CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER IV
THE BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS
IN THIS MANUSCRIPT
AND THEIR RELATION TO THE TEXTS
AND VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
In his preface to the ascetic Discourses (published in 1894), £. A. Wallis Budge wrote of Philoxenus' habit in quoting from the Bible as follows:
A comparison of the quotations (in the Discourses) with existing Syriac versions of the Bible seems to show that Philoxenus was perfectly acquainted with the Syriac text, but that he in many cases quoted from memory.
The version used by him was the Peshitta, which he quoted loosely, or with such modifications as his argument required or his fancy dictated.
...
Every one of his quotations which differs from extant versions is of interest.
In Philoxenus' case, that interest is born of more than ordinary curiosity since our author is said to have sponsored a new version of the New Testament, published in A.D.
508 by his chorepiscopus, Polycarp, and now 1:5091
Zuntz in 1945 recognized the value of examining his biblical quotations more closely to see what light could be shed on the nature of the Philoxenian version. ܂ He limited his examination to one published work, the Three 35 but recognized the great value of the manuscript before us for such comparative studies"
A. Voobus extended the enquiry to include this and other Philoxenian texts, especially as they were related to the history of the Syriac versions of the Gospels:>'+
But no detailed study has been made of all the quotations in the manuscript before us.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide such a study.
We shall first extract from the manuscript all the recognizable quotations, separating them into two categories: those which correspond to the Peshitta exactly (the reference to which will be merely listed), and those which in some way deviate from the Peshitta (these will be quoted in full and compared with other versions).
Then, in the second place, we shall draw whatever
conclusions the evidence warrants.
In this analysis the following symbols will be used:
Aph--Aphrahat, cited in Burkitt, Evangelton Cur--Curetonian Version (Cureton, Gospels) Eph--Ephraim's quotations from the Diatessaron collected in Leloir, Ephraem Gr--Greek New Testament Har--Harklean Version (White, Harklean N.T.) Heb--Hebrew Bible
Hex--Syro-Hexaplar LXX--Old Testament in Greek
P--Peshitta Version Pal--Palestinian Syriac Texts>/4 Ph--Quotation from Philoxenus in Add.
17,126 Sin--Syriac Version of Sinaitic Palimpset (Bensley, Four Gospels).
The notes appended will indicate where the same quotation is found in other works of Philoxenus.
A. AWALYSIS OF BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS
1. Quotattons Identical with the Peshttta Geneste--1:3
"(35x 16-17) ,2" 96 (35v 15), 753 93 PE-17Y FF Opies BIL ILA Mt 20a (aN PIFey eee (35v 18), 3:19b (33v 5-6), 3:22a (33v 7-8), 39:21b
(27v 12-13); Jeremtah--51:15a (llr 15-16); Matthew--3:17b (33x 6-7, 12),>// 13:17
(7v 9-12), 26:38
(GF 18);7
Luke--1:37
(26v 5),°"" 2:27 (3lv 25), 2:33 (15r 8-10), 2:40
(15v 19-20), 2:41 (3lv 26-27), 2:51b (15r 4), 3:22b (7r 9), 3:23a (33r 7-8), 22:44
(3v 8-10); John--1:14a (8v 18-19, 9r 23-24),289 g:;(45)56 (7v-7-8), 10:11
(3x 9210) , 2°? "Lolrs "(6r 23-24); Romans--4:17
(35v 21-22),°8* 8:3 (10v 15-17) ,283 g:22
(31r 21-32), 8232 (096 50 8339 5 6") ( 0 ܙ 1 Corinthtans-- 1:18a (25v 27 - 26r 1) 395 15:18
(7v 28 gues, 286
Galattans-- 4:4
(6r 6-7, 9r 21-22); Philipptans-- 2:6 (phrases-l0v 21-22), 2:7b (10v 14( 9
Colosstans--1:18
(38r 19-20); Hebrews--2:11
(20r 13-14) ,9
2:12
(20r 12-13).??
2. Quotattons Whtch Differ from the Peshitta In the following exhibits, biblical quotations in our Manuscript (Ph) are set out along with the corresponding Peshitta version (P).
Where the Syro-Hexaplaric version (Hex) of the same text is available, it is also quoted.
Other versions are included only where their inclusion seems useful.
1. Genesis 1:1 (35x 24-25) 27+ nico xivax\ ܐܪܒ ܐܗܠܐ duxis Ph ܘܐܝ ܐܝܥܐ Ray.
ee gh Genesis 1:26 (85¥10-12)°°* ss Ax ts ܙܒܲܪܐ ܐܥܝ sama ܪܡܐ ܐܗܠܐ Ph »"
̣ ܐܓܝ Kom ܇ ܚ P ܐܵܝܡܠ xo ܫܪܦ ܐܬܝܒ Kamin ܐܝ . ܐܬ os ad 3) gd & 3. Geneete 1211.
(35v 16) an ܐܥܪܐ ܫܝܢܪܬ ܐܫܦܢ Ph + ܐܐܬ ® AIh PL 4. Genests 1:15
(37r 10-12) Sumy gam PA ܐܥܝܩܪܐܒ ܐܝܲܐܡܫܸܕ . . ܗܟ ܗܢܡܘ ܕܬKA ܝ ܂ܘܪܗܢܡܠ ܐܥܪܐ ܠܥ Pf ܩ ܬ ,2
.... Dewi ) ܡ ܒܒ ܡ 92 VDI Heb !)
- ܗ LXX mat ܘܐ ܐܐܐܘܢ / efs Putow éy TH ܗܡ acti cov oupavo'
A hee eB > >+ ܗ
5. Genests 1:24
» fe Pee) mor \ Ph ܘܝܚܘ ܐܬ ܐܵܝܫܝܢܲܘ7 ܐ ܐܳܝܥܰܪ P ܝ ܝ ܐܫܝܚܪܘshaw » Ph ْ ܗܘܢ
° a) ܩ 4-7) .6
Genests 1:25
ܓܠmea "» ܬ "
PR »5 P PGS teh: 28" (ade Mayr Ph ْ ܐܗܠܐ ܪܡܐjaws ܢܠܝܕ ܐܡܠܨ ܟܐ ܐܫܢܐ + ܬܚ "
ܢܡܠܨܒ € ܟܝܕܐܘhasan + ܠ ܫܢܘol ܐܡܝ ` ܝܢܘܝܒ ܡܩܕa) > . a) "ers "»> .ܐܝܡܫ ܕ ܐܬܝܚ ̈ܖܦܒܘ PA "» ܕ P Bas Cenesta 1:27
(34r 8-10)°°* ' ܡܕ ܐܠ ܐܗܠܐ ܐܪܒaries ܐܐ. ܗܠܐ ܡܒ Ph >» » P "us PA ve Sian "
8b.
