Hubert Kaufhold, Ebedjesus von Nisibis,
„Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum”. Eine Zusammenstellung der kirchlichen
Rechtsbestimmungen der ostsyrischen Kirche im 14. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2019)
Matthias
Perkams
Universität Jena
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2023
Volume 26.2
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/hv26n2brperkams
Matthias Perkams
Hubert Kaufhold, Ebedjesus von Nisibis,
„Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum”. Eine Zusammenstellung der kirchlichen
Rechtsbestimmungen der ostsyrischen Kirche im 14. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2019)
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol26/HV26N2BRPerkams.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2023
vol 26
issue 2
pp 565-567
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
Hubert Kaufhold, Ebedjesus von Nisibis,
„Ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum”. Eine Zusammenstellung der kirchlichen
Rechtsbestimmungen der ostsyrischen Kirche im 14. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2019). Pp. xxiv + 628; €118.
This volume offers the first critical edition of an
important part of Syriac (ecclesiatico-)juridical literature, the penqīṯā ḏ-ṭukkās dīnē ʿettānāyē by the East Syriac author ʿAbdīšōʿ bar
Briḵā (d. 1318 AD). Kaufhold discusses the exact meaning of this title and proposes
“Band (πινακίδιον) der Zusammenstellung der kirchlichen Rechtsbestimmungen” (volume
of compilation of the ecclesiastical legal regulations; pp. 10*-12*). Thus, Kaufhold
rejects the translation of dīnē as “judgments,” even if the
book’s title retains the traditional Latin translation
as ordo iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum,
which obviously conveys exactly this meaning. In his rich introduction, Kaufhold
also summarizes the content of the work, which somewhat differs from its more famous
precursor, the Nomocanon, also compiled by ʿAbdīšōʿ. Whereas
according to Kaufhold this earlier work builds upon the previous East Syrian
juridical literature which can be traced back to the Nomocanon of Gabriel of Basra, the Ordo iudiciorum
ecclesiasticorum presents the subject matter in a new order, designed by
ʿAbdīšōʿ, and contains much material that is not of a juridical nature strictly
speaking. This is especially true for the first book where, for example, a
chronological overview can be found. For this reason, Kaufhold describes the work
rather as a “Handbuch für höhere Kleriker” (handbook for the higher clergy) than as
a juridical manual.
Kaufhold’s edition, which has long been in preparation, could
now be finished thanks to the availability of two copies from a lost manuscript
dating from 1535 (which Addai Scher saw in 1902 in the library of Notre Dame des
Semences, but which was reported as missing already in 1926/1927 when Jacques Vosté
visited this monastery). Digital images of two copies of this now lost manuscript
are available in the HMML collection. One of these (Zakho 28) does indeed appear to
be a direct copy of the 1535 manuscript, whereas the other manuscript, Bagdad,
Chaldean Monastery 518, might be separated by one intermediate from its Vorlage. Both have been copied in 1885, one of them in Seert,
the other one in Alqōš, from where their model was later transferred to Notre Dame
des Semences. It is unclear if the 1535 codex was kept in Seert before coming to
Notre Dame des Semences. In any case, according to Kaufhold, both manuscripts, Zakho
28 and Bagdad 518, can be considered as independent descendants of the 1535
manuscript, which in turn might be a copy of the author’s autograph. Thus they
allow, in spite of minor errors and differences, the reconstruction of a more
correct and complete text than all other manuscripts as well as the Latin
translation by Vosté. Other manuscripts are mostly not mentioned in the critical
apparatus, except for deviations of the Vosté translation and the witnesses of the
rather restricted indirect tradition of certain parts of ʿAbdīšōʿs work. Thus, from
now on Kaufhold’s edition should serve as the basis of all further research and of
any quotations of our text which do not go back directly to the manuscripts.
The new edition offers ample evidence of Kaufhold’s extensive
research on the sources of ʿAbdīšōʿs handbook. Apart from ʿAbdīšōʿs own earlier Nomocanon, these sources include various documents of
juridical nature. Especially interesting is the case of the Copto-Arabic juridical
handbook by Ibn al-ʿAssāl, which ʿAbdīšōʿ might have consulted in Arabic
translation. In the vast majority of instances, Kaufhold succeeds in identifying the
sources, so that his edition should be consulted for any questions in this
regard.
Kaufhold’s edition not only closes an important gap in the
editorial situation of Syriac juridical literature, but his work also offers many
important insights into the history, the literary form, and the sources of the text
in question. It should be part of any library specialized in Syriac studies.