The Philoxenian Gospels (J. Edward Walters)
The Philoxenian Gospels (J. Edward Walters)
The Philoxenian Gospels (J. Edward Walters)
2, 177249
2010 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press
ABSTRACT
This study presents the data for the text of the Philoxenian version
for various Gospel passages as those texts can be reconstructed from
the citations of Philoxenos. Several trends of translation technique
become evident within the Philoxenian version: lexical changes for
more accurate translation, attempts at more accurate and consistent
translation of verb tense, lexical omissions and additions based on the
Greek text, and alterations in the Syriac word order to reflect the
This project began as my M.A. thesis project directed by
J.W. Childers: J. Edward Walters, The Philoxenian Gospels as
Reconstructed from the Exegetical Writings of Philoxenos of Mabbug,
M.A. thesis (Abilene Christian University, 2009). I am grateful to Dr.
Childers for chairing my thesis committee and for introducing me to
textual criticism, to Syriac, and to Philoxenos. I also want to thank the
other members of my thesis committee, Curt Niccum and Frederick
Aquino, for their helpful suggestions in moving this project forward. And
finally, I am grateful to guest editor Dr. David Michelson both for his
encouragement and interest in my work, and to Dr. Andreas Juckel for his
helpful comments and suggestions for improving my original thesis into
the present publication.
1
177
178
J. Edward Walters
Greek. This translation technique confirms what is known about
Greek-to-Syriac translation technique in the sixth-century during
which there was an intentional movement toward a more word-forword translation. This technique was still in flux throughout the
sixth-century until the creation of the hyper-literal Harclean version
in the early seventh-century.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Philoxenos Theological Motivation
for the Translation Project
Philoxenos, bishop of Mabbug (d. 523), 2 is most well-known for
the New Testament translation project that he sponsored in the
first decade of the sixth century. 3 Though his chorepiscopos,
Polycarp, carried out the work of the translation, the new version
produced has become known as the Philoxenian version. 4
For the most comprehensive introduction to Philoxenos, see Andr
de Halleux, Philoxne de Mabbog: sa vie, ses crits, sa theologie (Louvain:
Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963). For a more recent survey, see David
Michelson, Practice Leads to Theory: Orthodoxy and the Spiritual
Struggle in the World of Philoxenos of Mabbug (470523) (Ph.D.
Dissertation, Princeton University, 2007).
3 According to the subscriptions of the Harclean version, the version
was produced in the year 819 of Alexander the Macedonian (i.e. 507/8
CE). For the Syriac text and English translation of one such subscription,
see William H.P. Hatch, The Subscription of the Chester Beatty
Manuscript of the Harclean Gospel, HTR 30, no. 3 (Jul. 1937), 149150.
4 Despite the fact that this version bears the name of Philoxenos, he
did not carry out the actual translation. Tradition holds that the translation
was carried out by Philoxenos chorepiscopos, Polycarp. The attribution
of the project to Polycarp is found in a letter of Moshe of Aggel. See
I. Guidi, Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 4/2 (1886), 404. Cf.
Sebastian Brock, The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem
in New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honor
of Bruce M. Metzger, eds. E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1981), 325, n. 2. Though A. Mingana points out that there is a discrepancy
in the tradition because another manuscript seems to suggest that
Philoxenos carried out the translation himself. A. Mingana, New
2
179
.5
180
J. Edward Walters
181
consider the context of the christological controversies of the fifthand sixth-centuries when making observations about the
Philoxenian version, so must we also consider the context of the
changing Greek-to-Syriac translation technique taking place
concurrently with its production. 11 However, any attempt to
compare the text of the Philoxenian version to other Scripture
translation projects in order to determine the relationship between
those texts is hindered by a glaring problem: the Philoxenian
version does not actually exist as a text.
1.3 The Philoxenian-Harclean Problem
When Joseph White published the manuscript that he claimed to
be the Philoxenian version, 12 it seemed that there was finally an
answer to the problem of the precise relationship between the
Philoxenian and Harclean versions. 13 We know from subscriptions
of the Harclean version that Thomas of Harkel used the
Philoxenian version in his own translation work, so when Whites
manuscript was published, it seemed to be a prime candidate
because it is a Syriac biblical text with copious detailed marginalia
was not necessarily the first such translation project and, moreover, that
authors writing after Philoxenos translated Biblical quotations for
themselves rather than consulting the authoritative Philoxenian version.
Bas ter Haar Romenys response to Alands article, A PhiloxenianHarclean Tradition? Biblical Quotations in Syriac Translations from
Greek, in Wout Jac. van Bekkum, Jan Willem Drijvers and Alex C.
Klugkist, Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink (Louvain:
Peeters, 2007), 5976.
11 For example, the translated works of Cyril of Alexandira must be
taken into account because, as D. King argues, these translators shaped
Philoxenos reading and theology, King, New Evidence on the
Philoxenian Versions of the New Testament and Nicene Creed, Hugoye
13.1 (2010): 930.
12 J. White, Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Syriaca Philoxeniana cum
interpretatione et annotationibus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1778).
