TWO SYRIAC DIALOGUE POEMS ON ABEL AND CAIN
Introduction
The two lively dialogue poems (soghyatha) published here belong to a clearly defined genre of Syriac poetry1 which has its roots in ancient Mesopotamian precedence disputes2. Among the comparatively small number of dialogue poems involving Old Testament characters the first of the two poems (Soghitha I) is probably the oldest, and since it was evidently known to Jacob of Serugh (in his homilies on Cain and Abel) it cannot be later than the fifth century. An early date for Soghitha I is in fact also likely seeing that it is transmitted in both eastern and western Syriac tradition. The second poem (Soghitha II), on the other hand, be- trays a medieval date by the presence of rhyme, and if we accept its as- cription to (Giwargis) Warda3, then its date of composition can be nar- rowed down to the thirteenth century. Although Soghitha II clearly knows Soghitha I, it is by no means slavishly based upon it, and it pro- vides a good example of the continuing use of the genre in the middle ages. Both poems follow the standard format of the genre (introduction, ex- tended dialogue, conclusion), though with some modifications at the end. Thus both provide an introduction to give the setting (12 stanzas in Soghitha I, and 7 in Soghitha II), after which the dialogue, in alternating stanzas, commences, together with an alphabetic acrostic. The two soghyatha depart from the normal pattern when they reach Òadhe in the acrostic (st. 47 in I, and st. 43 in II), for at that point several narrative stanzas appear, before the ‘dispute’ is finally concluded with God's in- tervention and his judgement on Cain. The biblical starting point of the two soghyatha is Genesis 4, 8, which in the Peshitta reads, ‘Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us travel to the
1 See my Syriac dialogue poems: marginalia to a recent edition, in Le Muséon, 97 (1984), p. 29-58 (= BROCK, Syriac dialogue poems), and Syriac dispute poems; the vari- ous types, in G.J. REININK and H.L.G. VANSTIPHOUT, Dispute Poems and Dialogues (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 42), Leuven, 1991, p. 109-119. 2 For this aspect see especially R. MURRAY, Aramaic and Syriac dispute poems and their connections, in M.J. GELLER, J.C. GREENFIELD and M.P. WEITZMAN, Studia Aramaica (JSS, Supplement 4), Oxford, 1995, p. 157-187. 3 On Giwargis, see A. BAUMSTARK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn, 1922, p. 304-305, and D. BUNDY, Interpreter of the acts of God and humans: George Warda, historian and theologian of the 13th century, in The Harp, 6 (1993), p. 7-20. 334 S.P. BROCK valley”. And it came to pass when they were in the valley Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him’. Although the biblical text gives no hint of any dispute between the brothers at this point, such a dialogue is indeed found in the Palestinian Targum tradition, although of a very different (and much more theological) character4. It seems quite likely that the Syriac author of Soghitha I was indirectly aware of the existence of Jewish literary embellishments of the biblical text here, and as a result he took this verse as the starting point for his own very different hand- ling of the dispute. The focus of interest of the two poems is in fact very narrow, for al- though the conclusion takes the biblical narrative down to Gen. 4, 12, neither author shows any particular interest in the reasons why Cain's offering was rejected, or how he knew that it had been rejected. Whereas most early Jewish and Christian exegetes5 exerted considerable ingenu- ity in elucidating both these points, where the biblical text is either enig- matic or entirely silent, all we find in the two poems are incidental re- flections of this exegetical tradition. Thus, for example, the view that Abel's sacrifice had been consumed by fire from heaven, referred to by both Aphrahat and Ephrem6, is alluded to once in Soghitha I in st. 23b, [Cain] ‘He honoured you greatly with the flame’. The reason for the re- jection of Cain's offering is indeed given as his lack of love (Soghitha I) or absence of purity of heart (Soghitha II), but in neither poem is much prominence given to this; instead, more attention is given to another trait in Cain's character, his overweening greed for land and his intolerance of the idea of having any rival in ownership on earth7. Both Soghyatha are transmitted in liturgical manuscripts and have a liturgical context. Soghitha I belongs to Lilyo, or the Night Office, of Monday in Holy Week8, while Soghitha II is allocated to the 5th Sunday of Lent. Soghitha I has already been published several times in its East Syriac form9 (from which the text printed below differs in a number of respects,
4 For this see G. VERMES, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, Leiden, 1975, ch. 7; cfr also J.B. GLENTHØJ, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers (4th-6th Centuries), (C.S.C.O., 567; Subs., 95), Louvain, 1997, p. 7 (= GLENTHØJ, Cain and Abel). 5 For these, see especially V. APTOWITZER, Kain und Abel in der Agada den Apokryphen, der Hellenistischen, Christlichen und Muhammedanischen Literatur, Wien- Leipzig, 1922, and GLENTHØJ, Cain and Abel. 6 APHRAHAT, Demonstration, IV, 2; EPHREM, Commentary on Genesis, III, 3; for the background to this tradition see my Fire from heaven: from Abel's sacrifice to the Eucha- rist. A theme in Syriac Christianity, in Studia Patristica, 25 (1993), p. 229-243. 7 GLENTHØJ, Cain and Abel, p. 142-143, 264. This theme is also familiar in Jewish tra- dition (e.g. TanÌuma Mishpa†im, 9; Midrash ha-Gadhol to Gen. 4, 8). 8 One manuscript (H), however, gives Wednesday of Holy Week instead. 9 See below, under NF, NM, NP. TWO SYRIAC DIALOGUE POEMS ON ABEL AND CAIN 335 especially at the end), and once in an early form of the West Syriac tra- dition10 that is only slightly different from the present edition. By con- trast, Soghitha II is published here for the first time.
