Jonathan Loopstra, An East Syrian
Manuscript of the Syriac ‘Masora’ Dated to 899 CE; vol. 1: A Facsimile
Reproduction of British Library, Add. MS 12138; vol. 2: Introduction, List of Sample Texts, and Indices to Marginal Notes in
British Library, Additional MS 12138
Emmanuel
Aïm
Tel Aviv
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
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/hv24n1praim
Emmanuel Aïm
Jonathan Loopstra, An East Syrian
Manuscript of the Syriac ‘Masora’ Dated to 899 CE; vol. 1: A Facsimile
Reproduction of British Library, Add. MS 12138; vol. 2: Introduction, List of Sample Texts, and Indices to Marginal Notes in
British Library, Additional MS 12138
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol24/HV24N1PRAim.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2021
vol 24
issue 1
pp 317-322
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.
File created by James E. Walters
Jonathan Loopstra, An East Syrian
Manuscript of the Syriac ‘Masora’ Dated to 899 CE; vol. 1: A Facsimile
Reproduction of British Library, Add. MS 12138; vol. 2: Introduction, List of Sample Texts, and Indices to Marginal Notes in
British Library, Additional MS 12138 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press,
2014–2015). Pp. ix + 624; $157 and pp. xi + 541; $136.
With respect to the advancement in manuscript editing and the
development of efficient tools for researchers, the monograph under review is a
masterful work. Its impressive apparatus is designed to meet the need of the
established scholar as well as that of the advanced student. It should also be
warmly welcomed as a direct continuation of the fundamental studies by H. Ewald,
A. Merx, G. Diettrich, T. Weiss, and J. B. Segal on the ‘Masoretic’ accents. In
this context, it is worth noting the author’s latest publication on the
patristic selections included in the ‘Masoretic’ West Syriac manuscripts (see
the reference below). In a sense, this work will complement the book under
review: both open new perspectives in the study of the Syriac ‘Masora’.
The monograph consists of two volumes, of which the first
presents a facsimile edition of manuscript BL Add. 12138. Volume 2 is an
introduction to Volume 1. Dated to 899 CE and written in the city of Ḥarrān, BL
Add. 12138 is a manuscript that aims to support accuracy in the recitation and
transmission of the Peshiṭta according to the tradition of the East Syriac
schools. It consists of sample passages from the Peshiṭta which are vocalized,
marked with diacritics, accentuated, and accompanied by marginal notes. Some
discourses on the accents, grammar, various marks, and the East Syriac schools
are included at the end. It is the only known East Syriac ‘Masoretic’
manuscript, and scholars such as P. Martin, A. Merx, and W. Wright have long
recognized its significance for the study of how the Peshiṭta was read and
interpreted in the ninth and tenth centuries.
Some parts of BL Add. 12138 were previously published by
G. Diettrich and T. Weiss, among others. The contribution of Volume 1 is, first,
to present for the first time the entire text of the manuscript. The copyist,
Bābai, claims that he punctuated the text according to older books of reading
teachers (maqryānē). Interestingly, he also incorporates,
in red ink, the punctuation of another respected scribe, viz. Rāmīšoʿ. Herein
lies the second contribution of Volume 1. Previous publications of excerpts from
the manuscript were for technical reasons printed only in black and white, but
Loopstra’s colour reproduction allows the reader to distinguish precisely
between the two systems of punctuation. In addition, the high resolution of the
printed images (and even more so the PDF version which allows one to zoom in)
allows an easier reading and a more secure identification of the other reading
marks (vowels, diacritics, symbols indicating mistakes or revisions, etc.). The
third contribution of the volume is the placement of folio numbers and the range
of biblical passages above each image. These enable the reader easily to find
any passage in the manuscript.
Loopstra begins the second volume by discussing principal
issues pertaining to the manuscript (historical background, general overview,
biographical elements of the copyist, relation with the West Syriac ‘Masoretic’
manuscripts, and publication history). In the following seven chapters, he dives
into an exhaustive description of the different marks and notes of the text (the
collections of šmāhe and qrāyātā, section dividers, reading marks, vowel
marks, phonological marks, notes on schools, and exegetical glosses). This study
is remarkably thorough in its treatment of the sources and the scholarship. It
covers various fields of research such as history, palaeography, exegesis,
liturgy, grammar, and even music. The author should be commended for his
handling of these different areas, which are so often intertwined. Worth
mentioning is the description of the marks and reading system of Rāmīšoʿ (pp.
xxxiv–xxxvi): these clarifications are essential
for scholars who want to study the accentuation system. When needed, the
sections are copiously illustrated with images extracted from the manuscript. It
is regrettable that these extracts are in black and white, since in some cases
colour would have been more suitable, as for example on
pp. xxxiv–xxxvi where Rāmīšoʿ’s
punctuation is explained. In addition, the author could have dealt in more depth
with one sign, viz. the dash between two words. Loopstra discusses this sign
when accompanied by the gloss ʾqp in the margin where it
has to be understood as a hyphen (see pp. xlii, 422).
However, according to El-Attar (1982) (not cited in the bibliography), the dash
appears in many more occurrences and corresponds to the sign meṭappeyānā whose functions seem more varied and complex than that of
a mere hyphen. One must admit that the name meṭappeyānā
occurs neither in the marginal notes nor in the Tract on the
Accents (a text which appears at the end of the manuscript). It is thus
a complicated issue which needs to be clarified.