13 For a survey of the history of modern scholarship concerning the
Philoxenian version, see D. King, Syriac Versions, 281289; for more
information on the Harclean version, see A. Juckel, Introduction to the
Harklean Text, in G.A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels,
Vol. 1: Matthew (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002), xxxilxxxii.
182
J. Edward Walters
2. METHOD
For a project of this kind, it is necessary to establish and employ
methodologies both for discerning accurate citations of Scripture in
patristic works and for concluding that a reading does in fact
represent the text of the Philoxenian version. First, with respect to
patristic citation methodology, it is not necessary to construct here
an entire set of guidelines because other scholars have already
Brock, The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem,
341. For more evidence of text of the Philoxenian version, see J. Gwynns
discussion of the the possible Philoxenian version of the minor catholic
epistles: J. Gwynn, The Four Minor Catholic Epistles in Remnants of the
Later Syriac Versions of the Bible (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005); idem., The
Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version hitherto unknown (Dublin: Hodges,
Figgis, and Co., 1897; repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1981 and Piscataway:
Gorgias Press, 2005); and for the Pauline corpus, see the volumes of the
critical edition of the Syriac New Testament already in print: B. Aland and
A. Juckel, eds., Das Neue Testament in Syrischer berlieferung, Die Paulinischen
Briefe, 3 Vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991, 1995, 2002).
15 More specifically, this study is limited to Matthew, Luke and John
because Philoxenos almost never cites the Gospel of Mark.
14
183
184
J. Edward Walters
185
interested. 23 This criterion is the only one that can provide absolute
certainty that we have the unique Philoxenian reading, but there are
other criteria that can provide a high degree of certainty for other
verses.
A second internal criterion for accurate Philoxenian citations is
multiple occurrences of a citation in the same form. If a citation in
Philoxenos works contains a variant from the reading of the
Peshitta and that variant is attested in another citation elsewhere,
we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that this reading
represents the text of the Philoxenian version. However, when a
citation occurs multiple times in different forms, this criterion is
not necessarily helpful. 24
The third internal criterion is an expressed intent to cite
without an explicit discussion of the wording. This intent can be
expressed with either the Syriac citation marker
or with some
kind of introductory formula like -
[( Someone] said)
or -
(it is written). As with many patristic authors, this
criterion does not provide absolute certainty. That is, Philoxenos
displays a varied use of such introductory markers. However, my
research in the Philoxenian Gospels shows that Philoxenos use of
these introductory formulae are generally reliable enough to be
considered part of the argument for whether or not a citation is
accurate. 25 However, there is one additional problem with the use
of these introductory formulae: Philoxenos uses them with equal
frequency with unique citations from the Philoxenian version and
citations that are equivalent to the Peshitta reading. Thus, while
these formulae are reliable for a high probability of accuracy, they
In the present study, see the discussion below of Mt. 1:1 and 1:18.
However, Philoxenos also explicitly discusses the translation of Rom 1:3,
Heb 5:7, and Heb 10:5. See de Halleuxs discussion of these passages in
Philoxne, 123124.
24 For a prime example of this, see the discussion of Lk 1:35.
25 Of those 61 uses of
found in CPJ and MS A of CML, 59 of
them (96.7%) occurred with an accurate citation of either the Philoxenian
version or the Peshitta. Similarly, Philoxenos use of other introductory
formulae is relatively reliable: 28 of 33 (84.8%) citations that include such
formulae are accurate citations of either the Philoxenian version or the
Peshitta. For more on Philoxenos use of these introductory formulae, see
Chapter 4 of my thesis; Walters, The Philoxenian Gospels, 126130.
23
186
J. Edward Walters
187
words, if there is a unique reading that occurs only once and does
not meet the above criteria, we may ask the question: Does this
revision match the kind of revisions found in other Philoxenian
citations? Or, if the revision does not match another citation, we
may also ask: Based on the revisions found in other Philoxenian
citations, is it reasonable to conclude that the Philoxenian version
might have included this reading? This criterion is highly tenuous
and should be used only with the utmost care and a fair dose of
skepticism, but that does not mean that it cannot be applied in
some instances.
188
J. Edward Walters
P
Ph
H
The text of Matthew 1:1 presented above is one of the few readings
that we may attribute to the text of the Philoxenian version with
absolute certainty because Philoxenos explicitly discusses the
deficient translation of this passage as found in the text of the
Peshitta and proposes his own translation. Philoxenos cites this
passage six times: three of the six include the entire verse 32 and the
other three contain the first half of the verse. 33 Philoxenos
expresses an intent to cite with the citation marker
in both of
34
the full length citations that include the text of Ph. In the third
citation that contains the whole verse, Philoxenos provides the text
of the Peshitta version, which he introduces with the phrase,
[These things] now stand in the Syriac [version, i.e., the Peshitta]
(
) . 35 In his discussion of this verse, Philoxenos
argues that the translation of P is inadequate because the Greek
rather than
word should be translated as
. 36 Brock asserts that Philoxenos motivation behind this
revision is manifestly christological, because in his polemic
against the Antiochene theologians, [Philoxenos] wishes to
associate the genesis of these passages with John 1:14. 37 Whether or
not Philoxenos was aware of another translation using rather
than is not clear; but it is clear that the Philoxenian
translation shows a preference for words built from the stem
CPJ 41.1011; 42.1820; 49.1718.
