Paul of Callinicum and his place in Syriac literature

PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACE IN SYRIAC LITERATURE 327

PAUL OF CALLINICUM AND HIS PLACEIN SYRIAC LITERATURE

Recent years have seen a variety of studies of Syriac translations ofGreek texts, both patristic and secular, within the wider context of theHellenisation of Syriac culture in late antiquity. Dr Brock’s study of thetranslation technique of the Syriac version of pseudo-Nonnos1, togetherwith his overview articles on the overall development of the Syriactranslation programme2, has inspired others to look at other individualtexts. On the patristic side, these have included the early translations ofBasil of Caesarea3, the two versions of the Cathedral Homilies ofSeverus of Antioch4, the two versions of Proclus of Constantinople’sTomus5, Gregory of Nyssa’s Commentary on the Song of Songs6, Titusof 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 ByzantineStudies, 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 Syriac Christianity, 1992, ch. X (= BROCK, Towards a History).

3 D.G.K. TAYLOR (ed.), The Syriac versions of the De Spiritu Sancto of Basil ofCaesarea (CSCO, 576 [Textus]; 577 [Versio]), Leuven, 1999.

4 C.J.A. LASH, Techniques of a translator: Work-notes on the methods of Jacob ofEdessa in translating the homilies of Severus of Antioch, 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 Theologyand 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 surle Cantique des cantiques: ses origines, ses témoins, son influence (Bibliothèque duMuséon, 10), Leuven, 1939.

7 P.H. POIRIER – C. SENSAL, Quelques réflexions sur la version syriaque du ContraManichaeos 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 TheologicalStudies, 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 TimothyAelurus, in Journal of Theological Studies, 21 (1970), p. 321-369; ibid., TimothyAelurus: 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 haveprovided a similar insight into the developments in the translations ofsecular philosophical texts12. The older translation of the aforementionedCathedral Homilies of Severus has generally been ascribed to Paul ofCallinicum, and it is with this individual that we shall be concerned inthis paper.

Paul as a translator

Paul, bishop of Callinicum (ar-Raqqa), is one of the very few Syriactranslators 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 weredestroyed 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 thoseconcerned with the progress and development of Syriac literature andlanguage per se, Paul is also a writer of no small importance. Followingin the wake of Philoxenus of Mabbug, he appears to have had been aninstigator of those changes and developments in translation techniquewhich 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 totranslating Greek into Syriac took its cue from the linguistic revisionsintroduced by Philoxenus to the text of the New Testament and theCreeds and also points the way forward to the style and method of theseventh century. The first part will take a few examples of Paul’s trans-lations of Severus’ Greek where these can be compared to the originalGreek text and will attempt to give a sense of how his approach to Greekgrammar and syntax was already far ahead of that achieved by his fifth-

10 Overview in C. DÉTIENNE, Grégoire de Nazianze dans la tradition syriaque, inB. 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, CorpusNazianzenum, 47); 40 (ed. J.-C. HAELEWYCK, Corpus Nazianzenum, 49).

11 D. KING, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria, A Study inTranslation Technique, Leuven, forthcoming.

12 Especially, the collection of articles in H. HUGONNARD-ROCHE, La logiqued'Aristote du grec au syriaque: études sur la transmission des textes de l'Organon et leurinterprétation philosophique, Paris, 2004.

13 The best description of the process can readily found in S.P. BROCK, Towards aHistory.


century predecessors. In the second part, we shall analyse how Paul ap-proached translating the Biblical text within the Severan corpus andbring those citations together with possible reconstructions of thePhiloxenian 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 adevotee of Cyril of Alexandria and often quotes him at some length. Inthe cases of his Philalethes, of course, he is actually refuting thedyophysite interpretation placed upon Cyril’s writings in the so-calledFlorilegium Cyrillianum. As the latter florilegium is actually quoted infull at the start of the Philalethes, much of Paul of Callinicum’s Vorlageis actually available to us in its original Greek.

To this we can add that many of the works of Cyril of Alexandriawhich were excerpted in the florilegium, or which Severus quotes else-where, were individually and separately translated into Syriac and areextant today. The net result of this fortuitous state of affairs is that wehave two Syriac versions of a large number of passages.

