CHAPTER I

CHAPTER I

CHAPTER I

THE HISTORICAL AND LITERARY BACKGROUND

THE CAREER OF PHILOXENUS

Of the early life and family background of Philoxenus very little is known. 0

Ancient authorities agree that he was born in the village of Tahil in the region of Beth-Garmai in Persia.'

The exact location of Tahil is not known, but Beth-Garmai was a well-defined district in the Persian Empire, being the area north of Baghdad bound by the River Tigris, its tributaries, the lesser Zab and the Diala, and the Zagros mountains. 18

By the fifth century (when Philoxenus was born), Beth-Garmai had become a metropolitan see of considerable importance with six episcopal dioceses established by canon law

in 410.

Whether or not we can give any credence to the pious tradition that this region was initially evangelized by the disciple Addai in the first century, 7? there is no reason to doubt the statement in the Chronicle of the Church of Arbela that of the twenty dioceses in Mesopotamia and Persia in 225 three were in the district of ܡܨ‎ °> It is clear, then, that Philoxenus was born in a region in Persia where, in spite of periodic persecutions, Christianity had been established for several centuries prior to his birth.

The precise date. of Philoxenus' birth has been lost to history.

The few hints in his own writings and in the works of others are vague, and have been variously interpreted. 2?

The relevant material is as follows:

1) Eli of Qartamin in his Memra on Philoxenus states:

"On account of the persecution (directed) against Christians because of paganism, the parents of Mar Aksenaia (i.e., Philoxenus) came from that place (Tahil in Beth-Garmai) and travelled as far as the blessed place (called) Tur 'Abdin in the district of Haytam.

They settled on a certain farm.

This farm was on the north side of Beth-Sabirina, opposite [ZriZa] of 'arban. "23

The author goes on to say that Philoxenus left his family to become a hermit in a small stone cell which he

built for himself about half a mile from his home, the implication being that this event took place in his early youth. ** Eli of Oartamin thus provides us with a reason for the family migration -- namely, persecution in Persia -- and, in so doing, he indicates a possible period for the migration.

It is also evident that he believed Philoxenus was a small boy when the family fled from Persia because of the pressure of persecution.

2) In the Syriac History of Karka of Beth-Selok, we are told of the wave of persecution of Christians in Persia during the < YerdigitdelIn(439-452)2 2 The document describes at some length the persecuting zeal of Tohm Yezdigird, a high official in the royal court. 7° The year was 446.

The focus of the persecution was apparently the region of Beth-Garmai, for John (the bishop of Karka and metropolitan of that region) was put to death along with thirty-one leading Christians on the twenty-fourth of Ab, and the next day many others were martyred.

P.M.

Sykes, in his History of Persta, claims that the Christians massacred at that time numbered in the thousands, and goes on to speak of a modern (1915) witness to this ancient bloodbath:

Karka today is known as Karkuk or Kirkuk, and 31 39 of no small historical interest to find that every year a solemn assembly is still convened to commemorate the death of these martyrs at the little church on the hillock outside the town which was dyed with their blood.

3) Simeon of Beth-Argam, in his Letter on Nestortanism, describes the "School of the Persians" at Edessa under Hiba who was bishop of Edessa from 435 until he died in 457

(except for the years 449-451, when he was deposed for his supposed Nestorianism) .7° He claims that among those attending the school was a monophysite minority which opposed Hiba, including

"Mar Papa from Beth-Lapat, the city of the Huzaites, Mar Aksenaia (i.e., Philoxenus) from Tahal [sic] of Beth-Garmai, his brother Addai, Mar Bar-HadbeSabba the Qardwaite,

. and Mar Benjamin the Syrian."2?

Philoxenus was therefore old enough to be a student in the "School of Fdessa" prior to the death of Hiba in 457.

4) Philoxenus provides a few autobiographical details in his Letter to the Monks of ` ܨ‎ De Halleux has established

that he wrote this letter in 521, two years after he was removed from his episcopal see, and two years before his death.3!

In it, Philoxenus tells us that he was a bishop for thirty-four years, and at the time of writing he was old, sick, persecuted, dispossessed of his see, and outlawed. 2

He was thus consecrated bishop of Mabbug in 485.

What he meant by calling himself "old" is too imprecise to be of any help in determining the year of his birth.

From these sources we may summarily reconstruct the life of Philoxenus as follows.

He was born in the village of Tahil in the region of Beth-Garmai in Persia perhaps around the year 440.

His parents fled from Persia in 446, bringing him to the district of Tur 'Abdin where they settled on a farm.

While still a boy or adolescent he may have built a small stone hut on the edge of the recently acquired family property, and acquired a taste for the solitary life.

He enrolled in the School of the Persians during the episcopate.of Hiba (died 457), and was a member of that school long enough to be identified with the minority which opposed the bishop's theology. > This would suggest that Philoxenus entered the school when he was twelve (c. 452) or fourteen (c. 454).

As far as I can ascertain the minimum age for entrance into such a school is not known; but the age suggested is reasonable.

In theory, he could have entered the school as late as 457 (the year of Hiba's death), but it is unlikely that he should have been numbered with a significant minority opposing the bishop and head of the school had he been a very junior member of the student body.

What was the nature of the curriculum to which Philoxenus may have been subjected during his formative years?

The painstaking research of Professor A. Voobus has provided a partial answer.>> Beyond the basic skills of reading (with accurate pronunciation required for liturgical use) and writing, the student was exposed to the study and exegesis of the Old and New Testaments and the Syriac Fathers.

Voobus stresses the point that training in Biblical interpretation was at the core of the curriculum:

"The exegesis of the Scriptures .

. included the responsibility to interpret, using all the ° resources available, such as literary, philological, lexical,

and historical."36

In the time of Hiba and under his guidance, most of the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia were translated from Greek into Syriac and became the textbooks of biblical interpretation.>'

The School of the Persians in Edessa thus followed the Antiochian tradition of biblical interpretation.>° Other subjects taught included history, geography, astronomy, Greek language, and Greek philosophy. 2?

Indeed, the school had established a program to translate Greek philosophical writings into Syriac including the works of Aristotle, a Syriac translation of whose Hermeneutics has survived.

Given this kind of education, one would have expected Philoxenus to have become a disciple of Hiba, reflecting sympathetically the theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Nestorian tendency of his alma mater.

In his Second Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal, Philoxenus declares that he has read the books of those who created the Nestorian heresy

(that is, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia) "more than those who now preach ` De Halleux sees in this brief personal reference an indication that Philoxenus reacted against "Nestorian rationalism" and opted for "Alexandrian Christology" during his student days in the Fdessan School, and his reaction was strong enough to single him out as a member of the school's monophysite minority which was known to oppose Hiba. 41

We know nothing of Philoxenus' career between the date of Hiba's death (457) and the period of the patriarchate of Calandion of Antioch (482-485).

During this latter period we learn from several ancient sources that he was expelled from the see of Antioch by Calandion for disturbing the faith of the Church and creating dissension in the neighbouring villages. *?

Philoxenus, in his Letter to the Monks of Senun, refers to his encounter with Calandion as something which is "known and talked about everywhere. n43 It is evident that by this time his activities on behalf of monophysitism were effective enough to warrant such drastic treatment by the patriarch of Antioch.

He apparently had made contact with several important monasteries and had enlisted the support of their monks.

Some of his letters to these monasteries have survived in various manuscripts, providing us with an insight into Philoxenus'

0.1 relationship with them and his evangelical passion in fostering the cause of monophysitism and resisting the spread of Nestorianism and the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon,

880-9 1° an which he saw as the two faces of the same heresy. all, the general picture that comes to us of the years prior to his expulsion from Antioch is one in which Philoxenus "wanders from place to place"*> in the area of the upper Euphrates and westward into Syria, promoting his monophysite doctrines by preaching, teaching and writing, and making staunch friends and sworn enemies in the process.

In 485, the Emperor Zeno deposed Calandion from the patriarchate of Antioch, banishing him to Egypt, and reinstated Peter the Fuller as patriarch. *® Soon after his reinstatement, the new patriarch consecrated Philoxenus as a bishop and appointed him to the metropolitan see of Mabbug, a position which the latter held until he was deposed in 519.

The year of his consecration is well attested, and the precise date, the As bishop of 18th of Ab, is given by Eli of Oartamin. 47

Mabbug, he was also metropolitan of the see of Euphratesia, comprising about a dozen dioceses .*8 Prior to his appointment, the see had been a centre first of Nestorianism (following the Council of Ephesus in 431), and then of Chalcedonianism; and Philoxenus faced much opposition as he sought to make Mabbug a stronghold of monophysitism.

It appears that, while he gained fame and influence as a theologian and controversialist to be reckoned with, he never really won the hearts of the people to whom he was pastor.

