The Use of Textual Criticism for the Interpretation of Patristic Texts: Seventeen Case Studies 9780773430730, 0773430733

Citation preview

THE USE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISP,. FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF PATRISTIC TEXTS

Seventeen Case Studies

Edited by

Kenneth B. Steinhauser and

Scott Dermer

With a Foreword by

J. Patout Burns, Jr.

The Edwin Mellen Press Lewiston•Queenston•Lampeter

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The use of textual criticism for the interpretation of patristic texts : seventeen case studies / edited by Kenneth B. Steinhauser and Scott Dermer ; with a foreword by J. Patout Burns, Jr. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-0-7734-3073-0 (hardcover) ISBN-10: 0-7734-3073-3 (hardcover) 1. Christian literature, Early--Criticism, Textual--Case studies. 2. Christian literature, Early--History and criticism--Case studies. I. Steinhauser, Kenneth B., 1946- II. Dermer, Scott. PA3520.U84 2013 270.1--dc23 2012033846 hors serie.

A C1P catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Front cover: Saint Jerome Copyright C 2013 Kenneth B. Steinhauser and Scott Dermer All rights reserved. For information contact The Edwin Mellen Press Box 450 Lewiston, New York USA 14092-0450

The Edwin Mellen Press Box 67 Queenston, Ontario CANADA LOS ILO

The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd. Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales UNITED KINGDOM SA48 8LT Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents List of Abbreviations Foreword by J. Patout Burns, Jr.

iv

Introduction: Transmission and Meaning Kenneth B. Steinhauser

1

Part I

Determining Authorship 1 Transmission Implications Regarding the Authorship of Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogic Catecheses Donna R. Hawk-Reinhard 37 2 The Transformation of Fulgentius of Ruspe in the Carolingian Age Francis X. Gumerlock

77

Part II Date of Composition 3 Bishop Severus and the Jewish Conversion on Minorca Marilyn C. Kincaid 97 Part III Identification of Sources 4 Three Source Arguments for the Two-Way Material in Didache and Barnabas Noel Pretila

119

5 The Question of Arian Interpolations in Methodius' Symposium Hudson Russell Davis

143

Part IV Process of Composition 6 Possible Apollinarian Interpolations in the Short Recension of Athanasius' Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione Sarah L. P. White 183 7 The Passion of Cyprian in the So-Called "Donatist Dossier" of Wiirzburg M. p. th. f. 33 Alden Bass 209 8 Transformation of the World: Victorinus of Pettau and the Ending of His Commentarius in Apocalypsim Gerardo Rodriguez-Galarza 233 9 Authorial Commentary in Hilary of Poitiers' De Synodis Eric Wickman 247 10 De Sacranzentis into De Mysteriis: Ambrose of Milan as Author and Editor Scott Shoger 269 Part V

Reception 11 In Search of "Le Texte Veritible": The Rescension of Kephalaia Gnostica of Evagrius Kyle A. Schenkewitz 323

12 The Syriac Transmission of Basil of Caesarea's On The Holy Spirit 351 Benjamin D. Wayrnan 13 A History of the Interpretation of St. Cyprian's De unitate Daniel Handschy 387 14 How Difficulties in Transmitting the Texts of Basil's Adversus Eunomium 3.1 and Maximus' Letter to Marinus Led to the Rise and Fall of Ferrara-Florence Jacob N. Van Sickle 431 Part VI Textual Variants 15 Conflating Deus and Dominus: The Ambiguous Transmission of the Acts of the Council of Aquileia Aaron Overby 453 16 Vellet or Veneta? A Textual Variant in Augustine's Enchiridion Scott Dermer

479

Part VII Textual Conjecture 17 Correcting Leon: An Analysis of the Conjecture of 7Tp04011.0X0r)CrettLEVOl for wpoo-EtopAo-no-citavot in Didache 14:1 513 Timothy R. LeCroy

Abbreviations of General Works ACW

Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation. J. Quasten, J. C. Plurnpe, W. J. Burghart, J. Dillon, and D. D. McManus, eds. New York: Newman, 1946—.

ANCL

Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868-1872.

ANF

Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Church. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1885-1896. Numerous reprints by various publishing companies including T. & T. Clark, Eerdmans, and Hendrickson.

BA

Bibliotheque augustinienne. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1949—.

CCSL

Corpus christianorum, series latina. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953—.

CPG

Clavis Patnim Graecorum. M. Geerard, ed. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974-1987.

CSCO

Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Louvain: Peeters, 1903—.

CSEL

Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum. Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1866—.

FC

Fathers of the Church. New York: Cima Publishing Co., 1947-1949; New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1949-1960; Washington,

DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1960—. GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller. Berlin: Akademie, 1897—.

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

LCC

Library of Christian Classics. J. Bailie et al., eds. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 19531966.

MGH

Monumenta Ger rianiae Historica. Berlin: Weidmann, 1877—.

NPNF

A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Philip Schaff, ed. 2 series of 14 vols. each. New York: Christian Literature, 1887-1894. Numerous reprints by various publishing companies including T. & T. Clark, Eerdmans, and Hendrickson.

PG

Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca, 161 vols. J. P. Migne, ed. Paris: PetitMontrouge, 1857-1866. Available in reprint from Brepols.

PL

Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina, 221 vols. J. P. Migne, ed. Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1844-1864. Available in reprint from Brepols.

PO

Patrologia orientalis. R. Graffin, F. Nau et al., eds. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907—.

SC

Sources chretiennes. Henry de Lubac and J. Danielou, eds. Paris: Cerf, 1941—. 11

SP

Studia Patristica

TU

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Berlin: Akademie, 1883—.

IATSA

The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. J. E. Rotelle, ed. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1990—.

111

Foreword This collection of essays provides an illustration of the function of textual criticism and some ways in which an understanding of its principles and practice can assist scholars in interpreting a text. The variety of documents considered helps the reader grasp the field's diverse contributions and methods. Kenneth Steinhauser's introduction to the method shows the foundational role of determining a stemma of the transmission of the text, though the essential work of the editor lies in conjecture of the original text when the manuscript evidence is not adequate. He makes a further point that the essays amply demonstrate: an intentional modification or corruption of a copied text provides a "new" text that witnesses to the viewpoint of the copyist and the culture for which the text was prepared. The seventeen chapters lay out the techniques of textual criticism and how these can identify and solve problems of interpretation. Using a different part of the stemma of the transmission of Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogic Catecheses can facilitate the identification of the distinct contribution of his successor John. Attention to contemporary correlations assists in dating Severus' account of a Jewish conversion on Minorca. Discovering the sources of a text is the subject of seven essays that illustrate a variety of resources: finding a new manuscript, comparing the manuscript's content to other texts, noticing a shift in literary genre, and identifying ancient editing practices. Under the heading of reception, two essays show the intentional modification of a text to make it suitable to a different audience; two others trace controversies that were or could have been— solved by a fuller understanding of the text transmission. The iv

closely related essays on textual variants point to instances in which minor variations were introduced and maintained. The final essay shows the process of conjecturing the proper reading and correcting a text that is witnessed by a single manuscript. The great variety of texts considered in this collection will result in its reader recognizing one or many of the problem texts, and thus finding the techniques and the results illustrated on a document already familiar. This series of studies will also contribute to a more sophisticated use of critical editions and, particularly, a more regular and careful reading of their introductions. J. Patout Burns, Jr. Edward A. Malloy Professor of Catholic Studies, emeritus Vanderbilt University Divinity School

Acknowledgements Cover Image: Saint Jerome Frontispiece of Sancti Hieronymi operum tomus primus (Paris: Apud Ludovicum Roulland, 1693). Courtesy of Saint Louis University Libraries Special Collections. The Syriac text is set using the MELTHO fonts from Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute [www.BethMardutho.org]. The Greek text is set using SBL Greek font. Used by permission of the Society of Biblical Literature.

Introduction: Transmission and Meaning Kenneth B. Steinhauser Textual criticism is often considered an esoteric science for a few elite scholars who have the knowledge, skills, and patience to establish a critical text using extant manuscripts transmitted from antiquity. Textual criticism may be defined as the science whereby a textual editor on the basis of existing manuscript exemplars seeks to establish the original wording of a document as its author wrote it. Of course, textual criticism presupposes that this, at least to some extent, can be done. Theologians, philosophers, and historians who study the early church and late antiquity generally begin where the textual critic ends. Their task is interpreting intellectually the text given to them by its editor. Remarkably, a significant number of theologians have only a limited understanding of textual criticism and its methods. This is unfortunate because there are many instances where knowledge of the principles of textual criticism is necessary for a proper interpretation of a given text, especially if there was something unusual or atypical in its composition or transmission. The goal of this volume is to illustrate the close relationship between textual criticism and theological interpretation by presenting an array of instances where the manuscript tradition of a specific text has affected its meaning and subsequent interpretation. To that end, this introductory essay has two parts. Part I is an overview of textual criticism, its history, and its contemporary state of affairs.' Part II is a For a survey regarding the transmission of texts, see L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) and D. C. Greetham,

summary of the seventeen essays illustrating textual problems in specific pieces of early Christian literature.