Our good fortune extends yet further, however, when we discoverthat, 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 ofthese 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 appendedto his treatise against Habib, also known as the Decem Dissertationes14.In this florilegium, the four aforementioned letters are quoted in thesame translation as we can see them in their complete versions in theBritish Library manuscript Add. 14557, and which were published byEbied and Wickham in the CSCO series15. Now, the treatise againstHabib was proved by de Halleux to have been written before Philoxenusbecame a bishop, i.e. before 484. Since Cyril only wrote the letters in432/3, this narrows down the date of translation to the fifty interveningyears.

Paul of Callinicum’s translation of the Severan texts can also bepinned down with some certainty. The basis for the attribution of thetranslation to Paul rests on the colophon of Vat. Syr.140, the manuscriptwhich 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 ofCyril of Alexandria (CSCO 359 [Textus]; 360 [(Versio]), Leuven, 1975 (= EBIED –WICKHAM, Letters).

330 D. KING

Halicarnassus16. This colophon (on f.145v) attributes the translation toPaul and dates his work to 528. The ms itself is of sixth century date andthere is no reason to doubt its testimony in this matter. We thus have asecure 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 in1929, he ascribed the work again “ad eundem interpretem [sc. the trans-lator of the Anti-Julianist works] probabiliter, haud tamen certo, libriquoque contra impium grammaticum syriacam versionem auctoreshodierni communiter referunt,” though he does not tell us who these‘auctores hodierni’ are17.

The ascription also of the translation of the Sergius correspondence toPaul of Callinicum rested with Baumstark and was similarly adopted byLebon18. The Cathedral Homilies exist in two versions, one known to beby Jacob of Edessa, the other, older version, ascribed again to Paul —thus says Brière, that this deduction was made “de la parenté qui existeentre les traductions précitées [i.e. the three texts mentioned so far] etune version syriaque des 125 homélies cathédrales de Sévèred’Antioche.” He recognises that only the anti-Julianist corpus is actuallyexplicit on this matter and that the others are deductions from this basedon similarity (of style)19. The provenance of these three texts, then, ismuch less certain than in the case of the first, although in summary thereremains 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 byR. 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, seeW. WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature, London, 1894, p.94f.; P.R. DUVAL, Lalittérature 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 translatingthe homilies of Severus of Antioch, in F. PASCHKE (ed.), ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungen (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 exegeticaGraeca, 9), Louvain, 1999.

21 R. HESPEL (ed.), Sévère d'Antioche: le Philalèthe (CSCO 68 [Textus]; 69 [Versio]),Leuven, 1952 (= HESPEL, Philalèthe).


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 Philalethesitself, we can observe that the two are identical for a full fifty one linesof text22. From this one observation we are able to conclude that thetranslator of the anti-Julianist work, Paul of Callinicum, was making useof an already extant translation of the Philalethes. Given the short timeavailable for this, together with all the other considerations mentioned, itseems extremely likely that this translator was himself. We can thusfirmly attribute the translation of the Philalethes to Paul, despite the edi-tor’s own reticence in this matter23, and thus expand the corpus of worksclearly belonging to this translator.

Paul and his predecessors

Basing ourselves on these reasonably well-fixed points, we are nowable to look at the texts where they overlap and judge for ourselves howmuch approaches to Greek/Syriac translation had altered over the half acentury or so which separates the first translator of the Cyril texts fromPaul of Callinicum.

Let us take, for example, the following passage from Cyril’s Letter toAcacius 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 ênmeíosi, toutéstin ên to⁄v kaqˆ ™m¢v; ºtan toínun ö t±v sarkÉsewvpolupragmon±tai trópov, dúo tà âllßloiv âporrßtwv te kaìâsugxútwv 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), withits 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

� �� %��/� 0��%� ��1�� #�$�2$ 3 ��4�5 � !��

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

� � � ��.� � �.�� 5�� %��*��!4�� 6�� ' �� "�� %�!�� %��"�� ' �%��71� !#� 6#� 6�� ' ��

�� & �� "�� " ��5�- ()*5' �%��8�� %�/�� " �� "�%�$ ' $%� �� 5��

� !��

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

� � � ��.� � �.�� 5�%�� *��!�� 6�� -� & �� %�!��5�� +� �%��$� 59 ()*

�%�%� ��1�1� �� "�5$ :* �!��$ ;�<�, 3 �%��/�5� !�� .