CPJ 47.13; 50.1112; 52.1213.
34 CPJ 41.1011; 49.1718.
35 CPJ 42.1820.
36 CPJ 4143. It also appears that Philoxenos made a mistake in his
understanding of the meaning of the Greek words involved, Brock,
Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem, 328.
37 Ibid., 329.
32
33
189
x
x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
.
,
190
J. Edward Walters
x
x
x
x .
x :
x
x
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
G
.
191
Ph included
and Philoxenos simply reverted to the Peshitta
reading
in one citation by accident, but this seems unlikely
because the two readings occur within just a few lines of each
other. However, whether or not the use of
is an accident, it
is reasonable to conclude that the text of Ph reads
for two
reasons: 1) Philoxenos cites the full verse with this reading twice;
and 2) this reading is also found in H. The text of H moves the
phrase in an attempt to match the word order of the Greek text
, and
by rendering as
this word order also occurs once in Ph. 49 However, in the other
two full citations and in an additional partial citation of this verse,
Philoxenos cites the word order of P:
][ ] [ . 50
Only one of the four citations includes
, and it is the same
citation that matches the reading found in H. So, in three citations,
Philoxenos includes the word order of P, but in one citation his
wording matches that of H exactly. There is also some question as
to whether or not the text of Ph includes the prefix - in this
phrase. The three citations that match the Peshitta word order also
include the -, but the citation that matches the text of H does not
include it. The various forms of the citation of this verse and the
fact that Philoxenos does not explicitly discuss the wording as he
does with the previous citations make it difficult to ascertain which
form of this verse represents the text of Ph. However, it seems
most likely that the text of Ph read
because it
matches the word order of the Greek text and because the text of
H also includes this reading. The variations in the other citations
may be explained by accidental reversion to the Peshitta wording
(placement of ) and inconsistent citation habits with regard to
particles/participles (inclusion of
and -). Unlike the previous
two citations discussed above, the precise wording of this verse was
CPJ 227.78.
CPJ 41.1516; CPJ 41.2122; and (partial) CPJ 236.1314. It is also
worth noting that both word orders appear in two citations of this verse
found in the Syriac translation of Cyril of Alexandiras work Apologia
Duodecim Capitulorum contra Theodoretum, King, Syriac Versions, 396. The
Peshitta word order is also retained in two citations from Tratatus tres
(236.38; 268.2829); however, both of these are partial citations that begin
with the phrase in question and this may affect the word order of the
citation.
49
50
192
J. Edward Walters
P
Ph
H
x
x P
Ph
H
G ,
,
.
Full: CPJ 46.68; 56.1517; 42.1314; Partial: CPJ 44.7; CPJ 47.
1920.
CPJ 56.1417.
This translation choice may have been part of a broader translation
movement in the fifth and sixth centuries because both forms also exist in
the Syriac translation of the works of Cyril of Alexandria (
in
Scholia de Incaratione Verbi and
in Epistle 39; King, Syriac Versions,
398. This reading is also found in the citation of this verse from Tratatus
tres (169.4).
52
53
193
x
x
P
Ph
H
x
x
x P
Ph
H
G
,
Philoxenos cites this verse fully twice 54 and partially on two other
occasions. 55 Two of the citations (one full length and one partial)
contain the citation marker . 56 In the full length citation that
contains the citation marker , it stands in the place of the postpositive particle . However, in the other full length citation,
Philoxenos includes after . The Greek text includes as the
second word in the sentence, so it is likely that the text of Ph
included , but that Philoxenos has simply replaced the particle
with
in one citation. It is interesting that the translator of Ph has
not transposed the order of
as the translator of H has
done in order to reflect the Greek word order. However, all three
citations of this verse that contain this portion of the text retain the
same word order as P. 57
There is some question about the two revisions in the second
half of the verse: the addition of and the placement of the verb
. One full length citation contains the wording equivalent to
the text of P, 58 but the other full length citation contains the
CPJ 43.1214; 44.1718.
CML 4.1920; CPJ 43.2526.
56 CPJ 43.1214; 43.2526.
57 As does the one citation of this verse in Tractatus tres 265.1415.
58 CPJ 44.1718.
54
55
194
J. Edward Walters
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x P
Ph
H
[
P
] Ph
H
G ;
.
Philoxenos cites this verse twice, 59 but the two citations display
different readings of the first half of the verse. One citation
includes the first phrase as it is worded above (
) , 60 but this citation does not
include the rest of the verse. The second citation contains the full
verse, but it is identical to the wording of P. 61 It is concluded here
that the text of the shorter citation represents the text of Ph for the
first half of the verse because it agrees with the text of H and
follows the kind of translation technique characteristic of the
CPJ 43.1415; 44.1820.
CPJ 43.1415.
61 CPJ 44.1820.
59
60
195
x
x
x Ph
x
H
P
. Ph
. H
G , ,
,
.
