“The History that Should be Placed at the Beginning of the Book
of Paul the Apostle”
New Evidence for the Syriac
Euthalian Apparatus in Apocryphal
Texts
Jacob A.
Lollar
Abilene Christian University
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2021
Volume 24.1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv24n1lollar
Jacob A. Lollar
“The History that Should be Placed at the Beginning of the Book
of Paul the Apostle”: New Evidence for the Syriac
Euthalian Apparatus in Apocryphal
Texts
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol24/HV24N1Lollar.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2021
vol 24
issue 1
pp 187-216
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal
dedicated to the study of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in
January and July) by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998,
Hugoye seeks to offer the best scholarship available in the field of Syriac
studies.
Euthalian Apparatus
Euthalius
Apocrypha
Apostle Paul
File created by James E. Walters
Abstract
This paper introduces some overlooked witnesses to the Syriac
translation of the Euthalian Apparatus found in apocryphal narratives about Paul.
The narratives entitled the “History of Paul”, the “Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle
and the Discovery of His Severed Head”, and “The History That Should be Placed at
the Beginning of the Book of Paul the Apostle” preserve portions of the prologue to
Paul’s Epistles attributed to Euthalius. These narratives circulated independently
from New Testament manuscripts where the Euthalian Apparatus typically circulates as
paratextual material. They are clearly dependent on the Euthalian prologue and are
valuable witnesses for understanding the development and use of the Apparatus in
Syriac. These three narratives appear to preserve an early version of the Euthalian
Apparatus prior to the insertion of the martyrium Pauli in the fifth century. These
narratives thus perhaps constitute some of the earliest witnesses to the Euthalian
Apparatus in Syriac.
Sometime in the late nineteenth century, the great Italian
philologist Ignazio Guidi obtained a copy of a manuscript from the archbishop of
Diyarbakir (Amid/Omid), Khayyât. Guidi had good relationships with several different
important members of the Syriac churches. See R. Contini, “Guidi, Ignazio
(1844-1935),” in S.P. Brock, A.M. Butts, G.A. Kiraz, and L. van Rompay,
eds., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac
Heritage (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011), p. 184.
Guidi later shared this manuscript with Paul Bedjan to include in his amassed
collection of Acta martyrum et sanctorum, published between
1890 and 1897. The two texts Bedjan took from the manuscript were titled “The
History of Simon Cephas, Chief of the Apostles” (Hist. Sim.
Ceph.) and “The History of the Holy Apostle Mār Paul” (Hist. Paul). P. Bedjan, Acta martyrum et sanctorum, vol. 1
(Leipzig and Paris: Harrassowitz, 1890), pp. 1-44. Guidi published a
follow-up to Bedjan in which he corrected some of the Syriac text. See I.
Guidi, “Bemerkingen zum ersten Bande der syrischen Acta Martyrum et
Sanctorum,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 46 (1892): pp. 744-758. Ostensibly, these
texts were some variety of apocryphal narratives about Peter and Paul, and they have
been studied as such.
For the History of Simon Cephas, see the recent study
of the text by F. Stanley Jones, “The History of Simon Cephas, the Chief of
the Apostles,” in T. Burke and B. Landau, eds., New
Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, Volume 1 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), pp. 371-394. For the History of
Paul, see Jacob A. Lollar, “The History of Paul,” in T. Burke,
ed., New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures,
Volume 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming). The second half of the
narrative was translated (based on one manuscript) by D.L. Eastman,
The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul (WGRW
39; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), pp. 194-201. The text was studied and
translated into Italian by E. Luigi De Stefani, “Storia del beato apostolo
S. Paolo. Traduzione dal siriaco preceduta da un breve studio delle fonti”,
Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana 14
(1901): pp. 201-216.
Since the two texts appear in the manuscripts together, they have typically been
studied together; though
Hist. Sim. Ceph. has undoubtedly
received more attention. See, e.g., P. Peeters, “Notes sur la légende des
apôtres S. Pierre et S. Paul dans la littérature syrienne”, Analecta Bollandiana 21 (1902): pp.
121-140. In his follow up to Bedjan’s publication of the two
narratives, Guidi merely observes about Hist. Paul: “Viel
kürzer gehalten ist die Erzählung über den h. Paulus und das meiste ist der
canonische Apostelgeschichte Nacherzählt. Seite 41-44 enhalten einige merkwürdige
Züge aus der Legende.” Guidi, “Bemerkingen,” p. 746. While he was partially correct
about the sources behind Hist. Paul, Guidi offers no
substantive comments about the narrative itself. It was not until over a decade
later when another Italian scholar, Luigi De Stefani, produced an Italian
translation of the text with an introduction that the source of the
Hist. Paul became clear. De Stefani, “Storia
del beato apostolo S. Paolo”, pp. 201-216. De Stefani
demonstrated that major portions of Hist. Paul were not
unique apocryphal stories, or even paraphrases of Acts, but a Syriac translation of
portions of the Euthalian Apparatus.
Around the same time that de Stafani was writing about Hist.
Paul, Ignatius Ephrem Rahmani, the Syrian Catholic Patriarch from 1898 to
1929, studied some Syriac manuscripts at the patriarchate library at Sharfeh near
Beirut. See S.P.
Brock and G.A. Kiraz, “Rahmani, Ignatius Ephrem II”, in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (eds. S.P.
Brock, A.M. Butts, G.A. Kiraz, and L. van Rompay; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias
Press, 2011), p. 350. See also A. Harrak, “Sharfeh”, in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, pp.
371-2. Rahmani published three stories about St. Paul, one he
referred to as the “Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle and the Discovery of His Severed
Head”; one titled, “The History That Should be Placed at the Beginning of the Book
of Paul the Apostle”; and a martyrdom narrative titled: “The Martyrdom of Paul in
Rome by the Hand of Nero.” Ignatius Ephrem Rahmani II, ed., “Pauli Apostoli
martyrium et ipsius capitis truncate inventio”, in Studia
Syriaca seu collection documentorum ineditorum ex codicibus
syriacis (Monte Libano: Seminario Scharfensi, 1904), pp. 3-5. The
texts were transcribed and translated into English by Eastman, Ancient Martyrdom Accounts, pp. 203-17.
The latter two texts are actually Syriac translations of a portion of the
Euthalian Apparatus prologues and the
Euthalian martyrium Pauli. Although
Rahmani recognized a possible connection between the second text and the Hist. Paul, he showed no signs that he realized any
connection to the Euthalian material. In fact, the connections to the
Euthalian Apparatus in both Hist. Paul and the Rahmani texts have gone unrecognized even
by the most recent treatments of these texts.
This paper will examine the interface between these apocryphal narratives about Paul
and the Syriac translation of the Euthalian Apparatus. The
Syriac of the Apparatus has an important
association with the Harklean translation of the Syriac New Testament. This
association permits a more direct perspective about the origins of these apocrypha.
