Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:25:23.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Subscription in the Chester Beatty Manuscript of the Harclean Gospels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

William H. P. Hatch
William H. P. Hatch
Affiliation:
Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some manuscripts of the Harclean Gospels contain a subscription which gives certain important information concerning the origin of the Philoxenian and Harclean versions of the New Testament. According to the subscription the Syriac translation of the Four Gospels was made from the Greek text in the city of Mabûg in the year 507–508 after Christ. This was in the time of Mar Philoxenus the Confessor, who was bishop of Mabûg from 485 to 519 A.D. Later the translation was carefully compared with two (or three) approved and accurate Greek codices and revised accordingly. This was done in 615–616 A.D. by Thomas of Harqel (or Heracleia) in a convent situated at the Enaton near Alexandria. The subscription was written by Thomas himself.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , July 1937 , pp. 141 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bambyce, or Hierapolis (as it was called by the Greeks on account of its being a prominent seat of the worship of Atargatis), was an important city in the southeastern part of Cyrrhestice. It was called Mabûg in Syriac, and it is known as Membij in Arabic. See Strabo, Geog. 16,1, 27; 16, 2, 7; Pliny, N. H. 5, 23; and Ptolemy, Geog. 5, 14, 10. According to the latter the latitude of Hierapolis was 36° 15′ N. and its longitude 71° 15′ E.

2 This is confirmed by the statement found in lines 20–25 of the subscription. Although these words are omitted in some manuscripts, they do not seem to be an interpolation.

3 See Assemani, J. S., Bibliotheca Orientalis (Rome, 1719–1728), II, pp. 90 fGoogle Scholar. This brief notice is preserved in Cod. Vat. Sir. 16.

4 See Strabo, Geog. 16, 2, 8 and 9; Pliny, N. H. 5, 20; and Ptolemy, Geog. 5, 14, 2. The latter gives its latitude as 35° 10′ N. and its longitude as 68° 30′ E.

5 See Strabo, Geog. 16, 2, 7. Hoffmann thinks that Athena Cyrrhestis was the Syrian goddess Atargatis, who was worshipped at Mabûg; and that the Heracleia which is said by Strabo to have been east of Antioch was a village in the vicinity of Mabûg. Cf. G. Hoffmann in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, XXXII, p. 740. However, the identification of Athena Cyrrhestis with Atargatis, on which Hoffmann's argument for the location of Heracleia depends, cannot be accepted. It is arbitrary, and no evidence is cited in its support. Athena Cyrrhestis was in all probability the Greek goddess of that name, and her worship was probably established soon after the Greek conquest of Syria. Her temple may have been built by Antigonus or Seleucus I. Cf. Honigmann in Pauly-Wissowa, , Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Neue Bearbeitung, Stuttgart, 1894 and later), XXIII, col. 192Google Scholar.

6 See Ptolemy, Geog. 5, 14, 10 and 12. The latitude and longitude are given as follows: Heracleia, lat. 36° 30′ N., long. 71° E.; Hierapolis, lat. 36° 15′ N., long. 71° 15′ E.; Beroea, lat. 36° N., long. 70° 30′ E.; Antioch, lat. 35° 30′ N., long. 69° E. In Tafel II at the end of Anhang, B. Moritz's ‘Zur antiken Topographie der Palmyrene’ (in Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1889)Google Scholar the longitude of Hierapolis is given as 71° E. This is apparently a mere mistake. If however 71° E. rather than 71° 15′ E. is correct, Heracleia must have been about 17.25 miles due north of Hierapolis. I have followed C. Müller's edition of Ptolemy's Geographia (Paris, 1883–1901). No variant number is cited by Müller for the longitude of Hierapolis. Ptolemy reckoned longitude eastward from the westernmost of the Fortunate Islands, and each degree of latitude or of longitude (at the equator) was equivalent to 500 stadia. If the latitudes and longitudes given above are even approximately correct, Heracleia must have been about 22.18 miles northwest of Hierapolis (or Mabûg); and the temple of Athena Cyrrhestis, which was twenty stadia from Heracleia, cannot have been in the immediate vicinity of Mabûg. The distance between Heracleia and Hierapolis was computed from the data found in Ptolemy by Mr. Bradford Washburn of the Harvard Institute of Geographical Exploration.

7 See Evagrius, H. E. 5, 10. Hoffmann thinks that Gaggalice, for which he proposes to read Gabalice from Gabala, was the above mentioned Heracleia on the Mediterranean coast northwest of Laodicea. Cf. G. Hoffmann in op. cit., XXXII, p. 740.