Soghitha I
Soghitha I is transmitted by numerous manuscripts in both the eastern and western Syriac tradition; in the former it is usually attributed to Narsai, an ascription which cannot be taken seriously. For the present edition use has been made of the three oldest available manuscripts in the western tradition, a selection of later western Syriac manuscripts, and three editions of the eastern Syriac tradition. These are: - A = British Library, Add. 17190, f. 53r-55v, dated 893. This manu- script omits stanza 7. - B = British Library, Add. 14516, f. 186r-v, of the ninth century. This lacks stanzas 1-26c, due to a lost folio. - C = British Library, Add. 14506, f. 204v-207v, of the ninth/tenth cen- tury. This text of this manuscript, with a few corrections, provides the basis for the edition below. - D = British Library, Add. 12147, f. 192v-193v, of 1006. The manu- script omits stanza 4 and all subsequent even stanzas. - E = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Dawkins 1, f. 146r-147r, of the eleventh century. - F = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Dawkins 32, f. 104r-105r, of c. 1165. This has stanza 3 missing. - G = Harvard syr. 30, f. 178v-179v, of the twelfth century. The manu- script omits stanzas 2, 3 and all subsequent odd stanzas. - H = Harvard syr. 31, f. 160r-161r, of the twelfth century. The manu- script omits stanzas 5, 6, 10, 12 and 16. - J = Harvard syr. 103, f. 209v-210v, of the twelfth/thirteenth century. The manuscript omits stanzas 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, and all subsequent even stanzas up to 53, after which it has 54[ii], 55[i] and 55[ii]; 56 is omitted. - K = New York, Union Theological Seminary, syr. 3, f. 1v-2v, of the twelfth/thirteenth century. The manuscript omits stanzas 1, 3, and all subsequent odd stanzas.
10 In my Soghyatha mgabbyatha, Monastery of St Ephrem, Holland, 1982, no. I; the text is also printed in Qolo Suryoyo, 26 (1982), p. 31-27 (sic). For a description of the contents of this collection of 26 dialogue soghyatha, see my Syriac dialogue poems (see note 1). 336 S.P. BROCK
- L = Birmingham, Selly Oak Colleges Library, Mingana syr. 545, f. 86v-89v, of 1929. The manuscript omits stanzas 25, 26, 29cd, and 30ab. From stanza 13 onwards the order of the stanzas is in considerable disar- ray, and the following sequence is found (even numbers = Abel, odd numbers = Cain): 13, 15, 14, 16, 17, 19, 18, 20, 21, 23, 22, 24, 19ab, 30cd, 27, 33, 28, 34, 31, 37, 32, 38, 35, 41, 36, 42, 39, 45, 40, 46, 43, 49, 44, 50, 47, 53[iv], 48, 55[ii], 51, 52, 53[ii], 54[ii], a new stanza, 56[ii]. The piece figures among a collection of memre attributed to Ephrem. - N = Eastern Syriac tradition attributed to Narsai. Use has been made of the following three editions: NF = F. FELDMANN, Syrische Wechsellieder von Narses, Leipzig, 1896, p. 23-27. The edition is based on Berlin Sachau 174-6, (Verzeichniss, nr. 57), of 1881. NM = A. MINGANA, Narsai Doctoris Syri Homiliae et Carmina, Mosul, 1905, II, p. 386-91. NP = Homilies of Mar Narsai, published by the Patriarchal Press, San Francisco, 1970, I, p. 334-40. This is a photographic reproduction of a manuscript written in 1901. Between these three editions there are only a small number of insignifi- cant differences, and so their combined witness is cited as N.