The very great difference between the two Syriac texts in terms ofgrammatical mirroring can be seen in many places throughout this pas-sage. To point out just a few: text B translates tautòn carefully with thesingular �.� � �.� rather than the plural equivalent; �%��*��!� isa much more accurate rendering of poiótjv than ��-�� ; the phrase�%�!�� %�� shows a willingness to use expandedlexical forms in the interest of one-word-for-one-word equivalence (notethe same again for meíwn), whereas Text A’s � !�� simply repeats traditional Syriac formulae while turning the adjectiveinto the noun, and vice versa; the phrase qeòv æn ö lógov is reduced toa simple formula in A, �� , while in B Paul has tried tomimic the Greek participle by offering �� ; Bhas tried carefully to maintain the verb-subject word order ofpolupragmon±tai trópov, which A has not.

In addition, in Text C, Paul has succeeded in a number of differentplaces in securing a rigorous mirror version, e.g. �� 1�1� ��, 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’s use of the term �%��8�� for sárkwsiv (incarnation) isof particular interest. It shows, as elsewhere, a propensity for developingnew 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 ofthe Nicene creed28. Given that the date for that revision can be pinneddown with some precision to around 500, it comes as no surprise as suchthat Paul should make use of it a generation later. It does, however, con-firm the influence of Philoxenus’ revision and the adoption of his newterminology into the mainstream of the West Syriac Christological tradi-tion.

Cyril’s First Letter to Succensus (Ep. 45) was another text translatedinto 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 noerànâporrßtwv te kaì üpèr noÕn tòn êk qeoÕ patròv lógon âsugxútwvâtréptwv 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: ' �� "�� "�� $ & �� "�$��%��

#�� !#�� +, :*.�� =� 6�� 9 �� !#�� 0�� &��.�� #�$�2 �� 1��

�� "�� / !�� $ � ��2��$�� $� �� 9 �!�� .�� $ �� .� � �.��

>��

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

� ��81� "�$ & �� "�� /� �5� �� !#�� 9 �!�� 5�� "�� 4� �� 9 �� *��

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 “LesFontaines” 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

�� #�$�2 �� 1�� 9 �� "� &?�� 9 "�� / !�� $ 9 � ��,�.� � �.�� $ �� $�� $� �� 9 �!�� .� � �.�

�� 5 >��

In A, the syntactical structure has been somewhat altered, with subor-dinate clauses becoming main clauses; the ∂xw clause is avoided in A bya circumlocution, whereas B tackles it head on; B tries to reproduce theforce of the resumed article of t®n noeràn by adding an extra demon-strative; other idioms, such as =� 6��, are added in A to smooth thedémarche; A’s awkward �� for toÕto kâke⁄no suggests atranslator unable (or unwilling) to find a pair of synonyms to match theoriginal.

The idea of retaining the periodic structure of Greek evidently becamequite important to Paul’s method. In earlier translations, a sequentialSyriac démarche was generally substituted wherever possible for thelong and rambling Greek periods typical of classicising authors such asCyril. The following text from the Letter to Acacius is highly typical andfollows a pattern that we see repeated throughout these texts. In eachcase Text A is given first and Paul’s version [Text B] second32:

oû…êz îdíav labónta fúsewv…kataskeuásai tò s¬ma tòn…lógon üponoßsomen

%� &)2 �� "�� 5"��18� �� 42�� "�8� �� "� �� .8� @�A�� +#� ��% (.�1

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 aslexical equivalence, syntactical mirroring, and morphological equiva-lence. The following examples should suffice to give a flavour of thenature 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.

�� !�� %�� /� � �� =�� B�% � �� =�� !��

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; SyriacB: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 29,24-5.


Paul will very frequently make sure that parts of speech are retainedas in the original, a matter that was of no concern to the earlier transla-tor34:

metabol±Ç fúsewv (kaqˆ ™m¢v gegonÉv)� � C�/!� �� #�$�!�

Paul will avoid using stock Syriac expressions which are not quiteidentical to the Greek phrases35:

tòn êk qeoÕ patròv lógon�� "��

�� "�� 4�

He will almost always try to use adjectival forms for Greek adjectivesrather than an analytical structure with �36:

dektikón&1)��

1)�5��

One of the clearest signs of a translator attempting to mirror the origi-nal is the mimicking of resumptive articles with Syriac demonstratives, afeature which is again common in Paul’s work37:

êk t±v parabásewv t±v ên ˆAdám

=�� , �1?�� , �1* "�5=��

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

peplastoúrgjke1�.&1�.��1* &

34 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p. 153,3; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 41,18; SyriacB: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 27,1.