8 This brief account of Thomas's life is based on what Gregory Barhebraeus says in his Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, I, 49.

9 See J. S. Assemani, op. cit., II, p. 91, note 1. Baudrand says: Urbs Syriae, ad Tauri montis radices et Ciliciae confinia, ab Adana 40 mill. pass, ab Iconio 75 in ortum distans. Cf. Baudrand, M. A., Lexicon Geographicum (Paris, 1670), p. 845.Google Scholar

10 See Sachau, E., Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien (Leipzig, 1883), pp. 244Google Scholar f.; Moritz, B. in Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1889Google Scholar, Anhang ‘Zur antiken Topographie der Palmyrene,’ p. 30; Chapot, V., La frontière de l'Euphrate de Pompée à la conquête arabe (Paris, 1907), p. 290Google Scholar; Sarre, F. and Herzfeld, E., Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet (Berlin, 1911–1920), I, pp. 161 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and III, Tafel XXV; and Poidebard, A., La trace de Rome dans le désert de Syrie (Paris, 1934), Texte, p. 88Google Scholar, and Atlas, map at the beginning of the volume.

11 See Yâqût, Mu'jam al-Buldân (ed. Wüstenfeld), IV, 961 f. See also Ṭabari, Târîkh (ed. Goeje), III, 709–711. Yâqût and Ṭabari both write rather than .

12 Cf. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius (London, 1898), p. 206. These editors adopt the form Γαγγαλική instead of Γαγαλική. Perhaps Gaggalice (or Gagalice) is a corruption of Galgalice; for the name may be derived from the Semitic root , which appears in the Hebrew wheel and in the proper name , i.e., a circle of stones, as well as in the Syriac verb and its derivatives. The Old Testament became in Syriac, Γάλγαλα and Γαλγάλ in Greek, and Galgala in Latin. The first in Galgalice may have been lost, just as the Aramaic became in Syriac. On the other hand in the Greek Γολγοθᾶ the second disappeared. The ending is the Greek adjectival suffix ικο in the feminine form ική, as in Χαλκιδική from Χαλκίς and in Κυρρηστιήκ from Κύρρος.

13 My friend Professor William F. Albright of Johns Hopkins University tells me that while tramping over this region recently he found no potsherds on the site of Qal'at Haraqlah.

14 My friend and colleague, Professor Kenneth J. Conant, of Harvard tells me that in 1935 he saw a circular fortification of this sort near Ochrida in Yugoslavia. This seems to have been a recognized form of Byzantine military construction.

15 See F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, op. cit., III, Tafel XXV.

16 Cf. Cotelier, J. B., Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta (Paris, 1677–1692), I, col. 809Google Scholar: De Nono Alexandriae. Hoc est Monasterio quod situm erat in Ennato seu Nono, nona regione Alexandrinae civitatis (reprinted in Migne, P. G. LXV, col. 195 f.); Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Boston, 1870), p. 469Google Scholar; and Gwynn, J. in A Dictionary of Christian Biography (London, 1877–1887), IV, p. 267Google Scholar, note d. The two forms “Eνατον and “Eννατον are found in manuscripts and printed editions. The former of these is the correct form, as metrical passages, inscriptions, papyri, and at least one ostracon shew. The cardinal ἐννἐα naturally gave rise to the spelling ἔννατος.

17 Cf. Adler, J. G. C., Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae (Copenhagen, 1789), p. 48, note 4Google Scholar.

18 Cf. F. M. Abel in Oriens Christianus, Neue Serie, I, pp. 77 ff.; and J. H. Ropes in Jackson, F. J. Foakes and Lake, K., The Beginnings of Christianity (London, 1920–1933), Pt. I, Vol. III, p. CLVI, note 4Google Scholar.

19 See Skeel, C. A. J., Travel in the First Century after Christ (Cambridge, 1901), map facing p. 1Google Scholar.

20 τῷ πρòς δυσμάς. These words look like a gloss, and they are not preserved in the Sahidic text. However, even if they are a gloss, the glossator may have known the location of the Enaton. For the Greek see Migne, P. G. LXV, col. 256; and for the Sahidic see G. Zoega, Catalogus Codicum Copticorum Manu Scriptorum qui in Museo Borgiar. o Velitris adservantur (Rome, 1810), p. 337.