The anonymous chronicler of 846 states that under Flavian (498-512) he was without authority. 4?

An insight into the kind of thing that chronicler meant is provided by a brief statement made by Joshua the Stylite writing in 507, who records that in the year

(A.D.

497-8) the bishop of Mabbug was in Edessa during a pagan festival -- "of whom beyond all others it was thought that he had taken upon him to labour in teaching; yet he did not speak with them on this subject more than one day."°°

Joshua had obviously expected Philoxenus to display his moral courage, but was disappointed.

The great theologian had failed asa pastor.°~ The years between his elevation to the episcopate in 485

and the above-quoted incident in Edessa in 497-8 are silent ones in the life of Philoxenus as far as the literary records are concerned.

During this period the Fmperor Zeno died (491) and was succeeded by Anastasius, who continued to reign until 518.

Both emperors were sympathetic to monophysitism.

In Antioch in 489, the patriarchate passed from one friend (Peter the Fuller) to another (Palladius, who died in 498).

So these were years in which Philoxenus was free to pursue his episcopal duties, strengthen the monophysite hold in the east, and develop his theological acumen by writing extensively.

Budge suggests that the Discourses were written during this time: and the fact that they contain no reference to the theological controversies in which Philoxenus was at other times involved, indicates that they were produced in a period of relative calm.

Since at least the last fragment of British Museum Manuscript Add.

17,126 (which is the focus of this dissertation) was copied in 511 according to the colophon, it is conceivable that that fragment along with some of the others in the manuscript, was written during this period.

The year 498 disturbed whatever calm Philoxenus had been experiencing in the preceding thirteen years of his episcopate.

It was the year of Palladius' death and the subsequent appointment of Flavian II as patriarch of Antioch, who was chosen because he was reputed to be opposed to the Chalcedonian teachings. >?

Within a year of his installation, Flavian made an apparent about-face, explicitly aligned himself with the Chalcedonians, notably the patriarchs of Constantinople

(Macedonius) and Jerusalem (Elias), and severed the ecclesias-— tical tie between the patriarchate of Alexandria and his own see of Antioch."

Such a radical shift in position could not go unchallenged by Philoxenus who immediately moved to force

Flavian back into declaring for monophysitism.

A struggle between the two men ensued which lasted until 512 when Flavian was banished to Petra."> These years of controversy are reflected in some of Philoxenus' writings.

During this period, Philoxenus had also to face the terrible consequences of the Roman-Persian war (502-505) which wreaked havoc on the border provinces including his own metropolitan gee."

In his Letter to the Monks of Senun, he complains that during the Persian

us War Flavian continued to plot against him. >?

Flavian's banishment in 512 was a victory for Philoxenus and his party, the result of which was the appointment of the monophysite, Severus, to fill the patriarchal throne of Antioch.

There was no doubt about Severus' monophysitism, and the six years of his patriarchate were ones in which Philoxenus cooperated fully with him.

Severus in turn constantly consulted with Philoxenus, giving due respect to the latter's seniority in years.>° No warm friendship seems, however, to have developed between the two.

Their backgrounds were quite different:

Severus was a Greek-speaking Pisidian trained in Alexandria, while Philoxenus was a Syriac-speaking Persian trained in Edessa.

Prior to his accession to the patriarchate, Severus was acclaimed as a writer and orator; indeed, one of his biographers (and a contemporary) says that he was considered to be a second Chrysostom. >?

It may be that their ebvious differences in age, culture, status, and popular acclaim kept these two leading monophysites from establishing any close relationship with one another, in spite of their theological concord.

The scene was radically altered once more for Philoxenus when in 518 Anastasius, who for twenty~seven years had occupied the imperial throne in Constantinople and had been a good friend of the monophysites, died.

He was succeeded by Justin I, whose sympathies lay entirely with the "orthodox" or Chalcedonian party.

On Easter Sunday, 519, "a solemn ceremony was held in rehabilitation of the Council of Chalcedon. "°°

This paved the way for reunion with Rome which came soon after.

All leading monophysites were anathematized.

Severus had to flee to Egypt where he remained in exile until his death in 538.

Philoxenus was banished to Philippopolis in Thrace where he continued to write on behalf of his monophysite beliefs, at least in a limited way, as we see in a few of his fettere. = The weight of written testimony and tradition indicates that he was taken to Gangra in Paphlagonia where he was martyred by asphyxiation, although de Halleux takes issue with this tradition, believing that Philoxenus first wintered in Gangra on his way to Philippopolis where he spent the remainder of his life in ` He died probably in 523.

THE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND ‏

In 439, about the time of Philoxenus' birth in ` Yezdigird II (d. 457) came to the throne of that land.

Almost immediately, the new king declared war on Rome because (it would appear) the latter had been strengthening its defences along the Persian frontier. ܝ‎ Yezdigird was in no position to sustain his attack on Rome across the border at Nisibis and in Roman Armenia, for the Ephthalites or White Huns were threatening him in the northeast.

Peace was soon declared (c. 442), among the terms for which was the agreement on both sides not to build fortifications within a certain distance of their common frontier.

This peace lasted for sixty-one years.

In 503, war broke out once again with the Persian army's invasion of Roman Armenia which was laid waste.

Kobad, the Persian king, then marched south, captured Amida, and made incursions into Osroene and even into Fuphratesia where Philoxenus: was metropolitan.

Again, because of pressure from the White Huns, the Persians had to withdraw and a peace was concluded in 505.

War broke out once again in 524, which was at least a year after Philoxenus' death.

During his lifetime the church in Persia was decisively separated from the church in the west (which itself was not without its schisms).

The church in Mesopotamia had grown without much help from the west.

In the early centuries, it had developed its own New Testament canon, its own liturgies, and its own hagiography; and its native language was Syriac.

When one adds the fact that the eastern part of this Mesopotamian Christianity had its birth and nurture in a nation and culture which was outside the direct influence of the Roman

Empire, it is obvious that the tie between the Persian Church and the Church of the west was never. strong.

Whatever bond existed was to be severed in the fifth century for two main reasons.

In the first place, the Persian Christians had suffered periodic persecution partly because their religion had progressively become identified with Rome; they were, therefore, treated with suspicion. °° The Zoroastrian priests helped to foster this suspicion.

As early as 424, the Persian Christians, at a synod over which the Catholicos Dad-Isho presided, declared themselves to be an autonomous church,

completely independent of the western Fathers. °® The declaration evidently had the desired effect

-- Persian Christians suffered much less persecution after 424.

It was, however, unilateral, and went unrecognized by the western church.

The second reason for the separation of the Persian Church came later in the fifth century and was basically theological in nature.

It is ironic that the church which had been struggling to free itself from western domination, was to be identified with a Greek theologian, Nestorius, and in that identification find its freedom.

Nestorius had been condemned as a heretic at the Council of Fphesus in 431 because of his formulation of the two distinct natures of Christ.

He had been a student of Theodore of Movsuestia at the School of Antioch.

In 435, Hiba succeeded Rabbula as bishop of Edessa, and began to introduce the writings of Theodore to the students of the Fdessan School of the Persians which, while not in Persia, was an important centre of learning for the church of that country.

Hiba thus had Nestorian sympathies, though he never admitted to being a Nestorian, and his influence on his Persian students was considerable.

When Hiba died in 457, an anti-Nestorian bishop, Nonnus by name, replaced him.

It was only a matter of time before the Nestorian scholars fled to Persia where they helped to establish a school in Nisibis, founded by Bar-Sauma, the Nestorian bishop of that city (and an alumnus of the Edessan School), with Narsai, the former head of the Edessan School, as its first principar.$7 This School of Nisibis, continuing the work of the School in Edessa which was closed in 489, was to exert a tremendous influence on the Persian Church.

When Philoxenus' family migrated from Beth-Garmai in Persia to the Tur-Abdinian region, they moved into the Eastern

Roman Empire.

Theodosius II was still on the throne in Constantinople. °8 His reign (408-450) began (while he was still a child) with the sacking of Rome by Alaric in 410, and was marked by external strife (two Persian wars, 421 and 441, Vandal piracy which was checked in 431, and in his last decade increasing pressure from the Huns under Attila), and internal ecclesiastical dissension.

In an effort to bring peace to a discordant church,

Theodosius called the Council of Ephesus together in aaah?

The specific issue with which this Council had to deal was that of the controversial teaching of Nestorius who became bishop of Constantinople in 428.

Nestorius had suggested that the word Qcotoxos ("God-bearer") as applied to the Virgin Mary was inappropriate, although it had been part of the language of popular Christian devotion.

Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, defended the use of the word and accused Nestorius of dividing the Person of Christ into two Sons of God, the one being the eternal Word and the other, the human Son of Mary.

The conflict was more than theological, for apparently Cyril vehemently resisted the claim of supremacy for the see of Constantinople over against the ancient see of Alexandria -a claim which was supported by Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople held in 381.

