Robert J. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn, eds. and
trs., The Rabbula Corpus: Comprising the Life of Rabbula,
His Correspondence, a Homily Delivered in Constantinople, Canons and
Hymns with Texts in Syriac and Latin
Andrew
Palmer
Zwijndrecht, The Netherlands
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/hv24n1prpalmer
Andrew Palmer
Robert J. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn, eds. and
trs., The Rabbula Corpus: Comprising the Life of Rabbula,
His Correspondence, a Homily Delivered in Constantinople, Canons and
Hymns with Texts in Syriac and Latin
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol24/HV24N1PRPalmer.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2021
vol 24
issue 1
pp 344-361
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
Robert J. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn, eds. and
trs., The Rabbula Corpus: Comprising the Life of Rabbula,
His Correspondence, a Homily Delivered in Constantinople, Canons and
Hymns with Texts in Syriac and Latin (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017).
Pp. cclviii + 309; $122.
Bishop Rabbula of Edessa († 435)
can be compared with John Chrysostom († 407). Both men were born into the
Greek-speaking élite of the most hellenized part of Roman Syria and educated
accordingly, both made it their objective “to suppress abuses and reform
society, so as to bring it into a more faithful observance of the precepts
of the gospel” (A.-M. Malingrey on the latter). But whereas Chrysostom
encountered powerful opposition at Constantinople and ended his life in
exile, Rabbula dominated his city right up to his death. Few bishops have
been such uncompromising advocates of a society in which poverty is honoured
above riches. Rabbula claims the attention of all who suspect that Jesus
aspired to radical social reform and actually said “Blessed are the poor,”
which his more worldly followers later qualified as “Blessed are the poor
in spirit.”
Phenix and Horn set out to provide a more or less
comprehensive source-book for the study of Rabbula. They have called it “The
Rabbula Corpus,” which is perhaps a little misleading. There is indeed,
preserved in a sixth-century manuscript, such a body of texts: “The Heroic
Deeds of Bishop Rabbula of Edessa” with its three appendices: Rabbula’s rule
for his clergy, his rule for the monks of his diocese and an anti-Nestorian
homily (in Syriac), which he is alleged to have delivered in the presence of
Nestorius himself at Constantinople. This fifth-century kernel has
snowballed, since the nineteenth century, into the much fuller source-book
under review. Phenix and Horn build on the corpora assembled by Overbeck and
Bickell.
Overbeck J. J. Overbeck, ed., S.
Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae episcopi Edesseni, Balaei aliorumque
opera selecta e codicibus Syriacis manuscriptis in Museo
Britannico et Bibliotheca Bodleiana asservatis (Oxford
1865). expands the sixth-century corpus by the addition
of further canons and correspondence before the “Homily” and, after it, of
“supplications” (texts to be sung at prayer) attributed to Rabbula. The author of
“The Heroic Deeds of Bishop Rabbula” tells his reader, in §47, that
he is already engaged in a project to translate from Greek into
Syriac forty-six letters which Rabbula wrote “to ordained clergy,
crowned heads, powerful men and monks.” This statement probably
inspired Overbeck to include the Syriac texts of correspondence
between Rabbula and three bishops (see No. 6). He does
not translate the Syriac texts. Bickell rolls the snowball further, picking
up the passage on Rabbula’s conversion from the Life
of Alexander Akoimetes; but his German translations are printed without the
Syriac and Greek originals. Bickell’s translation deserves to be reprinted
in Latin type, observing present-day orthographical and grammatical
norms.
The Rabbula Corpus represents a further accumulation.
Phenix and Horn alter the order as follows:
1) “The Heroic Deeds of Bishop Rabbula” (in
Syriac);
The Rabbula Corpus refers to “The Heroic
Deeds of My Lord Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, the Blessed City,” as
“The Life of Rabbula” or “the encomium” (this specific term is even
substituted for the general word “speech” ܡܐܡܪܐ in the translation)
and to its author as “the encomiast.”
2) Rabbula’s alleged Constantinopolitan homily (in
Syriac);
3) Rabbula’s rule for monks (in Syriac);
4) Rabbula’s rule for the clergy and the qyāmâ (in Syriac);
5) Another rule for monks, falsely attributed to
Rabbula (in Syriac); Texts II and III of A. Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation
Relative to Syrian Asceticism (Stockholm 1960) are the
first two appendices of “The Heroic Deeds of Bishop Rabbula,” in
reverse order, as in Overbeck’s edition; text IX contains more
“Rules attributed to Rabbula,” the first six of which are thought to
be genuine, though this should probably be seen as a later revision
of his rule, incorporating some original material.
6) Rabbula’s correspondence with Cyril, Andrew and
Gemellinus (in Syriac); Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor gives a longer version
of this letter. It is this which is included in The Rabbula Corpus.
7) John of Antioch’s letter to the bishops of
Osrhoene and other letters (in Latin); In the correspondence of Rabbula are
included several letters preserved from the Latin Collectio Casinensis, as edited by Eduard Schwartz in the
Acta Conciliorum
Oecumenicorum.