35 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p. 153,8; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 41,23; SyriacB: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 27,5-6.

36 Greek: ACO I,1,6, p. 156,2; Syriac A: EBIED – WICKHAM, Letters, p. 45,3; SyriacB: 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; SyriacB: HESPEL, Philalèthe, p. 27,16.

336 D. KING

Many more examples could be set forth, but those given here shouldbe sufficient to make clear the wide gulf that exists between texts placedfifty years apart. In the Syriac terminology for the incarnation, we couldsee specifically the influence of Philoxenus. But even elsewhere, onefeels that the new precision in grammatical mirroring which is somarked a feature of Paul’s work is in some way related to the bishop ofMabbug’s programme of revising both theological terminology and theBiblical 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 ofNisibis, who was also the translator of some of Severus’ correspond-ence, which we know he published in 668/939. We can therefore assumethat his version of the Orationes ad Nephalium was made at a similardate. This work thus belongs to the ‘highest’ period of Syriac transla-tions, more or less contemporary with George of the Arabs andAthanasius of Balad, and a good generation after Paula of Edessa hadrevised the Syriac version of Gregory Nazianzen’s Orations. The useof the creedal term � �� 2 by Athanasius confirms this latedate — Jacob of Edessa being especially noted for its use40.

Fortunately for us, a number of Severus’ citations of Cyril are foundboth in the Orationes ad Nephalium and in one of the texts translated byPaul of Callinicum (often as well as an independent Syriac version).This enables us to compare Paul’s method not only retrospectively, aswe have been doing, but also prospectively, and thereby better judge thetrue 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 del'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


tina kaì metástasin t®n eîv ºper oûk ¥n. tò gàr ênoike⁄n ëtérwçlegómenon 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: ' ;�<�, "�� >�� $�� $� 6��54*� �.�� 9 �

"�� %�!�� 9 �� 1�.& � ��1$ �� 2 �� ' =� ��1��5�� 5��

� ��54*� � � �5� �� 9 �� $�� 5�� 5� ' �5�� 5�� ' �4* �� 5��$�� $� "�� .

The Syriac version of Athanasius of Nisibis [Text B]43:�� $�� $�� 3 ;��#�� 54*� �5 �

�5$ � �� %�!�� "�� .�� =� ��1�� 0� %�� 2 �� %� 2�5 ��

�54*� �� 5� �� 3 ��$�� 5� �� .��54*� �5� � �.��$�� $� �� "�� &��8� �� .

What strikes the reader first of all is the general proximity of the twoversions in terms of style and approach. Very little separates them, andall those traits which, in the last part of this paper, we saw that Paul wasconcerned 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 wayby both translators.

In this last instance, however, Paul’s �5�� 5 �� is actuallymarginally more precise than Athanasius’ � %��5 �� . In fact,Athanasius does not always use loanwords where Paul had done so —e.g. ;��#�� rather than ;�<�,; and similarly in other areas, such asthe lack of 6�� for Üv; the omission of kaì before oû paqoÕsa; andthe word order of tò gàr ênoike⁄n ëtérwç legómenon oûk aûtògégone 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 thesetexts on external grounds, we would be hard pushed to show that therewas over a century between them in terms of the development of transla-tion technique. Such a comparison warns us not to impose a linear modelof ‘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 laterwriters retained the right vary the line of development according to theirspecific aims and purposes44.

The following example, taken from the Letter to Acacius, alreadyused above, shows this proximity even more clearly45:

fwn¬n dè diaforàn katˆ oûdéna trópon ânjÇrßkamen, eî kaìâpóbljton pepoißmeqa tò meríhein aûtàv Üv uï¬ç katà mónav t¬ç êkpatròv lógwç kaì Üv ânqrÉpwç pálin katà mónav uï¬ç noouménwç t¬çêk gunaikóv.

