For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full copyright.
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.
Grigory Kessel, Austrian Academy of Sciences and University of Manchester
The book under review presents an analytic inventory (or census) of the
manuscript witnesses to the translations of the Greek apocryphal text Project webpage: https://uclouvain.be/fr/instituts-recherche/incal/
ciol/zosime-rechabites.html. J.-C. Haelewyck, Story of Zosimus on the Life of the Blessed Rechabites
(hereafter HZos, CAVT 166) that were produced in the
Christian East. The inventory was prepared in the context of the collaborative
project Zosime (Réchabites) based at the Institut
Orientaliste of the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve under the
supervision of Jean-Claude Haelewyck.Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris
Testamenti,Clavis
Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (Turnhout: Brepols,
1998).
The main objective of the project is to study and edit all the Christian
oriental versions of HZos. The census of extant
manuscripts therefore is an indispensable part of the preliminary work for the
preparation of critical editions. It is commendable that the project produced a
detailed inventory that surveys the transmission of HZos
throughout the multiple traditions of Eastern Christianity.
It is not necessary to justify the objective of this collaborative project: the
Arabic, Ethiopic and Georgian versions have never been edited; the Syriac,
Armenian and Slavonic versions have been edited, but these editions were
prepared on the basis of a limited number of manuscript witnesses and without a
proper F. Nau, “La légende inédite des fils de Jonadab, fils de Réchab, et
les îles Fortunées. Texte syriaque (attribué à Jacques d’Édesse) et
traduction française,” recensio. For example, the Syriac version edited
by F. Nau in 1898–1899 is based on manuscripts BnF syr. 235, syr. 234, syr. 236,
and BL Add. 12174.Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et
d’histoire ancienne 6 (1898), 263–266; 7 (1899), 54–75,
136–146.
Unlike for Greek and Latin manuscripts, as of today there exists no
comprehensive tool allowing one easily to find the oriental manuscript witnesses
of a given work. Notwithstanding the information that is provided for Syriac
sources by Baumstark in his Geschichte der syrischen
Literatur, and by Graf for Christian-Arabic sources in Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, the
student of any Oriental language tradition grosso modo
has to search for the witnesses him- or herself. This is of course a rather
tough task, given the fact that some manuscript collections are not catalogued
at all and some collections are catalogued poorly, without providing necessary
details; in addition, the manuscript catalogues (particularly those produced in
the Middle East) are often difficult to get hold of. The text HZos, similar to most hagiographic and apocryphal texts, had a wide
circulation (especially in Syriac, Arabic and Armenian traditions) and a list of
additional manuscript witnesses (see below) demonstrates that there is still the
possibility of finding further witnesses.
The volume opens with a long introduction that surveys the content of HZos and presents the status
quaestionis regarding the origin of this work (pp. 1–40). HZos is the account by a monk Zosimus about his journey
to the Isle of the Blessed. The inhabitants of the island live a paradisiacal
life and claim to be the descendants of the Rechabites (who are mentioned in
Jeremiah 35). Scholars agree that the HZos constitutes a
conflation of two independent narratives, one containing the travel account of
Zosimus (chapters 1-7) and the other narrating the story of the Rechabites
(chapters 8–10). As far as the date of the composition is concerned, Haelewyck
provides an accurate summary of earlier scholarship: M. R. James argued that the
work was composed in the 5th or 6th century; McNeil suggested that behind the HZos lies a source related to the Qumran community; and
J. H. Charlesworth distinguished between the travel account of Zosimus and the
story of the Rechabites, considering the latter as an Old Testament apocry-phon
around which the HZos evolved. However, it is the studies
of C. H. Knights and M. Philonenko that concur with the results of the
Louvain-la-Neuve project, namely that the HZos appeared
in the first half of the 4th century at the latest, having by then integrated
the classical myth about the Isle of the Blessed with the aim to popularize it
in the broader context of the triumph of Christianity. The short Syriac version
of the HZos plays a crucial role in the study of the
text, being the oldest indirect witness and having preserved the oldest form of
the text.
