TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION AND TRANSLATION
25. The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem
SEBASTIAN BROCK
THE precise identity of the Syriac version of the NT published by Joseph White in 1778-1803 has remained for two centuries one of the unresolved problems of NT textual scholarship :I does it represent the work of Polycarp,z made under the patronage of Philoxenus, bishop of MabbQg, in AG 819 = AD 507/8, with marginal readings added a little over a century later by a successor on the episcopal throne of MabbQg, Thomas of Harkel, or is the text itself the product of a revision of Polycarp’s work, carried out by Thomas.2 White considered the former to be the case, and so-accordingly entitled his edition of the text
‘versio Philoxeniana’,I whereas- the latter position is connected especially with the name of G. H. Bernstein, who first put it forward in detail.4 If Bernstein is correct, then the ‘Philoxenian’
r See the excellent survey of B. M. Metzger, 2% Eurl~ Versions
of
the New Testu- ment (Oxford: Clarendon, rg77), 63-75, where bibliographical details will be found.2 That the revision was undertaken by Polycarp is specifically stated only in the letter of Moshe of Aggel (Egil) which prefaces the latter’s translation of Cyril’s Glaphyra; the text was published by I. Guidi in Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 4/2 (1886), 404, and the relevant passage reads: ‘ . . . if the reader finds quotations from the holy scriptures in this translation of Cyril let him not be worried if they do not agree with MSS (of the Bible) in Syriac, seeing that there is great variation between the (different) editions and (versional) traditions of the scriptures. If the reader wants to verify this, should he come across the edition (mu/$aqta) of the NT and of the Psalter (“David”) which the late chorepiskopos Polycarp made in Syriac for the faithful teacher Aksenaya’ (= Philoxenus) of MabbQg worthy of blessed memory, he will be amazed at the difference between the Syriac (i.e. Peshitta) and the Greek’.
3 In this century he has been followed notably by A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Clarendon, x933), 305-29; Silva New, ‘The Harclean Version of the Gospels’,HTR 2 I ( IgQ8), 376-95; and M.-J. Lagrange, Critique textuelle, ZZ, La Critique rationnelle (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, rg35), 229.
4 See G. H. Bernstein, De Charklensi .Novi Testamenti translations Syriaca com- mentutio (Leipzig: Vogel, 1837). Recent proponents of Bernstein’s thesis include G. Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament (The British Academy, Sup- plemental Papers 7; London, 1945) ; and A. Vodbus, ‘New Data for the Solution of the Problem Concerning the Philoxenian Version’, Sjiritus et veritas: Festschrift Karl Ku&inS (Eutin: A. Ozolins, rg33), x69-86.
9555 C80 M
326 S E B A S T I A N BROCK
version of the Syriac NT canon5 is lost, for none of the MSS which, from time to time, have been claimed as Philoxenian by those who hold White’s text to be Harclean, can seriously be considered as such.
Basically there are three different starting-points available for any attempt to resolve the matter : the evidence of the colophons;
the study of Philoxenus’ NT quotations in his own writings, and the study of the translation technique evidenced in White’s text, seen against the background of the history of Syriac trans- lation technique.
A. C. Clark’s statement, ‘to obtain light we must go back to the colophons’,6 reflects the opinion of the vast majority of scholars who have written on the subject. Here it will be recalled that the relevant section of these colophons7 records that the text goes back to a version ‘which was first translated (etpa#@) from Greek into Syriac at Mabbixg in the year 819 of Alexander of Macedon, and was subsequently (b&&en) collated (etpa&m) against two (v.Z. three) accurate Greek MSS at the monastery of the Enaton near Alexandria through the care of Thomas, bishop of Mabbfig, in the year 927 of Alexander (AD 615/6)‘. Upholders of White’s position claim that the ‘plain meaning’s of the colophon is that Thomas only ‘collated’, and did not ‘revise’, the text. Clearly, everything hangs on the interpretation of the term etpa@am, and unfortunately it cannot really be said that the meaning of this word is quite so plain, seeing that later Syriac writers understood it in quite the opposite sense and speak of Thomas’
‘revision’ (tuwqa) .
. As A. Vijiibus has pointed out,9 the discussion of the colophon has reached something of an impasse, and it is to his credit, and to that of G. Zuntz before him, that he saw the solution 5 J. Gwynn put forward strong reasons for thinking that the Pococke Epistles and the Crawford Apocalypse are really Philoxenian. Philoxenus’ failure ever to quote these (to him extra-canonical) books does not necessarily weaken Gwynn’s
case. 6 Clark, Acts, 329.
