The Peshitta: Its Use in

Literature and Liturgy

Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium

Edited by

Bas ter Haar Romeny

LEIDEN • BOSTON

2006

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN: 0169-9008ISBN: 978 90 04 15658 6

Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints BRILL, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL:THE SYRIAC OLD TESTAMENT COMMENTARY TRADITION

Lucas Van Rompay

Wenn nicht sehr viel altere Handschriften im Orient gefunden werden konnen,empfiehlt es sich, erst die Kommentare herauszugeben, ehe man an eine textkri-tische Ausgabe der Peschitta geht.

— G. Diettrich, as quoted in L. Haefeli, Die Peschittades Alten Testaments (Munster i.W., 1927), 115.

We maintain, therefore, that in order to keep our work within the necessaryminimum limits, this material (i.e., commentaries and homilies) can be dispensedwith without any considerable loss.

— M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Prolegomena to a Critical Editionof the Peshitta’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1960), 62.

The primary goal of this Symposium, as outlined by its conveners, is togain a fuller picture of the textual history of the Peshitta, on the onehand, and to provide a context for this textual history, on the other,by investigating the way the Peshitta was received and assessed by itsusers, whether in exegetical or historical literature or in liturgy.1 Eventhough we are dealing here with two different issues, the organizers wereright in bringing them together, for they are closely interrelated.

The theme of this Symposium, which in a natural way springs fromthe work done in the past decades, is also illustrative of a shift inthe general orientation of the Peshitta project. The first generation ofPeshitta scholars—in the Leiden sense of the word—consisted mainly ofspecialists of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. Their aim was toproduce an edition that would satisfy ‘the needs of students of biblicalexegesis and textual criticism’,2 while the Hebrew Bible always wasthe point of reference. In the course of the years, however, Peshittascholars also became increasingly interested in the Sitz im Leben of the

1 See the Preface in the present volume.2 P.A.H. de Boer, Preface in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the

Peshit.ta Version 1.1 (Leiden, 1977), v. A few years earlier, in 1966 and in 1972,the aims of the new edition had been formulated in similar terms: ‘. . . to offer thestudent an objective tool for his study of the Bible text and its history, and possibly[this word omitted in 1972] provide him with a help [1972: an aid] for [1972: in] theexegesis of the Old Testament’: The Old Testament in Syriac. Sample Edition: Songof Songs –Tobit – 4 Ezra (Leiden, 1966), vi; The Old Testament in Syriac. GeneralPreface (Leiden, 1972), vi.

28 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Peshitta. And the result of this process is what we are witnessing today:a happy mixture of biblical scholars and Syriac scholars! Indeed, the twogroups are no longer distinguishable from one another. Peshitta studieshave become fully integrated into the field of Syriac studies, and theSyriac Bible, as the object of our scholarly endeavours, is now beingfully restored to its proper domain: the Syriac Christian communities,the Syriac schools, monasteries, and churches. In the earlier Peshittaeditions, the term ‘inner-Syriac deviation’ was often used in a slightlypejorative sense (i.e., not directly relevant to the study of the originaltext of the Bible), whereas for us nowadays ‘inner-Syriac deviation’ isour passion and our life!

In this presentation I will not move very far beyond the biblicaltext itself. The very act of reading, understanding, and interpreting thebiblical text is an integral part of its fixation and transmission. Part ofthis is inaccessible to us, since it belonged to the field of oral teaching andoral tradition.3 Another part, however, is reflected in the commentarytradition. After a few general observations on Syriac commentaries, I willfirst discuss their potential for the study of the biblical text and then, inthe second part of my contribution, move to their wider historical andcultural contexts.

Commentaries are only a small part of the vast literature dealingwith biblical interpretation. In fact, each single Syriac composition willat some point shed light on the wider context of the Peshitta, since thewhole of Syriac literature is steeped in biblical references and imagery.Commentaries, however, are of particular interest in that they areconceived and used as tools guiding the reader through the biblical text.They mirror the biblical text in their structure and composition, whiletheir authors and readers intellectually oscillate between the biblicaltext and the commentary, importing pieces of information from the oneto the other.4

By narrowing down the category of interpretative texts to the spe-cific genre of commentaries, I am leaving aside such compositions ashomilies on biblical themes, theological treatises incorporating biblicalinterpretation, and many other works. This is not to say that they are

3 The office of the maqryana, the instructor in reading, comes to mind here aswell as the tradition behind the later Masoretic manuscripts. On the maqryana, seeA. Voobus, History of the School of Nisibis (CSCO 266, Subs. 26; Louvain, 1965),100; on the range of activities of one of the most well-known maqryane, JosephHuzaya, see L. Van Rompay, art. ‘Joseph Huzaya’, in Dictionnaire d’histoire et degeographie ecclesiastiques 28 (Paris, 2003), 208b–209a.

4 For some important observations on the dynamics of the genre of biblicalcommentary, see E.A. Clark, Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture inEarly Christianity (Princeton, nj, 1999), 5–11.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 29

not relevant to the theme of the Symposium. On the contrary! In anumber of papers it will be shown how important they are. I wouldlike to argue, however, that as far as the general policy of Peshittascholars is concerned, there is much reason to prioritize commentaries,since they have a closer relationship to the biblical text than any of theother compositions and, as a general rule, were neither written nor readwithout the biblical text at hand.

Although Peshitta scholars in the past occasionally turned to com-mentaries for biblical quotations, the importance of commentaries hasgenerally been underrated in Peshitta studies.5 Commentaries were of-ten seen as just one part of the huge body of literature capable ofproviding ‘patristic citations’—a phrase which since the days of Haefeliand Goshen-Gottstein,6 has been surrounded with a mist of unease andcaution.7 This skeptical attitude is understandable, for the indiscrim-inate and uncritical use of quotations has, in the past, contributed tomisconceived theories about the earliest history of the Peshitta. It is,however, not entirely justified. Scholars in the past often did not makea proper distinction between commentaries, in the strict sense of theword, and other compositions. Robert Owens’ exemplary studies on thequotations in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations8 have made us aware of themany pitfalls quotations present to the biblical students. Commentariesthough are different from homiletic works and need to be studied in theirown right. They may have their own pitfalls, but the role of the biblicaltext in commentaries is different from that in other compositions.

5 There have been some notable exceptions, such as G. Diettrich, whose opinionis quoted at the beginning of the present paper. Faithful to his conviction, Diettrichworked towards the publication of a number of commentaries, in particular those ofDaniel of S. alah. , Moses bar Kepha, and Isho↪dad of Merv.

6 L. Haefeli, Die Peschitta des Alten Testaments. Mit Rucksicht auf ihre textkri-tische Bearbeitung und Herausgabe (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 11.1; Munsteri.W., 1927), 87–94, where the following authors are listed: Aphrahat, Ephrem, Philo-xenus of Mabbog, Daniel of S. alah. , Thomas of Marga, Isho↪dad of Merv, Dionysius barS. alibi, and Barhebraeus. For Goshen-Gottstein, see the quotation at the beginning ofthis paper. Although Goshen-Gottstein’s indiscriminate treatment of ‘Syrian Fathersand commentators’ is problematic, he did not deny the potential importance of thistype of evidence; see ‘Prolegomena’, 59–62, with footnote 169 on p. 62.

7 The phrase ‘patristic citation’ is also used in M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Versionof the Old Testament. An Introduction (UCOP 56; Cambridge, 1999), esp. 130–139.

8 R.J. Owens, The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage(MPIL 3; Leiden, 1983); idem, ‘Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Textof Leviticus’, in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder (eds.), The Peshit.ta: Its Early Textand History. Papers read at the Peshit.ta Symposium held at Leiden 30–31 August1985 (MPIL 4; Leiden, 1988), 1–48; idem, ‘The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in theDemonstrations of Aphrahat’, JSSt 34 (1989), 39–75; as well as Owens’ contributionto the present volume.