8) The tract De recta fide,
dubiously attributed to Cyril (in a Syriac translation);
9) A larger number of hymns attributed to Rabbula
(in Syriac).
The bibliography (primary sources and translations pp.
419–440; secondary literature pp. 440–474) and the comprehensive index (pp.
475–509) will make the book very useful to specialists, though the latter is
marred by the occasional omission of spaces between the page-numbers. The index
would have been even more useful if an entry such as “church,”
referring to 171 of the 757 pages, had been subdivided, separating
references to the church as an institution from those to the
church-building and breaking these up further, in order to save the
reader time.
Phenix and Horn do not intend their introduction to
replace G. G. Blum’s Rabbula von Edessa: Der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe (1969),
“the only monograph on Rabbula”; but they do claim to bring that book up to
date (p. xxiv). They do so, perhaps, where monasticism and the qyāmâ are concerned. But on the problem of Rabbula’s
famous U-turn, when he switched his allegiance from Antioch to Alexandria,
Phenix and Horn disappoint. They simply subscribe to Blum’s opinion,
ignoring H. J. W. Drijvers, H. J. W. Drijvers, “Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa:
Spiritual Authority and Secular Power,” in: J. W. Drijvers and J. W.
Watt, eds., Portraits of Spiritual Authority:
Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the
Christian Orient (Leiden 1999), 139–154. This important
article is listed in the biblio-graphy of The
Rabbula Corpus, but it is referred to only once, in a
general way, on p. xxiii. who argues that Rabbula’s
formation as a theologian must have been Antiochene, because his masters
were Eusebius of Chalcis and Acacius of Aleppo, the latter a close associate
of Theodoret. Ibas’ claim that Rabbula was once an avid reader of Theodore
of Mopsuestia is therefore plausible. It does not occur to either Blum or
Phenix and Horn that the Syriac “translation” of the homily (not extant in
Greek) allegedly delivered at Constantinople, which takes a bold
anti-Nestorian stance, is an answer to the charge that Rabbula must once
have been a supporter of Nestorius. Indeed, who else but Nestorius can have
invited him to preach in Haghia Sophia during that patriarch’s reign? At
Ephesus in 431, Rabbula set his signature to the deposition of Cyril; only
afterwards, when the emperor’s support for Cyril became known, did Rabbula
“distance (separavit) himself from the Oriental
synod” and become, overnight, an ardent supporter of Cyril and a slanderer
of the great exegete Theodore and his disciple, Nestorius, thereby avoiding
the fate of Chrysostom. Drijvers does justice to all the sources; yet his
arguments are passed over in silence. Blum argues that Rabbula’s signatures
at Ephesus were forged and that he must have stayed at home. This unlikely
theory, supported by no good evidence, becomes, for Phenix and Horn, “the
fact that Rabbula was not present at the Council
of Ephesus” (p. clxxi, reviewer’s emphasis).
The authors speak of “the stunning silences in the Life of Rabbula” (p. xviii). They do not appreciate
the full significance of the encomiast’s silence about Rabbula’s role at
Ephesus in 431. If he never put his name to the deposition of Cyril, the
record ought to have been set straight by his apologist. Instead, the
ecumenical council, like other awkward subjects, is avoided altogether. Much
of his praise for Rabbula can be read as indirect criticism of his
successor, Ibas, under whom the encomiast probably wrote. The famous schools
of the city, including that of the Christians from Persia, of which Ibas was
the head, are only mentioned in passing; indeed, Phenix and Horn mistake the
word ܡܟ̈ܬܒܐ (Overbeck, p. 190, line 7), which is probably to be translated
as “schools” (though Doran, p. 89, penult., has “those inscribed on the
welfare rolls”), for ܡ̈ܟܬܒܢܐ “scribes,” so even this passing reference is
missed.
The encomiast denies (§38) that Rabbula “built anything
in the earth,” apart from his hospital for women The stone for this was
obtained by the demolition of four temples of idols, so how can
Phenix and Horn maintain (pp. cxlvii–cxlviii) that “no specific
action that Rabbula took against [the pagans]” is
recorded? and minimal repairs to the nave-wall of the
cathedral church, which had suffered ܢܟܝܢܐ “damage.” If he does not mention
the probable cause of this damage, a flood which brought down the
city-wall on Tuesday, 18th March, 413, that is probably because the
fact of this flood had been used against Rabbula by opponents, who
would have claimed it as proof of God’s dissatisfaction with the new
bishop of the “Blessed City.” The flood of 525 was certainly cited
as evidence that God disapproved of the actions of the then bishop
of Edessa. The devious wording of this denial conceals
the fact, reported in the Chronicle of Edessa, The Chronicle of Edessa is also the source for
two reports of the flood of 413, one in its proper place and one in
the conclusion. that, already before the flood of 413,
Rabbula had converted the synagogue of the Jews into the church of St
Stephen. (He did not need to replace the foundations, so built nothing “in the earth”!) Far from acknowledging this, the
encomiast is at pains to say how well Rabbula got on with the Jews of his
city and how bitterly these outsiders – more honestly characterized in §42
as “the obstinate Israelite people” – mourned the dead bishop. Phenix and
Horn (following Hallier, Blum and Doran) take this at face value. But the
church-leaders of Syria are not to be trusted when they claim to have the
best interests of the Jews at heart. One only has to remember Rabbula’s
fourth-century models: the bishop who orchestrated (with impunity) the
destruction of the synagogue of Callinicus, Chrysostom and (not least)
Ephrem. Rabbula’s contemporary, Barṣauma of Samosata, was not the only one
to intimidate judges and even royalty when they dared defend the downtrodden
Jews.