196
J. Edward Walters
x
x
P
Ph
H
G ,
.
197
x
x
68[
x
x
Ph
H
G
. 68
Philoxenos does not include the first phrase of this verse in his
only citation, 69 but he does introduce the citation with the marker
. Although the translator of H revises the text of P in a number
of places, there is only one revision in the text of Ph. The translator
of Ph changed the form of the verb
(plural participle) to
198
J. Edward Walters
] [
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
G
,
.
P
Ph
H
CPJ 127.2425.
CPJ 180.2627.
199
x
x
G
.
P
Ph
H
200
J. Edward Walters
201
19:28
x [
x x
x x
x Ph
H
P
Ph
Ph
Ph
G
,
,
.
202
J. Edward Walters
x
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
G
.
Philoxenos quotes this verse three times, 84 and two of the citations
include the text presented above. The text of Ph omits
most
likely because does not appear in the Greek text. 85 The text of
Ph includes a more literal rendering of the Greek phrase
(lit: you will become pregnant in [the]
belly) by changing the phrase
( lit: you will receive
pregnancy) to
( lit: you will become pregnant in
the belly). One of the three citations 86 of this verse from
CPJ 45.910; 45.1112; 47.1517.
does appear in a citation of this verse in LMS (58.22), but it
appears after, not before,
.
86 CPJ 47.1517:
.
84
85
203
.
.
.
x
x
x .
x
x
]
x
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
LMS 58.22.
The Syriac translation of Cyril of Alexandrias Epistle 39 also
indicates the change in verb to
, but it does not include either
or
; King, Syriac Versions, 422.
89 CPJ, LMS, and Tractatus tres all contain multiple citations of this
verse and the citations are varied in all three works.
90 CPJ 211.2628; CPJ 41.24.
87
88
204
J. Edward Walters
partial, 91 and there are two full citations of this verse in LMS 92 and
Tract. tres. 93 In two of the citations, Philoxenos demonstrates an
intent to cite with the citation marker . 94 Moreover, all of the full
citations are nearly identical, though their minor discrepancies
make establishing portions of this verse quite difficult. All of the
citations that contains the verb demonstrate a revision in the
gender of the verb ( to come) from feminine to masculine
in order to portray the Holy Spirit as grammatically masculine
rather than feminine. 95 The text of Ph also adds the phrase
(upon you) to represent the Greek phrase ; this too is
attested in all of Philoxenos full citations of the verse. There is
some discrepancy in the Philoxenian rendering of . In two
from P and in the other three
citations 96 Philoxenos retains
he uses
. However, one of the citations that uses
is
found in CML and the other is the partial citation that appears to
be simply an allusion. 97 All of the full citations of this verse use
CPJ 41.3424; CPJ 196.19; CML 54.1213, though CPJ 196.19 is
clearly an allusion.
92 LMS 39.1617, 60.911.
93 Tract. tres 236.29237.1; 95.25.
94 CPJ 211.2628; CML 54.1213 (This citation comes from MS A in
CML).
95 In early Syriac writings, the Holy Spirit is generally considered to be
feminine because grammatically the word is feminine. For more on
the shift within the Syriac language from a feminine to a masculine Holy
Spirit, see S. Brock, Come, Compassionate Mother..., Come Holy Spirit:
A Forgotten Aspect of Early Eastern Christian Imagery, Aram 3
(Oxford, 1991), 249257; reprinted in Brock, Fire From Heaven. Moreover,
Zuntz found this revised translation in Tractatus Tres and noted its
significance with regard to translation technique, The Ancestry of the
Harklean Version, 43.
96 CPJ 196.19; 47.1517. The latter of these two citations is conflated
with Lk 1:31 and is mentioned in the discussion of that verse above. In
both 1:31 and 1:35, this citation retains readings from the text of P.
However, Philoxenos has clearly adapted the wording to fit his context, so
it is difficult to argue that this citation represents the text of P, particularly
when there are longer citations that do not agree with the text of P.
97 King notes that when Philoxenos alludes to this verse, his wording
tends to revert to that of P rather than citing precisely the text of Ph.
King, Syriac Versions, 424.
91
205
206
J. Edward Walters
207
1:42
P
Ph
H
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
G
;
208
J. Edward Walters
Ph
] [
x x
Ph
H
G ,
.
The citation of this verse 113 includes the addition of the third
person direct object pronoun - to the end of the verb as well
Smith, CSD, 13.
CPJ 209.45.
113 CPJ 209.56.
111
112
209
, an Aphel form of
(to make recline, to seat), as the
,
translation for the Greek word rather than
from
( to put, place) as found in P. 114 The translator of H
also retains this reading, so this revision was likely an attempt at a
better translation.
2:14
x
x
G
x
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
The revision found in this citation 115 of Ph from the text of P may
be the result of textual variation in the Vorlagen of these
( and among
translations. The text of Ph reads
(from
fair, good, lovely) as a translation of the
Greek prefix -. It is odd that Philoxenos citation does not
One citation of this verse from Tract. tres (265.2223) retains the
reading of P here, but is otherwise identical to the text given above.