The present edition
The text is transmitted in three somewhat different forms, two repre- sented in the western Syriac tradition (CD, ABEFGHJKL), and the third in the eastern (N). The two West Syriac text forms are much closer to each other than either is to the East Syriac tradition (see below). The dif- ferences between the three text forms are most pronounced in the last four stanzas, where we have three quite different recensions of the end- ing (denoted 53-56[i], 53-56[ii], and 53-56[iii], respectively). Since the poem is preserved complete in the oldest manuscripts only in C, it is the text form of CD that has been selected to form the basis of the present edition. In fact there is possible evidence, provided by the witness of Jacob of Serugh's Homilies on Cain and Abel, that C's ending is the original (and to which Jacob has some allusions), whereas that of AB etc. is based on Jacob (for details, see the Commentary). Since, however, C's text is either clearly erroneous or unsatisfactory at certain points, its reading has been relegated on these occasions to the apparatus. This applies to the following places: 1b (C goes against the metre), 1d (error), 4a (clearly secondary), 7d (twice; problematic), 10b (poor sense), 12a (against the metre), 14b (error), 22d (error), 23a TWO SYRIAC DIALOGUE POEMS ON ABEL AND CAIN 337
(against the acrostic), 24a (error?), 37a (error), 38a (error), 44c (error), 55[i]b (error). The orthography of C is also followed throughout, apart from three exceptions (6b, 8a, 31a).
Interrelationship of the manuscripts
As has been noted above, the manuscripts fall into three main groups; although this emerges most clearly in stanzas 53-56, where there are three different versions of the ending, the triple tradition can also be ob- served at 7a, 13d, 21b, 29ab, 31a and 37b. The East Syriac recension is rather closer to ABEFGHJKL than to CD, as can be seen from 35c, 49c, 51a, 56a; and there are some notable cases where N agrees with just AB (26d, 29c, 43d, 50d), or with A alone (9c, 23d, 25a; B is missing for these stanzas). On the other hand N joins CD against AB at 14c, 29b, 32b, 39d, 43b. N finds occasional support from individual members of the larger west Syriac group, e.g. with EF at 30d, 41d, and with F alone at 19d and 45d. The agreements between N and the late witness L at 21b, 36c, 38a, 46a (with B), 46c, 52c, 54[iii] and 55[iii] are surprising, and should, in the light of 54[iii] and 55[iii], be attributed to contamination in L from the eastern tradition. The east Syriac tradition, to judge by the witnesses used, is remark- ably homogenous and the differences between the three editions are of a very insignificant nature, and several concern only orthography. NM has two clear corruptions (at 12b, ‘wsq’ for ‘wmq’; and 46b, Ìkmt’ for Ìmt’); neither of these are included in the apparatus.
