PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 327

PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE

Recent years have seen a variety of studies of Syriac translations of Greek texts, both patristic and secular, within the wider context of the Hellenisation of Syriac culture in . Dr Brock’s study of the translation technique of the Syriac version of pseudo-Nonnos1, together with his overview articles on the overall development of the Syriac translation programme2, has inspired others to look at other individual texts. On the patristic side, these have included the early translations of Basil of Caesarea3, the two versions of the Cathedral Homilies of Severus of Antioch4, the two versions of Proclus of Constantinople’s Tomus5, Gregory of Nyssa’s Commentary on the Song of Songs6, Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos7, various texts of Athanasius8, of Timo- thy Aeluros9, of Gregory Nazianzen in the ongoing Corpus Nazian-

1 S.P. BROCK (ed.), The Syriac version of the pseudo-Nonnos mythological scholia, Cambridge, 1971. 2 Ibid., Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity, in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979), p. 69-87. Reprinted, Syriac Perpectives on Late Antiquity, London, 1984, ch. III; ibid., Towards a History of Syriac translation technique, in R. LAVENANT (ed.), III Symposium Syriacum, Goslar 7-11 September 1980, Rome, 1983, p. 1-14. Re- printed, Studies in , 1992, ch. X (= BROCK, Towards a History). 3 D.G.K. TAYLOR (ed.), The Syriac versions of the De Spiritu Sancto of Basil of Caesarea (CSCO, 576 [Textus]; 577 [Versio]), Leuven, 1999. 4 C.J.A. LASH, Techniques of a translator: Work-notes on the methods of Jacob of in translating the homilies of , in F. PASCHKE (ed.), Über- lieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Texte und Untersuchungen, 125), Berlin, 1981, p. 365-383. 5 L. VAN ROMPAY, Proclus of Constantinople's ‘Tomus ad Armenios' in the Post- Chalcedonian Tradition, in C. LAGA et al. (eds.), After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta, 18), Leuven, 1985, p. 425-449. 6 C. VAN DEN EYNDE, La version syriaque du commentaire de Grégoire de Nysse sur le Cantique des cantiques: ses origines, ses témoins, son influence (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 10), Leuven, 1939. 7 P.H. POIRIER – C. SENSAL, Quelques réflexions sur la version syriaque du Contra Manichaeos de Titus de Bostra, in V Symposium Syriacum, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29-31 août 1988, Rome, 1990, p. 307-319. 8 R.Y. EBIED – L.R. WICKHAM, Athanasius' Ad Epictetum, in Journal of Theological Studies, 23 (1972), p. 144-154; and in the discussion in the edition of R. THOMSON (ed.), Athanasiana Syriaca (CSCO 257, 272, 324, 386 [Textus]; 258, 273, 325, 387 [Versio]), Leuven, 1965. 9 R.Y. EBIED – L.R. WICKHAM, A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Timothy Aelurus, in Journal of Theological Studies, 21 (1970), p. 321-369; ibid., Timothy Aelurus: Against Chalcedon, in C. LAGA et al. (eds.), After Chalcedon: Studies in Theol- ogy and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 18), Leuven, 1985, p. 115-166.

Le Muséon 120 (3-4), 327-349. doi: 10.2143/MUS.120.3.2024679 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2007. 328 D. KING zenum10, as well as now of the Christological treatises of Cyril of Alex- andria11. The numerous publications of Prof. Hugonnard-Roche have provided a similar insight into the developments in the translations of secular philosophical texts12. The older translation of the aforementioned Cathedral Homilies of Severus has generally been ascribed to Paul of Callinicum, and it is with this individual that we shall be concerned in this paper.

Paul as a translator

Paul, bishop of Callinicum (ar-Raqqa), is one of the very few Syriac translators whom we can assign with certainty to the sixth century. Stu- dents of patristic theology have been grateful to Paul above all for pre- serving for posterity the works of Severus of Antioch, texts which were destroyed in areas under the immediate control of the Chalcedonian hier- archy and have survived (excepting a few minor fragments and quota- tions in Greek authors) only in their Syriac translations. But for those concerned with the progress and development of Syriac literature and language per se, Paul is also a writer of no small importance. Following in the wake of , he appears to have had been an instigator of those changes and developments in translation technique which reach their apogee in the well-known mirror versions of the sev- enth century13. This paper will set out to show that Paul’s approach to translating Greek into Syriac took its cue from the linguistic revisions introduced by Philoxenus to the text of the New Testament and the Creeds and also points the way forward to the style and method of the seventh century. The first part will take a few examples of Paul’s trans- lations of Severus’ Greek where these can be compared to the original Greek text and will attempt to give a sense of how his approach to Greek grammar and syntax was already far ahead of that achieved by his fifth-

