Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria

Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria seats of learni...

Author: Henning Lehmann

55 downloads 829 Views 13MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria

Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria seats of learning, sidelights and syriacisms

by henning Lehmann

a a r h u s u n i v e r s i t Y p r e ss

| a

Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria © The author and Aarhus University Press 2008 Layout and cover: Jørgen Sparre

ISBN 978 87 7934 991 9

Aarhus University Press Langelandsgade 177 DK-8200 Aarhus N www.unipress.dk

Fax 00 45 89 42 53 80

Published with grants from Carlsbergfondet

Contents 7 Introduction 13 Hosanna A Philological Discussion in the Old Church 23

The Spirit οf God upon the Face οf The Waters The Sources of St. Basil’s and St. Augustine’s Comments on Gen 1,2c

37

Some Questions Concerning the Armenian Version of the Epistle of James

67

Severian of Gabala New Identifications of Texts in Armenian Translation

77 An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299 (Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament) 95

Severian of Gabala Fragments of the Aucher Collection in Galata MS 54

107 The Syriac Translation of the Old Testament – as Evidenced around the Middle of the Fourth Century (in Eusebius of Emesa) 125 Evidence of the Syriac Bible Translation in Greek Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries 131 The Question of the Syrian Background of the Early Armenian Church once again Some Methodological Remarks 141

What Translators Veil and Reveal Observations on two Armenian Translations of one Greek Homily

155 The Noble Art of Abbreviating in the Light of some Texts attributed to Severian of Gabala 171

The So-Called “Absurd” Punctuation in John 1,3-4 Neglected Witnesses of the Old Church

187

What was Theodoret’s Mother Tongue? – Is the Question Open or Closed?

217

Severian Cento No. 2 in MS Galata 54

229 Greek and Syrian under the Aspects of some Syrian Seats of Learning 243 Indices Biblical texts Patristic and medieval names and sources Modern writers Abbreviations

I

ntroduction

1. Subject, title, and context This book is concerned with three bishops from Syria, viz. Eusebius of Emesa (ca. 300 – ca. 359), Severian of Gabala (? – after 408), and Theodoret of Cyr rhus (ca. 393 – ca. 466). In their literary activity they altogether cover about 100 years – from the second quarter of the 4th century until the beginning of the second half of the 5th century. As bishops, of course, their main responsibilities were of an ecclesiastical nature. However, we shall be more concerned with their roles as representatives of seats of learning or school traditions, but it should be mentioned at the very outset that they hardly drew any sharp distinction between what belonged to School and what belonged to Church. It should also be emphasized that the state of research is characterized by a fairly great variation in the scholarly approach of each of the three authors. Their “language of office” was no doubt Greek. Eusebius and Severian probably had Syriac as their mother tongue, whereas Theodoret’s vernacular, as will be argued below, was Greek. Generally speaking, they all have some connection with the School of Antioch; since, however, this “school”, as has been shown most convincingly, was not “monolithic”, and, as will be true of any “school”, was not “identical” in form throughout the years of 350, 400, and 450, respectively, this “identification” maybe contains far more open questions than definite answers. It is therefore a basic point that the three authors should each be considered on the background of their time and context in history, both theologically speaking as well as in terms of culture, language etc. The reason that this collection of articles dating from 1969 to 2005 (2008) has been given the title “Students of the Bible”, is the fact that we shall mainly be concerned with the ways in which the three bishops approached the Bible. The state of research, however, compels us to include questions on the transmission

8

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

of their written texts, and other elements that might throw some light over their theology and exegesis – or on very elementary questions about defining and understanding their literary remains, all of which must be answered, before a full evaluation of their roles in the history of learning, religion and politics can be made.

2. State of research The starting point of my studies into the three Syrian bishops was a collection of homilies transmitted in Armenian. I gave a provisional account of some of my findings in a communication at the Patristic Conference at Oxford in 1967 (published in 1970, not included here), and in my book Per Piscatores (1975) it was shown that eight of the homilies (I-VIII) belonged to Eusebius, the rest (IX-XIII) to Severian. I argued that it was possible in some cases to discern the text of Eusebius’ Syriac Bible; this was an important argument for his author’s right, but, obviously, it was not a criterion that lent itself easily to the investigator, as the texts were only transmitted in Latin and Armenian. In fact, the very intricate question of the transmission of Eusebian texts is one of the main reasons for using the word “sidelight” in the subtitle of this book. The fact that Eusebius used the Syrian Bible as the basis for his exegesis and preaching was the reason for two further considerations, that of the evaluation of “syriacisms”, not least in the Armenian version of the Bible. I discussed the principles of method in handling linguistic and text historical – and other – syriacisms in an article about the Epistle of James (L 1982,1, below pp. 37ff) and in a broader context in papers concerned with the discussion about the Syrian background of certain elements in the Armenian church (L 1989 and 1990, below pp. 125ff and 131ff). Particular examples of references to Eusebius as a “Christian Syrian” and of Syrian readings in both Eusebius and Severian were presented at conferences in 1979 and 1995 and in the jubilee volume of the Venice Mechitharists (L 1981, 1996 and 1969, below pp. 23ff, 171ff and 13ff). More specifically, already in Per Piscatores I pointed to the Armenian translation of Eusebius’ commentary on historical writings of the Old Testament as an important instrument in identifying Eusebian quotations in the Greek catenae, whereby considerable parts of Eusebius’ Greek original could be retrieved. This was pursued in articles published in 1984 and 1987 (below pp. 77ff and 107ff). A couple of initiatives to publish a corpus Severianicum in Greek (connected

I n t r o d u c t i o n

with the names of C. Datema and K. H. Uthemann) determined to a great extent the principal concerns of research into Severian. I tried to contribute to the editorial preparations, mainly along two tracks: first the heuristic task of identifying further evidence to be gained from the transmission in Armenian. Here, especially, the exploiting of MS No. 54 of the Galata Collection was important, but also a couple of Jerusalem manuscripts (No. 1 and No. 154) could be helpful, not only because of the supplementary texts they contain, but also in identifying Greek originals in the vast field of Pseudo-Chrysostomica (L1982,2; 1986 and 2005,1, cf. below pp. 67ff, 95ff and 217ff). Second, I added some considerations of a methodical character about the particular case where two translations into Armenian of one homily are extant (L 1993, pp. 141ff). The Armenian transmission could also be helpful, I argued, in identifying the author, where we are concerned with abbreviated homilies – in Greek as in Armenian, but often differently (L 1995, pp. 155ff). In the 1970s, and even in the 1980s, I had not thought of going very far into the study of Theodoret myself; and my questions concerning him were put in very open and provisional terms (as e.g. in L 1987 and 1989, pp. 107ff and 125ff). The reason for asking my questions was the demonstration that “the Syrian” as referred to by Eusebius was in Syriac; yet, it could not be neglected that the famous Old Testament scholar, A. Rahlfs (in 1915) had maintained to have found in Theodoret a “vollständig sicheren Beweis” that “the Syrian” was a Bible version in Greek (cf. e.g. below, p. 119). As it seemed that very few patristic scholars contested the general assumption of Theodoret’s mother tongue being Syriac, and as his use of “the Syrian” was only approached in a rather superficial way with no definite or clear-cut answer to the question of the language of this version, I found it necessary to go a little deeper into Theodoret’s information about Syrian matters, his knowledge of Syriac, and his use of “the Syrian” (L1999 and 2005,2, below pp 187ff and 229ff).

3. Occasion, justification, and disposition of the book It may perhaps be pretentious to publish a collection of one’s own contributions to a certain field of research, in particular when they cover as long a span of time as almost 40 years (1969-2005/08). Of course, in certain cases more recent research has taken the arguments further than I could do. This is especially true of the identification of the Greek of Eusebius’ Commentary on Genesis, as accomplished by R. ter Haar Romeny

9

10

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

in his brilliant book A Syrian in Greek Dress (1997). Also Ch. Burchard’s treatment of the Armenian Epistle of James deserves to be mentioned.1 However, even in my articles concerned with these questions there are still some observations not covered by the writers just mentioned, among other things on Eusebius’ text outside the Commentary on Genesis; and, also the discussion of method in handling syriacisms given in my article on the Armenian Epistle of James might still be relevant, wherefore I have chosen to include these papers here. (For details, on which e.g. Romeny has rightly corrected some of my observations, I refer to his book and articles.) To this, it should be added that a secondary justification for publishing the present collection of articles in the year 2008 is that quite a few of them have appeared in periodicals, annuals, Festschriften etc., which might not be easily available to the patristic scholar, generally speaking. Furthermore, one article has so far only been published in Spanish (L 1981), two only in Danish (L 1999 and 2005,2), and one only provisionally advertized as a contribution to the Weitenberg Festschrift (in press) (L 2005,1). To such “technical” considerations is added, in my own evaluation, the idea that it might be worthwhile to assemble the studies under one aspect, viz. that of the approaches and methods applied by students of the Bible in 4th and 5th century Syria. This does not, of course, change their character of being modest and singular studies, the illumination of which on the main subject might often be described as “sideways” and indirect. I have chosen not to include any further discussion of recent research, other than what has been mentioned above and, in particular, what is included in the latest of the articles (L 2005,2). I have only – in connection with the process of translating my Danish articles of 1999 and 2005 made the following additions: material about Theodoret’s Commentary on Jeremiah (pp. 206ff); and an extension of the concluding remarks about “Greek and Syrian” in later centuries (pp. 239f). The studies are presented in the chronological order of their appearance in the hope that this will furnish the reader with a first hand impression of how the work was done. It might be appropriate however to add the hope

1

Christoph Burchard, "Zur altarmenischen Übersetzung des Jakobusbriefes", Horizonte der Christenheit. Festschrift für Friedrich Heyer zu seinem 85. Geburtstag, hrsg. v. M. Kohlbacher und M. Lesinski (Oikonomia 34), Erlangen 1994, 195‑217.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

that this will not be too inconvenient to any reader who, for example, might be primarily interested in just one of the figures treated of. Finally, in this sequence of “expressions of hope” I also cherish another hope, i.e. that I shall not be the only person to find this collection of chapters – in direct reprint or translation – worthwhile, presented here, as it were, in “new clothing”. Nourishing such a hope I offer this collection of studies about “Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th century Syria” to students of patristic, biblical and armenological matters – with cordial thanks to the Carlsberg Foundation, which has – in financial terms – made it possible to publish the book.

References Below, references to the original time and place of publishing of the studies are given. Supplementary information is added, where this is considered necessary.

1.

“Hosanna – A Philological Discussion in the Old Church”, Armeniaca – Mélanges d’études armèniennes, Venice 1969, 165-174. (L1969)

2.

“The Spirit of God upon the Face of the Waters. The Sources of St. Basil’s and St. Augustine’s Comments on Gen 1,2c” (orig. “El Espíritu de Dios sobre las aguas. Fuentes de los comentarios de Basilio y Agustín sobre el Génesis I,2”, Augustinus XXVI, Madrid 1981, 127*-139*). (L1981)

3.

“Some Questions Concerning the Armenian Version of the Epistle of James”, Aarhus Armeniaca, eds. Lise Bek, Henning Lehmann, and Lars Kærulf Møller (Acta Jutlandica LVII, Humanities Series 56), Århus 1982, 57-82. (L1982,1)

4.

“Severian of Gabala: New Identifications of Texts in Armenian Translation”, Classical Armenian Culture, ed. Th. J. Samuelian (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 4), University of Pennsylvania 1982, 113-124. (L1982,2)

5.

“An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873, dated A.D. 1299 (Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament)”, Medieval Armenian Culture, eds. T. Samuelian & M. Stone (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 6), Chico, CA 1984, 142-160. (L1984)

6.

“Severian of Gabala: Fragments of the Aucher Collection in Galata MS 54”, Armenian Studies / Études Arméniennes in Memoriam Haïg Berbérian, ed. Dickran Kouymjian, Lisbon 1986, 477-487. (L1986)

7.

“The Syriac Translation of the Old Testament – as Evidenced around the Middle of the Fourth Century (in Eusebius of Emesa)”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 1, Århus 1987, 66-86. (L1987)

8.

“Evidence of the Syriac Bible Translation in Greek Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries”, Studia Patristica XIX, ed. E. A. Livingstone, Leuven 1989, 366-371. (L1989)

9.

“The Question of the Syrian Background of the Early Armenian Church once again. Some Methodological Remarks”, Studia Patristica XVIII, 4, ed. E. A. Livingstone, Kalamazoo-Leuven 1990, 255-262. (L1990)

11

12

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

10. “What Translators Veil and Reveal. Observations on two Armenian Translations of one Greek Homily”, Armenian Texts – Tasks and Tools, eds. Henning Lehmann and J. J. S. Weitenberg (Acta Jutlandica LXIX:1, Humanities Series 68), Århus 1993, 75-84. (L1993) 11. “The Noble Art of Abbreviating – in the Light of Some Texts Attributed to Severian of Gabala”, Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens I, ed. Søren Dietz, Athens 1995, 221-227. (L1995) 12. “The So-called “Absurd” Punctuation in John 1,3-4. Neglected Witnesses of the Old Church”, Proceedings of the Vth International Congress on Armenian Linguistics, ed. D. Zakayan, Montreal 1996, 45-62. (L1996) 13. “What was Theodoret’s Mother Tongue? – Is the Question Open or Closed?” (orig. “Theodorets modersmål – et åbent eller lukket spørgsmål?”, Ordet og livet. Festskrift til Christian Thodberg, red. Carsten Bach-Nielsen, Troels Nørager & Peter Thyssen, Århus 1999, 43-65). (L1999) 14. “Severian Cento No. 2 in MS Galata 54”, Festschrift J. J. S. Weitenberg, ed. Theo van Lint (2005/in print). (L2005,1) 15. “Greek and Syrian – under the Aspects of some Syrian Seats of Learning” (orig. “Det græske og det syriske – især set fra nogle af de antiokenske skolers katedre”, Et blandet bæger. Studier tilegnet Finn O. Hvidberg-Hansen, red. Pernille Carstens, John Møller Larsen, Dorthe Maria Kodal & Dan Enok Sørensen, København 2005, 146-160). (L2005,2) Studies Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 are contributions to various conferences and workshops. In most cases, therefore, they have been written a couple of years before the date of publication. No. 9, though, was given as a “short communication” at the Patristic Conference at Oxford in 1983 – 7 years before the year of publication. (It is thus “earlier” than No. 8). For study No. 2 the text given below is the original English version as prepared for the Patristic Conference at Oxford in 1979.

Study No. 14 is quoted as belonging to the year 2005, because that was the year it was delivered as

a contribution to a Festschrift (for J. J. S. Weitenberg), which has not yet appeared in printed form.

Studies Nos. 13 and 15 have been translated from Danish in 2008. In the case of No. 13, I have

added a paragraph on Theodoret’s Commentary on Jeremiah (below, pp. 206ff).

Apart from minor corrections (and the additions mentioned above), the studies are otherwise pre-

sented in their original shape. References to my own studies republished in this book are given in the short form: L + year.

The original texts have been scanned by Narayana Press. As it turned out to be difficult to scan ele-

ments in Armenian, Greek, Hebrew and Syriac, and as, originally, in some cases varying transcriptions of the alphabets of these languages had been used, it was decided to standardize these elements, which meant that they had to be "rewritten". This work was done by my wife, Else Lehmann, who thus had the great – or questionable (?) – pleasure of working on the manuscripts once again, as she had done 20 or 40 years ago. On technical questions good advice and assistance was given by colleagues such as Jørgen Ledet Christiansen and Aage Pilgaard, and not least by Jørgen Friis Bak of the Data Office of the University of Aarhus. The newly translated chapters were checked by Mary Waters Lund, and the bulk of work in planning, printing and editing the volume was carried out by Henriette Møller and Elsebeth Morville of Narayana Press and Katja Teilmann of the Aarhus University Press – supervised by Claes Hvidbak and Jørgen Sparre. I owe all of them cordial thanks.

osanna H

A Philological Discussion in the Old Church

No. 11 of the 15 Armenian homilies, edited in 1827 by J. B. Aucher under the name of Severian of Gabala1, ends as follows: “and him, whom angels glorify with awe in heaven, the children also praised with great joy on earth, saying ‘osanna’; in the language of the Hebrews this really means: glorification and great praise”2. This homily, edited by Aucher from a manuscript in the monastery of S. Lazzaro3, is also found in a Parisian manuscript4 with quite insignificant variants5 as far as the section treated of here is concerned (as, indeed, on the whole). What is more interesting, is that the same homily was edited a few years ago in a considerably longer version and now under the name of Eusebius of Emesa6. I do not intend here to expatiate upon the problem of 1

Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae nunc primum editae ex antiqua versione

2

Ed. Aucher, p. 408: Եւ զոր հրեշտակք փառաւորեն յերկինս ահիւ, աւրհնէին եւ մանկտին ցնծալով

armena in latinum sermonem translatae per P. Jo. Baptistam Aucher, Venice 1827. յերկրի, ասելով ովսաննա, այս է ըստ եբրայեցւոց բարբառոյն փառաբանութիւն իսկ նշանակեալ, եւ մեծ գովութիւն, in Aucher’s Latin translation (op. cit., p. 409): et quem Angeli glorificant in caelo cum timore, benedicebant et pueri exultantes in terra, dicentes Hosanna, quod secundum Hebraicam linguam verae glorificationis est significatio, magnaeque laudis. 3 Referred to by Aucher (op. cit., p. 402 f) as ճառընտիր no. 13, p. 287. Unfortunately, Sargisean’s catalogue of the manuscripts in the monastery of St. Lazzaro has not been accessible to me during the preparation of the present study, but it seems to appear from Akinian’s note (Handes Amsorya, 73, 1959, col. 321f) that Aucher’s manuscript is identical with MS Ven. Mech. 212 (p. 356ff) in Sargisean’s numbering (cf. according to Akinian: Sargisean, Catalogue, vol. II, p. 226). 4

MS Par. Arm. 110, fol. 314 r, col. 1 – fol. 315 r, col. 2.

5

As compared with Aucher’s text (see above, note 2), the variants are the following: յերկինս: ի բարձունս, – ասելով: եւ ասէին, – փառաբանութիւն: փառաւորութիւն, – իսկ: om., – post գովութիւն: add. այնմիկ որ միշտ աւրհնեալն է յաւիտեան: ամէն: (to him who is the eternally praised for ever and ever. Amen).

6

Եւսեբեայ Եպիսկոպոսի Եմեսացւոյ ճառք – Die Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa, ed. by N. Akinian in the Handes Amsorya, 1956-1959, on the basis of the Armenian manuscript no. 110 from New Julfa. The homily treated of here is the last of the 13 numbers of the series (HA 73, 1959, col. 319-360).

14

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

authorship which I hope to return to on a later occasion7. Here, too, the variants in the part of the text covering Aucher’s edition are unimportant8; however, the continuation offers the following surprising and interesting comment on the meaning of ‘hosanna’: “(the truth is) not, as some have thought, that it is a word consisting of two halves, namely partly ‘os’ and partly ‘anna(j)’, but this word has its own proper interpretation, and it is not, as (if) some one might say that ‘os’ and ‘anna’ mean ‘(some) glory’ and ‘man’, but the word ‘osanna’, pronounced as one word is (to be) translated by ‘greatness’. As (people say) in our tongue: ‘greatness in the highest’, thus the language of the Hebrews has: ‘osanna(j) in the highest’”9. In view of the prominent place in the liturgy of the Old Church which was given to the word ‘hos(i)anna’ on the basis of the gospels and Ps. 118 (LXX: 117), it is no wonder that the question has been put what this word really meant. It will not be appropriate here to list all references to Ps. 118, 25, where the exegetes and preachers of the Old Church follow unreflectingly the LXX translation of the Hebrew: ‫ הושיעה־נא‬into σῶσον δὴ, but I hope to be able to give, if not a complete survey10, at least references to some of the most important texts that are of any relevance to the understanding of the Armenian evidence submitted above, and its possible place in a definite tradition. To my knowledge the earliest evidence that is of any interest in this con-

7

In a communication delivered in Oxford at the Fifth International Conference on Patristic Studies in September 1967 (to be published in Studia Patristica in the series Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur) I have identified the Greek originals of the homilies 9, 11, and 12 of the series published by Akinian (hom. 9 = PG 63, 543-550; hom. 11 = PG 59, 653-664; hom. 12 = PG 48, 1081-1088) and shown that these three homilies do belong to Severian of Gabala, a fact which will have to be taken into account when examining the authorship of the homily no. 13 treated of here.

8

Cf. note 2: փառաւորեն յերկինս ահիւ: ահիւ փառաւորէին ի բարձունս, – եւ մանկտին ցնծալով: 3 – 1 – 2, – ովսաննա: “ովսաննա որդւոյ Դաւթի”: Ովսաննասն, – փառաբանութիւն … գովութիւն: փառաւորութիւն իմն նշանակել (cf. Akinian’s ed., HA 73, 1959, col. 333-336, l. 223-227).

9

Ed. Akinian, HA 73, 1959, col. 335-336, l. 227-232: ո՛չ որպէս ոմանք կարծեցին, եթէ բան ինչ կէս իցէ. այլ իմն ովսն եւ այլ իմն աննայն. այլ իւր առանձինն մեկնութիւն է բանիս եւ ոչ է ովս եւ աննա որպէս ոք զի ասիցէ, եթէ փառք իմն եւ մարդ, այլ միասաց բանն ովսաննա մեծութիւն թարգմանի. որպէս ի մեր լեզուս մեծութիւն ի բարձունս, յԵբարյեցւոց բարբառոյն ասի “ովսաննայ ի բարձունս”. (I have taken the liberty of making a minor alteration in the punctuation, and regarded ան, նա (l. 229) and ովսա նա (l. 230) as misprints or errors by the scribe. As for միասաց one might consider the possibility of changing into: -ած, -ացեալ (or միասաց բանն into միասացական[ն]); there can be no doubt, however, about the general meaning of the sentence).

10 Cf. F. Vigouroux’s art. “Hosanna” in Dict. de la Bible, which gives the best, if still imperfect, survey of patristic references.

H o s a n n a

nection, is to be found in Clement of Alexandria’s Paidagogos, I,V,12,511, where – after quoting the hosanna-verse in a form that combines the versions of Matth. and John12 – he adds: “light and glory and praise with supplication to the Lord, for this is what ‘hosanna’ means translated into Greek”13. In the critical apparatus Stählin refers to a parallel tradition in the Nicetas catena which about John 12, 13 under the double lemma: Άναστασίου. Κλήμεντος has the following: Τò δὲ ὡσαννὰ ἑρμηνεύεται δόξα καὶ αἷνος, ὡς εἷναι τοιοῦτον τò λεγόμενον “χάρις καὶ δόξα τῷ υἱῷ Δαβίδ”. ὅθεν ὁ ἅγιος Λουκᾶς ὥσπερ ἑρμηνεύων τὸ “ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις” ἀντὶ τούτου “δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις” εἶπεν ἐν τῷ κατ’αὐτὸν εὐαγγελίῳ. τινὲς δὲ τὸ ὡσαννὰ σημαίνειν λέγουσιν τὸ “σῶσον δή”. Zahn comments on this text: “Da die benützte Stelle des Anastasius nicht zu finden ist, in welcher vielleicht Clemens angeführt war, so ist der Antheil des Clemens nicht zu bestimmen”; however, Zahn, too, refers to the above-

11 Ed. Stählin, GCS 12, p. 97. 12 Matth. 21, 8 f; John 12, 13. 13 L. cit. (see note 11): φῶς καὶ δόξα καὶ αἶνος μεθ’ ἱκετηρίας τῷ κυρίῳ· τουτὶ γὰρ ἐμφαίνει ἑρμηνευόμενον Ἑλλάδι φωνῇ τὸ ὡσαννὰ. One could, of course, raise the question whether Clement has intended here to give a precise translation or etymology of the word “hosanna” or has merely wanted to reproduce the content and meaning, in a wider and vaguer sense, of the shout with which Jesus was met on his entry into Jerusalem. In my view the former alternative is correct, firstly because Clement’s usage definitely points in that direction – τουτὶ γὰρ ἐμφαίνει ἑρμηνευόμενον Ἑλλάδι φωνῂ not being a formula introducing a vague and paraphrastic reproduction of content – and secondly because such etymologies in the service of exegesis seem to have been widely used in the Alexandrian tradition. Cf. Ilona Opelt, art. “Etymologie”, RAC (see esp. col. 826 f), and F. Wutz, Onomastica Sacra, TU 41,1, 1914 (see e. g. pp. 1 and 13ff about Philo, and p. 179 for the following statement about the so-called “Origenesgruppe”: … bestanden die Vorlagen des Hieronymus aus einzelnen Listen, die alle der OGr. [“Origenesgruppe”] zugehörten. Die OGr. selbst hat von der Exegetenschule in Alexandrien ihre Pflege und Ausgestaltung erhalten…). It should be added, perhaps, that in the present connection the decisive feature is the occurrence of δόξα in Clement, and that the above says nothing about Clement’s possible source(s) or about the question whether his choice of words is due to an attempt to specify the content of the Hebrew term by means of several Greek words (which is still something quite different from a paraphrasis of the account of the entry, and in which case such late Judaic doxa-light-speculations as S. Aalen has discussed in his book Die Begriffe “Licht” und “Finsternis”…, Oslo, 1951 [see esp. p. 195ff], should probably be considered as the background, if not as the immediate source), or if it should be understood as an actual multiple “etymology” (as e. g. – be it suggested with all possible reservation ‫( עז‬αἶνος, cf. Ps. 8, 3) + ‫( זיו‬φώς) [in Biblical Aramaic e. g. Dan. 2, 31; 4, 33 – cf. the use of this word in the quotation from Syr Bar 51, 10, S. Aalen, op. cit., p. 199, n. 4] + ‫( חן‬δόξα) + ‫( נא‬μεθ’ ἱκετηρίας, cf. Jerome: interiectio deprecantis, see below)). On the possibility of an etymology of this kind, cf. Wutz., op. cit., pp. 530 ff, 355 ff and elsewhere, and for several multiple etymologies in Philo, cf. C. Siegfried, Die hebräischen Worterklärungen des Philo, Magdeburg, 1863.

15

16

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

quoted passage from the Paidagogos as the closest parallel in the known text material14. Whatever Clement’s share in the latter, both texts referred to above agree in giving δόξα and αἶνος as the translation of ὡσαννὰ and thus correspond to the Armenian translation which we met in the short version, and to the translation of the first part of the word which was rejected in the continuation of the passage in question in the long version, and moreover the catena fragment points to the probable source of this interpretation, namely St. Luke’s account of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem where we do not find the shout of hosanna, but instead: δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις15, even though we must agree with Zahn that it is not possible to know if Clement already based his translation on this synoptic parallel, or whether Anastasius was the first to do so. As might be expected, the most learned exposition concerning “hosanna” is to be found in Jerome, celebrated, as it will be known, as vir trilinguis. His 20th letter to Pope Damasus16 is a learned treatise on this very subject and an answer to Damasus’ question about it17. He begins with a sharp repudiation of Hilary who, in his commentary on Matthew, translated “osanna” by “redemptio domus Dauid”18 though (understood: what any Old Testament exegete ought to know) “redemptio” is “pheduth”, and “domus” is “beth” in Hebrew. And Jerome proceeds: “alii opinati sunt “osanna” “gloriam” dici – porro “gloria” “chabod” appellatur –, nonnulli “gratiam”, cum “gratia” “thoda” siue “anna” nuncupetur”19. In other words: the interpretation we have met in Clement (gloria = δόξα) is rejected here, and as for gratia it will be remembered that in the catena fragment the word pair χάρις καὶ δόξα was found, too20. I shall 14 Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, III, 1884, p. 52. 15 Luke 19, 38. 16 Ed. Hilberg, CSEL 54, 1910, p. 104-110. 17 Op. cit., ep. XIX, p. 103-104. 18 A corresponding interpretation is found in Ambrose, Exp. in Luc. (PL 15, 1888 D): Hosanna filio David, hoc est, redemptorem domus David exspectatum quoque secundum carnem David filium venisse declarat …, which occasions the following “Ehrenrettung” in Migne (l. cit., note 17): Ambrosium arguit Erasmus, quasi hic cum Hilario Pictav. parum erudite doceat voce Hosanna, redemptionem domus David significari. Sed parum arguta est ea correctio; non enim de grammatica illius vocabuli significatione agit sanctus doctor, cum hoc unum indicat, a populo faustis ac propheticis acclamationibus adventum redemptoris domus David esse declaratum. Cf. below, note 30 (Jansens). 19 Op. cit., p. 104. 20 Of interest, here, is the differentiation in the Onomastica literature where, according to Wutz, ‫חן‬, ‫חןה‬ in the so-called “vaticanische Gruppe” is always translated by δόξα, in the so-called “philonischorigenianische Gruppe” always by χάρις. Wutz, op. cit., p. 106 f.

H o s a n n a

not go into details in Jerome’s further exposition which he substantiates by referring to the form of Ps. 118, 25 in all the columns of the Hexapla, but only point to his statement that osanna is a corrupt form of the correct “osianna” (he draws a parallel to the elision of vowels in the recitation of Latin poetry), and that he chooses the translation saluifica or saluum fac (as it will be known from the Vulgate), pointing out that “osi” is the actual imperative, “anna” being an interjection expressing the mood of the worshipper: interiectio deprecantis21. With a view to the evaluation of the next Latin text to be treated of, it should be mentioned perhaps that here Jerome also parallels with Latin interjections and their function as expressive of emotional moods: ut in exultando dicamus “ua” et in admirando “papae” et in dolendo “heu” et, quando silentium uolumus imperare, strictis dentibus spiritum coartamus et cogimus in sonandum “st”, ita et Hebraei …22. The next Latin witness is Augustine who discusses the question in almost identical words in two places, namely in De doctrina Christiana23 and Tractatus in Iohannis evangelium24. There is a close connection with Jerome’s account of the use of interjections but for the one decisive difference that to Augustine the whole word “hosanna” has become an interjection. The section in question of De doctrina Christiana treats of the advantage of knowing Hebrew and Greek in order to enable oneself to check passages where discrepant formulations by Latin translators and interpreters cause doubt about the proper understanding. As for the untranslated words like amen, alleluia, racha, and osanna Augustine adds that the two first-mentioned are left untranslated propter sanctiorem auctoritatem, the latter two because they are untranslatable. There are in fact such words as cannot be translated from one language into another, he says, and concludes: Et hoc maxime interiectionibus accidit, quae verba motum animi significant potius quam sententiae conceptae ullam particulam. Nam et haec duo talia esse perhibentur; dicunt enim racha indignantis esse vocem, osanna laetantis. In his comment on John 12, 12 f in Tractatus in Ioh. ev., Augustine is even closer to Jerome’s statement about the interjections. The passage runs: Vox autem obsecrantis est, Hosanna, sicut nonnulli dicunt qui hebraeam linguam nouerunt, magis affectum iudicans25, quam rem aliquam significans; sicut sunt in lingua latina

21 L. cit., p. 109. 22 L. cit., p. 108f. 23 II, 34-35, ed. Green, CSEL 80, 1963, p. 43. 24 24. LI, 2, ed. Willems, CCSL 36, 1954, p. 440. 25 A likely conjecture would be: indicans pro iudicans.

17

18

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

quas interiectiones uocant, uelut cum dolentes dicimus: Heu! uel cum delectamur: Vah! dicimus; uel cum miramur, dicimus: O, rem magnam! tunc enim, O, nihil significat, nisi mirantis affectum. Quod ideo credendum est ita esse, quia neque graecus, neque latinus hoc interpretari potuit, sicut illud: Qui dixerit fratri suo, Racha. Nam et haec interiectio esse perhibetur, affectum indignantis ostendens. As the last Latin witnesses on the discussion of hosanna must be mentioned Eucherius of Lyons who without any doubt builds on Jerome26, and the anonymous Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, handed down under the name of John Chrysostom, but attributed by G. Morin to an Arian bishop in Northern Italy about the year 550. The work is interesting in this connection because it knows of three of the interpretations listed by Jerome; the author of this work, however, does not intend to undertake any scientific selection, but instead combines the possibilities referred to into an edifying harmony. The passage is found in the 37th homily27: Hosianna quidem interpretantur gloriam, alii redemptionem, alii Salvifica, sive Salvum fac. Nam et gloria illi debetur, et redemptio illi convenit, qui omnes redemit, et pretiosi sanguinis effusione salvavit. In continuation of this review of the Latin contributions to the patristic discussion on the meaning of hosanna, it may be appropriate to mention that 16th century scholars like Cornelius Jansens (Jansenius) the Elder (1510-1574) and Leo de Castro (d. 1589) took the Old Church discussion as their startingpoint, not least through their attitude to Jerome. The reference to these authors which I owe to a note in Migne’s edition of the above-cited section of Clement of Alexandria’s Paidagogos28, is of course primarily of interest for the history of scholarship29, but Jansens in particular has a further significance in that he

26 Eucherius, Instructiones, liber II (ed. Wotke, CSEL 31, 1894, p. 145: PL 50, col. 814): Osanna saluifica siue saluum fac. Osia (PL: Osi) enim saluifica interpretatur, anna interiectio est deprecantis, ergo integre dicitur Osianna; sed dum corripitur aut corrumpitur, sonat Osanna; est autem sensus: saluum fac, ut subaudiatur uel populum Israhel uel totum mundum. (For the last passage cf. Jerome, ep. XX, ed. Hilberg, CSEL 54, p. 110). Ilona Opelt’s article, “Quellenstudien zu Eucherius”, Hermes 91, 1963, p. 476-483, which to Altaner’s summary “nach Hieronymus” (Patrologie, 6. ed., 1960, p. 419) points out that Jerome is not Eucherius’ only source, and that where he does make use of Jerome, he shows a marked preference for the New Testament onomasticon, does not deal with Eucherius’ osanna-interpretation. 27 PG 56, col. 838. 28 PG 8, col. 264, n. 50. 29 Even though it will probably be impossible to define what Old Church sources they are based on, two conflicting explanations from the 11th century are also of interest in this perspective, namely Suidas’ lexicon (ed. Adler, vol. III, 1933, p. 624): Ὡσαννα: δόξα σημαίνει. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλος εὐαγγελιστὴς λέγει· είρηνη τῷ υἱῷ Δαβίδ, καὶ ὁ ἕτερος· δόξα τῷ υἱῷ Δαβίδ. ὥστε τὸ ὡσαννὰ τὸ δόξα σημαίνει: παρά τισι δὲ σῶσον δὴ. οὐκ ὀρθῶς, and Theophylactus (In Matth., PG 123, col. 369

H o s a n n a

advances an interesting etymology for the word osanna. De Castro’s line of argument is to emphasize the authority of Luke, the evangelist, claiming that the linguistically gifted Luke would also know Hebrew, for which reason the translation gloria rests on an old and linguistically sound tradition. Jansens follows a different direction when in his principal work Concordia Evangelica he comments on the rejection of Hilary and Ambrose by Jerome, saying that these two commentators should not be understood as if they believed to have translated the word “hosanna” by “redemptio”, but rather that with this word they expressed the contents of the people’s prayer to Jesus30. He then proposes the etymology mentioned above, saying: “quod apud omnes Evangelistas per duas dictiones scribatur ὡς ἀννὰ31 dictio autem ὡς si Hebraice ita scribatur ‫ עז‬laudem significare possit: ἀννὰ autem, si scribatur ‫ חנה‬significare gratiam …”. Whatever the difference, recent philologists have been working on the same problems as Jerome. Thus the hypothesis has been advanced that the last syllable of hosanna was to be the Hebrew 1. pl. suffix, and it would then acquire the meaning serva nos32. Dalman33 rejects this by referring partly to the fact that this interpretation is not substantiated in Jewish literature, partly to the impossibility of having a dative attached, as it happens in Matth. 21,9.15 (τῷ υἱῲ Δαυείδ). Zahn34 reproduces Dalman’s arguments35, adding: “Drittens aber gibt es im Aram. ein Verbum ‫ ישע‬oder ein damit stammverwandtes gar nicht36. Das Hiphil dieses hebr. Verbs wird in Targ. und Pesch. regelmässig durch prq wiedergegeben”. And Zahn continues: “Das talmudische ‫הושיעהנא‬ als Name des Lulab und (mit jom) des letzten Laubhüttenfesttags, welches in

C): Τὸ δὲ Ὡσαννὰ, οἱ μὲν λέγουσιν ὃτι ὕμνον ἢ ψαλμὸν σημαίνει, οἱ δὲ, ὃ καὶ ἀκριβέστερον· Σῶσον δή. 30 … non … eos existimasse haec omnia comprehensa in significatione vocabuli Hosanna, sed populum ejusmodi acclamatione petiisse redemptionem (quoted from Migne, l. cit. – cf. above, note 18). 31 As it is the case in Migne’s edition of Clement, which is the occasion of the note quoted here. PG 8, col. 264. 32 Cf. E. Kautzsch, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, Leipzig 1884, p. 173 (with references to Siegfried, Hilgenfeld, Anger, and Merx) 33 G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, 2. ed., Leipzig 1905, p. 249, n. 1 34 Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament I, Leipzig 1906, p. 14 f. 35 Zahn, however, refers to the old translations of the Bible and the commentators of the Old Church, rather than to Jewish literature. 36 It must therefore be regarded as unfortunate that Kautzsch (l. cit.) vocalizes the word, as if it was an imperative of the non-existent verb (even in his reference to Payne Smith, Thes. syr., where this vocalization does not occur). But it may perhaps be a question of a simple misprint?

19

20

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

der Form ‫ ܐܘܫܥܢܐ‬als Fremdwort zu den Syrern übergegangen und auf den Palmsonntag ubertragen worden ist (Payne Smith Thes. s. v.), kann ja nichts anderes sein, als eine zusammengezogene Aussprache des hebr. Ausrufs, welche die Evv und die Liturgie der Didache37 genau wiedergegeben haben”. And Zahn concludes his examination of the problem by saying about initial h or ᾽ (spiritus asper or lenis) that it is impossible to decide “mit wie starkem Anhauch am Palmsonntag die Einen und die Andern in dem gemischten Volkshaufen die erste Silbe dieses Wortes ausgerufen haben”. If, however, we return to our starting-point, the long recension of the Armenian homily, I have no doubt that its author has understood the translation rejected by him of the first part of “osanna” from the same etymological basis as the one we met in Cornelius Jansens, namely “os” = Hebrew ‫( עוז‬root ‫)עזז‬, Syriac ‫( ܥܘܙ‬root ‫)ܥܙ‬. For the second part of the word, however, the anonymous author of the etymology does not recur to any form of ‫ חנ‬or ‫( חנן‬Syriac noun ‫ܚܢܢ‬, root ‫)ܚܢ‬, as did Jansens, but offers the translation “man”, that is he refers to Hebrew ‫אנוש‬, Aramaic ‫אנש‬, or Syriac ‫ܐܢܫ‬, ‫ܐܢܫܐ‬. How the connection between the two parts of the word has been conceived of, we are not told, but as for the linguistic form it should be pointed out here that the form “osannas” with a final “s” does seem to appear in the Armenian text, namely in the beginning of the actual explanation of the word38. When it is not found 2 and 3 lines later (and elsewhere in the Armenian text) judging from Akinian’s edition, it is a conceivable explanation that the scribe has retained the “s” in the first case in the belief that it was the acc. pl. mark, and then not only forgotten to correct this form after the construction of the sentence, but also, in the subsequent passages where the word “osanna” reappears, changed to the normal and in his view “correct” form. I shall not, however, go into particulars as far as this question is concerned. Only a closer palaeographic study of the New Julfa-manuscript could reveal whether it might contain details that have been overlooked, and which might make it possible to get beyond these hypotheses on this point. The author of the homily now replaces the rejected explanation with another, namely that osanna means մեծութիւն = greatness. The question is then whether there is also a popular (or “erudite”?) etymology behind the latter

37 Did. 10, 6. 38 Ed. Akinian, l. cit., l. 226. Incidentally, to Akinian’s critical note to l. 225, one is tempted to ask if the indistinct ն which the ms. is supposed to have here, should not have been an ս, in which case the form with final s would occur in two places.

H o s a n n a

explanation, as well as behind the one he just rejected. It seems to me the answer must be affirmative, and that the Syriac word which he takes for his basis is: ‫( ܥܘܫܢܐ‬from the root ‫ )ܥܫܢ‬to which J. Payne Smith (Margoliouth)’s SyriacEnglish Dictionary gives the translations: strength, force, power, multitude; strong current or swelling of a river; a stronghold.39 It is highly probable that this word is easily confused with or connected with ‫ܐܘܫܥܢܐ‬, and it may be safe to say that what Zahn said about the transition between ᾽ and h40; must apply with all the more reason to ‫ א‬/ ‫( ܐ‬alef) and ‫ ע‬/ ‫( ܥ‬ayin), resp.41. In my view both etymologies point to Syria as the place of origin, as they do not necessarily imply any wide knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, but rather some familiarity with Syriac, particularly in the case of the latter, as the word ‫ ܥܘܫܢܐ‬and the root ‫( ܥܫܢ‬in this sense42) are not found in Biblical Hebrew. The more interesting therefore to find that the latter etymology is also substantiated in Greek, and even in a text which points in the same direction as far as the place of origin is concerned. The text in question is the pseudo-Justinian Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos, where question no. 63 asks about the meaning of the words hallelujah and osanna, and where the latter is explained as μεγαλοσύνη ὑπερκειμένη43. As for the origin of this text, scholars disagree on the problem of authorship; Harnack44 wanted to attribute it to Diodore of Tarsus, but was sharply opposed by F. X. Funk45. After Funk’s refutation of Harnack and after the studies of Lebon46 and Richard47 the prevailing view seems to be that the author is Theodoret of Cyrrhus48. In any case, the names of both authors point towards the Antiochene tradition, and so do the names with which the homily has been connected: Eusebius of Emesa and Severian

39 Op. cit., p. 408. For text references see Payne Smith, Thes. syr., vol. II, col. 3004. 40 L. cit., cf. above, note 34. 41 Cf. moreover Wutz’s section on “Wechsel von Gutturalen”, op. cit., p. 355 ff. 42 According to Gesenius-Buhl, Hebr. u. Aram. Handwörterbuch über das AT, 44.1949, p. 626, the root ‫עשן‬ in Biblical Hebrew only has the meaning of “smoke”, corresponding to Syriac ‫ܬܢ‬. For the derivation of Syriac ‫ ܬܢܢܐ‬from Aramaic *‫ עתן‬Gesenius-Buhl (s. v. ‫ )עשן‬refers to Hoffmann, Literarisches Central blatt, 1882, p. 320. 43 PG 6, col. 1296, German translation in Harnack, Diodor von Tarsus. Vier pseudojustinische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen, TU 21, 4, 1901. 44 See the work, mentioned in the previous note. 45 F. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, 3, 1907, p. 323 ff. 46 J. Lebon, “Restitutions à Théodoret de Cyr”, RHE 26, 1930, p. 523-550, see esp. p. 540, n. 4. 47 M. Richard, “Les citations de Théodoret conservées dans la chaîne de Nicétas sur l’évangile selon Saint Luc”, RBibl 63, 1934, p. 88-96, see esp. p. 92, n. 1. 48 Cf. e.g. Altaner, Patrologie, 6. ed., p. 305.

21

22

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

of Gabala. A conclusive settlement of the authorship of the homily – whose Severianic origin (as far as the then known short version is concerned) has been disputed by Dürks49 and after him by Zellinger50, and whose attribution to Eusebius appears to me to present serious difficulties – cannot be made on the basis of the etymology treated of here or the connection with the probably Theodoretic Quaest. et resp. (the occurrence of the etymology referred to above is not the only link between the two texts), even if both facts will have to be considered for that purpose. What might be said, provisionally, is that the detail which it has been attempted to elucidate here, has presented to us a stone of the mosaic of the Antiochene school tradition, a stone which – with all its insignificance – may be regarded as illustrative of the ways by which it was attempted, within this tradition, to reach an understanding of the Scriptures.

49 G. Dürks, De Severiano Gabalitano, Kiel 1917, p. 60-64. 50 J. Zellinger, Studien zu Severian von Gabala, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 8, Münster i. W. 1926, p. 71.

The Spirit οf God upon the Face οf The Waters The Sources of St. Basil’s and St. Augustine’s Comments on Gen 1,2c

For obvious reasons exegetes and theologians of the Old Church – like exegetes and theologians of later centuries – attached great importance to the Mosaic Creation Account of Genesis 1-2. Thus also, among other exegetical questions, it was of importance to know whether the final phrase of verse 2 in Genesis, chapter 1, should be translated: “and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (to quote traditional usage within the English translations of the Bible), or whether it should be rendered: “and a mighty wind (that) swept over the surface of the waters” (to quote the New English Bible), and what was the content and meaning of the phrase in either case1. I shall begin my modest contribution to the elucidation of some authors of the Old Church by briefly summarizing some of the views on Gen 1,2c contained in St. Augustine’s exegetical works on Genesis. I leave aside his extensive use of Gen 1 in e.g. the Confessiones or the City of God2. Referring to 1 For the history of exegesis the most important work is: In Principio. Interprétations des premiers versets de la Genèse, (Études Augustiniennes), Paris 1973 (quoted: In Principio). A useful survey of the principal trends in patristic exegesis of the Creation Account is given in E. Testa, “La creazione del mondo nel pensiero dei SS. Padri”, Studii biblici franciscani, Liber annuus, XVI, 1965-66 (Jerusalem, 1966), 5-68. An older, comprehensive survey of the history of exegesis for Gen 1,2c in particular – including exegetes of later periods – is K. Smoroński, “‘Et Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas’. Inquisitio historico-exegetica in interpretationem textus Gen. 1.2c”, Biblica, 6 (Rome, 1925), 140-156.275-293.361-395. Unfortunately, Smoroński’s evaluation is misleading on one point that will be of importance in the context of the present article, cf. below. For further literature on the exegesis of Gen 1,1-2 and the history of exegesis I shall confine myself to referring to the extensive bibliography in Cl. Westermann’s commentary on Genesis (Claus Westermann, Genesis, (Biblischer Kommentar, I/1), 2. Aufl., 1976, 104ff). 2

For an extensive account of the theological impact of St. Augustine’s exegesis of the first verses of Genesis, cf. E. Teselle, “Nature and Grace in Augustine’s Expositions of Genesis I,1-5”, Recherches Augustiniennes, 5 (1968), 95-137, where further literature is quoted. Cf. also J. Chaix-Ruy, “La cré ation du monde d’après Augustin”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, XI (Paris, 1965), 85-88. For St.

24

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

the works mentioned in notes 1 and 2 I can also omit any extensive comments on the broader theological and historical background of St. Augustine’s contributions, their philosophical implications and so forth, and confine myself to discussing the principal points of the line of development within St. Augustine’s exegesis of Gen 1,2c and the question of his sources in particular. And I shall mainly concentrate on one Augustinian source reference which has not hitherto – to the best of my knowledge – been understood and elucidated in a satisfactory manner. St. Augustine’s specific exegetical works that are of interest here, are the following (cited in chronological order): 1) De Genesi contra Manichaeos (389); 2) De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber (393ff); 3) De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (401 – ca. 415); 4) Quaestiones in Heptateuchum (ca. 419)3. According to the first mentioned source the Manichaeans have raised two impertinent questions concerning Gen 1,2c, namely: Was the water the dwelling-place of the Spirit of God? and: From where did the water in Gen 1,2 come, as nothing is told about the creation of water until later? St. Augustine’s answer to these questions is that neither the verb superferebatur4 nor the water should be understood in a local and material manner: Non enim per spatia locorum superferebatur aquae ille Spiritus … sed per potentiam invisibilis sublimitatis suae5 and: Non enim aqua sic appellata est hoc loco, ut haec a nobis intelligatur quam videre iam possumus et tangere6, and this, he suggests, can be inferred from the foregoing, where the earth is mentioned as being incomposita and invisibilis7, i.e. the text itself reveals that it does not here deal with the material and visible earth; hence the water should be understood in parallel with what was said about the earth. And as the criticism involved in the Manichees’ questions is based on the assumption that the water of Gen 1,2 is to be understood as material water, they are thus refuted by Scripture itself. Augustine’s understanding of verse 2, and for further literature on that particular point, cf. St. J. Grabowski, “Spiritus Dei in Gen. 1:2 according to St. Augustine”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 10 (Washington, 1948), 13-28, and Aimé Solignac, “Exegèse et Métaphysique. Genèse 1,1-3 chez saint Augustin”, In Principio, 153-171. 3

The following editions have been used: 1) Migne’s edition, PL 34,173-220; 2) and 3) I. Zycha’s edition, CSEL 28,1, 1894; and 4) I. Fraipont’s edition, CCSL 33, 1958.

4

It should be noted that the prevailing reading of Gen 1,2c in St. Augustine is: et spiritus Dei superferebatur super aquam as compared with et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas of the Vulgate.

5

PL 34,177.

6

PL 34,177f.

7

It is of importance to note that these words are the translations in St. Augustine of the LXX’s ἀκατασκεύαστος and ἀόρατος, as against inanis et vacua in the Vulgate.

T he

S pirit

ο f

G od

upon

the

F ace

ο f

T he

W aters

In his unfinished Commentary on Genesis St. Augustine has a fuller treatment of the exegetical possibilities – three in number – that are known to him at that time: 1) spiritus sanctus, quem in ipsa ineffabili et incommutabili trinitate ueneramur, 2) vitalis creatura, and 3) aeris elementum8. Formally, St. Augustine does not in the Liber imperfectus exclude any of these possibilities, but it seems that already here he gives preference to the interpretation that it is the Holy Spirit that is mentioned in Gen 1,2; and he stresses the point that any other interpretation is only acceptable on condition that it does not involve any faulty opinion concerning the Holy Spirit. In his latest work on Genesis this preference has become quite clear. Thus in the Quaestiones the only comment to be made on Gen 1,2 is that here (as in four passages elsewhere in Genesis and Exodus9) the Holy Spirit is mentioned expressis verbis. A much more thorough-going treatment of Gen 1,2c is given in the De Gen. ad litt. Here again, St. Augustine’s preference for the interpretation that the verse is concerned with the Holy Spirit is clear; thus he maintains that the very purpose of the first lines of the Holy Writ is trinitarian, viz. to describe how God works as Creator through his Word and through his Spirit. What is characteristic for the De Gen. ad litt. and what makes this work his most important exegetical contribution concerning Genesis, is, that the theological implications are worked out much more broadly and deeply than in the other works. We shall here be particularly concerned with one element in the description of how the Spirit cooperates in Creation. In parallel with a description of how God works through his Word (aeternis atque incommutabilibus et stabilibus rationibus coaeterni sibi verbi sui10) it is said concerning the Spirit that he works quodam, ut ita dixerim, fotu pariter coaeterni sancti spiritus sui11. Fotus, the central notion used here about the Holy Spirit, is explained in the following: nam et illud, quod per graecam et latinam linguam dictum est de spiritu dei, quod superfere batur super aquas, secundum syrae linguae intellectum, quae uicina est hebraeae – nam hoc a quodam docto christiano Syro fertur expositum – non superferebatur, sed fouebat potius intellegi perhibetur, nec sicut fouentur tumores ut uulnera in corpore aquis uel frigidis uel calore congruo temperatis, sed sicut oua fouentur ab alitibus, ubi calor ille

8

CSEL 28,l,468ff.

9

The 4 other verses referred to are: Gen 6,3; 41,38 and Exod 8,19; 15,10.

10 CSEL 28,1,26 11 Ibid.

25

26

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

materni corporis etiam formandis pullis quodammodo adminiculatur per quendam in suo genere dilectionis adfectum12. The image of the Spirit as a bird taking care of its eggs or young ones is further connected with a quotation of Mt 23,37. This element is new in De Gen. ad litt. as compared with St. Augustine’s earlier works on Genesis, and as will have been noticed, the author himself refers to a source for this comment, namely “a certain learned Christian Syrian”. As Berthold Altaner has shown, St. Augustine’s relation to this source is not immediate, but intermediate through the homilies on the Hexaëmeron by St. Basil the Great13. Altaner further assumes that St. Augustine’s knowledge of St. Basil’s homilies does not here pass through St. Ambrose as a vehicle, but that he must have used the homily in question in Eustathius’ Latin translation, which Altaner therefore dates to about 400 instead of the traditional dating to about 440. Leaving this question aside we can briefly assent to Altaner’s view that St. Augustine’s reference to a learned Christian Syrian is taken from St. Basil. But this then leaves us with the question: who is this Syrian? This is the question to which I pretend to be able to supplement and correct the answers given so far. Before specifying the supplementation needed I shall for a short while indulge in mild surprise over the astonishingly wrong answers that have been given to the question by some of my learned predecessors. Let us begin with Altaner, who claims – briefly and wrongly: “dass Basilius hier an Ephräm den Syrer denkt, ist wohl als sicher anzunehmen”14. Earlier authorities for the same opinion are e.g. Lenain de Tillemont, the famous church historian of the early 18th century, and Jules Garnier, one of the early editors of St. Basil’s works15. Tillemont, incidentally, also suggested the possibility that Eusebius of Samosata might be St. Basil’s source16. This is a hypothesis,

12 CSEL 28,l,26f. 13 B. Altaner, “Eustathius, der lateinische Übersetzer der Hexaemeron-homilien Basilius des Grossen”, ZNW, 39 (1940), 161-170 (= Kleine patristische Schriften, TU, 83 (1967), 437-447). Cf. also B. Altaner, “Augustinus und Basilius der Grosse”, Revue Bénédictine, 60 (1950), 17-24 (= Kleine patristische Schriften, TU, 83 (1967), 269-276), esp. 18/270. 14 Op. cit., 166/441, note 3. 15 Lenain de Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique, vol. IX, Bruxelles 1728, 374 (cf. 515f). For Garnier, whose edition has not been accessible to me, I refer to S. Giet’s edition: Basile de Césarée, Homélies sur l’Hexaéméron, texte grec, introduction et traduction de Stanislas Giet, SC 26, 1950, 169, note 3. 16 Loc. cit.

T he

S pirit

ο f

G od

upon

the

F ace

ο f

T he

W aters

on which it is very difficult to give any judgment, as no texts have survived, which can with certainty be ascribed to the Samosatene Eusebius17. From our own day I shall just mention one author, who as late as 1961 sticks to the incorrect scholarly tradition, that makes St. Ephraem the source utilized by St. Basil. I am referring to Carl Johann Perl, the German translator of St. Augustine’s De Gen. ad litt. in the Paderborn translation18. When it can be stated as definitely as I have done above, that St. Ephraem cannot possibly be the Syrian source referred to, this is due to the fact that it can be ascertained without any ambiguity that he understands the “Spirit of God” of Gen 1,2c to mean the wind (or the air). This appears above all from his commentary on Genesis19. When even K. Smoroński in his otherwise meticulous and valuable survey of the history of exegesis mentioned above was mistaken, as far as St. Ephraem is concerned, this was due to the fact that he took a pseudo-Ephraemic text to be authentic20. Other proposals for an identification of St. Basil’s source, besides St. Ephraem (and Eusebius of Samosata) have been attempted. I shall quote three suggestions, namely those, that seem to me to be the most important. Firstly, Stanislas Giet, the editor in the Sources Chrétiennes of St. Basil’s homilies on the Hexaëmeron, deserves to be mentioned. He suggests that Theophilus of Antioch might be St. Basil’s Syrian source21. Admittedly, Stanislas Giet points to a number of cases where there are striking coincidences between the apologist of the 2nd century and St. Basil22. In the case of Gen 1,2c the coincidence, however, only amounts to the use of the notion ζωογόνησις in Theophilus, with which can be compared St. Basil’s use of ζωογονέω, ζωογονία and ζωτική δύναμις in the explanation of Gen 1,2c. Even allowing for a rather extensive use of Theophilus’ Ad Autolycum in St. Basil, this is hardly a sufficient basis for identifying the Syrian author, to whom St. Basil refers, with Theophilus,

17 Cf. e.g. Bardenhewer, IV, 388. 18 Aurelius Augustinus, Über den Wortlaut der Genesis… zum erstenmal in deutscher Sprache von Carl Johann Perl (2 vols.), Paderborn 1961-1964. See esp. vol. I, 245. 19 Sancti Ephraemi Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii, ed. R. M. Tonneau, (CSCO 152-153, Script. Syr. 71-72), Louvain 1955. See esp. vol. 152, 11f (text), and vol. 153, 7f (translation). Cf. T. Jansma, “Ephraems Beschreibung des ersten Tages der Schöpfung”, OCP, 37 (1971), 295-316. 20 Cf. K. Smoroński, op. cit., esp. 282ff. The commentary in question is in reality by Jacob of Edessa, which dates it to the 7th century. Cf. e.g. I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca, Rome 1965, 61 and 179f. 21 Op. cit., 54 and 169, note 3. 22 Op. cit., 52ff.

27

28

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

as that would require, either that St. Basil had spun out the bird imagery of the mere notion ζωογόνησις, or that Theophilus should have done so in an unknown source. A second suggestion is that a certain Aphraates might be St. Basil’s source. This is not a new suggestion, as it goes back at least to the 8th-9th century, namely to the Syrian exegete Ishō bar Nūn. He knows about the identification of St. Basil’s source with St. Ephraem, a possibility which he rejects in order to substitute it with the reference to Aphraates. The passage in question from Ishō bar Nūn’s Selected Questions on the Pentateuch should be quoted: “As for the certain Syrian from whom Basil said that he had heard (this interpretation), some (expositors) in their ignorance say that he was Mar Ephraem, the teacher. In this they are wrong because Mar Ephraem interprets the word, like the blessed Interpreter, (as referring) to the spirit of the air. Now the Syrian, from whom (Basil) heard it, is Aphraates. For (Basil) came to him and he had a conversation with him …”23. Ernest G. Clarke, the editor of Ishō bar Nūn’s Selected Questions, rightly notes that “it is impossible to decide whether IbN, in mentioning Aphraates, was referring to Aphraates the Persian Sage or the Aphraates who is described by Theodore(t) of Cyrrhus in his Historia Ecclesiastica (IV, 25-26) and in his Historia Monachorum (VIII) or still another with this name but unknown to us”24; and Antoine Guillaumont calls attention to the fact that the exegetic point in question is not evidenced in the Demonstrationes by Aphraates, the Persian Sage, where the closest parallel to be found is the use of the verb ‫רחף‬ to describe the relation of the Spirit to the baptismal water25. Thus it can hardly be maintained that the reference to Aphraates has brought the discussion to a conclusion. We must therefore turn to a third suggestion, which is to my mind the best and most important that has been put forward in recent years. I am referring to Robert Devreesse’s proposal that

23 Question 7 (f. 5r,16-6r,14). I quote from the translation in: Lucas Van Rompay, “Išo bar Nun and Išo’dad of Merv: New Data for the Study of the Interdependence of their Exegetical Works”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 8 (1977), 229-249 (see esp. 232f). For some of my references concerning the Syrian material I am indebted to Dr. Van Rompay, to whom my cordial thanks should here be extended. 24 The Selected Questions of Ishō bar Nūn on the Pentateuch, ed. and transl. from MS Cambridge Add. 2017 with a study of the relationship of Ishō’dādh of Merv, Theodore bar Kōnī and Ishō bar Nūn on Genesis, ed. by Ernest G. Clarke, (Studia Post-Biblica, 5), Leiden, 1962, 82. 25 Antoine Guillaumont, “Genèse 1,1-2 selon les commentateurs syriaques”, In Principio, 115-132, see esp. 129 with note 94.

T he

S pirit

ο f

G od

upon

the

F ace

ο f

T he

W aters

Diodore of Tarsus might be St. Basil’s source26. Eduard Schweizer already saw a connection between St. Basil and Diodore, but he did not suppose the reason to be that St. Basil should be dependent on Diodore. Whether he supposes a common source or thinks that Diodore builds upon St. Basil, is not quite clear27. That there is an evident relation between Diodore and St. Basil, is also noted by P. Agaësse and A. Solignac, who published their French translation of St. Augustine’s De Gen. ad litt. in 1972. Incidentally, a quotation of P. Agaësse’s and A. Solignac’s cautious remarks upon the question of sources might form a reasonable rounding off of this survey of recent – and older – comments on St. Basil’s Syrian source (which, by the way, does not at all claim to be exhaustive): “le texte original de Basile laisse entendre qu’il doit ses renseignements à une explication de vive voix plutôt qu’à un texte écrit … L’informateur de Basile peut être tout simplement un Syrien éclairé qu’il aurait connu dans sa Cappadoce natale, ou à l’occasion de ses voyages”28. As appears, the question of source is left open in Agaësse’s and Solignac’s final formulation. They give no precise reason for their doubts as to Devreesse’s suggestion that Diodore is St. Basil’s source, but seem to hint at the point that St. Basil’s description of his source does not look quite natural in that case29, and I tend to agree with them, since St. Basil describes his source as a man “who is as far from worldly wisdom, as he is near the insight in what is true”30, and even if the Hexaëmeron homilies were preached before the personal friendship between St. Basil and Diodore was established31, the formula quoted seems to be a weak descrip-

26 Cf. R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois, (Studi e Testi, 201), Città del Vaticano, 1959, 156. 27 E. Schweizer, “Diodor von Tarsus als Exeget”, ZNW, 40 (1941), 33-75, see esp. 49f. 28 La Genèse au sens littéral en douze livres. Traduction, introduction et notes par P. Agaësse et A. Solignac, (Bibliothèque Augustinienne, Oeuvres De Saint Augustin, vols. 48-49), Paris, 1972, see esp. 590-593. Cf. also Aimé Solignac, op. cit. (see note 2), 161. 29 This is also E. Schweizer’s view, loc. cit., note 81. 30 Ἐρῶ σοι οὐκ ἐμαυτοῦ λόγον, ἀλλὰ Σύρου ἀνδρὸς σοφίας κοσμικῆς τοσοῦτον ἀφεστηκότος, ὅσον ἐγγὺς ἦν τῆς τῶν ἀληθινῶν ἐπιστήμης, ed. S. Giet, 168; in Eustathius’ Latin translation the passage runs: dicam tibi non meum sermonem sed viri cuiusdam genere Syri qui tantum aberat a sapientia saeculari quantum verae doctrinae proximus habebatur, cf. Eustathius, Ancienne version latine des neuf homélies sur l’Hexaéméron de Basile de Césarée, ed. E. Amand de Mendieta et S.Y. Rudberg, (TU, 66), 1958, 26. This, no doubt, is the formula that lies behind St. Augustine’s expression: a quodam docto christiano Syro. 31 The Hexaëmeron homilies are normally dated before 370 (cf. e.g. Bardenhewer, III, 148), whereas the bonds of friendship between St. Basil and Diodore seem to have been established during the latter’s stay in Armenia in 372 (cf. Bardenhewer, III, 305).