Genesis 1:27a (36v 103)
A ܐܘܕ ܬܐܘ ܗܐܘ ܙܘܙܐ ܧܧ ܘܐ 99:5: 2326 35 6 ܒ ܐܫܢܐܠ ܐܗܠܐshun) ܢܡ ܬ MaAdn gore 9% AD" » PA ܐܥܪܐ ܚܦܢܘ ܝܗܘܦܐܒ [ ܬܡܢ ܒ ْ ܐܝܢ
wahoo fr ܕ, »"
» »3 10 Genesis 2:21-22 (36v 1418 ( 7 ae ܡܕܐ ܨ ܐܗܡܬ ܐܗܠܐ ܐܝܪܡ ܝܡܪܐ Ph ܝ , ܝ \ ܐ )7 ܝ "
ܝ ,) » 7p id, «Geneste 6:24
(2r 10-12) Aexpak ܗܩܦܐ ܐܗܠܐ :ܗ ّܪܡܥܐܘܕ PA waa ^ ܢ ܐܝܪܡ ܡ ܟܪܟܐܘ ay a ܬ ×× E¥dandev Thy Aan wat Mateuccey xirov curévaver ܕܒܘܣܗܡܐ ܐܘܣ ̈ܝܕ 49 PA :
Kaa wes £ LXX ܫܘܐ TapaSetsov THs ܐܘܝ
12.
Genesis 4:15
(lr 10-11) wx er ܠܟܕ ܢܿܡ Kam am PA " Hex 27 ܐܗ15 3986 ܝܚ ܠܟ "
Genests 4:16
NK ܘܢܦ ܐܦ wade 9" lex sho + tie ܘܪܥܥܣܘ ܓܡ"
Hex By) "
Genests 4:17
Genesis 4:24
(lr 6-7) ܢܝܕ ܟܡܠ ܢ ܐܒ ܥܒܘ ܬܬܐ ܐܠܒܫܒ ܕܚܕ ܠܛܡ PA + ܬܝܐ݀ܥܝܒܫܕ « ܢܡ ܐܥܝܒܬ ܟܡܠ ܢܕ ܢܡ Hex ܨ ܙ ܥܪܦܬܢ ًܐܥܒܫܒ ܕܚܕ :£ gee PA ܠ ܒ :
" eo ey
16. Genesis 4:26
(33v 19-20( ` ܐܟܪܗ ܢܡܘKYB Ase .ܐܝܪܡܕ ܗܡܫܒ Ph Kim Hex » "
ܘ 17.
Genests 5:1-2a (33v 23-26) ( 9 sam Kaas num PA ܝܢܳܒ݁ܒ ܫܢܐ > ܘܝܒ ܫܡ
. ( ܙ "
18.
Genesis 9:6
19.
Genests 28:12-13 (30r 17-20) fe aj ne as <I. wae ¿6 ܝ a? ܬ ,ܝܗܘܟ ̈ܐܠܡܘ pre: ¥ eduua : ܡܒ ܝ, ܗܘܟܐܠܡ ܐܡܘ ܗ ܢܝܢܒܠܗ ܝ2 ܐܪܡܘ " ܠܠ ܡܐ ܒܕMiso
®< Fis
sna 20.
Genests 39:4
(27v 11-12) 21.
Exodus 4:22-23 conflated (20v 19-20) ܝܪܒܠ ܠ ܢ ,ܚܠܦܢܘ]ܠܝܐܪܗܝܐ ܝܪܟܘܒ[ ܝ ane PA
1 Kings 22:19
ܗܝܗܪܘܟ° ie ܗܠܟܘ ܐܠܝܚ .ܗܢܡ ܠܥܠ ܡܒ ܐܝܡܫܕ PA masa Hex ܐܬܘܝܝܠܦ «× ܐܡܝܩ ܗܠ ܣPip " wen »"0
Psalm 82:6-7 (21v irs Ph ܬܪܡܐdues KANKS ,ܗܘܙܒܘ ܐܵܡܝܪܡܕ ܗ7 "» was "
Isatah 6:1-2 (5r 25 - 5v 2) odur ܐܪܡܠ dw - ܐܟܠܡ ins ܐܬܢܫܒ ܬܝܡܕ Ph .0
ܢܝܦ ̈ܪܣܘ ݂ P 72262: 6 )18 91: 33
— 12.) 25) , ayy ܐܒܓܡܠܘ » "
» ܕ ܇ ܝ Isaiah 26:18
(8v 6-7) ܰ
= '
" p am ay " ܢܢܛܒ Isatah 44:20
(2v 5-6) 27.
" ܘܗ m3 ܡ 78227 65:8-9 (37v 6-11) frown Ano} ܐܬܝܛܘܛ producer min] Ph 28.
P igo sy™ 6 ܫܠ wis) Ph » ܠܝܒܪܗ.܀ » P - age ܠܛܡ Spent am +n eet Ph ܠܛܡܘ >. Fea) ae eh ܓ a 27 2 "
Eaektel 1:4
(5v 2-5( 29:
Ph ܐܝܚܘܪ ܐܗܘ ܼܬܝܙܝܢ ܐܵܗܐ ܢܡania a icc ee ane (LAW ܐܪܘܢܘ ܐܠܙܘܓܬܡ ܐܪܗܙܡܘ Khai ܐܢܢܥ PA ° » " ܐܠܙܘܓ
® 30.
Daniel 7:9
(5v 7-9) sudan ܘܡܝܗ ܬܐܬܐ x<dhaoina smo duw PA "
2. naam wey es sdt ܐܬܵܡܘܝ Ph ° yy ps P Amos 7:7? (5v 5-7)
winx ܠܥ pon ܐܝܪܡܠ du Ph « « ܐܪܡ ܡܒ sSmmnLaw Siam FP 'Mamas mmm Masa PA ° >) >») ° a P —_— Wisdom 1:4 (28r 25 - 28v 1 ( 1 32.
ܐܟܬܠܬܡܕ ܐܫܦܢܒ ܐܬܡܟܚ ܐܪܡܥ ܐܠ + " ܝ Ph ْ.ܐܬ ̈ܫܝܒ ܧܐ ܐܠܦܐ Kir ܐܠ In ܐܠ ܐܠܐܥ ܐܬܡܟܝܢ " ee ܟ ܒܝܚܡܕ Ph.
< , ܨ Li 33.6
Wtsdom 8:1
(14 r 2-3)
34. Matthew 18:22
(lr 1-2) 4°?
< ܆ܥܒܫܠ ܐܡܕܥ ....ܐܠ ܧr) ܢܝܥܒܫܠ S15) ܡܥܡ ܡܫah woe scl 4 ܐܠܐ ܢܝܥܒܫ 'see Ae Epa ܥ ̈ܒܫ ܠܥ ܢܝܥܒܫ : also Eph ܥܒܫ ܝ ܥܡܫ6« ܝ .
35a. Matthew 22:32
ܗܗܠܐ ܒܝܢܣܝܐܕ sShizan ܒܘܩܥܝܕܘ ܐܳܗܠܐܰܘ ܐܠ ܐܘܗ Ph : ܧ ܗܗܠܐ ܒܘܒܥܝܕ « ܣܕ ܗܠ ܢܘܢ ܢܝܢ ܪܝܓ ܘܗܠܟ .ܐ ̈ܝܢܢܒ ܐܠܐ PA - =Luke 20:386
= = ges?
» p 35b.
Matthew 22:32
(Senun, p.