30 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

The field of Syriac commentaries is not a very vast one. From theearly period of Syriac Christianity, up to the fifth century, we have firstand foremost two commentaries attributed to Ephrem: his pussaqa onGenesis, and his turgama on Exodus. To the early fifth century, in alllikelihood, belongs the commentary (pussaqa) on Qohelet, attributedto John of Apamea. Subsequently, there is the parting of the ways. TheEast Syriac tradition relied heavily on the works of Greek-Antiochene ex-egetes, particularly on the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia, andthe West Syriac tradition showed a more variegated approach to biblicalinterpretation, using the writings of Alexandrian exegetes (Athanasiusand Cyril), the Cappadocians, and John Chrysostom. Notwithstand-ing the heavy influence of Greek writings in both traditions, biblicalinterpretation became fully adapted to the Peshitta text, of Hebreworigin. This culturally and linguistically complex background—the He-brew Bible and its indigenous Syriac reception, on the one hand, andthe Greek works in Syriac translation guiding the interpretation, on theother—provides the framework within which authentic Syriac readingand interpretation of the Bible developed and flourished.

In the appendix I have listed the main commentaries that are knownto exist in Syriac, either published or unpublished, and in my estimationshould be taken into account in the apparatus to a future Editio Maiorof the Peshitta. By ‘commentaries’ I mean those compositions whoseprimary goal is the explanation of the biblical text, which is consistentlyquoted and whose narrative is strictly followed. The Syriac terms whichI take to designate such works are pussaqa ‘explanation’, nuhhara ‘eluci-dation’, sukkala ‘creating and conveying meaning’, all nouns expressingan action of which the biblical text is the object, and, less frequently,turgama ‘interpretative rendering’. Commentaries reflect the context ofstudy, either in school or private. While they may include a great dealof theological reflection and edification, the primary interest of thesecommentaries is always the biblical text. With some hesitation, I haveexcluded exegetical homilies (memre), like those by Jacob of Serug,Isaac of Antioch, and Narsai, for two reasons. First, edification and ex-hortation take an important part in them, which is also reflected in theirlanguage and composition. Second, their metrical form, which entails agreat deal of reworking of the biblical text, adds to their character asindependent literary works.9

9 For some general observations, see L. Van Rompay, ‘Antiochene Biblical Inter-pretation: Greek and Syriac’, in J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Bookof Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. A Collection of Essays(TEG 5; Louvain, 1997), 104–108. In retrospect I find the term ‘pure exegesis’ (as

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 31

In Syriac, most commentaries are of the selective type. Not allbiblical verses are quoted; a number of verses and even some chaptersare skipped; and explanations are provided for only a limited number ofdifficult passages. While in our earliest witness, Ephrem’s Commentaryon Genesis, the author upholds some sort of literary coherence, byadding introductions to the explanations, or by inserting connectingsentences or paragraphs, later commentaries do not usually attempt tocreate literary coherence. A verse, or part of a verse, is quoted, oftenfollowed by a formula of the type hanaw, ‘id est’ , which introducesexplanatory notes or a longer paragraph that may be a paraphrase ofthe biblical passage or a discussion of a specific problem. In addition tothe standard commentary, there are others in the question-and-answerformat.10 Both East and West Syriac commentaries of the later periodtend to be of a more encyclopedic nature, in which comments of diversecontent and origin are brought together. Indeed, they may sometimesbe as heterogeneous, interminable, and poorly organized as footnotes ina present-day scholarly publication.

1. The Biblical Quotations

The biblical quotations in Ephrem’s Commentaries on Genesis andExodus have already received much scholarly attention and have evenplayed a prominent role in the discussion on the original form of thePeshitta and its relationship to the Masoretic text and the Targumim.

However, until 1955—the year in which Raymond Tonneau’s criticaledition appeared11—scholars had to rely on Peter Mubarrak’s edition inthe 1737 Editio Romana of Ephrem’s works. This is unfortunate, sinceanyone working with this edition inevitably comes to the conclusion thatit is unreliable for any type of scholarly research. Moreover, scholarshave often studied the quotations in Ephrem’s commentaries alongsidethose in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations and in some other works, thereby

opposed to ‘applied exegesis’), which I then borrowed from G. Vermes, unhelpful, asthe supposed ‘purity’ cannot be measured and may not exist. Is exegesis not always‘applied’ in some way?

10 See R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Question-and-Answer Collections in Syriac Lit-erature’, in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis: Early ChristianQuestion-and-Answer Literature in Context (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis andTheology 37; Louvain, 2004), 145–163.

11 R.M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii(CSCO 152, Syr. 71; Louvain, 1955). Important corrections to Tonneau’s text andtranslation (CSCO 153, Syr. 72) were made by T. Jansma in three successive articles,which appeared in OCP 37 (1971), 309–316; OrChr 56 (1972), 59–79; and OrChr58 (1974), 121–131.

32 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

obscuring the important distinction that exists between a homileticwork, like Aphrahat’s, and Ephrem’s biblical commentaries.

It is only in recent years that a more systematic research into thequotations in Ephrem’s commentaries has begun. In what follows, Irely on two recent Leiden Ph.D. dissertations, one by R.B. ter HaarRomeny12 and the other by A.G.P. Janson.13

With the publication of Tonneau’s critical edition one necessary con-dition for such a study had been fulfilled. There is, however, a secondcondition, without which no serious study of quotations in Ephrem’scommentaries, or indeed in any other commentary, can be undertaken.It has to do with what I would call the general profile of the commen-tary. Prior to using the evidence of the quotations one must come togrips with the style and the editorial technique of the author. Thusit is important to notice that Ephrem, unlike many of the later com-mentators, conceived his commentary as a coherent literary work inwhich the biblical narrative is reflected in its entirety. Some sectionswhich he decided not to comment upon are not omitted altogether,but summarized in a few sentences in which select biblical words andphrases are incorporated and occasionally interspersed with a few wordsof commentary. These summarizing paragraphs are different from thefull quotations at the beginning of each paragraph. They should notbe regarded as free quotations or as quotations from memory, but theyunderwent Ephrem’s far-reaching editorial activity. Thus, one shouldexercise the highest caution when seeking to derive textual evidencefrom them.

Ephrem’s actual quotations were copied, I believe, from a biblicalmanuscript that he had in front of him while writing the commentary.These quotations occasionally underwent slight editorial changes whenthey were adapted to the new context. The initial words of the quota-tion or the verb forms occasionally were affected, or some abridgmenttook place. In a few cases, Ephrem seems slightly to have updated thelanguage, e.g., by avoiding the use of qenyana with the meaning ‘cattle’,by avoiding the Hebraizing meaning ‘thing, or matter’ of petgama andmellta, or, e.g., by replacing y(h)ab qyama (Gen 17:2, comp. Hebr. natan

12 R.B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress. The Use of Greek, Hebrew,and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis (TEG6; Louvain, 1997); see also idem, ‘Techniques of Translation and Transmission inthe Earliest Text Forms of the Syriac Version of Genesis’, in P.B. Dirksen and A.van der Kooij (eds.), The Peshitta as a Translation. Papers Read at the II PeshittaSymposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August 1993 (MPIL 8; Leiden, 1995), 177–185.

13 A.G.P. Janson, De Abrahamcyclus in de Genesiscommentaar van Efrem deSyrier (Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden, 1998).

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 33

berit) with the more common ↩aqim qyama ‘to make a covenant’.14 Thesestrategies can be identified and described. We are dealing not with vari-ant readings, but with the author’s working method. No rash conclusionsshould be drawn, therefore, about Ephrem’s biblical manuscript.

More interesting for the biblical scholar is the fact that roughlyfor half of the instances in which ms British Library, Add. 14425 (thefamous fifth-century ms 5b1) differs from the later Peshitta and in whichEphrem’s commentary provides positive evidence, Ephrem follows 5b1.Ephrem’s quotation of Gen 18:20 will serve as an example.15

mt hbr yk hrm[w µds tq[zPesh. (7a1) lv[� —s¿ƒ P�_wƒZ^ u^[~Z P—„W5b1 —kX~ P�_wƒZ^ u^[~Z P—„WEphrem 76,22 —kX~ P�_wƒZ^ u^[~Z xr P—„W

The reading —kX~, which closely corresponds to the Hebrew hbr, in alllikelihood goes back to the earliest layer of the textual history of thePeshitta.

This is not to say that Ephrem’s commentary supports the manu-script 5b1 as a whole, for in about half of the passages for which thereis positive evidence, Ephrem disagrees with 5b1 and follows the laterPeshitta. It is clear, therefore, that Ephrem’s Bible and ms 5b1 areindependent witnesses to the same process determining the early his-tory of the Peshitta.16 A number of Hebraizing readings were replacedwith more idiomatic Syriac phrases, literal translations from the Hebrewwere sometimes given up, and difficult passages were smoothed out orreceived an explanatory addition.17 This process must have been at workfrom the earliest period until the establishment of the standard text. Ms5b1 and Ephrem’s Bible give their own partial reflections of the olderPeshitta text as well as of this ongoing process. Ephrem’s Bible andms 5b1 do not represent two different stages in one linear development,but rather reveal that the process of gradually moving away from theHebrew was at work in different places and in different ways. Withoutthe evidence of Ephrem’s commentary, this diversity would have beenless visible.

14 Janson, De Abrahamcyclus, 81. One could argue that this type of editorialwork comes close to the linguistic updates that took place within some biblicalmanuscripts.

15 Janson, De Abrahamcyclus, 56; Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 292.16 The significant agreement between Ephrem and ms 5b1 should at the same time

warn us not to regard the latter as a peripheral or lateral manuscript; see Ter HaarRomeny, ‘Techniques of Translation,’ 183–184.

17 Ter Haar Romeny, ‘Techniques of Translation’, 183.

34 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Early Peshitta readings which might possibly go back to the ear-liest stage of the history of the Peshitta may be retrieved from othercommentaries as well. The Commentary on Qohelet attributed to Johnof Apamea preserves a few readings which are not attested in Peshittamss and, in Strothmann’s words, should be regarded as ‘durch denhebraischen Text . . . beeinflußt’.18 An interesting example is the phraseb-re↪yana d-lebbeh, quoted by John at Qoh 2:22,19 against Peshittab-s.ebyana d-lebbeh. John’s reading reflects Hebrew b-ra↪yon libbo ‘in thestriving of his heart’. Strothmann ponders the question of whether Johnmight have known enough Hebrew to consult the original text and toimprove the Peshitta translation. This seems extremely unlikely, as hehimself admits. It seems more plausible that b-re↪yana is the originalPeshitta reading. The replacement with b-s.ebyana fits within the generalpattern outlined above, for while the original Peshitta translators mayhave used re↪yana with the meaning ‘striving, desire’, the more commonmeaning in (later) Syriac is ‘thought’. This could have triggered thechange.

A process going on in different places and in different ways like thisimplies that at any given moment manuscripts were circulating whichoccupied their own position within the spectrum of the early Peshittatradition. It would come as no surprise, then, that commentators some-times knew different readings which they occasionally reproduced intheir work. The following example may show something of this com-plexity. Gen 30:27 and 30 contain the same expression ‘the Lord hasblessed me/you because of you/me’. The Masoretic text has slightly dif-ferent renderings for the same idea, while the (later) Peshitta uses thepreposition met.t.ol in both cases.20 Ephrem knew this Peshitta reading,as is shown in his quotation at the beginning of the paragraph, whereusually an accurate quotation is found. A few lines further, however,in the midst of his explanatory paraphrase, he repeats this verse witha different reading at the end: b-reglak ‘in your foot’, which does notmirror the Hebrew of this verse (unless we suppose that a differentVorlage had been used), but which has its parallel in verse 30, both inthe Hebrew text and in ms 5b1. Even if this second quotation might bethe result of a conflation between the two verses, it is clear that Ephremknew the reading of ms 5b1 and used it. It is noteworthy, in addition,

18 W. Strothmann, Kohelet-Kommentar des Johannes von Apamea (GOF 1.30;Wiesbaden, 1988), xxxiv.

19 Strothmann, Kohelet-Kommentar, 33,278–279.20 Targum Onqelos has b-dilak and b-dili respectively. There is no connection,

therefore, either between Onqelos and Peshitta, or between Onqelos and ms 5b1(with Ephrem).

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 35

that Ephrem, in both instances, has the two verbs in parataxis, con-nected with the conjunction waw . Not attested in biblical manuscripts,this structure reflects the Hebrew and thus might represent the originalPeshitta.

Gen 30:27 mt ûllgb ��y ynkrbyw yt�jnPesh. m—shv Qj‘v l{n‘SZ —k�¬z5b1 = Pesh.Ephrem 92,1–2 (mt -w) m—shv Qj‘v l{n‘S^ —k�zEphrem 92,12 (mt -w) psW‘S Qj‘v l{n‘S^ —k�z

Gen 30:30 mt ylgrl ûta ��y ûrbywPesh. ¦—shv Qj‘v pn‘S^5b1 lsW‘S Qj‘v pn‘S^Ephrem not quoted

Additional evidence to this complex problem of the relationship betweenms 5b1 and the rest of the Peshitta tradition has recently been adducedfrom an unexpected source. Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on theOctateuch, originally written in Greek and preserved in Armenian (inaddition to a number of Greek fragments), contains a considerablenumber of quotations from ‘the Syrian’. For the book of Genesis, thesequotations have been studied by Ter Haar Romeny.21 The author arguesthat the quotations of  S‘roc represent the Peshitta. Although theirnumber is rather limited (for Genesis there are 59 cases of real quotationor concrete information on particular readings), there are some instanceswhere  S‘roc supports ms 5b1 against the later tradition, while on oneoccasion (Gen 8:7)  S‘roc even helps to restore the original reading ofms 5b1. All this has been discussed in great detail by Ter Haar Romenyand should not be repeated here. There is one passage, however, whichI cannot resist quoting. It deals with Gen 3:22, where mimmennu inthe Hebrew is ambiguous: [rw bwf t[dl wnmm djak ‘as one of us, to knowgood and evil . . .’. According to the Armenian version, Eusebius has thefollowing comment:

Among the Syrians, some read as it is in our (text) (i.e., the Septuagint), andothers in this manner: ‘See, Adam has become like one’, in the sense of saying:there is no refuge with any other, but he himself has authority over himself,which he desired. ‘See, Adam has become one, to have by himself knowledge ofgood and evil’.22

This alternative Syriac reading, which entails a different division ofthe sentence (‘as one, to know by himself . . .’) is very close to Targum

21 Ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress.22 Translation according to Ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian, 207; discussion 210 (with

further references). Comp. Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 137–138.

36 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Onqelos as well as to Symmachus. It would go too far, perhaps, toreconstruct an early Peshitta reading on the basis of Eusebius’ solewitness. I would regard this as an interpretative variant, which must havecirculated, borrowed perhaps from the Targum tradition, even if it is farfrom certain that it ever existed in a Peshitta manuscript. Such variants,examples of which may also be found in Ephrem’s commentary,23 mayoccasionally have found their way into biblical manuscripts. At thesame time, they show us that ancient commentators were less strictlybound by one single text than we would be inclined to assume. This hasnothing to do with free quotation or quotation from memory; it has todo with the commentators’ approach to the biblical text. It is true thatthese interpretative variants pose a special problem to those who wantto use the evidence of the commentaries in their reconstruction of theearly Peshitta. However, even without this category of variants, there isenough material that, after careful examination and evaluation, deservesto be incorporated into an apparatus to the Peshitta edition. Despitesome excellent preparatory studies, this work still remains to be done.

For the later commentary tradition, we are in a slightly better posi-tion since a greater number of commentaries have been preserved. Hereagain, quotations can never be taken at face value. For each commen-tator, we first have to study his working method, including the wayin which he handles older material that is incorporated into his work,especially material of Greek origin. However, in most cases and to a cer-tain extent, these questions can successfully be studied and answered,and eventually a great deal of solid evidence, directly relevant to thestudy of the Peshitta’s textual history, will become available. The workis potentially very important, since there are a number of commentariesfrom the period between the eighth and tenth centuries, a period of tran-sition from the so-called btr text to the Textus Receptus (tr), whichalso witnessed the gradual merging of the supposedly eastern text intothe western tradition. Many questions related to these developments arestill awaiting an answer, and I am convinced that the data derived fromthe commentaries will play an important role in future discussions.

There is quite a discernable difference between the scholarly study ofthe West and the East Syriac commentary tradition. There has been alopsided interest by scholars in the East Syriac tradition. While a numberof East Syriac texts are available in critical editions and annotated

23 See, e.g., Ephrem on Gen 6:2, 4: Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 309, and TerHaar Romeny, A Syrian, 80–81; Ephrem on Gen 49:23: Van Rompay, ‘The ChristianSyriac Tradition of Interpretation’, in M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.The History of Its Interpretation 1.1 (Gottingen, 1996), 614–615, and Weitzman,The Syriac Version, 137.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 37

translations, most of the West Syriac texts still remain unpublished andhave received little attention.

In the East Syriac tradition, we have to reckon with the pervasiveinfluence of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentaries, which also hadan impact on biblical quotations. Although in these commentaries theSeptuagint is never very far away, it appears that the biblical textquoted at the beginning of the successive scholia basically is the author’sPeshitta text. The process of adapting Theodore’s commentaries to theSyriac context and of recasting the commentaries in Syriac must alreadyhave started with the earliest translations of Theodore’s works in thefifth century.24 In the eighth and ninth centuries we have reached asituation in which the commentaries are completely Peshitta-based andin which the commentator has a whole set of strategies, includingthat of alternative quotations explicitly attributed to ‘the Greek’, inorder to bridge the possible gap between the Peshitta and Theodore’sSeptuagint-based commentary.

Isho↪dad of Merv’s commentary is a veritable gold mine, in whichscholars occasionally have done some digging, but which still is largelyunexplored. The late Father Van den Eynde’s invaluable footnotes pro-vide an excellent starting point, even though he did not have the LeidenPeshitta edition at his disposal and had to rely on the Mosul edition.One very important aspect of this commentary is that it does not merelyreflect one specific moment of the textual history. Isho↪dad shared ourinterest in the history of the Peshitta and often refers to variant readings.Two passages in Isho↪dad’s commentary on the Twelve Prophets (Amos6:1 and Zech 11:4) already received scholarly attention from A. Gelstonand Sebastian Brock.25 Both passages show that the author was familiarwith variant readings existing ‘in old manuscripts’ (ba-s.h. ah. e or ba-ktabe↪attiqe), which in both cases most likely provide the original Peshittareading, not attested in any of the preserved Peshitta manuscripts. Inone of these cases, Zech 11:4, Isho↪dad first quotes the later Peshittareading (P—{kh� Q{„r lƒ� ‘pasture the thin sheep’), the only one to befound in the Leiden Peshitta edition. He then quotes the Hebrew, which,he argues, has P—skh� ‘killed’ (comp. mt: hgrhh ÷ax), and continues:

24 See the description in T. Jansma, ‘Theodore de Mopsueste. Interpretation duLivre de la Genese. Fragments de la version syriaque (B.M. Add. 17,189, fol. 17–21)’,Museon 75 (1962), 82–83, as well as C. Leonhard, Ishodad of Merw’s Exegesis ofthe Psalms 119 and 139–147. A Study of his Interpretation in the Light of theSyriac Translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary (CSCO 585, Subs.107; Louvain, 2001), 40–42.

25 A. Gelston, The Peshit.ta of the Twelve Prophets (Oxford, 1987), 96; S.P. Brock,‘Text History and Text Division in Peshit.ta Isaiah’, in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder(eds.), The Peshit.ta: Its Early Text and History (MPIL 4; Leiden, 1988), 60.

38 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

‘and also in old books of the Syrian it is written thus and thus it is rightto read’.26 That Isho↪dad was not the first Syrian interpreter to haveproblems with the reading qat.t.inta is proven by Theodore bar Koniwho, a few decades earlier, in the section devoted to the ‘explanation ofdifficult words in the Twelve (Prophets)’, proposed the emendation toqt.ilta, without, however, referring to ‘old manuscripts’.27

Another interesting example is found at 1 Kgs 6:20,28 for whichthe Leiden Peshitta edition reads Q“Z_� —kS u‘�^ ‘and he overlaidthe sanctuary’, without any variant. Now Isho↪dad has the following:‘The words in front of (qdam) the sanctuary : it is not qdam, but qram(‘he overlaid’), for he speaks about the decoration, not about the openspace in front of it’.29 Isho↪dad’s starting point is the reading qdam,which he subsequently corrects to qram. Now, in view of the Hebrew(rybdh ynplw), there can be no doubt that qdam is the original Peshittareading, which seems not to have survived in any of the pre-twelfth-century Peshitta manuscripts. In Isho↪dad’s commentary we see the tworeadings competing with each other, the original reading losing groundto the newcomer qram. This and similar cases also remind us of thefact that for the earlier period we have far more West Syriac than EastSyriac biblical manuscripts. East Syriac commentaries can partly makeup for this imbalance.

For the West Syriac commentary tradition, much less work has beendone. Daniel of S. alah. ’s sixth-century commentary on the Psalms isthe earliest West Syriac commentary to have survived. It has hardlybeen used in the study of the textual history of the Psalms,30 for thesimple reason that—with the exception of the explanation of the firsttwo psalms31—it has remained unpublished. Fortunately, David Taylor

26 C. Van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Iso↪dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament 4.Isaıe et les Douze (CSCO 303–304, Syr. 128–129; Louvain 1969), 128,28–129,4 (text)and 165,15–21 (transl.). See also Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 290–291 (where,however, the Syriac quotation is incorrect), and Gelston, The Peshit.ta of the TwelveProphets, 96.

27 A. Scher, Theodorus bar Koni. Liber scholiorum (CSCO 55, Syr. 19; repr.Louvain, 1960), 296,15.

28 See already my review of ‘The Old Testament in Syriac’, BiOr 36 (1979), 354b.29 C. Van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Iso↪dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament 3.

Livre des sessions (CSCO 229–230, Syr. 96–97; Louvain, 1962), 105,6–7 (text) and123,36–124,2 (transl.).

30 The two first Memre, published by Diettrich, were used in W.E. Barnes, ThePeshitta Psalter according to the West Syrian Text (Cambridge, 1904), xxv. SeeHaefeli, Die Peschitta, 91.

31 G. Diettrich, Eine jakobitische Einleitung in den Psalter in Verbindung mitzwei Homilien aus dem grossen Psalmenkommentar des Daniel von S. alah. (BZAW5; Giessen, 1901), 129–167.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 39

is now preparing an edition. Jacob of Edessa’s commentary on theOctateuch was identified as an independent work only a few years agoby Dirk Kruisheer, who is now preparing an edition.32

Soundings by Bas ter Haar Romeny into the Isaiah text of the monkSeverus,33 who completed his biblical commentary in 861, have shownthe potential richness of these materials. This work has been publishedin the Editio Romana of Ephrem’s works. However, here again, PeterMubarrak’s interventions—both intentional and unintentional—makethe edition unreliable. Awaiting a critical edition, one has to turn tothe tenth-century ms Vaticanus Syriacus 103, which most probably isthe direct or indirect source of all other copies of the work. Not unlikeIsho↪dad, Severus must be studied on different levels: there is the textas it was found in the biblical manuscript he had at hand and choseto reproduce, on the one hand, and there is the text as found in theearlier sources which he incorporated into his work, on the other. For Isa10:27, Severus knew the common Peshitta reading ‘and the yoke shall bedestroyed from before the heifers’, but at the same time he reproducedan earlier scholion which supposes the reading mesh. a ‘oil’ rather thanmush. e ‘heifers’. The reading mesh. a must have been the original Peshittareading, which has left no traces in the biblical manuscripts.34

As for Severus’ own Bible, Ter Haar Romeny noted a number ofagreements with the Isaiah text of ms 9a1, which therefore becomes lessisolated than it often has been thought to be. Moreover, the absence ofagreements with the distinctive readings of the medieval standard text(tr) indicates that this text form, at the end of the ninth century, wasnot yet widely spread in West Syrian circles.35

Commentaries will not only shed additional light on the older layers ofthe Peshitta transmission, but will also help us to place the individual

32 D. Kruisheer, ‘Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa, and the Monk Severus. An Analysis ofMs. Vat. Syr. 103, ff. 1–72’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (OCA256; Rome, 1998), 599–605.

33 R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta of Isaiah: Evidence from the SyriacFathers’, in W.Th. van Peursen and R.B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.), Text, Translation,and Tradition. Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition Presentedto Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (MPIL 14;Leiden, 2006), 149–164; the discussion of Isa 10:27 is on p. 158. On this work, seealso idem, ‘The Identity Formation of Syrian Orthodox Christians as Reflected inTwo Exegetical Collections. First Soundings’, ParOr 29 (2004), 103–121. Ter HaarRomeny is preparing an edition of this text.

34 M.P. Weitzman’s observations on this passage (The Syriac Version, 290), basedon the Editio Romana, need to be complemented and corrected in view of theinformation provided by Ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta of Isaiah’.

35 Ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta of Isaiah’, 158–159.

40 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

biblical manuscripts into their proper contexts. Once the study andcollations of biblical manuscripts have been completed and provisionalconclusions have been reached as to the relative position of the individualwitnesses, commentaries can add a new dimension to the research. Whilebiblical quotations in any given Syriac text may be relevant to the studyof the textual history of the Peshitta, commentaries are relevant in amore direct, a more systematic, and a more cogent way. I would like torepeat, however, that the commentaries first need to be made availablein critical editions (which presently is the case for perhaps half of theexisting texts only) and that we first need to have a fair idea of the typeof commentary we are dealing with and of the working method of theauthor.

When these conditions are met, it will certainly be possible toproduce—on the basis of the commentaries—an impressive apparatuscriticus to the Peshitta text as presently edited. Although this would notstraightforwardly lead us to a better knowledge of the original Peshitta,original readings will be recovered more than once. More importantly,such an apparatus would give us a much better insight into the com-plicated process of the transmission of the biblical text throughout thecenturies, which involves not only the work of the scribe, but also thatof the interpreter, the mpassqana. However, such an apparatus criticuscannot be the final goal of our study of the commentaries. The textsare too rich and far too interesting to be cut into small pieces and tobe relegated to the critical apparatus of even the most prestigious andexpensive Peshitta edition. The phenomenon of the commentary itself,as the reflection of an interactive process of creating meaning that tookplace in the context of private study, school, and monastery, deservesour full attention.

2. Commentaries: Syriac and Greek

Most Syriac commentaries can be connected in one way or another withthe Greek commentary tradition. However, this does not hold true forthe earliest preserved commentaries, those written by Ephrem. Althoughit would be incorrect to disconnect Ephrem’s works completely from theGreek Christian world, his commentaries have no parallel either in theGreek or in the later Syriac world. Although they have occasionallybeen related to the Antiochene commentary tradition, because of theirfocus on the biblical text as a historical record and their limited useof symbolic and typological interpretation, there is a world of differ-ence, I think, between Ephrem’s commentaries and Greek Antiochene

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 41

commentaries.36 First, Ephrem’s commentaries, particularly the one onGenesis, display unity and a coherent literary structure—though notcovering the entire biblical text and often skipping large sections, whichin most cases are briefly summarized. Built up as a narrative in its ownright, the commentary in principle can be read without the biblical textat hand. This literary independence vis-a-vis the biblical text is notfound in Greek commentaries. Moreover, in Ephrem’s commentariesthere is no parallel for the philological approach of the Antiochenes,reflected in their remarks on the language of the biblical text and on thepeculiarities of Scripture, in their awareness that the Greek translationdoes not faithfully render all the details of the Hebrew original, andin their interest in lexicography. Finally, Ephrem’s commentaries arecharacterized by the presence of a number of aggadic expansions, which,either in their content or in the approach, are reminiscent of Jewishtradition.

We do not know what Ephrem’s sources were and whether he con-formed to any existing literary genre. When looking for the closestparallels, we may think of the many fragmentary texts that have beendiscovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.37 These display a wide vari-ety, ranging from the straightforward pesher—known primarily fromthe Habakkuk Pesher—to the ‘rewritten Bible’, a name which has beengiven to such compositions as the Genesis Apocryphon, with manytypes in between.38 It has been suggested that most of the rewrittenand rephrased biblical texts did not originate within the Qumran com-munity39 and may, therefore, have been current in the Jewish world atlarge. Given the many connections which exist between Ephrem’s com-mentary and Jewish tradition, it seems legitimate to explore similaritieswith the Qumran literature, starting with the Genesis Apocryphon.40 It

36 See my ‘Antiochene Biblical Interpretation: Greek and Syriac’.37 Several of the so-called ‘parabiblical’ texts come to mind; see Discoveries in the

Judaean Desert 8 (Oxford, 1994), 14 (1995), and 22 (1996).38 Still very important is Ph.S. Alexander, ‘Retelling the Old Testament’, in D.A.

Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture.Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge, 1988), 99–121.

39 E. Tov, ‘Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with SpecialAttention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod’, in E. Ulrich & J. VanderKam (eds.),The Community of the Renewed Covenant. The Notre Dame Symposium on theDead Sea Scrolls (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10; Notre Dame, in,1994), esp. 111–112 and 134.

40 Existing studies of the Genesis Apocryphon already reveal a number of featureswhich seem to have their parallel in Ephrem’s commentary; see Alexander, ‘Retelling’,104–107; M.J. Bernstein, ‘Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization asExegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon’, Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996),37–57. For a broader presentation of the Qumran materials, see idem, ‘Contours of

42 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

must be admitted, though, that such a comparative study will be seri-ously hampered by the very fragmentary state of most of the Qumrandocuments.

Although Ephrem’s commentaries on Genesis and Exodus have lefttheir traces in the later tradition and are occasionally quoted in boththe East and West Syriac traditions, the composition as such has notbeen imitated. It rather is the Greek Christian models that inspired theSyrian commentators.

Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) is the author of the oldest Greek biblicalcommentaries that have survived (some parts of which exist in Syriac),but it is Origen who brought Christian biblical interpretation, in bothits theory and its practice, to its full development. In many of his workshe dealt with various aspects of the profession of the exegete, whichalso included the establishment of the text, and with a fully developedtheory on the hermeneutic principles of interpretation. For the inter-pretation itself, he chose the genre of homilies more frequently thanthat of commentaries, although Origen’s homilies, as has been noted,‘are nearer to lectures than most modern sermons’.41 Scholars havepointed to Origen’s indebtedness to Greek-Hellenistic grammatical andphilological tradition, while Christian biblical commentary as a wholehas been related to the pagan commentary tradition that developedaround the writings of Homer. While the Greek Antiochene exegetesstrongly rejected Origen’s approach to the Bible, particularly his fond-ness for allegorical interpretation, they nevertheless shared many of hisphilological interests. If allegorical interpretation may be described as‘the more or less complete loss of the historical content of the text’,whereby ‘space and time are forgotten’ in the search of eternal truth,42

the Antiochenes did not want to disregard space and time. Despite theirallowing different kinds of typological and hyperbolic interpretation,they always insisted first and foremost on understanding the text at

Genesis Interpretation at Qumran: Contents, Context, and Nomenclature’, in J.L.Kugel (ed.), Studies in Ancient Midrash (s.l., 2001), 57–85; and ‘The Contributionof the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation’, in H.Najman and J.H. Newman (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation. Essays inHonor of James L. Kugel (JSJ.S 83; Leiden, 2004), 215–238. For some interestingreflections on the similarities and dissimilarities between ‘rewritten Bible’ and‘scriptural commentary’, see S.D. Fraade, ‘Rewritten Bible and Rabbinic Midrashas Commentary’, in C. Bakhos (ed.), Current Trends in the Study of Midrash (JSJ.S106; Leiden, 2006), 59–78.

41 M.F. Wiles, ‘Origen as Biblical Scholar’, in P.R. Ackroyd & C.F. Evans (eds.),The Cambridge History of the Bible 1. From the Beginnings to Jerome (Cambridge,1970), 454.

42 F. Siegert, ‘Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style’ in Sæbø (ed.),Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 1.1, 141.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 43

hand (t‰ prÏqeiron) in what they saw, or constructed, as its historicalcontext.43

The East Syrian commentators knew about Origen through Theodoreof Mopsuestia, who is known for his fierce opposition to Origen,44

an opposition they were eager to share. None of Origen’s works wereavailable to them. Even in the West Syrian tradition, where a similarresentment against Origen did not exist, his works hardly were knownand used. With the exception of the Hexapla, there is no direct evidenceof Origen’s works in Syriac. It is only through the works of Evagriusof Pontus, which were very popular in monastic circles, that some ofOrigen’s ideas and interpretations reached the Syriac literary world,both in the West and the East Syrian area, and had an impact on theexegetical tradition.

For the East Syriac exegetical tradition, the writings of Theodoreof Mopsuestia may be regarded as the starting point. Translated infifth-century Edessa and transferred from Edessa to the School of Nisi-bis in Persian territory, these writings were intensively studied and, intheir Syriac dress, were fully appropriated by the East Syrian intellec-tuals. This process of adaptation, reworking, and appropriation—whichalso involved schematization and systematization—took place in thecourse of the fifth and sixth centuries.45 A number of sixth-centuryauthors, students and teachers at the School of Nisibis, are known tohave been involved in the work of translating, explaining, and summa-rizing Theodore’s works. Except for Narsai, the first director at Nisibis,none of their works have survived, although their names and a number

43 For some observations on the origins of the Antiochenes’ ‘historical’ approachand the presentation of some major texts, see F. Thome, Historia contra Mythos. DieSchriftauslegung Diodors von Tarsus und Theodors von Mopsuestia im Widerstreit zuKaiser Julians und Salustius’ allegorischen Mythenverstandnis (Hereditas. Studienzur Alten Kirchengeschichte 24; Bonn, 2004).

44 See Theodore’s ‘Treatise against the Allegorists’, in which Origen, along withPhilo, is exposed for having initiated allegoric biblical interpretation: L. Van Rompay,Theodore de Mopsueste. Fragments syriaques du Commentaire des Psaumes (Psaume118 et Psaumes 138–148) (CSCO 435–436, Syr. 189–190; Louvain, 1982), 11–13(text); 14–18 (transl.).

45 J. Frishman, The Ways and Means of the Divine Economy. An Edition, Trans-lation and Study of Six Biblical Homilies by Narsai (Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden,1992), 183–185. More recently, A.H. Becker, in the sixth chapter of his Fear of Godand the Beginning of Wisdom. The School of Nisibis and Christian Scholastic Culturein Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia, pa, 2006), provides a well-documentedand insightful overview of ‘The Reception of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Schoolof Nisibis’ (113–125), highlighting both the pervasiveness of the process and itslimitations, paying due attention to the philosophical background (dealt with ingreater detail in Chapter 7), without losing sight ‘of the East Syrians’ agency andcreativity in this process of reception’ (125).

44 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

of their interpretations are preserved in the eighth- and ninth-centurycommentaries: Abraham and Yoh. annan d-Bet Rabban, Mar Aba Katho-likos, Michael Badoqa, H. enana, and others. One important aspect ofthe transformation of Theodore’s commentaries was their adaptationto the Peshitta, with minor adjustments in cases of basic agreementbetween Peshitta and Septuagint, and with more far-reaching inter-ventions whenever there was substantial disagreement between the twobiblical versions. Another feature of these sixth-century activities wasthe creation or preservation of an oral tradition—the product of teachingand discussion in the school—in which elements from the earlier exeget-ical strand were kept alive along with alternative opinions concerningcontroversial issues. Here again, we have no contemporary evidence. Itis in the eighth- and ninth-century commentaries, long after the heydayof the school of Nisibis, that we find several references to ‘the traditionof the school’ (maslmanuta d-↩eskole). These commentaries appear tous as a somewhat strange mixture of fifth- and sixth-century materialsre-arranged and remodeled by eighth- and ninth-century authors, whoworked in their specific historical contexts and who must have had theirspecific readership in mind. It is only through these later works thatwe are able to look back on the earlier period. When studying theseworks, one must keep in mind three historical phases, each of which hada decisive influence on the compositions as they are now preserved: (1)Theodore’s works translated from Greek into Syriac; (2) Syriac exegeti-cal activity of the fifth and sixth centuries; (3) the literary and historicalcontext of the later commentaries’ final redaction.

The West Syriac exegetical tradition cannot be linked to one mainauthority in the way this can be done for the East Syriac tradition. Wealso do not have such a string of commentaries as we have in the East, allgoing back to the same sources. Each of the West Syriac commentariesis a work of its own kind: Daniel of S. alah. , Jacob of Edessa, the Londoncollection, the Vatican collection, Moses bar Kepha. These works arenot interrelated in the same way as the East Syriac commentaries are.The London and Vatican collections are not commentaries in the realsense of the word, but rather excerpts from existing commentaries, withthe names of the original authors often attached to the fragments. Inthe London collection primarily Greek authors are quoted: Athanasiusof Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory ofNyssa, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Severus of Antioch, andEphrem, along with the less well-known names of Olympiodorus ofAlexandria, John bar Aphtonaya, and a certain Symmachus.46 Severus,

46 See Bas ter Haar Romeny’s contribution to the present volume.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 45

the monk whose work is preserved in the Vatican collection, collectedfragments from the Syrian authors Ephrem and Jacob of Edessa. Hiscontinuator, Simeon of H. isn Mans.ur, added extracts from authors ofboth Greek and Syrian origin: Hippolytus of Rome, Isidore of Pelusium,Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Symmachus, Daniel of S. alah. , andGeorge, bishop of the Arabs. Most of the same sources, both Greek andSyriac, are also found in Moses bar Kepha’s works. Unlike the previouslymentioned collections, these were edited as real commentaries that weresomewhat similar to those current in East Syrian circles of his day, withwhich he must have had some acquaintance.

Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentaries contained a great deal oftheological interpretation, and conveyed his theory on the two catas-tases and his views on biblical history as a manifestation of God’spedagogic dealings with man. The later East Syriac commentaries in-clude theological explanations, but only to a limited extent. With certaintheologically sensitive biblical verses we see stock explanations poppingup in various commentaries. They maintain the general Antiochene,Dyophysite, and Theodorean profile of the commentary. Otherwise, thelater commentaries are primarily concerned with textual and historicalexplanation—a level of exegesis that is termed su↪ranaya ‘factual’ ortas↪itanaya ‘historical’, upon which many in both the East and the WestSyriac traditions wished to superimpose some sort of spiritual under-standing, a te↩oriya or a pussaqa ruh. anaya ‘a spiritual explanation’.

This distinction between the various levels of exegesis also mayreflect, at least for the East Syriac tradition, the different contextsin which the commentaries were created and used. In the fifth andsixth centuries, the formative period of East Syriac exegesis, the schoolsplayed a prominent role in the study, fixation, and creation of biblicalexegesis, first the School of Edessa and later on the School of Nisibis.After the crisis around H. enana at the end of the sixth century, the Schoolof Nisibis gradually lost its leading position, bequeathing its legacy tosmaller schools in the various provinces of the East Syrian area, atthe end of the Persian and in the beginning of the Islamic period.47

Apart from the location of a few of these schools and the names ofsome of their teachers, we have little information about the type ofwork or teaching carried out within their walls. It seems reasonable toassume that these schools were linked to monastic communities moreclosely than was the case in Edessa and Nisibis.48 Dadisho↪ Qat.raya’s

47 On the various types of East Syrian schools, see Becker, Fear of God, 155–168.48 The school and the monk’s cell as the foci of East Syriac literary culture

are discussed now in much greater detail in Becker, Fear of God. See esp. his

46 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Commentary on the Asceticon of Isaiah of Scetis (a work which wasextremely popular among West and East Syrian monks), shows us thatmonks in the seventh century were voicing their dissatisfaction withthe predominance of historical exegesis. They were advocating a wideruse of spiritual exegesis that, they claimed, was not incompatible withTheodore of Mopsuestia’s teachings.49 It appears that in this episodewe are witnessing a shift from the school to the monastery as the mainsource of inspiration for biblical interpretation. This new orientationsoon exerted its influence also on the commentary tradition. Isho↪ barNun’s Questions and Answers provide a most interesting example inthis respect.50

The commentators of the eighth and ninth centuries were affiliatedeither with monastic schools or with episcopal sees. These must havebeen the environments where libraries were available, and it would havebeen monks in the first place, either in a monastic context or in theirindividual cells, who were interested in using the commentaries. In theSyrian Orthodox tradition of the later period, the most high-rankingofficials of the church, like Dionysius bar S. alibi and Barhebraeus, werethe authors of biblical commentaries. In the course of time the cen-tre of biblical studies apparently shifted from the independent schoolto a monastic setting, and finally to the episcopal or patriarchal resi-dence.

The later medieval authors were far removed from the roots of theirexegetical traditions, the Greek works of the patristic era, and theSyriac works of the formative period, and were writing in cultural andhistorical contexts widely different from those of the pre-Islamic period.

Chapter 9: ‘The Monastic Context of the East Syrian School Movement’ (169–197). The growing influence of Evagrius Ponticus’ (expurgated) writings is seen asthe background against which monks became increasingly skeptical of Theodore’shistorical exegesis.

49 The relevant passages in Dadisho↪’s work—to be found in R. Draguet, Commen-taire du Livre d’Abba Isaıe (Logoi I-XV) par Dadiso Qatraya (VIIe siecle) (CSCO326–327, Syr. 144–145; Louvain, 1972), esp. 129,1–130,2 and 153,1–156,12 (text);99,4–30 and 117,34–120,27 (transl.)—have been discussed on several occasions. Thefollowing analyses are particularly helpful: R. Macina, ‘L’homme a l’ecole de Dieu.D’Antioche a Nisibe. Profil hermeneutique, theologique et kerygmatique du mou-vement scoliaste nestorien. Monographie programmatique’, POC 32 (1982), 56–72;P. Bettiolo, ‘Esegesi e purezza di cuore. La testimonianza di Dadiso↪ Qat.raya (VIIsec.), nestoriano e solitario’, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 3 (1986), 201–213; to becomplemented with Becker, Fear of God, 188–194.

50 C. Molenberg, The Interpreter Interpreted. Iso↪ bar Nun’s Selected Questions onthe Old Testament (Ph.D. dissertation, Groningen, 1990), esp. 341–345, where theintroduction of spiritual exegesis in the East Syriac tradition is situated within itslarger context.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 47

Nevertheless, there are a number of elements pointing to continuity,encompassing even the East and West Syriac traditions.

One of these elements has to do with the way in which Syrian au-thors viewed their biblical text in relationship to other versions of theBible.51 Having developed their biblical interpretation in a culturallyand linguistically complex world, Syrian exegetes throughout the ageswere particularly attentive to readings in other languages, either He-brew or Greek. They could not ignore the importance of other versions,as they were aware that their Peshitta had been translated from He-brew, and that traces of the Hebrew stratum of the tradition subsistedin it. At the same time they had adopted and appropriated commen-taries based on the Greek Septuagint. The fifth-century translators ofTheodore of Mopsuestia’s commentaries sometimes solved the discrep-ancy between the Peshitta and Theodore’s Septuagint by providing,next to the Peshitta quotation, an ad hoc translation of the same versein Theodore’s text, labeling the latter as ‘the Greek’ (Yawnaya). Anumber of these double quotations were maintained in the later EastSyriac tradition. Some disappeared, others were added. In some cases,the Peshitta quotation was provided with an explanation, which wasjuxtaposed to Theodore’s explanation of the Septuagint verse. Similarly,in the West Syriac tradition, awareness of the Greek version as one ofthe constituent elements of Syriac biblical interpretation was alwayspresent, along with a number of quotations from ‘the Greek’ or ‘theSeventy’. West Syrian exegetes even went one step further still. Oncethey had a full translation of the Septuagint at their disposal, whichwas the work of bishop Paul of Tella in the early seventh century, someof them made this version, the Syro-Hexapla, their starting point, orincorporated it into their commentaries. Examples of this practice canbe found in the London collection52 as well as in some of Dionysius barS. alibi’s commentaries.53 The Syro-Hexapla, of West Syrian origin, wasintroduced in the East Syrian Church around 80054 and found its way

51 See also R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Peshitta and its Rivals: On the Assessmentof the Peshitta and Other Versions of the Old Testament in Syriac ExegeticalLiterature’, The Harp 11–12 (1998–1999), 21–31.

52 See Bas ter Haar Romeny’s contribution to this volume.53 S.D. Ryan, Dionysius bar Salibi’s Factual and Spiritual Commentary on Psalms

73–82 (CRB 57; Paris, 2004), esp. 46–52, where some of the earlier misconceptionson Bar S. alibi’s use of the Syro-Hexapla are corrected. It should also be noticed thatin Bar S. alibi’s commentaries, as in other works, citations from the Syro-Hexaplacoexist with non-Syro-Hexaplaric citations based on the Septuagint.

54 See R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Biblical Studies in the Church of the East: TheCase of Catholicos Timothy I’, in M.F. Wiles, E.J. Yarnold, and P.M. Parvis (eds.),Studia Patristica 34 (Louvain, 2001), 503–510.

48 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

into the biblical commentaries of Isho↪dad of Merv.55 Even when theknowledge of the Greek language had declined, or even had disappeared,the position of the Greek Bible remained unchallenged.

Somewhat different are the quotations from ‘the Hebrew’ (↪Ebraya),which are again found in most Syriac commentaries. However, they areless substantial and in some commentaries they are added at the end ofa scholion, without carrying their own interpretation. It is not alwayspossible to trace them back to a particular version. In some instances,they render the Masoretic text; in others, parallels can be found in oneof the branches of the Targum tradition; still other quotations probablyreflect oral traditions. There are patristic precedents for the phenomenonof quotations from the Hebrew, in Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, andEusebius of Emesa, and for the Latin world in some of Jerome’s works.Once the authority of the Septuagint or the Vulgate was fully establishedand generally accepted, the practice lost its relevance and graduallydisappeared. In Syriac, however, the practice of quoting the Hebrewand of referring to it was kept alive. Each Syrian commentator seems tohave had his own sources of information, enabling him to include in hiswork some pieces of information on the biblical text that was generallyacknowledged to have been the source from which the Peshitta wastranslated and that also was known as the Bible of contemporary Jews.

These quotations from ‘the Greek’ and from ‘the Hebrew’ in a worldand in a period in which these languages were hardly known and nolonger were studied are not merely fossilized remains of a vanished civi-lization, or signposts pointing to an imaginary world, in which Hebrew,Syriac, and Greek peacefully coexisted. Rather, they are firmly rootedin the worldview of the Syrian Christians. This is the only way we canexplain why these seemingly peripheral elements did not in the course ofthe centuries disappear from the commentaries. When confronted withthe quotations from other languages, the readers were not unprepared. Anumber of the commentaries—e.g., those of Theodore bar Koni, Moshebar Kepha, and Isho↪dad—include in their introduction a discussionof the different versions of the Bible and of the interrelationship ofthe Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac Bibles. In this way, they created theawareness that the Peshitta had its place in the broader stream of thetradition of the biblical text. When Barhebraeus went one step furtherand introduced in some of his commentaries a number of quotations

55 The complicated picture of Isho↪dad’s ‘Greek’ citations is analysed in A. Salvesen,‘Hexaplaric Readings in Iso↪dad of Merv’s Commentary on Genesis’, in Frishmanand Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis, 229–252.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 49

from the Armenian and the Coptic Bible,56 this only further evinces theopen-mindedness of the Maphrian as well as of Syriac culture of his day.

The Bible, its reading, its study, its artistic representation, has morethan anything else shaped Syriac Christian culture in the various formsof its expression. So much had been borrowed from other cultures,Christian and non-Christian. It is perhaps by creatively dealing withthis variegated heritage that Syrian Christians, in East and West, wereable to make their own distinctive contribution.57

———

Appendix

Syriac Old Testament Commentaries to Be Includedin a Future EDITIO MAIOR of the Peshitta58

A. Fourth- and Fifth-Century Commentaries

A.1. Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis [HBOT 1.1, 622–628]A.2. Ephrem, Commentary on Exodus [ibidem]A.3. John the Solitary, Commentary on Qohelet [HBOT 1.1, 631–632]

B. Commentaries of the Syrian Orthodox Tradition

B.1. Daniel of S. alah. , Commentary on Psalms [HBOT 1.1, 639–640]Largely unpublished. Cf. D.G.K. Taylor, ‘The Manuscript Tra-dition of Daniel of S. alah. ’s Psalm Commentary’, in R. Lavenant(ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (OCA 256; Rome, 1998), 61–69.

B.2. Jacob of Edessa, Commentary on the Octateuch [HBOT 1.2, 560–562]

56 J. Gottsberger, Barhebraus und seine Scholien zur Heiligen Schrift (BiblischeStudien 5.4–5; Freiburg i.B., 1900), 147–148.

57 Pete Glickenhaus’ and Bas ter Haar Romeny’s help with the final redaction ofthis paper should be gratefully acknowledged.

58 All works listed here are briefly discussed in my two contributions: ‘The ChristianSyriac Tradition of Interpretation’, in M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.The History of Its Interpretation 1.1 (Gottingen, 1996), 612–641 [= HBOT 1.1],and ‘Development of Biblical Interpretation in the Syrian Churches of the MiddleAges’, in 1.2 (Gottingen, 2000), 559–577 [= HBOT 1.2]. When no further commentsare provided here, full editions are available. Unpublished or partly publishedcommentaries are marked as such. In all cases references are given in HBOT; morerecent publications are added here. Syriac translations of commentaries originallywritten in Greek have not been included.

50 LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Unpublished. Cf. D. Kruisheer, ‘Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa, andthe Monk Severus. An Analysis of Ms. Vat. Syr. 103, ff. 1–72’, inLavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII, 599–605.

B.3. Jacob of Edessa, Scholia [ibidem]Partly published. Add: A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in theSyriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (MPIL 10; Leiden, 1999), xxi–xxv.

B.4. Jacob of Edessa, Commentary on Hexaemeron [ibidem]B.5. Anonymous, Collection of ms Brit. Libr., Add. 12168 [HBOT 1.2,

564]Largely unpublished. Cf. R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Greek vs.the Peshitta in a West Syrian Exegetical Collection (BL Add.12168)’, in the present volume.

B.6. Collection of ms Vat. Syr. 103, ‘Catena Severi’ [HBOT 1.2, 564]Unsatisfactorily published. Cf. R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Pe-shitta of Isaiah: Evidence from the Syriac Fathers’ in W.Th. vanPeursen and R.B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.), Text, Translation,and Tradition. Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the SyriacTradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of hisSixty-Fifth Birthday (MPIL 14; Leiden, 2006), esp. 154–159.

B.7. Moses bar Kepha, Commentary on Hexaemeron [HBOT 1.2, 562–563]Largely unpublished.

B.8. Moses bar Kepha, Introduction to Psalms [ibidem]B.9. Dionysius bar S. alibi, Commentaries on the Old Testament [HBOT

1.2, 573–574]Partly published. Add: S.D. Ryan, Dionysius bar Salibi’s Factualand Spiritual Commentary on Psalms 73–82 (CRB 57; Paris,2004)—with further references.

B.10. Barhebraeus, Commentaries on the Old Testament [HBOT 1.2,574–576]Partly published.

C. Commentaries of the East Syrian Tradition

C.1. Theodore bar Koni, Scholion (which includes large exegeticalsections) [HBOT 1.2, 566]

C.2. Anonymous, Commentary on Gen-Exod 9:32 in ms (olim) Diyar-bakır 22 [HBOT 1.2, 568]

C.3. Isho↪ bar Nun, Selected Questions on the Old Testament [HBOT1.2, 567]Partly published.

BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE MONK’S CELL 51

C.4. Anonymous, Commentary on Psalms in ms Sachau 215 [HBOT1.2, 572]Unpublished.

C.5. Denh. a-Grigor, Commentary on Psalms [HBOT 1.2, 572]Unpublished.

C.6. Isho↪dad of Merv, Commentary on the Old Testament [HBOT 1.2,569–570]

C.7. Anonymous, Commentary on the Pentateuch [HBOT 1.2, 568–569]Partly published.

C.8. Anonymous, Commentary on the Old Testament in ms (olim)Diyarbakır 22 [ibidem]Unpublished (partly overlapping with C.7).

C.9. Gannat Bussame [HBOT 1.2, 571]Partly published.

C.10. ‘Opuscula Nestoriana’ [HBOT 1.2, 571]C.11. Extracts from Psalm Commentaries [HBOT 1.2, 572]

Largely unpublished. Add: R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘The Hebrewand the Greek as Alternatives to the Syriac Version in Iso↪dad’sCommentary on the Psalms’, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G.Greenberg, Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory ofMichael P. Weitzman (JSOT.S 333; Sheffield, 2001), esp. 448–452(on Ah.ob Qat.raya).

C.12. Isaac Eshbadnaya, Prose Commentary on the Old Testament[HBOT 1.2, 572]Unpublished.