10 Overview in C. DÉTIENNE, Grégoire de Nazianze dans la tradition syriaque, in B. COULIE (ed.), Studia Nazianzenica (CCSG 41; Corpus Nazianzenum, 8), Turnhout, 2000, p. 175-183. So far published are the Syriac versions of Orations 27, 28, 29 (ed. J.-C. HAELEWYCK, Corpus Nazianzenum, 53); Or. 13,41 (ed. A.B. SCHMIDT, Corpus Nazianzenum, 47); 40 (ed. J.-C. HAELEWYCK, Corpus Nazianzenum, 49). 11 D. KING, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria, A Study in Translation Technique, Leuven, forthcoming. 12 Especially, the collection of articles in H. HUGONNARD-ROCHE, La logique d'Aristote du grec au syriaque: études sur la transmission des textes de l'Organon et leur interprétation philosophique, Paris, 2004. 13 The best description of the process can readily found in S.P. BROCK, Towards a History. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 329 century predecessors. In the second part, we shall analyse how Paul ap- proached translating the Biblical text within the Severan corpus and bring those citations together with possible reconstructions of the Philoxenian New Testament. In reading the Severan corpus in its Syriac translation, we are fortu- nate in that Severus so often quotes from ‘patristic’ literature. He is a devotee of Cyril of Alexandria and often quotes him at some length. In the cases of his Philalethes, of course, he is actually refuting the dyophysite interpretation placed upon Cyril’s writings in the so-called Florilegium Cyrillianum. As the latter florilegium is actually quoted in full at the start of the Philalethes, much of Paul of Callinicum’s Vorlage is actually available to us in its original Greek. To this we can add that many of the works of Cyril of Alexandria which were excerpted in the florilegium, or which Severus quotes else- where, were individually and separately translated into Syriac and are extant today. The net result of this fortuitous state of affairs is that we have two Syriac versions of a large number of passages. Our good fortune extends yet further, however, when we discover that, so long as we stick to a few select texts among the Cyrilline corpus, we can date with some precision, and on quite external grounds, both of these two versions. For there is a group of four letters of Cyril’s (Epp. 40,45,46,50) which are cited by Philoxenus in the florilegium appended to his treatise against Habib, also known as the Decem Dissertationes14. In this florilegium, the four aforementioned letters are quoted in the same translation as we can see them in their complete versions in the British Library manuscript Add. 14557, and which were published by Ebied and Wickham in the CSCO series15. Now, the treatise against Habib was proved by de Halleux to have been written before Philoxenus became a bishop, i.e. before 484. Since Cyril only wrote the letters in 432/3, this narrows down the date of translation to the fifty intervening years. Paul of Callinicum’s translation of the Severan texts can also be pinned down with some certainty. The basis for the attribution of the translation to Paul rests on the colophon of Vat. Syr.140, the manuscript which contains the dossier of works written by Severus and Julian of

14 M. BRIERE – F. GRAFFIN (eds.), Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis disserta- tiones decem de Uno e sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo V (Patrologia Orientalis, 41,1), Turnhout, 1982. 15 R.Y. EBIED – L.R. WICKHAM (eds.), A Collection of unpublished Syriac Letters of Cyril of Alexandria (CSCO 359 [Textus]; 360 [(Versio]), Leuven, 1975 (= EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters). 330 D. KING

Halicarnassus16. This colophon (on f.145v) attributes the translation to Paul and dates his work to 528. The ms itself is of sixth century date and there is no reason to doubt its testimony in this matter. We thus have a secure attestation and date for this, at least, of the Severan texts. Can any of the other Syriac versions of Severus be ascribed to Paul? When Lebon first published the Liber Contra Impium Grammaticum in 1929, he ascribed the work again “ad eundem interpretem [sc. the trans- lator of the Anti-Julianist works] probabiliter, haud tamen certo, libri quoque contra impium grammaticum syriacam versionem auctores hodierni communiter referunt,” though he does not tell us who these ‘auctores hodierni’ are17. The ascription also of the translation of the Sergius correspondence to Paul of Callinicum rested with Baumstark and was similarly adopted by Lebon18. The Cathedral Homilies exist in two versions, one known to be by , the other, older version, ascribed again to Paul — thus says Brière, that this deduction was made “de la parenté qui existe entre les traductions précitées [i.e. the three texts mentioned so far] et une version syriaque des 125 homélies cathédrales de Sévère d’Antioche.” He recognises that only the anti-Julianist corpus is actually explicit on this matter and that the others are deductions from this based on similarity (of style)19. The provenance of these three texts, then, is much less certain than in the case of the first, although in summary there remains a good chance that they should be given to Paul20. One other vital work, however, can safely be attributed to Paul, namely the Philalethes21. For if we compare a long citation which 16 Known generally as the ‘anti-Julianist polemic,’ the texts were published by R. HESPEL (ed.), Sévère d'Antioche. La polémique antijulianiste (CSCO 244, 295, 301, 318 [Textus]; 245, 296, 302, 319 [Versio]), Leuven, 1964-71 (= HESPEL, Polémique). 17 J. LEBON (ed.), Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium Grammaticum (CSCO 93, 101, 111 [Textus]; 94, 102, 112 [Versio]), Leuven, 1929-38, p. II (versio). 18 A. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn, 1922, p. 160 (= BAUMSTARK, Geschichte); J. LEBON (ed.), Severi Antiocheni Orationes ad Nephalium. Euisdem ac Sergii Grammatici Epistulae Mutuae (CSCO 119 [Textus]; 120 [Versio]), Leuven, 1949, p. V (versio) (= LEBON, ad Nephalium). 19 M. BRIERE, Introduction générale aux homélies de Sévère d'Antioche, in R. DUVAL et al. (eds.), Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d'Antioche I (Patrologia Orientalis, 29), Paris, 1960, p. 7-72; the same ascription was made already by previous scholars, see W. WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature, London, 1894, p.94f.; P.R. DUVAL, La littérature syriaque, Paris, 1899, p. 316f.; BAUMSTARK, Geschichte, p. 160. 20 There are detailed studies of the various versions of the Homilies by C.J.A. LASH, Techniques of a translator: Work-notes on the methods of Jacob of Edessa in translating the homilies of Severus of Antioch, in F. PASCHKE (ed.), Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Texte und Untersuchungen, 125), Berlin, 1981, p. 365-383; and in F. PETIT, La chaîne sur l’Exode, I. Fragments de Sévère d’Antioche (Traditio exegetica Graeca, 9), Louvain, 1999. 21 R. HESPEL (ed.), Sévère d'Antioche: le Philalèthe (CSCO 68 [Textus]; 69 [Versio]), Leuven, 1952 (= HESPEL, Philalèthe). PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 331

Severus makes from the Philalethes in one of his defences against Julian (i.e. in the anti-Julianist polemic) with the parallel text in the Philalethes itself, we can observe that the two are identical for a full fifty one lines of text22. From this one observation we are able to conclude that the translator of the anti-Julianist work, Paul of Callinicum, was making use of an already extant translation of the Philalethes. Given the short time available for this, together with all the other considerations mentioned, it seems extremely likely that this translator was himself. We can thus firmly attribute the translation of the Philalethes to Paul, despite the edi- tor’s own reticence in this matter23, and thus expand the corpus of works clearly belonging to this translator.