Part 1. Textual Criticism Although in antiquity philology was not yet the highly developed science that it is today, textual criticism certainly existed in the ancient world. Various exegetical tools were composed. Tatian (ca. 120-180) wrote in Syriac the Diatessaron, which was a harmony or continuous narrative of the story of Christ based on the four canonical gospels designed to reconcile contradictions. Origen (184/5-253/4) composed the Hexapala or sixfold text of the Old Testament. It included the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters, the same text transliterated into Greek, the Septuagint, and the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Using asterisks and obelisks, the critical symbols of the Alexandrian grammarians, Origen indicated where other versions departed from the generally accepted Septuagint. In other words, he indicated textual variants. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20) was by far the most astute textual critic of the patristic period. The vii trilinguis commanded Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He adopted Origen's sigla_and for further precision added some of his own. Jerome was acutely aware that the first step of biblical interpretation was establishing the text. He identified variant readings, which had crept into the transmission of the biblical text, and explained their origin. Sometimes errors were intentional; more (New York: Garland, 1992); regarding manuscripts, see Raymond Clemens and Timothy Graham, Introduction to Manuscript Studies (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007). Clemens and Graham have used numerous examples from the Newberry Library in Chicago. Textual Scholarship: An Introduction

often copyists were either lazy or inept. Furthermore, he recognized that the attempted emendations of corrupt texts by subsequent copyists often made the situation worse. Two Gothic clergy, Sunnia and Fretella, had contacted Jerome because of the many discrepancies they had found between the Gallican Psalter, a text based on Origen's Hexapala, and the Septuagint. They inquired concerning 178 variants in 83 psalms. Jerome's response, Letter 106, is an extensive textual analysis of the variants in the Psalter. It is the most detailed text critical study of a biblical book from the period. Jerome was equally adept in dealing with manuscripts of the New Testament, and textual particulars appear in his commentaries.2 The Carolingian Era (751-987) was marked by advances in art, architecture, law, music, and literature. Many of the oldest extant manuscripts of classical and early Christian works were written at this time. The most highly esteemed textual scholar of the period was Lupus of Ferrieres (ca. 805-862), a student of Hrabanus Maurus, who in turn had been a student of Alcuin. Lupus obtained manuscripts from libraries throughout Europe for the purpose of textual comparison. A conservative textual critic, he applied the Alexandrian principle of collation, that is, the side-by-side evaluation of various copies of the same text with the goal of determining its original wording. He also developed the practice of leaving a space in the manuscript where there was an apparent lacuna in the text rather than conjecturing an emendation.

2 See Kenneth B. Steinhauser, "Biblical Criticism, II. Christianity, A. Greek and Latin Patristics, Orthodox Churches. and Early Medieval Times," in Encyclopedia of- the Bible and Its Reception (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, forthcoming), vol. 3.

3

The Renaissance (fourteenth to seventeenth centuries) was characterized by a vigorous humanism and a renewed enthusiasm for the Greek and Latin literature. Regarding the development of textual criticism, the period was extraordinarily productive. I limit myself to three significant figures. At the papal court in Avignon, Petrarch (1304-1374) made textual notes to various classical works, none more famous than his edition of Livy, which is now located in the British Library with the shelf number Harley 2493. He made his own edition of Livy based on existing manuscripts and fragments, correcting the text and noting variants. Angelo Poliziano or Politian (1454-1494) was perhaps the first to appreciate the significance of the genealogy of manuscripts with his systematic application of the principle eliminatio codicum descriptorum. Copies of an existing manuscript are philologically useless as long as one can access the original exemplar. Finally, Erasmus (ca. 1469-1536) in his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, which remained the textus receptus in spite of its shortcomings, seems to have grasped the principle chfficilior lectio potior. The more difficult reading is to be preferred. With the Enlightenment (eighteenth century) and its rational approach to reality, textual criticism develops as a modem science and comes into its own. Richard Bentley (1662-1742), a classicist and theologian, was especially known for his meticulous emendations of classical texts as well as for his proposal regarding a critical edition of the New Testament based on the oldest manuscripts. Finally, the use of the genealogical method by Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) marks the beginning of contemporary textual criticism. Essentially there are four major debates in contemporary textual criticism: (a) eclecticism versus 4

stemmatics, (b) best text versus critical text, (c) conjecturing criticism versus conservative criticism, and (d) error versus forgery.

a. Eclecticism Versus Stemmatics Contemporary textual criticism traces its origin to the method, which is attributed to Karl Lachmann, whose major contribution was the introduction of genealogy into manuscript studies. Although Sebastiano Timpanaro (1923-2000) in a remarkable piece of revisionist scholarship has demonstrated that traces of Lachmann's method may be found among medieval philologists long before Lachmann and that Lachmann did not faithfully use the method which bears his name, scholars still call it the method of Lachmann. As Glenn W. Most, Timpanaro's English translator, has appropriately pointed out, today the method is called "Lachmann's method" with the obvious and necessary use of quotation marks.3 Lachmann's method is best illustrated through a hypothetical case. Faced with three equally probable variants in three different manuscripts, the textual critic would be expected to choose the variant that the author originally wrote at that place in the text. When no variant stands out as especially suitable, the textual critic may be tempted to "flip a coin," as a colleague once advised me. That would not be especially scientific but always remains a last resort. In addition, what makes the most sense may not be what the author originally wrote. The textual critic should neither correct the ancient

3 See Sebastiano Timpanaro, The Genesis of Lachinann's Method, ed. and trans. Glenn W. Most (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); translated from the second Italian edition; unique material includes Most's valuable introduction, 1-32, and three additional appendices, 207-239.

5

author nor present what that author intended.4 The ultimate goal of the textual critic is to determine what the ancient author actually wrote, not what makes the most sense and not what may have been intended. Certain objective factors may be brought to bear on the problem, such as comparison to similar passages in the same work or by the same author (usus scribendi). To achieve this end, the study of lexica, historical grammars, and dictionaries is often helpful. However, at the same time prejudice may rear its ugly head. Would a textual critic attribute a grammatical mistake to St. Augustine? Would a textual critic attribute a heretical or tendentious teaching to St. Luke? Unfortunately, before the advent of Lachmann's method, the choice was often nothing more than an educated guess usually dependent upon the vicissitudes of the textual critic. At this point Lachmann's contribution becomes indispensible. We return to our hypothetical case of three variants. When the textual critic has determined the genealogy of the surviving witnesses and has developed a stemma or family tree of existing and supposed manuscripts, he or she is able to choose one of the three readings as most primitive by utilizing the stemma. The oldest text, which, by the way, is not necessarily contained in the oldest manuscript, would be the one to prefer as authentic. The critical text is established on the basis of scientific judgments founded upon empirical evidence, not guesswork. With the development of stemmatics or stemmatology, the textual critic can organize the manuscripts in such a way so as to determine the more primitive text. Stemmatology has in recent years experienced a new birth of 4 See G. Thomas Tanselle, "The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention," in Textual Criticism and Scholar/ , Editing (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1990), 27-71.

6

interest because of the use of computers. Philologists have consulted with biologists regarding the science of cladistics and phylogenetic procedures, and in some cases have adopted their methods.5 In summation, Lachmann's contribution was fourfold.° First, Lachmann insisted that one not uncritically accept the vulgate or most common text of any given work. Manuscripts must be used as the foundation of the edition. Second, he distrusted later humanistic manuscripts as often unreliable in favor of earlier medieval manuscripts. Third, he demonstrated the importance of reconstructing the history of the text. In fact, today scholars assume that the history of the text should precede any reliable critical edition. This criterion, involving the genealogy of manuscripts and the history of their tradition, is the distinctive hallmark of Lachmann's method and his most important contribution. Fourth, he attempted to develop "mechanical" criteria that are rules of operation that always function on their own in every situation, without recourse to a human judgment.

5 For example, see Peter M. W. Robinson and Robert .1. O'Hara, "Cladistic Analysis of an Old Norse Manuscript Tradition," Research in Humanities Computing 4 (1996): 115-137; Ben J. P. Salemans, "Cladistics or the Resurrection of the Method of Lachmann," in Studies in Stemmatology, ed. Pieter van Reenen and Margot van Mulken (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996), 3-70; Christopher Howe et al., "Parallels between Stemmatology and Phylogenetics," in Studies in Stemmatology II, ed. Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander, and Morgot van Mulken (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004), 3-11. 6 See Timpanaro, Genesis of Lachmann's Method, 115-118.

7

b. Best Text Versus Critical Text Stemmatics was an enormous scientific advance, but progress is not without its detractors. Opposed to Lachmann's method we find Joseph Mier (1864-1938), who asserts that scholars should take the best available manuscript, that is, the one with the best text, and publish that as authoritative.7 The supposed advantage is that this best text is indeed a genuine text that has circulated, and not an artificial reconstruction, as the critical text is. Mier further postulated that there was a tendency for stemmas to be bipartite, which he attributed to a flaw in the stemmatic method. Scientifically Bedier's approach is a non-method with which one can make no philological progress. In practice Lachmann's method has proven to be more fruitful, although followers of Bedier may still be found on occasion. Paul Maas (1880-1964) wrote a masterful handbook of textual criticism, which, in a mere fifty-nine pages, summarizes the most important rules of textual criticism! His contribution was to realize the advantageous use of errors. He established a system whereby the editor identifies indicative errors, which fall into two categories: disjunctive errors separate manuscripts from other manuscript families, while conjunctive errors unite manuscripts and may be used to determine manuscript families. These indicative errors were used to divide the manuscript witnesses into groups or families. His goal was to make textual criticism objective, scientific, and mechanical. 7 See Joseph Mier, "La tradition manuscrite du Lai de l'Ombre: Eteflexions sur l'art d'editer les anciens textes," Romania 54 (1928): 161— 196,321-356. 6 See Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958); originally published in German [1927]; English translation of the second German edition [1949] with reference to the third German edition [1957].

