms before taking on the chief writings of New Testament. 13 Thirdly, the use of a pre-Christian Jewish version of the Old Testament—as the otp turns out to be—in the earliest translations of the New Testament tells us something about early Syriac Christianity. The fact that the otp had enough authority for the first translators of the New Testament writings to feel that they should follow it in Old Testament quotations tends to show that the Christians to whom their translation was addressed were either descended from Jews or close to the local Jewish community. These three points have been made before. Although they do not, or not yet, represent a broad consensus, they can be backed up with much other evidence.14 The use of the otp by the earliest translators of the New Testament fits in well with what else is known about primitive Syriac speaking Christianity and its Jewish roots. A fourth implication, which has received less attention, is that the early Syriac versions of the New Testament give witness—in their Old Testament quotations—to the text of the otp. Of course, the Syriac New 12

Some books, such as Chronicles and Proverbs, may have come into being after the creation of the Diatessaron and the earliest version of the Acts and Epistles. Such a later date is certain for the Syriac version of Ben Sira, which contains several allusions to the Syriac New Testament, see J. Joosten, ‘El´ements d’aram´ een occidental dans la version syriaque de Ben Sira’ to be published in a forthcoming Festschrift. 13 See for this argument F.C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904), 70–74. 14 See M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (UCOP 56; Cambridge, 1999).

104

JAN JOOSTEN

Testament itself went through a complicated textual history. Moreover, the manuscripts of the New Testament are not older than those of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, there is no denying that the earliest quotations of the otp merit attention in text-critical perspective. The import of this aspect will be illustrated by a case study. As will be shown, the Syriac versions of the New Testament may in some passages preserve early readings of the Syriac Old Testament that were lost from the manuscript tradition of the otp. 4. Case Study: Rom 10:19 – Deut 32:21 The text of Old Testament quotations in the early Syriac versions of the New Testament very often follows the otp against all attested text-forms of the Greek New Testament. In such a case, the quotation confirms the existence of the otp, as it is known today, in the second or third century. Such confirmation is not negligible. Since the instances conforming to the otp have been studied before, however, they will here be taken for granted. Instead, we will turn to one example where the text of the quotation does not conform to the otp as we know it from the Leiden edition but may reflect an early variant. In Rom 10:19, the Apostle quotes Deut 32:21 in order to explain God’s acceptation of the gentiles to the detriment of the Jews: even Moses had announced that ‘I (God) will make you (Israel) jealous of what is not a people’.15 The Syriac rendering of this verse is surprising: ‘I will make you jealous of a people that is not a people (xƒ QrZ x„S)’. The difference between this text and its Greek counterpart leaps to the eye. Since the expression ‘a people that is not a people’ corresponds neither to the Greek New Testament text nor to the Hebrew Old Testament, it appears to be due to the freedom of the translator. Since it occurs only in the New Testament, there seems to be no reason to claim that it reflects an early otp variant. The otp gives a faithful rendering of the Hebrew.16 15 The quotation is rather free, since the Old Testament text has ‘I will make them jealous. . .’ Moreover, the quotation may not be entirely accurate. While, in the Old Testament context, the verse means that God will irritate his people by means of another people, Paul seems to take it to indicate jealousy of the other people. 16 The ostensible addition of the suffix to the noun (xƒ) is due to scribes’ unfamiliarity with the status absolutus of nouns, a type of syntax that is common in the Old Testament Peshitta but disappears in later Syriac texts. They ‘syriacized’ the form by adding a silent yudh of the suffix. The phenomenon is often met with in unusual cases of status absolutus (for examples, see J. Joosten, The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew [SStLL 22; Leiden, 1996], 73, n. 46). See the parallel in Deut 32:21.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW

105

However, a number of facts do point to the primitive otp text as the source of the peculiar reading in the Peshitta version of Rom 10:19. Firstly, the morphosyntax of the phrase xƒ QrZ x„S is untypical of the New Testament, where substantives rarely turn up in the status absolutus, whether in prepositional phrases or after negations; in the otp, these uses are much more frequent.17 This tends to show that the phrase originated in the Syriac version of the Old Testament whence it was taken over in the version of the New Testament. Secondly, the wording, though not the exact vocabulary, of the reading in the Syriac New Testament is paralleled in the Palestinian Targum to Deut 32:21 (Targum Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Fragments) ynqa amwa ald amwab ÷whty, ‘I will make them jealous by means of a nation that is not a nation’.18 Unless it should be the result of an accident, this similarity indicates that the reading is at home in the Syriac version of the Old Testament which, as is well known, shows many points of contact with the Targums. Finally, the verse is quoted by Aphrahat in a form that clearly, by the use of the third person direct object corresponds to the Old Testament,19 but equally clearly reproduces the peculiar wording found in the quotation in the New Testament Peshitta (QrZ x„S y_zP |gP xƒ, ‘I will make them jealous of a people that is not a people’). This would appear to be Aphrahat’s reading of the otp, concurring with the quotation in Rom 10:19.20 For these reasons it seems probable that the text of Rom 10:19 does reflect an early otp reading. This reading has not been preserved in the manuscript tradition. What can be learnt from this test case? Our point of departure has been the possibility that the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament have preserved early otp readings not attested in the otp manuscripts. For this claim to become effective it is necessary that the reading in question should appear out of place in the New Testament. This can happen either because the reading does not correspond to the Greek New Testament text, or because it doesn’t conform to the 17

See I. Avinery, Syntaxe de la Peshitta sur le Pentateuque (doctoral dissertation, Jerusalem, 1973). 18 See A. V¨ o¨ obus, Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs (Stockholm, 1958), 100. 19 See J. Parisot (ed.), Aphraatis sapientis persae Demonstrationes (PS 1; Paris, 1894), 232, 512; the second person is also found, however, see ibidem, 469. 20 Alternatively, the text quoted by Aphrahat could be the result of unconscious contamination: intending to quote Deuteronomy, he may have mixed up this text with that of the quotation in Romans. However, the parallel in the Targums makes this less likely.

106

JAN JOOSTEN

vocabulary or grammar usual in the Syriac New Testament. The example discussed was selected to illustrate these criteria. The fact that the variant reading is not found in Old Testament manuscripts does not constitute an argument against viewing it as authentic. The otp text is in general remarkably stable. Only for certain books do we have witnesses—usually single manuscripts—showing that divergent readings did exist. Think of 5b1 in Genesis-Exodus: if we did not have 5b1, a whole series of genuine, old and possibly original otp readings would have been completely unknown. Possible variants recovered from the New Testament belong, as I would argue, to the same category. 5. Conclusion The Syriac Old Testament and the Syriac New Testament, although they are distinct corpora deriving from different periods and backgrounds, are intimately linked to one another both historically and textually. Notably, the Syriac New Testament is the first recoverable stage in the reception history of the otp. The earliest translators of the New Testament writings knew and revered the Syriac Old Testament and let their writing be influenced by it. In the present paper, one aspect of this influence has been discussed. In the New Testament’s Old Testament quotations, the earliest Syriac translators tended to follow the text of the otp. Subsequently, the text of the quotations was corrected toward the Greek New Testament text, but the otp basis is still clearly visible in many instances. This makes the early versions of the New Testament potential witnesses for the text of the otp. But the influence of the otp on the Syriac New Testament is not limited to the domain of quotations. Other questions that need to be looked into are allusions to the otp and the choice of religious vocabulary. All these domains need to investigated more intensively. The recent revival in Syriac studies has been accompanied by a necessary specialization: scholars deal with either the Syriac Old Testament or the Syriac versions of the New Testament, seldom with both. What is regrettable is that these fields of study have sometimes been researched in isolation. Even if our expertise is narrowly focused, our perspective should not be. The framework of our research, whether aimed at the otp, at the Old Syriac gospels or at the New Testament Peshitta, should be the Syriac Bible as it was—and is—read by the Syriac speaking religious community.

THE ‘SYRIAC MASORA’ AND THE NEW TESTAMENT PESHITTA Andreas Juckel

The ‘Syriac Masora’ is a large eighth- or ninth-century compilation1 of various philological and grammatical materials, full of sample texts mainly taken from the Old Testament, New Testament, and patristic writings. The biblical texts are compiled from all books and versions2 of the Old and New Testaments and can duly be called a ‘masoretic sample edition’ of both Testaments. The dominance of the Peshitta in the ‘Syriac Masora’ qualifies this version to be the biblical textus receptus, while the subsequent versions are later works assigned to singular persons (Philoxenus of Mabbug, Thomas of H . arqel, Paul of Tella, Jacob of Edessa). The native Syriac designation of this compilation is Maˇslmonutho (P–_{ws”¥v, ‘tradition’), but due to the affinity to the Hebrew Masora Western scholars adopted the term ‘Masora’ for convenience.3 A critical edition at least of its biblical material is indispensable for the proper evaluation of that compilation.4 1 It was Jean Pierre Paulin Martin who identified the ‘masoretic’ character of this compilation, see his ‘Tradition karkaphienne, ou la massore chez les Syriens’, JA (6e s´ erie) 14 (1869), 245–379, and ‘Histoire de la ponctuation ou de la Massore chez les Syriens’, JA (7e s´ erie) 5 (1875), 81–208. — Good summaries of the topic can be found in W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894; reprinted Piscataway, nj, 2001), 20–24; R. Duval, La litt´ erature syriaque (3rd ed.; Paris, 1907; reprinted Amsterdam, 1970), 55–61; A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-pal¨ astinensischen Texte (Bonn, 1922; reprinted Berlin, 1968), 259–260; A. Moberg, Eine syrische Masora-Handschrift in der Universit¨ ats-Bibliothek zu Lund (Lund, 1928). 2 From the Philoxenian version few quotations only are given in the margins of the New Testament Peshitta part. The versions of Paul of Tella (Syro-Hexapla) and of Jacob of Edessa (parts of the OT) are given outside the biblical part in a special section with the heading: ‘Interpretation of Hebrew words and (of words) of other languages extant in the books of the holy prophets, which are interpreted with much diligence, (taken) from the tradition (maˇslmonutho) of the seventy interpreters, and from the revision (turros.o) of Jacob of Edessa’ (according to ms Vat. Syr. 152 fol. 198r). 3 To replace the term ‘Masora’ by the native Syriac equivalent Maˇslmonutho would be possible, but two difficulties are connected with the Syriac term. Firstly, it needs specification by the adjective qarqphoyto to distinguish this ‘tradition’ of the Qarqaphto Monastery from the maˇslmonutho d-ˇsab¯ın |k„T“Z P–_{ws”¥v and from the maˇslmonutho h.arqloito P—ks‘c P–_{ws”¥v (both terms in the ‘masoretic’ manuscripts themselves); and secondly, the derivation of a concise adjective in

108

ANDREAS JUCKEL

Although rather unattractive by the confusing presentation of the textual material, it proves to be significant for the history of the Peshitta text by establishing a ‘pre-masoretic’ period and a ‘masoretic’ period which roughly coincide with the Roman/Byzantine and Islamic periods of the Syrian Churches. The rise of Islam yields the historical background which stimulated the creation of the ‘Syriac Masora’ and put it into parallel with the Hebrew Masora.5 The turn of the Syriac language from a colloquial to a sacred and scientific language called for standardization of orthography and pronunciation. Two different ‘masoretic’ systems (Eastern and Western) are known as well as famous Syriac ‘masoretes’ which are quoted in the margins of the ‘masoretic’ manuscripts.6 The most evident difference, however, is the fact that the ‘Syriac Masora’ is not attached to the biblical text itself but is a separate compilation with a textual history of its own. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the eighth century, the Peshitta of both Testaments is a ‘masoretic text’, which was copied, read and commented upon according to the rules fixed by the ‘Syriac Masora’, while the manuscripts from the fifth to the seventh century offer a hardly regularlized orthography and system of vocalization. There is no text-critical intention of the ‘Syriac Masora’; the purpose is standardization of orthography and pronunciation. ‘Criticism’ is introduced by different spellings and vocalizations quoted in the margins and traced back to authorities (versions or persons). This focus on orthography and pronunciation is the reason why the ‘masoretic’ activities are solely associated with pedantic rules and subtleties. Connecting, however, these activities with the textual development of the English from the Syriac term is not possible. For practical reasons I will keep the terms ‘(Syriac) Masora’ and ‘masoretic’, but put within quotation marks. 4 The manuscripts of the ‘Syriac Masora’ (see below in note 10) are included in the Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (Gospels) published by Ph.E. Pusey and G.H. Gwilliam (Oxford, 1901; reprinted Piscataway, nj, 2003). They are not used in the Old Testament edition published at Leiden, but will be discussed in a separate monograph by K.D. Jenner. Extensive research on the Old Testament texts of the ‘Syriac Masora’ can be found in the books of P.B. Dirksen, The Transmission of the Text in the Peshit.ta Manuscripts of the Book of Judges (MPIL 1; Leiden, 1972), 88–99, and of M.D. Koster, The Peshit.ta of Exodus. The Development of its Text in the Course of Fifteen Centuries (SSN 19; Assen, 1977), 471–487. 5 On the Hebrew Masora see E.J. Revell, ‘Masorah, Masoretes, etc.’, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4 (New York, 1992), 592–599; P.H. Kelly, D.S. Mynatt, and T.G. Crawford, Die Masora der Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Einf¨ uhrung und Kommentar (Stuttgart, 2003). — The ‘Syriac Masora’ is regarded as model for the Hebrew Masora by B. Ego in her article ‘Masora’, in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds.), Der Neue Pauly 4 (Stuttgart–Weimar, 1999), 982. 6 There is a T . ubono, a Sobo, and a Teodosi, see Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature, 24 footnote 1.

‘SYRIAC MASORA’ AND NEW TESTAMENT

109

New Testament Peshitta, there is a striking affinity between the ‘Syriac Masora’ and the textual development with regard to standardization. The present article will outline this affinity and point out the significance of the ‘masoretic’ activities for the history of the Peshitta text. It will argue for a development on the textual level from productive to restricted conditions, which corresponds with the development on the orthographic level from irregular to regularized conditions. It is confined to the Corpus Paulinum and based on c.30 manuscripts from the fifth to the sixteenth century. It is directed by an editorial perspective, which derives from a Peshitta project I started c. five years ago.7 To give a summary of what the ‘masoretic’ approach to the manuscript tradition can contribute to editorial policy is the scope of this paper, not the presentation of the ‘masoretic’ features in the proper sense.8 1. The ‘Syriac Masora’ Manuscripts and Structure The origin of the ‘masoretic’ compilation is the Qarqaphto Monastery near Rishayno.9 There are 16 ‘masoretic’ manuscripts of West Syrian origin and one single manuscript of East Syrian provenance.10 Ten 7 This project has grown out of B. Aland and A. Juckel (eds.), Das Neue ¨ Testament in syrischer Uberlieferung 2.1 Rom–1Cor ; 2.2 2Cor–Col; 2.3 1Thess–Heb (Berlin–New York, 1991, 1995, 2002). The purpose of this edition was to compile a comparative edition of the whole Syriac tradition of the Corpus Paulinum in a chronological order, versions and quotations, verse by verse. The Peshitta block is based on 12 manuscripts, 10 of which are from the ‘pre-masoretic’ period. 8 These features are extensively studied by Martin, ‘Tradition karkaphienne’. The development (from the seventh to the thirteenth century) of the diacritical points to distinguish homographs, the grammatical persons and tenses is presented by J.B. Segal, The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac (London, 1953; reprinted Piscataway, nj, 2004). 9 On the location see G. Hoffmann in ZDMG 32 (1878), 745. 10 In the List of Old Testament Peshit.ta Manuscripts (preliminary issue) (Leiden, 1961), fourteen ‘masoretic’ manuscripts are listed on page 80. Additional ones are no. 12/22 of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate in Damascus, Harvard 176, and a manuscript of St. Mark, Jerusalem described as no. 1* by A. Baumstark in OrChr ns 2 (1912), 122–123, and listed as no. 42 in the catalogue of F.Y. Dolabani (formerly Metropolitan of Mardin), Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery (handwritten catalogue in Syriac, ed. by G.Y. Ibrahim [Metropolitan of Aleppo]; Aleppo, 1994), 157. The 17 mss of the ‘Syriac Masora’ are: BL Add. 12138 (Apr. 899, E. Syriac); of W. Syriac origin are BL Add. 12178 (9th/10th cent., from the Nitrian collection of the British Library); BL Add. 14667, foll. 1–12 (10th, OT only); BL Add. 17162, foll. 1–14 (10th/11th, OT only); BL Add. 14482 (11th/12th, OT only); BL Add. 14684, foll. 1–36 (12th/13th, OT and Greek fathers); Vat. syr. 152 (979/80); Barberini orient. 118 (c.1000); Chicago, Or. Inst. Libr. (1004); Syr. Orth. Patr. in Dam. 7/16 (1014, formerly at Mossul, Church of St. Thomas) and

110

ANDREAS JUCKEL

(eleven?) of the West Syriac manuscripts11 and the single East Syriac manuscript12 include the Peshitta version of the Corpus Paulinum. Although the arrangement and the size of the compilation developped, the West Syriac manuscripts derive from the same archetype, while the East Syriac ‘Masora’ is an independent tradition. The oldest of these witnesses (BL Add. 12178, from the ‘Nitrian collection’ of the British Library, and Vat. Syr. 152) are from the ninth or tenth century, the latest is from the nineteenth century. The general title of the compilation is ‘Booklet of (vocalized) words and readings of the Old Testament and the New Testament according to the tradition of Qarqaphto’ (Q~_n P—kˆ‘ P–_{ws”¥v pjP P–[cZ^ P—j—ƒZ P—jÑZ^ P]¨w“Z). Only three manuscripts (Vat. Syr. 152, Borg. Sir. 117, and BL Add. 7183) give this explicit reference to the Qarqaphto monastery, but all give additional texts apart from the biblical material, which is only one (though the largest) part of the compilation. In almost all manuscripts the first part is extended by ‘(vocalized) words and readings from the books of the holy teachers’, drawn from Dionysius Areopagita, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzen, John Philoponus, and Severus of Antioch. The textual material presented in this part consists of short sequences of words, mainly chosen with regard to orthographical or grammatical difficulties and ambiguities. Seldom a complete biblical verse is quoted. There are three more parts: the second made up of Jacob of Edessa’s Letter on Orthography to George, bishop of Serug, and his tract On Persons and Tenses (‘On Points’);13 the third part of extracts taken 12/22 (coloph. lost; the date 666 ce in ParOr 19 [1994], 606 is wrong); Borg. 117 (1868, a copy of Dam. 7/16); Harvard 176 (according to M.H. Goshen-Gottstein ag 1303 = ad 991/92; Jn only); BL Add. 7183 (c. 12th); Univ. Libr. Lund 58 (1204/05); Bibl. Nat. Paris 64 (1134/35); St. Mark, Jerusalem 1* (Baumstark)/42 (Dolabani) (16th/17th). 11 BL Add. 12178; Vat. Syr. 152; Barb. Orient. 118; Syr. Orth. Patr. Dam. 7/16 and 12/22; Borg. 117; BL Add. 7183; Univ. Libr. Lund 58; Paris, Bibl. Nat. syr. 64; St. Mark, Jerusalem 1*/42; Chicago, Or. Inst. Libr.? 12 BL Add. 12138, dated Nisan ag 1210 = April ad 899, see Th. Weiss, Zur ostsyrischen Laut- und Akzentlehre auf Grund der ostsyrischen Masorah-Handschrift des British Museum (Bonner Orientalische Studien 5; Stuttgart, 1933). 13 Both texts are published by G. Phillips, A Letter by Mar Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, on Syriac Orthography; also a Tract by the Same Author, and a Discourse by Gregory Bar Hebraeus on Syriac Accents (London, 1869), and by J.P.P. Martin, Jacobi episcopi edesseni Epistola ad Georgium episcopum sarugensem de orthographia syriaca . . . subsequuntur eijusdem Jacobi, nec non Thomae Diaconi, tractatus de punctis aliaque documenta in eadem materiam (London etc., 1869). — In orthographical matters Jacob aimed at a maximum of distinctness and unambiguity. An increased (not exaggerated) Greek standard is essential for his own translations and revisions, esp. in representing Greek names and foreign words; the same standard we meet in the ‘Syriac Masora’.

‘SYRIAC MASORA’ AND NEW TESTAMENT

111

from Epiphanius of Salamis († 403), and finally a number of small texts and word lists is the fourth part.14 From the inconsistency of the title and from the accumulative arrangement we may conclude that the original ‘Syriac Masora’ was devoted only to biblical texts (the East Syriac ‘masoretic’ manuscript actually is of such exclusive biblical character). Whether the Qarqphoye are responsible for the development of the whole ‘masoretic’ compilation is open to question. But it is obvious that the materials compiled in the ‘Syriac Masora’ consistently reflect the main authorities of Miaphysite theology and philology (biblical versions, patristic texts, Jacob of Edessa), thus being an authentic extension of the original material. Jacob’s writings offer the early eighth century as terminus post quem for the first development; the original biblical ‘Masora’ may be dated to the (middle of the) seventh century (terminus post quem is the production of the Harclean version ad 615/16); the fully developped compilation may belong to the ninth century. Inspiration by Jacob of Edessa There is no historical information about the general acceptance and influence of the Maˇslmonutho Qarqphoyto among the West Syrians. Some information and hints are offered by the Syriac literature and by the obvious relation of the ‘Syriac Masora’ to Jacob of Edessa. 1. Barhebraeus in his Storehouse of Secrets (Aws.ar r¯ oz¯e ) 10 times quotes the Qarqphensian reading,15 certainly from a ‘masoretic’ manuscript. And in his Syriac grammar (Book of Rays, Kt¯ ob¯ o d-S.emh.¯e ) he refers to the Qarqphoye as the inventors of the five ‘Greek’ vowel signs (paragraph three of the introduction).16 14 The structure of the ‘Syriac Massora’ is conveniently listed in the catalogues of W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838 1 (London, 1870; reprinted Piscataway, 2002), 108–111; St.E. Assemani and J.S. Assemani, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogus 1.3 (Rome, 1759; reprinted Paris, 1926), 287–292; A. van Lantschoot, Inventaire des manuscrits syriaques des fonds Vatican (490–631), Barberini oriental et Neofiti (StT 243; Vatican City, 1965), 169–172. 15 See his comments on Ps 25:7; 26:6; 45:1; 69:3; 90:5; 94:8; 107:23; 126:3; 136:1; Jer 13:9; the texts are given in Martin, ‘Tradition karkaphienne’, 261–268 and in the edition of the Mor Aphrem Monastery, Die Scheune der Mysterien. Kommentar zum Alten und Neuen Testament des Gregorius Yohanna Bar Ebroyo (1226– 1286) (Losser, 2003). This edition is based on two manuscripts: On ms St. Mark Monastery/Jerusalem Syr. 41 (ag 1785 = ad 1473/74), see Dolabani, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery, no. 41 on p. 157, and on a late manuscript dated ad 1994 (copied from an exemplar of unknown date). 16 A. Moberg, Le Livre des splendeurs. La grande Grammaire de Gr´ egoire Barhebraeus (Lund, 1922), 4.