The independent fifth century version [Text A] 46:�� "�� #�$�2�� - "� /� ��(D � 9 "��)* �� " �

� E�#�� "� �� /� ��1�� 6�� 3 " �53 �� "�� %�� "� �� /� B�% �!��1�� 6��

Paul of Callinicum’s translation [Text B]47:�� "�� #�$�!�� - "� /� �� 9 ��",� 9 "�4�� "

�1* �� 8�5� 5�� 5 �� E�#�' ��/� ��1�� 6�� "� ��4�5B�% �!�� 1�� 6�� ' �� "��

� 9 �� >�� 5 �%�� "��

Athanasius of Nisibis’ translation [Text C]48:�� "�� #�$�!�� - "� /� �� ,� 3 "�4�� "

1* �� 8�5� "��5 �� E�#�� /� ��1�� 6�� "� ��4�5B�% �2-�1�� 6�� "��

� 3�� &��8�� /�5 �%%-� "��

One can readily see just how close the two translations B and C are, inplaces virtually verbatim. Text A illustrates just how differently the textcould be translated, given a different approach and methodology. Withthese 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 agreater 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.


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 mirrortranslation more rigorously and more ‘successfully’ than Paul. This istaken 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, ÿnat±v ˆIoudaíwn dussebeíav ö stauròv katjgor±Ç· âsqen±sailégetai katà tò ânqrÉpinon, ÿna paúsjÇ t®n s®n âsqéneian·deßseiv ânéteine kaì ïketjríav, ÿna kaì ta⁄v parà soÕ lita⁄vbásimon âpofßnjÇ t®n toÕ patròv âkoßn· ênústazen [om. plur. msset Syr], ÿna sù máqjÇv m® nustáhein ên peirasmo⁄v, sunteínesqai dèm¢llon eîv proseuxáv.

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

2 � �� &$� �� 6�� F�?�� !�� 5G1�- �4� 0/�� +#� ��/� "�� "�� " �� " �

1��# �- H�<)�� 8� "� I��2� �%�� &* �1 ?2�� F%�� /�� !�� &/�%��

1� 6��5F%�?1� 1?!�� #!�%� B�� %�?� &< 8�� =��% �� C��% �� ?4!��

�%��7� �� %� * ��.

Paul of Callinicum’s translation [Text B]51:��.$� :�� 6�� F�?�� !�� .�� &

�� &2�� 8�� I�18� 1� "�� I��2� ��/� �1�� ?2�� 8� "�� # �- H�<)� ��

�?� 6�� %�� /� &<1�� !�� &/�%��!�%� �%��#� B�)�. �� ?4!4� "�� 6�� F%�?� ��J� ��

C��%� �� =�� % ��5� 8�� 7� "�� *%% ��%.

Athanasius of Nisibis’ translation [Text C]52:$� �� 6�� ?�� !�� .�� &

3 �� " �� 0/�� K� ��81� � &2�� 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

1�� /� �15�2� "� ��.%�! 1�� 8� "� I�� ?2��&/�%�� 1 �J H�<)� ��

1� 6�� %�� /4�� !��5� &<�!�%� �%�?��57� K�� B�L��/� �� 6�� %��5

8�� =��% �� C��% �� 3 �� ?4!4��3 ��7� �� "�� M#$%%L �%��

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

�- �4��" � .

We can see also, however, how far Athanasius has advanced beyondPaul in terms of rigour in the application of the mirror techniques.Athanasius has developed the use of � �� for ÿna, where Paul ofCallinicum still follows the older usage of � alone53; he has rejected�# �- for �1 �J; Paul has interpreted ânéteine as imperfect (whichis unlikely, but not grammatically incorrect), and translated m®nustáhein with =�� % �� in order to express, perhaps, theatemporal 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 ��$�12% for dóza (where it means glory), which Paulnever does; also the appearance of certain Greek loans such as� <�%�� (aûqentía), �<�� (e¤ta) and N 8�� (léziv) in Atha-nasius but not in Paul54. The ubiquitous use of �5" for the particle mèn is,however, found already in Paul, but hardly ever in the fifth centurytranslation texts.

These two translators worked more than a century apart and weshould expect to find the mirror technique a good deal more advanced inthe latter translator than in the former, just as the seventh century is con-sidered the peak of the development of the literalist school whereas thesixth is a more intermediate and experimental stage. The findings of thetexts here presented, however, suggest that the two versions are not, inmost 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.


even starker relief when Paul and Athanasius are together compared asagainst our full Syriac versions which mostly cannot have preceded Paulby more than 50 years at the most.