Additionally, the Hist. Paul and the other Euthalian texts demonstrate the evolution of stories extracted from
nascent contexts and reimagined as “histories” and “biographies” in their own
right.
The Euthalian Apparatus
In the late fourth century, or perhaps as late as the seventh century, an author
by the name of ‘Euthaliaus’ (perhaps a pseudonym), living in Caesarea, or
perhaps somewhere in Egypt, composed an epitome of Acts, the Catholic Epistles,
and the Epistles of St. Paul. The reader should guess that the history behind
the Euthalian Apparatus is
much debated in scholarship. This material served as an
ἔκθεσις κεφαλαίων, a survey of the main points, of the portions of the New
Testament. The first half of this Euthalian Apparatus, as
it came to be called, focused on the Pauline Epistles, while the second half
contained Acts and the Catholic Epistles. Both volumes contain four primary
elements: 1) a series of πρόλογοι where the author provides a number of
historical and biographical details about the lives of the scriptural writers;
2) κεφάλαια (‘chapter headings’) which provided titles and chapter divisions of
each text; 3) ὑποθέσεις (‘arguments’) which provide summaries of the contents of
each text; and 4) a series of tables listing scripture quotations (i.e., Hebrew
Bible quotations) called ‘testimonia’ (see Table 1). See the introduction by
Vemund Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions: Text,
Translation and Commentary (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp.
3-5. As D.C. Parker summarizes, the
Euthalian Apparatus originally
included “sense-division and punctuation of the text, for better presentation of
the sense in public reading. Thus the manuscripts with the Euthalian Apparatus
contained the biblical text in a very distinctive form with regard both to
layout and to explanatory material.” D.C. Parker,
Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (Oxford:
University Press, 2012), pp. 55-6.
The origins of the Apparatus are not
very clear and it is well beyond the scope of this paper to review the relevant
hypotheses. It is sufficient to defer to two recent studies by Willard and
Blomkvist, which have provided a great service for scholarship by amassing a
great amount of scholarship and data and making them accessible in their clear,
organized introductions. For Blomkvist, op. cit. above note 8. Louis
Charles Willard,
A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus (Berlin:
De Gruyter, 2009). After surveying the history of
scholarship, Willard is content to place the origins of the
Apparatus sometime in the late
fourth century in Caesarea, by an anonymous author known in the manuscripts as
Euthalius. The material in the
Apparatus is found in hundreds of
Greek manuscripts. The first edition of the complete
Apparatus was done by Zacagni in
1698, using seven manuscripts, and his edition became the basis for all
subsequent editions. L.A. Zacagni, Collectanae
Momumentorum Veterum I (Rome, 1698), see pp. 515-708 for
Pauline material.
Table 1: Contents of the Euthalian Apparatus Content
adapted from Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions,
pp. 8-10.
Acts
a) Prologue
(πρόλογος)
b) Lection list (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις τῶν
ἀναγνώσεων)
Provides statistics of number of lections, chapters,
quotations, and verses. c)
Introduction (πρόγραμμα) to short testimonia list
Does not provide quotations, but provides statistics of
quotations.d) Short testimonia list
(ἀνακεφαλαίωσις θείων μαρτυριῶν)
e) Long
testimonia list Provides full text of Old
Testament quotations.f) Argument
(ὑπόθεσις)
g)
Travels of
Paul
(ἀποδεμίαι Παύλου)
h)
Chapter list (κέφαλαια-τίτλοι)
i) Division
of Acts into 36 chapters (by opening lines)
Catholic Epistles
a) Prologue
(πρόλογος)
b) Lection list (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις τῶν
ἀναγνώσεων)
c)
Introduction (πρόγραμμα) to short testimonia list
d) Short
testimonia list (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις θείων μαρτυριῶν)
e)
Introduction to long testimonia list
f) Long
testimonia list
g) Argumenta (ὑποθέσεις) and chapter
list (κέφαλαια-τίτλοι) for each letter
h)
Stichometric note
i) Colophon
j)
Inscription on the
Altar in
Athens
(ἐπιγραμμα τοῦ ἐν Ἀθήναις βωμοῦ)
k)
The voyage of Paul the
Apostle to
Rome
(πλοῦς Παύλου ἀποστόλοῦ ἐπὶ Ῥώμην)
Pauline Epistles
a) Prologue
(πρόλογος)
b)
The Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle
(μαρτύριον Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου)
c)
Lection list (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις τῶν ἀναγνώσεων)
d)
Introduction (πρόγραμμα) to short testimonia list
e) Short
testimonia list (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις θείων μαρτυριῶν)
f) List
of cities to whom Paul wrote his letters
g) List of
Paul’s letters recording letters he wrote alone and those he
wrote with co-workers
h) Introduction to long
testimonia list
i) Long testimonia list
j) List of
Pauline letters (τάδε ἔνεστιν Παύλου ἐπιστολαί)
k) Note
on why the book is called “The 14 Letters of Paul” (διὰ τί
Παύλου ἐπιστολαί δεκατέσσαρες λέγονται)
l)
Argumenta (ὑποθέσεις) and chapter list (κέφαλαια-τίτλοι) for
each letter
The Euthalian Apparatus in Syriac
The Euthalian Apparatus was
translated into several languages, the most studied of which have been the
Armenian and the Syriac versions. Willard, Critical Study,
pp. 95-108. The Syriac traditions of the
Apparatus have attracted attention
primarily due to their connections with the Harklean translation of the New
Testament, undertaken by Tumo (Thomas) of Harkel in 615/16 CE on behalf of the
Syrian Orthodox (Miaphysite) Church. See S.P. Brock,
The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), pp. 37, 50; A. Juckel, “Harklean Version”, in
Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac
Heritage, pp. 188-91. It is worth looking at the few
studies that have undertaken to explore the complex relationship between Tumo’s
translation work and the transmission of Euthaliana in
the process.
First is the foundational study of Ernst von Dobschütz, who identified two
manuscripts that contained the Euthalian πρόλογοι to the Pauline Epistles: B.L.
Add. 7157 (767/8), a Peshitta edition designated MS L; and Oxford New College
333 (eleventh century), a Harklean edition designated MS O. E. von Dobschütz,
“Euthaliusstudien”, Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte 19 (1898): pp. 107-154. The
significant conclusion of von Dobschütz was that between the two manuscripts, L
& O, three different recensions of the
Euthalian Apparatus were
distinguishable. Manuscript L, he argued, could be associated with the revision
of the Peshitta done by Polycarp, at the request of Philoxenus of Mabbug, in 508
CE. Manuscript O, by contrast, shows some affiliations with Polycarp’s revision
filtered through the new revision/ translation of Tumo of Harkel in 615/16 CE.
In other words, MSS L and O represent two distinct iterations of the Apparatus, both of which were influenced by Polycarp’s
revision.
