Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 and the New Testament Peshitta
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
2003
Vol. 6, No. 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/hv6n2juckel
Andreas Juckel
Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 and the New Testament Peshitta
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol6/HV6N2Juckel.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2003
vol 6
issue 2
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
Ms. Schøyen 2530
Martin Schoyen
Martin Schøyen
Corpus Paulinum
Old Syriac
Peshitta
Harklean
G.H. Gwilliam
J. Pinkerton
M. Black
A. Allgeier
Comparative Edition
majority text.
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
This article gives a full collation of Ms.
Sinai syr. 3 and of Ms. Schøyen 2530 which recently was
identified to be a portion of the Sinaitic manuscript. The
introduction outlines the research on the Corpus Paulinum in
the Peshitta version and sets out the significance of Ms.
Schøyen 2530/ Sinai syr. 3.
[1] The
purpose of this paper is to draw attention to Ms. 2530 of the
'Schøyen Collection' at Oslo/London and its significance
for research on the New Testament Peshitta text
I am grateful to Martin Schøyen for his
permission to study this precious manuscript and to publish the
results of the collation. To learn about the activities of this
manuscript collector and about his fascinating collection
(including Biblical and Syriac manuscripts) go to .
. This remarkable
fragment of Romans offers an unexpected wealth of
variants and opens a new perspective on Ms. Sinai syr. 3 to
which it originally belonged. To demonstrate the significance
of Ms. Schøyen/Sinai syr. 3 and to supplement a recently
accomplished project,
B. Aland/A. Juckel (Eds.) Das Neue Testament in
syrischer Überlieferung II: Die Paulinischen Briefe,
prt 1: Rom-1Cor (1991); part 2: 2Cor-Col (1995); part 3:
1Th-Hebr (2002).
the presentation of the full range of
variants will be the core of this paper. The introduction will
set out the history of research and the conditions for a new
editorial approach to the Corpus Paulinum in the
Peshitta version.
The model: Gwilliam’s Gospel volume
[2]
Textcritical research on the Corpus Paulinum in the
Peshitta version is charged with two basic obstacles which are
absent from parallel research on the Gospels. Firstly, there is
no critical edition of this Corpus but only collections
of variants, taken from a limited number of manuscripts, and
usually confined to single Epistles (or even to single
chapters). Secondly, there are no 'Old Syriac' manuscripts for
comparative study and for determination of the 'Old Syriac'
influence on the early Peshitta text or of its 'Old Syriac'
heritage. The existence of an 'Old Syriac' Corpus
Paulinum is well established by quotations
See J. Kerschensteiner, Der Altsyrische Paulustext
(CSC0 315/subs. 37), Louvain 1970.
in writings
ante-dating the Peshitta (mainly of Aphrahat, Ephrem, and in
the Liber Graduum); for thorough comparative purpose,
however, these quotations are too restricted in quantity and
authenticity to be a sufficient compensation for the 'Old
Syriac' manuscripts themselves.
[3]
Nevertheless, for more than eighty years scholars have an
approved text (without critical apparatus) of the Corpus
Paulinum at their disposal, prepared by G.H. Gwilliam and
J. Pinkerton and issued by the British and Foreign Bible
Society in 1920.
Both scholars also prepared the text of Acts and
Cath. Epistles printed in the B.F.B.S.-volume. Its Gospel text
was taken from the volume Gwilliam published 1901, the Minor
Cath. Epistles and Revelation from the editions of J. Gwynn
(1907/1897).
It adopted the editorial principles of the
Tetraeuangelium Sanctum published by Gwilliam in
1901
Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, ed. by Ph.E. Pusey
and G.H. Gwilliam (Oxford 1901/Piscataway 2003). In the preface
of the B.F.B.S. volume the Editorial Superintendant R. Kilgour
writes that the text of the Praxapostolos '... follows a
critical revision of the Peshitta originally undertaken by Mr.
Gwilliam for the Clarendon Press as a completion of his edition
of the Gospels (1901), and prepared on similar lines'.
and originally was designed to include a
critical apparatus too; but after Gwilliam’s and
Pinkerton’s death
Gwilliam died 1913, and Pinkerton was killed in
action 1916 during World War I.
their hand-written collations remained
unpublished and ended up as Ms. or. 11.360 in the British
Library
On the history of the B.F.B.S. text, see R.
Grierson, 'Without Note or Comment': British Library Or. 11360
and the Text of the Peshitta New Testament, Oriens Christianus
82 (1998) 88-98.
. By its adoption of the editorial principles of
the Gospel volume, the B.F.B.S. text (although completely
without critical apparatus) appeared to be a 'critical' one.
The impact of 'criticism' on the text, however, mainly derived
from the general critical value of the ancient codices by which
Gwilliam for the first time could prove the general antiquity
and authenticity of the traditional Peshitta text
The Gospels are based on a total of forty-two
manuscripts, for the most part of the 'Nitrian Collection'; the
Corpus Paulinum, however, mainly on seven only
(according to the collations preserved in Ms. or. 11.360 in the
British Library). – In the preface of the Gospel
volume Gwilliam writes: 'The ultimate aim of our work is to
exhibit the Peshitto Gospels as they were read, on the evidence
of the MSS., in the ancient Syriac Church (p. vii) – 'For
it is found that the ancient codices, and of both schools
[i.e., West Syrians and East Syrians] agree so remarkably, that
seldom is the true reading left doubtful. (p. vi).'