112

ANDREAS JUCKEL

2. The ‘Syriac Masora’ explicitly continues the grammatical work of Jacob of Edessa who seems to be its source of inspiration. The reference to Jacob is evident by the fact that the large second paragraph of the ‘Syriac Masora’ is devoted to his Letter on Orthography and his tract On Persons and Tenses, both key texts of the Syriac grammar. It is not unlikely that the Qarqphoye may have introduced the five ‘Greek’ vowel signs (as Barhebraeus reports), because this is quite in line with Jacob’s attempt to introduce vowel letters for grammatical demonstration only.17 The ‘Greek’ vowel signs too were not intended to be thoroughly applied to Syriac manuscripts but to be used sparingly for grammatical accuracy only and to avoid ambiguity. Outside the ‘Syriac Masora’ their full and consistent use is rare and not found earlier than the sixteenth century.18 The main system of indicating the pronunciation and to distinguish grammatical tenses and persons remained the ‘premasoretic’ diacritical point.19 The ambiguity and imperfectness of this system caused by imprecise use of the points called for standardization and codification by sample texts taken from prominent (i.e., biblical and patristic) writings. The ‘masorets’ adopted the traditional system of diacritical points but added Quˇsˇsoyo/Rukkokho and vowel signs. These two graphic levels of adoption and explicit pronunciation we find in the ‘masoretic’ manuscripts. In ms Vat. syr. 152 and ms Barb. orient. 118 Quˇsˇsoyo/Rukkokho are executed as large red dots to distinguish them from the smaller black (or brown) diacritical points. This adoption of the diacritical points already existing in the ‘pre-masoretic’ Syriac literature actually was a re-definition of the traditional system which thus en bloc came under ‘masoretic’ rule. Rooted in the grammatical tradition of Jacob of Edessa the ‘masoretic’ rules were imposed on the Syriac literature of the past and of the future. 3. The actual ‘masoretic’ imprint (original or or by later hand) of the Syriac literature effected by the Maˇslmonutho Qarqphoyto is mainly reflected by partial vocalization of crucial grammatical forms and proper nouns and by corrections according to the ‘masoretic’ orthography. As re-defining the imperfect traditional system by sample texts alone could not avoid grammatical misunderstanding and incorrect pronunciation of texts, visible guides to correctness were necessary. But a 17

On the creation of these vowel letters see Segal, The Diacritical Point, 40–44. According to Segal, The Diacritical Point, 46, ‘the earliest manuscript in the British Museum in which the Greek vowels are certainly in the hand of the original copyist was copied as late as [ad] 1254’. This manuscript (BL Add. 17227) is furnished ‘with occasional Syriac and Greek vowels’, see Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum 1, 94–95. 19 This early system is described by Segal, The Diacritical Point, 7–23. 18

‘SYRIAC MASORA’ AND NEW TESTAMENT

113

person acquainted with the ‘masoretic’ rules was able to read correctly ‘pre-masoretic’ Syriac texts even without explicit ‘masoretic’ imprint. Existing as an independent compilation the ‘Syriac Masora’ offered the chance of a grammatical training to every scribe thus producing ‘masorets’ and a uniform standard of reading and writing. 2. The Development of the Early Peshitta Text: the Revisional ‘Pre-Masoretic’ Period It was an ingenious achievement of the ‘Syriac Masora’ to find the way into the ‘pre-masoretic’ Syriac literature by the adoption and redefinition of the old system of diacritical points. Already Jacob of Edessa’s attempts to improve the written representation of the spoken Syriac language brought the Syriac grammar to the threshold of a new period; this new period was definitely entered by the ‘Syriac Masora’. For modern scholars the distinction of a ‘pre-masoretic’ and ‘masoretic’ period of Syriac orthography is not a very exciting finding; Jacob of Edessa, however, in the face of rising Islam worked for such a distinction of periods to overcome the decline of the Syriac language and to see the dawn of a ‘masoretic’ age.20 The ingenious and simple way the ‘Syriac Masora’ found to standardize Syriac reading and writing hardly gives an appropriate idea about the serious linguistic problem of those days and the time-turning significance of the ‘masoretic’ solution. ‘Pre-Masoretic’ Manuscripts The distinction of a ‘pre-masoretic’ and ‘masoretic’ period of Syriac literature proves to be helpful for describing the early textual development of the Peshitta from irregular to regularlized conditions. For about three centuries the Peshitta text itself, the pronunciation and the orthography were not standardized but finally split into standard texts of Eastern and Western traditions. Usually this traditional view of the textual history is based on the styles of writing (Estrangela, Sert.o, East Syriac style); for the Corpus Paulinum in the Peshitta version the proof of this basic development can be given now by the textual data themselves. Most of the Peshitta variants derive from the fifth- to seventh-century manuscripts. These manuscripts exhibit hardly clusters of variants, their textual individuality is dominated by singular readings. They offer an average of 14 variants per chapter (orthographical variants and the 20 There is despair and disgust in his words which describe the inaccurate use of diacritical points by contemporary scribes, see Segal, The Diacritical Point, 2.

114

ANDREAS JUCKEL

different spellings of proper nouns and Greek loanwords not counted), while the eighth- or ninth-century manuscripts add only 6 more variants to this average. These later manuscripts are divided into Eastern and Western witnesses by style of writing and by clusters of variants. While the profile of variants in the Eastern witnesses is very distinctive (many times there is an exclusive agreement of these witnesses) and only occasionally anticipated by the fifth- to the seventh-century manuscripts, the profile of the Western witnesses is less distinctive but in better agreement with the fifth- to the seventh-century manuscripts. The dominance of the Eastern manuscripts is an interesting feature in the history of the Peshitta text. In manuscripts of the second millennium the distictive profiles of Eastern and Western witnesses seem to be weakened by mutual assimilation.21 The early fifth- to the seventh-century manuscripts of the Peshitta which are neither Eastern nor Western should be described as ‘premasoretic’ manuscripts, because it were the ‘masorets’ who definitely introduced the specific Eastern and Western imprint into the manuscripts after the split of the Syrian Churches. But there is no evidence that the standardization of the New Testament Peshitta text was the work of the Qarqphoye. The sample texts quoted in the ‘Syriac Masora’ seem to derive from the ‘pre-masoretic’ stage of development.22 However, the small number of eighth- or ninth-century West-Syrian manuscripts, the considerable anticipation of their variants by ‘pre-masoretic’ witnesses, and the abridgement of the biblical texts quoted allow for the possibility that the later standard text is involved.23 The Revisional Background The ‘pre-masoretic’ period roughly coincides with the Roman/Byzantine period of the West Syrian Church. The specific feature of this period is the heavy revisional activity to bring the Syriac New Testament in better concordance with the Greek. Within 200 years three translations were produced, each of them with an increasing Greek standard. The Peshitta antedates the split of the Syrians into a Western Church under Byzantine rule and in an Eastern Church under Sasanian rule in the 21 As six tenth- to sixteenth-century manuscripts are included only in the forthcoming edition of the Corpus Paulinum no definite judgement is possible so far. The edition is focussed on the Peshitta of the ‘pre-masoretic’ period. 22 The sample texts of the Eastern ‘Masora’ are not yet fully standardized. 23 The most remarkable feature of the Peshitta text quoted in the ‘Syriac Massora’ are variants not attested in the Peshitta manuscripts. These variants are likely to be of inner-‘masoretic’ origin or due to the defective presentation of the verses. Only variants of the ‘masoretic’ Peshitta text which are attested by the general Peshitta tradition too are significant for determing the relation between both.

‘SYRIAC MASORA’ AND NEW TESTAMENT

115

first half of the fifth century. It possibly is a translation/revision of an Old Syriac stage of the Corpus Paulinum. — The Philoxenian version from the beginning of the sixth century (507/08) is the first Miaphysite translation; it introduces the Minor Catholic Epistles 24 and the Revelation 25 to the New Testament canon of the West Syrians. It was initiated by Philoxenus († 523), bishop of Mabbug (Hierapolis), who explicitly criticized the Peshitta to be an unsatisfactory translation,26 thus being the reason for dogmatical and theological discussions and misunderstandings. — The Harclean version27 from the early seventh century (615/16) is a philological edition (P—ˆv) of the New Testament; it is an update of the Philoxenian to an ultimate Greek standard, based on several Greek manuscripts and furnished with an ‘apparatus’ of Greek variants (translated into Syriac) partly in the margins, and partly in the text marked with asterisks and obeloi. There is a significant difference between the Harclean version and its two predecessors: While the Peshitta is an idiomatic translation and the Philoxenian an improved and corrected Syriac version of the Greek, the intention of the Harclean is to give the Greek text itself in a Syriac dress, and to face the general philological problems of the Greek text by quoting its variants, and by imitating its syntactical and lexical niceties. This dynamic shift from an idiomatic translation to a ‘mirror translation’ (S. Brock) is not confined to the New Testament; it is a general feature of this period from the fifth to the seventh century, including the Old Testament and Greek patristic texts. During the ‘pre-masoretic’ revisional period the Peshitta was still open to Greek influence; it was the formative period of the Syriac Miaphysite Church within the Greek Byzantine Oikoumene. During the fifth century variants may derive from recourse to Greek manuscripts 24 J. Gwynn, Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible (London, 1909; reprinted Piscataway, nj, 2005). 25 J. Gwynn, The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown (Dublin–London, 1897; reprinted Piscataway, nj, 2005). 26 Key passages from Philoxenus’ Commentary on the Prologue of John (ed. by A. de Halleux in CSCO 380, Syr. 165; Louvain, 1977) are given in the articles of S.P. Brock, ‘The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem’, in E.J. Epp and. G.D. Fee (eds.), New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honour of B.M. Metzger (Oxford, 1981), 325–343; S.P. Brock, ‘Hebrews 2:9b in Syriac Tradition’, NT 27 (1985), 236–244. 27 J. White, Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio philoxeniana (Oxford, 1778); idem, Actuum apostolorum et Epistolarum tam catholicarum quam paulinarum versio syriaca philoxeniana (Oxford, 1799–1803). The editor believed it was the Philoxenian version he published, which Thomas of H . arqel reissued by only attaching the marginal and asterisked/obelized words. The Harclean Corpus Paulinum is re-edited in Aland ¨ and Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Uberlieferung.

116

ANDREAS JUCKEL

or simply from a better adaptation of the Syriac translation to the Greek. From the sixth century onward additional influence was effected by the Philoxenian, and from the seventh century by the Harclean version. This receptivity to Greek/Syriac influence created variants of good text-critical transparency.28 The diversity and individual mixture of variants in the manuscripts made them identical rather by textual features than by specific variants. The introduction of Greek variants may be explained by local activities. 3. The Standardization of the Peshitta Text: the Philological ‘Masoretic’ Period Standardization How did the standardization of the Peshitta text work? The general reason for the development of different textual traditions was the restriction of the West Syrian and East Syrian Churches to different empires. The Eastern branch developed independently in the Sasanian Empire hardly influenced by Greek or Western traditions, while the West Syrians initiated a rapid revisional development of their New Testament text under Roman/Byzantine rule. At the rise of Islam the existence of two different Syriac ‘nations’ was a matter of fact. The perception of the different religious and ‘national’ identities, centralization of their learning in ‘schools’ and monasteries, and the philological ‘masoretic’ attitude towards literature strengthened the formation of different Eastern and Western standard texts. Responsible for the standardization might also have been the acceptance of two different versions side by side, of the Peshitta as the ‘Syriac’ bible, and of the Harclean, which was the ‘Greek’. These two versions were handed over to Eastern or Western philological care and conservation after the end of the revisional period during the eighth century. Local Greek influence is replaced by individual attempts of single outstanding Malphone (like Jacob of Edessa and Dionysius bar S.alibi) to re-involve the Greek, or by the general ‘masoretic’ attitude of the scribes to maintain a given Greek standard. Participation in the Greek Byzantine Oikoumene is mainly reduced to philological participation in the heritage of Hellenistic literature. From Revision to Philology How ‘philological care’ is responsible for the inner-Syriac production of variants can be shown by the Old Testament quotations in the New 28 The introductions of Aland and Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer ¨ Uberlieferung, offer lists and comments on more than 100 variants.

‘SYRIAC MASORA’ AND NEW TESTAMENT

117

Testament Peshitta. Already in the ‘pre-masoretic’ period these quotations offer variants which are in accordance with the Old Testament Peshitta. Most of these variants we meet in the Letter to the Hebrews; surprisingly few of them are in the Letter to the Romans. In theory there are two possibilities: these variants are either remnants of the original New Testament Peshitta text (while the rivaling readings are secondary adaptations to the Greek New Testament text) or they are secondary corrections to bring the Old Testament quotations in better line with the Old Testament Peshitta. If they were remnants of the original text, we would expect them to disappear from (most of) the later manuscripts by the continual adaptation of these quotations to the Greek text. But the opposite is true: The later the manuscripts, the more accordance with the Old Testament Peshitta. Especially supplemented portions and later corrections (both from the ‘masoretic’ period) in the oldest manuscripts offer Old Testament quotations which contrast with those in the original part of the manuscript by their accordance with the Old Testament Peshitta. An instructive sample is ms Add. 14475 of the British Library (fifth or sixth century; no. cxxxvi in Wright’s Catalogue), foll. 180–208 of which (= Heb 1:6–end) are supplemented by a tenth-century hand. From the knowledge of the later manuscripts and their general ‘philological’ imprint these variants of the Old Testament quotations appear to be effected (already in the ‘pre-masoretic’ period) by secondary corrections according to the Old Testament Peshitta. Help to trace a development of the Peshitta text from the revisional ‘pre-masoretic’ to the philological ‘masoretic’ period comes from Jacob of Edessa, who is the most reliable, most extensive, and most prominent author quoting the Peshitta of the time before Barhebraeus. In 675 Jacob revised the Octoechos of Severus of Antioch (and additional hymns by others), which Paul of Edessa translated between 619 and 629. Jacob’s revision is extant in two manuscripts, one of which (BL Add. 17134, dated ag 986 = ad 674/675) exhibits his revisional procedure.29 Although this revision30 brings Paul’s translation in a better line with the Greek original by numerous corrections and additions of Greek words, this manuscript is a reliable source of Jacob’s Peshitta text. All passages of the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) to which reference is made in the hymns, Jacob adds in full in the upper and lower 29 Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum 1, 330–339; plate 5 in part 3 (London 1872; Piscataway 2002) gives a specimen. 30 The text is published by E.W. Brooks, James of Edessa. The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others (PO 6.1 and 7.5; Paris, 1909 and 1911; reprinted Turnhout, 1971). See also F. Nau, ‘L’ Aram´ een chr´ etien (syriaque). Les traductions faites du grec en syriaque au VIIe si` ecle’, RHR 99 (1929), 263–265.

118

ANDREAS JUCKEL

margins according to the Peshitta.31 The reliability of these marginal quotations derives from the fact that they are not ‘quoted’ in the proper sense but affixed to the body of the main text by a graphic sign. Corruption by the author or by context is not possible. The reliability derives also from the mass and from the length of these passages which makes them to be extracts from the Peshitta codex Jacob used. How does these extracts help us to trace a development of the Peshitta? These extracts give a balanced text which avoids the idiosyncrasies (mainly singular readings) of the early manuscripts and can fairly be described as a majority text of the early period.32 Although these extracts offer only limited text segments of the codex they are taken from, they may represent an intermediate stage of development between the revisional ‘pre-masoretic’ and the philological ‘masoretic’ period of the Peshitta text. 4. Editorial Policy The ‘Syriac Masora’ opens a perspective on the evolution of the Peshitta text on the orthographical and textual level. The ‘masoretic’ approach to the history of the Peshitta text offers guidelines for such a history: The revisional ‘pre-masoretic’ period and the philological ‘masoretic’ period (split into an Eastern and Western branch) introduce a historical element into a textual scenery which is dominated by conformity. The essential point of correspondence between the orthographical and textual development is the comparatively unregularized condition of both before the seventh century and the elaborate condition after the seventh century. Conformity and Majority Text Impressed by the conformity of the Peshitta Gospel text, G.H. Gwilliam declared that the Peshitta substantially remained the same in the Eastern and Western branches of the Syrians in spite of the historical development he discovered during the preparation of his Gospel edition: The ancient codices which we have enumerated represent each of the two great divisions of the Syrian Christendom. At a later period Nestorian [i.e., East Syriac] MSS. presented marked characteristics, partly in readings, still more in vowel 31 The Old Testament quotations are influenced by the Septuagint and seem to represent the beginnings of Jacob’s Old Testament revision, see A. Juckel, ‘Septuaginta and Peshitta. Jacob of Edessa quoting the Old Testament in Ms BrL Add 17,134’, Hugoye 8.2 (July 2005). 32 The judgement is based on Aland and Juckel, Das Neue Testament in Syrischer ¨ Uberlieferung, which includes all the extracts of the Pauline Epistles.

‘SYRIAC MASORA’ AND NEW TESTAMENT

119

marks, and in handwriting and ornamentation. Many of the differences in reading which have been noted are due, however, to the circumstance that the Jacobite [i.e., West Syriac] MSS. with which the Eastern copies were compared were older, and preserved an older text for the most part. Some of the oldest Non-Nestorian copies are indeed so ancient, e.g. Add. 14,459 and 17,117 (. . .), that they may fairly be claimed as representatives of the undivided Syrian Church. In the sixth and following centuries the schism was completed, and between the Eastern and Western copies of those times differences may be discovered which point to different streams of tradition in the monasteries, while the text itself is undoubtedly the same.33

Gwilliam was primarily interested in the basic conformity of the Peshitta of all centuries; we are interested today in the footprints history left on this undeniable conformity. Gwilliam’s Gospel text is constructed by the majority vote of 42 manuscripts of Eastern and Western provenance. This mixture of different textual traditions actually overrides the historical development and is to be rejected. As it is not charged with harmonistic (Diatessaronic) and extensive Old Syriac influence,34 the Corpus Paulinum in the Peshitta version is more appropriate than the Gospels for representing distinctive periods of the textual history reflected by the variants. However, the forthcoming edition of the Corpus Paulinum will have to pay tribute to the conformity of the Peshitta. Although the textual profiles of the ‘pre-masoretic’ Peshitta manuscripts are marked by individuality, their conformity is the most remarkable feature (and may already be the result of standardization). Therefore this edition will give a majority text based on the manuscripts of the revisional ‘pre-masoretic’ period, thus representing the earliest text of the fifth to the seventh century. In several cases it would be possible to argue for the originality of variants against the ‘pre-masoretic’ majority text; but there are no undisputed and consistent criteria for replacing this majority text completely by a critical text. ‘Masoretic’ Lecture of the ‘Pre-Masoretic’ Text The orthography of the Praxapostolos prepared by G.H. Gwilliam and J. Pinkerton and issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society in

33 G.H. Gwilliam, ‘The Materials for the Criticism of the Peshitto New Testament, with Specimens of the Syriac Massorah’, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 3 (Oxford, 1891), 47–104 (the quotation 67–68). 34 The Old Syriac quotations of the Corpus Paulinum collected by J. Kerschensteiner, Der altsyrische Paulustext (CSCO 315, Subs. 37; Louvain, 1970), and by ¨ Aland and Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Uberlieferung, show that this earlier version is rather a Pre-Peshitta than a distinctive version of its own.

120

ANDREAS JUCKEL

1920 adopted the text of B. Walton’s Polyglot35 which is based on late Syriac (partly Maronite) manuscripts and served as the collation base.36 Walton’s text as well as Gwilliam’s is printed in vocalized Sert.o; Gwilliam, however, introduced an independent vocalization and Quˇsˇsoyo/Rukkokho according to the Western branch of the ‘Syriac Masora’. This was a remarkable decision (which followed the model of the Gospel edition of 1901), because the Praxapostolos is based on manuscripts of the ‘pre-masoretic’ period only;37 the system of diacritical points extant in these manuscripts the editors had to ‘translate’ into the ‘masoretic’ vocalization of the five ‘Greek’ vowels.38 By this adoption of the ‘masoretic’ vocalization the editors escaped from the inconsistent use of the diacritical point in the single manuscripts. By doing so, they gave a ‘masoretic’ interpretation of the early Peshitta text without, however, adopting the ‘masoretic’ orthography of the proper nouns.39 From this inconsistency we may conclude that their intention was to give the ‘masoretic’ lecture of the ‘pre-masoretic’ text. This introduction of the ‘masoretic’ lecture is a splendid achievement of Gwilliam’s editions and part of an editorial policy which is taken from the history of the Peshitta itself. Gwilliam’s editions bring to completion what the Qarqphoye produced en miniature: A ‘masoretic’ sample edition of the whole Peshitta New Testament. This line should not be abandoned by the forthcoming edition of the Corpus Paulinum. Gwilliam’s text and manuscripts will remain the starting point of the edition, but the text will develop towards a slightly different but better founded ‘pre-masoretic’ majority text by the use of additional ‘pre-masoretic’ manuscripts. As the focus is on the fifth- to the seventh-century Peshitta text, the purpose of the eighth- to the tenth-century manuscripts is to represent the Eastern and Western standard texts of the ‘masoretic’ period and their relation to the ‘pre-masoretic’ stage of the Peshitta. 35 B. Walton, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, . . . (6 vols.; London, 1655–1657; reprinted Graz, 1964). 36 See T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society 2.3 (London, 1903; reprinted New York, 1963), 1535–1536. 37 The Pauline part presents a majority text based on at least 7 manuscripts. In their collations (preserved as ms Or. 11360 of the British Library) only seven manuscripts are explicitly quoted, but five additional are listed. On the history and manuscripts of the BFBS edition see R. Grierson, ‘Without Note or Comment: British Library Or. 11360 and the Text of the Peshitta New Testament’, OrChr 82 (1998), 88–98. 38 In their handwritten collation Gwilliam and Pinkerton included variants of diacritical points and accents. 39 This can easily be checked by comparison of Romans Ch. 16 in the BFBS edition with the extensive quotations of this chapter in the ‘masoretic’ manuscripts.

‘SYRIAC MASORA’ AND NEW TESTAMENT

121

The ‘masoretic’ approach to the manuscript tradition presented in the present article actually continues the editorial approach of G.H. Gwilliam; his option for a majority text, however, should be restricted to the ‘pre-masoretic’ manuscripts in order not to mix the Eastern and Western branches of the Peshitta text.

THE FOUR KINGDOMS IN PESHITTA DANIEL 7 IN THE LIGHT OF THE EARLY HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION Arie van der Kooij

I Many manuscripts of the Peshitta of Daniel display a number of historical explanations in chapters 7, 8, and 11. Regarding chapters 7 and 8, these explanations are already present in the oldest manuscripts (such as 6h10, 6h21), and for that reason they have found their place in the text of the Leiden edition.1 In this paper I would like to focus on the glosses in Peshitta Dan 7 concerning the identification of the four beasts (vv. 3–7) and of the little horn (v. 8). The interpretation of them as given in the Peshitta text (vv. 3–7) is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the the the the

kingdom kingdom kingdom kingdom

of of of of

the the the the

Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks.

And as to v. 8, the little horn is identified as Antiochus (cf. also v. 21).2 The question arises whether these exegetical glosses have been part of the text from the (its) beginning (so Kallarakkal3 ), or whether they have been added at a later date.4 As they are attested by the oldest 1 The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version 3.4 Dodekapropheton – Daniel-Bel-Draco (Leiden, 1980): cf. p. iv of the Introduction to the text of Daniel. 2 This identification is not attested by 6h10. For the minor differences between some of the mss, see also K.D. Jenner, ‘Syriac Daniel’, in J.J. Collins and P.W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception 2 (VT.S 83.2; Leiden 2001), 608–637, esp. 633f. 3 A.G. Kallarakkal, The Peshitto Version of Daniel – A Comparison with the Massoretic Text, the Septuagint and Theodotion (doctoral dissertation, Universit¨ at Hamburg, 1973). He is of the opinion that the Syriac translation of Daniel was produced by a Jew in Edessa in the first century bce (pp. 224–225), and that the identification of the fourth kingdom as Greece preserves the original interpretation (p. 225). 4 R.A. Taylor in his The Peshit.ta of Daniel (MPIL 7; Leiden, 1994) does not discuss the dating of the glosses. The original version of Peshitta Daniel was produced, in his view, in the second century ce (p. 322).

124

ARIE VAN DER KOOIJ

mss dating to the sixth century, they must go back at least to the fifth century or earlier. In an attempt to answer our question it seems best to study these glosses in the light of the early history of interpretation concerning the four kingdoms.5 As we know, this history is complicated because of the interrelatedness of major topics in the exegesis of Daniel, such as the image in Dan 2, that of four beasts in Dan 7, the 70-year weeks in Dan 9, the passage of Dan 9:24–27, and the exegesis of Dan 11, particularly the last part of it, together with Dan 12. Where helpful or necessary I therefore will pay attention to other topics than that of the four kingdoms. II Jewish sources from the first and second centuries ce onwards testify to an interpretation which is characterized by the idea that the fourth kingdom is that of the Romans. Although Josephus does not mention the names of the four empires, his retelling of Dan 2 contains clear indications that in his view the interpretation of the dream as given by Daniel refers to the following kingdoms: 1. the Babylonians, 2. the Medes and the Persians, 3. the kingdom of Alexander the Great and his successors, 4. the kingdom of Rome. The kingdom of Rome as being the reference of the fourth kingdom is also the underlying idea in 4 Ezra, 12:10–12, a passage which reads thus: He (the angel) said to me (Ezra): This is the interpretation of this vision which you have seen: The eagle which you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel.6

As is generally assumed, the same interpretation applies to 2 Baruch 39:3–5. Unlike both sources just mentioned, the Targum to the Prophets, dating basically to the second century ce, is explicit about the issue under discussion. An important passage in this regard is Targum Habakkuk 3:17 which reads thus: For the kingdom of Babylon shall not endure nor exercise suzerainty over Israel, the kings of Media shall be killed, and the warriors from Greece shall not prosper; the Romans shall be destroyed and shall not collect tribute from Jerusalem.

From this and other places in the Targum to the Prophets as well it is clear that the four kingdoms were identified by the targumist in the 5 Cf. M. Casey, ‘Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel’, JThS ns 27 (1976), 25. 6 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1, 550.