8

One type of error, not identified by Maas but effectively used in contemporary textual criticism, is the sequential error or Stufenfehler, literally "step error." Maas rightly points out that "corruptions have a way of becoming further corrupted in transmission."9 In other words, if a scribal error enters into the manuscript transmission, a subsequent scribe or subsequent scribes may likely correct the previous error, leaving the passage quite corrupt with several variant readings at the same place in the text. If the textual critic is presented with three hypothetical errors, he or she could take one of two approaches. A strictly eclectic approach would identify one variant as preferred and insert it into the critical text with the remaining variants relegated to the apparatus. A more nuanced approach would be to identify the order in which the errors were made. In this case the original reading stands in the first manuscript, an initial scribal error in the second manuscript, and a subsequent scribal correction of that error in the third manuscript. The problem for the textual critic is that the first and third variants would appear to be reasonably correct. Determining the sequence of the three errors establishes the order of the manuscript tradition and helps establish the stemma. A good example of this phenomenon appears in my own critical edition of Anonymus in lob.10 The first reading is a te ad infidelitatem seducuntur (they are led away by you to infidelity); the second is a te ad infidelitatem sequuntur, which does not make sense; and the third is te ad infidelitatem sequuntur (they follow you to infidelity). The key is the word seducuntur, a present passive verb meaning "they are led away," which becomes corrupted Ibid., 13. See Kenneth B. Steinhauser, ed., Anonvmi in lob commentarius, CSEL 97 (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006), 63-65. 9

li)

9

into sequuntur, a deponent verb, i.e., passive in form and active in meaning, meaning "they follow." The third scribe removes the preposition a making te the direct object, and the sentence once again makes sense. By determining why and how the errors were made, the textual critic can place the manuscripts in accurate sequential order. Maas also lighted upon the most severe limitation to the science and art of textual criticism as it exists today— contamination. He writes, "No specific has yet been discovered against contamination."' I Rarely do we find an exact family tree of manuscripts with two perfectly independent branches. There is no wall between the descending lines. Often there are cross influences because manuscripts circulated, were copied, and recopied. In other words, a manuscript from one family may have been used to correct the manuscript of another family. Often these corrections were written in the margins or between the lines, but with the passage of time, they found their way into the text, becoming indistinguishable as corrections. Contamination, as this phenomenon is called, renders these manuscripts genealogically useless because the textual critic does not know at what point the contamination took place. He or she is left with a haphazard collection of errors in each manuscript. Indicative errors cannot be found. The variants can no longer be used to divide the tradition into distinct families of manuscripts.12 Maas, Textual Criticism, 49. Heather F. Windram et al., "Phylogenetic Analysis of Manuscript Traditions, and the Problem of Contamination," in The Evolution of Texts: 11

12

Confronting Stemmatological and Genetic Methods: Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Louvain-la-Neuve on September 1-2, 2004,

ed. Caroline Mace, Philippe Baret, Andrea Bozzi, and Laura Cignoni, Linguistica Computazionale 24-25 (Pisa: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici 10

Nevertheless, depending upon the quality of manuscripts and the strength of the tradition, a stemma can often be constructed. This is a significant step toward scientifically establishing the critical text rather than relying on the so-called best text. c. Conjecturing Criticism Versus Conservative Criticism textual conjecture (divinatio) is the critical reconstruction of a corrupt passage in a transmitted text, which would make no sense without the alteration. A textual conjecture is the creation of the textual critic alone. There is no written witness to the conjecture or it would no longer be called a conjecture. In other words, the conjectured word or phrase appears nowhere in the manuscript or printed tradition of the work. The editor normally identifies the passage in the critical apparatus with the verb conieci, "I have conjectured." The word "conjecture" should be used in textual criticism only when referring to the ingenious decision of the textual critic to assign a word or words to the ancient author that are not present in the manuscript tradition. A conjectural emendation is to the textual critic what "deadly force" is to the police officer: "Don't use it unless you have to. But if you have to, don't hesitate to use it." A textual conjecture should always be the last alternative after all other possibilities have been exhausted. The textual conjecture is not a guess. It is scientifically based but often at the same time instinctual. This is the point at which the science of textual criticism becomes the art of textual criticism.I3 A

Intemazionali, 2006), 141-156, is an attempt at using phylogenetic analysis to solve the problem of contamination. 13 See R. G. M. Nisbet, "How Textual Conjectures Are Made," Materiali e discussioni per 1 'analisi dei testi classici 26 (1991): 65-91. 1I

Paul Maas explains the difficulty in striking a balance between the conflicting approaches of radical and conservative textual criticism. He states, My general impression is that on the one hand too many conjectures have been accepted of a kind which assumes a violent (that is, really irremediable) mutilation of the text, while on the other hand scholars have been too ready to overlook corruptions in the tradition or the vulgate text simply because no convincing solution has yet been offered. Both these faults spring from a reprehensible fear of admitting that one has not reached an entirely satisfying solution; for to present what is doubtful as certain is to remain farther from the goal than if one were to confess one's doubt. I4 In other words, the textual critic may legitimately say, "I don't know," and that would be preferred to either affirming an existing error or introducing one into the tradition. I took this non-committal course of action in my own edition regarding the enigmatic words testi polline, which were incomprehensible and remain so. In this case, the manuscript tradition was already showing conjectures, which I did not accept; instead I put the phrase between daggers in the critical text indicating corruptela. While E. J. Kenney appears to offer a balanced approach as well, he actually comes down against conservative critics: "To defend what exists is the prerogative of the old, the settled, the unadventurous; it is dull, whereas to attack is original and exciting. It has always seemed to most people a more 14 15

Maas, Textual Criticism, 16-17.

See Steinhauser„4nonyini in lob, 33.

12

distinguished intellectual feat to correct a text by altering it than to explain it as it stands, though both operations are in fact equally necessary and important—and intellectually respectable."I6 However, Kenney does not end there. Citing A. E. Housman, he states that not all conservative scholars are stupid, but all stupid scholars are conservative, and declares that "conservatism is still a force to be reckoned with."I7 Kenney supports conjecturing textual criticism wholeheartedly and writes disparagingly of the conservative textual critic, although he tends to hide his prejudice in his rhetoric or humor. Opponents would call him konjekturfreudig. Conjectural emendation has been a major issue of discord regarding the recent edition of Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos.18 A conflict has emerged between the Viennese and Roman schools of textual criticism. Representing the Viennese school, Adolf Primmer recommends conjectures to correct infelicities of grammar in the commentary of Augustine.'9 Representing the Roman school, Franco Gori

16 E. J. Kenney, The Classical Text: Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book, Sather Classical Lectures 44 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 114. 17 Ibid. Is See Franco Gori, ed., Sancti Augustini Opera: Enarrationes in Psahnos 119- 133, CSEL 95/3 (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001); Gori, ed., Sancti Augustini Opera: Enarrationes in Psalmos 134- 140, CSEL 95/4 (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 2001). 19 See Adolf Primmer, "Die Edition von Augustinus, Enarratione.s. in Psalmos: Eine Zwischenbilanz," in Textsorten and Textkritik: Tagungsheitriige, ed. Adolf Primmer, Kurt Smolak. and Dorothea Weber (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 147-192; see also Bengt Alexanderson, "Reflexions sur Pedition recente des Psalmi graduum de S. Augustin," Augustinianwn 42 (2002): 187-204.

13

indicates that the Enarrationes are oral texts:2° They were originally homilies preached by Augustine. Hence, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Augustine could compose a grammatically defective or incomplete sentence, for example omitting a verb. While Gori would leave the sentence grammatically incorrect, Primmer would complete the sentence, conjecturing an appropriate correction. Some examples illustrating the difference in methodology follow. At Enarrationes in Psalmos 119, 7, 47-50,21 the text22 of the Patrologia Latina reads: Ismael in umbra, Isaac in luce. (At this point Gori adds from family y: si ergo Ismael in tenebris Isaac in luce, while Primmer prefers family 2t, the shorter reading, which omits Gori's addition as redundant.) Si ergo Ismael in umbra, non minim quia ibi tenebrae. Pinguiores etenim umbrae tenebrae sunt. Ergo Ismael in tenebris, Isaac in htce. Quicumque hic etiam in Ecclesia terrenam . felicitatem quaerunt a Deo, adhuc ad Ismael pertinent. The translation of the passage with Gori's addition follows: "Ishmael in shadows, Isaac in light. If, therefore, Ishmael is in darkness and Isaac in light—if therefore Ishmael is in shadows, do not be surprised that there is darkness present, for deep shadows are darkness, therefore Ishmael is in darkness and Isaac in light—whoever seeks earthly happiness from God in the church in this respect pertains to Ishmael." Gori postulates an audience reaction after 20 See Franco Gori, "Genere oratorio, tradizione manoscritta e critica testuale delle `Enarrationes' predicate di Agostino," Primmer, Smolak, and proposito di due Weber, Textsorten and Textkritik, 125-140; Gori, articoli sull'edizione critica delle Enarrationes in Psalinos 119-133," Augustinianum 42 (2002): 315-346. 21 See Primmer, "Edition von Augustinus," 174-175; Gori, "A proposito di due articoli," 320-321. 22 In these three illustrations I have used the Patrologia Latina, which is the textus receptus from the I'vlaurist edition.

14

the first underlined phrase, which required a parenthetical explanation and repetition of the sentence after the explanation. Evidence for this audience reaction is the phrase "do not be surprised," which indicates that the audience did externally manifest surprise at Augustine's statement. At Enarrationes in Psahnos 119, 8, 9-14,23 the text of the Patrologia Latina reads: Si ergo ascendit in corde, non ascendit per ascensiones cordis nisi anima quae peregrinatur. Family y actually repeats non ascendit twice, while in family ir, which was normative for the Maurists, non ascendit occurs only once. In order to explain this seemingly useless repetition, Primmer would conjecture a missing word, corpore (body) contrasting with the word corde (heart): Si ergo ascendit in corde, non ascendit. Non ascendit... On the other hand, Gori would leave the non ascendit repeated twice without correction: Si ergo ascendit in corde, non ascendit—non ascendit... Gori postulates an interruption in Augustine's discourse or train of thought that required him to repeat non ascendit a second time. At Enarrationes in Psahnos 120, 5, 35-39,24 the text of the Patrologia Latina reads: Homo dixit ascendens et cantons Canticum graduum, Ne des ad movendum pedum meum: et Deus tanquam diceret, Ne des ad movendum pedem meum, dicis mihi; adde, Neque dormitet qui custodit te, et non movebitur pes bus. In the text, the non-italicized sections represent biblical quotations. Primmer, the more radical textual critic, conjectures addit for adde, arguing that the third person 23 See Primmer, "Edition von Augustinus," 175-176; Gori, "A proposito di due articoli," 319. 24 Primmer, "Edition von Augustinus," 177; Gori, "A proposito di due articoli," 321.