See von Dobschütz’s chart which outlines these complex relationships in
“Euthaliusstudien”, pp. 144-5.
Von Dobschütz also recognized differences in the presentation of the πρόλογοι in
each manuscript. The prologue in MS O is mostly intact and most other parts of
the Apparatus appear, including the
testimonia, Lection lists, etc. von Dobschütz, “Euthaliusstudien”, pp.
129-131. Manuscript L, however, has substituted a distinct
section that displaces the prologue dealing with summaries of the letters and
Euthalius’ purpose statement. von Dobschütz, “Euthaliusstudien”, pp. 123-5,
127. Significantly, as I will show below, the portions of
Hist. Paul that reproduce Euthalian
material correspond to the particular organization of the prologue material
found in MS L. This suggests that tradition of MS L was likely the basis for the
original composition of the History of Paul.
A few decades later, Günther Zuntz built on von Dobschütz’s work and drew up his
own lineage for the Apparatus in
Syriac. Zuntz argued several hypotheses about the origins of the
Apparatus more generally. Briefly,
Zuntz suggested that the material of the
Apparatus originated in the first
decade of the fourth century and was composed by Pamphilus (d. 309). G. Zuntz,
The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament (The
British Academy Supplemental Papers VII; London: Oxford University
Press, 1945), pp. 77ff. Pseudo-Euthalius then took up this
work and distributed it into its present form. This is the ἔκδοσις (version) of
the Apparatus that eventually passed
down to Polycarp, who made his revision of the New Testament based on a
Euthalian exemplar. Then, in 615/16, Tumo used the Philoxenian revision as a
Syriac basis for his translation. Thus, the Euthalian material formed an
original part of the Harklean translation project. Zuntz summarizes,
Thomas of Harkel revised the Philoxeniana. A. Juckel is critical of
Zuntz’s language of “revision” applied to Tumo’s work. Juckel prefers
the language of “translation” since Tumo went well beyond simple
adjustment of Polycarp’s edition. The Harklean translation, in the words
of Brock, Bible in the Syriac Tradition, p. 37,
“strives to achieve a formal equivalence between the Greek and Syriac
text, with the result that it is possible for the modern scholar to
reconstruct the Greek text which he must have used as the basis for his
revision.” The Philoxeniana was a revision of the Peshitta on
the basis of a ‘Euthalian’ ἔκδοσις. The work of ‘Euthalius’ finally was based on
Pamphilus’. The three links of this argument can be established independently of
each other, and fit together satisfactorily. Zuntz, Ancestry, p.
113.
In a later study focused on the Philoxenian revision, Sebastian Brock confirmed
the works of von Dobschütz and Zuntz that a) there is both a Peshitta version
(represented by MS L) and a Harklean version (represented by MS O) of the
Euthalian Apparatus in the Syriac
tradition, and b) there was a revision of the NT that took place between the
Peshitta and Harklean that we may deduce as representing the Philoxenian
text. S.P.
Brock, “The Syriac Euthalian Material and the Philoxenian Version of the
NT”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft 70:1-2 (1979): pp. 120-130. Brock also
identified one additional manuscript containing the Apparatus, Mingana syr. 343, fols. 94a-103a, but he does not use it in
his study, considering it to be “a less reliable witness to this
recension.”
Brock, “Syriac Euthalian Material”, p. 121, fn. 8. Brock
provides multiple examples of comparison between L, O, the Peshitta, and the
Greek (à la Zacagni). In particular, Brock provides more substance to Zuntz’s
claim that MS L is connected with the Philoxenian version of the NT.
A few conclusions can be drawn from these three major studies. First, it is clear
that Greek manuscripts containing the
Euthalian Apparatus were used in the
revisions/translations of the Philoxenian and the Harklean versions of the
Syriac New Testament. The Peshitta NT certainly has more diversity, as there are
Peshitta manuscripts that do not contain the Euthalian
material. The studies of Zuntz and Brock demonstrate the likelihood that the
Philoxenian revision made by Polycarp was based directly on a Euthalian Greek manuscript. The Harklean, for which we have several
manuscript exemplars, all exhibit influence from the Apparatus. We may conclude, secondly, therefore, that the Harklean
translation of the Syriac NT is inextricably related to the Euthalian Apparatus.
The current critical edition of the Syriac Pauline Epistles incorporates three
Harklean manuscripts: O (=Aland and Juckel H1), Cambridge Add. 1700 (=Aland
& Juckel H3; copied in 1169/70), and St. Mark’s Monastery ms syr. 37 (=Aland
& Juckel H4; copied in 8th/9th cent). B. Aland and A. Juckel, eds., Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung. Bd. II: Die
Paulinischen Briefe, Tl. 1: Römer- und 1. Korintherbrief
(Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 14; Berlin / New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 1991), pp. 15-19. Although Aland and Juckel cite
Brock, they do not include the Mingana ms. All three
manuscripts contain Euthalian material, either in the
first few folios (H1, H4), or in the margins (H3). Of these three, however, only
H1 (von Dobschütz’s MS O) contains the traditional prologue found in the Euthalian Apparatus. The other two manuscripts contain
the κεφαλαία, the Lection list (Syr. ܩܪ̈ܝܢܐ), the Argumenta (Syr. ܦܬܓ̈ܡܐ), and the Testimonia lists. Aland and Juckel, Das Neue
Testament, p. 17 list that H4 contains the “Vorspann”
(=Prologue), but clarify that it is actually a list of tables containing
an assortment of Euthaliana and it is not the
traditional prologue. Likewise, with Peshitta manuscripts
only von Dobschütz’s MS L (=Aland & Juckel P20) contains the traditional
prologue, which, as mentioned earlier, is displaced and fragmented. Aland and
Juckel, Das Neue Testament, p. 14: “Der Vorspann
(unvollständig und sehr beschädigt) ist ganz an den Schluß
gestellt.”
Of greater concern for the present study is the appearance of the πρόλογος to the
Pauline Epistles, since that is the material that appears in the apocryphal
tales. The fact that the prologue appears only in two NT manuscripts allows for
a more detailed comparison.
The History of Paul and the
Euthalian Prologue to the Pauline Epistles
The History of Paul is a short
narrative in two parts. See Lollar, “History of Paul,”
forthcoming. Part one (chs. 1-7) covers Paul’s background,
including his background as a persecutor of the church, his conversion on the
road to Damascus, and his early career as the Apostle to the gentiles. Part two
(chs. 8-16) centers around Paul’s martyrdom and the events before and after it.
For the most part, these sequences fall in line with other known martyr
traditions about Paul: he is put on trial before Nero, beheaded, and buried by
faithful Church members. After his beheading,
Hist. Paul provides a unique story
about the comingled blood of Peter and Paul causing two trees to sprout on the
shared spot of their respective martyrdoms. The trees perform miracles and
essentially become a pilgrimage site before the Jews cut them down and they
never grow again. The second half of the story carefully clarify the precise
date of Paul’s death, which may give some hint at the purpose behind the story’s
composition.