Cyril of Alexandria presided over the Council and pressed for the condemnation of Nestorius

(who refused to attend the meetings) before the Patriarch of Antioch and his bishops arrived.

Nestorius was deposed and sent into exile, but the Council did not resolve the dogmatic difficulties which Nestorius and his friends had raised.

The christological controversy had only begun.

A power struggle ensued which was more political than theological, though fought in the arena of theology.

Cyril of Alexandria continued to press for the monophysite position until his death in 444.

His successor, Dioscurus, was even more zealous on behalf of the Alexandrian cause.

Eutyches, an aged and influential monk in Constantinople, thought that he could resolve the quarrel by affirming that Christ had "two n70 For this, the natures before, one after the incarnation.

Synod of Constantinople (at the instigation of Dioscurus) deposed him as archimandrite in 448.

The following year, the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus (controlled by monophysites) reinstated him.

"Eutychianism" was an extreme form of monophysitism which later monophysites like Philoxenus felt constrained to condemns'?

In the same year (449), Eutyches appealed to Pope Leo I of Rome who responded by writing his famous "Tome" addressed to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, in which he condemned Futychianism and expounded his understanding of orthodox christology in language

that insisted on "two natures after the incarnation."

The Council of Chalcedon two years later (451) declared Leo's Tome to be a true expression of the Catholic faith, and based its creedal statement upon peu?

; In 450, Theodosius died and was succeeded by Marcian as Emperor of the East.

The new emperor was determined to establish the unity of the Church on the basis of uniformity of religious belief. /3 To fulfil this purpose, he called a general council of the Church to meet at Nicea on September

1, 451.

After the bishops were gathered there, they were ordered to proceed to Chalcedon, closer to the capital, where they were convened and where they dealt. with the business of the Church in accordance with the imperial will.

The outcome of the Council was a theological victory for the west with the condemnation of Dioscurus, bishop of Alexandria, and his monophysite colleagues.

Both Nestorianism and Eutychianism were condemned.

The Church was more divided than ever, the divisions being perhaps more political and national than theological and religious.

These divisions were to continue beyond the lifetime of Philoxenus who, along with his fellow monophysites, regarded the Chalcedonian Creed as nothing more than a statement of the Nestorian heresy. /*

While Marcian lived (he died in 457), the decisions of Chalcedon were enforced; but after his death, his successor, Leo I, vacillated, and the monophysites regained ground in the east.

Zeno came to the imperial throne in 474, but soon after his accession he was dethroned and exiled for twenty months before returning to Constantinople in 4706:

Once again, political pressure was used in an attempt to bring peace and unity to the Church.

Under the influence of Peter Mongus, monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, and Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, Zeno (in 482) issued a document known as the "Henoticon," or plan of union, in the form of a letter addressed to the churches of "Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.."/° Its stated object was to restore peace and unity to the Church.

It emphasized the sufficiency of the first three General Councils, Nicea (325), Constantinople (381) and Ephesus (431) giving pre-eminence to the first and ignoring the formulations of Chalcedon.

As R. V. Sellars has stated:

"Clearly, the

Henottcon was drawn up in favour of the monophysites, who came to regard this Government Creed as "'abrogating the Synod of Chalcedon and Leo's impious < onl"

Like most plans of union in the history of the church, this one both succeeded and failed.

It succeeded (at least, superficially) in uniting the church in the Eastern Empire except for the extreme monophysites among the Egyptian monks and the unrepentant

Chalcedonians among the Constantinopolitan monks.

But it also brought schism between East and West, for the Bishop of Rome, Simplicius, intent on upholding Chalcedon, excommunicated

Acacius, Peter Mongus and the Emperor Zeno in 484.

This "Acacian" schism lasted for thirty-five years during which Philoxenus was most active in promoting the cause of monophysitism.

His writings include explicit support of the Henottcon:

We should accept the Henoticon which expelled all the additions and novelties which arose against the faith of the three hundred and_gighteen and of the one hundred and fifty Fathers.

He goes on to explain that the word "Henoticon" means "unifies,"

"because it brought unity to the holy churches in every 0

Zeno died in 491, and was succeeded by Anastasius, who had been a financial administrator under him.

Euphemius, patriarch of Constantinople, opposed the accession of the new emperor, and did not withdraw his opposition until Anastasius had signed a document accepting the Chalcedonian doctrines, swearing by fearful oaths Cpruv Secvadv ) that "he would maintain the faith inviolate and introduce no innovations into the holy Church of God when he became emperory™??

However, Anastasius' sympathies were with the monophysites whom he increasingly favoured until his death in 518.

History records two occasions on which Philoxenus visited Anastasius in Constantinople.

The first was in 499 when he personally protested against the elevation of Flavian to the patriarchate of Antioch, but to no avai1.® The emperor continued his support of Flavian.

In 502, the Persian War broke out, and Syria being on the border was greatly affected, both by the incursions of the Persian forces into that territory and by the settlement of monophysite refugees from

Persia where they had been identified with Rome and persecuted by the Nestorians. 82

The influx of Persian monophysites may have strengthened Philoxenus' hand against Flavian.

At any rate, in 507 (two years after the conclusion of the Persian War) Anastasius invited Philoxenus to Constantinople, probably because of the mounting tension in Syria caused by the growing animosity between the latter and his patriarch in Antioch.

What the immediate outcome of the visit was, is uncertain.

We know that it was an occasion for the Chalcedonians of the capital to incite the populace to riot, and Philoxenus had to be smuggled out of the eity.*?

We can be sure that Philoxenus pressed for the deposition of Flavian from the see of Antioch, to which pressure Anastasius finally submitted in 512 when

Flavian was replaced by Severus.

The year 518 inaugurated a new era in the ecclesiastical history of the Eastern Empire. °4 It was the year of Anastasius' death and the accession of Justin as emperor.

Justin was convinced that the Council of Chalcedon had to be upheld.

He set about restoring the decrees of that Council and re-establishing relations with the Bishop of Rome.

The reunion of Rome and Constantinople after thirty-five years of schism was consummated on Easter, 519.

The new Chalcedonian policy entailed the excommunication and banishment of monophysite leaders including Severus of Antioch and Philoxenus of Mabbug.

Behind the throne of the new emperor stood his brilliant nephew, Justinian, who was to succeed him in 527, and who throughout the reign of his uncle shaped the religious and

other policies of the empire.

Eli of Qartamin blames Justin £58 theldeath of Piiboxentstin.s2a2"?

THE LITERARY ACTIVITY OF PHILOXENUS

The Philoxenian Verston of the Sertptures For Philoxenus, the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were essential for a full understanding of the Christian faith and life.

In his writings, which are laced with biblical proof-texts, the Bible is clearly his final court of appeal.

His Book on Selected Passages from the Gospels expresses his concern that biblical translation be as faithful to the original as possible:°/

If those who translated (the biblical text) had considered that it was not right for the existence of Christ, or of God, or of the Son to be expressed in corrupted language, they ought to have known that those words do not suit each and every language.

He who would translate faithfully must choose (his words) carefully, seeking only those phrases and nouns which were uttered by God or by His Spirit through the prophets and the apostles; because those things which are expressed in the Holy Scriptures are not (so much) the product of human thoughts that they will welcome any correction or reconstruction

(which may be offered) by the human mind.

As for the Greeks, then, each one of those verbs and nouns which, we have recalled, was spoken by the Evangelists and by the Apostle, is thus to be expressed as something said by us:

'He came into being by the seed of David in the flesh';88 and not 'He was generated in the flesh.'

And again, 'The book of the coming into being of Jesus Christ';89 and 'The coming into being of Jesus Christ was in this way.'90

Because the scriptures of the New Testament were spoken in their language (i.e. Greek), they (i.e. the translations) must especially be expressed to agree with them, and not with those things derived from that which was translated, that is, those things which are of its (the translation's) own opinion, and not of the teaching of the Spirit.

Therefore, anyone who in a novel way changes or translates the verbs and the nouns which were uttered by the Spirit, is not only worthy of blame and reproach, but is also wicked and blasphemous, and in league with the Marcionites and Manichaeans.

It is not surprising then, that Philoxenus should speak of the need for a new translation:

Because of this, it is also incumbent upon us at this time to translate anew the holy scriptures of the New Testament from Greek into Syriac.

We have to turn to other witnesses to learn that a new Syriac translation was in fact made under Philoxenus' guidance.