31) Sonun ܐܢܐ ide ܡܗܪܒܐܼܕ ܐܗܠܐ ܡܐܐܒܐܕ ܗܗܠܐ + Har nara SONAL Senun ܒܘܣܥܝܕܘ+ ݀ܗܠܐ݇ܒܘ ܐ ܐܠ mado arsed = Har .ܒܘܟܐܝܐܕ "» Senun ܝܗܘܬܝܐ ܐܗܠܐhatin Aes Kbuzan Con » Har ܵ "» ܕ ܸ " 36. Matthew 24:36
(25r 3-4) SP ot ܫܢܐ jm wtxla om ܐܡܕܝܠ PA hese dan! ~ soos € ease ܐܠ ܐܟ ̈ܐܠܡ PA one " ܐܠܦܐ P
37. Matthew 26:39
(3r 19-20, 25-26) fanaa NS SS0 ܢܡ ܗܬܘܠ ܢܘ id PA "
;9 \ " ܙ Sin ++ +> ܙܒܐ ܢܐ _ Ph ܐܘܗ rinnaxs ܝ ܬ] ° "
£ .0
« ܝܢܡܪܒܥܢܕܖ Sin 38. Matthew 28:18
ܐ ̈ܝܒܕܫܒ ܕ 39a. Luke 1:35
« ܣ2 ܐܙ 39.
: es Luke 1:35
Ss en! oo " ܚ a"
" ܬ Sen* ܬ "
° "
̈ a Ann "
KIM
Sen'
» " ܦܫܘ a " e , ܬ ܬ Sen* " a \ | WO [ܙ
Ann » »"
Ix i. ܠ ae ܨ » Hear -smX\ KI ܙܡ ܐܫܝ ܐ ̈ܪܩܬܢ ܗܪܒ Tree . ܕ yp » Sen'
EI "
2, "
Sen* ° a"
40.
Luke 2:19
18($ .41
Luke 2:52
P _ 420 Buke 3:22c (33x 6-7)
» ܨ ܇ «× £6©( ܩ " nor "
» ܬܢܐ ܘܗ PlLk) op Se ee ܢ 7 Let : ji ܒܝܒܝܢ ܗܒܕ " ,maduKd Kio Sen :
2 ܟܒ SSN ܰ ܟܝܬܝܐ ܐܪܒ ܝܠܝܕ ܘܗ duc Har 43.uhuke 3:23b (32v (07 Ph ܣܡ ܪܒܘܬam ,ܗܘܬܝܐܒܕ ܪܒ ܘܝ ̇ ܦܣ
ܗ0 "
» , .
(3v 3) .44
Luke 22:43
܇ ܢܡoe} "
Sera z p "
, )) ܐ
)» "
Har ܐܫܝܪܒ «Pe ܠPsp FA ܝܗܘܬܝܐ <am ܐܘܗ ܝܗܘܬܝܐ ܐ݀ܗܠܐܘ ܐܗܠܐ ܬܘܠ ܡ "rae, ܠܡ ܙ (ܙ » ܗ "
"3 ܹ "
» ܵܡ leat Har 47. John 3:16 (9v 7-9) °°"
ܗܪܒܠܕ 'sla ܐܗܠܐ ܒܝܝܢܐ ܣܢܟܗ Ph ܚܝ "+ ܐܢܟܐ ܐܪܒܠܕ = Sen eg i a ade eee »° "» ܐܪܒܠܕ "
» "
John 7:39
< £ "
Har
49.
John 8:33
John 9:37
(12r 13-14) ْ
, ܗܘܝܐ am ܠܠܡܡܕ ܼܟܡܥ ama ,ܗܝܬܙܝܙܚ PA ) ܬ ¡ «ܙ ܬ »2 » ܀ Har 50b. John 9:37 (Tractatue, 45:23-24)
: is 57% 688 10s17 (3r 5-7) ܐܢܐܒ "ܝܠ ܡܝܢܪ ܝܒܐ ܐܕܗ ܠܛܡprt ܐܢܐ PA » » Kam " iz »"
ܬ " oo sands sda ܝܫܦܢ PA ry op "
»"» P 52, John 10:18
(3r 7-9)%2+
A "
» Let 53. John 12:27
(3r 11-14) 4+?
" my» EB
54. John 18:16 + 17:24 conflated? (22% 24-25) 749 wo Ph
PGin. 17:24) 26-28) .55
John 20:25
(12v Ph ܐܠܐ <i ܐܢܐ Badal, mots ܇ܐܨ ̈ܨܕSs: ANS Har 9 » » ܫܐܘܝܦܘܛܠ » ܨ9 " ܐܬܳܝ݂ܟܘܕ ܐܝ3050 ܐܢܐ ܝܥܒܨ ܐܕܟܘܕܒSaks Har » M × ܝܠܕ ܐܐܠܒ : ie "» ܨܝ : , ܬܟܒܨ ܢܗܒ 5o.
Actes 2252 035 7 3( mdse missing Ph ܠܠ [ P ܡܕܩܘ ܐܙܝܢ ܠܠܡܘ ܠܥ "
? ܬenon ced + » .ܐܠܒܝܢ ܐܙܝ MAS Bc Nes ght Nees [ery pe (Fb | 57. Acts 2:47
(27v 14-15)
" ܝ :
22:7
58. Romans 5:10
ܢ ܗܠ ܡܐ ̈ܖܒܪܖ Har P ܐܗܠܐ ܢܡܥ ܝܥܿܒܬܐshea .ܗܪܒܕ 59. Romans 6:3-4 (21lr 24 - 2l1v 1) So ܢܝܥܕܝ ܐܠ Pha) 3) "
" ax P (v3) ܫܘ mAS ܢܘܬܪܒܩ ܬܐ ܧܐ) ܬ ( , ܢܕܒܩܬܐ ܝ P (ua) 60. Romans 8:29
(38r 10-12 and 20-21) [osm Ph ܡܕܩܕ :ܥܕܝܐ ܡܕܩܘ ܡܫܪ Har ܠܛܡ ܢܘܢܗܠܕa ܥܕܝ+ Irs ܡܕܣFwd ܢܡܘ © .ܡܕܩܘܠ96 us ܡܫܪܘ .ܗܪܒܕ ̇ ܐܡܠܨܕ ܐ݀ܬܘܡܕً vin ܢܘܘܗܢܕ CA ܗܠܝܕ ܐܪܒܕ
» Soe Har
P ܐܬ ܘܡܖܒ0 ܗܪܡܕ ܆ Ph ܘܗ ܐܘܗܢ ܐܪܟܒܘܒSissy .ܐܐܵܝܓܘ Har ܝܗܠ sper ܝܗܘܬܝܐ "iis'
Kise PE EI as amu ami P ܐ ̈ܓܓܩ "FS 6) Covisthiane 03039) ܬ ܡܟܚܘ ܐܗܠܐܕ ܘܗ .ܗ mins ܐܝܢܝܫܡ Ph! » »"
Ph? ْ " miw sanduss
2 i) "
Har ——
60.56:
6: 1226) 0:90 (6?
A adams ie Pa.
2 ܕ SoA ay + 3343 _ ` » doy ..
« SMa Her 63. Ephestans 1:4
\ = » , ܝ » , ܙ 64.