FOUR KINGDOMS IN PESHITTA DANIEL 7

125

way as is expressed in the passage just quoted: Babylon, Media, Greece, Rome. The same pattern is to be found in later sources such as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch (Lev 26:42–44 and Deut 32:24), albeit that there for Rome the designation ‘Edom’ is used.7 III The idea that the fourth kingdom is Rome, is also characteristic of early Christian exegesis. It is attested, for example, in the first commentary on the Book of Daniel, produced by Hippolytus of Rome at the beginning of the third century: the fourth kingdom of Dan 7 is identified by him as Rome,8 an interpretation that may go back to Irenaeus of Lyon.9 The little horn in 7:8 is interpreted by him as referring to the Antichrist. But what about the early Syrian tradition? The earliest major witness to this tradition is Aphrahat, first half of the fourth century. His interpretation of the vision of the four beasts in Dan 7 is to be found in the fifth Demonstration, ‘On the Wars’. In par. 10 the following identification is given: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the the the the

Babylonians, Persians and the Medes, Greeks, sons of Esau (i.e., the Romans10 ).

Later on in the same Demonstration (par. 15–19), Aphrahat offers a somewhat more nuanced interpretation of the four beasts of Dan 7. The picture which emerges in this section is: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the kingdom of Babylon, the kingdom of Media and Persia, king Alexander the Macedonian, the kingdom of the sons of Esau.

7 See K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 14; Edinburgh, 1989), 161 (and note 78, with references to other places in Jewish sources). See also Strack-Billerbeck 4.2, 1004–1006. For the motif of the four empires in the Targumim, see now U. Glessmer, ‘Die “vier Reiche” aus Daniel in der Targumischen Literatur’, in The Book of Daniel 2 (VT.S 83.2; Leiden, 2001), 468–489. 8 See G. Bardy et M. Lef`evre (eds.), Hippolyte. Commentaire sur Daniel (SC 14; Paris, 1947), IV.v. See also J.J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis, 1993), 113; L.L. Grabbe, ‘A Dan(iel) for All Seasons: For Whom was Daniel Important?’, in The Book of Daniel 1 (VT.S 83.1; Leiden, 2001), 240. 9 See R. Bodenmann, Naissance d’une ex´ eg` ese. Daniel dans l’Eglise ancienne des trois premiers si` ecles (T¨ ubingen, 1986), 263f. 10 Cf. the use of ‘Edom’ in Jewish sources in the sense of Rome.

126

ARIE VAN DER KOOIJ

The interpretation of the third beast as referring to king Alexander the Great only, raises the question of the relationship between the third and fourth kingdoms. To this question Aphrahat offers the following explanation: Since the third beast is a reference to Alexander, the fourth beast is actually to be identified with the successors of Alexander followed by the Roman emperors (from August onwards). The third and fourth vision are to be seen ‘as one’, so he states (V.19). The little horn in Dan. 7:8 is identified by him as Antiochus Epiphanes (V.20). Aphrahat’s interpretation differs to some extent from the traditional view. His identification of the third beast as Alexander the Macedonian is striking. One could think here of Josephus who states that the second empire will be destroyed by ‘a king from the west’ (Ant. 10:208), i.e., Alexander, but it is not likely that Josephus limited the third kingdom to Alexander the Great. As far as we know, Aphrahat’s interpretation has no parallel in early Jewish or Christian sources. It is further to be noted that his identification of the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes is in line with his idea about the fourth kingdom as being a referrence, first of all, to the successors of Alexander the Great. Yet we know of a Daniel interpretation which is very similar to that of Aphrahat. I refer here to the interesting contribution to the interpretation of the book that was made by a pagan scholar, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry (ca 232–303), in book 12 of his treatise Against the Christians.11 In his view, the book of Daniel must have been written after the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes. Everything in Daniel that was presented as prophecy should be taken as referring to events that actually had happened when the book was written. From that point of view, Porphyry interpreted the well known ‘eschatological’ passage of Dan 11:40–12:12 as referring to the Maccabean revolt, the victorious outcome of which is described figuratively as ‘resurrection’ in 12:1–3. The four kingdoms in Dan 7 are identified by him as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Babylonians, Medes-Persians, king Alexander, the Hellenistic kings who succeeded Alexander.

In line with this view, the little horn in Dan 7:8 is taken as a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes. According to him, the third and fourth vision is to be taken as one (Jerome: Porphyrius duas posteriores bestias, Macedonum et Romanorum, in uno Macedonum regno ponit et dividit 11 Our source is the commentary on Daniel by Jerome (Commentarius in Danielem [CChr.SL 75A; Turnhout, 1964]).

FOUR KINGDOMS IN PESHITTA DANIEL 7

127

[p. 843]). As far as we know, Porphyry was the first to argue that the fourth kingdom should be identified with that of the Greeks, or more precisely, the successors of Alexander (up to and including Antiochus Epiphanes). Thus, the interpretation of Porphyry and of Aphrahat do agree in some specific points. Both share the view that the third kingdom is that of Alexander the Great only, that the third and fourth vision should be seen as one, that the fourth kingdom is that of the successors of Alexander, and that the little horn in Dan 7:8 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. The only difference between both scholars is that, according to Aphrahat, the fourth kingdom is also to be identified with the Roman emperors.12 As we know, the ideas of Porphyry drew the attention of Christian scholars of the time. Given the specific agreements just mentioned, it may well be that Aphrahat was familiar, in one way or another, with Porphyry’s work. IV Let us return to our subject matter by asking which light the early history of interpretation of Dan 7, as outlined so far, may shed on the identification of the four kingdoms in the Peshitta text. The following concluding remarks seem to be justified: (a) First, as is clear from the evidence, the interpretation in Peshitta Dan 7 does not agree with the dominant tradition according to which the fourth kingdom is Rome. (b) Secondly, the earliest witness to the Syrian tradition, the exegesis of Aphrahat, is not in line with the interpretation in Peshitta Dan 7. So it seems that the Peshitta text known to him did not contain the glosses as we know them from the mss. This suggests that the glosses concerned are of a date later than the first half of the fourth century. (c) Thirdly, Peshitta Dan 7:8 on the one hand and Porphyry and Aphrahat on the other share the idea that the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes. This identification would imply that the fourth kingdom be the Macedonian or Greek. Unlike Aphrahat who adheres to the ancient exegetical tradition that the fourth kingdom is also to be seen as the Roman one, Peshitta Dan 7 is in agreement with Porphyry that the 12 Casey (see note 5) has argued that ‘Porphyry’s interpretation of Daniel was dependent on a Syrian exegetical tradition that had preserved the original referential context of the prophecies’ (Collins, Daniel, 114). For critical comments on this view, see A.J. Ferch, ‘Porphyry: An Heir to Christian Exegesis’, ZNW 73 (1982), 141–147, and Collins, Daniel, 114f.

128

ARIE VAN DER KOOIJ

fourth kingdom is that of the Greeks, although in the Peshitta mss the third kingdom is not identified with Alexander the Great. Whatever the explanation of the difference regarding the identification of the second and third kingdom may be, it is my contention that the exegesis in Peshitta Dan 7 concerning the fourth kingdom together with the identification of the little horn goes back to Porphyry’s interpretation, for the simple reason that this is the closest parallel we know of. This assumption raises, of course, the question who or what might have been the intermediary authority, or authorities, between Porphyry and the Peshitta tradition. As noted above, the identification of the little horn with Antiochus was part of the Syrian tradition (cf. Aphrahat), but this does not apply to the interpretation of the fourth beast. It seems that in this respect Aphrahat adapted the exegesis of Porphyry to his own views. So the question is on whose authority the choice was made in Syrian Christian circles to identify the fourth kingdom with that of the Greeks, and not with that of the Romans. It may well be that Antioch played an important role in this regard. It is at least interesting to note that the Daniel exegesis of John Chrysostom (349–407) as we know it from one of his discourses against Judaizing Christians,13 clearly reflects influence from Porphyry. In the fifth discourse, which is aimed at proving that the temple of Jerusalem will never be rebuilt, he offers an interpretation of the section from Dan 11:31 up to and including Dan 12 which is fully in line with that of Porphyry: i.e., the prophecy concerned is seen as a reference to the time of Antiochus, the sufferings of the Jews and the success of the Maccabean revolt (cf. the ‘resurrection’ in Dan 12). (This interpretation was strongly rejected by Jerome who argued that, in any case from Dan 11:36 onwards, the text refers to the Antichrist.) Although we do not know the way Chrysostom interpreted the four kingdoms of Dan 7, the agreement just mentioned with Porphyry’s interpretation points to a positive reception of it in Antiochene circles. This might be part of the answer to our question about the link between Porphyry and the exegesis attested in the Peshitta tradition. As stated above, the glosses in Peshitta Dan 7:1–8 have not been part of the text from the outset. They have been added to the Syriac text at a later date, presumably in the fifth century (after Aphrahat

13 See P.W. Harkins (trans.), Saint John Chrysostom: Discourses against Judaizing Christians (The Fathers of the Church; Washington, 1977); R. Br¨ andle und V. JegherBucher, Johannes Chrysostomus: Acht Reden gegen Juden (BGL 41; Stuttgart, 1995). These sermons were held in the years 386–387 in Antioch.—The commentary on Daniel attributed to Chrysostom (see PG 56, 193–246) is disputed.

FOUR KINGDOMS IN PESHITTA DANIEL 7

129

and before the mss dating to the sixth century).14 As a matter of fact, this would makes good sense since this century was the time which was characterized by a great deal of interest, in Syriac-speaking circles, in Greek exegetical traditions.15 14 The identification of the four kingdoms in the Syriac apocalypse of PseudoMethodius (c.690) is based on the interpretation in Peshitta Dan 7: the Babylonian empire, the Median one, the Persian one, and the Greek-Roman empire, the latter founded by Alexander the Great. The only difference with Peshitta Dan 7 is that the fourth kingdom is not limited to that of the Greeks. See G.J. Reinink, Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius (CSCO 541, Syr. 221; Louvain, 1993), 15f. (note). 15 See R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta and its Rivals’, The Harp 11–12 (1998–99), 21–31, esp. p. 23: the fifth century was the time when many Greek Bible commentaries were translated into Syriac. See also G.W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1990), 34f.

APHRAHAT’S USE OF HIS OLD TESTAMENT Marinus D. Koster

Long ago I wrote, as a contribution to a Festschrift, an article on the Typological Exegesis of the Old Testament, which was particularly concerned with Aphrahat.1 As the history of exegesis and liturgy is part of the theme of this Symposium, I should like to draw attention to the striking digressions through the Old and New Testaments written down by that remarkable theologian, of whom we know so little: Aphrahat. It seems that he was a Bishop, or the Abbot of a monastery, but we just do not know exactly. There is some discussion about the use of the technical term ‘typology’, as Aphrahat does not use the expressions Q‡_g, P`P, or P‘“ on every occasion that Jesus is compared with one of the important figures from the Old Testament. I shall use here the term ‘typology’ in its widest sense, and I shall not make any distinction between the more or less mystical nature of the link that has been drawn between the example from the Old Testament and Jesus as its New Testament counterpart. Not included are Aphrahat’s long lists of exemplary persons from the whole of the Bible; following the example of Hebrews 11, he starts with figures from the Old Testament and sometimes continues into the New Testament up to and including Jesus himself. These are given full attention by Robert Murray in his discussion of rhetorical patterns in early Syriac literature. Part of his evidence for these lists overlaps with mine for the specifically typological connections.2 1 ‘Typologische Exegese van het Oude Testament’, in In Open Veld. Theologische Bijdragen Opgedragen aan George Johan Sirks ([Leiden], 1962), 89–109. In this paper I have maintained the traditional usage of ‘Homily’ (sometimes abbreviated ‘Hom.’) when referring to Aphrahat’s treatises; others have preferred ‘Demonstration(s)’ (‘Dem.’); cf. German ‘Darlegung’, which Peter Bruns uses to translate Syriac P—j_c– in his very useful translation: Aphrahat. Unterweisungen. Aus dem Syrischen u ¨bersetzt und eingeleitet (Fontes Christiani 5.1–2; Freiburg im Breisgau, 1991); see further n. 3. There is an older translation by Georg Bert mentioned in n. 17. The quotations from the Homilies are taken from the edition of J. Parisot (cf. n. 6). 2 Robert Murray, ‘Some Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature’, in Robert H. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur V¨ oo ¨bus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East (Chicago, 1977), 109–131. I am grateful to the editor, Bas Romeny, for calling my attention to this article.

132

MARINUS D. KOSTER

Other exegetical patterns known from the New Testament which are used by Aphrahat are the quotation of Bible texts as scriptural testimony, and the scheme of prophecy and fulfilment, as seen in particular in the Gospel of St. Matthew. The general postulate behind all these ways of dealing with evidence from the Bible is its unquestionable authority. This is also true for the typological exegesis, which is the focal point of this paper. The two main characteristics of typology are that it is based on actual persons and things and that it takes the personages and happenings from the OT as historical, not as allegorical. A relationship is formulated with persons and happenings in the New Testament in such a way that they already carry their future meaning with them. This means that there is a strong relationship between both Testaments. But, at the same time, between the Old Testament exemplar and its New Testament counterpart there is almost always the element of Steigerung, as Leonhard Goppelt has called it in his fundamental study of typology:3 the relevant events from the Old Testament are usually surpassed by

Murray classifies Aphrahat’s lists according to their contents. Thus the Jacob–Jesus typology from Hom. IV is to be found with (1) Examples of Prayer (111), whereas the great series of Hom. XXI (on persecution) appears with (5) The Righteous who were persecuted. He adds the following remark: ‘the point is no longer persecution but more often typology referring to Christ and the Church’; it appears again in (6) The Comparison-Series, where it is taken together with the double series on Elijah and Elisha from Hom. VI and the comparison of Joshua and Jesus from Hom. XI (113–114). The mention of ‘Aphrahat’s typological comparison-series’ at the end of this section (125) is apparently a reference to them. See also the study by S. Janse, mentioned in n. 22. 3 Leonhard Goppelt, Typos. Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen (Beitr¨ age zur F¨ orderung christlicher Theologie 2.43; G¨ utersloh, 1939), e.g. ´ 240; cf. Jean Dani´elou, Sacramentum Futuri. Etudes sur les origines de la typologie biblique (Paris, 1950). On Aphrahat, see: Paul Schwen, Afrahat, seine Person und sein Verst¨ andnis des Christentums (Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 2; Berlin, 1907, reprinted Aalen, 1973), 34–38, 51ff., 93–95; Peter Bruns, Das Christusbild Aphrahats des Persischen Weisen (Hereditas, Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte 4; Bonn, 1990), in particular 4.4 (100–121) ‘Die typologische Exegese: Christus als Vollender des Alten Bundes’. Unfortunately, the list of ‘Old Testament types of Christ’, at the end (226) of his otherwise sound and comprehensive study is rather deficient: ‘Jacob (Dem. IV 5f.)’ and ‘Joseph (Dem. XXI 9)’ should be placed in addition before ‘Mose–Christus’, and the reference ‘IV 5f.’ after it should be deleted; ‘Ezechiel’ should be replaced by ‘Hiskia’ (= Ezechias/Hezekiah!); see the list of Old Testament types of Christ at the end of this paper; see also: James Louis Kautt, Aphrahat in der Auseinandersetzung mit den Juden: Ein Vergleich seiner Argumentation in den antij¨ udischen Demonstrationes mit der Justins im Dialog mit Trypho (Magisterschrift, T¨ ubingen, 1995).

APHRAHAT’S USE OF HIS OLD TESTAMENT

133

what Jesus said and did, e.g. while Joseph was a shepherd with his brothers, Jesus was the chief-shepherd (P–_ƒÐ R, Hom. XXI.9). The beginnings of this kind of exegesis already lie in the New Testament itself, as in the Gospel of St. John: in Chapter 3, where the resurrection of Jesus is compared with the raising of the serpent in the wilderness by Moses; in Chapter 4, where Jesus calls his gifts ‘a spring of water welling up to eternal life’ in comparison with Jacob’s well, in his discussion with the Samaritan woman; and in Chapter 6, where he announces himself as the bread of life in comparison with the manna in the wilderness. Furthermore, we find a few examples of typology in Paul’s letters: in Romans 5 we are told of ‘Adam, who was the type (t‘poc) of the One who was to come’, and 1 Corinthians 10 it is said that in the wilderness our fathers ‘all drank the same “spiritual” (pneumatikÏn; rsv “supernatural”) drink. For they drank from the “spiritual” Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ’; these things happened as types (t‘poi) for us; they happened also tupik¿c for them (rsv twice: [as a] ‘warning’); and, lastly, in 1 Peter 3, where salvation through baptism is called the counterpart (Çnt–tupon) of what happened to the eight members of the crew of Noah’s ark, who ‘were saved through the water’.4 With the exception of the instances in 1 Peter (Noah) and Romans 5 (Adam), all the examples (t‘poi) of types for Jesus are taken from the Exodus and desert narratives. That is hardly surprising, for the basic relation—one could say: the basic typology—is the relation between the ‘Old’ and the ‘New’ Covenants.5 Therefore the most genuine typological comparison is that between Moses and Jesus. Accordingly the Moses– Jesus typology is the one that occurs most frequently in Aphrahat: there are four occurrences, in homilies XII, XXI, XXII, and XXIII.6 I will begin my presentation of some of Aphrahat’s typological passages with the last of these homilies. Homily XXIII was written in 345 ce, 4 John 4:14b; 6:35, 48; Rom 5:14b; 1 Cor 10:4, 6, 11; 1 Pet 3:20f.; cf. Heb 8:5; 9:24. However, in Hebrews the use of t‘poc and Çnt–tupon has been reversed: in 8:5 it quotes Exod 25:40, almost the only place in the Masoretic Text where a Hebrew word (tynbt) is translated by t‘poc in the Septuagint (in addition to Amos 5:26 [µlx]; cf. tupÏw in Wisd 13:13 and Sir 38:30). There it is the heavenly model (‘pattern’) of the tabernacle, which is only ‘a copy (Çnt–tupon/-a) of the true one’, 9:24. For ‘type’ in our sense Hebrews uses ÂmoiÏthc (7:15), parabol† (9:9) or skià (10:1). 5 Cf. Luke 22:20; 2 Cor 3:6; Jer 31:31. 6 Cf. J. Parisot (ed.), Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes I–XXII, in PS 1.1 (Paris, 1894), XII.8 (col. 521–526); XXI.10 (col. 957–962); XXII.2 (col. 993–996); and idem, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstratio XXIII, in PS 1.2 (Paris, 1907), XXIII.11f.

134

MARINUS D. KOSTER

as an extra homily to the other twenty-two; these had been written in an acrostic form, each beginning with a letter of the Syriac alphabet in sequence; Homilies I–X were written in 337 and Homilies XI–XXII in 344 ce. Hom. XXIII is called the ‘Homily of the bunch of grapes’ (after Isa 65:8); its main theme is why the righteous are persecuted—Aphrahat and his people were being persecuted at that time by the Persian king Shapur II—and why the prayer of the righteous is not always answered. Aphrahat’s answer to this is, that even the prayers of two outstanding figures, Moses, the great prophet and Jesus, the beloved Son, were not always answered. Both had to die, in order to validate their testaments; therefore Moses could not enter the Promised Land and the cup could not pass from Jesus. Only in that way could the old and the new covenants be realized and did the blessing in the grapes not get lost. In this way Homily XXIII makes clear a typological connection between the two covenants. Homily XXII, ‘On death and the latter days’, begins with a quotation from a crucial passage in Romans 5: first from vs. 14 (‘death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned’), and then from vs. 12 (‘and so death spread to all men’); it ends with vs. 14 (‘in like manner as it came over Adam’—a rather free quotation). Therefore ‘from Adam to Moses’ does not mean that death only reigned until Moses; ‘it spread to all men’ means that from Moses it spread to the end of the world. Nevertheless, Moses proclaimed the resurrection, and so death knew that his kingdom would come to an end. In order to substantiate this, Aphrahat quotes Deut 33:6 (‘Let Reuben live, and not die, and he will be in number’)7 together with Exod 3:6, where God speaks to Moses: ‘I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.’ When death heard this word, he trembled, and became afraid, terrified and shaken. Death suffered a swingeing blow: he knew now that God was king of the dead and the living; mankind would leave his darkness and their bodies would arise. This is what Jesus said to the Sadducees (also quoting Exod 3:6): ‘He is not God of the dead, for they all live to Him’ (Luke 20:38, omitting ‘but of the living’). Homily XII, ‘On the Passover’, again links Jesus with Moses, now through the typological connection of Easter with the Passover. They slaughtered the lamb of the flock and by his blood were delivered from the destroyer, and we were redeemed from the destructive deeds, that we committed, by the blood of the chosen son. They got Moses as their commander, and we got 7 The Peshitta here simplifies the difficult Hebrew rpsm wytm yhyw ‘and let his men be few’ into Q{k{wS P^]z^ ‘and he will be in number’ (whatever that may mean); here Aphrahat’s text agrees exactly with that of the Peshitta.

APHRAHAT’S USE OF HIS OLD TESTAMENT

135

Jesus as our leader and Saviour. For them, Moses divided the sea and brought them over, and our Saviour split open hell and crushed its doors; when he went into its interior, he opened them and prepared the way for all who believed in him. To them the manna was given to eat, to us our Lord gave his body that we should eat it. To them he brought out water from the rock, for us our Saviour let flow the water of life from his belly.

Finally, a typological comparison of Moses and Jesus is to be found in Homily XXI, ‘On persecution’. The second part of this homily consists of a long list of typological comparisons. Altogether twelve personalities from the Old Testament, all of whom suffered persecution, from Joseph to Mordecai, are presented as ‘types’ of Jesus. After Joseph comes Moses, whose youth is compared extensively with that of Jesus, as related in the Gospel of St. Matthew. It is well known that that particular narrative of Matthew’s was strongly influenced by the first chapters of Exodus. Thus the flight to Egypt is compared with the hiding of young Moses by his mother, the massacre of the innocents in Bethlehem with that of the Hebrew children in Egypt, the call of the angel to Joseph to return to the land of Israel (Matt 2:20) with that of God to Moses to go home to his people, where almost the same words are used: ‘for all the men who were seeking your life are dead’ (Exod 4:19). Jesus was brought up in Egypt like Moses was brought up in the house of Pharaoh; it was Miriam (xj‘v) who stood at the river’s bank as Moses floated on the water, and it was Mary (also xj‘v!) who gave birth to Jesus, as Gabriel had announced; Moses led his people from Pharaoh’s slavery, while Jesus delivered all the nations from the slavery of Satan; then nearer the end it is shown that Moses brought down the law (Q~_wz) for his people as Jesus gave his testaments (¦\_©—jZ = mandates, testimony?) to the nations. Again, the manna in the wilderness is compared with Jesus’ body, but the water from the rock is now linked with Simon Peter (Q‡Qn, ‘rock’), who was sent by Jesus in order to make known his message to the nations. Lastly, two interesting ‘types’ of the cross deserve to be mentioned in connection with Moses. The first is that he sweetened the bitter waters (the waters of Marah) with a piece of wood (QkS, Exod 15:25; rsv ‘a tree’, cf. mt Å[), as Jesus sweetened our bitterness with his cross, with the wood of his cross. The second is that he defeated Amalek by keeping his hands extended (Exod 17:11f.), as Jesus overcame the Satan with the sign of his cross.8 8 In my dissertation I connected the reading of the Lectionary ms 16l3 Qk P`PZ in Exod 15:25 (adding P`PZ to Peshitta Qk) with the first example, and

136

MARINUS D. KOSTER

In Homily IV, ‘On prayer’, there is a typological passage concerning Jacob, the first of its kind in the Homilies.9 It shows two more prefigurations of the cross: Jacob’s ladder is the mystery (P`P) of the cross, and so is the staff, with which, as his only possession, he once crossed the Jordan on his way to Paddan-Aram (cf. Gen 32:11[10]). ‘A wonderful mystery he took in anticipation ([cP u[) in his hand, that is the sign (Q”kz) of the cross of the great prophet’ (Hom. IV.6). For Aphrahat, Jacob’s dream at Bethel is Jacob’s prayer; it inspires him to a whole series of mysterious connections. As such, the porta coeli of Gen 28:17 is related, not unexpectedly, to John 10:9, where Jesus says ‘I am the door’; it is also related to Ps 118:20, ‘This is the gate of the Lord’. We now return to Homily XXI. After Moses, Joshua 10 was a ‘type’ of Christ, if only through his name. Here in this section the two of them are consistently distinguished from each other by different epithets: ‚_”j y_z‘S and |^‘‡ ‚_”j respectively. ‘Joshua the son of Nun let the sun stand still in heaven and took revenge from the nations that persecuted him, and Jesus our Saviour made the sun to set at midday in order that the persecuting people, that crucified him, should be ashamed.’ Also, Joshua ‘saved Rahab the harlot alive, and Jesus our Saviour assembled the harloting congregation and gave it life’ (Rahab, the Canaanite woman who was saved, represents the church saved from the nations, a theme of special interest to Aphrahat). Joshua throwing down the walls of Jericho on the seventh day is compared with the falling down of our world on the seventh day of Jesus: on the Sabbath, the day when God rested; in his second homily Aphrahat had already shown his inclination towards chiliasm (Hom. II.14). Then the stoning of Achan, who had stolen from the ‘devoted things’ (Qv‘c), is juxtaposed to the removal of Judas, who had stolen from the money for the poor. At the end of Homily XI, ‘On circumcision’, there is another list of typological references from Joshua to Jesus. The first and the last of those just mentioned from Hom. XXI (the one concerning solstice and interpreted the reading of 16l3 as ‘wood of mystery’ (d-( )r¯ az¯ a ; cf. M.D. Koster, The Peshit.ta of Exodus. The Development of its Text in the Course of Fifteen Centuries [SSN 19; Assen, 1977], 538 [with n. 19], cf. 44, 497 [with n. 17]). But perhaps it should be read as qays¯ a d-arz¯ a ‘cedar/pine wood’; it is also possible that it was added with both interpretations in mind. In the case of the second example (Exod 17), the reading of the Peshitta (as a whole) for mt hnwma wydy yhyw ‘so his hands were steady’ (at the end of vs. 12) could also point to theological implications in the line of Aphrahat’s typological interpretation: P–_{wj]S ¦\^[jP¨ ¦^\¨^, ‘so his hands were in firmness’ (or: ‘in faith’). 9 Ed. Parisot (cf. n. 5), Hom. IV.5f. (col. 143–50). 10 Ed. Parisot (cf. n. 5), Hom. XI.12 (col. 501–04); XXI.11 (col. 961–64).