The earliest of these witnesses, Moses of Aggel, writing later in the sixth century, states that the chorepiscopus, Polycarp, "translated the New Testament and David from the Greek into Syriac, for Aksenaia (Philoxenus) of Mabbug."?2

Philoxenus had spoken of the need for a new translation of the New Testament, but in the above quotation Moses of Aggel indicates that the Psalms were included in the new translation made by Polycarp, the chorepiscopus under Philoxenus. „ 3 The next witness, Thomas of Harkel, who issues a Syriac / version of the New Testament in 616, provides the following information:

This is the book of the four Holy Fvangelists originally translated very carefully and painstakingly from the Greek language into Syriac in the city of Mabbug in the year 819 of Alexander of Macedon in the days of the holy Mar Philoxenus, the Confessor, bishop of that city.

It was afterwards that I, poor Thomas, very carefully compared it with three Greek manuscripts which are highly regarded and accurate, at Enaton of Alexandria.

And it was written and compared in the place mentioned, in the year 927 of Alexander, in the 4th Indict.

The Lord only knows how much labour and care I have (put) into it (i.e.

Gospels) and into_its fellows (the rest of the New Testament).

From this we gather that the Philoxenian version of at least the New Testament was completed in 508, and that the Harklean version published a century later was some sort of edition of it.

The problem is: what sort ofedition was it?

What did Thomas of Harkel mean when he used the word pods, which I have translated "compared," but which could also be translated by "collated" or by "imitated" or "revised"??> Whatever the ambiguities, it is clear that the Harklean version bears witness to the fact that the Philoxenian version once existed and that the later version was closely related to `

A third important witness to the existence of the Philoxenian version is the great Syriac historian and polymath of the thirteenth century, Bar Hebraeus.

In the preface to his Seholta on the Old Testament, after referring to the Peshitta translation of the New Testament, Bar Hebraeus writes:

Afterward a second time it was translated more elegantly from the Greek to the Syriac in the city of Mabbug in the days of the pious Philoxenus; and it was revised a third time in Alexandria by the pious Thomas of Harkel in the holy monastery of the Antonians.

The Septuagintal Old Testament, however, Paul, bishop of Tella of Mawzalat, translated from Greek to Syriac.

The fact that Bar Hebraeus speaks of Thomas of Harkel's activity as a "third time" indicates that he believed the Harklean to be a version distinct from the Philoxenian; and, therefore, for him the word ܡܚܦܐ‎ xX (the same word that Thomas had used in his colophon) had the idea of "revision" within it

tt is as Sprengling and Graham have rightly perceived. noteworthy that Bar Hebraeus regarded the Philoxenian version as "more elegant" than the Peshitta, perhaps suggesting that a copy of it was available to him, upon which he could base such

a value judgment.

From the above evidence it is clear that a distinct Syriac version of the scriptures was produced under the guidance and patronage of Philoxenus, and that the translator was probably Polycarp, his chorepiscopus. ""

Since no certain copy of this "Philoxenian" version has survived, many questions remain as to its extent and nature.

In his commentary on John, Philoxenus speaks of the need to "retranslate the New Testament from Greek to Syriac," and says nothing of the Old Testament, 19°

About thirty years after Philoxenus' death, Moses of Aggel states that the chorepiscopus, Polycarp, "translated the New Testament and David (i.e. the Psalms) from Greek into ` A century after Philoxenus, Thomas Syriac" for Philoxenus. of Harkel claims that his version is a "revision"

(?) of the Philoxenian version of the "book of the four holy Evangelists .

. and its fellows"

-- presumably meaning the rest of the New Testament. +° Bar Hebraeus also indicates that the Philoxenian version was limited to the New testament.

However, a citation for an alternative reading of Isaiah 9:6 in a seventh-century Milanese manuscript of the Syro-Hexaplar Old

Testament explicitly states that it is "from the version that = If this

was translated by the care of the holy Philoxenus. note is accurate (as Gwynn and Ceriani before him believed), then the Philoxenian version extended beyond

"the New Testament and the Psalms"

(as Moses of Aggel claimed) to Isaiah and perhaps the rest of the Old Testament (in which case we cannot take Eli of Qartamin more seriously on this point).

But if there was a Philoxenian Old Testament, we must ask why Moses of Aggel, writing in the sixth century, limited his statement to "the New Testament and David."

Beyond these two references, one to the Psalms and the other to Isaiah, there is no evidence for a Philoxenian Old Testament.

Even a Philoxenian New Testament presents problems.

We cannot assume that the New Testament books which Philoxenus accepted as canonical, were the same as those received by the Western Church.

Certainly, the Peshitta, the vulgate version of Syriac-speaking Christianity in Philoxenus' day, lacked the four Minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Book of Revelation, which were generally received in

the west before the end of the fourth century; but did the Philoxenian version include these books?

'Gwynn was convinced that the Syriac version of the Minor Catholic Epistles and of Revelation which he published were Philoxenian, and his conclusions in this regard are generally accepted by scholars. 1°

But this is not as certain as it would appear.

J. Lebon pointed out two years after Gwynn's publication that of the numerous biblical texts cited by Philoxenus in the works published to that date (1911), not one had a quotation from the Minor Catholic Epistles or Revelation.1°7

Philoxenian works published since that time confirm Lebon's observations, and the same may be said of British Museum Ms.

Add.

17,126, which is the subject of this dissertation. 1° We have thus no reason to believe that Philoxenus regarded these books as canonical, and it is doubtful that his chorepiscopus would have translated them without his superior's approval. 199

A major concern of this dissertation will be to examine the biblical quotations in the unpublished manuscript before us

(i.e. British Museum Add.

17,126) to see what light it may shed on the Syriac versions available to Philoxenus, including the one which bears his name.

The value of this procedure was recognized by G. Zuntz in 1945, and has been reinforced by

A. Vodobus and A. de Halleux.

Zuntz focused particular attention on the biblical quotations in Philoxenus'

Three Vivecivece. 1+ On the basis of his detailed study of these quotations, he provisionally concluded that "behind these

Philoxenian citations there lies a definite text, different from, and intermediate between, the Peshitta and the nil?

He recognized that more work had to be done Harklean. along similar lines before reaching a definite conclusion, and suggested that two unpublished manuscripts, fragments of Philoxenus' commentary on the Gospels, be subjected to such scrutiny. 113

These manuscripts are the so-called Commentary on Matthew and Luke (Brit. Mus. Add.

17,126 -- the subject of this dissertation) and the Book of Selected Passages from the Gospels (Brit. Mus. Add. 14,534).

A. Vodbus, examining these and other fragments, confirms Zuntz's findings and sees also traces of an Old Syriac version; but he provides only selected examples of his comparative studies?"

We shall attempt to

provide detailed comparative tables exhibiting all the examples of the biblical texts quoted in British Museum Ms. Add.

17,126 before drawing any conclusions.

The Gospel Commentaries Philoxenus not only sponsored a new Syriac version of at least the New Testament, he himself engaged in expository writing.

It was natural for him to do so.

He had a strong sense of the inspiration and authority of the Christian scriptures.

Although he did not develop the notion, it is clear that he regarded the Bible as the ultimate witness to divine truth to which the councils of the Church had to how.

He could anathematize, for example, the Council of Chalcedon without compunction, which in fact he did at some lengthy sae

Moreover, he was educated in the School of the Persians in Edessa where the Antiochian tradition of biblical interpretation with its emphasis on the precise historico-grammatical meaning of the text, held sway. 116

In spite of his lifelong rebellion against what he regarded as the Nestorian theology of his alma mater, he never denied the validity of the basic training in biblical exegesis which he received as a student; indeed, he used it effectively in his polemics against both

Nestorians and Chalcedonians.

While he ranged widely in his use of the Old and New Testaments in his writings, his expository work was apparently limited to the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John.

Even here no complete Gospel commentary is extant, though some ancient witnesses speak as if such a commentary existed.

What does exist is a number of small unpublished fragments found in various manuscripts mostly belonging to the British Museum, and two very important but incomplete manuscripts

(also in the British Museum), the so-called Matthew-Luke Commentary? +? and the Book on Selected Passages from the Gospele.118

Assemanus, who did not have access to these manuscripts, cited four Syriac writers as witnesses to the existence of a Philoxenian Gospel Commentary; namely, Bar Salibi, Bar Hebraeus, an anonymous author of a "Syriac exposition of the Gospels by means of question and answer," and John of Dara. !+?

De Halleux speaks of the existence of such a commentary as

being "abondamment attestée ..."

- - +» par de nombreux fragments de chaines et d'homiliaires syriaques, arméniens, arabes ou éthiopiens; (et) par des extraits et des yeférences chez les exégétes jacobites postérieurs,1+ and goes on to list exhaustively all the fragments, extracts and references known to him which in any way appear to reflect something of its contents.

On the basis of his extensive research, de Halleux concludes that the Philoxenian commentary was limited to the three Gospels:

Matthew, Luke, and 31:

+24 The available material, however, is much more limited in its scope than the last statement suggests.

On the face of it, de Halleux has amassed a great deal of evidence for the reconstruction of a "commentary" by the bishop of Mabbug, but close scrutiny reveals that his conclusions are ill-founded.