29

30

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

tion of the supposedly well-known and recognized orthodoxy of Diodore’s dogmatic position. Now, my central point is that the search for a source can be taken one step further, in so far as it is possible to identify a text which is at any rate Diodore’s principal source. In fact, he draws very much of his information from this source, which he quotes verbally in certain passages, in a more paraphrastic manner elsewhere. For St. Basil, too, it seems probable to me that the text in question is his principal source, but it is hard to decide whether he has used it directly or through an intermediary link that might for example belong to an oral tradition. Both his quotation formula and the minor differences that exist between St. Basil and his source might be cited in support of the latter view. The text in question is the so-called Commentary on the Octateuch by Eusebius of Emesa. It may be added here, that it is no wonder that this text has not been taken into consideration by commentators on St. Augustine and St. Basil, as the passage in question is not represented among the Greek catena fragments that are attributed to Eusebius32. It is to be found, however, in the Armenian version that exists under the name of Cyril of Alexandria in two Armenian manuscripts33. Theoretically, the passage dealing with Gen 1,2c might have been known to patristic and biblical scholars writing later than 1938, since at that time a Latin translation of the passage was included in Almo Zanolli’s book on the Armenian transmission of catenae, esp. on Leviticus34. Before turning to the actual text, two general preliminary remarks should be made concerning the probability of Eusebius of Emesa being the common source for Diodore and St. Basil. As far as Diodore is concerned, St. Jerome already considered him to be dependent upon and an imitator of the style and exegetical method, which Eusebius used35. This was not necessarily meant in a

32 Cf. R. Devreesse, op. cit., 55-103; and for a fuller edition of one branch of the catena traditions, i.e. the Sinaitic catena, cf. Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum, I. Catena Sinaitica, ed. Françoise Petit, (CCSG, 2), Turnhout, 1977. 33 On the text, the manuscripts, and the contributions of V. Hovhannessian and others to the identification of the text as Eusebian, cf. Per Piscatores, 31ff. During a visit to the Mechitharists of San Lazzaro, Venice, in 1978 I was informed that an edition of the Armenian text based on MS Ven. Mech 873 was ready for printing. 34 A. Zanolli, Di una vetusta catena sul Levitico, perduta in greco e conservata in armeno, della sua stretta relazione col commentario di Procopio di Gaza e dei tre codici di S. Lazzaro, che la contengono, Venice 1938, 89f. 35 Jerome, De vir. ill, 119, cf. Bardenhewer, III, 306, note 6.

T he

S pirit

ο f

G od

upon

the

F ace

ο f

T he

W aters

positive and friendly manner in St. Jerome’s mouth; that this tie of dependence is a historical reality, however, has been substantiated more fully, esp. by Ed. Schweizer36. As regards the question of dating, it is not possible to give an exact date of Eusebius’ commentary; presumably he died in (or before) 359, and the earliest date for any work from his hand would probably be the 330s; so the commentary might very likely have been 15-30 years old, when St. Basil preached his homilies on the Hexaëmeron. Be that as it may, St. Basil’s introductory formula would (as suggested already) fit in better with the knowledge one might suppose him to possess of an author of the previous generation like Eusebius than with his relation to Diodore; and, incidentally, it would contain a very interesting – and early – counterweight to St. Jerome’s characterization of Eusebius as a standard-bearer of the Arian party37, which has rested as a heavy burden on Eusebius’ dogmatic reputation ever since. To make it possible to evaluate provisionally Eusebius’ exegetical contribution and the question of source I shall give a short paraphrase of his comment on Gen 1,2c, as it appears in the Armenian manuscript, MS Ven. Mech. 873, 140, l. 26 – 141, l. 1338. Eusebius first concentrates on the verb of Gen 1,2c, saying that the full meaning of the Hebrew verb can hardly be rendered in Greek using only one word – at any rate not ἐπιφέρω. He parallels this fact with the necessity in some cases of using two words in Syriac and Hebrew to render one Greek word. His examples are the words “slinger” and “archer”39. 36 Op. cit., passim. 37 Jerome, Chronicon, ed. R. Helm 1913, 236, cf. E. M. Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire d’Eusèbe d’Émèse, (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 24), Louvain, 1949, esp. 7. The expression used by St. Jerome is arrianae signifer factionis. 38 My thanks are due to the Mechitharist Congregation of Venice for having placed a microfilm of the relevant pages of the manuscript at my disposal. 39 Eusebius’ point, of course, is that in some cases when the Greek needs only one word, Hebrew or Syriac needs two. To use his examples, the archers of Gen 49,23 are in Hebrew ‫( בעלי חצים‬a construction which is, incidentally, imitated by the LXX: κύριοι τοξευμάτων), and the slingers of Judg. 20,16 (where the LXX have σφενδονῆται) are ‫ קלע באבן‬i.e. in one case a constructus-connection of two substantives, in the other a participle with a substantive introduced by a preposition. Zanolli has rendered the Armenian միապէս by pariter, which is misunderstandable. Armenian միապէս verbally means “in one way”, and normally has the meaning of “in the like manner”, “equally” etc. Here, however, it has undoubtedly been used to translate what in the Greek original meant “using only one word”, cf. Diodore: διὰ μίας λέξεως. On the whole, Diodore here follows Eusebius very closely. Cf. J. Deconinck, Essai sur la chaîne de l’Octateuque, Paris, 1912, see esp. fragment No. 4 (92f) l. 4-7.

31

32

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

After this general statement concerning the art and technique of translation40 the author endeavours to render the Hebrew (or Syriac) verb; and to do so he needs four Greek verbs and the imagery of the bird keeping its young ones warm, taking care of them and caressing them41. Then the author refers to the question whether the phrase deals with the Holy Spirit or the wind42. The first part of his answer is an affirmation of the possibility of taking the verse to be about the Holy Spirit. Once again he paraphrases the verb using four – new – verbs, this time verbs meaning: “to nourish”, “to take care of”, “to make”, and “to guide”43, and he adds that it might be acceptable to use the verb “to move” about the Holy Spirit – on one condition, namely that it is used in the same way, as the verbs “to descend” and “to ascend” are used in the Bible about God44. 40 In preceding parts of the text Eusebius has treated of this theme more fully. Part of this seems to be paraphrased in the first lines of Diodore’s fragment (ed. cit., l. 1-3). 41 The four Armenian verbs used here are: 1. ողոքեմ, 2 գրգամ, 3. շարշեմ(–իմ), 4. շրջեմ ի վերայ The fourth verb is the one used in Gen 1,2c in the Armenian Bible, and it is natural to consider it a rendering of the Greek ἐπιφέρω. Below are quoted the Greek synonyms for the first three verbs as given in the Armenian thesaurus (= G. Awetik’ean, X. Siwrmelean, M. Awgerean, Nor Bargirk’ Haykazean Lezowi, 1-2, Venice, 1836-1837) and the English translations given by Bedrossian (= M. Bedrossian, New Dictionary Armenian-English, repr. of the 1879-edition, Beirut, n.d.):

1. Thes. arm.: κολακεύω, θωπεύω. ἀπομειλίσσομαι. θεραπεύω, ὑγιάζω. τιθασσεύω.

Bedrossian: supplicate, persuade mildly; soften, calm, appease; touch, move to pity; fawn upon, toady, flatter.

2. Thes. arm.: θάλπω, ἐπωάζω, κλώζω.

Bedrossian: cluck, cocker.

3. Thes. arm.: κινέω. σείω, συσσείω, σαλεύω (-ομαι).

Bedrossian: move, remove, set in motion, stir, cause to move; agitate, shake, flutter, stagger; fig. excite, provoke, rouse the feelings of, move, touch; (be moved etc.).

42 It seems to me to be natural to translate the Armenian sentence as presenting two alternative interpretations. What has led Zanolli to translate otherwise (viz. Nunc vero quæsierimus quod de vento, de Sancto Spiritu prædicari?) is presumably the fact that the text must not necessarily be read as lending itself to a formal rejection of the wind interpretation. Cf. the discussion below. 43 The four Armenian verbs used here are: 1. տածեմ, 2. խնամարկեմ, 3. գործեմ, 4. առաջնորդեմ. Below are quoted their synonyms as given in the Thes. arm. and Bedrossian:

1. Thes. arm.: τημελέω. θάλπω. τρέφω.

Bedrossian: care, take care of, preserve; nourish, maintain, sustain, feed; cultivate; foment, stir up.

2. Thes. arm.: ἐπιμελέομαι.

Bedrossian: take care of, attend to, occupy oneself solicitously about, patronize.

3. Thes. arm.: έργάζομαι. πράσσω. ἐνεργέω, ἀπεργάζομαι.

Bedrossian: work, make, do; fashion, manufacture; commit, perpetrate; knit; twist.

4. Thes. arm.: ὁδηγέω, ἡγέομαι, κυβερνάω.

Bedrossian: conduct, lead, guide, command, head, rule, govern, direct, escort, accompany.

44 This part of Eusebius’ comment is omitted by Diodore, but is quoted by Procopius, PG 87,45.

T he

S pirit

ο f

G od

upon

the

F ace

ο f

T he

W aters

Still concentrating on the meaning of the verb Eusebius now goes on to say that “to move” is of course a suitable verb for the wind. But the question is whether this interpretation can bring out the real and full meaning of the Hebrew verb. The following passage seems to answer this question in the affirmative, since it speaks about the familiarity and proximity of wind and water and of their relationship in a process of heating45. This might superficially be read as a positive statement concerning the wind interpretation. Before accepting this reading, however, it should be noticed: 1) that the weight of the passage might lie on the statement that this is not a process done by an act of will, 2) that – by way of comparison – St. Basil also refers to the wind interpretation as a possibility that cannot be excluded; only, it is “more true” to maintain that the verse is about the Holy Spirit46, 3) that an external witness might support the view that Eusebius’ comment – like St. Basil’s – is in reality aimed at a rejection of the wind interpretation. I am thinking of Ishodad of Merw, whose contribution shall be commented upon a little later on. Finally, it is added that the designation “God’s” might be used about the wind, because wind or air is nearer to the incorporeal than is e.g. earth and water, and the presentation of the exegetical possibilities in Gen. 1,2c is concluded by the statement that some people take God’s Spirit to mean the energy that heated the nature of the waters47. From this paraphrase of Eusebius of Emesa’s comments upon Gen. 1,2c it will have appeared that he can be credited with the merit of being the author of the pre-Basilian period to have given the fullest presentation of the bird imagery and of the semantic field of the Hebrew verb as parts of the interpretation that takes the verse to be about the Holy Spirit. That his comments are used in a very direct and extensive manner by

45 Some features of this passage are quoted by Diodore, see esp. ed. cit., l.11ff. 46 Undoubtedly, there is a formal difference between St. Basil and Eusebius, not only in St. Basil’s dismissing the wind interpretation before turning to the “truer” understanding, but also in the way in which St. Basil pointedly underlines that the former interpretation would place the wind as one of the four elements of the created world. Here he agrees with the central point in St. Ephraem’s interpretation, on which, however, he is hardly dependent, as Ephraem does not – like Basil – count four “parts of the world”, but five “natures”, presumably, as shown by T. Jansma, in order to reject Bardesanes’ cosmogony. Cf. T. Jansma, op. cit. 47 The final passage again belongs to what is quoted by Diodore. In general, it may be added, that the three exegetical possibilities that are mentioned by Eusebius, as well as by Diodore, St. Basil, and St. Augustine in his De Gen. ad litt. imperf. liber, are identical in their main outline. In their general content, therefore, they can be assumed to belong to what may be called an established fund of exegetical knowledge.

33

34

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i b l e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Diodore is obvious, when the two texts are read in comparison48. It also seems clear that Eusebius is very likely to be the learned Christian Syrian referred to by St. Basil and St. Augustine. I shall only add a few remarks on the use made elsewhere in the history of exegesis of Eusebius’ work. In the Greek tradition, apart from the authors mentioned already, Procopius of Gaza, esp., utilizes the Eusebian Commentary49, and there is of course that special interest connected with authors such as Diodore and Procopius that in their verbal quotations one may be able to find fragments of Eusebius’ own original Greek text. As was hinted at above, it may also be possible to find further testimonies in the Syrian tradition, esp. in Ishodad of Merw’s commentary on the Old Testament. In his comments on Gen. 1,2c he quotes St. Ephraem and the Blessed Interpreter (i.e. Theodore of Mopsuestia) as witnesses for the wind interpretation. Before that, however, he refers to “St. Basil and others” for the Holy Spirit interpretation quoting a passage that is so closely related to the passage where Eusebius comments upon the wind interpretation, that it must be considered a direct quotation of Eusebius50. And also parts of what follows in Ishodad’s commentary could be considered to be quotations from Eusebius51. It would thus seem that Eusebius’ Commentary on the Octateuch has taken its natural place among other exegetical authorities of the Old Church to which both Greek and Syrian exegetes of the Middle Ages recurred, and it would hardly be untrue to say that there is a good deal of work ahead sorting out such quotations. 48 Cf. above, notes 40 and 45. 49 Cf. above, note 44 (which, indeed, does not exhaust the quotations to be found in Procopius). 50 Cf. above. The passage in question is here quoted in C. van den Eynde’s translation (Commentaire d’Išo’dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament, I. Genèse, traduit par Ceslas van den Eynde, (CSCO, 156, Script. Syr., 75), Louvain, 1955, 19): Ici encore (ce sont) le bienheureux Basile et d’autres, qui ont interprété (ces mots) du Saint-Esprit. Mais voyant que le mot était porté était absurde et qu’il n’était pas seyant de l’appliquer au Saint-Esprit, ils eurent recours au mot couvait de l’Hébreu et du Syrien, (disant): Si les mots son esprit couvait se rapportent à l’air, comment celui-ci, un être inanimé et insensible, couve-t-il comme une poule (couve) ses poussins, et active-t-il et échauffe-t-il comme par un effet de sa volonté, et meut-il les eaux? (Cf. MS Ven. Mech. 873,141,1. 4.6-9). Cf. also T. Jansma, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters – Some remarks on the Syro-Hexaplaric reading of Gen 1.2”, Vetus Testamentum, 20 (1970), 16-24, see esp. 19. Cf. also Antoine Guillaumont, op. cit., and Lucas Van Rompay, op. cit. 51 This is true of the following passages: op. cit., 19, l. 19-21 (~ MS, 141, l. 10); op. cit., 20, l. 7-8 (~ MS, 141, l. 12-13) (van den Eynde here refers to St. Basil, but the correspondence with Eusebius is closer); op. cit., 20, l. 9-12 (~ MS, 141, l. 10-12).

T he

S pirit

ο f

G od

upon

the

F ace

ο f

T he

W aters

Another question, of course, immediately suggests itself: that of Eusebius’ sources. I have made no investigations on that point, so by way of conclusion I shall just mention that Smoroński refers to early Jewish exegetes as witnesses of the bird imagery52. These sources are more in accordance with the interpretation met in Eusebius than is the ornithological and mythological information on the behaviour of birds and the myth of the Cosmic Egg etc., that is met with in a number of modern commentaries trying to come to grips with the content and meaning of the verb used in Gen 1,2c. This does not mean that Eusebius and the early Rabbis are necessarily right; but historically they belong to a current of tradition which may not yet have revealed to us all the secrets it has to tell.

52 Cf. K. Smoroński, op. cit., 146ff, esp. 151f. Cf. also W. H. McClellan, “The meaning of ruaḥ‘Elohim in Genesis 1,2”, Biblica, 15 (Rome, 1934), 517-527, esp. 526.

35

Some Questions Concerning the Armenian Version of the Epistle of James

If I may be forgiven an exordium that is perhaps slightly too rhetorical, I should like to state initially that even if all the impressive architectural monuments of Armenian culture and church history had disappeared or had even never been built, we might still be in possession of one witness that would be sufficient to secure for ever Armenian language and endeavours an important place within the history of the Christian churches. I am thinking of the Armenian version of the Bible, and I am well aware that I am not making any new statement here, since this translation is very often – since La Croze coined the expression about 200 years ago – referred to as “the Queen of Versions”. Now, even a queen may be subjected to scientific examination, and biblical scholars who examine the Armenian version of the Scriptures, could be said to pose questions that run to some extent parallel to questions posed by historians of architecture, language, and literature, e.g. such questions as: What is Greek influence? What may be defined as Syrian elements? And what is genuinely Armenian in this literary monument, which stems in its final shape from the fifth century, i.e. from as early a date as some of the earliest Armenian churches now known? In the history of textual criticism it is true that the evaluation of the significance of the old versions has changed with the times. Thus early in the 20th century the English scholar F. C. Burkitt for example might be quoted for a very high estimation of the versions,1 whereas later on it may be true to say that Greek material – especially papyri fragments of a very early date – stole the picture. To-day a new interest in the old versions seems to have arisen in

1

Cf. the quotation below (from Metzger, see note 3).

38

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

certain quarters, whereas others give only slight attention to the witness of the old translations. As an example of the last-mentioned attitude may be quoted a passage from Kurt Aland’s introduction to the 26th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece: “The early versions, whether in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, or any other language, are frequently overrated”.2 Another well-known text-critical scholar of the present day, Bruce M. Metzger, holds the old versions of the New Testament in higher esteem. In the preface to his important manual on the ancient versions from 1977, after mentioning the usefulness of the early versions for the church historian, the historian of liturgy, and the philologist, he adds: “It is the textual critic, however, for whom the early versions of the New Testament are of prime importance. Earlier in the twentieth century F. C. Burkitt went so far as to argue that a reading supported by the Old Latin k and the Sinaitic Syriac deserved as much respect as one witnessed by B and ‫א‬. Although the subsequent discovery of early Greek papyri (such as P66 and P75, which antedate B and ‫ א‬by more than a century) has required a reassessment of Burkitt’s views, the textual critic must still give serious attention to readings that are supported by a combination of unrelated versional witnesses.”3 To my mind, it is by no means an accident, that two important works of reference concerned with the old versions have been published in the 1970’es, viz., besides Metzger’s book, the Münster manual edited by Kurt Aland,4 where the Armenian Bible is treated of by Louis Leloir.5 I do not intend to give a survey of research into the Armenian version of the Bible or text books concerned with it; it might be useful, however, as a background for what I hope to point out more specifically, to call attention to a few characteristics of the two books mentioned; and it seems to me that in such a presentation of modern reference works, however short and incomplete,

2

Novum Testamentum Graece, post Eberhard Nestle et Erwin Nestle ed. Kurt Aland (et al.), 26. Aufl., Stuttgart 1979, (quotation from Introduction, p. 54*).

3

Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament. Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations, Oxford 1977, pp. VIIf.

4

Kurt Aland (ed.), Die alten Übersetzungen des neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare, Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 5, Münster 1972.

5

Op.cit., pp. 300-313.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

also Arthur Vööbus’ book on the early versions of the New Testament6 should be mentioned, even if it is now more than 25 years old. Since I shall be mostly concerned with Leloir’s contribution, I will not mention the books in chronological order, but give a short comment on Vööbus’ and Metzger’s books first, and then turn to Leloir. As will be known, Arthur Vööbus has been concerned especially with problems related to the early Syrian church, not least the evidence of the early versions of the Bible in Syriac. Thus, in a brief presentation of Vööbus’ book – and esp. the chapter on the Armenian version – the following phrase might be picked out as a key sentence: “one cannot evade the conclusion that the most ancient Armenian version as known to ancient Armenian writers was not made from Greek, but, beyond doubt, from Syriac manuscripts. This Unterlage (sic) was an Old Syriac text, a type somewhat more archaic in places than Syr-Sin and Syr-Cur and somewhat closer to the text-pattern of the Diatesseron” (sic).7 On the basis of the conclusion – or working hypothesis – quoted, Vööbus emphasizes the necessity of examining textual conditions in Edessa, the ecclesiastical and theological metropolis of Northern Syria, in order to elucidate the background and history of the Armenian Bible. As Vööbus clearly states, this is not a new idea, and he gives a fairly broad account of the history of research, esp. in the 20th century, evidently feeling that his own work is a pioneer work because of its amount of Syrian material, unknown or unconsidered in earlier generations. It should be added that Vööbus acknowledges the results reached by St. Lyonnet in his extremely important monograph on the origin of the Armenian version of the Gospels and the Diatessaron,8 which run to a certain extent parallel to Vööbus’ own findings (even if they disagree on the question whether the Syrian Vorlage of the Armenian Gospels was Diatessaric or not). The reason why I do not comment upon Lyonnet’s book in this connection, even if it is undoubtedly a highly important work on the Armenian Bible – maybe the most important since Frédéric Macler in 1919 formulated his theory

6

Arthur Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament, Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 6, Stockholm 1954.

7

Op. cit., p. 151.

8

S. Lyonnet, Les origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron, Biblica et Orientalia, 13, Rome 1950.

39

40

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

of a purely Greek background of the Armenian Bible9 – is that Lyonnet is primarily concerned with the Gospels, and even if he must of course consider material outside the Gospels, he has for example not one single example or quotation derived from the Epistle of James, with which we shall mainly be concerned here. The absence in Lyonnet’s book of quotations from the Epistle of James may, incidentally, have a very natural explanation in so far as the Catholic Epistles were not accepted as canonical writings in the earliest Syrian church, so the probability of identifying any translation into Syriac of this part of the Bible earlier than the Peshitta may be limited.10 For a student wanting a solid and well-balanced introduction to the field of textual criticism and the value of the old versions for this field of scholarship Metzger’s book is undoubtedly the best. He adds no specific hypotheses of his own, but gives a good and precise account of the present state of research. In this respect his book may be characterized as a traditional, thorough-going manual. What is new – and maybe one of the most recommendable features of Metzger’s book, is that he finishes his presentation of each version with a chapter concerned with the limitations of the language in question in rendering the Greek. Metzger has left the preparation of these chapters to scholars who know the languages concerned; for the Armenian the author is Erroll F. Rhodes of the Library Research Staff of the American Bible Society. (The limitations of Syriac, which are of interest in our context, of course, are treated of by Sebastian Brock of the University of Oxford.) In a way, the importance or necessity of such chapters may be self-evident. Traditionally, however, they are not to be found in manuals of textual criticism, so the student is too often left with the impression that the translations can be used to determine the choice between Greek variants or even to emend the Greek text in a more direct and easy procedure than is in fact the case. And, incidentally, one of the points I have to make concerning Leloir’s contribution, is that he is not sufficiently aware of the methodological problems that arise from the limitations and possibilities of the languages concerned. Neither does he give full attention to the need of distinguishing between one kind of syriacism and the other, or between readings that are chosen because they are idiomatic Armenian or for reasons concerned with translational tech9

F. Macler, “ Le texte arménien de l’évangile d’après Matthieu et Marc”, Annales du Musée Guimet, 28, 1919. Cf. below, p. 54f.

10 Cf. e.g. Metzger, op. cit. p. 44.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

nique on one hand, and on the other what is terminology consciously chosen for theological reasons. These remarks are obviously rather critical. Before I try to substantiate the criticism, I should therefore like to point out, firstly that Leloir gives an explicit statement of very sound methodological principles concerning some of the points mentioned,11 secondly that the reason why the greater part of his contribution is limited to a discussion of the text of the Epistle of James, is that the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster under Kurt Aland has for a number of reasons concentrated on this epistle as a good sample with which to begin the Editio Maior Critica of the New Testament. Therefore most of the contributions in the Münster manual concentrate on that text. To these points might be added that it seems to me to be particularly necessary to take up the methodological discussion of Leloir’s presuppositions and conclusions because his answer: ‘Probablement oui’ to the question, whether the Vorlage of the Armenian Epistle of James is Syriac, seems to be on its way to be generally accepted on the basis of Leloir’s reputation as a scholar familiar with old Armenian literature. This, for example, is the impression one may get from W. L. Richards’ stocktaking of the text critical problems in the Catholic Epistles. A short presentation of the three relevant articles from Richards’ hand might round off this introductory survey of research (which has, evidently, not been meant to be exhaustive). W. L. Richards’ first article12 is mainly bibliographic; the second one13 is concerned with the transmission of the text of the Catholic Epistles in lectionaries and versions; and finally, he draws up in his third article14 a list of manuscripts available on microfilm in the USA and Canada. By way of introduction to his first article Richards quotes Jean Duplacy’s remark on the Catholic Epistles: “Ni l’histoire du corpus ni celle du texte n’ont été très étudiées”.15 This remark goes back to 1958; but Richards finds that now the situation is changing. This verdict is based, above all, on a reference to the

11 Op. cit., p. 306. 12 W. L. Richards, “Textual Criticism on the Greek Text of the Catholic Epistles: A Bibliography”, Andrews University Seminary Studies, 12, 1974, pp. 103-111. 13 W. L. Richards, “The Present Status of Text Critical Studies in the Catholic Epistles”, Andrews University Seminary Studies, 13, 1975, pp. 261-272. 14 W. L. Richards, “The New Testament Greek Manuscripts of the Catholic Epistles”, Andrews University Seminary Studies, 14, 1976, pp. 301-311. 15 Jean Duplacy, Où en est la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament?, Paris 1959, p. 64.

41

42

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

work done by the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, and therefore it is characteristic that in the article concerned with the old versions Richards builds mainly on the Münster manual mentioned above. Richards’ brief summary of Leloir’s main points of view will be quoted here before I turn to the treatment of some questions concerning Leloir’s presentation of the Armenian version of the Epistle of James: “After indicating his conviction that a first Armenian version of Acts was based on the Syriac and that the Pauline Epistles were more than likely based on the Syriac, Leloir asks if we can say the same for the major Catholic Epistles (pp. 302-303). His answer: “Probablement oui”. Examples of Syriacisms are given to support the theory that while the Armenian text of our editions is based on the Greek, these vestiges of the Syriac within the Armenian text point to a Syriac Vorlage for the first Armenian version (pp. 303-304)”.16 In the following I shall turn to a discussion of eight examples touched upon by Leloir. It should be noted beforehand that these eight instances are not the only points in Leloir’s chapter that could be discussed; neither do they provide a sufficient basis for deciding the question: Syrian Vorlage or not? Nor do they permit a discussion of all the questions of method involved. They seem to me, however, within the limited scope available here, to lend themselves to be used as illustrations of some of the important problems and questions of method referred to above – and others.

1. James 1,23 As far as this verse is concerned Leloir concentrates on the rendering of the verb κατανοέω.17 The grammatical form of the Greek verb is a present participle, rendered in the Armenian by a relative clause. In this clause is used the verb հայիմ preceded by the participle of the verb պշնեմ,պշնում or պշուցանեմ (պշուցեալ հայիցի), which is in Leloir’s literal translation into Latin reproduced by stupefactus aspiciet. Now Leloir comments upon this rendering: “‘stupefactus’ est une glose”. And he continues by stating that whether or not this has any textual support elsewhere, the word has a meaning – or significance of its own. In fact, “cette addition est une finesse du traducteur, et une correction de l’imprécision de la phrase grecque”, and his further comments consist of meditations on the 16 Richards, op. cit. (cf. note 13), p. 269. 17 Op. cit., pp. 308f.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

difference between those who are made stupefacti and those who are satisfacti through a look in the mirror. As I hope to substantiate below, such meditations are superfluous in this context, and it is wiser to stick to the information given by Leloir in a note, viz. that the two verbs in combination could be translated “regarder fixement”.18 In the Armenian New Testament the Greek κατανοέω is rendered in six different ways, as will appear from the survey in Table 1. The verb պշնեմ, -նում, -ուցանեմ is used four times in the Armenian New Testament, viz. those listed in Table 2. Table 1 also shows that only in two cases does the Armenian use a combination of two verbs, namely apart from James 1,23, the neighbouring verse: 1,24, where also the grammatical construction (participle + finite verb) is the same (հայեցեալ ետես). Table 1 κατανοέω in the Greek New Testament – Renderings in Armenian Rendering

Texts

Number of cases

հայիմ

Lk. 12,24; 12,27; Acts 7,32; 11,6; Rom. 4,19

5

նշմարեմ

Mt. 7,3; Lk. 6,41; Acts 7,31; 27,39

4

նայիմ

Lk. 20,23; Hebr. 3,1

2

զգուշանամ

Hebr. 10,24

1

պշուցեալ հայիմ

Js. 1,23

1

հայեցեալ տեսանեմ

Js. 1,24

1 14

Table 2 Armenian NT: պշնեմ (etc.) Text

Greek phrase

Armenian phrase

Acts 1,10

ὡς ἀτενίζοντες ἦσαν

մինչդեռ պշուցեալ հայէին

Acts 3,12

τί ἀτενίζετε

զի էք պշուցեալ

Acts 11,6

εἰς ἥν ἀτενίσας κατενόουν

յոր պշուցեալ հայէի

Js. 1,23

ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι

մարդոյ որ պշուցեալ հայիցի

18 L. cit., note 11.

43

44

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

As regards the use of պշնեմ (etc.) in the Armenian New Testament, it should be noted that all three occurrences outside James 1,23 are found in Acts. In two cases (Acts 1,10; 11,6) the verb is used in the participle in conjunction with a finite form of the verb հայիմ – as is the case in James 1,23. In one of these cases (Acts 1,10) the combination of the two verbs translates the mere ἀτενίζω of the Greek text, in the other the Greek has the aorist participle of ἀτενίζω in conjunction with a finite form of κατανοέω. (In the third case also, the Greek uses ἀτενίζω). However modest the volume of this material is, it seems to me to indicate that in some cases the Armenian translators of the New Testament have found the mere հայիմ too weak to translate κατανοέω. In such cases they might, among other possibilities, choose their “synonym” for ἀτενίζω, i.e. պշնեմ (etc.) or a combination of պշնեմ (etc.) and հայիմ. I readily agree in calling this a “finesse du traducteur”, as does Leloir, but I do not agree in seeing necessarily or primarily a very specified semantic interpretation in the direction of stupefactus. To my mind meditations on the psychological and edifying impact of certain possible, but uncommon semantic connotations of the verb are less helpful in clarifying the semantic field of the word and the translational technique used by the Armenian translator of the Epistle of James, than is the comparison with other occurrences in the Armenian New Testament, from which it appears that in idiomatic Armenian of the time the primary meaning of the verb was “regarder fixement”. To this may be added, 1) that in the translator’s mind may have been active the stylistic ideal of variation making it desirable to choose different renderings in two neighbouring verses (cf. Js. 1,23 and 1,24); and 2) that his wish to render what he has understood as the emphatic element in the Greek prefix κατα-, does not seem to be an isolated phenomenon to be registered in this verse alone (cf. below). And to my mind it is methodologically unsound not to exhaust such linguistic and stylistic considerations before turning to other means of understanding the choice of expressions in a text.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

2. James 2,13 Here Leloir makes three observations to demonstrate that the Armenian translator specifies or clarifies the Greek text in accordance with his linguistic, emotional and religious understanding of the contents.19 Firstly he maintains that the translation of the Greek verb κατακαυχάω emphasizes the feelings of confidence and serenity that may be expressed through this verb. Secondly the preposition առ (which is understood as identical with Latin ad) is taken to be used to specify the meaning of the Greek genetive. And thirdly the ‘article’ with դատաստան according to Leloir makes it clear that the author is here speaking of God’s judgement. Let us consider the three points stressed by Leloir: re 1: It is true that κατακαυχᾶται is translated բարձրագլուխ պարծի, which in a literal translation may be rendered erecta (or capite-alto) gloriatur, as Leloir does. I agree that the adverb may be described as having an emphatic function; thus, the New English Bible’s choice of the verb ‘triumph’ to translate the Greek verb and Bedrossian’s rendering of the Armenian adverb as meaning ‘boldly, highly’20 both represent the meaning clearly, whereas ‘confiance’ and ‘sérénité’ are not very good paraphrases. In fact, I feel that they lead to another interpretation of the meaning of the verse than that intended by the Armenian translator – and the author. Probably, it would have been more to the point to call attention to the above-mentioned possibility of a preference for rendering the emphatic content of the Greek κατα-, here by means of an adverb: բարձրագլուխ. re 2: The phrase, in which Leloir comments upon the preposition ad used in his Latin translation is not very informative; “ ad précise la valeur du génitif κρίσεως”, it runs. To me it is difficult to see what kind and degree of “précision” is contained in the preposition; and rather than Leloir’s paraphrase gloriatur ad + acc. it would have been preferable to translate for example: superexultare + dat. or gloriari adversus + acc. I have deliberately chosen the translations to be found in the Vulgate in Js. 2, 3 and Rom. 11,18. In the lastmentioned place, incidentally, just as in Js. 2,13, κατακαυχάομαι + gen. is rendered in the Armenian version through պարծիմ + առ + instr. This might then seem to be the usual way of translating this locution. re 3: That Js. 2,13 refers to God’s judgement is beyond doubt. But the role of the distribution of articles in that respect is rather doubtful. The word for 19 Op. cit., p. 309. 20 M. Bedrossian, New Dictionary Armenian-English, 1879 (repr. Beirut, n.d.), s.v.

45

46

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

judgement is used twice, and the Greek has the definite article in the first place, but no article in the second, whereas the opposite is true about the Armenian. To me it is difficult to find any “désir de netteté” in this difference, as does Leloir.

3. James 1,9.10 While it might be maintained that it is a question of a technical character and a limited scope, whether Leloir’s rendering of առ + instr. through ad + acc. is a happy choice, the importance he himself assigns to the Armenian translator’s choice of grammatical case cannot be dismissed offhand. Thus, for instance, in some cases he finds that the use of the accusative instead of the ablative tends to “aboutir à une précision plus grande”.21 His examples are Js. 1,1 and 1,9.10. For 1,1, it might be noted in passing that if the readings սփիւռս or սփիւռսդ (which exist) are chosen, this Armenian word for διασπορά is in the plural where acc. and loc. cannot be distinguished. Conc. Js. 1,9 and 10, Leloir comments upon the syntactical construction in connection with the word καυχάομαι. In the Armenian version the verb պարծիմ is followed by i + acc., and this invites us, according to Leloir, to “approfondir le sens de la situation” – in the direction, it seems, of pointing at a durable state of mind (“… en remuant sans cesse sa dignité chétienne (sic) … en songeant constamment à la fragilité…”) – just as in 1,1 the acc. points to a “dispersion qui se continue”.22 In Table 3 are shown the syntactical constructions with Gr. καυχάομαι and Arm. պարծիմ in the New Testament. From this survey can be ascertained that in the Greek NT ἐν + dat. is the construction occurring most frequently, and that in Armenian, ի + acc. (and the instrumental case) are the prevalent rendering(s) of this. To my mind, therefore, this (these) rendering(s) – just as առ + instr. for Greek gen. after κατακαυχάομαι – should be characterized as the usual Armenian idiom of the day, which in itself does not involve any specification of a theological, religious or psychological order. Besides this overall assessment a number of details call for comments. I cannot go into every detail, but I should like to draw the attention to the following six points. 21 Op. cit., p. 312. 22 Op. cit., pp. 312f.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

1. For exegetic and contentual reasons the question could be raised whether, e.g., in the Pauline context, 2 Cor. 10,13-17, the clauses with εἰς + acc. and those with ἐν + dat. should be listed in the same survey (to put it somewhat bluntly). Also the constructions in 2 Cor. with both acc. and ὑπέρ + gen. (7,14 and 9,2) might be classified as a particular group, and other points as well might deserve a closer analysis and some reservations. Here, however, we must confine ourselves to formal considerations. 2. When in the overall assessment above I only mentioned ի + acc. (and not ի + acc./loc.), this is due to the fact that in my evaluation the instances with ի + acc./loc. could in reality be taken together with the instances with ի + acc; the reason why “loc.” is added is that in the plural (as mentioned above) Armenian does not distinguish between the two cases. From the prevalent choice of the acc., when the word is in the singular, it seems to me obvious that also in the words in the plural it is the acc. that is used. As the starting-point of this discussion is the fact that Leloir maintains that the choice of the acc. as opposed to other cases makes an important difference, I have, however, felt obliged to register in Table 3 the plural-words as being in “acc./loc”. 3. Where other possibilities than ἐν + dat./ի + acc. (or instr.) are used, it is obvious in a number of cases that the Greek choice of construction has determined the Armenian; cf. e.g. վասն + gen. for ὐπὲρ and περὶ + gen.; ըստ corresponding to κατὰ, առաջի to ἐνώπιον. 4. In accordance with what was mentioned under 2, there is only one case, where in my evaluation loc. is clearly present, viz. Js. 4,16; a natural explanation of that choice (not commented upon by Leloir) is that for the Armenian translator the ἀλαζονεία (= false pretension, boastfulness etc.) is not the reason for boasting, but the field within which boasting takes place (cf. the rendering in the New English Bible: “you boast and brag” – as compared with, e.g. Js. 1,9-10: “… may well be proud that… must find his pride in…”). It may be interesting to note that Js. 4,16 is the only text in the NT where the Vulgate does not use gloriari to translate καυχᾶσθαι; here the verb is exultare. 5. In the single case, where ի + abl. is used (1 Cor. 3,21) the translator may possibly have connected ἐν ἀνθρώποις with μηδεῖς, so as to give the sense: “none among men” = no man – should boast.23 6. In 2 Cor. 11,30 I have taken the զ- to be the acc. mark – representing τὰ in the Greek, the case of the noun then being gen. In order not to exclude 23 For ի + abl. = “ablativus partitivus” cf. H. Jensen, Altarmenische Grammatik, Heidelberg 1959, § 350 (and 460).

47

48

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

any possibility it may be mentioned that the Armenian could be read as the preposition զ- with loc. Table 3 Prepositional groups etc. with καυχάομαι/պարծիմ A. Occurrences in the New Testament Text Rom.

1. Cor.

2. Cor.

Greek construction

Armenian construction

2,17

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc./loc.

2,23

ἐν + dat.

instr.

5,2

ἐπί + dat.

instr.

5,3

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc./loc.

5,11

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc./loc.

1,29

ἐνώπιον + gen.

առաջի + gen.

2,31

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc.

3,21

ἐν + dat.

ի + abl.

5,12

ἐν + dat.

առ + acc./loc.

5,12

ἐν + dat.

instr.

7,14

acc./ὑπὲρ + gen.

acc./վասն + gen

9,2

acc./ὑπὲρ + gen.

acc./վասն + gen

περί + gen.

վասն + gen.

10,13

εἰς + acc.

ի + acc./loc.

10,15

εἰς + acc.

ի + acc./loc.

10,15

ἐν + dat.

instr.

10,16

ἐν + dat.

instr.

10,16

εἰς + acc.

ի + acc./loc.

10,17

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc.

11,12

ἐν + dat.

instr.

10,8

Gal.

11,18

κατὰ + acc.

ըստ + dat.

11,30

acc.

acc.

12,5

ὑπὲρ + gen.

վասն + gen.

12,5

ὑπὲρ + gen.

վասն + gen.

12,9

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc. /loc.

6,13

ἐν + dat.

instr.

6,14

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

Text

Greek construction

Armenian construction

Phil.

3,3

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc.

Js.

1,9

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc.

1,10

ἐν + dat.

ի + acc.

4,16

ἐν + dat.

ի + loc.

B. Distribution Greek construction Number of cases

Armenian construction

Number of cases

εἰς + acc.

3

ի + acc./loc.

3

ἐν + dat.

19

instr.

6

ի + acc.

6

ի + acc./loc.

4

ի + loc.

1

ի + abl.

1

առ + acc./loc.

1

ἐνώπιον + gen.

1

առաջի + gen.

1

ἐπὶ + dat.

1

instr.

1

κατὰ + acc.

1

ըստ + dat.

1

περὶ + gen.

1

վասն+ gen.

1

ὑπὲρ + gen.

2

վասն +gen.

2

acc./ὑπὲρ + gen.

2

acc./վասն + gen.

2

acc.

1

acc.

1

31

31

4. James 1,3 “τὸ δοκίμιον devient “probatio confecta” (vel “concinnata”)”, says Leloir.24 But it does not. What is here rendered confecta or concinnata is the Armenian participle յաւրինեալ. But that certainly belongs to the following, not to the preceding. Apart from Js. 1,3 the verb յաւրինեմ is only used once in the

24 Op. cit., p. 310.

49

50

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Armenian NT, viz. 2 Cor. 9,11, so we are left without much comparative material. It should be noted, however, that in 2 Cor. 9,11 it is used to translate κατεργάζομαι, which is otherwise in most other cases rendered by գործեմ. To my mind there is therefore no doubt that in Js. 1,3 the Armenian translator has used a combination of the two verbs that are most natural as translations of the Greek verb (and, incidentally, a construction that seems dear to him: participle of one verb + finite form of another). To this should be added the observation hinted at already: that three of the verses we have now considered (1,3; 1,23 and 2,13) have one thing in common: in all of them we have to do with a Greek verb beginning with κατα-. I would certainly take the specific features of the Armenian renderings quoted to mean that we have to do with a careful translator, but to my mind his carefulness should rather be described in terms of considerations of how to translate specifying or emphatic prefixes of Greek verbs than in terms of moral utility as in Leloir’s comments. If this understanding holds true, it would point in the direction of the translator’s Vorlage being a Greek text; but, of course, we could not through that statement decide whether we are speaking of the Vorlage in the hands of a primary translator or a secondary reviser.

5. James 2,21 Here the Greek ἀνενέγκας is rendered հանեալ … պատարագ. The addition of the noun պատարագ (= sacrifice) as object of the participle հանեալ according to Leloir sets off “l’abnégation et l’esprit de religion d’Abraham”.25 Once again it seems recommendable to me to begin the evaluation of the Armenian rendering with the question of the idiom of the translators and their translational method. The verb ἀναφέρω does not occur very often in the New Testament. As appears from Table 4 the number of occurrences amounts to 10. Four Armenian verbs are used to translate it (cf. Table 4, B 1). Table 4 (A) shows that in five cases պատարագ appears as the object; in three of them the Greek text has the corresponding θυσὶα, leaving only one incident besides Js. 2,21, where this is not the case (Hebr. 7,27 (2°)). Thus the statistics for ἀναφέρω are of little avail. More help may be gained

25 Op. cit., p. 311.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

from a listing of the occurrences in the NT of the verb προσφέρω, which is used much more frequently both inside and outside sacrificial contexts. In order to evaluate the word statistics of Table 4, there is first of all reason to underline the fact that neither ἀναφέρω nor προσφέρω has necessarily any sacrificial meaning, the basic meaning of the verbs being “bring up; carry back” etc. and “bring to; present” etc., resp. Most of the instances classified under category c in Table 4 (A) appear in non-sacrificial contexts. On account of this basic semantic fact it will often be necessary – or at least natural – in a sacrificial context to supply the verb with an object meaning ‘sacrifice’, esp. where there is no other means of indicating the sacrificial content. This fact is mirrored in the relatively great number of instances under category a in Table 4 (A). What has been said here about the Greek verbs could immediately be transferred to Armenian մատուցանեմ, as already appears (at least to a certain extent) from the counting of Armenian renderings of the two Greek verbs. Two observations should be added. First it should be noted that where the Greek has an object other than δῶρον, θυσία etc. for what is sacrificed it would not be natural to add one of the nouns mentioned, whereas the addition of պատարագ as a “predicative accusative object” would not be an unnatural construction in Armenian. This, in my evaluation, accounts for the majority of instances listed under category b in Table 4 (A), and in other cases the reason why the Greek has no object seems to be that one of the nouns has been used a little earlier on in the same passage, so that Greek stylistic ideals would make it undesirable to repeat the word – as opposed to Armenian stylistic usage.

51

52

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Table 4 ἀναφὲρω and προσφὲρω in the Greek NT – Renderings in Armenian A. Occurrences of պատարագ a. Instances with պատարագ in Armenian, synonym in Greek. b. Instances with պատարագ in Armenian, no synonym in Greek. c. Other instances. 1.

ἀναφέρω

a.

Hebr. 7,27; 13,15; 1 Pet. 2,5

3 instances

b.

Hebr. 7,27; Js. 2,21

2

c.

Mt. 17,1; Mk. 9,2; Lk. 24,51 (vl); Hebr. 9,28; 1 Pet. 2,24

5

2.

προσφέρω

a.

Mt. 2,11; 5,23; 5,24; 8,4; (Lk. 5,14 (vl)); Acts 7,42; 21,26; Hebr. 5,1; 8,3; 8,4; 9,9; 10,1; 10,8; 10,11; 10,12; 11,4

15 (16) inst.

b.

Mk. 1,44; Lk. 5,14; Hebr. 5,3; 9,14; 9,25; 9,28; 11,17

7 (6)

c.

Mt. 4,24; 8,16; 9,32; 12,22; 14,35; 17,16; 18,24; 19,53; 22,19; 25,20; Mk. 2,4; 10,13; Lk. 18,15; 23,14; 23,36; John 16,2; 19,29; Acts 8,18; Hebr. 5,7; 8,3; 9,7; 10,2; 11,17; 12,7

24

10 instances

46 instances

B. Armenian verbs rendering ἀναφέρω and προσφέρω 1.

ἀναφέρω բառնամ 26

1 instance

հանեմ

3 instances

մատուցամեմ

4

վերանամ/վերացուցանեմ

2 10 instances

2.

προσφέρω ածեմ

1 instance

ածեմ + մատուցանեմ

1 –

մատուցանեմ

43 instances

(մերձենամ)27

1 instance 46 instances

26 բառնամ is used in Hebr. 9,28 in a quotation of Is. 53,12, where Z uses վերացուցանեմ (which is reproduced in the quotation of the same verse in 1 Pet. 2,24). The translator in Hebr. may be influenced by such texts as Is. 53,4 (φέρω/բառնամ) and John 1,29 (αἴρω/բառնամ). 27 մերձենամ, of course, cannot be considered a “synonym” of προσφέρω. It reproduces the variant reading προσεγγίσαι in Mk. 2,4.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

C. Greek synonyms for պատարագ 1.

In texts quoted under A δῶρον

8 instances

θυσία

9

προσφορά

2 19 instances

2.

In other texts of the NT δῶρον

6 instances

θυσία

6

προσφορά

7 19 instances

Whether the more frequent use of պատարագ than its Greek equivalents could be described in terms of the sacrificial meaning having come to belong more firmly and internally to the semantic field of προσφέρω than to that of մատուցանեմ, or the description should rather be given in grammaticalstylistic terms as suggested above, seems to me to be a mere question of linguistic terminology; but it could be added that for հանեմ which may have been chosen in Js. 2,21 as a common equivalent of ἀναφέρω, the need of a պատարագ to denounce the sacrificial meaning has undoubtedly asserted itself the more forcefully, as this verb is rarely used in sacrificial contexts. Such considerations of semantics, grammar, syntax and style, then, to my mind, are sufficient to explain the use of պատարագ in Js. 2,21, and it is again a principle of sound method not to seek explanations from other fields – such as psychology, ethics a.o. – for what is sufficiently explained on a linguistic basis. In the examples treated of so far it will have become clear that for such reasons of method Leloir’s comments of a theological, moral or psychological order have appeared to me superfluous. Before turning to the next examples where the discussion will be primarily concerned with questions of a texthistorical character, I shall by way of a transitional excursus refer to a discussion of one of the occurrences of προσφέρω, where scholars have voiced extremely varying opinions and rather far-reaching text-historical conclusions, mainly on the basis of the presence of պատարագ in the Armenian version. I am referring to a discussion that took place in the 1920’es and 1930’es of the variant readings in Jesus’ words to the leper (Mt. 8,4 par.). Excursus: The discussion of the readings in Mt. 8,4/Mk. 1,44/Lk. 5,14

53

54

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

The presence, resp. absence of a Greek synonym of պատարագ, will have appeared from our Table 4, in so far as Mk. 1,44 and Lk. 5,14 are quoted under category b, whereas Mt. 8,4 – and a variant reading in Lk. 5,14 – come under category a. For the further evaluation it may be useful here to quote the full clause in Greek, and in the version of the Zohrab Bible as well: Mt.: … καὶ προσένεγκον τὸ δῶρον ὃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς … Mk.: … καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου ἃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς … Lk.: … καὶ προσένεγκε * περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου καθὼς προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς … (* vl add. τὸ δῶρον) Mt.: … եւ մատո զպատարագն, զոր հրամայեաց Մովսէս … Mk.: … եւ մատո վասն սրբութեան քոյ պատարագ, զոր հրամայեաց Մովսէս … Lk.: … եւ մատո պատարագ վասն սրբութեան քոյ, որպէս հրամայեաց Մովսէս … Viewed in a broader perspective the discussion earlier in this century of the Vorlage of the Armenian Bible was strongly and provocatively promoted through Frédéric Macler’s book about the Armenian version of the gospels of Matthew and Mark, published 1919.28 Macler emphasized that “tous les faits concordent pour établir que la traduction arménienne, telle qu’elle est fixée, a été faite sur un original grec”.29 To Macler’s followers now came the task of identifying more precisely the text-type of the Greek original, whereas opponents of his view tried to strengthen the case for Syrian influence. A. Merk, for example, in articles published in 1923, 1924, and 1926,30 substantiated the dependence of the Armenian version upon a Greek Vorlage through philological, palaeographic and other arguments. In his last-mentioned article, however, he appends a chapter on the “syrische Einfluss”, and he lists correspondences between the Armenian and the Syrian versions. Thus Mk. 1,44 is registered in the following way: σου + το δωρον arm syrP (syrs vac),31 i.e. the Armenian is parallel to the Peshitta, whereas the vetus syra witness, Codex Sinaiticus, is silent here. In Merk’s classification this belongs to the “eigenartige Übertragungen”, which are “bemerkenswerter”, i.e. such peculiar translations that are more notable, sc. than other cases where Latin or Greek witnesses support a Syrian-Armenian reading.

28 Cf. above, note 9. 29 Op. cit., p. 643. 30 A. Merk, Recension of F. Macler, op. cit., Biblica 4, 1923, pp. 220-229; “Die Einheitlichkeit der armenischen Evangelienübersetzung”, Biblica 4, 1923, pp. 356-374; “Armenische und griechische Palaeo graphie”, Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle IV, Studi e Testi 40, 1924, pp. 1-21; “Die armenischen Evangelien und ihre Vorlage”, Biblica 7, 1926, pp. 40-71. 31 Op. cit. (1926), p. 64.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

In the long and important article on the Caesarean text by Kirsopp Lake, R. P. Blake

and Silva New, published 1928,32 Blake classifies the reading of Mk. 1,44 under the heading: “syriasms surviving in the Armenian”.33 There are two strange things about Blake’s listing, for one thing that he faultily refers to Syrus Sinaiticus as one of the Syrian witnesses, and secondly that he lists the reading both as a syriacism identified by Merk and in his supplementary list.34

Lyonnet, however, in his presentation of the Armenian version as belonging to the

Caesarean text type, denies that there is any trace of Syrian influence here.35 In his contribution to Lagrange’s Introduction to the New Testament, his general view and the importance he attaches to the relative pronoun being in the singular is specified in the following way: “Au v. 44, l’arménien n’avait pas plus besoin d’un modèle syriaque pour traduire προςενεγκε … ο προςεταξε Μωϋσης par մատո … պատարագ զոր հրամայեաց Մովսէս “présente… l’offrande qu’a prescrite Moïse”. La précision “l’offrande” se retrouve dans d’autres versions même françaises, comme celle du P. Joüon; elle prouve seulement que l’arm. lisait sans doute ὃ avec θ 565 W et non ἃ avec les autres manuscrits”.36

Lyonnet’s evaluation found little favour in Baumstark’s eyes. We are not confronted

with “eine äusserliche Hinzusetzung des Substantivs um dem Verbum matuc’anel “le sens religieux d’”offrir””37 zu verleihen”, he comments. And immediately after he adds: “Vielmehr liegt eine Harmonistik zugrunde, die ohne weiteres auf das “Diatessaron” als Quelle weisen würde”.38

It would take us too far here to quote Baumstark’s further arguments and on the

whole to extend this excursus, the purpose of which has been to illustrate what pointed and far-reaching text-historical conclusions have been based on one – or three – examples of idiomatic Armenian usage of մատուցանեմ պատարագ.

It is difficult not to see an element of wishful thinking in the definitions of practically

the same phenomena as either “syriacisms”, “caesareanisms” or “tatianisms”. Obviously, my above comments are most in line with Lyonnet’s views on Mk. 1,44. Unlike Lyonnet,

32 K. Lake, R. P. Blake and S. New, “The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark”, Harvard Theological Review 21, 1928, pp. 207-404. 33 Op. cit., p. 311. 34 Op. cit., p. 312. 35 S. Lyonnet, “Un important témoin du texte césaréen de Saint Marc: la version arménienne”, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth, 19,2, 1935, pp. 23-66. 36 M.-J. Lagrange, Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament, II. Critique textuelle, Études Bibliques, Paris 1935, p. 359. 37 Quoted from the work mentioned in note 35, p. 61. 38 A. Baumstark, Recension of S. Lyonnet, op. cit. (see note 35), Oriens Christianus 3. S, 11, 1936, pp. 245-252; here quoted from p. 247.

55

56

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

however, I feel reluctant to assign text-historical significance to the singular. Precisely from the view that մատուցանեմ պատարագ forms one semantic unit, and from the observations that պատարագ does not as a noun exclusively reproduce δῶρον, but other expressions for sacrifice as well, and that the ἃ of Mk. 1,44 should be translated “the things which”, “what” in the sense of “the sacrifice that”, I do not find that the Armenian should of necessity, because of its singular, be connected with the reading ὃ.

But let us turn again to Leloir’s comments on the Epistle of James. After having considered through our first five examples the importance of founding the evaluation of a translation such as the Armenian on a careful investigation of the translators’ language, its idiomatic characteristics, modes of expression and limitations in rendering the “source language”, we now turn to examples where proper text-historical questions are involved.

6. James 2,11 As regards this verse, Leloir concentrates on the fact that the Armenian version quotes the commandments in the following order: first: Do not kill, second: Do not commit adultery, whereas the Greek standard text has the reverse order.39 Leloir refers this to considerations in the Armenian translator’s mind of what is more serious: to kill or to commit adultery, and he adds some comments concerned with the definitivity of homicide as compared with adultery exemplified through the life and fate of Mussolini. To my mind only two observations should be made concerning this textual difference, first what Leloir mentions parenthetically, that there are other witnesses for this reading. In other words: we might remain entirely within the history of the text itself without venturing into for example the field of moralizing. The second observation that takes us a little outside text history proper, but not so far as to leave the technicalities and probabilities of a translator’s or a copyist’s work on the biblical text, is the following: the order in the Armenian version (and some other witnesses) corresponds to the usual order in the Old Testament. Thus if we should add any supplementary reason to that mentioned first, the variant reading might very easily find its explanation in an attempt of adaptation to the traditional order of the commandments.

39 Op. cit., p. 309.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

7. James 2,23 This example takes us to a different level of text history. Here, because of the use of the Armenian verb կատարեմ to translate the Greek πληρόω, Leloir refers to the arm 1-version and through that to a possible Syrian influence.40 In this connection Leloir refers to the treatment of the notion of “Vollendung” in J. Molitor’s book on the Grundbegriffe der Jesusüberlieferung41 where it is stated: “Vollendung bedeutet auch in der Muttersprache Jesu als umfassender Begriff gleichzeitig Erfüllung, Wiederherstellung und Neugestaltung”,42 part of which phrase is quoted by Leloir in order to describe the “nuance d’achèvement complet des termes du syriaque et d’arm 1”.43 If Molitor’s above-quoted phrase is taken as an attempt to give a semantic analysis with theological connotations of what is meant in Aramaic, when words meaning “end, finish, complete, fill, fulfill” etc. are used, it may be acceptable; but when such a description is used in order to maintain that the Greek “synonyms” are poor vehicles that can hardly transmit the “dynamic” Semitic way of thinking, this is a line of argument that was much en vogue a generation or more ago,44 but should be considered untenable after the publication of James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language.45 Turning now to the Armenian evidence, it should be mentioned first that St. Lyonnet is the scholar to whom the merit belongs of having drawn the attention to the fact that in a number of texts, particularly Armenian translations of Syrian and Greek fathers, the verb կատարեմ is used where the Zohrab Bible has լնում, and Lyonnet takes such quotations to be evidence of a vetus armena gospel text (“arm 1”).46 Secondly, it should be underlined that it cannot in my view, on purely semantic grounds, be maintained (as does Leloir) that կատարեմ is a more “dynamic” word than is լնում. One might even ask whether the relation is not in the reverse order, for what is more dynamic: “to finish” or “to fill”? Thirdly, it should be noticed that whereas Molitor and Leloir treat the

40 Op. cit., p. 307. 41 Joseph Molitor, Grundbegriffe der Jesusüberlieferung im Lichte ihrer orientalischen Sprachgeschichte, Düsseldorf 1968. 42 Op. cit., p. 108. 43 L. cit. 44 Cf. e.g. Thorleif Boman, Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem Griechischen, 1. Aufl., Göttingen 1952, 2. Aufl., Göttingen 1954. 45 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford 1961. 46 S. Lyonnet, op. cit. (see note 8), esp. p. 29.

57

58

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Table 5 Distribution of πληρόω/կատարեմ, լնում Mt

Mk

Lk

Joh

Acts

Rom

1 Cor

2 Cor

Gal

A. πληρόω in Greek NT – Renderings in Armenian լի, լի առնեմ/եմ etc. լնում կատարեմ Total

1

2 13

16

2

5

1

1

3

17

3

9

2

1

7

2

9

2

1

1

15

16

6

2

1

2

1

1

1

B. կատարեմ in Armenian NT – Greek synonyms τελέω

5

3

ἀποτελέω ἐκτελέω

2

ἐπιτελέω

-.

1

συντελέω

2

τελειόω

2

3

1

5

2

1

9

2

τέλειος

3

1

Subtotal

8

1

9

πληρόω

1

1

3

ἀναπληρόω

1

1 1

4

1

1

1 1

ἐκπληρόω

1

συμπληρόω Subtotal

3

2

1

1

1

4

11

2

1

2

ἀποκτείνω καταρτίζω

1

1

1

1

κατεργάζω ποιέω Subtotal Total

1 11

2

1

14

5

13

3

5

13

7

2

1

5

C. լնում in Armenian NT – Greek synonyms πληρόω

16

2

ἀναπληρόω

1

ἀνταναπληρόω προσαναπληρόω

2

πληροφορέω Subtotal πίμπλημι

16

2

13

2

1

1

1

1

12

10

1

γεμίζω

1

2

1

2

9

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

3

19

15

18

ἐμπνέω

1

Subtotal Total

7

11

ἐμπίμπλημι Subtotal

5

1

17

3

4

59

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

Eph

Phil

Col

l Th

2 Th

2 Tim

Heb

Js

l Joh

2 Joh

Apc

2 4

2

8 2

1

1

2 4

4

Total

4

1

1 1

1

56

1

1

1

1

24

1

1

1

2

88

5

20

1 1

1 2

1

1

1

5

6 2 1

13

1

1

1

3

1

3

2

7

6

1

1

1

2

12 1

5

56

1

24

1

3 1 2

2

1

1

1

1

1 1

30 1 2

1

1 1

1 1 4

2

1 3

2

2

2

1

2 1

1

8

7

2

1

1

6

7

92

1

56

1

2

1

1 2 1

4

4

3

1 1

1

1

62 21 3 24

1

6 1

4

4

3

1

1

1

7

2

93

60

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

semantic and linguistic questions in a very broad and general perspective, Lyonnet specifically refers to instances dealing with the fulfilling of a prophecy or the like; i.e. cases where the Greek πληρόω and its Armenian equivalent, whether կատարեմ or լնում, means “fulfill/be fulfilled”, “make/ come true”. As mentioned above Lyonnet’s book is only concerned with the gospels, where he counts 29 instances with πληρόω, in the Zohrab Bible rendered լնում in 26 cases, կատարեմ in only 3.47 In Table 5 are first listed all the occurrences of πληρόω in the Greek NT and the Armenian renderings (A). Further, in order to get a fuller picture of the semantic fields of the two Armenian verbs in question, are listed all the occurrences in the Armenian NT of կատարեմ (B) and լնում (C) – with their Greek “synonyms”. Of course, such a contrastive listing does not necessarily exhaust the semantic scope of the words in question. However, even this modest register illustrates the fact that լնում, in accordance with its basic meaning “fill”, in no less than 92% of the instances where it occurs, corresponds to Greek πληρόω, πίμπλημι and derivatives. As could be expected, a high percentage of instances with կատարեմ render Greek τελέω, τελειόω and derivatives (61%); կատարեմ, however, in no less than 33% of the instances is used to translate πληρόω and derivatives. Presumably, however, the most interesting fact to be read out of Table 5 is the difference between the gospels and the rest of the NT. Thus while the relation between կատարեմ and լնում (+ լի etc.) as renderings of πληρόω in the gospels is 5:39 – or 11%:89%, for the rest of the NT the figures are 19:25 – or 43%:57%. Outside the gospels there are only four instances concerned with the fulfilling of a prophecy, viz. three in Acts (1,16; 3,18; 13,27) and Js. 2,23, in all of which is used կատարեմ. Therefore, in my opinion, Leloir is certainly right in pointing to the texthistorical relevance of the occurrence of կատարեմ in Js. 2,23. Our modest counting of words, however, raises the question whether a simple “revision hypothesis” does justice to the facts. By a simple revision hypothesis I understand a theory maintaining that the early history of the Armenian Bible is fully explained by assuming that the primary stage was a version of strongly

47 L. cit. Lyonnet’s figures are different from mine, because he only counts synoptic parallel readings once.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

Syrian affinity which was at a secondary stage revised according to the Graeca veritas. In view of the complications illustrated in the distribution of կատարեմ and լմում as renderings of πληρόω such a hypothesis might seem an oversimplification – or to put it more cautiously: adherents to such a theory must bear the burden of explaining why the revision was carried out so differently in different parts of the Bible. As long as that explanation is not given, I would not allow a single occurrence of a word that has been appointed in some contexts to be a vetus armena-symptom, but can in no technical sense of the word be called a Syrian reading and does not for any clear semantic – or other – reason take us to Syriac rather than Greek, to bear any value of proof of “Syrian influence”, let alone “Syrian Vorlage”.

8. James 1,21 Our last example is rather closely related to the one just treated of. Concerning Js. 1,21 Leloir maintains that the rendering of Greek σῶσαι through Armenian կեցուցանել is an evident syriacism, and – again on the authority of J. Molitor – he also claims that the use of կեցուցանեմ is evidence of an intention to go beyond the Greek through the use of a more dynamic expression corresponding to Semitic (i.e. Syriac) usage. In Leloir’s own words the argument runs as follows: “l’emploi, et en syriaque, et en arménien, d’un verbe qui signifie “vivifier”, alors que le grec σώζω demandait simplement “sauver”, marque une intention de dépasser le sens du grec; car “sauver” est évidemment beaucoup moins positif que “vivifier”; le terme sémitiques (sic) est nettement plus dynamique”, and “1,21: σῶσαι est rendu en arménien par “vivificare” (kec’uc’anel), ce qui est un syriacisme évident; cfr. syp: dtaḥe, ut-vivificet”48 For a general evaluation of such an argument I shall here confine myself to referring once again to James Barr49 and adding that it is not advisable to extend what is characteristic of the idiom of the Syriac Bible to be “Semitic” in general. Thus for instance in the Biblical Hebrew of the OT the prevailing verb of salvation is ‫ ישע‬not the hifil of ‫חיה‬. For a more specific evaluation of the renderings of σώζω in the Armenian New Testament the basic fact to be registered is that seven different verbs are 48 Op. cit., pp. 307 and 304. 49 Cf. note 45.

61

62

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

used. Linguistically speaking, three of them can be defined as “syriacisms”. First of all, the verb փրկեմ is a loan word (from Syriac ‫)ܦܪܩ‬, whereas the use of կեամ (= “to live”) and its factitive formation: կեցուցանեմ to denote “to be saved, to save” must be characterized as a translational loan from the corresponding use of the Syriac ‫ ܚܝܐ‬and its afel,50 and Armenian կենդանի առնեմ that is used once, must linguistically be defined in the same way as կեցուցանեմ.51 Now, my main point of method is that it is inadmissible to draw conclusions from linguistic syriacisms to textual syriacisms. For the words under discussion here this to my mind is demonstrated very clearly from Table 6, in which all equivalents of Greek σώζω in the Armenian and Syriac (Peshitta) New Testament are listed. Table 6 σώζω in the Greek New Testament – Renderings in Syriac (Peshitta) and Armenian Armenian ապրիմ/ կեամ/ փրկեմ բժշկեմ կենդանի մնամ զերծանեմ Total ապրեցուցանեմ կեցուցանեմ (փրկութիւն) առնեմ Syriac: ‫ܚܝܐ‬

40

29

14

1

1

1

86

‫ܦܨܐ‬

4

2

6

‫ܦܪܩ‬

1

4

5

2

1

4

‫ܐܣܐ‬ ‫ܚܠܡ‬

1

5 3

1

‫ܫܘܙܒ‬ om.