. His
printed text is not based on the 'critical' evaluation of
single variants but on the majority vote of readings
'Textus Syriaci verba ad fidem testium multorum,
eorumque et bonae notae et magnae vetustatis, recensui' (ibidem
p. vii). In Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica Gwilliam
published several articles to present the results of his
investigations in the early Peshitta text: 'An Account of a
Syriac Biblical Manuscript of the Fifth Century, with Special
Reference to its Bearing on the Text of the Syriac Version of
the Gospels', vol. 1 (Oxford 1885), 151-74; ― 'The
Ammonian Sections, the Eusebian Canons, and Harmonizing Tables
in the Syriac Tetraevangelium, with Notices of Peshitto and
other MSS. which Exhibit these Accessories of the Text', vol. 2
(Oxford 1890), 241-72; ― 'The Materials for the Criticism
of the Peshitto New Testament, with Specimens of the Syriac
Massorah', vol. 3 (Oxford 1891), 47-104. ― A fourth
article appeared after the publication of the Gospel volume:
'The Place of the Peshitto Version in the Apparatus Criticus of
the Greek New Testament', vol. 5 (Oxford 1903), 189-237.
― A reprint of Gwilliam’s articles will be
published by Gorgias Press.
. According
to this editorial policy, the Peshitta text substantially
remained the same without revisional development from the fifth
to the sixteenth century when the first edition of the Gospels
(Widmanstadt, 1555) was printed. Gwilliam is well aware of
peculiar readings in all of the early manuscripts, but as many
of them are corrections by later hands to the overwhelmingly
attested text they rather seem to confirm than to affect its
originality
'These peculiarities of our codex [i.e., Ms.
Add. 14,459 of the British Library] are not only of some
interest in themselves, but they are evidence of the individual
and independent character of the several MSS. of the Tattam
Collection [i.e., the 'Nitrian Collection']. ... All, as well
as the Cod. Add. 14,459, have their peculiar readings, and in
reference to that particular MS. it will be noticed that in
three instances (St. Matt. xxvii,41; St. Mark I,10 and ix,1)
the peculiarities are due to correction leading the text
further from the type preserved in the mass of MSS., and
conforming it to some ancient model, which has now perished'
('An Account of a Syriac Biblical Manuscript of the Fifth
Century ... ' [see note 9] p. 165-166).
.
[4]
Gwilliam’s Gospel volume was a splendid and exhaustive
proof of the antiquity and authenticity of the traditional
Peshitta Gospels. For the Corpus Paulinum this proof can
be accepted too, although it needs a better foundation by
additional manuscripts. But the question of the original
Peshitta text had to be resumed soon. The reason is the impact
of the 'Old Syriac' on the origin and development of the
Peshitta Gospel text, which increasingly started to dominate
the discussion after Gwilliam’s death
To the 'Old Syriac' Curetonian manuscript
(first published by W. Cureton 1858) Gwilliam refers several
times in his articles; the Sinaitic manuscript, however, was
discovered (1892) and published (1894/1896/1910) too late to be
included in his investigations.
. Although Gwilliam
denied a revisional relation between the Curetonian manuscript
and the Peshitta, his following statement is a clear-sighted
anticipation of the method research would have to follow to
settle the question of relationship:
"It is well known that the illustrious discoverer of the
Curetonian Syriac, and after him others, have held that it
represents the oldest form of the Syriac New Testament, and
that it was succeeded by the more polished, if not more
accurate, Peshito; being ultimately so completely supplanted
by the latter that it was no longer copied, and has survived
to our day, as far as we know, in only one MS. If this were
the true account of the relation to one another of the two
versions, we should expect to find, in the most ancient text
of the Peshitto, many traces of the readings of the older
version which it had supplanted. ... Whether this be so or
not can only be determined by an exhaustive comparison of the
ancient text of the Peshito with the Curetonian text, but
even the passages examined in this paper will afford grounds
for an opinion."
'An Account of a Syriac Biblical Manuscript
of the Fifth Century ... ' [see note 9] p. 170. The
result of the passages examined is: 'In eleven passages, where
the text of our ancient codex [i.e., Ms. Add. 14,459 of the
British Library] has a different reading from the text of
Widmanstadt, sometimes with, sometimes without, the support of
other Syriac codices, the Curetonian text, instead of agreeing
with the ancient Peshitto, approximates to, or even agrees
with, the text of Widmanstadt' (ibidem, p. 171).
[5] With
regard to the Gospels, Gwilliam himself provided in his Gospel
volume decisive materials for the comparison of the Peshitta
and the 'Old Syriac', which were 'discovered' by Matthew Black.