To establish the literary context of the so-called MatthewLuke Commentary, it is necessary to re-examine de Halleux' thesis in some detail.

This we propose to do in the remainder of this section.

While the problem of the term "commentary"

ܩܒ ܫܘܦ‎ ( will be raised here, full discussion of its meaning with reference to the Philoxenian corpus will be reserved for the third chapter of this dissertation.

According to de Halleux, the extant fragments of Philoxenus'

Gospel Commentary are on the following passages:

Matthew 1:17; 2:1, 14, 15; 321-16; 4:1=-11; 5:17; 11:11(?); 13:16-17(?); 16:16-17; 22:29-32(?); 25:14-30(?); 26:26-29, 36-44; 27:45-53(?).

Luke 1:26-35; 2:7, 21, 24-39, 40, 42-46, 51-52; 3:21-38.

Johno 21-17}. 2245029; 3213, 25, 2770 4:107)6251; 20:17.127

The evidence for a commentary on the whole of Matthew is the most impressive.

In the first place, the distribution of the Matthean material cited above suggests it, even when the dubious fragments are discounted.

Secondly, the comparative abundance of Philoxenian citations in the later Jacobite commentaries on Matthew of George of Be'eltan,

Bar-Salibi, and Bar Hebraeus, are a further witness to it.

Here is the list of such passages:

Matthew 1:15, 18; 3:1, 4, 11; Ah, By, hayes 8:13, 24; 9:2, 6, 37; 26:23; 27:56(7).173 again, as de Halleux himself admits not all of these are of unquestionable value, but together their testimony cannot be disregarded.

Thirdly,

the titles of some of these fragments explicitly state that they are from a Matthew ‫: ܒܫ‎ and some indicate that the quotation is from a given chapter in the ‫.

‫ ܨ‎ Finally, the colophon of the so-called Matthew-Luke Commentary, which was written during the lifetime of Philoxenus, affirms that it is "the end of the fourth book of the commentary of Matthew and Luke which was made by Philoxenus, lover of God, bishop of Mabbug; it was written in the city of Mabbug in the year 822 of Alexander of £} The above-quoted colophon suggests the existence of a commentary on Luke, but all the extant material points to such a commentary's being limited at best to the first three chapters of that Gospel.

The bulk of this material is found in the manuscript before us, British Museum Add.

17,126.

British Museum Add.

12,145, fol.

50r, quoted "from chapter 32 of the Commentary on how our Lord was born in a cave and laid in a mangers"2?/ The same manuscript goes on to cite "chapter

against the Nestorians; a Commentary on those things which are < De Halleux™ set out below"

(i.e.

"in what follows"). contends that such evidence indicates that the "chapter" divisions found in Matthew are continued into the first three chapters of Luke, for the last chapter cited with reference to Matthew is "chapter 29" on Matthew 26:36-44 or 3:3512

Moreover, a note in the colophon of our "Matthew-Luke Commentary" states, "In this book is a commentary on five chapters taken from the Evangelist, Luke"; although the contents make no mention of such a chapter division,

$ These notes appear to substantiate the bald statement of the colophon which speaks of a (single) commentary on Matthew and Luke, and which after all was written. when Philoxenus was very much alive and active as a writer and preacher of considerable influence.

The evidence for a Philoxenian commentary on John's Gospel is meagre.

The largest of the extant expository works is found in British Museum Add.

14,534 and is one hundred and ninety-nine folios long.

De Halleux refers to it as "Commentaire de Jean 122-170"; +32 though he recognizes that while the work contains short expository passages on John

1:10-13 (fols. 284-294) and John 1:14-17 (fols. 195v-197r), it is supremely a theological and polemical treatise on the

Incarnation, "le 'devenir' du Verbe .

. ou le verset Jean

1:14 forme le pivot de 1'argumentation."

Nowhere in the Manuscript itself is there the suggestion made that it is a commentary on John's Gospel as such.

The colophon provides a much more general title:

"The end of the writing of this book on chapters selected from the Evangelists, made by the holy Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug. "+34 It is noteworthy that no mention is made of the term "commentary" ܒܫܘ‎ 9 ( .

There is also no suggestion of a "chapter" division in this work such as we find in some of the Matthew-Luke material

-a fact which surely indicates that the English word "chapter" is an inadequate translation of ܪ ܚܫܝ‎ in this colophon and perhaps elsewhere.

The use of this and other terms will be considered below.

Suffice it here to observe that to call this long work by Philoxenus a commentary is unwarranted and misleading.

It is a theological treatise on the Incarnation hammered out in the heat of controversy.

De Halleux has isolated twelve fragments of what he regards as Johannine commentary, apart from the work discussed above (which is Fragment 2 in his analysis).

Close scrutiny of these, however, reveals the following facts.135

Fragment no.

1, from the so-called Matthew-Luke Commentary (British Museum Add.

17,126), is considered by de Halleux to be part of the large work on "John 1:1-17"

(Add.

14,534), and therefore need

Fragments 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, not be regarded as "commentary." and 9 (on John 2:4, 2:19, 3:13, 3:25, 3:27, and 4:10) are all passages in Bar Salibi's Commentary on John in which Philoxenus is quoted or alluded to, but in none of them does Bar Salibi suggest that he is quoting from a Philoxenian "Commentary" on Jonny???

He could just as well be quoting from some other type of literature.

Fragment 5 (perhaps on John 2:19) is found ina catena of ecclesiastical authorities written in the tenth century, and is introduced by the words, "from the second n138 Here the word 'memra' of the Commentary on John.

"commentary" is used, but it cannot have the sense of exegetical commentary when the title speaks of the second

"memra"

(homily or discourse), suggesting that it is one of a series of sermons on John.

"Memra" is used again in Fragment 10, this time without any reference to "commentary"

(though it

is inferred):

"From the 'Memra' on what our Lord said, I am indeed the bread of life for I have come down from Heaven."

(John 6:51)13?

Again, it would appear as if the quotation is taken from a sermon or other discourse rather than a commentary.

The same may be said for Fragments 11, 12 and 13 (on John 20217). 54m The title of Fragment 11 states that it is

"from the seventeenth 'memra' on (this) saying; I am ascending to my Father"; that of Fragment 12, "from the commentary of the holy Gospel according to John"; and that of Fragment 13 simply identifies Philoxenus as the source of the quotation.

One can only conclude that if a Philoxenian commentary on John ever existed (as the titles of two out of thirteen fragments state), the nature of that commentary was homiletical and polemical rather than exegetical.

Philoxenus rarely alludes to Mark's Gospel in his writings, and no one has ever suggested that he wrote a commentary of any sort on it.

In his "Index of Biblical Quotations" in the Discourses, Budge lists some seventeen passages in which he sees quotations from Mark's Gospel. ܫ‎

Actually, only four of these can be shown to be peculiarly Marcan (Mark 7:33f, 9:25, 9:46, 10:17£), while the others could equally be from Matthew or Luke.

De Halleux sees two allusions to Mark's Gospel in Philoxenus'

Letter to the Monks of Senun (Mark 3:17 and 4:38), but the second one has its Synoptic

equivalents in Matthew and Luke.

Mark is not cited or alluded to in either of the so-called Gospel Comieantaries.2*?

One clear and explicit reference to Mark is found in the third of Philoxenus'

Three Dtscourses on the Trinity and the Inearnatton in which Mark 1:1 is quoted and identified by the authorses4 The paucity of references to Mark may be explained

(a) by assuming a personal preference entirely due to Philoxenus' taste, or (b) by "the low estimate of Mark held 145 or alc) bysthesfacty that commonly after the fourth century," about ninety per cent of the subject matter of Mark is found in Matthew and over fifty per cent is in Luke leaving very little to be identified as peculiarly Marcan when one comes to consider the sources of isolated Synoptic quotations in an author like Philoxenus;>*6 or (d) by the christological concerns which loom large in the Philoxenian corpus and which

find their "proof-texts" in the explicit affirmations of Matthew, Luke and John on the Incarnation.

Probably a combination of all these factors has produced the apparent lack of Marcan material in Philoxenus.

In examining the evidence for the existence of Philoxenian Gospel Commentaries, consideration must be given to the Syriac vocabulary used to indicate their nature.

The most common word in this connection is .ܒܥܬ‎ , usually translated "commentary."

The Thesaurus Syrtacus provides the been | range of meanings for Koxo9:

"interpretatio, Ep qveca , commentario, eR ܗ ܣ >‎ , expositio, commentarius, versio, translatio." ܒ‎ Philoxenus uses the verb pax4 to mean "translate" in the excerpts already provided from the Book on

Selected Passages from the Gospels.

