John Daniel Thomas PhD Thesis - University of St Andrews

337 Pages·2012·12.75 MB·English

@41 4->/81-; 9->35; + - ?@A0D <2 @41 -?@1>5?7?!
<.185 -;0 9->35;-85- <2 @41 4->/81-; ?D>5-/
B1>?5<;! C5@4 ?=1/5-8 >121>1;/1 @< @41 3<?=18 <2
8A71
6RLQ 0EQMIO @LRPEU
- @LIUMU ?WFPMVVIH JRT VLI 0IKTII RJ =L0
EV VLI
AQMXITUMV[ RJ ?V# -QHTIYU
&*)(
2WOO PIVEHEVE JRT VLMU MVIP MU EXEMOEFOI MQ
>IUIETGL,?V-QHTIYU+2WOO@IZV
EV+
LVVS+$$TIUIETGL"TISRUMVRT[#UV"EQHTIYU#EG#WN$
=OIEUI WUI VLMU MHIQVMJMIT VR GMVI RT OMQN VR VLMU MVIP+
LVVS+$$LHO#LEQHOI#QIV$&%%’($’*)*
@LMU MVIP MU STRVIGVIH F[ RTMKMQEO GRS[TMKLV
THE HARCLEAN MARGIN:
A STUDY OF THE ASTERISKS, OBELI, AND MARGINALIA
OF THE HARCLEAN SYRIAC VERSION
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
by
John D. Thomas
B.A., University of Pittsburgh
B.D., Princeton Theological Seminary
S.T.M., San Francisco Theological Seminary
Franklin,Pa., 1913
Submitted to the Graduate School
of the University of St. Andrews
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
,
BEST COpy
.
, . AVAILABLE
, Var'iable print quality
PREFACE
I, John D. Thomas, declare that
this thesis has been composed and all work
of which it is a record has been done by my
myself. It has not been accepted in any
previous application for a higher degree.
The research, The Harclean Margin: A Study
of the Asterisks, Obeli, and Marginalia of
the Harclean Syriac Version with special
reference to the Gospel of Luke, was under
taken by me in October, 1959, and it was
at that time I was admitted as a candidate
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.).
I certify that John D. Thomas
has complied with the requirements of
the ordinance under which he was admitted
and that he is qualified to submit this
thesis.
. Principal, St. Marys College
University of St. Andrews
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. The Problem Stated••.•.••..•.••.••••••••••••••••••••••••!
II. A Survey of Previous Research•••••••••••••••••••••••••••4
Manuscripts of the Philoxenian-Harclean Version••••••IO
Revision or Version••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••34
The Philoxenian-Harclean Text••••••••••••••••••••••••55
The Philoxenian-Harclean Marginalia••••••••••••••••••62
The Philoxenian-Harclean Critical Signs••••••••••••••71
Greek Notations in Philoxenian-Harclean Manuscripts••84
The Book of Acts..•••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.•••93
III. A Course of Procedure••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••120
IV. The Development of the Peshitta••••••••••••••••••••••••123
V. The Obel! in Luk.e••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••137
VI. The Greek Notations••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••151
VII. The Asterisks•••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••186
VIII. The Marginalia•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••220
Greek Support of the Marginalia•••••••••••••••••25l
IX. The Harclean Text•••••....•••...••..••.••••••••.•.••261
x.
Looking Ah.ead.•••••••.•••••.•••••••••.••••.••• 286
e •••••
APPENDIX
1. 163 Readings in the.White Edition Text and Margin
of Luke..••..•.•.... 288
0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
II. 76 Additional Lucan Marginalia••••••••••••••••••••••309
CHP..PTER I
THE PROBLEM STATED
In 503, Polycarp, a country bishop, made a new Syriac
translation of the New Testament. He made it in behalf of
1
Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug. ~Rlile Polycarp did the actual
work of translating from the Greek into Syriac, his translation
is known as the Philoxenian Version of the New Test aaent ,
One hundred and eight years later, Thomas of Harkel came
to the Enaton Monastery near Alexandria. During his stay there,
he collated Polycarp's translation with the aid of three proven
2
and accurate Greek manuscripts.
\~at TI10mas did exactly is not clear and scholarship divides
itself into two main camps. Some scholars feel that Thomas merely
..
recopied Polycarp's translation, placing the results of his cO.u.-
3
ation in the margin of the manuscript. Other scholars thlUK
that Thomas inserted the results of his collations into the
1
Moses Aghelaeus, Glaphyra S. Cyrilli Alexandrini. Cited
by J. S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis, Vol. II, Rome, 1721, p. 83.
2
Four Gospel colophons read 'cwo.' The four: Oxford New
College 333; British. lVh.:seura Rf.ch , 7163; Bib~~iotl'1equ.e 1'Jationz.._,~,2
Zotenberg 54; Vatican Syriac 268. margin of Vat. Syr. 268
corrects to 'three.'
3
Ridley, wbite, Tregelles, Martin, Clark, New.
2
4
original text, placing the readings of Polycarp into the margin.
In the absence of an expl~c~t statement, both views have a claim
for recognition. But whatever Thom.:;;s did> scholars agree that
Thomas revised Polycarp's translation. They assume without question
that these marginal notes are part of his revision process.
Now the value of the Harclean Marginalia is in~ediately
obvious. It represents a Greek textual tradition current in 508
or 616. Yet, strange to say, no one nas ever solved the problem
of the Harclean Margin to everyone's satisfaction. The reason is
that not enough information has been available. To speak of the
Harclean Margin is not really to speak of marginal notes found in
the Philoxenian-Harclean manuscripts; it is, in fact. to speak of
the marginal notes found in the v~,ite Edition.
The reason for this is understandable. Of 56 kno,m Philox-
5 6
enian-Harclean manuscripts, only two have been published. Of
these two which have been published, ~nite, alone, has marginal
4
Gwynn, Ropes, Zuntz~
5
Cf. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur"Bonn,
1922, p. 188. C. R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Test2ments. Vol. II,
p. 545 and Vol. III, p. 1304. P. Kahle, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati
(Studi e Testi, 126), 1946, pp. 208-233. A. Mingana, Catalogue
Hingana Collection of ~L,musc:ripts, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1933.
6
Oxford New College 1:1s 333 by J. Iri:1ite in 1778; Vatican
Syriac 1'1s 271 by G. H. Bernstein lU IS53 (Book of John).
3
notes. Scholars, therefore, have co rely upon ~rilite when
making inquiries about the Harclean \~1ile they have
occasionally urged a critical edition of the Philoxenian-Barclean
Version, no such edition has ever been made. To make matters
more complicated, doubt is now openly expressed as to the value
7
of the \{Uite Edition for research purposes.
The position is this. We are not really sure about anything
concerning the Harclean Margin. ~TiAat we need is more available
information whereby we gain a much better perspective of these
marginal notes. Then, and only then, can we begin to think
objectively about the Harclean Margin.
Before moving fonJard in search of more information,
is well at this point to look back to what others have already
done. A survey of previous research into the problem of the
Harclean Margin will prove not only useful, but pertinent, for
later work.
7
Cf. A. Wikenhauser, Einleitung in Das Neue Testament,
Freiburg, 1956, p. 88. Wikenhauser pronounced the In1ite Edition
'insufficient. '