We must not overestimate Paul’s ‘achievement’, however. For therecan 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, betweenour 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 techniquebetween the early Cyril translations and Paul’s translations of Severuscontains within itself the period of Philoxenus’ activity in this sphere —the creed was revised in about 500, the New Testament in 508. It is quiteevident that Philoxenus was motivated by the Christological disputes ofhis day, by a desire that Syriac linguistic precision should match thatwhich he perceived Greek to have55. That a similar approach should betaken to the business of translating Severus’ work, itself so obsessedwith technical terminology, comes as no surprise. We can thus easilyperceive in Philoxenus and Paul different stages and aspects of the samephenomenon.

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 someindications 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 inthe eighteenth century under the name of Philoxenus was, in fact, theHarclean56, 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, etEpistolarum tam Catholicarum quam Paulinarum, versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, Oxford,1799.

342 D. KING

translation literature of the sixth century57. Of course, this throws upsome obvious methodological problems, for in a translated text one cannever tell whether Biblical citations are being inserted by the translatorfrom pre-existing Bible translations or are being re-translated as part ofthe whole text. How can we be sure in any given case, which method anauthor is following?

Albert Schweitzer once made the observation that a bilingual Alsatianpreacher (including himself) will “never give his own version of Bibli-cal passages, but will without exception keep to the traditional form inthe language which he is using, and this even where he would be capableof giving a more exact rendering…[and] will even perhaps use an argu-ment which goes against the sense of the original, which he is supposedto be acquainted with58.”

In outlining the developments in Syriac translation technique, Brockhas suggested that in general earlier translators inserted citations fromtheir familiar texts and later ones copied the Vorlagen even when thetwo did not agree. He points to this change in practice as a symptom ofHellenisation59. Baumstark has shown, for instance, that the translator ofTitus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos did not translate Biblical citationsdirectly from his Vorlage, but rather used existing Syriac versions,namely the Peshitta for the Old Testament, and the Diatessaron for theNew Testament. He even appears to have done this in the case ofTitus’quotations from his (Syriac) Manichaean source60. In the case ofthe 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 NewTestament, (British Academy Supplementary Papers, VII), London, 1945, and has morerecently been urged by B. ALAND, Die philoxenianisch-harklensische Übersetzungs-tradition: Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Zitate in der syrischenLiteratur, in Le Muséon, 94 (1981), p. 321-383 (= ALAND, Philoxenianisch). The morenormal route, of course, has been to search the works of Philoxenus himself, a task donemost effectively by S.P. BROCK, The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem, inE.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 wherehe 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: Syria 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 inder 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 ofBostra's Contra Manichaeos: the work's sources, aims, and relation to its contemporarytheology, Leiden, 2004, p. 83.


cases but that where the Greek original clearly had a widely differingtext, the translator would follow his Vorlage instead61.

In the early sixth century, both Moses of Aggel and the anonymoustranslator of Gregory of Nyssa’s Song of Songs Commentary include intheir prefaces a brief discussion of this issue, both making it clear thatthey prefer to copy the citations as found in their Vorlagen, even whenthese are in discord with the Peshitta. Since both these works are OTcommentaries, the discord is often all the greater, the Peshitta being aHebrew-based version while their Vorlagen obviously quote from LXX.

Barbara Aland’s use of the translation literature, in concert withPhiloxenus’ citations, to reconstruct the Philoxenian is clearly based onthe assumption that translators are not simply re-rendering theirVorlagen at every opportunity. In her principal article on the subject, shepoints out instances where differences between the texts indicate thatthis assumption is well-founded62. It stands to reason, she argues, that anewly circulating version, claiming to be philologically accurate andanti-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 notuse that version in his own translation work, preferring to make his ownrenderings 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 andat least one other piece of sixth century translation literature (usuallyPaul of Callinicum’s version of Severus, Cyril’s Luke Commentary, theApollinarian corpus, or Timothy Ailuros).