Paul and his predecessors

Basing ourselves on these reasonably well-fixed points, we are now able to look at the texts where they overlap and judge for ourselves how much approaches to Greek/Syriac translation had altered over the half a century or so which separates the first translator of the Cyril texts from Paul of Callinicum.

Let us take, for example, the following passage from Cyril’s Letter to Acacius of Melitene (Ep. 40)24: oû gártoi tautòn Üv ên poiótjti fusik±ç qeótjv te kaì ânqrw- pótjv. êpeì p¬v kekénwtai qeòv æn ö lógov, kaqeìv ëautòn ên meíosi, toutéstin ên to⁄v kaqˆ ™m¢v; ºtan toínun ö t±v sarkÉsewv polupragmon±tai trópov, dúo tà âllßloiv âporrßtwv te kaì âsugxútwv sunenjnegména kaqˆ ∏nwsin ör¢ç d® pántwv ö ânqrÉ- pinov noÕv,

This passage was translated into Syriac in the fifth century as follows [Syriac Text A]25:

22 The relevant text can be found at HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 348,9-350,3 (Textus), with its parallel piece at HESPEL, Polémique, III, p. 115,22-117,10 (Textus). 23 HESPEL, Philalèthe, prol. 24 ACO I,1,4, p. 26,26-27,2. 25 EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 33,18-24. 332 D. KING

The same passage is found in Severus’ anti-Julianist Polemic, and thus in Paul’s translation [Syriac Text B]26:

Part of the same is found again in Severus’ Philalethes, also (prob- ably) translated by Paul [Text C]27: .

The very great difference between the two Syriac texts in terms of grammatical mirroring can be seen in many places throughout this pas- sage. To point out just a few: text B translates tautòn carefully with the singular rather than the plural equivalent; is a much more accurate rendering of poiótjv than ; the phrase shows a willingness to use expanded lexical forms in the interest of one-word-for-one-word equivalence (note the same again for meíwn), whereas Text A’s simply repeats traditional Syriac formulae while turning the adjective into the noun, and vice versa; the phrase qeòv æn ö lógov is reduced to a simple formula in A, , while in B Paul has tried to mimic the Greek participle by offering ; B has tried carefully to maintain the verb-subject word order of polupragmon±tai trópov, which A has not. In addition, in Text C, Paul has succeeded in a number of different places in securing a rigorous mirror version, e.g. , and the loan word . These appear to go be- yond even what we see in Text B.

26 HESPEL, Polémique, II, p. 286,12-18. 27 HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 24,15-20, the citation omits the section êpeì to kaqˆ ™m¢v. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 333

Paul’s use of the term for sárkwsiv (incarnation) is of particular interest. It shows, as elsewhere, a propensity for developing new terms from the participles of derived forms of the verb (contrast A’s ), but more importantly it appears to have been a term intro- duced specifically by Philoxenus in his revision of the Syriac version of the Nicene creed28. Given that the date for that revision can be pinned down with some precision to around 500, it comes as no surprise as such that Paul should make use of it a generation later. It does, however, con- firm the influence of Philoxenus’ revision and the adoption of his new terminology into the mainstream of the West Syriac Christological tradi- tion.

Cyril’s First Letter to Succensus (Ep. 45) was another text translated into Syriac in the middle of the fifth century. A typical passage is as fol- lows29: ënoÕntev toínun ™me⁄v t±Ç ägíaç sarkì cux®n êxoúsjÇ t®n noeràn âporrßtwv te kaì üpèr noÕn tòn êk qeoÕ patròv lógon âsugxútwv âtréptwv âmetablßtwv, ∏na uïòn kaì Xristòn kaì kúrion ömolo- goÕmen, tòn aûtòn qeòn kaì ãnqrwpon, oûx ∏teron kaì ∏teron, âllˆ ∏na kaì tòn aûtòn toÕto kâke⁄no üpárxonta kaì nooúmenon.

This is found in Syriac as [Text A]30:

The extract is again quoted by Severus, in the Philalethes. Paul of Callinicum’s version is as follows [Text B]31:

28 As shown by A. DE HALLEUX, La Philoxénienne du symbole, in R. LAVENANT (ed.), Symposium Syriacum II, célébré du 13 au 17 septembre 1976 au Centre culturel “Les Fontaines” de Chantilly, France (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 205), Rome, 1978, p. 295-315. 29 ACO I,1,6, p. 153,7-10. 30 EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 41,23-9. 31 HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 27,4-10. 334 D. KING

In A, the syntactical structure has been somewhat altered, with subor- dinate clauses becoming main clauses; the ∂xw clause is avoided in A by a circumlocution, whereas B tackles it head on; B tries to reproduce the force of the resumed article of t®n noeràn by adding an extra demon- strative; other idioms, such as , are added in A to smooth the démarche; A’s awkward for toÕto kâke⁄no suggests a translator unable (or unwilling) to find a pair of synonyms to match the original.

The idea of retaining the periodic structure of Greek evidently became quite important to Paul’s method. In earlier translations, a sequential Syriac démarche was generally substituted wherever possible for the long and rambling Greek periods typical of classicising authors such as Cyril. The following text from the Letter to Acacius is highly typical and follows a pattern that we see repeated throughout these texts. In each case Text A is given first and Paul’s version [Text B] second32: oû…êz îdíav labónta fúsewv…kataskeuásai tò s¬ma tòn… lógon üponoßsomen

We can further point to a whole series of cases which contrast the lat- ter translator’s approach with that of the earlier one, in areas such as lexical equivalence, syntactical mirroring, and morphological equiva- lence. The following examples should suffice to give a flavour of the nature of these differences.

