A Re-examination of Codex Phillipps 1388
Andreas
Juckel
Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
January 2003
Vol. 6, No. 1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv6n1juckel
Andreas JUCKEL
A Re-examination of Codex Phillipps 1388
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol6/HV6N1Juckel.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2003
vol 6
issue 1
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.
Syriac Studies
Codex Phillipps
Peshitta
Pre-Peshitta
Old Syriac
Diatessaron
Harmonistic readings
G.H. Gwilliam
Ph.E. Pusey
F.C. Burkitt
A. Vööbus
M. Black
A. Allgeier.
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
The article offers a collation of the
5th/6th cent. Peshitta Gospel manuscript known as 'Codex
Phillipps 1388' with the standard text of the Peshitta Gospels
published by Ph.E. Pusey/G.H. Gwilliam in 1901. The purpose is
to re-examine the collation of the same codex presented by the
German scholar A. Allgeier in 1932 and to establish its
relation to the 'Old Syriac' and to early Peshitta manuscripts.
The result is that 'Codex Phillipps' is not a singular
(Allgeier) but a typical (Black) early Peshitta manuscript. All
early Gospel manuscripts should be examined to trace their
individually developped 'Old Syriac heritage'.
The Background
[1] This
re-examination of ‘Codex Phillipps 1388’
Sir Thomas Phillipps of Worcestershire (1792-1872)
was a famous antiquary, bibliophile and collector of
manuscripts, see the Modern English Biography 1892-1921
(ed. by F. Boase), vol. II (1897/21965)
1500-1501.
resumes
the work of Arthur Allgeier, who seventy years ago was the
first to introduce this 5th/6th-century
Gospel manuscript
A description of this codex is given by E. Sachau,
Verzeichnis der Syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen
Bibliothek zu Berlin, 1. Abteilung (Berlin 1899), p. 12-15
(no. 7).
(held at the Staatsbibliothek, Berlin) to
scholarly discussion
A. Allgeier, Cod.
Phillipps 1388 in
Berlin und seine Bedeutung für die Geschichte der
Pešitta, Oriens Christianus 7 (3rd
series), 1932, 1-15. – In 1916 he published an article on
Cod. syr. Phillipps 1388 und seine ältesten
Perikopenvermerke, Oriens Christianus 6 (2nd
series), 1916, 147-152. On page 149 he declares: ‘Ein
vollständiges Verzeichnis der wenigen, aber nicht
unwichtigen Sonderlesarten der wertvollen, in der
Textgeschichte der Peschitta so merkwürdigen Hs. habe ich
in Vorbereitung’.
. Collating the codex with the text of the
Peshitta Gospels published by E. Ph. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam
in 1901, Allgeier’s intention was to point to its
significance for the history of the Peshitta text. According to
him, ‘Codex Phillipps’ is the only known Peshitta
manuscript which shares a significant number of readings with
the ‘Old Syriac’ Gospel text, thus attesting a
transition stage between the ‘Old Syriac’ and the
Peshitta. Discussing only two sample passages (Jn xiii.17 and
Jn xviii.16) to set out this view in some detail,
Allgeier’s primary concern was to resume the question of
a revisional history of the Peshitta Gospels, which was
answered in the negative by G. H. Gwilliam in an article of
1891
G.H. Gwilliam, The Materials for the criticism
of the Peshitto New Testament, with specimens of the Syriac
Massorah, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica vol. 3 (Oxford
1891), 47-104, esp. 84-90. He maintained the homogeneity of the
Peshitta, which is without scores of rivisions;
‘rather does it present itself in our copies in a
perfected and matured condition. If the ‘revisions’
ever really took place, time has swept away nearly all the
chips and shavings of the work’ (84).
. But meanwhile the reopening of this question
had been effected by the discovery (1892) and successive
publication (1894, 1896, 1910) of the ‘Old Syriac’
Sinaitic manuscript, by the improved republication of the
‘Old Syriac’ Curetonian manuscript by F.C. Burkitt
(1904), and by Gwilliam’s splendid edition of the
Peshitta Gospels (1901). All these publications had created new
conditions for the discussion about the ‘Old
Syriac’ Gospels
Gwilliam’s judgement is ruled by different
terms, because for him ‘Old Syriac’ was lacking
real textual evidence. His assessment of the Curetonian
manuscript is illustrative: ‘It may be said that
Cureton’s Syriac is related to the Peshitto in the same
way that the latter is to the Philoxeno-Heraclean revision.