Neither Guidi nor Bedjan provided any information on the date of the Diyarbakir
manuscript and to my knowledge it has not been studied elsewhere. See also the
conclusion of Jones, “The History of Simon Cephas,” p. 372. Jones
indicates that a lost manuscript of the Chaldean library at Mosul may be
the same manuscript as the Diyarbakir text Guidi loaned to Bedjan.
According to William Macomber’s study of this collection of manuscripts,
however, this particular manuscript was lost. See William F. Macomber,
“New Finds of Syriac Manuscripts in the Middle East”, in XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli
1968 in Würzburg: Vorträge. Teil 2 (Ed. W. Voigt; Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 1.2; Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner, 1969), pp. 473-482, esp. 475. The manuscript in question
is Mosul, Chald. Patr. 90. See Addai Scher, “Notice sur les manuscrits
syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du Patriarcat chaldéen de
Mossoul”, Revue des bibliothèques 17 (1907):
227-260, esp. p. 250. Aside from the Diyarbakir manuscript,
which I have labeled ms A, there are three other versions of Hist. Paul.
Table 2: Manuscripts of History of Paul
Siglum
Manuscript
Date
Status
A
Diyarbakir
?
?
B
Trichur, Chaldean Syrian Church, Syr. 9
1615
Extant
C
London, B.L., Or. 9391 (1890)
1890
Extant
D
Vatican, Vat. Sir. 597
c. 17
Extant
The manuscript from Trichur The Trichur manuscript was recently discovered
by Briquel-Chatonnet, Desreumaux, and Thekeparampil at the
Metropolitan library of Mār Aprem in Trichur, India. See Françoise
Briquel-Chatonnet, Alain Desreumaux, and Jacob Thekeparampil,
“Découvre d’un manuscrit très important contenant des textes
apocryphes dans la bibliothèque de la métropolie de l’Église de
l’Est à Trichur, Kérala, Inde”, in Symposium
Syriacum VII: Uppsala University, Department of Asian and
African Languages, 11–14 August 1996 (Ed. R. Lavenant;
Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256; Roma: Pontificio Istituto
Orientale, 1998), pp. 587-597. (B) and the one from the
Vatican (D) are related to one another in several ways. Both manuscripts are
compendia of Syriac apocrypha and contain very nearly the same texts with
very similar handwriting and a similar vowel pointing system. Significantly,
they share the same distinct versions of the same texts. For example, both
contain the same paraphrased version of the Syriac History
of John the son of Zebedee, a fifth-century Syriac apocryphon. Jacob A.
Lollar,
The History of John the Son of Zebedee: Introduction, Texts and Translations (Piscataway:
Gorgias Press, 2020), pp. 29-32. The Vatican manuscript
as a whole is unfortunately fragmentary, but the folios containing
Hist. Paul are more or less
intact.
The provenance of the Vatican manuscript is not explained by A. van
Lantschoot, nventaire des manuscrits syriaques des
fonds Vatican (490-631), Barberini oriental et Neofiti
(Studi e Testi 243. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana, 1965), pp. 128-131. Van Lantschoot merely refers to the
manuscript as “Nestorian”. Offering no further details, he comments
that the surviving fragments are in disarray and it has only been
possible to reestablish the original order for fols. 1-43 and
80-225. Given that there are some distinct similarities
between the collections of texts in these manuscripts as well as their
relatively close dating within a century, it is possible that they share a
literary relationship with one another and may have even been copied within
the same circles.
The British Library manuscript (C) is dated 1890 and was copied by the scribe
Ishai bar Malik Jonan at Geog Tapa (five miles outside of Urmia, Iran). The list of
British Library manuscripts that includes this manuscript was kept
only in the British Library until it was typed out and made
accessible by Lucas van Rompay and Wim Baars, “Handlist of Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since 1899.” A copy may
be accessed online here: https://archive.org/details/BLHandlist/page/n3/
mode/2up. Due to the location of its copying, both
Hist. Paul and
Hist. Sim. Ceph. were labeled as
“Nestorian” acts of Peter and Paul, even though there is nothing in the
contents of either text that suggests they derived from an East Syrian
milieu. The manuscript as a whole contains “Lives of Saints” and a
liturgical calendar. The version of
Hist. Paul in C tends to match
those found in B and D where those versions differ from A. Overall, however,
the transmission of the
Hist. Paul is relatively stable
and few significant differences are noticeable between the versions.
As mentioned above, it was de Stefani who initially demonstrated that
material from the Euthalian prologue had been
interwoven into Hist. Paul. Much of the overlapping
material appears in the first half of the narrative.
Table 3: Euthalian Prologue and the History of
Paul
Euthalian
Prologue
The History of
Paul
Z 516-518
(PG 85.696A-B)Z 518-519
(PG 696C-697B)Z 519-520
(PG 697B-C)Z 521-522
(PG 700A-B)Z 530-531
(PG 709A-B)Z 531 (PG
709B)Z 531-532
(PG 709C)Z 533
(PG 712A-B)Z 532
(PG 709C)Z 533-534
(PG 712B)
Hist. Paul 1.1-8Hist. Paul 2.1-2Hist. Paul 3.1-2Hist. Paul 7.1-3,
5Hist. Paul 7.4,
6-7Hist. Paul 8.1Hist. Paul 9.1Hist. Paul 11.1Hist. Paul 11.2Hist. Paul 13.1-2
Nearly all of the material in the first half of
Hist. Paul was taken from either
the Euthalian prologue or from canonical Acts. What
is missing from Euthalius is supplied by Acts. In the second half of the
narrative, the writer of
Hist. Paul relies on Acts as far
as Paul’s appeal to Caesar
(Hist. Paul 7.5). From here on,
we find some references to the Euthalian material,
but they are scattered. There is brief mention of Paul’s martyrdom
(Hist. Paul 11.2-3), but this is
then followed by the burial of Peter and Paul’s bodies and then the story of
the two trees. What we find, in fact, is that this material was heavily
supplemented by Eusebius,
HE 2.22 (see below).
Of particular importance, however, are the dates of Paul’s martyrdom
mentioned in Hist. Paul 13. De
Stefani showed that
Hist. Paul preserves the same
information about the dates of Paul’s martyrdom, in the same order, as found
in the martyrium Pauli of
Euthalius. De Stefani, “Storia del beato apostolo S.
Paolo”, pp. 206-208.