7 See, for example, W. H. P. Hatch, ‘The Subscription in the Chester Beatty Manuscript of the Harclean Gospels’, HTR 30 (Ig37), 149-s I. (According to R.
Kobert, Bib 56 [x975], 249-50, the seventh-century Vat. syr. 268 gives the date [A.G.] 812 [A.D. 500/01] instead of 819, but this will be erroneous [tr’~’ (sic) for tS’sr’] .)
8 So Clark, Acts, 320; similarly S. New, ‘Harclean Version’, 382-g, and C. van Puyvelde in DBSup 6 (1g62), 876.
9 A. Voobus, Early Versions of the New Testament (Papers of the Estonian Theo- logical Society in Exile 6; Stockholm, rg54), log.
Resolution of PhiloxenianjHarclean Problem 327 must lie in the study of the text itself and its relationship to the NT text quoted in Philoxenus’ own later writings. It is indeed astounding that so little attempt has been made to do this syste- matically. Both Zuntz10 and VijijbusI~ have made preliminary soundings in this direction, but now the recent publication of Philoxenus Commentary on the Prologue of John (= CPJ)lz pro- vides an opportunity for a fuller examination of Philoxenus’
text and its relationship to the version printed by White. This work not only specifically mentions the revision of the Peshitta which Philoxenus sponsored, but it also happens to be preserved in a MS (BL Add. 14534) written during the bishop’s own lifetime.‘3 As Viiijbus has already intimated, it is the study of Philoxenus’ NT quotations in CPJ, seen against the back- ground of the history of translation technique in Syriac, which can offer the final resolution of this long drawn out controversy.14 After taking into account the various factors’s (such as Philo- xenus’ somewhat loose method of quoting and the possibility that he may on occasion derive his NT text from Greek writers translated into Syriac) which could distort the picture gained of his own NT text, a full examination of his NT quotations in CPJ indicates very clearly that throughout he is essentially making use of a Syriac NT text that stands somewhere between the Peshitta and White’s text. To demonstrate this here, we must confine ourselves to a selection of some of the more telling examples.16
10 Ancestry, 40-62, based on Tractah tres de ZXnitate et Incarnatione (= Tract. &es).
Ix Ear& Ver.sim.r, I I 0-18, and ‘New Data’, I 69-86.
12 Edited, with French translation, by A. de Halleux in CSCO 38o/Syr. 165 [text] (Louvain, rg77), and CSCO 38r/Syr. 166 [translation] (1977). My references throughout are to the text volume (Syr. 165).
1s Although the colophon is unfortunately lost, the script is very close to that of Add. 17126, containing fragments of Philoxenus’ commentary on Matthew and Luke, dated AG 822 = AD 510/11.
14 In what follows I use the abbreviations: G = Greek (I am not here concerned with the textual character of Polycarp’s Vorlage); H = ‘Harclean’ (i.e. White’s text); P = Peshitta; Ph = Philoxenus’ NT text in CPJ.
15 Outlined by de Halleux, CSCO 38o/Syr 165, xiii-xvi. De Halleux seems to me unduly pessimistic about recovering the Philoxenian version from Philoxenus’
quotations; in going through the NT quotations in CPJ I have been struck by the consistency with which Philoxenus quotes a revised form of text, even though there are many clear cases of his lapsing back into the Peshitta reading, or quoting rather loosely.
I6 The selection is made after an examination of all the NT quotations in this work; for the passages selected (only) I have checked citations of them in the
328 SEBASTIAN BROCK
First of all, however, it will be helpful to look at the passage of CPJ where Philoxenus specifically refers to the revision :I7 When those of old undertook to translate these [passages of the]
scriptures they made mistakes in many things, whether intentionally or through ignorance. These mistakes concerned not only what is taught about the Economy in the flesh, but various other things concerning different matters. It was for this reason that we have now taken the trouble’* to have the Holy Scriptures translated (netpdqun) anew from Greek into Syriac.
Four passages in particular concerning the Incarnation are considered by Philoxenus to have been translated unsatis- factorily in the Peshitta and consequently to require correction.
The first two go together :*9
(I) Matt. I: I P ‘The book of the birth (iZi&&) of Jesus Christ . . .’
(2) Matt. I: 18 P ‘The nativity (yak&h) of Jesus Christ was thus. . .’