See now The Life of the Syrian Saint Barsauma:
Eulogy of a Hero of the Resistance to the Council of
Chalcedon, translated by A. N. Palmer (Oakland, California
2020), esp. sect. 38–45, 91–97. The reign of Theodosius
II saw a rise in legislative discrimination against the Jewish community.
There is no good reason, then, to doubt the report that Rabbula, in
confiscating a synagogue, was acting in accordance with an imperial edict.
Yet Blum accepts Ludwig Hallier’s far-fetched emendation of “Jews” to
“Audians”; and Phenix and Horn join this chorus of denial that injustice was
ever done to the Jews of Edessa!
It might have been better to leave the sixth-century
corpus in its original sequence, not to re-order its parts. But the idea of
making a source-book containing all the relevant texts in the original and
in English translation was a very good one; The tract De recta
fide would not really be missed, if it were omitted,
whereas the Letter to Mari by Ibas of Edessa is a candidate for
admission, since it contains controversial statements about Rabbula.
As for the hymns, historians will gain little from reading them and
lovers of florid liturgical poetry may not be interested in history,
so why not put the hymns in a separate book? and if this
comprehensive “historical source-book for the study of Rabbula” can be
revised, corrected and reissued with a shorter introduction, The present
introduction is 241 pages long; as if this were not intimidating
enough, these pages are numbered, in Roman numerals,
xvii–cclviii! it will be an extremely valuable resource.
The criticisms in this review should therefore be seen by the authors as
constructive, intended to help them improve on their work in a second
edition which will combine the best of Overbeck’s, Bickell’s, Vööbus’s and
Doran’s work. R. Doran, Stewards of the
Poor: The Man of God, Rabbula, and Hiba in Fifth-century
Edessa (Kalamazoo 2006).
Phenix and Horn disclaim the ambition to replace Blum’s
study of Rabbula. G. G. Blum, Rabbula von
Edessa: Der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe, CSCO 300 /
Subsidia 34 (Leuven 1969). Perhaps, then, they should
issue an updated translation of Blum, incorporating much of the material
which overburdens the present introduction, of which pp. xvii–xlvi seem the
most necessary. This last applies particularly to the section on
“Persuasion, encomium and biography in the Life of
Rabbula (= The Heroic Deeds of Bishop Rabbula),” which shows an
admirable command of scholarship concerning the various biographical genres.
As Phenix and Horn write on p. xlv:
The author’s fealty to classical literary convention may
be far greater than previously imagined, and if so, this will impact the use
of the Life of Rabbula for the reconstruction of
history in Edessa.
Once the section on the Sitz im
Leben of the Life (pp. lxx–cxiii) has been
abridged and corrected (p. lxxii, on Rabbula’s dates, is misleading), “In the year
746 Rabbula, the bishop of Edessa, departed from this world on 8th
August” (Chronicle of Edessa, A.D. 540, confirmed by Jacob of Edessa
apud Elijah of Nisibis), that is 435, pace Phenix and Horn, RC, pp. xviii and lxxiii, n. 193, where
Rabbula’s death is dated to the year 436). The obituary (§53) tells
us Rabbula fell ill 24 years and 3 months after becoming bishop and
died the following month, so his reign started on 1st April 411. The
official date, however, was 1st October of the same year: “In the
year 723 Rabbula became bishop in Edessa” (Chronicle of Edessa). As with the regnal dates of kings,
the first full calendar year of each bishop is counted as his first
year. it will be truly useful. The other texts included
in the source-book should, in the reviewer’s opinion, be introduced at the
appropriate points in the book. Here, too, brevity is needed – and greater
accuracy, too. BL Add. 14,526 is a witness to the shorter of
the two recensions of Rabbula’s monastic rule, and Overbeck
identified only two MSS of the longer (not three, as stated on p.
ccxxii); the second sentence on the “Commandments and Admonitions
for the Priests and the Children of the Covenant” seems to
contradict the first (p. ccxxiv); the Syriac on pp. ccxlvi and
ccxlvii is riddled with errors; and the Seleucid year 737 is A. D.
425/6 (not 424/5, as stated on p. ccl).
The Syriac texts need to be corrected from the
manuscripts. Vat. Borg. cod. syr. 10 is online and from it
I have made many corrections to the “Canons for the Monks,”
attributed to Rabbula, the translation of which by Phenix and Horn
is particularly unreliable. In an appendix to this
review, a step is already taken in this direction by listing corrigenda to
the fifth-century corpus from MS BL Add. 14,652 (Wright, Catalogue, p. 651f., no. 732). The reviewer thanks the British Library
for allowing him to photograph this codex in its entirety, free of
charge.