115 CPJ 57.1011.
114
210
J. Edward Walters
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
G
,
116
117
211
212
J. Edward Walters
2:35
x
P
Ph
Ph
G [] ,
122
123
213
2:43
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x x
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
G ,
The citation of this verse from Ph 124 and the text of H both omit
the conjunction , presumably because there is no conjunction
here in the Greek text. The conclusion that this omission is not
accidental or simply a result of Philoxenos stylistic concerns is
strengthened by evidence later in the phrase that the translations of
Ph and H reflect the Greek word order. Each of the later
translations transposes the phrase
214
J. Edward Walters
2:48
G
;
[]
P
Ph
H
In this citation, 127 the translator of Ph replaces the preposition with the independent preposition as the translation of the
Greek preposition . The texts of Ph and H consistently
demonstrate this same revision in other verses, so it is reasonable
to conclude that this minor revision is in fact part of the text of Ph.
The citation shown above omits the initial -, but we need not
conclude that the text of Ph omitted it because it is likely that
Philoxenos simply omitted it based on the context in which he
quoted the verse. The citation also adds a - to the beginning of the
word in order to introduce direct discourse. It is possible
that this addition is part of the text of Ph, but the translator of H
does not include this revision, so we have no external evidence to
support this conclusion.
2:52
P
x [ ] Ph
G [ ]
Philoxenos quotes this verse eight times, and although only two of
these quotations are found in CPJ, five of the remaining six are
215
x .
- - Ph
x H
Ph
G ,
, ,
D []
CPJ 71.2526; 184.29185.2; CML 44.22; 53.24; 53.5; 54.89.
CPJ 71.2526; CML 54.89; 65.1314.
130 Philoxenos does retain this possessive on
in one brief
allusion to this verse: CML 44.22.
131 CML 53.5:
128
129
216
J. Edward Walters
( the translation of
), the word order of Ph and H is identical to that of D.
Moreover, there is some question about the word order of the text
of Ph with regard to the placement of in the text. One of
the five shorter citations 133 renders the final phrase
. The word order of this citation is precisely
equal to the word order of D. This citation comes from CML, but
it is found in the portion of the text attested by MS A and is thus
quite likely to be authentic. Moreover, this quotation includes the
citation marker
. The change in word order is more easily
explainable in this shorter citation, as it is more likely to have been
altered to Philoxenos style. However, either way the word order of
the text of Ph is closer to the word order of D than it is to NA27.
Thus, it appears that there is a link between the Vorlage(n) of Ph
and H and the text to which Codex D attests for this verse. This
claim is tentative, but based on the word-for-word translation
132
133
Full: CPJ 41.68; Partial: CML 80.27; 81.9; 82.1920; 84.4; 87.6.
CML 80.27.
217
Ph
H
x
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
G ,
In the one citation of this verse, 138 the text of Ph adds the verbal
phrase to , in an attempt to translate more precisely
the Greek aorist verb . This translation style is characteristic of
Ph, and the revision is retained in H, so it is reasonable to conclude
CPJ 140.1112; 132.1314; 213.45; 241.18.
CPJ 140.1112.
136 The citation of this verse in LMS 4.1719 also reads
. The
OS C also contains
, so it is possible that this reading was retained
in Philoxenos version of P.
137 King, Syriac Versions, 430.
138 CPJ 241.2122.
134
135
218
J. Edward Walters
P
Ph
H
G , ,
...). As with Jn 1:8
above, the text of Ph adds the verb to in order to
translate the verb , and the Harclean version includes this
revision as well. The other variation of the text of Ph from the text
of P in this verse is the replacement of the direct object pronoun
- with the independent direct object
in the final phrase of the
sentence. This variation does not change the meaning of the
phrase, but it does reflect the Greek word order (
). The Harclean version also includes this revision.
139
140
CPJ 38.13.
CPJ 38.10; 38.11.
219
1:11
x
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
x .
x .
.
x P
Ph
H
x
x
P
Ph
H
G ,
,
, .
220
J. Edward Walters
221
as opposed to
is also in question
because Philoxenos cites both wordings in close proximity to one
another in CPJ. 148 However, Philoxenos does include the citation
marker
with the former wording, and this citation is longer than
the citations that read
, providing some evidence that the
longer rendering is actually in the text of Ph. The translation
rather than
.
222
J. Edward Walters
Philoxenos quotes the final phrase of the verse three times, and
each time he uses rather than
to render .
This reading is one of the few cases in which the text of Ph agrees
with one of the OS texts (in this case, C) over and against the text
of P. Pusey and Gwilliam do not list as a variant, though it is
possible that the Peshitta text with which Philoxenos was familiar
retained from the text of the OS, though this must remain
uncertain. However, it is not necessary to conclude that Philoxenos
text of P included , as it is likely a lexical revision by the
translator of Ph to offer a more accurate translation. The text of H
also includes rather than
, adding further support to the
case that the text of Ph read as well.
1:15
x
x
x
x x
Ph
Ph
G ,
,
, .