15

singular addit would be parallel to the third person singular diceret above. He explains that the scribe was distracted by des and dicis, and insists that the conjecture addit belongs "without a doubt" in the text. Gori, the more conservative textual critic, asserting the "colloquial context" of the passage, leaves adde stand as an imperative. Following Primmer's emendation the text would be translated: "The man said..., 'Lest you allow my foot to stumble,' and God then would have said, 'Lest you allow my foot to stumble' you say to me, and God adds, 'Nor does he sleep who protects you,' and your foot will not stumble." Following Gori the text would be translated: "The man said..., 'Lest you allow my foot to stumble,' and God then would have said, 'Lest you allow my foot to stumble,' you say to me, add, 'Nor does he sleep who protects you,' and your foot will not stumble." In summation, the effective textual critic must be conservative and conjecturing at the same time by striking a subtle balance between timid immobility and unbridled imagination.

d. Error Versus Forgery Although Maas identified differences in the wording of manuscripts as "errors," scholars today have generally agreed to use the neutral non-prejudicial term "variants" when referring to multiple readings in manuscripts. This has been turned upside down by Bart D. Ehrman in some of his recent writings regarding the New Testament.2 In the past, it was generally agreed among textual scholars that variants in manuscripts were 25 See Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), esp. his conclusion at

274-283.

16

"mistakes" or "scribal errors," assuming that no scribe would presume to change the text that he was responsible for copying. After all, the role of the scribe was to transmit faithfully what was before him. It would be especially unthinkable to change the wording of a sacred text, like the Bible, whose text was inspired by God. Ehrman has advanced the hypothesis that many New Testament variants were not variants at all, not innocent scribal errors but intentional fabrications designed to bolster a specific theological position. His analysis of New Testament manuscripts is based upon the Christological debates of the second and third centuries. He deals with four major Christological tendencies distinctive of the period: adoptionism, separationism, doceticism, and patripassianism. The narrative of the baptism of Jesus26 at Luke 3:22 presents a typical example: "A voice from heaven was heard to say: 'You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.' Ehrman argues that the reading in Codex Bezae is more original: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you," which corresponds to Ps 2:7. He hypothesizes that the more adoptionist leaning Ps 2:7 was made to correspond to Mark 1:11 by a hypersensitive orthodox scribe. "Today I have begotten you" would indicate that Jesus was adopted or became God's son at his baptism. "In you I am well pleased" would affirm that Jesus was already the son of God. Thus, the Lucan text was purged of a latent adoptionist tendency at this point. Indeed, Ehrman offers many carefully analyzed examples pertaining to all four heretical categories, the study of which goes beyond the goals of this introduction. In terms of textual criticism, what is important here is the movement away from the neutrality of the variant. If textual variants are not errors caused by chance, as 26

See ibid., 62-67.

17

was thought in the past, but intentional alterations in the text, the ramifications are significant for our understanding of textual transmission and our practice of textual criticism. From a text critical point of view, the New Testament27 is especially problematic for three reasons: (1) The textus receptus or the received text of the New Testament, transmitted in printings based on either the Stephanus edition of 1550 or the Elzevir edition of 1633, was an especially corrupt text. (2) The New Testament has an enolinous number of manuscript witnesses and fragments, as well as a rich secondary transmission, which makes the construction of a stemma impossible. This limits the textual critic's methodologically to some form of eclecticism.28 (3) The New Testament is a "sacred text." This has influenced the way in which it was transmitted and the way it is treated today. While some scholars allow the theological concept of inspiration to prejudice their academic judgments, other scholars find the opportunity to debunk an inspired book exhilarating. It is tantamount to kicking the sacred cow in public. In this context, Ehrman's assertion that orthodox scribes corrupted the New Testament by sanitizing certain passages in order to advance an orthodox point of view encounters vehement opposition from biblical fundamentalists who are horrified by even the idea that a scribe would tamper with the word of God. 27 For an excellent introduction to New Testament manuscripts and textual criticism, see D. C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 28 See Michael W. Holmes, "Reasoned Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism," in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, Studies and Documents 46 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 336-360.

18

In summation, one may be surprised that an "armchair' discipline such as textual criticism would be fraught with such bitter controversies: eclecticism versus stemmatics, best text versus critical text, conjecturing criticism versus conservative criticism, and error versus forgery. Science has progressed and will continue to progress through intellectual conflict. Unfortunately, of all the issues treated above, one problem remains instuniountable: if one could solve the problem of contamination, many eliminated manuscripts would be made useful for textual emendation. Part IL Illustrative Essays Nevertheless, the present volume is not about textual criticism per se; rather it deals with those instances where the trajectories of textual criticism and literary criticism intersect. To use another analogy, one could say that this volume concerns those occasions when textual criticism and literary criticism overlap. Literary criticism is the analysis and interpretation of literature. This intersection or overlapping is most productive when applied to the following seven types of problems: (a) determining authorship, (b) ascertaining the date of composition, (c) identifying sources, (d) describing the process of composition, (e) explaining the subsequent reception and use of the work, (0 analyzing textual variants, and (g) assessing textual conjectures. The articles in this collection grew out of my doctoral seminar "Manuscripts and Texts," which I have offered three times at Saint Louis University between 2007 and 2011. The assignment for the student was to present a late antique or patristic text, where its transmission has in some way had an effect on its meaning and our understanding of the text today. In each case the contributors have presented a 19

problem and some possible solutions. These studies are the fruit of their labor.

a. Determining Authorship 1. Donna R. Hawk-Reinhard produces a revised stemma of Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogic Catecheses, which explains the diverse authorial attributions existing in the manuscript tradition. The manuscripts identify either John of Jerusalem alone as author or both Cyril and John as co-authors. Because of the importance of the fourth-century Jerusalem church in the development of the liturgy, having a complete preand post-baptismal catechesis from the same bishop is of great value. The authorship of five post-baptismal catechetical lectures has been debated since the late sixteenth century. Hawk-Reinhard's evaluation of text critical issues and transmission history provides additional weight to both Alexis Doval's cumulative argument for Cyril's authorship and Auguste Piedagnel's theory that John of Jerusalem was the redactor who produced the preferred text of the most recent critical edition. Based upon examination of the most significant textual variants in the authorial attribution portion of the first mystagogical lecture, she proposes a modest change in Piedagnel's stemma, which provides a reasonable explanation for the mixed authorial attribution found in the manuscript tradition. From the organization of the texts within codices containing the mystagogical lectures, one may argue that those who copied and collated the texts perceived these mystagogical lectures together with the uncontested catechetical lectures as a unified pre- and post-baptismal catechesis from the Jerusalem church.

20

2. Francis X. Gumerlock is an expert on Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe. He notes that there were two authors named Fulgentius who lived in Africa during the fourth century. One was Fulgentius the bishop; the other Fulgentius the Mythographer. Fulgentius of Ruspe wrote against Arians and Pelagians. He represented Augustine's position on grace and predestination against the so-called semi-Pelagians. He was known to Isidore, Alcuin, and other medieval writers. Fulgentius the Mythographer wrote on various mythological works and Vergil. He was known to Boethius and other medieval authors as well. According to Gumerlock, the two Fulgentii first became conflated in the writings of Prudentius of Troyes. During the Middle Ages the predestination controversy occupied Gottschalt and John Scotus Eriugena. In AD 852 Prudentius of Troyes published On Predestination against John the Scot, where he relied heavily on Fulgentius of Ruspe's teaching on predestination. He also wanted to demonstrate that Fulgentius was learned in Greek grammar and rhetoric and therefore was an interpreter of Augustine superior to Eriugena. By conflating the two Fulgentii, Prudentius came up with a new and improved Fulgentius, a veritable "Renaissance man," who was simultaneously an Augustinian theologian and a classical scholar. This conflation of the two Fulgentii into one "bishopmythographer" became more widespread by the twelfth century. Today most scholars agree that there were two Fulgentii. Gumerlock presents the origin of the confusion.

b. Date of Composition 3. Marilyn C. Kincaid deals with the Letter of Severus, which was written by the bishop of Minorca on the occasion of the sudden conversion of the Jews on the island to Christianity in AD 418. Although some scholars believe the letter to have

21

been a seventh-century document, Kincaid considers it an authentic fifth-century composition. Severus' letter reveals its precise date of composition by mentioning the names of the two consuls who had been appointed during the previous year. Severus describes the events on the island as having taken place over the space of a week, from Saturday, February 2, through Saturday, February 9, all happening before the beginning of Lent. These data are consistent with 418 as the correct year. Two fifth-century documents allude to Severus' letter. One is De nziraculis sancti Stephani, a compilation of the miracles of St. Stephen, written around 425 in Uzalis. This document mentions Severus by name as well as the miracle of the conversion of the Jews. The other is Epistula 12* (in the Divjak collection) from Consentius, a Spanish layman, to Augustine of Hippo. Consentius apparently witnessed the events on the island, and he too mentions Severus by name. Orosius, who was taking the relics of St. Stephen from Africa to Spain, inadvertently landed on Minorca. That the relics were of St. Stephen is significant because he was a particular inspiration for those fighting the influence of Judaism. c. Identification of Sources 4. In 1873 Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, discovered the unique extant copy of the Didache in Constantinople. At the time this new document generated great interest among scholars. Noel Pretila takes up the Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, specifically for the purpose of analyzing the "Two-Way" tradition that it shares with the Epistle of Barnabas. The "Two-Way" material represents an ancient catechetical tradition that explains each Christian has a choice between two ways or roads, one leading to perdition and the other leading to salvation. Regarding the 22

relationship of the texts to one another, there can be only three possibilities: either the Didache copied the "Two-Way" material from the Epistle of Barnabas; or the Epistle of Barnabas copied the "Two-Way" material from the Didache; or both the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas used a common source. Pretila describes each of the three arguments as well as their strengths and weaknesses. In the end, however, he concludes that the two works had a common source, explaining that the so-called "Christian Interpolation" in the Didache was an attempt to christianize a previously existing Jewish "Two-Way" tradition. 5. In the ninth century, Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, stated in his Biblioteca that the Symposium of Methodius of Olympus, written some five centuries earlier, had been corrupted with heterodox interpolations. Hudson Russell Davis asserts that the so-called "Arian Interpolations" in the Symposium of Methodius of Olympus are not interpolations at all but an awkward appropriation of material from Origen by Methodius himself. His careful review of the Symposium and the secondary literature enables him to reduce the problem to three possibilities. First, there were two editions, an initial orthodox one and another containing Arian material. Davis agrees with Herbert Musurillo that there is no textual evidence to bear this out. The two-edition hypothesis is built upon the unsubstantiated assertion of Photius. Second, there was an initial edition into which not heterodox but orthodox insertions were made because the imprecision of Methodius' writing was providing fodder for Arian heretics. Third, the current edition is indeed the original edition, and the questionable passages are not inconsistent with the meaning of the text. Lloyd G. Patterson explains that Methodius' Symposium is often vague and imprecise. However, Patterson's textual analyses, which 23