Colosstans 2:12
(21r 21-23) PA ܐܬܝܕܘܡܥܡܒ ܗܡܥ ܢܘܬܪܒܩܬܐ ܐ ܬܘܡܠ ܡ10( » 9 ܬ ܡܥ ܢܘܬܡܩܒ ܗܒܘ "܇ PR ܝ] ܬ ao »"
P 65. Hebrews 2:13
(38r 3-4) |"
66. 307 ( GTZ
(er 7-9y72"
4 ܦܬܘܬܫܐ ܐܵܝܢܒ ' ܐܪܖܗܒܠsolo nets ܐ ̈ܝܢܒܕ ܪܝܓ ܠܛܡ ܧShaded ْܰ ܐܡܕܘ ܐ ̈ܪܘܡܒ ܗ2 72 :ܐܪܘܟܒܠܘ ܐܡܕܠ Har «× ܠܝܟܗ » = :
67. Hebrews 11:10
(2v 9-11( 9 ܘܘܗ ܢܝܟܗܡ ܐܬܢܝܒܡܠKafe rides ܬܠܝܐ PA ܪܢܓ ܐܘܗ ܚܐܗܟܘܗܡ ܚ ܚ » P ً ܗܠ ܘܗ ܐܗܠܐ ܿܗܕܘܒܲܐܥܘ ܿܗܶܚܡܘܐܲܕ Ph e Ww "
>» "
» < 68.
1 John
® » gam » % ܝܗ » 3. Comments on These Variant @ܐ © £? £ 9 1. The use of ds in P is a slavish imitation of Heb.
Ph's use of the preposition lamadh is idiomatically correct, and the fact that Philoxenus has exactly the same wording in another work indicates his settled preference for this version.
It may also reflect the influence of LXx.
2. Ph's use of ܡ to introduce a direct quotation and thealternative spelling of Kos are not significant variants in themselves.
The quotation is from P.
3. This is one of a series of phrases taken from Genesis 1 and hurriedly quoted one after the other for rhetorical effect.
Although marked as a quotation along with the others, there is no textual or versional warrant for it.
It is simply a misquotation.
4. In his use of the nouns$tmy, Ph is closer to Heb than to ܡ or LXX.
The variant spelling -@sam4ss is not significant.
5. Ph = P except for the reversing of the word-order of is probably conditioned by the ¥ .
( )ܡke ܘܝܝܢܘ ܐܘܪ -word-order of the next verse (Genesis 1:25). 6. P follows Heb exactly in the use of pronominal suffixes, while Ph in his variant suffixes agrees with some MSS of LXX, but the oldest LXX witnesses have no pronoun with the
first two instances of yéevos.
Ph's addition of ܒ and ¢ are his stylistic preference but otherwise they are not significant variants.
Ph's variant conforms to LXX (Mat? €(MOva WueTéepav), _Ph's preference for 2=& over 159 in 8a is complete in 8b.
A comparison of the variations in this quotation in Ph with Heb and versions shows that Philoxenus was acquainted with P and LXX (or some version like Pal derived from LXX).
Ph's omission of #199, and his use of Mow ܝܗܘ ܗ wos) and Ss" (=y7) indicate dependence on LXX.
His phrase LW FSS, used in two contexts, may be his way of condensing the verse for he omits the last clause, "man became a living soul."
There is no reason why he should omit y19~ in reference to man's origin, for in 14v 9, 11 and 33v 5 he uses it in that context.
Philoxenus provides us with another variant of the text in Tractatus, p. 235, which is closer to P than Ph is.
Like Ph, Tractatus prefers ܐܗܡܘܐ (=€oTacis of LXX) to 10.
507 )! of Heb), and the addition of Lamadh to 7ܐ )= .
Ph and Pal have ܠܡ for "wars in ܡ and KL for wad in P.
Both these preferences in Ph are derived from LXX or a version (like Pal) more closely related to it than
.ܡ The variants in Tractatus and Ph suggest that as Philoxenus grew older he increasingly preferred LXX to P, though much more evidence ts needed to substantiate such a suggestion.
But it is certainly in keeping with his conviction that a new translation of the scriptures into Syriac was needed.
Ph depends on LXX in its modification of Heb (= P), except
that Ph retains the nominal subject ܐܗܠܐ for ܐܝܪܡ ܐܗܠܐ of P (= Heb) and pronominal object of P (= Heb) in the first clause.
Pal (not exhibited) = LXX except for the last word where ܢܐܡܥ is used.
The author is clearly acquainted with P but prefers a translation from LXX.
Ph's dependence on LXX is underscored by Hex which renders 3:2.
Em Se x oO fever of LXX more literally than Ph.
The first clause in Ph and Hex, however, is closer to Heb than to LXX.
While P on the whole follows Heb, in that same first clause P = LXX.
Ph = LXX (= Hex).
14.
The insertion of ese in Ph is stylistically necessary and not significant for textual criticism; so also regarding the omission in Ph of vaiw.
By omitting ̄̈ܝܠܟ8 before ܐܬ ܝܢܝܪܡ , Ph shows itself to be closer to LXX than even Hex which follows P and Heb at this point. ise In the first three words Ph = P, but in the use of ssddr it shows independence of P.
In the second clause, © ܢܡܠܠ Ph = LXX in the use of eed) and in the number expressed
Hex).
The use of Nias in Ph here) to express the T multiplication of numbers (i.e., = "times") is apparently older than the use Of quit or eA = (as in Hex) eee
16.
Comment on this quotation must be tempered by the fact that Ph does not mark it as a quotation in any way.
For this reason, the first two words must be discounted as belonging to Ph's style.
The use of 10 marks the influence of LXX.
LT Ph is acquainted with P in the first word and especially in the use of the indeterminate phrase ܨܣ ܪܒܕ ܒܚܩܝܢܘ ܐ 34v 14, Ph reverts also to ܬܘܡܕ of P in place of pd, in 33v 25.
Otherwise, Ph reflects LXX.
18.
Ph = P except that the participle ܐܦܐ (replacing the imperfect FOX 1S of P) corresponds to the LXX participle éxXeuwv.
Ph = P except for omission of sSem(twice) and the addition of 7 (twice), which is nothing more than a matter of style, although we note that the second ܫܡܫܗ = ¿ is omitted from LXX.
The phrasema> %2¢- in Ph is based on LXX.
The variant andr has no textual or versional warrant, and may 20. simply appear in this context because the author wished to vary the vocabulary.
ALAM sS (in P and Hex) is used two lines down (27v 13).
23.
Although this is a conflation of part of Exodus 4:23 with a phrase (in brackets) from 4:22, it is clear that Ph used P with the addition of rls for which there is no apparent precedent.
Ph = P, except for the phrase ܘܟ ܡܝܪ ܪ݁ܰ ܐܡܡ (cf.
22.
ܐܝܘܦܟܪܘܟ in P) which echoes Isaiah 6:1
(P) cited in the same context (5r 27).
Ph = P, except that Ph used ܐܗܠܐ for ܢܝܗܠܐ and 23. curiously adds ܢܡ sw.
In the second stichos of Ps 82:7, the phrase mu2407 IW occurs, and it is likely that the insertion of these two words in Ph was conditioned by the author's memory of the whole verse.
In Inhabitatton, Pp.
56, the two verses (Ps.
82:6-7) are correctly quoted in full from P, but with the same spelling ܗܠܐ ܡ. as in Ph.
Ph = Heb where Ph differs from P.
Hex (= LXX) has not 24. been exhibited here because it is not close to Ph.