Paul’s interest in verbal forms is clear in this calque on ∂xw33: pl®n oûkéti tàv ânqrwpínav âsqeneíav ∂xon ên ëaut¬ç.

32 Greek: ACO I,1,4, p. 26,3-5; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 32,13-15; Syriac B: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 23,7-10. 33 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p. 156,1-2; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 45,1; Syriac B: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 29,24-5. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 335

Paul will very frequently make sure that parts of speech are retained as in the original, a matter that was of no concern to the earlier transla- tor34: metabol±Ç fúsewv (kaqˆ ™m¢v gegonÉv)

Paul will avoid using stock Syriac expressions which are not quite identical to the Greek phrases35: tòn êk qeoÕ patròv lógon

He will almost always try to use adjectival forms for Greek adjectives rather than an analytical structure with 36: dektikón

One of the clearest signs of a translator attempting to mirror the origi- nal is the mimicking of resumptive articles with Syriac demonstratives, a feature which is again common in Paul’s work37: êk t±v parabásewv t±v ên ˆAdám

Individual words are treated with great care, especially Greek com- pounds which lack any obvious Syriac equivalent38: peplastoúrgjke

34 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p. 153,3; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 41,18; Syriac B: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 27,1. 35 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p. 153,8; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 41,23; Syriac B: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 27,5-6. 36 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p. 156,2; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 45,3; Syriac B: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 29,27. 37 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p. 155,5; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 43,25-6; Syriac B: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 28,21-2. 38 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p.153,15; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 42,7; Syriac B: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 27,16. 336 D. KING

Many more examples could be set forth, but those given here should be sufficient to make clear the wide gulf that exists between texts placed fifty years apart. In the Syriac terminology for the incarnation, we could see specifically the influence of Philoxenus. But even elsewhere, one feels that the new precision in grammatical mirroring which is so marked a feature of Paul’s work is in some way related to the bishop of Mabbug’s programme of revising both theological terminology and the Biblical text.

Paul and his successors

There is one other work of Severus’ which contains numerous cita- tions from Cyril, and to which we can assign a date. This is the Ora- tiones ad Nephalium, which has come down to us in a single ms (Mau- siliensis 30), the colophon of which gives the translator as Athanasius of Nisibis, who was also the translator of some of Severus’ correspond- ence, which we know he published in 668/939. We can therefore assume that his version of the Orationes ad Nephalium was made at a similar date. This work thus belongs to the ‘highest’ period of Syriac transla- tions, more or less contemporary with George of the Arabs and Athanasius of Balad, and a good generation after Paula of Edessa had revised the Syriac version of Gregory Nazianzen’s Orations. The use of the creedal term by Athanasius confirms this late date — Jacob of Edessa being especially noted for its use40. Fortunately for us, a number of Severus’ citations of Cyril are found both in the Orationes ad Nephalium and in one of the texts translated by Paul of Callinicum (often as well as an independent Syriac version). This enables us to compare Paul’s method not only retrospectively, as we have been doing, but also prospectively, and thereby better judge the true extent of his contribution.

Let us begin with the following extract from Cyril’s Scholia de incar- natione41: noe⁄tai gàr pántwv Üv ∏teron ên ëtérwç tò katoikoÕn, toutéstin ™ qeía fúsiv ên ânqrwpótjti kaì oû paqoÕsa furmòn Æ ânáxusín

39 This Athanasius is not to be confused with his contemporary namesake of Balad, the translator of and commentator upon Aristotle; see BAUMSTARK, Geschichte, p. 259. 40 J. GRIBOMONT, La catéchèse de Sévère d'Antioche et le Credo, in Parole de l'Orient, 6/7 (1975/6), p. 125-158, although Gribomont here seems unaware of the exter- nal attribution to Athanasius. 41 ACO I,5, p. 228,20-4 PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 337 tina kaì metástasin t®n eîv ºper oûk ¥n. tò gàr ênoike⁄n ëtérwç legómenon oûk aûtò gégone toÕqˆ ºper êstìn tò ên ˜ç katoike⁄, noe⁄tai dè m¢llon ∏teron ên ëtérwç.

The Syriac text in Paul of Callinicum [Text A]42: .

The Syriac version of Athanasius of Nisibis [Text B]43: .

What strikes the reader first of all is the general proximity of the two versions in terms of style and approach. Very little separates them, and all those traits which, in the last part of this paper, we saw that Paul was concerned with, we can see are still of concern to Athanasius. For in- stance, the tricky t®n eîv ºper oûk ¥n is calqued in much the same way by both translators. In this last instance, however, Paul’s is actually marginally more precise than Athanasius’ . In fact, Athanasius does not always use loanwords where Paul had done so — e.g. rather than ; and similarly in other areas, such as the lack of for Üv; the omission of kaì before oû paqoÕsa; and the word order of tò gàr ênoike⁄n ëtérwç legómenon oûk aûtò gégone toÕqˆ ºper êstìn tò ên ˜ç katoike⁄, which Athanasius has al- tered to a more idiomatic order, whereas in Paul each word follows pre- cisely its equivalent in the Vorlage. If we were not able to date these texts on external grounds, we would be hard pushed to show that there was over a century between them in terms of the development of transla- tion technique. Such a comparison warns us not to impose a linear model of ‘development’ upon Syriac translation history. ‘Hellenisation’ oc-

42 HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 67,21-27. 43 LEBON, Ad Nephalium, p. 23,15-21. 338 D. KING curred at different speeds in different areas of linguistic usage, and later writers retained the right vary the line of development according to their specific aims and purposes44.