Davis accepts, demonstrate that there was only one edition of Methodius' Symposium with neither Arian nor anti-Arian interpolations. d. Process of Composition 6. Sarah L. P. White deals with possible Apollinarian interpolations in the Short Recension of Athanasius' two-part work, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione. Because of its Christological significance, the work's popularity was established soon after its writing, as its extensive transmission history indicates. In 1925 J. Lebon discovered two new manuscripts of the Contra Gentes-De Incarnatione and demonstrated that they were witnesses to a Short Recension of the work. Over the subsequent five decades, scholars debated whether the textual differences apparent in the Short Recension were dogmatic in intent. Due to several interrelated themes, most scholars generally attributed the interpolations to Apollinarian editors: the downplaying of Christ's human body, the elevation of the Logos working in and through the body, its divinized instrumentality, and God's making himself known to humanity through Christ's body. Scholars who identify these emphases as "Apollinarian," such as Robert W. Thomson, typically read Athanasius in the tradition best expressed by Alois Grillmeier, which questions whether Athanasius knew of a human soul in Christ at all. More recently Khaled Anatolios's revisionist approach offers a fresh perspective on both the theological and, in turn, the textual problems of the work. When read in the context of Athanasius' overarching apologetic program, with its focus on the structure of creation and redemption, the supposedly "un-Athanasian" passages of Contra Gentes-De Incarnatione are theologically consistent and, as such, cannot give conclusive evidence of Apollinarian 24

interpolations. The debate over the Short Recension is thus an example of the way in which theological assumptions can shape textual criticism, and how the tools of textual and literary criticism must be used in conversation with each other. deals with Wurzburg, 7. Alden Bass Universitatsbibliothek Ms. th. f 33, which was first identified as a "Donatist Dossier" by Richard Reitzenstein in 1914. Besides the Passion of Cyprian, the manuscript contains four letters of Cyprian and two pseudo-Cyprianic sermons. Reitzenstein's student, H. K. Mengis, developed the hypothesis further in a Freiburg dissertation published in 1916. The major piece of evidence used to identify the collection as a "Donatist Dossier" rather than merely a "Cyprian Dossier" was the Passion of Cyprian, which diverges thematically from the Life and Passion of Cyprian by the deacon Pontius and the anonymous Acts of Cyprian. Building upon the work of Maureen Tilley, Bass identifies several major differences among the works. Above all, according to the Passion of Cyprian in the Wilrzburg manuscript, Cyprian and his companions shout Deo laudes immediately before their martyrdom. Deo laudes was known to be the infamous battle cry of the Donatists, which was even condemned by Augustine in his sermons. Departing from the opinions of Reitzenstein and W. H. C. Frend, Bass insists that the dossier was intended for use within the African church. It is post-Cyprianic but nevertheless pre-Donatist. Bass considers the collection to have been originally an exhortation to martyrdom and asceticism that was later usurped by the Donatists. 8. Gerardo Rodriguez-Galarza studies Victorinus of Pettau's Connnentarius in Apocalypsim and Jerome's revision of the same. He has identified two different theological preoccupations. These are especially evident in the endings of

25

the commentary. Victorinus' original ending is concerned with the genuine persecution his contemporary church was experiencing. In fact, scholars believe Victorinus was probably martyred during the Great Persecution of Diocletian in AD 304. Jerome, on the other hand, was born around 347, well after the last Roman persecution under Diocletian. His revised ending shows a preoccupation with orthodoxy and asceticism. Jerome's kingdom is spiritual and moral based on the virtue of individual Christians, while the Victorinus' kingdom is concrete and real. According to Victorinus, God will establish heaven on earth at the end time. According to Jerome, those Christians who conquer their vices will reign with Christ. Building upon the research of Johannes Haussleiter and Martine Dulaey, Rodriguez-Galarza presents the example of an Apocalypse commentary written by Victorinus and subsequently revised by Jerome during the course of its transmission. Thus, the manuscript tradition conveys two conflicting versions of the one commentary. 9. Eric Wickman interprets the Apologetica of Hilary of Poitiers as marginalia to his De Synodis. The article begins with the historical background of the writing of De Synodis. Particular attention is given to the words homoousios and homoiousios. Hilary of Poitiers' De Synodis was decried by some of his critics as too soft on Arianism and not adhering closely enough to the tenets of the Nicene Council. Tradition has it that Hilary responded to his critics in a second work called Apologetica ad reprehensores libri de Synodis responsa and that this document has been lost to history save a few fragments. Recent scholarship by Pierre Smulders suggests that the relationship between these two documents is different and that the Apologetica has not been lost to history, but was instead 26

a series of marginal notes written by Hilary himself into a copy of Be Synodis, which Hilary sent to his critics as a response. The purpose of this article is to expand on Smulders's work on the relationship between these two texts and to discern what is revealed about the theology of Hilary of Poitiers through the relationship between De Synodis and the Apologetica. 10. Scott Shoger investigates Be sacramentis and De mysteriis, two works attributed to Ambrose and frequently circulated in the same manuscripts. However, the authenticity of De sacramentis has been questioned in various quarters. In the eighteenth century the Maurists gave priority to Be mysteriis and considered Be sacramentis to be a later epitome, which certainly could not be attributed to Ambrose. In 1893 Ferdinand Probst advanced a hypothesis that reversed the order of composition advanced by the Maurists and insisted upon the authenticity of both works. According to Probst, Be sacramentis was a series of sermons preached by Ambrose in his cathedral at Milan and recorded by stenographers, hence the stylistic infelicities and inconsistencies. Ambrose then revised his earlier work and issued it as Be mysteriis. Initially Probst's hypothesis was vehemently opposed. In the early twentieth century, T. Thompson, J. Srawley, C. Atchley, Craig Satterlee, and even Ambrose's famous biographer F. Homes Dudden all rejected Ambrosian authorship of Be sacramentis. The breakthrough came in 1955 with the critical edition of Otto Faller, who presented massive evidence to demonstrate the priority and authenticity of De sacramentis. Shoger brings scholarship further by comparing the two works in order to give insight into the development of Ambrose's thought from one 27

work to the other. His conclusions are graphically presented in two appendices to the article. e. Reception 11. Kyle A. Schenkewitz discusses the transmission of Evagrius of Pontus' Kephalaia Gnostica, originally written in Greek. The extant textual witnesses to Kephalaia Gnostica in its entirety consist of two Syriac editions (identified as SI and S2) and one Armenian edition. S2 is considered the most faithful edition and survives in only one manuscript. Greek fragments and a secondary transmission in Greek authors also exist. The importance of this work is evident in the way in which later readers and interpreters of Evagrius have transmitted, edited, and even distorted it. Some commentators revered Evagrius, but the text they were using had been highly edited. Others were less amenable to Evagrius and did not transmit his work except for citing theologically questionable examples. Schenkewitz argues that the extant texts of Kephalaia Gnostica reveal a variety of theological trajectories. S 1, S2, and the Ainienian edition each responded to the reputation of Evagrius and the interpretation of their received texts in divergent ways. The translator of S 1 has transmitted a text purged of any Origenist leanings. The translator of the Armenian edition utilized the text of S1 but has translated the text with a particular eschatological tendency, emphasizing the necessity of repentance and a literal interpretation of final judgment and hell. From the complex relationships among the editions, multiple avenues of interpretation emerge based upon the theological objectives of the translators and editors. Each edition was produced in a particular context and with a specific readership intended. Although scholarly literature has focused on S2 as "le texte veritible," S1 and the Armenian edition were also influential in 28

certain Christian communities, where they were held to be the true text of Evagrius' Kephalaia Gnostica. 12. Originally written in Greek and likely completed by the end of AD 375, Basil of Caesarea's On The Holy Spirit provides a significant witness to the discourses emerging among theologically divided fourth-century Christians. Within a few years of its composition, Basil's text was transmitted to a Syriac community whose translator subjected it to conspicuous revision. Benjamin D. Wayman offers a textual and literary analysis of the earliest known Syriac version of Basil's treatise (Syriac I) and shows how subsequent transmission has affected the meaning of his text. First, Wayman explains the traditional narrative of Basil's original composition while raising the question of a rhetorically bold rather than theologically subtle proclamation. Second, lie examines textual issues such as dating, manuscript tradition, and translational style and in so doing situates Syriac I in the throes of the late fourth- and early fifth-century Trinitarian controversies. Third, he addresses three classes of literary revisions that are also theologically charged and hence affect the meaning of the text. Fourth, the narrative presented in the first section is revisited in order to illuminate the forces influencing the Syriac translator's blatant textual revision. In addition, an explanation is offered as to why the Syriac translator transmitted and corrected Basil's original work. Wayman contends that the Syriac transmission of Basil's text can be seen as a theological work of a brashly creative, but nevertheless pro-Basil, translator. 13. Daniel Handschy deals with Cyprian of Carthage's tractate De ecclesiae catholicae imitate. In 1563 Manutius published at Rome an edition of Cyprian's works that included material not previously published interpolated into the text of 29