As for the English translations, these would benefit
from a comparison with Bickell’s German translations, which are generally
better, as the following passage from the hymns on p. 290f. of The Rabbula Corpus shows:
Gustav Bickell, Ausgewählte Schriften aus syrischen Kirchenvätern, BKV (Kempten
1874), p. 262: Als die Heiligen kamen und sich niederlegten zum Gastmahl des
Leidens, da tranken sie alle von jenem Most, welchen das Judenvolk auf
Golgotha gekeltert hatte, und erlernten die verborgenen Geheimnisse des
Hauses Gottes. Deshalb sagen wir lobsingend: Gelobt sei Christus, welcher
die heiligen Märtyrer durch das Blut aus seiner Seite trunken gemacht
hat!
Phenix and Horn: When the saints went up
and rested (Syr. ܥܠܼܘ ܘܓܢܼܘ “came in and reclined”) on the couch of their
sufferings (Syr. ܒܣܡ̇ܟܐ ܕܚܫ̈ܐ “at the feast of sufferings” = “zum Gastmahl
des Leidens” – the possessive pronoun is not in the Syr.), from that juice
that the people trampled out (this ought to be: “that must which the
[Jewish] people trod”) on Golgotha all of them drank and learned the secret
mysteries (correct ܐܖ̈ܙܐ ܟܗ̈ܝܐ to ܐܪ̈ܙܐ ܟܣ̈ܝܐ = Overbeck) of the house of
God. Wherefore (“and for that reason” – the archaic “wherefore” seems out of
place) we sing with praises (“we sing praises” is better English) and say,
blessed is the Messiah (this should be “Blessed is Christ”) who intoxicated
the holy martyrs with the blood (“made the holy martyrs drunk on the blood”
– the word “intoxicated” is taken from the wrong register) from his
side.
The English translations by Phenix and Horn, as
published, are neither felicitous, nor accurate. For a revised edition they
need to be thoroughly overhauled. An example will be given here from the
most important source, “The Heroic Deeds of Bishop Rabbula.” In §46 the
anonymous encomiast refers his reader to the Syriac translation of the
homily delivered in Constantinople. This reference will be quoted here,
first in Syriac (fol. 115v, Overbeck, p. 198f., Phenix and Horn, p. 68),
then in Bickell’s German translation, then in Robert Doran’s English
translation, and finally in the translation given in The
Rabbula Corpus, so as to allow readers of this review to judge for
themselves which is the best of the English translations.
ܥܬܝܕܝܢ ܚܢܢ ܕܝܢ ܡܛܠ ܦܝܣܐ ܕܣ̈ܓܝܐܐ ܘܡܛܠ ܥܘܕܪܢܐ ܕܟܠܢܫܼ. ܐܦ
ܕܢܟܬܒܝܘܗܝ ܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܡܐܡܪܢ ܕܥܠܘܗܝ̇. ܫܪܒܐ ܗܘ̇ ܕܡܠܠ ܛܘܒܢܐ ܒܐ̈ܕܢܘܗܝ ܕܛܪܘܢܐ ܒܥܕܬܐ
ܪܒܬܐ ܕܩܘܣܛܢܛܝܢܦܘܠܝܣ. ܐܝܟ ܕܬܬܼܚܙܐ ܒܓܠܝܐ ܠܟܠܢܫ ܘܬܬܗܝܡܼܢ. ܕܐܝܕܐ ܦܪܗܣܝܐ ܪܒܬܐ
ܩܢܼܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܡܠܬܗ ܡܫܠܛܐܝܬ̇. ܡܢ ܣܗܕܘܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܕܬܐܪܬܗ ܕܟܝܬܐ.
Bickell, p. 202: Wir werden übrigens zur Zurechtweisung vieler und
zum Nutzen aller nach unserer Lebensbeschreibung des seligen Rabbulas
auch diese Rede mitteilen, welche er vor dem Tyrannen in der großen
Kirche von Konstantinopel gehalten hat, damit jeder deutlich einsehe und
sich davon überzeuge, welche große Zuversicht sein gewaltiges Wort durch
das mächtige Zeugnis seines reinen Gewissens erhielt.
Doran, p. 97: Now, after we have written his life, we will set down –
for the persuasion of many and for the benefit of everyone – that
discourse which the blessed one spoke in the tyrant’s ears in the great
church in Constantinople so that it may be seen openly by everyone and
how his discourse, spoken from the robust witness of his pure
conscience, gave great confidence.
Phenix and Horn, p. 69: We shall, for the sake of persuading many and
for the sake of helping everyone, write down following our encomium
about him that discourse that the blessed one spoke into the ears of the
[imperial] throne in the great church of Constantinople, so that it
appear openly to all people and be believed that his word possessed
authoritatively this great boldness of speech. On account of the great
witness of his pure conscience …
In this last, the Greek loan-word τύραννος is translated as if
it were θρόνος and the sentence ends too soon. The German translation is
certainly the best of the three.