1

Total

48

1 1

30

25

1

1

1

1

The most conspicuous statistical facts to be ascertained in Table 6 are no doubt that in Syriac ‫ ܚܝܐ‬accounts for around 80% of all instances, and that in Armenian the three numerically most important verbs: ապրիմ/ապրեցուցանեմ,

50 For linguistic terminology and a description of how loan words and other linguistic loans are incorporated in languages in general, see Uriel Weinreich, Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems, The Hague 1968, esp. pp. 47ff. Cf. also Louis Deroy, L’emprunt linguistique, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 141, Paris 1956. 51 Cf. also below, with note 52.

107

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

կեամ/կեցուցանեմ and փրկեմ account for, resp., 45, 28 and 23% of all instances; and as կեամ/կեցուցանեմ and կենդանի առնեմ accounts for only 30 of the 86 instances (or 35%), where the Peshitta has ‫ ܚܝܐ‬and there is, therefore, no specific textual correlation between ‫ ܚܝܐ‬and կեամ/կեցուցանեմ, the above statement of method is manifestly corroborated. It would take us too far here to go into a detailed analysis of the Armenian terminology of salvation. Let me conclude by emphasizing two points of a general nature and a few illustrating details of relevance in our context. First it might be worth underlining that by the above I have certainly not meant to characterize the Armenian translator’s choice of renderings as haphazard, and secondly, that it would of course be absurd to deny that connections between Syria and Armenia have been of great importance. To illustrate the first point I shall just refer to two examples: 1) in cases where Greek σώζω is used for “healing”, it is as natural for the Syrian translator to choose ‫ ܐܣܐ‬as for the Armenian to prefer բժշկեմ or փրկեմ, so it is no accident (but of no text-historical relevance) that these words can be seen to correspond in Table 6; 2) when in the gospels կեցուցանեմ is used in all instances where the formula “your faith has cured you” occurs, there can be no doubt that the translator has made a deliberate choice, whether or not we are able to discern what were the determinative factors in his choice – be they psychological, stylistic, liturgical, social or of another order. In our context the importance of Armenia’s relations to Syria are obvious from the very syriacisms on the linguistic level that formed our point of departure, and it is of course very important to try to specify within various cultural sectors, language, architecture, religion etc., what is the exact amount and content of what was taken over by the Armenians from Syrian life and culture. We have seen, however, that it cannot be expected a priori that conclusions from one field of investigation can be transferred directly and immediately to another. A couple of supplementary remarks on questions concerned with the Bible text may elucidate that a little further. If we had confined our countings conc. σώζω to the Epistle of James, the general impression would have been a preference for փրկեմ, as this verb is chosen in three cases, while ապրեցուցանեմ and կեցուցանեմ occur only once each. The lack of correspondence with the Peshitta appears from Table 7, so that on numerical grounds the conclusion as to textual affinity would have been the opposite of that maintained by Leloir. I do not pretend to have substantiated through this paper a “probablement non” to the question of

63

64

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Syrian Vorlage, but it will have appeared that I find that the “probablement oui” is highly premature and may very easily turn out to be untenable. Table 7 σώζω in the Epistle of James – Renderings in Syriac (Peshitta) and Armenian Text

Syriac

Armenian

1,21

‫ܚܝܐ‬

կեցուցանեմ

2,14

‫ܚܝܐ‬

ապրեցուցանեմ

4,12

‫ܚܝܐ‬

փրկեմ

5,15

‫ܚܠܡ‬

փրկեմ

5,20

‫ܚܝܐ‬

փրկեմ

In Molitor’s and Leloir’s presentations of the material they try to bring out the “Semitic” and Armenian (+ Georgian) formation of the causative/factitive forms of “to live” through translating vivificare, lebendig machen etc. This of course is very useful by way of illustration for those sufficiently familiar with the languages to know what is illustrated. But to others it might very easily lead to the conclusion that Armenian is not able to distinguish between σώζω and ζωοποιέω. And in that case the illustration is misleading. From Table 8 it thus appears that Armenian which is a very rich language as regards morphology and formation of words, has a number of constructions and derivatives of the basic semanteme for “life”. Especially the “compound” of the adjective կենդանի (= living, alive) + the verb առնեմ (= make), and the closely related adjective կենդանարար are in use to translate ζωοποιέω. Only in one case (2 Cor. 3,6) is chosen կեցուցանեմ, just as in one case (Hebr. 7,25) σώζω is represented through կենդանի առնեմ.52 In view of the close relationship between the numerous words derived from կեամ, կեանք and կենդանի that are at the translator’s disposal, it may in this case be true to say that the two “exceptions” quoted are those that prove the “rule”, viz. that σώζω is carefully distinguished from ζωοποιέω. A full presentation of Armenian terminology of salvation would, of course, among other things include a listing of other Greek “synonyms” for the Armenian verbs in use – corresponding to our listing in Table 5 of “fulfilling”-

52 Cf. the previous note.

S o m e Q u e s t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e A r m e n i a n V e r s i o n o f t h e Ep i s t l e o f J a m e s

terms etc.; it would also require some considerations regarding the fact that the dispersion of translational choice as concerns the verbs is not paralleled in the choice, where nouns are concerned; thus in all instances in the NT, where σωτήρ and σωτηρία are used (24, resp. 46),53 the Armenian has the derivatives of փրկեմ: փրկիչ and փրկութիւն. Table 8 ζωοποιέω in the Greek New Testament – Renderings in Armenian Rendering

Texts

Number of cases

կենդանի առնեմ

John 5,21; 5,21; Rom. 4,17; Gal. 3,21

4

կենդանի եմ

1 Pet. 3,18

1

կենդանարար

John 6,63; 1 Cor. 15,45

2

կենդանանամ /կենդանացուցանեմ

Rom. 8,11; 1 Cor. 15,22; 15,36

3

կեցուցանեմ

2 Cor. 3,6

1

A profound study would also demand the perspective to be widened from the “synchronic” analysis of the NT (if that may rightly be termed “synchronic”!) to a “diachronic”, historical investigation including other translated and indigenous texts. The results of such an investigation might help to clarify what elements can and must be explained within the field of semantics and history of language, and what elements belong to the preserves of the text critic. But such a programme of research certainly lies far beyond the limited scope of this paper.

53 This statement is open to one interesting reservation: In 1 Thess. 5,9 εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας is translated: ի փրկութիւն կենդանութեան, i.e. formally փրկութիւն corresponds to περιποίησις, կենդանութիւն (abstract noun to կենդանի, “alive”) to σωτηρία. In 2 Thess. 2,14 and Hebr. 10,39 περιποίησις is also rendered փրկութիւն, but in Eph. 1,14 εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως is rendered ի փրկութիւն նուաճութեան

65

Severian of Gabala New Identifications of Texts in Armenian Translation

Severian of Gabala is one of the authors of the Old Church for whom the Armenian transmission has been of greatest importance for the determination of questions of authenticity, integrity of texts, etc. The Armenian translations of homilies published so far can be summed up under four headings: (a) The Aucher Collection,1 (b) The Akinian Collection,2 (c) Pseudo-Irenaeus,3 and (d) Pseudo-Chrysostom.4 Before turning to the question of new identifications it might be useful to bear in mind a few data concerning the transmission of the homilies known already. First, it should be noted that the collection of ten homilies, which form the core of Aucher’s edition, has a very broad attestation in Armenian MSS. In contrast 1

Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae (ed. J. B. Aucher; San Lazzaro, Venice, 1827).

2

N. Akinian, “Die Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa”, Handes Amsorya 70-73 (1956-1959). For the attribution of homilies 8-13 of this collection to Severian of Gabala, cf. H. J. Lehmann, “The Attribution of certain Pseudo-Chrysostomica to Severian of Gabala confirmed by the Armenian Tradition”, Studia Patristica 10 (ed. F. L. Cross; Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), 107 (1970), 121-130; and H. J. Lehmann: Per Piscatores: Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala (Aarhus, 1975).

3 H. Jordan, Armenische Irenaeusfragmente, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 36, 3 (1913), Text No. 29. 4

John Chrysostom, Interpretation of the Pauline Epistles (in Armenian; 2 vols.; San Lazzaro, Venice, 1862). The four Severianic homilies are the following: 2.694-715 (= Akinian XI, CPG 4202), 2.783-791 (CPG 4206), 2.883-891 (CPG 4195), 2.892-897 (CPG 4216). The CPG numbers quoted here and elsewhere are those used in M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, vol. 2, Corpus Christianorum; BrepolsTurnhout, 1974.

68

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

to that, the Akinian Collection as such is only found in one MS, New Julfa No. 110 (Cat. No. 395), a twelfth-century MS; for Akinian’s homily No. XIII, however, it should be noted that there exists an excerpt or a shorter version, identical with Aucher’s homily No. XI.5 The one homily edited under the name of Irenaeus was also published from one single MS (MS Vienna Mech. No. 2, fifteenth century), whereas the Pseudo-Chrysostomic group has a broader attestation – together with the genuine Chrysostomic homilies in connection with which they have been transmitted. Both the Pseudo-Irenaeus and the Pseudo-Chrysostom belong to a later stage in the history of the Armenian translators’ work than do the two first mentioned groups, the language of which is pure and classical. Before leaving the well-known editions of texts, it should be recollected that homily No. X of Aucher’s edition belongs to Basil of Caesarea, that homilies Nos. I, XIV, and XV of the same edition are attributable to Eusebius of Emesa, and that Severian’s authorship of homilies Nos. XII and XIII in the Aucher Collection has been questioned.6 Turning now to homilies that have not been published so far, it is natural to begin with two homilies for which the main authorities are two MSS in the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem, MSS No. 1, dated A. D. 1417, and No. 154, dated A. D. 1737, to which should be added two further nineteenth-century

5

Recently, M. van Esbroeck has published a translation of the Georgian version of this homily, which is interesting in being much shorter than Akinian XIII without shortening as radically as is the case in Aucher XI. See M. van Esbroeck, “Deux homélies de Sévérien de Gabala (IVe-Ve siècle) conservées en géorgien”, Bedi Kartlisa, Revue de kartvélologie, Paris, 36, 1978, 71-91, esp. pp. 90f.

6

Without any intention of drawing up an exhaustive list of references to the scholarly discussion of the authenticity of these – and other – texts, the following titles should be mentioned: G. Dürks, De Severiano Gabalitano (dissertation), Kiel 1917; J. Zellinger, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala. Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 7.1, Münster i.W. 1916; J. Zellinger, Studien zu Severian von Gabala. Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 8; Münster i.W. 1926; B. Marx, Severiana unter den Spuria Chrysostomi bei Montfaucon-Migne, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5, Rome 1939, 281-367; H.-D. Altendorf, Untersuchungen zu Severian von Gabala (unpublished dissertation), Tübingen 1957. When I include homilies XII and XIII of the Aucher Collection among texts for which Severianic authorship must still be considered, this is due to the conviction that the utmost caution is required, before negative conclusions regarding questions of authorship are drawn on the basis of internal criteria, esp. for short texts, as mentioned below. A supplementary reason for mentioning them is that de Aldama’s otherwise very useful and accurate manual of Pseudo-Chrysostomica (J. A. de Aldama, Repertorium pseudochrysostomicum, Paris 1965) in the information given concerning CPG 4581 (de Aldama No. 457), seems to confuse this homily with CPG 4247 = Aucher XII (and with CPG 4588 = Aucher XIII, as far as his page references are concerned).

S everian

of

G abala

–

N ew

I dentifications

MSS of the Mekhitarist library of San Lazarro, MSS No. 680/294, dated 1824-25, and No. 1075/302, dated 1839-42. The first of these homilies in the Jerusalem MSS bears the title: By Sewerianos, the Priest. Discourse on the Birth of Christ in Bethlehem in Judaea and on the Adoration of the Wise Men. This homily is rather closely related to the Greek homily In natale Domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4657, PG 61, 763-768). The relationship between the two versions will appear from the following survey:7 MS Jer. arm 1 col., line

Number of lines

PG 61 col., line

(a) 41a,48 – 42a,35

84

763,1 – 765,3

(b) 42a,36 – 42b,19

22

deest

(c) 42b,20 – 43a,2

31

765,4-26

(d) 43a,3-45

43

deest

(e) 43a, 46 – 43b,16

19

765,27-44

(f) 43b,17 – 44b,3

83

deest

(g) deest

765,45 – 768,12

Number of lines 69

23

18

141

Quantitatively the correspondence can be expressed in the following way: 134 out of a total of 282 lines of the Armenian homily find their parallel in 110 lines out of a total of 251 in the Greek “original”, or in other words: a little less than half of the Armenian homily is identical with a little less than half of the Greek text. Whether this fact could be explained by the assumption that two excerptors have taken two-thirds each of an existing homily, combining them differently, can hardly be decided, unless further evidence appears. I cannot here go into a discussion of internal criteria for attributing the homily to Severian, but it should be mentioned that there are two external witnesses to his authorship to be added to the attribution in the Jerusalem MSS, one in Greek and one in Armenian. We shall return below to the Armenian evidence, which consists of two quotations within the series of fragments attributed to Severian in MS Galata No. 54.8 One of these is from section (a), the other from section (c) of the above survey. The Greek evidence is a quotation

7

For reasons of clarity I have only given references to one of the Jerusalem MSS. It should be noted, however, that the number of variants between the texts of MS Jerusalem No. 1 and No. 154 is very small. [Cf. below, p. 166ff.]

8

Cf. below p. 73f.

69

70

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

in Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who also gives the full name and title of the author: Severian, bishop of Gabala.9 In spite of Theodoret’s evidence, which brings us very close to Severian’s own time, some modern scholars have denied Severian’s authorship. This is true of B. Marx, J. Zellinger, and H.-D. Altendorf, whereas W. Dürks, A. Wenger, and R. Laurentin support the attribution to Severian.10 Those who deny it, mostly do so with reference to very general arguments, saying that there is nothing particularly characteristic of Severian to be found in the Greek homily. Great caution is required before conclusions about authorship are drawn from general observations on style and language, especially where short homilies are concerned which may very likely have been given their form by excerptors. Therefore, the Armenian evidence here referred to, seems to give considerable support to the case for Severian’s authorship.11 As mentioned already, for the next homily again, MSS Jerusalem Nos. 1 and 154 are the principal witnesses. And again there are complications concerning the relationship to the Greek tradition. Here, however, the text of the homily as presented by the two Armenian MSS has a very close identity with one form of a Greek homily to be found in a single MS, but – to the best of my knowledge – never published. The Greek MS in question is a tenth-century MS in Trinity College, Cambridge.12 Part of the Greek text has been edited, however, as approximately the first half of the homily CPG 4669: In illud: Ignem veni mittere in terram (PG 62, 739-742) is identical with the first half of the homily found in

9

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Eranistes, ed. Gerard H. Ettlinger, Oxford 1975, 181.

10 For the four first mentioned authors, cf. the references in note 6, above, and B. Marx, Procliana: Untersuchungen über den homiletischen Nachlass des Patriarchen Proklos von Konstantinopel. Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, Münster i.W., 23, 1940. For the two last mentioned authorities, cf. R. Laurentin, Court traité de théologie mariale, Paris 1953. 11 It should be noted that the attribution to John Chrysostom is not only to be found in the Greek MS material, but also in a number of quotations in Syriac, viz. in Severus of Antioch (cf. Sévère d’Antioche, La polémique antijulianiste, ed. & trans. Robert Hespel, CSCO 244-245, Scriptores Syri 104-105, Paris and Louvain 1964, cf. esp. 245, 110.186.197. The Coptic tradition in one place contains an attribution to John Chrysostom (cf. E. Porcher, “Analyse des manuscrits coptes 131, 1-8 de la Bibliothèque Nationale”, Revue d’Egyptologie, 1933, 123-160, esp. pp. 124f., where also an “exégèse de Sévérien de Gabala”, containing “allégresse au sujet de la naissance du Christ” is referred to – cf. CPG 4282), in another to a Cappadocian bishop (cf. W. E. Crum, Theological texts from Coptic papyri, Anecdota Oxoniensa, Semitic Series 12, Oxford 1913, 18-20), whereas the Georgian tradition seems to put Epiphanius’ name at the head of this homily (cf. G. Peradze, “Die alt-christliche Literatur in der georgischen Überlieferung”, Oriens Christianus 3, 1930, p. 86, note 9 [here quoted from CPG – ad 4657]). [Cf. below, pp. 155ff for the question of abbreviation technique] 12 MS Trinity Coll. Cambridge B.8.8., fol. 274v-277v.

S everian

of

G abala

–

N ew

I dentifications

the Greek Cambridge MS and the Armenian MSS of Jerusalem, whereas the second half of Migne’s text is an excerpt from the homily De Pharisaeo, PG 59, 589-592.13 The exact correspondences are as follows: PG 62, 739 init.–741, 41: Αἱ τῶν νηπίων … χλοηφορεῖν αὐτὴν ποιήσω = MS Trinity Coll. B.8.8. fol. 274v-276r = MS Jerusalem arm. 1, 46b, 7 – 48a, 10. The Greek tradition – including a quotation in the catena on Luke14 – is unanimous in attributing the homily to John Chrysostom, whereas the Armenian witnesses quote Severian as the author. In the Jerusalem MSS the author is referred to as “Severian the Priest”, i. e. the same designation as in the homily just treated of; one of the Venice MSS says “Seberianos, bishop of Gabala”, and the other “Severianos”, only. The Venetian MSS present one complication, in that they add an exordium, two thirds of which is identical with the opening paragraph of PG 60, 759-764 (CPG 4629): De remissione peccatorum. The section covered by the MSS of San Lazzaro (where a few lines have been added, to which I have not been able to trace any equivalent) is the following: PG 60, 759,1-20: Μίαν ἔχουσα ἡ πηγή … οἱ ἐσκοτισμένοι φωτίζονται. (Ὄτι δὲ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει.) Of course, it would be precipitate to infer Severianic paternity of PG 60, 759-764 from the occurrence of these 20 lines in the two Venetian MSS. I cannot here go into any detailed discussion of internal or other criteria that might be added. As possible starting points for an analysis with a view to determining the question of authorship for this homily I might be allowed to quote the following three items: 1) the dogmatic opponents referred to are Arians, Eunomians, and Pneumatomachoi,15 which would fit in very well with Severian’s theological position; 2) the way in which, in commenting upon

13 Cf. CPG ad 4669. 14 A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum, Oxford 1844, 2.105. 15 The latter group is here referred to as Marathonians (cf. W. Ensslin in Paulys Realencyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (new edition by G. Wissowa & W. Kroll; Stuttgart, 1893ff), 14.2. col. 1430f). The three groups of heretics mentioned here are also referred to in PG 59, 569 (where the Scythians are added) and in PG 61, 774 (in an interesting exegesis of the Parable of the Sower taking the three groups of heretics to be those sown by the wayside, among thorns, and on stony ground, respectively). In both cases the designation of the Pneumatomachoi is “Marathonians”, leaving us with an interesting connecting link between the three homilies, CPG 4584, 4629, and 4660, that might deserve further attention, also when the questions of authorship for the three homilies are considered.

71

72

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Matt. 18,18 and 18,19, the homilist collects examples from all parts of the Bible, where λύω/δέω and συμφωνέω are used, is very reminiscent of the exegetic (or homiletic) method of collecting “testimonia” characteristic of Severian;16 3) finally, it should be noted that this homily appears in a collection containing much Severianic material.17 Thus, if there are, admittedly, further questions to be solved concerning the introduction in the Venetian MSS and concerning CPG 4629 on the whole, before a final verdict on the question of authorship could be given, then it should be emphasized, that, for the bulk of the homily – CPG 4669 – in the version witnessed by the four Armenian and the one Greek MS, the unanimous attribution to Severian in the Armenian material highly strengthens the case for his paternity. Leaving aside now the Armenian transmission of entire homilies – or at any rate excerpts of such a length that they present themselves – and have been used – as homilies, I turn to two series of fragments to be found in MS Galata no. 54 (fourteenth century). Quantitatively these series do not furnish us with a great amount of new material – comprising only a little more than thirty pages in the MS; but a number of the fragments support identifications made already, and others invite to new identifications or contain unknown material. The first series – given under the name of “Seberianos of Emesa” – contains 20 fragments from eight homilies of the Aucher Collection. I have treated of these fragments elsewhere,18 so I shall confine myself here to repeating that there are highly interesting coincidences between the excerptor of MS Galata no. 54 and the author of the famous florilege, the “Seal of Faith”, as concerns their quotations from Severian’s homilies. The second series in the Galata MS is given under the name of “Seberianos, bishop of Gabala”.19 It contains eleven fragments from six different homilies. I shall give a brief survey of the contents of this series of fragments. I should

16 Cf. Lehmann, Per Piscatores, 292 (see note 2). 17 I am thinking of the collection of texts in MS Berlin, Phill. 1438, cf. R. E. Carter, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci. Codices Germaniae, Documents, Études et Répertoires publiés par l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 14, Paris 1968, 2.15. 18 Henning J. Lehmann, “Severian of Gabala – Fragments of the Aucher Collection in MS Galata 54”, Haig Berberian Memorial Volume (in press). [Cf. below, pp. 95ff] 19 Only the first four letters of the name of the town are readable, but as they are Gaba(…, it is easy to conjecture the two missing letters.

S everian

of

G abala

–

N ew

I dentifications

like to note at once a fact that certainly adds to the value of this collection, viz. that for each homily quoted, both title and incipit is given.20 Below is given a list of titles, incipits, and the amount of correspondence established; and a few remarks on the main characteristics will be added. (1) Ի ճառէն որ ի մայր որդւոցն Զեբեդիա. յորմէ թէ վկայիցն ..ւն21 (cf. CPG 4249) (a) 375,15 – 376,18: Եւ նա ասէ … ի կամաց նորա = Jordan 32,9 – 33,19 (2) Ի ճառէն որ ի ծնունդն Քրիստոսի. յորմէ թէ յորժամ ի ձմեռնային (cf. CPG 4657) (b) 376, 19-25: ծնուցիչքն շաւշափէին … առանց ձեռին մարդոյ22 = MS Jerusalem arm. 1, 42a,26-34 (c) 376,25 – 377,7: Քրիստոս ծնեալ ի կուսէ … էւ ոչ ապականել = MS Jerusalem arm. 1, 42b,20-40 (3) Ի ճառէն որ վասն ննջելոյն Յիսուսի ի նաւին. յորմէ թէ խորագնաց նաւորդք (cf. CPG 4699, PG 64, 19-22: Οἱ πελάγιοι πλωτῆρες) (d) 377, 9-19: ի բուն էր տէրն … դարձուցանէր = PG 64, 21, 26-37: Ἐκάθευδεν ὁ Κύριος … ἐπιστρέφοντα (4) Ի ճառէն յոր թէ զիարդ սա գիրս գիտէ ոչ ուսեալ. յորմէ թէ բեր դարձեալ (cf. CPG 4201, PG 59, 643-652: Φέρε πάλιν τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν) (e) 377, 21-24: զի ոչ զամենայնն … ընդ անհաւատս = PG 59, 645, 58-61: Οὐ πάντα γὰρ … διαλέγεται ἀπίστοις (f) 377, 24-33: առ հրէայս … մարտուցեալս = PG 59, 645, 64-74: Πρὸς Ἰουδαίους … τῷ Πατρὶ μαχομένους

20 The same, incidentally, is the case for the quotations from the Aucher Collection. 21 It is difficult to read the word վկայիցն in my microfilm of the MS. I have no doubt, however, that Babgēn’s reading of the incipit of the text is correct (Babgēn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque nationale arménienne de Galata (in Armenian; Antilias: Catholicossat arménien de Cilicie, 1961, 329); the second word, the reading of which also caused difficulties for Babgēn, seems to have included two or three letters before the -ւն. Enough is readable, however, to make it clear that the incipit cannot be identical with that in Jordan’s edition; this fact combined with the ascertainment of the incipits of the other homilies in this series being rendered very correctly in MS Galata no. 54, suggests the conclusion concerning the incompleteness of the homily in Jordan’s edition as stated below. 22 There is no marking in the MS to keep the two fragments (b) and (c) apart, as is otherwise the case, where more than one fragment from the same homily is quoted (usually through the excerptor’s յետ սակաւուց or the like). Thus it is only on the basis of the Jerusalem MSS that it has been possible to ascertain that this excerpt is compounded of two fragments.

73

74

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

(g) 377,33 – 379,8: բայց զի կարծիցի … այլ միաբանեն միտքդ = PG 59, 646,42 – 647,20: Ἀλλ’ ἳνα μὴ νομισθῇ … ἀλλὰ συμφωνεῖ τὰ νοήματα (h) 379, 9-16: յանդիմանէ զհրէիցն … ընդ հաւր մարտնչի = PG 59, 647,72 – 648,3: Ἐλέγχει Ἰουδαίων … θεῷ μάχεται (5) Ի ճառէն որ ի տէրունական խաչն եւ ի հոգին սուրբ եւ յերրորդութիւնն. յորմէ թէ երէկ մեզ բանն (cf. CPG 4196, PG 56, 499-516: Χθὲς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος) (i) 379, 18-23: բայց սակայն … յաղաքս ինքեան = PG 56, 504,61 – 505,6: Πλὴν ὄταν ἀκούσῃς … ἀξία δὲ Θεοῦ δι’ ἑαυτόν (6) Ի խաւսիցն, յոր թէ խոստուանիմ զքեզ հայր, տէր երկնի եւ երկրի. եւ ի տեսութիւնն Դանիէլի, յորմէ թէ երէկ մեզ երանելին Ամբակում (cf. CPG 4295, 17a, CSCO 102, 237) (j) 379,25 – 381,21: Այլ է խոստուանութիւն մեղուցելոցն … ամենեցուն անուանեալ (k) 381,21 – 384,6: Դու ես որ հանէր զիս … զի նմանէ է 379,33 – 380,14: Եւ ետէ ոք հաւաստեաւ … զի զմեզ յարուսցէ = CSCO 102, 237,21-23: Et si quis accurate … ut nos suscitet The first fragment stems from the Pseudo-Irenaeus. Here the incipit is at variance with that in Jordan’s edition, and I would take that to mean that the homily is not complete, as it appears in Jordan’s edition.23 Then follow two fragments of the homily treated of above on the Birth of Christ, giving the same incipit of the homily as in the Jerusalem MSS. As was mentioned already, this fragmentary evidence to my mind strongly supports the attribution to Severian. Thirdly we meet with a fragment from a homily on Matt. 8,24. The Greek original of the fragment quoted is found in PG 64,21; i. e. it belongs to the homily CPG 4699. On the basis of the Greek text it has been suggested that this homily should be attributed to Proclus.24 To my mind, however, the reasons for this attribution are not so cogent as to weigh more heavily than the Armenian evidence for Severianic paternity, but it should be noticed concerning the Greek homily that once again we are confronted with a very short text, presumably an excerpt, which makes the argument from internal criteria problematic. In the fourth place, in the Galata MS we meet with four fragments from 23 Cf. note 21. 24 Cf. B. Marx, Procliana, 73 (see note 10).

S everian

of

G abala

–

N ew

I dentifications

a homily, which has with very good reason been attributed to Severian by modern scholars.25 The fifth homily quoted was attributed to Severian already in the seventeenth century by J. Sirmond, who was followed by Montfaucon. In the twentieth century this attribution has been substantiated very fully, especially by J. Zellinger.26 Finally, two excerpts from a sixth homily take up almost exactly as much space as do the fragments of the five homilies mentioned until now. This quantitative fact is the more valuable since we are here confronted with a homily of which only a small fragment was known beforehand. The fragment in question has been transmitted in Syriac only, by Severus of Antioch.27 Severus and the excerptor of MS Galata No. 54 agree, both in the attribution to Severian and as concerns the title of the homily in question.28 As, furthermore, the contents of the Armenian excerpts seem to me very Severianic, I find that this homily is in reality one of those, for which Severianic authorship is least disputable. For an overall estimation of the value of the MS Galata-quotations it should, of course, be kept in mind that in the first series of excerpts, Aucher’s homily 1, which is not by Severian, has been included; an inclusion of a spurious homily in a collection such as those treated of here is thus, of course, a possibility that should always be taken into account. On the whole, however, it seems to me that there are so many indications of Severianic authorship for the group of six homilies quoted by the Galata excerptor, that the appearance of a text in this series is in itself rather a weighty positive argument for Severianic authorship in cases where there is little or no supplementary evidence for this. By way of rounding off it might be reasonable to point to the fact that the registration of Severianic texts in this paper does not – as no such register should – claim to be exhaustive. It should be noted explicitly, however, that I have omitted references to a number of fragments that exist in florilegia, catenae, and collections of ecclesiastical canons. The reason for that is that I

25 Cf. Marx, OCP V (see note 6), 309-314, and Altendorf, Untersuchungen, 146f. 26 Cf. Zellinger, Studien (see note 6), 27-34, and Altendorf, Untersuchungen. Cf. also A. Wenger, “Hésychius de Jerusalem”, Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 2, 1956, 461, and J. Kirchmeyer, “L’homélie acéphale de Sévérien sur la croix dans le Sinaiticus Gr. 493”, Analecta Bollandiana, 1960, 78, 18-23. 27 Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium Grammaticum III, 1 (ed. & trans. J. Lebon, CSCO 101-102, Scriptores Syri 50-51, Paris and Louvain 1933. 28 In Lebon’s translation the title runs as follows in Severus: Ex homilia in illud: Confiteor tibi, pater domine caeli et terrae (Matt 11:25), et de visione, quam vidit Daniel in Susa civitate, Severi Antiocheni Liber …, CSCO 102, 237.

75

76

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

have not been able to go through this material in a systematic and comprehensive way. As is known, parts of this material have been published already,29 whereas other elements have only been hinted at or registered in a more or less provisional manner.30 Presumably, also, a still secret portion awaits its finder. My humble purpose has been to point out for some texts, that exploration of a number of Armenian MSS seems to provide a more solid basis for identifying their instrument of origin with the stylus of Severian.

29 Cf. e. g. V. Hakopyan, Kanonagirk’ hayoc’, Erevan 1971, 2,288f; Aucher, Severiani … homiliae, xviii. Cf. further the notes in CPG – conc. Nos. 4295, 5; 4295, 6. 30 Cf. e. g. A. Zanolli, Di una vetusta catena sul Levitico perduta in greco e conservata in armeno …, Venice, San Lazzaro 1938, and R. W. Thomson, “The shorter recension of the Root of Faith”, REArm, 5, 1968, 250-260. Cf. further the note in CPG conc. No. 4194.

A

n Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299 (Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament)

The collection of texts contained in MS No. 873 of the Mekhitarist library of San Lazzaro, Venice (dated A.D. 1299),1 is clearly intended as a tool for the study of the historical writings of the Old Testament. The commentaries found in the manuscript fall into four groups. First come Ephraem’s commentaries on the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kingdoms, and Chronicles (pp. 3-137). Then follows a commentary on the Pentateuch plus the historical writings mentioned, except Chronicles (pp. 137-235), in the manuscript ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria. Ephraem’s commentary on the Pentateuch makes up the third section (pp. 235-433); and finally follows a catena on Leviticus (quoting such authors as Origen, Apollinarius, Eusebius of Emesa, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, et al.) (pp. 434-507). For a comprehensive description – in Italian – of the manuscript one must turn to Zanolli’s book (of 1938) on the Leviticus catena. The full title of Zanolli’s book runs as follows in English translation: About an old catena on Leviticus, which is lost in Greek, but preserved in Armenian; about its close relation to Procopius of Gaza’s commentary; and about the three codices of S. Lazzaro containing the text.2 In the Mekhitarist edition of 1980,3 to which we shall return, a description of the manuscript is given in Armenian. As appears from the title of Zanolli’s book, he was particularly concerned with the assistance that can be gained from our manuscript, especially its fourth part, the Leviticus catena, for the study of Procopius’ commentary on the 1

According to Almo Zanolli: Di una vetusta catena sul Levitico, perduta in greco e conservata in armeno, della sua stretta relazione col commentario di Procopio di Gaza e dei tre codici di S. Lazzaro, che la contengono, Venezia: Prem. Tipografia Armena, 1938, 78.98, the last part (pp. 434-507: the Leviticus catena) may have been copied a few years later.

2

Cf. note 1.

3

Eusèbe d’Emèse: Commentaire de l’Octateuque, préparé par P. Vahan Hovhannessian, Venise: St. Lazare 1980.

78

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

first books of the Old Testament and other Greek catenae of the early Middle Ages. We shall here be concerned with the second text – or group of texts – to be found in the MS, the pseudo-Cyrillic commentary on historical writings of the Old Testament. The honour of having demonstrated that the Armenian translator or copyist – or his Vorlage – is not justified in attributing the text to Cyril of Alexandria, belongs to Father Vahan Hovhannessian of San Lazzaro; it was done in an article in Bazmavēp in 1923;4 and through a lifetime, Father Vahan was concerned with the text, so, undoubtedly, the Venice edition of the text, which – as mentioned already – did not appear until 1980, i.e. after Hovhannessian’s death, rightly bears his name on the title page. In his first article concerned with our text (also in Bazmavēp 1923)5 Hovhannessian already questioned Cyril’s authorship. He considered the possibility of Eznik being the author, but finally – in his second and following articles6 – on the basis of catena quotations, he reached the right conclusion: that the commentary is by Eusebius of Emesa. Almo Zanolli still voiced some doubts as to the question whether the text could be attributed to Eusebius in its entirety.7 In my view, however, the arguments on the basis of correspondence with catena fragments are quite definitive. The fragments can with certainty be attributed to Eusebius and the correspondences can to-day be expanded and substantiated much more coherently and comprehensively than Hovhannessian and Zanolli were able to do, so that the extent of possibly non-authentic material is very limited – if existent at all. The circumstances and events of Eusebius of Emesa’s life and the contents of his work are not too well-known.8 He was born in Edessa, presumably

4

V. Hovhannessian, “Commentarius in Genesim d’Eusèbe d’Emèse”, Bazmavēp 81 (1923) 353-358 (in Armenian); cf. Henning J. Lehmann: Per Piscatores. Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975, 17, 31-33.

5

V. Hovhannessian: “Commentarius in Genesim de S. Cyrille patriarche d’Alexandrie”, Bazmavēp 81, 1923, 225-228 (in Armenian).

6

Cf. note 4. The article is continued in: Bazmavēp 82, 1924, 3-6, 33-36, 65-68, 225-228, and a summary

7

Zanolli, Catena sul Levitico, 17, 83-86.

8

A biographical sketch, where the sources are exploited to their utmost capacity, can be found in:

is given and a few pages of the text published in: Bazmavēp 93, 1935, 345-352 (in Armenian).

E. M. Buytaert: L’héritage littéraire d’Eusèbe d’Emèse, Bibliothèque du Muséon 24; Louvain: Bureaux du Muséon, 1949, 43-96.

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299

around A.D. 300. He was educated both in Antioch and Alexandria, and it is related in particular that he was trained in biblical studies by Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Eusebius of Caesarea, presumably around 325. Some sources say that Eusebius was not too well received as a bishop of Emesa (a town in Phoenicia, to-day Ḥoms); the precise reasons for the upheavals are difficult to decipher. Eusebius is said to have accompanied the Emperor, Constantius during one – or more – of his campaigns against the Persians, but whether this should apply to the campaigns before 350 or those of the years 357-360, is hard to tell. According to Jerome9 Eusebius died under Constantius, which would take us to a year before 361; in 359 Emesa is represented by another bishop at the Council of Seleucia, so maybe Eusebius' death should be dated even earlier than that. On the basis of a piece of information given by Jerome10 he is remembered as Arian – or at least semi-Arian – in theology, and this theological reputation of being semi-heretical may have earned Eusebius the ill fate of his writings encountered in the history of transmission. Today we know of only one single text preserved in its entirety in Greek, for which Eusebian authorship is claimed: a homily “on repentence”,11 but even here there are reasons to doubt that he is in fact the author. I shall return to the indirect Greek transmission – in catenae; otherwise we have to turn to translations. Apart from a few fragments in Syriac and a couple of texts in Georgian, it is the Latin and the Armenian branches of transmission to which we owe most of our knowledge of Eusebius. A number of homilies now form the core of Eusebius’ literary production as known to us.12 I took as my starting point MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873. This, indeed, is by far the most important witness for the Armenian translation; only one other manuscript is known to contain the text in its entirety, namely MS No. 231 of the Mekhitarist library of Vienna, and this manuscript is a nineteenth-century copy of the manuscript of San Lazzaro. For about the last third of the text there

9 Hieronymus: De viris illustribus, ed. W. Herding, London 1924, 54; cf. Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire, 6, 94. 10 Hieronymus: Chronicon, ed. R. Helm, in: Eusebius: Werke, 7, GCS 24, J. C. Hinrichs, Leipzig 1913, 236; cf. Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire, 7, n. 9. 11 Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire, 150-156, 16*-29*. 12 See especially Eusèbe d’Emèse: Discours conservés en latin 1-2, ed. E. M. Buytaert, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 26-27, Louvain 1953-1957, and N. Akinian, “Die Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa” Handes Amsorya 1956, 291-300, 385-416; 1957, 101-130, 257-267, 357-380, 513-524; 1958, 1-18, 19-22. Cf. Lehmann, Per Piscatores, 37-272.

79

80

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

is one further witness: a fifteenth-century manuscript of the Matenadaran in Yerevan (MS No. 1267). Here also the author is given as Cyril; I have not had the opportunity to examine the Yerevan manuscript myself, but judging from the Venice edition, its variant readings do not show many important differences from the manuscript of San Lazzaro. The Venice edition does not list indirect Armenian witnesses – such as the quotations in the Leviticus catena of the very same manuscript as that containing the commentary, so it may be true that a certain amount of editorial work still remains to be done. However, the most important thing to be said about the Venice edition is that it has made this important text available to patristic scholars, church historians and other readers. Parts of the Armenian translation have in fact been available for a number of years, namely in T̒.T̒or˙nian’s anthology of classical Armenian texts – here of course under the name of Cyril of Alexandria.13 As no translation has been available and the number of patristic scholars who know Armenian is rather limited, the impact of the editions has so far been very modest. A translation into a language more widely known than Armenian may very well be the most urgent desideratum as regards this text. In this paper I shall be concerned with an attempt to list and explain what other tasks seem to me to be the most important to be undertaken in the wake of the Armenian edition of Eusebius of Emesa’s commentary on historical writings of the Old Testament. Within the framework of a conference on Medieval Armenian Culture it might be natural to give prominence to the question of the use of the text in medieval Armenian literature. Since the text as described above has only been known to a modest extent even where Armenologists are concerned, very little has been done in the direction of searching through the works of medieval Armenian exegetes for this purpose. I have not myself gone into that question so far, so I would like to round off this paragraph of my paper with an appeal to experts on medieval Armenian exegesis to be aware of the possibility of finding quotations or allusions to the text in Armenian authors. I should be most graceful for hints about such findings. For the Greek transmission of the text undoubtedly the most important field to be examined is that of the catenae. The Latin word catena – meaning 13 T’adēos T’oŕnian: Հատընտիր ընտերցուածք ի մատենագրութեանց նախնեաց, Vienna, 1866, 386-423.

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299

‘chain’ – was chosen to designate commentaries consisting of quotations from earlier authors strung together as links of a chain. One of the first examples of this genre, dating to the early sixth century, was Procopius of Gaza’s commentary on the first books of the Old Testament. A number of others followed, and as could be guessed, this traditionalist type of literature was in later centuries often despised because of the lack of originality and spiritual activity inherent in its making. For one purpose, however, scholars of later centuries found the catenae highly useful; namely, for identifying fragments of earlier exegetic works, a number of them no longer extant in their entirety. It could be added that exegetes seemed more liberal than other theologians in using and including quotations of heretical authors in their works. Thus, the image of Apollinarius might have been still more blurred, had it not been for the catenae. Usually, from the outset, the catenist would quote the author’s name with each quotation, and when linking fragments from the same author, he would say “by the same”. This technique, of course, when abbreviations and additions took place in the course of transmission, might lead to wrong attributions. Identifying the authors used by Procopius in his catenae is a particularly intricate process since the names of authors are never given. Instead the quotations have been combined into a continuous commentatorial text. What has been said here may have been common knowledge; I have included these basic facts, among other reasons, because modern catena research has in fact had to re-evaluate a number of basic and elementary theories and assumptions. This re-evaluation – concerning the distribution of manuscripts in families and branches of tradition, the attribution of fragments to their right authors, the preferable technique of edition, etc. – is particularly the outcome of years of meticulous work by Françoise Petit of Louvain. It must be hoped that she can accomplish the huge task of edition; so far only one volume has been published, namely the Sinaiticus Catena on Genesis and Exodus (published 1977).14 14 Catenae graecae in Genesim et in Exodum. I. Catena Sinaitica, ed. Françoise Petit, CCSG 2; Turnhout 1977. For articles and reports by Françoise Petit prior to 1977 reference may be made to this edition, XI. From the years after 1977 the following articles can be mentioned from her pen: “L’édition des chaînes exégétiques grecques sur la Genèse et l’Exode”, Le Muséon 91, 1978, 189-194; “La tradition de Théodoret de Cyr dans les chaînes sur la Genèse”, Le Muséon 92, 1979, 281-286. In Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire, 95*-l43*, the Greek catena fragments of Eusebius’ commentary as known in 1949 are published. For a better edition see: Robert Devreesse: Les anciens commentateurs de l’Octateuque

81

82

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

An impression of the mutual benefit of the study of the Armenian Eusebius translation and research into the Greek catenae can be gained from the surveys given in appendices I–III. In the first survey (appendix I) are listed – in the third column – the identifications of passages in the Armenian text with passages in the Catena Sinaitica in Françoise Petit’s edition. It should be noted that the first passage of this catena comments upon Gen 12,17, the last one upon Ex 2,18-22; hence the limit of our survey. Column 4 shows further identifications in Procopius as edited in Migne’s Patrologia. This edition, however, is very unsatisfactory, even if it is better for Genesis than for the rest of the books commented upon. In any case, identifications on the basis of this edition cannot be expected to be exhaustive, but they can give a first hint of possibilities. A full examination of Procopius must be done on the basis of the Greek manuscripts available. After the first survey, there follows a tally of fragments published under Eusebius of Emesa’s name in the Catena Sinaitica edition, with an indication of what passages find parallels in the Armenian translation (appendix II). The numbers are: l4 out of 26 passages for Genesis, and 2 out of 10 passages for Exodus. This register, of course, raises the question whether the Armenian text is a translation of a complete Eusebius text. If it is, the surplus Greek passages must either be inauthentic or derived from other works by Eusebius. In the last list (appendix III) are recorded those fragments which are not published under Eusebius’ name in the Greek edition, but do find parallels in the Armenian text. In a number of cases, Françoise Petit’s notes are quoted, from which it appears that hints occur in the Greek material pointing towards Eusebian authorship. On the whole, this list of course illustrates the possibilities of using the Armenian translation to identify anonymous passages and passages falsely attributed to other authors in the Greek tradition. From what has been adduced so far, I hope the usefulness of the Armenian translation for the important task of determining what is in fact left of the Greek original of Eusebius’ commentary on historical writings of the Old Testament has become sufficiently evident. It may have appeared as well that much of the work still remains to be done. The next question to be considered is what material might be found in et des Rois, Studi e Testi 201, Città del Vaticano 1959, 55-103. This, of course, is not the place for a full discussion of modern research on OT catenae including important works by such authors as E. Mühlenberg and G. Dorival and others.

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299

Armenian catenae. As far as I know, research into such collections of texts and editorial work lag behind the study of related collections such as dogmatic florilegia, collections of canonical rules and writings, etc. Of course, a few things have been done. As was mentioned by way of introduction, Zanolli, for instance, was primarily concerned with the Leviticus catena to be found in the same manuscript as the Eusebian commentary. In the library of San Lazzaro this catena is contained in three manuscripts; apart from No. 873: No. 352, a manuscript of the second half of the twelfth century, and No. 740, dated 1835, in which can be found both the catena as such (even if in a mutilated shape) and, separately, a collection of fragments of the catena. This late manuscript also contains a catena on the Gospel of Luke and parts of a Genesis catena. The three manuscripts are mutually independent, it seems,15 even if there are a number of corresponding features. The translation represented by the three witnesses must for linguistic reasons be dated rather late; Zanolli, from a piece of information in MS 873, assumes the translation to have been made in Constantinople in 716 A.D. The name of the translator is given as David, counsellor and butler (?) of the royal table, son of the priest Elia; the scribe is Step῾anos, priest and doctor of the province of Siunik.16 As to the Vorlage of this catena, Zanolli assumes a very close connection to Procopius’ catena. Of course, a thorough-going investigation into the Armenian translation and transmission of Greek catenae, and the question whether the Procopius branch is the only one to be transmitted or the predominant one should be pursued on a much broader scale than Zanolli’s, comprising only three manuscripts and a few probings in supplementary material in the library of San Lazzaro; and due regard should be given to the new achievements hinted at above, as far as research into the Greek catenae is concerned. Let me just add one further observation concerning forthcoming catena research on the Armenian tradition so far neglected: this field of research can hardly be isolated from the field mentioned above, that of the use of exegetic literature of the Old Church in medieval Armenian literature, here exemplified through Eusebius of Emesa. To illustrate this point let me refer to Vardan Arewelc῾i, the famous historian, traveller and exegete of the thirteenth century, whose commentaries on writings of the Old Testament are characterized by Vahan Inglisian as 15 Zanolli, Catena sul Levitico, 128. 16 Ibid., 2, 97.

83

84

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

“florilegia”,17 used by B. Outtier under the designation “chaîne scripturaire”,18 and compared by A. Zanolli with the Leviticus catena, esp. quotations from Ephraem.19 A commentary such as that compiled by Vardan raises the question whether he uses earlier authors directly, or indirectly through catenae, and in the latter case, whether these have been taken over directly from Greek Vorlagen or have been elaborated on Armenian ground. What has been adduced so far can to some extent be said to belong to the technicalities of the process of drawing as full a picture as possible of the transmission of the text, of establishing the best text possible, and of finding such portions of the original behind the version or versions, as can be identified. It will have appeared that a number of questions still wait for their answer. These answers are important and must necessarily have a prominent place on the agenda. But of course, the text historian must admit in modesty that considerations of this kind can only rank as prolegomena to an analysis of the contents of the text. What, then, does the text contain? I cannot, of course, describe that in any detail, but I hope, through a few illustrations, to be able to demonstrate that in the title of this paper, I was right in applying the adjective “important” to this text, primarily preserved through the efforts of medieval Armenian scribes. Above all, an analysis of the text will give us an improved understanding of Eusebius’ profile as an exegete. Church historians usually divide exegetes of the fourth and fifth centuries into “schools”, primarily the allegorists of Alexandria and their opponents and critics in Antioch, to which may be added the Syriacspeaking schools of Edessa and Nisibis, and, of course, Latin exegetes, more often than not dependent on the school of Alexandria. From contemporary sources it is known that one of the central figures of the school of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus, was considered to be a pupil of Eusebius of Emesa.20 This 17 Vahan Inglisian: Die armenische Literatur, Handbuch der Orientalistik, hrsg, v. B. Spuler, 1. Abt., 7. Bd., 156-254, Leiden, Köln 1963. Cf. esp. p. 200: Seine (Vardan’s) Kommentare zur Genesis, Jesua, zu den Büchern der Richter, der Vier Könige, zu Psalmen und Hohenlied kann man als Florilegium be zeichnen. 18 B. Outtier, “La version arménienne du commentaire des Psaumes de Théodoret. Premier bilan”, REArm 12, 1977, 169-180. Cf. esp. 174: “Les chaînes scripturaires ont utilisé notre texte, en premier lieu Vardan l’Oriental”. 19 Zanolli, Catena sul Levitico, 102. 20 Hieronymus, De virus illustribus, ed. Herding, 62; cf. Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire, 9. For Diodore’s contribution to the exegesis of the historical writings of the Old Testament, cf. esp. J. Deconinck: Essai sur la chaîne de l’Octateuque avec une édition des commentaires de Diodore de Tarse qui s’y trouvent contenus, Paris 1912. A fuller picture of Diodore as an exegete is emerging with the edition of his

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299

can now be substantiated more broadly than before, and we can, therefore, say that we are better informed of the early phase of the school of Antioch, which has in the past to some extent been clouded in mists of darkness. The roads of tradition and spiritual and scholarly interdependence were not so narrow, however, as to exclude influence and inspiration from one school onto another. Before I turn to a couple of considerations of that topic, it may be natural to point out in the first place, that Eusebius’ approach to the Scriptures is very linguistic. Thus, in the commentary he is very much aware of the problems of translation. He knows that the Hebrew language has a number of characteristics, which make it difficult to render the meaning of a passage or a word into Greek in a very literal and verbatim translation, and he often discusses the translational choices of the various Greek versions of the Old Testament, and the Syriac renderings as well. In fact, in one of the examples in the list of anonymous quotations from the Greek catenae21 the “author” is cited as “the Syrian”. This is an identification which can already be found in Eusebius’ text. “The Syrian” is, in fact, the name of a Bible translation, which is usually assumed, despite its name, to be a Greek version; there are, however, indications in Eusebius, which to my mind necessitate the re-opening of the discussion, whether this designation does instead cover an early pre-Peshitta Syriac version. In order to illustrate the importance of the Armenian testimony, I have chosen an instance where the Armenian deviates at a crucial point from a Greek fragment known already. It is to be found in a comment on Ex. 4,25 (and 26), i.e. an element of the dramatic tale of the Lord meeting Moses “by the way in the inn”, seeking to kill him, which is avoided by the circumcision of Moses’ son through the hand of Zipporah, his wife, who then says: “Surely a bridegroom of blood are you to me” (v. 25), “a bridegroom of blood for the circumcision” (v. 26). Instead of these phrases the Septuagint has a reading which can be translated: “The blood of circumcision of my son ‘stood’ (maybe = ‘is staunched’)”.22 In a Greek catena fragment attributed to Eusebius of Emesa we are given the information that instead of the Septuagint rendering Aquila reads: “I have

commentary on the Psalms: Diodorus Tarsensis, Commentarius in Psalmos 1, ed. J. Olivier, CCSG 6, Turnhout 1980. For B. Outtier’s identification of Armenian evidence for this text cf. the article mentioned above (note 18). 21 See Appendix III, item G 233. 22 Cf. G. Vermès, “Baptism and Jewish Exegesis: New Light from Ancient Sources”, New Testament Studies 4, 1957-58, 308-319, see esp. 310-311.

85

86

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

a bridegroom of blood”, and “the Hebrew”: “He (or she) sealed the blood of circumcision”.23 This fragment is now found in the Armenian translation with one interesting deviation from the Greek, insofar as it reads “the Syrian” instead of Aquila.24 In fact, the reading attributed to Aquila in the Greek, and to “the Syrian” in the Armenian, corresponds to the reading of the Peshitta; and it might be worthwhile noting that the Peshitta reading has been challenged and discussed, since the change of one single letter would make it conform to the Hebrew text (‫ ܐܢܬ‬instead of ‫)ܐܝܬ‬.25 I have found no further comment on the reading attributed to “the Hebrew”, apart from Field’s note26 that the reading is due to a change between an m and an n (‫חתמ‬, ‘to seal’ instead of ‫חתן‬, ‘bridegroom’). At any rate, it should by now be apparent that the Eusebian readings cannot be classified as trivial. I shall not venture to give any final verdict on how much new information can be gained from our text about the history of the versions of the Old Testament, but I should like to add that besides references to Bible versions such as Aquila and Theodotion, the Syrian and the Hebrew, we also come across source references such as: “A certain Hebrew says”. This, of course, means that Eusebius had some knowledge of Jewish exegesis of his own age or of earlier periods. The lines of tradition connecting Jewish and Christian exegesis have been known and studied before, not least for the school of Edessa, which was, as will be remembered, Eusebius’ birthplace; and if we consider Philo, the Christian school to be mentioned would, of course, be that of Alexandria. However, certain traditions of rabbinical exegesis have not been as well-known as Philo; nor has it been possible to judge their impact on Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. Research into these lines of connection is currently in progress, so here again our text will be welcomed for its contributions.

23 Devreesse, Anciens commentateurs, 90-91. 24 MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873, 185, 30-33, ed. Hovhannessian, 108, 434-437. 25 Cf. the note in A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, The Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1917, 167. In the new Peshitta edition (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version 1, [The Peshitta Institute, Leiden 1977] 125) no variants to the ‫‘( ܐܝܬ ܠܝ‬I have’, lit. ‘there is for me’) are quoted, and it is interesting to note that Field, in his Hexapla-edition (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, ed. F. Field, Oxford 1875, 87-88), on the basis of his assumption that Aquila besides his knowledge of Hebrew was well acquainted with traditions behind the Syriac Bible versions (Prolegomena XXIV) already refused to correct a Syro-Hexaplaric ‫ ܐܝܬ‬into ‫ܐܢܬ‬, because he saw the ἔχω, presumed to belong to Aquila, as a support for the reading ‫ܐܝܬ‬. 26 Origenis Hexaplorum, 88.

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299

After these few references to fields and topics where the contents of Eusebius’ commentary are of special interest and to one of the directions into which considerations of his sources will take us, let me conclude this paper with a consideration taking us the other way; namely, to a use of Eusebius, which has hitherto appeared enigmatic to researchers and led to a number of wrong conclusions. I am referring to a crux in Augustine27 that has for centuries puzzled scholars. In a number of Augustine’s exegetic works he discusses what is the right understanding of Gen. 1,2c. Does the clause refer to the Holy Ghost? Should it be translated: “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (with the RSV) or “a mighty wind swept over the surface of the waters” (to quote the NEB)? In his De genesi ad litteram Augustine refers to a source for his final considerations as being “a certain learned Christian Syrian”. Now, it is easy to demonstrate that Augustine has taken this reference from Basil the Great. But to which text and which author, then, does Basil refer? Through the centuries a number of answers have been given to this question. To my mind, there is no doubt that the right answer is: Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis, and so, through Basil’s characterization of the Syrian author as being orthodox28 it could be maintained that the Armenian scribes have helped not only to solve the literary crux here sketched and answer the question of Augustine’s and Basil’s ultimate source, but also to relieve Eusebius’ reputation of being semi-heretical, as Basil’s testimony should be considered as weighty, at least, as that of Jerome.

27 For a fuller discussion of Augustine’s interpretation of Gen. 1,2c, referred to in the following, with references to sources and secondary literature cf. Henning J. Lehmann, “El Espfritu de Dios sobre las aguas. Fuentes de los comentarios de Basilio y Agustín sobre el Génesis 1,2”, Augustinus 26 (1981) 127*-139*. [Cf. above, pp. 23ff]. 28 Basil’s exact phrasing is: Ἐρῶ σοι οὐκ ἐμαυτοῦ λόγον, ἀλλὰ Σύρου ἀνδρὸς σοφίας κοσμικῆς τοσοῦτον ἀφεστηκότος, ὄσον ἐγγύς ἦν τῆς τῶν ἀληθινῶν ἐπιστήμης. Cf. Basile de Césarée: Homélies sur l’Hexaëméron, ed. Stanislas Giet; Sources Chrétiennes 26, Paris 1949, 168.

87

88

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Appendix I Correspondences between Greek catena fragments in Françoise Petit’s edition of the Catena Sinaitica and the Armenian translation of Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament. Column 1: MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873, page, line. Column 2: Quotations of Biblical texts. Column 3: Identifications in the edition of the Catena Sinaitica (F. Petit’s numbering). Column 4: Further identifications in Procopius (PG 87, column, paragraph, line). Column 5: Non-identified elements. Column 6: Remarks. 1

2

162,29-31

Gen 12,17

3

162,31-35

G2

162,35-38

G 1,1-3

4

162,38 – 163,4

329,D2-7

163,4-7

329,D10-13

163,7

G 1,4-5

163,8-11

G 9,2-4

163,11-14

G 16:2-3 Gen 15,8-9

163,19-31

G 22

163,31 – 164,7

G 20,2-12

164,9-11

G 37 341,D4-10

Cf. G 37, note b

344,B1-4

Cf. G 31, note *.

G 31a

164,23-25 164,25-31

Arm. a little amplified

Gen 15,15f

164,11-18 164,18-22

Conc. Gen 14,18.20

Gen 15,2

163,16-17

164,7-9

x

329,D14 – 332,A1

163,8

163,17-19

6

G 1,4

163,7-8

163,14-16

5

G 31b

Arm. a little amplified

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299

1

2

164,31-32

Gen 17,5

3

4

164,32-34 164,34-37

5

6

x

Conc. Gen 17,5

Gen 17,17-19

164,37 – 165,8 165,8-10

Parallels with G 83 Gen 17,14

165,10-12 165,12-14

G 64,1-3

Arm. a little amplified

Gen 18,19

165,15-20 165,21

165,29-38

Gen 20,2 G 129 x

166,28-31

Conc. Gen 20,3ff (cit. vss. 6.16)

G 139

166,31 – 167,2

x Gen 20,17f

167,6-12

x Gen 21,14

167,14-23

G 151

167,23-24

G 150,1-2

167,24-26 167,26-29

x

(Cf. G 147,1)

x

Cf. PG 87,384,21

x

Cf. PG 87,386,8f

x

Cf. PG 87,388,A9-12

G 147,3-6

167,30-31 167,31-32

G 150,2-4

167,32-35 167,36-37 Gen 21,22

167,38 – 168,2 168,2-8

Conc. Gen 18,27 (not G 93)

Arm. a little amplified

166,15-28

167,38

x

G 116

166,9-15

167,12-14

Conc. Gen 18,21 (not G87)

369,D1-371/372,A6

165,38 – 166,8

167,2-6

x Gen 18,27

165,27-29

166,8-9

Conc. Gen 18,19

Gen 18,21

165,22-26 165,26-27

x

x 388,C16-D7

89

90

s t u d e n t s

1

o f

t h e

2

b i bl e

3

i n

4 t h

a n d

4

168,9-12 G 177

168,16-21

G 189 x

Conc. Gen 22,1

x

(Cf. G 185–not identical!)

x

Conc. Gen 23,4 6 (cf. 194)

x

Conc. Gen 23,15

G 183

168,29-32 Gen 23,4

168,34 – 169,3 Gen 23,15

169,5-9 169,9-10

Gen 24,2

169,11-13

G 209

169,13-14

x

169,14-16

x

169,16-21

G 211

169,21-32 169,32-33

395/396,A27-34 Gen 24,5

169,33-35 169,35-37 169,37-38

(Cf. G 16)

401/402,B12-17

Gen 25,22 407/408,A14-16

(Devreesse, p. 75)

407/408,C10-15

(Devreesse, p. 75)

Gen 25,26

170,10-16

170,17-20

x

Gen 24,63

170,8-9

170,16-17

Conc. Gen 24,49

G 233

170,6-8

170,9-10

x Gen 24,50

170,3-6

170,8

Conc. Gen 24,5

Gen 24,49

170,2-3 170,3

x 403/404,C9-10

169,38 170,1-2

6

Gen 22,12

168,24-29

169,3-5

s y r i a

= Proc. 1.1-6

168,22

168,32-34

5

c e n t u r y

x

168,13-16

168,22-24

5 t h

Gen 25,27 409/410,Al-5

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299

1

2

170,20-21

Gen 25,28

170,21-28

3

= Proc. 409/410,A21-28(31)

.

(Cf. G 262, note a)

411/412,A3-13

171,4-6

G 266

171,7

Gen 26,31

180,21

Ex 1,12

180,22-24

Arm. a little amplified

E 11 Ex l,20f

180,26-29

E 16

180,30-38 180,38 – 181,2

6

Gen 25,31

170,34 – 171,4

180,24-26

5

G 261

170,28-33 170,33-34

4

= Proc. 513/514,B17-21

Ex l,20f

181,2

x

Conc. Ex l,20f

181,2-4

x

Conc. Ex 1,22

x

Conc. Ex 2,1ff

181,5-25 181,25

Ex 2,14

181,26-28

E 34

181,28-31 181,31

= Proc. x

Ex 2,24f

Conc. Ex 2,14

91

92

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Appendix II Passages published in the Catena Sinaitica under Eusebius of Emesa’s name. Parallels in the Armenian translation marked with *. Numbering of Greek fragments according to Françoise Petit’s edition. Genesis Fragment No.

Exodus Fragment No.

2

*

11

9

*

15

20

*

16

22

*

21

64

*

22

87

23

91

33

92

36

93

43

99

44

*

*

100 116

*

118 119 139

*

150

*

151

*

153 177

*

183

*

185 189

*

192 209

*

210

Total

211

*

26

14

10

2

An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873 Dated A.D. 1299

Appendix III Passages published in the Catena Sinaitica edition under other names than Eusebius of Emesa, for which parallels are found in the Armenian translation. Greek Fragment No.

Attributions in Greek Catenae

G1

The same; Anonymous; Eusebius (Bs) (1)

G 16

Anonymous; Eusebius (Len); Diodorus (2)

G 31

Origen; Anonymous (3)

G 37

Anonymous; Philo

G 129

Anonymous; Didymus

G 147

Anonymous; Eusebius (Len); Diodorus (4)

G 233

The Syrian

G 261

The same; Eusebius (Len); Anonymous

G 266

Anonymous

E 34

Anonymous

Notes (quotations of relevant passages from Françoise Petit’s notes). 1. p. 3f, note (a)

Ce morceau n’est intelligible que si l’on tient compte du précédent … Les deux sont distincts dans Sin, Mosq et Procope; ils sont liés dans Len et Bs (avec, dans ce dernier, attributions à Eusèbe d’Emèse) …

2. p. 19, note *

… La rédaction des chaînes du premier groupe pourrait bien revenir à Eusèbe d’Emèse …

3. p. 36, note (a)

Dans Len, soudé à G 30, attribué à Eusèbe d’Emèse

4. p. 141, note *

… Comme pour G 16, nous pensons que la rédaction de Sin Len Mosq¹ Bs revient à Eusèbe d’Emèse …

93

Severian of Gabala Fragments of the Aucher Collection in Galata MS 54

Johannes Baptista Aucher (or Awgerean) did an excellent job when in 1827 he edited fifteen homilies attributed to Severian of Gabala, translated into Armenian at a very early date1. Already Aucher was aware that the testimony of tradition, as far as the question of authorship was concerned, carried different weight for the first ten homilies as compared with homilies XI-XV. The reason for this is that homilies I-X were found as one collection of texts in a number of the manuscripts, on which Aucher based his edition, whereas he found the last five scattered in different homiliaries and other collections of texts. Before I discuss homilies I-X and their attestation in Galata MS 54, one point should be made concerning homilies XI-XV, viz. that one of these homilies (or excerpts of homilies, as they should rightly be termed) has in fact been shown to belong to Severian, two should be ascribed to Eusebius of Emesa, whereas for the remaining two the question of authorship is undecided. Homily XI is the one of Severianic authorship, being part of homily XIII in the collection of homilies edited by N. Akinian under the name of Eusebius of Emesa2. Concerning this collection the present author has shown that only homilies I-VIII belong to Eusebius, IX-XIII to Severian3. Aucher’s homilies XIV and XV are parts of homily V in Akinian’s collec-

1

Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae nunc primum editae ex antiqua versione armena in latinum sermonem translatae per P. Jo. Baptistam Aucher, Venice (S. Lazzaro) 1827.

2

N. Akinian, “Die Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa”, Handes Amsorya 70-73, 1956-1959. The thirteenth and last homily is to be found in HA, 73, 1959, cols. 321-359.