The overview of scholarship highlights the ambiguous nature of the J.-C. Haelewyck, V. Somers, and E. Van
Elverdinghe, “Diverse Perspectives on the Manuscript Tradition of the
Story of Zosimus,” HZos: whereas the story of Zosimus is hagio-graphy, the
story of the Rechabites belongs to apocryphal literature. Consequently,
Charlesworth, who argued that the HZos is a spin-off from
the much older story of the Rechabites, considered the entire HZos as an apocryphal text; and for this reason it now customarily
features among the apocrypha. The results of the Louvain-la-Neuve project
highlight the reception history of the HZos. Haelewyck
points out that the double nature of the HZos is
reflected in its transmission alongside both hagiographic and apocryphal texts.
It is for this very reason that the following inventory does not merely list the
known manuscript witnesses but aims to offer a detailed description of the
manuscripts’ contents. The survey of the literary contexts in which the HZos can be found in the manuscripts across the language
traditions was published separately and needs to be taken into consideration
when consulting the inventory.OrChr 99 (2016),
1–44.
The inventory (pp. 41–173) covers translations into six languages, and each of
the language traditions was studied by a dedicated specialist: J.-C. Haelewyck
(Syriac), M. Makhoul (Arabic), J. Brankaer (Ethiopic), E. Van Elverdinghe and A.
Ouzounian (Armenian), T. Pataridze (Georgian), and M. Pirard (Slavonic). The
Greek manuscripts have been surveyed in a separate publication presenting the
forty-six manuscripts (12th–19th cent.) all representing the same
recension.
Haelewyck, Somers, and Van Elverdinghe, “Diverse Perspectives,”
19–44.
One can summarize the results in tabular form as follows:
Going through the inventory, the reader is faced with multiple questions
regarding the relationship of each version to the Greek text, between the
versions, and, finally, between the recensions. With regard to the Syriac
version, it remains unclear if the attribution of the Syriac translation to
Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) – uniquely present in manuscript BL Add. 12174 – is
tenable. (A. Baumstark considered it as doubtful.) Participating scholars
deliberately refrained from making any claims concerning the possible
relationship of the source text and the translations, as well as from commenting
on the relation between recensions. In the words of Pataridze (p. 160): “Or, toute
conclusion sur la provenance de chaque version orientale ou sur les
rapports de dépendance que les versions entretiennent doit se baser sur
l’analyse des textes critiquement établis.” For instance,
this is what one can read about the curious recension of the Arabic
version, entitled as ‘libre’: “son texte, comparé aux versions
syriaques, est relativement libre, à l’inverse des deux autres
recensions qui correspondent aux recensions syriaques soit brève soit
longue” (p. 81). This statement implies that the ‘libre’ derives from
the Syriac, but one would of course like to understand the situation
better.
I was able to note a number of shortcomings in the descriptions. The aim of the
inventory, as stated on p. 41, was to provide a more detailed description of
manuscripts that were either not previously catalogued, or whose description is
difficult to access (for example, in catalogues written in Arabic, Armenian or
Georgian). This attention to the text’s immediate literary context is of course
laudable, but apparently each contributor approached this task in his or her own
way. Especially regrettable is the lack of precise identification of the texts:
as a rule, a reader finds a mere translation of a text’s title without
additional verification and references to standard instrumenta
studiorum for hagiography. In the opinion of this reviewer, the most
consistent and clearly structured records were prepared for the Georgian
manuscripts: it is easy to browse through the list and to get an idea about the
content of each individual manuscript. This coherence in the description of
Georgian manuscripts nicely lends itself to comparisons, as was done in the form
of the synoptic table on pp. 166–169.