The list of corrigenda which follows this review makes
Phenix and Horn’s text of the sixth-century corpus preferable to Overbeck’s,
partly because it includes corrigenda to this earlier edition and partly
because Phenix and Horn annotate the text copiously and divide it into
numbered sections for ease of reference. Slight adjustments are needed, however:
The last nine words of sect. 17 belong to sect. 18, the first six
words of sect. 22 belong to sect. 21 and the first six words of
sect. 37 belong to sect. 36.
Appendix: Corrigenda to the Syriac text of the sixth-century “Rabbula
Corpus”
N. B. Bold type is used to highlight the differences between
the printed text and the manuscript, where a longer passage is quoted.
Apart from an unnecessary “emendation” on p. 4 and the fact
that “[85v]” is placed after, not before, the word with which that folio
begins on p. 8, the only differences between the manuscript and the text
printed on pp. 2–10 are points omitted and punctuation-marks altered. Such
minor infidelities will be passed over here. On pages 12–20, 24–44 and
52–82, however, more serious errors have been introduced, sometimes (as on
p. 4) through an attempt to emend the text.
The Heroic Deeds of Mar Rabbula, Bishop of the Blessed City of
Edessa
(BL Add. 14,652, fols. 83r–125r; Overbeck, pp. 159–209; Phenix and Horn,
pp. 2–83)
121
ܘܓܠܘ ܖ̈ܚܡܘܗܝ ܕܪܒܘܠܐ (MS ܘܓܼܠܘ ܖ̈ܚܼܡܘܗܝ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܕܪܒܘܠܐ).
121–2
ܠܐ ܡܫܟܚ ܐܢܬ
ܠܡܣ̇ܬܟܠܘ ܚܝܠܐ ܕܥܠ ܫܪܪܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ ܗܘ (MS ܠܐ ܡܫܟܚ ܐܢܬ ܠܡܣ̇ܬܟܠܘ ܚܝܠ ܫܪܪܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ ܗܘ).
1215
ܢܚܙܝܢܝܗ (MS ܢܚܙܝܢܝܗܝ – the object is Jesus).
146
ܒܡܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ (MS ܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܗ – meaning Rabbula’s faith).
1412
ܐܦܩ (MS ܐܩܦ).
165
ܪܒ̇ܐ (MS ܪܡ̇ܐܼ).
167
ܠܡܕܝܢܬܐ (MS ܠܡܕܝܢܬܗ).
169
ܕܥܡܪ (MS ܕܥܡܼܕ).
184
ܙܗܝܪ (MS ܙܗܝܪܐ).
1814
ܒܫܡܠܐ (MS ܒܫܠܡܐ).
203
ܢܩܐ (MS ܢܩܢܐ).
249 Fol. 92r begins after the second ܙܘ̈ܥܝܢ, not after the first.
265
ܕܐܡܝܬܘ ܠܗܘܢ (MS ܕܡܝܬܘ ܠܗܘܢ which Phenix and Horn seem to
think needs emendation).
2811
ܐܘܠܝܨ (MS ܐܠܝܨ).
30ult (two errors) ܣܗ̈ܕܐ ܠܚܙܝܝܢ ܕܣܪܝܪ ܡܘܠܟܢܢ (MS ܣܗ̈ܕܐ ܠܚ̈ܙܝܝܢ ܕܫܪܝܪ ܡܘܠܟܢܢ).
323 (two errors) ܐܠܦܐ
ܐܡܗ ܘܚܬܗ. ܕܦܐܐ ܠܢܩܕܘܬܐ (MS ܐܦܠܐ
ܐܡܗ ܘܚܬܗ. ܐܝܟ ܕܦܐܼܐ ܠܢܩܕܘܬܐ).
3215
ܠܦܫܗ (MS ܢܦܫܗܼ).
3218
ܕܥܕܬܐ (MS ܕܥܕܬܗ).
343–4
ܐܢ ܕܝܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ. ܠܐ
... ܘܠܥܝܢ ܥܠܡ̈ܐ (MS ܐܢ ܕܝܢ ܠܐ ...
ܘܠܥܝܢ ܥܠܡ̈ܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ.).
3411
ܛܥܢܐ (MS ܛܥܢܗ).
3413
ܫܪܝܪܐ (MS ܫܖ̈ܝܪܐ).
3416
ܓܒ̇ܪ (MS ܓܡܪ).
3418
ܢܘܟܖ̈ܐ (MS ܢܘܟܖ̈ܝܐ).
3420
ܫܡ̈ܝܗܘܢ (MS ܫܡ̈ܗܝܗܘܢ).
367
ܕܢܬܟܪܘܢ (MS ܕܢܬܢܟܪܘܢ).
3611
ܕܠܚܒܘܢ (MS ܕܢܚܒܘܢ).
385
ܛܥܢܐ (MS ܛܥܢܗ).
3810
ܡܫܟܚ (MS ܡܫܟܚܐ).