3

Henning J. Lehmann, “The Attribution of certain Pseudo-Chrysostomica to Severian of Gabala confirmed by the Armenian Tradition”, Studia Patristica, 10, Texte und Untersuchungen 107, 1970, pp. 121-130, and idem, Per Piscatores. Studies in the Armenian Version of a Collection of Homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975. (For homily Akinian XIII/Aucher XI, see esp. pp. 335ff.).

96

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

tion, which is by Eusebius of Emesa. The correct attribution was suggested already in 1921 by A. Vardanian and has been confirmed by such authors as J. Lebon, N. Akinian, E.-M. Buytaert, and the present writer4. For homilies XII and XIII no decisive answer has been given to the question of authorship. In the following the term “Aucher Collection” will refer to the series of ten homilies (I-X), which were united in Aucher’s basic MS material. Leaving aside homilies XI-XV and turning to the Aucher Collection “proper” it must be emphasized that Aucher himself was already aware of the fact that homily X is known in Greek under the name of St. Basil the Great (PG 31, 423-444)5. Thus it cannot be assumed a priori that all of the material in the collection of ten homilies stems from Severian’s hand. As for homily I, doubts about Severian’s author’s rights were voiced by J. Zellinger6, and with more emphasis by E.-M. Buytaert7; H.-D. Altendorf, finally, pointed out that the text could hardly be by Severian8. It was not until Akinian’s edition was published, however, that it could be shown that Aucher’s homily I is in fact part of Akinian’s homily III9, which is undoubtedly by Eusebius10. It seems, then, that only homilies II-IX remain genuine Severian texts in the “Aucher Collection” proper. Turning from the question of authenticity to the question of transmission, the primary point to be made seems to me to be the fact that the collection of ten homilies must date from a rather early age. At the end of this article I shall return – rather tentatively – to this question and argue for a dating of the ten-homily-collection to the Armenian phase of transmission. That is to say, that one is not, in my view, likely to find a Greek Vorlage for the collection as a whole, which of course does not exclude further identifications of the Greek

4

A. Vardanian, “Եւսեբեայ Եմեսացւոյ դասական մնացորդները, Eusebius von Emessa. Überreste in altarmenischer Übersetzung”, HA 35, 1921, cols. 129-146, 292-297, esp. col. 132ff; J. Lebon, “Les citations patristiques grecques du ‘Sceau de la Foi’” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 25, 1929, pp. 5-32, esp. p. 17; E.-M. Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire d’Eusèbe d’Emèse, Bibliothèque du Muséon 24, Louvain 1949; N. Akinian, op. cit., esp. HA 71, 1957, col. 353f; cf. Lehmann, Per Piscatores, pp. 209ff.

5

Cf. Aucher, ed. cit., pp. 370f; J. Zellinger, Studien zu Severian von Gabala, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 8, 1926, p. 71.

6

Op. cit., pp. 72 and 74ff. Zellinger finally advocates Severianic authorship.

7

Op. cit., pp. 138ff.

8

H.-D. Altendorf, Untersuchungen zu Severian von Gabala (unpublished dissertation), Tübingen 1957; see esp. pp. 41ff.

9

Ed. cit., HA 71, 1957, cols. 99-130.

10 On this identification see Lehmann, Per Piscatores, pp. 103ff.

S e v e r i a n

o f

G a b a l a

–

A u c h e r

C o ll e c t i o n

originals of individual homilies. So far, apart from homily X, only two of the homilies have been identified in their entirety in Greek11. In any case the collection of ten homilies has a very broad attestation in Armenian manuscripts. Therefore, of course, it would be desirable to have a scholarly edition of this collection to replace Aucher’s which gives very little information on variant readings. When it was said at the beginning of this article that Aucher’s edition represented “an excellent job”, my point was that, as far as my investigations of the MS material go, they show that by and large the text in a scholarly edition would look very much like Aucher’s text. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Galata MS 54 (which must presumably be dated to the fourteenth century)12 is unique in the way in which it brings supplementary attestation to the attribution of certain texts to Severian of Gabala13. Quantitatively the material is not of great extent, as it comprises only about twenty pages in the MS, but as I hope to show in the following, it seems to me that there are important observations to be made from this manuscript. On the pages in question are found two series of fragments or excerpts of homilies, the first one (pp. 363-375) under the heading Երանելւոյ Սեբերիանոսի Եմեսու եպիսկոպոսի, the second one (pp. 375-384) under the heading Երանելւոյ Սեբերիանոսի Գաբա… եպիսկոպոսի. Even if the name of locality for the author of the second group is not quite readable, there can be no doubt that Gabala is meant. For the first series we have the combination of the personal name: Seberianos and the name of locality: Emesa, which

11 The two homilies identified in Greek are No. VII (the Greek original of which was known already by Aucher) being identical with PG 56, 553-564 (cf. esp. Zellinger, op. cit., pp. 42ff), and No. IX, the Greek original of which has been edited, partly by Zellinger (op. cit., pp. 9-21), and partly by Ch. Martin, “Note sur l’homélie de Sévérien de Gabala in illud: Pater, transeat a me calix iste (Mt. 26, 39)”, Le Muséon 48, 1935, pp. 313-320. A fairly large number of fragments of homily VIII have been found in Greek catenae (cf. Zellinger, op. cit. pp. 96ff, and J. Zellinger, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Seve rian von Gabala, Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, VII, 1, Münster 1916, pp. 13ff). 12 For a more detailed description I refer to Babgēn [Kiwlēsērean], Ցուցակ ձեռագրաց Ղալաթիոյ ազգային մատենադարանի հայոց, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the Armenian National Library of Galata, Antelias 1961; and to Charles Renoux’s preface to his edition of Irenaeus fragments from Galata MS 54, Irénée de Lyon: Nouveaux fragments arméniens de l’Adversus Haereses et de l’Epideixis, Patrologia Orientalis 39, 1, Turnhout 1978, esp. pp. 13ff. 13 My thanks are due to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, and especially to Mr. K. Pamboukdjian for his courtesy and kindness during my visit in 1978. I am particularly grateful for having been given the possibility to photograph the relevant pages of Galata MS 54, which is now in the archive of the Patriarchate.

97

98

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

is often met with, and which may point to an early combination of texts by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala14. Be that as it may, the fragments of the first series all belong to homilies of the Aucher Collection, whereas the fragments of the second series derive from six other homilies, some of which have so far not been identified as belonging to Severian. For that reason it may be maintained that the second group of fragments is the most important for future Severian research. A presentation of the fragments of the second series in their relation to texts and fragments known in Greek, Syriac, and Armenian would demand more space than is available here. I have elsewhere given a report about the identifications this group of fragments allows15. First of all a list of concordances between the excerpts in Galata MS 54 and Aucher’s Armenian edition and his Latin translation might be of use. List of Excerpts in Galata Ms 54 from Severian of Gabala’s Homilies in the Aucher Collection16 Galata MS 54, page17, line

Aucher’s edition, page, line

Aucher's translation, page, line

Homily I (a) 363a,21-28

4,1-5

5,1-5

14,26 – 16,1

15,30 – 17,2

զի եթէ իմասցուք … եթող Quoniam si intelligamus … reliquit. (b) 363a,28-b,22 զի միածին որդին … արարածք Quoniam Unigenitus Filius … creatura.

14 Cf. Lehmann, Per Piscatores, pp. 147ff. 15 Cf. Henning J. Lehmann, “Severian of Gabala: New Identifications of Texts in Armenian Translation”, in Thomas J. Samuelian (ed.), Classical Armenian Culture, University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 4, 1982, pp. 113-124. [Cf. above, pp. 67ff] 16 Incipits and desinits are given according to the manuscript, variant readings in Aucher’s edition in the notes below. 17 At the beginning of new groups of texts the manuscript has two columns (here indicated by a and b), otherwise only one.

S e v e r i a n

Galata MS 54, page17, line

o f

G a b a l a

Aucher’s edition, page, line

–

A u c h e r

C o ll e c t i o n

Aucher’s translation, page, line

Homily II (c) 363b,25 – 364,15

18,24 – 20,12

19,22 – 21,11

24,7-27

25,3-24

կոչի ճանապարհ … պատմելով Vocatur itaque via … referens. 18

(d) 364,15-32

քանզի փրկիչն19 եւ տէր … բնութեանս մերում Quoniam Salvator Dominusque … naturae nostrae. (e) 364,32 – 366,2

34,7 – 36,10

35,6 – 37,10

այն իմն կարի տրտմեցուցանէր … ի պատիւն Illud valde tristes reddebat … ad dignitatem. (f) 366,3-29

36,37 – 38,31

37,34 – 39,30

գիտէք ասէ եղբայրք … տնտեսուտեամբ Scitis, iniquit, fratres … dispensatione plenam? Homily III (g) 366,32 – 367,6

78,5-14

79,4-12

եւ յափշտակեաց զյափշտակեալսն … խոչեսչէ et rapit direpta … vulneraret. 20

Homily IV (h) 367,8-20

160,16-33

161,14-32

ես եմ ասէ տէր աստուած … զաւրութիւն է Ego sum, ait, Dominus Deus … habent virtutem. (i) 367,21 – 368, 8

162,32 – 164, 21

տեսցուք թէ եւ այլ ինչ անուն … աւրհնեալ յաւիտեանս Videamus, an etiam aliud nomen … benedictus in aeternum.

18 Aucher: add. եւ. 19 Aucher: om. -ն. 20 Aucher: յապշտակէ.

163,34 – 165,21

99

100

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

Galata MS 54, page17, line

i n

4 t h

a n d

Aucher’s edition, page, line

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Aucher’s translation, page, line

Homily V (j) 368,10 – 369,2

202,15 – 204,8

203,14 – 205,13

ասեն հերձուածողացն … ըստ մարմնոյս Dicunt haereticorum … secundum carnem. Homily VI (k) 369,3-18

216,32 – 218,16

217,28 – 219,16

228,22-30

229,21-29

236,21 – 238,12

237,18 – 239,12

եկն ասէ21 Յիսուս … աշխատութիւն Venit (ait) Jesus … laborem pateretur? (l) 369,18-25 յորժամ ասիցէ հերիտիկուն … կրաւնիւքն Quando dicit haereticus … dogma jam delet. 22

23

(m) 369,25 – 370,16

զնոյն միտս ասէ հարցին … համարհողաց Eodem sensu interrogarunt discipuli … contemnentium. 24

25

Homily VII (n) 370,17-24

258,13-21

յորոյ վերայ տեսանիցես զհոգին … տնտեսութեանն Super quem videbis Spiritum … dispensationem.

21 Aucher: om. ասէ. 22 Aucher: ասէ. 23 Aucher: հերետիկոսն. 24 Aucher: om. ասէ. 25 Aucher: add. -ն.

259,14-22

S e v e r i a n

Galata MS 54, page17, line

o f

G a b a l a

Aucher’s edition, page, line

–

A u c h e r

C o ll e c t i o n

Aucher’s translation, page, line

Homily IX (o) 370,26 – 372,9

336,14 – 338,33

337,14 – 339,29

աւն առ յաստուածեղէն իսկ … ի խաչէն Agedum ad divina … crucem debebat? 26

(p) 372,9-32

340,6-32

341,1-26

342,26 – 344,20

343,25 – 345,16

350,7-24

351,4-21

յորժամ տէրն ի խաչելութիւն … խռովի Cum proximum esset tempus … conturbatur. (q) 372,33 – 373,28 այլ զի ցուցից … մնայ ճշմարտութիւնն Sed ut ostenderem … manet veritas. (r) 373,29 – 374,11

պարտ է կրկնարաւր … ի վեր եւ բարձրացեալ27 Oportet secundo … superans. (s) 374,11 – 375,5

356,3 – 358,3

357,1 – 359,4

եւ արդ զինչ իցէ ասելն … դատապարտեալ էր Cur ergo dicitur … condemnatum redimeret. (t) 375,6-13

362,22-32

363,20-30

եւ զինչ կամի ցուցանել … զմիտս ճշմարտութեանն et quid velit manifestare … sententiam veritatis confirmem.

To this presentation of Galata MS 54 as a witness to the Aucher Collection, I shall only add here a few remarks, mainly on variant readings, on the distribution of quotations within the individual homilies, and on the possibility of using the information thus gained in a comparison with other excerpts of the collection with a view to elucidating the history of the formation and transmission of the collection. This is not the place to draw up an exhaustive list of variant readings. The few examples given in notes 18-27 are quite illustrative for the character of textual variants, which are mainly of the types shown there: omission of “article”, minor changes of verbal forms, omission of the ասէ used as a quotation formula, and so forth. As regards the distribution of the fragments quoted, the following three observations seem to me the most important: 1) two thirds of the material de26 Aucher: om. իսկ. 27 Aucher: բարձր.

101

102

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

rive from homilies II and IX, 2) homilies VIII and X are not quoted, 3) homily I is quoted. The list of fragments in itself may give reason enough for placing particular emphasis on these facts, but what gives them further importance, is that the use of Severianic texts in the seventh and eighth centuries on Armenian soil furnishes us with comparative material which may give us at least a basis for a guess about the time and environment in which the collector or excerptor of the Severian fragments of Galata MS 54 might be located. First of all I have in mind the famous patristic florilege, the Seal of Faith – collected presumably under catholicos Komitas (612-628)28; in addition quotations in the Contra Phantasticos by John of Ōjun, who was catholicos about 100 years later (718-729) and was given the surname “the Philosopher”, are of interest. Before commenting upon parallels and discrepancies between these authorities a list of the quotations in question should be given29: Quotations from Homilies I-IX of the Aucher Collection in Galata Ms 54, Seal of Faith30 and John of Ōjun31 Galata MS 54

Seal of Faith

John of Ōjun

Homily I (a) 4,1-5 (b) 14,26 – 16,1 Homily II (c) 18,24 – 20,12 (d) 24,7-27

24, 12-27 26,13-23 28,2 – 32, 22 32,36 – 34,34

(e) 34,7 – 36,10 (f) 36,37 – 38,31

28 Cf. Lebon, op. cit., p. 5. 29 Pages and lines are given according to Aucher’s edition. 30 Quoted from Lebon, pp. 28f. 31 Quoted from Aucher; pp. XVIII, 1, 24/25, and 340/341; and Zellinger, pp. 22 and 79.

S e v e r i a n

Galata MS 54

o f

Seal of Faith

G a b a l a

–

A u c h e r

C o ll e c t i o n

John of Ōjun

Homily III (g) 78,5-14 Homily IV 158,10-15 (h) 160,16-33 (i) 162,32 – 164,21 Homily V (j) 202,15 – 204,8

202,19 – 204,8

Homily VI (k) 216,32 – 218,16

216,18 – 218,7

(l) 228,22-30 (m) 236,21 – 238,12

236,21 – 238,12

Homily VII (n) 258,13-21 Homily IX 320,4-9 (o) 336,14 – 338,33

334,36 – 342,11

(p) 340,6-32 (q) 342,26 – 344,20

340,20-25 342,24-36 344,21 – 346,11 346,16 – 348,22

(r) 350,7-24

348,34 – 350,24 350,25 – 352,14 352,23 – 354,17 354,30 – 356,2

(s) 356,3 – 358,3 358,6-24 (t) 362,22-32

The above list shows that there are many correspondences, but no direct and exclusive interdependence between the three authorities or any two of them,

103

104

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

as any of the three sources contains material that is not quoted by the other two. As was mentioned above, the three sources are related through the great importance all of them attach to homilies II and IX. Hence, it is obvious that these two texts were very well known under the name of Severian and regarded as important authorities in the dogmatic discussions of the Armenian church during the seventh and eighth centuries. The omission of homilies VIII and X in both Galata MS 54 and the Seal of Faith may of course be accidental. However, the hypothesis immediately suggests itself that both sources belong to a stage when homily X, which is in fact – as mentioned above – by St. Basil the Great, was not yet connected with the collection of Severian texts. As regards homily VIII, it seems to me that the information given by Zellinger on its transmission, especially on the quotations in Greek catenae32, might suggest that this homily belonged originally to another group of Severianic homiles treating of themes concerned with the Old Testament. The absence of quotations from homily I in the Seal of Faith, and the numbering in this florilegium of homilies II, IV, and VI as 1, 3, and 5 respectively33, might suggest that the Seal of Faith is the older of the two witnesses, reflecting a stage when the Eusebian homily had not yet been added to the collection as its text No. I. Also, it seems to me that the theological content of the exposé on the Human and Divine in Christ, which might be an apposite term for the collection made up by the excerptor of Galata MS 54, would fit better into the spiritual environment of John of Ōjun than to the Julianist theology of John Mayragomec῾i, who may be the inspiring – or even the editorial – force behind the Seal of Faith34. As the year 929 or 930, which is the date of the oldest manuscript referred to by Aucher in his edition35, is the terminus ante quem for the formation of the collection of ten homilies, the following outline of the editorial history of this collection might be tentatively suggested: 1. An existing collection of homilies II-VII and IX is translated into Armenian before 600.

32 Cf. above, note 11. 33 Cf. above, esp. the reference to Altendorf’s arguments for homily 1 in the Aucher Collection not being by Severian (cf. note 8). 34 Cf. Lebon, p. 6. 35 Aucher, pp. 400f.

S e v e r i a n

o f

G a b a l a

–

A u c h e r

C o ll e c t i o n

2. An excerpt is made of the Eusebian homily “on Faith” (=Akinian’s homily III)36 , and this excerpt is given the place of introductory text to the collection some time about 70037. About this text one detail should be mentioned: fragment (b) ends immediately before the final doxology, which cannot – for theological and historical reasons – be Eusebian38. Thus, Galata MS 54 has not furnished us with further material on which we could base a positive assumption as to the exact date of the addition of the doxology, but in so far as fragment (b) is introduced with the formula “at the end of the discourse” (ի վերջս ճառին), it seems to me to have added a literary argument to the theological and historical reasons mentioned above – to the effect that the doxology did not originally belong to the homily and was not yet added at the time of the excerption, which is now witnessed by Galata MS 54. 3. At a certain time in the eighth or ninth century the Severianic homily VIII and the Basilian homily X have been added. The last homily, which concentrates on baptism, might indicate that the reason for this extension of the collection might be that it should serve as a teaching programme within the baptismal catechesis. This outline of a possible history of formation for the first series of excerpts from Severianic homilies in Galata MS 54 can, of course, only be tentative and hypothetical. It suggests, however, the importance of trying to evaluate the Armenian collections of patristic material in terms of the background of their origin and history in the Armenian environment, not only to elucidate the history of the doctrine of the Armenian church, but also as a necessary part of the procedure through which insight is gained on literary questions such as authorship and the authenticity and integrity of texts.

36 Cf. above, notes 6-10. 37 For the character of this text as an “expositio fidei” as described by Zellinger and Altendorf, and for Jugie’s juxtapposition of the homily and the Athanasian Creed cf. Lehmann, Per Piscatores, pp. 109ff. 38 Cf. Lehmann, Per Piscatores, pp. 65ff and 370.

105

T

he Syriac Translation of the Old Testament – as Evidenced around the Middle of the Fourth Century (in Eusebius of Emesa)

1. Quis sit ὁ Σύρος? – Montfaucon, Field, and Rahlfs When – about 70 years ago – Alfred Rahlfs published an article under the title “Quis sit ὁ Σύρος?”1 this title was borrowed from Frederick Field, who included a chapter with the same title in the introduction to his edition of the Hexapla.2 It was not only in the choice of title, however, that Rahlfs built upon Field. Also as regards the principal point of view that is maintained in the article, viz. that references to ὁ Σύρος which occur in Patristic literature, not least in catenae, refer to a Greek version of the Old Testament, Rahlfs could refer to Field – and more than a hundred years further back, viz. to Montfaucon, who already in his edition of the Hexapla had voiced the same idea.3 There are differences of opinion between the three authors, e.g. in their evaluation of relations between “the Syrian” and the Peshitta and their explanations of how and why “the Syrian” got its name. I shall not go into any detailed discussion of such points; only, as a summing up of the main results and points of view in earlier research I shall quote Rahlfs’ 4-point summary: 1. Der Σύρος ist nicht die Peschita … 2. Der Σύρος hat überhaupt nicht Syrisch, sondern, wie Montfaucon und Field mit Recht annahmen, Griechisch geschrieben … 3. (dealing particularly with Judg. 12,6 in Theodoret – cf. below) … Also dürfen wir es auf jeden Fall als sehr wahrscheinlich bezeichnen, daß der 1

Alfred Rahlfs, “Quis sit ὁ Σύρος?”, Kleine Mitteilungen II, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1915, 420-428.

2 Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt; sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta…, ed. Fridericus Field, tom. I, Oxonii 1875, LXXVII-LXXXII. 3

Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt, auctiora et emendatiora quam a Flaminio Nobilio, Ioanne Drusio et tandem a Bernardo de Montfaucon … ed. … Carolus Fridericus Bahrdt, Pars I, Lipsiae et Lubecae 1769, 31-33.

108

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Σύρος an unserer Stelle nicht aus der Peschita, sondern aus dem hebräischen Urtexte übersetzt hat. 4. Der Σύρος war in der Tat von Herkunft ein Syrer.4 The main purpose of this paper is to present evidence which in the view of the present writer makes Rahlfs’ argument under item 2 untenable. The textual basis for taking up this discussion and for arguing that “the Syrian” refers to a Syriac translation, is Eusebius of Emesa’s commentary on historical writings of the Old Testament. Therefore, in our section 2, some general information about this text will be given. Its history of transmission will first be treated of briefly, in connection with some information about the author, his other works, and the possibilities of retracing further parts of the commentary in its original language, Greek (section 2.1). For the general understanding and evaluation of Eusebius’ commentary it is important to look at the way, in which it deals with questions of languages and translation, in particular Syriac and Hebrew as compared with Greek. This is done in section 2.2, and in section 2.3 the references to “the Syrian” and other versions of the Old Testament will be counted and briefly commented upon. One of the main arguments referred to by Montfaucon, Field, and Rahlfs, for “the Syrian” being a Greek version was taken from its readings in Gen. 39,2f as transmitted in catenae. Eusebius’ commentary sheds new light on these particular readings and therefore on the whole question of the language of “the Syrian”, not only from general considerations, but from a very clear-cut exegesis of the textual details of these verses. This is shown in section 3. Rahlfs, however, added to the arguments of his predecessors, what he himself calls “einen vollständig sicheren Beweis”,5 viz. of “the Syrian” having translated from the Hebrew into Greek. This “proof”, which formed the final basis for Rahlfs’ summing up as quoted above, was built upon a reference to the reading of “the Syrian” in Judg. 12,6 as referred to by Theodoret of Cyr rhus. This particular reference, and Rahlfs’ use of it, are discussed in section 4.1, and some probings into its background, i.e. Theodoret’s use of Bible versions, are submitted as an excursus in section 4.2 in order to be able further to substantiate and profile the conclusions as to the language of “the Syrian” and Eusebius of Emesa’s evidence about this version of the Old Testament. Conclusions of our findings and deliberations are given in section 5. 4

Rahlfs, “Quis sit”, 426.

5

Rahlfs, “Quis sit”, 423.

T h e

S y r i a c

T r a n sl a t i o n

o f

t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t

2. Eusebius of Emesa and ὁ Σύρος 2.1. Eusebius’ Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament It is a long and well established fact that Eusebius of Emesa is one of the writers of the Old Church, whose writings bear testimony to readings of ὁ Σύρος. Thus e.g., in Devreesse’s edition of catena fragments to be found in the writings of Greek fathers and exegetes,6 in the chapter about Eusebius there are 10 references to “the Syrian”.7 Further it can be noted that Devreesse (referring to G. Mercati) argues that Eusebius would seem to be the earliest exegete to use ὁ Σύρος.8 For this – and other – reasons it is a regrettable fact that the history of transmission has not been lenient with Eusebius’ works in their original language, Greek. Fortunately, some of his works have been preserved in translations, primarily into Latin and Armenian, some of them rather early.9 For his commentary on historical writings of the Old Testament future research will to a great extent be dependent on the Armenian tradition. The text was translated into Armenian in the “classical” period, i.e. presumably as early as the 5th century A.D. However, in Armenian tradition the commentary was for some – yet obscure – reason attributed to Cyril of Alexandria, and it was not until 1923 that it was demonstrated by the Armenian Mechitharist scholar V. Hovhannessian, that the text rightly belongs to Eusebius. The final printed

6

Robert Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois. (Fragments tirés des chaînes). Studi e Testi 201, Città del Vaticano 1959.

7

Cf Devreesse, Commentateurs grecs, 55ff. The verses referred to are the following: Gen. 2,8f; 5,3; 11,3; 17,14; 19,21ff; 24,2; 26,35; 27,27; 31,7f; Exod. 1,12.

8

Devreesse, Commentateurs grecs, 57, n. 5. Cf Giovanni Mercati, “A quale tempo risale ‘il Siro’ dei commentatori greci della Bibbia”, Bib 20, 1945, 1-11. In this article Mercati shows that a quotation of “the Syrian” traditionally attributed to Melito of Sardes should rightly be transferred to Eusebius of Emesa.

9

About Eusebius’ life and works, see esp. É.M. Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire d’Eusèbe d’Émèse. Bibliothèque du Muséon 24, Louvain 1949. Buytaert also published two series of homilies in Latin translation: É.M. Buytaert, ed., Eusèbe d’Émèse: Discours conservés en latin. I. La collection de Troyes; II. La collection de Sirmond. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 26 & 27. Louvain 1953, 1957. For homilies in Armenian, see esp. Henning J. Lehmann, Per Piscatores. Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975. A brief introduction to Eusebius’ theology is given in: P. Smulders, Eusebius van Emesa, wegbereider van de Antiocheense Christologie. Rede uitgesproken bij het neerleggen van het ambt … aan de Katholieke Theologische Hogeschool te Amsterdam op vrijdag 20 mei 1983, edited by the KHTA, n.d. Cf also P. Smulders, “Eusèbe d’Émèse comme source du De Trinitate d’Hilaire de Poitiers”, Hilaire et son temps, Actes du Colloque de Poitiers 29 sept. – 3 oct. 1968, Editions Augustiniennes, 1969, 175-212.

109

110

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

edition of the Armenian translation of the text – with V. Hovhannessian’s name posthumously on the title page – did not appear until the year 1980.10 By way of conclusion of this brief introduction to the important Eusebian text, which has, because of its history of transmission and publication, so far attracted little scholarly interest, four points should be singled out for special mention: i) The commentary belongs to the genre of quaestiones in loca difficilia. In the commentary the writings from Genesis to 2 Kings (except Ruth) are commented upon; as is often the case in commentaries belonging to this genre, the comments on Genesis are very rich, whereas comments on the rest of the Pentateuch and other writings are more scanty. However, it is characteristic of Eusebius’ commentary that also the Books of Samuel and Kings are commented upon rather extensively. ii) Certain indications seem to reveal that the Armenian text does not render the Greek original in its entirety.11 It is impossible to judge how great are the lacunae; they may be incidental and small; at any rate, it is obvious that the Armenian text contains a great amount of material that has hitherto been unknown in Greek. iii) The possibility of identifying further portions of the Greek original is primarily bound up with a comparison of the Armenian text with Procopius.12 iv) The importance of the text for the topic treated of in this paper should be ev-

10 Eusèbe d’Émèse, I: Commentaire de l’Octateuque. Préparé par V. Hovhannessian, Mekhitariste, Venise-St. Lazare 1980. In the present paper this edition is referred to as “Ven.ed.” – followed by indication of page and line (line counting according to the edition). For further information about the Armenian text and references to V. Hovhannessian’s earlier works about it, see Lehmann, Per Piscatores, 31-33, and Henning Lehmann, “An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873, dated A.D. 1299 (Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament)”, Medieval Armenian Culture, ed. by Th.J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone, University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 6, Chico 1984, 142-160 [above, pp. 77ff]. In the Venice edition (as in the relevant catalogues) there are descriptions in Armenian of the three manuscripts on which the edition is based. By far the most important manuscript is MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873, which is described very thoroughly in Italian by Almo Zanolli in his: Di una vetusta catena sul Levitico, perduta in greco e conservata in armeno, della sua stretta relazione col commentario di Procopio di Gaza e dei tre codici di S. Lazzaro, che la contengono, Venice 1938, 78-103. 11 Cf below p. 116f. 12 Cf Lehmann, “An Important Text”, esp. App. I and II, [above, pp. 88ff].

T h e

S y r i a c

T r a n sl a t i o n

o f

t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t

ident from the mere fact that it contains 74 references to ὁ Σύρος (out of which only 8 find their parallels in Devreesse’s edition of catena fragments)13.

2.2. The Use of Hebrew and Syriac Material in Eusebius’ Commentary From the very first page of the commentary it is manifest that questions of language and translation are of great importance to the author, in particular as regards differences between Syriac and Hebrew on one hand, and Greek on the other. In the following some characteristic illustrations of this quality of the text shall be given. The author opens his work by considering the question how meaning and content can be transferred from one language to another. This cannot be done through translating word for word or syllable for syllable, he says; and he continues: often it is necessary to use more – or fewer – words in the translation than in the original, if one wants to render the meaning. For “meaning” and “content” the Armenian uses such words as զաւրութիւն and միտք (basically = “power” and “mind”, corresponding to Greek δύναμις, resp. νοῦς (or derivatives such as: διάνοια, ἔννοια).14 After these general and fundamental statements the author applies himself to specific problems concerning the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Problems have particularly arisen from literal translations having been obscure and therefore of inferior quality.15 The addressee of these remarks, of course, is Aquila, and this is said quite openly a little later.16 The author refers to “erudite men” as his source(s) of this knowledge, and correspondingly, a little further on he refers to “those who know Hebrew” as his authorities.17 Also references to “a certain Hebrew” as authority for a reading in Hebrew occur,18 and such references raise the question whether Eusebius’ knowledge of Hebrew was extensive or rather modest. There can be no doubt that he had a certain knowledge of Hebrew. This can be seen from e.g. the following observations: In the final chapter of the commentary, where – in a way related to passages in the introduction such as

13 Cf. above note 7 (where 10 references are given, two of which are without any parallel in the Armenian text). 14 Ven.ed. 1,1-10. 15 Ven.ed. 1,10-18. 16 Ven.ed. 1,18ff. 17 Ven.ed. 3,67f. 18 Ven.ed. 18,65 (about Gen. 2,6; cf Devreesse, Commentateurs grecs, 58); 18,86 (about Gen. 2,8; cf. Devreesse, Commentateurs grecs, 59, where, however, the reference to “a certain Hebrew” is lacking); 33, 537 (about Gen. 3,22).

111

112

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

those mentioned above – the author comments upon matters of principle and method concerning linguistic phenomena, problems of Bible translations and the like, there is a section which presents a number of elementary facts about the Hebrew language; it is mentioned that Hebrew script is unvocalized, that there are separate verbal forms for the masculine and the feminine gender, and that some words are used in plural as opposed to Greek singular.19 The role of vocalization of the Hebrew text is commented upon explicitly in the comment on Gen. 49,5f, where the author knows that the choice between the two translations testified in Greek versions: ταύρος or τεῖχος, is dependent upon which vowel is used in the Hebrew word: ‫( שור‬šor or šur).20 Thus it is evident that Eusebius is not entirely without knowledge and understanding of what is characteristic of Hebrew. Therefore the above mentioned references to intermediate sources and authorities can be understood in either of the two following ways: either Eusebius himself considers his knowledge of Hebrew imperfect, and has had to rely upon other authorities regarding the Hebrew text, or his “modesty” is of a rhetorical kind, by which I mean that his reluctance to boast knowledge of Hebrew can be paralleled with the reluctance evidenced in his homilies against giving exact information about times and places, numbers and sources.21 It might be added that the two possibilities here mentioned do not necessarily exclude one another. The first alternative could be modified, in so far as even an imperfect knowledge of Hebrew might be considered sufficient for commenting upon difficult passages of the Old Testament, particularly when supplementary use of sources, oral or written, could be made, and to the second alternative could be added that the general rhetorical practice referred to might be considered all the more appropriate for an author who is counted among those responsible for writings adversus Judaeos,22 when dealing with Jewish matters. However, even if the biographical question of Eusebius’ educational standard and his possible quality of vir trilinguis is difficult to answer, it seems obvious to me that his working knowledge of Hebrew and his ability to find the necessary sources, be they Greek or Jewish, have been so great as to allow

19 Ven.ed. 217,1 – 218,34. 20 Ven.ed. 91f. 227-241 (esp. 236-241). 21 On this rhetorical or homiletic practice which Eusebius shares with many homilists of the Old Church, cf. Lehmann, Per Piscatores, 149ff, and Henning J. Lehmann, On Some Round Numbers in Some Patristic Texts, Aarhus 1974. 22 Cf. Buytaert, L’héritage littéraire, 6 (and passim).

T h e

S y r i a c

T r a n sl a t i o n

o f

t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t

us to evaluate the commentary as a text in which Hebrew material is used in a competent manner. Two presuppositions for Eusebius’ work on the text of the Old Testament should be made clear, and should not be confused. As will be shown in section 2.3, technically, his point of departure is the Septuagint. On a superior level, however, the Hebrew Bible is his point of departure or basic textual norm. This e.g. appears indirectly from his evaluation of the Syriac language and the Syriac Bible. The value of Syriac, according to Eusebius, lies in its character of being a language closely related to Hebrew. It would take us too far here to consider further theological consequences of Eusebius’ approach to the Bible;23 it should be added, however, that his evaluation of the relationship between Hebrew and Syriac has been a contributory reason why it has been natural to clear the way for our considerations of Eusebius’ knowledge of Syriac through the above remarks about his knowledge of Hebrew. For plain biographical reasons it would be natural to assume that Eusebius, being born in Edessa, would know Syriac. His above mentioned knowledge of the close relationship between Syriac and Hebrew is demonstrated very early in the introduction to the commentary; the Armenian word used is դրացի (= neighbour).24 Concerning his knowledge of Syriac, reference could also be made to the way in which, commenting upon Gen. 1,2c, Eusebius mingles references to Hebrew and Syriac.25 His main point is here that the Hebrew verb (‫ )רחף‬cannot be rendered through one Greek verb (particularly not the ἐπιφέρω of the Septuagint),26 and this he sees as a parallel to the fact that the rendering of words like “slinger” and “archer” in Greek necessitates the use of more than one word in Syriac.27 In the comment upon Gen. 8,4 it is stated that the mountain of Ararat is

23 For a brief introduction to the discussion in the Old Church of the primary divine authority of either the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint, cf. Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford 1968, esp. 160. 24 Ven.ed. 1,11f. The text runs as follows: … ի հեբրայեցւոց լեզուն եւ ի նորին դրացւոյն յասորին 25 Ven.ed. 8,108ff. 26 Eusebius uses two times four verbs in order to paraphrase ‫רחף‬. Cf. Henning J. Lehmann, “El Espíritu de Dios sobre las aguas. Fuentes de los comentarios de Basilio y Agustín sobre el Génesis 1,2”, Augustinus XXVI, 1981, 127-139 [above, pp. 23ff]. 27 This part of Eusebius’ comments is taken over very directly by Diodore of Tarsus (unless the correspondences should be explained from the assumption that the catenist has wrongly attributed a Eusebian text to Diodore), cf Joseph Deconinck, Essai sur la chaîne de l’Octateuque, Paris 1912, esp. 92f.

113

114

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

called Kordus in Syriac28 – corresponding to the name used in the Peshitta; and about Exod. 3,14 it is noted that “the Syrian” takes over directly the renderings of YHWH’s name29 – again corresponding to the Peshitta. There are thus a number of instances where it is obvious that the author is very observant of renderings into Syriac, even if again it would be difficult to state exactly what is his level of knowledge of the Syriac language, and even if in a number of cases a reference to ասորին with the possible dual sense of “Syriac” and “the Syrian” would leave the question undecided whether, when the version is meant, it could be a Greek one. However, for an unbiased reader, the references, in connection with discussions of readings and exegetic possibilities, to what is characteristic of the Hebrew and Syriac languages would lead to the only natural understanding that “the Hebrew” and “the Syrian” in Eusebius is meant to be the Hebrew Bible and a translation into Syriac, respectively. We have seen a couple of instances where the “Syriac” readings run parallel with the Peshitta. In other instances this is not the case. To my mind, the most natural inference from this ascertainment would be that we are dealing with a pre-Peshitta stage of the Syriac translation of the Old Testament, of which some elements were transferred to the Peshitta, whilst others were eliminated in the final revision. By way of transition to our next section where the amount of textual material from the old versions of the Old Testament to be found in Eusebius is to be considered, I shall refer to an interesting way of using the versions of the Old Testament evidenced in the comments upon Gen. 4,4. Here Eusebius’ way of commenting could be described as homiletically harmonizing, in so far as he pleads that each of the translators (including the Septuagint, “the Three” and “the Syrian”) brings forth a side or a part of the content and message of the Biblical narrative.30 In more than one way this is not typical for Eusebius’ commentary. For one thing, as will be shown below, he does not use “the Three” very often, for another, rather than harmonizing he would usually set out “the Hebrew” and “the Syrian” against the others, sometimes “the Hebrew” against “the Syrian”.

28 Ven. ed. 47,938-941. 29 Ven. ed. 104,214-218. The Armenian wording is: (զ)ահ յահ(ն եւ զ)շարահ յահ(ն). 30 Ven. ed. 37,658 – 38,674. The distribution of verbs to translate Hebr. ‫ שעה‬is well-known from a.o. Procopius, cf. e.g. Field, Hexapla ad loc. It would now seem evident that Procopius here builds upon Eusebius (e.g., they use the same verb in Aquila as against other witnesses: Procopius: ἀπεκλήθη; Eusebius: մխիթարեցաւ, Ven. ed. 37,661).

T h e

S y r i a c

T r a n sl a t i o n

o f

t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t

2.3. References to Bible Versions in Eusebius’ Commentary As his textual basis Eusebius uses some kind of Septuagint-text. I have not yet gone into more specific investigations about the question which recension he uses; as part of the answer to the question whether this will be discernable through the Armenian translation, it should be mentioned that the Armenian lemmata offer rather a great amount of variation from the Armenian “Vulgate”. Thus the Armenian translator of Eusebius’ commentary would seem to have translated the lemmata directly from the Greek Vorlage rather than using any existent Armenian version, and therefore – with all necessary reservation – conclusions about the Greek Bible text in the Vorlage may be drawn from the Armenian. Apart from the question which recension of the Septuagint has been used, also that of the possibility of using the Armenian translation of the commentary in the investigations into early Armenian endeavours to render the Bible in the vernacular is important, but neither of these questions will be treated of here. To the basic ascertainment that the text on which Eusebius comments is a Septuagint should only be added that this, of course, is the reason why direct mention of “the Seventy” very rarely occurs. In a couple of instances, however, “the Seventy” are referred to explicitly, viz. for Ps. 2,11f and Ps. 19(18),5.31 The most conspicuous feature of the commentary, as far as quantitative figures are concerned, is the restricted use of “the Three” over against a very great number of references to “the Syrian” and “the Hebrew”. These numerical facts, of course, constitute a significant part of the background for our statement that Eusebius’ commentary is of importance for the study of the Syriac Bible of the 4th century. In the following the commentary’s references to the five relevant Bible versions are listed:32 Aquila: Gen. 1,1; 4,4; Josh. 24,29; Eccl. 3,17; Is. 5,2; Hos. 11,1. Total: 6 references. Theodotion: Gen. 2,23; 4,4. Total: 2 references.

31 Ven.ed. 219,62 – 220,79. 32 Figures quoted as totals give the numbers of verses referred to. It should be noted that sometimes the author considers more than one textual problem in a verse. On the other hand some of the references are of a very summary or even indirect character, such as readings referred to under the heading: “The Syrian also reads like this”, or: “The Syrian does not read like this”.

115

116

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Symmachus: Gen. 2,23; 4,4; 5,3; Exod. 20,7 (?). Total: 4 references. Ὁ Σύρος: Gen. 2,8; 4,1; 4,4; 4,5; 4,7; 4,12; 4,15; 4,24; 5,3; 6,5; 6,13; 6,14; 8,4; 8,7; 8,21; 9,4f; 12,8; 17,14; 18,19; 18,27; 19,22; 22,12; 22,13; 23,6; 23,15; 24,31; 24,50; 24,63; 26,33; 26,35; 27,27; 27,40; 31,7; 31,47; 33,13; 36,24; 37,21; 37,36; 38,18; 38,29; 39,2; 41,16(+ 45); 43,23; 45,10; 45,18; 45,22; 49,3f; 49,5f; 49,8f; 49,27; Exod. l,12(f); 1,20f; 3,14; 4,14; 4,25f; 5,21; 6,3; Judg. 6,15; 15,8; 1 Sam. 2,5; 4,21; 19,13; 20,20; 2 Sam. 1,21; 5,6; 8,18; 20,18; 20,19; 1 Kgs. 2,5; 2 Kgs. 2,14; Ps. 18(17),12; 18(17),46; 132(131),7; 141(140),7. Total: 74 references. Ὁ Ἑβραῖος: Gen. 1,1; 2,8; 2,23f; 3,5; 3,22; 4,1; 4,4f; 4,7; 4,12; 4,15; 4,24; 4,26; 5,3; 6,5; 6,6; 6,13; 6,14, 6,19f; 8,4; 8,7; 8,21; 11,5(+ 7); 11,10; 17,14; 18,19; 19,22; 22,12; 22,13; 23,6; 23,15; 24,2; 24,63; 31,7; 31,47; 32,29(f); 36,24; 36,31ff; 37,36; 38,29; 49,3f; 49,5f; 49,27; Exod. 1,12(f); 4,25f; 23,19; Deut. 26,14; 1 Sam. 15,11; 20,41; 21,5; 1 Kgs. 1,38f; 2 Kgs. 3,4; Ps. 2,11; 19(18),5; Hos. 11,1. Total: 54 references. I shall not go into a detailed discussion of this listing. Only a few observations of rather a technical character should be made. Even from a superficial look at the survey it immediately appears that in many cases both “the Syrian” and “the Hebrew” are quoted for the same verse – either because of identical readings or because of differences. In some cases where the Greek text of the commentary is known, differences appear between the Greek and the Armenian as to the quoting of the two versions. E.g. one tradition may refer to both, the other to only one of them, and in one instance the Greek refers to “Aquila and the Hebrew” against the Armenian: “the Syrian and the Hebrew”.33 In such cases it is difficult to know whether one has added or the other has left out a reference, or which one might have altered the original; at any rate it would be unwise to assume a priori that either the Greek or the Armenian is right. As Greek transmission has gone through catenists (Procopius and others) it might be natural to assume that their editorial interference has been greater than that of the Armenian translator. But when the Greek tradition transmits references to “the Syrian and the Hebrew” (for Gen. 11,3), “the Hebrew” (for Exod. 3,18), and “Aquila” (for Num. 7,3)34 which find no parallel in the Armenian it would on the background of the otherwise ample amount of references 33 Ven. ed. 108,434-436, cf. Devreesse, Commentateurs grecs, 91 – about Exod. 4,25f. 34 Devreesse, Commentateurs grecs, 65; 88; 96.

T h e

S y r i a c

T r a n sl a t i o n

o f

t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t

to Bible versions be natural to assume that here the Armenian translator or later copyists have omitted original references. It would be premature here to discuss how much of the original Greek of Eusebius’ commentary, including references to Bible versions, can be traced in Procopius and other catenae, but two points should be underlined, firstly that it will be important and profitable to utilize Eusebius’ commentary in the further work on the editing of catenae, and secondly that if we are right in our main point, that “the Syrian” was a Syriac translation, Eusebius will have been one of the earliest authors to present in Greek the insights to be gained from this version. In this way some of the problems which Greek renderings of the Syriac have caused later investigators may be said to go back to him.

3. Gen. 39,2f in ὁ Σύρος. Montfaucon’s, Field’s, and Rahlfs’ Points of View Confronted with Eusebius’ Evidence We shall now turn to an example where a Greek rendering of Syriac has led investigators to wrong conclusions. The text is Gen. 39,2 which has been a key text in the discussion from Montfaucon to Rahlfs – considered to be a “proof” that ὁ Σύρος was a Greek version. The argument runs as follows: Hebrew ‫ מצליח‬is translated ἐπιτυγχάνων in the Septuagint, but according to certain Greek witnesses, esp. Diodore and Procopius, “the Syrian” has κατευοδῶν or κατευοδούμενος instead. The Greek words, however, are synonyms and would therefore correspond to the same verb in Syriac, and only in two Greek renderings would the difference appear.35 Rahlfs adds that the “proof” is not “ganz unanfechtbar”; however, he only finds it “contestable”, because Symmachus, too, is said to have read (κατ)ευοδούμενος, and therefore it would according to Rahlfs have to be considered whether this reading does in fact belong to Symmachus having been – perhaps – attributed to “the Syrian” through a false reading of the abbreviation Συ. Now Eusebius’ commentary gives us the possibility of apprehending what lies behind catenists’ and commentators’ reference to “the Syrian” in Gen. 39,2f. Briefly paraphrased Eusebius states that in verse 2 “the Syrian” uses a

35 Montfaucon, Hexapla, 31f; Field, Hexapla, LXXXII; Rahlfs, “Quis sit”, 422f.

117

118

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

verb corresponding to that used in verse 3 by the same version,36 thus in a way confirming the point of Montfaucon, Field, and Rahlfs that two Greek synonym words are likely to represent one word in Hebrew/Syriac. But the conclusion should be that Eusebius tries to bring out the correspondence between verse 2 and verse 3 in the Syriac through the statement that “the Syrian” in verse 2 uses a verb corresponding to εὐοδόω,37 which is the verb of the Septuagint in verse 3. Therefore it is only the brief rendering of this statement in later authors – amounting to the bare “the Syrian reads (κατ)ευοδόω in verse 2” – that has misled later researchers who have concentrated their attention on verse 2 in isolation from verse 3. It should be noted that the Peshitta (in accordance with the Hebrew Bible) uses the same verb in verse 2 and verse 3: ‫צלח‬. Therefore the right understanding of the context in Eusebius would make it probable that the version in question is closely related to the Peshitta – and would support the probability of “the Syrian” being in Syriac, once again. It should be added that the way in which Eusebius here draws exegetic conclusions from a correspondence in the choice of words in neighbouring passages or phrases is characteristic. A parallel example can be found e.g. in his comments on Gen. 4,4f38 where the Septuagint in verse 4 uses δῶρα about Abel’s offerings, in verse 5 θυσίαι about those of Cain. (Correspondingly the Armenian lemma reads պատարագք and զոհք, resp., as does the Zohrab Bible). But “the Hebrew” and “the Syrian” have identical words in the two verses, Eusebius tells us. In fact, the Hebrew Bible reads ‫ מנחה‬in both verses, the Peshitta ‫ ܩܘܪܒܢܐ‬in both verses. The passage commenting on Gen. 39,2f in the above understanding thus fits in very well with Eusebius’ exegetic method and his technique in using the versions, esp. those in Semitic languages. Parenthetically it might be added that Eusebius’ clear reference to “the Syrian” makes Rahlfs’ deliberations about “Συ” being faultily interpreted as ὁ Σύρος instead of Σύμμαχος superfluous.

36 Ven. ed. 88,130-133. The text runs: եւ էր տէր ընդ Յովսեփայ եւ էր այր կորովի ասորին ասէ յաջողեալ, որպէս եւ ասէ իսկ թէ զամենայն ինչ եւ առնէր աստուած յաջողէր (= And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a proficient man. The Syrian says “prosperous”, as it is said (in the following): God made all that he did to prosper). 37 Armenian յաջողեմ is a close equivalent to Greek εὐοδόω. 38 Ven. ed. 40,742-745.

T h e

S y r i a c

T r a n sl a t i o n

o f

t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t

4. Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Rahlfs’ Argument from his Comments on Judg. 12,6 4.1. Theodoret’s quaestio on Judg. 12,6 as used by Rahlfs As mentioned already, Rahlfs finds “einen volständig sicheren Beweis” of the language of “the Syrian” being Greek in Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ quaestio 19 on the Book of Judges.39 Unfortunately we do not find any comment on this verse in Eusebius. Rahlfs’ phrasing, however, would compel us to add some remarks on Theodoret’s use of and comments upon “the Syrian”, even if it must be noticed that a thorough treatment of this text would lie outside the scope of the present paper. In quaestio 19 Theodoret comments upon the passage in the story of Jephtha, where the Ephraimites are revealed through their dialect, pronouncing ‫סבלת‬ for ‫( שבלת‬Judg. 12,6). The difference in the Hebrew Bible is marked through ‫ ס‬vs. ‫ש‬. This dialectal difference in pronunciation is paralleled by Theodoret with differences between the Syriac dialects of his own time, and he further tells us that “the Syrian” renders the difference in Judg 12,6 through the use of σεμβλά, resp. σεμβελὼ, i.e. “durch einen syrischen Dialektunterschied”40 (as a vs. o corresponds to the well-known difference between the Eastern and the Western dialect of Syriac). Further Rahlfs notes that this rendering has no similarity with that of the Peshitta, where the use of ‫ ש‬and ‫ס‬, resp., is taken over from the Hebrew Bible. The reason why “the Syrian” should be in Greek, is that “der Unterschied zwischen σεμβλά und σεμβελὼ wäre in der syrischen Schrift gar nicht zum Ausdruck gekommen”.41 All the fundamental statements made by Rahlfs are true, of course. How then could we venture to challenge his conclusion? My argument follows two lines: One is the positive conclusions to be drawn from the examination of Eusebius, the other is a questioning of the negative elements in Rahlfs’ arguing about linguistic and versional matters. First, of course, as is obvious, the evidence submitted above from Eusebius has led us to the conclusion that judged from his commentary there can be

39 PG 80, 505-508. 40 Rahlfs, “Quis sit”, 425. 41 Rahlfs, “Quis sit”, 426. (Incidentally, Rahlfs’ evaluation of Syrian script does not prevent him from taking the difference as to the final vowel to reflect Syriac dialectal variations. Because of the reference to Melito (cf. note 8) Rahlfs therefore – revealing some doubt – considers whether such differences could go back to the second century A.D. (p. 427)).

119

120

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

no doubt that “the Syrian” is a Syriac version. Our arguments should not be repeated here, but it should be added that if the main point in Rahlfs’ conclusions should be accepted as being valid for Theodoret, we would maintain that they cannot be transferred to Eusebius; in that case we would therefore have to assume a Greek intermediary link between the Syriac Syrian known to Eusebius, and Theodoret, a Greek Syrian. The second line of argument concerns Rahlfs’ reasoning about linguistic factors, esp. the use of Syriac. As has appeared, Theodoret uses dialectal variations in the Syriac language of his time (as does therefore also Rahlfs) to explain the readings of “the Syrian”. In our excursus in the next section we will look a little closer into Theodoret’s use of Syriac and “the Syrian”. It should be noted here already that the material presented in the next section is for good and factual reasons not of a quantity to be very conclusive; however, evaluated in a cautious and unbiased way it would rather lead to the conclusion that the language of the version is Syriac than to the opposite. The most important thing to be said about Rahlfs’ line of argument about Syriac being excluded as vehicle of “the Syrian” is that he bases it on the presupposition that dialectal differences could not be expressed in script in the fifth century, if they concern vowels. Of course, it is true that Syriac script is a consonant script, and that the two systems of vocalization now known as Eastern and Western Syriac are usually considered to be of a later date of origin. As Theodoret, however, incorporated the dialectal phenomena, including questions of vowels, in his reasoning (of course rendered in Greek in his commentary), it seems to me that sound method would necessitate the question to be left open how such a linguistic phenomenon could be expressed at such an early time, rather than considering – a priori – the expression of such an element to be impossible. There is a certain element of reasoning from non esse to non posse in Rahlfs’ argument. As has been stated already, we agree with Rahlfs that “the Syrian” is not identical with the Peshitta, but this lack of identity should not in itself be taken as proof that the version in question could not be in Syriac. Particularly, it should be noted that Greek σ is used to render both ‫ ש‬and ‫ס‬, so the reference to Peshitta’s consonants being identical with those of the Hebrew Bible is given an exaggerated value, if it is taken to indicate that there are two – and only two, reciprocally exclusive – ways of expressing the difference between the dialect of the Ephraimites and that of the other tribes: either a different initial consonant or a different final vowel.

T h e

S y r i a c

T r a n sl a t i o n

o f

t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t

4.2. Excursus: Theodoret’s Use of Bible Versions, in particular ὁ Σύρος, in his Commentaries on Historical Writings of the Old Testament As has been stated already, this section is not intended as an exhaustive study of Theodoret as a source of information about biblical versions. On a later occasion I hope to return to the question. Here, however, only a few observations should be made, necessitated by Rahlfs’ remarks quoted above. It should be noted that I have not examined all of Theodoret’s commentaries on the Old Testament. According to Field he seems to be an important witness for “the Syrian” in Jeremiah and Ezekiel,42 which indeed is not the case regarding the historical writings of the Old Testament, to which we have confined our probings in order to cover material parallel to that treated of by Eusebius. Besides the references to Bible versions, in particular ὁ Σύρος, we have concentrated on his statements about linguistic factors. Already from biographical considerations and from the geographical location of Theodoret’s diocese it is usually assumed that he has some – maybe even extensive – knowledge of Syriac. In his quaestio 60 on Genesis Theodoret advances some reflections on the history of languages, esp. Syriac (and Hebrew). Syriac is the oldest language in history, he maintains, – for Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah are Syriac names.43 From the following quaestio44 it appears that he has expected an objection to the effect that Hebrew has the precedence of age. This objection, however, is met with the following reflection: Hebrew is not a “natural”, but a “holy” language – created by Moses for didactic purposes: Ἡ οὖν ἑβραία πόθεν ἤρξατο; – Οἶμαι αὐτὴν ἱερὰν εἶναι φωνήν. … διὰ τοῦ Μωσέως ὁ τῶν ὅλων θεὸς ταὺτην ἔδωκε τὴν γλώτταν, διδακτὴν οὖσαν, οὐ φυσικήν.45 Such “historical” observations are not the only reflections on linguistic subjects. As has appeared from his comments on Judg. 12,6 he also reveals some knowledge of contemporary dialects etc. It will have appeared that his reflections of a general and theoretical character are at variance with the practical and precise considerations expressed by Eusebius when dealing with questions of translation and textual evidence. Also as regards quantities there is great difference between the two authors. The table below will show the

42 Field, Hexapla, LXXVII. 43 PG 80,165. 44 PG 80,165-168. 45 PG 80,165.

121

122

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

distribution of Theodoret’s references to Bible versions in his quaestiones on historical writings of the Old Testament. Gen. Exod. Lev. The Septuagint

46

1

“The other interpreters”47 Aquila

6

Theodotion Symmachus

2

Num. Deut. Josh. Judg. 1 Sam. 2 Sam. l Kgs. 2 Kgs. Total

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

4

1

The Hebrew

1

1

1

4 3

1

19

9

1

Total (excl. the Septuagint)

9

3

2

2

2

3

1 7

7

2

10

40

3

4

3

4

25

3

1

1

1

3

1

4

15

4

11

46 For the same reasons as those stated above for Eusebius the number of explicit references to the Septuagint is small. It is not included in the “total” figure. Οἱ λοιποὶ or (often) οἱ ἄλλοι mean “the Three”.

48 PG 80,201.

23

1

It is evident that Theodoret cannot – on the basis of 4 references – be counted among the important witnesses for readings of “the Syrian” in the historical writings of the Old Testament. This, however, does not a priori exclude important information being incorporated in the few references. In the following we shall briefly comment upon the 4 quotations of “the Syrian” – with specific reference to the question whether they give any direction as to the question of its language. One of the four references, of course, is that to Judg.12,6 that has been treated of already. It has appeared that the reading of “the Syrian” is here commented upon, among other things, through information about contemporary Syriac dialects. Turning to the first of the references (to Gen. 36,24), already the way in which it appears in Migne’s edition incurs doubt as to whether 4 is the right figure for references, as there are serious reasons for doubts about the authenticity of this passage, which – even outwardly – has the weak position of an insertion between quaestiones 92 and 93 on Genesis.48 Already J.L. Schultze, and after him J.-P. Migne, suggested that the passage might in fact be attributable to Diodore of Tarsus. In Deconinck’s edition of

47

20

2

1

The Syrian

8

92

T h e

S y r i a c

T r a n sl a t i o n

o f

t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t

catena fragments attributed to Diodore the fragment in question is included under the fragments douteux.49 There are two versions of the fragment, one corresponding to Eusebius’ interpretation, according to which the Ιαμιν of the Septuagint means “water” in Syriac and Hebrew, whereas the other version gives “source” as the reading of “the Syrian”. Deconinck notes that in the Nicephoros-catena an unknown scholiast attributes the first version of the fragment to Diodore, the second one to Theodoret, but he adds: “ce témoignage n’a pourtant rien de décisif”.50 Thus it will have appeared that the authenticity of this fragment as part of Theodoret’s commentary is doubtful, but should it belong – in its second version – to this text, two things might be noted: 1) Theodoret does not take over Eusebius’ understanding, 2) there are reflections about the Syriac word for “source” connected with the reference to “the Syrian”. The last mentioned fact is valid also for the reference to 1 Kgs. 1,9.51 Here again the subject is the Syriac word for “source”; it is noted that “the Syrian” calls the source of Rogel Ἀïνὰ. Finally, quaestio 39 on 1 Kgs., concerned with 1 Kgs. 12,10, mainly consists of a reference to the parallel in Chronicles (2 Chr. 10,10). It is said that the reading here is clearer than that of 1 Kgs., and then it is added: “The Syrian interprets in the same way, as does also Josephus”.52 To summarize: Evidence about “the Syrian” of the historical writings of the Old Testament is very scarce in Theodoret. There are references to Syriac usage in other passages containing no references to “the Syrian”, as when e.g. we are informed – regarding 2 Kgs. 2,3 (quaestio 6)53 – that “son” is used in Syriac and Hebrew about a single specimen of a certain species, in this case “the sons of the prophets” = the prophets. Such cases are not too numerous, and as far as references to “the Syrian” are concerned, it can be concluded, that if questions of authenticity could be answered in the positive for Gen. 36,24, such references are usually connected with considerations of Syriac usage; the word “usually”, however, has no great strength when used about 2-3 cases out of 3-4. Even if we would therefore have to admit that our probings have not al-

49 Deconinck, Essai, 164f. 50 Deconinck, Essai, 165. 51 In Migne’s edition it is part of the last quaestio on 2 Sam. (No. 45), cf. PG 80,667s. 52 PG 80,704. 53 PG 80,748.

123

124

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

lowed us a very clear or full picture of Theodoret as a witness of “the Syrian”, on the other hand, it seems permissible to maintain that the “certainty” of Rahlfs’ “proof” has little background in an overall and unbiased evaluation of Theodoret’s references to Syriac language and “the Syrian”; therefore, at any rate, our excursus has given supplementary reasons for the point of view – to put it cautiously – that Theodoret’s quaestiones furnish very weak grounds for arguing against conclusions suggested by the Eusebian text as to what was “the Syrian” of the mid-4th century.

5. Conclusions In this paper an attempt has been made to show the importance of Eusebius of Emesa’s commentary on historical writings of the Old Testament, particularly in one respect: as evidence of “the Syrian” and of the fact that this version is in Syriac. This has been argued, firstly on the basis of the general impact of Eusebius’ references to linguistic questions and to Bible versions, esp. “the Hebrew” and “the Syrian”; secondly on the basis of numerical facts when counting his references to versions; and thirdly on distinctive interpretations that have been analyzed for their textual basis. Particular weight has been laid on the explanation of his reading of Gen. 39,2f, which makes it possible to invalidate one of the main reasons given for the theory of “the Syrian” being in Greek. It has been shown that the arguments of Montfaucon, Field and Rahlfs on this point are untenable, and that nothing prevents, indeed, facts rather strengthen the probability of the very natural assumption that “the Syrian” is in Syriac. In addition Rahlfs’ specific argument from Theodoret’s comments on Judg. 12,6 has been considered, and it has been shown that the “vollständige Sicherheit” of his proof is open to serious objections. Therefore it is hoped that this paper will have argued convincingly for the fact that it is important for patristic scholars as well as students of the Old Testament and of early Syrian church history to take account of Eusebius’ commentary, not least for its evidence about the Syriac Bible of the 4th century.

E

vidence of the Syriac Bible Translation in Greek Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries

In a recent article1 I have argued that the Bible version referred to as “the Syrian”, ὁ Σύρος, in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament can very clearly be shown to be a version of the Bible in Syriac. The main reason why it has been necessary to argue about what might very well be considered to be obvious, is that scholars of previous generations, particularly the Old Testament scholar Alfred Rahlfs, and before him the famous editor of the Hexapla, Frederick Field, and the renowned Patristic scholar and editor Bernard de Montfaucon have argued rather strongly that Patristic references to “the Syrian” concern a Greek version.2 One of their main arguments (concerning Gen. 39,2) can be disproved very directly on the basis of the evidence of Eusebius,3 and the reason why this was not seen by earlier scholars, is that Eusebius’ work has come down to us in Armenian and was not published until a few years ago;4 however, one of Rahlfs’ supplementary arguments (by himself described as “einen vollständig sicheren Beweis”) is based on a quaestio on Judg.12,6 in Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and I have felt obliged in the article referred to, to leave open the question whether it was feasible that the 5th century author, Theodoret, should have referred to the Syriac Bible version through an intermediary link in Greek, even if I suggested that to my mind this is by no means a necessary – or even probable – assumption.

1

Henning J. Lehmann, “The Syriac Translation of the Old Testament – as Evidenced around the Middle of the Fourth Century (in Eusebius of Emesa)”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 1, Aarhus 1987, pp. 66-86 [above, pp. 107ff].

2

For references cf. Lehmann, “The Syriac Translation”, p. 66 [above, p. 107], notes 1-3.

3

Cf. Lehmann, “The Syriac Translation”, pp. 78f [above, p. 117f].

4

Eusèbe d’Emèse, Commentaire de l’Octateuque, préparé par P. Vahan Hovhannessian, Mekhitariste, Venise-St. Lazare 1980. The Greek fragments of this text as published, e.g. in Robert Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois, Studi e Testi 201, Città del Vaticano 1959, do not contain Eusebius’ comments on Gen. 39,2f.

126

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

To these considerations of mine it can be added that Hans Norbert Sprenger in the introduction to his edition of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Minor Prophets touches upon the question of Rahlfs’ arguments,5 and he, too, voices serious doubts as to their reliability. Sprenger assumes Theodoret himself to be the author of the Greek renderings that are meant to illustrate dialectal differences in 5th century Syriac, and he adds, “dass rein philologisch orientierte Untersuchungen dem Problem des Σύρος kaum gerecht werden können”.6 What is perhaps even more important for a general evaluation of the evidence of Greek-writing fathers about “the Syrian”, is Sprenger’s statement, that it is obvious that Theodore of Mopsuestia considers ὁ Σύρος to be an unknown Syrian who translated the Hebrew Bible into Syriac.7 I see no reason to doubt this statement by Sprenger, and thus Theodore of Mopsuestia adds his testimony to that of Eusebius. Still, it remains an interesting question that is not answered in what has been said so far, what is the character and amount of evidence about “the Syrian” to be gained from Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ commentaries on writings of the Old Testament, and what I intend to do in the following pages, is to make a few comments on that question. First it is necessary to make a few remarks on Theodoret’s references to Bible versions in general and on figures and distribution. The main fact to be noted is that he very often refers to the three Greek versions: Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, in order to reach an understanding – if possible, a better understanding – of the text than that which can be gained from the Septuagint. For that purpose he also uses Josephus, the Jewish historian, and to a certain – modest – extent other extra-Biblical sources, such as presumably onomastica etc., or he refers from the Book of Kings to the Book of Chronicles, from a historical writing to one of the prophets etc. Often, particularly when the Septuagint reproduces a Hebrew word or phrase, he gives the Greek translation or solution of that element on the basis of one or more of the other versions and sources. About the Greek Bible versions Theodoret in a number of cases uses such summary indications as “the three” or “the other translators” – and the like,

5

Theodori Mopsuesteni commentarius in XII prophetas. Einleitung und Ausgabe von Hans Norbert Sprenger, Göttinger Orientforschungen, V. Reihe: Biblica et Patristica, Band 1, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 79-83. I owe the reference to Sprenger’s treatment of the question to Dr. Lucas van Rompay, Leiden.