Inspired by an article of the German scholar Arthur
Allgeier
A. Allgeier, Cod. Phillipps 1388 in
Berlin und seine Bedeutung für die Geschichte der
Pešitta, Oriens Christianus 7 (3rd
series), 1932, 1-15.
, Black drew attention to the numerous
agreements of variants with the 'Old Syriac' Curetonian and
Sinaitic manuscripts quoted in Gwilliam’s volume
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.
. This
individually developed 'Old Syriac' heritage in the single
manuscripts Black ascribed to an earlier phase of development
(later coined 'Pre-Peshitta' by him) than represented by
Gwilliam’s text
'In the light of such evidence that the
Peshitta text had a historical development with its Old Syriac
basis more clearly discernible in some codices than in others,
we can scarcely regard the Gwilliam text as representing the
Peshitta Tetraeuangelium in its oldest extant form. ...
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 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'
(p. 26).
. Therefore comparison of single Peshitta
manuscripts with the two 'Old Syriac' manuscripts is the way to
1) determine their respective individual participation in the
'Old Syriac' heritage, 2) identify the 'Old Syriac' heritage
these Gospel manuscripts have in common
The (almost) common attestation of 'Old
Syriac' heritage will also help to identify secondary variants
of 'Old Syriac style' by their poor attestation.
, and 3)
reconstruct the 'Pre-Peshitta' text as far as possible
The present writer recently started a series
of collations to identify the 'Old Syriac' heritage in single
Gospel manuscripts not (or insufficiently) included in
Gwilliam’s volume; see his article on Codex Phillipps
1388 (in Hugoye vi,1).
. For
identification of the 'Old Syriac' heritage, Gwilliam’s
text offers the indispensable knowledge of the 'majority text';
for reconstructing the full text of the 'Pre-Peshitta',
however, the majority vote of manuscripts will have to be
modified and possibly abandoned
The general objection to the print of a
majority text is that it is no real or historical text but an
artificial method to present a text.
.
The task: The Corpus Paulinum
[6] The
Corpus Paulinum in the Peshitta version is expected to
follow the model of the Gospels in method and results. The
first step, however, must be the supplementation of the
B.F.B.S. text by additional manuscripts to strengthen its
'majority character'
According to the collations preserved in Ms.
or. 11.360 of the British Library the seven manuscripts
Gwilliam and Pinkerton used were Add. 14,448, Add. 14,470, Add.
14.475, Add. 14.476, Add. 14.479, Add. 14,480, and Add. 12.138.
Additional manuscripts are listed (Add. 14.474, Add. 14.477,
Add. 14,478, Add. 14,481, Add. 17.122), but not collated or
'consulted for most variants' only.
and to compile an apparatus with variants
of the complete Corpus Paulinum. The question of the
original text will depend on the full access to the early
manuscripts and on comparison of their variations to compensate
for the absence of authentic Old Syriac material, now available
only through Kerschensteiner's collection of ante-Peshitta
quotations.
[7] Research
on the Pauline Epistles in the Peshitta version was resumed by
a series of dissertations
With exception of Clemons’
dissertation they were all supervised or inspired by Arthur
Vööbus.
some forty years ago (mainly on
selected chapters of single Letters) to provide the B.F.B.S.
text with an apparatus and to discuss the Greek background of
the text. J.T. Clemons
J.T. Clemons, Studies in the Syriac Text of
Galatians (Ph.D. Diss., Duke Univ. 1963).
started this series (1963) by
editing the complete text of Gal. W.H.P.
Freitag
W.H.P. Freitag, Studies on First Cornthians
in Syriac (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago 1971),
editing 1Cor 7 and 15.
worked on 1Cor (1971), W.D.
Knappe
W.D. Knappe, The Captivity Letters in the
Syriac Tradition (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago 1977),
editing Eph 4, Phil 2, and Col 1.
on Eph, Phil, Col (1977), E.
Buck
E. Buck, Manuscript Studies in the Syriac
Versions of Romans (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago
1978), editing Rom 8.
on Rom (1978), A.M. Ross
A.M. Ross, Studies in the Thessalonian
Epistles in Syriac (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago
1983), editing 1Thess 1 and 4, and 2Thess 1.
on
1.2Thess (1983). M.E. Gudorf’s edition
M.E. Gudorf, Research on the Early Syriac
Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Ph.D. Diss. Chicago 1992).
This Diss. was inspired by A. Vööbus but completed
under the supervison of T. Baarda.
of
Hebr (complete, 1992) gave an interlinear presentation
of the Peshitta (B.F.B.S.), of its variants and of the
Harklean. Already Clemons (as later Gudorf) included the full
text of the Harklean version (ed. by J. White) for comparison.
An innovative feature of all these dissertations is the
inclusion of quotations drawn from patristic literature to
trace the dissemination of variants. A special investigation in
the Peshitta of Gal which examines the quotations of
this letter in the critical apparatuses of current Greek New
Testament editions I.E. Parlevliet-Flesseman published in
1993
I.E. Parlevliet-Flesseman, De tekst van de
Pesjitta in de brief aan de Galaten. Een voorlopige studie.