This is certainly not true of the Curetonian in its present
form. If, for example, we collate the Peshitto and Curetonian,
(…),we find that in many verses the language is so
divergent that comparism is impracticable. If we turn to other
passages we discover that often the peculiarities of the
Curetonian bear a greater ressemblance to the later than to the
earlier Peshitto readings (…). It is freely admitted,
that in investigations of this nature conclusions are
provisional. Our opinion of the antiquity of the Peshitto would
of course be modified by the discovery of other documents, and
clear evidence of the type of text which was current before St.
Ephraim’s days. Meanwhile, if we are to borrow terms from
the West, the Harclean, and not the Peshitto, is the
‘SyriacVulgate’, the Peshitto is the ‘Old
Syriac’, and not the Curetonian in its present form. An
Ur-Peshitto may once have existed, and perhaps it provided the
Evangelia out of which Tatian constructed his Harmony; but its
ancient text still waits for the patient investigator or the
lucky discoverer (...). Meanwhile, it is certainly premature to
treat Cureton’s MS. as the basis of the Peshitto, and to
quote it habitually as the ‘Old Syriac’. That term
might fitly be applied to so much of the text of the Curetonian
as could be shown to be older than the Peshitto text; but to
apply it without reserve to the text of Add. 14,451 is to beg
the question’ (89-90).
and about the early Peshitta text.
Allgeier continued this line to add further manuscript evidence
by introducing ‘Codex Phillipps’.
[2] In the
history of research attention was paid to the codex during the
re-examination of F.C. Burkitt’s influential
hypothesis
F.C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe vol.
II (Cambridge 1904/Piscataway 2003), 160-165, and by the same
author Early Eastern Christianity. St. Margaret's
Lectures 1904 on the Syriac-speaking Church (London
1904/Piscataway 2002), chapter II.
on the origin of the Peshitta text by A.
Vööbus, which finally resulted in a modification of
this hypothesis by M. Black. Burkitt’s view, that it was
Rabbula (bishop of Edessa 411-435) who introduced the Peshitta
to Eastern Christianity by revising and thus replacing the
Gospels of ‘Old Syriac’ text type, Vööbus
contested by continuous efforts to display evidence for the
maintenance (and even dominance) of the ‘Old
Syriac’ side by side with the Peshitta until the end of
the 5th century
A. Vööbus, Early Versions of the New
Testament. Manuscript Studies (Papers of the Estonian
Theological Society in Exile, vol. 6). Stockholm 1954 (Chapter
III.2-3 on the Old Syriac and the Peshitta); Studies in the
History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, vol. I (CSCO 128),
Louvain 1951; vol. II (CSCO 496), Louvain 1987.
. In this contest, ‘Codex
Phillipps’ became the model of an ‘Old
Syriac’-influenced manuscript, which directed
Vööbus’ research for additional representatives
of this text type
See his Studies in the History of the Gospel
Text in Syriac, vol. II , p. 24-26.
. Vööbus found fault with
Gwilliam’s Gospel edition for not sufficiently
considering the ‘Old Syriac’ elements within the
Peshitta manuscripts, thus neglecting it for the constitution
of the text to print
Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in
Syriac, vol. II , p. 17-24.
. Black too recognized the neglection of the
‘Old Syriac’ element in Gwilliam’s
edition
M. Black, The text of the Peshitta
Tetraeuangelium, in: Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de
Zwaan septuagenarii, ed. J.N. Sevenester and W.C. van Unnik
(Haarlem 1953), 20-27.
, but acknowledged it as a result of Gwilliams
editorial policy
‘Gwilliam’s method appears to
have been to determine his text by a majority vote of his
manuscripts; it is not surprising to find again and again that
it is his predecessors who show the oldest form of the text, in
readings agreeing with the Old Syriac and relegated to the
apparatus criticus in the Gwilliam edition. Gwilliam has in
fact given us the latest not the earliest text of the Peshitta
Tetraeuangelium’ (26).