The following example, taken from the Letter to Acacius, already used above, shows this proximity even more clearly45: fwn¬n dè diaforàn katˆ oûdéna trópon ânjÇrßkamen, eî kaì âpóbljton pepoißmeqa tò meríhein aûtàv Üv uï¬ç katà mónav t¬ç êk patròv lógwç kaì Üv ânqrÉpwç pálin katà mónav uï¬ç noouménwç t¬ç êk gunaikóv.

The independent fifth century version [Text A] 46:

Paul of Callinicum’s translation [Text B]47:

Athanasius of Nisibis’ translation [Text C]48:

One can readily see just how close the two translations B and C are, in places virtually verbatim. Text A illustrates just how differently the text could be translated, given a different approach and methodology. With these three datable texts, the true contribution of Paul to the develop- ment of translation technique can properly be appreciated. 44 As, for example, Jacob of Edessa’s version of the Categories sometimes shows a greater concern for philosophical precision rather than philological, cf. H. HUGONNARD- ROCHE, Jacques d'Édesse et sa réception d'Aristote, in ibid., La Logique d'Aristote, Paris, 2004, p. 39-55. 45 ACO I,1,4, p. 26,19-21. 46 EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 33,8-11. 47 HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 24,4-9. 48 LEBON, Ad Nephalium, p. 27,7-12. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 339

We conclude with one final comparative illustration to show that, de- spite the similarity of the two translators in most cases (as in the previ- ous two texts), Athanasius was capable of applying the rules of mirror translation more rigorously and more ‘successfully’ than Paul. This is taken from the Apologia contra Theodoretum49: ∂klausen ânqrwpínwv, ÿna tò sòn peristeíljÇ dákruon· êdei- líasen oîkonomik¬v êfieìv t±Ç sarkì kaì pásxein ∂sqˆ ºte tà ÷dia, ÿnˆ eûtolmotátouv ™m¢v âpofßnjÇ· parjÇtßsato tò potßrion, ÿna t±v ˆIoudaíwn dussebeíav ö stauròv katjgor±Ç· âsqen±sai légetai katà tò ânqrÉpinon, ÿna paúsjÇ t®n s®n âsqéneian· deßseiv ânéteine kaì ïketjríav, ÿna kaì ta⁄v parà soÕ lita⁄v básimon âpofßnjÇ t®n toÕ patròv âkoßn· ênústazen [om. plur. mss et Syr], ÿna sù máqjÇv m® nustáhein ên peirasmo⁄v, sunteínesqai dè m¢llon eîv proseuxáv.

The independent version is probably to be dated to the fifth century, although this is uncertain [Text A]50: .

Paul of Callinicum’s translation [Text B]51: .

Athanasius of Nisibis’ translation [Text C]52:

49 ACO I,1,6, p. 139,18-24. 50 BL Add 12156, f. 119vc. 51 HESPEL, Polémique, I, p. 132,22-133,3. 52 LEBON, Ad Nephalium, p. 66,21-30. 340 D. KING

Some of the differences between the older Contra Theodoretum [A] and the two citations are quite striking. For instance, both the latter have ponderously tried to translate ∂sqˆ ºte from its components, whereas the earlier text translates only by another idiom (dynamic modulation), .

We can see also, however, how far Athanasius has advanced beyond Paul in terms of rigour in the application of the mirror techniques. Athanasius has developed the use of for ÿna, where Paul of Callinicum still follows the older usage of alone53; he has rejected for ; Paul has interpreted ânéteine as imperfect (which is unlikely, but not grammatically incorrect), and translated m® nustáhein with in order to express, perhaps, the atemporal sense of the infinitive, whereas Athanasius has the more ex- pected ; Paul has omitted an equivalent for m¢llon. In other texts as well, we see more of the same. Athanasius, for in- stance, uses for dóza (where it means glory), which Paul never does; also the appearance of certain Greek loans such as (aûqentía), (e¤ta) and (léziv) in Atha- nasius but not in Paul54. The ubiquitous use of for the particle mèn is, however, found already in Paul, but hardly ever in the fifth century translation texts. These two translators worked more than a century apart and we should expect to find the mirror technique a good deal more advanced in the latter translator than in the former, just as the seventh century is con- sidered the peak of the development of the literalist school whereas the sixth is a more intermediate and experimental stage. The findings of the texts here presented, however, suggest that the two versions are not, in most respects, so very different from each other. This is thrown into

53 This is an expression particularly typical of the Harklean New Testament. 54 For these, see for instance the passage from the Second Letter to Succensus (Ep. 46) in ACO I,1,6, p. 162,18-22, with Paul’s citation at LEBON, Contra Grammaticum, I/II, p. 126,16-25, and Athanasius’ at LEBON, Ad Nephalium, p. 43,27-44,7. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 341 even starker relief when Paul and Athanasius are together compared as against our full Syriac versions which mostly cannot have preceded Paul by more than 50 years at the most. We must not overestimate Paul’s ‘achievement’, however. For there can be no doubt that Athanasius has achieved overall the more ‘perfect’ style — as we saw in the last extract.