The volume’s extensive bibliography covers almost all the
relevant publications. On the Syriac accentuation, the author could have added
Avenary (1963), who places it within the broader context of the Eastern biblical
chant in the Early Middle Ages; Jourdan-Hemmerdinger (1979), who argues for its
musical signification (on the basis of similar notation found in some Greek
papyri); and Moberg (1906), who refutes Merx’s view on its origin and
development. The lack of the aforementioned study of El-Attar (1982) is of more
relevance since this work examines the use of two diacritical marks in BL Add
12138, viz. nāgōḏā and meṭappeyānā.
Volume 2 concludes with a list of the biblical passages, a
list of the examples cited in the Tract on Accents,
some grammatical notes, the translation of the material in the colophon, and the
index of the marginal notes. Overall, Volume 2 is very well organized. The
reader will appreciate the book’s apparatus and the tedious labour the author
has accomplished in creating useful lists of verses, citations, glosses, section
dividers, etc.
As well known, BL Add. 12138 is an outstanding source for
the study of the Syriac ‘Masoretic’ accents. Not surprisingly, Loopstra
dedicates the longest section of Volume 2 (33 pages) to this subject. Thus, this
section deserves special attention. Loopstra offers an overview of the accents
and the history of their study and does not enter unnecessarily into the details
of the long-debated question of their origin (Greek or Syriac) and possible
transmission to Hebrew. He is appropriately measured in his interpretation of
the various possible values of the accents (pausal/grammatical, intonational,
ekphonetic/ musical). Also, his thorough philological knowledge renders
persuasive his effort to draw out common accentual patterns between BL Add.
12138 and other non-Masoretic East Syriac manuscripts. However, he could have
addressed a few points better.
Firstly, he could have ranked the accents not
alphabetically but according to a more significant principle such as 1) the
linguistic function (e.g. pausal or conjunctive force, modality, expressiveness)
as in the descriptions by Merx and Duval; or 2) the position of the accent mark
related to the word (above, below, etc.) as in Segal’s study (see, however, the
author’s explanation on p. lxii, note 224).
Secondly, the description of the use of the accents is
sometimes vague, as shown by expressions such as “may indicate,” “can also
occur,” “often used,” “sometimes used.” Notwithstanding the intricacies involved
in the process of identifying the accent signs, in order to arrive at a more
accurate description, one will have to proceed to an exhaustive inventory, for
each accent, of all its occurrences.
Thirdly, it is well known that the recitation according to
the accents has been lost for a long time. However, the biblical texts are still
recited today during offices. A few words on this subject would have been
appreciated (e.g., the different regional traditions, the main musical features,
the possible other contexts where the texts are cantillated, such private
study), or at least some bibliographical references.
One cannot blame the author for these minor flaws since the
chapter on the accents is meant as an overview. His more recent publications
show that he continues to expand his research and that he is now the leading
authority on these matters (see the references below). Thanks to him, other
researchers have all the material necessary for further investigations.
It is already evident that the book under review marks an
important step in the history of Syriac studies. Overall, it provides a wealth
of phonologically and lexically reliable linguistic evidence ready for further
reflection and analysis. Aramaists interested in Eastern Syriac pronunciation
and lexicology will find it indispensable. In addition, it will allow in-depth
study of the accents, not only among Syriac scholars but also among Hebraists
and Byzantinists who will find valuable information on shared features and
differences between the Hebrew and Greek ekphonetic notations and that of BL
Add. 12138. More broadly, it will also be of interest to biblical scholars
concerned with Syriac exegesis and the textual and oral transmission of the
Bible at the end of the first millennium.
Bibliography
Avenary, H. Studies in the Hebrew,
Syrian and Greek Liturgical Recitative. Tel Aviv: Israel Music
Institute, 1963.
El-Attar, B. A. F. Two Syriac
Masoretic Signs: nagoḏa and meṭappeyana. M.Phil. thesis, University
of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1982.
Jourdan-Hemmerdinger, D. “Nouveaux fragments musicaux
sur papyrus (une notation antique par points).” In Studies
in Eastern Chant IV, ed. M. Velimirović. London: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1979, 81–111.
Loopstra, J. “Exploring Patterns of Accentuation in the
Peshitta Bible: Perspectives and Possibilities.” In Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek), ed. A. Salvesen, T. Lewis, and
B. Turner. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2016, 139–165.
Loopstra, J. “How to Read the Bible with the Tahtaya da-tlata: Recovering an Ancient Biblical
Marker of Exclamation and Supplication.” In From Ancient
Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select
Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, ed.
T. Li and R. Taylor. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2017, 109–137.
Loopstra, J. “The Syriac Reading Dot in Transmission: Consistency and
Confusion”.
In Studies in Biblical Philology and Lexicography, ed.
D. King. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2019, 159–176.
Loopstra, J. The Patristic “Masora”: A Study of
Patristic Collections in Syriac Handbooks from the Near East. CSCO 689.
Leuven: Peeters, 2020.
Moberg, A. “Über den griechischen Ursprung der
syrischen Akzentuation.”
Monde Oriental 1 (1906), 87–
99.