After quoting the Peshitta text (which he calls ‘the Syriac’, suryaya), Philoxenus comments on these two passages as follows : In the Greek, from which it is well known that the books of the NT were translated, this is not what is written ; rather, instead of ‘nativity (y&z), both passages have ‘becoming’ (hwaya) ;zO nevertheless, the person who translated it (i.e. the Peshitta) for some reason unknown to me preferred to translate by ‘birth’ (iliduta) and ‘nativity’ &lda) instead of ‘becoming’ (hzuuya) .2x
following three works of Philoxenus: ‘Z-Y&. tres (CSCO g/Syr. g), Ep. ad monachos Senunenses (CSCO g8/Syr. g8), and Dissertationes de Uno e San&a Trinitate incorporate et passe (PO x5,38).
I7 WJ, 53.
1s Sqalta’na, used here, is frequently found in colophon8 of sixth-century MSS referring to the sponsors who had the MSS copied; it likewise occurs in the Har- clean colophons.
IQ CPJ, 42.
2O In CPJ Philoxenus always quotes the passages with hwaya (= ~&JLs):
Matt. I: I (pp. 41, 47, 49, 52; but in Diss. 4.57 he uses the Peshitta wording);
Matt. I: 18 (pp. 41, 43, 44, 47, 50, 52, 120; likewise in Tract. tres, for which see Zuntz, Ancestry, 44).
21 Shortly after (p. 43) Philoxenus betrays his own poor knowledge of Greek by saying: ‘One reason why the translator used “nativity” instead of “becoming”
may be that the pronunciation (qeryana) of the two words is very similar in Greek;
for in the word for “becoming” (hwaya) there are two consecutive nuns, whereas in the word for “nativity” there is just one’.
Resolution of PhiloxenianlHarclean Problem 329 Philoxenus’ interest here is manifestly christological, for, in his polemic against the Antiochene theologians, he wishes to asso- ciate the genesis of these passages with John I :
14, d
Xdyo.~&+I[ +&TO. A similar polemical concern is to be found in the other two ‘corrections’ to which he specifically refers :
(3) fib. 5= 7
(CPJ,
53)Philoxenus first quotes what he considers to be the correct translation of the verse, ‘He, who in the days of his flesh . . .’
(so in the Greek), but then goes on :
in place of this they (i.e. the authors of the Peshitta) translated ‘when he was clothed in the flesh’, and instead of [translating] Paul, they inclined to the position of Nestorius who cast the body onto the Word as one does a garment onto an ordinary body, or as purple is put on emperors.
(4) fib. 10: 5
(CPJ,
53-4)The Peshitta translation of Hebrews introduces clothing ima- gery (characteristic of early Syriac Christianity)22 into this verse too, and consequently Philoxenus sees it as requiring cor- rection in order to avoid the possibility of any Nestorianizing interpretation :
Again, the passage ‘you have established me with a body’23 (Heb.
IO: 5)-indicating the inhomination by means of which the Son fulfilled the Father’s will and became a sacrifice on behalf of all- was translated by them (i.e. the authors of the Peshitta) as ‘you clothed me with a body’. Thus it can everywhere be recognized that they have not translated the Apostle, but introduced their own opinion into their renderings.
From these four passages it is evident that theological con- siderations were uppermost in Philoxenus’ mind when he sponsored the new (or rather, revised) translation of the N T into Syriac.24 In passing we may compare the embarrassment that he felt elsewhere over other loose features of early Syriac theological terminology, even including Ephraem’s.25
22 It is significant that Philoxenus assiduously avoids ‘clothing’ metaphors for the Incarnation in his writings.
23 The passage is quoted in its revised form in Tract. tres 38-g, 65 (cf. 55).
24 Cf. A. de Halleux, Philoxdne de Mabbog (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste,
I 963)) I 2 I (in this section, pp. I I 7-25, de Halleux draws attention to the importance of Philoxenus’ references to these four passages).
2s See, for example, Tract. tres 39-40, eb. Sen. 5 1, 53-5.
330 SEBASTIAN BROCK
In all these passages except Heb. 5 : 7 Philoxenus’ revised biblical text agrees with that printed by White, but it would be premature to assume that the latter indeed represents the ‘Philo- xenian’. An examination of Philoxenus’ full quotation of Heb.