APHRAHAT’S USE OF HIS OLD TESTAMENT

137

the one concerning Achan/Judas) also appear in Homily XI. Another remarkable allusion to Peter is also to be found here: ‘Joshua the son of Nun erected stones as a testimony in Israel, and Jesus our Saviour named Simeon the solid rock and made him a faithful witness among the nations.’ Other references from Joshua to Jesus in Homily XI concern circumcision, baptism and Passover. The short typological passage on Jephthah and the longer one on David can be skipped, so as to arrive at Elijah and Elisha.11 According to Peter Bruns, Moses and Elijah together form the ideal prophetic pair, ‘das vollkommene prophetische Zweigespann’,12 as is shown in the Transfiguration narrative. Here Aphrahat shows again a cunning search for parallels, as he had done when comparing the youth of Moses and that of Jesus. In this case too some of the Old Testament canvas on which the New Testament pattern was woven becomes clear to the modern critic.13 This is particularly true for Elijah and Elisha when their miracles are related to the miracles of Jesus: ‘Elijah restored the son of the widow to life, and Jesus restored the son of the widow to life, together with Lazarus and the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue. Elijah gave the widow to eat from a small piece of bread, and Jesus satisfied thousands with a small amount of bread.’ Almost the same wording occurs with Elisha: ‘Elisha satisfied a hundred men from a small piece of bread, and Jesus satisfied four thousand men from five loaves, besides the women and children.’ In all three examples the superiority of Jesus (the Steigerung motif) has been expressed in a purely quantitative manner. The next miracle of Jesus, changing water into wine, is related to Elisha changing water into oil, but this is somewhat different from the story of 2 Kings 4, where we are told that Elisha enabled a widow to fill several vessels with oil from one jar. Finally, the end of the life of Elijah on earth as well as that of Elisha is taken as a ‘type’ for Jesus: ‘Elijah went up in a chariot into heaven, and our Saviour went up and sat down at the right hand of his Father.’ Elisha received Elijah’s spirit, Jesus breathed [his spirit] on the faces of his apostles. One dead person was made alive on Elisha’s bones, and on 11 Ed. Parisot, Hom. VI.13 (col. 287–292); XXI.14f. (col. 965–970). On Elijah see: C. Houtman, ‘Elijah’, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden, 1995), col. 538–543. 12 Bruns, Christusbild Aphrahats, 115. 13 Cf. G.J. Sirks, Spoorzoeken in het Nieuwe Testament (Arnhem, 1957), Ch. 8, ‘Profetisch stramien’ (i.e. prophetic canvas), 123–184. See below, n. 15, for another instance from Matthew’s Sondergut: the OT ‘type’ in Dan 6:18 for the sealing and watching over of the sepulchre (Matt 27:64–66).

138

MARINUS D. KOSTER

those of Jesus all the nations, who had died in their sins, came to life again.14 There is still another section on Elijah and Elisha, in Homily VI, ‘On the sons of the covenant’ (i.e. monks). In this case, however, we are dealing with a double typology, as Elijah is compared with John the Baptist, and Elisha with Jesus (as in Homily XXI). Therefore the central comparison is now expressed as ‘Elijah’s spirit rested in double measure on Elisha, John [the Baptist] placed his hand on our Saviour and he received the spirit without measure (again the Steigerung motif), which is followed by ‘Elijah opened the heaven and went up, and John saw the heaven opened and the spirit of God coming down and resting on our Saviour. Elisha received the spirit of Elijah in double measure, and our Saviour received [the Spirit] from John and he received [that] from heaven.’ Other agreements between Elijah and John concern their living in the desert, their food (birds/locusts) and clothing (2 Kgs 1:8//Matt 3:4); those between Elisha and Jesus are more or less the same as in Homily XXI, but here it is Elisha, not Elijah, who restored life to one who had died, and Jesus restored life to three; this is continued with: ‘one dead person was made alive on Elisha’s bones, but when our Saviour descended to the dead, he brought life to many and raised them’. The list of Homily XXI continues with typological digressions on kings Hezekiah (when he had fallen ill, the sun turned backwards [2 Kgs 20:9–11]; when Jesus suffered, the light of the sun was darkened [Matt 27:45]. Hezekiah prayed and was restored to health; Jesus prayed and rose from his grave, etc.) and Josiah (he tore his clothes because of Israel’s viciousness [2 Kgs 22:11]; Jesus tore the curtain of the holy temple because of the viciousness of the people [Matt 27:51]. Josiah removed the filthiness from the holy temple; Jesus drove the unclean merchants from his Father’s house, etc.). It then concludes with an extensive typological passage on Daniel,15 and shorter ones on Hananja and his brothers and on Mordecai. It is worth mentioning that in the 14 For the various episodes alluded to, cf. from the OT 1 Kgs 17:17–24, 10–16; 2 Kgs 4:42–44, 1–7; 2:11, 9–10+15; 13:20f., and from the New Testament Luke 7:12–15; John 11:43f. + Matth 9:25; Matth. 14:19–21//15:35–38; 14:19f. + 15:38 (conflated: five loaves for four thousand men!); John 2:6–11; Mark 16:19 (Hebr 10:12; cf. 1 Pet 3:22; Rom 8:34; Acts 7:55f.); John 20:22. 15 E.g. Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den, but he was saved and rose from it victoriously; Jesus was brought down into the pit of the grave, but he rose up from it and death could no longer dominate him. Daniel’s pit was sealed and watched over carefully; the sepulchre of Jesus was watched over carefully, as it is said: ‘order the sepulchre to be made secure’ (Dan 6:18 and Matt 27:64 respectively; see above, page 137, ad n. 13).

APHRAHAT’S USE OF HIS OLD TESTAMENT

139

last case the (rather passive) role of Esther has been mirrored by that of the church.16 Conclusion From this survey the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. For Aphrahat his Bible was a permanent source of information and inspiration. It forms the backbone of his argumentation, as it represents the highest authority. Jesus, our Saviour, ‘is our herald and apostle of the most High, let us listen to his words so that we become sons of his mysteries’ (Hom. XIV.39). 2. Aphrahat uses his Bible freely, without any dogmatic impediments and without keeping scrupulously to the exact wording of the text. ‘Diese Benutzung . . . ist ein “Nebengebrauch”, der selbst Textver¨ anderungen nicht zu scheuen braucht.’17 Sometimes Aphrahat makes a conflation of more than one text, as we saw in the case of Rom 5:12–15.18 Therefore his text cannot be used without due consideration as a source of variant readings. On the other hand sometimes his citations agree literally with the text of the Peshitta, as in the case of Deut 33:6,19 which implies that they confirm a reading of the Peshitta in a period before our earliest mss. All this agrees essentially with what Bob Owens has already pointed out admirably and comprehensively in his studies of Aphrahat’s citations from Genesis and Exodus, and again from Leviticus.20 3. His method of giving long, sometimes endless lists of biblical texts and examples seems to be his own trade-mark. This also marks his use of typological exegesis. Although this kind of exegesis, as we have seen, started as early as in the New Testament and is also known from Justin and Irenaeus, I wonder whether these lists of typological comparisons 16 ‘Because Mordecai sat down and put on sackcloth (Esth 4:1) he saved Esther and his people from the sword; because Jesus put on a body and was humiliated, he saved the church and its sons from death’, etc. See above, page 136, for Rahab representing the church from the nations. 17 Georg Bert, Aphrahat’s des persischen Weisen Homilien. Aus dem Syrischen u ¨bersetzt und erl¨ autert (TU 3.3–4; Leipzig, 1888), 336, n. 2. 18 See above, page 134 (Hom. XXII); also his defective quotation of Luke 20:38 (above, page 134) and the conflation of the feedings of the 5000 and the 4000 (above, pp. 137–138, with n. 14). 19 See above, page 134 (Hom. XXII), with n. 7. 20 Robert J. Owens Jr., The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (MPIL 3; Leiden, 1983), 11, 21, 25, 38f., 241–243, 247f. Idem, ‘Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Text of Leviticus’, in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder (eds.), The Peshit.ta: its Early Text and History. Papers Read at the Peshit.ta Symposium Held at Leiden 30–31 August 1985 (MPIL 4; Leiden, 1988), 1–48 (3, 8f., 11, 46–48); ‘Aphrahat writes theological essays, not a biblical commentary’, etc. (47).

140

MARINUS D. KOSTER

came to him through some kind of tradition or whether they are fully of his own invention. Justin in particular is most similar to Aphrahat in the prolixity of his biblical argumentation, but his theological outlook often differs from that of Aphrahat.21 Murray, in his article quoted above, gives a full overview of passages from Jewish and Christian origin which could have influenced Aphrahat’s lists of biblical examples, such as Ben Sira’s review of the ‘Men of h.esed ’ (Sir 44–49) and Chapter 10 of the Wisdom of Solomon, where Wisdom is praised with a long series of instances (though without names) from Adam to Moses. As a matter of course, the typological culmination to Jesus is missing in the examples he quotes from Jewish prayer texts.22 4. For Aphrahat the text of the Old Testament is to be understood in a concrete, historical sense. His approach to the text is ‘Semitic’, not ‘Greek’.23 He has no need of allegorical exegesis. But then, implicitly, these stories and their dramatis personae contain a mystery, the mystery of future salvation. Characteristic of his typological approach are the element of Steigerung (Bruns: ‘ein Mehr an Heil’24 ), sometimes a kind of spiritualizing of Old Testament realia, and a certain universalizing of the message: what the Old Testament presented to the people of Israel is transferred by Jesus to the nations. Furthermore, there are a few indications of a knowledge of rabbinic exegetical traditions.25 21

See the study of Kautt, quoted above at the end of n. 3. Murray, ‘Rhetorical Patterns’ (cf. n. 2), 115–125. Jacob Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism. The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran (StPB 19; Leiden, 1971). See also: S. Janse, ‘De joodse achtergrond van het gebed in Aphrahats Demonstrationes 23:53–59’ (The Jewish background of the prayer in Aphrahat’s Demonstrationes 23:53–59), NedThT 59 (2005), 41–59. Janse observes in Aphrahat’s prayer in Hom. XXIII ‘at least seven analogies with the Jewish prayer Amidah’ (the ‘Prayer of Eighteen’) and searches for more instances of Jewish influence in it. 23 ‘Aphrahats Theologie, von westlichen Einfl¨ ussen weitgehend unber¨ uhrt, [konnte] in ihrem eigenen semitisch-orientalischen Milieu entfalten’, Bruns, Christusbild Aphrahats (cf. n. 3), 1. Even though James Barr, in his famous The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), has criticized the current use of this distinction between ‘Semitic’ and ‘Greek’, and has demolished not a few of the linguistic arguments adduced for it, it seems to me that arguing along these lines can still be fruitful and should not be automatically rejected. Fergus Millar, in The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, ma–London, 1993), mentions Aphrahat twice in passing (485 ‘homilies . . . written outside the Empire, under Sasanid rule’, and 493/4), so that he seems to escape Millar’s carefully as well as cautiously engineered investigation into the amalgamation of ‘East’ and ‘West’; again I am grateful to Bas Romeny for drawing this impressive study to my notice. 24 Bruns, Christusbild Aphrahats, 121. 25 E.g. Pharaoh Necho is referred to as P‘kXc y_ƒ‘‡ (‘Claudus’, the Lame; Hom. XXI.17 [Josiah]), cf. Parisot, Aphraatis Demonstrationes, Praefatio, xlixf.; text, col. 22

APHRAHAT’S USE OF HIS OLD TESTAMENT

141

Therefore, in Aphrahat’s use of his Old Testament, it seems that specifically Jewish features may be observed which, in the case of his typological digressions, were combined with specifically Christian features. ——— Old Testament Types of Christ See Peter Bruns, Das Christusbild Aphrahats des Persischen Weisen, 226 (with corrections) Jacob–Jesus Joseph–Jesus Moses–Christ Joshua–Jesus Jephthah–Jesus David–Jesus Elijah–Jesus [Elijah–John the Baptist Elisha–Jesus Hezekiah–Jesus Josiah–Jesus Daniel–Jesus Hananiah and his brothers–Jesus Mordecai–Jesus

Hom. IV.5f. Hom. XXI.9 Hom. XII.8, XXI.10, XXII.2, XXIII.11f. Hom. XI.12, XXI.11 Hom. XXI.12 Hom. XXI.13 Hom. XXI.14 Hom. VI.13] Hom. VI.13, XXI.15 Hom. XXI.16 Hom. XXI.17 Hom. XXI.18 Hom. XXI.19 Hom. XXI.20

972 (transl. col. 971); Georg Bert, Aphrahat’s des persischen Weisen Homilien, 342, n. 4; also Hom. XXIII.19 (387, ad n. 3).

‘THERE IS NO NEED OF TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS . . . ’ (JACOB OF SARUG) QUOTATIONS AND NON-QUOTATIONS OF LEVITICUS IN SELECTED SYRIAC WRITERS

David J. Lane †

1. Preface Leviticus seems as likely a source as the other Pentateuchal books for patristic quotations to shed light on the history of the Peshitta Old Testament text.1 In the event, it must be admitted that quotations from it are comparatively few: by and large the Syriac authors do not have much need of Leviticus’ turtle-doves and young pigeons. This slender usage does not indicate contempt for the book, or even carelessness in the selection of material. The minimalist approach to Leviticus has two causes. The first one is the range of argument to which the authors are writing. This article’s study further supports the writer’s observations made in two earlier articles on patristic use of scripture.2 They can be summarized under three headings: (a) scripture is only one element of a patristic mind: observation of the current scene and the natural order are others; (b) the scripture used may be from a text but is more often drawn from the writer’s mind, conscious or not; (c) the factor determining the quotation’s direct or allusive form is the argument in which it is deployed. Hence a rule was formulated: Ignorance of an author’s aim and method invalidates use of that author’s quotations as evidence for a particular reading or type of text.3

The second reason for authors’ minimalist use of Leviticus, suggesting an amendment to this rule, is that the genre of literature quoted influences 1 On this subject, see R.G. Jenkins, The Old Testament Quotations of Philoxenus of Mabbug (CSCO 514, Subs. 84; Leuven, 1989); R.J. Owens, The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (MPIL 3; Leiden, 1983); M.J. Suggs, ‘The Use of Patristic Evidence in the Search for a Primitive New Testament Text’, NTS 4 (1957–58), 139–147. Also note 4, below. 2 D.J. Lane, ‘“The Well of Life”: Shubhalmaran’s Use of Scripture’, in R.J. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (OCA 256; Rome, 1998), 49–59; idem, ‘“Come here . . . and let us read”: the Use of Psalms in Five Syriac Authors’, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOT.S 333; Sheffield, 2001), 410–429. 3 Lane, ‘“Come here . . .”’, 416.

144

DAVID J. LANE

authors’ quotation from it. Now, the genres of Leviticus are concept and schematic analysis, and they determine the length, style, and use of quotation. The exact words are less important than their general sense, or suggestiveness, which in turn ministers to conceptual argument. In consequence, this present consideration of the use of Leviticus in Syriac lectionaries, controversy, exegesis, and exposition, strengthens the writer’s earlier argument, in the articles just cited, that quotation is rhetoric. Firmer warnings, therefore, are needed about the value of adding patristic quotations to critical editions of Peshitta or SyroHexapla text.4 To quote a recent writer on St Matthew’s Beatitudes as a reworking of Old Testament material: It seems to be too readily assumed that direct quotation was the object of the exercise . . .5

2. Character of Leviticus The character itself, then, of the book Leviticus shapes the use made of it in the Syriac-language churches. In brief, Chapters 1–15 contain classified analyses and definitions of Temple offerings and those who make them; of edible and prohibited animals, and of suppurating emissions whether contagious or not. Chapter 16 describes the concept and ceremonies of the Day of Atonement: the only Jewish solemnity rooted in concept rather than occasion, agricultural or corporate. Chapters 17–25 provide definitions of Israelites and non-Israelites, and the characteristic obligations of the former. Chapters 26 and 27 present the consequences of fulfilment or non-fulfilment of these obligations. The only narrative passages are those of chapters 10 and 24, cautionary tales of ceremonial and moral presumption. There is very little that can be drawn on by way of parallel episodes in matters of behaviour, good or bad, but much in the way of instruction. There is a certain amount about the natural order, but as examples in their own right rather than confirming moral testimony for what is presented in scripture. There is much in the way 4 This article excludes the Demonstrations of Aphrahat, which include some of these categories. R.J. Owens’ thorough ‘Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Text History of Leviticus’, in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder (eds.), The Peshit.ta: Its Early Text and History. Papers Read at the Peshit.ta Symposium Held at Leiden 30–31 August 1985 (MPIL 4; Leiden, 1988), 1–48, has identified 24 Leviticus quotations in the Demonstrations, and speaks of ‘seemingly accurate reproduction of several individual clauses . . . but no complete text of two verses’ (p. 14) and concludes ‘Accordingly, the typical Bible passage is quoted loosely, partially . . . and is thoroughly integrated into the stream of Aphrahat’s discussion’ (p. 47). That conclusion is congruent with the results of studies on other Syriac authors. 5 H.B. Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (JSNT.S 203; Sheffield, 2001), 49.

NO NEED OF TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS

145

of cultic instruction, but little expressly directed at anything more than expected implementation. There is little in the way of memorable phrase which can become part of regular catenae of quotations. It is a book of analysis and category, rooted in the strictly Old Testament cultic concepts of purity and holiness. Consequently, it is not surprising that the mystical and monastic writer of The Three Stages 6 has no quotation from Leviticus, nor does Shubhalmaran, the writer on monastic life and the virtues. Yet it is not simply the lack of appropriate material for citation or allusion which must be considered. The presence of cultic and behavioural material causes embarrassment. On the one hand, Leviticus is scripture, and cannot be disregarded; on the other hand cult and Law have a fulfilment in Jesus—and find condemnation in Paul. Leviticus must therefore be dealt with as something which tends towards Jesus: but only up to a point. Commenting on Ezek 20:25, Ishodad of Merv distinguishes between the virtuous commands (like the 10 words), the keeping of which confers life, and the hateful and destructive commands (concerning impurity and uncleanness) which are like a slave’s shackles, to be broken and replaced on a daily basis. The sacrifices are contingent, not necessary; divine will conformed to the weakness of the recipients of the laws.7 3. Lectionaries The use of Leviticus in lectionaries hints at its general use in the Syriac churches. Most Syriac lectionaries are of West Syriac provenance,8 as for example, the four cycles of readings found in three ninth-century manuscripts from Harran, (11/)9l1–3.9 There are 14 readings from Leviticus, of which the following are 3 examples of passages from it and the associated passages:10 6 P. Harb, F. Graffin, and M. Albert (eds.), Joseph H ay¯ a: Lettre sur les trois . azz¯ ´ etapes de la vie monastique (PO 45.2; Turnhout, 1992). 7 C. Van den Eynde (ed.), Commentaire d’Iˇsodad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament 5. J´ er´ emie, Ez´ eki´ el, Daniel (CSCO 328–329, Syr. 146–147; Louvain, 1972), 73–74 (text), 85–86 (translation). 8 W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838 (3 vols.; London 1870–72); H. Zotenberg, Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques du Biblioth` eque Nationale (Paris, 1904). 9 Cf. O. Heiming, ‘Ein Jakobitisches Doppellektionar des Jahres 824 aus Harran in den Handschriften British Museum Add. 14.485 bis 14.487’, in P. Granfield and J.A. Jungmann (eds.), Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten 2 (M¨ unster, 1970), 768–799. 10 See also D.J. Lane, ‘Leviticus: Lectionary and Liturgy’, The Harp 16 (2003) [Festschrift G. Panicker ], 337–347.

146

DAVID J. LANE

(a) 6th Sunday after Easter Lev 19:11–19: ‘You shall not steal . . . you shall not oppress your neighbour . . . you shall not hate your brother in your heart.’11 Acts 1:15–26: Peter’s speech about Judas. Rom 1:8–17: Paul’s intention to visit Rome, and his comment on righteousness. (b) 6th Sunday of the fast of Ananias12 Lev 26:3–13: divine blessings of harvest consequent upon obedience, and the promise ‘I will walk among you and be your God . . . and you shall be my people . . .’13 James 5:7–20: ‘The farmer prays for the harvest . . .’; the end of Elijah’s drought. Rom 13:1: ‘There is no authority but God . . .’ (c) Thursday in Holy Week Lev 16:3–10; 20–29 (both concern the ceremony of atonement); and 14:1–8 (ceremony of the healed leper). Ezek 21:8–17 (the oracle of the sword against the princes). Acts 25:23–26:7 (Paul’s defence against Agrippa). In all these instances, the concern is a congruence of phrase and a thematic relation with the other passages. Leviticus, albeit in a limited way, is used where a Pentateuchal passage is required for the scheme of readings. The passages’ suitability and congruence allow scripture to interpret scripture and provide comment upon the occasion. The first two examples show Leviticus as fulfilled preparation for the themes of righteousness and harvest respectively. The lections in the third allude to the atoning work of Christ and his death: the concept of atonement providing an interpretative context for the crucifixion. With reference to the text history of Peshita, the Leviticus passages tend to that of the Leiden printed text, but are prone to error; and add or omit words to suit a liturgical context more clearly.14 Two East Syriac lectionaries (British Library Add. ms 1449215 and British Library ms Rich 7168) provide only 3 extracts each from Leviticus. Their use is more pragmatic and less suggestive. Rich 7168 provides 11 Syro-Hexapla, and hence not mentioned in the Leiden Peshitta. West Syriac lectionaries frequently use Syro-Hexapla, especially for Genesis. 12 One of Daniel’s companions in abstention from meat, cf. Dan 1:6. 13 Cf. D.J. Lane (ed.), Leviticus in The Old Testament in Syriac 1.2 and 2.1b (Leiden, 1991), xxiv–v. 14 Lane (ed.), Leviticus, xxv on 9l2. 15 Originally for East Syriac use, it was adapted for West Syriac use by the deletion of the names of fathers deemed unacceptable.