We can here add an example from Paul of Callinicum which doesseem to suggest that citations were indeed inserted for the most part,rather than re-rendered: where Paul’s Philalethes translation and theSyriac of Cyril’s Apologia contra Theodoretum overlap, the former gen-erally shows a much closer approximation to the Greek in many smallmatters (as we saw in the earlier section of this paper). However, wherethe Scriptures are being cited within these longer citations, the differencebetween 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; hisarticle on the Titus of Bostra translation (see previous note) has some further details, withexamples given on p. 258-62. In most Syriac translations, in fact, some influence from thetext of the Peshitta can be detected, however assiduous the translator appears to be incopying 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 theFlorilegium Cyrillianum the Syriac versions of the two texts diverge atmany points until we reach the citation of Hebrews 2.9, at which pointthey become identical, until the end of the citation, whence they againdiverge somewhat. This sort of evidence can be used to show that thesetranslators are very often taking their Scriptural citations from a com-mon source, a pre-existing Syriac version, perhaps sometimes frommemory, and perhaps sometimes with a greater or lesser accuracy; butthe general point nevertheless is that these citations are not brand newattempts but reflect, whether verbatim or not, older versions which wemay be able to trace across different texts.

Aland found instances where the citations show variants which areonly explicable from a pre-existing Syriac revision63. Her initial findingsare based on a study of the citations in Paul of Callinicum’s version ofthe anti-Julianist polemic. She deals with the objection (raised byBrock) that similarities between this and Philoxenus’ Commentary onthe Johannine Prologue are due only to a common background of tech-nique by the suggestion that it is precisely in Bible translation that wewould be most likely to see pioneer work in this field, and that if anumber of individuals were all citing in such a manner (i.e. revising thePeshitta in the direction of the Harklean), this is most likely due to theactual existence and use (if not consistently) of the Philoxenian64. Hav-ing shown how the anti-Julianist polemic thus fits into the picture, shecasts her net wider to other translated texts, such as those of TimothyAiluros, 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 areclose in style but not necessarily in wording are found65. AlthoughAland’s arguments about deriving data from such citations are open toexactly the same objections as were Zuntz’s, anyone actually reading thenumerous examples given in the Appendix cannot but be impressed bythe way in which sixth century Miaphysite texts show a seismic shift intheir citations, away from the Peshitta and towards the Harklean. With-out being too forward on the possibilities of actually reconstructing thePhiloxenian, Aland is very strong on the existence of the Philoxenian/Harklean tradition and its influence on the methods of Thomas of Harkelhimself.

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 ofEdessa ‘uses’ the Harklean in his revised version of Severus’ Homilies.

65 See esp. p. 330ff.


When the volumes of the Das Neue Testament in syrischer Über-lieferung first came out of the Münster Institut für NeutestamentlicheTextforschung, the value of the citations in the translation literature be-came even more apparent. Indeed their value is part of the very groundsfor the edition itself. The importance attached by Aland to this methodwas 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 historyof the various versions and revisions, although nothing new is added inprinciple to what was already shown in the 1981 article. Because neitherthe Minor Catholics nor Revelation have yet been produced, there has asyet been no further light shed on the question of whether these were inthe Philoxenian New Testament. The material is now present for studiessuch as those proposed by Brock, “it would be good to have a series ofmonographs, on the lines of those under way for the Greek Fathers, pro-viding the full evidence for the Biblical text quoted by individual Syriacwriters, accompanied by a textual (and perhaps, exegetical) commen-tary66.” This would begin to reap the harvest from the evidence that isnow available.

One of these blocks of newly-available evidence may be of especialinterest for the issue of the Philoxenian revision. When Paul ofCallinicum translated Severus’ anti-Julianist corpus he prefixed an intro-duction which itself contains a number of NT citations, which he has notalways taken direct from the Peshitta. There are few people, other thanPhiloxenus himself, who would be better placed than Paul, both in termsof date and of literary context, to use the Philoxenian revision in his ownwritings. 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’stranslations of Severus rather than pristine quotes from his own versionof scripture. A few, however, are not taken from Severus and mighttherefore throw some light on Paul’s own Bible version. These citationscan therefore be firmly attributed to Paul himself. Unfortunately, DasNeue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung has made some errors in thereferencing 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, inB. 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 beinghis 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 reconstructPaul’s own Bible text. As always, therefore, the NTSU edition needs tobe read and used alongside, not instead of, the printed editions of thetexts. 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]�<��5F� ] ��2�� PC (MT ךללחאו ) (Gk kaì êtraumatísqjv)

F��] 6�� PC

�� "� &<��] �� "� PC

=�%%�� &*] =�%� PC

�2 �*��5� =� F�� 5��/� �� F� .]