Table 4: Prologue and
History of Paul 13
Z 532
(PG 712A-B)
Hist. Paul 13.1
ἔστι τοίνυν ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἐννεακαιδεκάτου ἔτους Τιβερίου καίσαρος, ἐξ οὗ κηρύσσειν τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον ἤρξατο, ἕως τοῦ εἰκοστοῦ δευτέρου, ἔτη τέσσαρα, καὶ
τὰ Γαΐου δὲ ὡσαύτως ἔτη τέσσαρα, αὖθις δὲ καὶ τὰ Κλαυδίου ἔτη
μικρὸν ἔλάττω δεκατέσσαρα· ὅν διαδεξάμενος Νέρων τρισκαιδεκάτω
ἔτει τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἀρχῆς τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀνεῖλε.
ܡܬܚ ܗܟܝܠ ܙܒܢܐ
ܕܟܪܘܙܘܬܗ ܕܛܘܒܢܐ ܦܘܠܘܣ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܘܚܡܫ ܫܢܝ̈ܢ. ܡ̣ܢ ܫܢܬ ܬܫܥܣܪ̈ܐ ܕܛܒܪܝܘܣ
ܘܥܕܡܐ ܠܫܢܬ ܬܠܬܥܣܪ̈ܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܗ ܕܢܐܪܘܢ ܩܣܪ:
In the Apparatus, the
martyrium Pauli follows the
prologue and contains important chronological data related to the arguments
concerning the date of the
Apparatus as a whole. See Willard,
Critical Study, pp. 59-68. De
Stefani noted that in
Hist. Paul 13 we find two sets
of dates laid out in reverse chronology from one another. The first
chronology is copied from the end of the Prologue (Table 4), This portion
of the prologue is included in ms Borg. sir. 147 (circ. 1400) but in
a much more literal translation than in Hist.
Paul. This manuscript dates Paul’s martyrdom to the 5th of Ḥaziran (June) in the 36th year of the Savior. My thanks to J.
Edward Walters for directing my attention to this manuscript in his
NAPS presentation in 2018. See http://syri.ac/borg-sir-147.
while the second chronology inverts the first one and
follows the one found in the Martyrium Pauli (Table
5). Most people hold to J.A. Robinson’s conclusion that the
martyrium Pauli was a later
addition to the Apparatus. J.A. Robinson,
Euthaliana (Cambridge:
University Press, 1895), pp. 45-46, 71. Thus, following
Robinson, De Stefani concluded that
Hist. Paul must have relied on a
developed form of the Apparatus, since the second chronology, from the martyrium Pauli, is also preserved. De Stefani, “Storia del
beato apostolo S. Paolo”, p. 208.
Table 5: Martyrium Pauli and History of Paul 13
Z 535
(PG 713B) – Martyrium Pauli
Hist. Paul 13.3-4
ἐπὶ Νέρωνος τοῦ καίσαρος
Ῥωμαίων ἐμαρτύρησεν αὐτόθι Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος, ξίφει τὴν κεφαλὴν
ἀποτμηθεὶς ἐν τῷ τριακοστῷ καὶ ἓκτῳ ἔτει τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους,
τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα ἀγωνισάμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ, πέμπτῃ ἡμέρᾳ Πανέμου
μηνός, ἥτις λέγοιτο ἀν παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ἡ πρὸ τριῶν καλανδῶν
Ἰουλίων, καθ᾽ ἥν ἐτελειώθη ὁ ἅγιος ἀπόστολος τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν
μαρτυρίῳ. ἑξηκοστῷ καὶ ἐννάτῳ ἔτει τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ παρουσίας.
ܐܬܟܠܠ ܕܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ
ܢܨܚܝ̈ܐ ܒܫܢܬ ܬܠܬܥܣܪ̈ܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܗ ܕܢܐܪܘܢ: ܕܗܝ̤ ܗܝ ܫܢܬ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܘܫܬ ܕܚܫܗ
ܕܦܪܘܩܢ. ܫܡܥܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܬܟܠܠ ܩܕܡ ܦܘܠܘܣ: ܘܦܘܠܘܣ ܒܬܪܗ ܒܗ̇ ܒܫܢܬܐ
ܒܚܡܫܒܫܒܐ ܒܝܪܚ ܬܡܘܙ ܒܥܣܪܝܢ ܬܫܥܐ ܒܗ.
The same dates from the martyrium Pauli appear
elsewhere in the prologue, but in an inverted order and spread throughout
several paragraphs
(PG 700C-710A; 712AB; 708B). In
other words, whoever inserted the
martyrium into the rest of the
Apparatus used dates that appeared in the
prologue and placed them in order.
The parallels between the dates and their specific order in both cases are
undeniable. De Stefani therefore claimed that the editor of
Hist. Paul had at his disposal a
version of Euthalius that included the martyrium,
since the order of the dates in the
martyrium matches exactly the
order of those found in
Hist. Paul 13. This is a
possible conclusion, but the evidence is circumstantial. Moreover, it is
strange that the parallels between
Hist. Paul and the
martyrium end here. The editor
of Hist. Paul includes a
completely different story of the aftermath of Paul’s (and Peter’s)
martyrdom after mentioning these dates. Without more details from the
martyrium to certify a
connection, and since the dates also appear in the prologue without the martyrium, we must allow for the possibility that the
shared order of the dates between the texts is coincidental. Moreover, given
that Hist. Paul makes no other
use of the martyrium Pauli, but instead includes a
unique story about the trees, it is more likely that,
contra de Stefani,
Hist. Paul did
not consult a version of the
Apparatus that contained the martyrium Pauli.
A more striking comparison may be found between Hist.
Paul’s Euthalian material and one of the NT manuscripts first
studied by von Dobschütz: MS L/P20, the Peshitta version containing the
prologue to the Pauline Epistles. As noted by von Dobschütz, the Euthalian prologue in L/P20 is disjointed and appears
at the end of the manuscript. The organization of this version of the
prologue looks strikingly similar to the organization of Hist. Paul:
Table 6: Euthalian Prologue in MS L/P20 Adapted from von Dobschütz,
“Euthaliansstudien”, pp. 123-127.
Fols. 194r—195r:
πρόλογοςFols. 195r—196r:
πρόλογοςFols. 196r—196v:
Eusebius,
HE 2.22.1-8Fols. 196v—196r*: martyrium PauliFols.
196r*—196v*: Anonymous Chronology von
Dobschütz, “Euthaliansstudien”, p. 124: “‘Ferner
Zusammen-stellung in kurzen (Worten) von allen...die
oben gesagt wurden’ : eine chronologische Aufzählung der
wichtigsten Thatsachen aus Jesu Leben und der
Wirksamkeit des Paulus, die auf der Chronik des Eusebios
zu ruhen scheint, leider aber kaum mehr zu entziffern
ist.”
= Z 515—523= Z 529—535= Z 535
When compared with the organization of the Euthalian
prologue in Hist. Paul in Table
3 above, the intersections of the material are obvious. The prologue in
L/P20 matches the organization of
Hist. Paul almost perfectly.