NO NEED OF TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS

147

them for the fifth, sixth, and seventh Sundays in summer time (l{kssc, after the opening words of the prayer ‘Cleanse me . . .’), setting them together with ones from Isaiah. Sunday 5 Lev 23:9–22: ‘When you come into the land . . . counting fifty days to the morrow after the seventh sabbath, then you shall offer . . .’ Isa 28:14–22: ‘I am laying in Zion a cornerstone . . . and I will make justice the line . . .’ Sunday 6 Lev 19:1–? (lacuna): ‘You shall be holy and shall keep my sabbaths . . .’ Isa 29:21–end: ‘Jacob shall no more be ashamed . . . they will sanctify the holy one of Jacob.’ Sunday 7 Lev 19:15–19; 20:9–14: ‘You shall do no injustice . . . you shall keep my sabbaths.’ Isa 30:1–15: an oracle of doom followed by ‘In returning and rest shall be your safety.’ The passages straightforwardly link words so as to relate divine favour to moral and social response, and divine judgment to failure in appropriate response. There is an exegetical rather than expository air, scripture shedding light on scripture rather than pointing beyond itself thematically. The readings’ links with Jewish and Christian days make them fit the time of year following Pentecost and the season of the apostles. The Syriac West uses Leviticus more than the Syriac East, and more imaginatively, but in both the number of passages selected is small: it needed some ingenuity to find suggestive Leviticus passages. They are, then, evidence for the use of scripture rather than for text history.16 16 There are two extracts, Lev 8:18–30 (the sacrifices for the anointing of Aaron and his sons) and 11:42–12:8 (the prohibition of crawling or swarming creatures and the offering for a woman after child-birth) in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version: M.H. Goshen-Gottstein and H. Shirun (eds.), The Bible in the Syropalestinian Version 1. Pentateuch and Prophets (Hebrew University Bible Project, Monograph Series 4; Jerusalem, 1973), now re-edited in C. M¨ uller-Kessler and M. Sokoloff (eds.), A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic 1. The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period (Groningen, 1997). The first passage suggests use for ordination, consecration of oil, or Holy Week services, the second for the Presentation of Our Lord. However the version is a translation from a Septuagint type of text and is outside the scope of this article. The comment in the Jerusalem Monograph is, however to the point: ‘Quotations may often reflect elements of an older version but the problems are manifold’ (p. vi).

148

DAVID J. LANE

4. Controversy Sergius the Stylite A genre of literature where exactness and length of quotation from Leviticus might be thought essential is that of controversy. Two examples may be considered: one from Sergius the Stylite17 and the other from Jacob of Sarug. In Sergius the Stylite’s Disputation against a Jew there are 13 quotations from Leviticus. Two are uncertainly Leviticus: I.5 ‘they shall offer for him a pair of turtle-doves or young pigeons’ is in fact from Luke 2:24, since in our Lord the prophecy was fulfilled, rather than Lev 12:8 which reads ‘You shall give two turtle-doves or two young pigeons.’ The quotation gives scriptural evidence that God could and did have a Son. The passage ‘I will dwell in them and walk in them’ is used 4 times (XIII.10,12; XIV.12; XV.3). The first of these adds ‘and I will be their God and they shall be my people’, and the third ‘and I will be their God’. The quotation is from 2 Cor 6:16, and not from Lev 26:12 which reads ‘I will walk among you, and I will be God for you, and you will be a people for me.’ Crucial to the use of the phrase is the preposition ‘in’ rather than ‘among’, for the phrase is used to demonstrate the power of God in the righteous whether alive or dead or suffering. Incidentally, the same importance of preposition in this non-Leviticus quotation is found in Philoxenus, Dissertation 8: If God the Word had taken another man and had dwelt in him, as you say, instead of ‘he dwelt among us’ he would have said ‘he dwelt in him’, for ‘in him’ indicates a single being, but ‘among us’ (points out) many, just as ‘I will dwell in them and I will walk with them.’18

In two cases Sergius’ disputation uses the phrase ‘You shall not touch the bone of a dead man, and he who touches it shall be unclean until the evening’ in arguments to prove that cleanness and uncleanness are to be equated with righteousness and unrighteousness. However the phrase is a blend of Lev 11:24 ‘Everyone who touches their bones (i.e of unclean animals) shall be unclean until the evening’ and Num 19:16 ‘And whoever in the open country approaches someone killed by the sword, either a corpse or a bone or a grave, shall be unclean for seven days.’ The word ‘bone’ is important for the first discussion (XIII.12–20) which concerns Joseph’s bones, carried from Egypt by Moses (Exod 13:19). In the second and similar discussion (XIV.2–5) about the bones 17 A.P. Hayman (ed.), The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite against a Jew (CSCO 338–339, Syr. 152–153; Louvain, 1973). 18 M. Bri` ere and F. Graffin (eds.), Sancti Philoxeni Episcopi Mabbugensis Dissertationes decem de Uno e sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo (M¯ emr¯ e contre H . abib) 3 (PO 39.4; Turnhout, 1979), Diss. 8, § 130, pp. 186–187.

NO NEED OF TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS

149

raised by Elisha, a similar conflated passage is used: ‘He who touches the bone of a dead man shall wash his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening,’ where an adapted extract from Lev 11:25 ‘And anyone who picks up their bones shall purify his garments and shall be unclean until the evening’ has been fused with a phrase from Num 19:8 ‘And he who burns the heifer shall purify his garments and wash his flesh with water and be unclean until the evening.’ More confusing are the quotations used by Sergius and his opponent about the clean and unclean animals. The debate, common elsewhere, is to the effect that ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ are not objective categories, but an expedient distinction to contrast true (Israelite) and false (pagan) piety and practice. In the discussion on the excessive uncleanness of the pig eaten by Christians in XVIII/XIX, there are two quotations from Lev 11. In XVIII.2 Sergius presents the passage The animal (11:1) . . . which is cloven-footed . . . and chews the cud is clean for you; eat it (11:3). But the pig which is cloven-footed . . . but does not chew the cud is unclean for you (11:7). And again the camel which chews the cud but is not cloven-footed is unclean for you (11:4b).

And in XIX.14 the Jew cites Every animal (11:1) which is not cloven-footed . . . and does not chew the cud is unclean for you (11:26).

and The camel which chews the cud but is not cloven-footed is unclean for you (11:4b). The pig which is cloven-footed . . . but does not chew the cud is unclean for you.

The argument is opaque to begin with: Sergius basically alleges Jewish inconsistency in that they regard the pig as abominable, but make use of equally unclean animals like the camel, horse, mule and ass (the last 3 not listed in Leviticus). The Jew argues that it is the cleft foot and non-ruminant characteristics in combination which determine the case. The layout given here of the seeming quotations makes clear the re-ordering, the omissions, and the additions to the text; as Hayman finely comments in the footnote on p. 61 of the translation volume: Both Sergius’s quotations from Lev. 11 and those of the Jew show a certain amount of confusion. Both ignore the item ‘parts the hoof’, both never quote the text exactly, and in some cases they both quote only their inferences from it.

Jacob of Sarug In VII.378 of the Homilies against the Jews Jacob of Sarug says ‘We have no need of turtle-doves or young pigeons’ as part of an argument

150

DAVID J. LANE

(375–394) which says that it is to the Lord of the whole earth in every land, that every kind of thanksgiving which is pleasing to God may be offered.19 Jerusalem has no continuing relevance as the sole legitimate place to which sacrifices are brought. The allusions to the turtle-doves and young pigeons of Lev 5:7 and 12:8, and more general one to thanksgiving, are enough for the argument. But he continues that the bread and the wine are symbols (P`PÐ) of the body of the Son, and are offered everywhere. ‘Everyone in his own country . . . not in one country but in every country, and in every region . . . for the whole earth belongs to Him’. This matter of localisation in fact begins with a possible implicit reference to Lev 24:17,21: ‘Who is responsible for the blood of someone who dies in his sin?’ (VII.107). This question supposes someone who has sinned at the edge of the world, or who is similarly placed, and wishes to make an offering. The argument is reductio ad absurdum, for it asks which has responsibility: the location for being distant, or the Law for making the condition that Jerusalem alone is the place of offering. Further use of Leviticus as the source of material which foreshadows is found in IV.191–197: The sacrifices of Moses, with their customs and kinds: what do they represent, O Jew, other than your Saviour? What is the purpose of the sprinkling of blood on the table? If you look well, it is the portrayal of the blood of the only Son. By the bird which he sets free and the bird he sacrifices over the spring he sets up an image of a living sacrifice, if you observe it well.20

The allusions are to the sprinkling of blood in Lev 4, 5, and elsewhere, and to the ceremony for the house of the cleansed leper in Lev 14:5,7. The matter is addressed with more detail but less care for close quotation in a sixth century homily on the High Priest: . . . the sacrifices and the victims which were offered by (the priests were) considered to be symbols (P`PÐ) of those which were to come. There was no victim offered under the law by those priests which had no symbolism. Among the victims there were some which in advance represented the offerings and sacrifices of the person of Christ who was to come; others by their being burnt and their destruction represented the abolition of sin; others which are named thanksgiving and offering designated virtues of the soul.21

The homily continues by making a connection between offerings burnt in whole and sufferings of the soul, and offerings burnt in part and 19 M. Albert (ed.), Jacques de Saroug: Hom´ elies contre les Juifs (PO 38.1; Turnhout, 1976), 206–207. 20 For his Mimro on this theme, see below, p. 157. 21 F. Graffin (ed.), Hom´ elies anonymes du VI e si` ecle (PO 41.4; Turnhout, 1984), Dissertation on the High Priest 105, pp. 54–55.

NO NEED OF TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS

151

virtues of the soul. It lists among these offerings the two birds (sic) offered to Azazel,22 one of which was burnt entirely. Jacob again uses Leviticus in his statement that the circumcised is not mingled with the uncircumcised, nor are the impure sacrificed with the impure, and different kinds of animal are distinguished from each other. He presents all this as an image of the distinction between the Father and the Son (VI.323, 324). A further ‘spiritualising’ interpretation is given in his statement that rejection of a disabled priest (Lev 21:17–20) portrays the rejection of those who lack the fifth sense, namely sight, and who spurn the light because of blindness (IV.134, 124). None of these writings quotes exactly. In technical arguments and general discussion quotations have been adapted for the circumstance; for Sergius and Jacob alike Leviticus has lent itself to concept and inference rather than exact citation. Jacob has gone further in the realm of imagination, redefining the categories of Leviticus. 5. Hexaemeron A class of literature which quotes from Leviticus because it provides these lists of clean and unclean animals is the one that has been described as Hexaemeron literature.23 A good example is the Hexaemeron of Jacob of Edessa,24 who provides extensive quotations: Lev 11:3, 4–8; 11:13–20; 11:29–31; and more briefly from 19:24 and 26:22. But the quotation is a reshaping in his own rendering rather than a simple citing of Peshitta or Syro-Hexapla:25 there are variations in word order, prepositions and conjunctions, and most obviously the Syro-Hexapla phrase P_W v for _W—v (chew the cud). His larger quotations are to support his discussion of the gifts, capacities and equipment of animals and birds. In particular he emphasizes the different kinds of stomachs and feet of animals, and with respect to birds, their habitat and breeding habits; their solitary or gregarious nature; their nocturnal or diurnal habits. He then goes into a consequential discussion of elephants and other animals not mentioned in his quotation. In discussing the creation of fruit-bearing trees, he refers to Lev 19:24 to show the necessity for a 22

Cf. Lev 16:8–10! On Hexaemeron literature in Syriac, see E. ten Nagel, ‘Some Remarks on the Hexaemeral literature in Syriac’, H.J.W. Drijvers et al. (ed.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (OCA 229; Rome, 1984), 57–68. 24 J.-B. Chabot (ed.), A. Vaschalde (trans.), Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron seu In opus creationis libri septem (CSCO 92, 97, Syr. 44, 48; Paris, 1928, Louvain, 1932). 25 Cf. A. V¨ o¨ obus (ed.), The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla. A Facsimile Edition of a Midyat MS. Discovered 1964 (CSCO 369, Subs. 45; Louvain, 1975). 23

152

DAVID J. LANE

period of three or four years to allow the trees to grow and mature before their fruit can be eaten with thanksgiving. There is a reference to Lev 26:22 in his assertion that part of the punishment for rejection of the law is the reversal of the natural order, so that wild animals no longer fear and flee from humans. In his Hexaemeron, Moshe bar Kepha26 has only two quotations from Leviticus: ‘I will bless them in the sixth year’ from Lev 25:21, explaining why only the fifth day of creation has a blessing: the blessings for what is created on other days are referred to elsewhere. The second is Lev 11:14, ‘the life of an animal is its blood’, where he is discussing the difference between animals and humans. For the rest there are only allusions: to a distinction between clean and unclean creatures; to the fifty-day period between giving birth to a male child and being pure (cited from Philoxenus writing on the fourth Gospel); and a reference to mole and weasel when discussing four-legged animals (Lev 11). Jacob of Sarug’s Hexaemeron, in the form presented by Jansma, is sparing of quotations, and makes none from Leviticus.27 Narsai, by contrast, makes little and free (‘citation tr`es libre’, comments the editor) use of quotation from Leviticus in his third homily on Creation where he discusses wild and domestic animals.28 It is perhaps disappointing to find (other than in Jacob of Edessa) so little use made of Leviticus in literature for which description and analysis of the animal kingdom might be of use. The philosophical arguments of Hexaemeron writers have led them in a direction away from a concern with the natural order and principles of cause and effect as described and analysed in Leviticus. 6. Spirituality It can, therefore, hardly be expected that much use will be made of Leviticus in the more obviously Syriac spiritual writing when it moves from the scriptural to the philsophical cast of mind. Not surprisingly there is neither quotation nor allusion to Leviticus in Les trois ´etapes,29 Joseph Hazzaya’s writing on the three stages of spiritual life. In the 26 L. Schlimme, Der Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar Kepha (GOF 1.14; Wiesbaden, 1977). 27 T. Jansma, ‘L’Hexam´eron de Jacques de Sarug’, OrSyr 4 (1959), 3–42; 129–162; 253–284. 28 Ph. Gignoux (ed.), Hom´ elies de Narsa¨ı sur la Cr´ eation (PO 43.3–4; Turnhout, 1968), III.195–204, pp. 178–179. 29 Harb, Graffin, and Albert (eds.), Joseph H ay¯ a: Lettre sur les trois ´ etapes. . azz¯

NO NEED OF TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS

153

letters of John of Dalyatha30 there is only an oblique reference in the homily on meekness and submissiveness to the Day of Atonement passage (Lev 16:29–31) and the connection between fasting, ceasing work, and humility of soul suggested thereby. Jacob of Sarug does, however, quote Lev 12:2–6 in his Prose Homily on Lent, III.20.31 He says that with respect to periods of forty days and their scriptural instances there is much to say and much to hear. He quotes: Again he commands in the Law that any woman who gives birth to a male child will be pure at the end of forty days, and she is to bring an offering to the Lord at the entrance to the sanctuary. And every woman who gives birth to a female child is to be pure at the end of two periods of forty days, and is to bring an offering when she has remained in impurity for this double numbering of forty days.

While this seems a straightforward indirect quotation, it is in fact an adaptation. The texts quoted have in fact been conflated, so that the period of 40 days is reached by adding together lesser numbers. In the case of a boy, the 7 days between birth and circumcision have been added to the 33 following days, and in the case of a girl, the initial period of 14 days has had the subsequent 66 days added to it. The object is to correlate scripturally commanded 40 day periods of impurity followed by an occasion of purity with that of the Lenten fast. Easter then corresponds to the gaining of purity. The quotation of this article’s title is in the same strain: a phrase from Leviticus initiates a discussion, rather than merits a comment. The citations can be short, because they are used as illustration or suggestively. In the first place, Jacob’s homily is expository rather than exegetical: that is to say, biblical material is used to support arguments reached on other grounds. In the second, as mentioned at the outset, for Christians the ceremonial and cultic definitions of Leviticus have been displaced: Jesus is the fulfiller of the Torah in all respects. Hence Leviticus is of provisional rather than ultimate significance, although as scripture it cannot simply be jettisoned, but remains a point of reference. A further example of this is found in Jacob’s Prose Homily IV, for Palm Sunday. Here he argues that in rejecting Jesus Jews showed that they had rejected the Torah which foreshadowed him. In a free blending of Leviticus 8–10 and other passages he says in IV.31–35 that if Israel had conducted herself in purity like bride, and not like a prostitute, then she would have come out to greet the Lord: 30 R. Beulay (ed.), La collection des lettres de Jean de Dalyatha (PO 39.3; Turnhout, 1978). 31 F. Rilliet (ed.), Jacques de Saroug: Six hom´ elies festales en prose (PO 43.4; Turnhout, 1986), 62–63.

154

DAVID J. LANE

she would again have clothed the high priest with the ephod and clad him in a robe of fine linen and placed on his hand the ring of Zachariah.32

Although from the West, Bar Hebraeus provides a more pragmatic way of dealing with such matters. In the Fourth Base of Le cand´elabre du Sanctuaire, on the Incarnation,33 he dismisses the phrase in Lev 3:17 and the similar one in Lev 6:18 that the Law is for ever (xs„r) by stating that this word cannot mean ‘without beginning’, and that it is ridiculous to say that it means ‘without end’, and must therefore mean simply ‘for a very long time’. Moreover, the term is quite simply inapplicable to the Temple offerings and lamps: they were destroyed. 7. Commentary Ishodad of Merv’s Commentary on Leviticus 34 is, however, of a different order from what has gone before. As a commentary, in the tradition of Theodoret and behind him of Theodore of Mospuestia, it is a straightforward exegesis, that is, a pragmatic explanation of text. This firmly puts the work within the same genre as a judge’s interpretation of law, and has an accord with the aspect of Leviticus which is an analytic and declaratory presentation of demands. The whole enterprise of commentary and that which is commented upon is similar to the situation described in an account of the experience of a first-year student at Harvard Law School in the 1970s: In Contracts, for example, we are now studying Interpretation, the ways a judge decides what words in a contract mean. Does he listen to A, who said these words? Or B, who heard them? Does he try to figure out what a reasonable person standing in one of their shoes might think? Or does the judge just take the words for their plain meaning?35

Elsewhere Ishodad has shown his hand with a discriminating use of Leviticus as forecast of future events. In a comment on Dan 9:27, he identifies the eagle introduced into the Temple decoration by Pilate as fulfilment of this verse that destruction will enter with wings, and also of Lev 26:34 ‘The land shall enjoy its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate.’ 32

Rilliet (ed.), Six hom´ elies festales, IV.33, pp. 90–91. J. Khoury (ed.), Le cand´ elabre du Sanctuaire de Gr´ egoire Aboulfaradj dit Barhebraeus. Quatri` eme base: de l’Incarnation (PO 31.1; Paris, 1965), III.2.6, pp. 94–101. 34 C. Van den Eynde (ed.), Commentaire d’Iˇsodad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament 2. Exode–Deuteronome, (CSCO 176, 179, Syr. 80–81; Louvain, 1958). 35 S. Turow, One L: An Inside Account of Life in the First Year at the Harvard Law School (Harmondsworth, 1978), 81. 33

NO NEED OF TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS

155

At the outset of his commentary, Ishodad claims five purposes for Leviticus: to familiarize mortals with God by means of material things; to assert that animal nature is not endowed with a soul; to wean mortals from worship of Satan; to afford the chance for animals to replace mortals deserving a penalty of death; to restrict greed by offering what is edible; and to foreshadow the sacrifice offered for universal salvation. He states that there is not a distinction between pure and impure, but a pretended difference which permitted Hebrews to eat what was adored by pagans and avoid what was eaten by them. In this way there is no contradiction between (a) the statement to Noah that all flesh may be eaten, (b) our Lord’s declaration that nothing eaten is defiling, (c) Paul’s statement that to the pure all things are pure, and (d) the distinction between clean and unclean creatures in Leviticus. The commentary is exegetical, that is, a straightforward explication of words, phrases, or ideas difficult to understand either because they are technical or opaque, or because they conflict with other biblical terms or phrases. The text of Leviticus presents terms which need explanation, and concepts which require justification. With the former, single or few word citations are all that is required; with the latter, broad references are adequate. Accordingly, Ishodad provides only those words necessary to identify the point at issue. A single word is sufficient for items on the list of clean and unclean animals in Chapter 11. One word again is enough to introduce theories about the name Azazel: Ishodad explains that he is Satan or that he is Christ, and goes on to say that John and Abraham of Beth Rabban and Narsai suggest he is Michael, the angel who governed the nation and performed miracles in the desert. The name Michael, he adds, means ‘God the strong’, that is, it is a title of God’s power as against his mercy. Elsewhere only a few words are needed, as at Lev 8:8 ‘he carries on his breast-plate knowledge and truth’ for the comment, ‘That is, on the stone on which was engraved “Illuminated” and “Perfect”.’ Only a few words are needed to introduce several suggested reasons for the condemnation of Nadab and Abihu in Chapter 10. Ishodad states that they wished to take precedence over their father and brothers in offering incense. But he also adds comments made by Michael the Great, John of Beth Rabban, Aphrahat, unnamed others, Qatraya (that they were drunk, hasty, and arrogant), and again unnamed others. At 25:13 the phrase ‘Year of the return’ has the comment ‘The Greek, “of being set free”; the Hebrew, Symmachus, and Theodotion, “of the Jubilee”.’ The words ‘You will eat the flesh of your sons’ (26:29) introduce the comment ‘God predicts by these words the conquest of the Babylonians and the Romans, according to the words of Jeremiah “The hands of compassionate women have cooked their sons” (Lam 4:10).’ Josephus recounts

156

DAVID J. LANE

something similar happened after the destruction of Jerusalem. In the same way the two-word phrase (Distinction of foodstuffs) introduces a lengthy discussion of the whole theory of discernment about creatures, together with one on the avoidance of fat (it creates a layer of bodily fatness) or blood (it is conducive to aggression). A longer apparent quotation from Lev 4 concerns definitions of accidental sin. It bears the marker (xr) of direct quotation, but says: (3) If a priest . . . of the people sin, then he is to offer for the sin he has committed one young bull . . . to the Lord; (13) if the whole community of Israel sins . . . (14) then it is to offer one . . . bull for the sin; (23) and if a leader sins . . . then he is to offer a goat from the flock . . .

Ishodad is quoting only enough of the words from twenty verses to identify the discussion: namely, the kinds of sin that the respective parties may commit: for the priest, carelessness or inopportunity in worship; for the leader, unintentional miscarriages of justice. With Ishodad, the nature of the book has suggested the range of material, and his method selected only the key and necessary phrases. But the whole cultic and behavioural range he has dealt with briefly in his introductory ‘Five Reasons’. A contrast to this method of comment is to be found in a marginal note on fol 6v of the ‘masoretic’ manuscript, British Library Add. ms 17162. The ‘masoretic’ manuscripts contain selected words and phrases from the biblical books, noting those where pointing or pronunciation were difficult or capable of misinterpretation. They are evidence of the West Syriac renaissance influenced by Jacob of Edessa, and greatly irritating to the ‘Grecians’.36 This manuscript has many marginal notes, and the one mentioned here is evidence of the West Syriac spiritualising of Leviticus’ most unpromising sections, the regulations for creatures which are not to be eaten. This kind of exegesis was long familiar in some Jewish circles. Philo identifies the forbidden foodstuffs with vices: the richer the food, pig being a notorious example, the more likely it was to lead to gluttony. Gluttony is, in its turn, the cause of indigestion: ‘the source of all infirmities’. The parted hoof signified the parting of the ways of virtue and vice, and so on.37 The note in question, at the foot of the leaf, is headed ‘spiritual interpretation (Q{c^ Q“_‡) of the distinction between things to be eaten’. It begins by identifying the 36 P. Martin, ‘Tradition karkaphienne ou la massore chez les Syriens’, JA s´ erie 5, 14 (1869), 245–379; ‘Essai sur les deux principaux dialectes Aram´eens’, JA s´ erie 6, 19 (1872), 305–483; ‘Histoire de la ponctuation ou de la massore chez les Syriens’, JA s´ erie 7, 15 (1875), 81–208. 37 Philo, Special Laws IV.100–109. See F.H. Colson, Philo with an English Translation 8 (The Loeb Classical Library; London, 1939), 68–75.