Ph = P except that he substitutes S—=h_ for ܐܒ ̈ܨܢܡܠܘ This 25: substitution may have been based on an understanding of LXX, though Hex (retaining the infinitive) does not make it, but is more likely in this context of Ph to be tendentious, for it suits Philoxenus' argument.
Ph = P. in Ph is a misspelling for wtaict. 8v 11 26. where it is spelt correctly).
The variant ein is stylistic and inconsequential.
LXX and Hex are obviously different from Ph and have not been exhibited.
Ph = P with a change in the position of 7X41 and the 2:7. omission of MM (twice).
Although Ph is badly damaged, it contains four significant 28. modifications of P while basically adhering to it: the omission of "ܗ (it is impossible to fit this word into the lacuna where one would expect it), the addition of ܐܕܗ \}5u, the addition of x47, and the substitution of the verb adr (Ph) for the noun Kadir) ܪ All these modifications to P have been made on the basis of readings found in LXX which Philoxenus (or a Syriac version he used) adopted.
The omission of and changing of the feminine participle ܐ ܘܙ ܐܝ (P) to masculine thus making wo
refer to the Holy Spirit, is tendentious and has no textual or versional warrant.
Otherwise Ph = P (the omission of ܕ is insignificant).
30.
Ph = P, except for the first two words which repeat the first two words of the preceding citation from Ezekiel 1:4.
Ph = P, except for the first word ܠܝ Ww which the author has used to introduce all six examples of biblical visions in 5r 23 - 5v 9, with or without scriptural warrant.
008:
Ph alters the word-order of the first clause, placing the first three words of P after the verb and its subject.
He transposes >< ܡܥ ܒ from the second half of the verse in P Feplndine xe ܆ ܠܫ with it and making the last eliptical.
The same wording for the first half of the verse in Ph is found in the Discourses.
In spite of these changes, Ph depends on P.
33% As in the preceding text from Wisdom, Ph here does not slavishly adhere to P, though he obviously depends on it.
The omission of ܢܝܕ in Ph is merely stylistic.
34.
As Voobus has pointed out and our exhibit shows, Ph uses an older Syriac idiom to express multiplication involving
= the later use of eT in P (and also in Har).
V6d6bus contends that this quotation in Ph is a fragment of an old Syriac Gospel text type used by Tatian in creating the Diatessaron. *2+ Ph's use of ana is not in any of the versions, and is probably stylistic.
Ph and Senun twice omit the repetitious ܐܗܠܐ but apart 35% from that they part company.
Ph follows P, while Senun is closer to Har.
The addition of the last clause in Ph is more than the author's whim in conflating Matthew 22:32 and Luke 20:37-38; it, in fact, reflects exactly the wording of the Diatessaron (34:20-21) .42?
The remarkable difference between Ph and Senun is explained by the fact that Ph was copied in A.D.
511 as its colophon states, Senun was written ten years later? 3 and in the meantime
(we submit) Philoxenus had been slowly accustoming himself to the new translation of the New Testament which he sponsored and which was published by his chorepiscopus,
Polycarp, in 508.
Senun quotes in a somewhat condensed fashion from the Philoxenian version of Matthew 22:32.
Exhibit 35b illustrates the kind of revision of the Philoxenian version Har is, especially in the spelling of names where Har slavishly and barbarically follows the Greek.
All Syriac versions except Pal omit the last clause of Ph.
36.
It is also omitted in some Greek MSS.
In the Syriac versions of Mark 13:32 it is included, but it is unlikely that Philoxenus had the Markan version in mind here.
His use of the preposition lamadh in place of used in the
other Syriac versions may preserve the use of an Old Syriac version now lost.
The omission of ܐܝܡܡ in Ph is another example of his tendency to eliminate repetition in a text he is quoting.
Except for the addition of ܢܡ ܢܘܗܬܐܠ and the omission of
, both in the first clause, Ph = P.
The omission can be ascribed to the author's tendency to abbreviate quotations, but the addition is not so readily explained.
Sin was included in the exhibit because the ems in the first clause is similar to Ph.
That first clause in Sin corresponds to Diatessaron 48:7.
In this light, we may have in Ph here another quotation from the Old Syriac Diatessaron. +24 Ph = P, except for the addition of ܚܡܝܥܐ
This
addition occurs also in Eph who wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron.
Voobus cites several Syriac patristic sources where this same reading occurs, and adds to the evidence he has accumulated for an Old Syriac Gospel tradition distinct from Sin and Cur and reflected in the now lost Syriac Diatessaron. „
39.
Ph = P, except for the change to the masculine form which is in keeping with Philoxenus' tendency to treat yeuNF as masculine if it refers in any way to the Holy spirit. 426
This masculinization of vat, upon which our author insisted, must have been a feature of his version as it was of the Harklean.
Philoxenus uses P also in quoting part of the verse in his "Letters to the Monks of Beth Gaugal" and in his "Ten Discourses on How One of the Trinity Became
Incarnate."
De Halleux, on other grounds, gives both these works an early date in the career of our author
(c. 484), and the evidence of this quotation adds some weight to that conclusion. 427
This suggests that while the manuscript before us was copied in 511, it was originally composed earlier than that date.
On the other hand, Tractatus and Senun were written after the publication of the Philoxenian version in 508 as de Halleux has shown, Senun being perhaps the last work to be written by our author. 428
These quote from the Philoxenian version as Exhibit 39b makes clear.
We note
that the earlier work (Tractatus) still retains the older expression for Holy Spirit, while Senun has adopted the newer one. 9
In Ph, the older expression is the rule throughout the manuscript except for two occurrences of ܡܫܝ ܒܙܒ OF in Fragment 3, which (as we have already
On the basis shown) does not belong to the manuscript. of such an abundance of evidence, we must conclude that Philoxenus deliberately changed from one expression to the other to conform to his (or rather, Polycarp's) new Syriac version of 508.
It was not Thomas of Harkel who first rendered ve yun a tov as Mus + wt (as Zuntz thought); it was Polycarp a century earlier. 43+ We have also exhibited this quotation as it is found in Philoxenus' sermon on the Annunciation, here symbolized as Ann (Luke 1:26-35).
Because of the obvious development in the citing of Luke 1:35, we conclude that Ann was written late in our author's life, perhaps just before he was taken into exile in 519, and certainly not long before he wrote Senun in 521.
We see in this exhibit that the addition of ܝܒܝܠܥ after ܪܐܢ and the change from aX to KW" were also Polycarp's.?°7 We conclude that the Philoxenian version of Luke 1:35 is quoted correctly in Ann.
The variant wim in Sen? is scribal, being influenced by the later Har tradition, which tradition also caused the scribe to insert
3 ܐܘ in Sen.
The only change which Har made to the Philoxenian of this verse was that of substituting Ix for M, corresponding to the postpositive use of Mat in the Greek.
A corollary to our conclusion is that the whole passage in Ann which quotes most of Luke 1:28-35 is taken from the Philoxenian < Evidence in Tractatus and Senun bears this ܨ Ph is a condensed form of P.
40.
47 .
Ph = P, but with the omission of wand 3 m.s. pronominal suffix (twice).
The latter omission occurs also in Pal and (apparently) in the Diatessaron. 3
All Syriac versions (and the Diatessaron) follow the order of P, except Har which follows the Greek order (i.e., "in wisdom, and stature, and favour, etc.").