Paul’s Biblical Citations

We have established some sort of link, direct or otherwise, between our translator bishop Paul and the man who was, in Paul’s earlier years, the senior figure of the Miaphysite movement, Philoxenus of Mabbug. We have seen how Philoxenus’ creedal revisions influenced the Christo- logical language used in Paul’s translations —this influence can be per- ceived everywhere, not just in the isolated example we gave earlier. Fur- ther, we can see how the swift progress in technical translation technique between the early Cyril translations and Paul’s translations of Severus contains within itself the period of Philoxenus’ activity in this sphere — the creed was revised in about 500, the New Testament in 508. It is quite evident that Philoxenus was motivated by the Christological disputes of his day, by a desire that Syriac linguistic precision should match that which he perceived Greek to have55. That a similar approach should be taken to the business of translating Severus’ work, itself so obsessed with technical terminology, comes as no surprise. We can thus easily perceive in Philoxenus and Paul different stages and aspects of the same phenomenon. What, then, of the so-called Philoxenian New Testament? Can its in- fluence be perceived in Paul’s translations? This is a thorny question, and firm conclusions are particularly evasive. However, there are some indications which throw up interesting possibilities. Attempts to reconstruct the lost Philoxenian version of the New Testa- ment, once it became generally accepted that what White published in the eighteenth century under the name of Philoxenus was, in fact, the Harclean56, have sometimes been based on the use of citations in the

55 Note his comments on Ephrem’s Christological terminology in this regard, L. VAN ROMPAY, Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ: Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenus of Mabbog: Re- spect and Distance, in Hugoye, 7.1 (2004). 56 J. WHITE, Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, cum interpreta- tione et annotationibus, 2 vols, Oxford, 1778; J. WHITE (ed.), Actuum Apostolorum, et Epistolarum tam Catholicarum quam Paulinarum, versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, Oxford, 1799. 342 D. KING translation literature of the sixth century57. Of course, this throws up some obvious methodological problems, for in a translated text one can never tell whether Biblical citations are being inserted by the translator from pre-existing Bible translations or are being re-translated as part of the whole text. How can we be sure in any given case, which method an author is following? Albert Schweitzer once made the observation that a bilingual Alsatian preacher (including himself) will “never give his own version of Bibli- cal passages, but will without exception keep to the traditional form in the language which he is using, and this even where he would be capable of giving a more exact rendering…[and] will even perhaps use an argu- ment which goes against the sense of the original, which he is supposed to be acquainted with58.” In outlining the developments in Syriac translation technique, Brock has suggested that in general earlier translators inserted citations from their familiar texts and later ones copied the Vorlagen even when the two did not agree. He points to this change in practice as a symptom of Hellenisation59. Baumstark has shown, for instance, that the translator of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos did not translate Biblical citations directly from his Vorlage, but rather used existing Syriac versions, namely the for the Old Testament, and the Diatessaron for the New Testament. He even appears to have done this in the case of Titus’quotations from his (Syriac) Manichaean source60. In the case of the Syriac Didascalia, Baumstark found that the same was true in many

57 The idea was first seriously tested by G. ZUNTZ, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament, (British Academy Supplementary Papers, VII), London, 1945, and has more recently been urged by B. ALAND, Die philoxenianisch-harklensische Übersetzungs- tradition: Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Zitate in der syrischen Literatur, in Le Muséon, 94 (1981), p. 321-383 (= ALAND, Philoxenianisch). The more normal route, of course, has been to search the works of Philoxenus himself, a task done most effectively by S.P. BROCK, The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem, in E.J. EPP – G.D. FEE (eds.), New Testament Textual Criticism: Its significance for Ex- egesis. Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford, 1981, p. 325-343. 58 A. SCHWEITZER, Paul and his Interpreters (tr. W. Montgomery), New York, 1956, p. 89, n. 1. The context is a discussion of Paul’s use of Septuagintal citations, even where he perhaps knew the Hebrew to be significantly different. 59 S.P. BROCK, From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac attitudes to Greek learning, in N. GARSOïAN et al. (eds.), East of Byzantium: and Armenia in the Formative Pe- riod, Washington, 1982, p. 17-32. Reprinted, Syriac Perpectives on Late Antiquity ch. V [see especially p. 18]. 60 A. BAUMSTARK, Die syrische Übersetzung des Titus von Bostra und das ‘Diatessaron', in Biblica, 16 (1935), p. 257-299 and ibid., Der Text der Mani-Zitate in der syrischen Übersetzung des Titus von Bostra, in Oriens Christianus, 28 (1931), p. 23- 42; see also N.A. PEDERSEN, Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God: a Study of Titus of Bostra's Contra Manichaeos: the work's sources, aims, and relation to its contemporary theology, Leiden, 2004, p. 83. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 343 cases but that where the Greek original clearly had a widely differing text, the translator would follow his Vorlage instead61. In the early sixth century, both Moses of Aggel and the anonymous translator of Gregory of Nyssa’s Song of Songs Commentary include in their prefaces a brief discussion of this issue, both making it clear that they prefer to copy the citations as found in their Vorlagen, even when these are in discord with the Peshitta. Since both these works are OT commentaries, the discord is often all the greater, the Peshitta being a Hebrew-based version while their Vorlagen obviously quote from LXX. Barbara Aland’s use of the translation literature, in concert with Philoxenus’ citations, to reconstruct the Philoxenian is clearly based on the assumption that translators are not simply re-rendering their Vorlagen at every opportunity. In her principal article on the subject, she points out instances where differences between the texts indicate that this assumption is well-founded62. It stands to reason, she argues, that a newly circulating version, claiming to be philologically accurate and anti-heretical (as the Philoxenian was) would be well used in such situa- tions; she does not, however, deal with the objection that our only wit- ness to the use of the Philoxenian, Moses of Aggel, precisely does not use that version in his own translation work, preferring to make his own renderings from Cyril’s text. The proof, however, lies in Aland’s results, carefully laid out in this article, in which she concludes that many read- ings from the Philoxenian can indeed be reconstructed, especially by us- ing the criterion of agreement between a late writing of Philoxenus and at least one other piece of sixth century translation literature (usually Paul of Callinicum’s version of Severus, Cyril’s Luke Commentary, the Apollinarian corpus, or Timothy Ailuros). We can here add an example from Paul of Callinicum which does seem to suggest that citations were indeed inserted for the most part, rather than re-rendered: where Paul’s Philalethes translation and the Syriac of Cyril’s Apologia contra Theodoretum overlap, the former gen- erally shows a much closer approximation to the Greek in many small matters (as we saw in the earlier section of this paper). However, where the Scriptures are being cited within these longer citations, the difference between them is much less marked. Thus, for example, where a passage