They omit much of the same content as one another. Moreover, if we look
closely at Hist. Paul, we find that some of the
disjointed material in chs 7-9 can be found in Eusebius, also included in MS
L/P20. Finally, like Hist. Paul, MS L/P20 contains an
altered version of Paul’s martyrdom. Von Dobschütz writes:
“Das Martyrium des Apostels Paulus, teils eine wörtliche
Übersetzung, teils eine syrische Umarbeitung des bei Zacagni 535 sich an den
Prolog anschliefsenden μαρτύριον Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου.” von Dobschütz,
“Euthaliansstudien”, p. 124.
It would certainly seem, given the discussion above, that the martyrdom
sequence in Hist. Paul is also
an “Umarbeitung” of the same type found in this manuscript.
Given the intersections between these two portrayals of the Euthalian prologue to the Pauline Epistles, it is reasonable to
suggest that some intertextuality is at play. I do not mean to suggest that
either text is necessarily copying the other—though that remains a
possibility—but rather that the two are cut from a similar cloth and their
respective editors have stitched together separate profiles of St. Paul’s
life using nearly identical fragments from the Euthalian
Apparatus. Furthermore, provided that these texts share so much in
common, we must regard the
History of Paul as a valuable
source for the Syriac Euthalian Apparatus. Beyond
this, it is important to consider the process by which an editor has excised
fragments of an existing text and invented a wholly new and distinct sketch
of Paul’s life and deeds. I will say more about this in my conclusion. Next,
we will consider yet another piece of the Euthalian
Apparatus masquerading as an apocryphal rendering of St. Paul’s
life.
“The History that Should be Placed at the Beginning of the Book of Paul the
Apostle”
Rahmani published three texts from the library at Sharfeh that, as Eastman more
recently observed, show “no progression of thought from one text to the next.”
Eastman postulated that “an editor identified different texts about the
chronology of Paul’s life and copied them together in the same manuscript.” Eastman, Ancient Martyrdom Accounts, p. 204. He
was partially correct, though neither Eastman nor Rahmani were aware that these
texts are, in fact, translations, or perhaps paraphrases, of the prologue to the
Pauline Epistles from the Euthalian Apparatus.
The first text, which Rahmani gave the title “The Martyrdom of Paul and the
Discovery of His Severed Head,” (Mart. Paul Sev. Head)
begins with a brief description of Paul’s life and conversion, followed by his
trial and execution in Rome. The progression of this short sequence, detailing
Paul’s lineage in Tarsus, from the tribe of Benjamin, and his loyalty to the
Pharisee sect, is directly related to the Euthalian
prologue.
Eastman, Ancient Martyrdom Accounts, p. 209 fn. 3
also provides other sources for some of this material, including
Eusebius. The story then moves to a somewhat unique account
of the later discovery of Paul’s lost, severed head by a farmer. After some
miraculous activity, the farmer notifies Xystus (Sixtus), the bishop of Rome,
who recognizes that this must be Paul’s severed head. They conduct an experiment
by bringing the head into contact with the body of Paul and their theory is
confirmed when the head reattaches itself to the body.
At the end of this short narrative, we find a familiar chronology. The writer
summarizes:
From Paul’s calling to the end of his life, there were
thirty-five years: thirty-one when he was traveling around everywhere, two in
prison in Caesarea, and two in Rome. He became a martyr in the thirty-sixth year
after the passion of our Savior. Behold, he was placed with great honor in the
splendid churches of the empire in Rome, and every year on the twenty-ninth of
Tammuz, we celebrate the day of his festival. Translation from Eastman, Ancient Martyrdom Accounts, p. 211.
The chronology given here matches closely the one found in
Hist. Paul 13.1, and therefore it
also matches that found in the Euthalian prologue. There
is some discrepancy in the dates (see Table 7).
Table 7: Chronologies of Paul’s Martyrdom
Euthalian Prologue
Z 532 (
PG
712A-B)
Hist. Paul
13
Mart. Paul
Sev. Head
1. Paul’s Preaching = 21 years
2. Caesarea
Prison = 2 years
3. Rome = 2 years
4. Last 10
years
5. Total of 35 years from the death
of Jesus
1. Total of 35 years
2. Paul ‘s preaching = 21
years
3. Prison in Caesarea = 2
years
4. Rome = 2 years
5. Last 10
years
6. 29th of Tammuz
1. Paul’s preaching = 31 years
2. Prison in
Caesarea = 2 years
3. Rome = 2 years
4. 29th of
Tammuz
The chronology in
Mart. Paul Sev. Head appears to
correct the chronology offered in the other versions by combining the “last
ten years” of Paul’s life into his life of ministry. Otherwise, it follows
the chronology of
Hist. Paul quite closely, even
confirming the date of the 29th of Tammuz (early
July/late June), which
Hist. Paul shares in common with
the martyrium Pauli, as discussed above. Once again,
we have details that match those found in the Euthalian prologue mixed with unique material concerning the
period after Paul’s death. In Hist. Paul we had the
story of the trees whereas here we find the miracle of Paul’s severed head
reattaching itself to Paul’s body. The overlapping material is enough to
suggest some dependency of this text on the traditions preserved in the Euthalian Apparatus.
More certainly related to Euthalian traditions are the next two texts.
Eastman evidently misunderstood Rahmani’s original statements about these
texts when he claims that all three came from one manuscript, about which
Rahmani did not provide any details. On the contrary, Rahmani explains that
Mart. Paul Sev. Head came from
one manuscript copied in 1468, Rahmani, Studia
syriaca, p. 53. This appears to be the same manuscript
described by I. Armalet, Catalogue des manuscrits
de Charfet (Jounieh, Liban: Imprimerie des PP. Missionaires
Libanais, 1937), p. 76. Armalet says it was copied in 1464. The
manuscript contains ܬܘܪ̈ܓܡܐ of Moshe bar Kepha. Rahmani says, “Ibi
brevis perhibetur notitia martyria apostolorum Petri et Pauli,
adiecta legenda de invention capitis s. Pauli sub Xysto Papa.”
while the next two texts came from a Harklean NT manuscript
copied in 1168. Rahmani, Studia
syriaca, p. 54. As far as I can tell, Armalet does not mention
this particular manuscript. He mentions at least three Harklean mss
of the NT, two of them dated, respectively, to 1296 and 1480. He
provides no date for the third. See Armalet, Catalogue, p. 13. Upon reading the first line,
it becomes obvious that this is a direct copy of the Euthalian prologue to the Pauline Epistles.