Ph cites Luke as his source (33r 5), yet his quotation = P 42. of Matthew 3:17
("P [Mt.]").
The use of 3rd m.s. in Luke 3:22 is found in one 14th century Greek MS (1574), and one Bohairic MS, as well as in the Diatessaron and the Acts of It may be that Philoxenus had the Syriac
Pilate. 736
Diatessaron in mind as we have noted in other citations.
In one of his early letters (Let), he uses sadlw which is used by Cur and Sin both in Matthew 3:17 and Luke 31990477
The Ph wording is repeated exactly in Senun 7:12-13, but in the previous page (6:17-18) we have the wording exhibited as Sen which uses ܬܝܐ (plus a suffix) in the same way that Har does (though without the latter's verbosity).
Once again, we have an example of Philoxenus attempting to adapt himself in his final years to the wording of the version he sponsored, but lapsing back into the old familiar phraseology.
Nevertheless, we see that the extensive use of ܐ ܬܝ as a copula in Har was a feature of the Philoxenian version before it.
Ph's modification of P by the phrase ܝܗܘܬܝܐܕ seems to 43. reflect the Philoxenian version; but, while that phrase is included, Har's wording is quite different.
The more likely model is Sin (cf. also Pal Codex B) which then suggests an old Syriac source.
44, Ph's use of ܠܡ ܠܚ is unique here and may belong to his style. 438
The rest of the quotation follows Cur-Sin rather than P, as Voobus has already pointed out, providing another fragment of evidence for an 016 Syriac version. 9
Har, though verbose, follows P and is not exhibited here.
Ph is closest to Cur-Sin in omitting Masa ܢܡ On the other hand, Har (not exhibited) follows P, but qualifies 45.
ܐܟܐܠܡ as follows: ܢܡ ܐܝܡܫ ron ears.
46.
Ph quotes the whole of John 1:1 and only the first word varies in spelling from that of P.
This variant occurs also in the Book on Selected Passages from the Gospels.
In other places Philoxenus quotes exactly from P; Legh Letters = Tractatus = Senun = P.
In other contexts in Ph, he makes use of the indeterminate ܬܝܫܪܒ . 440
Leas significant that this anomalous spelling is found in two of the "orphan" fragments which (as suggested in Comment
above) are probably from a later work (or works) than
Ph.
The fact that the same form is found in the Book on Selected Passages suggests some sort of affinity with that work, and it certainly indicates that the variant is no accident.
The fact that Har begins with .ܐ]ܬܫܝܺܪܒ lends support to the proposal that in the Philoxenian version
ܐܘܗܘܠܝܫܝܪܒ was the first word of John's Gospel.
More evidence is needed, however, before we can maintain that with any assurance, especially since ܬܝܫܝܪܒ alone is found in Tractatus and Senun.
47.
We have found that this verse is cited six times in Philoxenus' works (including Ph).
Only Letters, p. 137 = Ph exactly.
The omission of ܐܢܟܝܐ in these two is due to the author's tendency to condense his quotations.
One of the three citations in Tfractatus (215:16-17) uses ܠܬܢ of ,ܬ while the others use SM, of Cur-Sin.
Only Senun has ܗܠܝܕ = Har, though in a different position.
All six add MN This last phenomenon is well attested in Syriac literature, and as Voobus has pointed out, belongs to "an Old Syriac reading, and a popular one" at that, 442 From the evidence before us, it is difficult not to conclude that ܝܗܘܦܠܚ was carried into the Philoxenian version, but dropped from Har because there was no Greek warrant for it.
Because of the developing pattern of Gospel citations in the works of Philoxenus which we have been noting
(namely, that he used P and Old Syriac versions in his works prior to the publication of his version in 508 and after that he slowly began to incorporate the new translation into his writings), and because Senun is particularly close to Har, we submit that Sen = Philoxenian version of John 3:l6a.
48.
Ph basically follows P.
The omission of ܟ ܝܓ stylistic and insignificant, and the omission of the first Assis is due to Ph's abbreviating tendency.
The change to the masculine construction for ܫܐ ̈ܝܢܘܪ has already been noted as a feature of Philoxenus' works as it was of his version reflected in Har.
The qualifying XIN in Ph (= Har) is well attested in many Greek MSS, ܗ > ܡܙ ay cov , aS in Pal, though the older Greek tradition omits the qualifier as do P and Cur-Sin.
We can be sure it
was included in the Philoxenian version.
Ph = P except for --ܐܳܬܝܫܝܺܪ a preference in Ph (as already 49. noted in Comment 46) which was no doubt carried into the Philoxenian version (rendered ܢܡ ܐܫܝ
ܡܚܝ in Har).
Ph = Har = Philoxenian version.
Significantly, this 50. quotation is found in "orphan" Fragment 4 and its use of the new Syriac version indicates that it was written later than Ph.
It also appears to be later than Tractatus which = P except for the addition of ܐܪܒܠ ܫܐܐ݀ܗܠܐ in both citations.
This addition in Tractatus may simply be the author's way of recalling the wider context of this statement, for the phrase is used in John 9:35 of the Syriac versions.
Ph = P except for the change in gender in the demonstrative pronoun wm — ܗ ܐܝ
Ph = P with the addition of ܝܫܦܢܠ . vVoobus sees this 52% addition as evidence of the lost Old Syriac version?
This may well be the case, but we should not rule out the possibility of the author's device for recalling the context of his quotation by repeating an antecedent to bring out the full meaning intended.
The use of ܠܥ in the Letters quotation to modify it is especially relevant here
("I have power with respect to my soul to lay it down"), and may indicate a similar explicative use of the preposition lamadh in Ph and Senun.
However, the fact that ܐ ܝܫܦܢ is repeated in Ph and elsewhere favours Védbus's conclusion.
This addition is not attested in the Greek text or the versions.
Ph's single variant MAIS = Greek = Sin = Pal.
Har follows 53% P in using .ܢܒܐ Ph agrees with the more ancient tradition.
In the mind of Philoxenus, this is a dominical saying of 54. the first order as the context in Ph makes clear
("Jesus said to His disciples ...
."), and as its appearance three times in Tractatus in exactly the same form underscores that fact.
Yet it is not to be found in the New Testament, although there are sayings like it.
Although it is most like Ephesians 1:4, it is quite distinct from it, for that verse is cited along with be 44
It is placed here with John 15:16 and 17:24, with which it has some affinity, but it is obviously quite distinct from both.
Did it belong to an Old Syriac Gospel tradition now lost?
We may suggest it, but there is nothing to substantiate such a suggestion.
It remains an enigma.
5d!
Once again, it is an "orphan" fragment that provides us with part of a verse from the Philoxenian version.
Sm9a} had to be written over an erasure as though the writer had written du307 out of his familiarity with P and then
The use of changed it to conform to the new version. lamadh to mark the accusative is a characteristic of Har, but the possessive particle in place of a suffix seems to have belonged to the Philoxenian version.
We note also that ܐܠܐ is expanded to ܐܠ we corresponding to the two words of the Greek, éav 20) - 56.
Ph follows P with the addition of JS and consequent change in the gender of the verb.