61 A. BAUMSTARK, Das Problem der Bibelzitate in der syrischen Übersetzungs- literatur, in Oriens Christianus, 30 (1933), p. 208-225, deals with both these texts; his article on the Titus of Bostra translation (see previous note) has some further details, with examples given on p. 258-62. In most Syriac translations, in fact, some influence from the text of the Peshitta can be detected, however assiduous the translator appears to be in copying his Vorlage. 62 ALAND, Philoxenianisch, p. 324f. Cf. especially Lk 2.14 in her appendix of texts. 344 D. KING of the Contra Theodoretum is cited in the sixty-fourth chapter of the Florilegium Cyrillianum the Syriac versions of the two texts diverge at many points until we reach the citation of Hebrews 2.9, at which point they become identical, until the end of the citation, whence they again diverge somewhat. This sort of evidence can be used to show that these translators are very often taking their Scriptural citations from a com- mon source, a pre-existing Syriac version, perhaps sometimes from memory, and perhaps sometimes with a greater or lesser accuracy; but the general point nevertheless is that these citations are not brand new attempts but reflect, whether verbatim or not, older versions which we may be able to trace across different texts. Aland found instances where the citations show variants which are only explicable from a pre-existing Syriac revision63. Her initial findings are based on a study of the citations in Paul of Callinicum’s version of the anti-Julianist polemic. She deals with the objection (raised by Brock) that similarities between this and Philoxenus’ Commentary on the Johannine Prologue are due only to a common background of tech- nique by the suggestion that it is precisely in Bible translation that we would be most likely to see pioneer work in this field, and that if a number of individuals were all citing in such a manner (i.e. revising the Peshitta in the direction of the Harklean), this is most likely due to the actual existence and use (if not consistently) of the Philoxenian64. Hav- ing shown how the anti-Julianist polemic thus fits into the picture, she casts her net wider to other translated texts, such as those of Timothy Ailuros, Cyril’s Luke Commentary, Zacharias Rhetor and the Apolli- narian corpus. In these again she finds the techniques of what is becom- ing known as the Philoxenian/Harklean tradition, where texts that are close in style but not necessarily in wording are found65. Although Aland’s arguments about deriving data from such citations are open to exactly the same objections as were Zuntz’s, anyone actually reading the numerous examples given in the Appendix cannot but be impressed by the way in which sixth century Miaphysite texts show a seismic shift in their citations, away from the Peshitta and towards the Harklean. With- out being too forward on the possibilities of actually reconstructing the Philoxenian, Aland is very strong on the existence of the Philoxenian/ Harklean tradition and its influence on the methods of Thomas of Harkel himself.

63 E.g. see example 12 in the Appendix of the same article. 64 We may add that Aland finds support for her postulated ‘free usage’ of the Philoxenian by Philoxenus and Paul in the equally ‘free’ manner in which Jacob of Edessa ‘uses’ the Harklean in his revised version of Severus’ Homilies. 65 See esp. p. 330ff. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 345

When the volumes of the Das Neue Testament in syrischer Über- lieferung first came out of the Münster Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, the value of the citations in the translation literature be- came even more apparent. Indeed their value is part of the very grounds for the edition itself. The importance attached by Aland to this method was such that the full text of Paul of Callinicum’s translation of Severus’ Homilies was collated from the unedited mss for the purpose of includ- ing their evidence in the volumes of the Pauline Epistles. The introduc- tions to the volumes are of great value in elucidating the textual history of the various versions and revisions, although nothing new is added in principle to what was already shown in the 1981 article. Because neither the Minor Catholics nor Revelation have yet been produced, there has as yet been no further light shed on the question of whether these were in the Philoxenian New Testament. The material is now present for studies such as those proposed by Brock, “it would be good to have a series of monographs, on the lines of those under way for the Greek Fathers, pro- viding the full evidence for the Biblical text quoted by individual Syriac writers, accompanied by a textual (and perhaps, exegetical) commen- tary66.” This would begin to reap the harvest from the evidence that is now available. One of these blocks of newly-available evidence may be of especial interest for the issue of the Philoxenian revision. When Paul of Callinicum translated Severus’ anti-Julianist corpus he prefixed an intro- duction which itself contains a number of NT citations, which he has not always taken direct from the Peshitta. There are few people, other than Philoxenus himself, who would be better placed than Paul, both in terms of date and of literary context, to use the Philoxenian revision in his own writings. Did he in fact do so? Firstly, we must note that many of the citations contained in this pref- ace, mainly concerning the issue of ‘corruptibility’, are in fact taken di- rectly from later points in Severus’ text — these are therefore Paul’s translations of Severus rather than pristine quotes from his own version of scripture. A few, however, are not taken from Severus and might therefore throw some light on Paul’s own Bible version. These citations can therefore be firmly attributed to Paul himself. Unfortunately, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung has made some errors in the referencing of these citations. It distinguishes only some of them as be- ing Paul of Callinicum’s own words from his preface (rather than part of

66 S.P. BROCK, The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism, in B. EHRMAN – M. HOLMES (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Re- search: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Studies and Documents, 46), Grand Rapids, 1995, p. 224-236 [cit. p. 233]. 346 D. KING his translation), while some of those that are thus distinguished as being his own have, in fact, been hoisted by Paul from later points in his trans- lation (e.g. 2 Cor. 11.23) and cannot, therefore, be used to reconstruct Paul’s own Bible text. As always, therefore, the NTSU edition needs to be read and used alongside, not instead of, the printed editions of the texts. The relevant places, in which Paul must be making his own cita- tions, are as follows.