Philoxenos quotes the full version of 1:15 twice 150 and cites
phrases of the verse twice as well. 151 In one of the two full
citations, Philoxenos provides the citation marker . 152 While
there are minor variations among Philoxenos quotations, they are
similar enough to confidently attribute the reading above to the
text of Ph. There are several additions within the text of Ph that
appear to be the result of providing a more precise translation: the
addition of the temporal preposition
to the participle , the
addition of the verbal phrase as a translation of , and the
addition of the pronoun as a literal translation of the Greek
definite article so that the Greek text is rendered
CPJ 231.1315; 242.1617.
CPJ 242.2; 242.2223.
152 CPJ 241.1315.
150
151
223
x
x
P
Ph
H
Philoxenos commentaries contain one full 154 and two partial 155
citations of this verse. The revisions are slight: the text of Ph
replaces
x x
x x
P
Ph
H
Jn 1:8,10.
CPJ 245.5.
155 CPJ 245.2021; 245.27
156 This word is marked with an asterisk and obelus in the Harclean
tradition to denote Thomass insertion of a word not found in his Greek
Vorlagen. For the explanation of these sigla, see Juckel, Introduction to
the Harklean Text in G. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels,
Vol. 1: Matthew, xxxiiixxxv.
153
154
224
J. Edward Walters
P
Ph
H
G ,
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
G ,
,
,
Philoxenos cites this verse only once, but he quotes the whole
and replaces it
verse. 158 The text of Ph omits the pronoun
with . The change in meaning in this phrase is not drastic,
though it is likely an attempt by the translator of Ph to render more
literally the Greek prepositional phrase . It appears also that
157
158
225
to read
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
In the citation of this verse, 159 the text of Ph adds the verbal phrase
in order to reflect the presence of the Greek verb .
This type of revision is characteristic of the translation technique of
Ph, and the text of H also displays this translation, so it is
reasonable to conclude that this revision represents the text of Ph.
3:16
x x
x x
P
Ph
H
G ,
226
J. Edward Walters
x x
x
x
x
x Ph
G ,
Philoxenos only quotes the second half of this verse, 164 but the
portion that he does quote reflects revisions characteristic of other
citations from Ph. The text of Ph replaces the verb with the
verbal phrase . The text of H also includes this reading,
though it adds the pronoun to reflect the presence of the Greek
definite article. The text of Ph also replaces
with the verbal
phrase
, which seems to be a more accurate translation of the
Greek participle . Once again, the text of H
reproduces the variant reading found in Ph, though it replaces the
first person singular pronoun with the verb in the final
phrase.
227
3:31
x
x
x
[
x]
x
x
P
Ph
H
In the brief citation of this verse, 165 the text of Ph and the text of
H omit the conjunction
, likely because there is no conjunction
in the Greek text. In the final phrase, the text of Ph replaces the
verbal enclitic with the verb as a translation of ,
and the text of H also reflects this revision. In addition to these
two revisions which seem to fit the translation technique of Ph,
this quotation also reads
(heaven) rather than
(above). Without external validation, either from its inclusion in
the text of H or a second citation with the same wording, it is
tenuous to conclude that the text of Ph actually read
. And
while it is possible that that Philoxenos (or the translator of Ph)
thought that
was a better translation in this context than
, this does not seem likely as
is the more literal
translation of . Thus, it seems more likely that this is a
mistake of memory or an adaptation by Philoxenos and should not
be considered part of the text of Ph.
3:33
x
x
x
G
P
Ph
H
CPJ 216.21.
CPJ 216.2223.
228
J. Edward Walters
5:34
x
x
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
G ,
.
167
CPJ 242.1214.
229
7:39
168
x
x [
]
x
Ph
H
Ph
G , 168
Philoxenos quotes this verse only once, 169 but he includes the
citation marker . As he often does, Philoxenos places
in the
position of the post-positive conjunction, so although the citation
does not include
, we should not necessarily conclude that it
was omitted from the text of Ph. It is possible that the omission of
in the text of Ph was intentional because the Greek word
carries the meaning of the Syriac phrase
. Thus, it is
possible that the text of Ph represents an attempt at a word-forword correspondence and omitted
. This explanation is
supported by the fact that the texts of P, Ph, and H all display a
longer form of this text including a form of the verb ( to
give). This appears to be a result of a textual variant, as several
witnesses include the phrase . 170 Thus,
the text of Ph (
, For the Holy
Spirit had not been given) represents a translation of the variant
reading. The text of Ph also includes a revision in the gender of the
verb from feminine to masculine in order to represent the
Holy Spirit as male, not female. 171
230
J. Edward Walters
12:26
172[
x
x
x x
x x
[
x
P
Ph
H
Ph
]H
x [
G , ,
172
In the citation of this verse from CPJ, 173 the text of Ph inverts the
word order of the phrase
in P. While this is essentially
an inconsequential revision, the text of Ph matches the Greek
. Moreover, the text of Ph inverts the order of the
phrase
in order to reflect more accurately the Greek
text. The text of H also displays this revision. The phrase
in the text of Ph is not found in the text of P, but the text
of H retains this reading (with the exception of ). Thus, the text
of Ph appears to be an attempt at a more word-for-word
translation of the Greek text.