Doctoraal-scriptie, Amsterdam 1993. The author offers
Gwilliam’s and Pinkerton’s hand-written collations
of Gal.
.
[8] Although
these dissertations offered a sound approach to the
transmission of the Corpus Paulinum in method, their
results suffered from the restriction to a segment of the
Corpus and from the variety of the materials the authors
had access to. Their intention was not to offer a systematic
approach to the development of this Corpus, but to
present a systematic record of manuscripts and an exhaustive
compilation of variants within the sample chapters. This was
the necessary preparatory step to start the dispute with
Gwilliam’s so far undisputable text; but to develop
consistent criteria for textcritical interpretation of variants
and manuscripts the work had to be resumed in a more
comprehensive way.
[9] The
recently accomplished project Das Neue Testament in
syrischer Überlieferung summarized and continued the
existing efforts by an approach to the complete Corpus
Paulinum. It was designed as 'comparative edition'
including the 'Old Syriac' (the quotations
The adoption of these quotations was based
on the editions themselves, not on Kerschensteiner’s
book.
mainly drawn from
Aphrahat’s Demonstrationes, Ephrem’s genuine
writings, and the Liber Graduum), the Peshitta and the
Harklean, and the biblical quotations drawn from Syriac
literature and from translations of Greek patristic texts. All
texts are given in full and are carefully aligned, presented in
a chronological order from the 4th to the
13th century (Bar ʿEbroyo). The
intention was to represent the revisional development of the
Syriac Corpus Paulinum, the gradual refinement of
translation technique, the mutual influence of the single
versions, and their pre-history respectively reflected by the
quotations. The ultimate goal was to provide information about
the 'history' of the Peshitta text and a background for the
evaluation of variants. As it was the Miaphysite Syriac
Orthodox Church which was in permanent contact with Hellenistic
culture and continuously revised their New Testament to bring
it in better line with the Greek text and canon, this
'comparative edition' is dominated by materials of Syriac
Orthodox provenance.
[10] The
Peshitta part of the 'comparative edition' consists of twelve
manuscripts (5th/6th-8th
cent., one single late of the 12th/13th),
among which are three of East Syriac affiliation to contrast
those of West Syriac origin. In the P(eshitta)-line, it is not
the majority text of the B.F.B.S. text that is given, but
rather Ms. Add. 14,470 (5th/6th cent.) of
the British Library. This editorial policy is justified by the
chronological alignment of the texts and by the delineation of
manuscript profiles (see below). The profile of the manuscript
chosen for print the editors considered being more original
than any other one; the claim was not to offer 'the original'
Peshitta text. To escape from the idiosyncrasies of a single
manuscript, the variants of the remaining ten old manuscripts
are given in the apparatus together with the variants of the
Harklean and with those of the quotations. Therefore this
apparatus provides information not only about the
(dis)agreements of the Peshitta manuscripts but also about the
dissemination of Peshitta variants in the Syriac literature and
about the influence of the Philoxenian/Harklean on the Peshitta
(and vice versa).
[11] The
Peshitta part of the 'comparative edition' was not designed to
satisfy the need of a comprehensive edition of the Corpus
Paulinum in the Peshitta version. According to its general
design the earliest Peshitta manuscripts only were of interest.
But the inclusion of the complete Corpus and the
consistent use of the same manuscripts throughout the three
volumes of the 'comparative edition' provided a general good
knowledge of the early textual features. When the project
started with Rom/1Cor, Ms. Sinai syr. 3 was excluded
from the choice of manuscripts because of its defective
condition in Romans. After the rediscovery of Rom
vi,12-13/vii,2-xi,6 (i.e., Ms. Schøyen 2530 and Fragm.
syr. 30 of the Ambrosian Library) the significance of this
manuscript became evident: Dating from the
5th/6th century (not from the
7th) it immensely improved our knowledge of early
Peshitta variants and offered a textual profile unknown so far,
at least in Rom/1Cor.
The method: Delineation of manuscript profiles
[12] To
delineate a manuscript profile variants are to be counted and
classified. Manuscript profiles thus established can be
compared with each other for judgement on their respective
anteriority and posteriority. The point of reference for
counting of variants is the (still provisional) 'majority text'
of G.H. Gwilliam and J. Pinkerton
Each volume of Das NT in syrischer
Überlieferung provides a list of differences between
its Peshitta-line and the text of current Peshitta editions,
icluding the B.F.B.S. text. According to these lists the
B.F.B.S. text offers a minority reading 1Cor
16,5; 2Cor 1,6; 8,1; 12,2.10; Gal 2,20;
Col 3,17; 2Th 2,4; 2Tim 2,2; 3,17; 4,3;
Hebr 1,14; 2,17; 6,9; 10,25; 12,25.
. The 'majority portion' of
the manuscripts contrasts with its individual 'non-majority'
part which consists of singular readings and of readings shared
with the minority of various other manuscripts. This individual
part should be worked out in detail separately for every
manuscript.
[13] The
following table gives the singular readings of the manuscripts
used in the 'comparative edition' (excluding the late Ms. Vat.
syr. 19 and the lacuneous Ms. BL Add. 14,481; including Ms.
Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3). Singular variants in
supplemented portions of the manuscripts and
orthographica are not counted; the brackets indicate the
reduction of the numbers to the original portion of the
manuscript
The last two manuscripts are of East Syriac
provenance. The one from Munich is the oldest East Syriac
witness of the Corpus Paulinum; the affiliation becomes
obvious only by its agreements with later manuscripts of
distinct East Syriac origin.
:
Ms.
cent.
Rom/1Cor
2Cor/Col
1Thess/Hebr
Total
Schøyen
2530/Sin.syr.3
(inc. Rom 6,12)
(5./6.)
[65]
50
55
170
Sin.syr.5 (inc. Rom 11,22)
(5./6.)
[20]
50
35
105
BL Add 14,470
(5./6.)
[25]
20
10
55
BL Add 14,475
(6.)
15
15
[6]
36
BL Add 14,476
(5./6.)
10
25
25
60
BL Add 14,477
(6./7.)
15
5
15
35
BL Add 14,479
(533/34)
[55]
35
70
160
BL Add 14,480
(5./6.)
[25]
50
70
145
BL Add 17,122
(6.)
12
8
20
40
BL Add 7,157
(767/68)
5
4
8
17
StL München syr. 8
(inc. 1Cor
9,17)
(6./7.)
[1]
3
4
8
[14] The
inclusion of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 caused
elimination of 45 singular readings existing in the manuscripts
before Ms. Schøyen 2530/ Sinai syr. 3 was introduced;
170 singular readings were added by Ms. Schøyen
2530/Sinai syr. 3. By the introduction of additional
manuscripts in the future a certain number of existing singular
readings will switch over from the singular to the non-singular
portion. The readings of this portion are of special interest,
they can rival the 'majority vote' in originality depending on
the support they finally receive and on their
classification
The provisional character of the existing
'majority text' as well as continuous collations of early
manuscripts do not allow for definite numbers of singular and
non-majority readings with reference to special manuscripts.
The singular readings presented in the table above, however,
may illustrate the differences between the single manuscripts;
although provisional, the table provides the characteristic
dimension of singular readings extant in every manuscript.
.
[15]
Classification of variants bears directly on the anteriority or
posteriority of manuscript profiles. Basic categories are
'Syriac-idiomatic' and 'grecising' variants, special categories
are agreement with the 'Old Syriac', and (in the OT quotations)
agreement with the Old Testament Peshitta. The 'comparative
edition' proves to be useful for classification of variants by
its inclusion of the 'Old Syriac' (quotations) and the
Harklean. Comparison of variants with both can reveal textual
identity or a proclivity of variants towards a better
adaptation to the Syriac idiom or to the Greek (Harklean). The
early Peshitta manuscripts presented in the 'comparative
edition' offer an individual mixture of idiomatic and
'grecising' variants. The general increasing influence of the
Greek text on the Syriac New Testament is a good argument for
the secondary character of the 'grecising' variants, although
this is chiefly a rule of thumb. In the 'comparative edition'
Ms. Add. 14,470 of the British Library is the less affected by
grecising variations; this gives a greater originality to its
profile than to the profile of other manuscripts, and
recommended this witness for being printed in the P(eshitta)
line of the edition
The variants of Ms. Add. 14.470 are
discussed in the introductions of the vols II,1-3.
.
[16] Most
significant is the unregularized (and most likely local)
distribution of variants in the early manuscripts of the
Corpus Paulinum, which contrasts with the more regular
distribution in manuscripts later than the
7th/8th century. According to my
collations of later manuscripts the earliest period of the
Peshitta (5th/7th century) is the most
productive in creating variants. It was the formative period of
the Miaphysite Church within the Greek Byzantine
Oikumene, which was open to direct Greek influence on
the Syriac New Testament and on existing Greek patristic
translations. Under Islamic rule after separation from the
Greek Byzantine Oikumene, the Peshitta was hardly
influenced by Greek but reduced to the inner-Syriac domain and
to philological care and conservation
On two distinct periods in the development
of the Peshitta (a 'pre-massoretic' and 'massoretic' period)
see A. Juckel, The 'Syric Massora' and the New Testament
Peshitta, in: K.D. Jenner and R.B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.),
The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy ...
(forthcoming). – To produce a definite 'majority text'
and a comprehensive edition of the Corpus Paulinum
(based on ca. 40 manuscripts) a new project started at Muenster
University.
.
Ms. Schøyen 2530
[17] Ms.
2530 of the Schøyen Collection at Oslo/London is a
fragment of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans (vi,12
– x,7) in the Peshitta version. By the help of its
attractive old Estrangela script it was not too difficult to
indentify it as a missing portion of Ms. Sin. syr. 3. This
manuscript of the Corpus Paulinum without colophon is
usually assigned to the 7th century
K.W. Clark, Checklist p. 17; M.
Kamil, Catalogue p. 152, E. Buck, Romans p. 34;
Gudorf, Research p. 27 (but on page 17 the
6th cent. is given, see the next note); Agnes Smith Lewis,
Catalogue p. 2 gives no date.