6

Theodori comm. in XII proph., ed. Sprenger, p. 82.

7

Ibid.

E v i d e n c e o f t h e S y r i a c B i bl e T r a n sl a t i o n i n G r e e k F a t h e r s

but more often he refers to one, two or all three of the important versions by their names. In total – in my counting (on the basis of Migne’s text) – including the summary references – he refers to Aquila 285 times, Symmachus 489 times, Theodotion 165 times, and the Quinta 3 times. Against such high figures for the three stand 61 references to “the Hebrew” and a corresponding figure for “the Syrian”, viz. 62.8 Now, out of the 62 references to “the Syrian” 34 can be found in Theodoret’s commentary on Jeremiah (incl. Lamentations and Baruch) and 16 in his commentary on Ezekiel; so for the whole Old Testament outside these prophetic books there remain very few references to “the Syrian”. What should be noted in particular here, is that in the commentary on Jeremiah there is no reference at all to either Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion. Apart from Daniel, where there are no references to versions at all, the Jeremiah-commentary stands quite apart in this respect. It does so also, because such references to a Greek version of the Bible, as can be found here, refer to that version as one single entity, the Greek version.9 This difference between the Jeremiah-commentary and the rest of Theodoret’s commentaries on the Old Testament, of course, calls for considerations and explanations, primarily considerations of literary genre or – even more precisely – considerations of time and situation of the author at the time of the composition of one work and the other. Regarding the question of genre it can be mentioned – very briefly – that among Theodoret’s commentaries on writings of the Old Testament there are both quaestiones in loca difficilia and running commentaries commenting upon the full body of a Biblical book. It cannot be argued that quaestiones-commentaries, as might be expected, perhaps, have, proportionally, a greater share 8

I shall not here refer to the full statistic information behind the above counting, but only add three remarks: 1. A general reservation about the quality of Migne’s text might be apposite. 2. In some instances it may be a matter of discussion whether, what is here counted as a reference to “the Syrian” should be taken to apply to a Syrian author or to Syriac language and usage in general rather than to the Bible version as such. 3. Usually it seems obvious that such designations as “the other translators” (apart from such cases, where one of “the three” is explicitly excluded) concern “the three”, and do not include other translations. – However, even if such reservations as those made here mean that I do not insist on the absolute and final exactitude of the figures given above, I do find that for a general evaluation of the weight with which one version or the other appears in Theodoret, their evidence is clear enough.

9

Cf. esp. PG 81,580: in Jer. 12,5; PG 81,597: in Jer. 15,10; PG 81,660: in Jer. 31,2; PG 81,749: in Jer. 51,20 (Cf. also PG 81,566: in Jer. 8,6, for a closely related formula about the Greek version).

127

128

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

of references to the versions than do the others. It might be noted in passing that what appears in Migne as Theodoret’s commentary on Isaiah is in fact a collection of catena quotations, but this “commentary” does not stand out in particular when compared with the rest, as far as references to Bible versions are concerned. As there is thus no distinct difference to be noted between genres, I would rather turn to the question of the time and the particular situation of the author when composing, e.g. the Jeremiah-commentary, if that could be determined with any degree of probability. Permit me to suggest considering Theodoret’s situation in 448-449, when he was prohibited by imperial decree from going outside his diocese, as an occasion when he may have been deprived of the usual tools of his work (including the Hexapla) and thus a setting for the particular features of the commentary of Jeremiah. However, I must emphasize that this dating and explanation must for the time being remain entirely hypothetical. I find no reason, it should be added, to take the peculiarities of the Jeremiah-commentary to be reason enough to regard it as inauthentic, as there are contentual and other links with other writings by Theodoret. Therefore, it is the more interesting that the way in which Theodoret in the commentary on Jeremiah compares “the Syrian” with testimonies of the Greek translation (referred to in the singular) and with elements in Greek language, must in my evaluation leave the reader with a clear impression of the Greek being compared to a version in Syriac, i.e. presumably the vernacular of many of his readers or listeners; and even if this cannot be stated with the same degree of certainty for other Biblical commentaries by Theodoret (which may perhaps rather be intended for a Greek-speaking audience) with their scarcity of references to “the Syrian”, to my mind there is nothing against the view, that the impression gained from the commentary on Jeremiah – covering more than half of the references to “the Syrian” – holds true in general. As far as the general evaluation of Theodoret’s knowledge of Syriac is concerned, it is usually assumed that he is well versed in that language, whereas his knowledge of Hebrew is limited.10 On the basis of his commentaries on the Old Testament alone one could hardly find evidence for more than what might be called a working knowledge of both languages. As bishop of Cyrrhus and a brave fighter against the ecclesiastical use of

10 Cf. e.g. Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, vol. IV (repr. 1962), p. 221.

E v i d e n c e o f t h e S y r i a c B i bl e T r a n sl a t i o n i n G r e e k F a t h e r s

the Diatessaron he must, of course, have met with questions concerning the Syriac language and people speaking it, and he does, indeed, in a number of instances refer to Syriac usage – past and present. Incidentally, he is one of the authors to tell us that Syriac is the oldest language (for Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah, are Syriac names, he states), whereas he considers Hebrew to be the didactic-hieratic language of Moses.11 Leaving aside Theodoret’s assumptions in the field of history of language and turning again to his use of “the Syrian”, this in my evaluation can be described as basically different from that found in Eusebius of Emesa, even if a number of external features might be alike. Particularly, I would call attention to the fact that the great value and importance attached to “the Syrian” by Eusebius is based on the fact that Syriac, to use his own wording, is a neighbour language to Hebrew, the original language of the Bible.12 In one instance Theodoret uses the same terminology of Syriac being neighbour to Hebrew,13 but whereas this statement is of fundamental theological and hermeneutical significance in Eusebius and determinative for his exegetic practice, this is not the case in Theodoret. As mentioned already, this in no way prevents him from referring to Syriac usage – without necessarily referring to the Syriac Bible translation. In fact, he does so quite often, e.g. with a view to understanding names, figures, expressions of measure and weight, and extraordinary words and phrases in the Septuagint.14 In some cases he discusses grammatical gender and number etc. in Hebrew and Syriac; thus e.g. he discusses the phenomenon of plural words in Hebrew and Syriac over against the singular in Greek; and in one such instance he adds the following phrase: “such an interpretation I found in the Syrian”.15 To my mind it is unnatural to take such a phrase in such a context to refer to anything but a Bible version in Syriac; and therefore I find that other instances where this is not as clearly demonstrable as here should be read in the light of such an allegation. It may well be true that there is a

11 Cf. PG 80,165ff (quaestiones 60 and 61 on Genesis). For discussions of this topic in Syriac literature, cf. Lucas van Rompay, Le commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9,32 du manuscrit (olim) Diyarbakir 22, CSCO 483-484, Scriptores Syri 205-206, Louvain 1986, esp. vol. 484, p. 88, n. 9. 12 The Armenian word used is դրացի, cf. Eusèbe d’Emèse, Commentaire, p. 1. See Lehmann, “The Syriac Translation”, p. 73 [above, p. 113], note 24. 13 PG 81,1448 (l.9: ἡ Σύρων φωνὴ γειτνιάζουσα τῇ Ἑβραῖᾳ). The question is about the word φελμουνὶ in Dan. 8,13. 14 Comments upon expressions of measure and weight etc. are particularly frequent in the commentary on Ezekiel, and account for rather a great portion of the references to “the Syrian”. 15 PG 81,1221. The question is about αιλαμ, αιλαμὼθ and θεε, θεείμ in Ezek. 40,7ff.

129

130

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

certain lack of clarity, and, indeed, a lack of numerical and theological weight attached to Theodoret’s references to “the Syrian”, especially when compared with Eusebius, and these circumstances may – in the clothing of Theodoret’s Greek – have contributed to the false assumptions about the language of this version. However, considering Theodoret’s use of Bible versions in general and of “the Syrian” in particular with a view to his use and knowledge of languages as described quite briefly in this paper, I would, indeed, find it justifiable to summarize and conclude in stressing four points: 1. Leaving aside the particular question of how to explain the differences between the commentary on Jeremiah (and Lamentations) on one hand, that on Ezekiel in a middle position, and the rest of his commentaries on the other hand, it can be stated in general that the amount of evidence in Theodoret about “the Syrian” is rather modest; 2. I leave it to experts to decide whether his knowledge of Syriac is deep – and whether it is much deeper than that of Hebrew; 3. There are in his commentaries on writings of the Old Testament a number of hints (even if not a great number) to the fact that the language of “the Syrian” is Syriac. Therefore the often quoted view that it is Greek should and could not be maintained through references to Theodoret. 4. There is hardly any reason to assume an intermediary link – Greek or Syriac – between Theodoret and “the Syrian” as his source. Of course, he must coin his renderings of the Syriac of “the Syrian” in his own Greek, and nothing excludes the possibility that he may in certain instances have taken over what had already been said by his teachers or other authorities – possibly including comments upon readings of “the Syrian”. In any case, an unbiased reading of Theodoret’s references to “the Syrian” would to my mind lead to the view that considered as a witness to “the Syrian” he belongs to the series of authors referred to in this paper; in other words: Eusebius of Emesa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus must be considered to testify to one unbroken chain of Greek evidence to the Syriac Bible translation, a chain chronologically stretching from some time before the middle of the 4th century to a time around the middle of the 5th century, a chain, indeed, where different links have different appearances.

T

he Question of the Syrian Background of the Early Armenian Church once again Some Methodological Remarks

It lies in the very nature of the origins of the Armenian church that it is relevant and appropriate to look for both Greek and Syrian sources of inspiration and contacts on many levels and in many fields, those of exegesis, ecclesiastical law, liturgical language and so on. Also outside the ecclesiastical sphere related and parallel questions must be asked about influences upon Armenian architecture, language, crafts and trade etc. The purpose of this paper is not to give a historical survey of the attempts to assess the amounts of Greek and Syrian influx, nor to evaluate on a broad scale the trends in recent research that stress the Armenian-Syrian relations, nor those that point in an opposite direction. Rather, my purpose is modest – and twofold: 1) to venture into the rash and dubious enterprise of asking a couple of simple questions concerning fields where I can claim no specific competence, viz. the history of art and the history of liturgy; 2) to illustrate the complexity of the questions in fields where I hope to have some competence to choose illustrating examples, viz. the field of patristics and that of the history of the New Testament. To me as a non-expert one of the most fascinating areas of progress in Armenian studies is that of the history of art and architecture. The number of publications in recent years has been overwhelming, and the amount of work in measuring, depicting, describing, and interpreting remnants of early Armenian churches certainly calls for admiration. Some of the intriguing features of Armenian ecclesiastical architecture are connected with the “bye-rooms” of the churches, “gavits”, “žamatuns” etc. A kind of fore-court or “external nave” on the southern side of the church is often supposed to be a feature of Syrian origin, and I am sure investigators have good reasons for this assumption, reasons of an archaeological and geographical order, such as the findings of corresponding architectural elements in the Syrian area.

132

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Purely geographically speaking, questions of the precise borders of what is called Syria could presumably easily be answered, and the amount of archaeological remnants so far identified could be registered; even a non-expert might be able to find his way through the literature to relevant information. More intriguing, however, is the question of interpreting the function of the architectural element in question. Here the art historian must turn to the history of liturgy, and it seems to me important to raise the question: Is there sufficient textual basis for hypotheses set forth about the function of the southern “forecourt” in a specifically Syrian introduction to the mass or in specifically Syrian practises in relation to sacraments? Answers to these questions might then, eventually, lead to further questions, e.g. about any Armenian preference for elements from specifically Syrian churches and so forth, but the basic question is: What is an art historical, architectural syriacism? Having bordered upon the history of liturgy I should like to ask a couple of questions concerning this field. They, too, amount to asking about the definition of “syriacisms”. If, for the field of architecture and art history, I formulated my questions on a very broad basis, in the context of the history of liturgy my basis for asking the questions is much more narrow, as I take my starting point in one single paper by Gabriele Winkler about a “noticeable passage in the Armenian creed”1. In the subtitle of this paper, the credal passage in question is quoted: credimus et in Sanctum Spiritum qui descendit in Jordanem proclamavit missum2; and Gabriele Winkler is mainly concerned with this mention of Jesus’ baptism in certain Armenian creeds and the function of the Holy Ghost in that event, for which she tends to point to a Syrian background. Gabriele Winkler certainly points to a number of interesting texts, e.g. passages where Ephraem underlines the significance of Jesus’ baptism. But the only texts outside the Armenian tradition, where the credal elements as such are clearly identified, are Epiphanius’ Ancoratus, and the pseudoAthanasian Hermeneia, whose place of origin is unknown. As supplementary evidence for a creed containing in the third article elements about Jesus as the apostle – the one sent by the Father – or about the Spirit descending on the river Jordan or proclaiming through the prophets, Gabriele Winkler refers to Justin, Aphraates, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Cyril of Jerusalem, i.e. 1) a

1

Gabriele Winkler, “Eine bemerkenswerte Stelle im armenischen Glaubensbekenntnis”, Oriens Christianus 63, 1979, pp. 130-162.

2 Other readings instead of proclamavit missum are “proclaimed to (or: through) the apostles” (i.e. missis/apostolis).

T h e

Q u e s t i o n

o f

t h e

S y r i a n

B a ck g r o u n d

second century apologist born in Palestine and with Greek as his vernacular, 2) the “Persian Sage” who of course wrote in Syriac – around the middle of the fourth century, 3) a canonical-liturgical collection that is often believed to stem from Antioch, i.e. a city where the population was mixed as in few others, linguistically, sociologically and liturgically, in the churches presumably mainly Greek-speaking, and 4) the famous bishop of Jerusalem about the middle of the fourth century. It should be noted that for Cyril’s creed – and for other texts – Gabriele Winkler uses the term “Syro-Palestinian” about their locality, and it could be added that in cases where clear evidence is not at hand, it is stimulating – and necessary – to try to find the hidden traces; indeed, my remarks should not be understood as an unfair criticism of Gabriele Winkler; she has indeed raised a number of stimulating questions, in this paper as well as elsewhere. However, even allowing for her hypothesis that some liturgical and dogmatic traditions – among them Syrian elements – were suppressed as heretical in the fourth century, not least in Jerusalem, and that it may be possible to find some of their traces in Syrian and Armenian literature, and for the fact that a number of highly interesting Syrian texts – other than creeds – are taken into account, where the motive of the sending of Christ by the Father and the significance of Jesus’ baptism are given a central place, I find that the same simple question as that addressed to the art historian can be asked within the history of liturgy: What exactly is a liturgical syriacism? And against the background of the paper by Gabriele Winkler here referred to, this question could be specified in – among others – the following items: Do the well-known liturgical connections between Jerusalem and Armenia count as such? Does material originating from Antioch count as such? With how many Syrian and Palestinian “schools” should we reckon? And to which of them did the Armenians turn? Which Armenians and when? Let me now turn to fields where I hope to be able to answer – or at any rate specify – some of the questions about “syriacisms”. I first turn to the history of the Bible text. Here it should be quite easy to define a Syrian element, as that must be a reading in the Armenian Bible, the presence of which can only be understood on the assumption of a Syrian Vorlage. The reason why I have commenced in other areas is that it seems to me that in some cases linguistic syriacisms are used as evidence of textual syriacisms; by including other areas of research I did not only want to broaden the principal scope of my paper, but first and foremost I wanted to find support for an exhortation about the necessity of respecting the limits of each area. I have tried elsewhere to substantiate my statement about the untenable

133

134

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

use of linguistic syriacisms in text-historical arguments, particularly the reasons that led Louis Leloir to his answer “probably yes” to the question of a Syrian Vorlage for the Armenian Epistle of James3. Leloir gave his opinion in the Münster manual of the old translations of the New Testament4. I shall not here repeat my discussion of Leloir’s arguments. I shall just resume – and expand – one point, where the questions of method and principle to my mind appear very clearly. I am thinking of the Armenian vocabulary of salvation. In James 1,21 the Greek verb σῶσαι is rendered in the Armenian version through կեցուցանել, which is an evident syriacism, and the theological significance of this fact is commented upon by Leloir in some considerations about the Semitic languages, partly taken over from Joseph Molitor5. Here it is particularly asserted that the vocabulary of salvation in the Semitic languages and also other elements of their religious or theological vocabulary is much more “dynamic” than e.g. Greek; it is further maintained that Armenian and Georgian translations in a number of cases have taken over the dynamics of the Semitic languages, particularly from Syriac. On this basis the text-historical conclusion is drawn that this linguistic fact points towards a Syrian Vorlage of the Armenian Epistle of James. Now, for one thing, it can be demonstrated very easily that if the linguistic argument quoted – of a translational loan – carried any weight in text history, the conclusion should have been the opposite, as Js. 1,21 is one out of five instances in the epistle, where σώζω is used, but the only one where կեցուցանեմ is used in the Armenian version6. However, the Peshitta uses ‫ ܚܝܐ‬for σώζω four times in the Epistle of James, so there is no specific correspondence between the choice of words in the Syrian and the Armenian Bible, i.e. there is no specific textual correspondence. The perspective can be further widened, when taking the whole of the New Testament into account. This certainly shows that in the Peshitta ‫ ܚܝܐ‬is the fa-

3

Henning Lehmann, “Some Questions concerning the Armenian Version of the Epistle of James”, in Aarhus Armeniaca, Acta Jutlandica 57, Aarhus 1982, pp. 57-82 (hereafter Lehmann, “Armenian James”) [above, pp. 37ff].

4

K. Aland, ed., Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare, Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 5, Münster 1972. (Leloir’s contribution is found on pp. 300-313.)

5

Joseph Molitor: Grundbegriffe der Jesusüberlieferung im Lichte ihrer orientalischen Sprachgeschichte, Düsseldorf 1968, see esp. Leloir, p. 307.

6

Cf. Lehmann, “Armenian James”, p. 80, Table 7 [above, p. 64].

T h e

Q u e s t i o n

o f

t h e

S y r i a n

B a ck g r o u n d

vourite word for σώζειν (86 out of 107 cases). In Armenian կեամ/ կեցուցանեմ accounts for only 30 of the 107 cases, փրկեմ for 25, ապրիմ / ապրեցուցանեմ for 48, and 4 further verbs for the 4 remaining cases7. Considering the situ ation on Syrian ground it is no wonder that 29 out of the 30 cases with կեամ / կեցուցանեմ correspond to ‫ ܚܝܐ‬in Syriac – but that is of little interest in a text-historical argument. A thorough-going investigation of the Semitic vocabulary of salvation should above all include Biblical Hebrew, it seems to me. By far the most frequent verb for “salvation” in the Hebrew Bible is ‫ישע‬. In the Syriac Bible, there is a clear preference for ‫ ;ܚܝܐ‬so in this case it seems unwise to treat the Semitic languages as a whole. As regards the Syrian Bible, the second most important word is ‫ܦܪܩ‬, at any rate, when you count the derivatives of it, which are nearly always used for the nouns: saviour and salvation. In Armenian ‫ ܦܪܩ‬appears as the loanword փրկեմ, and in Armenian as in Syriac this is by far the most frequent stem in the nouns: փրկիչ for saviour, փրկութիւն for salvation. There is thus, certainly, very clear linguistic evidence in the Armenian vocabulary of salvation of Syrian inspiration and influence; and it would be of high value for a general and overall estimation of the cultural processes of the Armenians’ absorption of Syrian and other elements, if historians of language could tell us, firstly at what time and in what environment the loanword փրկեմ and the translational loan կեցուցանեմ for “save” obtained their Armenian naturalization, and secondly whether and how and why preferences changed with the times. I suppose that it would be difficult to answer the first question, that of time and environment, as the borrowing must presumably have taken place before the invention of the Armenian alphabet, i.e. before the fifth century. Concerning the second set of questions – those of the reasons for choosing one word or the other, I have made a few observations of very modest scope, which will here be submitted for discussion. If we first turn to the gospels for more specific information, we could ascertain that out of the 18 (or 19) cases where the verb կեամ / կեցուցանեմ is chosen to translate σώζω, 7 of them occur in healing narratives in the formula: “Your faith has cured you”:

7

Cf. ibid., p. 77, Table 6 [above, p. 62].

135

136

s t u d e n t s

Mt. 9,22

o f

≠

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

Mk. 5,34

≠

Lk. 8,48

Mk. 10,52

≠

Lk. 18,42

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Lk. 7,50 Lk. 17,19

In 6 cases it occurs as the contrast of Greek ἀπόλλυμι / Armenian կորուսանեմ, in such contexts as e.g.: “Whoever cares for his own safety is lost”: Mt. 16,25

≠

Lk. 9,24

Mt. 18,11

(≠)

Lk. 19,10 Lk. 9,56

In 3 cases the verb occurs in the formula: “The man who holds out to the end will be saved”: Mt. 10,22; 24,13; Mk. 13,13

For a translator having three words at his disposal, which may be described as close synonyms, the final choice may be determined by a number of factors; first, I should think, the specific semantic connotation of each of the words. This to my mind would account for the choice of կեամ to contrast կորուսանեմ / ἀπόλλυμι. It should be noted, however, that at the time of the translation of the gospels, the choice of word had not yet been standardized, as can be seen from the fact, that the parallel in Mark to Mt. 16,25 and Lk. 9,24 (Mk. 8,35) has ապրեցուցանեմ. Secondly, it seems that a certain amount of tradition or setting of a common standard had made itself felt already at that time, as appears from the standardized choice in the phrase: “Your faith has cured you”. Thus it is interesting to note that in the closest context of this phrase in Mt. 9,22, the verb փրկեմ is used: “(v. 21) for she said to herself, “If I can only touch his cloak, I shall be cured” (փրկիմ). (v. 22) But Jesus turned and saw her, and said, “Take heart, my daughter; your faith has cured you” (կեցուցին). And from that moment she recovered (փրկեցաւ)”. That there is a process of standardizing going on, can be further demonstrated, if we leave the New Testament and look at one of the few texts which have twice been translated into Armenian. I am thinking of one of the homilies

T h e

Q u e s t i o n

o f

t h e

S y r i a n

B a ck g r o u n d

by Severian of Gabala, occurring both in pure classical Armenian8 and in a more “Hellenizing” translation9. As concerns the verb σώζω, which occurs only twice in the Greek text10, the two translations agree in choosing the rendering ապրիմ / ապրեցուցանեմ. But for the noun σωτηρία, the primary translation has ապրանք, a derivative of ապրիմ, whereas the secondary translation has փրկութիւն; and in the four cases where the noun σωτήρ occurs, the secondary translation has փրկիչ in all cases, the primary translation in only one. In the other three cases the primary translation reads: Քրիստոս (= Christ), տէր (= Lord), and տեառնորդին աստուած (= Son of the Lord God, incidentally, a very interesting christological title). These variations to my mind take us into a field which I would call the semantics of religious language, or the semantic and emotional variations according to variations of devotional and liturgical practise. To quote a modern parallel: One could often guess whether a Protestant preacher belongs to an evangelical, a fundamentalist, a high church or another movement from his preference for certain nomina sacra or “christological titles”. In another text, which I have had the opportunity to comment upon, viz. the double translation of one of Eusebius of Emesa’s homilies, into Armenian and Latin respectively, there is rather a large amount of variation in the use of nomina sacra and christological titles. Here the inner ears of both the translators seem to have adapted to the devotional or liturgical idiom of their environments11. To illustrate the variety and the choice of words at the time, to which the translation of Eusebius’ and Severian’s homilies belongs, the words chosen to translate σώζω and derivatives will be listed here – in those cases, where the Greek original is preserved, i.e. for homilies IX and XII in the Akinian collection12. In the ninth homily σωτήρ is found twice, once rendered through տէր 8 No. XI of the homilies edited by N. Akinian under the name of Eusebius of Emesa (“Die Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa”, Handes Amsorya 70-73, 1956-59. No. XI is found in Handes Amsorya 73, 1959, cols. 1-30) [cf. below, pp. 141ff]. 9

This version is published under the name of John Chrysostom in the Venice Mechitharists’ edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistles of S. Paul, vol. II, Venice 1862, pp. 694-715.

10 The Greek original of the homily is found in PG 59,653-664 (CPG 4202). 11 The homily in question is no. II in the series edited by N. Akinian (cf. note 8), Handes Amsorya 70, 1956, cols. 385-416. For my comments cf. Henning J. Lehmann, Per Piscatores. Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975, see esp. pp. 45-102. 12 Cf. note 8. Homily IX: Handes Amsorya 72, 1958, cols. 161-182; Homily XII: Handes Amsorya 73, 1959, cols. 161-182.

137

138

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

(= Lord), once through կենարար, σωτήριος is rendered կենդանացուծիչ. In the twelfth homily there are a number of lacunae, so out of the five cases where the verb σώζω is used, only two find their parallels in the Armenian version, both with կեամ / կեցուցանեմ, and σωτήρ is rendered կենարար. In other words, apart from the first mentioned instance, all cases have a derivative of կեամ. Certainly, this material is modest in quantity, but even so, the examples seem to me to illustrate that in this connection a lot of consideration needs to be given to questions of the psychology of language, of devotional and liturgical traditions, of the technique of translators, and, indeed, of the development of the Armenian language in the early centuries of Armenian literature, before a clear-cut description could be given of the factors that determined the choice of words within e.g the vocabulary of salvation in a certain text, let alone that of nomina sacra and christological titles. To use the modern parallel once again, the pietist who spoke much more of “Jesus” and “the blood of the Lamb” than of “Christ” and “the Lord”, and much more about the Son than about the Father and the Holy Ghost, was little aware of the etymology of his favourite words. When the question of syriacisms is seen in this perspective, the Armenian person or community – whether a Christian congregation or a pagan group – who first took over ‫ ܦܪܩ‬and made it into փրկեմ and those who modelled կեցուցանեմ on the afel of ‫ ܚܝܐ‬were certainly under Syrian influence; but the translator of a liturgy or a homily or a gospel who used one or other of the words – or preferred a third possibility – generations later, was influenced by a number of factors such as those hinted at above, and his choice of one of the words of Syrian origin could certainly not be taken as evidence of the language in his Vorlage. Incidentally and parenthetically our translator’s modern colleague should – to my taste – avoid such renderings as vivificare or lebendig-machen for կեցուցանեմ; the Armenian translators usually made a clear difference between σώζω, to save, and ζωοποιέω, to vivify13, and that difference should not be blurred. It may be appropriate to conclude this paper with an apology, because I have called attention to a number of truisms. Certain observations of the scholarly discussion of the question of Syrian influence on Armenian church

13 Cf. Lehmann, “Armenian James”, p. 80, Table 8 [above, p. 65].

T h e

Q u e s t i o n

o f

t h e

S y r i a n

B a ck g r o u n d

history and culture and of the definition of a syriacism and the consequences to be drawn from syriacisms in one field when asking questions in another, however, seemed to me to make it appropriate, even necessary, to elicit such truisms. A full picture of Armenian ecclesiastical and cultural history can of course only be drawn on the basis of some kind of synthesis of the various elements of that church and that culture; what I have tried to argue is, for one thing, that when we speak of Syrian influence, we ought to be very precise about what we mean by that, and for another, that a sound synthesis can be reached only on the basis of analyses respecting within each field the laws and demands of that field. A mixture of arguments from various fields and of premature attempts to synthesize will only serve to make the attempted full and final synthesis opaque, and opacity should be avoided.

139

What Translators Veil and Reveal Observations on two Armenian Translations of one Greek Homily

1. Introduction The homily, referred to under the title: In Chananaeam et in Pharaonem; et quod non volentis neque currentis, sed miserentis sit Dei (PG 59,653-664), which is – as are so many homilies – in the Greek manuscript tradition handed down to us under the name of John Chrysostom, is in Maurice Geerard’s Clavis Pa trum Graecorum rightly placed as No. 4202, i.e. under the name of Severian of Gabala.1 The attribution to Severian is due to B. Marx,2 whose views were accepted by later scholars, in particular H.-D. Altendorf.3 In my book Per Piscatores I added a few internal arguments to those brought forward by Marx;4 Ι further argued5 that the very occurrence of the homily in the series of five Armenian homilies by Severian edited by N. Akinian in 1958-596 (where his name – Seberianos – occurs in the title of two of the homilies), added external arguments for the attribution to Severian.7

1

M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, II, Corpus Christianorum, Turnhout 1974.

2

B. Marx, “Severiana unter den Spuria Chrysostomi bei Montfaucon-Migne”, Orientalia Christiana

3

H.-D. Altendorf, Untersuchungen zu Severian von Gabala (Diss.) Tübingen 1957.

4

Henning J. Lehmann, Per Piscatores. Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eu-

Periodica 5, 1939, 281-367.

sebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975 (hereafter quoted: Per Piscatores), see esp. p. 319-327. 5

Cf. also Henning ]. Lehmann, “The Attribution of certain Pseudo-Chrysostomica to Severian of Gabala confirmed by the Armenian Tradition”, Studia Patristica X, ed. F.L. Cross, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 107, Berlin 1970, 121-130 (hereafter quoted: Attribution).

6

N. Akinian, “Die Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa”, Handes Amsorya, 1956-1959. Homilies I-VIII of this collection are by Eusebius of Emesa, homilies IX-XIII by Severian of Gabala, cf. Per Piscatores.

7

Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 319.

142

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

In Per Piscatores I added a few additional comments on the interesting fact that this homily has been translated twice into Armenian. The translation different from that published by Akinian was edited by the Mechitharists of Venice in 1862 – here as in the Greek transmission as a homily by John Chrysostom.8 Below, I shall register some of the characteristics of the two translations in order to illustrate, on the basis of the early history of this text, some problems and questions of translation in Antiquity – some of them well-known, indeed – and to emphasize the importance of taking the different text-historical stages (including those of translations) into account when handling the existing manuscript material, Greek and Armenian. It should be underlined here already that I have made no investigations of the manuscript material as such; what is said below will not take us further than is possible on the basis of the editions of the Armenian texts mentioned above and Migne’s edition of the Greek text.

2. Differences between the two translations, and their relation to the Greek For reasons of space the following paragraph cannot give an exhaustive description of the linguistic features and other characteristics of each of the two translations. What shall be attempted is to draw the attention to some of the differences and correspondences in grammar and syntax, vocabulary and style, the handling of Biblical material, and the disposition of the text. Through this selective description it is hoped that the profiles of the two translators will appear a little more clearly. Hopefully, some insights will also be gained which may be of value for future investigators into the history of the text, and help clarify which methods should be applied when using such material as the two Armenian translations in the attempt to bridge the gap between the original author of the late 4th and early 5th century and the theologian and historian of today, who wants to take advantage of the text transmission in its full breadth in order to understand, primarily Severian’s message and context, and in the second place the historical and theological background of those who wanted to make his homily available in the Armenian vernacular for their congregations. 8

J.B. Aucher, ed., Յովհաննու Ոսկեբերանի Կոստանդնուպօլսի Եպիսկոպոսապետի Մեկնութիւն Թղթոցն Պօղոսի, Venice 1862. Our homily is found in vol. 2, p. 694-715.

W hat

T ranslators

V eil

and

R eveal

2.1. Grammar and Syntax In this section only one very prominent feature distinguishing the two translations shall be pointed out, viz. the way in which they handle Greek participles. This can be done in a way sufficient to our purpose through a mere counting. In the Greek text as published by Migne there are in my counting 273 participial constructions. The various ways of rendering these constructions by the Armenian translators are shown in the following table, where A (as will be the case in the following) is used for the Akinian text – or its translator, B for the text of the Aucher-edition of 1862 – or the translator behind this version. A

B

Armenian participle with -եալ

47

74

Armenian participle with -ող

4

16

Armenian participle with -իչ

3

3

Armenian participle with -ոց

2

2

Armenian infinitive in the instrumental case Armenian relative clause Other possibilities Rest

4

32

37

69

103

64

73

13

273

273

The most remarkable differences are those concerning the use of the Armenian infinitive in the instrumental case and of the Armenian participle with -եալ. In a brief description such as this I find it permissible to say that the Armenian translator B considers the infinitivus instrumentalis as a participium conjunctum, so the two figures taken together show the tendency in B of choosing whenever possible a “participle” to render a participle. Thus this feature in itself already reveals the B translator’s wish to make a direct tracing of the Greek, and thereby it is already suggested that he is closer to the “Hellenistic School” than translator A. The renderings referred to under the headings “relative clause” and “other possibilities” can be said to be the counterpart to the two groups of “participles” first mentioned. Again translator B more often than A chooses the closest “paraphrastic” rendering, that of the relative clause as compared with other possibilities. And the figure 103 for “other possibilities” – showing that

143

144

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

translator A in more than a third of all cases chooses a “paraphrase” other than a “participle” or relative clause – may justify my use in Per Piscatores of the words “slavish” and “paraphrastic” for B and A, respectively, even if, admittedly, as shown above, also translation B in some cases must be said to use some modest kind of paraphrase.9 Two further observations might above all illustrate the limitations of this survey. The relatively very great differences concerning participles with -ող reveal that a more thorough investigation should – obviously – among other things take into account whether the Greek has a past or a present participle. Finally, it should be noted here that the reason why there is such a great number in A as 73 referred to under the heading “Rest” (against 13 in B) is mainly due to the fact that A (as opposed to B) has nothing to correspond with the introductory section of the Greek homily (amounting to about two and a half Migne columns) (cf. below, section 2.4.).

2.2. Vocabulary and Style The first of our selective probings into the vocabularies of the two translators will concern the rendering of Greek components with εὐ-, as it is evident, even at a first glance, that translator B, wherever possible, prefers a rendering with Armenian բար- and also the rendering of other parts of the words in question reveals this tendency to make a direct tracing or calque of the Greek – once again hinting at his “Hellenistic” affinities. In the following survey – after giving the Greek word – I therefore first list the rendering in translation B. The figure following shows the number of occurrences in B. Then for comparison – the renderings and number of occurrences in translation A are given. When words are given in parenthesis or quoted in the grammatical case or conjugation of the text, it either indicates that doubts can be raised whether we are dealing with a direct and proper rendering or a more paraphrastic reproduction, or the form, construction and context of the word is thought to give some hint about the translator’s technique or about the need of further consideration of e.g. the textual Vorlage.

9

Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 323-325.

W hat

T ranslators

V eil

εὐγένεια

B: բարետոհմութիւն: 7 A: ազնուականութիւն: 7

εὐγνωμονέω

B: բարեմտեմ, բարեմտութեամբ: 2 A: 0

εὐγνωμοσύνη

B: բարեմտութիւն: 2 A: բարք: 1

εὐεργεσία

B: բարեգործութիւն: 5 A: բարերարութիւն / (զամենայն) երախտաւոր բարերարութիւնսն / (երախտաւորեալ) զերախտիսն: 3

εὐεργετέω

B: բարեգործեմ: 1 A: 0

εὐεργέτης

B: ի բարեգործութենէն (2), բարեգործ (1): 3 A: կենարար: 1

εὐνοέω

B: բարեմիտ: 1 A: 0

εὐνοία

B: բարեմտութիւն: 2 A: 0

εὐνοϊκός

B: բարեմտութիւն: 2 A: 0

εὐσέβεια

B: բարեպաշտութիւն: 2 A: աստուածպաշտութիւն: 5

εὐφημία

B: բարեբանութիւն: 4 A: 0

and

R eveal

The fairly great number of instances where A has fewer occurrences than B or none at all are mainly due to the difference in length mentioned already (cf. below, section 2.4.). The wording “wherever possible” above mainly refers to the fact that certain words with εὐ- (among them words representing the central Biblical and liturgical vocabulary) seem to have found renderings in the Armenian which even the B translator – as a matter of course – had to respect. I have listed the following occurrences of that kind:

145

146

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

εὐαγγελικός

B: աւետարանական: 2 A: 0

εὐγνώμων

B: գեղեցիկ: 1 A: 0

εὐλογέω

B: աւրհնեմ: 1 A: աւրհնեմ: 1

εὐπαράδεκτος

B: դիւրընկալ: 1 A: (հասարակն պատուեալ): 1

εὐφραίνω

B: զուարճացուցանեմ: 1 A: 0

εὐχαριστέω

B: գոհանամ: 1 (Greek: 2) A: 0

εὐχαριστἰα

B: գոհութիւն: 2 A: 0

εὔχρηστος

B: պիտանի: 1 A: (պիտանացու ի պէտս): 1

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

The lists speak for themselves. Particularly, it could be said, the translations of such words as εὐγένεια and εὐσέβεια set apart the two translators as having their base in classical Armenian vocabulary (A) and an “artificial” vocabulary directly reproducing the Greek (B), respectively. Also a listing of the translations of πρό and compounds with προ- sets the two translators apart, one (A) having a preference for յառաջ with derivations, the other (B) for կանխաւ and compounds with կանխ-, and for նախ- with derivations. Figures are as follows: A

B

առաջագոյն

23

17

յառաջ etc.

15

9

առաջի

2

0

կանխաւ, կանխա-

1

23

նախ etc.

0

15

Rest

4

0

45

64

Here it would be less evident on semantic grounds to point out a classical or “Hellenizing” element in one translator or the other, but again it is evident that the linguistic background of the two translators differs widely. I am not

W hat

T ranslators

V eil

and

R eveal

capable of judging whether one could here introduce the notion of “dialectal differences”. One of the instances of εὐ-words could lead us to a further observation on the different trends in the two translators’ choice of words. I am thinking of the one case where A translates εὐεργέτης: կենարար over against B’s Greek calque: բարեգործ. This to my mind takes us to the very important part of any ecclesiastical translator’s vocabulary: that of God’s names and Christ’s “titles”. In Per Piscatores10 I noted that the Greek homily uses σωτήρ 15 times. In all these instances B has փրկիչ. Ten of the occurrences are in the part of the homily not to be found in A. But the five remaining cases show an extreme richness and variation in A, in so far as the following “translations” are used: Քրիստոս, տէր, տեառնորդին աստուած, փրկիչ, տէրն եւ աստուած. The reason for using quotation marks around the word “translations”, is the consideration that should obviously be made here: whether at least part of this variety was to be found in the Greek Vorlage for translation A. If it is not all accounted for in the Greek Vorlage (which we may never know), the vocabulary would presumably take us to the liturgical, ecclesiastical and religious “milieu” of the translator; and what may be the most interesting element in our present context is the occurrence of the very rare “Christological title” տեառնորդի. As mentioned in Per Piscatores11 this title occurs 5 times in the Eusebius homilies and 4 times in the Severian homilies of the Akinian collection. Thus e.g. in the quotation of Mt. 21,16 in the Severian homily No. 13 of the collection, the mere “Jesus” of the Bible text is replaced by փրկիչն տեառնորդի. If the translation of this collection of homilies is due to one unknown Armenian translator, the description of this element as belonging to his “ecclesiastical background and milieu”, of course, only gives us little help – if any – to identify the origin and history of this interesting “title” of Christ. But even if we are not now able to determine more closely the historical genesis and theological emphasis of such an Armenian word, it would indeed be 10 Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 322. For a broader discussion of elements in the Armenian vocabulary of salvation, cf. also: Henning J. Lehmann, “Some Questions concerning the Armenian Version of the Epistle of James”, Aarhus Armeniaca, Acta Jutlandica LVII, Aarhus 1982, p. 57-82, esp. p. 76-80 [above, pp. 61ff], and Henning J. Lehmann, “The Question of the Syrian Background of the Early Armenian Church once again. Some Methodological Remarks”, Studia Patristica XVIII.4, ed. E.A. Livingstone, Kalamazoo 1990, p. 255-262, esp. p. 257-261 [above, pp. 137ff]. 11 Per Piscatores, p. 322, note 2.

147

148

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

quite unsatisfactory to maintain that the nomina sacra of the homily are there by accident, and even if the anonymity of the translator as a person should never be disclosed, some insights into his background and context might be obtainable – and important. The borderline between the analysis of vocabulary, the assessment of stylistic features and the evaluation of a translator’s technique could and should not be drawn too strictly. The following element might most often be referred to as “stylistic ornament”. I am thinking of a point in S. Lyonnet’s characterization of the vetus armena-translation of the Bible, by Lyonnet called arm 1: “Au lieu d’écrire “l’Egypte, Jérusalem, Israël, la Galilée …”, arm 1 préfère les tournures suivantes: “la terre des Égyptiens …”, “les régions des Galiléens … “.12 This phenomenon is listed by Lyonnet as one of the “criteria” with which to define a vetus armena gospel reading. In our homily it can be observed that in a quotation of 1 Sam. 4,8, translator A in fact translates τὴν Αἴγυπτον: զերկիրն եգիպտացւոց. (B, as was to be expected, has the mere զԵգիպտոսն). What is more interesting, maybe, for our purpose is that in a context where no Bible quotation is concerned, our translator A renders ἐν τῇ Ρώμῃ through ի հռոմայեցւոց քաղաքին. A little later on, ἐν τῇ Ρώμῃ is rendered յայսպիսի քաղաքի. (B, in both cases has ի Հռովմէ). The interest of these details is that they link our translator, not necessarily (or only) to a certain Bible translation, but to the traditions or “techniques” of translation among the translators responsible for that version. Thus, we may through this observation have identified one element in his “profile” or “milieu”.

2.3. Biblical Material Used Considerations of space exclude any detailed examination of the Bible text used in the two translations. However, having touched upon the stylistic element that seems to connect translation A with the vetus armena, it might be appropriate to add a few remarks about Biblical material used in the homily. The first remark is of rather a formal character. In relation to my references to Per Piscatores it seems appropriate to note that in my examination of the 13 homilies of the Akinian collection I gave particular attention to the gospel quotations. The study of the Biblical material used in the homilies was restricted in two ways. For one thing, when only gospel quotations were considered, this 12 S. Lyonnet, Les origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron, Biblica et Orientalia 13, Rome 1950, p. 53. Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 323.

W hat

T ranslators

V eil

and

R eveal

was due to the fact that the gospels represent the area where – considering the present state of research – elements of a vetus syra and/or a vetus armena stratum could be identified with the greatest degree of probability. Secondly, it should be noted that the quotations were only – or mainly – considered for their value as criteria in the discussion of the question of authorship. For the eight homilies belonging to Eusebius of Emesa (Nos. I-VIII) the representation of vetus syra elements corresponding to related phenomena in Latin translations of homilies by Eusebius to my mind constitutes an important part of the argument for Eusebius’ authorship.13 For Severian, however, the amount of gospel quotations is small, and few clear characteristics other than those of favourite quotations and exegetic topics could be used to compare the Armenian homilies with existing Greek homilies. In the homily under consideration there are very few gospel quotations. Again translation B usually, rather “slavishly” follows the Greek. One interesting exception shall be touched upon a little later on. Translation A is again rather “free” compared with both the Greek homily, and the Greek and Armenian Bible. Probings into the existing Greek manuscript material14 do not so far seem very promising for a discovery of a precise Vorlage for translation A, so I shall here – cautiously – confine myself to quoting a few examples that might be taken to illustrate translator A’s affinity to a certain Armenian tradition. In Mt. 18,17 the ἔσται of the Greek (B and Zohrab: եղիցի) is rendered in A: համարեալ լիցի. This reading is shared with the Armenian translation of Chrysostom and Aphraates (as well as the Syriac text of Aphraates) and according to Lyonnet has its origin in the vetus syra.15 In Mt. 22,29 the two verbs of the Biblical phrase, πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες (B: մոլորիք ոչ գիտելով; Zohrab: մոլորեալք ոչ գիտէք) in A are connected with a եւ: մոլորեալ էք եւ ոչ գիտէք. This reading again is shared with the Armenian Aphraates, but our translation does not share the further Syrian “taint” in Aphraates16: յոյժ մոլորեալ էք դուք, եւ … In Mt. 23,37 the ποσάκις of the Greek (B and Zohrab: քանիցս անգամ) is 13 Cf. esp. my discussion of homily II, which has a Latin parallel, Per Piscatores, p. 45-102 (esp. p. 78-102 for the gospel quotations of this homily). 14 Here I rely on information, mainly oral, from scholars acquainted with the Greek material such as Profs. C. Datema and K.H. Uthemann, Drs. Holger Villadsen and Sever Voicu, whom I thank for their assistance. 15 Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 326 and Lyonnet, op. cit. p. 232. 16 Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 327 and Lyonnet, op. cit. p. 51f.

149

150

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

rendered in A: բազում անգամ. This rendering is shared with the Armenian translation of Eusebius of Emesa and John Chrysostom.17 Two Biblical quotations outside the gospels shall be commented upon very briefly, Rom. 9,16 and Jer. 1,5. The οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος, οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος of Rom. 9,16, which is very important for the central part of Severian’s theological and homiletic argument in this text, in the Zohrab Bible is rendered as “heavily” as follows, in order, presumably, to bring out the full contents of the very close-knit Pauline formula: ոչ ըստ այնմ ինչ է՝ որ կամիցին, եւ ոչ ըստ այնմ որ ընթանայցէ. Translator B, however, chooses a more direct and short rendering (here, incidentally, using relative clauses for the participles): ոչ որ կամին եւ ոչ որ ընթանայն. Here translator A shares an element with Zohrab, viz. the preposition ըստ, but otherwise chooses infinitives (governed by the ըստ) to translate the participles of the Greek: ոչ ըստ կամել(ն) ուրուք (է) եւ ոչ ըստ ընթանալ.18 The quotation of Jer. 1,5 has indirectly been dealt with already, as we are here in a verse using the preposition πρὸ twice. The πρὸ τοὺ με πλὰσαι σε and πρὸ τοὺ ἐξελθεῖν … σε of the Greek homily19 are rendered in B very directly: նախ քան զստեղծանելն զքեզ and յառաջ քան զելանելն զքեզ20. The Zohrab Bible has two sentences introduced with մինչչեւ and the “periphrastic pluperfect”: ստեղծեալ էիր and ելեալ էիր, respectively. Translation A shares the մինչչեւ with Zohrab, but uses a participle with the subject in the genetive: ստեղծեալ իմ քեզ and քո ելեալ, respectively.21 In this case we thus have consistency between the three translators in the choice of verbs but a wide scale of differences in choice of syntactic construction. Only one specific feature about translation B shall be added. In the second part of Mt. 23,37, where both the Greek NT and the Greek homily have ἠθελήσατε, and Zohrab and translator A agree in using կամեցարուք, i.e. the same verb as in the first part of the verse, translator B has a different verb: ախորժեցէք22. Against the background of the usual word-by-word translation and the “stereotypes” in choice of words in B, this is surprising. This to my

17 Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 227. 18 The ն and the է given in parentheses illustrate a difference between the two passages where Rom. 9,16 is quoted (l. 298f and 311f in the Akinian edition). For է cf. Zohrab’s rendering. 19 PG 59, 660. This reading corresponds to the LXX but for the position of σε (2°) which is in the LXX placed before the infinitive. 20 Ed. Aucher, p. 709, l. 24-26. 21 Ed. Akinian, l. 343f. 22 Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 227.

W hat

T ranslators

V eil

and

R eveal

mind focuses attention on the manuscript basis, as the difference would of course find its easiest and most natural explanation if it could be demonstrated to reflect a variant reading in the actual Greek manuscript used by translator B. From the evidence available it seems difficult to point to a characteristic feature of the translator’s “identity”, “school” or “tradition” as an explanation. A look into the Armenian concordance showing us that ախորժեմ is never used in the Armenian NT, 11 times in the Armenian OT does not help us much further, and there is little of interest for our purpose to be gained from the scriptural passages in question. Only, it could be noted that in Is. 1,19 the two parallel clauses with θέλητε in the LXX are rendered ախորժեսջիք and կամիցիք, respectively. It could therefore be asked whether a common “ideal of variation” (not unknown in Armenian stylistics) should connect the translator of Isaiah and our translator B. For translator B this possibility should then also be considered regarding his choice of նախ քան in one part of Jer. 1,5, յառաջ քան in its parallel. Without extending to the analysis of elements in these few Biblical readings a weight of argument which it could not necessarily bear, it tends to demonstrate the necessity of considering carefully the characteristics of the translators, here – again – in particular their possible affinities to traditions represented by certain translations of Biblical and Patristic texts. As a provisional summary of our findings it might be permissible to state that translator A shows some degree of relationship to a “vetus armena-group” of translations, whereas the profile of translator B is so far mainly characterized through his close ties to the Greek text of the homily and some particular features in stylistic and vocabulary belonging to a Hellenizing “school”, even if not at the most excessive stage.

2.4. Arrangement of the text The paraphrastic character of translation A – or its foundation in a Greek Vorlage different from that of the Migne text – accounts for a number of variations where passages are of different length and style, so as to defy direct comparison. I have touched upon a number of such occasions in Per Piscato res.23 It makes little sense to go into any detail in the analysis of these instances before the Armenian and Greek manuscript basis has been examined more thoroughly. Here, of course, space also forbids any detailed argument.

23 Cf. esp. Per Piscatores, p. 321.

151

152

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

However, the two greater deviations between A and B pointed out already,24 should be given a brief comment, as they are both of consequence for the discussion of how to find the way back to the “original” text. One is the difference in the arrangement of the final part of the text, viz. the passage PG 59, col. 662, l. 66 – col. 664, l. 26 (or col. 662, l. 74 – col. 664, l. 13) as compared with the Armenian translations. The interesting fact is here that the two Armenian translations agree in their arrangement. I have argued that the Armenian arrangement reflects the original order, because the line of argument is more natural – or “logic” – here than in the Greek. If the passage is divided into four sections, the order in the Greek is A-C-B-D.25 Whether or not I am right about the answer to the question of what reflects the original text, it seems obvious that the observation – including the agreement between the two Armenian translations – should be taken into account in a description of the text history of the homily, presumably in its Greek form, already. I take the same stand, as far as the introductory part of the homily is concerned. Here, as so often, translation A stands alone over against the Greek and translation B, in leaving out the whole section about the woman of Canaan.26 There is nothing to combine this section with the rest of the homily, and so, to say the least, the possibility of considering the “shape”, arrangement and length of translation A as reflecting the original should at any rate be taken seriously. Therefore, if the forthcoming Greek edition of Severian’s homilies, as seems to be the intention, will be arranged according to a “liturgical” disposition, placing this homily under the Sunday where the pericope about the woman of Canaan was read as text for the day’s sermon,27 this is understandable against the background of the lack of evidence for placing Severian’s homilies in a fixed and reliable absolute chronology of years. However, if such a disposition is chosen it should be pointed out very clearly that the bulk of the homily may not originally have had any connection at all with the Sunday in question, and that no conclusions for an absolute chronology of Severian’s homilies could be drawn on the basis of links

24 Cf. Per Piscatores, p. 320f. 25 For details, cf. ibid. 26 Cf. Attribution, p. 125. 27 Cf. C. Datema, “Towards a Critical Edition of the Greek Homilies of Severian of Gabala”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 19, 1988, 107-115, see esp. 111f.

W hat

T ranslators

V eil

and

R eveal

between the introductory paragraph of the Greek version of this homily as known today and other homilies by the author.

3. The author, the translators and other hands The above observations have taught us little about Severian of Gabala and little about Greek or Armenian manuscripts, at any rate as far as new information is concerned. In other words, they have not been very helpful in identifying or describing such hands as those of copyists and editors of Greek and Armenian texts, who have laid their hands on the text(s) in question through the close to 1600 years that have elapsed since the homily was spoken viva voce to a congregation in Constantinople or Gabala (or elsewhere?). Hopefully, however, the observations have sharpened our attention on the necessity and possibilities of describing the “hands” of the two very different Armenian translators. In many ways the possibilities are restricted; the necessity, however, in my judgment, does not only concern investigators interested in that particular field of the history of culture made out by the remarkable achievements of the early generations and centuries of Armenian translators, but also – under the circumstances given – to investigators and editors of Severian’s héritage littéraire in its original linguistic clothing, and Greek patristic literature in general. A closer identification and description of what belongs to the “profiles” of the translators and their particular “milieu”, context and tradition may narrow down the field of direct reasoning from a reading in the Armenian to its Greek Vorlage. On the other hand the identification of Armenian “particulars” in the text tradition, and the isolation of such elements may add to the value and weight of the “rest” of the Armenian translations in the procedures of identifying Severian’s original address to his congregation.

153

T

he Noble Art of Abbreviating in the Light of some Texts attributed to Severian of Gabala

1. Preliminary remarks Originally, this paper was intended to have as its modest subtitle the words: “Some simple remarks”, for, what will be presented, will not be anything like either a broad or a thorough analysis of rhetoric practice or principle in Antiquity in abbreviating procedures. What I shall try to do is – in a very simple, straightforward and elementary way – to look at a few instances where texts attributed to Severian of Gabala appear in more than one version, usually in what may be considered a “full-length” version and some kind of abbreviated form. On my way through the examples I considered more than once the possibility of transferring the adjective “simple” from the subtitle to the main title, having ascertained that the procedure of abbreviating very often is quite a simple one. So the art of abbreviating is, maybe, not always a noble one; on the other hand, the abbreviated form of a text often has a particular strength of expression, entirely its own, so I left the notion of “noble” in the title; but I certainly ask and warn my readers to retain the notion of “simple” as a subtitle for what follows.

2. Introductory remarks on the homily In natale domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4657) First it would be natural to give a hint about the main reason(s) that led me to go into the matter of abbreviated forms of texts by Severian. My point of departure was the discussion about a certain homily, viz. the Pseudo-Chrysostomic homily In natale domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4657). The external evidence for this homily, in my view, points rather strongly in the direction of Severianic authorship, but internal arguments on the basis of the Greek text

156

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

(as published in Migne) have led modern scholars to deny that the homily in question could be by Severian. Let me elaborate a little further on the state of the matter. For this homily, in fact, a number of potential authors have been proposed, in ancient as well as modern times. A mere glance in M. Geerard’s Clavis1 tells us that there is a Coptic version having been attributed by W. E. Crum (on insufficient grounds, it seems) to St. Basil the Great,2 and there is a Georgian version under the name of Epiphanius. On Syrian ground Severus of Antioch considers the homily to be by John Chrysostom, as does most of the Greek manuscript tradition. One Oriental line of evidence was not known when Geerard published the Clavis, i.e. the Armenian. In an article published in 19823 I have tried to elucidate the Armenian transmission, as far as it is known to me. This includes a version of the homily in two Armenian manuscripts of the library of the Jerusalem Patriarchate (and two later manuscripts in the Mechitharist library in Venice) attributing the homily to “Sewerianos, the Priest”,4 and two quotations in a series of fragments attributed in MS Galata 54 to “Seberianos, Bishop of Gabala”.5 It should be noted that in this series of quotations there are a number of fragments belonging to texts which are generally held to be by Severian of Gabala.6 The Armenian transmission therefore fits very well with the first fact ascertained in M. Geerard’s primary “nota”: Tamquam Severiani Gabalensis citatur a Theodoreto.7 To me it is difficult not to consider such an early – and often reliable – Greek source as Theodoret of Cyrrhus and the occurrence in the Galata series as weighty external arguments for Severian’s authorship. Maybe less weighty, but still of importance is the attribution to “Severian the Priest” in the Jerusalem manuscripts. However, modern authors such as B. Marx, J. Zellinger, H.-D. Altendorf

1

Clavis Patrum Graecorum II, cura et studio Mauritii Geerard, (CC), Turnhout, 1974.

2

W E. Crum, “Theological Texts from Coptic Papyri”, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 12, Oxford 1913, 18-20.

3

Henning J. Lehmann, “Severian of Gabala: New Identifications of Texts in Armenian Translation”, Classical Armenian Culture, University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 4, ed. Th. J. Samuelian, University of Pennsylvania 1982, 113-124 (quoted: “New Identifications”) [above, pp. 67ff].

4

“New Identifications”, 114 [above, p. 68f].

5

Ibid., 117 [above, p. 71].

6

Cf. below and “New Identifications”, 118f [above, pp. 72f].

7

Op. cit., 587.

T h e

N o bl e

A r t

o f

Abb r e v i a t i n g

and Sever J. Voicu8 reject the attribution to Severian, and scholars responsible for current plans of a new edition of the Greek Severian – such as C. Datema and K.-H. Uthemann – seem to take the same stand.9 These sceptics mainly refer to one reason for their position, viz. that the stylistic and linguistic characteristics of Severian are absent from this homily. To quote Zellinger, after referring to the quotation in Theodoret, he comments as follows: “W. Dürks10 ist es gelungen, die Rede aufzufinden, der das Stück entnommen. Es ist das (sic!) die kurze, nur drei Mignespalten füllende, pseudochrysostomische Homilie: Εἰς τήν γέννησιν … Dürks glaubt die Rede auf Grund des Theodoretzitates Severian zurückerstatten zu sollen (De Severiano Gabalitano 46-48; vgl. auch ebd. 19.66). Ich vermag aus sprachlichen Gründen nicht zuzustimmen”.11 That is all Zellinger has to say about this homily, and Marx and Altendorf only add little. Voicu regards this homily as attributable to a certain anonymous Cappadocian author of the early 5th century. His arguments are mainly stylistic, particularly linkages within a collection of 33 (or 30-odd) Pseudo-Chrysostomic homilies belonging, according to Voicu, to the same author.12 At a first glance the short Greek text seems to contain few of the stylistic elements usually referred to as characteristic of Severian, to which could be added that a desideratum (which may be on its way to be fulfilled by those responsible for the new Greek Severian edition) is a thorough stylistic analysis of Severian’s homiletics. To some extent earlier research has left us with rather superficial descriptions. In my view, there is reason in general to question the validity of the verdict “spurious” based on the absence in a certain text of locutions, otherwise often used by an author. Methodologically, the simple fact that a homily is very short makes a judgment of this kind all the more doubtful. Dealing with Severian’s natale-homily, in my article quoted above I therefore wrote: “Great caution is required before conclusions about authorship are drawn from general obser-

8

For references cf. below and “New Identifications”, 121, note 6 [above, p. 68].

9 I here rely on oral information and communications at the Oxford Patristic Conference in 1987. 10 G. Dürks, De Severiano Gabalitano, Kiel 1917. 11 Johannes Zellinger, Studien zu Severian von Gabala, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 8, Münster i.W. 1926, 36, n. 1. 12 Sever J. Voicu, “Trentatre omelie pseudocrisostomiche e il loro autore”, Lexicon Philosophicum 2, 1986, 73-141, see esp. 99-101; S. J. Voicu, “Note sull’omelia pseudocrisostomica In natale Domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4567 (sic!))”, Memorial Dom Jean Gribomont (1920-1986), Studia Ephemerides “Augustinianum” 1988, 621-626.

157

158

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

vations on style and language, especially where short homilies are concerned which may very likely have been given their form by excerptors”.13 I refer, of course, to the fact that in the process of abbreviation – as also in the process of translation – stylistic particulars will be liable to be smoothed out or even disappear. In the following, as mentioned already, it is my modest purpose to make some simple and straightforward remarks about observations made on a few texts by Severian or attributed to him which have undergone abbreviating or excerpting processes.

3. Examples of abbreviated texts 3.1. My first example is the homily on Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (CPG 4246), so far only known in Armenian. The long version of this homily is the last of the Akinian collection – No. XIII, published in 1959,14 whereas the short version was published more than 130 years earlier, viz. as homily No. XI in the volume of 15 homilies edited by J. B. Aucher.15 It might be appropriate once again to quote Zellinger. His verdict on the last five homilies of the Aucher collection runs as follows: “Für die Echtheit der letzten fünf Reden liegt weder äussere noch innere Bezeugung vor, und man muss restlos W. Dürks beistimmen, der aus sachlichen und stilistischen Erwägungen den Namen Severians aus deren Titel streichen möchte. Zum wenigsten ist über ein Non liquet nicht hinauszukommen”.16 In my book Per Piscatores17 it is shown that with the long version in our hands we are in a situation fundamentally different from that of Zellinger’s time. We can point to the external argument of the occurrence of the homily among the group of five in the Akinian collection (homilies IX-XIII), and internally to a great number of correspondences to well-known Severian homilies, as arguments for Severian’s paternity.

13 “New Identifications”, 115 and 121, note 6 [above, pp. 68 and 70]. 14 N. Akinian, ed., “Die Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa”, Handes Amsorya 1956-1959. For homily No. XIII see HA 1959, 321-360. 15 Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae, ed. J. B. Aucher, Venice 1817. For homily No. XI see pp. 402-409. 16 Zellinger, op. cit., 71, with reference to Dürks, op. cit., 60-64. 17 Henning J. Lehmann, Per Piscatores. Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975 (quoted: Per Piscatores), 335-367.

T h e

N o bl e

A r t

o f

Abb r e v i a t i n g

The relation between the two versions is shown in Table 1. Table 1 De adventu domini super pullum (CPG 4246) (Akinian XIII/Aucher XI) Akinian XIII (line)

Aucher XI (page, line)

Number of lines (Akinian)

(a)

1-14

–

14

(b)

15-16

402,1-2

2

(c)

16-29

–

13

(d)

30-73

402,2 – 404,24

44

(e)

74-95

–

22

(f)

96-115

404,25 – 406,8

20

(g)

116-145

–

30

(h)

146-165

406,8-32

20

(i)

166-214

–

49

(j)

215-227

406,33 – 408,8

13

(k)

228-715

–

488

It appears that the short version covers less than one seventh of the long version (99 out of 715 lines). It further appears that apart from the first two lines the short version consists of four “blocks” representing about one half of the first 200 lines of the homily in its long version. A closer scrutiny of the relationship between the two texts, of course, reveals a number of variants, most of them manifestly inner-Armenian, and for the great majority of rather a trivial character: omission of “article”, եւ, զ- etc. Choice of different words in some cases could be a copyist’s mistake, in other cases there seems to be a choice between synonyms, which, of course, would point to either different translators or the copyist’s change to a word more familiar to him. As the texts for the greater part follow each other very closely, I would plead for the latter possibility. In only one or two cases one could ask the question whether the reason for a variant could be that a Severianic “Zwischensatz”18 or characteristic idiom had been omitted in the short version.19 18 Zelllinger’s expression, op. cit., e.g. 33. 19 I am thinking of the omission of the question in Akinian XIII, 47 (cf. Aucher, 402,20). Correspondingly, the “superfluous” ոչ եթէ … այլ in Akinian XIII, 221 is left out in the short version (cf.

159

160

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

The comparison therefore shows that only a modest amount of stylistic “smoothing out” or editorial manipulation for linguistic or other reasons seems to have taken place in the passages used by the abbreviator. If it is true to say that there is little in the Aucher-version to substantiate Severian’s paternity to the text, so that Zellinger’s and later scholars’ judgment is understandable (and I would certainly admit this, if only stylistic criteria, traditionally applied to the text, are taken into consideration), it must therefore be ascertained that this is due mainly to the very choice of passages and arrangement of the text, not to a very active effort to change stylistic details. Furthermore it should be noted that a great part of what is left out is concerned with a discussion of biblical material, first and foremost the whole context of Psalm 8,3 quoted in Mt. 21,16 as Jesus’ answer to the indignation of the chief priests and doctors of the law (Mt. 21,15) because of the shouting of Hosanna to Jesus (and other elements of the narrative of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem).20 Also a great number of other biblical texts are commented upon in the long version, among them a number of Severian’s favourite sources of “testimonials” such as e.g. Joel 2,19 and 2 Sam. 24,10-17.21 As mentioned already, the amount of deliberate “smoothing” and alteration is obviously very modest; it therefore seems to me justifiable to call the abbreviating method used a “subtraction technique”, i.e. a technique where a number of “blocks” of the text are left out whereas other passages are preserved; and as such a great amount of the biblical testimonial material so characteristic of Severian is left out, not only the modern scholar using stylistic criteria but also the investigator who would use the biblical material to solve the question of authorship is left in a very difficult position by the abbreviator.