Table 8
Euthalian Prologue Z
515-516 (PG 693A)
“History…at the Beginning of Book of Paul”
τὸ φιλομαθὲς καὶ σπουδαῖον ἀγάμενος τῆς σῆς ἀγάπης,
πάτερ τιμιώτατε, αἰδοῖ τε καὶ πειθοί εἴκων, στενωπῷ τινι καὶ
παρεισδύσει τῆς ἱστορίας ἐμαυτὸν ἐπαφῆκα τόνδε τὸν πρόλογον τῆς
Παύλου πραγματείας συγγράψαι
ܟܕ ܒܪܚܡܬ
ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܘܚܨܝܦܘܬܐ ܕܚܘܒܟ ܡܬܕܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܐܒܘܢ ܝܩܝܪܐ. ܒܟܘܚܕܐ ܘܒܡܫܬܡܥܢܘܬܐ
ܡܬܥܢܐ ܐܢܐ: ܘܒܚܘܠܢܐ ܐܠܝܨܐ ܘܩܛܝܢܐ ܕܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܢܦܫܝ ܡܫܡܪ ܐܢܐ. ܕܫܪܒܐ ܗܢܐ
ܩܕܡ ܡܟܬܒܢܘܬܗ ܕܦܐܘܠܘܣ ܐܣܝܡ.
The beginning of the next section contains the same text as the opening of
Hist. Paul, further confirming that this text
pulls directly from the Euthalian prologue. In fact,
the two texts are similar enough that, despite the fact that he missed the
connection to the Euthalian prologue, Rahmani
hypothesized that the text of Hist. Paul edited by
Bedjan was related to his own and may be the key to filling in the one-page
lacuna in the manuscript. Rahmani, Studia
syriaca, p. 54: “Notandum porro est ex hac vita emanare illam,
quam edidit P. Bedjan, proindeque ex ista facile completur lacuna
quae in nostra reperitur propter folium quod ex descripto codice
exciderat.”
Table 9
Hist. Paul 1
“History…at the Beginning of Book of Paul”
ܥܒ̣ܪܝܐ ܗܟܝܠ
ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܫܪܒ̇ܬܐ ܕܒܢܝܡܝܢ. ܦܪܝܫܝܐ ܒܗܪܣܝܣ ܕܝܠܗ. ܘܩܕܡ ܪܷ̈ܓܠܘܗܝ
ܕܓܡܠܝܐܝܠ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܘܪܕܝܐ ܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܐܬܕܪܫ ܗܘܐ. ܘܒܛܪܣܘܣ ܕܩܝܠܝܩܝܐ ܥܡ̇ܪ
ܗܘܐ. ܪܕܘܦܐ ܘܒܙܘܙܐ ܕܥܕܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ:
ܦܘܠܘܣ ܫܠܝܚܐ ܥܒܪܝܐ
ܡܢ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܒܓܢܣܗ. ܡܢ ܫܒܛܐ ܕܒܢܝܡܝܢ ܦܪܝܫܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܒܐܪܐܣܝܣ ܕܝܠܗ.
ܘܩܕܡ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܓܡܠܝܐܝܠ. ܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܕܡܘܫܐ ܐܬܪܕܝ. ܥܡ ܕܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ:
ܒܛܪܣܘܣ ܕܐܝܬܝܗ̇ ܥܝܢܐ ܕܩܝܠܝܩܝܐ ܥܡܪ ܗܘܐ ܪܕܦ ܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܒܐܙ ܠܥܕ̈ܬܐ
ܕܐܠܗܐ.
This “History” goes even further in its use of the Euthalian prologue than Hist. Paul. After
the one-page lacuna, we find a fragment of the chronology represented in
Hist. Paul 13 (see Table 7
above). However, whereas
Hist. Paul diverts from the
prologue at this point and includes its own unique story of the two trees,
the “History” goes on to copy from the remaining portion of the prologue (=
Z 534-535/PG 712C-713A). The
“History” then ends with a colophon: “Ended is the history that ought to be
placed at the beginning of the book of Paul the Apostle.”
ܫܠܡ ܫܪܒܐ ܕܘܠܐ ܕܢܬܬܣܝܡ ܒܫܘܪܝ
ܟܬܒܐ ܕܦܘܠܘܣ ܫܠܝܚܐ The placement of this colophon
may explain why Eastman understood this text and the one that follows as
deriving from different sources. There may be a better explanation. As it
turns out, the third text included by Rahmani is a direct copy of the martyrium Pauli, which itself was appended to the
Apparatus at a later stage in
its development. Unlike Hist. Paul, which only
contained the same chronology as the martyrium,
leading de Stefani to conclude that the writer of
Hist. Paul knew a more developed
recension of the Apparatus, in this case we have a
complete translation of the martyrium. The reason for
its separation from the previous section by a colophon is that it appeared
that way in the source text of the Apparatus.
Table 10
martyrium Pauli
“Martyrdom of Paul in Rome by Nero”
ἐπὶ Νέρωνος τοῦ Καίσαρος
Ῥωμαίων ἐμαρτύρησεν αὐτόθι Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος, ξίφει τὴν κεφαλὴν
ἀποτμηθεὶς ἐν τῷ τριακοστῷ καὶ ἕκτῳ ἔτει τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους,
τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα ἀγωνισάμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ, πέμπτῃ ἡμέρᾳ Πανέμου
μηνός, ἥτις λέγοιτο ἀν παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ἡ πρὸ τριῶν καλανδῶν
Ἰουλίων, καθ᾽ ἥν ἐτελειώθη ὁ ἅγιος ἀπόστολος τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν
μαρτυρίῳ, ἑξηκοστῷ καὶ ἐννάτῳ ἔτει τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ παρουσίας. ἔστιν οὖν ὁ πᾶς χρόνος ἐξ οὗ ἐμαρτύρησε
τριακόσια τριάκοντα ἔτη μέχρι τῆς παρούσης ταύτης ὑπατείας,
τετάρτης μὲν Ἀρκαδίου τρίτης δὲ Ὁνωρίου τῶν δύο άδελφῶν
αὐτοκρατόρων Αὐγούστων, ἐννάτης ἰνδικτιῶνος τῆς
πεντεκαιδεκαετηρικῆς περιόδου, μηνὸς Ἰουνίου εἰκοστῇ ἐννάτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ. ἐσημειωσάμην ἀκριβῶς τὸν
χρόνον τοῦ μαρτυρίου Παύλου ἀποστόλου.