5 :
7
alone shows that this is not the case : P26Ph H
0”s &
rais
+&pats r+js aapK& adroi3 ibjcms re Kal lKqpla0 a@ kad besra lbij’ (h)wa ba’uta w-tak.Cejrtahaw dab-yawmata d-besreh YY (PU 92 (Pl*)
¶Y 9, d-besra dileh w- ,, ,, ,, ,,
?rp& &v ~~V~~KVOV oc&v air& 2tc Oav&ov
ba-g’ata hayltanita wab-dem’e qarreb (h)wa l-man d-me$kah (h)wa lwat haw da-rn.se (h)wa da-npq;ew(hy) men mawta
¶, ,¶ ¶Y ,, da-n#‘awzbiw (hy) ,, ,, /LET& Kpavyijs tqvpGs KUl i3aKplhv qJoaw+Kas
men mawta d-nahew (hy)
ba-q’ata hayltanita wab-dem’e qarreb
‘am ,, Y, w-dem’e ,,
Besides providing a literal translation of the objectionable opening phrase, Ph has adopted the word order of the Greek ; further changes involve number (singular altered to plural), syntax (I- changed to Zwat to represent +s), and lexicon (qe for meIkah, pa.s;i for a&, q’ata for g’ata). So thorough, in fact, is the revision in Ph that there was little opportunity for further improvement ; nevertheless the differences between Ph .and H, although small, are significant: c&ov^ is represented by dileh, as regularly in H (in Ph only where emphasis is needed) ; ‘am replaces b- of P and Ph in order to reflect ~~70i more closely ; and a&i&~ is given its more or less standard rendering in H, J’awzeb (pass; being reserved in H for $EC&U) .27
In due course we shall consider three different categories of readings in Ph which clearly indicate the intermediary position of Ph between P and H. First, however, it will be helpful to 26 ‘Even when he was clothed in the flesh, prayer and supplication with mighty groaning and with tears did he offer up to him who was able from death to save him’. (Here, as elsewhere, I give a translation [as literal as possible] only of P, since Ph and H are always close calques on the Greek.)
27 Ph (= H) uses Juwzeb for o&&v at John 5: 34 (p. 242), where again P has the Syriacism 6’ (lit. ‘live’); in H passi is reserved for fi&o&z~. Compare also
I Cor. I : 2 I, quoted below.
Resolution of PhiloxenianlHarclean Problem 33’
provide some more extended quotations in order to give a better impression of the slightly different concerns underlying Ph and H.
(I) John 16: 12-13 (CPJ, 159, I 7 8 )
&b moWi +w 6piv X+sv, cihXci 03 6~vaatk /3a(3r&v dlpr6’
P28 tub saggi it li I-memar lkon, ella la mes’kbin atton I-mehad has’s, Ph saggi’a ta , , d-imar , , , , , , has’s I-metcan, H ,Y Y, ,, I-memar ,, ,, ,, m$n ,‘,’ I-met’an has’s,
&C&V 62 %g E)K&VOS, 76 7Tl’~i$Ct T;iS fih?#k~Us, d++Cb d,Uik
ma d-eta den ruha da-s’rara hu ndabbarkon den
eZzat(_y) ,, d-r%e haw, iu ,, ,3
,, ,, nhazdekon ENS ?rc?iaav &j&6av.
b-kulleh s’rara.
lwat kulleh ,, b-kulleh ,,
This passage excellently illustrates Ph’s intermediary position and the following points may be singled out for special com- ment :
(a) In the phrase &UV 8; &ier, E)KEhOS Ph merely transposes den, but otherwise keeps P ; this is not good enough for H, for whom emat (y) is the standard rendering of &uv,30 and 4%~
~K&VOs requires a direct calque.
(b) H goes further than Ph in the number of lexical alterations ; note that although m;e was used by Ph at Heb. 5 : 7 (above), it only becomes the regular equivalent of 621vu~u~ in H ; likewise H always renders o’Gqy~& by haddi (perhaps chosen for reasons of homophony).
(c) H restores the reading of P twice, as more exact; in the second case Ph had altered b- to Zwat in order better to represent EIS; H, however, evidently knew the Greek variant 2v, and so restored b-. We shall come across other instances where Ph and H represent two different Greek readings.
28 ‘Still there is much for me to say to you, but you are unable to grasp (it) now; when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you in all truth’.
29 So on p. 159; on p. I 78, however, Philoxenus inadvertently reverts to P’s mehad.
30 Likewise in the translation practice of Thomas’ contemporary, Paul of Edessa; see my The Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Nonnos Mythological Scholia (London/
New York: Cambridge University, rg7r), 36.