21 See Leontius of Byzantium, De Sectis, Act. V (Migne, P. G. LXXXVI1, col. 1229 C). For other references to the Enaton as an abode of monks see Apophthegmata Patrum (Migne, P. G. LXV, cols. 196 B, 253 B, and 256 D); Justinian, Contra Monophysitas, init. (Migne, P. G. LXXXVI1, col. 1104 A); and Johannes Moschus, Pratum Spirituale 177 (Migne, P. G. LXXXVII3, col. 3048 A). The Enaton as the site of a convent or the monks of the Enaton are mentioned in four Syriac manuscripts preserved in the British Museum: Add. MS. 12156, fol. 10 v.; Add. MS. 12174, fol. 61 v.; Add. MS. 14437, fol. 122; and Add. MS. 14647, fol. 79. See W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1870–1872), Pt. I, pp. 33 f.; Pt. II, p. 641; Pt. III, pp. 1096 (History of John, Bishop of Hephaestus in Egypt) and 1124 (History of Peter the Iberian).

22 Cf. Wetstein, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum (Amsterdam, 1751–1752), I, p. 112Google Scholar; Storr, M. G. C., Observationes super Novi Testamenti Versionibus Syriacis (Stuttgart, 1772), p. 44Google Scholar; White, J., Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana (Oxford, 1778), II, p. 561Google Scholar; and J. G. C. Adler, op. cit., p. 47.

23 Oxford, New College, 333. See J. J. Wetstein, op. cit., I, p. 112; and J. White, op. cit., II, pp. 561 f.

24 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Syr. 54 (olim 23). See M. G. C. Storr, op. cit., pp. 49 f.; and J. G. C. Adler, op. cit., pp. 45 ff. and 55 ff.

25 See J. White, op. cit., II, pp. 561 f.

26 See J. White, op. cit., II, pp. 641 ff.

27 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, Cod. Syr. 3; Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Sir. 268; and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Syr. 54 (olim 23). See J. G. C. Adler, op. cit., pp. 45 ff. and 55 ff.

28 London, British Museum, Add. MS. 7163. See Rosen, F. and Forshall, J., Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum Orientalium qui in Museo Britannico asservantur (London, 1838), Pt. I, pp. 26 fGoogle Scholar. In Rosen and Forshall's Catalogue the codex is No. XIX.

29 Cambridge, University Library, Add. MS. 1700. See Wright, W., A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1901), I, pp. 6 ff.Google Scholar

30 Cod. Syr. 3.

31 The following sigla are used to designate the manuscripts: An = Cod. Angelicus (Romei Biblioteca Angelica, Cod. Syr. 3); As1 = Cod. Assemanianus I (Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Sir. 268); As3 = Cod. Assemanianus III (Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Sir. 272); H = Cod. Heradeensis (Oxford, New College, 333); L = a manuscript in the British Museum (London, British Museum, Add. MS. 7163); M - the Mohl MS. (Cambridge, University Library, Add. MS. 1700); and P = Cod. Parisinus (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. Syr. 54, olim 23).

32 A manuscript privately owned in Mar'ash about 1904 and ascribed to the thirteenth or fourteenth century reads (or read) . My friend Professor Charles C. Torrey of Yale University kindly lent me a photograph of the subscription as it is given in this codex. Neither Dr. Torrey nor the present writer knows where the manuscript is now. is also found in an evangeliarium which was formerly at Homs and in Codex Assemanianus II (Cod. Vat. Sir. 271). For the former see L. Delaporte in Revue Biblique, Nouvelle Série, 1907, p. 257; and for the latter see J. White, op cit., II, p. 647. Thomas used three Greek manuscripts, as the marginal note on Matthew 28:5 shews. The initial sentence of the subscription in the Angelican MS. speaks of two accurate codices. Perhaps the mention of two manuscripts here and several times in the marginal notes gave rise to the reading in line 16 of the subscription. The Mar'ash codex also has (or had) in line 18.

33 All the manuscripts except the Chester Beatty Codex read (or ) here, and this is without doubt the right reading. With this change of text accuracy should be substituted for care in the translation. occurs in line 14.

34 Adler translates the words thus: quippe vel apex eius facit ad utilitatem. Cf. J. G. C. Adler, op. cit., p. 47. Mrs. Lake (Silva New), following a suggestion made to her by Professor Vaschalde of Washington, renders them thus: quippe vel exaratio eius facit ad utilitatem. Cf. K. Lake, R. P. Blake, and Silva New in The Harvard Theological Review, XXI, pp. 383 f. But can only mean ubi, and is a verb (Pe'al perf., 1st person, sing.) with the pronominal suffix . It cannot be taken as a substantive. Moreover, there is no word in the Syriac text corresponding to facit.