14:2
P
Ph
H
231
Ph
Ph
G ,
In this citation, 176 the text of Ph reflects the inverted word order of
the phrase in order to conform it to the Greek .
This reading is also found in the text of H.
16:12
x
x P
x - Ph
H
Ph
H
G ,
232
J. Edward Walters
233
16:13
x x
:
G ,
P
Ph
H
Philoxenos quotes this verse four times with two full 181 and two
partial citations. 182 The text of Ph, along with the text of H, places
before the verb , reflecting the placement of in the
Greek text. Two of the four citations of this verse in Philoxenos
include this reading; 183 one omits the conjunction altogether; 184 and
one replaces with
. 185 However, Pusey and Gwilliam also list
this word order as a textual variant for the Peshitta, so while we can
safely conclude that this is the word order of Ph, we cannot
conclude that this word order was revised by the translator of Ph.
The text of Ph also demonstrates the translation
in
place of the shorter phrase
. Philoxenos quotes this portion of
the text twice, and both times he uses the longer phrasing. 186 This
is likely an attempt to produce a word-for-word translation of the
Greek, but the fact that the text of H includes
complicates
this explanation because the text of H is generally more accurate
with respect to word-for-word translations than the text of Ph. It is
also possible that this translation is the result of textual variation in
the Greek Vorlagen. The critical text of NA27 reads ,
but several MSS replace with . 187 The slight difference of
CPJ 159.34; CML 9.1213.
CPJ 178.1112; CML 3.2021.
183 CPJ 159.34; 178.1112.
184 CML 3.2021. This citation is quite short and should probably be
considered an allusion. Thus, there is no need to postulate that the text of
Ph omitted .
185 CML 9.1213.
186 CML 9.1213; CPJ 159.34.
187 The variant is attested by codices A and B and a few vulgate mss.
Moreover, this variant was included in the text of NA25 as noted by the
symbol in the textual apparatus. Thus, the text of the witnesses for this
variant are ancient enough to have been found in a Vorlage used by the
translator of Ph.
181
182
234
J. Edward Walters
.
.
P
Ph
H
P
x
x
Ph
H
Philoxenos displays his intent to cite this verse with the citation
marker . 188 The texts of both Ph and H omit the preposition
in the first phrase of this verse. It is possible that this revision is the
result of textual variation in the Greek Vorlagen. The NA27 critical
text words the opening phrase , but
several witnesses replace with the preposition . 189 It is
possible, then, that is a translation of from the Greek
Vorlage of the text of P, 190 and, likewise, that the Greek Vorlagen of
Ph and H read rather than . This explains the absence of
in these word-for-word translations. However, it is not
necessary to conclude that this revision is the result of a textual
variant. It is also possible that the translators of Ph and H simply
omitted and allowed
to represent . In the final phrase
of this verse, both Ph and H omit . The inclusion of this phrase
CPJ 238.68.
This variant is attested by codices B, C*, L, and , as well as a few
others later mss. This variant was included in the text of NA25 as noted by
the symbol in the textual apparatus.
190 Cf. John 1:1 for an example of
translated from .
188
189
235
.
.
x x
x x
x
x
P
Ph
H
x
x
P
Ph
H
G ,
, .
236
J. Edward Walters
x
x
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
G ,
237
translation
. The existence of in the Greek Vorlagen of
Ph and H is the best explanation for the existence of
.
17:24
x
x
x
x
x
x
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
P
Ph
H
G , ,
,
,
Philoxenos quotes this verse twice in CPJ, but only one citation
contains the whole verse. 198 As seen above in the discussion of
17:11, it is not necessary to consider the possessive pronoun on the
first word as a reflection of the existence of a possessive
pronoun in the Greek Vorlagen. The citation of this verse shown
above omits the third person plural pronoun and adds the
virtually equivalent phrase -
. It is possible that the text of Ph
included this reading. If it is original, it seems that this variation
is an attempt to translate more accurately the Greek relative
pronoun in the absence of the third person plural pronoun in the
Greek text. The text of P renders the Greek phrase
(where I am) with the phrase ( the place that I [am]).
In order to be more true to the word order of the Greek text, the
text of Ph renders the phrase
( where I am), so
that the pronoun comes after the verb as it is in Greek. And again,
the text of Ph replaces the third person singular pronoun with
the phrase -
in order to more accurately translate the Greek
relative pronoun .
198
238
J. Edward Walters
18:8
P
Ph
H
G . ,
4. CONCLUSIONS
The primary focus of the present study has been to simply present
the data for the text of the Philoxenian version for various Gospel
passages as those texts can be reconstructed from the citations of
Philoxenos. While this study has focused only on citations from the
Gospels and presented data for only fifty-two verses, it is possible
to make some tentative conclusions 200 about the nature of the
Philoxenian version and its place within the shifting Syriac
translation technique of the sixth-century. First, we summarize
briefly the types of revisions that are evident within the Philoxenian
version, and then we will offer a few brief suggestions about the
implications of these conclusions for the future of study with
regard to the Philoxenian version.