As far as the Syriac and Arabic manuscripts are concerned, it would be important
to discern the ecclesiastical affiliation of each manuscript. As a matter of
fact, the two recensions of the Syriac version correlate with the manuscripts’
origin: the short recension is attested by the manuscripts of Syriac Orthodox
origin, whereas the long recension can be found in East Syriac manuscripts. The exceptional
manuscript in this respect, Mingana Syr. 598, does not pose any problems
because it is nothing more than a modern copy based on an East Syriac
model (olim Alqosh, Notre-Dame des Semences 212)
that was produced by a Syriac Orthodox scribe.
More attention could have been paid to the composite manuscripts. For instance,
we read in the description of manu-script Teheran, Issayi 18, that it dates from
the year 1742/3 CE. A digital copy is available online at https://w3id.org/vhmml/ readingRoom/view/501333.
A. Desreumaux, “Un manuscrit syriaque de Téhéran contenant des
apocryphes,” Desreumaux, “Manuscrit
syriaque de Téhéran,” 142, 144. This note literally mentions “ten ryālē zūzā” and
it is the last word that was misread by Desreumaux as the date 1555.
Furthermore, the incorrectly spelled name of an earlier owner of the
manuscript, Varoo M. Neesan (instead of Yaroo M. Neesan), was also taken
from Desreumaux’s article (“Manuscrit syriaque de Téhéran,”
138).Apocrypha 5 (1994),
137–164.HZos. Hence, a deeper examination of the manuscript
is required in order to discern whether all the units could have been produced
by the same hand and at the same time, or not. In the case of the manuscript
under consideration, the opinion that the codex was produced by one scribe was
based upon Desreumaux’ earlier research. Given the presence of a note in the
first codicological unit, which according to Desreumaux dates the Vorlage to AG 1555 = 1243/4 CE,
It would be more precise to refer to the Berlin manuscripts by the actual shelf-mark rather than by the number in the Sachau’s catalogue, thus Berlin syr. 246 rather than Sachau 154, Berlin syr. 74 rather than Sachau 9.
The Arabic Garshuni manuscript Mardin, Church of the Forty Martyrs 300/8, is
presented as the oldest witness to the Arabic version and as datable to the 12th
century. A
digital copy is available online at https://w3id.org/vhmml/ readingRoom/view/502155.
The index of the volume (pp. 175–177) lists the manuscripts mentioned in the book. Given the detailed nature of the description of individual manuscripts, it would have been very useful also to have an index of works.
Finally, a number of manuscripts can now be added to the list:
Syriac (in chronological order):
British Library, Or. 3337, ff. 58v–97v (1522/3 CE) G. Margoliouth,
Descriptive List of Syriac and Karshuni MSS in the
British Museum Acquired Since 1873 (London, 1899), 15–16.
Baghdad, Chaldean Patriarchate 291 (HMML project number CPB 291;
1721/2 CE), A
digital copy is available online at https://w3id.org/vhmml/ readingRoom/view/139317. There is no
published catalogue description of this manuscript.
Arabic (in chronological order):
Sinai Arabic 542 (9th/10th cent.), M. D. Gibson, Catalogue of the Arabic MSS. in the Convent of S.
Catharine on Mount Sinai, Studia Sinaitica 3 (London, 1894),
114–115. The description is incomplete and does not mention the HZos. The text is, however, mentioned in A.
Atiya, The Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), 22. On the manuscript, see also
A. Binggeli, “L’ hagiographie du Sinaï arabe d’après un recueil du IXe siècle (Sinaï arabe 542),” ParOr 32 (2007), 163–180. A digital copy is
available online at https://www.loc.gov/item/00279390386-ms/.
Sinai Arabic 538 (1211 CE), Atiya, Arabic
Manuscripts, 21. A digital copy is available online at https://www.loc.gov/item/00279390301-ms/.
Bucharest, Romanian Academy, B.A.R. MS orientale 365 (14th
cent.), For
a description, see S. A. Frantsouzoff, “Хождение Зосимы к блаженным
сынам Ионадава: к характеристике арабо-православной версии” [Itinerary
of Zosimas to the Blessed Sons of Jonadab: Some Features of the Arabic
Version], Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского
гуманитарного университета, ser. 3, 57 (2018),
124–130.