405
ܡܬܠܦܝܣ (MS ܡܬܛܦܝܣ).
425
ܒܚܒܖ̈ܐ (MS ܒܚܒܖ̈ܬܐ).
42ult
ܕܡܣܗܪܐ (MS ܕܡܣܗ̇ܕܐ).
4419
ܡܬܩܖ̈ܝܢ (MS ܡܬܩ̇ܖ̈ܒܢ).
526
ܡܬܒܪܝܢ (MS ܡܬܕܒܪܝܢ).
5218
ܒܚܕܐ (MS ܡܚܕܐ).
5225
ܒܣܬܕܘܢ (MS ܒܣܬ̇ܪܗܘܢ).
52ult
ܐܣܛܪܛܢܐ (MS ܐܣܛܪܛܝܐ).
52f. Overbeck uses asterisks to fill the place of illegible letters,
which is better than using the Syriac punctuation-mark ܀, as the editors
of RC do here.
541
ܡܫܝܚܐ (MS ܡܫܝܚܝܐ).
547
ܐܚ̈ܝܢ (MS ܐܚ̈ܘܢ).
5413
ܐܠܗܐ (MS ܐܠܗܝܐ).
5419
ܕܢܒܣܘܪ (MS ܕܢܒܣܘܪ ܗܘܐ).
5423
ܝܥܐܝܬ (MS ܝܥܢܐܝܬ).
54ult
ܒܢ̈ܝ (MS ܕܒܢ̈ܝ).
5610
ܗ̇ܘ (MS ܗܘ).
5813
ܒܗ (MS ܒܗ̇).
5818 (two errors) ܐܖ̈ܥܐ ܕܠܒܐ܆ ܠܘ ܕܢܥܘܪ (MS ܐܖ̈ܥܬܐ
ܕܠܒܐܼ. ܠܘ ܕܢܥ̇ܘܕ).
604
ܫܪܪܗ (MS ܫܪܪܗ
ܫܪܝܪܐ).
6010 Fol. 111v begins after ܟܕ and before ܝܗܒܝܢܢ.
6017
ܕܐܠܗܐ (MS ܐܠܗܝܬܐ).
6020
ܫ̇ܪܐ (MS ܫ̇ܕܐ).
6220
ܘܥܡܕܗ̇ (MS ܘܥܒܕܗ̇).
6225
ܘܗܘ (MS ܕܗܘܼ).
6412
ܝܠܕܗ (MS ܝܠܕܬܗ).
6414
ܐܠܫܒܥܼ (MS ܐܠܝܫܒܥܼ).
667
ܘܢܩܪܐܘܢ (MS ܘܢܩܪܘܢ).
6612
ܫܘܒܚܐ (MS ܫܘܒܚܗܼ).
681
ܟܐܢܐ (MS ܟܐܒܐ).
6816
ܡܠܐ̈ܟܐ plural (MS ܡܠܐܟܐ singular).
6816
ܫܠܝ̈ܚܐ (MS ܕܫܠܝ̈ܚܐܼ.).
706
ܥܕܪ (MS ܘܥ̇ܕܪ).
707
ܕܥܒܕ (MS ܕܥܒܼܪ).
7014
ܐܒܪܩ (MS ܐܒ̇ܕܩ).
7017
ܗܼܢܘܢ (MS ܗܼܢܝܢ).
7018
ܝܩܪ (MS ܝܩܕ).
721
ܩܒܠܘ (MS ܩܒܠܗ).
7211 (three errors) ܟܕ ܗܟܠ ܣܓܝܐܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܩܘܖ̈ܒܢܐ ܕܙܕܩ̈ܬܐ (MS ܕܟܕ ܗܟܝܠ ܣܓܝܐܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܩܘܖ̈ܒܢܐ ܕܙܕܩ̈ܬܗ).
7213
ܕܠܘܬ ܟܠܢܫ (MS ܕܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܠܘܬ ܟܠܢܫ).
7216
ܢܬܦܪܣܘܢ (MS ܢܬܦܪܢܣܘܢ).
7222
ܝܗܒܐ (MS ܝܗܘܒܐ).
7225
ܡܣܟܝ̈ܢܐ (MS ܡܣܟ̈ܢܐ).
741
ܝܕܥ̈ܬܐ (MS ܝܕܝܥ̈ܬܐ).
746
ܡܫܠܚ̈ܦܐ (MS ܡܫܚ̈ܠܦܐ).
7411
ܘܠܚܫܚܬܗܘܢ (MS ܘܠܚܫܚܬܐ).
7414
ܐܝܬܝܗ (MS ܐܝܬܝܗ̇).
765
ܕܗ̇ܢܘ = Overbeck (MS ܕܗ̇ܢܐ).
76ult (two errors) ܐܣܬܪܗܒ ܦܪܢܣܗ ܩܠܝܠܐܝܬ ... ܙܕܩ̈ܬܐ (MS ܐܣܬܪܗܒ ܦܪܢܣܗ̇ ܩܠܝܠܐܝܬ ... ܙܕܩ̈ܬܗ).