. Guided by ‘Codex Phillipps’,
Black drew attention to variants already quoted in
Gwilliam’s Gospel volume, which agree with the ‘Old
Syriac’ manuscripts against the traditional Peshitta text
in the same way ‘Codex Phillipps’ does. These
variants he assessed to be remnants of a Peshitta text earlier
than the one printed in Gwilliam’s volume, represented
but not yet sufficiently identified in its apparatus
criticus. According to Black it was this earlier Peshitta
text (the ‘pre-Peshitta, i.e., the Old Syriac basis of
the Syriac Vulgate’
M. Black, The Syriac Versional
Tradition, in: K. Aland (Ed.), Die alten Übersetzungen
des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und
Lektionare (Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung, vol.
5), Berlin-New York 1972, pp. 120-159, the quotation on page
133.
) Rabbula introduced by revising
the ‘Old Syriac’ Gospels.
The Presentation of the Variants
[3] The
primary fundamental concern of Allgeier’s article leaves
it unsatisfactory with regard to the details. Neither is the
collation of the codex complete, nor its relation to the
‘Old Syriac’ and Peshitta manuscripts sufficiently
set out. Therefore, to give a more detailed presentation of the
textual evidence preserved in ‘Codex Phillipps’ is
the concern of this re-examination. This presentation is
inspired by M. Black, who offered a sound method to determine
not only the individually developed 'Old Syriac' heritage of
'Codex Phillips' but of every early Gospel
manuscript.
[4] The
construction of the following list is simple. The
lemma is taken from the Gwilliam’s Gospel volume
(1901), followed by the variant of ‘Codex
Phillipps’ (all orthographic variants are excluded). The
evidence of the ‘Old Syriac’ manuscripts (Sinaitic
and Curetonian) are constantly quoted (in red), their defective
condition is indicated by lac(una). Peshitta variants
taken from Gwilliam’s Gospel volume are added (in blue)
to the quoted readings of ‘Codex Phillipps’.
Limitations
[5] The
collation offers a total of 387 items PPh
: PGw (the 21 variants in the supplemented
portions not counted). This comparatively small number of
variants derives from the fact that PGw is a
majority text (based on forty-two manuscripts) and only the
non-majority portion of PPh is quoted. To trace this
individuality by a statistical approach, the agreement of
PPh with other Peshitta manuscripts and with the
‘Old Syriac’ manuscripts respectively are to be
counted. But the result of this ‘simple’ counting
meets with considerable limitations due to the restricted
accessibility to both the ‘Old Syriac’ and the
Peshitta readings. While the ‘Old Syriac’
manuscripts and most of the Peshitta manuscripts of the
Pusey/Gwilliam volume are defective, a considerable part of the
latter is only collated in part
See the analytical list of manuscripts in my
Introduction to the reprint (Piscataway 2003) of
Gwilliam's Gospel volume.
. For example, in the
Curetonian almost the whole Gospel of Mark is missing, in
Gwilliam’s volume the Gospel of John is incompletely
collated for many manuscripts. Both deficiencies affect the
list above. Therefore, the following statistical
information (although not invalid) remains provisional and
calls for supplementation in its Peshitta part drawn from
additional collations
Gwilliam’s manuscripts no. 16, 21, 22,
26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38 should be (re-)collated in full,
a large number of further manuscripts Vööbus
recommends to be included (Studies in the History of the
Gospel Text in Syriac, vol. II).
.
Statistical Summary
[6] To
establish the relation between the listed individual
part of PPh and the ‘Old Syriac’
manuscripts, we shall distinguish between the non-singular and
singular variants of PPh (between its
individual and singular part), and between the
non-defective portions of SC and their defective
portions.
1) listed variants of PPh
attested by one or more Peshitta manuscript:
223
a) with reference to the non-defective
portions of SC
PPh = SC
21 var.
PPh = S : C
12 var.
PPh = C : S
11 var.
PPh ≠ SC
39 var.
PPh ≠ S ≠ C
7 var.
Total
90 var.
b) with reference to the defective portions of
SC
PPh = S or C
49 var.
PPh ≠ S or C
63 var.
Both SC lac
16 var.
Total
128 var.
In section 1. a-b 5 variants were not counted by
various reasons (e.g., SC are without diacritical point).
2) listed variants of PPh
not
attested by Peshitta manuscripts:
164
a) with reference to the non-defective
portions of SC
PPh = SC
4 var.
PPh = S : C
5 var.
PPh = C : S
7 var.
PPh ≠ SC
36 var.