NO NEED OF TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS

157

pelican (Q) with what is despised and cowardly (Q‡_sd“Z^ Q¥sˆ“), the stork (QS_c) as the devastater of virtues (P–^Зkv), and the hoopoe (P‘S q_Xz–) as the one who does not preach peace so that men learn and are aroused. 8. Concept and Foreshadowing In view of the comparatively large use made of Leviticus by Jacob of Sarug, the example of his Mimro On the Two Birds 38 may be used to confirm this article’s argument that the genre of material quoted influences the use an author makes of it. The homily’s subject is the ceremony in Lev 14:49–53 for the purifying of a house formerly occupied by a leper, and which involves two birds, scarlet thread, and hyssop. One of the birds is killed, and the other released in the open country. The ceremony is an instance of Leviticus’ concern with purity and its restoration, and is taken by Jacob as a foreshadowing of Christ’s dealing with sin. In the background of Jacob’s work there seems to be a piece by Cyril of Alexandria, which deals more completely with the figurative possibilities of the Leviticus passage. Jacob emphasizes that the passage is understood by a person possessed of the inner disposition of love rather than by intellectual study. He points out that sin is a consequence of good being diseased as much as a simple undertaking of evil, and stresses the effects of the heavenly water of baptism as well as the blood of Christ. In such a piece, the quotation of the passage is of less importance than its elucidation as a ceremony pointing towards the work of Christ as saviour of the world and to the role of the sacraments in making that effective for those who share in them. Although the homily is exposition rather than exegesis, the use of Leviticus is similar to that of Ishodad above. The single word, brief phrase, or paraphrase is enough to identify the significant point in the biblical text. As can be seen from the titles of the first of them, the same holds true for two other of Jacob’s Mimre based on passages from Leviticus, that On the red heifer which is commanded in the Law to be burnt for the sake of the sins of the community and on the cross of our Lord, and On the two goats that it is commanded in the Law that one of them is to be slaughtered at the entrance to the tabernacle and one the priest is to send out into the wilderness for Azazael.39 38 F. Graffin, ‘Mimro de Jacques de Saroug sur les deux oiseaux’, OrSyr 6 (1961), 51–66. 39 P. Bedjan, Homiliae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis 3 (Paris, 1907), 242–259, 259–283.

158

DAVID J. LANE

9. Conclusion Quotations in Syriac writers appear to be a fruitful source of Peshitta phrases and passages to shed light on the history of the text’s transmission. Words or phrases seem to be evidence of the Peshitta text familiar to the writer, his circle and his place. The present article has taken passages which seem to be quotations, as well as examples of inference and concept based on Leviticus. It shows that the second sentence is not demonstrably true, and hence the first must be rejected. Evidence is given that quotation is a genre of rhetoric, a means of supporting an argument in order to invite assent and consent. Quotation’s focus is on meaning rather than wording. Meaning is established by context and presupposition, and, in the case of overt exegesis, by study also. Allusion or suggestiveness are as much rhetoric’s method as are direct or indirect citation; manipulated quotation is legitimate use of scripture. The article’s examples show that genre of the material quoted influences the purpose and substance of the passage used as much as the circumstance of quotation. Further, there is collusion between a source which is conceptual and a user who is conceptual. An amendment should therefore be added to the rule mentioned at the beginning of the article: The character of the literature quoted influences its choice and handling.

‘Citation tr`es libre’ is to be seen as a consequence of rhetoric rather than as a failure of memory. There may indeed be failures of memory, resulting in conflations of passages or apparently inexact citation, but this article urges that these scribal errors of the mind be regarded as exceptions rather than the norm. A suitable closing comment on the necessity to reshape quoted material may be drawn from Dadisho Qatraya’s commentary on the book of the Abbot Isaiah. He discusses the passage on the young men in the furnace of Daniel 3, and quotes Antony: Everything written about those of former time is written for us with a view to our advantage—the physical (|j\–_k{w“_W ) was for those of former time (Qkªv[), the spiritual sense (|j\–_kz\^) in accordance with the spirit is for us, for those of a later time (QzÑcP).40

Let text critics and historians beware.41 40 R. Draguet, Commentaire du Livre d’Abba Isa¨ıe par Dadiˇso Qat.raya (CSCO 326–327, Syr. 144–145; Louvain, 1972), XIII.3, p. 177 ll. 10–14 (text), p. 137 ll. 5–8 (translation). 41 The writer wishes to thank the British Academy for meeting the cost of travel to the conference; the Peshitta Institute for present help with the conference fees, and for friendship over thirty-five years; and the President and Fellows of Wolfson College, Cambridge, for the collegiate association which facilitated the writing of this paper.

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA: SOME REMARKS ON THE EARLY SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Christian Lange

1. Introduction When the author of the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron (CDiat),1 whom tradition identifies with Ephrem the Syrian,2 introduces a citation from the Gospels different from that of the Diatessaron,3 Carmel McCarthy in a footnote to her English translation of the work comments: 1 The Commentarii in Diatessaron survive in an Armenian and a Syriac version, of which the Syriac version resembles the language in which the author composed the work originally. Louis Leloir prepared the critical editions of both versions. Cf. L. Leloir, Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de l’´ evangile concordant. Version arm´ enienne (CSCO 137, Arm. 1; Louvain, 1963); idem, Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de l’´ evangile concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709) (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Dublin, 1953), and idem, Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de l’´ evangile concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709). Folios additionnels (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Louvain, 1990). Between the two editions of the Syriac fragments of the Commentary, P. Ortiz Valdivieso published another folio probably belonging to the same manuscript (‘Un nuevo fragmento sir´ıaco del Comentario de san Efr´en al Diat´ esaron [PPalau Rib. 2], Studia Papyrologica 5 [1966], 7–17). 2 While the first folio of the single surviving Syriac manuscript of the Commentary, manuscript Chester Beatty 709, does not survive, both Armenian manuscripts attribute the text to Ephrem: (Explanation of the mixed Gospel which was made by Mar Ephrem the Syrian doctor ). Likewise, later Syriac authors indicate quotations from the Commentary as sayings of Ephrem (|j‘vP QzÑcP^ xj‘‡P ¦‘v). For a collection of later citations from the Commentary cf. J. Rendel Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron (London, 1895). Cf. also Chr. Lange, The Portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron (CSCO 616, Subs. 118; Louvain, 2005), 4. 3 The Diatessaron or Ewangelyon da-mh.allt.¯ e, or the ‘mixed evangelium’, is a term to designate a harmony of the four Gospels. It is associated with Tatian who lived in the second century. Whether the Diatessaron was composed in Syriac or in Greek originally, is a question which still remains in dispute. Cf. B. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament. Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford, 1977), 10–36, S. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Kottayam, without year), 24–26, W. Petersen, ‘The Diatessaron of Tatian’, in B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, 1995), 77–96. The recent academic discussion, however, is rather inclined towards a Syriac original, given that a Greek

Tea–n E˜re‚ xorin Asorio—

Meknowiwn Awetarani hamabarba– ”or arareal Ž

160

CHRISTIAN LANGE

It is probably most prudent [ . . . ] to follow Leloir’s view that Ephrem, without actually knowing Greek, was aware of a certain number of readings which differed from those of the Diatessaron, and which were accessible to him through a Syriac translation of the separate Gospels in the Edessan Church.4

In these lines Carmel McCarthy refers to a question which has been discussed for a long time in modern research: the question of the relationship between the two oldest Syriac translations of the separate Gospels, the Vetus Syra—or ‘Old Syriac’—version and the later standard translation, the Peshitta. Commentaries on various texts of the New Testament attributed to Ephrem5 —as we shall see—serve as arguments in the scholarly discussion of the origins of the Vetus Syra version and its relationship to the Peshitta. Therefore, it seems adequate for a volume discussing the Peshitta and its use in literature and liturgy to analyse the Biblical quotations which both Ephrem and the compiler of the Commentarii in Diatessaron introduce as readings of the ‘Greek Bible’ (R—n Qkz_kS CDiat V.2).6 Such an analysis might add another stone to the mosaic portraying the genesis of the Peshitta New Testament. As a consequence, this paper first recalls to our mind the discussion of the mutual interdependence of the two earlier Syriac versions of the separate Gospels in modern research. It, then, describes Ephrem’s use fragment, which was considered to witness an early version of the Diatessaron, proved to belong to another commentary. Cf. D.C. Parker, D.G.K. Taylor, and M. Goodcare, ‘The Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony’, in D.G.K. Taylor (ed.), Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (Texts and Studies 3.1; Birmingham, 1999), 192–228. For the scholarly discussion of the Diatessaron and its problems, cf. W. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron. Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (SVigChr 25; Leiden, 1994). Cf. also A. V¨ o¨ obus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac (CSCO 128, Subs. 3; Louvain, 1951), 39. 4 Cf. C. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes (JSSt.S 2; Oxford, 1993), 68 note 3. Cf. also V¨ o¨ obus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac (see note 3), 39, and B. Aland, ‘Bibel¨ ubersetzungen 1.4 Die ¨ Ubersetzungen ins Syrische 2. Neues Testament’, in TRE 6 (Berlin–New York, 1980), 189–196, esp. 189–190. In contrast, J. Sch¨ afers had suggested to consider the reference to a ‘Greek Bible’ a later interpolation. Cf. J. Sch¨ afers, Evangelienzitate in Ephr¨ ams des Syrers Kommentar zu den Paulinischen Schriften (Freiburg, 1917), 40–45. 5 For the commentaries handed down under the name of Ephrem see note 26. For a wider discussion of the value of references and quotations in early Syriac literature for the reconstruction of the Syriac translations of the New Testament, cf. S. Brock, ‘The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism’, in Ehrman and Holmes (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (see note 3), 224–236. 6 The Commentarii in Diatessaron in its present form seem to represent a later compilation by a disciple of Ephrem’s rather than an authentic work. Cf. note 41. For the editions of the Syriac and Armenian versions of the Commentary see note 1.

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA

161

of the Biblical versions in the eyes of modern research. It introduces the Commentarii in Diatessaron to the reader. It analyses the quotations identified as readings of the ‘Greek Bible’ in the writings of both the ‘authentic’ Ephrem and his school;7 and it attempts a conclusion resulting from the study of these quotations. 2. The History of Research In his study on the Early Versions of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger in the year 1977 described how modern research regarded the Peshitta translation of the New Testament as the oldest Syriac translation of the separate Gospels up until the middle of the 19th century.8 This situation changed when a number of Syriac manuscripts from the St. Mary Deipara monastery in the Nitrian Dessert in Egypt arrived at London in the year 1842. William Cureton discovered a Syriac translation of the Gospels older than the standard Peshitta type among these manuscripts. It, consequently, became known as Vetus Syra or ‘Old Syriac’ translation, in the form of the manuscript discovered by Cureton: the Codex Curetonianus (SyrC ).9 50 years later, in the year 1892, Agnes Smith Lewis and her sister Margaret Dunlop Gibson came across a palimpsest providing another version of this Vetus Syra in the St. Catherine’s monastery. This form of the ‘Old Syriac’ gained the title Codex Sinaiticus (SyrS ), according to its place of discovery.10 It is, therefore, important to indicate which version of the Vetus Syra anyone studying the readings of both copies has in mind. 7 W. Petersen introduced the term ‘school of Ephrem’. It describes the group of disciples of Ephrem who edited writings under the name of the master but included their own theological ideas. Cf. W. Petersen, ‘Some Remarks on the Integrity of Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron’, in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 20. Papers Presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1987 (Louvain, 1989), 197–202, esp. 202. 8 Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (see note 3), 36–39. 9 The Syriac text was published with an English translation in W. Cureton’s Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto Unknown in Europe (London, 1858). The extended standard edition of the Curetonian Version (SyrC ) is F.C. Burkitt’s Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest (Cambridge, 1904). Cf. now also G. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta & Harklean Versions (4 vols.; NTTS 21; Leiden, 1996). 10 The manuscript was first edited by R.L. Bensly, J. Rendel Harris, and F.C. Burkitt, The Four Gospels in Syriac transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest (Cambridge, 1894). The standard edition is that of A. Smith Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels or Evangelion da-Mepharreshe; Being the Text of the Sinai or SyroAntiochian Palimpsest, Including the Latest Additions and Emendations, with the Variants of the Curetonian Text (London, 1910).

162

CHRISTIAN LANGE

Assuming that both manuscripts present a text of the Vetus Syra version of the Gospels, scholars have introduced various theories concerning the association of both copies.11 Sebastian Brock suggested it to be most likely that both versions of the Vetus Syra go back to a common original but have been ‘corrected’ against their Greek Vorlage here and there.12 In his eyes, this theory explains best why, for example, the Gospel according to Mark ends with Mark 16:8 in the Codex Sinaiticus, while the Codex Curetonianus concludes with Mark 16:20. It is believed that both manuscripts serve as witnesses to a process of translating the separate Gospels into Syriac in the fourth century, given that they probably date from the late fourth or early fifth centuries.13 With regard to the Peshitta New Testament, Francis Burkitt put forward the hypothesis that it was Rabbula, bishop of Edessa from 412 to 435,14 who initiated a revision of the Syriac text of the New Testament in use besides the Diatessaron.15 Burkitt pointed to the so-called Canones ad coenobitas, in which the bishop asked all priests and deacons to see to it that ‘in all churches [a copy of] the separate Gospels should be kept and read’.16 Likewise, the bishop’s biographer describes in Rabbula’s Vita that his hero ‘translated by the wisdom of God that was in him the New Testament from Greek into Syriac, because of its variations.’17 Despite this literal evidence, Arthur V¨ o¨ obus shattered Burkitt’s position when he analysed the Biblical quotations in Rabbula’s Syriac translation of Cyril of Alexandria’s work per» t®c Êrj®c p–stewc which seems to have been completed shortly after the year 430.18 Given that 11 For an overview of the theories presented cf. Metzger, The Early Versions (see note 3), 45–48. 12 Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (see note 3), 26–28. 13 Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (see note 3), 27; cf. also Aland, ‘Die ¨ Ubersetzungen ins Syrische’ (see note 4), 190–191. 14 For the life of Rabbula cf. G.G. Blum, Rabbula von Edessa. Der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe (CSCO 300, Subs. 34; Louvain, 1969). Cf. also K. Pingg´era, ‘Rabbula von Edessa’, in W. Klein (ed.), Syrische Kirchenv¨ ater (Stuttgart, 2004), 57–70, P. Bruns, ‘Rabbula’, in S. D¨ opp and W. Geerlings (eds.), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (3rd ed.; Freiburg, 2002), 607, and G.G. Blum, ‘Rabbula von Edessa’, in LThK 8 (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1993), 789. 15 Cf. F.C. Burkitt, S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel (Texts and Studies 7.2; Nendeln, 1967 [= Cambridge, 1901]), esp. 57–58. 16 Cf. J.J. Overbeck, S. Ephraemi syri Rabulae episcopi edesseni Balaei aliorumque Opera selecta (Oxford, 1865), 220, lines 4–5: P^]z Q“шvZ y_ksXz^P P–[©ƒ |j]soSZ P‘—¼v^ —¼jP. 17 Cf. Overbeck, Ephraemi Opera (see note 16), 172, lines 18–20: —wodS |jZ ”−‡ ]¬kˆsc¨_“ thv .Q½kj_r Qkz_j |v P–¬[c Q—jZ .]½SZ P]rP. 18 Cf. A. V¨ o¨ obus, Investigations into the Text of the New Testament Used by Rabbula of Edessa (Pinneberg, 1947). Overbeck prepared the critical edition of the Syriac text of Rabbula’s cover letter: Overbeck, Ephraemi Opera (see note 16),

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA

163

the translator did not render the quotations from the New Testament into Syriac anew, but, instead, copied an already existing translation,19 the quotations enabled scholars to examine the original that Rabbula might have used. Studying these citations, V¨ o¨obus concluded that only several short quotations agreed with the reading of the Peshitta, whereas other citations corresponded with the wording of either Vetus Syra or Diatessaron.20 Since, nevertheless, specific Peshitta readings occur in Syriac writings dating from the early 5th century,21 Matthew Black recommended it to understand the genesis of the Peshitta New Testament as a process over a longer period which culminated in the fixation of the standard Peshitta text prior to the Christological controversies of the first half of the 5th century.22 Black advocated the title ‘Pre-Peshitta’ for the versions between the two surviving manuscripts of the Vetus Syra and the fixed Peshitta New Testament.23 3. Ephrem, the ‘Acts of the Apostles’, and the Pauline Epistles The answer to the question which versions of the Syriac New Testament Ephrem knew depends on the problem which writings attributed under 226–228. The text itself is found in P. Bedjan, Acta martyrum et sanctorum 5 (reprint; Hildesheim, 1968), 628–696. 19 This way of quoting the Bible seems to have been widespread among early Syriac authors. Cf. V¨ o¨ obus, Studies in the Gospel Text in Syriac (see note 3), 62–63, and Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (see note 3), 27. 20 Cf. also A. V¨ o¨ obus, Researches on the Circulation of the Peshitta in the Middle of the Fifth Century (Pinneberg, 1948), 19–44, 56–74, and his Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac (see note 3), 64–65. 21 V¨ o¨ obus pointed to the example of the Syriac translation of the Recognitiones of Clement of Alexandria in manuscript BL Add. 12150, dating from the Edessa of the year 411. Cf. V¨ o¨ obus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac (see note 3), 51–52. But there are also traces of the Peshitta in the writings of Rabbula. Cf. T. Baarda, ‘The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula’, VigChr 14 (1960), ¨ 102–127. Cf. also Aland, ‘Die Ubersetzungen ins Syrische’ (see note 4), 191–192. 22 Cf. M. Black, ‘Rabbula of Edessa and the Peshitta’, BJRL 33 (1951), 203–210, and his ‘Zur Geschichte des syrischen Evangelientextes’, ThLZ 77 (1952), 705–710. ¨ Cf. also Aland, ‘Die Ubersetzungen ins Syrische’ (see note 4), 190–191, and Brock, ‘The Use of the Syriac Fathers’ (see note 5), 227–229. 23 Cf. M. Black, ‘The Syriac Versional Tradition’, in K. Aland (ed.), Die al¨ ten Ubersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenv¨ aterzitate und Lektionare. Der gegenw¨ artige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung f¨ ur die griechische Textgeschichte (ANTT 5; Berlin–New York, 1972), 120–159, especially 132: ‘We have no other texts which throw any light on the nature of this so-called pre-Peshitta text, but we have many quotations in the Syriac Fathers of the fifth century which suggest that a mixed form of the text, Old Syriac and Peshitta, was in wide circulation ¨ during this period.’ Cf. also Aland, ‘Die Ubersetzungen ins Syrische’ (see note 4), 190–191, and Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (see note 3), 27–28.

164

CHRISTIAN LANGE

the name of Ephrem can be considered to be authentic.24 There are three commentaries on writings of the New Testament25 submitted under the name of the learned Syrian: The Commentarii in Diatessaron, the Commentarii in Paulum, and the Commentarii in Actus Apostolorum.26 Whereas the Commentarii in Diatessaron constitute the harmony of the Gospel as their underlying biblical text, the other written works comment on Acts and the Pauline Epistles. 24 For an overview over the works of Ephrem and the main editions, cf. I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia syriaca (Rome, 1965), 59–76; N. El-Khoury, Die Interpretation der Welt bei Ephraem dem Syrer (T¨ ubinger theologische Studien 6; T¨ ubingen, 1976), ´ 154–157; J. Melki, ‘Saint Ephrem le Syrien. Un bilan de l’´edition critique’, ParOr 11 (1983), 3–88; S. Brock, ‘A Brief Guide to the Main Editions and Translations of the Works of St. Ephrem’, The Harp 3 (1990), 7–29; R. Murray, ‘Ephraem Syrus’, in TRE 9 (Berlin–New York, 1982), 755–762; and P. Bruns, ‘Ephraem der Syrer’, in D¨ opp and Geerlings (eds.), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (see note 14), 221–224. 25 Moreover, manuscript Vat. Sir. 103 contains the so-called Catena Severi, a collection of sayings from fathers of the Church. There are commentaries on various books of the Old Testament attributed to Ephrem among the texts. However, Dirk Kruisheer argued convincingly that the Catena in its present form rather resembles a mixture of texts. Consequently, modern research does not consider these commentaries to be authentic. Cf. D. Kruisheer, ‘Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa, and the Monk Severus. An Analysis of Ms. Vat. Sir. 103 ff. 1–72’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (OCA 256; Rome, 1998), 599–605. There are also Commentarii in Genesim et in Exodum, surviving in manuscript Vat. Sir. 110, attributed to Ephrem. They are generally considered to be authentic. Raymond Tonneau prepared their critical edition (idem, Sancti Ephraemi Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii [CSCO 152, Syr. 71; Louvain, 1955]). However, cf. also P. F´ eghali, ‘Un commentaire de la Gen`ese attribu´ e` a saint Ephrem’, in H.J.W. Drijvers et al. (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (OCA 229; Rome, 1987), 71–82. 26 The Commentarii in Actus Apostolorum and the Commentarii in Paulum were edited by N. Akinian, . Des heiligen Ephraems Erkl¨ arung der Apostelgeschichte (Wien, 1921), and the Mekhitarist Fathers of Venice, 3 (Venice, 1836). They were translated into Latin (M. Awgerean, Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a S. Ephraemo doctore, in latinum translata [Venice, 1876], and Mekhitarist Fathers, Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli [Venice, 1893]) and English (F.C. Conybeare, ‘The Commentary of Ephrem on Acts’, in F.J.F. Jackson and K. Lake [eds.], The Beginnings of Christianity 1. The Acts of the Apostles [London, 1926], 373–453). J. Molitor reconstructed a version of the Pauline Epistles of Ephrem from citations in the Armenian Commentarii in Paulum. Cf. J. Molitor, Der Paulustext des Hl. Ephr¨ am aus seinem armenisch erhaltenen Paulinenkommentar untersucht und rekonstruiert (Rome, 1938). Cf. also R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD (Brepols, 1995), 46–48. For the Commentarii in Diatessaron see note 41. Cf. also A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlichpal¨ astinensischen Texte (Bonn, 1922), 37–44; Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia syriaca (see note 24), 63–64; and S. Brock, Outline of Syriac Literature (Kottayam, 1997), 22–28.

Meknowiwn Gorco— A–a™elo— Srboyn E˜re‚ Matenagrowiwn™

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA

165

Unfortunately, the transmission of all three commentaries is rather difficult. The explanations of both Acts and the Pauline Epistles survive merely in an Armenian translation. It is, consequently, a very challenging task to compare both their style and content with that of the ‘authentic’ Ephrem. Nevertheless, August Merk, Joseph Molitor, and Joseph Sch¨ afer argued for the authenticity of the works.27 However, the Commentarii in Paulum show an interpretation of Romans 6:3 which is different from the understanding of baptism of the ‘genuine’ Ephrem.28 As a consequence, the authenticity of both commentaries needs to remain in question until a comparative study will allow answers based on a wider basis. Nonetheless, the studies of Kerschensteiner have made it probable that a Syriac version of Acts and the Pauline Epistles existed prior to the Peshitta, given that there are a number of quotations from these writings in the works of early Syriac writers such as Aphrahat29 and the author of the Liber Graduum.30 A note in the Doctrina Addai, a composition

27 Cf. A. Merk, ‘Der neuentdeckte Kommentar zur Apostelgeschichte’, ZKTh 48 (1924), 37–58.315–326, and his ‘Die Anh¨ ange zum Evangelienkommentar des heiligen Ephraem’, ZKTh 47 (1923), 315–326, Molitor, Der Paulustext des heiligen Ephrem (see note 26), and Sch¨ afers, Evangelienzitate (see note 4). 28 Arguing with Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus (John 3:6), the ‘authentic’ Ephrem shares the understanding of baptism as a new birth. Cf. Hymni de Virginitate (ed. E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate [CSCO 223, Syr. 94; Louvain, 1961]) 7.7. Following Rom. 6:3, the Armenian commentator, in contrast, argues with the Pauline understanding of baptism as death and resurrection (Commentarii in Paulum VI). Cf. Chr. Lange, ‘Zum Taufverst¨ andnis im syrischen Diatessaronkommentar’, in M. Tamcke (ed.), Syriaca. Zur Geschichte, Theologie, Liturgie und Gegenwartslage der syrischen Kirchen. 2. Deutsches Syrologensymposium (M¨ unster, 2002), 309–320. 29 Cf. G.G. Blum, ‘Aphrahat’, in LThK 1 (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1993), 802–803, his ‘Afrahat’, in TRE 1 (Berlin–New York, 1977), 625–635, and P. Bruns, ‘Aphrahat’, in D¨ opp and Geerlings (eds.), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (see note 14), 44–45. 30 Cf. J. Kerschensteiner, Der altsyrische Paulustext (CSCO 315, Subs. 37; Louvain, 1970), esp. 159–178: ‘Es darf als gesichertes Ergebnis der vorliegenden Arbeit betrachtet werden, dass es im syrischen Sprachraum vor der Peschitta einen einheitlichen und von syp (i.e. the Peshitta, CL) verschiedenen altsyrischen Paulustext gegeben hat’ (pp. 159–160), and his ‘Beobachtungen zum altsyrischen Actatext’, Bib 45 (Rome, 1964), 63–74. Kerschensteiner referred to various works of Ephrem besides the Commentarii in Paulum and the Commentarii in Actus Apostolorum. ¨ Cf. also B. Aland, ‘Die Ubersetzungen ins Syrische’ (see note 4), 191; T. Baarda, ‘The Syriac Versions of the New Testament’, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (see note 3), 97–112 esp. 101–102; and S. Brock, ‘The Use of the Syriac Fathers’ (see note 5), 224–236, esp. 229–230. For the Liber Graduum cf. P. Bruns, ‘Liber graduum’, in D¨ opp and Geerlings (eds.), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (see note 14), 455.