4.1 Revisions Characteristic of the Philoxenian Version
Based on the revisions found in the Scripture passages presented
above, it is possible to discuss a few trends of translation technique
evident within the Philoxenian version. These trends include:
lexical changes for more accurate translation, attempts at more
accurate and consistent translation of verb tense, lexical omissions
CPJ 166.11.
These conclusions must remain tentative until the completion of a
similar project for Philoxenos citations outside the Gospels and a more
thorough comparison with other sixth-century translation projects.
199
200
239
and additions based on the Greek text, and alterations in the Syriac
word order to reflect the Greek.
4.1.1 Lexical Changes for more Accurate Translations
The most well known lexical revision in the Philoxenian version is
the replacement of words built from the stem
in Matt 1:1 and
1:18. 201 In both of these passages, Philoxenos replaces a word built
from
with the word ( becoming, birth). 202 Given his
opposition to Nestorianism, it is not surprising that Philoxenos
demonstrates a strong concern for the language used in reference
to Jesus birth. 203 In particular, Philoxenos seems to be concerned
that speaking about the birth of Jesus might suggest that there was
a change in the nature of Christ that might lead the reader to a
dyophysite Christology. Thus, this lexical change is likely best
explained by Philoxenos preference for the incarnational language
of the prologue of the Gospel of John in which the word
becomes ( )flesh. 204 This seems to be the most likely
explanation considering how formative Jn 1:14 is in Philoxenos
concept of the Incarnation, as evidenced by the fact that he quotes
some portion of Jn 1:14 over fifty times throughout the
commentaries.
240
J. Edward Walters
241
242
J. Edward Walters
243
212
( + context sensitive pronoun) 214
215
( usually + )216
213
244
J. Edward Walters
4.1.4 Omissions
This category refers to the instances in which the translator of Ph
omits words found in the translation of P based on the wording of
the Greek text. There are at least seven examples of this category,
but it includes only minor omissions such as particles ( 223 and
224 ), pronouns (relative and personal), 225 and prepositions. 226
This category represents a conscious effort on the part of the
translator of Ph to render the Greek text more literally by
omitting words not found in the Greek text.
4.1.5 Additions
This category overlaps with the above discussion of the translation
of as the translator of Ph frequently adds the word - when
the meaning is merely implied in the translation of P. This category
also includes prepositions and prepositional phrases, 227 nouns, 228
pronouns, 229 and verbs. 230 In addition to the examples just
mentioned, there are at least seven more examples of the translator
of Ph making additions to reflect the presence of words in
Greek. 231
4.2 Implications of the Present Study for Future Scholarship
The intent of the present study has been to present the data for the
unique readings of the Gospels of the Philoxenian version as
reconstructed from the exegetical writings of Philoxenos. The
results of this study confirm the resolution of the
Philoxenian/Harclean problem as concluded by Sebastian Brock:
the Philoxenian version is a distinct translation from both the
Peshitta and the Harclean version. Moreover, it is clear that the
translation technique evident throughout the citations discussed
Lk 2:43, 52.
Lk 1:31.
225 Lk 1:35; 2:6; John 1:15; 3:31.
226 Jn 16:28.
227 Lk 1:35; 2:34; Jn 1:10.
228 Matt 2:6.
229 Jn 1:11; 17:22, 24.
230 Matt 2:1; Jn 1:15.
231 Matt 1:23; 2:2; Lk 2:6; 3:23; Jn 1:33; 17:11
223
224
245
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources for Philoxenos
De Halleux, Andr. Eli de Qartamin: Memra sur Mar Philoxne de Mabbog.
CSCO 233, 234. Louvain: Secrtariat du CorpusSCO, 1963.
_______. Philoxne de Mabbog: Commentaire du prologue johannique (Ms. Br.
Mus. Add. 14,534). CSCO 380, 381. Louvain: Secrtariat du
CorpusSCO, 1977.
_______. Philoxne de Mabbog: Lettre aux moines Senoun, CSCO 231, 232.
Louvain: Secrtariat du CorpusSCO, 1963.
Vaschalde, A. Philoxeni Mabbugensis: Tractatus Tres de Trinitate et Incarnatione.
CSCO 9, 10. Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1907.
Watt, J. W. Philoxenos of Mabbug: Fragments of the Commentary on Matthew and
Luke. CSCO 392, 393. Louvain: Secrtariat du CorpusSCO,
1978.
Other Sources
Aland, Barbara and A. Juckel, eds. Das Neue Testament in Syrischer
berlieferung, Die Paulinischen Briefe, 3 Vols. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1991, 1995, 2002.
_______. Die Philoxenianisch-harklensische bersetzungstradition:
Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Zitate in
der syrischen Literatur. Le Muson 94 (1981): 321383.
Baumstark, Anton. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur. Bonn, 1922.
Brock, Sebastian. Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity. Pages
6987 in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies XX. Durham, 1979.
246
J. Edward Walters
247
248
J. Edward Walters
249
Williams, P. J. Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the
Greek Gospels. Texts and Studies, Third Series, vol. 2. Piscataway:
Gorgias Press, 2004.
Zuntz, G. The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament. British Academy
Supplemental Papers, no. 7. London: The British Academy,
1945.