PPh ≠ S ≠ C
10 var.
Total
62 var.
b) with reference to the defective portions of
SC
PPh = S or C
16 var.
PPh ≠ S or C
40 var.
Both SC lac
20 var.
Total
76 var.
Also in section 2. a-b 26 variants were not counted
by various reasons (e.g., SC are without diacritical
point).
[7] Among
the 387 PPh - variants quoted in the
list,
223 are supported by at least one Peshitta
manuscript (usually by more), 164 are singular readings
according to our present knowledge.
[8] With the
‘Old Syriac’ PPh shares a total of
125
listed readings (disagreements: 195),
64 (103) of which suffer from defective attestation of the
‘Old Syriac’ (S lac and/or C lac). In
those portions where SC are not defective,
PPh shares a total of 61
listed
readings with the ‘Old Syriac’ (25 with SC,
18 with S : C, and 18 with C : S); and there are
92 disagreements with S and/or C. The reduction of
statistics to the non-defective portions of SC points to the
absence of any special disposition of PPh towards S
or C.
[9] There is
a considerable singular portion (164) in the
individual part of the codex. 32 of these variants (in
the list in bold type) are supported by the ‘Old
Syriac’, 117 are not (in the list in
italics, incl. the 20 cases where SC are both defective). The
origin of these totally unsupported variants cannot be traced
conclusively; additional collations of Peshitta manuscripts
hopefully will provide support for several of them. But it
seems quite sure that the origin of these variants cannot be
traced back to the Greek. Besides the general better
adaptation to the Greek which is characteristic for the
Peshitta as against the ‘Old Syriac’, no
special Greek influence is responsible for the formation
of the singular portion
Allgeier suggests a serious Greek background
of the codex by pointing to the original Greek numbering of the
quires. He reflects on the possibility that the scribe may have
used also a Greek manuscript for his work (10).
(nevertheless, in the list
few remarkable agreements with the Greek are pointed out to the
reader by ‘→ Greek’).
[10] One
feature of this singular portion, however, can be identified as
harmonistic readings taken from the parallel text of the
fellow Gospel(s)
I am using the Synopsis quattuor
Evangeliorum, ed. by K. Aland (15th revised ed.,
Stuttgart 2001).
. Exceptionally few of these readings are
supported by one, two or three Peshitta manuscripts. I was able
to identify 25 of these harmonistic readings, a harder attempt
and thorough attention to the Diatessaric tradition surely will
identify more. (Almost) unsupported harmonistic readings are
not a special feature of ‘Codex Phillipps’, we also
meet them, e. g., in Ms. no. 39 of Gwilliam’s edition,
fully collated by W. Strothmann
It is Cod. 3. 1.300 Aug. fol. of the
Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbuettel (Germany), written
in the 6th century, see. W. Strothmann, Das
Wolfenbuetteler Tetraevangelium Syriacum. Lesarten und
Lesungen (Goettinger Orientforschungen, vol. I,2),
Wiesbaden 1971.
(during a rough check I
identified 15 harmonistic readings).
Results
[11] The
statistical summary sets out the individual and singular parts
of 'Codex Phillips' by giving a quantitative determination of
their relation to the 'Old Syriac' and to the earliest
manuscripts of the Peshitta Gospels. From this summary the
following general results can be drawn:
The primary result of this re-examination is a better
knowledge of the variants preserved in ‘Codex
Phillipps’, which are incompletely given in
Gwilliam’s Gospel volume and in Allgeier’s
article.
Allgeier’s hint to the significance of this codex
for the history of the Peshitta text the re-examination
confirmed but modified and reduced to its proper dimension.
By agreement and disagreement with the ‘Old
Syriac’ the codex (in its individual part)
agrees with various Peshitta manuscripts. This agreement
disposes of the codex’ supposed textual singularity; by
its ‘Old Syriac’ part the codex rather shares in
a typical (though individually developed) feature of the
early Peshitta text.
A considerable portion of singular variants not
supported by the ‘Old Syriac’ invites for further
research. As several of them can be identified as harmonistic
readings, the Diatessaric tradition of the Syriac New
Testament is a possible source. But their singular
attestation does not favor a ‘tradition’ behind
these harmonistic readings. If singular harmonistic readings
can be identified in many old Peshitta codices, theses
readings should rather be assessed as a typical feature of
the early text (of independent, non-Diatessaric origin).