3.2. Technically speaking my second example will have strong resemblances to the first. In other respects it will differ. I am referring to homily No. III in the Akinian collection for which again a shorter version is found in Aucher’s Severian volume as homily No. I.

Aucher, 408,1), and it could be noted that the word անքնին (Akinian XIII, 154) which might be called a favourite word of Severian’s is not to be found in the short version (cf. Aucher, 406,19). 20 Cf. Per Piscatores, 348ff. On the discussion of the very word “hosanna” in Severian (and other authors), see my: “Hosanna – A Philological Discussion in the Old Church”, Armeniaca – Mélanges d’études arméniennes, Venice 1969, 165-174 [above, pp. 13ff]. 21 Cf. Per Piscatores, 357ff.

T h e

N o bl e

A r t

o f

Abb r e v i a t i n g

The relation between the two versions is shown in Table 2. Table 2 De passione (CPG 3531,5) (Akinian III/Aucher I)22 Akinian III (line)

Aucher I (page, line)

Number of lines (Akinian)

(a)

1-116

2,1 – 10,12

116

(b)

117-157

–

41

(c)

158-177

10,12-34

20

(d)

178-189

–

12

(e)

190-197

10,34 – 12,7

8

(f)

198-207

–

10

(g)

208-246

12,7 – 14,12

39

(h)

247-278

–

32

(i)

279-290

14,12-25

12

(j)

291-332

–

42

(k)

333-339

14,26 – 16,1

7

(l)

340-519

–

180

Here, the abbreviated version is made up of six “blocks” of varying length taken from the first two thirds of the homily. Also, as far as this homily is concerned, the amount of variations in detail is fairly small (see note 22), and again the passages left out by the abbreviator, to a great extent consist of biblical material and exegetic discussion. Technically speaking, therefore, the method of abbreviation largely seems to be the same as that used in our first example, a “subtraction technique”. On this background, therefore, it might be characterized as a surprising fact that a number of circumstances, and not least, the history of research present quite a different picture of this text. First of all it should be noted that we are here concerned with a text which

22 The following differences of detail should be noted. In (a) the indication of the contents of the homily is shorter in Aucher I (l. 6-8) as compared with Akinian III (l. 6-11). Correspondingly, l. 17ff in the long version are richer than the “parallel”, Aucher, 4,1ff. In (c) about 1½ lines are left out (Akinian, 165f), maybe through homoioarkon. Aucher, 16,2-5 contains a final doxology which is evidently secondary.

161

162

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

is not by Severian, and our best introduction to the history of research might be a consideration of the reasons that nevertheless led Zellinger to accept the short version as being by Severian. Zellinger voiced a certain, modest amount of reluctance or uneasiness about the attribution to Severian, saying: “Dabei wird sich … ein letztes klärendes Wort kaum sprechen lassen”.23 On the other hand, he gives his approval of Martin Jugie’s statement about the homily: “Son authenticité est hors de doute … “,24 and even if it might be strange for Severian, that “Die Rede, bescheiden an Umfang, wurde zu Jerusalem gehalten”,25 Zellinger finds the explanation of what is unusual in the fact that “Was nun folgt, ist freilich keine Rede im eigentlichen Sinne des Wortes, sondern eine des rhetorischen Charakters stark entkleidete symbolartige Expositio fidei, die mit dem trinitarischen Teile des Athanasianums überraschende Ähnlichkeit aufweist”.26 To this statement Zellinger adds a quotation from Jugie, giving this description of the text: “C’est, peut-on dire, un resumé en phrases lapidaires de la théologie de Dieu un et trine”.27 Zellinger even suggests that the expositiocharacter of the text might be sufficient explanation of the fact that the words ἀγέννητος and γεννητός are used, “die der Bischof sonst nach Inhalt und Form in schroffster Weise ablehnt und deren wissenschaftliche Diskreditierung er sich zum Ziel gesetzt”.28 Today we know that the expressions mentioned are there because they belong to the central theological vocabulary of Eusebius of Emesa who is the author of the text. The reason why I have chosen to consider some wrong assumptions during the history of research at some length is that it seems to me highly interesting that the abbreviating technique, even if technically speaking, it is to a large degree of the same subtraction character as that of our previous example, has left us with a text about which serious scholars have been led astray by elements in the history of transmission as far as the identification of the author is concerned and then argued for their wrong assumptions on the

23 Zellinger, op. cit., 72. 24 Zellinger, op. cit., 74, with reference (in note 6) to Martin Jugie, ˝Sévérien de Gabala et le symbole Athanasien”, Echos d’Orient XIV, Paris 1911, 193-204. 25 Zellinger, op. cit., 75. 26 Zellinger, op. cit., 75f. 27 Zellinger, op. cit., 76. 28 Zellinger. op. cit., 78.

T h e

N o bl e

A r t

o f

Abb r e v i a t i n g

basis of considerations of “genre”, so to speak: expositio fidei, resumé en phrases lapidaires, a “Traktat … auf Prägnanz und knappe Fassung … abgestimmt”29 Today, it is presumably easy to see that it is partly a matter of abbreviating technique, and partly a matter of style and theology of an author concerned with problems of an age about two generations earlier than Severian that determine the character of the short version of the homily. But when we consider in how many cases we are still bound to the arguments of Zellinger and his contemporaries about style and language, the importance of our attempt to gain an insight in the art and procedures of abbreviation in the patristic period seems to gain in strength from our second example.

3.3. My third example may be said to take us outside the field of abbreviating if the notion of abbreviation can only be used in cases where a single homily (or a text of another genre) is found in a short and a long version. In any case, the phenomenon which I would call “the construction of a florilege homily” seems to me to be of interest for our evaluation of what has happened in the course of the history of transmission of Severian’s homilies. I am thinking of the two series of fragments of Severianic texts in MS Galata 54. I have dealt with these series elsewhere,30 so I shall here only recapitulate that one of the series consists of 11 quotations taken from six different homilies, the titles of which are referred to very carefully in the “florilege”.31 The second series contains 20 quotations taken from 8 of the homilies of the Aucher collection (homilies I-VII and IX).32 What is of particular interest in this connection is that each of the series in itself constitutes a unity of its own, an expositio as it were of a central theological topic, a “florilege homily” to use the expression coined above, and thus to my mind, they represent a particular, very selective, method of abbreviating a number of texts in order to present certain subjects and themes of general interest, in the MS Galata 54 series from one author, Severian, in a number

29 Ibid. 30 “New Identifications” and Henning J. Lehmann, “Severian of Gabala: Fragments of the Aucher Collection in Galata MS 54”, Armenian Studies/Etudes arméniennes in memoriam Haïg Berbérian, ed. Dickran Kouymjian, Lisbon 1986, 477-487 (quoted: “Aucher Fragments”) [above, pp. 95ff]. 31 “New Identifications”, 117f [above, p. 73f]. 32

“Aucher Fragments”, 481-483 [above, p. 98ff].

163

164

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

of cases – in real florilegia, as is well-known – core quotations about the same subject from a number of different authors. I very much doubt that such theological resumés or expositiones would easily have been identified by modern researchers as belonging to Severian, had it not been for two facts: 1) the careful citation of the author’s name and the title of the homily in question, and 2) the fact that some of the homilies quoted belong to the least disputed core of genuine Severianic homilies. It might be added that such chains of quotations might reflect the fact that a number of homilies had been connected in a particular collection, as is evidently the case as far as the Aucher homilies are concerned.33 I shall not go into a further description of MS Galata 54 or discussion of the shaping of florilegia, which in many respects is a different matter from the abbreviation technique met with in our two first examples, even if there is a certain amount of correspondence in the search for theological “formulae” and core passages. Before returning to one of the homilies quoted in the first-mentioned Galataseries, viz. the natale-homily, it might be of interest, however, to give a brief survey of the contents of the two “florilege homilies”. This is done in Tables 3 and 4.

33 See the discussion of the relation between the Aucher collection and the quotations in the “Seal of Faith” and about the history of the collection with or without the homily: Aucher No. I, “Aucher Fragments”, 484f [above, p. 102ff].

T h e

N o bl e

A r t

o f

Abb r e v i a t i n g

Table 3 MS Galata 54: Severian Cento I (Aucher): Սեբերիանոսի Եմեսու Homily No. CPG Aucher (a)

MS.Galata 54 page/col., line Aucher, page, line

3531,3

I

363a,21-28 363a,28-b,22

14,26 – 16,1

4240

II

363b,25 – 364,15

18,24 – 20,12

(d)

364,15-32

24,7-27

(e)

364,32 – 366,2

34,7 – 36,10

(f)

366,3-29

36,37 – 38,31

(b) (c)

4,1-5

(g)

4241

III

366,32 – 367,6

78,5-14

(h)

4242

IV

367,8-20

160,16-33

367,21 – 368,8

162,32 – 164,21

(j)

4243

V

368,10 – 369,2

202,15 – 204,8

(k)

4244

VI

369,3-18

216,32 – 218,16

369,18-25

228,22-30

369,25 – 370,16

236,21 – 238,12

(i)

(1) (m) (n)

4198

VII

370,17-24

258,13-21

(o)

4215

IX

370,26 – 372,9

336,14 – 338,33

(p)

372,9-32

340,6-32

(q)

372,33 – 373,28

342,26 – 344,20

(r)

373,29 – 374,11

350,7-24

(s)

374,11 – 375,5

356,3 – 358,3

(t)

375,6-13

362,22-32

165

166

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Table 4 MS Galata 54: Severian Cento II: Երանելւոյ Սեբերիանոսի Գաբա …34 Homily No. CPG

MS Galata 54, page/col., line

(a)

4249

375,15 – 376,18

(b)

4657

376,19-25

(c)

–

376,25 – 377,7

(d)

4699

377,9-19

(e)

4201

377,21-24

(f)

–

377,24-33

(g)

–

377,33 – 379,8

(h)

–

379,9-16

(i)

4196

379,18-23

(j)

4295,17a

379,25 – 381,21

–

381,21 – 384,6

(k)

4. The natale homily reconsidered The correspondences and differences between the Greek text as published in Migne and the Armenian text to be found in MS Jerusalem arm. 1 is shown in Table 5.35

34 For manuscripts and editions see “New Identifications”, 117f [above, pp. 73f]. The fragment quoted by Severus of Antioch referred to under CPG 4295,17a (cf. (j)) only covers part of the first quotation of this homily in the Galata MS, which therefore is the only source – so far – for a hitherto unknown part of this homily. 35 Cf. “New Identifications”, 114 (where, regrettably, there are a couple of errors in the figures given) [corrected above, p. 69]

T h e

N o bl e

A r t

o f

Abb r e v i a t i n g

Table 5 In natale domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4657) PG 61 col., line

Number of lines (PG)

MS Jer. arm. 1 col., line

Number of lines (MS).

(a)

763,1 – 765,3

69

41a,48 – 42a,35

84

(b)

–

–

42a,36 – 42b,19

22

(c)

765,4-26

23

42b,20 – 43a,2

31

(d)

–

–

43a,3-45

43

(e)

765,27-44

18

43a,46 – 43b,16

19

(f)

–

–

43b,17 – 44b,3

83

(g)

765,45 – 768,12

141

–

-

Expressed in the terminology chosen in this paper, three “blocks” of the text as known in Greek (corresponding to less than half of the text – 110 out of 251 lines in Migne’s edition) find their parallels in the Armenian (84 + 31 + 19 = 134 lines in the manuscript) which has three further “blocks” (22 + 43 + 83 = 148 lines in the manuscript). Technically speaking the “abbreviation method” now looks familiar. Only, we have here two texts which might both be abbreviations; and it is of course difficult to give any opinion of how long was the original unabbreviated homily. Above I expressed my uneasiness about the rejection of the external evidence for Severian’s original author’s rights to this homily. I further hope to have shown what problems and consequences arise from the process of abbreviating, even in its least radical form, as far as the editorial accomplishment is concerned, and hence find new reasons for an exhortation to be cautious in verdicts of inauthenticity about short homilies. As the Armenian version of this homily has never been published, I shall finally give a few specimens of the contents of the Armenian “blocks” which are not covered by the Greek. In section b the comments about the virgin birth from the preceding paragraph are continued, first with a parallel between Jesus’ birth and the way in which Eve was “born” out of Adam (Gen. 2,21f). In order to obviate the lack of understanding of the Jews there is then a reference to the narrative in Exodus 17 of how Moses smites the dry rock with his dry rod making water come out of the rock. Finally, reference is made to the narrative of the prophet

167

168

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Habakkuk being carried by an angel to Babylon to feed Daniel in the lion’s den (Dan. 14,34ff (apocryphal addition)). All three references to Old Testament “testimonia” can be found in genuine texts by Severian. The miraculous birth of Eve (Gen. 2,21f) as a foreboding of the virgin birth is commented upon with a number of parallels in Genesishomily No. 5 (CPG 4194,5)36 and in Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (CPG 4195).37 The reference to Moses’ dry rod miraculously making water come out of the dry rock as an image of the virgin birth is known from e.g. In pretiosam et vivificam crucem (CPG 4213).38 Finally, the wonder of Habakkuk being brought to Babylon is used by Severian in more than one context.39 After section c about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem the first part of section d presents Hab. 3,3 as a testimony that the birth should take place in Bethlehem in Judea. A little further on also Hab. 3,2 LXX is quoted and commented upon, and after quotations of Ps. 71,6 and elements from Ps. 49 (vss. 2.3.5) attention is again – in section e – turned to the historical reports of Jesus’ birth. The elements in section d taken from the prayer of Habakkuk have very close parallels in a genuine Severianic homily, viz. again: In pretiosam et vivificam crucem (CPG 4213). Thus the comments that Teman of Hab. 3,3a (Θαιμαν) (which can be translated “South”, it is maintained) is Bethlehem, and that the shadowy mountain (Mount Taran) of 3,3b is Zion are found in practically the same wording in Combefis, 255f, including the explanation that Mount Zion is called shadowy because it is overshadowed by the strength of God. The verb ἐπισκιάζω is that used about the virgin in the Annunciation narrative.40 Also the explanation that the two creatures of Hab. 3,2 should be understood about life in this aeon and life in the aeon to come or about the Old and

36 PG 56,482f. 37 Savile, 5,650ff. Cf. Johannes Zellinger, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala, Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen VII,I, Münster i.W. 1916, 40-46.96ff. 38 Combefis, 225. 39 Cf. Zellinger, Studien, 95. References are to the following homilies: CPG 4194,5, 4196, 4213, 4244. 40 This topic is dealt with twice in CPG 4213, apart from Combefis, 255f, also 274f. In the latter passage, the shadowy mountain is considered to refer to the Virgin Mary, and it is added that τινες (“some”) take it to mean Zion. Such an inconsistency is not unseen in a text by Severian. In any case the problem of inconsistency is an internal one for CPG 4213, and of course does not detract from the value of the parallel between the first quotation here and that in CPG 4657, arm.

T h e

N o bl e

A r t

o f

Abb r e v i a t i n g

the New Testament is shared with the homily In pretiosam et vivificam crucem (CPG 4213).41 Here even minor details of the two texts are identical. Now, whereas the last half of the Greek (section g) is a fulfilment of the promise in the title of the Armenian, viz. that the homily shall be concerned also with the wise men’s adoration (Mt. 2,1ff), the last part of the Armenian (section f) is mainly concerned with the trial, apology and death of Stephen (Acts 6-7). These chapters have not been commented upon by Severian elsewhere to such an extent as to give material for comparison, so on the basis of the criterion for internal argument, which I have mainly used, viz. the use of the Bible, there is little to be gained. I shall here abstain from going into stylistic or other details. By way of conclusion to this paper I find it permissible to say, that the Armenian version of the natale-homily has furnished us with valuable comparative material for reaching a positive conclusion from internal evidence corresponding to that suggested by strong external arguments, viz. that the homily is by Severian. It is my hope that our way through some elementary observations on the process, which some texts attributed to Severian underwent in order to find an abbreviated form, has been of some value for deepening our attentiveness to what would happen in such a process, thereby assisting us on our difficult way “back to the original text”.

41 Combefis, 272f.

169

T

he So-Called “Absurd” Punctuation in John 1,3-4 Neglected Witnesses of the Old Church

Eberhard Nestle, the famous New Testament editor and scholar, begins his article “Zur Interpunktion von Joh 1,3.4”, published in 1909, with the following words: “Eine monographische Untersuchung dieser Frage und im Zusammenhang damit die nach dem richtigen Text dieser Verse wäre eine sehr lehrreiche Aufgabe”, and his concluding remarks run as follows: “Ein ganz interessantes Stück Geschichte der Exegese hängt da an einem einzigen Komma oder Punktum”.1 Insofar as Ed. L. Miller’s book Salvation-History in the Prologue of John, published in 19892, can be considered the first full monograph concerned with the exegetic and theological consequenses of the various possibilities of punctuation in vss. 3-4 of the Johannine prologue, it can be maintained that 80 years passed before Nestle’s wish was fulfilled. However, the questions of punctuation have, naturally, been dealt with quite often in the abundant literature of the eight decades between Nestle and Miller, dealing with the Gospel of John and, in particular, its prologue. We shall make no attempt here to summarize the exegetic discussion;3 it should be emphasized, however, that as a background and counterpart of our remarks below on some particular questions related to the history of exegesis – and the history of the text – a number of studies which appeared in the 1950s and 1960s are of prime importance. I am thinking of contributions by such scholars

1

Eberhard Nestle, “Zur Interpunktion von Joh 1,3.4”, Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

2

Ed. L. Miller, Salvation-History in the Prologue of John. The Significance of John 1:3/4, Supplements to

und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 10, 1909, 262-264. Novum Testamentum LX, 1989. 3

For a general bibliographic overview reference can be made to Miller, op. cit., 2f, note 3, and 110ff (Bibliography).

172

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

as K. Aland, J. Gennaro, P. Lamarche, H. Langkammer, I. de la Potterie, and J. Mehlmann.4 For the field of text history and text criticism Aland’s discussion may well be called “mandatory”, as does Miller.5 From a purely technical point of view scholars have not – taken as a whole – been too helpful to readers, as the numbering of the readings in question has been overthrown a couple of times. To our purpose it is useful first to list the readings in I. de la Potterie’s numbering (which, in fact, goes back to Theodor Zahn6): I. ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν (οὐδὲν), ὃ γέγονεν. Ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. II. ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν, ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ. Ζωὴ ἦν. III. ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν. Ὃ γέγονεν, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. IV. ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν. Ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ, ζωὴ ἦν.7 The main topic of discussion has been the choice in Bible manuscripts, editions and commentaries between what is often called “the old reading”, corresponding to nos. III and/or IV in the above survey, and what is called “the new reading”, that of no. I. Corresponding to this historical sequence Aland chooses the designations A1 and A2 for III and IV, resp., and B for I, while Miller simplifies correspondingly, choosing however the designations “Reading I” and “Reading II”, corresponding to no. I and no. III/IV, respectively.

4

K. Aland, “Eine Untersuchung zu Joh. 1:3-4: Uber die Bedeutung eines Punktes”, ZNW 59, 1968, 174ff. The article is reprinted with minor updatings in Kurt Aland, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe, München 1979, 351-391. References below will be to the 1979-version. J. Gennaro, Exegetica in prologum sec. maximos ecclesiae doctores antiquitatis christianae, Rome 1952. P. Lamarche, “Le Prologue de Jean”, Recherches de science religieuse 52, Paris 1964, 497-537. H. Langkammer, “Die Zugehörigkeit des Satzteiles ὃ γέγονεν in Joh 1,3.4 bei Hieronymus”, Biblische Zeitschrift, Neue Folge 8, 1964, 295-298. J. Mehlmann, “De mente S. Hieronymi circa divisionem versuum Jo 1,3s”, Verbum Domini 33, 1955, 86-94. J. Mehlmann, “A Note on John 1:3 “, Expository Times 61, 1955-56, 340f. I. de la Potterie, “De punctuatie en de exegese van Joh 1,3.4 in de traditie”, Bijdragen 16, 1955, 117-135. I. de la Potterie, “De interpunctione et interpretatione versuum Joh. 1,3-4 “, Verbum Domini 33, 1955, 193-208.

5

Miller, op. cit., 12.

6

Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt von Theodor Zahn, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament IV, quoted here from the 3/4th edition 1912, Excurs I: Die Satzabteilung 1,3.4, 706-709.

7

In this survey I have combined Zahn and de la Potterie, insofar as the latter, in nos. I and II, leaves out the comma before ὃ, and Zahn does not list the variant reading οὐδὲν, as de la Potterie does, in I. In the following I mainly refer to the four possibilities under the numbers used by Zahn and de la Potterie.

T he

S o - C alled

“ A bsurd ” P unctuation

in

J ohn

1 , 3 - 4

Sometimes Miller finds it necessary to distinguish between de la Potterie’s readings ΙΙΙ and IV, then referring to a “Reading IIA” and a “Reading IIB”. Lamarche chooses designations corresponding to those of Aland, adding a “C” for de la Potterie’s reading no. II. It may be helpful to the reader to summarize these numberings in a table (Table 1). Table 1 de la Potterie

Lamarche

I

B

II

C

Aland B

Miller I

III

A1

A1

IIB

IV

A2

A2

IIA

As appears from this survey, reading no. II in de la Potterie’s list has attracted less attention than the other three readings. This, no doubt, is due to the fact that this reading was described by Zahn already as “offenbar absurd”, which statement is quoted, consentingly it seems, by Aland.8 As opposed to Zahn and Aland, Miller seems to prefer a timbre of politeness toward such authors in the history of the church as have advocated this reading, quoting it “for the sake of completeness”, and adding the remark: “But this punctuation barely occurs in the tradition and commands no claim to authority”.9 In reality, thus, his verdict is identical with that of Zahn and Aland. Lamarche does not call reading no. II absurd, but “improbable”: “Cette coupe n’est pas impossible, mais improbable elle est rarement adoptée”. And he has also noticed that “Cette hypothèse comporte encore une variante si en plus de la ponctuation après ἐν αὐτῷ on ajoute un point après οὐδὲ ἔν”.10 This observation to my mind is important, as it rightly suggests a pointed form of Reading II. In the light of the verdicts quoted and the discussions implied, what follows below, will have a very modest scope. No attempt will be made to compete with authors giving broad theological and text-historical outlines. What will 8

Op. cit., 357.

9

Op. cit., 14, note 36.

10 Lamarche, op. cit., 514.

173

174

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

be presented, will be a few observations on the distribution of the so-called “absurd” or “improbable” reading and its possible background, contents, and context, particularly in its pointed form. Before turning to these observations four prefatory remarks might be appropriate, one of principle, one fairly brief reference to the actual “state of the arts” in contemporary exegesis and theology, and two notes of a more technical order. First, to my mind, the only really “absurd” thing for scholars concerned with questions of history would be not to try to register what attempts have been made throughout history of placing the right and proper commas and full-stops in a given text and to understand the background, contents, and context of such attempts. Second, as was hinted at above, it may be true to say that it is the prevailing point of view among scholars that one reading (III and/or IV) is the old – and therefore the (most) original, even the “authoritative” – one, while the “new reading” is the outcome of theological precisions against heretic exegetes, be they Arian or maybe Gnostic. The symbolic contemporary sign of the victory of this point of view is the inclusion of the “old” punctuation in the text of Nestle’s Novum Testamentum from the 26th edition, for which Kurt Aland was responsible. From Erasmus until Nestle’s 25th edition the text chosen in printed New Testaments would usually be that of the “new” reading.11 The principal theological point of view in Miller’s book could very briefly be summarized in the statement that ὃ γέγονεν of verse 4a is about the Logos, not about creatures. In his own words – and in the light of the notion of “salvation-history” – Miller’s point of view is presented in brief as follows: ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων is a reference to the life-giving and light-imparting incarnation of the Logos. In order to make this case we will have to argue against the several attempts which, to make sense of Reading II,12 take ὃ γέγονεν in vs. 4a as being in various ways a continuation or extension of the πάντα

11 The difference between the “old” and the “new” punctuation and some of its theological implications could be illustrated through quoting vss. 2-4 of the translations in the Old and New English Bible, respectively: “The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (1876 version); “The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him. All that came to be was alive with his life, and that life was the light of men” (NEB, 1961). 12 III/IV in the above survey, cf. Table 1.

T he

S o - C alled

“ A bsurd ” P unctuation

in

J ohn

1 , 3 - 4

in vs. 3 (something like, “that (creation) which has come into being through him”). But then, and more constructively, we will have to provide evidence for our own interpretation according to which the perfect tense ὃ γέγονεν signals a movement, logically and temporally, to the historical incarnation of the Logos (something like, “what has (now) come about through him”).13

Miller has in no way met with total consent. For contrasting views (both on punctuation and theology) I shall here confine myself to a brief reference to Aland’s pages about modern commentators (not least Rudolf Schnackenburg) (partly added in the 1979 edition of Aland’s article).14 In a number of works referred to above (note 4) direct and indirect references to the theological and exegetic discussions of the Old Church are given. One reference should be added, viz. to M. F. Wiles’ book The Spiritual Gospel,15 in which the author treats the general lines of the history of Johannine exegesis in the age of the Church Fathers. My third remark will be a reminder of the fact that authors of the Old Church who quote the first verses of the Fourth Gospel, very often break off their quotation at a point which makes it difficult to judge what was their punctuation “between verse 3 and verse 4”. Aland (and Miller) may be right in taking Lamarche to task for having drawn too far-reaching “positive” conclusions from this “negative” fact,16 but even then it should be borne in mind that although this very fact – as well as the fact strange to the modern exegete that one author may “represent” more than one reading – makes it difficult in some cases to give a final coherent judgment about an author examined for his contributions as an exegete and a user of the Bible, one should be attentive to the fact that even in situations where “verses 1 and 2” are used in a particular theological discussion one should not jump to conclusions about the reading and punctuation presupposed in “verses 3 and 4”, to which could be added, as emphasized by Aland, that Bible manuscripts are – as a rule – not very helpful in deciding questions about the original punctuation.17 Our fourth and final prefatory remark should point out that the possibilities

13 Miller, op. cit., 14f. 14 Aland, op. cit., 360ff, see esp. 361f with note 12. 15 Maurice F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, Cambridge 1960. 16 Lamarche, op. cit., 517, cf. Aland, op. cit., 367, and Miller, op. cit., 30. 17 Aland, op. cit., see esp. 365f. 368ff.

175

176

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

of punctuation may not be exhausted through de la Potterie’s survey. As hinted at by Lamarche in the passage quoted above18 it is necessary to consider the possibility of Reading II as an intermediate form between I and III/IV in the sense that two full stops might be conceivable – before and after the clause: ὃ γέγονεν (,) ἐν αὐτῷ. Syntactically, of course, this clause is not a full one, but as we shall see, it may be taken to express a theological message and to be a stylistic element natural to the prologue of John.19 Above I took this to be a “pointed form” of Reading II. It might be useful to choose a particular designation for this reading. Below I shall therefore indicate this reading through a “IIp”: IIp. ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. Ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ. Ζωὴ ἦν. Turning now to the evidence of two authors of the 4th and the 5th centuries it might be in accordance with the modesty of our contribution to introduce it through correcting a minor misprint which has survived in Aland’s article, even in the 1979 version. In Aland’s note concerned with patristic evidence for the “absurd reading”, among the very few witnesses mentioned there is a text to be found “unter den Dubia des Chrysostomus”, viz. “MG 63, 514f”.20 The reference should be to col. 544f. This correction, however small it may be, immediately takes us beyond the sphere of minor inexactitudes and trivial corrections, as it helps us to identify the author of the homily in question, the reference being to the homily: In illud: In principio erat verbum (CPG 4210). This homily is by Severian of Gabala, as was demonstrated originally by Johannes Zellinger (with references to Dupin and Tillemont).21 The Armenian transmission has made it possible to strengthen further the attribution to Severian,22 which, incidentally, seems

18 See above, p. 173 with note 10. 19 Lamarche is aware of this, cf. his comments on punctuation “C” (= II), op. cit., 514, and his references to Eusebius of Emesa and others, op. cit., 519, note 81, cf. below. 20 Aland, op. cit., 357, note 7. 21 Johannes Zellinger, Studien zu Severian von Gabala, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 8, Münster i.W. 1926, 37ff, see esp. 38. 22 Cf. Henning J. Lehmann, “The Attribution of certain Pseudo-Chrysostomica to Severian of Gabala confirmed by the Armenian Tradition”, Studia Patristica 10, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 107, 1970, 121-130 (see esp. 122-124), and Henning J. Lehmann, Per Piscatores, Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975 (see esp. 273-286). The Armenian version was published by Nerses Akinian as

T he

S o - C alled

“ A bsurd ” P unctuation

in

J ohn

1 , 3 - 4

to have been generally accepted on the grounds given by Zellinger. There is therefore no need here to go into any detail about the question of authorship, but one element of a stylistic-exegetic-homiletic order pointed at by Zellinger should be mentioned. I am thinking of his reference to the homily De sigillis (CPG 4209) which shows a number of lines of connection with the homily on John 1,1ff, important to Zellinger’s argument. Among other things, in De sigillis the frequency – πολλάκις – of the use of the verbal form ἦν in the first verses of John’s Gospel is emphasized as a means by which the evangelist brings out what is characteristic of the divine Logos. This then becomes part of an argument that heretics should abstain from insisting on an οὐκ ἦν (understood: about the divinity of the Son). This πολλάκις will turn out to be an element stressed in some of the texts to be referred to below. In the Armenian translation of the homily on John 1,1ff (CPG 4210) there is a reminiscence of the πολλάκις-motive, as in the third line of the Akinian edition there is a comment on the ἦν of John 1,1f running as follows: Զէրն, զէրն, առ չէրն. եւ զԱստուածն առ աստուած, առ չաստուածսն over against the brevity of the Greek: ἦν, πρὸ τοῦ, οὐκ ἦν.23 Another difference between the Greek and the Armenian concerns the passage referred to by Aland. Where the Greek has the punctuation No. II, the Armenian has a punctuation corresponding to No. I.24 However, the Armenian evidence about Severian’s readings is not exhausted through these references. It is particularly noteworthy that in a section of one of the homilies edited by J. B. Aucher commenting upon the first verses of John there is a quotation of John 1,4, which clearly takes ζωὴ ἦν to belong to the following: վասն այնորիկ ի նոյն յարէ, թէ կեանք էր, եւ կեանքն էր լոյս մարդկան25. It should be noted that in one text Severian seems to represent the “new”

No. IX of the collection which he gave the title “Reden des Bischofs Eusebius von Emesa”, Handes Amsorya 72, 1958, 161-182. 23 Akinian, HA 1958, 161f, 3f – cf. PG, 63, 543, 17f. 24 Akinian, HA 1958, 163f, 32f – cf. PG 63, 544, 22ff. If Akinian’s punctuation is in accordance with the manuscript, it presumably rather illustrates the “normalizing” trend in the history of transmission than two “original” versions of the homily. 25 Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae nunc primum editae per P. Jo. Baptistam Aucher, Venice 1827. The homily referred to is No. V. For the quotation see 196.

177

178

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

punctuation, viz. in the first Genesis homily,26 thus illustrating an “ambiguity” corresponding to that found in Epiphanius.27 Without entering into the debate Aland/Miller versus Lamarche hinted at above I should, however, also like to note that a number of quotations in Severian of the beginning of the prologue of John are too short to determine with certainty what punctuation they represent. Before leaving Severian it should finally be noted that his theological opponents in the discussion about the first verses of John are very clearly the pneumatomachoi. Severian’s main argument is that it is evident that the πάντα of verse 3 does not include the Holy Ghost – just as Moses and the prophets are not included in the πάντες of Jesus’ words in John 10,8: “All who came before me are thieves and robbers”.28 Severian’s way of reasoning might be called an argument from theological common sense in interpreting apparently all-inclusive statements of the Biblical text. And, as has appeared, in his implying of that method to John 1,3.4 he can make use of Reading No. II, so it may be concluded that although writing at this late stage of (post-)Arian theological discussion he has not (in general) felt obliged or been taught to use the “new reading” taking ὃ γέγονεν with the preceding clause. The most important gain for patristic scholarship from Akinian’s edition of the above mentioned collection of homilies might be the bringing to light of eight homilies by Eusebius of Emesa (Nos. I-VIII). This verdict may be true also when applied to the discussion of the punctuation in John 1,3.4, as we find the “absurd reading” (No. II) in one of the Eusebian homilies, as well. The relevant part of section 24 of Homily No. III runs as follows: Վասն առաջին ծննդեանն ասէ. “Ի սկզբանէ էր Բանն. եւ Բանն էր առ Աստուած. եւ Աստուած էր Բանն. սա էր ի սկզբանէ առ Աստուած”: Չորեքին ասէ զ”էրն”, զի յայտ արասցէ զէականն: Իսկ վասն այլոցն արարածոց ասէ. “ամենայն ինչ նովաւ եղեւ. եւ առանց նորա եղեւ եւ ոչինչ, որ ինչ եղեւ նովաւ”: Զլինելոցն երեքկին եւ զարարչէն չորեքկին:29

26

PG 56: 431f.

27 On Epiphanius, cf. e.g. Lamarche, op. cit., 515; Miller, op. cit., 49f. 28 This way of reasoning and the combined reference to John 1,3 and John 10,8 is found both in the homily on John 1.1ff: PG 63, 545 (cf. Akinian, HA 1958, 163f, 39ff), and in Aucher, Homily V (De Pascha…), 195f. 29 Akinian, HA 1957, 115f, 46-52.

T he

S o - C alled

“ A bsurd ” P unctuation

in

J ohn

1 , 3 - 4

About the first birth it is said: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God”. Four times it says “was” in order to make manifest what exists (of itself).30 About the other (beings), the creatures, it says: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made, that was made by Him” – three times about what was made, and four times about the Creator.

Whether or not Akinian has manuscript support for his punctuation, two very clear observations can be made from the above quotation: 1) that Eusebius here represents the “absurd” Reading II (whether II or IIp cannot be decided here), 2) that in his comments he uses what was referred to above as the πολλάκις element. It is apparently an important (traditional?) element of the exegesis to count the ἦν’s which are all about the Creator and the “first birth/offspring” and the ἐγένετο’s and γέγονεν’s which are all about the created world. Both elements can be further substantiated through the Latin transmission of two Eusebian texts. Lamarche seems to be the only writer in recent years to have noticed this.31 The texts in question are two homilies in the so-called Troyes collection.32 What shall be attempted here is to elucidate both theological topics and elements of commentatorial technique characteristic of Eusebius, as they appear in the homiletic paraphrases of John 1,1ff, which constitute the contents of the passages in question. In order to do that I shall quote them rather extensively. An important principle inherent in Eusebius’ interpretation of the prologue of the Gospel of John is that of separating those elements that belong to the description of the divine order from those that describe the economy of the incarnation and those which introduce John the Baptist. The relationship between the Father and the Son, and the human imagery that can be used to describe it is a central topic in Eusebius’ theology. Thus, characteristically, his quotation of John 1,1f in the homily De Fide, section 7, is preceded by considerations (in section 6) about the image of the Lord as

30 “What exists (of itself)” is chosen as rendering of the Armenian (զ)էական(ն). 31 Lamarche, op. cit., 519 with note 81. 32 Eusèbe d’Emèse, Discours conservés en latin, ed. E. M. Buytaert, vol. 1: La Collection de Troyes, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 26, Louvain 1953.

179

180

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

iustitiae sol and the reality of the visible sun, qui non in principio fuit, sed quarto die per Filium factus est.33 Each time an image belonging to the created world is used about the Son, it is important to stress that this does not include Him among the creatures or suggest any need in Him. Therefore the in principio and the apud Deum of John 1,1 is explained, emphatically, to mean: non tamen in novissimus temporibus … non tamen post saecula … ante omnes … ante caelos: non enim necessarios habebat caelos ad habitandum. The heavens are created for the sake of themselves and of those who live beneath them (section 7).34 Then the author turns to the verbs of the first verses of John’s Gospel, first in section 8 the instances of ἦν/erat. Erat, erat, erat. In principio erat Verbum; ecce semel erat; et Verbum erat apud Deum, et iterum erat; et Deus erat Verbum, et ecce tertio erat. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Post quatuor has voces adhuc dubitas quod erat? Et iterum: Vita erat et vita erat lumen hominum. Si dicit evangelista (qui ex pectore dominico haurivit) Erat, et hoc frequenter, ex his, quae saepe dicta sunt, nequidem unum tenes?

As appears, the frequency of the occurrences of erat is emphasized (frequenter, cf. πολλάκις). Before turning to the verbs about created beings, the author emphasizes that the “eternal birth” did not mean a dividing of God, the Father: Bonus enim est Pater et non est divisus generans Filium: potens est et non erat ei impossibile implere suam bonitatem. Tempora enim et saecula et spatia deorsum sunt. Noli comparare unigenitae illi naturae nihil ex his, quae facta per ipsum sunt.35

The core notions in Eusebius’ theology: nonnatus about the Father, and unigenitus about the Son are now commented upon (sections 9-10), and the incomparability of the Only-Begotten with any of those created per ipsum is drawn to the fore, and this section ends:

33 Buytaert, Discours 1, 83. 34 Buytaert, Discours 1, 84. 35 Buytaert, Discours 1, 85.

T he

S o - C alled

“ A bsurd ” P unctuation

in

J ohn

1 , 3 - 4

Non est unus ex his, quae per ipsum sunt: non est ex hoc mundo, sed et mundus per ipsum; non caelum cum Filio, sed et caelum per Filium. Quid opus est partibus exhibere naturam? Omnia per ipsum sunt; et nihil sine ipso; et tertio: Quod factum est, per ipsum.36

The following section (11) then draws the contrast between what is said in verses 1-5 about the divine Logos and in verses 6ff about the human being, John the Baptist. Factus est homo … is the translation given here of John 1,6: Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος (where the Vulgate has Fuit homo). This translation corresponds very well with Eusebius’ emphasis on the fact that the use of this verb takes John the Baptist to belong to those characterized in verses 3-4 and 10 through the use of ἐγένετο and γέγονεν, i.e. belonging to the created world.37 However, the most important observation in our context is, of course, that Eusebius, unmistakably, uses Reading II in the form where Quod factum est, per ipsum obtains the character of an independent clause, IIp. A number of the elements described here reappear in Homily XVI of the same collection (De hominis assumptione I).38 From this context I shall only quote the passage showing, once again, the choice of Reading IIp, and its theological context: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt; dixit semel et non tacuit, sed repetit et ait: Et sine ipso factum est nihil. Et iterum non tacuit sed dicit: Quod factum est, in ipso ut nihil suspicaret[ur] evadere posse virtutem Filii. Sed nutu Patris sufficiebat Unigenitus opificans; faciebat vero non mutans sed respiciens ad Patrem; noscens voluntatem Patris usus est virtute sua: habet enim acceptam a Patre.39

Here the context makes it all the more clear that the words: Quod factum est, in ipso are read as an independent clause dealing with the participation of the Only-Begotten Son in the creation through his virtus, another key notion in Eusebius’ theological vocabulary. Speaking in terms of the history of theology, Eusebius’ comments on the prologue of John take us to the discussions of the 330s or 340s in the wake

36 Buytaert, Discours 1, 86. 37 Ibid. 38 E.g., the contrasting of the divine Logos and John the Baptist is here elaborated, Buytaert, Discours 1, 365. Here verse 6 is quoted in the form of the Vulgate: Fuit homo missus … 39 Buytaert, Discours 1, 367.

181

182

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

of the Council of Nicaea. His theological specifications are directed against Sabellian theology on one side and Arianism on the other.40 The next question to be asked here would then be that of Eusebius’ place in the history of the Bible text and in the history of exegesis. In general terms I have tried to demonstrate that he is rather an important witness to the Syrian Bible of his time, i.e. a pre-Peshitta version. This, of course, is true in particular about his commentary to the Octateuch where he must be considered one of the most important witnesses to ὁ Σύρος, which is a translation into Syriac.41 Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that his gospel quotations, as they appear in the Armenian translation of his homilies, have characteristics in common with vetus syra witnesses.42 Concerning John 1,3-4 Aland is very definitive in his statement that the Old Syriac represents the “old punctuation”. As is natural, Aland first refers to the manuscript material. For John 1,3-4 only Syrus Curetonianus is extant, and this manuscript “liest eindeutig A”.43 As mentioned above it is Aland’s view that manuscript evidence of punctuation should not be overestimated. He therefore immediately procedes to supplementary evidence. Here, by far the most important text is Ephraem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron.44 In my view, Aland is obviously right in stressing the fact that this text gives indisputable testimony to the full stop after οὐδὲ ἔν. This is most clearly demonstrated through Ephraem’s use of an “and” before quoting the following words.45 Surprisingly, however, Aland has no comment on the second “and” in Ephraem between the translation of αὐτῷ and ζωή. This, in Louis Leloir’s preface to his edition of the Syriac original of Ephraem’s Commentary on the

40 Cf. P. Smulders, “Eusèbe d’Émèse comme source du De Trinitate d’Hilaire de Poitiers”, Hilaire et son temps. Actes du Colloque de Poitiers 29 septembre – 3 octobre 1968 à l’occasion du XVIe Centenaire de la mort de saint Hilaire, Paris, 1969. 175-212, see esp. 180f. 188ff. 41 On this question, see Henning J. Lehmann, “An Important Text Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. No. 873, dated A.D. 1299 (Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament)”, Medieval Armenian Culture, eds. T. Samuelian and M. Stone, University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 6, 1983, 142-160 [above, pp. 77ff], and Henning J. Lehmann, “The Syriac Translation of the Old Testament – as Evidenced around the Middle of the Fourth Century (in Eusebius of Emesa)”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 1, Aarhus 1987, 66-86 [above, pp. 107ff]. 42 See Per Piscatores, passim. 43 Aland, op. cit., 366. 44 Incidentally, in 1968 Aland considered the Diatessaron to be “wahrscheinlich” older than the vetus syra, in 1979 it was so “mit Sicherheit”. 45 Aland, op. cit., 366.

T he

S o - C alled

“ A bsurd ” P unctuation

in

J ohn

1 , 3 - 4

Diatessaron is commented upon rather thoroughly. I shall quote his statement on accentuation and punctuation in full: Le texte du manuscrit syriaque est reproduit avec la plus grande fidélité possible; en matière d’accentuation notamment, et de ponctuation, devant la grande difficulté, ordi nairement, à reconnaître ce qui est de première et ce qui est de seconde main, j’ai transcrit ce que j’ai trouvé dans le manuscrit. L’effet de cette servilité est parfois bizarre; ainsi pour Jean i. 3-4, où le syriaque (cfr p. 6,1. 2) a un point, et après dhw’, quae facta est, et après bh, per eum. La présence, ensuite, d’un w, et, semble indiquer qu’Éphrem finissait le membre de phrase après per eum; j’ai donc traduit: Et illa res quae facta est per eum, et illa vita est; mais cette option ne me donnait évidemment aucun droit de modifier le texte dans un sens qui répondît à mon opinion.46

To my mind, Ortiz de Urbina, in his edition of the Vetus Evangelium Syrorum brings out the text presupposed by Ephraem more precisely, translating: Y todo cuanto era, era en El. Y El era la vida, y esta vida era luz de los hijos del hombre.47 The second w/et/y points to a reading with a full stop after αὐτῷ. Whether or not the Syriac Ephraem in the following phrase reads ἐστίν instead of ἦν, cannot be decided on the basis of the Syriac. The Armenian has the imperfect էին. At least, Aland’s statement: “v. 4a beginnt mit ὃ γέγονεν und wahrscheinlich vorgesetztem καί und hat am Schluss ἐστιν”48 is too condensed to make the reader understand that Ephraem – like Eusebius – is a witness of Reading II in the form with a full stop both after οὐδὲ ἕν and αὐτῷ – IIp.49 There are elements in Ephraem’s commentary (sections 4-5) which bear some resemblance to what was called above the πολλάκις motive as well as to other elements in Eusebius’ use of the prologue of John. I shall not go into that in any detail. But one further element of Ephraem’s reading of John 1,4 should be noted, viz. the use of the demonstrative pronoun hnwn before the second ζωή.50 This could be described as all the more natural after the preced-

46 S. Ephrem, Commentaire de l’évangile concordant, ed. L. Leloir, Chester Beatty Monographs 8, Dublin 1963, VII. 47 Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia, Series VI. Vetus Evangelium Syrorum et exinde excerptum Diatessaron Tatiani. Editionem curavit Ignatius Ortiz de Urbina S.I., Madrid 1967, 4. 48 Aland, op. cit., 366. 49 It should be noted that the Armenian translation of Ephraem does not have the second et. Cf. Le loir’s edition, CSCO 137, 1953, 5. This may be due to either a technical reason in the transmission and copying of the text or to a “normalization” by the Armenian translator. 50 Cf. esta in Ortiz de Urbina’s translation (see above, note 47).

183

184

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

ing pointed short phrase about the Logos: Ζωὴ ἦν, and it is interesting that the reading with the demonstrative pronoun is also used in the quotation of John 1,4 in Ephraem’s Fourth Discourse to Hypatius in a refutation of a Manichaean interpretation of John 1,4.51 In Ephraem’s discussion with the Manichaeans here, the issue at stake is their idea of a “Primal Man” and the Syriac reading of singular instead of the Greek plural of τῶν ἀνθρώπων in John 1,4. Western authors such as Augustine and Ambrose also point to the Manichaeans as representatives of a wrong understanding of John 1,4. Thus Augustine chooses Reading III as a bulwark against the misleading Manichaean interpretation of the notion of vita in their use of Reading IV.52 Ambrose in his discussion of the possible readings in John 1,3f maintains that the Arians, when they take Logos to be a creature, represent a Manichaean doctrine. Here, however, the issue is the dualism which the Manichaeans read out of Reading IV, which is taken by them to mean that if “what came into being through Him, was life”, it must be concluded that there is something else – which did not come into being through Him, and was death.53 It is interesting to note that after this discussion Ambrose refers to various readings used by plerique … docti et fideles and alii, among which is found Reading IIp. It is particularly worth noting that this reading is not refuted, but paralleled with S. Paul’s words in Acts 17,28 and Col. 1,16: Plerique enim docti et fideles sic pronuntiant: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est, alii sic: Omnia per ipsum factum sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, deinde pronuntiant quod factum est et subiungunt in ipso, hoc est: Quidquid autem ‘factum’ est in ipso. Quid est ‘in ipso’, apostolus docet dicens: In ipso enim et sumus et vivimus et movemur et alibi: Omnia in ipso creata sunt.54

A corresponding – neutral – reference to Reading II can be found in a much later (11th century) author, Theophylactus,55 whereas Theodore of Mopsuestia

51 C. W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan I-II, 1912-21, see esp. I,121f (text), xc (translation), II, clvii (commentary). 52 Augustinus, Tractatus in Johannis Evangelium I, ed. R. Willems, CCSL, 36, 9f. 53 Ambrosius, De fide, III, 6, 41ff, ed. O. Faller, CSEL 78, 1962, 122f. 54 Ambrosius, op. cit., 123. 55 Theophylactus, Enarratio in Evangelium Joannis, PG 123, 1145.

T he

S o - C alled

“ A bsurd ” P unctuation

in

J ohn

1 , 3 - 4

is the first author to ridicule it.56 Neither of these authors gives more precise hints about their sources for Reading II. The evidence presented above, however, seems to me to allow the statement that the occurrence of Reading IIp in Eusebius and Ephraem shows that this reading was used by authors who wrote their main works in the second and third quarters of the fourth century, and should now be well known as primary witnesses to the Syrian Bible text of that period. And about the theological context of the reading we can observe that these authors considered it a suitable bulwark against the absurdities promoted by Arian, Sabellian, and Manichaean heretics. Furthermore, through the evidence of Ephraem, we seem to be taken to Tatian’s Diatessaron as the most probable source of the reading. We have also seen that later authors (such as e.g. Severian) seem to have learnt some of the exegetic topoi now best known from Eusebius. Others (as e.g. Ambrose and Theophylactus) took notice of the reading without feeling the need to ridicule it, whereas Theodore of Mopsuestia, a strong opponent of the reading, can be seen as a forerunner of modern writers such as Zahn, Westcott, and Aland, who have condemned the reading to a resting-place in “absurdity”. The Armenian transmission in spite of its lack of precise rendering in the case of Ephraem turned out to be very helpful in finding our way back to those authors who used “Reading IIp” in a fruitful and interesting way, theologically, exegetically – and therefore historically – speaking.

56 Theodori Mopsuesteni commentarius in evangelium Johannis Apostoli, ed. J.-M. Vosté, CSCO 115, 1940, 25f (Syriac text), CSCO 116, 1940, 17 (translation)

185

What was Theodoret’s Mother Tongue? – Is the Question Open or Closed?

If one seeks the answer to the question, what was Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ mother tongue, in the prominent reference books of the 20th century, there seems to be little doubt as to the answer. I shall only quote two of them, one from the first half of the century, the other from the second half, viz. Bardenhewer’s Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, and Johannes Quasten’s Patrology, respectively. Bardenhewer states that Theodoret “von Hause aus syrisch sprach”,1 and Quasten tells us that he was “acquainted with several languages besides his own, which was Syriac”.2 It seems that Bardenhewer’s statement is built on the estimate forwarded by Léon Parmentier, the famous editor of Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History in the prominent series of Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller.3 The idea that Theodoret’s primary language was Syriac, was further elaborated by Paul Peeters,4 and his view was taken over by Pierre Canivet, the most productive editor of works by Theodoret in the later decades of the 20th century.5 JeanNoël Guinot, too, in his large work on Theodoret as exegete of the Bible (1995) (where questions of language are crucial, of course), even if he maintains that Theodoret has used Greek instruments in his exegesis, states with no reserva-

1 Here quoted from the edition of the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962, based on the 1st-2nd edition, 1924, vol. 4, p. 221. 2

Johannes Quasten, Patrology, III, 2nd imprint, 1963, p. 538.

3

Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, ed. L. Parmentier, GCS 19, Leipzig 1911 (cf. below).

4

P. Peeters, Orient et Byzance. Le tréfonds oriental de l’hagiographie byzantine, Subsidia hagiographica 26, Bruxelles 1950 (quoted Tréfonds).

5

Pierre Canivet, Histoire d‘une entreprise apologétique au Ve siècle, Paris 1958 (quoted Entreprise), esp. p. 25ff, and Le Monachisme syrien selon Théodoret de Cyr, Théologie historique 42, Paris 1977, esp. p. 38f and 251f.

188

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

tion that “il est certain que Théodoret connaissait le syriaque et que c’était sa langue maternelle”.6 Only a couple of voices seem to have raised doubts as to the validity of the assumption quoted. Most explicit was Nicola Festa, the Italian editor and translator of Theodoret’s Cure of Greek Maladies7, but also Canivet’s co-editor of the History of the Monks of Syria, Alice Leroy-Molinghen, characterizes Theodoret’s linguistic background as an environment where Greek was used “couramment”.8 We shall return to the answers given by the authors here quoted – and their arguments.

The use of ὁ Σύρος in the 4th and 5th centuries: The question of Theodoret’s language in the context of the history of the versions of the Bible In spite of the remarkable consensus about Syriac being Theodoret’s primary language, to my mind there is good reason to re-open the question. Before turning to the history of research leading to the prevailing view I shall therefore point to one of the presuppositions for this pleading for a re-opening of the discussion. The fundamental issue at stake was the discussion of the language of the Bible version called “the Syrian”, ὁ Σύρος. I shall return to Theodoret’s use of that version; here I shall only mention that I have discussed Eusebius of Emesa’s use of this version in two articles.9 To-day, however, it is the more natural to refer to R. B. ter Haar Romeny’s book from 1997, where, characteristically, he introduces Eusebius of Emesa as “a Syrian in Greek dress”. From the title of his book, it appears (indirectly, at least) that Romeny has concentrated his attention on the Genesis part of Eusebius’ Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament, and inside that part on the biblical quotations. Romeny’s book, indeed, represents an important step forward in Eusebian research, not least in identifying Eusebius’ contributions to the Greek catenae, and it is of course (from my point of view) satisfactory that Romeny entirely agrees that ὁ Σύρος is a version in Syriac, a point which I

6

Jean-Noël Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, Théologie historique 100, Paris 1995 (quoted L’exégèse), p. 195. Cf. below, p. 207.

7

Teodoreto, Terapia dei morbi pagani, a cura di Nicola Festa, vol. I, Edizioni Testi cristiani, Firenze 1931 (quoted Terapia).

8

Cf. below, p. 192.

9

L 1984, 1987, cf. also L 1989 [above, pp. 77ff, 107ff, 125ff].

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

strongly emphasized in 1984.10 (Already in 1975 I argued that through Latin and Armenian translations, in some instances, Eusebius’ Syriac Bible was recognizable.11) Romeny’s laudable concentration on Eusebius, however, means that for other writers of the Old Church he mainly builds on other scholars, e.g. on Guinot as far as Theodoret is concerned. As, however, the estimate of the OT and LXX scholar, Alfred Rahlfs (as given in 1915) – that in Theodoret’s comments on Judges 12,6 he had found “einen vollständig sicheren Beweis” that ὁ Σύρος was a Greek version – still seems to be given some consideration,12 Romeny’s sound and evident evaluation of the language of this important version as used by Eusebius, is here referred to as a new source of inspiration for reconsidering the question of languages (and Bible texts) concerning a Syrian bishop writing about 100 years later than Eusebius, i.e. Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Before turning to Theodoret himself I shall substantiate my introduction to the state of research. For the sake of brevity this will not be a full history, but concentrate, first, on Canivet’s portrait of Theodoret and its sources – representing the consensus or majority described above, and second, on the “minority”, i.e. the two representatives of doubt.

Pierre Canivet’s portrait of Theodoret – and its sources Pierre Canivet’s book Histoire d’une entreprise apologétique (1958) is concerned with Theodoret’s work Graecarum affectionum curatio (or Cure of Greek Maladies – hereafter quoted: Curatio).13 In his description of Antioch, Theodoret’s native city, Canivet first deals with the “politique religieuse et survivances païennes de 385 à 430”. Then he turns to “le milieu social antiochien”, where his keyword is cosmopolitisme, a determining factor in commerce, culture, religion and demography. For a linguistic description of Antioch, again the word “cosmopolitism”

10 R. B. Ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress. The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis, Louvain 1997, see esp. p. 71ff.. Cf. Guinot, L’exégèse, p. 186ff. 11 Cf. Henning J. Lehmann, Per Piscatores. Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975. Cf. also below, pp. 235ff. 12 Alfred Rahlfs, “Quis sit ὁ Σύρος?”, Kleine Mitteilungen II, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1915, p. 420‑428. See esp. p. 425ff. 13 Entreprise, cf. above p. 187, note 5.

189

190

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

is valid: Latin is the official language of legislation, Greek is the language of culture. In a certain competition with Greek, Syriac has a twofold function: it is the everyday language of communication, but it is also a literary language; and in this respect it is of increasing importance, mainly because of Ephraem the Syrian and because of the translation of central ecclesiastical literature from Greek into Syriac. Turning to Theodoret, Canivet first refers to the 17th century editor H. de Valois (Valesius) for the view that Theodoret’s family was of Syrian origin. Next he turns to Léon Parmentier, from whom he quotes the crucial passage in the introduction to Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History: Seine Mutter war nach den Begriffen der Zeit eine Heilige (…). Das Kind, das durch ein Wunder nach sechzehnjähriger Ehe geboren und sogleich Gott geweiht war (…), wuchs im Umgang mit den berühmten Asketen auf, deren Leben es später schreiben sollte (…). Die Sprache, in der diese Mönche mit ihm redeten und die auch seine Muttersprache war, ist das Syrische. Dies geht aus den Worten Graec. aff. cur. V S. 145 ff (Raeder) hervor: ταῦτα λέγω οὐ τὴν Ἑλλάδα σμικρύνων φωνήν, ῇς ἀμηγέπη μετέλαχον, und es scheint sich aus derselben Stelle … klar zu ergeben, dass Theodoret niemals lateinisch verstand. Daher kommt es, dass er das Griechische mit der Correctheit eines Fremden schreibt, der sich bemüht hat, es nach den Regeln der Grammatik zu lernen”.14

In addition to Parmentier, Canivet calls the attention to reports about Theodoret’s mother’s contacts with monks, whose primary (or only) language was, presumably, Syriac, and to the fact that the prevailing language in the diocese of Cyrrhus was Syriac. He also refers to his own remarks about metaphors used by Theodoret, but these remarks, as far as I can see, only amount to the description of Theodoret’s rhetoric as having a saveur orientale.15 Canivet rounds off his presentation of Theodoret’s cultural and linguistic profile with the following description: D’origine araméenne, il était bilingue et il faut le ranger parmi ces Syriens grécisés qui s’exprimaient sans doute mieux en grec que dans leur langue nationale. A ce titre, Théodoret demeure un des derniers grands témoins d’une culture qui est sur son déclin et

14 Parmentier, op. cit., p. XCIX. 15 Canivet, Entreprise, p. 25. Cf. Canivet’s introduction to the edition of Curatio: Théodoret de Cyr, Thérapeutique des maladies helléniques, ed. Pierre Canivet, SC 57, I-II, Paris 1958 (quoted Thérapeutique), p. 67.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

d’un grec dont la pureté s’altère de plus en plus au contact de langues plus populaires et plus pratiques.16

In this passage the formula syrien grécisé presumably contains a reference to Paul Peeters, the famous Orientalist, whose series of lectures (given in 1943) on “le tréfonds oriental de l’hagiographie byzantine” was published in 1950 – after the author’s death. Peeters, in this book, in quite passionate language attacks classical philologists for their “automatic” preference for Greek textual evidence as compared with Oriental versions, through which procedure they often overlook, even discredit, the significance of le tréfonds oriental. Even if this criticism could sometimes with good reason be taken up 50 years later, in Peeters’ case it also becomes the background for the throwing into relief of Syrian spirituality and culture in general and of Theodoret in particular – seen as a “hellenized Syrian”, “un type … de ces Orientaux chez qui la culture hellénique, portée à un rare degré d’excellence, a recouvert sans l’effacer le caractère ethnique”.17 A little further on we shall discuss the two narratives in Theodoret’s History of the Monks of Syria (or Φιλόθεος ἱστορία, Historia religiosa – hereafter quoted: Hist. rel.), from which Peeters draws his principal arguments for Syriac having been Theodoret’s primary (or “ordinary”) language.18 Here I shall only add the question of what kind of connection there might be between Leloir’s and Molitor’s prioritizing of Syriac as a “dynamic” language and Peeters’ search for the Syriac or Oriental tréfonds in Theodoret’s work and elsewhere. But this question concerns rather the history of ideas of 20th century Europe than 5th century Syria.19

16 Canivet, Entreprise, p. 27 with notes 3 and 4. 17 Peeters, Tréfonds, p. 89. 18 Peeters, Tréfonds, pp. 91. 95. 105. 120f. 19 Cf. L 1982,1 [above, pp. 37ff]. Here I discuss the background of Louis Leloir’s and Joseph Molitor’s comments on the Armenian and the Georgian versions of the New Testament, in particular the question of a possible Syriac Vorlage, where to my mind considerations of Syriac being more “dynamic” than Greek, and questions about judging text historical issues on the basis of the history of languages raise serious methodical problems. I see a certain parallel in the importance attached to Theodoret’s “Syrian” background by Peeters.

191

192

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

The voices of doubt: Nicola Festa and Alice Leroy-Molinghen Parmentier’s reading of the crucial phrase in Curatio V is explicitly contradicted by Nicola Festa – or rather “by Theodoret himself”, as Festa puts it.20 The Italian scholar holds that the phrase ῇς ἀμηγέπη μετέλαχον expresses “modest irony”, and argues that this is supported by the context; this then leads to the conclusion that Greek was Theodoret’s language from his earliest years and – probably – from his family background.21 Pierre Canivet and Alice Leroy-Molinghen shared the responsibility of editing Theodoret’s Hist. rel. in the Sources Chrétiennes (1977‑79).22 From what we know already about Canivet, it is no surprise to find the evaluation in his chapter on L’auteur et l’oeuvre, that Theodoret’s mother tongue was Syriac. The phrasing of the context, however, is interesting: Il a certainement fait des études classiques; on ne sait pas dans quelles conditions, peutêtre à l’école d’un maître païen d’Antioche, en tout cas selon d’excellentes méthodes si l’on en juge par la qualité du style et la culture de cet homme dont la langue maternelle était le syriaque.23

Alice Leroy-Molinghen in her chapter on the Histoire du texte refers to Parmentier in the following way: “Parmentier a caractérisé le grec de Théodoret, en disant qu’il l’écrivait avec la correction d’un étranger qui s’était efforcé de l’apprendre suivant les règles de la grammaire”. Interestingly, however, she adds: “Peut-être est-ce moins vrai qu’il ne paraît, et les classes cultivées de la société syrienne usaient-elles couramment de la langue grecque”.24 Combining this statement with Peeters’ formula the hellenized Syrian, one could be tempted to ask that if the process of hellenizing begins at the very moment of the birth of a “Syrian” child, what then is his mother tongue? In modern times perhaps one would ask: Are we concerned with a case of bilinguality? – maybe adding: What is real bilinguality? Or should we, rather than searching (for ideological reasons?) for other explanations, consider Theodoret

20 Festa, Terapia, p. 18: “Ma ciò è contradetto esplicitamente da Teodoreto stesso”. 21 Festa, Terapia, p. 19. 22 Théodoret de Cyr, Histoire des moines de Syrie, I-II, ed. Pierre Canivet et Alice Leroy-Molinghen, SC 234. 257, Paris 1977‑1979 (quoted Histoire des moines). 23 Histoire des moines, SC 234, p. 14f. 24 Histoire des moines, SC 234, p. 112.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

as a boy, born in a Greek-speaking environment in the cosmopolitan city of Antioch and thus, naturally, having Greek as his mother tongue?

Theodoret’s language. A reconsideration In the following we shall not concentrate too much on Theodoret’s birth and infancy. Instead I shall try to extract seven points from current research and from the existing oeuvre of Theodoret, in order to try to reach an evaluation of his use and knowledge of languages, and their context. The first three points will take up certain details in current research, first an element in Nicola Festa’s description of the “modest irony” as used in Theodoret’s rhetoric, then an element in the characterization of Theodoret’s Greek, as presented by Alice Leroy-Molinghen; and finally, N. Fernández Marcos’ studies of Theodoret’s knowledge of Hebrew will be used in an attempt to understand his general linguistic equipment. Then, in points 4‑7 we shall turn to the context of Theodoret’s writings, first considering certain narrative elements in the stories most often quoted as “proofs” of his (vast or primary) knowledge of Syriac. Then we turn to some of his ideas about the history and hierarchy of languages, both Greek (5) and Syriac (6); and finally (7) the use of Syriac in his Biblical exegesis will be commented upon. (It should be noted that this article, of course, does not allow me to present an exhausting analysis of Theodoret’s commentaries on the Bible; as noted above, however, I have added material about the Commentary on Jeremiah (7c), which was not included in the Danish original.)

1. The use of ἀμηγέπη in Theodoret It might be true to say that Parmentier and Festa agree on one point, formally speaking; i.e. in taking the author’s self-evidence about his language as a natural starting-point. However, as noted already, they entirely disagree in their interpretation of the passage in question (Curatio V). I have already given the verdict that I find Festa’s interpretation to be sound and correct. Here I shall only add two observations, which might support Festa’s method of reading. They both concern the word ἀμηγέπη. In addition to the Curatio passage, this word is found in two places in Theodoret’s letters, viz. in letters Nos. 81 and 147. In both cases Theodoret describes, how, during his time as bishop of Cyrrhus, he has – ἀμηγέπη – “to a certain extent” contributed to architectural

193

194

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

improvements of the – otherwise – inelegant city.25 To my mind the author’s rhetoric technique used here is a characteristic example of “rhetoric modesty” used in a particular way, viz. in the form of an ironic litotes, whereby ἀμηγέπη is given the meaning “to a great extent”, “remarkably” (instead of “to a certain extent”). Festa’s expression “modest irony” about this rhetorical device is very well chosen.