332 SEBASTIAN BROCK
(2) Ram. 1: 1-3 (CPJ, 50) ( w. 2-3 : pp. 40, 139; v. 3: pp. 52, 120,
148, 235) PSIPh H
I7aiCios Goi7Aos ‘ IT,lOOi? xpLOTO6, K)(r/T& &o'CWO~OS, C&hpLO/.&VOS Pawlos ‘abda d-ye&i m&ha, qarya wa-Sliha d-etpreS
,, ,¶ ,, ,, Y, Jliha da-j&
,¶ ¶, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,
&
l
6ayy~X~ov &oO, 8 wpomqyyd)taro S&d r&v ~poq+v airroi?I-ewangelyon d-allaha d-men qdim mlak b-yad nbi’aw(hy)
,¶ ,, d-qaddem ,, nbi’e
,, ¶, haw ,, eiiawdi ,, ,, dileh b ypafjak c$fiabs mp1 rov1 doi? a3roi? Toi? y~voj.dvov ZK udpparos
ba-ktabe qaddiie, ‘al breh haw d-etiled ba-bsar men zar’a
¶, ,,
,, me;;01 bya dryeh haw da-hwa ,, ,,
¶, ,, ,, ,,
Au/M Kar& adprca.
d-bet Dawid d-Dawid ba-bsar
,, b-besra
The following points deserve comment :
(a) Although Philoxenus has reverted to P’s rendering of rpoenr)yy&)taTo on p. 50, qaddem mlak (pp. 40, 139) certainly represents Polycarp’s revision, and in the next example (Rom.
8 : 29) we shall find a further instance where Greek 7~p0- is represented by qaddem in Ph as well as H ; H, however, goes a step further and alters the second verb to eftawdi, which is the standard equivalent of &ra~~~~o~a~ in H ; compare Rom. 4 : 2 I, quoted by Philoxenus on p. 98, where Ph = P have mlak against eftawdi in H.
(b) In view of Matt. I : I and I : 18 it is no surprise to find P’s &led32 here altered in Ph to hwa,33 to represent ~WO,&OV
more exactly.
(c) H’s alteration of ‘al to me#oZ, to represent Tcpi, finds an 3, ‘Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, one called and an apostle, who was separated out for the Gospel of God which of old he promised through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son who was born in the flesh from the seed of the house of David’.
32 P cannot safely be quoted in support of the variant yc~w~&ou here.
33 hwa also features in the quotation of the verse in Truct. tres 2x8-19; cf. also the allusion in ep. Sen. 59.
Resolution of PhiZoxenianlHarcZean Problem 333 exact parallel in the translation practice of Paul of Edessa in his revision (dated 623/4) of the sixth-century translation of Gregory of Nazianzus ;34 mettol for rrepl+genitive is regular in H.
(d) Ph adopts the Greek word order for the position of ba-bsar (on pp. 40, 235 Philoxenus inadvertently reverts to the Peshitta order).
(3) Rom. 8: 29 (CPJ, 21 I)
&L 0i;s 7rpocyvw, KUi 7rpo;pU7c OV&L+jOVS T+jS EtKCbOS
P3s men luqdam ida’ ennon wa-r.Iam ennon ba-dmu ta d-surta Ph dl-aylen d-qaddem ida’ ap qaddem ta&m bnay dmuta d-salma H metto dal-hanon ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, iawyay ,, ,,
TOi? Vi06 CdTOi?, E:S 76 E&U CdTdV ~/Xt&OKOV E)V IlOXXOiS &8+bOk.
da- breh, d-hu nehwe bukra d-ahhe saggi’e da-bya dileh, d-
l-hay d-nyhwe itaw(hy) ,,,, b-ahhe b-saggi’e &ze Here the following may be noted :
(a) qaddem tabbern (based on I;pos = thorna ‘boundary’) for
7rpoopi[o is again found in Ph at I Cor. 2 : 7 (CPJ, I 75) a n d Eph. I : 5 (CPJ, 246).
(b) Greek compounds with WV- are variously treated by Syriac translators. In early practice (as P here) no effort to render it is made ; later, the use of bar, bnay (‘son[s] of’) rep- resents an attempt to remedy this, while iawe finally came to be the seventh-century practice (in H compare Rom. 6 : 5, Eph. 3 : 6, etc.), A similar progression can be seen in the render- ings of ~+o~zhoS, where we have three main stages : bar kyana, bar ituta (this is the norm in Philoxenus’ writings), and iawe b-ituta or Iawe b-ousia (standard in the seventh century).36
(c) salma as the rendering of ELK&V can be paralleled for Ph at I Cor. 15: 49 (= p. rgg) and Col. I :
15 (=
p. 2 1 6 ) .(d) For & ~6 e&a& H produces the awkward Z-hay d-nehwe
34 See my Mythological Scholia, 54-5.
35 ‘From of old he knew them and marked them out in the likeness of the por- trait of his Son, that he might be the firstborn of many brothers’.
36 But already used at least once by Philoxenus when quoting the Nicene Creed (7kzct. tres go) ; cf. J. Gribomont in Parole de 1’Orient 6/7 (rg75-6), I$+--3, and A. de Halleux, ‘La Philoxenienne du Symbole’, Orientaliu Christiana Analectu 205 (x978), 301-2.