76, n. 1 The MS has ܢܚܬܐ, as correctly
printed in the text, not ܚܝܬܐ, as in
Overbeck’s edition.
7813
ܘܥܘ̈ܟܘܗܝ (MS ܘܥܘ̈ܘܟܘܗܝ).
7819
ܘܐܝܠܝܢ (MS ܘܠܐܝܠܝܢ).
805
ܡܢ ܡܣܟ̈ܢܝܢ unnecessary “emendation”
(MS ܡܢ ܣܟܼܢ).
8014
ܩܢܘ̈ܡܝܘܗܝ (MS ܩܢܘ̈ܡܝܗܘܢ).
821
ܗܘܐ (MS ܗܘܐ
ܗܼܘ).
8211
ܐܦܣܩܦܐ (MS ܐܦܣܩܘܦܐ).
Commands and Cautions Addressed to the Ordained Clergy and to the Bnay
Qyāmâ in the Villages
The Rabbula Corpus: “The Commandments and
Admonitions for the Priests and for the Children of the Covenant
of My Lord Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa.” Note 9 tells the reader
that “One manuscript” adds dabqūrāyê,
“who are in the villages.” The correct vocalisation is da-b-qūryâ and the MS in question is Add.
14,652. Wright (Catalogue, p. 651b)
translates “in the country.”
(Add. 14,652 = MS, foll. 125r–131r; Overbeck, pp. 215–221;
Vööbus 1960, pp. 36–50; Phenix and Horn, pp. 102–117) These corrigenda
disregard the later MSS collated by Vööbus, whose edition is not
superseded by The Rabbula
Corpus.
102, n. 2 ܕܒܩ̈ܖܝܐ (MS ܕܒܩܘܖ̈ܝܐ).
102, n. 8 is oddly phrased: Overbeck prints the text of BL Add. 14,652,
the oldest and the best MS.
104, n. 1 For “Overbeck,” read Add. 14,652.
1042
ܐܢ [ܗܘ ܡܢ ܕܐܝܬ] ܒܥܕܬܐ (MS ܐܢ ܒܥܕܬܐ, which Vööbus rightly allows to
stand. the supplement, which should end with ܒܗ̇, printed in n. 3 as ܒ̇ܗ, comes from a C9 MS, supported only by very late
apographa)
1043
ܠܐ [ܢܬܠܘܢ] (MS ܠـ[ـܐ]
ܢܬܠܘܢ).
1049
ܥ
ܐܢܫ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܘ
ܥ
ܚ̈ܕܕܐ (MS
ܥܡ ܐܢܫ̈ܝܗܘܢ
ܒܠܚܘܕܼ ܐܘ
ܥܡ
ܚ̈ܕܕܐ).
1063
ܕܕܝܖ̈ܐ (MS ܕܕܝܖ̈ܝܐ).
1065
ܘܠܐܢ (MS ܘܠܐ).
10613
ܥ
ܚ̈ܕܕܐ (MS ܥܡ
ܚ̈ܕܕܐ).
108, n. 1 omits to say that Add. 14,652 is one of the MSS which has the
reading ܡܫܖ̈ܝܢܐ, which ought to have
been retained in the text.
1108
ܒܢܝܗ̇ (= MS; but this should be
printed as ܒ̈ܢܝܗ̇ and the reader needs
to know this reading comes from Add. 14,652).
11212–13 None of the three supplements is
necessary, indeed, the last is a diplography.
11218
ܠܐܢܫ [ܐܓܪܬܐ
ܦܠܣܘܢ.] (MS ܠܐܢܫ
ܡܢ
ܐܓܪܬܐ ܦܠܣܘܢ̇.).
1142 Delete brackets.
114, n. 1 For ܕܝܪܐ, read ܠܕܝܪܐ.
1144
ܐܝܬܘ (MS ܐܝܬ[ܘ]).
11412
ܐܝܟܢܐ (MS ܐܝܟܐ).
11417
ܓܒܪܗ̇ (MS ܠـ[ـܓܒܪ]ܗ̇). The editors use square brackets to group a
number of words under one note. This should be done with a
single upper half-bracket. The convention is that square
brackets are placed around illegible text, which the editor has
attempted to restore.
Item, “Cautions for Monks,” by the Same, Mar Rabbula, Bishop of
Edessa
The Rabbula Corpus: “Admonitions for
the Monks of My Lord Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa.” The editors
place this text before the “Commands and cautions for the
ordained clergy and qyāmâ-members in
the villages,” although the heading is designed to follow
this. Vööbus’ sigla are logically assigned, A to the 6th-century MS Add. 14,652, B to
the 7th-century MS Add. 14,526,
C to the 8th-century MS Add.
14,577. Phenix and Horn, following Overbeck, assign A to the
last, B to the first and C to the second, so it is not the
case that “Vööbus adopted Overbeck’s sigla in his edition”
(p. ccxxii).