Orthography
Attention may be drawn to the following orthographical variants:
1. Verbal forms 1.1. 3 f.sg.perf.: an anomalous yodh is found in A at 33c (†¨mty) and in E at 2c (g¨ty). This spelling is not uncommon in certain manuscripts (A in fact provides anomalous -y also for 2 m.sg.perf. at 42d (’ttnyÌty) and added to batar at 43c; and E provides it for 3 m.sg. perf. at 8b (trdy). 1.2. 3 f.pl.perf.: the later west Syriac form in -y occurs in GHKL at 42b. 1.3. An anomalous suffix form to the perfect occurs in E at 8b (’pqyny for ’pqny; an imperative is impossible in the context). 1.4. At 6d, for ’tby’, AEGKL have ’tby’’, and J has ’tby’y. 338 S.P. BROCK
1.5. At 43c, for k’rny, ABH offer k’rrny, and J k’yrny. 1.6. In imperfect forms an alaph has been dropped from the root in E at 12d (nswd, for n’swd), in AF at 42a (tswd, for t’swd), and in H at 53a (dnslywhy, for dns’lywhy). 1.7. At 21c A omits the yodh in an imperfect suffixed form of a verb with third radical alaph (nb¨k, for nb¨yk), a feature not uncommonly en- countered. 1.8. At 31a CD have the trisyllable form ks’ ’n’ (kasena), which goes against the metre; the rest of the manuscript tradition, apart from FH, remedies the situation by altering to a dissyllable, ’ks’ (ekse). FH, how- ever, offer ksyn, which is certainly the original form, representing kasen, a rare abbreviated form of the masc. participle with 1st person suffix (NÖLDEKE, 64B; it is of course possible that the scribes of F and H un- derstood it instead as a passive m.pl. part., ksen, but this cannot have been the author's intention since it goes against the metre). 1.9. In participles of verbs with alaph as third radical, the yodh is absent in joined forms with 2 m. sg. suffix in K at 22bd (mpnt, mÌt; for mpnyt, mÌyt), and in FGH at 32a (dkst, for dksyt); the same phenomenon is very probably also to be found in all manuscripts except LN at 38a (mytt for mytyt): see the commentary ad locum. (This defective spelling is not re- corded in the standard grammars of NÖLDEKE and DUVAL, but two iso- lated examples of it in the Old Syriac Gospel manuscripts are noted by F.C. BURKITT, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, II, Cambridge, 1904, p. 42: Luc. 7, 44 Ìzt S, Ioh. 4, 27 b¨t C).
2. Nominal forms 2.1. At 10a CK have the trisyllable ’bwhwn (abuhon), against the metre, and this has been corrected to the more banal ’bwn (abun) in most of the other west Syriac manuscripts, while N has altered to ‘and he saw'. K has got round the metrical difficulty by altering the next word Adam to den, while F provides the anomalous disyllable form ’bhwn (abhon), and this is probably implied by G, which has ’bwn, but with a he written un- der the beth. In view of the manuscript evidence it seems likely that C's text is indeed the original here, and that the word was intended to be read as a disyllable, (’)buhon. 2.2. F regularly provides the anomalous swry’ etc. for srwy’ etc at 50b, 51bd (joined by L in 50b). 2.3. Adjectives with third radical alaph are particularly liable to aberrant spellings; for sn’’ we find s’n’ in G at 24d and in F at 37d, while L has sn’ at 37d. TWO SYRIAC DIALOGUE POEMS ON ABEL AND CAIN 339
2.4. The characteristic western spelling r’z’ occurs in all the west Syriac manuscripts at (N has the standard eastern form ’rz’). 2.5. The addition of seyame to the collective 'n' ('sheep'), characteristic of later western orthographical tradition, occurs only in C and (not sur- prisingly) L.
3. Other 3.1. C regularly, and D everywhere except 46b, has mn (man, ‘what?’), against mwn of the rest of the manuscript tradition (A however has an isolated mn at 22b). In the edition below C's orthography is followed. 3.2. Among joined forms (more common in later manuscripts) A's ¨†lyhy, for ¨†l’ hy, at 43a is notable. 3.3. At 33c w’l’ is written w’n l’ only in EN.
Text and apparatus
The text of the present edition differs in some respects (notably in stanzas 53-56) from that published in my Soghyatha Mgabbyatha (Mon- astery of St Ephrem, Holland, 1982; = S). Although S is for the most part based on C, there are several places where the reading of AB etc. was preferred; small differences will thus be found in 8ac, 12a, 13d, 17c, 18d, 21b, 29ab, 37ab, 40b, 49b, and 51. Much greater differences occur in the final stanzas 53-56, where S has the second form of the end- ing, attested in AB etc., whereas the present edition provides the text of C. In the apparatus the manuscripts attesting each stanza are listed. The four component stichoi of each stanza are denoted a b c d. All variants apart from orthographical ones and obvious errors are given.
Sigla Manuscripts A = B.L. Add. 17190 G = Harvard syr. 30. B = B.L. Add. 14516 H = Harvard syr. 31 C = B.L. Add. 14506 J = Harvard syr. 103 D = B.L. Add. 12147 K = Union Theological Seminary syr. 3 E = Oxford, Dawkins 1 L = Mingana syr. 545 F = Oxford, Dawkins 32
Editions N = Narsai (NF = ed. FELDMANN; NM = ed. MINGANA; NP = ed. Patriarchal Press) S = Soghyatha Mgabbyatha, ed. BROCK. 340 S.P. BROCK
[SOGHITHA I]
Qale C [i]
DFG [ii]
J [iii]