166

CHRISTIAN LANGE

that, according to Sebastian Brock,31 in its present form might originate from the years 420 to 430, seems to confirm this theory. The author of the Doctrina Addai encourages the readers to read the ‘Letters of Paul’ (}_r_‡Z \–ÑWP^) as well as the ‘Acts of the Twelve Apostles’ (Qdkªs“ ‘ƒ–Z nч) in the churches of the Messiah.32 Because of that quotation, Barbara Aland argued that Edessan Christians were aware of a Syriac translation of Acts and the Pauline Epistles at least at the time of the composition of the Doctrina Addai,33 and so it seems quite possible that Ephrem knew a Syriac translation of these books of the New Testament. 4. Ephrem and the ‘Separate Gospels’ As long as modern research regarded the Commentarii in Diatessaron as authentic,34 it was the scientific consensus that the Diatessaron was the standard translation of the Gospels during the life time of Ephrem. Given that Ephrem’s disciple Aba is said to have composed another commentary on the Diatessaron,35 the same conclusion was drawn for the period following Ephrem’s death in the year 373—especially since Theodoretus of Cyrus (423–457) reports around 40 years later that he had ordered to burn more than 200 copies of the Diatessaron in use in churches of his diocese.36 However, hints in authentic works of Ephrem suggest that the learned Syrian also was familiar with a Syriac translation of the separate 31 Cf. S. Brock, ‘Eusebius and Syriac Christianity’, in H.W. Attridge and G. Hata (eds.), Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (StPB 42; Leiden, 1992), 212–234. 32 Cf. Doctrina Addai (ed. by G. Howard [Chico, 1981], p. _v [92]): y^]S |j‘¬ Qdk”vZ \–[©„S. 33 ¨ Cf. Aland, Die Ubersetzungen ins Syrische (see note 4), 191. For the Doctrina Addai, cf. also Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (see note 26), 28; Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia syriaca (see note 24), 44; and Brock, Outline of Syriac Literature (see note 26), 34. 34 For example, L. Leloir called the Commentary ‘la plus important des oeuvres ex´ eg´etiques d’Ephrem’. Cf. L. Leloir, Doctrines et m´ ethodes de Saint Ephrem d’apr` es son Commentaire de l’Evangile concordant. Original syriaque et version arm´ enienne (CSCO 220, Subs. 18; Louvain, 1961), 40. 35 J. Rendel Harris edited some of the fragments in his Fragments of the Commentary (see note 2), 92–94. Cf. also G. Reinink, ‘Neue Fragmente des Ephraemsch¨ ulers Aba’, OLoP 11 (1980), 117–113. 36 Haereticarum fabularum compendium I.20, PG 83, 369 and 372. Like Theodoret, Rabbula of Edessa asked his clergy to replace the Diatessaron with a Syriac translation of the separate Gospels; see notes 16 and 17. For Theodoret, cf. A. Viciano, ‘Theodoretus von Kyros’, in LThK 9 (3rd ed., Freiburg, 2000), 1401–1404; J.-N. Guinot, ‘Theodoret von Kyrrhos’, in TRE 33 (Berlin–New York, 2002), 250– 254; and P. Bruns, ‘Theodoret von Cyrus’, in D¨ opp and Geerlings (eds.), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (see note 14), 683–685.

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA

167

Gospels.37 In Sermones de Fide II.39–40 Ephrem comments that God let spread his revelation from four sources into all four directions of the world;38 and in Hymni de Fide 48.10 the learned Syrian applies the imagery that God’s good tidings sprang forth in the four rivers of Gihon (y_dkW ), Euphrates (–‘‡), Pison (y_”k‡), and Tigris (—sZ), which, most likely, stand for the four separate Gospels.39 Variant readings which Ephrem introduces as quotation from the ‘Greek Bible’ serve as most important witnesses though. These citations occur in two written compositions: The Refutationes ad Hypatium 40 and the Commentarii in Diatessaron. Taking into consideration that a number of well known scholars have doubted the authenticity of the Commentarii in Diatessaron,41 this analysis concentrates on the Refutationes ad Hypatium first. The Quotation in Ephrem’s Prose Refutations Scholars propose that Ephrem’s Refutationes date from the time when Ephrem lived in Edessa, between 363 and 373, mainly because of two arguments.42 On the one hand, Ephrem dedicates some of his Refutationes ¨ Cf. B. Aland, ‘Die Ubersetzungen ins Syrische’ (see note 4), 189–190. Cf. E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones de Fide (CSCO 212, Syr. 88; Louvain, 1961), 8. 39 Cf. E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide (CSCO 154, Syr. 73; Louvain, 1955), 154. 40 C.W. Mitchell prepared the critical edition of the work. Cf. C.W. Mitchell, St. Ephrem’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan (London, 1912 and 1921). 41 Whereas McCarthy (Saint Ephrem’s Commentary [see note 1]) and M. Hogan (The Sermon on the Mount in St. Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron [Bern, 1999], especially 22–23) argue that the Commentarii in Diatessaron originate from the pen of Ephrem, scholars such as E. Beck (in various articles in OrChr: OrChr 70 [1983], 1–31; 73 [1989], 1–37; 74 [1990], 1–24; 75 [1991], 1–15; 76 [1992], 1–45; and 77 [1993], 104–119), Petersen (‘Some Remarks on the Integrity of Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron’, [see note 7], 197–202), M.-E. Boismard (Le Diatessaron. De ´ Tatien ` a Justin [Etudes bibliques ns 15; Paris, 1992]), A. de Halleux (‘L’adoration des Mages dans le commentaire syriaque du Diatessaron’, Mus´ eon 104 [1991], 399– 412; idem ‘L’annonciation ` a Marie dans le commentaire syriaque du Diatessaron’, Aram 5 [1993], 131–145), K. Valavanolickal (The Use of Gospel Parables in the Writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem [Frankfurt, 1996]), S. Brock (‘Notulae Syriacae. Miscellaneous Identifications’, Mus´ eon 108 [1995], 69–78), and P. Bruns (‘Arius hellenizans?’ Ephr¨ am der Syrer und die neoarianischen Kontroversen seiner Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur Rezeption des Niz¨ anums im syrischen Sprachraum’, ZKG 101 [1990], 21–57 esp. 31), have raised doubts concerning Ephrem’s authorship. Cf. now Lange, The Portrayal of Christ (see note 2), esp. 5–9. 42 After the surrender of his home town Nisibis to the victorious Persians in the year 363, Ephrem left Nisibis and settled in Edessa. Therefore, it seems important to distinguish between his early writings, the compositions dating from the period of change, and his late works. Cf. Lange, The Portrayal of Christ (see note 2), 24–34. 37 38

168

CHRISTIAN LANGE

to a certain Hypatius, a name which rather seems to originate from a Greek or bilingual than a strictly Syriac-speaking background.43 On the other hand, the Refutationes develop further ideas which Ephrem had already discussed in his Hymni contra Haereses,44 which, because of the mention of Edessan martyrs, perhaps belong to Ephrem’s period in Edessa.45 Therefore, the Refutationes are likely to supply a Biblical text in use during the decade between 363 and 373. In the fourth treatise Ad Hypatium, Ephrem discusses the reading of John 1:4 in two variant forms: Diatessaron ‘Greek Bible’ SyrC SyrP

Q”zPZ P\_z y^]j—jP Q¥kªc y_z\Z Q”zP lª{SZ P\_z y^]j—jP Q¥kªc y_z\Z Q”zP l{©SZ P\_z y^]j—jP Q¥kªc^ Q”{k{©SZ P\_z y^]j—jP Q¥kªc^

While the Diatessaron allows two different interpretations of the Syriac term Q”zP (‘man’ or ‘mankind’), the ‘Greek Bible’ is more precise in using the plural Q”zP lª{S.46 Intriguingly, the same plural form Q”zP lª{S occurs in the Commentarii in Diatessaron.47 Moreover, this reading corresponds with the wording of both the Vetus Syra (SyrC ) and the Peshitta New Testament (SyrP ).48 David Bundy suggested that this ‘revision’ of the Diatessaronic text was a result of Ephrem’s controversy with the Manicheans on the subject of the creation of humanity.49 According to him, the Manicheans 43 Cf. S. Brock, ‘Ephrem’s Letter to Publius’, Mus´ eon 89 (1976), 261–305, especially 261. 44 Cf. Murray, ‘Ephraem Syrus’ (see note 24), 755–762, especially 757. 45 For example, Ephrem mentions Palut. as bishop of Edessa in Hymni contra Haereses 22.5 (ed. by E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses [CSCO 169, Syr. 76; Louvain, 1957], 79), Brock argued for this late dating of the Hymni contra Haereses by pointing to Edessan martyrs cited in the cycle of compositions (Outline of Syriac Literature [see note 26], 21). In contrast, other scholars suggest that the Hymni contra Haereses belong to Ephrem’s days at Nisibis because they are understood as predecessors of the Prose Refutations; cf. E. Beck, ‘Ephraem Syrus’, RAC 5 (Stuttgart, 1962), 520–532, especially 522; Melki, ‘Saint ´ Ephrem le syrien’ (see note 24), 25; and Murray, ‘Ephraem Syrus’ (see note 24), 194. 46 The Syriac translation of the ‘Greek Bible’ follows the Greek original of John 1:4 (‚n aŒtƒ zwò ™n, ka» ô zwò ™n t‰ f¿c t¿n Çnjr∏pwn) closely. For the double meaning of the Syriac word •zP cf. R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus 1 (Hildesheim–New York, 1981 = London, 1879), 283. 47 CDiat, ed. by Leloir (see note 1), I.6: Q”zP l{S©Z P\_z. 48 Cf. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels 4. John (see note 9), 4. 49 Cf. D. Bundy, ‘Revising the Diatessaron against the Manicheans: Ephrem of Syria on John 1:4’, Aram 5 (1993), 65–74. For Ephrem’s controversy with the Manicheans, cf. E. Beck, Ephr¨ ams Polemik gegen Mani und die Manich¨ aer (im Rahmen der zeitgen¨ ossischen griechischen Polemik und der des Augustinus) (CSCO 391, Subs. 55; Louvain, 1978).

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA

169

understood the singular Q”zP as referring to the ‘primal man’, whom the forces of darkness overcame. Rejecting the Manichean teaching of the creation as a struggle between the powers of ‘light’ and ‘darkness’, Ephrem was keen, so Bundy, on identifying Christ as the light of all human beings. In Bundy’s eyes, the reading of Ephrem’s Refutationes represents a clear case of a ‘doctrinal’ but not ‘textual’ revision of the Gospel text, when ‘orthodox’ Christians wished to demonstrate their unity with other Christian communities using the separate Gospels.50 If Bundy is right in this assumption, the revision of the Gospel text already occurred during the lifetime of Ephrem. The Quotations in the Commentary on the Diatessaron Internal contradictions, technical terminology different from that of the ‘authentic’ Ephrem, exegesis at variance with that of Ephrem, and other arguments make it likely that a disciple of Ephrem’s published the Commentarii in Diatessaron in its surviving form under the name of Ephrem between 390 and 400.51 However, the compiler probably incorporated authentic Ephremic pieces or lecture notes in his work. With regard to the transmission of the text, there are, consequently, four types of passages: 1. Passages extant in both the Syriac and the Armenian versions of the Commentary. 2. Passages extant only in the Syriac version of the Commentary; 3. Passages extant only in the Armenian version of the Commentary; and 4. Passages extant only in the Armenian version of the Commentary due to lacunae in the single surviving Syriac manuscript. Sections surviving in both versions of the Commentary constitute a basic text.52 It is interesting to observe that some sections existing 50 Cf. Bundy, ‘Revising the Diatessaron’ (see note 49), 73: ‘It would suggest that the need within Syriac Christianity for access to the separate Gospels, for which the earliest direct evidence is from the fourth century, may have developed partially because of doctrinal and interpretative conflict with the Manicheans, who found in certain diatessaronic readings remarkable evidence to support and with which to propagate their understanding of human existence, as well as the ‘orthodox’ Christian desire for conformity with the larger Christian tradition.’ 51 Cf. now Lange, The Portrayal of Christ (see note 2), 36–98, 151–161. 52 The editor of both versions, L. Leloir, observed that the Armenian translation follows its Syriac original faithfully in general. Cf. Leloir, Commentaire de l’evangile concordant. Texte syriaque (see note 1), 28. However, the Armenian translation is a rendering with its own particularities which need to be considered. Cf. Lange, The Portrayal of Christ (see note 2), 36–42.

170

CHRISTIAN LANGE

merely in one version of the Commentary show internal contradictions to the ‘basic text’. For example, section IV.1b, extant only in the Syriac version of the Commentary, argues that Christ needed to be baptised because he was clothed with the ‘guilty Adam’ (P^\ •kTr QTkc uZP). This explanation contradicts the exegesis of three other sections which seem to belong to the ‘basic text’ of the Commentary. In chapter IV.1c, extant in both versions of the Commentary, the commentator claims that Christ received the anointing in order to fulfil Jewish custom. It was important, so the text, that Christ received the anointing of saviours (Q^ч) and kings (Q¨ osv). In section IV.2, falling into a lacuna in the Syriac text, he underlines that Christ was baptised in justice because he was free from sin; and in the Prologue of the work, for the same reason surviving merely in the Armenian version of the Commentary, the commentator stresses that Christ did not put on the passions with which Adam had clothed himself.53 As a consequence, the various forms of the textual transmission of a passage resemble the complex history of the Commentary. For the analysis of the Biblical quotations, it is, therefore, important to indicate how the sections are attested. John 2:3 (CDiat V.2) G ka» Õster†santoc o“nou lËgei ô m†thr to‹ >Ihso‹ pr‰c aŒtÏn; o“non oŒk Íqousin SyrC P‘wc ‘c^ P^\ pkw~Z R—n Qkz_kS A Yoynn grŽ, e bazˆal Žr, ‡ hataw ginin P P‘wc P^\ ‘c^ Section V.2 belongs to the ‘basic text’ of the Commentary (SyrC). It is, therefore, unfortunate that neither the Codex Curetonianus of the Vetus Syra nor the Codex Sinaiticus present their reading of John 2:3. It is, however, striking that the quotation of John 2:3, identified by the Commentator as reading of the ‘Greek Bible’, in that chapter corresponds with the reading of the text that the autor of the Commentary quotes as reading of the Syriac Diatessaron (P‘wc ‘cZ). It, furthermore, also agrees with Ephrem’s quotation of the Biblical passage in Hymni de Nativitate 16:2.54 Therefore, the text of the Peshitta (P‘wc P^\ ‘c^ ‘and the wine was running short’) is close to the quotation of John 2:3 in the Commentary (P‘wc ‘c^ P^\ pkw~Z ‘he was reclining and the wine ran short’) but not identical. This means that the reading of the ‘Greek Bible’ might match with the lost reading of the Vetus Syra, 53

Cf. Lange, The Portrayal of Christ (see note 2), 45. Cf. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate (see note 28), 55: \‘wc ‘cZ. 54

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA

171

given that the Harclean translation of John 2:3, dating from the seventh century, returns to the wording of the ‘Greek Bible’, by omitting the auxiliary verb P^\.55 Matthew 11:25 (CDiat X.14) G ‚xomologo‹ma– soi, pàter, k‘rie to‹ oŒrano‹ ka» t®c g®c SyrC QƒPZ^ Qkw“Z P‘v QSP P]rP pr QzP PZ_v ‘vP Qkz_j A yoyn asŽ. SyrC,S QƒPZ^ Qkw“Z P‘v QSP pr QzP PZ_v P QƒPZ^ Qkw“Z P‘v lSP pr QzP PZ_v

Gohanam z™Žn, astowac hayr, tŽr erkni— ‡ erkri

Just as section V.2, chapter X.14 survives in both versions of the Commentary. The Quotation of Matthew 11:25 in the Syriac version corresponds nicely with both versions of the Vetus Syra—with the exception that the Commentator, followed by the Armenian translator, inserts the address ‘God’ (P]rP) into Jesus’ invocation. In contrast, the Peshitta emphasises the relationship between Jesus and his Father by adding the personal pronoun ‘my Father’ (lSP). Therefore, it seems rather likely that the compiler of the Commentary had the Vetus Syra in mind when he identified the reading as quotation from the ‘Greek Bible’.56 Matt 28:18 (CDiat XV.19) G ‚dÏjh moi pêsa ‚xous–a ‚n oŒranƒ ka» ‚p» t®c g®c SyrC Qkw”SZ pjP |hr_“ tn lSP |v lr R]j–PZ ‘vP |jZ Qkz_kS QƒQS †P

P

QƒQS^ Qkw”S |hr_“ tn lr R]j–P

Although section XV.19 belongs to the ‘basic text’ of the Commentary, it is very remarkable that the Armenian version does not contain the 55 Whereas the Peshitta New Testament inserts the auxiliary verb P^\ in order to emphasise the durative aspect of the wine running short, the Harclean translation simply translates the Greek genitivus absolutus with the perfect verb form. The Armenian translation of the Commentary corresponds with the Syriac version by opting for the Aorist. For the Harclean translation of the New Testament, cf. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (see note 3), 68–75, and Aland, ‘Die ¨ Ubersetzungen ins Syrische’ (see note 4), 193–194. 56 Cf. also Sch¨ afers, Evangelienzitate (see note 4), 40–47, and L. Leloir, Le ´ t´ emoignage d’Ephrem sur le Diatessaron (CSCO 227, Subs. 19; Louvain, 1962), 145–146. Unfortunately, Ephrem’s quotation of Matt 11:25 in Hymni de Fide 7.7 (Beck [ed.], Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide [see note 39]), does not refer to the first words of the quotation. However, it is very awkward that Ephrem quotes ‘those who behave childishly’ as PÑT“, which corresponds with the reading of the Harclean, whereas the Vetus Syra (SyrC,S ) has Q¥kªsg (‘young ones’) and the Peshitta PZ_¨sj (‘suckling babies’); cf. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels 1. Matthew (see note 9), 151.

172

CHRISTIAN LANGE

quotation of Matt 28:18. Instead, the Armenian translator goes on citing Matt 20:22 after quoting John 16:5. He omits the rendering of the four Syriac sentences which include the quotation of Matt 28:18. This observation makes the Syriac quote suspicious. Neither the Codex Curetonianus nor the Codex Sinaiticus of the Vetus Syra offer a reading of Matt 28:18. It is, however, evident that the text of the Commentary differs from the Peshitta. While the Peshitta follows the Greek text closely, the Syriac Commentary inserts an explanation lSP |v (‘from my Father’) and makes use of a twofold conjunction †P pjP (‘as well as’). This difference suggests that the Peshitta was not the Vorlage of the compiler of the Commentary.57 Luke 2:35 (CDiat II.17) G Ìpwc ãn Çpokalufj¿sin ‚k poll¿n kardi¿n dialogismo– A Ayl Yoynn ˆkin isk asŽ. Yaytnes—in, asŽ, i bazowm srti—

xorhowrd™

SyrS P

PQkX©~Z P–«_Tr |v P—T¨”dv |ksW—z PQkX©~Z P–«_TrZ P—T¨”dv |ksW—z

Chapter II.17 of the Commentary falls into a lacuna in the single surviving Syriac manuscript. Given that the lacuna includes sections II.15 to II.20, it would appear that a single Syriac folio is missing.58 Therefore, any analysis requires a comparison of the Armenian version of the Commentary with both Vetus Syra and Peshitta. According to the Armenian version of the Commentary, the ‘Greek Bible’ reads Luke 2:35 as: ‘From numerous hearts the thoughts will be revealed’ (Yaytnes—in i bazowm srti— xorhowrd™ ). If one attempts to give a Syriac retroversion of that particular Armenian formulation, it seems more probable that the lost Syriac text of the Commentary resembled the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus, for the Armenian preposition (‘from many hearts’) noticeably corresponds with the Syriac preposition |v (‘the thoughts from the hearts of many’), but not with the genitive construction Z (‘the thoughts of the hearts of many’) of the Peshitta. However, Ishodad of Merv in the ninth century quotes the Commentary with the reading as provided by the Peshitta, without indicating a different reading of the ‘Greek Bible’. Therefore, J. Rendel Harris concluded: ‘The reference to the Graecus is by a later hand’.59 Likewise, 57 Unfortunately, Leloir does not discuss the quotations of Matt 28:18 in his ´ T´ emoignage d’Ephrem (see note 56). 58 Cf. Leloir, Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de l’evangile concordant. Folios additionnels (see note 1), 8. 59 Cf. Rendel Harris, Fragments of the Commentary (see note 2), 34.

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA

173

Louis Leloir considers the quotation ‘suspect’.60 Consequently, we might deduce that a later hand inserted the quotation of the ‘Greek Bible’ into the ‘basic text’ of the Commentary before it was translated into Armenian—and this later hand was familiar with the Vetus Syra text. John 17:5 (CDiat XIX.17) G ka» n‹n dÏxasÏn me s‘, pàter, parÄ seautƒ t¨ dÏx˘ ≠ e⁄qon pr‰ to‹ t‰n kÏsmon e⁄nai parÄ so– A ¨a–awor ara zis, asŽ, ˜a–awn™ ayno™ik zor ownei es

a–a• i ™o ‚n” ”‡ Žr a“ xari

SyrS P

P^]z Qr[ƒ lr —S]jZ ^\ |v m–_r |v lSP —zP QdS_“ lr R\ Qwsƒ |v m–_r lr P^\ —zPZ QdS_“ ^]S m–_r lSP —zP l{kdT“ Qwsƒ P^]zZ u[

Section XIX.17 falls into the largest remaining lacuna of manuscript Chester Beatty 709. Therefore, the analysis must, again, concentrate on the Armenian version of the Commentary. The Armenian version opts for an adjectival construction (¨a–awor ara zis) in order to render the Greek imperative (dÏxasÏn me). This option agrees with the verbal imperative l{kdT“ (‘glorify me’) of the Peshitta rather than with the long-winded reading of the Vetus Syra (QdS_“ lr R\) (‘give me glory’).61 Therefore, it appears as if the Peshitta reading of John 17:5 served as Vorlage to the Syriac compiler of the Commentary. As a consequence of these remarks, the analysis of the quotations identified by the compiler of the Commentary as readings of the ‘Greek Bible’ allows three conclusions: 1. The text of the ‘Greek Bible’ quoted in the ‘basic text’ of the Commentary stands closer to the Vetus Syra than to the Peshitta. 2. The quotation of John 17:5, falling into a lacuna of manuscript Chester Beatty 709, showed similarity to the wording of the Peshitta. 3. The quotations of Matt 28:18 and Luke 2:35, which give the impression of later interpolations into the ‘basic text’, more accurately agree with the text of the Vetus Syra than with that of the Peshitta. These conclusions suggest that the compiler of the Commentary knew a text of an early Syriac translation of the Gospels standing between the Vetus Syra and the Peshitta which he identified as the ‘Greek Bible’. 60 61

´ Cf. Leloir, Le t´ emoignage d’Ephrem (see note 56), 94. ´ Cf. Leloir, Le t´ emoignage d’Ephrem (see note 56), 220.

174

CHRISTIAN LANGE

His quotations, extant in both versions of the Commentary, rather correspond with the readings of the Vetus Syra. At an early time he included two further quotations into the ‘basic text’ of his Commentary which more exactly resemble the text of the Vetus Syra than that of the Peshitta. It is likely that he inserted the quotation of Matt 28:18 after his ‘basic text’ was translated into Armenian, since there is no Armenian counterpart to the quotation, whereas the Armenian translator seems to have inserted the quotation of Luke 2:35, which does not occur in Ishodad of Merv’s later citation of the Syriac version, when he rendered the Syriac version of the Commentary into Armenian. In chapter XIX.17, falling into a lacuna in the single surviving Syriac manuscript, however, the quotation of John 17:5 is similar to the Peshitta rather than to the Vetus Syra. If a Syriac counterpart to the Armenian version of the Commentary existed, a disciple of Ephrem seems to have labelled a Peshitta reading as a quotation from the ‘Greek Bible’. This observation could hint to the existence of the ‘Pre-Peshitta’ by the end of the fourth or early fifth century in Edessa.