De unitate 4. These "interpolations" supported papal primacy. Historically, the text became a matter of polemics, particularly between Anglican and Roman Catholic scholars. Anglicans claimed that the papacy had the interpolations forged to give weight to the deliberations of the Council of Trent, sitting when Manutius published his edition. These polemics often descended to the level of namecalling rather than engaging any serious scholarship concerning the manuscript tradition of Cyprian's tractate. In 1902 John Chapman, O.S.B., published an article that showed the interpolations could be separated out of the edition and could stand on their own as a separate version of the tractate. Maurice Bevenot, beginning with Chapman's work, carefully edited Cyprian's tract and found that both versions, the Primacy Text and the textus receptus, originate from Cyprian. Since Bevenot's edition, scholars have accepted that Cyprian wrote both forms of the treatise and have dealt with both versions to discover Cyprian's own ecclesiology. Handschy traces the history of the polemics and details the critical investigation of Cyprian's tractate. 14. Jacob N. Van Sickle demonstrates how issues in the transmission of patristic texts stymied productive discussion at the council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439 on the doctrine of the . filioque and led to a schism within the Greek delegation, which resulted in the signing of a formula for the reunion of the Eastern and Western churches that was destined to fail. A variant in Basil of Caesarea's Adversus Eunoinium 3.1 now known to be a Eunomian interpolation was determined to be authentic and became an interpretive key coloring the rest of the Greek patristic tradition. Also, the authenticity of Maximus the Confessor's critical assessment of the filioque, the Letter to 30

Marinas (Opuscule 10), which is now widely accepted, was called into question on the basis of its unusual place in the manuscript tradition and ruled out of the discussions. Van Sickle argues that, were it not for the inability of those at the council to assess accurately the texts in question on account of the state of their transmission in the manuscripts, there would likely have been no agreement of union and thus the unfortunate aftermath of the council—a divisive controversy in the East and a sense of betrayal and embitterment in the West, further straining relations between the two communions—might have been avoided. Finally, the author suggests that the recent findings of textual critics with respect to these patristic texts have put us in a position to reengage the issue more productively than the churches have been able to do in the past. J Textual Variants 15. Aaron Overby deals with scribal variants of the nomina sacra deus and dominus—in the Acts of the Council of Aquileia, which took place in AD 381. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, confronts two homoian bishops, Palladius and Secundianus, concerning their understanding of Christ. Ambrose and the other pro-Nicene bishops at the council accuse the two homoian bishops of being "Arian." Palladius and Secundianus refuse to accept this label. Nevertheless, although they are certainly willing to call Christ "true son of God," they balk at calling him "true God." In the Acts of the council as they have been transmitted, the word deus in the text appears to have been changed to dominus, perhaps a misreading of the abbreviation of ds for dirs. This introduces an ambiguity about what the two bishops would or would not say concerning Christ, and also about the grounds for their condemnation. Furthermore, these changes are present in the oldest manuscript 31

that we have, namely, Paris, B.N. lat. 8709, which Michaela Zeizer has identified in her critical edition as the hypearchetype for all other extant copies. According to Overby, Zelzer has already rightly identified these variants as scribal errors in reading notnina sacra. Then, Overby demonstrates how these variants change the theological content of the text. 16. In his Enchiridion Augustine comments that the people of Tyre and Sidon according to Jesus would have repented if miracles would have been performed in their midst (see Matt 11:21). Scott Dermer deals with a textual variant at Ench. 24.29: "Nor certainly did God unjustly not wish to save them, when they could have been saved had they wished." Some manuscripts read si vellent ("had they wished") referring to the people of Tyre and Sidon, while others read si vellet ("had he wished") referring to God. In other words, did the salvation of the people of Tyre and Sidon depend on their own will or on God's? The first section of Dermer's paper illustrates the theological implications of this variant by considering the controversy which arose in the seventeenth century when the Jansenist Antoine Arnauld printed an edition which read vellet. Prior to Arnauld all editions had read vellent. The Jesuits opposed Arnauld's reading, arguing that it contradicted the textus receptus and supported Jansenist heresy on salvation. The controversy eventually involved the Maurists, who were preparing their edition of the Enchiridion. They demonstrated that the manuscript evidence favored vellet. Nevertheless, their edition retained vellent, with a note explaining the evidence for vellet. In the second section of his article, Delmer presents a review of the important critical editions and translations of the Enchiridion. While the majority contains vellet, the existence of vellent in two respected editions indicated that the verdict was 32

still unclear. Thus, Dermer turned to a theological analysis in his third section in order to resolve the ambiguity. By looking at the variant in the context of the Enchiridion and Augustine's thought, by attending to other instances where Augustine comments on Matt 11:21, and by examining some uses of vellent and vellet in Augustine's works, Dermer argues that vellet is most congruent with Augustine's doctrine of predestination and his emphasis on the role of the divine will in human salvation.

g. Textual Conjecture 17. Timothy R. LeCroy analyzes a textual conjecture by Adolf von Harnack to the text of the Didache, which refers to confessing one's sins before receiving the eucharist. The established reading of Didache 14 points to a liturgical outline, which seems to be drawn from the overall sacrificial order presented in Lev 9 and 2 Chr 29. The existence of this sacrificial order in Didache 14 hinges upon a conjecture made by Adolph von Harnack in his 1884 edition of the Didache. There Harnack suggested that the verb npoo-EgopAoylo-cittEvoi that appears in the Jerusalem Codex, the only surviving manuscript containing Didache 14, should be read as 71-poEgotioAoylicr4Evoi. The former, which appears in the text, would be translated "to confess one's sins at the same time," while the latter, which is the conjectured reading, would be translated "confessing one's sins beforehand." This emendation has a direct impact on the interpretation of the text. Were sins to be confessed before taking the eucharist, or at the same time, or is the chronology unimportant? In order to set about answering this question, the merits of the emendation were examined on several levels. Lexicography, grammar, literary context, paleography, and the history of modern transmission of this 33

emendation were all thoroughly studied in order to gain a firm grasp on the question and to garner arguments for and against its acceptance. The conclusion of this study is that the verb Trpoo-Etop.oXorlaTip.Evot, which appears in the sole witness for Didache 14, is indeed a scribal error, and that the text should properly be emended to read 7rpoEtop.o7xyricrat.t.svot. All seventeen articles deal with the intersection of textual and literary criticism. This confluence provides insights into the texts considered and helps solve literary, historical, and theological problems. When the theologian understands and appreciates the science and art of textual criticism, he or she is able to interpret patristic writings fully and correctly.

34

PART I

Determining Authorship

Chapter One Transmission Implications Regarding the Authorship of Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogic Catecheses Donna R. Hawk-Reinhard The authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses, five postbaptismal catechetical lectures from late fourth-century Jerusalem, has been debated since 1574.1 While traditionally attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, scholars continue to debate whether the Mystagogic Catecheses should be attributed to Cyril or to his episcopal successor, John of Jerusalem. Auguste Piedagnel, editor of the critical edition of the text, groups the objections to Cyrillian authorship into three categories: those which stem from variant readings in the manuscripts, those arising from evaluating the literary analysis, and those derived from the study of liturgical history and development.' Recent The beginning of the debate can be traced to Josias Simmler's discovery of a bill of sale of manuscripts in 1574, which attributed authorship of both the Catecheses and the Mystagogic Catecheses to John of Jerusalem. In the sixteenth century, the debate, which was fueled by Calvinist polemics against Roman Catholic eucharistic theology, was based primarily on content and its impact on the liturgical tradition. In the sixteenth century, the attribution of the Mystagogic Catecheses to the bishop after Cyril, John, who was accused of being an Origenist, was an important part of Huguenot Edmee Auhertin's argument that the "real presence" was not the catholic understanding of the eucharist. Guillaume de Felice, History of the Protestants of France: From the Commencement of the Reformation to the Present Time, trans. Henry Lobdell (New York: Henry Walker, 1851), 285; R. J. M. van de Schoor, The Irenical Theology of Theophile Brachet de la Milletiere (1588-1655) (New York: Brill, 1995), 39-51; Alastair Hamilton, The Copts and the West, 1439-1822: The European Discovery of the Egyptian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 153. - Auguste Piedagnel, ed., Catecheses mystag,ogiques 1-par] Cyrille de Jerusalem, 2nd ed., SC 126 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 2004), 18-28.

37

scholars have addressed the literary and liturgical-historical perspectives of this debate. While codicology is part of Alexis Doval's analysis, further analysis of the foliation and collation of the manuscripts can provide additional support for Cyrillian authorship. I propose that a more extensive evaluation of the codicology can provide additional insights into how the text has been received.3 More importantly, an analysis of the evaluation of the text-critical issues, using Piedagnel's analysis of a redactor's, hand present in the manuscript traditions, has not been thoroughly examined in the current conversation. Due to the importance of the fourth-century Jerusalem church in the development of the liturgy, having a complete catechesis—both pre- and post-baptismal—from the same bishop is of great value to both theologians and liturgists. Furthermore, some of the readings in the Mystagogic Catecheses that have fueled the polemics over Cyril's eucharistic theology have significant variants within the manuscript traditions. In particular, some theologians have posited that a form of the doctrine of transubstantiation is present in Cyril's teachings since he employs the miracle at the wedding feast of Cana as proof that the bread and wine of the eucharist are, after the epiclesis, the body and blood of Christ.4 3 Alexis Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses, vol. 17, Patristic Monograph Series (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 58-70,245-51. 4 Piedagnel, Catecheses mystagogiques, 136-7n2, agrees with John Quasten that Cyril's use of the miracle at Cana is an argument for substantial transformation. Ottorino Pasquato follows in this tradition, stating that Cyril's use of the miracle at Cana of turning water into wine is a "sign of transubstantiation." "Spirituality and Prayer in the Baptismal Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem," in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church (Everton Park, Queensland, Australia: Australian Catholic University, 1998), 48.