In the document before us, he uses the verb and the noun to mean "interpret or explain" and "interpretation or explanation" respectively.!*9

In its colophon (written during Philoxenus' lifetime) ,KoxaJ occurs twice and may be translated "commentary," but ina rather loose sense for the contents of the manuscript do not reflect the work of a biblical "commentator. "1°?

This loose or ill-defined use of xpwaJ also obtains in the titles of some of the fragments of Gospel "commentaries" as outlined by de :

Of the thirty-six fragments of commentary on Matthew and Luke listed by de Halleux, seven are found in the so-called Matthew-Luke Commentary, the character of which will be examined in detail 1 ܝ‎ Of the remaining twenty-nine, fourteen are designated as coming from a Philoxenian

"commentary" and four of these are further qualified as being "from the chapters against" either Diodore, the Nestorians, or Theodore.

The titles of the fragments on Matthew-Luke may be analyzed as follows:

0 Philoxenus ܨ‎ m Commentary (ܐܒܩܫܘܦ‎

chapters against Diodore "

chapters against Nestorians 0 ܡ ܠ‎ chapters against Theodore "

" from chapter(s) (yg) ܨ ܪ :

ܙ"‎ against Diodore "

Nestorians "

from the section Syd )153

from the essay (J&L) " ܙ‎ from the discourse ̈̈ܪܒܒ )ܡܫܝ‎ ̣ =<70( ܬܢ ܙܢ ܙܢ ܚܢ ܙܢ ܪܢ ܙܢ ܬܢ ܙܢ ܒ ܗ

Total fragments of "Matthew-Luke Commentary" ia

(excluding the fragments in Brit. Mus.

Add.

17,726( Only ten out of twenty-nine fragments speak ofa Philoxenian "commentary" in an unqualified way, and when the contents of those ten fragments are examined it becomes clear that what has been called Philoxenian commentary is something other than the systematic exegesis of a biblical book.

For example, de Halleux identifies the first such fragment with the seventh chapter (probably) of the commentary on Matthew dealing with Matthew ` > extracts on the following subjects:

(1) how the Incarnation Now this fragment contains four fulfils the original intention of creation;

(2) how the spiritual life is developed (baptism is one of the steps); (3) how the baptism of Jesus marked the beginning of the reconciliation of the world to God; and (4) how the Christian grows in spiritual understanding after baptism.

It is obvious from this summary that the only relation between this fragment and Matthew 3:1-16 is that the former contains selections of a theological work in which baptism has a prominent place while the latter is a Gospel account of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist.

In the latter, John's message and ministry are described, Pharisees and Sadducees are denounced, the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' request for baptism is recorded, and the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus in the form of a dove with the voice from heaven confirming His divine sonship is narrated; but none of these important details is even mentioned in these selections which are long enough to include at least some of them, yet in this fragment they are said to be taken "From the book of the commentary of Matthew by the holy Mar Aksenaia"

(i.e. Philoxenus) .1>® The issue is brought into sharper focus when one considers the fact that only one quotation from Matthew is found in this fragment and it comes at the end of the fourth extract where Matthew 3:12

(fol.

172v) occurs without further exegetical comment.

On the other hand, the following New Testament passages are quoted in the fragment:

John 3:3,

(fol.

17190( ; 14:28

(tole le2v)eelovi2;,, 13"

(toi. oor) 1 Corinthians 3¢l2-15e46ol.

1725); Liss "fol. Wo2v)> 1313 15:24-26 (fol.

167r); 15:28

(fol.

163r); and 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (fol.

164v) eo More commentary is provided on some of

these than on anything from Matthew.

For example, Philoxenus quotes from 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, then proceeds to explain that "the gold, silver, and precious stones" to which Paul refers, are related to the spiritual strengths of the soul;

"error, evil and demons are compared to wood, hay and stubble.

« 9 This is followed by the quotation from Matthew 3:12.

Precisely the same order is given to a similar passage in the prologue to Philoxenus'

"Discourses on the Discipline of Life and Character, "1°? where he quotes from 1 Corinthians

3:12, 13, comments on the meaning of "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble" in a way that is similar to the above-mentioned fragment, and then cites Matthew 3:12.

Because this passage is found in the Discourses, no one thinks of calling it commentary.

Similarly, in spite of its title within a very long anthology of theological extracts, this fragment should not be called a "commentary. "16° The next two fragments which are listed by de Halleux as coming from a Philoxenian commentary on Matthew and which in their titles refer explicitly to Philoxenus as the commentator, are found in an Ethiopic manuscript of the seventeenth century containing a "catena patrum" or commentary on Matthew's 16}. De Halleux is silent concerning the fact that the Gospel. other two Ethiopic manuscripts containing the same catena on Matthew make no mention of the names of the several

Even if commentators quoted including that of Philoxenus. such a late manuscript preserves genuine Philoxenian fragments, the question still remains: are these in fact "commentary"?

De Halleux sees Fragment "7" as part of a commentary on Matthew 4:1-11, and gives the following résumé of the fragment:

"L' épreuve satanique du Christ, qui consistait dans les trois passions de l'avarice, de la vaine gloire et de la gourmandise,

ne troubla pas son intellect.

He goes on to indicate that parallel passages are found in "Commentaire de Luc 2:42-46,

£.17-18"194 and in "Memre parénétiques, XIII, p. 620, "165

We shall return to the "Commentaire de Luc" when considering in detail below the fragments of Brit. Mus.

Add.

17,126.

It is enough at this juncture to say that the "Lucan" fragment deals with the nature of Christ's coming of age at twelve, and the parallel is only indirect at best.

The second "parallel" is

found in the thirteenth Discourse, the subject of which is fornication, and it says nothing about Christ's temptations.

Rather, it deals with the way in which the Christian can overcome the desire for sexual indulgence -- not one of the three wilderness temptations recorded in Matthew 4:11 and Luke 4:1-13 is mentioned!

A better parallel is found in the nl 66 There, at least, eleventh Discourse, "on Abstinence.

Philoxenus deals with the first temptation ("Command these stones to become bread") which He overcame by citing Deuteronomy 8:3, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"

-a verse which Philoxenus both quotes and comments on.

If this passage in the Discourses existed only in fragmentary form, it would be easy to conclude that it belonged to a lost commentary on Matthew 4:1-11 or Luke 4:1-13.

Because the Discourses have been preserved in full, it is patently clear that such a conclusion is untenable.

Similarly, there is no compelling reason why "Fragment 8"

(belonging to the same Ethiopic catena as "Fragment 7") should be considered part of a formal commentary on Matthew

5:17 as de Halleux suggests. 1°?

The latter tells us that this fragment is on how Christ abrogated the Law by obeying it.

He then provides references to parallel passages in "Memre contre HADCD 71 1: «ܕ831 763 ܨ‎ , "18 and in "Memre parénétiques, VILL pepe 249-255, ܇‎

The former parallel is an extended comment on Galatians 3:13 in which Philoxenus seeks to explain how Christ "became a curse for us" in that he accepted the sentence of the Law on sin.

The other parallel, which is from Discourse 8, "On Poverty," illustrates Philoxenus' thesis that Christ was subject to the Law until His baptism, after which "He was delivering a rule of life which was more perfect than this to the children of men, "170

To make his point he comments on Matthew 12:48, John 5:30, and especially John 2:1-4 where an extended exposition is given.

But nowhere does he mention Matthew 5:17, though the thought is closely related.

The next fragment in de Halleux' list is found in Brit.

Mus.

Add.

12,154, a long manuscript from the eighth 6r early ninth century containing a miscellaneous collection of quotations from Church Fathers in support of monophysite

theology.!?

The title of the fragment (fol.

64r) explicitly states that it is from a commentary of Philoxenus on Matthew, the Evangelist.

De Halleux tentatively suggests that it belongs to Philoxenus' commentary on Matthew 11:11, though in a footnote he thinks that it might equally come from a commentary on Matthew 3:14-15.

Certainly, it contains a quotation from Matthew 11:11

(or Luke 7:28) with some comment on wen A parallel passage noted by de Halleux is found in Discourse

where, after citing Matthew 11:11

(or Luke 7:28), Philoxenus comments on John the Baptist's relation to Christ, the Apostles Once again, we must note that the and the Christian precy?

Discourse passage is as much "commentary" as the fragment cited by de Halleux.

Having considered the value of four of the fragments designated as coming from a Philoxenian commentary, the pattern is clear and it is unnecessary to analyze here the contents of A the other sixe"4

What is called "commentary" apparently need not mean that these fragments belonged to a formally organized exposition of the Gospels.

They could and probably did belong to other writings of Philoxenus such as his discourse or his letters.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the term ܘܦ ̈ܢܒܫ ܐ‎ (commentary) was used only in a general sense when applied to Philoxenus' comments, and not in any narrow sense of a formally organized exegesis of scripture.