, but this
assignation should be corrected to the
5th/6th cent. by palaeographical
reason
Gudorf, Research p. 215 finally
suggests a date before the 7th cent.: “This
manuscript may actually be older than the seventh-century
approximation provided by Clark and Lewis (!). The high quality
of the large, regular Estrangela characters and the presence of
numerous archaic spellings allow for such a possibility.”
. An additional identification of a single
fly-leaf of the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana at Milano (fragment no.
30 of Chabot’s Inventaire
J.-B. Chabot, Inventaire p. 43.
Chabot’s observation that fragm. no. 30 'semble
être de la même main que notre no. 19' (i.e., a
leave of Lk ii,17-27) is not correct.
) provided the
missing folio (Rom x,7 – xi,6) between Ms. Schøyen
2530 and Sin. syr. 3 which starts with Rom xi,6 (see the
sequence of text below).
[18] Ms.
Schøyen 2530 consists of six vellum leaves (three
double-leaves) of ca. 30x20 cm, the first of which is a small
fragment only (Rom vi,12-13/vii,2-3). The text is written in
two columns of 25 lines in a bold and regular Estangela of the
early type, which is almost identical with the one of Ms. Vat.
syr. 12 dated July 548 AD (Tammuz 859 AGr).
[19] A
later Syriac hand introduced the page numbers [7], 8, 9, 10,
11, 12 in the upper centre of the recto. The Ambrosian
fragment and Ms. Sin.syr.3 continue this Syriac pagination,
which is absent in the first three mutilated folios of the
Sinaitic manuscript
The modern paginator failed to realize the
tiny fragment of fol. [14] to be (a remnant of) a page of its
own and wrongly added the number '1' to page [15], '2 ' to
[16], '3' to [17], etc.
. Rom i,1 – ca. vi,5 on the lost six
folios at the beginning is the only missing portion besides Heb
ix,4 – x,15 which is supplemented by a later
hand
The quires of Ms. Sin. syr. 3 are numbered
(by the original hand?) in the lower right corner of the
recto. They are quaternios (8 fols.), but there
are some irregularities which can be solved by personal
inspection only.
.
[20]
Support for the assignment of Ms. Schøyen 2530 to the
5th/6th cent. comes from its
palaeographical features:
No influence of Serto script is traceable.
Semkath is never connected to the following
character.
Diacritical points and accents are not in accordance with
the 'massoretic' standard. They are absent from verbs and
participles, to a large extent from the pronouns too. Seldom
Seyome are placed on the letter rish, they are
never connected with feminine pronouns, verbs and
participles.
The junction of adjectives/participles and enclitic
pronouns of the first and second person is quite usual and
not forced by the limitation of space. We not only meet
āmarnâ and
yādacnâ for āmar
anâ and yādac anâ, but
also mpaqqdānâ and
zqīfnâ, etc. This orthographical feature
was explicitly rejected by James of Edessa († 708) in
his 'Letter on Orthography'.
Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sequence of Text
[21] The
following sequence of text will specify the exact content of
Ms. Schoyen 2530 and prove its unity with the Syriac fragment
no. 30 of the Ambrosian Library and with Ms. Sinai syr. 3.
fol [7ra]/Rom vi,12-13
fol [7vb]/Rom vii,2-3
fol 8r/Rom vii,3-12
fol 8v/Rom vii,12-22
fol 9r/Rom vii,22-viii,7
fol 9v/Rom viii,7-16
fol 10r/Rom viii,17-27
fol 10v/Rom viii,27-38
fol 11r/Rom viii,38-ix,9
fol 11v/Rom ix,9-20
fol 12r/Rom ix,20-30
fol 12v/Rom ix,30-x,7
Bibl. Ambros., syr. fragment
30
fol 13r/Rom x,7-18
fol 13v/Rom x,18-xi,6
Ms Sin. syr. 3 (incipit Rom xi,6)
fol 1 (modern)/[14] (Syriac)
The profile of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr.
3
[22] The
outstanding feature of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 is
its wealth of variants, which contrasts with all the early
manuscripts of the Corpus Paulinum collated so
far
Only Mss Add. 14.479 and Add. 14.480 of the
British Library approximately offer the same wealth of
variants.
. As surprisingly many of these variants
concentrate on Rom/1Cor, it was Ms. Schøyen 2530
which upgraded the textcritical value of the formerly defective
Sinaitic manuscript, thus stimulating research on the Corpus
Paulinum in the Peshitta version. Its principal
significance now is a methodological one: It gives the definite
proof for the considerable variety of the earliest Peshitta
text and brings research in methodological parallel with the
Gospel text. Due to the reduced access to the 'Old Syriac', the
'non-majority part' itself is charged with the investigation in
the anteriority or posteriority of profiles, thus being
established as an own area of research.
[23] In
comparison with the provisional 'majority text' of the B.F.B.S.
volume the total number of 'non-majority readings' in Ms.
Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 is 326 (170
singular/156 non-singular), while the corresponding number for
Ms. Add. 14.470 of the British Library is 170
(55/115)
Both manuscripts have 53 'non-majority
readings' in common (exclusive agreements: 6). – The
corresponding numbers of other manuscripts cannot be given.
. Ms. Schøyen 2530/ Sinai syr. 3 can be
expected to give the maximum number(s) of all early
manuscripts; Ms. Add. 14.470 is more likely to represent the
average. In theory the readings of the better balanced
'minority parts' have the greater general claim to rival the
originality of the 'majority readings' than readings of the
'singular parts'; by their mutual support and dissemination
they appear to be deeper rooted in tradition than singular
readings. Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 provides a
maximum of support for the existing 'minority portion' of the
Peshitta text: 156 'minority readings' it strengthens (or
produces them by switching over existing singular readings),
thus giving a better balance to the numerical proportion of
'minority readings' to 'majority readings', which inevitably is
distorted by the loss of early manuscripts and variants.
[24] To
the maximum number of 156 'minority readings' corresponds (not
surprisingly) an extremely individual mixture of
'Syriac-idiomatic' and 'grecising' variants. It is the extent
of variants which increases the complexity of this mixture. As
no detailed discussion of variants can be given here, a summary
will outline special categories of variants and offer a full
collation of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 for detailed
study (see below).
Most remarkable are 'lexical' or 'stylistic' variants
which give different words but seldom a different meaning
(Rom viii,27; 1Cor i,4; iii,14; ix,1; x,2.16;
xvi,10; 2Cor viii,14; Gal ii,14; iii,22;
vi,13.15; Eph ii,11.15; 2Th iii,6; Tit
ii,5; iii,8; Heb ii,7; iii,7; ix,1; xii,17). Similar
variants of this type (some of them probably caused by the
negligent scribe) are Rom xv,4; 1Cor xv,45;
2Cor iii,9; vii,6; Eph i,19; iv,13; 2Th
iii,5; 1Tim vi,21; Heb iv,16.
'Syriac-idiomatic' renderings are given 2Cor vii,2;
1Th iii,7; 2Tim ii,19.
Variants of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 agree
with quotations
These quotations are explicitly given in
Das NT in syrischer Überlieferung.
drawn from Syriac writings Rom
vi,12; 1Cor x,17.31; xv,42 (Liber Graduum, Aphrahat);
2Cor iv,10; v,5; Gal iv,7 (Philoxenus); vi,6
(Aphrahat); Eph ii,15 (Aphrahat); iv,14; v,8;
Col ii,8 (Philoxenus); 1Th iv,15 (Ephrem);
1Tim v,22; 2Tim ii,7.15.26 (Philoxenus).
Unfortunately the agreements with 'Old Syriac' writers are
accidental and few. Remarkable is the agreement with early
translations of patristic texts (Titus of Bostra, Evagrius,
Macarius, Severus). Either these agreements reflect Greek
variants, or the translations from the Greek are affected by
the early Peshitta text.
Variants of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3
give support to some peculiar readings of Ms. Add. 14.470
and/or Ms. Add. 14.478 of the British Library, which formerly
appeared to be nothing more than scribal errors (Rom
viii,35 [twice].37; 1Cor ii,8; vii,34; xi,29; xiv,29).
The support of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 for these
insignificant variants points to a special relation of these
three manuscripts. Most of the exclusive agreements, however,
Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 has in common with Ms.
Add. 14.480 of the British Library (i.e., P11).
A better adaptation to the Greek text is reflected by the
anticipation of Harklean readings (e.g., Rom vi,12;
viii,24; 1Cor iii,5; iv,3; 2Cor iv,3;
Phil i,8; 1Th iii,5; iv,12(!).14; 2Th
i,3; iii,5; 2Tim i,10; iii,5) and by the frequent
omission of hu/hy (Rom vii,21; xi,3.5; xiv,8;
1Cor iv,15; xiv,35; 2Cor i,20; v,12;
Phil ii,11; 1Tim i,15; Heb v,11).
Numerous minor variants may also bring the Syriac idiom in a
better line with the Greek text, at least in part: Omission
or addition of w (Rom viii,12; 1Cor
v,10; vi,5; x,8; xii,3; xiii,6; xiv,4; xvi,14; 2Cor
xi,30; xii,11; xiii,9; Gal ii,16; v,21; Eph
v,1; vi,9; Phil i,22; ii,18; 2Tim ii,15;
Heb x,33), ’en (1Cor ii,2; xiv,2;)
hwā (2Cor vii,7; Heb xi,15);
replacement of pronouns (Rom viii,23; 1Cor
xv,29; 2Cor viii,14; Col iv,13; Tit
i,11; Heb vii,21). Well attested variants of the Greek
text are few: Rom xiv,9; 1Cor xiv,6 (om.
’aw); 2Cor i,8; iii,1; vi,16; Gal
vi,4; Col i,2.