ܒܝܘ̈ܡܝ ܢܐܪܘܢ ܩܣܪ ܕܪ̈ܘܡܝܐ. ܐܣܗܕ ܒܪܘܡܝ
ܦܐܘܠܘܣ ܫܠܝܚܐ. ܟܕ ܐܬܦܣܩ ܪܝܫܗ ܒܣܝܦܐ. ܒܫܢܬܐ ܓܝܪ ܕܬܠܬܝܢ ܘܫܬ ܕܚܫܗ
ܕܦܪܘܩܢ. ܐܓܘܢܐ ܫܦܝܪܐ ܐܬܟܬܫ ܒܪܘܡܝ ܒܚܡܫ ܒܫܒܐ ܒܝܪܚܐ ܬܡܘܙ ܒܥܣܪܝܢ
ܘܬܫܥܐ ܒܗ. ܘܐܫܬܡܠܝ ܫܠܝܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܒܣܗܕܘܬܗ ܒܫܢܬܐ ܕܫܬܝܢ ܘܬܫܥ
ܕܡܐܬܝܬܗ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ܀ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܟܝܠ ܟܠܗ ܙܒܢܐ ܡܢ ܟܕ ܐܣܗܕ
ܘܥܕܡܐ ܠܫܢܬܐ ܕܬܡܢܡܐܐ ܘܥܣܪܐ ܕܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܘܣ ܡܩܕܘܢܝܐ. ܕܒܗ̇ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ
ܡܢ ܝܘܢܝܐ ܠܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܬܦܫܩ. ܒܙܒܢܬܐ ܩܕܡܝܬܐ. ܫܢ̈ܝܐ ܐܪܒܥܝܡܐܐ ܘܬܠܬܝܢ
ܘܫܝܬ܀
ܚܬܝܬܐܝܬ ܐܘܕܥܬ ܙܒܢܐ ܕܣܗܕܘܬܗ
ܕܦܐܘܠܘܣ܀
There can be no doubt that the texts edited by Rahmani, and later by Eastman,
are Syriac translations of the Euthalian prologue to
the Pauline Epistles. If Rahmani did indeed pull the “History” and the
“Martyrdom” from a Harklean manuscript at Sharfeh, then it would leave us
with two distinct recensions between the texts we have examined. As I argued
above, the organization of the Euthalian material in Hist.
Paul matches quite closely to the organization in MS L/P20, a
Peshitta manuscript. The texts edited by Rahmani, by contrast, reveal
knowledge of a complete version of the Syriac Apparatus in a Harklean NT manuscript. This is not terribly
surprising, since, as we saw earlier, von Dobschütz’s MS O (=H1) contains a
full version of the prologue. It is possible, therefore, that the Sharfeh
manuscript described by Rahmani belongs to the same manuscript family as
O/H1.
This evidence from apocryphal texts is important for the study of the Euthalian πρόλογος to the Pauline Epistles in Syriac.
As a case in point, we may look at the final lines of the “Martyrdom” text,
where we find the claim that the year 810 of Alexander (=499 CE) Syriac
Christians used the Seleucid dating system well into the Medieval
period, starting from Oct 1, 311 BCE. See Muriel Debié, “Syriac
Historiography and Identity Formation”, Church
History and Religious Culture 89:1-3 (2009):
93-114. “this book was translated from Greek into Syriac for
the first time.”
ܕܒܗ̇ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܢ ܝܘܢܝܐ ܠܣܘܪܝܝܐ
ܐܬܦܫܩ. ܒܙܒܢܬܐ ܩܕܡܝܬܐ. It is not entirely clear
from this statement which “book” is being discussed. Within the context, the
most obvious conclusion is that it refers to the prologue itself. It
certainly could not refer to the Harklean translation, which took place over
a century later; nor could it refer to Polycarp’s translation for Philoxenus
in 508 CE, though it is closer to that date. The most plausible explanation
is that this statement claims that the Syriac Euthalian prologue to the Pauline Epistles was first translated
into Syriac in 499.
In fact, this dating for the first translation compliments the theory of von
Dobschütz that there was an edition of the Euthalian
prologue prior to 508, one that may have contained the martyrium Pauli. von Dobschütz, “Euthaliansstudien”, pp.
144-5. According to von Dobschütz, this would have been a
manuscript of the Peshitta containing the prologue material, which was then
used, in conjunction with Polycarp’s edition, to revise the Peshitta
further. The outcome of this may be seen in MS L/P20 (see Table 11). Thus,
if we trust the date provided in the “Martyrdom” edited by Rahmani, we can
more precisely date the translation of the prologue to the Pauline Epistles
into Syriac. To be sure, there are still some mysteries about how various
pieces fit together. As Brock points out, MS L/P20 is surprisingly an East
Syrian manuscript of the Peshitta. Brock, “Syriac Euthalian Material”, p.
121. It is also surprising that Rahmani’s Syrian Catholic
library held so many Harklean translations, given that Tumo’s whole project
was done on behalf of the Syrian Orthodox (Miaphysite) Church. These
questions cannot be answered here. Suffice it to say, the apocryphal texts
studied above are important pieces for the history of the Syriac Euthalian Apparatus and must be considered in further
research.
Table 11
See von Dobschütz, “Euthaliusstudien”, p. 144; Willard, Critical Study, p. 103.
Conclusion
I have drawn attention to several texts that masquerade as apocryphal stories
about Paul. In reality, these stories come directly from the prologue to the
Pauline Epistles contained in the Euthalian Apparatus. In
other words, although these texts appear to be apocryphal traditions about Paul
(specifically about his martyrdom), they actually come from NT manuscripts
themselves. These examples provide insight into the importance of paratextual
material for the study of late-antique and Medieval Christianity. The Euthalian prologues were included in some of the New
Testaments that were read by Christians in these periods. As D.C. Parker
writes,
We have to ask whether by wresting the apostolic text of
such [Euthalian] manuscripts out of their sophisticated environment of text and
paratext, with levels of script, we are not doing harm to our understanding by
ripping the jewel out of its setting. Moreover, a study of a text within its
whole environment in the manuscript containing it may provide further evidence
for placing it within the tradition. Parker, Textual
Scholarship, p. 56.
If we overlook the Euthalian material, we miss, at the very least, the traditions
that would have become commonplace to the average church-goer who heard the
readings of these paratexts during the church services as well as on feast days
and holidays. To these Christians, what they heard from the
Euthalian Apparatus was
Scripture—authoritative accounts of Paul’s life and death. The continued
transmission of the Euthalian prologue in NT manuscripts testifies, at a
material level, to their importance in the scriptural practices a variety of
Syriac-speaking Christian communities. On “scriptural practices” see David Brakke,
“Scriptural Practices in Early Christianity: Towards a New History of
the New Testament Canon,” in
Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity (eds.,
J. Ulrich, A.-C. Jacobsen, D. Brakke; Early Christianity in the Context
of Antiquity 11; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012), pp.
263-80.
At the same time, the texts studied here are examples of how even ancient scribes
and copyists engaged in the “wresting” and “ripping” of texts out of one textual
environment and creating new and distinct texts (and paratexts). The person who
composed Hist. Paul is really no
less guilty than a modern text critic (like Rahmani in this case) of removing a
piece of a text from its nascent context and reappropriating it to a new one.
Such a scriptural practice as this allows us to glimpse the malleability of
texts (even parts of texts) at the hands of their ancient authors. Moreover, we
can glimpse the types of discursive fights over the “correct” dates and
“accurate” accounts surrounding Saints’ lives. In the end, at the very least, we
must admit that the content Euthalian prologues served as
a source of inspiration for authors and writers to (re)imagine the life of St.
Paul in new and fascinating ways.