Wādī al-Naṭrūn,
Dair Qiddīs Anbā Maqqār MS 412 (HMML project number ABMQ 00412; 1494 CE) U. Zanetti, Les manuscrits de Dair Abû Maqâr: Inventaire,
Cahiers d’Orientalisme 11 (Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1986), 63. A digital
copy is available online at https://w3id.org/vhmml/readingRoom/view/511629.
Mār Behnām MS 388 (HMML project number MBM 00388; 1661 CE), B. Sōnī, Fihris maḫṭūṭāt dair Mār Behnām al-Šahīd (Baghdad,
2005), 311*–314* [no. 405]. A digital copy is available online at https://w3id.org/ vhmml/readingRoom/view/131686.
Wādī al-Naṭrūn,
Dair Qiddīs Anbā Maqqār 403 (HMML project number ABMQ 00403; 17th/18th
cent.),
Zanetti, Manuscrits de Dair Abû Maqâr, 60. A
digital copy is available online at https://w3id.org/vhmml/readingRoom/view/511622.
Mār Behnām MS 402 (HMML project number MBM 00402; 1754 CE), Sōnī, Fihris, 337*–340* [no. 420]. A digital copy is
available online at https://w3id.org/vhmml/readingRoom/view/132272.
Wādī al-Naṭrūn,
Dayr Qiddīs Anbā Maqqār 398 (HMML project number ABMQ 00398; 19th cent.), Zanetti, Manuscrits de Dair Abû Maqâr, 59. A digital copy
is available online at https://w3id.org/vhmml/readingRoom/view/511618.
Aleppo, Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese of Aleppo MS 62 M (HMML
project number SOAA 00062 M; 19th cent.) A digital copy is available online at https://w3id.org/vhmml/
readingRoom/view/134164.
Monastery of St. Antony (Egypt), MS 186 (unknown date) Unpublished
catalogue of the collection prepared by the Monastery of St.
Antony.
Pending direct examination and study, manuscript British Library, Or. 3337, appears to be the oldest known witness to the long recension of the Syriac version; and manuscripts Sinai Arabic 542 and 538 are the oldest witnesses to the Arabic translation.
Furthermore, some of the Arabic manuscripts that have not been examined are now
comfortably available online: Vat. ar. 460 A digital copy is available online at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/ MSS_Vat.ar.460. In two parts: HMML project number SMMJ 199 A
(https://w3id.org/vhmml/readingRoom/view/501307) and HMML
project number SMMJ 199 B (https://w3id.org/vhmml/readingRoom/ view/501309).
Some additions to the bibliography:
V. V. Mil’kov, “Тема земного рая в древнерусских апокрифах 1: Хождение Зосимы к
рахманам” [The Theme of the Earthly Paradise in the Ancient Apocrypha 1:
Itinerary of Zosimas to Rahmans], Язык и текст 3:4
(2016), 44–71 [contains a diplomatic edition and Russian transl. based on РГАДА.
Ф. 381, № 53]. doi: 10.17759/langt.2016030405.
S. A. Frantsouzoff, “Хождение Зосимы к бла-женным сынам Ионадава: к
характеристике арабо-православной версии” [Itinerary of Zosimas to the Blessed
Sons of Jonadab: Some Features of the Arabic Version], Вестник
Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета, Ser. 3, 57
(2018), 124–130 [contains a preliminary study of the HZos
as preserved in MS Bucharest, Romanian Academy, B.A.R. MS orientale 365]. doi:
10.15382/ sturIII201857.124-130.
Despite some shortcomings and omissions, the volume has been carefully produced and can serve as an example for a collaborative study of a text preserved in multilingual versions. It is hoped that the project will succeed in implementing its initial objective to produce critical editions of all the versions and to clarify the relationship between the original Greek text, later translations in Oriental languages, and multiple recensions.