Conclusion
[25] The
textual profile of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 (its
'minority portion') is dominated by lexical and stylistic
variants of Syriac-idiomatic origin. Their authenticity and
dissemination is sufficiently proved by quotations and
manuscript support. By their extent these variants represent a
textual heritage, not occasional changings of text. The
stylistic level is not abandoned by the variants which give
better adaptations to the Greek. These adaptations are largely
balanced by the introduction of Syriac-idiomatic variants, and
also the anticipations of the Harklean do not really affect the
Syriac idiom.
[26] The
conclusion is that the textual profile of Ms. Schøyen
2530/Sinai syr. 3 has a good claim for anteriority to those
profiles which are closer to the 'majority text'. Even traces
of 'Old Syriac' heritage may well be preserved in its 'minority
portion'. By kindly introducing his precious manuscript no.
2530 to scholarship Martin Schøyen did not only open
his treasure chamber but also an exciting perspective on
Peshitta research.
Appendix: The variants of Ms. Schøyen
2530/Sin. syr. 3
[27] The
following collation is based on the text prepared by G.H.
Gwilliam/J. Pinkerton and issued by the British and Foreign
Bible Society in 1920. The Lemma gives the B.F.B.S. text, all
variants refer to Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sin. syr. 3 and to
the manuscripts in brackets. Excepting Ms. Schøyen
2530/Sin. syr. 3 and Ms. Add 14,478 of the British Library, the
evidence is taken from the three volumes Das Neue Testament
in syrischer Überlieferung, the manuscripts are
labeled according to their 'P(eshitta)-number' (e.g., P12).
These volumes also provide the information about the text of
the Syriac authors/translators occasionally added to the
manuscript evidence.
The manuscripts:
[28]
P2 = Sin. syr. 5 (Sinai-Kloster, 5./6. Jh) —
P4 = Add 14,470 (British Library, 5./6. Jh) —
P10 = Add 14,476 (BL, 5./6. Jh) — P11 = Add
14,480 (BL, 5./6. Jh) — P12 = Add 14,479 (BL, 534
AD) — P13 = Add 14,475 (BL, 6. Jh) —
P14 = Add 17,122 (BL, 6. Jh) — P15 = Add
14,477 (BL, 6./7. Jh) — P16 = Ms. syr. 8 (State
Libr. Munich, 6./7. Jh) — P17 = Add 14,481 (BL,
6./7. Jh) — P20 = Add 7157 (BL, 767/68 AD) —
P21 = Add 14,478 (BL, 621/22 AD) — P† = all
aforesaid manuscripts.
Chapter/verse in red means singular readings (within the
present choice of manuscripts) of Ms. Schøyen 2530/Sin.
syr. 3.
Romans
Ms. Schøyen 2530
Fragm. Chabot 30/Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milano
Ms. Sin. syr. 3
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1
Thessalonians
2
Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
_______
Notes
_______
Bibliography
Agnes Smith Lewis, Catalogue of the
Syriac MSS. In the Convent of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai
(Studia Sinaitica 1). London 1894.
Aland, B./Juckel, A. (Eds.) Das
Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung II: Die
Paulinischen Briefe, part 1: Rom-1Cor (1991); part 2: 2Cor-Col
(1995); part 3: 1Th-Hebr (2002).
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 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.
Buck, E. Manuscript Studies in the
Syriac Versions of Romans (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol.,
Chicago 1978).
Chabot, J.-B. Inventaire des
fragments de Mss. syriaques conservés à la
Bibliothèque Ambrosienne à Milan ― Le
Muséon 49 (1936) 37-54.
Clark, K.W. Checklist of Manuscripts
in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mout Sinai. Washington
1952.
Clemons, J. T. Studies in the Syriac
Text of Galatians (Ph.D. Diss., Duke Univ. 1963).
Freitag, W.H.P. Studies on First
Cornthians in Syriac (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago
1971).
Grierson, R. ‘Without Note or
Comment’: British Library Or. 11360 and the Text of the
Peshitta New Testament, Oriens Christianus 82 (1998) 88-98.
Gudorf, M.E. Research on the Early
Syriac Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Ph.D. Diss. Chicago
1992).
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.
Jenner, K.D. and R.B. ter Haar
Romeny (eds.), The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy.
Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium, Oud Poelgeest,
12-15 August 2001 (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute
Leiden), Leiden (forthcoming).
Juckel, A. The ‘Syriac
Massora’ and the New Testament Peshitta, in: K.D. Jenner
and R.B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.), The Peshitta: Its Use in
Literature and Liturgy ... (forthcoming).
Kamil, M. Catalogue of all
manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai.
Wiesbaden 1970.
Kerschensteiner, J. Der Altsyrische
Paulustext (CSC0 315/subs. 37), Louvain 1970.
Knappe, W.D. The Captivity Letters
in the Syriac Tradition (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol., Chicago
1977).
Parlevliet-Flesseman, I.E. De tekst
van de Pesjitta in de brief aan de Galaten. Een voorlopige
studie. Doctoraal-scriptie, Amsterdam 1993.
Pusey, Ph.E./Gwilliam, G.H.
Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (Oxford 1901/Piscataway
2003).
Ross, A.M. Studies in the
Thessalonian Epistles in Syriac (S.T.D. Luth. School of Theol.,
Chicago 1983).