The addition (found in Har) must have been included in the Philoxenian, but whether ܗ¦ܡ ܐܪ (Har and Pal) replaced AW (P and Ph) is not known.
Ph = P.
The addition ܧܐܝܢܝܠܫ ܘ MOM recalls the subject BT. from the biblical context and adjusts the tense to the context of Ph.
58'.
Ph is closer to Har than to P.
Senun and Tractatus provide us with another clause from the Philoxenian, as the exhibit makes clear, 446 The fact that Letters quotes P exactly demonstrates once again that in the earlier writings
Philoxenus used P, while the evidence before us reveals how he adapted himself to the new version after 508.
59.
Ph = P.
Ph quotes both verses in full and only one word deviates from P: the first word of verse 4 is 3 m.pl. rather than 1 pl. because the writer was influenced by the 2 m.pl. of the same verb correctly quoted from Colossians
2:12
(21r 21-23) immediately before the present quotation.
He also seems to prefer the more direct and forceful "you" to the less forceful "us" as his quotation from Ephesians 1:4 shows (Exhibit 63).
While in the second part of this verse (quoted in 38r 60.
20-21) Ph = P, in the first part (38r 10-12) Ph is closer
to Har: the phrasing of the opening clause is essentially the same and both show dissatisfaction with P's rendering of supp opPous by ܐܘܕܙܘܡܡܟܒ .
It appears that Har was also dissatisfied with the Syriac idiom whasa wo of Ph (which we suggest belonged to the Philoxenian) and changed it to the more technically correct phrase pax
KA where bos = Gvy-.
This is another example of the distinction between Har and the Philoxenian.
The former revised the latter in the following ways:
(1) by the addition of lamadh to mark the accusative (4 pe 2a HN changing 9 to ܦܐ where swat seems to be enclitic,
(3) by preferring a "literal"
(i.e., word for word) translation as noted above in the case of / ܙ ܗܬܬܚܘܫ - ,(4) by substituting the possessive particle (here m7 ) for the possessive suffix, and (5) by adhering rigidly to the Greek wordorder : ܐܐܝܓܘܒܒ
ܐܝܢܐ = év ܘܐ ܐܝ) ܗܘ ¿ x«SEXPots).
The Philoxenian version was much more idiomatic.
In all four examples Ph abbreviates in accordance with his 61. style.
The copulas added in phi and Ph? are also part of our author's style.
The 3 m.s. suffix is grammatically necessary in the first three examples but unnecessary in ܡܐ 4 where ܐܗܠܐܕ comes at the end of the phrase.
Since Har = P, we can assume that the Philoxenian = P.
Ph = P, except for the first word of Ph which probably 62. reflects the Philoxenian since Har uses the cognate
All the other additions of Har are markedly Harklean.
Apart from the reversing of the two clauses peculiar to Ph (probably due to a lapse in the author's memory), we suggest that the text as here quoted belongs to the Philoxenian version.
Ph = P, but substitutes the 2 m.pl. suffix for the 1 pl. of 63. the Greek and P (= Har).
It may be a misreading of the Greek (for Beas he [or his source] read UKaS); or he may have preferred the more direct and forceful "you" as he did in Romans 6:4
(Exhibit 59); or he may have been influenced by the unidentified dominical saying exhibited above (54) which he cites immediately after this quotation.
64.
Ph = P except for the addition of ܐܳܬܘܡܠ which is obviously taken from Romans 6:4 quoted immediately after
this quotation.
65.
Ph = P except for the change in the verb from 3 m.s. to 2 .ܐ. ܘ and the consequent dropping of the subject rnX\x.
The author seems to be quoting from memory as there is no other warrant for this change.
66.
Ph has very neatly reduced the first two clauses of Hebrews 2:14 to one by using gy and changing the verb from 3 m. pl. to 3 m.s.
Ph's order of the last two words = P's order, but lamadh replaces beth as it does in [fractatus and Har.
In one of the three places in Tractatus where this verse is quoted, the order of the last two words = Ph = P (Tractatus, 237:4-5).
In the other two places, their order = that of Har (= that of Greek).
While the quotation is allusive in Dissertatione (an early work), it alone follows P exactly in quoting the last two words: KIA ܣܒܒ
This exhibit conforms to the pattern of development our study has now established, and we can say with some confidence that "Tra" is based on the Philoxenian version.
67.
Ph = P.
The change from 3 m.s. to 3 m. pl. in the participle and auxiliary is conditioned by the context of Ph.
68.
Ph follows P but adds HWS (Tractatus does not add it), omits =ܗ and ,ܝ )7 , and spells out P's mar .#iThe addition of >. ܝ may be from the Philoxenian since
Tractatus (an earlier work) does not have it.
B. RESULTS
OF THIS ANALYSIS
The preceding analysis identifies one hundred and eight separate quotations from the Bible in the fourteen fragments of our manuscript.
This number does not include any repetitions of the same biblical sentence or phrase, but such repetitions have always been noted along with the single reference.
Only by isolating these quotations and examining them individually can we hope to discover their nature in relation to the texts and versions and in the process learn what Philoxenus' habits were in citing the Bible.
One thing is clear:
Philoxenus quotes from the Bible carefully and accurately and when there is any deviation from known versions the reason is almost always an obvious one.
His high view of the Scriptures would lead us to believe i, 447 and the evidence before us confirms it.
That evidence includes the following facts:
(1) forty of the one hundred and eight
quote the Peshitta verbatim, (2) another twenty-six vary only slightly from the Peshitta but still reflect careful another fourteen (while differing ܝcitation, significantly from the Peshitta) are repeated in whole or in and (3) part in this manuscript or in some other Philoxenian work with exactly the same wording as is found in the Exhibits, 4>°
Thus, Philoxenus' care in quoting from the Bible is well attested in seventy-four percent of all the quotations in the manuscript before us.
We may assume that he exercised the same care in citing the Bible throughout, unless the evidence in particular instances is to the contrary, "> This is borne out even by a cursory examination of the quotations in the other works of our author.
Budge's assessment in this regard (quoted at the beginning of this chapter) is simply not adequate: every one of Philoxenus' quotations is not only of interest, but their wording must be taken as seriously as he took it.
An examination of his quotations from the Old Testament reveals certain patterns.
Of the forty-three verses (or parts of verses) quoted from the Old Testament twenty-nine are from Genesis, five from Isaiah, two from Wisdom, and one each from Exodus, 1 Kings, Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Amos.
Our analysis shows that the Peshitta was consistently the source of the quotations from all these books except Genesis and Isaiah.
Since the Peshitta books cited are represented only by a single quotation from each (except Wisdom which has two), such scant evidence can only suggest a pattern of dependence on the Peshitta Old Testament that requires more information before it can be established. ܂ 2
The distribution of quotations from Genesis and Isaiah is of more than passing interest.
In Genesis, twelve are from the Peshitta,*>* thirteen are based on the Septuagint,
4 one falls between the two, 4>° one may be based on the Hebrew or the Septuagint, 9 one is clearly based on the Hebrew, 7 and one isa misquotation. 4>8 In Isaiah, three are from the Peshitta, 7 77 one from the Septuagint, *°? and one reflects the Hebrew.