Gen 6.12 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,3,5-6] Text as Peshitta, save only in reading ‘Lord God’ for MT’s ‘God’. This is a ‘plus’ in the LXX.

Lev 19.36/Dt 25.13-5 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,1,5] This is quoted more or less as P, but from a poor memory.

Ezek 28.16-7 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,3,2-5] (Gk kaì êtraumatísqjv) (וָ ֶא ַח ֶלּ ְלָך PC (MT [ ] PC ] PC ] PC .] PC

Ps 55.24 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,4,18-9] ] PC

Dan 6.23 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,3,22-4] The Peshitta reads: .

Paul’s versions reads: . 67

Dan 10.8 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,3,24-6] ] PC ] PC 67 Ed. reads , against the of ms C which, given the Peshitta text, we have here adopted. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 347

] PC

2 Cor 4.16 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,4,2-4] ] PC [ H] [Gk êgkakoÕmen] ] PC [ H] [Gk ∂zw] ] PC [as H] [Gk âllˆ ö ∂sw]

Acts 2.31 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,5,1] ] PC ] PC

Paul has adopted some interesting revisions to the Peshitta text in these citations. In the Old Testament, it is evident that the LXX has al- ready influenced him strongly, not just in the case of small LXX-pluses like that of Gen 6.12, but also in a whole series of readings in Ezek 28. In Acts he has substituted for , and in 2 Cor. he has added for the relative pronoun, both highly typical of sixth-century revi- sion techniques, respectively in the lexical and syntactic fields, of the sort that we have seen aplenty in some of our texts and in the Severan citations. Perhaps the most notable, however, is his use of the neologistic, more ‘technically accurate’ term in place of its simpler Peshitta equivalents at Ps 55.24, Dan 6.23, Dan 10.8, and Acts 2.31. At Dan 6.23 he has taken over the Peshitta text verbatim ex- cept for this one change. What we are surely witnessing is the revision of fifth century Biblical language in favour of the technical discourse of sixth century philosophical theology, a revision which Paul is here ap- plying to the Biblical text, in the light of the subject he is treating (i.e. corruptibility), despite still following the Peshitta in most essentials. We do not need to assume here that Paul is copying a whole revision of the Old Testament already made before his time (a so-called Philoxenian Old Testament), but rather the far more significant fact that he is himself revising the Peshitta text on an ad hoc basis to the needs of the new con- text. On such a small textual base, it is impossible to know for sure whether Paul knew of or made use of the Philoxenian New Testament. His preface to the anti-Julianist texts constitutes the only self-authored text from his hand. We have discussed already, however, the importance that Barbara Aland has attached to the use of the translation literature in elucidating the influence and use of the Philoxenian revision during the course of the sixth century. Further research into the depth of das Neue 348 D. KING

Testament in syrischer Überlieferung may throw up some interesting re- sults in this connection.

Paul’s place and significance in the history of Syriac literature

Paul of Callinicum thus provides a close parallel to his near contem- porary Philoxenus in a number of ways. He appears to have taken on board the latter’s programme of revising the Biblical text, as he shares with Philoxenus in holding to the primacy of the Greek text, even in the Old Testament, over that of the Syriac. In addition, we can see that he received and made use of the so-called Philoxenian neologisms regard- ing the Christological categories of incarnation and embodiment. He was aware of, and imitated in his language, those alterations to the wording of the Nicene creed in Syriac which seem to have been established around the turn of the sixth century. On a more general, and thus a more significant, level he brought to the very business of translation a rigour of method which is itself surely a function of Philoxenus’ long-term intentions and linguistic pro- gramme. Where we have been able to compare directly a fifth century translation of a Greek passage with Paul’s attempt at the same, we have been able to see clearly how very far ahead is the latter in terms of his ability to mirror the forms of the Greek language in a way that not only foreshadows the fully Hellenised translationese Syriac of the seventh century, but actually attains to a level of consistency that is itself not far short of that seventh century style. As a translator, Paul of Callinicum is thus a major figure in sixth cen- tury Syriac literature. He is the earliest translator whose technique can really be described as one of mirroring the Greek original68. Although we saw that the sixth century translators did apply the technique more rigorously and more consistently, nevertheless it would appear that most of the hard work had already been done — as a comparison with the fifth century texts indicates69. In attempting to mimic Greek grammar and linguistic structures, he pointed the way forward for the more ex- treme Hellenising traditions of the succeeding age. The Miaphysite bishop of Callinicum deserves his place among the genii of the Syriac

68 Moses of Aggel is probably later. Sergius of Res‘aina is contemporary, but his translation style is not quite in the same category. 69 As there are no translations clearly datable to the latter half of the sixth century, comparison with the immediately following period is difficult. PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 349 language, and especially also in the long and crucial story of the trans- ference of Greek thought into the Semitic context.

Dept. of Religious and Theological Studies Daniel KING Colum Drive Cardiff, CF10 3EU [email protected]

Abstract — This paper seeks to build upon recent work on Syriac-Greek translations by taking a closer look at the texts ascribed to Paul of Callinicum. Paul is generally held to have been the translator of the otherwise lost writings of Severus of Antioch and, fortunately, his work can be attached to a fairly spe- cific date. By analysing the citations from Cyril of Alexandria within the Severan corpus, this study describes the style of translation that Paul used, prin- cipally in terms of his level of verbal and grammatical fidelity to the Greek. His approach is then compared with parallel texts from the fifth century, as well as with the seventh century translator Athanasius of Nisibis, in the hope of pinning down more exactly the nature and extent of the developments in Syriac transla- tion technique which are generally visible between the fifth and the seventh cen- turies. Broadly, it is suggested that Paul’s era, which coincides with that of Philoxenus, was one of rapid change in approaches to Greek-Syriac translation and that Paul himself was a major player in the move towards to the literalistic mirror translations of the later period.