38

However, this reading is not attested by the manuscript tradition, which I argue bears the least amount of characteristic emendations by Piedagnel's redactor. These are but two examples of why ongoing research in fourth-century sacramental theology requires identification of the text that can be most clearly determined as Cyril's. I propose that by using codicology and Piedagnel's characterization of the redactor, the tangled knot of the authorship of the Jerusalem Mystagogic Catecheses can be loosened, allowing for increased confidence that the Johannine redaction of Cyril's text can be teased apart from the more primitive Cyrillian text. In particular, this analysis of Johannine redaction will allow us to determine with greater clarity Cyril's distinctive understanding of the eucharist's transformative character. State of the Question As noted by Alexis Doval, the issue of authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses is not a simple problem: the prebaptismal Jerusalem Catecheses, of which Cyril's authorship has not been contested, were not always circulated with the post-baptismal Mystagogic Catecheses,5 yet the extant copies of the Mystagogic Catecheses are all hound with manuscripts of the Catecheses. Since 2001 four major works have been published that directly address the authorship debate. In 2001 Doval published additional support for Cyrillian authorship based upon his literary and theological examination of this 5 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue, 58. W. C. Reischl and J. Rupp provide a summary of the codices containing the texts they used in their critical edition. S. parrs nasal Cyrilli Hierosolymanan archiepiseopi Opera gime supersunt amnia, vol. 1 (1848-1860; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), cxlvii—cl.

39

issue. Piedagnel, in his 2004 second edition of Mystagogic Catecheses' critical edition, acknowledged Doval's recent work, but continued to support Johannine redaction of Cyril's text. In 2008, Juliette Day published her continued argument for Johannine authorship based upon her evaluation of liturgical history. Most recently, Abraham Terian re-dated and translated a letter from Macarius of Jerusalem in answer to liturgical questions raised by visiting Armenian priests. Terian directly addresses Juliette Day's assessment of the authorship of the Mystagogic Catechesis.

Alexis Doval's Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue Doval's method is comprehensive: using the prebaptismal Catecheses of Cyril as his basis, he evaluates the Mystagogic Catecheses for similarity to the Catecheses in theology, literary style, spirituality, liturgical rite and catechetics. While Doval addresses the question of John versus both Cyril and John as authors in the manuscripts, instead of a detailed text-critical evaluation of the text in question, he argues from the practical possibilities of authorship and thus the potential sources of the three variants of authorship as found in the text.6 While he does not directly address the text-critical aspects of this passage, Doval combines his analysis with the literary tradition and argues that Cyril's authorship is more probable than John's because of 1) citation of the text with authorship attributed to Cyril but not to John, 2) the possibility of parallel distribution of the text without the name of the author on the manuscript, and 3) dating based upon the internal evidence and the contemporary sources of Egeria's travels and

Doval, Cyril offerusalem, Mystagogue, 66-70.

40

the Armenian Lectionary? Doval then employs his theological, spiritual, and comparative literary approach: he compares select theological and spiritual themes and the literary styles of the Mystagogic Catecheses with the Procatechesis and Catecheses and demonstrates that a common author is a reasonable assumption. With respect to John's two extant works, neither of which survive in Greek (a sermon in Armenian and a Syriac profession of faith), Doval evaluates John's theology and pastoral style and compares these to similar themes within the Catecheses and the Procatechesis. He also evaluates the relevant passages within the Mystagogic Catecheses for Origenistic tendencies.8 While he found themes that are common between John's works and Cyril's uncontested Catecheses, he notes differences in style and content between John's work and the Mystagogic Catecheses. Based upon this research, Doval argues that the cumulative analysis leans toward Cyrillian authorship: "[The Mystagogic Catecheses] could have been considered the work of Cyril but passed onto and used by John," and thus the Mystagogic Catecheses may have been originally attributed to both authors.9 However, Doval does not explain how one manuscript tradition does not have authorship attribution, nor does he explain how some

Doval lists the work of Eustratius of Constantinople (d. 582) against the Psychopannychites. PG 33.305C; Anastasius the Sinaite (d. ca. 700). PG 89.336 and 356; eleventh-century Nicon. PG 33.313C; the twelfth-century later anonymous work On the Divine Mysteries, PG 33.315-6C; and an Armenian tlorilegium. See Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue, 69-70, 72, 75-79. 8 This evaluation assumes that any Origenist leanings would indicate Johannine authorship since, while John was accused of being an Origenist, Cyril did not have this accusation leveled against him. Ibid., 206-23. Ibid., 69.

41

manuscripts have both Cyril's and John's names as authors of the text. Auguste Piedagnel's Catecheses mystagogiques In the 1966 edition of his critical edition, Piedagnel established the text from ten extant Greek witnesses and provided, for the first time, a stemma for these manuscripts.10 He proposed an open recension, a tripartite stemma with the third hyparchetype, y, foinied from the horizontal transmission between the primary hyparchetypes a and [3, with family y closer to family a than 13. Family a is based on the tenth-century Monacensis gr. 394 and the fragmentary eleventh-century Neopolitanus- Vinobonensi gr. 8. Piedagnel describes family 13 as comprised of five manuscripts. However, his stemma indicates that within this family there is an unnamed archetype, which is the source for eleventh-century Bodleianus Roe 25, and a second unnamed archetype, which, due to horizontal transmission of family a, is the source for the mostly eleventhto twelfth-century Marcianus gr. 11.35" and sixteenth- to seventeenth-century Ottobonianus gr. 220. In agreement with Doval, I will refer to these two manuscripts as a sub-family of tradition 13, denoted as 13+ due to the influence of family a that is not present in the rest of family 13.11 Thus, the manuscripts of 1° Auguste Piedagnel, ed., Catecheses mystagogiques [par] Cyrille de jenisaleni, 1st ed., SC 126 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1966). All other citations to the critical edition of the Mystagogic Catecheses refer to the

2004 edition. All subsequent references from the critical edition are from the second edition (see note 2). 11 This manuscript is primarily eleventh to twelfth century, but near the end is sixteenth century. The manuscript portion that is under consideration for the text critical issue of this essay is from the older, parchment section. Piedagnel, Catecheses mystagogiques, 56. 12 This is the same as Doval's "sub-family." Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue, 59-60.

42

family 13 that were not influenced by family a are Coislinianus 227, Vindobonensis 55, and Bodleianus Roe 25, all from the eleventh century. Family 7 contains the three manuscripts that are closest to family a but influenced by family 13: tenth- or eleventh-century Ottobonianus gr. 86, fifteenth-century Ottobonianus gr. 446, and sixteenth -century Monacensis gr. 278. 13 Table 1 summarizes the manuscripts in the stemma, arranged by family, and distinguishes the texts that are within sub-family 13+. The letters in brackets next to each codex are Piedagnel's abbreviations that I use in the reproduction of the diagram of his stemma.

Table I. Manuscripts of Mystagogic Catecheses used by Piedagnel

Family ci

fi 13-i-

Y

Manuscript Monacensis gr. 394 [A] NeopolitanusVinobonensi gr. 8 [B] Bodleianus Roe 25 [D]

Date (century) 10 11 11

Coislinianus 227 [C]

11

Vindobonensis 55 [F] Marcianus gr. 11.35 [H] Ottobonianus gr. 220 [1]

16-17

Ottobonianus gr. 86 [K]

10 or I I

Ottobonianus gr. 446 [L]

15

Monacensis gr. 278 [MI

16

11?1" 11

Locations Munich, Bibl. Nat. Naples, Bibl. Nat., Vindobonensis, Suppl. gr. 61 Oxford, Bodleian Library; fonds Roe Paris, Bibl. Nat.; fonds Coislin Vienna, Bibl. Nat. Venice, Bibl. Saint-Mark Rome, Vatican Library Ottoboni gr. Rome, Vatican Library; Ottoboni gr. Rome, Vatican Library Ottoboni gr. Munich, Bibl. Nat.

Figure 1 is a slightly modified reproduction of Piedagnel's stemma, indicating sub-family 13+, with the abbreviations for the manuscripts from Table 1. 13 14

Piedagnel, Catechases mysta gogiq i«?s, 52-59. Piedagnel lists this manuscript with a question on the dating. Ibid., 55.

43

10th

1 2 d,

136

L'

16th 8

Figure 1. Piedagnel's stemma, modified to indicate sub-family f3+.15 In the 2004 edition of the critical edition, Piedagnel continues to argue for family a, which contains the only witness to John alone as the author, as the preferred tradition in most instances because of its expressiveness. I6 He states that the text Ibid., 59. Piedagnel states that "Je n'ai pas cru pouvoir choisir a proprement parler le Alonacensis 394 comme manuscrit de base. En effet, ce manuscrit, 15

44

in the critical edition of the Mystagogic Catecheses most likely contains revisions made by John of Jerusalem.17 Thus, the text found in the critical edition for the title to the first Mystagogic Catechesis follows the reading of family 'y, which has both John and Cyril as the authors.18 Juliette Day's The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem: Fourthand Fifth-century Evidence from Palestine, Syria and Egypt and Abraham Terian's Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, A.D. 335 Juliette Day's 2008 monograph summarizes the state of the question of authorship from the liturgical perspective. Her concern is whether the baptismal liturgy of Jerusalem is a result of the influence of other baptismal liturgies on the Jerusalem practice (her hypothesis) or whether the Jerusalem baptismal liturgy is the impetus for adopting a Rom 6-based baptismal theology by other communities.19 In particular, she argues that parfois accompagne de Neapolitanus- Vindohonensis 8, parfois seul, presente un certain nombre de lecons propres, on Pon peut reconnaitre, semble-t-il, en plus des fautes habituelles de copie, soit des corrections personnelles du copiste, soil des divergences qui peuvent provenir d'un manuscrit anterieur, soucieux d'offrir un texte d'une langue plus pure ou plus expressive." Ibid., 60. 17 "A noire avis, l'attribution a Jean de Jerusalem de la redaction definitive des Catecheses, dans la teneur que nous livrent les manuscrits, apparait probable." Ibid., 186. 18 Ibid., 82. 19 The traditional understanding, which has been summarized by Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre Press, 1945), 350, is that Cyril "gave to christendom the first outline of the public organisation of the divine office; and the first development of the proper of the seasons as well as of the saints. He was certainly the great propagator, if not the originator, of the later theory of eucharistic consecration by the invocation to the Holy Ghost, with its important effects in the subsequent liturgical divergence of East and West...Above all, to him more than any other single man is due the successful carrying through of that universal transposition of the liturgy from an eschatological to an historical interpretation of