Such a high proportion of readings which are independent of the Peshitta suggests either that Philoxenus had a Syriac version of the Old Testament (or at least of Genesis and Isaiah) now lost, or that he himself had access to the Hebrew text and Greek version.
In favour of the first alternative, we have the claim of Eli of Qartamin that the Philoxenian version included the 01d as well as the New Testament, 4° and the statement in the Milanese manuscript of the Syro-Hexaplar that an alternate reading of Isaiah 9:6 is from "the version that was translated by the care of the holy Philoxenus 9809
Moreover, the pattern of translation seen in these quotations is similar to that found in the New Testament quotations, which stands between the Peshitta and the Harklean version.
However, no ancient writer (as far as we can tell) has ever suggested that Paul of Tella had a Philoxenian Old Testament before him when he produced his version.
The fact that several of the "Septuagint" quotations are repeated in exactly the same form favours the existence of a Syriac version available for Philoxenus which was distinct from the Peshitta. 14
The second alternative (that Philoxenus had access to the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament) must also be taken seriously.
To assert this is to run counter to the consensus of scholarly opinion which, since Lebon published his Monophysttisme Sévérien in 1909, has assumed that Philoxenus did not know Greek. ̣ 595 De Halleux cites the confusion between yeveses and yergnecs in British Mus.
Add.
14,534 as further proof of this assumed ignorance, but the confusion may have been the scribe's and not Philoxenus'. 4%
That our author was aware of the distinction is surely an indication that he knew some Greek.
Moreover, his concern for a new translation was born of his desire for a more accurate rendering of the text into Syriac than any translation then currently in use. 4°?
That concern is more understandable if he himself knew the Greek text than if he was ignorant of it.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how a man of Philoxenus' nature and influence could have remained ignorant of Greek while maintaining close contact with the Greek-speaking world of the Eastern Empire and with its emperors and prelates.
And it must not be forgotten that he received his early training in the
Persian School of Edessa which, in Philoxenus' youth, was a centre for translating Greek works into Syriac.
While Philoxenus' knowledge of Greek has been open to doubt, his knowledge of Hebrew has never been suggested; nor do we have enough evidence to support such a suggestion.
Nowhere in his extant writings does he appeal to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in any way.
From his use of Wisdom in this manuscript and of some of the other apocryphal books elsewhere in his writings, it is clear that he accepted the canon of the Greek Old restamentyins and we have every wieber believe that he regarded the Greek version as normative.
The apparent affinities which Exhibits 4 and 24 have with the Hebrew text must be explained on the basis of a Greek or Syriac version available to him which was closer to the Hebrew of these exhibited quotations than existing versions are.
But the evidence of our manuscript is simply not sufficient to be Gonclusives"/° In citing the Old Testament, Philoxenus may have had the Peshitta and a Greek version before him, or he may have used some unknown (and now lost) Syriac version which stood between the Peshitta and the Syro-Hexaplaric version produced by Paul of Tella a century later.
The analysis of the sixty-five New Testament quotations shows that thirty are exactly the same as the Peshitta and ten
are very close to it, one (cited as a dominical saying) has no New Testament warrant for the form in which it is quotea, 47? and the remaining twenty-four provide significant patterns of variants which bear witness to two lost Syriac versions: the Old Syriac and the Philoxenian.
Professor V6dbus has done the pioneer work in identifying the existence of an Old Syriac version of the Gospels close to, but distinct from, that of the Curetonian and the Sinaitic,473 Some nine of the twenty-two quotations from the Gospels in this manuscript support V6obus's findings, , 4 four of them having been already identified by him as belonging to an Old Syriac Gospel-text.47°
It may well be that this was the version to which Philoxenus was first exposed and its phrasing remained with him throughout his life.
To this Old Syriac version may have belonged the unidentified dominical saying of Exhibit 54.
The comparative analysis of New Testament texts in our
manuscript and their relation to similar texts in other works by Philoxenus (as well as to the Harklean version) has brought the nature of the Philoxenian version into focus.
Some sixteen different quotations are involvea.*7® The features of that version published in A.D.
508 may be summarized as follows:
1) It was a version quite distinct from the Harklean produced a century later.
What Thomas of Harkel meant in his colophon was that he revised the translation made under the patronage and supervision of Philoxenus a century earlier,*'7 which is precisely what Bar Hebraeus
What Zuntz concluded from his study of quotations in Tractatus is borne out by the above analysis; viz., "Behind these Philoxenian citations there lies a definite text, different from, and intermediate between, the Peshitta and the Harklean. "4/9 2) Its New Testament canon was coterminous with that of the Peshitta; that is, it did not include 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
There is no evidence to show that Philoxenus ever regarded these five books as canonical. 48°
3) It was a revision of the Peshitta rather than a completely new translation from Greek to Syriac.
Our study supports Védobus's conclusion that "Polycarp's contribution belongs to the stream of revision-work so characteristic of the Syrian biblical studies which, time after time, by means of Greek philology went over the previous versions and produced newer and more exact translations. "481
We concur with Gwynn's assessment of the Philoxenian version that "it does not appear that the translation showed, or was ever impugned as showing, a doctrinal bias, "482
4) When sswanm refers to the Holy Spirit, Philoxenus always treats it as a masculine noun, and we may be sure that it was so treated consistently in the version which bears his
ܥ In the Peshitta, mvan71 is feminine throughout.
Philoxenus retained the usual Peshitta phrase ܡܫܡܫܖܒܘܩܕ mRNA for "Holy Spirit," but Thomas of Harkel substituted WO
5) The Philoxenian version retained the Semitic spelling of proper names, whereas the Harklean sought to reproduce the Greek spelling.
This is clearly illustrated in Exhibits
(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and 43 (Joseph).
It is also
illustrated in the spelling of eae (ir 4) which the Harklean variously spells ܗܒ ܢܘܡܝ (Matthew ± 0::2( , wae (Mark 3:16) and ܘܡܝܗܒ ܢܝܢ (Luke 6:14).
Philoxenus refused to use X93 of the Peshitta, but substituted the Greek .
48° This substitution was incorporated into his ܘܟܘܪܛܦ version and retained by Thomas of Harke1. 48°
6) In one instance, Philoxenus prefers the Greek word of the text to the Syriac of the 1) ( While it is unreasonable to generalize on the basis of one example, we note that this kind of preference is a characteristic of the Harklean version and Exhibit 55 suggests that that tendency had its beginnings in the Philoxenian version.
7) Four Exhibits (35, 42, 43, 50) reveal a greater use of ܬܝܐ as a copula in the Philoxenian, a use that was to become much more extensive in the Harklean.
8) The use of the pronominal particle ua and a pronominal suffix) in place of the pronominal suffix became the rule in the Harklean version, but the movement in that direction was reflectedsin the: Philoxenian: as Exhibits 47,.55'and 56-show. -°*
The biblical quotations extracted from the fragments of the Philoxenian codex before us are but gleanings from a corner of the field.
Nevertheless, they are important, for they provide clues necessary for the correct understanding of the Philoxenian version.
They also point the way for further research.
This study makes clear that the chronological sequence of Philoxenus' writings must be held in full view in any careful analysis of the biblical quotations they contain, especially if those quotations are to be used for the reconstruction of the version he sponsored.
Such a comprehensive analysis is beyond the scope of this dissertation, but it must be made before anything definite can be said about that version.