(Add. 14,652 = MS, foll. 131r–133v; Overbeck, pp. 212–214;
Vööbus 1960, pp. 27–33; Phenix and Horn, pp. 94–101) These corrigenda
disregard the later MSS collated by Vööbus.
941
ܙܘܗܖ̈ܐ (MS B = Add. 14,652 ܬܘܒ ܙܘܗܖ̈ܐ).
94, n. 1 seems to say there are only three MSS, whereas Vööbus uses nine.
94, n. 3 ܒܝܬ ܒ̈ܬܐ is the reading of
Add. 14,652 and is preferable to the reading adopted in the text.
94, n. 4 “Reading [ܝܗܒ] with many
manuscripts. MS A and other manuscripts: ܥ̇ܒܕ.” Add. 14,652 (Vööbus’ “MS A”) has the reading
ܥ̇ܒܕ, which therefore ought not to
be changed.
96, n. 3 ܚܡܖ̈ܐ ܒܠܚܕ (ḥemārê balḥād) should be ܚܡܖ̈ܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ (ḥemārê balḥūd).
983 Add. 14,652 has ܝܚܕܐܝܬ̇., one of the few errors left uncorrected by this
scribe.
986
ܐܝܬܗܘܝ (MS ܐܝܬܘܗܝ).
9811
ܒܕܝܖ̈ܝܐ (MS ܒܕܝܖ̈ܬܐ).
1004, 11 delete brackets.
1006–10 these doublets should be excised from
the text – they are not in Add. 14,652.
100, nn. 8, 20 ܡܦܢܘܬܐ
mapānūtā, i.e., “with the permission,” is a
copying error, compounded by a faithful transcription of the same and a
wrong translation, for ܒܠܥܕ ܡܢ ܡܦܣܢܘܬܐ
bel
c
ād men mapsānōtâ “without the permission.”
The Homily Which My Lord Rabbula, Bishop
of Edessa, Pronounced in the Church of Constantinople in Front of
the Whole People
The Rabbula Corpus: “The Homily that My
Lord, Bishop Rabbula, Spoke in the Church of Constantinople
before All the People.” The editors place this directly after
the Life and before the “Cautions for
monks.”
(Add. 14,652 = MS, foll. 133v–138v; Overbeck, pp. 239–244;
Phenix and Horn, pp. 84–93)
84, n. 2 ܘܡܙ̇ܡܪ (w-mazmar) the reading of the MS
is to be preferred: “For the grace by which our Lord (Jesus) used to
teach his Church and move it to song is the source of all learning.” The
editors’ emendation ܘܡܥܡܕ (w-ma
c
med) does not make sense in the past tense (the
auxiliary in the phrase ܡ̇ܠܦ ܗܘܐ
ܘܡܙ̇ܡܪ belongs to both verbs), so they translate it in the
present: “For grace is the fountain of all teaching, by which our Lord
instructed his church and baptizes.”
8619 Fol. 135v begins after ܠܢ, not before it, and the information
given in n. 1 is usually conveyed by printing ܒـ[ـܝܕܥـ]ـܬܐ in the text, not “Reading for ܬܐ***ܒ” in a note.
88ult After ܗܘܼܬ and before ܒܫܡܝܐ belong the words: ܠܗ̇ ܓܝܪ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܐܡܐ ܠܐܠܗܐ ܡܠܬܐ ܒܨܒܝܢܗ. ܠܗ ܕܟܝܢܐܝܬ
ܐܡܐ, correctly transcribed by the editors, but
unintentionally transported to 90, line 1f.
902 After ܕܟܝܢܐܝܬ and before ܡܘܕܐ
belong the words: ܝܠܼܕܬ ܠܐܠܗܐ ܡܠܬܐܼ. ܠܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ
ܕܫܦܝܪ ܠܐ
ܐ̇ܡܪܼ. ܐܠܐܼ ܕܐܦ ܒܝܫܐܝܬ, correctly
transcribed by the editors, except for the omission of the diacritical
point under ܝܠܼܕܬ and the mark of
emphasis under the last letter of ܐܠܐܼ, but unintentionally transported to line 3f. of the same
page.
909,10 The first letter of ܕܝܘܚܢܢ and the last of ܖ̈ܚܡܼܘܗܝ are illegible in Add. 14,652 and
so should be placed between square brackets.
922 Fol. 138v begins before ܡܢ ܟܝܢܗ ܕܐܒܐ, not after this phrase.
926 The editors print ܒܨܝܪܘܬܗ, but the MS has ܒܨܝܪܘܬܐ.
927 The editors print ܦܓܪܗ and fail to note that this has been corrected,
perhaps by a later hand, to ܒܦܓܪܗ in
the MS.
928 The last word in this line with the
punctuation-mark which follows it (ܓܠܝܢ܆) must be deleted.
92ult The first letter of ܣܛܢܐ should be placed between square
brackets. Instead of printing ܀ thirteen times at the end of this line
to indicate letters missing, asterisks ought to have been used.
Phenix and Horn do not mention that a later reader
interpreted the now illegible traces in the last line of fol. 138v as
ܘܩܡ ܘܣܠܩ.