45

the Mystagogic Catecheses "is later than has been thought and that it was subject to influences which also affected the neighboring provinces."20 However, Abraham Terian's 2009 redating of Macarius' Letter to the Armenians seriously undermines her argument.21 Since Terian has cogently argued for dating the Letter to the Armenians to Macarius I, and not Macarius H as previously thought, this letter was written in 335, prior to Cyril's episcopacy. Terian has argued that this letter substantiates that the baptismal liturgy present in Mystagogic Catecheses 1-3 can be dated to either the time of Cyril's episcopacy or before. Terian states that Day's challenge to Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses because of the use of Rom 6-based baptismal theology "is to be dismissed in the light of The Letter of Macarius."22 Terian posits that 1) the Jerusalem church had a tradition of catechesis prior to Cyril's advancement to the episcopate in 348, and 2) parallels between the sacramental theology in Macarius' Letter to the Armenians and the Mystagogic Catecheses can be attributed to Cyril's upbringing in the Jerusalem church and subsequent

redemption, which is the outstanding mark left by the fourth cenniry on the history of Christian worship." Quoted in F. L. Cross, ed., St Cyril of Jerusalem's Lectures on the Christian Sacraments: The Procatechesis and the Five Mystagogical Catecheses, Texts for Students 51 (London: SPCK, 1951), xxviii-xxix. 20 Juliette Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem: Fourth- and Fifthcentray Evidence from Palestine, Syria and Egypt (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 10. 21 Maxwell E. Johnson, review of The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalm: Fourth- and Fifth-cenuay Evidence from Palestine, Syria and Egypt, by Juliette Day, Worship 82, no. 1 (2008): 89-91, rightly noted that the then forthcoming publication of Abraham Terian's work would pose a significant challenge to Day's dating of the Mystagogic Catechesis. Abraham Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, A.D. 335 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2008), 48-49n96.

46

service in the diaconate under Macarius.23 As summarized by Terian, "One can only surmise as to how much of Cyril's catechesis is received tradition.'"24 Summary and Ongoing Problem

While Terian's latest addition to the debate provides further evidence for Cyrillian authorship, neither Piedagnel nor Doval satisfactorily addresses the puzzle of how the manuscript tradition bears a variant in the title of Mystagogic Catechesis 1 that provides evidence for John versus John and Cyril as the author. This will be addressed next. Further, as I will demonstrate below, the codicology, which has not been analyzed in detail in this ongoing debate, provides additional evidence for Cyrillian authorship.25 Textual-Critical issues in the Authorship Debate

While Piedagnel proposes that John of Jerusalem may be the redactor of the preferred manuscript family, he does not address how both Cyril's and John's names are on three manuscripts and John's alone is on one.26 By 1) examining the textual variants in the title to the Mystagogic ('atecheses, 2) taking into account Piedagners proposal of John of Jerusalem as the redactor of hyparchetype a as well as his analysis of John's redaction style, and 3) using a different methodological approach to evaluating the variant readings than that used by Ibid., 112,122. Ibid., 122. See also 59n27. 25 Doval's work focuses on the logical possibilities of how John's name might have been associated with the text, not on the text critical issue per se, except that the possibility of a copy error is extremely unlikely. 26 For the implications of multiple authorships due to editorial revisions, see G. Thomas Tanselle, "The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intent," in Textual Criticism and Scholarly Editing (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1990), 27-71. 23

24

47

Piedagne1,27 I propose that sufficient evidence is available to promote John as the source of many of the systematic variants between the manuscript families. By determining which variants fit the pattern of the redactor, the older Cyrillian readings can be discerned with a reasonable degree of confidence.

The Characteristics of Piedagnel's Redactor According to Piedagnel, a redactor of the text can be discerned through nine characteristics: 1) abridgement, addition of words in quotations, and blending of scriptural texts, all in an attempt to improve on the author's style; 2) a very free interaction in the employment of the article; 3) addition or change in location of the demonstrative pronouns; 4) displacement of adjectives or adverbs; 5) substitution of prepositions; 6) the use of a composite verb in lieu of a simple verb, or vice-versa; 7) employment of the plural definite article where other manuscripts have the singular, or vice-versa; 8) a special place given to the subject or the complement of the direct object; and 9) particular grammatical constructions, including a) a penchant for the infinitive clauses, b) the use of particular terms that are not found in the other manuscripts, and 27

As discussed in Kenneth Steinhauser's introduction, "Transmission and Meaning," 5-11, two methodologies for evaluating which text presents the "best reading" are presently used in critical editions, those from the Bedier school and those from the Lachmannian school. As noted in footnote 16, Piedagnel has proposed the most expressive text as the preferred manuscript, after, as will be discussed in the next section, removing some of the variants found only in that manuscript that are characteristic of the redactor, whom he has proposed is John of Jerusalem. In contrast to Piedagnel's more Bedierian approach, I work from a more Lachmannian method, giving preference to the more difficult reading, which is the shorter reading, and examining all manuscript families for signs of the characteristic redactor's hand.

48

c) the addition of words that intensify the text or make it more expressive.28 In the examples that Piédagnel presents regarding these emendations, all are found exclusively in manuscript A (Monacensis gr. 394) with one exception: manuscript 1 (Ottobonianus gr. 220) of sub-family [3+ has a variant similar to what is found in family a. If this is not an isolated case' then this indicates that sub-family 13+ may also have been emended by the redactor, albeit not as extensively. Piedagners principle for assessing the best reading is to use what is attested in at least two families, and he proposes that the differences between the families are minima1.29 However,

28 "Si ce dernier groupe de fautes peut etre encore le fait du scribe luimeme, un certain nombre de lecons propres au Monacensis 394 semblent provenir d'un correcteur anterieur qui aurait voulu ameliorer le style de l'auteur. Ainsi pouvons-nous peut-etre expliquer : —un jeu tres libre dans Pemploi de Particle; —l'addition ou le changement de place des pronoms demonstratifs ; —le &placement des epithetes ou des adverbes; —la substitution des prepositions ... —l'emploi d'un verbe compose au lieu du verbe simple ou inversement —l'emploi du pluriel la oil les autres manuscrits ont le singulier ou inversement —une place speciale dorm& au sujet ou au complement d'objet direct ... --ou encore une construction grammaticale particuliere, entre autres un penchant pour les propositions infinitives ..." Piedagnel, Cateche.ses mystagogiques, 61-62. 29 "Les titres de chaque Catechese varient avec les families de manuscrites: a, 3, y. Les divergences entre les manuscrits d'une meme famille sont infimes, et ne paraissent etre que des omissions ou mauvaises lectures; cites ne meritent guere d'être retenues. Nous nous contentons done d'indiquer pour chaque Catechese le titre propre a chacune des trois families, d'apres les manuscrits: A pour la famille a; D pour la famille f3; K pour la famille y. Conformement au principe que nous avons suivi pour Petablissement du texte, nous adoptons le titre qui se rencontre dans deux families plutot que celui qui ne se trouve que dans une seule. Or les titres de y sont presque toujours identiques soil a ceux de a soil a ceux de 13; ils nous semblent presenter la formule sans doute la mieux attestee. Aussi les placons-cous au debut du texte de chaque Catechese: et nous donnons dans l'apparat critique celui des deux autres families. Le fait que dans le titre de la I Catechese la famine y (pour laquelle nous avons opte) introduit les noms de Cyril!e et de

49

this principle does not take into account that sequential redaction beginning in either sub-family 3+ or family y and continuing into family a then becomes the majority reading, even though it might have been added by the redactor. Text-Critical Analysis of the Title of Mystagogic Catechesis 1 and a Proposed Revised Stemnsa In order to propose a revised stemma based upon sequential redaction by John of Jerusalem, I examined the variant readings in the title to Mystagogic Catechesis 1. In the following, I worked through the variants starting with manuscripts in family 0 as the original text, evaluating whether scribal errors could account for the variants in the other manuscript traditions or if the changes appear to be a systematic change from family p to family p+, from family 13+ to family y, and then from family y to what is attested in family a. Textual Variants in the Title to Mystagogic Catechesis 1 Neither family 13 nor j3+ provide attribution of authorship in the first lines of the text. However, the variants do provide insights into the authorship and stemma issues. In family p, the differences between the manuscripts are minimal: Bodleianus Roe 25 uses nparrriq (first) while Vindobonensis 55 has it (as a numerical) to refer to the first catholic epistle of Peter, the scriptural reading for the lecture. The title is: "First Mystagogy to the newly-baptized and a reading of Peter's first catholic epistle." Table 2 provides a summary and comparison of the titles as attested in family p, with the differences in bold.

Jean ne signifie nullement que, par la, nous tranchons la question delicate de l'authenticite;..." Pieclagnel, Cateclie.s.es mystagogiques, 82-83.

50

Table 2. Title to the Mystagogic Catecheses, family 13 Manuscript Text

Coislinianus 227 (C)"

txurrraywyialrpf.:yr1 7rp6; Toi); veog&ricrrovc, xai ivdy-voiat; flgzpou 2-orrroXilc ...

Vindobonensis 55

Bodleianus Roe 25

(F)31

(D) 32

1.LuTrayuyia 7rp6ri 7L-p65 robc VE04)COTiTTOU'c 7