2. Theodoret’s Greek The whole of Theodoret’s oeuvre is written in Greek, and it is unanimously stated in reference books and introductions that his language could be characterized as pure and “classical”. To quote just one example, Alice LeroyMolinghen underlines the absence of neologisms in the Hist. rel.: “Toujours est-il que, dans l’Histoire Philothée, Théodoret témoigne de la défiance à l’égard des néologismes”.26 Some of the explanations given of this fact, when combined with the assumption of Syriac being his primary language, have an almost absurd ring.

3. Theodoret’s background in terms of language, culture, and theology Two basic assumptions often form the setting for explanations of Theodoret’s background: 1. He knew many languages – as maintained by Quasten, e.g. (cf. above).27 2. He must have been able to communicate in a Syriac speaking environment. Two very general considerations might prepare our way into more specific comments and investigations. For one thing I would agree that it is hard to believe that a person could have a lifelong career in a certain environment without being acquainted, to some extent, with the prevailing language of that environment. For another thing, however, it is an open question, what amount of knowledge is needed in order to characterize a person as one who “knows” a language. A modern parallel to Theodoret’s situation as a preacher in Syria could be taken from such modern churches, where it is emphasized that their pastors should “know” Hebrew and Greek in order to base their sermons on the languages of Holy Scripture. An acceptable “working knowledge” to be demanded in such cases would rarely mean that the persons in question

25 I refer to Y. Azéma’s edition of Theodoret’s letters: Théodoret de Cyr, Correspondance, 1‑4, SC 40; 98; 111; 429, 1955‑1998. See esp. SC 98, p. 196f and SC 111, p. 142 (with note 2). 26 Histoire des moines, SC 234, p. 112. 27 See p. 187 with note 2.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

would master modern Greek or Hebrew or be able to read, on a broader scale, extra-Biblical literature in the languages in question. Theodoret’s knowledge of one of the Biblical languages, Greek, is indisputable. His knowledge of Hebrew has been studied by a Spanish scholar, N. Fernández Marcos. As introduction to his own studies he points to two evaluations, both about 100 years old, viz. those of E. Venables, who considered Theodoret to be a “master of Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew”, and of C. J. Elliott, who described him as having “a superficial acquaintaince [of Hebrew] as one living in Syria would have acquired by intercourse with those who spoke a cognate language”.28 On such a background Marcos makes a thoroughgoing, methodical investigation into Theodoret’s references to the Hebrew Bible in his two quaestionescommentaries, to the Octateuch and Samuel-Kings, respectively. He reaches the conclusion, that he has met with no instances that necessarily presuppose any knowledge of Hebrew.29 Where Theodoret refers to Hebrew words and texts, his knowledge, according to Marcos, is rather “indirect”, i.e. he builds on such sources as Greek onomastica, for example. The evidence referred to by Marcos is very convincing. One could add that Theodoret – apart from his knowledge of singular Hebrew words – reveals a certain basic understanding of syntactical and grammatical phenomena in Hebrew. On our way to an evaluation of his knowledge of Syriac – and with a view to the modern parallel in Theodoret’s colleagues of to-day, I might be tempted to consider the possibility of a positive answer such as, for example: Theodoret had some knowledge of Hebrew, rather modest, indeed, but on the other hand sufficient to be designated a “working” knowledge of the Biblical language.

4. Narration, genre, and context in Theodoret’s works As promised we now turn to the context of Theodoret’s oeuvre. First we shall attempt to bring forward some of the narrative elements of the most important “proof” passages about his knowledge of Syriac. In particular, two of the narratives in Theodoret’s Hist. rel., have played an essential role in Peeters’ and

28 N. Fernández Marcos, “Teodoreto de Ciro y la lengua hebrea”, Henoch 9,1, 1987, pp. 39‑54 (quoted Lengua hebrea), see esp. pp. 39f with notes 3 and 5. 29 Marcos, Lengua hebrea, p. 51: no he encontrado ningún solo caso cuya exégesis o comentario obligue a postular algún conocimiento del hebreo por parte de Teodoreto.

195

196

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Canivet’s arguments, viz. the narrative about the Ismaelite nomads,30 and that of the demon speaking Syriac. We therefore first turn to these narratives and their context. Elements from the stories about Aphraates, Macedonius, and Maësymas add interesting material; therefore some supplementary remarks about those chapters will be presented.

a. The narrative about the Ismaelite nomads This narrative is part of the chapter (26) about Simeon Stylites in Theodoret’s Hist. rel. The context is as follows: After the description of Simeon’s life and ascetic achievements, before he took up life on top of the pillar (Sections 1‑11), the author concentrates on the circumstances and effect of the mounting onto the pillar (Sect. 12). Such an act is stronger than words, not least in the eyes of the Ismaelites, who, due to their awe towards the holy man on the pillar, give up their former superstition (Sect. 13). (In the last part of Sect. 13 (presumably a secondary interpolation) the pillar is compared with a lampstand allowing the light to be spread far around.) The narrative of Sect. 14 is about an episode where Simeon the Stylite sends a group of Ismaelites to Theodoret in order that he may give them the blessing of the Church (ἡ ἱερατικὴ εὐλογία). Barbarians as they are, the Ismaelites believe, however, the bodily contact with the bishop’s beard and limbs and clothes to be more effective than the words of the blessing. Simeon must therefore shout loudly at the Barbarians in order to make them leave Theodoret at ease. In Sect. 15 it is Simeon’s turn to be disturbed by the Ismaelites, because two of their tribes compete about Simeon’s blessing. Theodoret – using many words (πολλοῖς χρησάμενος λόγοις) – now tries to make the competing Barbarians understand that the blessing is intended for both the one group and the other. Simeon, from his pillar, threatens them “as if they were dogs” in order to put a stop to the strife. The important thing, however, Theodoret concludes, is the firm belief inherent in the wildness (“mania” – Gr. ἐμάνησαν) of the Ismaelites that the holy man’s blessing contains an immense power (… μεγίστην ἔχειν δύναμιν τοῦ θεσπεσίου ἀνθρώπου τὴν εὐλογίαν). In my view it is important to note that there is nothing in the narrative about the outward forms and means of communication, such as e.g. the language used. The narrative dynamics is not taken from the opposition between Greek

30 Peeters used the word bédouins about the Ismaelite nomads.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

and Syriac, but from three different binary oppositions or dialectic wordpairs, that of word and deed, that of the formal representative of the Church, i.e. the bishop, versus the holy man of the desert, and that of Barbarian versus Christian. The second bipolarity might be quite important, even if in the story as such it seems to be a secondary element, whereas it is obvious that the third word-pair is important where, in Theodoret, Christianity has to a great extent taken over the role of “the Greek” as opposed to “the Barbarian”. It should be emphasized here that the purpose of the whole work (as stressed by Theodoret in the prologue) is edifying. The main point of the story is thus the miraculous power of the preaching in evoking conversion, and it could not be expected, that all outward circumstances should be told in such a story. Therefore additional speculations as to these circumstances must be considered as a kind of interpolation. It could be added, that in some instances, as we shall see, Theodoret is very attentive on linguistic facts; but here we are told nothing about the language or dialect of the Ismaelites.

b. The narrative of the Syriac speaking demon This narrative belongs to the chapter about Jacob Cyrrhesticus (21). He, too, like Simeon, is one of Theodoret’s contemporaries. Thus, in this chapter, there are again a number of tales about meetings of the holy man with the bishop, e.g. about how Theodoret took care of Jacob when he was ill, trying to persuade him to drive his ascetic endeavours to no further excesses (Sects. 6‑8.10). On the other hand, as Sect. 15 tells us, Theodoret has been supported by Jacob. Before illustrating this the author gives a description of how tough his fights have been with the Marcionites, who have stuck at nothing, be it sorcery or demoniac intervention. Thus one night a wicked demon (ἀλιτήριος δαίμων) appeared, shouted at him – in Syriac – accusing and threatening him because of his fights with Marcion (Τί πολεμεῖς, ὁ δεῖνα, Μαρκίωνι;…), and Theodoret only escaped being stabbed, because the demon saw that he was protected by “the choir of martyrs and Jacob”. In the morning Theodoret asks one of his companions whether he, too, heard the voice of the demon (Sect. 16). It turns out that everybody has heard the voice, but nobody has tried to awaken Theodoret, who was thought to be fast asleep. It also becomes evident to Theodoret that the demon’s final reference (to the martyrs and Jacob) was to an “amulet” in the shape of a bottle filled with “martyr oil” hanging at the bedhead, and a cloth belonging to

197

198

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Jacob, on which he (Theodoret) had rested his head. The tale of this episode is then followed by further accounts (in Sects. 17‑18) about Theodoret’s fight with the Marcionites and Jacob’s assistance in this fight. As will have appeared, the main narrative line of argument is concerned with Theodoret’s clash with the Marcionites, and it would be natural to assume that the narrative element of the demon speaking Syriac (which is indeed emphasized here) points at the fact that this is the language of Marcion’s followers. It seems to me also to be worth a moment of consideration, whether the morning dialogue contains a hint of a narrative element stating that Theodoret might not have understood the demon. Be that as it may, it is not correct, at any rate, to render the narrative as containing an element of Theodoret’s “conversing in Syriac with the demon” (as Peeters does). Otherwise Peeters’ remarks are of a “socio-linguistic” or social character, pointing at Syriac as being “ce patois de petites gens”. This remark is found in a passage where Peeters considers the question, of how far Theodoret shared the prejudice against and contempt for Syriac held by the Antiochian upper-class: peut-être eut-il la faiblesse de céder lui aussi au dédain fastueux que certains beaux esprits d’Antioche et d’ailleurs affectaient pour ce patois de petites gens. Il laisse en effet paraître qu’il tenait quelque chose de ce préjugé en nous confiant qu’il lui arriva en rêve de parler syriaque avec le diable.31

Canivet’s comment on this narrative only contains the basic geographic / linguistic information that “le syriaque est la langue dans laquelle on s’exprimait couramment en Cyrrhestique”.32 It seems to me that Peeters’ and Canivet’s observations (however rational and correct they might be seen from various 20th century angles) hardly meet the drama at narrative eye-height. Seen at this level the Syriac element to my mind strenghtens important perspectives of the narrative. Looking for a “rationale” of these perspectives, I find the best suggestion to be that the Syriac language was an important vehicle of 5th century Marcionitism; and in that respect Theodoret’s experiences might be parallel to those from his war against the use of the Diatessaron, of which Syriac was often the linguistic vehicle, too. 31 Tréfonds, p. 91. 32 Histoire des moines, SC 257, p. 95, n. 3.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

c. References to Syriac in other parts of the History of the Syrian Monks The above cases are not the only ones, where references to the Syriac language are of some importance in Theodoret’s Hist. rel. I shall refer to two groups of cases, one group, where names of persons or places are described as being Syrian, another group, where the use of Syriac is seen as a positive element of the narrative or event in question. The phenomenon first mentioned can be parallelled with a number of related cases in Theodoret’s exegetical writings. I shall only call attention to four cases in the Hist. rel., viz.: 2,1:

Ἰουλιανὸς, ὃν Σάβαν ἐπίκλην οἱ ἐπιχώριοι τιμῶντες ὠνόμαζον …33

4,2:

… τῇ δὲ ἐγχωρίῳ φωνῇ Τελεδὰν αὐτὴν ὀνομάζουσιν.34

10,9:

… κώμη Μαρατὼ συριστὶ καλουμένη.35

13,2:

… ὅθεν καὶ Γουββᾶν αὐτόν τινες ἐπωνόμαζον – ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς σύρας εἰς τῄν ἑλλάδα φωνὴν τοῦτο μεταφερόμενον λάκκον σημαίνει τὸ ὄνομα.36

An interesting detail, to my mind characteristic of Theodoret, is the use of the words ἐπιχώριος and ἐγχώριος in the first two examples. The words used are thereby described as belonging to the language “of the country(side)”. In other cases the attention on facts concerned with languages and their use could be described as giving positive information about the history and life of churches and monasteries, as e.g. the use of hymns in both Greek and Syriac in the liturgy (cf. e.g. 4,13 about the monastery of Teleda, and 5,5f about Publius, whose activities in this connection are seen as a fulfilment of the missionary command of Matth. 28,19). Finally, three examples should be quoted, where the Syriac language has a particular role to play in the narrative in question. The narratives are about Aphraates, Macedonius, and Maësymas, three figures prior to Theodoret’s own time. The chapter about Aphraates (8) is introduced through remarks about human nature being equal in all people, Greek and Barbarian alike; they have therefore equal opportunities of access to philosophy. This is evident in Aphraates who

33 Histoire des moines, SC 234, p. 194. 34 Histoire des moines, SC 234, p. 292. 35 Histoire des moines, SC 234, p. 452. 36 Histoire des moines, SC 234, p. 476.

199

200

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

was of Persian origin, thus belonging to an extremely ill-bred (lit. “unlawful”) nation (ἐν Πέρσαις τοῖς παρανομωτάτοις). Even then, he reached the highest level of virtue, higher than anybody reared in a pious home. Some details are told about Aphraates’ life, in Edessa, and in Antioch as well, and it is underlined that when he came to Antioch, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost he was able to attract people through his preaching against the heretics (we are taken to heresy-stricken Antioch of 360), even if his sermons were given in a half-Barbarian language, as he had learned only a few Greek words: … καὶ τῆς ἑλλάδος φωνῆς μαθὼν ὀλίγα ἄττα ῥημάτια εἷλκε μὲν ὅτι πλείστους εἰς τὴν τῶν θείων λογίων ἀκρόασιν· τῇ δὲ μιξοβαρβάρῳ κεχρημένος γλώττῃ τὰς τῆς διανοίας ὠδῖνας προέφερεν … (8,2). Theodoret draws a parallel to St. Paul’s words in 2. Cor. 11,6: “I may be no speaker, but knowledge I have”. In the chapter about Macedonius (13) we are again taken to Antioch. Macedonius in his speech reproaches the emperor in the case about the statues, well-known from John Chrysostom. The editors (Canivet / Molinghen) even consider the possibility that Chrysostom could be Theodoret’s source. Be that as it may, Macedonius according to Theodoret gives his sermon in Syriac (Sect. 7). There is a translator present so as to make his words understandable to the general of the imperial army. But how could such a rustic, ill-bred person preach with such strength and such courage? The answer is (Sect. 8) that this is due to the Holy Ghost. The presentation referred to of Macedonius: ἀνὴρ παιδείας μὲν ἀπάσης ἀμύητος, ἐν ἀγροικίᾳ δὲ τεθραμμένος37 is entirely parallel to the presentation of Maësymas: Ἐγένετό τις Μαησυμάς ἐν τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν χρόνοις, Σύρος μὲν τὴν φωνήν, ἐν ἀγροικίᾳ δὲ τεθραμμένος.38 It is interesting here to note the description of the two figures as belonging to rural environments (ἀγροικία), parallel to ἐπιχώριος and ἐγχώριος above. In my evaluation three things are characteristic and important in such contexts: 1) Theodoret quite obviously takes what may summarily be called “Christian Greek culture” as his starting point. 2) He reveals an interest in Syriac dialects – as the languages of the countryside, through which, indeed, the gospel can be preached. 3) He only refers to such elements, where they are significant – in terms of history and theology, and not least in terms of narrative effect and content. But the passages in question never reveal a deep and thoroughgoing knowledge of Syriac on the part of Theodoret himself. 37 Histoire des moines, SC 234, p. 490. 38 Histoire des moines, SC 257, p. 10.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

5. Theodoret’s Christian Greek culture The best introduction to what is here given the term “Theodoret’s Christian Greek culture” is given by Theodoret himself in the 5th book of Curatio. We are here in the context of the phrase, on which Parmentier and Festa deeply disagree, as we saw above. The book in question generally deals with human nature. It contains a rich arsenal of quotations from Greek authors of the classical period. This in itself is interesting enough; more important, however, is the following: In Sect. 55 one element of the creation narrative of the Old Testament is emphasized, viz. that only one man is created, Adam. Therefore all human beings, to whichever people they belong, have one and the same nature (or essence: οὐσία). This is not contradicted by the existense of two genders (Sects. 56‑57); nor could the variety of languages be used as an argument against the one and same nature (now: φύσις) of man; and it is added that both among Greeks and Barbarians do we find individuals striving for virtue and others who perform evil deeds.39 This remark introduces a fairly long chapter about languages and cultures (Sects. 58‑75). References to Homer and Xenophon testify to Greek acknow ledgement of the striving towards virtue to be found in Barbarians. Language is not the important thing, as can be learned from the fact that the majority of prophets and apostles did not know Greek. Even then, they have proclaimed the divine teaching (ἡ θεία διδασκαλία) all over the whole world. Two wellknown themes from apologetics and homiletics of the Early Church are added here: Writings by fishermen, publicans and a tentmaker have superseded the idle talk of the philosophers; so now we take Abraham and his predecessors, Abel, Enoch, and Noah as our models rather than the schools of philosophers, who belong, incidentally, to a much later period. The texts of the Old Testament, originally in Hebrew, have now been translated into the various languages of the whole world, and the proclamation of the Christian message has reached all layers in society, in the countryside as in the cities. Referring again to St. Paul (here 1 Cor. 14,11: If I do not know the meaning of the sound the speaker makes, his words will be gibberish to me, and mine to him) Theodoret draws a parallel between the strangeness to the Greek ear (or even the Barbarian character) of such languages as those of the Illyrians, the Paeonians, the Taulantianians, and the Atintanians,40 and 39 Thérapeutique, SC 57, p. 245‑251. 40 Probably, these languages are mentioned as belonging to the “neighbourhood” of classical Greece.

201

202

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

the inability of non-Greeks to understand the Greek dialects: the Doric, the Aeolian, and the Ionian. From the old historians, Theodoret adds, we know about the great wisdom of other peoples than the Greek, the Persians, the Indians, even the Ismaelites, and, certainly, the Egyptians and the Romans. This is the context (illuminating, it seems to me) where is inserted the remark, discussed by Parmentier and Festa: “I do not mention this in order to detract from Greek, a language, which I might presumably and adequately call mine”.41 (Here I permit myself to render the “modest irony” of ἀμηγέπη through the adverbs “presumably” and “adequately”. Cf. the discussion above.)

6. Syriac in history according to Theodoret We have just been acquainted with some aspects of Theodoret’s general view of the languages of the world. In some of his texts we also find ideas about the role, the Syriac language has played in history. I shall comment on two elements (the most important, I think), viz. 1) that Syriac is the oldest language of all, 2) that Syriac was the language of the Aramaeans of the Old Testament. The first assumption is presented in his quaestio No. 60 on Genesis.42 Theodoret’s main argument is that names such as Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah are Syrian names. He knows about other authors, who believe that Hebrew is the oldest language. This discussion is pursued further in the following quaestio, No. 61,43 where the author maintains that Hebrew is a holy language or a didactic language – to be distinguished from other languages, the natural ones. (Οἶμαι αὐτὴν ἱερὰν εἶναι φωνήν … τὴν γλῶτταν, διδακτὴν οὖσαν, οὐ φυσικήν.) This idea is substantiated through the observation that Jewish children of his day are taught the languages of their environments, not Hebrew, as their primary languages. This may add little to the “portrait” of Theodoret’s knowledge of Hebrew as described by Marcos (cf. above), but the second observation might be of some relevance to the understanding of Theodoret’s approach to history and

41 Thérapeutique, SC 57, p. 250. 42 Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Octateuchum, ed. N. Fernández Marcos & A. Sáenz-Badillos, Madrid 1979, p. 56. Cf. the data given by Lucas van Rompay in Le Commentaire sur Genèse – Exode 9,32 du Manuscrit (olim) Diyarbakir 22, CSCO 484, Scriptores Syri 206, Louvain 1986, p. 88, n. 9. Cf. Henning Lehmann, “Sprog, nation og religion. Nogle oldkirkelige observationer”, Sprogets mesterskab. Festskrift til Johannes Sløks 70‑årsdag, red. Kjeld Holm and Jan Lindhardt, Aarhus 1986, p. 83‑108, esp. p. 100ff. 43 Cf. the edition quoted (in note 42), p. 57.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

to his overall interpretation of the Old Testament. A number of OT quotations make it natural for him to comment on linguistic facts such as the language of the Aramaeans and that of the Hebrew people. For example, the story about the Hebrew-speaking, Assyrian chief officer Rab-shakeh, of 2 Kings 18 (cf. Is 36) invites the juxtaposition of Syriac or Aramaic, the language in which Eliakim wants Rab-shakeh to speak (συριστὶ, verse 26) over against Hebrew (here ἰουδαϊστὶ, verse 28).44 From Theodoret’s comments on Is. 19,18 it appears that Hebrew was “the language of Canaan” (Χανανίτιδα δὲ γλῶσσαν τὴν Ἑβραΐδα λέγει, ἐπειδὴ τὴν Χαναναίαν εἰσῴκησαν οἱ Ἑβραῖοι), and in the same context (conc. v. 23) he gives the information, that “Assyrian” can in the OT mean “Syrian” (Ἀσσύριοι πάλαι καὶ οἱ Σύροι προση(γορεύντο)).45 By way of conclusion it seems appropriate to note that there is no romantic approach to Syriac. Its status as the oldest language of the world does not place it in any “golden age”. It is the language of the Aramaeans of old as of the Syrians of his own time. All languages can transmit valuable proclamations and important insights. Theodoret, however, considers himself as the heir to classical Greek, and – indirectly – to Hebrew as the holy and didactic language of the Old Testament and Old Israel. But as a representative of the church, the New Israel, he does not need to have any great knowledge of the language of the Old. It is a truism, of course, that Theodoret should not be measured by any modern standard of presentation of the history of languages. But his historical horizon, as far as the use of languages is concerned, is an important element in the understanding of his writings.

7. Theodoret’s use of Syriac (and “the Syrian”) in his biblical exegesis a. Biblical versions and other sources We now turn to such writings from Theodoret’s hand, as are concerned with the exegesis of the OT. Focus will be on the question of which Bible text he uses, and, in particular, what traces there might be of any use of “the Syrian” (and, eventually, any other Syriac elements). Some of the more important examples of his allusions to Syrian culture, language, and history will be referred to as well. 44 PG 80, 785ff. 45 Théodoret de Cyr, Commentaire sur Isaïe, I-III, ed. Jean-Noël Guinot, SC 276. 295. 315, 1980‑1984, esp. SC 295, p. 140f og 146f.

203

204

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

It should be noted that the text corpus relevant for this investigation is vast; it is not, however, in all cases available in good, critical editions. So, no doubt, my survey will call for corrections and supplements, maybe immediately, at any rate whenever the manuscript material is sorted through and better editions might be published. It should also be noted at the outset, that the basic Bible text used by Theodoret is the Septuagint (in an Antiochene-Lucianic recension). But very often, in order to understand this or that biblical passage, he refers to the other old Greek versions, and to “the Hebrew” and “the Syrian” as well. When doing so, his favourite word is σαφέστερον – signifying that this or that recension would render the meaning “more clearly”, “more precisely” than the Septuagint. A counting of references gives the following picture):46 The Hebrew

65

The Syrian

61

Aquila

365

Symmachus

597

Theodotion

247

Quinta

3

The most conspicuous fact of the table is, of course, the distribution of quotations and the prominent place of Symmachus whenever Theodoret needs a control instrument for his Septuagint text – and the inconspicuous place of “the Syrian”. Further, about the quotations from the Syrian it should be mentioned that 32 belong to the Commentary on Jeremiah, 14 to the Commentary on Ezekiel – leaving us with very few references for the rest of the Old Testament. We shall return to the Commentary on Jeremiah.47

46 When the figures in the survey given here differ a little from the figures given in my paper of 1987 (L 1989), the main reason is that in 1987 I had only done a provisional count from Migne’s edition, whereas here I have used the SC-editions, where such exist. Another element should be mentioned too, viz. that sometimes it is difficult to judge whether Theodoret has a particular verse of the Bible in mind or refers to Syriac usage in general. 47 In this paper I include very little comparative material; it is natural, however, here to mention that for the use of “the Syrian” (compared with other versions) Eusebius of Emesa leaves us with a very different picture as compared with Theodoret (cf. L 1987 and Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress).

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

Commenting on the Bible, apart from versions of the OT, Theodoret also uses other sources such as e.g. onomastica and Josephus’ works, and inside the Septuagint he sometimes reveals knowledge of textual variations in different manuscripts.48 His critical attitude to the text can be quite radical. In Jonah 3,4, e.g., the Septuagint has the reading “three days”, whereas “the Three” in accordance with the Hebrew and the Syrian read “forty days”. Theodoret’s comment is that “40” is more probable (εἰκὸς) and more true (ἀληθέστερον); therefore it is probably the original reading of the Septuagint; however, the very first copyists made a mistake, and this mistake has survived!49 Furthermore, a couple of characteristics of Theodoret, the exegete, should be mentioned: 1) When the versions use different words to translate one Hebrew word, Theodoret in his comments often combines the various possibilities in a harmonizing rendering. 2) Of course he reads the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament and the traditions of the Church. In this light the Septuagint acquires a particular authority, because it is the version of the OT used in the New. His arguments for the authority of the Septuagint are not only theological, but historical as well. Thus he argues that the Septuagint was completed before Christ’s birth, whereas “the three” versions are later, and so, e.g., the πάρθενος of Is. 7,14 is there with both theological and historical right – over against νεᾶνις.50

b. References to Syrian (and Hebrew) facts and words Quite often the reason for implicating the “other” biblical versions in the explanation of a Septuagint rendering is the fact that this translation has left an element “untranslated”. This is often the case, where names are concerned, both personal and geographic. Commenting on Jonah 1,3 the exposition about the name Θαρσις, e.g., expands into a geographical excursus,51 explaining, among other things, how certain exegetes (τινες) have taken the place to be identical with Ταρσις, meaning India. However, Theodoret concludes that the Greek versions and the Hebrew of Is. 23,14 prove that Θαρσις is Carthago, which is supported by the readings of the Hebrew and the Syrian in Ezek. 27,12. Frequent and characteristic elements in Theodoret’s commentaries are

48 Cf. Guinot, L’exégèse, p. 842f. 49 PG 81, 1733. 50 Cf. Guinot, SC 276, p. 286ff (NB p. 288f, note 3) and L’exégèse, e.g. p. 223f and 510. 51 Cf. Guinot, L’exégèse, p. 672f.

205

206

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

the explanations of figures and indications of measure and weight etc. It is exceptional, however, that one Hebrew quantitative term, viz. the word hin is explained in three different ways: concerning Exod. 29,40 with a reference to Josephus, concerning Ezek. 4,11 with a general reference to Syrian usage, and, finally, concerning Ezek. 45,24, where hin is identified with the Syrian ἡμίναν (as rendered in Greek, of course). Apart from such practical and historical explanations the analysis of a particular word can dig one step deeper – as in the comments on Ps 81(80),16 and Lam 1,15, where it is noted that according to Syrian and Hebrew custom the word καιρὸς (= time) can mean συμφορά (= fortune): Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ Σύροι, καὶ οἱ Ἑβραῖοι [ταῦτας] ὀνομάζειν εἰώθασι.52 I have mentioned already that in a number of cases Theodoret notes differences as to grammatical gender or the use of plural versus singular in Hebrew / Syriac and Greek, respectively (ἐναλλαγὴ ἀριθμοῦ). It is an interesting detail, that in his comparison between the usual Hebrew plural of “heavens” with the plural in a number of names of Greek cities,53 he uses “we” – ἡμεις – as subject about Greek custom.

c. Theodoret’s Commentary on Jeremiah, Baruch, and Lamentations As has been pointed out already, Theodoret’s Commentary on Jeremiah differs – in more than one way – from what is characteristic for most of his commentaries on writings of the Old Testament. We shall, of course, be particularly concerned with differences as to the use of Bible versions (in particular “the Syrian”). Before turning to that topic, however, a couple of general peculiarities should be noted. Theodoret in his preface (PG 81,496) emphasizes that he will comment upon the Book of Jeremiah in great brevity, and, in fact, in a number of passages his commentary could be described as a paraphrase – not much longer than the original text itself. Examples of this concentrated paraphrastic technique can be found, e.g., in his comments on chapters 24, 26(33), 35(42), 37(44), and 41(48). In other cases, such as e.g. chapters 31(38) and 46(26), his comments are broader so as to look more like what is the case in other commentaries. Related to this feature of brevity is, no doubt, the fact that anti-heretic and anti-Jewish passages are much less frequent than in other commentaries. 52 PG 80, 1528, cf. PG 81, 785 (cf. below, p. 213). 53 Comm. in Psalm. 148,4 (cf. Marcos, op. cit., p. 42f with notes 16‑19 for parallels in the Commentaries on the Octateuch and the Historical Writings).

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

(Again on that point, the comments on chapter 31(38) are, to a certain extent, at variance with the rest of the text.) It should also be mentioned that Theodoret follows the disposition of the Hebrew Bible, not the differing disposition of the Septuagint. Even if there are thus a number of characteristics to set this work apart, there are also a number of lines of connection with Theodoret’s commentaries on other writings of the Old Testament, so the radical solution: to consider the Commentary on Jeremiah as a text that does not genuinely belong to Theodoret, would distort the evidence. Below, some of the characteristics of Theodoret’s “exegetical technique” are illustrated in combination with considerations about lines that connect the Commentary on Jeremiah with other commentaries from his hand. We may then be left with considerations about particular circumstances in the situation of the author when he wrote the text or – as far as versions quoted are concerned – with particular conditions related to the textual facts. In my 1987‑communication (L 1989) I put it as an open question whether there were conditions of the first mentioned order to be taken into account. Here I shall rather refer to circumstances of the second order. Romeny refers to my 1989 presentation of the problem with no substantial further comments.54 Guinot seems to prefer a literary approach to such questions. For example, (for Ezekiel) he considers Theodoret’s basis to be “un exemplaire biblique, partiellement revu sur l’hébreu, porteur de leçons hexaplaires, et sans doute de références à la version du ‘Syrien’”,55 or he refers to possibilities such as “une Bible glosée” with marginal textual variants,56 and he is doubtful as to any direct use of the Peshitta. This is the background for his reflections as to whether the Commentary on Jeremiah should be spurious.57 However, he hesitates to give a final verdict of that character. In the following I shall try to illustrate more fully Theodoret’s use of “the

54 Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress, p. 73. 83 (Romeny, of course, could not know that over the years since 1989 I had become more reluctant as to the amount of knowledge of Syriac to be assumed in Theodoret, cf. the present article and L 2005,2, below.) 55 Guinot, L’exégèse, p. 222. 56 Guinot, L’exégèse, p. 251f. 57 Guinot, L’exégèse, p. 216: “Pour comble de malchance, le Commentaire sur Jérémie donné pour celui de Théodoret à partir des chaînes en PG 81, n’offre pas des garanties suffisantes d’authenticité”, cf. also p. 186, where in relation to the use of “the Syrian”, he says: “Si l’authenticité de ce commentaire était assuré, il serait logique d’admettre que Théodoret commente son texte en s’aidant de la version syriaque, quitte à vérifier en certains cas la teneur exacte du texte hébreu”.

207

208

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Syrian” in his Commentary on Jeremiah. First it might be worthwhile to refer to elements of the text-historical circumstances and particulars of his references to the Septuagint and the other versions. The basic starting-point for these considerations stems from the fact that Theodoret seems entirely to have given up the most fundamental element of his “technique” as a commentator, viz. that of taking – for reasons of principle as well as practical circumstances – the Septuagint as his textual base, using the other versions, in particular Symmachus, as auxiliary instruments.58 In order to understand the total absence of references to “the three” the most important fact to be taken into consideration might be the shape of the Lucianic recension of the Jeremiah text. I shall here confine myself to quoting the most important elements in Ziegler’s description of this recension. First he notes that “sehr viele Stellen der lukianischen Rezension stimmen mit den Wiedergaben der jüngeren griech. Übersetzer überein”.59 After a number of examples of “Austausch verschiedener Wörter (Synonyma)” he further remarks that “die aufgeführten Beispiele zeigen deutlich, dass Lukian an vielen Stellen die jüngeren griech. Übersetzungen benützt hat”, often “nach den Gesetzen der Stilistik umgeändert”, even if “Lukian hat nicht konsequent die Revision des alten Bibeltextes durchgeführt”.60 Thus, there may be a possibility that Theodoret, whose textual basis, when using the Septuagint – as mentioned above – is usually the Lucianic recension, may have been conscious that in the case of Jeremiah this textual base differed quite widely from what was the case in other books of the Old Testament, and that his usual technique of comparison could only be applied in a collocation of “the Greek version”, the Hebrew original (or column), and “the Syrian”. In this perspective it is important to notice that in four instances the author explicitly uses the expression “the Greek translation” for the text to be compared with the Hebrew and/or the Syrian. These instances concern Jer. 12,5; 15,10; 31(38),2; 51(28),20. The Greek is referred to as ἡ ἑλληνικὴ ἑρμηνεία (PG 81,580; 597; 749) or ἡ ἑρμηνεία τῆς Ἑλλάδoς φωνῆς (PG 81,660). Conc. Jer. 8,6 a related formula is used, when after quoting “the Syrian” the Greek

58

Cf. above, p. 204.

59 Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, vol. XV, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, ed. Joseph Ziegler, Göttingen 1957 (here quoted from p. 85). 60 Op. cit., 86 and 92.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

is referred to in the following manner: κατὰ μέντoι τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνὴν (PG 81,556). Such formulae seem to be specific for the Commentary on Jeremiah. In the Table below those instances are collected where “the Syrian” (and “the Hebrew”) is/are referred to. They are quoted in the form to be found in Migne. Important discrepancies between the Migne text and the information to be gained from Ziegler’s edition may be referred to in the notes, but neither Table nor notes, nor remarks given after the Table intend to exhaust the information about the Syrian version to be obtained from this text, let alone the textual history of Theodoret’s commentary. Technically speaking, the first column gives the references to chapter and verse (where relevant in Jeremiah, the reference to the order of the Septuagint is added in parentheses). The second and third columns give the references to the Migne column in question and the (main parts of the) text given here; and in the fourth column the references to the Syrian (s) and the Hebrew (h) are quoted. In the following I shall first give a few explanatory notes and comments to the textual material contained in the Table, and after that, some relevant supplementary material will be commented upon. As will appear, a number of the differences listed concern proper names, found among those names of geographical localities. The difference may concern orthography and vocalization (25,25(32,11); 41(48),5); in other cases we meet the well-known fact that Theodoret is eager to explain names left “untranslated” in the Greek – cf. Σινὼχ (29(36),26), σιoνείμ (31(38),21) and Σαὼν ἐεβεὶρ ἐμωήδ (46(26),17), or maybe translated in an unsatisfactory manner (49,27(30,16)) or being sufficiently at variance in Heb. and Syr., resp., to attract attention – such as the “translations” of Iωσεδεχ (23,5f), where furthermore, it is emphasized that none of the “translations” points to Zerubbabel, and it is added that δίκαιoς as epitheton for Christ is found in the Prophets in three formulae: ἀνατoλὴ δικαία, βασιλεύς δίκαιoς and κύριoς δικαιoσύνης. It is also emphasized (about 23,4) that this prophecy was not exhausted in Zerubbabel’s time. After him came Macedonians and Romans (Greeks). The longer variants, in principle, do not differ from those mentioned, and the variations between the Greek and the Syrian (and Hebrew) are often given an additional explanation, cf. 21,13, where Σόρ is said to mean συvoχή or πέτρα.

209

210

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

References to “the Syrian” in Theodoret’s Commentary on Jeremiah, Baruch and Lamentations Jer., ch., v.

PG 81

Greek

Syr., Heb.

1,11

500

καρυΐνην

ἀμυγδαλίνην (s,h)

3,2

517

ἐξεφύρθης

ἐμιάνθης (s)

8,6

556

διέλιπεν ὁ τρέχων ἀπὸ τoῦ δρόμoυ αὐτoῦ ὡς ἵππoς κάθιδρoς ἐv χρεμετισμῶ αὐτoῦ

πάντες τῇ γvώμῃ αὐτῶν πoρεύovται, ὡς ἵππoς ὁρμῶν εἰς πόλεμoν (s)

12,3

577

ἄγνισoν

εὐτρέπισoν (s)

12,5

580

σoῦ oἱ πόδες τρέχoυσιν εἰς κακίαν, καὶ ἐκλύσoυσί σε. Πῶς παρασχευάσῃ ἐφ̒ ἵππoις

μετὰ πεζῶν τρέχoυσα ἡττήθης, καὶ πῶς ἀντιστῆναι ἱππεῦσι δυνήσῃ; (s)

12,12

581

διεκβoλὴν

ἀτραπὸν (s)

14,8

592

ὡς αὐτόχθων

ὡς ὁδίτης (s)

15,10

597

oύκ ὠφέλησα, oὐδὲ ὠφέλησε

oὔτε ὤφληκα, oὔτε δεδάνεικα (s)

17,6

604

ἐv ἀλίμoις

ἐν φωλεoῖς (s)

21,13

618

τὸv κατoικoῦντα τὴν κoιλάδα Σὸρ τὴv πεδινὴν

μεταξὺ ὁρῶν κειμένην ἐν κoίλῳ τόπῳ (s)

23,5f

628

Κύριoς δικαιoσύνη ἡμῶν

Κύριε δικαίωσoν ἡμᾶς (s)

25,25 (32,11)

637

Ζαμβρή

Ζεμβρά (s,h)

29,26 (36,26)

652

Σινὼχ

εἰρκτήν (s)

30,20 (37,20)

657

μαρτύρια

συναγωγὰς (s)

31,2 (38,2)

660

θερμὸν

oἰκτιρμὸν (s,h)

31,21 (38,21)

664

σιoνείμ (σιωνιμ)

σημεῖα (s)

31,38 (38,38)

669

ἀπὸ Ἀνανιὴλ ἕως τῆς πύλης τῆς γωνίας ἀπὸ πὺργoυ τῆς γωνίας Ἀνανιήλ (s)

38,14 (45,14)

688

εἰς τὴν oἰκίαν Ἀσαλισαὴλ

ἔσω τριόδων (s)

41,5 (48,5)

696

Σαλὴμ

Σιλὼμ (s,h)

46,14 (26,14)

712

τὴv σμίλακα

τὰ ἐν κύκλῳ σoυ (s)

46,17 (26,17)

712

τὸ ὄνoμα … Σαὼν ἐεβεὶρ ἐμωήδ

τὸ ὄνoμα αὐτoῦ, ταράττων, καὶ καιρoὺς παραφέρων (s)

48,31 (31,31)

724

κειράδας αὐχμoῦ

κεφαλαὶ αὐτῶν κεκαρμέναι, καὶ oἱ πώγωνες αὐτῶν ἐξυρημένoι (s)

48,33 (31,33)

724

Οἶνoς ἦν ἐν ληνoῖς σoυ· πρωΐ oὐκ ἐπάτησαν, oὐδὲ δείλης oὐκ ἐπoίησαν

Οὐκέτι δὲ ληνoβατoῶντες λέγoντες, Ἰὰ, ἰά (s)

49,27 (30,16)

733

Υἱὸς Ἄδερ

Βαραδὰδ (s)

W hat

Jer., ch., v.

PG 81

was

T heodoret

s

M other

Greek

Syr., Heb.

T ongue ?

50,8 (27,8)

740

ἐρίφoυς

τράγoυς (s)

50,39 (27,39)

745

θυγατέρας Σειρήνων

στρoυθoκαμήλoυς (s)

51,20 (28,20)

749

Διασκoρπίζεις

Ἑτoίμασoν (s)

52,18

757

πoδιστῆρας

νιπτῆρας πoδῶν (s)

1,12

784

ἐπεφύλλισε

ἧψε (s)

1,22

785f

ἐπιφύλλισoν αὐτoὺς, ὃν τρόπoν ἐπεφύλλισας ἐμὲ

θλῖψoν αὐτoὺς, ὡς ἔθλιψας ἐμέ (s)

3,16f

796

ἐξέβαλεν ἐν ψήφῳ τoὺς ὁδόντας μoυ, καὶ ἐψώμισέ με σπoδόν

ἐν πέτρᾳ ἐστέρησέ με καὶ τῆς πρoτέρας εἰρήνης, καὶ τῶν παντoδαπῶν ἀγαθῶν (s)

3,29f

797

ἐν χώματι

ἐν γῇ (s)

4,18

804

ἐθηρεύσαμεν

ἐθήρευσαν (s)

Lam., ch., v.

In some cases a full and final evaluation of a parallel or a variation between Bible versions in Theodoret would demand a much deeper examination, than can be given here, not only into the history of the biblical text and its exegesis, but also into the history of languages, semantics and metaphorics. Let me illustrate this from the comments on Jer. 50,39 (27,39). Theodoret first comments upon the word ἰνδάλματα of the first member of the verse (here translating Hebrew ‫צײם‬61) through the phrase: ἰνδάλματα δὲ τὰς τὼν δαιμόνων φαντασίας καλεῖ. Then he turns to the second phenomenon of the verse, the θυγατέρες σειρήνων. The immediate impression might be that he refers to a variant reading, “the Syrian” reading: στρoυθoκαμήλoυς instead of “the daughters of Sirens” of the Greek. However, for one thing, dictionaries consider, e.g. conc. Is. 13,21, the meaning ostrich for σείρην.62 Secondly, it should be noted that when commenting on Is. 13,21, Theodoret in the first place seems to take the word σειρῆνες on “face Greek value”, meaning τoὺς ταῖς παντoδαπαῖς καταθέλγoντας ἐξαπάταις. Then he adds that “the other interpreters” read στρoυθoκάμηλoι instead of σειρῆνες. Finally, he remarks that the ἐχῖνoι of Is. 13,22 are also animals of the desert (φιλέρημoν … τῇ ἐρημίᾳ).63 The lines of connection to the comments on Jer. 50(27),39 are obvious. 61 This word is also explained in the Commentary on Isaiah. 62 See e.g. Liddell & Scott, s.v. III. 63 Comm. Is., ed. Guinot, SC 295, 80.

211

212

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Commenting on the word σείρην, Theodoret here states that it is “usual in the divine Scripture” to use this word in the sense of “demon”, διὰ τὸ καταθέλγειν καὶ ἐξαπατᾷν τoὺς ἀνθρώπoυς, i.e. the same choice of words as in the Commentary on Isaiah. Then, too, the reference to the desert is given: καὶ oὗτoι μέντoι κἀκεῖνoι τῆς ἐρημίας σημαντικoί – leaving it open to the reader, to what extent the Syrian reading is used in order to place “both” in the desert. Guinot comments upon Theodoret’s remarks about the ὀνοκένταυρoι of Is. 13,22 that – in opposition to Cyril who takes these creatures – “en un sens plus concret” – to be identical with wild asses, “le terme … n’est pour Théodoret qu’une manière humaine de désigner les démons”.64 In addition to this observation it might be true to say that the important thing for Theodoret is to bring out what is the “meaning”65 of the elements of a given Bible text; and that to him means its basic “themes” – such as e.g. the activity of demonic creatures and the desert as their place. This can be done in a more complete form or in a condensed “abbreviation”, but even in the brief form key notions and words may be present and the relevant information from the existing versions may be included. As has been mentioned already, Theodoret’s particular interest in explaining names of places both on a linguistic, a historical and a geographical level appears in the Commentary on Jeremiah. A few important cases (outside those listed in the Table) should be mentioned. Jer. 4,15 furnishes Theodoret with the occasion to comment upon the geographical extension of Israel in the past. Here, corresponding to his comments on Jer. 39,5, he inserts the identification of Ribla (in Hamat) (Ῥεβλαθὰ τῆς Ἐμὰθ) with (the great) Emesa, adding that there is another Emath, to be identified with Epiphaneia (i.e. Hama). In a number of cases Theodoret’s comments on usage as to geographic names are very brief, e.g. about the identity of On and Heliopolis (43(50),13), the use of Ararat for Armenia (51(28),27), Bosor (of 49,13.18(29,14.19)) not being (the well-known) Bostra, sometimes restricting his notes to a reference to other works of his (e.g. about 25,23(32,9): Thaiman and Dedan). Corresponding brief annotations are made about non-Greek words other than names of localities, e.g. μεχωνωθ (27,19(34,16)), φαγαρίμ and σπoδία (31(38),40), μαναα (Bar. 1,10). 64 Comm. Is., ed. Guinot, SC 295, 80f, n. 2. 65 Note the choice of the word: σημαντικός.

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

In certain cases the historical content of an annotation or a reference is somewhat richer, as when e.g. he comments upon Cypriots and Cappadocians as elements of the population of Palestine (47(29),4, very briefly; with reference, however, to his Commentary on Isaiah).66 One case has already been quoted, where the formula used by Theodoret might for an immediate reading lead to considering the reference to be to the Hebrew and the Syrian Bibles (thus belonging to the Table), viz. his reflection on Lam. 1,15, which is given in the form: Τὴν συμφoρὰν καὶ ὁ Σύρoς, καὶ ὁ Ἑβραῖoς, καιρὸν καλεῖ.67 Here, however, the idea of course is to explain the καιρὸς of the Greek as a “Syriacism/Hebraism”, and the reference is therefore not included in the Table. While in most of the cases quoted Theodoret concentrates on variant readings for single words, one passage in particular can illustrate how the entire context may be included or illuminated through one or two such observations. In Jer. 48(31),31 Theodoret seems to take the Κίρ Αδας (Hebr. Kir-Heres) to be a form of Greek κειράς (κειρὰδας). He first quotes the parallel of the Syrian, and then after having commented briefly on verses 32 and 33 – again quoting the Syrian for its rendering of the main elements of verse 33, he finally concludes: καὶ διαφόρως τὰ αὐτὰ εἰρηκὼς, ἡρμήνευσε τὸ “κειράδας αὐχμoῦ”.68 It may be true to say that this passage – besides containing the most ample quotations of the Syrian – is also in its conclusion the most explicit, as far as its argument for the harmony among the varying versions is concerned. This harmonizing feature has been mentioned above; however, I shall only quote one further example here, viz. Theodoret’s comments on Jer. 46(26),14. The reading of the Syrian quoted above, which is in accordance with the Hebrew Bible, is also shared by “the others” according to Ziegler’s apparatus.69 Theodoret’s interesting – and harmonizing – explanation of the Septuagint reading runs as follows: The σμίλαξ of the Septuagint is a plant, which is well chosen as a metaphor (τρoπικῶς) for the auxiliaries (ἐπικoύρoυς) of Egypt, for the σμίλαξ is twined (συμπλεκoμένη) with its neighbour plants,70 and

66 Is. 9,11. See Guinot’s remarks, ed. Comm. Is., II, SC 295, 16f, n. 1. 67 Cf. above, p. 206. 68 PG 81,724. 69 It must be considered a minor deviation that the ἐν of the Syrian is omitted by “the others”. 70 Theodoret obviously takes σμίλαξ to mean “bindweed”. According to Liddell & Scott, apart from bindweed (smilax aspera, convolvulus sepium) it may as well mean holm-oak (quercus ilex), yew (taxus baccata) and kidney-bean (phaseolus vulgaris).

213

214

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

so, in reality, it points towards the same sense (αἰνίττεται) as the reading of the Syrian. Even if, quantitatively and technically speaking, the biblical references in Theodoret’s Commentary on Jeremiah differ widely from other commentaries, the elements analysed or pointed to here fit in very well, to my mind, in the picture of Theodoret as an exegete and homiletic user of the Bible. It should also be borne in mind, that the quantitative argument mostly concerns the negative balance for “the three”, whereas – even if the number of references to the Syrian is “large” when compared with other commentaries – their total sum only amounts to 32, out of which the great majority are concerned with single words and phrases. It should also be emphasized that such comments on linguistic and historical matters, as can be found in this commentary are, generally speaking, in accordance with those to be found in other commentaries. In my opinion the material does not allow a clear answer to the question of whether Theodoret might have acquainted himself with the Syrian through a Greek source; it may be most natural to assume that he has, at least, had a certain knowledge of what was characteristic of the Bible in Syriac, but the “large amount” of quotations in the Commentary on Jeremiah does not demonstrate that their author had a deep knowledge of the Syriac language, but a “working” knowledge sufficient to permit him to have an informed opinion about variant readings.

Concluding remarks – The question of Theodoret’s mother tongue to be reopened? In the above Guinot has to a great extent been quoted in connection with Theodoret’s Commentary on Jeremiah. There are two reasons for this: one, that Guinot is the editor of Theodoret’s Commentary on Isaiah in the Sources Chrétiennes (295), and as there are a number of lines of connection between the two commentaries, many notes and details in Guinot’s edition have been of great value in the study of the Commentary on Jeremiah. Secondly, and most important, as has appeared, the question of Syriac or Greek or Syriac versus Greek appears to be of a particular character in this text. Passing on from the particular questions to the more general question, Guinot has the following argument: “… en dépit des doutes que l’on pourrait émettre, si l’on n’avait

W hat

was

T heodoret

s

M other

T ongue ?

pour en juger que les références au “Syrien” de ses commentaires, il est certain que Théodoret connaissait le syriaque …”.71 To my mind this is an argument turned upside down. I can easily agree to the necessity of considering, as Guinot does, in the context of the passage quoted and related passages, what Theodoret’s instruments as an exegete were. As we have seen, Guinot is mainly thinking in terms of literary instruments. Above I have tried to concentrate on the textual background of an exegete presumably bound primarily to the Lucianic recension, and on the links connecting the Commentary on Jeremiah with other exegetical works by Theodoret. Admittedly, of course, the differences may still call for supplementary consideration.72 From the fairly thoroughgoing presentation of the use of “the Syrian” in this text I have already concluded that it hardly allows a conclusion about any “deep” knowledge of Syriac. As suggested by Guinot, Theodoret’s exegetic instruments may very well have been primarily Greek, and it should be remembered that his knowledge about “the Syrian” and about conditions and phenomena in Syria always comes down to us in Greek. So, to my mind it is difficult to see, where, in the face of the evidence of his own texts, one should find the certainty (as maintained by Guinot as by the majority of patristic scholars) of his knowledge of Syriac. From the observations presented here, not only the demonstration of his very limited use of a Bible in Syriac, but also what he reveals about his understanding of Syria (and Syriac) past and present, the most verisimilar picture of his profile and career (in relation to matters of language) would be the following: His mother tongue was Greek. Greek to him, too, was the primary language of the church, the language of the New Testament and of his teachers and predecessors; it is also the language through which he knows the Old Testament, viz. in the form of the Septuagint. He knows of the status of Hebrew as a “holy” and “didactic” language, but also as the language of Canaan. The Christian message can be proclaimed in any language, in Syriac too, of course, even if that is a language of rustic people and heretics. As an exegete he realizes that the Septuagint as a translation contains a number of problems; they should – and can – in principle be solved, primarily through the use of other Greek versions, or through a direct inspection of the Hebrew text 71 L’exégèse, p. 195. 72 Cf. below (p. 236f) about my suggestions concerning the possible origin of the Commentary on Jere miah in Theodoret’s “school” or “workshop”.

215

216

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

or consulting a Syrian version. The two last mentioned possibilities, however, are used to such a limited extent that it seems that the conclusion about his modest knowledge of Hebrew could be valid for Syriac, too. However, he has, of course, as bishop of Cyrrhus acquainted himself with a number of features of Syrian culture and ecclesiastical matters of his own time as well as of the past, most vividly presented in his Hist. rel. Apart from the feature mentioned already, that this language can have a negative side, culturally speaking, as the language of the countryside, and in the perspective of the church as the language of heretics – in particular the Marcionites – a number of narratives, too, are about figures of Syria, speaking in the name of orthodoxy. This is true, not least, of features of the past, whereas in his own time the bishop rather often takes upon himself the role of supervisor of one or another ascete and enthusiast of the desert. Both from the historical considerations and from the modern parallel of a pastor claiming a “working knowledge” of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, I would plead for a positive formula of Theodoret’s knowledge of Hebrew and Syriac as being a “working knowledge”, modest, but sufficient for his work as an exegete and a bishop. That his point of departure is Greek, however, is maybe illustrated all the more clearly when examining in detail the work in which most knowledge of Syriac (at least of “the Syrian”) is revealed, i.e. the Commentary on Jeremiah, even if we have left that text with a number of open questions. On the whole, a number of questions are left unresolved. In approaching the figure of Theodoret in church history, perhaps the most rewarding perspective would be the question of how to keep together the rational scrutinizer of linguistic and exegetic details in the text of the Bible with the narrator telling tales about religious and ecclesiastical figures of his own time, including himself – named θεοδώρητος as the child of a miracular birth.

Severian Cento No. 2 in MS Galata 54

The 14th century Armenian manuscript, No. 54 of the Galata Collection, has already rendered great services to Patristic scholarship.1 For the study of Severian of Gabala two centones, consecutively placed on pages 363-375 and 375-384 of the manuscript, are of particular importance. I have given a description of the first cento attributed to “Severian of Emesa”2 in my contribution to the Berberian Memorial Volume (L 1986). The second cento is briefly presented in my Philadelphia paper of 1979.3 The purpose of what follows is to give a more extensive presentation of the contents of this collection of quotations from Severian and their original contexts as well as their contribution to the definition of a final corpus Severiani and the character of the cento as a “florilege homily” concentrating on collecting – and separating – biblical testimonies to the economy of salvation and to the divine nature and dignity of Christ. It should be noted at the outset that the collector of this cento takes great care in quoting both title and incipit of each homily and also in separating the single quotations from one another through such formulae as: եւ յետ յոլովից (and after a long passage); եւ յետ սակաւուց (and after a short passage); եւ յետ այլոց (and after other things). I use the siglum G to designate the manuscript, MS Galata, No. 54.

1

I am mainly referring to the Irenaeus fragments published by Charles Renoux, in: Irénée de Lyon, Nouveaux fragments arméniens de l’Adversus Haereses et de l’Epideixis, Patrologia Orientalis 39,1, Turnhout 1978. For a description of the manuscript, see Renoux’s introduction, pp. 13ff. A full description (in Armenian) is found in Babgēn’s catalogue: Babgēn [Kiwlēsērean], Ցուցակ ձերագրաց Ղալաթիոյ ազգային Մատենադարանի Հայոց, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the Armenian National Library of Galata, Antelias 1961.

2

On this attribution, see L 1986, 480 [above, pp. 97f], and Per Piscatores, 147ff.

3

L 1982,2, 117ff [above, pp. 72ff].

218

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

1. One quotation from the homily De matre filiorum Zebedaei (CPG 4249) This first quotation in the cento derives from the homily published in 1913 by Hermann Jordan as the “29. Stück” in his collection of Armenian Irenaeus fragments.4 The title of the homily is identical with that given by Jordan, but the incipit is different. The first word in the Galata text is վկայիցն; in the second word there is a lacuna; supposedly the word is արիւն, the two words together meaning “the blood of the martyrs”. I take the difference of the incipits to mean that Jordan’s text is incomplete, but I have not been able to trace any homily, whether in Greek or Armenian, with an incipit corresponding to that of G. Therefore I have no basis for determining, how large the initial lacuna of Jordan’s text is, let alone filling it. The text comprises 34 lines of Jordan’s edition (p. 32, l. 9 – p. 33, l. 19; German translation: pp. 182-184, ll. 102-142). Briefly summarized the quotation concentrates on the economy of salvation being the reason why Jesus exercises human will and reacts to human manifestations of will. In particular, this is illustrated through references to Jesus’ question to the mother of the sons of Zebedee: What is it you wish? (Matth. 20,21) and the leper’s words to Jesus: If you will… (Matth. 8,2).5 There are only few variant readings in G compared with Jordan’s text. I shall here list the three most important ones: 1. After the first five words: եւ նա ասէ, զինչ կամիս6 (And he said: What is it you wish?) G in addition to Jordan has an extra line emphasizing the paradox inherent in the economy of salvation: որ զխորհուրդսն տեսանէ, հարցանէր, զինչ կամիս. (He who sees the thoughts (of men) asked: What is it you wish?). I presume the reason of the variation to be omission through homoioteleuton in Jordan’s text. 2. The Armenian word for οἰκονομία is in Jordan the “classical” word տնտեսութիւն (32,20), whereas G has տնաւրէնութիւն, which must – as a “calque” of the Greek word divided into its “elements”: οἶκος = տուն + νόμος = աւրէնք – be considered a “phil-hellene” feature. However, there is otherwise in G no particular relation with what is traditionally included under “philhellene” translation technique. I would therefore take this element rather to

4

Hermann Jordan, Armenische Irenaeusfragmente, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 36,3, Leipzig 1913.

5

In both cases the verb of the Greek New Testament is θέλω.

6

Jordan, op. cit., 32,9f.

S e v e r i a n

C e n t o

N o .

2

i n

M S

G a l a t a

5 4

be an interesting example of a translational choice illustrating that the passage from one stage or school of translation to another in old Armenia was a gradual one, or that a copyist’s habit of rendering a word could have been the decisive factor for the choice of word in the text, as it now appears. 3. Finally, it should be mentioned that G supports Jordan’s conjecture: լոյս (= light) instead of յոյս (= hope).7 Jordan was well aware of the impossibility of maintaining that Irenaeus should be the author. To some extent inspired by Nerses Akinian, the wellknown Mechitharist scholar, he considers Severian as a more probable choice.8 A few years after the publication of Jordan’s book G. Dürks argued more extensively for Severian’s authorship,9 and this attribution has been generally accepted.10

2. One quotation from the homily In natale Domini Iesu Christi (CPG 4657) The quotation corresponds to the following lines in the Greek version: PG 61,764, l. 3 from the bottom – 765, l. 16: αἱ μαῖαι ἐψηλάφων … μὴ φθαρῆναι (18 lines in all). In the Armenian parallel to be found in MSS Jerusalem 1 and 154, however, there is a supplementary paragraph inserted after the first seven lines of the Migne text (i.e. after ἀνθρωπίνης, PG 61,765, l. 3). G does not have the whole paragraph of the Jerusalem witnesses, but it has one extra phrase here, viz. the following: Քրիստոս ծնեալ ի կուսէ առանց մարդկային սերման (= Christ (was) born by the virgin without the semen of a man).11 The supplementary paragraph in the Jerusalem mss adds references to Eve’s “birth” out of Adam, Moses’ striking the rock to make water pour out, and Habakkuk bringing food to Daniel as forebodings of the miracle of the immaculate (conception and) birth. Where the text is present in both G and the Jerusalem mss, the amount of variations is very small, mainly of an orthographic kind. Because of the surplus G could be seen as representing the same line of

7

Cf. Jordan, op. cit., 183, note 8.

8

Jordan, op. cit., 190ff.

9

G. Dürks, “Eine fälschlich dem Irenäus zugeschriebene Predigt des Bischofs Severian von Gabala”, ZNW 21, 1922, 64-69.

10 See e.g. Zellinger, Studien, 73, and Geerard on CPG 4249. 11 Cf. L 1982,2, 114 [above, pp. 68f].

219

220

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

transmission as the Jerusalem witnesses. On the other hand there is no formula of the type referred to above to divide the quotation in two and ascertain an omission, and as the surplus is of so modest volume, and as there are on the whole only few and small variations between G and Migne, it might be considered, whether G belongs rather to the tradition behind the Greek text as known to-day. Briefly summarized the fragment preaches the miracle of the incarnation seen as the incorruptible entering of the Son of God into the earthly life of mankind. For questions about authorship etc. I refer to my comments elsewhere.12 In my view the presence of the quotation in the Galata cento is an additional and fairly strong external testimony of Severian’s authorship.

3. One quotation from the homily De Iesu dormiente in navicula (CPG 4699) This fragment finds its parallel in PG 64,21, ll. 26-37: ἐκάθευδεν ὁ κύριος οἰκονομικῶς … πρὸς τὴν προσκύνησιν ἐπιστρέφοντα. In Migne’s edition the homily has a very long, double title: Quod mari similis sit haec vita, et in illud, cum Iesus ascendit in naviculam cum discipulis suis, et obdormivit. The very short quotation (corresponding to 11 lines in Migne) emphasizes Jesus’ knowledge about the tempest to come and his power to still it (Matth. 8,23-27). However, the incarnation as an element in the economy of salvation implies that both Jesus’ disciples and nature (wind and sea) are allowed to act on the basis of either belief or doubt, after which the disciples can learn their lesson, and nature can be brought from its state of unrest into the harmony of worship. B. Marx proposed Proclus of Constantinople as the author of this text.13 F. J. Leroy, however, showed that the attribution to Proclus of a great number of pseudo-Chrysostomic homilies suggested by Marx is untenable in many cases.14 As far as this homily is concerned, Marx only refers to the comparison between Jesus asleep in the boat and the holy child at rest in Mary’s womb. For such a short text as this homily (very probably an abbreviation of the

12 L 1982,2, 114f and 119, and L 1995, 221f and 225ff [above, pp. 68ff, 74, 155ff, 166ff]. 13 B. Marx, Procliana: Untersuchungen über den homiletischen Nachlass des Patriarchen Proklos von Konstantinopel, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 23, Münster i. W. 1940, 73. 14 F. J. Leroy, L’homilétique de Proclus de Constantinople, Studi e Testi 247, Città del Vaticano 1967, chapter 6 and passim.

S e v e r i a n

C e n t o

N o .

2

i n

M S

G a l a t a

5 4

original) the amount of internal criteria must necessarily be small. Yet, a few elements that point in the direction of Severianic authorship should be mentioned. In PG 49,328 and 52,819 (CPG 4186 and 4188, resp.) there are parallels to the way in which David’s sin is described in PG 64,21f. The way in which the author refers to an imminent risk of barbarian invasion might be parallelled with corresponding elements in genuine Severian texts pointed at by Zellinger.15 In particular, however, it would be appropriate to underline that the repeated description of Jesus’ sleep being οἰκονομικῶς and not κατὰ τὴν τῆς θεότητος ἀξίαν is in line with the principal argument in the other Severianic texts of the Galata cento. This motif in its relationship with Jesus having authority over the elements of nature was in general singled out as belonging to the homiletic-exegetic thematics of Severian already by Zellinger, who refers to parallels both in the Genesis-homilies and in the Aucher collection.16 To such internal arguments should now be added the appearance of the quotation in the Galata cento adding an external argument, which to my mind bears a considerable weight.

4. Four quotations from the homily In illud: Quomodo scit litteras (CPG 4201) These fragments, three very short quotations (nos. 1, 2 and 4), one somewhat longer (no. 3), correspond to the following sections in Migne: 1. 2. 3. 4.

(PG 59,645, ll. 58-61): Οὐ πάντα γὰρ … ἀπίστοις. (PG 59,645, ll. 64-74): Πρὸς Ἰουδαίους … μαχομένους. (PG 59,646, l. 42 – 647, l. 20): Ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ νομισθῇ … τὰ νοήματα. (PG 59,647, l. 72 – 648, l. 3): Ἐλέγχει Ἰουδαίων … Θεῷ μάχεται.