F��2 �*�� &* 6�<$� �� &<� PC

Ps 55.24 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,4,18-9]��]�%��1$�� PC

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

O��2� �� 1$ =�� 9 �� "� &�� )�� "4�� &<� �.

Paul’s versions reads:�/��2� �� 1$�� &�� "� &�� )��

"4�� &<� �67� .�� .

Dan 10.8 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,3,24-6]��] P/��2 PC

��1$�4�] �%��1$�4� PC67 Ed. reads "4��, against the "4�� of ms C which, given the Peshitta text, we

have here adopted.


& $ P� �� ] P� $ %$� �� PC

2 Cor 4.16 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,4,2-4]"� ��] "� �?<�� PC ["� ��4� H] [Gk êgkakoÕmen]

��] �1�� PC [�1� H] [Gk ∂zw]

�+� "�� ] � ��5�+�� "�� PC [as H] [Gk âllˆ ö ∂sw]

Acts 2.31 [HESPEL, Polémique, I,5,1]��+,] ��8� PC

��1$] �%��1$�� PC

Paul has adopted some interesting revisions to the Peshitta text inthese 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-pluseslike that of Gen 6.12, but also in a whole series of readings in Ezek 28.In Acts he has substituted ��8� for ��+,, and in 2 Cor. he has added�5� for the relative pronoun, both highly typical of sixth-century revi-

sion techniques, respectively in the lexical and syntactic fields, of thesort that we have seen aplenty in some of our texts and in the Severancitations. Perhaps the most notable, however, is his use of theneologistic, more ‘technically accurate’ term �%��1$�� in place ofits simpler Peshitta equivalents at Ps 55.24, Dan 6.23, Dan 10.8, andActs 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 revisionof fifth century Biblical language in favour of the technical discourse ofsixth 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. Wedo not need to assume here that Paul is copying a whole revision of theOld Testament already made before his time (a so-called PhiloxenianOld Testament), but rather the far more significant fact that he is himselfrevising 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 surewhether Paul knew of or made use of the Philoxenian New Testament.His preface to the anti-Julianist texts constitutes the only self-authoredtext from his hand. We have discussed already, however, the importancethat Barbara Aland has attached to the use of the translation literature inelucidating the influence and use of the Philoxenian revision during thecourse 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 onboard the latter’s programme of revising the Biblical text, as he shareswith Philoxenus in holding to the primacy of the Greek text, even in theOld Testament, over that of the Syriac. In addition, we can see that hereceived and made use of the so-called Philoxenian neologisms regard-ing the Christological categories of incarnation and embodiment. He wasaware of, and imitated in his language, those alterations to the wordingof the Nicene creed in Syriac which seem to have been establishedaround the turn of the sixth century.

On a more general, and thus a more significant, level he brought tothe very business of translation a rigour of method which is itself surelya function of Philoxenus’ long-term intentions and linguistic pro-gramme. Where we have been able to compare directly a fifth centurytranslation of a Greek passage with Paul’s attempt at the same, we havebeen able to see clearly how very far ahead is the latter in terms of hisability to mirror the forms of the Greek language in a way that not onlyforeshadows the fully Hellenised translationese Syriac of the seventhcentury, but actually attains to a level of consistency that is itself not farshort 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 canreally be described as one of mirroring the Greek original68. Althoughwe saw that the sixth century translators did apply the technique morerigorously and more consistently, nevertheless it would appear that mostof the hard work had already been done — as a comparison with thefifth century texts indicates69. In attempting to mimic Greek grammarand linguistic structures, he pointed the way forward for the more ex-treme Hellenising traditions of the succeeding age. The Miaphysitebishop 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 histranslation 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.


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 DriveCardiff, CF10 [email protected]

Abstract — This paper seeks to build upon recent work on Syriac-Greektranslations 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 writingsof 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 theSeveran 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. Hisapproach is then compared with parallel texts from the fifth century, as well aswith the seventh century translator Athanasius of Nisibis, in the hope of pinningdown 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 ofPhiloxenus, was one of rapid change in approaches to Greek-Syriac translationand that Paul himself was a major player in the move towards to the literalisticmirror translations of the later period.

Paul of Callinicum and his place in Syriac literature

Documents

Transcript of Paul of Callinicum and his place in Syriac literature