Whether the manuscript called "A Commentary on Matthew and Luke" is "commentary" in the narrower sense, will become clear when it is analyzed in detail in chapter 3 of this dissertation.

It will be noted from the table on page 29 that, besides the ten fragments called unqualifiedly "commentary," a total of eight fragments are said to be from chapters against Diodore, the Nestorians and Theodore.??° Four of these are also called "commentaries," thus substantiating our conclusion above.

All of them are patently from polemical works, and the attempt to make them fit into a postulated Gospel commentary is doomed to failure.

At this juncture it is well to return to the "chapter" divisions used in some of the fragmentary Matthew-Luke titles to which reference has already been 03888

Of the twentynine fragments (excluding those in Add.

17,126), twelve say in

each instance that the quotation is from some Philoxenian "chapter" ܐܫܝܪ‎ is used in all cases), and eight of these cite the chapter by number.

The fragments from the polemical ,works ("against Diodore" etc.) are always said to have come from a "Chapter" or "chapters," and four of these provide the chapter numbers, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 35th.

These four are all directed against the Nestorians.

The scant evidence of the fragments suggests either that Philoxenus wrote three polemical works, called "commentaries," against Diodore, against the Nestorians and against Theodore, or (less likely) that he wrote one such work which is variously referred to by these three names.

In any case, this work or these works had a distinctive "chapter" division.

The word "chapter" usually translates the word in this context, but is this an adequate translation?

The basic meaning of ܐܫܝ‎ Fis that of "head," and in relation to a written work it is used to indicate a division of varying lengths -- "heading, chapter, treatise."178

Several Philoxenian polemical works are extant each of which is divided into rive, 4.179

In these, a chapter may be as short as six lines or as long as about fifty lines; that is to say, about a paragraph in length.

But they are not simply paragraphs as distinct from sentences in an ordinary literary composition.

The fact that the titles of all these polemical works contain the word ys and each ܐܫܝܪ‎ is numbered in the body of the work indicates that these are more than paragraphs. 18°

Each ܐܫܝܪ‎ contains a very distinct assertion or point of dispute in the building of the total case which Philoxenus is constrained to defend.

"Chapter" may be used in English to signify this kind of terse statement and will be retained to translate though ordinary ‏ ܢܘܐܠܦܩand its Greek synonym ‏ ܢܫܝ ܡܡ English usage applies the word to a literary unit that is ‏ usually longer than a paragraph. ‏ The fact that six polemical works exist having the same form provides a new approach to the fragmentary "commentaries" said to be against Diodore, the Nestorians, and Theodore, especially when some of these fragments refer to specifically numbered chapters from which they are taken.

Only one of these works can be said to have any exegetical content, basing its polemic on the interpretations of certain biblical passages,

and that is The Ten Chapters against Those Who Divide Our tord, +81 It poses ten rhetorical questions, each making specific reference to an explicit biblical statement, intended to demolish the theological position of the dyophysites.

The ten passages are (1) Matthew 1:23a, (2) Matthew 1:23b, (3) Matthew 2:11, (4) Matthew 3:16

(Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, or John 1:32), (5) 1 Corinthians 1:25b, (6) Isaiah 63:9,1°?

(7) Matthew 3:17, (8) Matthew 17:2 (or Mark 9:2),1°? (9) Luke 7:12

££, and (10) Matthew 27 (Mark 15, Luke 23, or John 19).

Except for chapters 5 and 6, all the other chapters are based on the Gospel narratives, and it would be comparatively easy to call these, "chapters from the commentary on the Gospels against those who divide our Lord (i.e. the dyophysites, Chalcedonians, or Nestorians)."

We can therefore conclude that the fragments called "commentaries" written against Diodore, the Nestorians, and Theodore should not be classed as commentaries but as polemics.

Words in the titles of the remaining fragments classified by de Halleux as commentary, may be dealt with briefly.

Matthean fragment 11 is said to be from the "section ܐ‎ N09) or note (@S7Tmay) of Philoxenus of Mabbug. "184

There is no real suggestion here that this "section" belonged to a commentary.

The larger context of the manuscript does not suggest it.

In fact, it occurs between Philoxenus'

"Profession of Faith" and a Memra by Ephrem on faith.

The fragment deals with some aspects of christology, and in that context Matthew 16:16, 23 are used as illustrative eexte. 18?

The title of Lucan fragment 4 states that it comes "from the essay (or treatise, y$3°L&) concerning the scripture:

'The time came for her to give birth, and she gave birth to her first-born son', where he talks about the circumcision of our tora. "186

This fragment has four quotations from the "essay," the word being repeated in the introduction to the last one:

"And again at the end of the essay."

De Halleux suggests that this belongs to a comment on Luke 2:21

(on the circumcision of Christ) in spite of the fact that the title cites Luke 2:6-7 as the subject of the essay.

The use here of the term KK ܒܪܫ‎ is almost unique in the long catena patrum in which the fragment is found. +87 The only other occurrence of the word in this

particular catena is in the title of a quotation from Severus of Antioch:

"From the essay (sts) concerning the an e8 From this rare usage in a plethora of all sorts Henoticon. of citations, it may be assumed to have a technical meaning which is by no means clear from the context of the catena in which it occurs.

We have settled on "essay" as perhaps a suitable but tentative translation.

At any rate, the author of the catena was constrained to use it rather than ܐ݀ܒܫܘܦ‎ or © DOrssy, both of which are commonly used elsewhere in his volume.

Wherever this fragment came from, it was not extracted from a commentary -a conclusion which is confirmed by the fact that Philoxenus' thirteen Discourses on the Ascette Life are called ܡܒ‎

In this same catena the word used most commonly to describe the kind of writing from which passages are quoted, is , ܗ ܐܡ ܪ̈ ܫ݀ ܝ‎ sometimes translated "discourse," but often simply transliterated "memra."

It is used in the titles of two fragmentary "commentaries" on Matthew and Luke listed by de Halleuxs1?° Lucan Fragment 1 is called "Memra on the annunciation of Mary, the Bearer of God" and the attempt to fit it into a supposed Gospel commentary is surely artificial.+?!

So with Lucan Fragment 11, which comes from Philoxenus'

"Fourth Memra on the Spirit."

In these two fragments we are not dealing with works which are primarily exegetical.

They are discursive in nature.

We begin this section by saying that Philoxenus engaged in expository writing.

This is self-evident from his works.

What is not clear is that he ever wrote a distinctive work which systematically dealt with a Gospel or other biblical book and which can be called a commentary.

The evidence from the fragments so diligently gathered together by de Halleux is at best inconclusive in this matter; rather, it seems to deny the existence of such a commentary.

The question remains: is the "Matthew-Luke Commentary," which will be examined in detail in the following chapters, really a "commentary" after all?

The Discourses Prominent among the writings of Philoxenus ins discourses on various subjects.

Probably the most widely known of these are the "essays (or discourses -- 3 "Lx) which are

concerned with giving instruction in the ascetic life, dictated by the blessed Mar Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug.

The first discourse is introductory, written (as Philoxenus himself says) "to encourage the reader [to go on] to the wealth of the essays

which are to follow.

The essays or discourses which follow come in pairs, each pair dealing with a specific subject:

"Faith"

(Discourses 2 and 3), "Simplicity"

(4 and 5), "The Fear of God"

(6 and 7), "Poverty"

(8 and 9), "Greed and Abstinence"

(L0*and 11), and "Fornication"

(12 and' 13).° "it will readily be seen that the work as it stands can be divided into two parts:

Discourses 2-7 are on God, while Dtscourses 8-13 deal with the practice and pitfalls of asceticism.

De Halleux produces evidence to indicate that a third part of the work is lost 274

He sees the three parts as corresponding to the three-stage programme of spiritual development outlined by Philoxenus in the prologue. ܢ‎ If this is so (and de Halleux' evidence is convincing), then it may be that some of the fragments classified as "commentary" belong to these lost discourses.

We shall consider this possibility when we come to deal with the so-called "Matthew-Luke Commentary."

A second sizable collection of memre is found in the volume ( ܝܩܢܦ ܐܬ:‎ entitled:

"Ten Memre on [the Doctrine] that One of the Holy Trinity Became Flesh and 'Sufferea."19®

By inference from the colophon, de Halleux concludes that the work was written to refute an opponent named Habib who had challenged Philoxenus' monophysite theology.1??

Four documents (including the "Ten Memre") have come to us from this particular controversy, giving us a glimpse of the kind of polemic in which the bishop of Mabbug was engaged.