The re-examination of the codex advises scholars to
re-examine all early Gospel codices in the same way
‘Codex Phillipps’ is re-examined in the present
article. The analysis of the individuality of the single
codices will determine their ‘Old Syriac’
heritage as well as their singular and harmonistic
readings.
[12]
Depending on the full extent and consistency of the ‘Old
Syriac’ heritage thus determined, should Gwilliam’s
majority text be altered by the adoption of this heritage in
the printed text? This question cannot simply be answered in
the affirmative for the following reason: Besides the
fading-out of ‘Old Syriac’ textual features
during history we also have to expect the
(re-)introduction of ‘Old Syriac’ features
into the Peshitta text during the co-existence of both
versions. Accordingly, a ‘pre-Peshitta’ as a fixed
text (to be reconstructed and printed)
If the ‘pre-Peshitta’ is not a
fixed text but a ‘type’ of text like the ‘Old
Syriac’ with a range of textual incarnations, its
heritage cannot be distinguished from the ‘Old
Syriac’ nor from the Peshitta. According to M. Black
the ‘pre-Peshitta’ is a fixed text introduced
by Rabbula of Edessa (see footnote 12).
cannot be taken
as granted by the existence of the ‘Old Syriac
heritage’; it is possible that a complex development of
the formerly fixed Peshitta enlarged or even produced
this ‘heritage’ (as far as it is not identical with
the Peshitta majority text). The complexity of the development
is given by the influence of the ‘Old Syriac’, the
Diatessaron and the Greek, which is tracable in the early
Peshitta Gospel manuscripts. Therefore, to alter
Gwilliam’s majority text by introducing the ‘Old
Syriac heritage’ would charge this new text with the
petitio principii of a ‘pre-Peshitta’ which
is not yet properly traced nor sufficiently discussed. Only the
re-examination of the early Gospel codices can offer evidence
about the textual reality or the textual myth of a fixed
‘pre-Peshitta’ and its possible future printed
incarnation. For this more comprehensive re-examination the one
of 'Codex Phillipps' offers a starting point. The true
significance of this codex for the history of the Peshitta
Gospels was not dicovered by A. Allgeier but by M.
Black._______
Notes
_______
Bibliography
Aland, K. Synopsis quattuor
Evangeliorum, ed. by K. Aland (15th revised ed., Stuttgart
2001).
Allgeier, A. Cod. syr. Phillipps
1388 und seine ältesten Perikopenvermerke, Oriens
Christianus 6 (2nd series), 1916, 147-152.
Allgeier, A. Cod. Phillipps 1388
in Berlin und seine Bedeutung für die Geschichte der
Pešitta, Oriens Christianus 7 (3rd series), 1932,
1-15.
Black, M. The Syriac Versional
Tradition, in: K. Aland (Ed.), Die alten Übersetzungen
des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und
Lektionare (Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung, vol.
5), Berlin-New York 1972, pp. 120-159.
Black, M. The text of the Peshitta
Tetraeuangelium, in: Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de
Zwaan septuagenarii, ed. J.N. Sevenester and W.C. van Unnik
(Haarlem 1953), 20-27.
Burkitt,F.C. Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe vol. II (Cambridge 1904/Piscataway
2003).
Burkitt, F.C Early Eastern
Christianity. St. Margaret's Lectures 1904 on the
Syriac-speaking Church (London 1904/Piscataway 2002), chapter
II.
Gwilliam, G. H. The Materials for
the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament, with specimens
of the Syriac Massorah, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica vol. 3
(Oxford 1891), 47-104.
Pusey, Ph.E. and Gwilliam, G.H.
Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (Oxford 1901/Piscataway
2003).
Sachau, E. Verzeichnis der
Syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu
Berlin, 1. Abteilung (Berlin 1899).
Strothmann, W. Das
Wolfenbuetteler Tetraevangelium Syriacum. Lesarten und
Lesungen (Goettinger Orientforschungen, vol. I,2),
Wiesbaden 1971.
Vööbus, A. Early
Versions of the New Testament. Manuscript Studies (Papers
of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, vol. 6).
Stockholm 1954.
Vööbus, A. Studies in
the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, vol. I (CSCO
128), Louvain 1951; vol. II (CSCO 496), Louvain 1987.