5. Conclusion What do these observations imply for the question of Ephrem’s knowledge of the Syriac separate Gospels? Ephrem’s reading of John 1:4, as quoted in his Refutationes ad Hypatium, agreed with the wording of both Vetus Syra and Peshitta. Therefore, this quotation cannot serve as argument in the discussion of the form of the separate Gospels Ephrem knew. However, it seems certain that the revision of the Diatessaronic singular (‘light of man/men’) into a plural form (‘light of men’) occurred in Edessa before Ephrem composed his Refutationes. Or else, Ephrem could not have been aware of the variant reading. For that reason, it seems likely that Edessan Christians either began or continued or finished their work on a Syriac translation of the separate Gospels during Ephrem’s lifetime. The quotations identified as readings of the ‘Greek Bible’ in the Commentarii in Diatessaron might serve as another hint to this translation process, for the quotations identified as readings of the ‘Greek Bible’ stand somewhat between the Vetus Syra and the Peshitta New Testament, given that the Armenian version of chapter XIX.17, falling into the great remaining lacuna in manuscript Chester Beatty 709, seems to resemble the Peshitta reading. The quotations in the ‘basic version’ of the Commentary, however, agree rather with the Vetus Syra. This observation makes it likely that Ephrem himself witnessed the existence

EPHREM, HIS SCHOOL, AND THE YAWNAYA

175

of the Vetus Syra, whereas his disciple who translated the Commentary into Armenian might have been aware of a ‘Pre-Peshitta’ text. Therefore, it would be an interesting scholarly task to study the biblical quotations in writings which can be attributed to the ‘School of Ephrem’ in order to analyse to what extent the disciples of Ephrem were involved in translating and/or revising the New Testament in Syriac.

ISHODAD’S KNOWLEDGE OF HEBREW AS EVIDENCED FROM HIS TREATMENT OF PESHITTA EZEKIEL Jerome A. Lund Ishodad of Merv’s commentary on the Peshitta of Ezekiel1 shows evidence that the author had some knowledge of Hebrew. However, the question arises: to what extent did he know it? This study will address this issue, taking into consideration both Ishodad’s use and non-use of Hebrew. In the commentary to Ezekiel, Ishodad refers to ‘the Hebrew’ (ebr¯ ay¯ a ) seven times. The seven cases of ebr¯ ay¯ a can be divided into three categories as follows: one reference to ‘the Hebrew’ as the source of ‘the Syriac’ version which we call the Peshitta (28:10); three references to Hebrew words (1:1; 20:29; 43:15); and three references to Hebrew versional readings which differ from the Syriac (1:18; 9:2; 25:9).2 These cases will be presented and analyzed with an attempt made to identify the source of Ishodad’s Hebrew knowledge. In addition, a key case where Ishodad should have evoked the Hebrew, but did not, will be examined. From this study, an answer to the question about the extent of Ishodad’s knowledge of Hebrew—what he knew and what he did not know—will be suggested. Furthermore, implications about the modern critical approach to the text of the Peshitta will be drawn. 1. Ebr¯ ay¯ a as the Hebrew Source Text of the Syriac Version In one instance, Ishodad refers to ‘the Hebrew’ as the source language of ‘the Syriac’ version, which testifies to the fact that he knew that the Bible was translated from Hebrew into Syriac. In his commentary on Ezek 28:10 (Ezekiel’s prophecy against the prince of Tyre), Ishodad reports that an earlier ruler of Tyre, namely Hiram, friend and confidant C. Van den Eynde (ed.), Commentaire d’Iˇsodad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament ´ echiel, Daniel (CSCO 328–329, Syr. 146–147; Louvain, 1972). 5. J´ er´ emie, Ez´ 2 With regard to ‘the Hebrew’ as a reference to versional readings, I would like to thank Dr. R. Bas ter Haar Romeny for sharing a prepublication copy of his article ‘The Hebrew and the Greek as Alternatives to the Syriac Version in Iˇsodad’s Commentary on the Psalms’, now published in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOT.S 333; Sheffield, 2001), 431–456, which includes a comprehensive summary of the history of research. I would also like to thank my colleague, Dr. Annalisa Azzoni, for offering constructive criticism of the draft of this essay. 1

178

JEROME A. LUND

of David and Solomon, had devoted himself to the God of Israel. His love for God was so great that he had the Bible of his day translated from Hebrew into Syriac. From the prolegomena to his entire exegetical work on the Old Testament, we learn that Ishodad believed that the Law, ‘Joshua-son-of-Nun’ (Joshua), Judges, Ruth, Samuel, ‘David’ (Psalms), Proverbs, Qohelet, Song of Songs, and Job were translated under the auspices of Hiram,3 and that the rest of the Old Testament, including Ezekiel, and the New Testament were done much later in the time of Abgar king of Urhai (Edessa).4 In his prolegomena, he also recounts that Ezra the scribe wrote the whole of the Hebrew Old Testament from memory after the return, since it had been destroyed at the time of the Babylonian captivity.5 2. Ebr¯ ay¯ a as a Hebrew Term In three contexts, Ishodad refers to ‘the Hebrew’ (ebr¯ ay¯ a ) in reference to four Hebrew words. From these examples it is evident that he knew, or thought he knew, certain Hebrew terms which he used to elucidate the meaning of texts. 1. QksS¨_j (plural, vocalized yubl¯ ay¯e 6 ) = lbe/y (singular in the Bible in reference to ‘the year of jubilee’) In his discussion of the reckoning of ‘the thirtieth year’ (1:1), Ishodad lists as the first possibility that this thirtieth year is to be reckoned ‘from the great sabbatical cycle of fifty years which is called in Hebrew ‘Jubilees’, in which they free fields and slaves etc. according to the commandment of the law.’7 The term QksS¨_j ‘Jubilees’ does not appear in the Old Testament Peshitta. When the reference is to the year of Jubilee, the Old Testament Peshitta renders the Hebrew lbwy as Qkz_‡ ‘return’. In the same instances, the Syro-Hexapla reads Q{S_“ ‘release, forgiveness’, representing the Greek äfesic. It is interesting that Ishodad brings the plural form, as known from the title of the Apocryphal book Jubilees, and not the singular as attested in the Hebrew Bible. There is evidence to suggest that the Apocryphal book Jubilees was translated 3 C. Van den Eynde (ed.), Commentaire d’Iˇsodad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament 1. Gen` ese (CSCO 126, Syr. 67; Louvain, 1950), 3. 4 Ishodad rejects the view that Hiram king of Tyre lived until the return from the Babylonian captivity. 5 Van den Eynde (ed.), Iˇsodad 1. Gen` ese (text), 1. 6 C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (2nd ed.; Halle, 1928; reprinted Hildesheim, 1966), 294. 7 ´ echiel (text), 44, ll. 6–8. Van den Eynde (ed.), Iˇsodad 5. Ez´

ISHODAD’S KNOWLEDGE OF HEBREW

179

from the Hebrew to the Syriac,8 but the Syriac version of the Book of Jubilees known to Ishodad included much more than the Book of Genesis,9 which Biblical book delimits the scope of the Apocryphal book known to us. It seems that Ishodad knew the plural form from a book by that name and learned its meaning from an unknown source, but probably not directly from a native Hebrew informant. Otherwise, we would expect Ishodad to bring the singular form as in the Hebrew Bible. 2–3. QvQS = hm;B; and Qw~QS = µc,Bo In a passage recounting the spiritual apostasy of Israel in Canaan, Ezekiel mentions a false place of worship, called in the Peshitta Qn‘‡ (prak¯ a ) (20:29). Ishodad rephrases the Peshitta as follows: ‘What do the prak¯e (plural) and places of idol worship which you built profit you?’ He then explains prak¯e as ‘statues and pillars which were made in the form of small vaults, like vaults which are in tombs of distinguished people’. Then, he cites the opening phrase of the verse according to ‘the Hebrew’ as follows: QvQS ]¬j—jP Q{v ‘What is the b¯ am¯ a etc.?’ Ishodad then defines Hebrew b¯ am¯ a as ‘an altar of idols’ (PÑn—‡Z QdS[v). ‘But’, he says ‘the altar of God is called basm¯ a .’10 Apparently, Ishodad understood the word basm¯ a to be Hebrew as well as the word b¯ am¯ a. Now, that the word QvQS is Hebrew is correct. However, the word Qw~QS appears to be an Aramaization of Hebrew µc,Bo.11 What was Ishodad’s source for this information? Was it a Hebrew text, a Hebrew informant, or some other intermediate source? The text of our extant Syro-Hexapla source reads as follows: ]¬j—jP Q{v QzQSP ¦\, the key word of which is glossed in the margin as Greek ABANA.12 However, for the second occurrence of QzQSP in the verse, the margin records ‘the Hebrew’ (. ‚) as reading QvQS glossed in Greek as BAMA. Our extant Syro-Hexapla source records the following 8 E. Tisserant, ‘Fragments syriaques du Livre des Jubil´es’, RB 30 (1921), 55– 86, 206–32. Cf. C. Rabin, ‘Jubilees’, in H.F.D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford, 1984), 6. 9 The Book of Jubilees (QksS¨_jZ QS—n) known to Ishodad (Van den Eynde [ed.], ´ echiel [text], 85, l. 10) recorded the extraordinary longevity of Hiram Iˇsodad 5. Ez´ of Tyre, who, it claims, lived until the exile when he was killed by Nebuchadnezzar. 10 Van den Eynde’s emendation of the corrupt Qwko~QS to Qw~QS following ´ echiel [text], 74, n. the Syro-Hexapla is sound (Van den Eynde [ed.], Iˇsodad 5. Ez´ 5). Thus, Ishodad’s Syriac text should be restored as follows: P]rPZ ‘kW QdS[v P‘—v Qw~QS. 11 Targum Onqelos vocalizes its cognate as bˆ usm¯ a (Exod 30:23; 35:28), while Syriac vocalizes its cognate as bs¯ am¯ a (Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum [Halle, 1928], 80). 12 A.M. Ceriani (ed.), Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus, (Milan, 1874), fol. 159v.

180

JEROME A. LUND

explanation by Saint Severus for the text which he, as Ishodad, reads as QvQS ]¬j—jP Q{v: In Hebrew QvQS (glossed in Greek letters as BAMA) is an ‘altar of idols’ while Qw~QS (glossed in Greek letters as BASMA) is the ‘altar of God’. Theodoret, in his Greek commentary, correctly cites the Greek of Ezek 20:29 as reading >Abamà (= hm;B;h', i.e. the definite article he + the noun hmb), but then comments that it is better to read Bamà with Symmachos.13 It appears, then, that Ishodad got his information about ‘the Hebrew’ in this instance from the margin of the Syro-Hexapla (assuming that a similar marginal gloss appeared in Ishodad’s copy of the Syro-Hexapla) or from some Syriac citation of the commentary of Saint Severus or some other Greek source in Syriac dress like Theodoret. One can readily comprehend how Ishodad regarded QvQS (b¯ am¯ a) as the altar of an idol, but his interpretation of Qw~QS (basm¯ a ) as the altar of God is not apparent at first glance. Ishodad may have etymologically linked Syriac Qw¨S (b¯esm¯e ) ‘sweet odours’ to ‘Hebrew’ basm¯ a . In his commentary on 1 Kgs 6:22, Ishodad remarks that the altar belonging to the inner sanctuary (Qj_Xr Q“Z_ —kSZ QdS[v) is called QS\ZZ Qw¨S —kS (‘the golden place of sweet odours’) by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament.14 In other words, the altar to which 1 Kgs 6:22 refers is the altar of incense. Now, where does Paul use this term? He uses it in Heb 9:4, a book which Ishodad attributes to Paul.15 In Ishodad’s opinion, Paul composed the Book of Hebrews in Hebrew—Luke translated it to Greek.16 It may be, then, that Ishodad believed that the Hebrew word behind the Syriac New Testament’s term b¯esm¯e was the purported basm¯ a. Given that Ishodad cites the Hebrew µb in an Aramaized form with the final ¯ a , it appears that his knowledge of Hebrew for this case is secondary, and mediated through Greek sources or Syriac translations of Greek sources. 4. tjPZ\ In his commentary on 43:15 Ishodad recognizes that tjPZ\ (hadel ) is a Hebrew word, possibly the name for the altar. It appears that Ishodad 13

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpretatio in Ezechielem (PG 81; Paris, 1864), 997. C. Van den Eynde (ed.), Commentaire d’Iˇsodad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament 3. Livres des Sessions (CSCO 229, Syr. 96; Louvain, 1962), 105. 15 M.D. Gibson (ed.), The Commentaries of Ishodad of Merv 5.1 The Epistles of Paul The Apostle in Syriac (Horae Semiticae 11; Cambridge, 1916), 148. 16 Gibson (ed.), Ishodad, Epistles of Paul, 149. On the correctness of the view that Heb 9:4 refers to ‘the golden incense-altar’, see F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, 1964), 184–87. 14

ISHODAD’S KNOWLEDGE OF HEBREW

181

identified the theophoric element tjP as Hebrew, perhaps from general knowledge of Semitic languages or from exegetical tradition. His failure to correct the Syriac tjPZ\ to tjP\, i.e. dalath for resh, is evidence that Ishodad did not have primary knowledge of Hebrew either through a Hebrew text or a Hebrew informant. Even though the Syro-Hexapla reads tjPP, Ishodad does not refer to it. If he had had primary knowledge of Hebrew, one might expect him to correct the Syriac at this point17 or at least to have cited the Hebrew. It is interesting that Theodoret in his Greek commentary explains that the word t‰ >Ari†l signifies in the language of the Hebrews either ‘mountain of God’ (la rh) or ‘light of God’ (la rwa).18 This means that, in all probability, Ishodad did not know the tradition contained in Theodoret’s Ezekiel commentary, which clearly indicates a resh and not a daleth. This is too juicy of a theological tidbit to pass over for a churchman like Ishodad had he known it! For him, the different readings of the versions were by and large complementary and not contradictory. ay¯ a as a Hebrew Text Different from the Syriac 3. Ebr¯ Ishodad cites variant Hebrew readings in three places (1:18; 9:2; 25:9). 1. The text of ‘the Syriac’ in 1:18 reads as follows: —jP Qv^^ ¦^\¨ |jac¨^ |j]j‹d¨r. The first exegetical question which rises is that of the antecedent of the feminine plural pronoun attached to P‹c¨. Lamsa takes it as referring to Q¥sXkªW ‘the wheels’ (Q¥sXkW is feminine in Syriac—cf. verse 19) and translates the phrase ‘as for their rims, they were high’.19 However, as van den Eynde remarks, this was not the interpretation of Ishodad.20 Ishodad took the antecedent of the suffixed pronoun to be the animals (P–_kªc). Accordingly, the Peshitta should be rendered ‘and their (i.e. the animals’) backs had height’. One’s interpretation of |ja©c is colored by this interpretation. Ishodad comments on |ja©c that either they, the animals, ‘were seen’ (¦^©\ |jªac—v) because they were high, or that they were ‘notable’ (|ja©c), namely ‘splendid’ (|dkT¨“), due to their height. It seems that Ishodad read the form |ja©c as a passive participle (with a pt¯ ah.¯ a after the 17 M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament (UCOP 56; Cambridge, 1999), 291, points out that Ishodad corrected the Syriac of Zech 11:4 on the basis of ‘the Hebrew’ and old Syriac manuscripts. 18 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpretatio in Ezechielem (PG 81), 1232. Cf. the marginal comment in Ceriani’s Syro-Hexapla text: P]rP lsjZ P\_z tjQjP ‘Ariel: my light is of God’ (Ceriani [ed.], Codex Syro-Hexaplaris, fol. 170v). 19 G.M. Lamsa (transl.), Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text (San Francisco, 1985), 826. 20 ´ echiel (trans.), 56, note 2. Van den Eynde, Iˇsodad 5. Ez´

182

JEROME A. LUND

h.et) rather than as an active participle (with a zq¯ ap¯ a after the h.et). By contrast, Ishodad observes, ‘the Hebrew’ reads |skªcZ ‘frightening’ instead of |ja©c. This is an interesting observation because the Hebrew reads µh,l; ha;rÒyIwÒ ‘and they were frightening’.21 From this, one can only conclude that either the Syriac translator of the Peshitta read a Hebrew variant from the root har (‘see’)22 or that he understood the root of the form to be har. Targum Jonathan reads as follows: ÷wnya ÷ylyjdw ÷whl amwrw ‘and they had height and they were frightening’. Targum Jonathan’s lexeme is precisely what Ishodad cites as the reading of the Hebrew. It appears that the source of Ishodad’s understanding of the Hebrew was the Jewish exegetical tradition also preserved in Targum Jonathan. There is no evidence in Ezekiel besides this isolated reading that Ishodad had a copy of Targum Jonathan before him and, so, it seems the most likely senario that Ishodad received the information from some other written or oral source than the targum itself. While Ishodad thinks that ‘the Hebrew’ is an actual Hebrew text in this instance, in reality the reading he gives reflects a Jewish exegetical tradition of the Hebrew text contained in the Aramaic targum. So, what Ishodad calls ‘the Hebrew’ here is an actual targumic reading. Outside of Ezekiel this is also the case in at least one citation of ‘the Hebrew’. In his commentary on Gen 39:11, Ishodad records that ‘the Hebrew’ text reads ]{T“_cZ QS¨—n Œ[Twr ‘to check his accounting ledgers’ in place of reading of the Syriac P[Tƒ [T„wr ‘to do work’. Whereas the Masoretic Text reads wtkalm tw[l ‘to do his work’ like the Syriac, Targum Onqelos reads hynbwj ybtkb qdbml, the precise reading which Ishodad attributes to ‘the Hebrew’ (with the exception of the bet introducing the verbal complement). This is further evidence that Ishodad received information about ‘the Hebrew’ from a source containing exegetical traditions and even readings found in Jewish targums. 2. In his commentary on 9:2 in a context where ‘the punishers of the city’ of Jerusalem are summoned, Ishodad comments on the Peshitta’s phrase ¦\^‹d¨S Q¥skˆ~ P‹c¨ ‘~P^ ‘and a sapphire waist-band was on his loins’, which describes the one standing among the six, whom Ishodad understands to be Michael ‘the leader of the people’. A comparison with the Hebrew preserved by the Masoretic Text, which reads rpeSoh' ts,q,wÒ wyn:t]m;b] ‘and a scribe’s qeset on his waist’, reveals that the Peshitta read a Hebrew variant rPis' ‘sapphire’ instead of rpeso ‘scribe’. 21 This interpretation of the Hebrew varies from that of G.A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; New York, 1937), 26, who claims that it can only mean ‘they felt fear’. 22 So Cooke, Ezekiel, 26, who posits the Hebrew variant ha,r:YEwÒ on the basis of the Peshitta.

ISHODAD’S KNOWLEDGE OF HEBREW

183

Ishodad contrasts the reading of the Peshitta with ‘the Hebrew’ which he cites as follows: \[jQS P‘ˆ~Z xr Q¥sv‘^ ‘and a pen-case of a scribe was in his hand’. Although the xr indicates a direct citation, the element \[jQS is not attested in any known Hebrew text. At first blush, one might postulate that this element (‘in his hand’) is a corruption of the text of Ishodad’s commentary during its transmission. However, further investigation uncovers an intriguing reading of Theodotion recorded in Jerome’s commentary on Ezekiel. Jerome states that Theodotion read the following: kàstu scribae in manu eius.23 This reading of Theodotion is exactly the reading Ishodad attributes to ‘the Hebrew’. One could therefore postulate that Ishodad got this ‘Hebrew’ reading from the margin of a copy of the Syro-Hexapla which differed from that produced by Ceriani. It is even possible that the Syriac taw indicating Theodotion was corrupted into an ayin representing ebr¯ ay¯ a ‘the Hebrew’ in this text. Some Greek witnesses to the Hexapla attribute the reading kàstu grammatËwc to Aquila and Theodotion, but do not record the phrase ‘in his hand’.24 While Greek kàstu is a transliteration of the Hebrew tsq, the Syriac Q¥sv‘ is a translation either of Greek kàstu or of Hebrew tsq. In this case it appears that the reason behind Ishodad’s citation of ‘the Hebrew’ variant is to shed more light on Michael. He is not concerned with the fact that the text differs. It is as though the one text elucidates the other. As for Targum Jonathan, it cannot be the source of Ishodad’s information about the Hebrew because it reads hyxrjb arps sqnpw ‘and a scribe’s tablet was in his waist’.25 3. In his commentary on 25:9, Ishodad remarks that the Hebrew and the Greek read –_wk“P, the name of an idol, in place of the Syriac y_wk“P meaning ‘desert’.26 The Hebrew preserved in the Masoretic Text reads accordingly: twmyyh tyb. Elsewhere in the Peshitta Old Testament, Syriac y_wk“P consistently renders the Hebrew ÷wmyy, regardless of the book translated.27 So, either the Hebrew Vorlage of the Peshitta 23

Jerome, Commentarii in Ezechielem, ed. F. Glorie (CCSL 75; Turnhout, 1964),

104. 24

J. Ziegler, Septuaginta. Ezechiel (G¨ ottingen, 1952), 122. This interpretation is also found in Symmachus who translated the phrase as pinak–dion grafËwc Íqwn ‚p» t®c Êsf‘oc aŒto‹ (Jerome translates Symmachus as follows: tabulas scriptoris habebat in renibus suis). Cf. Ziegler, Ezechiel, 122, and Jerome, In Ezechielem, ed. Glorie, 104, respectively. 26 Van den Eynde correctly reads –_wk“P with manuscript L (Van den Eynde ´ echiel [text], 80). [ed.], Iˇsodad 5. Ez´ 27 Num 21:20; 23:28; Deut 32:10; 1 Sam 23:19, 24; 26:1, 3; Isa 43:19–20; Ps 68:8; 78:40; 106:14; 107:4. 25

184

JEROME A. LUND

read ÷wmyy instead of twmyy in this instance, or the reading y_wk“P in the Peshitta of this verse is due to corruption during the transmission of the Peshitta text in Syriac. In either case, there was a corruption of taw to final nun. This case raises the question of whether the modern scholar should emend the text of the Peshitta on the basis of non-Syriac evidence. In this case, caution is suggested since a corrupt Hebrew prototext could have accounted for the reading of the Peshitta as well as inner-Syriac corruption. What was the source of this information for Ishodad? Because he cites the joint reading of Hebrew and Greek, it could be that he garnered this information from a copy of the Syro-Hexapla. Ceriani’s text of the Syro-Hexapla records only a marginal note containing Severus’ commentary on the meaning of the Greek text reading –_wk“P as ‘the name of an idol’, which is precisely what Ishodad points out in his commentary. But, a Greek witness attributes the reading isimouj to Symmachus.28 So, there could have been more information in the margin of a copy of the Syro-Hexapla available to Ishodad which contained a Hebrew reading. Alternatively, he could have had access to a fuller text of Severus’ commentary containing a Hebrew reading as well. While this is all speculation, it opens up the distinct possibility that Ishodad’s source for this information came via a Greek source or a Syriac translation of a Greek source. 4. Non-Use of Hebrew in His Ezekiel Commentary Finally, the fact that Ishodad did not correct the Syriac tjPZ\ to tjP\ raises the question of Ishodad’s non-use of Hebrew in his treatment of the Peshitta text. At least in this one case, primary knowledge of Hebrew would lead one to correct the text of the Peshitta or at least to remark on it. The same question may be raised with regard to the famous crux in Ezek 27:5, which has baffled interpreters of the Peshitta and which raises the question of whether or not the Leiden edition should have been corrected here and there by emendation based on the Hebrew rather than being based on Syriac witnesses alone.29 In Ezekiel’s lamentation over Tyre in Ezek 27:5, the Leiden Peshitta reads as follows: . ‘k{~ |v lor _j—jP Q‡« Z^ Qу . PÐ[ƒ lor y^[T„zZ _Tz |{Tr |v P`ÐP^ 28 29

Ziegler, Ezechiel, 207. Cf. Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 292–300.

ISHODAD’S KNOWLEDGE OF HEBREW

185

Junipers and timbers they brought for you from Senir, And cedars from Lebanon they took to make ??? for you. It is clear from the context, where Tyre is depicted as a splendid merchant ship, that the word P[ƒ is a product of wood made for a ship. Ishodad recognizes the word PÐ[ƒ as problematic and so brings three different interpretations of it. First, some say it means QjÑ` which, as van den Eynde points out, is the same as QjÑ~ ‘masts’ of a ship. Second, Qat.raya defined it by the Persian word dwpr, the meaning of which is unknown to us. Third, Henana defined it as timbers by which ships were made secure and dragged, namely Q”T¨n , the meaning of which van den Eynde alleges to be poutre, pont (‘beam, deck’) not escabeau (‘ladder’).30 Now, the Hebrew word behind the Syriac word in question is ÷r