De Halleux suggests that they were written in the following 06 (1) a circular letter addressed to monks and monasteries in an unspecified area in which he warns them against "the enemies of

the truth"; (2) a "mamlela" written by a certain monk named Habib which takes issue with Philoxenus'

Vetter ;*°° (3) the "Ten Memre" answering the "mamlela" ;2°+ and (4) a shorter response in which Philoxenus gathers the testimonies of Church

Fathers to support his views and concludes with some general 1 ܝ‎ Judging on the basis of the first two discourses of the "Ten Memre"

(for they alone are published), it would

appear that while proof-texts are quoted to support the author's point of view, no real exegetical comments are provided in this work.

It is dogmatic and polemical in nature.

Another important work in the general category of memra is "Three Discourses (Memre) on the Trinity and on the

Incarnation.

It is less polemical in its form and contents than the "Ten Memre," but its themes have many parallels in the latter as de Halleux has well iilustratedsy? 94

The second and third memre are divided into sub-sections each of which is numbered, and a few of which also carry a title.

Many quotations from the Bible occur making this work valuable for comparative textual studies, and Zuntz has used these to develop his views on "the ancestry of the Harklean New

The "Three Discourses," however, are basically ܨܝ |1:00 dogmatic rather than exegetical.

Two other works are extant which are called "memre" in the context of the manuscripts in which they are found.

One is called "Memra on the Annunciation of Mary, the Bearer of 004 ܚܦܩܣ‎ It is quite a short work (four printed pages lonq), so much so that de Halleux suggests that it is a fragment of a commentary on Luke 1:26-35 "sous forme d'homélie. n207 Bue Le is quite complete as it stands except for a lacuna of a word or two in the middle of the text.

It has the form of a homily in that it commences with the word »=.u("my beloved people") and ends with a doxology, its content is homiletical, and it was incorporated into a long collection of homilies by the Church Fathers. 799

To classify it, therefore, as commentary without any further qualification is misleading. > 0 It may, however, have some relationship to the Matthew-Luke Commentary as we shall seek to show in chapter 3 below.

The remaining memra extant in a complete form is called, "A memra on the question someone asked:

Does the Holy Spirit leave a man when he sins and return to him when he repents?"11

While the title contains a question and questions are asked irregularly throughout the text, it is not a catechism, a "memra sur la foi par questions [et réponses]," as the title Ze created by de Halleux suggests.

In spite of its title, the genre of this work remains uncertain.

Budge and others, taking the title at face value, call ita discourse. "13

Tanghe ܢ

suggests in a footnote that it is like the Letter to Patricius n214 but lacks an "introduction épistolaire, and Ortiz following this suggestion includes it with the "Epistulae."72° The contents could be those of a discourse, a letter, or a homily.

Besides these complete copies of memre, some fragments clearly indicate that Philoxenus wrote a number of works which have not survived.

The colophon of the fragmentary manuscript to be examined in this dissertation illustrates this fact.

It states that it is "the end of the fourth book of the commentary of the Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, which was made by Philoxenus,"

-- thus suggesting that at least three other books existed of which nothing more is positively known.

We have already noted the fragmentary memre from which de Halleux has reconstructed a hypothetical Philoxenian commentary.

These fragments refer to some of the lost works in their titles, but their meagre contents are not enough to tell us how extensive these works were.

Such fragments witness to the following discourses:

"Memra on the Tree of Life" cited only by Moses

Bar-Kepha in his Hexameron:

On Paradise; "Fourth Memra on the Spirit"

(implying that there were at least three others on the same subject) ;72/ "The First Memra on the Incarnation" with fragments which according to de Halleux must have come from other memre on the same subject; 39 and "Memra on the Canticle:

«219 In the preceding sub-sections of "You, O God, are Holy'. this chapter, we have already indicated something of the extent of Philoxenus "chapters" against Diodore, the Nestorians, and Theodore, and the facts concerning those need not be repeated. 27° Allied with the polemical works are the various

Philoxenian "confessions of faith."

One such work is prefaced by brief statements against various heresies, and thus combines two genres.

It is called, "On what distinguishes (== 409)

those heresies which are held in error.

It summarily deals with Mani, Marcion, Eutyches, Lantinus ( ? anit, Bardaisan, and eighteen others, besides the Council of Chalcedon which "says there is a quaternity for it brings n222 Then follows a short Christ in after the Trinity. statement on what "orthodox Christians" confess.

In another fragment ambiguously entitled "The Faith which has

anathematized what the Synod of Chalcedon has corrupted," the Chalcedonian doctrines are condemned in ten statements.°7> A positive confession of faith is found in the fragment entitled, "The reply of a man who is asked, 'How do you | ܝ‎ Several other Philoxenian confessions of faith of a similar tenor exist in fragmentary form in various manuscripts, and are listed by Budge and by de Halleuxs*2> 4.

The Letters The ancient eulogist, Eli of Qartamin, tells us that Philoxenus "produced twenty-two books of letters addressed to all kinds of Christians that they might profit by them."276

Budge lists twenty-three, and de Halleux describes twenty-six or twenty-seven. *7/ Not all of these are extant in a complete form, and there is reason to believe that some important letters have been 1:3

We may certainly assume that Philoxenus carried on a much more extensive correspondence than the above numbers suggest, but those which are preserved apparently have been preserved because their contents were of enduring interest to the monophysite church and became part of its patristic tradition.

While some of them are addressed to individuals (e.g., the Letter to Pateiedua)e+ and others to groups of monks (e.g., the Letter to the Monks of ܟ ܩ‎ all are of a general character, making little or no reference to the immediate occasion for writing.

The letters reflect the same two areas of concern found in the discourses or memre: the nature and development of the ascetic life, and the defence of monophysite christology with its attendant polemic against the dyophysite christologies of Chalcedon and Nestorius, and also against other heresies.

The Letter to Patrictus is a good example of the first, while the Letter to the Monks of Senun exemplifies the second.

However, these two concerns are not kept strictly separate.

The Letter to Patrtetus contains a short passage in which some of the arch-heretics are named:

"Valentinus, Bardaisan, Marcion, Mani and John the Egyptian."234

And in the opening paragraph of his Letter to the Monks of Senun, Philoxenus commends them for their known faithfulness to the ascetic ideal and encourages them to persevere for "through many tribulations we must enter

the kingdom of Goa. "*?"

We have already noted Philoxenus' penchant for providing exegetical notes on passages from the Bible in his memre.

The same is true of his letters, of which we draw only on those which have already been published. 733

Two examples will be sufficient to illustrate this assertion.

In the Letter to the Monks of Senun, Philoxenus' purpose in writing is that of promoting monophysite doctrine and combatting its opponents.

At a certain point in his theological discussion, he provides an extended commentary or exegetical note on Luke 1:28-35

(the "annunciation")

A second example may be taken from the Letter to Patrtetus which is concerned with the development of the ascetic life.

Paragraph 106 of that letter is simply an exposition of 2 Corinthians 12:2, from which he concludes that the so-called revelations of the heresiarchs are false.*3°

Le these examples were only extant as isolated fragments, they could erroneously be called "commentary."

We, thus, take issue with de Halleux who inaccurately gives the impression that Philoxenus sets aside his exegetical activity in his ascetic writings:

"Dans les écrits ascétiques de Philoxéne, 1'exégéte et le polemiste monophysite fait place au directeur de conscience et au theoricien de la vie spirituelle."*7°

5. Other Extant Wrttings To complete this account of Philoxenus' literary activity, mention should be made of extant liturgical works attributed to him, as well as "Rules for the Monastic Life."

Some six Philoxenian prayers are listed by Budge and de Halleux; but, since none of these has been published one can only echo the references to them in secondary literature.->'

Ortiz de Urbina considers that their genuineness has not been established, although it would appear that de Halleux' study was not available to him, 7° Several anaphorae have also been associated with Philoxenus' name, but how directly involved he was in their composition is not shear..." "

Budge lists a "hymn on the nativity of our Lord" as Philoxenian, but notes that it is also attributed to John Bar-Aphthon. 77°

Finally, Voobus has published a document purporting to come from Philoxenus' hand called "Rules for the Monastic Life based on six

30 0 ܩ‎ but de Halleux considers it to be a fragment

of a "Letter to the Monks of 3:10

~ 3 This examination of the Philoxenian literary corpus available to us, leads us to the conclusion that our author limited himself to two main types of literature: discourses or memre, and letters.

In both the memre and the letters, Philoxenus has two main concerns, the defence of monophysite christology and the development of the ascetic life; some memre and letters are devoted to the first and others to the second.

Apart from the ill-defined use of the term in the titles attached to various fragments, we have no real evidence in the literature surveyed above for a Philoxenian commentary on any book of the Bible.

We have deliberately excluded from this survey the fragments of British Museum Add.

17,126 and it remains to be seen whether they contain evidence to contradict or support the above conclusion.

We have noted, however, that Philoxenus engaged in exegetical activity in supplying his readers with expository notes, liberally sprinkled throughout his memre and letters, which could be extracted and quoted in later commentaries and "catenae patrum."

↑ Back to top