In content these quotations are closely related to those quoted in the earlier sections of the cento. Here the centonist first (in section 1) quotes Severian’s statement that Jesus’ words must be distributed so as to take some of them to be according to his dignity, others to have been meted out corresponding to our weakness. Then he chooses (as section 2) the paragraph about Jesus hiding his dignity to the Jews, to whom he only spoke about the dignity of the Father. Yet (section 3), “Son” is a name pointing towards both the divine 15 Zellinger, Studien, 81ff. 16 Zellinger, Studien, 170f

221

222

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

and the human in Christ. 1. John 1,7 points out that the Son participates in the sufferings of the body. Human death is death of the body, but in Matth. 10,17f it is not specified that it is only the body that dies. Correspondingly He, who knows everything because of his divinity, can because of his human nature be described as being in need of knowledge, when the word is uttered according to the οἰκονομία (Arm. տնաւրէնութիւն), not according to τὸ τῆς θεότητος ἀξίωμα (Arm. աստուածութեան պատիւ). This then is the textual key to the fact (section 4) that the glory of the Son remained hidden to the Jews. This homily on John 7,15 was attributed to Severian by B. Marx.17 This attribution was supported by H.-D. Altendorf,18 and to the best of my knowledge no objection has been raised to Severian’s authorship. Thus, with the supplementary external evidence of the Galata cento this homily can to-day be considered one of the texts most securely belonging to the bishop of Gabala. The amount of variants in relation to the Migne text is very modest.

5. One quotation from the homily In crucem Domini et in Spiritum Sanctum et in Trinitatem (CPG 4196) This very short quotation finds its parallel in the following lines in Migne: (PG 56,504, l. 61 – 505, l. 6): Πλὴν ὅταν ἀκούσῃς σταυρὸν … ἀξία δὲ Θεοῦ δι’ ἑαυτόν. Once again the principal topic of the cento is presented; here the double formula of οἰκονομία and ἀξία (ἐξουσία) is applied to the awe which we owe the suffering and crucified Lord. The final phrase unites the two elements: the cross is (there) for our sake, God’s dignity is (there) for his own sake. External evidence for Severian’s author’s rights to this homily was not available until 1960, when J. Kirchmeyer pointed to the name of the author as given in MS Sin. gr. 493.19 On the other hand internal arguments at an early time of Patristic scholarship led to the right attribution. The historical names to be mentioned are Sirmond and Montfaucon, whose arguments were taken

17 B. Marx, “Severiana unter den Spuria Chrysostomi bei Montfaucon-Migne”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5, 1939, 281-367, see esp. 309-315. 18 H.-D. Altendorf, Untersuchungen zu Severian von Gabala, Tübingen 1957, 146-148. 19 J. Kirchmeyer, “L’homélie acéphale de Sévérien sur la croix dans le Sinaïticus gr. 493”, Analecta Bollandiana 78, 1960, 18-23.

S e v e r i a n

C e n t o

N o .

2

i n

M S

G a l a t a

5 4

up and expanded in the 20th century, first by J. Zellinger,20 and later on by A. Wenger21 and H.-D. Altendorf.22 Thus, here the Galata cento can be said only to strengthen a strong case. The few lines of this fragment exhibit very few variations between the Greek and the Armenian, but the difference of title should of course be noted, the Galata cento having the title quoted above – as compared with the traditional one: De serpente, quam Moyses in cruce suspendit in deserto, deque divina trinitate.

6. Two quotations from the homily In verbum: Confiteor tibi, Pater Domine caeli et terrae, et in visionem Danielis (CPG 4295,17a) Quantitatively speaking, these two quotations represent more than half of the text of the cento. As, in addition, only a small fraction of this homily is known beforehand, viz. from a quotation in Syriac to be found in Severus of Antioch’s Liber contra impium Grammaticum23 and covering only a small fraction of the text of the Galata cento, G is here a witness of particular importance. The centonist of G harmoniously unites these quotations with the preceding half of the cento. Having used earlier on quotations concerned with Christ’s sufferings and “ignorance”, and having shown that these do not detract from his divinity, the question is now about Jesus praising the Father as Lord of Heaven and Earth. Is such a praise (or confession – cf. the confiteor of the title, Arm. խոստովանիմ, Gr. ἐξομολογοῦμαι, – Matth. 11,25; Luke 10,21) not sign and proof of subordination? The answer is no, because again this subject must be seen in the light of the economy of salvation. First, Jesus’ praise of the Father must be understood as an example set for man(kind). Secondly, it must be remembered that the economy of salvation is prepared for the benefit of man. The source of immortality did not need a resurrection; the Saviour did not need a human body,

20 Zellinger, Studien, 27-34. 21 Cf. A. Wenger, “Hésychius de Jérusalem”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 2, 1956, 461. 22 Altendorf, op. cit., 253f. 23 Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium Grammaticum 3,2, CSCO 101, Scriptores Syri 50, 1933 (Textus), CSCO 102, Scriptores Syri 51, 1933 (1965) (Versio). Cf. A. Wenger, “Une homélie inédite de Sévérien de Gabala sur le lavement des pieds”, Revue des Études Byzantines 25, 1967, 219-234. Apart from the identification and publication of the Greek homily from which one of Severus’ quotations is taken, Wenger comments on the four Severian fragments quoted by Severus on pp. 222ff.

223

224

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

nor a baptism of purification. It was man(kind) and nature who were in need; baptism was needed to purify, first the river of Jordan, and then (Christian) man. The next question raised concerns Jesus’ word in John 11,25: “I am the Resurrection”. Is there not a problem in Jesus’ uttering this word before his resurrection, and is there not a contradiction with Paul’s word in Gal. 1,1 about the Father having raised the Son from the dead? In fact, heretics have argued to that effect. The hermeneutic clue to the understanding of Paul must, however, be found in 2. Cor. 13,3; and as according to that apostolic word Christ speaks through apostles, we are once again led to the understanding that in the Bible certain passages are coined with relation to the incarnation (Arm. ի մարմնալոյն), whilst other passages elevate us to the level of the divine glory (Arm. ի պատիւ աստուածութեանն (G, p. 381, ll. 5f). The perspective, in which Jesus’ praise and confession should be seen, is the right distribution of the sayings of Jesus – between the divine and the human (Arm. տես զիարդ բաժանէ որպէս զինքն որոշէ, G, p. 381, l. 13). Neither should Jesus’ prayer about knowledge of God (cf. CPG 420124) induce us to forget his power (Arm. զաւրութիւն). The second quotation starts out from testimonials of the Old Testament. First Ps. 22(21),10 is seen in combination with Is. 49,1, the sequence of which, viz. Is. 49,3 is then combined with the New Testament key text of Phil. 2,6f. The texts quoted are all about God, the Father, and about the divine birth which does not take place by virtue of a law of nature or a process of nature; neither does it add to or subtract from the eternal divinity of the Father – and the Son; and when, in Is. 49,1-3 and Phil. 2,6f, the word “servant” is used, this is about a function, which the Son takes upon him – in order to fulfill the economy of salvation. The next composition of Old and New Testament testimonials is taken from Heb. 1,7-9 and the Psalm quotations and allusions used there.25 The words about ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως (Ps. 45(44),8; Heb. 1,9) refer to the Holy Ghost, but the rest of the passage of Hebrews is concerned with the Son being superior

24 Cf. above, p. 221f. 25 It seems that this is the text to be preached about on the Sunday in question. This would be the natural understanding of Arm. այլ ի յառաջի կայ եկեսցուք (but let us get to what is in front (of us), G, p. 381, l. 33).

S e v e r i a n

C e n t o

N o .

2

i n

M S

G a l a t a

5 4

to any creature, including the angels; and both David and Isaiah testified to the eternal supremacy of the Son (Ps. 74(73),12; Is. 6,1.5). Heretics have voiced doubts as to whether the Biblical testimonies (in particular Is. 6, maybe) should be taken about the Son. This is repudiated through a reference to John 12,37f.40f. The supremacy of the Son is from eternity, but he can also be said to be given the supremacy, viz. that belonging to the human economy of salvation (Arm. զարքայութիւնն … զմարդկային տնաւրէնութեանն), and that is what the Jews do not understand. Priorities can also be set in terms of age and time. A particular complementarity between such priorities and simultaneity relevant for language to be used about God can be taken from Gen. 2 when explaining, how Adam is older than Eve, because he was created first, and at the same time simultaneous with his woman, as she was made from a rib of his body. Transferred to the relationship between the Father and the Son, on one hand the Son described as Λόγος and Χριστός is “younger” or “later” than the Father. But it should be noted that in the logos-text par excellence: the prologue of the Gospel of John, the “simultaneity” is the first thing to be shown: the Son was God from eternity, being “with the Father”. The image of Adam who could not possibly have had an offspring without his rib in the shape of a woman can support our understanding of the word that the Father did not create one thing without the Son (John 1,3). The image of Adam can be used in three further ways: 1. Adam and Eve being two persons of one nature (or essence) (Arm. երկու անձինք եւ մի բնութիւն) corresponding to the central christological and trinitarian doctrine. 2. The unity as expressed through the woman being with Adam can be seen in parallel to the formula “God with God”. 3. The “superiority” of the Father being the head of the Word can be seen in parallel to the description of Adam as the head of the woman. According to the body Christ is the head of man and of the same substance as man; he is therefore like us, because he is “of us”, and he is like the Father, because he is “of the Father”. Below, Severus’ quotation (in Lebon’s Latin translation = L) shall be set out in parallel with the Armenian text of G.26 26 Words in G abbreviated according to usual practice in Armenian manuscripts are rendered in their unabbreviated form.

225

226

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

G (p. 379, l. 33 – 380, l. 14)

L (p. 237, l. 21-33)

եւ եթէ ոք հաւաստեաւ կամիցի ասել եւ լռել, Քրիստոս վասն իւր ոչ եկն, ոչ չարչարեցաւ եւ ոչ յարեաւ, քանզի ոչինչ ի յայսցանէ պետս անէր աղբեւր անմահութեանն եւ ոչ ինչ նմայ ամբարի, այլ ամենայն մեզ շնո(ր)հի. երեւեցաւ յաղագս մեր իբրեւ զմարդ. ոչ մարդկային մարմնոյ կարաւտեալ, այլ զի զմարդկան բնութիւն ըստ անայցէ վերստին, մկրտեցաւ ի յորդանան. եւa) զմեղս ի բաց դնելով, այլ զի ի բնութիւն ջրոցն զսրբութիւնն խառնեսցէ. եւ ոչ զի յայլմէ ի վեհագոյն զաւրութենէ սրբեսցի. այլ իւրով իսկ յեւով մարդկութեանն, թեպէտ եւ թուէր մարդկութիւն ընդունելb) ինքն ինքեամբc) սրբէ, քանզի նորին է ձայն մեծի թագաւորին, եւ յաղագս սոցա սրբեմ զանձն, զի իցեն սոքայ սրբեալք ճշմարտութեամբ նորին աղագաւ եւ ճարճարի, զի զմեր ճարճարանսն լուծցէ, յաղագս նորին եւ յարեաւ, զի զմահ լուծցէ, վասն նորին յարեաւ ի մեռելոց. զի զմեզ յարուսցէ.

Et si quis accurate velit et loqui et audire: ipse Christus pro seipso neque venit, neque passus est, neque surrexit: nullo enim ex his indigebat fons immortalitatis; neque sibi quidquam lucratur, nam omnia nobis donat. Apparuit propter nos ut homo, non humana carne indigens, sed naturam humanam recuperans. Baptizatus est in Iordane, nona) peccata ponens, sed naturae aquae sanctificationem immiscens; neque praestantiori virtute sanctificabatur, sed in ipsa humanitatis specie, etsi baptizarib) videbatur, ipse seipsumc) sanctificabat. Ipsius enim magni Regis vox est: “Et pro eis ego sanctifico meipsum, ut sint et ipsi sanctificati in veritate”. Ideo etiam patitur, ut passionem nostram solvat; ideo reviviscit, ut mortem solvat; ideo resurgit, ut nos suscitet.d'

In general, the Syrian and the Armenian texts are very closely related. However, the following details and variant readings should be noted: (a) Here it would be natural to correct the Armenian according to the Syrian, adding: non. (b) Here – as compared with baptizari – the Armenian has “assume (accept) humanity” (մարդկութիւն ընդունել). (c) Instead of the accusative case: seipsum (object), the Armenian has the instrumental case: ինքեամբ. (d) Here Lebon adds the note: Locum non repperi (presumably referring to the “quotation” marked a couple of lines before the end of the passage). I suppose that further searching for the “source” would yield no result, as I take the “quotation” to be one of the examples, where Severian’s rhetoric style contains an element of “dramatizing” through the use of “direct speech”, even where there is no source for the “line” in question.27 Neither of these differences points towards two different Greek texts, one

27

Cf. Per Piscatores, e.g. pp. 13, 292ff, 336ff.

S e v e r i a n

C e n t o

N o .

2

i n

M S

G a l a t a

5 4

behind each of the versions, but it would be particularly interesting to know the Greek lying behind the difference in (b). As to internal arguments for Severian’s author’s rights I would mainly point at the following features: First, it has been mentioned already that the passages quoted fit in very well in the main theme of the whole cento, and we have also pointed to the lines of connection with the homily CPG 4201. Secondly, e.g. John 2,19 with its temple imagery is one of Severian’s favourite “Antiochene testimonials” for the relation between divine and human in Christ, cf. e.g. PG 52,782 (CPG 4187); 52,830 (CPG 4189); 56,501 (CPG 4196); 59,672 (CPG 4203); Zell., Stud. 14f (CPG 4215). Correspondingly, 2. Cor. 13,3 is Severian’s favourite hermeneutical key to opening the door between the apostolic message and Jesus’ own words in the Gospels, referred to e.g. PG 49,323 (CPG 4186); 56,423 (CPG 4193); 56,473 (CPG 4194); 56,556 (CPG 4198); 59,700 (CPG 4204). The combination of Is. 6,1ff and John 12,37ff (G, p. 382) taken to demonstrate that the Son was king of eternity, i.e. even before the incarnation, can be found in a close parallel, PG 55,605f (CPG 4190), whereas PG 56,510 (CPG 4196) is related, but slightly different, in so far as it takes Ps. 74(73),12 (cf. G, p. 382, ll. 13ff) to be about the kingdom of the Father, Luke 1,32 about the kingdom of the Son, and Is. 6,1ff to be about the kingdom of the Holy Ghost. The difference between the two Greek parallels is not uncommon in Severian; it seems to belong to the “homiletic freedom” to be expected,28 and the general character and contents of the passage in the Armenian quotation to my mind strengthens the case for Severian’s paternity. Therefore, besides the external evidence in Severus and the Galata cento, there are a number of internal testimonies in the quotations of the cento in the form of lines of connection with well-known Severian homilies. On the other hand, the fascination of this text, of course, lies in the additional material it contains. Thus e.g., to the best of my knowledge the interesting use of an Adam-Eve typology to describe how in the Trinity the relation can be determined both in terms of “before-after” and of simultaneity – in parallel with the sequence of the elements in the prologue of John, is not to be found in any of the Severian texts known so far.

28 Cf. e.g. L 1995, 227 [above, p. 168], n. 40.

227

reek and Syrian G

under the Aspects of some Syrian Seats of Learning

1. Introduction It is well-known that, whilst from the 2nd century and through later centuries an important specific institution existed in Alexandria, a “school” in which much of the theological work of the Christian church took place, the so-called “School of Antioch” cannot be identified as a parallel institution in the patriarchal city of Syria. Here, when we use the word “school”, we are speaking rather about a “movement”, a “tendency”, perhaps a “method”, more or less common to a number of theologians, identifiable especially in the 4th and 5th centuries. On the other hand, we are told that the disciples of Lucian the Martyr, when writing to one another, used the greeting “dear Syl-lucianist”, which might be translated “dear schoolmate of the school of Lucian”. But it should be borne in mind that it is still, historically, a matter of dispute whether a certain Lucian (Lucian the Martyr or another figure) could rightly be called “founder of the School of Antioch”. We shall not go further into questions of origin of Antiochene theology and exegesis, but recollect that Diodore of Tarsus is said to have established a socalled asceticon, frequented by John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and it should also be noted that through research of the later decades of the 20th century it has become ever more evident that there was some kind of teacher-student-relation between Eusebius of Emesa and Diodore of Tarsus. So even though it may be difficult, or even impossible, to draw one single line of “school tradition” from the Antiochene authors of the early 4th century to the great representatives of “Antiochene theology” of the 5th, there are a number of reports about teaching relations in various contexts. At the outset, however, it seems to me to be necessary to emphasize two points: 1) It might be appropriate to use the plural form: “schools” or “seats of learning” rather

230

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

than the singular. 2) Such “schools” or teachers, as can be identified, are not necessarily located in the city of Antioch. The majority of the authors to be referred to in this article used the Greek language as their vehicle of communication and preaching. On the other hand, it seems true to say that during the last couple of decades more attention than previously has been paid by researchers to the character of the links connecting them with Syrian culture and language, the churches of Syria, and the Bible in Syriac. In accordance with the linkage made in the titles of two contributions to the relevant discussions, by R. ter Haar Romeny and Lucas Van Rompay, respectively, viz. A Syrian in Greek Dress (about Eusebius of Emesa) and “Antiochene Biblical Interpretation – Greek and Syriac” (about the exegetic “School of Antioch” in general), I have chosen the broad title “Greek and Syrian” for the considerations presented here, adding the plural about the “schools” (or seats of learning), from which aspect I shall try to consider some of the important scholarly contributions, mainly those of the 1990s. Instead of undertaking to give a full overview of the history of the research of later years, I have taken the book and article mentioned above (both published in 1997) as my starting point for the following remarks about characteristic features of teachers in the “schools” of Antioch (or Syria). Because of Haar Romeny’s important book, Eusebius of Emesa will necessarily call for a particular amount of attention; and because of Van Rompay’s article, the question of Ephraem’s relation to Antiochene exegesis must be touched upon (even if in a more secondary place); in addition I shall add some observations on Theodoret of Cyrrhus, often referred to as the last great representative of Antiochene theology (briefly, also on matters Greek and Syrian after 450). Before turning to these main topics, however, it might be appropriate to touch upon two supplementary, introductory themes: 1) a particular suggestion of a formula to be used to describe the relation of Antiochene theologians to Greek culture in general; 2) a particular discussion about lines connecting Antioch with the Latin speaking world.

2. Alexandria, Antioch, and Greek culture An interesting paradigm to be used to describe the differences between Alex andria and Antioch has been suggested by Chr. Schäublin and Frances Young. They advocated the idea that the Antiochians have taken over much of their exegetic apparatus from the Greek schools of rhetors, whereas the Greek premises

G r e e k

a n d

S y r i a n

of the School of Alexandria should rather be found in schools of philosophers. I have two reasons to refer to this discussion without extending it or pretending to be able to balance the matter. One reason is of a general kind, viz. that here the notion of “school” and actual schools are given distinctive roles in more than one context – relevant in the analysis of Antiochene exegesis. The second reason, more particular as it were, is that the discussion referred to has played a role in works by such authors as Haar Romeny (already mentioned) and Adam Kamesar, to whom I shall return in order, not least, to call attention to his notion of a “Greek approach” to the Old Testament – as opposed to other approaches. This formula has been used by other authors as well, trying to come to grips with the use of the Septuagint in the Old Church, where attention is directed both towards its imperfections, considered as a translation, and towards its authority as part of the canonical Scriptures in Greek, the main language of the Christian church.

3. Antioch and the Latin speaking world The main reason for including considerations about authors writing in Latin is the fact that the topic of Adam Kamesar’s principal monograph is a work by Saint Jerome, viz. his Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim. Before turning to Jerome and Kamesar I should like to refer to one further line of connection that has been drawn between Antioch and the West. Here the author of the Old Church is Junillus Africanus, and the modern writers are Michael Maas and Edward G. Matthews. I am referring to the book Exegesis and Empire in the Early Byzantine Mediterranean, bearing the subtitle Junillus Africanus and the Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis (2003). The title of the book already suggests that, according to the authors, Junillus’ (or traditionally: Junilius’) Instituta should be viewed as belonging to the framework of Justinian’s ideology or even theology of the Empire. Heinrich Kihn, in his more than 100 years old book on Theodore of Mopsuestia and Junillus (1880), maintained that the author of the Instituta was strongly influenced by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Now Maas (and Matthews) maintain that Kihn overemphasized the role of Theodore in this respect. On the other hand, they still see Instituta as built upon the basis of Antiochene hermeneutics in general; they do not, in any way, try to detract from the picture that Instituta, mainly through Cassiodorus, had an enormous influence on medieval Latin exegetes, who were thus – indirectly – to a certain extent “students” of the “School of Antioch”.

231

232

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Adam Kamesar’s book, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bible (1993) is of a different fibre. Here, among other things, in the analysis of Jerome’s exegetical work on Genesis we are taken into a thoroughgoing scrutiny of his sources. Chapter 5 of the book has the title: “Jerome and his Greek Exegetical Sources”, and Kamesar here refers to three categories: 1) Origen’s writings, 2) Liber nominum, and 3) the Antiochene fathers. Here I shall just quote the most important part of Kamesar’s conclusion as to Jerome’s relation to “Antiochene” fathers: At about the time when Jerome began issuing volumes of the new translation, he published his Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim. This text is not an experimental work, undertaken by a man gradually moving away from the Hexaplaric LXX in the direction of the ‘Hebraica veritas’. Nor is it merely an attempt to demonstrate the ‘utility of the Hebrew text’, which had in fact already been recognized by most Greek scholars. Rather, Jerome goes beyond this objective, and puts forward and justifies the system by which he interprets the Hebrew text. That is, he defends the philological foundations of IH [IH is Kamesar’s abbreviated reference to Jerome’s translation iuxta Hebraeos]. Jerome’s system may be termed a ‘recentiores-rabbinic’ philology. However, this system can only be appreciated when seen in the light of the other major systems of the time. These are the ‘Aramaic/Syriac approach’, which may be associated with Eusebius of Emesa, and the ‘Greek approach’, present in the works of Eusebius and Diodore of Tarsus, but more fully developed by Theodore of Mopsuestia. If Jerome’s ‘recentiores-rabbinic’ philology is understood against the background of these other systems, it is possible to see what he meant by describing QHG as an ‘opus novum’, and to acknowledge that by and large he was justified in making such a claim. (Kamesar 1993, pp. 193f.)

Obviously, Kamesar considers Jerome to be very well acquainted with various Greek and Oriental traditions as to exegetical method. From the Alexandrians and some Antiochene exegetes he knows “the Greek approach”, where the Septuagint is considered to be (or used as) the basic text. In Eusebius of Emesa he has met the idea that Syriac – as a “neighbouring language” to Hebrew – must play a particular role in identifying the textual foundation, “the Aramaic/ Syriac approach”. But Jerome prefers an approach based on Rabbinic philology and the three recentiores Greek versions: Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion – in order to create the most satisfactory, “new” basis for the translation and interpretation of the Old Testament. To my mind these analyses of the sources used by the learned Jerome, cele

G r e e k

a n d

S y r i a n

brated as vir trilinguis, are very important to keep in mind when approaching a couple of “cases” from Syria (including Antioch).

4. Three cases from Syrian seats of learning – whether Antiochene or not The purpose of the following lines is to sketch the ways in which two authors, who are both usually considered to represent Antiochene exegesis, approached and used the Syrian Bible, and what their linguistic background was, especially with regard to their knowledge of Syriac. Historically speaking, the two authors are at a distance of about 100 years from one another: Eusebius of Emesa and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. For these two authors I refer to some of my own studies as my starting point, whilst for the third case, Ephraem, I refer to Van Rompay’s “experiment” as to the question of whether he could be labelled an “Antiochene” (in exegetic matters).

4.1. Eusebius of Emesa – a Syrian in Greek dress Eusebius was born in Edessa (presumably about 300 A.D.); Syriac, no doubt, was his mother tongue; he is referred to as bishop of Emesa, but it seems that he has been in office for a very short span of years, if at all. He is reported to have been chaplain to the court and forces of the emperor (Constantius II) and to have paid visits to both Alexandria and Antioch (maybe for reasons of study). Obviously he belongs to a “school” that is reluctant towards allegorical interpretation. The year 359 is given as the latest possible date of his death. In my book Per Piscatores (1975) I made an attempt at evaluating Eusebius’ use of the Syriac Bible. However, as the texts examined were the Armenian translations of a number of homilies, and as suitable material for comparison, if at all available was in Latin, there were of course considerable problems of method and technique in the process of defining a possible Syriac basis for his quotations from the Bible. To this should be added that the principal goal of the book was to determine who were the authors of the Armenian series of homilies in question. My research found that eight of the thirteen homilies belong to Eusebius, the rest to Severian of Gabala and, according to my conclusions, a stratum of Syriac biblical readings was much more evident in Eusebius than in Severian. (In later articles I have shown further evidence of Syriac readings, not only in Eusebius, but in Severian as well, – cf. especially L 1996.) One topic was only touched upon briefly in the Per Piscatores, i.e. the possi-

233

234

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

bilities of identifying further elements of Eusebius’ Syriac Bible and the original Greek text of his Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament. The Armenian translation of this text was published by Vahan Hovhannessian in 1980, and in a couple of articles of the early 1980s (L 1984 and 1987) I pointed out some of the perspectives, that might be opened through further study of this text. The honour of having gone deeper into the investigation of this text, however, should be attributed to R. ter Haar Romeny. As can be seen, I have borrowed the title of his 1997-monograph as the heading of this paragraph. However, entering into any thoroughgoing presentation or discussion of this highly important book would take us too far here. I shall therefore very briefly emphasize only four elements in order to point out some of the results gained here as well as some of the perspectives and desiderata opened by Haar Romeny’s monograph. 1. Of course, for one thing the very title of the book, A Syrian in Greek Dress points at Eusebius’ origin: born in Edessa, and as mentioned already, therefore no doubt had Syriac as his language of origin. On the other hand, his works were written in Greek. Through the ill fortune, however, of the history of transmission very little of Eusebius’ oeuvre is handed down to us in its original language. As pointed out above, Latin and Armenian translators, especially, have the merit of making it possible to-day to sketch, at least, some of the literary and theological characteristics of Eusebius. 2. The possibility, to which I pointed in 1975 and 1984, of identifying in catenae considerable parts of the Greek original of Eusebius’ commentary, has now however been realized by Haar Romeny – in collaboration with Françoise Petit, the expert on Greek catenae. This is one of the very important results to be acknowledged in Haar Romeny’s book. 3. As appears from the subtitle of Haar Romeny’s book, he has chosen to work within two restrictions: 1) he concentrates his efforts on the Genesis part of the commentary, and 2) in particular, his comments are concerned with the versions of the Old Testament as used by Eusebius. So, regrettably, even to-day, more than 25 years after Hovhannessian’s edition, important parts of Eusebius’ work are still – in practice – unknown to patristic scholars without a knowledge of Armenian, and the contents and underlying principles of his exegesis are so far mainly examined in a text-historical perspective. So, however important and valuable Haar Romeny’s book is, it still leaves us with a number of desiderata. 4. In a context asking questions about school traditions it should be men-

G r e e k

a n d

S y r i a n

tioned – as a merit of the book – that it contains a number of references to some repercussions of Eusebius’ text. In the context of the traditional concept of the “school of Antioch” the amount of references to Eusebius in Diodore of Tarsus might be the most important element here, but also the aftermath which is to be found in Syrian authors, such as e.g. Ishodad of Merw, is of value for understanding the lines of tradition represented by Syrian theologians. Presumably further studies could elaborate on that – and on the aftermath in medieval Armenian theologians and exegetes, as well. Without going into further detail about Haar Romeny’s (and others’) studies of Eusebius of the 1990s (and the 2000s) it might be concluded that to-day we know much more about Eusebius’ “Syriac approach” to the Bible text; but there are still a number of open questions about the processes that took place on the way to the investment in Greek clothes and the subsequent appearances in Latin and Armenian costumes.

4.2. Theodoret of Cyrrhus – a Greek in a Syrian office In passing, it might be worth noting as a symptom of how broad the range of cultural and linguistic questions may be, that Theodore of Mopsuestia – wellknown as the “teacher” of the Nestorian Church, which has East Syriac as its vernacular – was, to Kamesar, one of the obvious representatives of “the Greek approach” to the Old Testament. Here we shall be concerned with Theodoret of Cyrrhus who, to my mind, deserves a new reading as to the question of his vernacular and about his way of mastering problems that might be brought together under our heading “Greek and Syrian”. It should be noted that Van Rompay – inspired by Kamesar’s terminology – coins the formula “a more varied approach” for Theodoret, but his points of view will be commented upon, most naturally, in the context of Ephraem, where his discussion of Greek and Syriac in the School of Antioch is treated. Theodoret was born in Antioch. His date of birth is not certain, but 393 A.D. is often quoted as the most probable year. He was educated in the monasteries in and around Antioch. Apart from a brief discontinuation, he was bishop of Cyrrhus from 423 until his death (466? – again there is a certain amount of doubt about the exact year). Undoubtedly, Syriac was the primary language of the region of Cyrrhus, and there is a strong scholarly tradition of assuming Theodoret’s vernacular as having been Syriac, too. I shall not resume here my arguments for dissociating myself from this tradition (cf. L 1999), but only briefly recapitulate a couple of points relevant for the discussion of “schools”

235

236

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

and traditions and for Theodoret’s particular views on matters of languages and history. 1. In many instances Theodoret shows a keen interest in the “history” and characteristics of Syriac – and Greek. He considers Syriac to be the oldest language (cf. above, pp. 202f and Van Rompay 1986, p. 88f), and he often seeks the explanation of biblical words for measure and weight and geographic names etc. in Syriac. But the historical priority of Syriac is not part of any legend of a “golden age”; to Theodoret Greek is the primary language of the Christian church, and differences as to language do not reveal any difference as to “essence” (see above pp. 201f). 2. In the History of the Monks of Syria (or Historia religiosa) Theodoret expresses a great amount of veneration for the Fathers of the Desert, many of whom (as is well-known to the author) had Syriac as their vernacular. However, in his book there is also a strong undercurrent of his consciousness of the necessity of holding the free-growing, even anarchistic movements of asceticism and enthusiasm under the control and discipline of the church – and of course quelling any kind of hereticism (the language of which would often be Syriac). 3. References to “the Syrian” are infrequent in Theodoret. Compared with Eusebius of Emesa, e.g., the Syriac Bible plays a very restricted role, which is the more striking, when Theodoret’s numerous references to “the three” recentiores Greek versions are taken into account. In this respect his Commentary on Jeremiah (and to a certain extent that on Ezekiel) stands out. There are no references to the recentiores, and about half of Theodoret’s references to “the Syrian” (32 out of 61) are found in this work (cf. above pp. 204f, 206ff). As, however, there are strong and obvious links between this work and the rest of Theodoret’s oeuvre, it does not seem advisable to explain the particularities through a verdict of “spurious” about the Jeremiah-commentary (a possibility taken into account, but finally rejected (it seems) by J.-N. Guinot). I have – very tentatively – suggested two possibilities of explaining the characteristics of this text. Should the explanation be found in a particular situation at a certain moment of Theodoret’s career, I asked in 1989 (cf. above, p. 128), and ten years later I asked whether one should rather look for particular data in the history of the text of the Book of Jeremiah as available to Antiochenes of the 5th century (cf. above, pp. 208ff). In this context, where questions of schools and seats of learning are brought into the foreground, I venture into that realm for a third explanation, once again in the form of an

G r e e k

a n d

S y r i a n

open question: Could the author of the text be a student of Theodoret, on the one hand well versed in the exegesis of Theodoret’s “school”, but, on the other hand, writing under circumstances where the usual instruments of the school were not available? So, indeed, there are open questions about Theodoret and the impact of his teaching, and maybe there are also, still, in spite of the studies by Canivet and Guinot, lessons to be learned from Theodoret about Syrian matters. But this should not obscure the picture of this late Antiochene theologian as an author primarily rooted in Greek language and culture, including a Greek approach to the Bible.

4.3. Ephraem the Syrian – an “Antiochene” from Nisibis? As has been suggested already, this is not a “case study” in the same sense as the above soundings into Eusebius and Theodoret. The only reason to add these remarks is the fact that Lucas Van Rompay in his analysis of Ephraem in the 1997 article draws up some lines of perspective highly relevant for the topics of “Antiochene exegesis” and “schools in Syria”. Ephraem, a contemporary of Eusebius and celebrated as “der grosse Klassiker der syrischen Kirche” (to use Altaner’s expression), was born in 306 in Nisibis and active in this city as a deacon and poet (writing in Syriac), until he was expelled because of the Persians’ capture of Nisibis. During his last ten years his activities took place in Edessa. His name is thus connected with the two famous cities of schools in Syria, Nisibis and Edessa. He died in 373. Ephraem’s curriculum and fate could thus invite us to consider the notion of “schools of Syria” in a broader perspective. Here we shall restrict ourselves to a rendering of some of the important points of Van Rompay’s remarks in the paper referred to above. Concerning the context of this paper it might be relevant to mention that it appeared in a report from a Jerusalem conference of 1995 about the interpretation of Genesis by both Christian and Jewish writers in late Antiquity. In the congress volume there are, indeed, valuable studies of themes that are of direct relevance to our considerations here, such as Haar Romeny’s treatment of Eusebius of Emesa and his relations to the “origins of the Antiochene School”, and J. J.S. Weitenberg’s examination of the language in the Armenian translations of Eusebius; also Judith Frishman’s paper about Gen 1-5 in early East Syrian exegesis is worth attention for the understanding of early Nestorian interpretation of the Bible.

237

238

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

As space forbids me to expand on such topics, we shall concentrate on Van Rompay’s article which is of interest for two reasons: first because of his well-informed and well-balanced introductory overview of Antiochene exegesis, second, because of what I should like to call his “experiment” or “test” attempting to identify Antiochene elements in Ephraem. His way into this experiment is determined by the topic of the Jerusalem conference. As mentioned already this conference concentrated on the interpretation of Genesis. However, presumably for accidental reasons within the history of transmission, little has survived from the later “great” Antiochenes about this part of the Bible. Therefore Van Rompay chooses to “focus on two fourth-century commentaries that are more loosely connected with Antiochene exegesis, i.e. those by Ephrem the Syrian and Eusebius of Emesa”. He con tinues: “These writings – in both their similarities and differences vis-à-vis other Antiochene works – may help us to understand what is typically Antiochene and what is not. Moreover, any study of the Syrian and the Jewish connections of Antiochene exegesis must include an assessment of these commentaries” (Van Rompay 1997, p. 104). Now, Van Rompay compares Ephraem and “proper” Antiochenes on a number of parameters, in particular concerned with christological and typological interpretation of narratives of the Old Testament, but also about types of commentaries etc. Space unfortunately forbids me from discussing singular analyses, however interesting and important, therefore I shall immediately proceed to Van Rompay’s conclusion, where he accentuates, that the distance between Ephrem’s Commentary and the works of the Antiochenes is quite considerable. On the basis of Origen’s philological work, and in reaction against the allegorical interpretation of that same Origen, the Antiochenes developed a strict method of exegesis which concentrated upon the historical events of the Bible. They introduced the idea that there is a historical development within the history of salvation, governed by God’s all-encompassing plan (or “Economy”). Within this Economy, they viewed the Old Testament history as one phase in this progressing plan, a phase which does not derive its meaning from a subsequent phase, but rather should be evaluated within its own limits and in its own right. Very little of this concept, which is characteristic of the Antiochene tradition of exegesis, is to be found in Ephrem’s exegesis (op. cit., p. 122).

Instead of declaring the “experiment” to have failed, it might be a more appropriate and precise conclusion to emphasize – with Van Rompay and others – that Antiochene exegesis is not monolithic, and what is true about Antiochene

G r e e k

a n d

S y r i a n

exegesis, might – per definition – be all the more true about exegesis in the “schools” of Syria, more broadly speaking. Van Rompay balances his conclusions in the following statement: Ephrem, Eusebius of Emesa, and Diodore of Tarsus were contemporaries, and all three had connections with the Syrian world, a bilingual region with diverse cultural traditions. It was in this context that Christianity had to define its identity, vis-à-vis Greek pagan culture as well as Judaism. Ephrem on the one hand, and the Greek Antiochenes on the other, represent two different models of response to this challenge. In the fluctuating world of the fourth and fifth centuries, neither of these models was very successful. The strict Antiochene line, reaching its climax in Theodore of Mopsuestia, became linked to the christological discussions and quickly lost ground, making way for a more varied approach, whose representative may be seen in Theodoret of Cyrrhus, among others (op. cit., p. 122f).

A quotation from R. P. C. Hanson, the patristic scholar, is added. He describes the exegesis of the early centuries as “the Church’s dance with the Bible, fancifully perhaps, but not irresponsibly, perhaps erratically, but at least gaily”, on which Van Rompay remarks that “with regard to the Syro-Antiochene region of the fourth and fifth centuries, the music dictating their movements and steps was coming from different directions” (op. cit., p. 123). To remain in this imagery it might be appropriate to add that differences of melodies and instruments contribute to the fascination of the investigation into various musical themes, and that e.g. the contrapuntal relation between Greek and Syrian still leaves the researcher with open and intriguing questions.

5. After 451. Concluding remarks My concluding remarks will only consider a couple of desiderata and questions left open, and refer to a couple of lines of perspective for the centuries after Theodoret – or after the Council of Chalcedon, where an attempt was made to settle the theological strife between Alexandria and Antioch. Two very concrete desiderata should be mentioned: 1) that of a full translation of Eusebius’ Commentary on Historical Writings of the Old Testament into a language that would make it possible for patristic scholars in general to include this important text in their studies; 2) a new critical edition of Theodoret’s

239

240

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Commentary on Jeremiah and thorough investigation into the textual forms of the biblical lemmata and quotations. Around the time after Theodoret, when Antioch was perhaps not remembered as a central seat of learning in the same manner as had been the case for the previous 150 years, it might be important to recall that bilinguality in the region of Syria, of course, did not cease. About the topic “Greek and Syrian”, just two important features of the following centuries should be mentioned – in great brevity. First, I am thinking of the poetic inspiration brought from Ephraem into Greek ecclesiastical poetry, as represented above all by Romanos Melodos. Second, it might be appropriate to mention the phenomenon of philhellenism on Syrian ground (and the parallel phenomenon in Armenia). It is the more appropriate to be brief here, as these fields of study have been covered most brilliantly by Sebastian Brock. I can refer to such titles as “Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek”, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity”, and “From Ephrem to Romanos” – and to the titles included in the list of literature below, where e.g. the topic of “Syriac attitudes to Greek learning” is treated under the heading “From Antagonism to Assimilation”. I have added a few notes on some of the relevant topics under a heading about “the (absent?) Middle Ages of the Middle East” (Lehmann 2005,3 – in Danish, cf. below), taking my point of departure in Theodoret’s (and earlier Christian) version(s) of the antagonism between Greek and Barbarian (cf. above, pp. 199ff). I shall not prolong the discussion here, only add that the questions of bilinguality, especially when one of the languages is that of the occupying empire, is highly important for the understanding of the establishment of churches, “nation”-building and theology in the centuries from 451 onwards. In this perspective – and in the imagery of Hanson and Van Rompay – the cases of the fourth and fifth centuries could perhaps be described as having the function of preludes to the richly developed music of later times, where it turned out to be important for nations and churches from Georgia in the north to Ethiopia in the south to emphasize the fact that they had a language of their own.

Literature Brock 1982: Sebastian Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning”, Nina Garsoïan, Thomas Matthews and Robert Thomson, eds., East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, Washington D. C. 1982, 17-34.

G r e e k

a n d

S y r i a n

Brock 1983: Sebastian Brock, “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique”, Orientalia Christiana Analecta CCXXI, Rome 1983, 1-14. Brock 1985: Sebastian Brock, “The Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the fifth to early seventh centuries”, Aksum-Thyateira: a Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios, ed. G. Dragas, London 1985, 125-142. Frishman 1997: Judith Frishman, “Themes on Genesis 1-5 in Early East-Syrian Exegesis”, Frishman & Van Rompay 1997, 171-186. Frishman & Van Rompay 1997: Judith Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay, eds., The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5, Louvain 1997. Guinot 1995: Jean-Noël Guinot, L’exégèse de Theodoret de Cyr, Théologie historique 100, Paris 1995. Haar Romeny 1997,1: R. B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress. The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis, Louvain 1997. Haar Romeny 1997,2: R. B. ter Haar Romeny, “Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis and the Origins of the Antiochene School”, Frishman & Van Rompay 1997, 125-142. Hovhannessian 1980: Eusèbe d’Emèse. I. Commentaire de l’Octateuque, préparé par P. Vahan Hovhannessian, Mekhitariste, Bibliothèque de l’Académie arménienne de Saint Lazare, Venise-St. Lazare 1980. Kamesar 1993: Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible. A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim, Oxford Classical Monographs, Oxford 1993. Kihn 1880: Heinrich Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten, Freiburg im Breisgau 1880. Lehmann 1975: Henning J. Lehmann, Per Piscatores. Studies in the Armenian version of a collection of homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Aarhus 1975. Lehmann 1982-2005: Cf. above: L 1982-2005 [se p. 11f]. Lehmann 2005,3: Henning Lehmann, “Havde Mellemøsten en middelalder?”, Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 68, Frederiksberg 2005, 46-64. Maas 2003: Michael Maas, Exegesis and Empire in the Early Byzantine Mediterranean. Junillus Africanus and the Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 17, Tübingen 2003. Pedersen 2004: Nils Arne Pedersen, “Kristendom og skole i oldtidens Antiokia”, Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 67, Frederiksberg 2004, 1-14. Schäublin 1974: Chr. Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Schule, Theo phaneia 23, Köln-Bonn 1974. Schäublin 1992: Chr. Schäublin, “Zur paganen Prägung der christlichen Exegese”, J. van Oort und U. Wickert, eds., Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalcedon, Kampen 1992, 148-173. Van Rompay 1986: Lucas Van Rompay, ed., Le Commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9,32 du Manuscrit (olim) Diyarbakir 22, CSCO 484, Scriptores Syri 206, Louvain 1986. Van Rompay 1997: Lucas Van Rompay, “Antiochene Biblical Interpretation. Greek and Syriac”, Frishman & Van Rompay 1997, 103-123. Weitenberg 1997: J. J. S. Weitenberg, “Eusebius of Emesa and Armenian Translations”, Frishman & Van Rompay 1997, 163-170. Young 1989: Frances Young, “The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis”, R. Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge 1989, 182-199.

241

Indices Biblical texts Genesis 1-2 1‑5 1,1 1.2 2 2,6 2,8 2,8f 2,21f 2,23 2,23f 3,5 3,22 4,1 4,4 4,4f 4,5 4,7 4,12 4,15 4,24 4,26 5,3 6,3 6,5 6,6 6,13 6,14 6,19f 8,4 8,7 8,21 9,4f 11,3 11,5 11,7 11,10 12,8

23 237. 241 115f 23ff. 87. 113 225 111 111. 116 109 167f 115f 116 116 111. 116 116 114ff 116. 118 116 116 116 116 116 116 109. 116 25 116 116 116 116 116 113. 116 116 116 116 109. 116 116 116 116 116

12,17 14,18.20 15,2 15,8f 15,15f 17,5 17,14 17,17‑19 18,19 18,21 18,27 19,21ff 19,22 20,2 20,3ff 20,17f 21,14 21,22 22,1 22,12 22,13 23,4 23,6 23,15 24,2 24,5 24,31 24,49 24,50 24,63 25,22 25,26 25,27 25,28 25,31 26,31 26,33 26,35 27,27

82. 88 88 88 88 88 89 89. 109. 116 89 89. 116 89 89. 116 109 116 89 89 89 89 89 90 90. 116 116 90 90. 116 90. 116 90. 109. 116 90 116 90 90. 116 90. 116 90 90 90 91 91 91 116 109. 116 109. 116

244

s t u d e n t s

27,40 31,7 31,7f 31,47 32,29f 33,13 36,24 36,31ff 37,21 37,36 38,18 38,29 39,2f 41,16 41.38 41,45 43,23 45,10 45,18 45,22 49,3f 49,5f 49,8f 49,23 49,27

o f

t h e

116 116 109 116 116 116 116. 122f 116 116 116 116 116 108. 116ff. 124f 116 25 116 116 116 116 116 116 112. 116 116 31 116

Exodus 1,12 1,12f 1,20f 1,22 2,1ff 2,14 2,18‑22 2,24f 3,14 3,18 4,14 4,25 4,26 5,21 6,3 8,19 15,10

b i bl e

91. 109 116 91. 116 91 91 91 82 91 114. 116 116 116 85. 116 85. 116 116 116 25 25

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

17 20,7 23,19 29,40

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

167f 116 116 206

Numbers 7,3

116

Deuteronomy 26,14

116

Joshua 24,29

115

Judges 6,15 12,6 15,8 20,16

116 107f. 119. 121f. 124f. 189 116 31

1 Samuel 2,5 4,8 4,21 15,11 19,13 20,20 20,41 21,5

116 148 116 116 116 116 116 116

2 Samuel 1,21 5,6 8,18 20,18 20,19 24,10‑17

116 116 116 116 116 160

1 Kings 1,9 1,38f 2,5 12,10

123 116 116 123

B i bl i c a l

2 Kings 2,3 2,14 3,4 18,26.28

123 116 116 203

2 Chronicles 10,10

123

Psalms 2,11f 8,3 18,12 18,46 19,5 22,10 45,8 49,2.3.5 71,6 74,12 81,16 118,25 132,7 141,7 148,4

115f 15. 160 116 116 115f 224 224 168 168 225. 227 206 14. 17 116 116 206

Ecclesiastes 3,17

115

Isaiah 1,19 5,2 6,1 6,1ff 6,5 7,14 9,11 13,21 13,22 19,18 19,23 23,14 36 49,1‑3

151 115 225 227 225 205 213 211 211f 203 203 205 203 224

53,4 53,12

52 52

Jeremiah 1,5 1,11 3,2 4,15 8,6 12,3 12,5 12,12 14,8 15,10 17,6 21,13 23,4 23,5f 24 25,23 25,25 26 27,19 29,26 30,20 31 31,2 31,21 31,38 31,40 35 37 38,14 39,5 41 41,5 43,13 46 46,14 46,17 47,4 48,31 48,32 48,33

150f 210 210 212 127. 208ff 210 127. 208. 210 210 210 127. 208. 210 210 209f 209 209f 206 212 209f 206 212 209f 210 206f 127. 208. 210 209f 210 212 206 206 210 212 206 209f 212 206 210. 213 209f 213 210. 213 213 210. 213

t e x t s

245

246

s t u d e n t s

49,13 49,18 49,27 50,8 50,39 51,20 51,27 52,18

o f

t h e

212 212 209f 211 211f 127. 208. 211 212 211

Lamentations 1,12 1,15 1,22 3,16f 3,29f 4,18

211 206. 213 211 211 211 211

Baruch 1,10

212

Ezekiel 4,11 27,12 40,7ff 45,24

206 205 129 206

Daniel 2,31 4,33 8,13 14,34ff

15 15 129 168

Hosea 11,1

115f

Joel 2,19

160

Jonah 1,3 3,4

205 205

Habakkuk 3,2

168

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

3,3

c e n t u r y

168

Matthew 2,1ff 2,11 4,24 5,23 5,24 7,3 8,2 8,4 8,16 8,23‑27 8,24 9,21 9,22 9,32 10,17f 10,22 11,25 12,22 14,35 16,25 17,1 17,16 18,11 18,17 18,18 18,19 18,24 19,53 20,21 21,8f 21,9 21,15 21,16 22,19 22,29 23,37 24,13 25,20 26,39 28,19

169 52 52 52 52 43 218 52ff 52 220 74 136 136 52 222 136 75. 223 52 52 136 52 52 136 149 72 72 52 52 218 15 19 19. 160 147. 160 52 149 26. 149f 136 52 97 199

s y r i a

B i b l i c a l

Mark 1,44 2,4 5,34 8,35 9,2 10,13 10,52 13,13

52ff 52 136 136 52 52 136 136

Luke 1,32 5,14 6,41 7,50 8,48 9,24 9,56 10,21 12,24 12,27 17,19 18,15 18,42 19,10 19,38 20,23 23,14 23,36 24,51

227 52ff 43 136 136 136 136 223 43 43 136 52 136 136 16 43 52 52 52

John 1,1 1,1‑2 1,1‑5 1,1ff 1,3 1,3‑4 1,4 1,6ff 1,10 1,29 2,19 5,21

180 175. 177ff 181 177ff 175. 178. 225 171ff. 178. 181ff 174f. 177. 183f 181 181 52 227 65

6,63 7,15 10,8 11,25 12,12f 12,13 12,37f 12,40f 16,2 19,29

65 222 178 224 17 15 225. 227 225 52 52

Acts 1,10 1,16 3,12 3,18 6‑7 7,31 7,32 7,42 8,18 11,6 13,27 17,28 21,26 27,39

43f 60 43 60 169 43 43 52 52 43f 60 184 52 43

Romans 2,17 2,23 4,17 4,19 5,2 5,3 5,11 8,11 9,16 11,18

48 48 65 43 48 48 48 65 150 45

1 Corinthians 1,29 2,31 3,21 14,11

48 48 47f 201

t e x t s

247

248

s t u d e n t s

15,22 15,36 15,45

o f

t h e

65 65 65

2 Corinthians 3,6 5,12 7,14 9,2 9,11 10,8 10,13 10,13‑17 10,15 10,16 10,17 11,6 11,12 11,18 11,30 12,5 12,9 13,3

64f 48 47f 47f 50 48 48 47 48 48 48 200 48 48 47f 48 48 224. 227

Galatians 1,1 3,21 6,13 6,14

224 65 48 48

Ephesians 1,14

224 49

Colossians 1,16

184

1 Thess 5,9

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

2 Thess 2,14

65

Hebrews 1,7‑9 3,1 5,1 5,3 5,7 7,25 7,27 8,3 8,4 9,7 9,9 9,14 9,25 9,28 10,1 10,2 10,8 10,11 10,12 10,24 10,39 11,4 11,17 12,7 13,15

224f 43 52 52 52 64 50. 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 43 65 52 52 52 52

James 65

Philippians 2,6f 3,3

b i bl e

65

1,1 1,3 1,9 1,10 1,21 1,23 1,24 2,3 2,11 2,13 2,14 2,21 2,23

46 49f 46f. 49 46f. 49 61ff. 134 42ff. 50 43f 45 56 45. 50 64 50. 52f 57ff

s y r i a

B i bl i c a l

4,12 4,16 5,15 5,20

64 47. 49 64 64

1 Peter 2,5 2,24 3,18

52 52 65

1 John 1,7

222

t e x t s

249

250

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Patristic and medieval names and sources Ambrose 16. 19. 26. 184f Anastasius 15f Aphraates 28. 132. 149. 196. 199f Apollinarius 77. 81 Apostolic Constitutions 132 Augustine 11. 17. 23ff. 87. 113. 184 Bardaisan 33. 184 Basil of Caesarea 11. 23. 26ff. 33. 68. 87. 96. 104f. 113. 156 Cassiodorus 231 Clement of Alexandria 15f. 18f Constantius 79. 233 Cyril of Alexandria 30. 77f. 80. 109. 212 Cyril of Jerusalem 132f Damasus 16 David (translator) 83 Didache 20 Didymus 93 Diodore of Tarsus 21. 29ff. 84. 93. 113. 117. 122f. 229. 232. 235. 239 Elia 83 Ephraem 26f. 33f. 77. 84f. 132. 182ff. 230. 233. 235. 237ff Epiphanius 70. 132. 156. 178 Eucherius of Lyons 18 Eusebius of Caesarea 79 Eusebius of Emesa 7ff. 13. 21f. 30ff. 67f. 77ff. 95f. 98. 104f. 107ff. 125. 129f. 137. 141. 147. 149f. 158. 162. 176ff. 185. 188f. 205. 229f. 232ff. 241 Eusebius of Samosata 26f Eustathius 26. 29 Eznik 78 Hesychius of Jerusalem 75. 223 Hilary of Poitiers 16. 19. 109. 182

Homer 201 Irenaeus 67f. 74. 97. 217ff Išo bar Nun 28 Išodad of Merw 28. 33f. 235 Jacob Cyrrhesticus 197f Jacob of Edessa 27 Jerome 15ff. 30f. 79. 84. 87. 172. 231f. 241 John Chrysostom 18. 67f. 70f. 137. 141f. 149f. 155ff. 176. 200. 229 John Mayragomec̒ i 104 John of Ōjun 102ff Josephus 123. 126. 205f Julian 199 Junillus Africanus 231. 241 Justin 21. 132 Justinian 231 Komitas 102 Lucian 208. 229 Macedonius 196. 199f Maësymas 196. 199f Mani 184 Marcion 184. 197f Melito of Sardes 109. 119 Nicetas 15. 21 Origen 15. 77. 86. 93. 107. 114. 232. 238 Patrophilus of Scythopolis 79 Philo of Alexandria 15. 86. 93 Proclus 70. 74. 220f Procopius of Gaza 30. 32. 34. 77. 81ff. 88ff. 110. 114. 116f Publius 199

P a t r i s t i c

a n d

Romanos 240 Severian of Gabala 7f. 11ff. 21f. 67ff. 78. 95ff. 109. 137. 141ff. 155ff. 176ff. 185. 217ff. 233. 241 Severus of Antioch 70. 75. 77. 156. 166. 223. 225ff Simeon Stylites 196f Step̒anos (scribe) 83 Suidas 18 Symbolum Athanasianum 105. 162 Tatian 183. 185 Theodore bar Koni 28

m e d i e v a l

n a m e s

a n d

s o u r c e s

Theodore of Mopsuestia 34. 126. 130. 184f. 229. 231f. 235. 239. 241 Theodoret of Cyrrhus 7. 9ff. 21f. 28. 70. 81. 84. 108. 119ff. 125ff. 156f. 187ff. 230. 233. 235ff. 239. 241 Theophilus of Antioch 27f Theophylactus 18. 184f Vardan Arewelc̒ i 83f Xenophon 201

251

252

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i bl e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Modern writers Aalen, S. 15 Adler, A. 18 Agaësse, P. 29 Akinian, N. 13f. 20. 67f. 79. 95f. 105. 137. 141ff. 147ff. 158ff. 176ff. 219 Aland, Kurt 38. 41. 134. 172ff. 182f. 185 Aldama, J. A. de 68 Altaner, B. 18. 21. 26. 237 Altendorf, H.-D. 68. 70. 75. 96. 104f. 141. 156f. 222f Amand de Mendieta, E. 29 Anger 19 Aucher, J. B. 11. 13f. 67f. 72. 75f. 95ff. 142f. 150. 158ff. 177f. 221 Awetik̒ ean, G. 32 Awgerean, M. 32 Azéma, Y. 194 Babgēn, see Kiwlēsērean Bach-Nielsen, Carsten 12 Bahrdt, C. F. 107 Bak, Jørgen Friis 12 Bardenhewer, Otto 27. 29f. 128. 187 Barr, James 57. 61 Baumstark, A. 55 Bedrossian, M. 32. 45 Bek, Lise 11 Berberian, Haïg 11. 72. 163. 219 Blake, R. P. 55 Boman, Thorleif 57 Brock, Sebastian 40. 240f Brooke, A. E. 86 Buhl, F. 21 Burchard, Ch. 10 Burkitt, F. C. 37f Buytaert, E. M. 31. 78f. 81. 84. 96. 109. 112. 179ff

Canivet, Pierre 187ff. 196. 198. 200. 237 Carstens, Pernille 12 Carter, R. E. 72 Castro, Leo de 18f Chadwick, Henry 241 Chaix-Ruy, J. 23 Clarke, Ernest G. 28 Cramer, J. A. 71 Cross, F. L. 67. 141 Crum, W. E. 70. 156 Dalman, G. 19 Datema, C. 8. 149. 152. 157 Deconinck, Joseph 31. 84. 113. 122f Deroy, Louis 62 Devreesse, Robert 28f. 30. 81f. 86. 90. 109. 111. 116. 125 Dietz, Søren 12 Dorival, G. 82 Dragas, G. 241 Drusius, J. 107 Dupin, L. E. 176 Duplacy, Jean 41 Dürks, W. 22. 68. 70. 157f. 219 Elliott, C. J. 195 Ensslin, W. 71 Erasmus 16. 174 Esbroeck, Michel van 68 Ettlinger, Gerhard H. 70 Eynde, Ceslas van den 34 Faller, O. 184 Fernández Marcos, N. 193. 195. 202. 206 Festa, N. 188. 192ff. 201f Field, F. 86. 107f. 114. 117f. 121. 124f Fraipont, I. 24 Frishman, Judith 237. 241 Funk, F. X. 21

M o d e r n

Garnier, Jules 26 Garsoïan, Nina 240 Geerard, Maurice 67. 141. 156. 219 Gennaro, J. 172 Gesenius, W. 21 Giet, Stanislas 26f. 29. 87 Grabowski, St. J. 24 Green, G. M. 17 Guillaumont, Antoine 28. 34 Guinot, J.-N. 187ff. 203. 205. 207. 211ff. 236f. 241 Haar Romeny, R. B. ter 9f. 188f. 205. 207. 230f. 234f. 237. 241 Hakopyan, V. 76 Hanson, R. P. C. 239f Harnack, A. von 21 Helm, R. 31. 79 Herding, W. 79. 84 Hespel, Robert 70 Heyer, Friedrich 10 Hilberg, J. 16. 18 Hilgenfeld, A. 19 Hoffmann, G. 21 Holm, Kjeld 202 Hovhannessian, Vahan 30. 77f. 86. 109f. 125. 234. 241 Hvidbak, Claes 12 Hvidberg-Hansen, F. O. 12 Inglisian, Vahan 83 Jansens, Cornelius 16. 18ff Jansma, T. 27. 33f Jellicoe, Sidney 113 Jensen, Hans 47 Jordan, Hermann 67. 73f. 218f Joüon, P. 55 Jugie, Martin 105. 162 Kamesar, Adam 231f. 235. 241 Kautzsch, E. 19 Kihn, Heinrich 231. 241 Kirchmeyer, J. 75. 222

w r i t e r s

Kiwlēsērean, Babgēn 73. 97. 217 Kodal, Dorthe Maria 12 Kohlbacher, M. 10 Kouymjian, Dickran 11. 163 Kroll, W. 71 La Croze 37 Lagrange, M.-J. 55 Lake, Kirsopp 55 Lamarche, P. 172f. 175f. 178f Langkammer, H. 172 la Potterie, I. de 172f. 176 Laurentin, R. 70 Lebon, J. 21. 75. 96. 102. 104. 225f Ledet Christiansen, Jørgen 12 Lehmann, Else 12 Lehmann, Henning J. 11f. 30. 67. 72. 78f. 87. 95f. 98. 105. 109f. 112f. 125. 129. 134. 137f. 141. 144. 147ff. 152. 156ff. 166. 176. 182. 188f. 202. 204. 207f. 217ff. 233ff. 236. 240f Leloir, Louis 38ff. 44ff. 49f. 53. 56f. 60f. 63f. 134. 182f. 191 Leroy, F. J. 220 Leroy-Molinghen, Alice 188. 192. 194. 200 Lesinski, M. 10 Lindhardt, Jan 202 Lint, Theo van 12 Livingstone, E. A. 11 Lund, Mary Waters 12 Lyonnet, Stanislas 39f. 55. 57. 60. 148f Maas, Michael 231. 241 Macler, Frédéric 39f. 54 Martin, Ch. 97 Marx, B. 68. 70. 74f. 141. 156f. 220. 222 Matthews, Edward G. 231 Matthews, Thomas 240 McClellan, W. H. 35 McLean, N. 86 Mehlmann, J. 172

253

254

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i b l e

i n

4 t h

Mercati, G. 109 Merk, A. 54f Merx, A. 19 Metzger, Bruce M. 37ff Miller, Ed. L. 171ff. 178 Mitchell, C. W. 184 Molitor, Joseph 57. 61. 64. 134. 191 Montfaucon, B. 75. 107f. 117f. 124f. 222 Morin, G. 18 Morville, Elsebeth 12 Mussolini, Benito 56 Mühlenberg, E. 92 Møller, Henriette 12 Møller, Lars Kærulf 11 Møller Larsen, John 12 Nestle, Eberhard 38. 171 Nestle, Erwin 38. 174 New, Silvia 55 Nobilius, Fl. 107 Nørager, Troels 12 Olivier, J. 85 Oort, J. van 241 Opelt, Ilona 15. 18 Ortiz de Urbina, I. 27. 183 Outtier, B. 84f Pamboukdjian, K. 97 Parmentier, Léon 187. 190. 192f. 201f Pauly, A. F. 71 Payne Smith, J. 20f Pedersen, Nils Arne 241 Peeters, Paul 187. 191f. 195f. 198 Peradze, G. 70 Perl, Carl Johann 27 Petit, Françoise 30. 81f. 87ff. 92f. 234 Pilgaard, Aage 12 Porcher, E. 70 Quasten, Johannes 187. 194

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Rahlfs, Alfred 9. 107f. 117ff. 124ff. 189 Renoux, Charles 97. 217 Rhodes, Erroll F. 40 Richard, Marcel 21 Richards, W. L. 41f Rompay, Lucas Van 28. 34. 126. 129. 202. 230. 233. 235ff. 241 Rudberg, S. Y. 29 Sáenz-Badillos, A. 202 Samuelian, Th. J. 11. 98. 110. 156. 182 Sargisean, B. 13 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 175 Schulze, J. L. 122 Schweizer, Eduard 29. 31 Schäublin, Chr. 230. 241 Siegfried, C. 15. 19 Sirmond, J. 75. 222 Siwrmelean, X. 32 Sløk, Johannes 202 Smoroński, K. 23. 27. 35 Smulders, P. 109. 182 Solignac, Aimé 24. 29 Sparre, Jørgen 12 Sprenger, H. N. 126 Spuler, B. 84 Stone, Michael E. 11. 110. 182 Stählin, O. 15 Sørensen, Dan Enok 12 Teilmann, Katja 12 Teselle, E. 23 Testa, E. 23 Thodberg, Chr. 12 Thomson, R. W. 76. 240 Thyssen, Peter 12 Tillemont, Lenain de 26. 176 Tonneau, R. M. 27 T̒ornean, T̒. 80 Uthemann, K. H. 8. 149. 157 Valois (Valesius), H. de 190

M odern

Vardanian, A. 96 Venables, E. 195 Vermès, G. 85 Vigouroux, F. 14 Villadsen, Holger 149 Voicu, Sever J. 149. 157 Vosté, J.-M. 185 Vööbus, Arthur 39 Weinreich, Uriel 62 Weitenberg, J. J. S. 10ff. 237. 241 Wenger, A. 70. 75. 223 Westcott, B. F. 185 Westermann, Cl. 23 Wickert, U. 241 Wiles, M. F. 175 Willems, R. 17. 184

writers

Williams, R. 241 Winkler, Gabriele 132f Wissowa, G. 71 Wotke, C. 18 Wutz, F. 15f. 21 Young, Frances 230. 241 Zahn, Th. 15f. 19ff. 172f. 185 Zakayan, D. 12 Zanolli, Almo 30ff. 76ff. 83f. 110 Zellinger, Johannes 22. 68. 70. 75. 96f. 102. 104f. 156ff. 168. 176f. 219. 221. 223. 227 Ziegler, Joseph 208f. 213 Zycha, I. 24

255

256

s t u d e n t s

o f

t h e

b i b l e

i n

4 t h

a n d

5 t h

c e n t u r y

s y r i a

Abbreviations AJ: Acta Jutlandica ByZ: Byzantinische Zeitschrift CCSG: Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca CCSL: Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina CSCO: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium CSEL: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum GCS: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller HA: Handes Amsorya JEH: Journal of Ecclesiastical History OC: Oriens Christianus OCP: Orientalia Christiana Periodica PG (or “Migne”): Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne PL (or “Migne”): Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne PO: Patrologia Orientalis RAC: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum RBib: Revue Biblique REArm: Revue des Etudes Arméniennes RHE: Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique SeT: Studi e Testi SSL: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense TU: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur ZKG: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte ZNW: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche