The Arabic Life of John the Merciful and its relationship with
the Syriac version and the Greek text
Guido
Venturini
Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia
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/hv26n2venturini
Guido Venturini
The Arabic Life of John the Merciful and its relationship
with the Syriac version and the Greek text
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol26/HV26N2Venturini.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2023
vol 26
issue 2
pp 467-532
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.
Hagiography
John the Merciful
Translation
Transmission
Arabic
File created by James E. Walters
Introduction
The study of the Arabic version of the Life of
John the Merciful, originally written in Greek by the Byzantine
hagiographer Leontios of Neapolis towards the middle of the 7th century, offers the opportunity for an overall
reconsideration of the entire manuscript tradition of the work. The importance
of the Arabic Life in the history of the transmission of
Leontios’ hagiography is primarily connected to its central position among the
oriental versions (including Syriac and Georgian), the Greek original, and the
medieval translations into Latin. This contribution aims to clarify the origin
of the Arabic version (from Greek or Syriac). It offers a definitive
clarification of the mutual relationship between the ancient translations of the
Life of John the Merciful. After outlining the status quaestionis and the latest advancements on the
topic, the article will study the Arabic version from an ecdotic point of view.
By focusing on the most relevant loci critici of the
work, the author will show the close connection between the Arabic, Syriac, and
Latin versions. Excluding their common dependence on a lost Greek Vorlage, the author will provide evidence of the direct
relationship between Arabic and Latin on the one hand, and between Syriac and
Arabic on the other. Finally, the Arabic text will be studied as an indirect
witness of the Syriac manuscript tradition by comparing it with the multiple
forms of the Syriac version.
The studies on the Life’s manuscript tradition in the last ten years
The research on the hagiographic masterpiece of Leontios of
Neapolis, the Life of John the Merciful, has made
considerable advances in the last decade. Scholars have attended to both the
history of the Greek text and its ancient translations, which also offer helpful
evidence for reconstructing the original. The importance of the ancient translations for
reconstructing the Greek original has rekindled the debate on this
hagiographic work and was the starting point of my research. For the
ancient versions of the Life of John the
Merciful, cf. Déroche, Études sur Léontios,
p. 39-43. For the relationship between the Greek text and the Syriac
version, cf. Venturini, Quale modello greco?, p.
375-380.
The Greek text
The Greek tradition of the Life has
received noteworthy attention from the group led by P. A. Cavallero at the
University of Buenos Aires. He has dedicated the last fifteen years to the
literary production of Leontios of Neapolis. In addition to the Spanish
edition of the Life, Cavallero, Vida de Juan
el limosnero. The work of Cavallero improves Festugière’s
edition, with a new proposal of stemma
codicum and the contribution of the “abridged versions” of
the Greek text. It also provides an in-depth stylistic and
linguistic study and a Spanish translation. which has
substantially improved the edition of A. J. Festugière, Festugière, Vie de Syméon
le Fou. these developments include studies of the
multiple versions of the Greek text. For the relationship between the abridged
versions and the original text, cf. Cavallero—Fernández, La Vida de Juan. A specific study of an
extract from the Life, the Story of Peter the Tax Collector, clarifies the
relationship between this edifying tale and the primary source, cf.
Cavallero, Leoncio de Neápolis y los relatos.
Recently the so-called “selective version” has also been published,
cf. Cavallero—Gutiérrez—Fuentes, El texto
‘selectivo’ de la versión ‘corta’. The study of the “mixed
version” and the “uncertain version” is still in progress, and an
edition of both is being prepared. Cavallero’s group is
also studying the fragments and the unedited recensions of the Life and is working on a new critical edition, which
will be published soon. This edition will consider a new collation of the
Greek manuscripts, the Syriac version, and the Latin versions.
Leoncio de Neápolis, Vida de Juan. The new
critical edition will primarily consider the essential contribution
of the Syriac version. I worked on a systematic comparison of the
Syriac version with the Greek (and its variants) in the summer of
2018, during my research stay at the University of Buenos Aires. I
am grateful to Professor Cavallero for sharing the results of his
new collation with me at that time.
The Latin version (BHL 4392)
Regarding the ancient translations of the Life, many discoveries have been added to the information
collected in the study of V. Déroche, which provided scholars with important
starting points for studying the Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions. Leontios’ work
circulated widely both in the Christian East and in the Latin West,
as is clear from the large number translations: three in Latin and
one each respectively in Syriac, Arabic, Georgian and Slavic, cf.
Déroche, Études sur Léontios, p. 37-39.
Déroche considered the Syriac version to preserve an ancient form of
the Greek text: his theory was based on the analysis of Bedjan's
edition, which is extremely deficient from an ecdotic point of view,
especially in the part of the prologue which was examined by
Déroche, cf. Venturini, Nuove considerazioni,
p. 78-79. In his work, Déroche clarifies the dependence of
Anastasius’ Latin translation on the “short version” of the Greek
text, and of the other two Latin translations on the “long version”,
Déroche, Études sur Léontios, p. 73-75 and
42-43. Concerning the Arabic version, Déroche does not say whether
it derives from Greek or Syriac; he does, however, provide to the
reader with important data for a first approach to the text, cf. infra. The critical edition of the
anonymous Latin version known as BHL 4392 has recently been published, which
had remained the only unedited version after the one by John of Amalfi. Chiesa, Vita e morte di Giovanni Calibita e Giovanni
l'Elemosiniere. The relationship of the Amalfitan version
with the Greek text is being studied in the University of Buenos
Aires. My opinion about the ecdotic position of this translation is
exposed infra. The edition
provides a text of extreme interest because of its significant affinities
with the Syriac version. Cf. infra.
The Syriac version
In 2020, I published a new critical edition of the Syriac
version, using recensions, manuscripts, and indirect witnesses unknown to P.
Bedjan, who had published the text for the first time. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum, p. 303-395. This edition details
the manuscript tradition, a stemma codicum, and an
Italian translation. Venturini, La versione
siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679). The
main improvement of the new edition is due to the contribution of
the so-called versio syra minor (manuscript
Paris BnF Syr. 234), of the manuscript Dayr Mar Mattay, ms. 142
(27), and of an unedited fragment found in Sinai Syr. 24, cf. infra. More recently, I published
other studies on the subject: a critical edition of all the existing
recensions of the Syriac text, with an explanation of their mutual relation;
a study of the ecdotic link between the Syriac version and the Greek
manuscript tradition; and a study of the contribution that the Syriac
provides to the reconstruction of the Greek original. Venturini, La leggenda di Pietro il Pubblicano;
Venturini, La versio syra minor. My proposal
of a tripartite stemma suggests the
substantial contribution of the Syriac version for a new edition of
the Greek text: when the two main branches of the Greek tradition
disagree, the preference must be given to the one which agrees with
Syriac, cf. Venturini, Quale modello greco?,
p. 378-380.
The Arabic version
New data concerning the Arabic version of the Life have emerged recently. The Arabic version, which is almost
entirely unedited, The only available parts of the text are the
extracts from the Annals of Eutychius of
Alexandria, published by Breydy, Das Annalenwerk
(CSCO 471), p. 119-121.
has been recently studied by André Binggeli, who in 2019 presented his work
in Leuven at a conference dedicated to the Lavra of Mar Saba. The study,
which will be published soon in the Proceedings of the conference, considers
cases of several hagiographical works with a tradition in Arabic and Syriac,
among which is the Life of John the Merciful. Binggeli, Writing in Syriac
[forthcoming]. I thank André
Binggeli for giving me the opportunity to read his unedited
contribution, which was essential for the development of this
study.
The Arabic version of the Life: status quaestionis
Breydy’s remarks on three excerpts of the Arabic version
The Arabic version of the Life of John the
Merciful, preserved in several manuscripts of different eras, A list is
provided by Graf, Geschichte der
christlichen, p. 409, who does not mention two ancient Sinaitic
witnesses, Sinai Ar. 428 [late 9th
century] and Sinai Ar. 431 [10th
century], cf. Binggeli, Writing in Syriac, n.
117. is still inaccessible to scholars who do not read
Arabic. An exception regards the three excerpts quoted in the Annals of Eutychius, edited and translated into
German by M. Breydy, reproducing the content of chapters 6, 18, and 45 of
the Life. Breydy, Das Annalenwerk
(CSCO 471), p. 119-121. The use in
the Annals of material coming from the Life of John the Merciful helps to fix the
epoch of the Arabic translation before 935. Breydy’s theory that
Eutychius knew the Life in Arabic translation
is confirmed by the peculiar form of a chapter XVIII, cf. infra. Breydy observed that the
source of Eutychius must have been a Sinaitic copy of the Arabic Life: the three excerpts preserve a high-quality
text, reproducing more accurately the Greek than the Arabic manuscripts
copied in Mar Saba do. Breydy, Études sur Sai’id Ibn Batriq, p.
17-18. Apart from the ecdotic relationship between the
Annals and the Life of John the
Merciful, The problem involves the relationship between
the two recensions of the Annals, cf. Ebeid,
Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq and Conterno, The recensions of Eutychius. it is
noteworthy that Breydy had already realized the significant differences,
even in the earliest manuscripts, between the Greek text and the Arabic
version “réalisée dans les milieux melchites palestiniens,
qui prétend traduire directement d'un original grec, mais dont la
correction stylistique laisse beaucoup à desirer. Breydy, Études sur Sai’id Ibn Batriq, p. 18, n. 17. The scholar
refers here to the colophon of the earliest Arabic witness, Sinai
Ar. 428, which informs that the Life of John the
Merciful has been translated into Arabic directly from
Greek, cf. Blau, Über einige alte, p.
370.
The study of Vincent Déroche
In his monograph on Leontios of Neapolis, V. Déroche
highlighted the most relevant data provided by Breydy's study. First, he
remarked that the earliest manuscripts, such as the Syriac version,
presented the story in 48 chapters. Déroche, Études sur
Léontios, p. 41, n. 15. Secondly, the Arabic
version indirectly reflects the Greek text's longer and more complete
recension, the so-called Vie Longue. Déroche
comes to this conclusion by comparing the content of chapters 6, 18,
and 45 (numeration of Sinai Ar. 428) to their counterparts in the
text edited by Festugière, Vie de Syméon le
Fou. Moreover, due to insufficient evidence,
Déroche does not take a position on the Greek or Syriac derivation of the
Arabic version. Déroche, Études sur
Léontios, p. 38, n. 7.
Affinities between Greek, Syriac, and Arabic in one of Breydy’s
extracts
In the preface of my edition of the Syriac version, I inform
the reader that the Arabic version —in the form preserved by the Annals of Eutychius, the only text accessible to me
at that time— preserves original details of the Greek, which are absent in
the Syriac text. Venturini, La versione siriaca della Vita
(CSCO 679), p. XXVIII. In the same paragraph, I suggest
that the Arabic and the Syriac versions may depend on the same branch,
considering the subdivision of the work into 48 chapters, which is certainly
not original. Venturini, La versione siriaca della Vita
(CSCO 679), p. XXIX. These two remarks were based on the
analysis of a passage that the Annals had taken from
chapter XVIII of Life of John the Merciful,
containing the list of provisions sent by the Patriarch to Modestus of
Jerusalem, who was rebuilding the city after its destruction by the Persians
in 614.
Festugière, Vie de Syméon le Fou, p.
366. On the one hand, the correct translation in Arabic of
the term μαινομένη, “dried fish”, absent in Syriac, seems to support the
translator’s direct knowledge of the Greek original; on the other hand, the
order of the provisions is different in the Greek text compared to the
Syriac and Arabic versions, The “thousand pounds of iron” are mentioned in
the sixth position both in Syriac (ܘܠܝܛܪ̈ܐ ܐܠܦܐ ܕܦܪܙܠܐ, cf.
Venturini, La versione siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679), p. 46) and in Arabic (والف رطل
حديد, cf. Breydy, Das Annalenwerk (CSCO 471), p. 121), in the fourth
position in Greek, (χιλίας λίτρας σιδήρου, cf. Festugière,
Vie de Syméon le Fou, p. 366).
suggesting a close link between the two latter. Venturini, La versione siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679), p. XXIX, n. 60. Without
directly examining the Arabic manuscripts, I did not take a position on the
Greek or Syriac model of the Arabic translation, just stating that Syriac
and Arabic belong to the same branch of the manuscript tradition. In theory,
it could not be excluded that the Arabic version was translated from a Greek
model similar to the one used by the Syriac translator.
Two new hypotheses on the Arabic Life’s origin
The recent analysis of the Arabic version by André Binggeli,
based on the earliest manuscripts (Sinai Ar. 428 and Sinai Ar. 431),
convincingly demonstrates a close relationship between Syriac and Arabic
versions. First, Binggeli provides a table showing the almost perfect
correspondence between the chapter numbering in Syriac and Arabic: the
Arabic version has the same omissions and reorganization of chapters we find
in Syriac.
Binggeli, Writing in Syriac
[forthcoming]. He then offers a table that compares
pieces from the last chapter: the Arabic version presents the same
omissions, additions, and reformulations that distinguish the Syriac version
from the Greek original. The author highlights that the manuscript
Sinai Ar. 428 reproduces even the calque from Syriac of the name of
Alexandria, instead of its Arabic counterpart, cf. ibid. The Arabic version is much more condensed
than the Greek text: it follows the Syriac (almost ad
verbum) in its drastic reduction of rhetorical and descriptive
sections. In conclusion, Arabic and Syriac create a different narrative
fabric from the one conceived by Leontios of Neapolis. Nevertheless, the
Arabic version keeps one original detail of the Greek which is not present
in Syriac: the mention of orphans and widows, which could reveal a direct
knowledge of the Greek original. Binggeli concludes by formulating two
alternative hypotheses: a) Syriac and Arabic were translated from the same
lost Greek model; b) the Arabic version was translated from Syriac and
eventually revised according to the Greek original. To support the claim
that the Arabic translator knew the Greek original, Binggeli adduces the
colophon of Sinai Ar. 428, which informs that the Life of
John the Merciful has been translated from Greek (rūmī) into Arabic at Mar Saba. Blau, Über einige
alte, p. 370. He parallels the Martyrdom of the
Forty Monks of Sinai and Raithu, a hagiographic text translated from Syriac
into Arabic and later revised according to the Greek original, as A. Treiger
convincingly demonstrated.Treiger, The Earliest Dated Christian Arabic
Translation, p. 32-34.
In my analysis of the Arabic manuscripts, made possible thanks
to a collaboration with Bishara Ebeid, I have found many other agreements
with the Syriac version against the Greek original. Since I am not a
specialist in Arabic language, I developed my research [workflow?]
as follows. First of all, I examined some Garshuni manuscripts,
easier to read, looking for the crucial loci
of the Syriac version. I consulted two manuscripts, both late but
well conserved: Vatican Syr. 202, f. 1r-52v [1672 A. D.] and Dayr
Mar Mattay, ms. 138, f. 106r-122r [n. d.]. After this preliminary
phase, I studied the detected passages with Bishara Ebeid, my
colleague in Venice. After translating it, Bishara compared the
Garshuni text to that of the oldest Arabic manuscript, Sinai Ar.
428, to register the variants. In this way, we made sure that the
Garshuni manuscripts do not reflect a different version from that
preserved in the Sinaitic sources. After that, I transcribed the
selected passages from Vatican Syr. 202, registering the variants in
the footnotes. I am infinitely grateful to Bishara Ebeid for his
help, without which this contribution would have never seen the
light of day. The content of Vatican Syr. 202 has been descripted by
Assemani, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae,
p. 458-484, who observes that the work is divided in 50 small
chapters. He also transcribes and translates some pieces, including
the note at f. 52v, which informs about the place and the date of
the copy (Aleppo, 14th October 1672),
cf. ibid., p. 458-459. A description of Dayr
Mar Mattay, ms. 138 can be found in Al-Shamani, Fahâris al-makhtûtât, p. 95. I mention here,
for example the number of poor people in Alexandria, 8500 instead of 7500
(Festugière, 348.39; Venturini, 7.1-2); the last sentence of chapter VII,
which was not part of the Greek original (Festugière, 353, 19; Venturini,
20.7-8); the different ending of chapter VIII (Festugière, 354, 79-85;
Venturini, 24.16-25.10); the peculiar conclusion of chapter XIX and
beginning of chapter XX (Festugière, 368.2-6; Venturini, 50.7-13); the price
of a slave, thirty coins instead of fifty coins (Festugière, 370, 114;
Venturini, 55.8); and the suppression of the chapters concerning the
heretics in Alexandria. Cf. infra. On this
problem, see also Binggeli, Writing in Syriac
[forthcoming] and Venturini, Quale modello
greco?, p. 381.
I will go back to the two hypotheses above: do these
innovations point to a Greek common ancestor, or do they directly reflect
the Syriac text? I will extend my view to the whole manuscript tradition of
the Life of John the Merciful, looking for other
helpful data.
The lost Greek Vorlage: an unnecessary theory
The Latin version BHL 4392: peculiarities and common features to
the Syriac version
The possible dependence of Arabic and Syriac on a common Greek
model was suggested by the discovery of the surprising features of the
anonymous Latin version known as BHL 4392.
Bibliotheca hagiographica latina
, p. 650.
The text is transmitted by a single manuscript, Paris BnF Lat.
3820, f. 166vb-175ra [14
th
century], which has been recently published by
Bohdziewicz-Warburg,
Vita beati
Iohannis
, p. 308-323. For the general content of the
manuscript, cf. Thomas, Catalogue général
des manuscrits, p. 412-413. This late
translation, whose origin is still unknown, A suggestion will be proposed later, cf.
infra. For a description of the content
and the cultural context of the manuscript, cf. Bohdziewicz-Warburg,
Vita beati Iohannis, p. 305.
reproduces almost all the loci in which the Syriac
version differs from the Greek original (including those common to the
Arabic version, listed above). As it is challenging to assume a direct
relationship between Syriac and Latin, I first supposed that the two
versions depended on the same lost Greek model Venturini, La versione
siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679), p. XXVII.. I did not
exclude that this unknown recension might have been the common model of the
Syriac, Latin, Arabic, and Georgian versions. Venturini, La versione
siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679), p. XXIX. I was motivated to study
this version by V. Déroche, who correctly assumed that the Latin
text reflects the Vie Longue and noted a
possible concordance with the Syriac text at the end of chapter
VIII, cf. Déroche, Études sur Léontios, p.
40-42. I was able to develop my research thanks to S. Bohdiewicz,
who kindly shared with me, at the time of my PhD thesis, the drafts
of her unpublished transcription.
The Latin version offers a complete reinterpretation of the
structure of the saint's biography, achieved through a new ordering of the
chapters, which remains without any parallel in the manuscript tradition.
The chapters are arranged in the following order (reference is made to
Festugière’s numeration): 6 (1st part)+47,
16+46, 45, 4+5, 2, 3, 1, 10, 9, 6 (2nd part), 8,
27, 18, 20+21, 22, 23, 38, 19, 40, 51, 11, 24, 25, 7, 31, 35, 30+32,
12.
Despite this radical rearrangement, traces of a previous
reorganization are still surviving, which reflect the Syriac-Arabic
structure. Noteworthy is the fusion of chapters 4-5, 20-21, 30-32
(with the displacement of chapter 31). The only chapters which
remain in their original position are number 5 and 19. For the
correspondence of the chapters’ order in the three versions, cf.
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, Vita beati Iohannis, p.
342; Venturini, La versione siriaca della
Vita (CSCO 680), p. XXIII-XIV;
Binggeli, Writing in Syriac
[forthcoming]. The rhetorical sections are suppressed, as
any other author’s digression. Bohdziewicz-Warburg, Vita
beati Iohannis, p. 307. The Latin even includes
some new episodes, such as the account of John’s youth and a lengthy excursus concerning the story of Epiphanius, which is
not reproduced by any other version of the work. Bohdziewicz-Warburg, Vita beati Iohannis, p. 334-335, n.
XXIII. The ending is absent, including the account of the
patriarch’s death, a possible consequence of physical damage to the
antigraph. Déroche, Études sur
Léontios, p. 42. As in Syriac, the “doctrinal
chapters” have disappeared, albeit with many others (30% of the original
chapters is missing). In addition to these elements, which suggest that we
are dealing with a late and inaccurate translation, we find a long list of
agreements with Syriac against the Greek original, which I provide
below.
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 310, chap. 8, §7: Fuitque descriptorum numerus octo milia quingenti
Venturini, 7.1-2: ܗ̇ܘܐ ܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ ܡܢܝܢܗܘܢ
ܝܬܝܪ ܡܢ ܬܡܢܝܐ ܐܠܦܝ̈ܢ ܘܚܡܫܡܐܐ
Festugière, 348.39: πλείους δὲ ἦσαν τῶν ἑπτὰ ἥμισυ χιλιάδων
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 309, chap. 6, §2: Mensura et
mensura, pondus et pondus abhominabilia sunt apud Deum
Venturini, 9.3-4: ܕܣܢܐ ܐܠܗܐ
Festugière, 348, 25: στάθμιον μέγα καὶ μικρὸν ἐμίσησεν
ὁ θεός
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 312, chap. 12, §28-30: Super quo gratias egerunt altissimo ac sic ulterius
prospere nauigantes uenerunt Alexandriam. Et narratis omnibus que
fuerant gesta sancto patriarche, optulit ei argentum memoratum. Qui
totum respuens uniuersa cum uase ipso donauit mercatori.
Venturini, 24.16-25.10: ܘܝܗܒܘ ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܠܐܠܗܐ . ܗ̇ܘ
ܕܥܒܕ ܨܒܝܢܐ ܕܕܚܠܘ̈ܗܝ ܀ ܘܗܘܐ ܕܟܕ ܐܬܡ̇ܢܥܘ ܠܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܝܐ . ܣܠܩ ܡܠܚܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܠܘܬ
ܝܘܚܢܢ ܪܝܫ ܐܦܝܣ̈ܩܘܦܐ . ܘܐܫܬ̇ܥܝ ܠܗ ܒܗ̇ܘ ܡܕܡ ܕܛܝܒ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܒܐܘܪܚܗܘܢ .
ܘܐܦܝܣܗ ܕܢܣܒ ܡܢܗ ܗ̇ܘ ܡܕܡ ܕܝܗܒ ܠܗ . ܘܠܐ ܨܒܐ ܛܘܒܢܐ ܕܢܣܒ ܡܢܗ ܡܕܡ . ܐܠܐ ܐܡܪ
ܠܗ . ܒܪܝ . ܗ̇ܘ ܡܕܡ ܕܢܣܒܬ ܡܢܢ . ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ . ܘܗܫܐ ܙܠ ܗܘܝܬ ܡܬܥܗܕ ܠܡܣ̈ܟܢܐ
. ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܢܫܪܬܚ ܠܟ ܡܪܢ ܡܢ ܓܙܘ̈ܗܝ ܕܠܐ ܡܘܦܝܢ . ܘܐܙܠ ܓܒܪܐ ܡܢ ܠܘܬܗ . ܟܕ ܡܫ̇ܒܚ
ܠܐܠܗܐ . ܘܡܩ̇ܠܣ ܠܛܘܒܢܐ . ܘܥ̇ܒܕ ܗܘܐ ܐܡܝܢܐܝܬ ܙܕܩ̈ܬܐ . ܘܐܠܗܐ ܡܫܪܬܚ ܗܘܐ ܒܝܬ
ܐܝܕܘ̈ܗܝ ܐܡܝܢܐܝܬ ܟܠ ܝܘ̈ܡܝ ܚܝܘ̈ܗܝ .
Festugière, 354, 79-85: Καὶ οὐ θαῦμα, ὦ φιλόχριστοι. ὁ
γὰρ τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους πληθύνας καὶ πάλιν τὸ ὕδωρ Αἰγύπτου εἰς αἷμα
μεταποιήσας καὶ τὴν ῥάβδον εἰς ὄφιν μετασχηματίσας καὶ τὴν φλόγα εἰς
δρόσον μετενέγκας ἀκαμάτως, καὶ τοῦτο τὸ παράδοξον ἐποίησεν ἵνα καὶ τὸν
ἑαυτοῦ θεράποντα πλουτίσῃ καὶ τὸν ναύκληρον ἐλεήσῃ.
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 310, chap. 9, §14: scias in omnibus aliis amphoris mel huic simile contineri.
Venturini, 31.1-2: ܕܟܠܗܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܩܘ̈ܠܐ
ܕܚܙܝܬ . ܗܟܢܐ ܡ̈ܠܝܢ ܡܢܗ ܕܗܢܐ
ܕܒܫܐ
Festugière, 357, 45-46: «Ὅλα τὰ ἐθεάσω ἀνερχόμενα
χρήματα ἀντὶ μέλιτος γέμουσιν»
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 313, chap. 14, §1. The “thousand pounds
of iron” (mille rotas ferri) are mentionned in the
sixth position of the list sent by John to Modestus, as in Syriac (cf.
Venturini, 46.4-7)
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 318, chap. 19, §14: uidebimus quis preualebit
Venturini, 49.11-12:ܡ̇ܢ
ܙ̇ܟܐ ܢܚܙܐ
Festugière, 367, 64: Ἴδωμεν τίς περικακεῖ
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 314, chap. 15, §39: precio bisantiorum triginta
Venturini, 55.8: ܛܝܡܘ̈ܗܝ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܕܝܢܪ̈ܐ
Festugière, 370, 114: νομισμάτων πεντήκοντα
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 315, chap. 15, §70: et qui audierunt hec, glorificauerunt Deum. Amen.
Venturini, 58.12-13:ܠܐܠܗܐ
ܫܘܒܚܐ . ܘܥܠܝܢ ܪ̈ܚܡܘܗܝ ܠܥܠܡܝܢ . ܐܡܝܢ
Festugière, 371.180: om.
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 318, chap. 19, §27: Narrauit similiter eidem diuiti exemplum de quodam seruiente quem olim
habuerat in Cypro dicente sibi: «Quotiens hylariter largior et
habundanter pauperibus, habundant et uestra, et si quando parce,
minorantur et uestra».
Venturini, 50.7-13: ܬܘܒ ܬܚܘܝܬܐ . ܕܢܩܦܐ
ܘܠܚܡܐ ܠܫܪܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܩܕܝܡ ܣܝܡ . ܡܫܬܥܐ ܗܘܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܐܡܪ ܗܟܢܐ . ܕܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ
ܠܝ ܠܡ ܐܢܫ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܥܠ ܒܝܬ ܡܕܝ̈ܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܒܩܘܦܪܘܣ . ܘܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܒܬܘܠܐ ܘܢܟܦܐ
ܟܠܗܘܢ ܝܘ̈ܡܬܗ . ܘܟܠ ܟܡܐ ܕܝܗܒ ܗܘܐ ܒܠܒܐ ܛܒܐ . ܝܬܝܪ ܡܬܒܪܟ ܗܘܐ ܘܣܓܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܡܐ
ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܒܝܬ ܐܝܕܘ̈ܗܝ . ܘܡܐ ܕܒܚܘܣܟܐ ܝܗܒ ܗܘܐ . ܚܣܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ
.
Festugière, 368.2-6: Ἄξιον δὲ καὶ
ἁρμόζον τῷ προειρημένῳ κεφαλαίῳ ἐξηγεῖτο ἐν μιᾷ ἐπὶ πάντων ὁ ὅσιος.
Εἶχον γάρ, φησί, τινα παραμονήτην ἐν Κύπρῳ εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀποθήκην, πιστὸν
πάνυ καὶ παρθένον ἕως τελευτῆς. καὶ ἐξηγεῖτό μοι μεθ’ ὅρκων ὅτι∙ «Ἐν
Ἀφρικῇ ἐμοῦ ὄντος [follows the Story of
Peter the Tax Collector]
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 315, chap. 17, §3: precepit eos capi et separatim carceri mancipari
Venturini, 61.6-7: ܘܦܩܕ ܛܘܒܢܐ ܕܢܬܠܒܟܘܢ
ܘܢܬܦܪܫܘܢ ܡܢ ܚܕܕ̈ܐ
Festugière, 373, 17-18: ἐπέτρεψεν τὴν
μὲν γυναῖκα πτερνισθῆναι καὶ ἀποχωρισθῆναι ἐξ αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸν δὲ λωρισθῆναι
καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν ἰδιάζουσαν ἀποκλεισθῆναι
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 308,
chap. 2, §8: disparuit
Venturini, 61.12: ܐܬܓܢܙ
Festugière, 373, 25: ἀνεχώρησεν
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 315, chap. 17, §21: gratias agebat deo
Venturini, 63.10: ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܗ
ܠܐܠܗܐ
Festugière, 375, 91: βαβαῖ
Festugière, 375. 1: chap. XXIV = On the utility of the prayers
for the dead + Story of a prisoner in Persia
Venturini, 65: chap. XXIII = On the utility of the prayers for
the dead; chap. XXIV = Story of a prisoner in Persia Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p.
320: chap. XXIII = Story of a prisoner in Persia
Festugière, 381-382: chap. XXX = A ruler procrastinates a loan;
chap. XXXII = Punishment of the ruler
Venturini, 79-81: chap. XXIX = A ruler procrastinates a loan + Punishment of
the ruler
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 322: chap. XXVIII = A ruler procrastinates a loan +
Punishment of the ruler
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 322, chap. 28, §1: Eo
tempore erat in partibus Alexandrie uir quidam habens casale ualde
bonum, sed fructum non fecerat domino suo solitum
propter siccitatem et aque penuriam.
Venturini, 79.2-4:ܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܒܢ̈ܝ ܐܬܪܐ ܐܝܬ
ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܦܪܣܛܝܘܢ ܪܒܬܐ ܘܐܬܠܒܟ ܒܕܝܡܘܣܝܐ ܕܩܪܝܬܗ . ܗ̇ܝ ܕܒܫܢܬܐ ܗ̇ܝ ܡܕܡ ܠܐ ܐܥܠܬ
ܠܗ ܡܢ ܥܠܠܬܐ . ܒܝܕ ܒܨܝܪܘܬ ܡ̈ܝܐ.
Festugière, 381, 1-3: Ἄλλοτε δὲ ἄλλος ἐπειγόμενος ὑπὸ
τῶν τὰ δημόσια εἰσπραττόντων καὶ μὴ εὐπορῶν ἀποδοῦναι—ἦν γὰρ ἀστοχήσασα
ἡ χώρα διὰ τὴν λειψυδρίαν τοῦ Νείλου—
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 316, chap. 18, §9-10: Et sic per
diem sequentem laborans, ad aliam meretricem per noctem similiter
declinabat. Et sic diebus singulis apud singulas similia faciens
circuibat.
Venturini, 88.1-5: ܘܐ̇ܙܠ ܗܘܐ ܠܥܒ̇ܕܗ ܘܠܦܘܠܚܢܗ ܀ ܘܗܟܢܐ
ܥ̇ܒܕ ܗܘܐ ܟܠܝܘܡܐ . ܟܕ ܐ̇ܙܠ ܠܘܬ ܚܕܐ ܚܕܐ ܡܢܗܝܢ ܟܠ ܠܠܝܐ . ܘܝ̇ܗܒ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ̇ ܐܓܪܗ
. ܘܡܢ̇ܛܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ̇ ܡܢ ܚܛܝܬܐ . ܟܕ ܡܘܡܐ ܠܗܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܢܘ̈ܕܥܢ ܠܐܢܫ
ܣܘܥܪܢܗ
Festugière, 387, 20: om.
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 317, chap. 18, §44: et suffocans
ipsum
Venturini, 91.12-13: ܘܫܪܝ ܚܢܩ ܠܗ
Festugière, 390, 143-144: καὶ διέρρηξεν
αὐτόν
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 318, chap. 20, §5: duro fueram
corde
Venturini, 95.13: ܩܫܐ ܠܒܐ
Festugière, 392, 19: ἄσπλαγχνος καὶ
ἀσυμπαθής
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 318, chap. 20, §9: largiri
Venturini, 96.6-7: ܘܬܘܒ ܝܗܒ ܗܘܐ
Festugière, 392, 32: κλέπτειν
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 318, chap. 20, §10: tres dragmas
Venturini, 96.8: ܡܬܩ̈ܠܐ ܬܠܬܐ
Festugière, 392, 33: τριμίσια
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 309, chap. 4, §1: ciues
alexandrini
Venturini, 103.2: ܠܒܢ̈ܝ ܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܝܐ
Festugière, 397, 2: τοὺς πολλούς
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 319, chap. 21, §4: qui et peritior
et magis intentus operi
Venturini, 110.14-15:ܟܕ ܐܡܝܢ ܐܢܐ ܒܦܘܠܚܢܐ ܘܐܘܡܢ ܐܢܐ
Festugière, 401, 10: κἀγὼ πλέον σου
σχολάζων
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 319, chap. 21, §7: meis acquiesce consiliis
Venturini, 111.2: ܬܫܡܥ
ܒܩܠܝ
Festugière, 402.15: om.
Although the agreement between Syriac and Latin is not always
literal, it is undeniable that they preserve a significant number of common
variants, which are absent in the huge manuscript tradition of the Greek
text. Moreover, the other two Latin versions, respectively of Anastasius and
John of Amalfi, do not have any ecdotic connection with the anonymous
version. While the first one reflects the so-called Vie
courte Déroche, Études sur
Léontios, p. 73-74., the “Amalfitan version”
seems to depend on the same branch of manuscript Vat.
gr. 1669. There are no studies on this problem, except
for the observation of Déroche, Études sur
Léontios, p. 42, about the derivation of this version from
the Vie Longue. My personal impression, based
on a quick collation of the Latin with the main variants of the
Greek text, is that its model was somehow related to manuscript Vat. gr. 1669 (here: V) and to the lost
archetype of the “abridged versions” (here: Δ), but still
independent from their common antigraph (for a stemma codicum of the Vie Longue,
cf. Cavallero, Vida de Juan el limosnero, p.
20). As in VΔ, we find the sentence referring to the oaths of John
at the end of the prologue (347.188-189); the omission of the verbum dicendi at chapter III (349.8); the
absence of the quotation from Psalms 78:8 at chapter IV (349.21-22);
the omission of ἐν ἐλέει in the
prologue (346.160); the omission of μοδίων at chapter XI (358.41).
On the other hand, the Amalfitan version is free from some
significant errors of VΔ: it preserves humanam for ἀνθρώπων,
omitted by VΔ (346.176); eruditus for σώφρων (350.5), omitted by V and changed in ὁ ἐν αγίοις
by Δ; mitis et leni voce seems
to match with πρᾳείᾳ καὶ ἡσύχῳ τῇ φωνῇ
(350.13), while VΔ
suppress καὶ ἡσύχῳ τῇ; ykonomo ecclesie et ceteris
ministris seems to reflect τοῦ
οἰκονόμου καὶ τοῦ λογοθέτου, rather than the inversion
of the two terms which we find in VΔ. The Syriac version does not depend on this branch
of the Greek tradition, as it agrees with manuscript Ott. gr. 402 every time VΔ present an error, cf. Venturini, Quale modello greco?, p. 379.
An alternative hypothesis: Arabic as the missing link between the
Syriac and the Latin versions
Excluding that the Latin translator knew the Syriac text, there
is an alternative to the theory of a lost Greek Vorlage: the “Syriac form” of the Life may
have reached the Latin West through the mediation of Arabic. Venturini,
La versione siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679), p. XXVII. At the time of my
thesis, I could read only the drafts of the Latin transcription, and
I did not have access to the Arabic manuscripts. Furthermore, I
could not explain why the Latin version preserves some original
details of the Greek which are missing in Syriac, which is something
related to the stemmatic position of the Arabic version, cf. infra. After the publication of
the Latin text and an examination of the Arabic manuscripts, it is now
possible to propose this theory as the most convincing one The translation from
Arabic into Latin of a Christian hagiographic work is an unusual
event in the cultural history of the Latin Middle Ages. It is thus
very difficult to define the place and period of the translation:
the lexicon and the epoch of the manuscript suggest that we are
dealing with a late version. At chapter 22, the erroneous mention of
Satalia (the Crusaders’ city of Antalya)
instead of Sicily, refers to the context of the Crusades, whereas it
would be incomprehensible how such an error could have occurred in
Muslim Sicily. It should be remembered that even the Latin version
of John of Amalfi, which dates to 11th
century, reflects the direct relations with the East of the Latin
community to which that translation was addressed, cf. Greif, La orden de San Juan en Jerusalén, p. 192 and
n. 26.. One of the most eccentric features of this
version is the lexicon: common and proper names, some of which have a Latin
origin, are abnormally altered. A possible explanation for these
deformations is that they came into Latin through Arabic instead of Greek.
The following table compares the lexicon used to translate the same Greek
words by John of Amalfi and the anonymous compiler of BHL 4392.
Greek text (ed. Festugière)
John of Amalfi’s Latin version (ed.
Chiesa)
Anonymous Latin version (ed.
Bohdziewicz-Warburg)
Arabic (Garshuni) version (Vatican
Syr. 202; Dayr Mar Mattay, ms. 138)
οἴνου
Vinum
Syrupo
ܫܪܐܒ
(
sharāb
)
κεντηνάρια
Centenaria
Quintaria
ܩܢܐܛܝܪ/ܩܢܛܐܪ
(
qinṭār
)
λίτρας
Libras
Rotae
ܪܛܠ (raṭil)
τριμίσιον
tertia pars numismatis
Tres dragmas
ܬܠܬܗ̈ ܕܪܐܗܡ
(3
darāhim
)
Βιτάλιος
Vitalis
Petalius
ܒܛܐܠܝ
(proper noun)
Τρωΐλος
Troilus
Trophila
ܛܪܘܒܝܠܐ
(proper noun)
While John of Amalfi translates the Greek words accurately,
even using the calque ceratim instead of the Latin
equivalent siliqua, the Anonymous deforms them
abnormally, including those of Latin etymology, such as κεντηνάρια and the
name Βιτλάιος. In the latter, the initial b is
changed into p (Petalius), as
commonly happens in the passage from Arabic into Latin. The name of the
bishop Troilus is changed into Trophila, which reflects the spelling of the Arabic manuscripts.
The Syriac origin of the Arabic version: a revealing numismatic
word
The most interesting case is the translation of the term
τριμίσιον, used in chapter XL (ar. 36; lat. 20; syr. 35), telling the story
of an astute servant, who stole from his master to give to the poor
people.
Festugière, Vie de Syméon le Fou, p.
392. The Latin version certainly depends on Arabic, since it
reproduces, in addition to the Arabic word dìrham, an
evident translation error. The τριμίσιον, which was a third of a solidus at the time of the author, is wrongly
translated by both the Arabic and the Latin translators as “three drachmas”
(ܬܠܬܗ̈
ܕܪܐܗܡ f. 120ra; tres dragmas,
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 318, chap. 20, §10). This is a significant
error, unlikely polygenetic, caused by the translator’s misunderstanding of
the obsolete monetary term τριμίσιον. But which translator are we talking
about? The Syriac version presents the same kind of error, translating
ܬܠܬܐ ܡܬܩ̈ܠܐ “three coins”. Venturini,
La versione siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679), p. 96. This
situation occurs in two other passages of the Syriac version: in the
prologue, when the salaried servant says that he received ܕܝܢܪ̈ܐ ܬܠܬܐ ܒܟܠ ܫܢܐ “three coins every year”
from his master (Venturini, 2.12); and in chapter XLIV, when the patriarch
calculates the inheritance he has left to the Church of Alexandria,
repeating thrice the amount of ܕܝܢܪ̈ܐ ܬܠܬܐ
, “three dinars” (Venturini, 114.7; 114.9; 114.14). In all these cases the
Arabic text, which in chapter 36 had used the term ܕܪܐܗܡ for the Syriac ܡܬܩ̈ܠܐ, reproduces the Syriac literally, translating ܬܠܬܗ̈ ܕܢܐܢܝܪ , “three dinars” (Vatican Syr.
202, f. 122rb; Dayr Mar Mattay, ms. 138, f. 107rb). Unfortunately, the Latin
version does not reproduce neither the prologue nor the chapter
XLIV. It is challenging to explain how such an error
could have been committed in the Greek manuscript tradition: it seems
closely connected to a precise choice of the Syriac translator, which was
later spread among the manuscript tradition, including the Latin
version. In my comment to the Italian translation, I could not explain the
origin of this error in Greek, being surprised by its presence in
Latin, cf. Venturini, La versione siriaca della
Vita (CSCO 680), p. 69-70, n.
3. The Arabic translator certainly read the Syriac text to
propose such a translation, not the Greek original. Another interesting case,
albeit is less significant, is the translation of Καισάρειον as ܒܝܬ ܡܣ̈ܟܢܐ in Syriac and as ܒܝܬ ܐܠܣܐܟܝܢ in Arabic, both the expressions literally
meaning “the house of the poor people”, cf. Venturini, La versione siriaca della Vita (CSCO 680), p. 35, n. 3. Finally,
it is noteworthy that the Georgian version in the first passage also
preserves the reading “three drachmas”, which suggests its dependence on
Arabic.
After an examination of the Georgian version conducted in Louvain
with the help of Tamara Pataridze, I realized that it presents the
same features of the Syriac and the Latin versions, cf. Venturini,
La versione siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679), p. XXIX, n. 64. The Georgian
version, like its Latin counterpart, reproduces literally the Arabic
dirham. This suggests that also the
Georgian version has been translated from Arabic, as supposed by
Déroche, Études sur Léontios, p.
42. The theory that all the versions derive from the same
(and inexplicably lost) Greek model is now even more unlikely. The most
realistic solution is also the simplest: a direct link between the three
versions, among which the Arabic assumes the role of cultural mediator.
The relationship of the Arabic version with the Syriac manuscript
tradition
Understanding more about the relationship between the Arabic
version and the Syriac manuscript tradition is now opportune. The most exciting
goal is establishing which branch of the Syriac tradition served as the model
for the Arabic translator. Which of the multiple recensions of the Syriac text
did the Arabic translator consult? The following section briefly describes the
general features of each one.
The multifaceted shape of the Syriac tradition
The manuscript tradition of the Syriac version of the Life of John the Merciful is complex, as its text was
transmitted in several different recensions.
α = this siglum identifies the
best-known recension of the Syriac Life. Its main
feature is that it is shorter and less detailed compared to the Greek
text.
By “shorter” is meant not a selective version but abridged in all
its parts. “Greek text”, refers here to the so-called Vie Longue, which is the closest to the
original and on which the Syriac version depends, cf. supra. It is transmitted by three
manuscripts, depending on the same archetype, The manuscripts are the
following: Paris BnF Syr. 235 (P), f. 275v-312v [12th-13th
century]; London British Library Add. 14645 (L), f. 126r-154r [10th century]; Dayr Mar Mattay, ms. 142
[27] (M), f. 88v-103v [15th century].
The last two manuscripts are more closely related from an ecdotic
point of view. For a description of the manuscripts, cf. Venturini,
La versione siriaca della Vita (CSCO 679), p. XI-XVII. while a
Sinaitic fragment represents an independent branch. This is a scattered
bifolium (S), dating to 9th century,
which was later included in manuscript Sinai Syr. 24, cf. Géhin, Les manuscrits syriaques, p. 164. The
fragment, which basically reproduces the same text of the other
three manuscripts, preserves in addition some ancient textual
elements, cf. Venturini, La versione siriaca della
Vita (CSCO 679), p. XVIII-XIX. The
small size of this fragment does not allow to determine precisely
its ecdotic position, cf. infra.
P. Bedjan edited this recension based on the manuscript Paris BnF Syr. 235,
comparing its text with manuscript London British Library Add. 14645. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum, p. X. For the text of α, I
will always refer to Bedjan’s edition, which does not consider the
contribution of other recensions.
Σ = I use this siglum to refer to the
Syriac version's most complete and detailed form, the closest to the
original. We know about its existence only indirectly, thanks to some
incomplete witnesses (β and π). It has been almost entirely neglected by the
manuscript tradition to the advantage of the abridged version. However, both
forms of the text probably circulated together for some time after the
translation from Greek into Syriac. Evidence of this co-circulation is offered
by the same dismembered manuscript to which belonged the Sinaitic
fragment (S), cf. Venturini, La leggenda di Pietro
il Pubblicano, p. 49-50.
β = this siglum identifies a long
extract from the Life, which contains the Story of Peter the Tax Collector (chapter 20 of the
Syriac version). This edifying story detached quite early from the Syriac
Life and was transmitted as a separate work in
several hagiographic collections. The tale is transmitted independently, in
three different sub-recensions, by seven manuscripts, dating from
9th to 20th century, all sharing the copious presence of original
details of the Greek, cf. Venturini, La leggenda
di Pietro il Pubblicano, p. 48-52. It preserves
much more details of the Greek than the other sources do, and it represents
the most direct (albeit incomplete) witness of the original Syriac
translation (Σ). I have shown elsewhere that we are not dealing
with a different translation from Greek, cf. Venturini, La leggenda di Pietro il Pubblicano, p.
46-48. For another Greek version of the legend, which was not part
of the Life of John the Merciful, cf.
Cavallero, Leoncio de Neápolis y los relatos,
p. 31-36.
π = this recension, which I called versio
syra minor, is preserved by manuscript Paris BnF Syr. 234, f.
104r-127v [13th century], and was recently
published by the writer. Venturini, La versio syra
minor, p. 15-37. It is a metaphrase of the
Syriac version, which presents a further reduced form if compared to α. This
abrégé was performed on Paris BnF Syr. 235 (or
more likely on a closely related manuscript), but it was retouched with the
help of an unknown witness of Σ. For a list of the common errors to Paris BnF
Syr. 234 and Paris BnF Syr. 235, cf. Venturini, La
versione siriaca della Vita (CSCO
679), p. XXI-XXII. The list of the correct readings reproduced
exclusively by π can be found in the critical apparatus of the
Syriac text. The definition versio syra
mixta would be equally suitable to this peculiar text, considered
the concurrence of ancient and modern textual features, blended and
reinterpreted as in a new work. For the problem of the sources of π, cf.
Venturini, La versio syra minor, p. 7-8 (stemma codicum at p. 9).
Arabic’s close relation to α: common errors to both versions
I will start my analysis by comparing the Arabic version to π
on one hand, and to α on the other. It is pretty easy to exclude a direct
dependence of the Arabic text on π: it does not present the highly shortened
form of π and its peculiar innovations, a unicum in
the manuscript tradition of the Life of John the
Merciful. For a description of the features of the versio syra minor, cf. ibid., p. 9-11. Furthermore, the Arabic version
does not reproduce the common errors to π and its probable antigraph, Paris
BnF Syr. 235. Cf. supra, n.
59. However, comparing the Arabic text with the original
readings that π has derived from its secondary source, Σ, is interesting for
this study. The first example I have chosen is significant, as π is the only
one that correctly reflects the Greek original's meaning, while the rest of
the Syriac tradition presents an evident misunderstanding.
Conspectus siglorum
V = Vatican Syr. 202 [17th century]
D = Dayr Mar Mattay, ms. 138 [n. d.]
A = Sinai Ar. 428 [9th century]
Σ = original Syriac version
α = versio syra = mss, LPM
π = versio syra minor = Paris BnF Syr. 234
[13th century]
β = Story of Peter the Tax Collector
L = London British Library Add. 14645 [10th century]
P = Paris BnF Syr. 235 [12th-13th century]
M = Dayr Mar Mattay, ms. 142 (27) [15th
century]
S = Sinai Syr. 24, ff. 199r-200v [9
th
century]
Greek text = Festugière, 357.70-76
Syriac rec. α = Bedjan, 325.6-11
Syriac rec. π = Venturini (2022),
18.10-11
Arabic version = Vat. Syr. 202, f. 15r; DMMM 138, f.
110r
θαυμάσαντος δὲ καὶ τοῦ πάπα τὴν ὀξεῖαν τοῦ
ἀνδρὸς μεταβολήν, οὐδὲν περὶ τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως ἐνεκάλεσεν, ἀλλὰ
μᾶλλον καὶ παρεμυθήσατο αὐτὸν λόγοις παρακλητικοῖς. τοιαύτη δὲ
ἀμφοτέρων συνεδέθη ἔκτοτε ἐκ θεοῦ ἀγάπη, ὡς καὶ σύντεκνον
γενέσθαι αὐτὸν τοῦ πολλάκις εἰρημένου λαμπροτάτου
ἀνδρός.
ܘܟܕ ܚܙܝܗܝ ܛܘܒܢܐ
ܠܫܘܚܠܦܐ ܚܪܝܦܐ ܕܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܬܡܗ: ܘܠܐ ܩܪܒ ܠܗ ܡܪܫܘܬܐ ܡܕܡ ܠܦܛܪܝܩܝܘܣ ܗ̇ܘ:
ܥܠ ܣܥܝܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܠܐ ܢܡܘܣܝܐ: ܐܠܐ ܡܠܘܢ ܘܝܬܝܪܐܝܬ ܡܒܝܐ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܒܡ̈ܠܐ
ܒܣ̈ܝܡܬܐ. ܘܒܕܐܝܟ ܗܕܐ ܪܚܡܘܬܐ ܥܡ ܚܕܕ̈ܐ ܢܬܐܣܪܘܢ: ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܐܦ ܐܪܙܐ
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܡܥܡܘܕܝܬܐ ܢܩܒܠ ܡܢܗ ܕܛܘܒܢܐ
ܢܩܒܠ ܡܢܗ ܕܛܘܒܢܐ LPM :
ܢܗܘܐ ܒܝܢܬܗܘܢ
S.
ܘܟܕ ܚ̣ܙܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ
ܠܣܓܝܐܘܬܐ ܕܡܬܬܘܝܢܘܬܗ . ܠܐ ܐܟܣܗ . ܐܠܐ ܩܒܠܗ ܘܐܢܝܚ̣ܗ ܒܚܕܘܬܐ ܘܩ̇ܒ̣ܠ
ܝܠܕܘܗ̈ܝ ܡܢ ܡܥܡܘܕܝܬܐ .
ܦܠܡܐ ܪܐܝ
ܐܠܒܛܪܝܪܟ ܟܬܪܗ̈ ܢܕܐܡܬܗ̇ ܘܚܪܐܪܗ̈ ܐܡܐܢܬܗ̇ ܥܔܒ܆ ܘܠܡ ܝܠܘܡܗ̇ ܥܠܝ
ܡܐܦܥܠ
ܡܐܦܥܠ
V A :ܡܐܦܥܠܗ̇
D ܡܢ ܡܟ̣ܐܠܦܗ̈ ܐܠܢܐܡܘܣ܆
ܘܠܟ̇ܢܗ̇ ܥܙܐܗ ܒܟ̇ܠܐܡ ܪܘܚܐܢܝ
ܪܘܚܐܢܝ V D : طيب A. ܘܨܐܪ ܒܝܢܗܡ ܒܥܕ ܕܠܟ ܡܘܕܗ
ܡܘܕܗ V D : حب A ܟ̇ܬܝܪܗ
ܟܒܝܪܗ V D :شديد A. ܘܩܒܠ ܡܢܗ ܐܠܡܥܡܘܕܝܗ
ܐܠܡܩܕܣܗ add. V
D
As the Pope wondered at the sudden conversion of the man,
he did not reproach him for the attempt, but rather
comforted him with consoling words.
From then
on, so strong was the affection knit by God between the two,
that (John)
became the godfather of the
children of the often-mentioned illustrious
man.
And when the blessed man saw the sudden repentance that he
had, he was amazed and did not reproach him for that illicit
assault, but rather and even more comforted him with sweet
words. And through this friendship they will be linked with each
other, so that he will also
receive the holy sacrament of baptism from the
blessed man.
And when the saint saw the abundance of his compunction, he
did not reproach him, but he received him and reassured him
joyfully,
and received his children from
the baptism.
And when the Patriarch saw the fervent repentance that he
had, and his warm faith, he marveled and did not reproach
him for the action opposite to the law, but he began to
console him with good speeches. And after this, a strong
love occurred between them,
and he
received the baptism from him.
As we can see, the text of α is unsustainable: the patriarch
John, instead of becoming σύντεκνος of the patrician Nicetas, baptizes
him. On
the meaning of the term σύντεκνος,
which literally means “who shares the children”, therefore
“godfather of the children”, cf. Festugière, Vie de Syméon le Fou, p. 560. We
find the misunderstanding in the three witnesses of α (LPM) and in the
Sinaitic fragment (S), It is not clear whether S, which has the
variant ܢܗܘܐ ܒܝܢܬܗܘܢ , reflects an
earlier stage of the error (ܢܗܘܐ =
γενέσθαι?; ܒܝܢܬ < ܒܢܝ̈?) or the desperate attempt of a
scribe to normalize the passage. In any case, both LPM and S are
very far from the original meaning of the passage. while
in π, it is clear that John became godfather of Nicetas’ children, who are
explicitly mentioned (ܝܠܕܘܗ̈ܝ). The
compiler of π, faced with an inconsistency of its antigraph (P), decided to
turn to its superior quality source (Σ). The Arabic version here clearly
follows the text of α, presenting the same error, almost ad verbum, of the manuscripts LPM. There are other passages in
which a similar situation occurs, which cannot be examined here
analytically.I register here
some examples. At the end of chapter XIV (f. 111v), the Arabic
mentions “every citizen of Alexandria”, ܘܟܠ
ܐܗܠ ܐܠܐܣܟܢܕܪ, as α does (ܟܠܗܘܢ
ܒܢܝ̈ ܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܝܐ): here again, only π correctly mentions
the city of Alexandria (ܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܝܐ), cf. Venturini, 19.35; at chapter
VIII, the Arabic retains the following sentence, which is missing in
α: ܦܐܢ ܟ̇ܢܬ ܬܪܝܕ ܐܢ ܐܩܢܥܟ̇. ܬܥܐܠ ܡܥܝ ܐܠܝ
ܐܠܡܪܟܒ ܚܬܝ ܐܪܝܟ ܒܩܝܬ ܐܠܘܙܢܐܬ. ܦܕܗܒ ܡܥܗ. ܦܘܓܕ ܐܠܩܙܕܝܪ ܩܕ ܨܐܪ ܟܠܗ̇
ܦܜܗ ܦܐܝܩܗ.
, “If you want to be convinced, come to the ship and I will show
you the rest of the tin. He went with him, and he saw the tin,
which had become all pure silver”. The text is identical to that
of π, which in addition reflects the original verb εὗρον (cf.
Festugière
, 354.73-74):
ܐܢܕܝܢ ܨ̇ܒܐ ܐܢܬ ܕܬܛܦܝ̣ܣ ܕܗܟܢ ܐܝܬܝܗ̇. ܬܐ ܥܘܠ
ܠܣܦܝܢܬܐ. ܘܬ̣ܚܙܐ ܠܣܓܝܐܘܬ ܐܢܟܐ. ܗܘ̣ ܕܝܢ ܐܬ̣ܐ ܥܡܗ ܠܣܦܝܢܬܐ. ܘܐܫ̣ܟܚ
ܠܐܢܟܐ ܗܘ̇ ܟܠܗ ܕܐܫܬܚܠܦ ܠܣܐܡܐ ܕܟܝܐ
, “If you want to
be convinced that it is like that, come, enter the ship, and you
will see an abundance of tin! He therefore came with him to the
ship, and
he found
all the tin
turned into pure silver”, cf.
Venturini,
La versio syra minor
, p.
20.
The close link between the Arabic version and α
is confirmed by their comparison with β, as in the following passage.
Greek text = Festugière, 370.111-112
Syriac rec. α = Bedjan, 344.13-14
Syriac rec. β = Venturini (2020),
72.16-17
Arabic version = Vat. Syr. 202, f. 25v; DMMM 138, f.
113v
«Δάνεισαι καὶ ἀγόρασον αὐτόν∙ ὁ θεὸς γὰρ
οἶδεν, πολύ ἐστιν καλοποδίνος καὶ εὐλογῆσαί σε ἔχει ὁ θεὸς
δι’αὐτοῦ.»
ܐܬܦ̇ܪܣ ܘܙܒܢܝܗܝ.
ܡܛܠ ܕܥܒܕܐ ܗܘ ܒܪܝܟܐ. ܘܡܬܒ̇ܪܟ ܐܢܬ ܡܛܠܬܗ.
ܫܐܠ ܘܙܒܢܝܗܝ. ܡܛܠ
ܕܝ̇ܕܥ ܗܘ ܡܪܝܐ. ܕܪܓܠܐ ܛܒܬܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܗ. ܘܥܬܝܕ ܗܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܢܒ̇ܪܟܟ
ܡܛܠܬܗ.
ܐܚܬ̇ܐܠ ܘܐܫܬܪܝܗ:
ܦܐܢܗ̇ ܥܒܕ ܡܒܐܪܟ܇ ܘܣܘܦ ܝܒܐܪܟܟ ܐܠܠܗ ܡܢ ܐܔܠܗ̇܀
“
Ask for a loan
and buy him! God
knows it, he
is a bringer of happiness
(καλοποδίνος)
and
God
is going to bless you
through him”.
“
Devise a manner
and buy
him, because the servant
is
blessed
, and you will be blessed through
him”.
“
Ask
and buy him, because the
Lord knows that he
has a good
foot
, and
God
will
bless you through him ”.
“
Find a way
and buy him,
because the servant
is
blessed
, and
God
will bless you through him”.
The literal translation ܕܪܓܠܐ
ܛܒܬܐ (“with a good foot”) of the difficult term καλοποδίνος
(“bringer of happiness”) is trivialized by α, whose compiler deduced the
meaning of “blessed” from the following verb ܡܬܒܪܟ, which translates the Greek εὐλογῆσαι. The original
translation had to seem unintelligible because of its extreme literality, to
the scribe who introduced the variant. Here again, the Arabic ܡܒܐܪܟ
reproduces the error of α. It is also noteworthy the precise translation of
the Greek δάνεισαι (“ask for a loan”) in β, against the Arabic and α, which
simplify the concept. Nevertheless, this passage reveals something else: α
does not say that God bestows the blessing, although this is explicit in
Greek, in β, and in Arabic. The Arabic text is freely reproduced by the
Latin multiplicabuntur bona uestra a Deo per
eum (Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 314, chap. 15, §40),
which also preserves the mention of God. This attests to
the better quality of the Arabic text if compared to α.
The Arabic version as a halfway witness between α and Σ
We can explain in two different ways the presence of the
Greek’s original details in the Arabic version: a) the Arabic translator
also consulted the Greek text to improve his translation; b) the Arabic
version depends on an ancient form of the Syriac text, preserving an
intermediate stage between α and Σ. The first hypothesis is challenging to
demonstrate and refute because it involves a contamination, as the compiler
mixed two different sources. To verify the second hypothesis, we need a
passage that has undoubtedly been translated into Arabic from a Syriac model
of better quality than α, without the possible help of a Greek source. I
have found a sentence in the Arabic version that certainly reflects the
Syriac original, while the Greek text expresses the concept using different
words.
Greek text = Festugière, 366.23-26
Syriac rec. α = Bedjan, 336.10-12
Syriac rec. π = Venturini (2022),
20.30-32
Arabic version = Vat. Syr. 202, f. 21v; DMMM 138, f.
112r
πλὴν ἐκεῖνο ἀντιβολῶ
τὴν τιμίαν σου κεφαλὴν μηδαμοῦ ἐντάξαι
τὸ ὄνομα τῆς ἐμῆς ἀναξιότητος, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῦτο αἰτήσασθαι
Χριστὸν ἐκεῖ με ἀπογράψασθαι ἔνθα ἀληθῶς ἡ ἀπογραφὴ
μακάριστος.
ܘܡܦܝܣ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ: ܕܠܐ ܬܟܬܘܒ ܫܡܝ ܒܕܘܟܬܐ ܗ̇ܝ:
ܕܡܬܝܗܒ ܛܘܒܐ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܟܬܒ ܫܡܗܘܢ ܬܡܢ.
ܘܬܘܒ ܒ̇ܥܐ ܐܢ̣ܐ
ܡܢܟ ܕܠܐ ܬܟܬܘܒ ܫܡܝ ܣܟ ܒܡܕܡ ܕܒ̇ܢܐ
ܐܢܬ ܐܠܐ ܨ̇ܠܐ ܥܠܝ ܕܢ̣ܬܟܬܒ ܫܡܝ ܒܣ̣ܦܪܐ
ܕܚ̈ܝܐ
ܘܐܢܐ
ܐܛܠܒ
ܡܢ ܩܕܣܟ
add. postܐܛܠܒ V D ܐܢ ܠܐ ܬܟܬ̇ܒ ܐܣܡܝ ܦܝ ܫܝ
ܡܡܐ ܬܒܢܝܗ: ܘܠܟܢ ܨܠܝ ܥܠܝ ܐܢ ܝܟ̇ܬܒ ܐܣܡܝ ܦܝ ܐܠܡܘܜܥ
ܐܠܕܝ ܝܥܛܐ ܐܠܛܘܒܐ ܠܟܠ ܡܢ
ܐܠܛܘܒܐ ܠܟܠ ܡܢ V A
:ܠܡܢ
D ܝܟܬܒ
ܝܛܠܒ ܘ add. ante ܝܟܬܒ V D
ܐܣܡܗ̇ ܗܢܐܟ܀
Further, I pray your honorable head not to place the name of
my indignity anywhere, but rather to ask Christ
to inscribe me
where the inscription is
truly blessed.
I ask you not to write my name in that place, where beatitude
is given to those whose names are written there.
And furthermore, I ask you not to write
my name
at all
on what you build, but pray for me that
my name
will be written in the
Book of Life.
And I ask your holiness not to write
my name
on what
you build, but pray for me that
my name
will be written in the place where beatitude
is given to everyone who asks for his name to be written
there.
The Arabic here is almost identical to π, which is the only
Syriac recension to preserve the correct text. I will explain in the
next paragraph the ecdotic reason why the Arabic version is the only
one to reflect the Greek τὴν τιμίαν σου κεφαλὴν, cf. infra. It is indeed still immune
from the saut du même au même produced in α by the
confusion between the two identical terms ܫܡܝ ...
ܫܡܝ (to which correspond the Arabic ܐܣܡܝ ... ܐܣܡܝ). The concordance of the Arabic text with π
occurs this time against the Greek, which presents a
different formulation of the sentence. In Greek (without any variant in the
manuscripts) the conditions for a saut du même au
même are totally missing, as there is not proximity between two
identical terms. It is unlikely that the Arabic translator managed to
achieve the same text of π independently, by consulting the different
formulation of the sentence that we find in Greek. It is much more probable
that the Syriac model of the Arabic translator preserved an earlier stage of
the text than α, still immune from its oversight. The following stemma codicum summarizes the ecdotic relationship of
the Arabic version with the Syriac manuscript tradition.
Albeit indirectly, the Arabic version is the only complete
witness of such an ancient stage of the Syriac tradition, because a) the
text of Σ is lost, and only partially reflected by the Story of Peter the Tax Collector (β); b) the recension π retains
only sporadic elements of Σ, but the great part of its text depends on α; c)
the Sinaitic fragment (S) preserves only two tiny excerpts of the work. The
intermediate position of the Arabic version between Σ and α is enough to
justify its knowledge of the Greek’s original details that disappeared in
the Syriac manuscript tradition, without involving any awareness of the
Greek original.
The theory of a revision on Greek: a piece of misleading information in
manuscript Sinai Ar. 428
Considering the above-depicted stemma, the
theory that the Arabic translation was revised on the Greek text appears no
longer necessary. Only the colophon of manuscript Sinai Ar. 428 supports the
idea that the Arabic translator somehow read the Greek original. The colophon
says that the Life of John the Merciful has been
translated into Arabic directly from Greek, cf. supra. This same information is not accurate, as it does not
even mention the translation from Syriac. The information of
the colophon is clear but not necessarily accurate if not supported by textual
evidence of a direct transition from Greek into Arabic. The colophon could, for
example, simply betray the scribe’s awareness of the Byzantine origin of the Life of John the Merciful. In theory, it is not
impossible that the Arabic translator, despite having available a Syriac model
of excellent quality, decided in addition to consult a
Greek manuscript to improve his translation further. Another compiler could have
also performed the revision on Greek many years after the first translation from
Syriac. In the following paragraphs, I will show that such a revision appears
unnecessary from an ecdotic point of view (5.1), and that it is not supported by
any clear textual evidence (5.2).
A simpler explanation for Greek-Arabic concordances against
Syriac
As we have seen above, the earliest form of the Syriac version
(Σ) is known only from indirect witnesses (β and π). To support the theory
of a revision, all we can do is look for significative concordances between
Arabic and Greek against β or π. In this paragraph, I will start with the
examination of the latter case. The first passage where Arabic and Greek
agree against π is found at the very beginning of the work.
Greek text = Festugière, 343.5-14
Syriac rec. α = Bedjan, 303.6-9
Syriac rec. π = Venturini (2022), 11.4-7
Arabic version = Vat. Syr. 202, f. 3v; DMMM 138, f.
106r
Ὁ μὲν σκοπὸς εἷς ἐστιν ἡμῶν τε καὶ τῶν πρὸ
ἡμῶν φιλοπόνων καὶ ὁσίων ἀνδρῶν ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ παρούσῃ τοῦ ἀοιδίμου
ἀνδρὸς τοῦ βίου διηγήσει, τουτέστιν τὸ πᾶσιν μὲν μίμησιν θεοφιλῆ
καὶ ὠφέλειαν προσγενέσθα, δόξαν δὲ καὶ μεγαλοπρέπειαν τῇ ἁγίᾳ
καὶ προσκυνητῇ τριάδι ἀναπέμψαι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ὡς ἐν πᾶσιν τῇ
πάντοτε κατὰ γενεὰν καὶ γενεὰν τοὺς οἰκείους φωστῆρας
ἀναδεικνυούσῃ εἰς τὸ φωτίζειν τοὺς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου
καθημένους τῆς ἁμαρτίας.
ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܘܬܘܕܝܬܐ
ܘܩܘܒܠ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܠܐܒܐ ܘܠܐܒܪܐ ܘܠܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ: ܗ̇ܘ ܕܡܕܟܐ ܘܡܙܗܐ
ܠܩܕܝܫܘ̈ܗܝ: ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܢܢܗܪܘܢ ܐܝܟ ܟܘ̈ܟܒܐ ܢܗܝܪ̈ܐ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܚܫܘܟܐ
ܘܒܛܠܠܝ̈ ܡܘܬܐ ܝܬܒܝܢ.
ܐܬܚܙܝ ܠܝ ܐܚܝ̈
ܘܐܒܗ̈ܝ ܕܢܣܝ̣ܡ ܬܫܥܝܬܗ ܕܗܢܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ . ܕܢ̣ܗܘܐ ܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ
ܕܩܪܝܢ ܘܫ̇ܡܥܝܢ . ܘܢ̇ܫ̣ܒܚܘܢ ܠܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܡܚܘܝܐ ܒܓܠܝܐ ܢܘܗܪܐ
ܕܩܕܝܫ̈ܝܗ̇ . ܕܒܟܠ ܕܪ̈ܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܟܘܟ̈ܒܐ ܢܗ̈ܝܪܐ . ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܝ̇ܬܒܝܢ ܒܚܫܘܟܐ
ܘܒ̈ܛܠܠܝ ܡ̇ܘܬܐ .
ܪܐܝܢܐ
ܪܐܝܢܐ A : ܪܐܘܐ
ܩܕ V
D ܐܠܐܒܗܐܬ
ܐܠܩܕܝܣܝܢ add.
postܐܠܐܒܗܐܬ
D ܐܠܕܝܢ ܣܒܩܘܐ ܘܟ̣ܒܪܘܐ
ܣܝܪܗ̈ ܗܕܐ ܐܠܩܕܝܣ ܐܒܝܢܐ
ܝܘܚܢܐ ܐܠܪܚܘܡ add. post
ܐܒܝܢܐ V
D ܐܢ ܝܟ̇ܬܒ ܐܡܪ ܝܟ̇ܘܢ ܦܝܗ
ܡܢܦܥܗ ܠܡܢ ܝܩܪܐܗ ܘܠܡܢ ܝܣܡܥܗ: ܘܝܣܒܚ ܐܠܬܐܠܘܬ ܐܠܩܕܘܣ ܐܠܕܝ ܦܝ ܟ̇ܠ
ܚܝܢ
ܚܝܢ V D :جيل A ܝܜܗܪ ܩܕܝܣܝܗ: ܠܝܢܡܘܐ
ܠܝܢܡܘܐ D A
:ܠܝܛܘܐ
V ܡܬ̣ܠ
ܦܝ ܐܠܥܐܠܡ add. ante
ܡܬ̣ܠ V D
ܐܠܟ̇ܘܐܟ̇ܒ
ܐܠܟ̇ܘܐܟ̇ܒ V D : النجوم
A ܐܠܕܝܢ ܗܡ ܔܠܘܣ ܦܝ ܐܠܜܠܡܗ
ܘܜܠܐܠ ܐܠܡܘܬ.
One alone is our objective and that of the zealous and pious men
before us
in the present narration of
the biography of the celebrated man: that he becomes, on the one
hand, for all an imitation loved by God and something
profitable, on the other, to elevate glory and magnificence to
the holy and worshipful Trinity, which always,
from generation to generation
, shows also
in this, as in all things, its own luminaries to enlighten
“those who are in darkness and shadow of death” of
sin.
Glory and praise and thanksgiving to the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, who purifies and makes his saints shine, so that they
shine like bright stars for those who lie in the darkness and shadow
of death.
It seemed suitable to me, my brothers and
fathers
, to present the story of this Saint John, so
that
those who read and hear
may benefit and so that they glorify the Holy Trinity,
which openly reveals the light of
its
saints
, who illuminate in everything, like shining
stars, those who lie in the darkness and shadow of
death.
We have seen the fathers
who came before us
, describe the narration
of this our holy father, something useful to those
who will read and hear
it, and we
praise the Holy Trinity, which
in every
generation
illuminates
its
saints, who like the stars (illuminate) those who are
sitting in the dark and in the shadow of death.
In the Syriac recension α, the first lines of the prologue are
missing, maybe because of a material damage in the antigraph. Here again, π
reproduces better than α the original form of the prologue. As in the
previous example, the Arabic version reflects the knowledge of an ancient
form of the Syriac text, as reveals its concordance with π (against the
Greek) in the mention of: the “fathers” (Ar.: ܐܠܐܒܗܐܬ; π: ܘܐܒܗ̈ܝ
) instead of the “men” (Gr.: ἀνδρῶν); the benefit
“of those who read and hear” (Ar.:ܝܩܪܐܗ ܘܠܡܢ
ܝܣܡܥܗ ; π:ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܩܪܝܢ
ܘܫ̇ܡܥܝܢ) instead of “for all” (Gr.: πᾶσιν); “his saints” (Ar.: ܩܕܝܣܝܗ; π: ܕܩܕܝܫ̈ܝܗ̇
) instead of “his stars” (Gr.: τοὺς οἰκείους
φωστῆρας). Nevertheless, in this case the Arabic retains original details of
the Greek which have been suppressed by π: the mention of the fathers “who
preceded us” (Ar.: ܐܠܕܝܢ ܣܒܩܘܐ ; Gr.:
τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν), and “in every
generation” (Ar.: ܟ̇ܠ ܚܝܢ ; Gr.: κατὰ γενεὰν καὶ γενεὰν).
This situation is the direct consequence of the metaphrastical
nature of π. On the one hand, most of its text reproduces Paris BnF Syr. 235
(P), while its secondary source (Σ) was used by the compiler
non-systematically, and mostly in case of necessity (for example, to fill
lacunas). On the other hand, the compiler of π radically abridged its model,
by cutting original details, sentences, and even entire episodes. Although
sometimes π it the only witness preserving the Greek’s original
details, Cf. supra. it remains generally
a lower quality source than the Arabic text. Depending on an ancestor of α,
the Arabic version well preserves the author’s narrative scheme, which has
been destructured by π. Therefore, it is totally to be expected that several
passages of the Greek are better reproduced in Arabic than in Syriac. I will
enumerate here only a few of them.
At chapter VI, the correct transliteration of ܒܪܛܐܢܝܐ (Vatican Syr. 202, f. 11v; cf. also the
Latin Britania, Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 328, chap.
12, §18) = τῆς Βρεττανίας (Festugière,
354.43), against the Syriac ܕܟܪܛܢܝܐ (α)
and ܕܩܪܝܛܘܢܝܐ (β); Venturini, La versio syra minor, p. 20, n. 28
at chapter XI, the mention of the Nile ܐܠܢܝܠ (Vatican
Syr. 202, f. 15v; cf. also the Latin Nili,
Bohdziewicz-Warburg, p. 319, chap. 22, §3), which reflects the Greek τὸν
ποταμὸν (Festugière, 358.11), omitted in Syriac; at chapter XII, the mention
of the “universal prayer” ܐܠܩܐܬܘܠܝܩܝ, and
of the “anaphora” ܐܠܐܢܐܦܘܪܐ (Vatican Syr.
202, f. 17r), which reflect the Greek τὴν καθολικὴν
[...] καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου καταπετάσματος ὑψοῦσθαι μέλλοντος
(Festugière, 360.29-30); at chapter XIV, the mention of the merchant
ܐܗܠ ܐܠܣܘܩ (Vatican Syr. 202, f. 19r),
which is the Greek μετά τινος τῶν τῆς πόλεως
καπήλων (Festugière, 362.3), while the Syriac version has
ܠܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܒܢܝ̈ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ (α) or ܠܐܢܫ̈ܝܢ (β). Here the Arabic version confirms the
emendation suggested by a marginal note in manuscript L (ܡܢ ܒܢܝ̈ ܫܘܩܐ), which probably consulted
an independent source, cf. Venturini, La versione
siriaca della Vita (CSCO 680), p.
29, n. 1. At chapter XXIX, the sentence ܐܢܢܝ ܠܡ ܐܣܦܟ̇ ܕܡܝ ܒܥܕ ܥܢܟ. ܟ̇ܡܐ ܐܡܪܢܝ ܐܠܡܣܝܚ,
“I have not yet shed my blood for you, as Christ ordered me!” (Vatican Syr.
202, f. 35r), correctly reproduces the Greek οὔπω τὸ
αἶμά μου ὑπέρ σου ἐξέχεα ὡς ἐνετείλατό μοι ὁ δεσπότης μου καὶ πάντων
Χριστός (>Festugière, 381.12-13), which is not preserved in
Syriac.
I had already noted that this passage was probably corrupted in the
whole Syriac tradition, cf. Venturini, La versione
siriaca della Vita (CSCO 680), p.
56, n. 1.
The Story of Peter the Tax Collector: the Arabic version of the
tale and its relationship with β, α, and the Greek text
The independent recension of the Story of
Peter the Tax Collector (β), despite its fragmentary nature,
represents the most direct descendant of the original Syriac translation (Σ)
of the Life of John the Merciful. Cf. supra. This excerpt reproduces the longest
episode of the Life (it takes up approximately 10% of
the work). The big size and the ecdotic relevance of the fragment allow a
systematic comparison with the Arabic version (chapters 20-21 in Sinai Ar.
428), with the form of the tale included in the Syriac Life (α), and with the Greek text. The comparison with π is not possible, as
it summarizes the whole episode in a single sentence, cf.
Venturini,
La versio syra
minor
, p. 20,
§19. It can be helpful to analyze the following
questions.
Many details of the Greek original are not (or are badly) reproduced
by α: are they better reproduced by β or by the Arabic version?
In the case of discordance between α and the Greek text, does the
Arabic agree with α against the Greek and β, or does it agree with the
Greek against α and β?
It is possible to retrace the history of some variants to understand
their progressive stages in the different stemmatic levels?
To answer to the previous questions, I will present a table
comparing the four versions of the tale: Greek, Syriac 1 (β), Syriac 2 (α),
Arabic. I give the English translation of each one, with the reference to
the original text’s editions. The Arabic text, which is unedited, can be
found in the Appendix (§8) at the end of this
contribution. I examine here only the first half of the tale, going until
the second vision of Peter (Festugière, 369.70), more an additional passage,
coming from the conclusion (Festugière, 371.170-176).
Font styles’ legenda:
α, β, and Arabic vs Greek
Greek and β vs Arabic and
α
Greek, Arabic, and β vs α
Greek, Arabic, and α vs β
Greek text = Festugière,
368.1-29
Syriac 1 (β) = Venturini (2020), 60-62, §1
Syriac 2 (α) = Bedjan, 340.5-341.5
Arabic version = Vat. Syr. 202, f. 23r; DMMM 138, f.
112va
When I was
in Africa
,
something like this happened. I was administrator —he
affirms— of a
tax collector
,
extremely rich
and
merciless.
One day, thus,
in winter
, while some poor people were
sitting in the sun and
were warming
up
,
each one began
to
praise
the houses of the
merciful men
and to pray for each one of them, and
similarly to mock and revile the houses of the unmerciful
men. So meanwhile came
in the
middle
also the name of my master, the tax
collector, and
each one
began to
ask his neighbor:
“In truth, brother,
did you ever
receive
alms from that house?”. And —I swear it as
in front of the Lord—
all asking each
other
, nobody was found who has ever received
anything from that house. One of them says then: “What do
you give me, and today I will take alms from him?”. And,
after making a deal with him
,
he goes and stands outside the door of the tax collector’s
house, waiting for the moment when he comes back from the
mass. Indeed, he, by determination of God, arrived at the
same time as he, who was entering the door, and the beast of
burden, loaded with loaves
from the bakery
, which was entering for his
breakfast. So, after seeing the poor, he grabs out of anger,
having not found a stone, a loaf
from
the basket
of the beast and throws it
at his face
. That one then
took it and left, swearing to his companions that
—
he says— “I received it from his own
hands”.
My beloved, there was
in Africa
one of the noblemen, a
tax
collector
,
whose name was
Peter
, and he had absolutely no mercy
towards anyone
. And so one day it
happened that, while the poor people were sitting
in the winter days
and
were warming up
in the sun,
each one of them began to
praise
and bless
the houses of the merciful men
who gave them alms, praying for them. In the same way,
therefore, they also blamed and cursed the houses of the
unmerciful men, and among them they also put
in the middle
the name of
Peter, who had no mercy
, and
each one
began to
ask his companion if
he had ever received
alms from his
house. And
after everyone had asked his
companion
and no one was found who said that he had
received something from him sometime, one of them spoke and
said: “What do you give me, and I receive alms from him today?”.
And
after making a deal with him
on what they would have given him
, he
immediately went and stood in front of the door of that rich
man, and waited for him until he returned. And then, by God's
determination, were entering at the same time he and his beast
of burden, which was carrying the loaves
from the bakery
for his meal. And
having seen that poor,
he got very
angry
, and wanting
to
throw
at him a stone and not finding it, he grabbed a
loaf
from the basket
that was on
the beast, and threw it angrily
at the poor's face
, and hit him. That one then
immediately bent down a little and took the loaf, and ran and
went to his companions, swearing to them: “From his hands I have
received it now!”.
There was one of the noblemen,
and he was very rich
,
whose
name was Peter
, and he never had compassion
towards anyone
. And one day
of the poor people, while they were sitting in the sun,
remembered
the merciful men
who gave them alms and prayed for them. And then
they started to mention those who had no mercy for them and
to curse them, and they also remembered
Peter, since he was not
merciful
.
And they asked each other
if he had ever given
alms
to someone of them, and none was found among them who had
received anything from him. And one of them started talking
and said, “What do you give me, and I will receive alms from
him?”.
And they promised
to give him something
. And he
immediately went and stood at Peter's door, and waited for
him until he came at his house. And by God's determination
he arrived, and with him a donkey, which brought loaves for
him to eat. And when the poor saw him, began to implore him,
asking him for alms. Peter then, when he saw that poor,
got very angry
, and he
looked for a stone
to throw
at him, but he did not find it. And he grabbed a loaf of
those which his donkey was carrying, and threw it at the
poor with great anger. And the poor took it, and returned to
his companions, and
began to
swear
that he had received it from Peter’s
hand.
There was a noble man
named
Peter
,
and he was very
rich
and he had absolutely no mercy
towards anyone
. In some days, while the
poor people were sitting in the sun,
each one of them began
to mention
the merciful men
and who gave
them alms, and to pray for them, and to remember even those who
had no mercy and to curse them. And then they also mentioned
Peter, who had no mercy
, and
began to
ask each other
if he had given alms to any of
them
, and they did not find anyone of them who had
received anything from him. So one of the poor men said: “What
do you give me, if I go and receive alms from him?”.
And they promised
to
give him something
. And that poor went and sat at his
door, waiting for him until he came. And with God's help he
came, and with him there was an animal that was bringing a loaf
from the bakery
for the
meal. And when he saw that poor,
he got
very angry
and looked for a stone
to throw
at him, and he did not find it.
And he took a loaf from those the animal was carrying, and threw
it
at his face
with
great anger, and hit him. And the poor took that loaf and
brought it to his companions, and
began to swear
to them: “I received it from his hands”.
Some observations:
Syriac 2 (α) and Arabic omit many important details of the Greek,
which are regularly mentioned by Syriac 1 (β): the geographical setting
of the tale “in Africa”; the profession of Peter, “a tax collector”; the
temporal setting “in winter”; the poor people “warming up”; the blessing
on “the houses” of the merciful men; the literal reproduction of the
Greek εἰς μέσον, “in the middle”; the question whether a poor “had ever
received” from Peter (Syriac 2 and Arabic: “whether Peter had ever
given”); the deal of the poor with his companions; the basket carried by
the beast of burden.
When the Arabic version preserves an original detail of the Greek
which is omitted by Syriac 2 (α), it is always found also in Syriac 1
(β): the specular reproduction of the Greek ἤρξατο ἕκαστος, “each one began”; the loaves coming “from
the bakery”; the throw of the loaf “at the face” of the poor. There are
no original details of the Greek, which are preserved exclusively by the
Arabic version.
Syriac 1 (β) does not specify that Peter was “very rich”. The Arabic
version retains this original detail but, here again, is not the only
one, as Syriac 2 (α) retains it too. Some errors and omissions are to be
expected in Syriac 1 (β), as it is not itself the original
Syriac text (Σ), but just a copy of chapter 20 belonging to an
independent branch of the manuscript tradition. I have found in
Syriac 2 (α) other two original readings, cf. Venturini, La leggenda di Pietro il Pubblicano, p.
53, n. 57. Unfortunately, the Arabic version does not reproduce
those passages literally.
Syriac 2 (α) and Arabic say that the poor’s companions “promised to
give him something”, while the Greek text says that they made “a deal
with him”. It is noteworthy that Syriac 1 (β) presents a halfway form of
the sentence: “after making a deal with him | on what they would have
given him”. The concept, which in Greek is not so explicit, has been
clarified by the Syriac translator, who added the second part of the
sentence. The first part of the sentence has been later simplified into
“they promised” by the common ancestor to Arabic and Syriac 2
(α).
Greek text = Festugière,
368.30-369.55
Syriac 1 (β) = Venturini (2020), 62-66, §2-3
Syriac 2 (α)
= Bedjan
,
341.6-342.9
Arabic version = Vat. Syr. 202, f. 23v; DMMM 138, f.
113ra
Indeed, after two days, the tax collector fell ill
with a fatal disease
, and sees in his
sleep himself, called to account [for his actions], and all
his actions weighed on a scale. In a scale pan, thus, some
bad-looking blacks (μαῦροι) were gathering, the other
belongs to others, clothed in white and fearsome in
appearance, who, finding nothing good to counterbalance the
wicked deeds gathered by the blacks in their scale pan, were
very sad
and gloomy and
hesitating
towards each other, and they said:
“
Don't we really
have
anything here?”. Then one of them
says:
“Really we have nothing but a single loaf
that he gave two days ago to Christ, even this reluctantly”.
And when they put the loaf, the scale pan was balanced. And
those clothed in white who had appeared to him, tell him:
“Come on, add [something] to the loaf, because these blacks
will catch you”. When he woke up, thus, he acknowledged that
what he had seen was
not
false, but true,
since everything [experienced] from his youth, even what he
had forgotten, he saw that those Ethiopians had gathered and
carried on the scale. And he said: “
Alas (Βαβαῖ)!
If a single loaf, which
I threw
with anger
, benefited me so, how many
damages avoids he who gives his goods
with simplicity
to those who need
them!”.
And from then on,
he got so wise
—he says—
that
he became
extremely
merciful
to the point that he did not even spare his own
body.
And after two days, that rich man fell ill
with a fatal disease
. And he had a
vision in his dream, as if he was standing in a court and
was being judged for his actions. And he saw that some black
and bad-looking ones came,
and they
gathered all his evil deeds and put them on a scale
pan
, on one side; on the other side of the scale,
instead, there were other men dressed in white and
good-looking
, and they
wanted to put
something good on the
scale pan which was next to them, against the evil things
that had been placed by those blacks, and they found none.
And then they were sad
and very gloomy,
and hesitating
they were saying to each other: “So,
what have we got?
Don't we
have
anything
to
put
here?”. So, one of them said: “We really have
nothing but this loaf, which two days ago he gave to Christ
unintentionally, for some reason”. And then they hurried,
and they brought it and placed it, and immediately that
scale pan matched with his counterpart. And immediately
those dressed in white spoke and said to him: “Peter, go and
add to this loaf, and know that otherwise those blacks will
catch you, and we will not help you at all”.
And when he woke up, he acknowledged that the things that
had appeared to him were
not
a lie but reality
, since all he had done or said
from his youth until then, including what he had forgotten,
he had seen that those blacks had collected and placed on
that scale pan. And he said
to himself
: “
Alas (ܒܒܝ)!
If a loaf, that
with anger
I threw
against that
poor
unintentionally
, has
benefited so much and
was able to
save me from the hands of those blacks
, from how
many damages is released he who gives his goods to the needy
people
with simplicity
and good effort
!”. And from then on,
he became
so honest that he was eminent and excellent
in mercy
towards the poor people
,
to the point that he would not even spare his
own body.
And after two days it happened that the rich Peter fell
ill. And he saw in his dream that he was standing in a
courtroom, and he was judged for his evil deeds. And he saw
some blacks, horrible looking, who
came towards him
and gathered his evil deeds and placed them on
a scale pan
. And near the other scale pan he saw
some
good-looking
men,
with white clothes, who were standing up
and wanted to put
some good
deed against the evil ones which the blacks had placed. And
they did not find it, and they were very sad, and said to
each other: “Is there nothing here
to
put
on this scale?”. And one of them answered and
said: “Actually we have nothing here but a loaf, that two
days ago he gave to Christ unintentionally, for some
reason”. And they took the loaf and put it on the scale, and
immediately he leaned over and was in balance with the other
scale pan. And those dressed in white began to speak and
said: “Oh Peter, go and add to this loaf! Otherwise, know
that the blacks will catch you!”. And after they said these
things, Peter awoke from his sleep, and acknowledged that
the dream he had seen was true, because everything he had
done and said from his youth until that day, he had seen
that those blacks had brought it and placed it on the scale.
And he said
to himself
: “If
a loaf, which I gave to that poor
unintentionally
, has thereby helped and
saved me from those blacks
, how more
he who gives to the poor people
with
a good heart
is preserved from the evil!”. And from
that day on, he gave alms
to the poor
people.
And that rich man fell ill, and he saw in his dream as if
he was standing in the day of Judgment to be judged for his
deeds. And he saw a group of black men, ugly face,
coming towards him
, after
collecting all his evil deeds and putting them
on a scale pan
. And there was also another group of
men, and they were standing on the other side of the scale,
and they were
good-looking
,
in white clothes,
and they wanted to
put
something in the other scale pan to counterbalance, but they
found no good deeds against the evil deeds of those blacks,
and they were sad about that. And while they were in that
situation, they said to each other: “So,
don't we have
anything here
to put
on the other scale
pan?”. And one of them answered, saying: “We have nothing
except a bread that he had given to Christ two days ago
unintentionally”. And then they took it and put it on the
scale pan, and it balanced it with the other scale pan. Then
those who were clothed in white said: “Oh Peter, go and add
something else good to this loaf! Otherwise, know that these
blacks will catch you!”.
And when Peter
noticed that what he had seen
was truth and not a lie
—because he acknowledged
that everything he had done, from his youth up to that time,
he saw the blacks coming towards him and putting it on the
scale pan, he said
to
himself
, marveling: “If a loaf that
I threw
to that poor
unintentionally
, has benefited and
has saved me from those
blacks
, from how many evils will be saved he who
gives,
with his good effort
,
what he owns to the poor people!
And from that day on, he
became merciful
to the poor people.
Syriac 2 (α) and Arabic do not mention the “fatal disease” of Peter;
they do not say that the white men were “gloomy and hesitating”, but
simply “sad”; they suppress the interjection ܒܒܝ, which
in Syriac 1 (β) accurately translates the Greek βαβαῖ; they do not
specify that the loaf was thrown “with anger”; they do not reproduce the
Greek expression ἐν ἁπλότητι (“with
simplicity”), as Syriac 1 (β) does; they suppress the whole final
sentence, corresponding to the Greek consecutive clause ὥστε μήτε τοῦ οἰκείου σώματος φείσασθαι
(Festugière, 369.55).
Right in the last sentence, the Arabic version shows a halfway textual
stage between Syriac 1 (β) and Syriac 2 (α): it omits, as Syriac 2 (α)
does, the consecutive clause, but it well reflects the Greek ἐγένετο ἄκρος ἐλεήμων, “he became merciful”
(albeit it does not reproduce ἄκρος), while Syriac 2 (α) trivializes the
concept (“he gave alms”).
The expression “with simplicity” (ἐν
ἁπλότητι) is reproduced only by Syriac 1 (β), which
moreover presents the addition: “and good effort”. The Arabic version
retains only the latter addition, having lost the first member, which is
more difficult to understand. Syriac 2 (α) goes on in the deterioration
process of the original, changing the expression in “with a good
heart”.
Greek text = Festugière,
369.58-70
Syriac 1 (β) = Venturini (2020), 66-68, §4
Syriac 2 (α) = Bedjan, 342.10-343.1
Arabic version = Vat. Syr. 202, f. 24v; DMMM 138, f.
113rb
Therefore,
it happened once
that
he went after the night, as usual, to the customs office, and
goes towards him
a sailor
(ναύτης)
, who came out of a shipwreck naked
as he had been begotten
, and fell at his
feet, imploring him for a garment. Therefore [Peter],
thinking that he was a poor
, takes his own
tunic off, which was expensive, and makes him swear with faith,
saying: “By the Lord, brother, put it on and pray for me!”.
After he left, ashamed to wear it, he gave it to a tailor to be
sold. And coming back the tax collector, sees it hung and became
very sad. And after he returned to his home, he could not eat
anything, but after closing the door of his room he sat down,
crying and pondering thus: “I was not worthy —he says— that the
poor man had a memory of me”. While then he was discouraged, he
fell asleep.
Therefore,
it happened once
that, as
he was leaving the
church
to go to the customs office —
since he was a tax collector
—, came
across him
a sailor
(
ܢܘܛܐ
)
, who had saved himself from
the fury of the sea and who was naked
as at birth
. And he bowed before him, asking to
give him a garment for his body. Therefore,
after seeing him
, and
after thinking that he was a poor
, he
took off the expensive garment that was on him and gave it
to the poor, making him swear a lot and saying: “By our
Lord, wear it and pray for me!”. The poor man then, having
gone away, was ashamed to wear that garment because of its
elegance, and immediately gave it away to be sold. And the
rich Peter, after waiting a while, came back and saw that
garment hung
in the market
,
and he became sad and regretted a lot. And after he went to
his home, he could not eat anything, but closed the door of
his room in front of him and sat down, weeping and pondering
and saying: “I was not worthy to leave a memory to that
poor”. And while he was regretting and moaning,
he dozed off
and fell
asleep.
And
one day
, while
he was leaving the church
to
go to the customs office —
since he
was
the chief
tax collector
— came across him a
sailor (
ܡܠܚܐ
), who had run away naked from the sea. And he
fell to the ground before him, and implored him to give him
a garment to wear. And when [Peter]
saw him
, he took off one of the sumptuous garments
that he was wearing, and gave it to him and made him swear
and said: “By our Lord, wear it and pray for me!”. And that
poor, after walking away from him, was ashamed to wear it
because of his elegance, and gave it to the market to be
sold. And when Peter came back and saw that garment hung
in the market
to be sold,
became very sad.
And after going to his
house, he could not eat because of his
sadness.
And he closed his door and sat down,
and started to weep and moan and to say: “I did not deserve
to be remembered by that poor”. And while he was crying and
regretting,
he dozed off
and
fell asleep.
And
one day
, while
he was leaving the church
to go to his
court, —
since he was
the chief
tax
collector—
and there he found
a sailor (
ܢܘܬܝ
)
, who was
saved from drowning in the sea and who was naked. And he fell in
front of him, imploring and asking to dress him. And when Peter
saw him
, he felt compassion for
him and took off a good [om. VD] garment and gave it to him [VD:
made him wear it] and made him swear [VD: asked him], saying:
“By God, accept this garment and pray for me!”. And when the
sailor left and walked away, he was ashamed to wear it because
it was elegant, and put it up for sale
in
the market
. And the rich [om. VD] Peter, returning to
his house, saw the garment hung [om. VD] in the market for sale,
and he was very sad about it. [And when he arrived at his home,
he could not eat anything for the great sadness, and closed his
door and sat down, crying and sighing from the bottom of his
heart, and saying: “I did not deserve to be remembered by that
poor”. And while he was regretting and crying [om. VD],
he dozed off
and fell asleep.
Syriac 1 (β) and Arabic still reflect some ancient features of the
Syriac translation, like the calque ܢܘܛܐ, reproduced by the Arabic ܢܘܬܝ, and used to translate the Greek ναύτης. In the Syriac manuscript tradition,
the calque has been trivialized not only by Syriac 2 (α), which
substitutes it with the facilior
ܡܠܚܐ, but also by one of the same
manuscripts of β, which prefers the equivalent ܐܠܦܪܐ
. Cf. Venturini, La leggenda di Pietro il
Pubblicano, p. 67, n. 146. The progressive corruption
of the Syriac text did not affect the Syriac model of the Arabic
version, which still preserved the reading ܢܘܛܐ.
Nevertheless, the Syriac model of the Arabic version had already
suffered some of the omissions that we find also in Syriac 2 (α): the
loss of the main verb which introduces the episode (Gr.: Συνέβη, “it
happened”); the sentence “after thinking that he was a poor”, which is
essential for the comprehension of the whole passage (the sailor felt
ashamed and refused the expensive garment, but Peter did not understand
why, thinking that he was a poor asking for alms). Everything claims for
a progressive corruption of the Syriac translation. The Arabic version
reflects a precise stage of this corruption process, which is halfway
between Syriac 1 (β) and Syriac 2 (α).
Greek text = Festugière, 371.170-176
Syriac 1 (β) = Venturini (2020), 80, §10
Syriac 2 (α) = Bedjan, 347.3-9
Arabic version = Vat. Syr. 202, f. 27r; DMMM 138, f.
115ra
He who was cooking went out running. But be careful that he is
not fleeing, for he is a great servant of God. For when he came
out, he said to me: “I say to you in the name of the Lord”, and
immediately I saw
a
flame
, which came out of his mouth and touched
my ears
: so immediately I heard, and
I spoke.
The one who was serving in the kitchen came out running. But
beware that he does not flee, because he is truly a servant of
God! For when he went down, he said to me: “I tell you in the
name of Christ: open!”. And immediately I saw that came out of
his mouth like
a flame
of fire, and it came and
reached my
ears and my mouth
, and immediately my ears heard, and
my mouth spoke”.
“The man who was serving in the refectory went out in a rush.
But beware that he does not flee, because he is a servant of
God!”. And he told them: “When he came to me, he said: ‘In the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, open the door for me!’, I saw
going out of his mouth like
a
tongue
of fire, and it touched
my mouth and my ears
, and immediately
I spoke with my mouth, and I heard with my ears.
And he said to them: “The one who managed the kitchen came out
running, fleeing. And he said to me: 'I tell you in the name of
Christ, open to me'. And I saw coming out of his mouth like
a flame
of fire, which
reached my ears and my
mouth
”.
In this last passage, coming from the conclusion of the tale,
the Syriac translator readapted the Greek text, by adding the detail of the
mouth touched by the flame. Here the Arabic text and Syriac 1 (β) are almost
identical, while Syriac 2 (α) inverts the terms (“my mouth and my ears”) and
substitutes the substantive ܫܠܗܒܝܬܐ,
“flame” (surely original, cf. Gr.: φλόγα),
with ܠܫܢܐ, “tongue”. The perfect
concordance of the Arabic with Syriac 1 (β), against Syriac 2 (α) on one
hand, and against the Greek on the other, shows once more that the model of
the Arabic translator was not the Greek original, but a Syriac manuscript
belonging to a high branch of the tradition.
To answer to the previous questions:
Syriac 1 (β) preserves original details of the Greek, which have
disappeared in Syriac 2 (α), better than the Arabic version does. There
is a first group of omissions and errors which is exclusive of Syriac 2
(α), whereas Arabic and Syriac 1 (β) faithfully reproduce the Greek.
There is then a second group of variants, which are common to Syriac 2
(α) and Arabic, whereas only Syriac 1 (β) correctly reflects the
Greek.
I did not find any passage which is correctly reproduced only by the
Arabic version, against Syriac 1 (β) and Syriac 2 (α). Quite the
opposite, the Arabic version usually agrees with Syriac 2 (α), against
Syriac 1 (β) and the Greek. Finally, it also happens that Arabic agrees
only with Syriac 1 (β), against the Greek.
It is sometimes possible to retrace the progressive development of the
variants. The Greek text is often readapted by the Syriac translator,
introducing some extensions and clarifications. Sometimes the Arabic
version has lost the main features of the original, preserving only
those extensions. Syriac 2 (α) often goes further on in this
deterioration process.
None of these observations is compatible with a revision on the
Greek original performed by the Arabic translator. It would be challenging
to justify how the outcome of such a revision is often identical to Syriac 1
(β). If the Arabic translator had consulted a Greek source, the improvements
of the Arabic text would be different from those of Syriac 1 (β). To support
the theory of a “re-translation” from Greek, it is not enough to find
details of the Greek original or calques from Greek words, which the Arabic
may have derived from a Syriac source of high quality. It would be necessary to discard the
mediation of a Syriac source, like it is possible in the case of
Ammonius’
Report on the Martyrdom of the
Monks of Sinai and Raithu
, where it is evident that the
Arabic translator read the Greek text, as he misunderstood the
word μερῶν, cf.
Treiger, The Earliest Dated Christian Arabic Translation
, p.
33.
The loss of three “pro-Chalcedonian chapters”: another Syriac-Arabic
connection
The absence in the Arabic version of chapters XXXIII, XXXVII, and
XLIX, which are focused on the conflict between the patriarch and the Miaphysite
sects of Alexandria, represents another direct reflection of the Syriac
version. As informs the
colophon of manuscript Sinai Ar. 428, the Arabic translation has
been performed at Mar Saba: if the translator had known the Greek
original, the “pro-Chalcedonian” chapters would have probably been
reintegrated. Considering the epoch of the Arabic
translation and its high stemmatic position, Cf. supra.
we know that the three chapters disappeared before the 10th century. This confirms the opinion, expressed by André Binggeli,
that the doctrinal chapters were not suppressed by the later Miaphysite
compilers of the Syriac collections. Binggeli, Writing in Syriac
[forthcoming]. Binggeli rightly highlights that some excerpts of the
Syriac version have also been transmitted by the Melkite manuscript
Sinai Syr. 24 (S). We do not know exactly which recension of the Syriac
text was transmitted by S, since it reproduces only fragments from
chapters X and VII. However, its stemmatic position seems to be similar
to that of the Arabic version, where the three chapters are lacking, cf.
supra. Nevertheless, there is no
reason to ascribe, as Binggeli does, the suppression —which is common to Syriac,
Latin, and Arabic— to the Greek model: as we have seen, the Greek text was
unknown not only to the Arabic translator but also to the anonymous author of
the Latin version BHL 4392, who translated from an Arabic source.
Between the Greek and the Syriac manuscript traditions, the Life of John the Merciful passed through two radical
readaptations: 1) the translation from Greek into Syriac; 2) the rewriting which
led from the “detailed form”, surviving in Syriac 1 (β), to the “abridged form”,
which characterizes Syriac 2 (α) and the Arabic text. Probably in one of these
two crucial moments, the Life of John the Merciful
assumed the peculiar structure surviving in Syriac, Arabic, and Latin. The
general reorganization of the chapters allowed the compiler to suppress the
above-mentioned episodes. It is noteworthy that some innovations seem to
have been introduced for a simpler translation of the work. It is for
example what happens with Peter’s tale: in the Syriac version, the
repositioning of its conclusion at the end of chapter XIX reinforces the
internal cohesion of the story, cf. Venturini, La
leggenda di Pietro il Pubblicano, p. 47.
Conclusions. The central position of the Arabic version in the manuscript
tradition of the Life of John the Merciful
To summarize:
The Syriac, Arabic and Latin (BHL 4392) versions of the Life of John the Merciful present the same structure and many
common variants, which are absent in the Greek manuscripts.
The Latin version BHL 4392 has not been translated from Greek but from an
Arabic model.
The Arabic version has been translated from a Syriac model.
The theory of a lost Greek Vorlage is not necessary
to explain the features common to the three versions, as Latin depends on
Arabic and Arabic depends on Syriac.
The Arabic version preserves many details of the Greek, which have
disappeared in the Syriac manuscript tradition.
The Arabic version reflects a high branch of the Syriac tradition, halfway
between the “abridged recension” (α) and the original Syriac translation
(Σ), which survives only in excerpts (β) and indirect witnesses (π).
The Greek’s original details, reproduced by the Arabic version, are not
the outcome of direct knowledge of the Greek text but of a high branch of
the Syriac tradition.
The Syriac recension β reproduces the Greek text much better than the
Arabic version.
The absence in Arabic (and in Latin) of the “doctrinal chapters” is the
direct consequence of their earlier suppression in the Syriac
version.
The position of the Arabic version in the manuscript tradition of
the Life of John the Merciful is crucial, not only from
the stemmatic point of view but more in general from that of the “transmission’s
history”. The Arabic version unexpectedly performs the role of cultural mediator
between the “oriental redaction” of the Life and the
Latin West. From an ecdotic perspective, the Arabic version represents the
“missing link” among the multiple recensions of the Syriac text. The study in
parallel of both translations can not only clarify their mutual relationship but
also provide new evidence for the research on the Syriac manuscript tradition.
As a meeting point between the Syriac, Latin, and Georgian traditions, the
Arabic version can help solve some problems that trouble the text’s history. The
Arabic text can directly improve not only the edition of the Syriac version but
also that of the Greek original. For example, it can help to choose between adiaphora in the Greek manuscripts, where the Syriac
tradition does not reproduce a specific passage. For these reasons, a critical
edition of this version represents, more than before, a desideratum. I hope that someone will be interested in working on this
challenging task, which is expected to bring new knowledge about a manuscript
tradition that never stops to surprise.
Appendix
The Arabic version of the Story of Peter the Tax
Collector, as in manuscript Vatican Syr. 202, f. 23r-f. 27r (V);
variants from Dayr Mar Mattay, ms. 138 (D), and Sinai Ar. 428 (A)
Vatican Syr. 202, f. 23r; DMMM 138, f. 112va = Festugière,
368.1-29
[1]
ܟܐܢ ܐܢܣܐܢ ܫܪܝܦ
ܝܩܐܠ ܠܗ̇ ܒܛܪܐ
ܝܩܐܠ ܠܗ̇ ܒܛܪܐ V D : om.
A ܘܟܐܢ ܓܢܝ
ܘܟܐܢ ܓܢܝ D : ܘܓܢܝ V ܔܕܐ: ܘܠܡ ܝܟ̇ܢ
ܠܗ̇ ܪܚܡܗ ܥܠܝ ܐܠܡܣܐܟܝܢ
ܐܠܡܣܐܟܝܢ V D : انسان
A ܐܠܒܬܗ. ܘܦܝ ܒܥܨ ܐܠܐܝܐܡ ܟܐܢܘܐ ܐܠܡܣܐܟܝܢ
ܓܠܘܣ ܦܝ ܐܠܫܡܣ. ܦܒܕܐ ܟܠ ܘܐܚܕ ܡܢܗܡ ܝܕܟܪ ܐܠܢܐܣ ܐܠܪܚܘܡܝܢ
ܐܠܪܚܘܡܝܢ V D : الذين يدفعون اليهم
الصدقة A ܘܝܕܥܘܐ ܠܗܡ. ܘܝܕܟܪܘܐ ܐܝܛܐ
ܐܠܕܝܢ ܠܝܣ ܠܗܡ ܪܚܡܗ
ܟܣܒܘ add. post ܪܚܡܗ V ܘܝܠܥܢܘܗܡ.
ܦܕܟܪܘܐ Post ܦܕܟܪܘܐ add.
ܗܕܐ ܐܠܪܔܠ
ܐܠܓܢܝ V D ܒܛܪܐ ܐܠܥܕܝܡ
ܐܠܪܚܡܗ. ܘܒܕܘܐ ܝܣܐܠܘܐ ܒܥܨܗܡ ܠܒܥܨ
ܒܥܨܗܡ ܠܒܥܨ D A : ܒܥܛܗܡ ܐܠܒܥܛ
ܗܟܕܐ V ܗܠ ܐܥܛܐ ܠܐܚܕܐ ܡܢܗܡ
ܨܕܩܗ܇ ܦܠܡ ܝܔܕܘܐ ܐܚܕܐ ܡܢܗܡ ܐܟܕ ܡܢܗ̇ ܫܝܐ
ܐܟܕ ܡܢܗ̇ ܫܝܐ V D : om.
A. ܦܩܐܠ ܘܐܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܐܠܡܣܐܟܝܢ. ܡܐ ܕܐ ܬܥܛܘܢܝ
ܐܢ ܐܢܐ ܕܗܒܬ ܘܐܟܕܬ ܡܢܗ̇ ܨܕܩܗ. ܦܐܘܥܕܘܗ ܐܢܗܡ ܝܥܛܘܗ ܫܝܐ. ܘܐܢ ܕܠܟ
ܐܠܡܣܟܝܢ
ܘܐܢ ܕܠܟ ܐܠܡܣܟܝܢ V D : om.
A ܕܗܒ ܘܔܠܣ ܥܠܝ ܒܐܒܗ̇ ܝܢܬܛܪܗ̇ ܐܠܝ ܐܢ ܝܐܬܝ.
ܘܒܬܘܦܝܩ ܡܢ ܐܠܗ ܐܩܒܠ ܘܡܥܗ̇ ܐܢܣܐܢ
ܐܢܣܐܢ D V : دوابه A ܝܚܡܠ ܦܝ ܛܒܩ
ܛܒܩ
ܦܝD V : سلجن من
الخبازة A ܟ̣ܒܙ ܐܠܓܕܐ.
ܦܠܡܐ ܢܛܪ ܐܠܝ ܕܠܟ ܐܠܡܣܟܝܢ Post ܐܠܡܣܟܝܢ
add. ܔܐܠܣ ܥܠܝ ܐܠܒܐܒ V
D ܓܨܒ ܔܕܐ ܘܛܠܒ ܚܔܪ ܠܟܝܡܐ ܝܪܡܝܗ ܒܗܐ ܦܠܡ
ܝܔܕ Post ܝܔܕ add.
ܦܡܢ ܐܠܓܨܒ V D. ܐܟ̣ܕ ܪܓܝܦ ܡܢ ܥܠܝ ܐܠܛܒܩ
ܐܠܛܒܩ V D : مما كانت تحمل دوابه
A ܦܪܡܐ ܒܗ ܦܝ ܘܔܡܗܗ ܒܓܨܒ ܫܕܝܕ
[وضربه] وضربه A : om. V D. ܦܐܟܕ ܐܠܡܣܟܝܢ ܕܠܟ ܐܠܪܓܝܦ ܘܐܬܝ ܒܗ ܐܠܝ ܐܨܚܐܒܗ̇. ܘܔܥܠ ܝܚܠܦ ܠܗܡ
ܒܐܠܗ ܐܢܢܝ ܡܢ ܝܕܗ̇ ܐܟܕܬܗ̇ ܐܠܣܐܥܗ.
Vatican Syr. 202, f. 23v; DMMM 138, f. 113ra = Festugière,
368.30-369.55
[2]
ܘܡܢ ܒܥܕ ܝܘܡܝܢ ܡܪܨ
ܕܠܟ ܐܠܓܢܝ ܒܛܪܐ
ܒܛܪܐ om. D ܦܪܐܝ ܦܝ ܡܢܐܡܗ̇ ܟܐܢܗ̇ ܘܐܩܦ ܦܝ ܐܠܕܝܢܘܢܗ ܐܠܡܦܙܥܗ
ܐܠܡܪܗܒܗ
ܐܠܡܦܙܥܗ ܐܠܡܪܗܒܗ om.
D ܘܗܘ ܝܕܐܢ ܥܠܝ ܐܥܡܐ ܠܗ̇: ܘܐܒܨܪ ܩܘܡ ܣܘܕܐܢ
ܩܒܚܐܢ
ܩܒܚܐܢ D A : ܩܒܚܝܢ V ܐܠܘܔܘܗ ܐܬ̇ܘܗ.
ܘܩܕ ܔܡܥܘܐ ܟܠ ܐܥܡܐ ܠܗ̇ ܐܠܣܘ. ܘܘܨܥܘܗܐ ܦܝ ܟܦܗ̈ ܐܠܡܝܙܐܢ ܘܟܐܢܘܐ ܐܝܨܐ ܩܘܡ ܐܟܪܝܢ
ܩܝܐܡ ܥܢܕ ܐܠܟܦܗ̈ ܐܠܐܟܪܝ
ܐܠܐܟܪܝ V A : ܐܠܐܟܪܗ D ܘܗܡ ܚܣܢܝܢ
ܐܠܘܔܘܗ
ܐܠܘܔܘܗ V A : ܐܠܘܔܗ D. ܒܠܒܐܣ ܐܒܝܛ: ܦܐܪܐܕܘܐ ܐܢ ܝܛܥܘܐ ܦܝ
ܐܠܟ̇ܦܗ̈ ܐܠܐܟܪܝ ܫܝ ܠܟܝ ܬܥܬܕܠ ܦܠܡ ܝܔܕܘܐ ܫܝܐ ܡܢ ܐܠܚܣܢܐܬ ܡܩܐܒܠ ܫܪܘܪ ܐܘܠܝܟ
ܐܠܣܘܕܐܢ. ܦܒܩܝܘܐ ܚܙܝܢܝܢ ܠܕܠܟ. ܦܟܝܢܡܐ ܗܡ ܟܕ ܠܟ. ܩܐܠ ܒܥܜܗܡ ܠܒܥܜ. ܬܪܐ ܡܐ ܠܢܐ ܗܐ
ܗܢܐ ܫܝ ܢܘܨܥ
ܢܘܨܥ D A : ܢܜܥ
V ܦܝ ܐܠܟ̇ܦܗ̈ ܐܠܐܟܪܝ. ܫܝ
ܫܝ om. V ܦܐܔܐܒ ܐܚܕܗܡ ܩܐܝܠܐ ܚܩܐ ܡܐ ܠܢܐ ܗܐ ܗܐܢܐ ܫܝ ܐܠܐ ܪܓܝܦ ܟ̣ܒܙ ܕܦܠܗ
ܐܠܝ ܐܠܡܣܚܝ ܡܢܕ ܝܘܡܝܢ. ܒܓܝܪ ܗܘܐܗ: ܦܢܜܗ ܦܝ ܐܠܟ̇ܦܗ ܐܠܐܟܪܝ ܡܥ ܒܚܕ ܬܚܢܢ ܘܪܚܡܗ
ܘܪܐܦܗ̈ ܝܣܘܥ ܐܠܡܣܝܚ
ܦܢܜܗ...ܐܠܡܣܝܚ om.
D: ܦܐܟܕܘܗ ܝܚܢܝܕ ܘܘܨܥܘܗ ܦܝ ܐܠܟܦܗ܇
ܦܐܣܬܘܬ
ܦܐܣܬܘܬ V A : ܦܐܬܣܘܬ D ܡܥ ܐܠܐܟ̣ܪܝ܆
ܦܐܢܬܬܪܬܐ ܘܪܐܩ ܬܠܟ ܐܠܣܘ ܪܐܢ ܘܘܠܘܐ ܡܟ̣ܙܚܢ ܥܠܝ ܐܕܒܐܪ ܗܡ
ܦܐܢܬܬܪܬܐ...ܗܡ om. D܇ ܦܩܐܠܘܐ ܠܗ̇ ܐܠܢܐܒܣܝܢ ܐܠܐܒܝܨ
ܐܠܐܒܝܨ D A : ܐܠܒܝܐܨ V.
ܐܢܛܪ
ܐܢܛܪ om. D ܝܐ ܒܛܪܐ ܐܕܗܒ ܘܙܝܕ ܥܠܝ ܗܕܐ ܐܠܪܓܝܦ ܫܝܐ ܐܟܪ ܡܢ ܐܠܟ̣ܝܪ܆ ܘܐܠܐ
ܐܥܠܡ ܐܢ ܗܘ ܠܐܝ ܐܠܣܘܕܐܢ ܝܐܟܕܘܟ ܐܠܝܗܡ. ܦܠܡܐ ܐܢܬܒܗ ܒܛܪܐ ܥܠܡ ܐܢ ܡܐ
ܐܒܨܪܗ
ܐܒܨܪܗ V A : ܐܒܨܪ D ܚܩ: ܘܠܝܣ ܒܒܐܛܠ
ܠܐܢܗ̇ ܥܪܦ ܟܠ ܫܝ ܦܥܠܗ̇ ܡܢ ܨܒܗ ܐܠܝ ܕܠܟ ܐܠܘܩܬ܇ ܦܐܒܨܪ ܐܠܣܘܕܐܢ ܩܕ ܐܬܘܐ
ܐܠܝܗ
ܐܠܝܗ D A : ܒܗ V ܘܘܛܥܘܗ ܦܝ ܟܦܗ̈
ܐܠܡܝܙܐܢ ܦܩܐܠ ܠܢܦܣܗ̣ ܝܐ ܐܠܥܔܒ ܐܢ ܟܐܢ ܪܓܝܦ ܘܐܚܕܗ
ܘܐܚܕܗ V A : ܘܐܚܕ D ܩܕ ܐܠܩܝܬܗ̇ ܒܓܝܪ
ܗܘܐܝ ܐܠܝ ܕܠܟ ܐܠܡܣܟ̇ܝܢ ܢܦܥܢܝ ܗܟܕܐ ܘܟ̣ܠܨܢܝ ܡܢ ܐܘܠܝܟ ܐܠܣܘܕܐܢ: ܦܡܢ ܟ̇ܡ ܫܪܘܪ
ܝܟ̣ܠܨ ܐܠܕܝ ܒܗܘܐ ܨܐܠܚ ܝܥܛܝ ܡܐܠܗ̇ ܐܠܡܣܐܟ̇ܝܢ. ܘܡܢ ܕܠܝܟ ܐܠܝܘܡ ܨܐܪ ܝܪܚܡ
ܐܠܡܣܐܟܝܢ.
Vatican Syr. 202, f. 24v; DMMM 138, f. 113rb = Festugière,
369.58-70
[3]
ܘܦܝ ܒܥܨ ܐܠܐܝܐܡ
ܘܗܘ ܟܐܪܔ ܡܢ ܐܠܟܢܝܣܗ. ܝܪܝܕ ܡܔܠܣܗ̇ ܠܐܢܗ̇ ܟ̇ܐܢ ܪܚܣ ܐܠܥܫܐܪܝܢ ܠܩܝܗ ܐܢܣܐܢ ܢܘܬܝ. ܩܕ
ܢܔܐ ܡܢ ܓ̣ܪܩ ܐܠܒܚܪ. ܘܗܘ ܥܪܝܐܢ ܦܣܔܕ ܠܗ̇
ܦܣܔܕ ܠܗ̇ V D : فوقع بين يديه
A ܘܛܠܒ ܐܠܝܗ ܐܢ ܝܟ̇ܣܘܗ. ܦܠܡܐ ܪܐܗ ܒܛܪܐ ܬܚܢܢ
ܥܠܝܗ. ܘܢܙܥ ܬܘܒ ܡܢ ܬܝܐܒܗ̇
ܬܘܒ ܡܢ ܬܝܐܒܗ̇ V D : ثوب جيد
A ܘܐܠܒܣܗ̇ ܐܝܐܗ
ܘܐܠܒܣܗ̇ ܐܝܐܗ V D : فدفعه اليه
A: ܘܣܐܠܗ̇
ܘܣܐܠܗ̇ V D : حلفه A ܩܐܝܠܐ ܡܢ ܐܔܠ
ܡܢ ܐܔܠ V A : ܡܢܔܠ D
ܐܠܗ Add. الرب A.
ܐܩܒܠ ܗܕܐ ܐܠܬܘܒ
ܐܩܒܠ ܗܕܐ ܐܠܬܘܒ V D : om.
A ܘܨ̇ܠܝ ܥܠܝ. ܦܠܡܐ ܐܢܛܠܩ ܐܠܢܘܬܝ
ܐܣܬܚܝ
ܐܣܬܚܝ V A : ܐܣܬܚܐ D ܐܢ ܝܠܒܣܗ̇ ܠܚܐܠ
ܚܣܢܗ̇ ܦܐܥܛܐܗ̇ ܝܒܐܥ ܦܝ ܐܠܣܘܩ: ܘܥܢܕ ܪܔܘܥ ܒܛܪܐ Add. الغني post ܒܛܪܐ
A ܐܠܝ ܡܢܙܠܗ̇ ܪܐܝ ܐܠܬܘܒ ܝܒܐܥ ܦܝ ܐܠܣܘܩ
ܝܒܐܥ ܦܝ ܐܠܣܘܩ V D : معلق في السوق للبيع A: ܦܚܙܢ ܠܕܠܟ ܔܕܐ. ܘܐܢܛܠܩ ܐܠܝ ܡܢܙܠܗ̇
ܘܐܢܛܠܩ ܐܠܝ ܡܢܙܠܗ̇ V D : فلما اتا بيته A: ܘܠܡ ܝܩܕܪ ܝܐܟ̇ܠ ܡܢ ܐܦܪܐܛ ܚܙܢܗ̇ ܫܝܐ: ܠܟ̇ܢܗ̇ ܐܓ̣ܠܩ ܒܐܒܗ̇ ܘܩܥܕ
ܝܒܟ̇ܝ ܘܝܬܢܗܕ ܡܢ ܨܡܝܡ ܩܠܒܗ̇. ܘܝܩܘܠ ܡܐ ܟܢܬ ܐܣܬܐܗܠ ܐܢ ܝܕܟ̇ܪܢܝ ܕܠܟ ܐܠܡܣܟ̇ܝܢ.
ܘܦܝܡܐ ܗܘ ܚܙܝܢ Post ܚܙܝܢ add.
باكي A ܢܥܣ ܘܢܐܡ.
Vatican Syr. 202, f. 27r; DMMM 138, f. 115ra = Festugière,
371.170-176
[4] ܦܩܐܠ ܠܗܡ ܐܢ ܐܠܕܝ ܟܐܢ
ܝܟܝ̣ܡ
ܝܟܝ̣ܡ V D : يدبر A ܦܝ ܐܠܡܛܒܟ ܟܪܔ
ܐܠܝ ܒܪܐ ܝܔܪܝ ܘܗܘ ܗܐܪܒ ܘܩܐܠ ܠܝ ܠܟ ܐܩܘܠ ܒܐܣܡ ܐܠܡܣܚܝ ܐܦܬܚ ܠܝ ܘܪܐܝܬ ܐܢ ܟܪܔ ܡܢ
ܦܡܗ ܟܡܬܠ ܠܗܝܒ ܐܠܢܐܪ. ܘܒܠܓ ܐܠܝ ܐܕܢܝ ܘܦܡܝ
Bibliography
Al-Shamani, Fahâris al-makhtûtât = G. A.
Al-Shamani, Fahâris al-makhtûtât al-suryâniyyah fi
ʻ
abrashiat Deir Mar
Matta, Nīnawā — al-‘Irāq (Catalogue of the Syriac
Manuscripts in the Diocese of Dayr Mar Mattay, Niniveh — Iraq), Dahuk,
2010.
Assemani, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae =
J. S. Assemani—S. E. Assemani, Bibliothecae
Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum
manuscriptorum catalogus, in tres partes distributus, in quarum prima
Orientales, in altera Graeci, in tertia Latini, Italici aliorumque
Europaeorum idiomatum codices, III, Paris, 1759.
Bedjan, Acta Martyrum = P. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, IV, Leipzig, 1894.
Bibliotheca hagiographica latina =
Socii
Bollandiani, Bibliotheca hagiographica latina
antiquae et mediae aetatis, I, Bruxelles, 1898-1899 (Subsidia
Hagiographica, 6).
Binggeli,
Writing in Syriac
= A. Binggeli,
Writing in Syriac and Christian Palestinian Aramaic at Mar Saba, in The
Lavra of St Sabas: Liturgy and Literature in Communities and Contexts,
edited by D. Galadza—J.
Verheyden (
Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta/Bibliothèque de Byzantion), [forthcoming].
Blau, Über einige alte = J. Blau, Über
einige alte christlich-arabische Handschriften aus Sinai, in Le Muséon 76 (3-4) (1963), p. 369-374.
Bohdziewicz—Warburg,
Vita beati
Iohannis
=
S. Bohdziewicz, I. Warburg,
La
Vita beati Iohannis pii patriarche Alexandrie
(BHL 4392): editio princeps
y traducción
, in
Magnificat
Cultura i Literatura Medievals
8 (2021), p. 303-342.
Breydy,
Études sur Sai’id Ibn
Batriq
=
M. Breydy,
Études sur Sai’id Ibn
Batriq et ses sources
(Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium,
450; Subsidia, 69), Louvain, 1983.
Breydy,
Das Annalenwerk
(CSCO 471) =
M. Breydy
,
Das
Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien
(Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium, 471; Scriptores Arabici, 44), Louvain,
1985.
Breydy,
Das Annalenwerk
(CSCO 472) =
M. Breydy
,
Das
Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien
(Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium, 472; Scriptores Arabici, 45), Louvain,
1985.
Cavallero—Fernández,
La Vida de Juan =
P. A. Cavallero
,
T. Fernández
,
La Vida de Juan el limosnero de Leoncio de Neápolis (s. VII):
sus recensiones breve, media y larga, in Estudios bizantinos 4 (2016), p.
15-37.
Cavallero, Vida de Juan el limosnero =
P. A. Cavallero, P. A. Ubierna, A. C. Capboscq, J. C. Lastra Sheridan,
A. V. Sapere, T. Fernández, S. Bohdziewicz, D. M. Santos, Vida de Juan el limosnero. Edición
revisada con traducción, introducción, notas y apéndices (Textos y
Estudios, 9), Buenos Aires, 2011.
Cavallero, Leoncio de Neápolis y los relatos =
P. A.
Cavallero, Leoncio de Neápolis y los relatos sobre
Pedro el publicano, in Circe, de clásicos y
modernos 23/1 (2019), p. 31-37.
Cavallero—Gutiérrez—Fuentes, El texto ‘selectivo’ de
la versión 'corta’ =
P. A. Cavallero, D. G. Gutiérrez, P.
E. Fuentes,
El texto ‘selectivo’ de la versión 'corta’ de la Vida de Juan
el Limosnero de Leoncio de Neápolis (Textos y Estudios, 25), Buenos
Aires, 2021.
Cavallero—Fernández,
Leoncio de Neápolis, Vida de Juan = P. A.
Cavallero, T. Fernández, Leoncio de Neápolis, Vida de
Juan el Limosnero, edición crítica con introducción y notas de Pablo
Cavallero y Tomás Fernández, Granada, [forthcoming].
Chiesa, Vita e morte di Giovanni Calibita e
Giovanni l'Elemosiniere = P. Chiesa, Vita e morte di
Giovanni Calibita e Giovanni l'Elemosiniere. Due testi 'amalfitani'
inediti, Cava dei Tirreni 1995.
Conterno, The recensions of Eutychius = M.
Conterno, The recensions of Eutychius of Alexandria’s
Annals: MS Sinai 582 reconsidered, in Adamantius 25 (2019), p. 383-404.
Déroche, Études sur Léontios = V.
Déroche, Études sur Léontios de Néapolis
(Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia, 3), Uppsala, 1995.
Ebeid, Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq = B. Ebeid, Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq, the Theologian: New Considerations on his
Historical Work, "The Annals", in Parole de
l'Orient 42 (2016), p. 165-190.
Festugière, Vie de Syméon le Fou = A. J.
Festugière, Vie de Syméon le Fou et Vie de Jean
de Chypre, Paris, 1974.
Géhin, Les manuscrits syriaques =
P. Géhin, Les manuscrits syriaques de parchemin du Sinai
et leurs membra disjecta (Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium, 665; Subsidia 136), Louvain, 2017.
Graf, Geschichte der christlichen =
G.
Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen
Literatur, I, Città del Vaticano, 1944.
Greif, La orden de San Juan en Jerusalén =
E. Greif, La Orden de San Juan en Jerusalén y el modelo de
caridad monástica bizantina en el cuidado de los enfermos, in Ordens militares, identidade e mudança, I, edited by
I. C. Ferreira Fernandes (Coleção Ordens Militares, 9), Palmela,
2021, p. 187-206.
Thomas, Catalogue général des manuscrits =
M.
Thomas,
Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, VII, Paris,
1988.
Treiger, The Earliest Dated Christian Arabic Translation =
A. Treiger,
The Earliest Dated Christian Arabic Translation (772 AD): Ammonius' Report on
the Martyrdom of the Monks of Sinai and Raithu, in
Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 16 (2016), p.
29-38.
Venturini, Nuove considerazioni = G. Venturini, Nuove considerazioni su alcuni luoghi della Vita di Giovanni
il Misericordioso a partire dal contributo della versione siriaca, in
Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 54 (2017),
p. 71-83.
Venturini, Quale modello greco? = G. Venturini, Quale modello greco? La versione siriaca nella tradizione
manoscritta della Vita di Giovanni il Misericordioso, in Adamantius 25 (2019), p. 371-382.
Venturini,
La versione siriaca
della Vita
(CSCO 679) = G.
Venturini,
La versione siriaca della Vita di Giovanni
il Misericordioso
(Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 679; Scriptores Syri,
263)
,
Louvain, 2020.
Venturini,
La versione siriaca
della Vita
(CSCO 680) = G.
Venturini,
La versione siriaca della Vita di Giovanni
il Misericordioso
(Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium,
680; Scriptores Syri, 264)
,
Louvain, 2020.
Venturini, La leggenda di Pietro il Pubblicano = G.
Venturini, La leggenda di Pietro il Pubblicano nella
tradizione agiografica siriaca, in Le Muséon 133
(1-2) (2020), p. 43-86.
Venturini, La versio syra minor = G. Venturini,
La versio syra minor della Vita di Giovanni il
Misericordioso, in Analecta Bollandiana 140/I
(2022), p. 5-66.