New Sources for the Symbol in Early Syrian Christianity Author(s): A. Vbus Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol.

26, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 291-296 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583561 Accessed: 17/05/2009 09:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

26 (1972) 291-296; ? North-Holland PublishingCompany VigiliaeChristianae

NEW SOURCES FOR THE SYMBOL IN EARLY SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

BY

A. VOOBUS

A new avenue was opened in the research on the origin and development of the ancient Christian symbols with the emergence of one such stemming from ancient Syrian Christianity, specifically, from East Syrian Christendom in Persia - it complements and enriches the material on the symbols of Western provenance. Access to this precious item comes by way of a recension of the synodical acts of the convocation convened at Seleucia-Ctesiphon in the year 410.1 Embedded in that recension is the symbol in question. This marks an important advance over the information previously available to us in the extant acts2 of this significant convocation. In these we see the resolutions put forward in the interest of reorganizing the East Syrian Church under Catholicos Ishaq. Among other innovations, there is included the promulgation of the Nicaean Creed. This is natural enough since the convocation was summoned precisely for this purpose, namely to bring the church affairs of Persian Christianity into line with the Western development and to make the Nicaean faith the creedal foundation of the reorganized church. To this end Mariuta, bishop of Maipherqat, had labored and the results of these endeavors became manifest in the formulations adopted by the synod. The same is the case with another document connected with the name Marfita, bishop of Maipherqat.3 Also this cannot offer this service. The new avenue for research was occasioned by the emergence of another recension of the acts of the synod. It reaches us through another channel, namely through the collections of ecclesiastical legis1 Ms. Par. syr. 62, fol. 237b-238a.
2

Synodiconorientaleou recueil de synodesnestoriens,ed. par J.B.Chabot (Paris 1902). 3 Les canonsde Pseudo-Niceeen syriaque,6d. par A.Voobus (Stockholm 1972).

292

A. VOOBUS

lative sources.4 These collections have incorporated also the acts of the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon5 but in a different recension. The form of the text employed in this instance is often foreshortened and condensed, but in one respect this abridgement and redaction makes a move which is very surprising. The symbol embedded in this recension is not the symbol of the faith of Nicaea of the official acts of the synod previously at our disposal. It is different since it consists of archaic elements combined with those which appear in the Nicaean Creed. It is understandable that a situation like this draws particular attention to itself for it provides access to an unknown and archaic source in the category of creedal formulations. T. J. Lamy was the happy voyageur who came across the first and only document to that time in Ms. syr. 62 in Paris6 and he edited the text of this recension on the basis of this singular codex.7 He devoted a special study to the form of the symbol found8 - it was after all a discovery much too important to ignore. In discussing the background of this surprising phenomenon Lamy suggested that we have to do with an ancient symbol of Eastern Syrian Christianity - one that was part of the archaic heritage of that ecclesiastical community - which had to recede before the weight of the Nicene symbol in the wake of reform. This would explain the absence of the ancient creed from the official acts of the synod. However, Ms. Par. syr. 62 indicates that the new symbol must have been placed side by side with the ancient one, but the course of events initiated by this important synod were such that the archaic symbol was unable to retain its position in the official acts and was thus excluded. However, in the foreshortened recension of the acts, which could not be regarded as official, the ancient creed managed to survive. This is an attractive explanation of a curious situation and in itself is a plausible reconstruction of the circumstances. It would serve as an explanation of the literary phenomena presented by the two sets of texts. Every ancient source, particularly a precious relic like this which
4 Cf. Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde I, A.V66bus, SyrischeKanonessammlungen: 1, B, CSCOSubsidiaXXXVIII(Louvain 1970)p. 440ff. Originalurkunden Westsyrische 5 But not in all the collections. About a very preciousand unique collection, see ed. by A. V66bus, CSCO (in press). The Synodiconin the West Syrian Tradition, 6 Cf. H.Zotenberg, Cataloguedes manuscrits syriaqueset sabeens(mandaites) de la Bibliotheque Nationale(Paris 1874)p. 22ff. 7 habitumanno 410 (Lovanii 1868). ConciliumSeleuciaeet Ctesiphonti 8 du fIle congres Le concile tenu a Seleucie-Ctesiphon en 410, in: Compte-rendu des catholiques(Bruxelles 1894) p. 250ff. international scientifique

THE SYMBOL IN EARLY SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

293

leads us into pre-Nicaean Syrian Christianity and its thoughtworld, is certainly most welcome. And as everything indicates we do have to do with such a precious relic in this case. A source of such extraordinary significance merits every effort expanded toward establishing its authentic form so that it may be of real service to further research. As has been said, Lamy based his edition on Ms. Par. syr. 62, a unicum. This involves a curious phenomenon: the same codex on the one hand led him to the happy find, but on the other, pushed him into a corner. Lamy had no recourse but to trust this codex - unfortunately just this is what the codex in this particular section does not deserve. Our labours in the search for new manuscript sources have led us to discoveries which help us to penetrate much deeper. In fact, our search has been rewarded very richly. These discoveries do not only increase the bulk of the manuscript witnesses but open the way to several codices which are much earlier than Ms. Par. syr. 62. Among other discoveries there is a very precious one, the earliest among such collections of documents of canon law, namely, Ms. Mardin Orth. 3099 of the 8th century.10 Another such venerable source is to be found in Ms. Mardin Orth. 310 which is only a little younger." Both are veritable jewels. Thanks to these discoveries we are able to penetrate to the text of this precious record as it appears in codices which are more than a century earlier than that of Ms. Par. syr. 62. The codices which render us service are as follows: Ms. Mardin Orth. 30912 (8th cent.), fol. 149b (A), Ms. Mardin Orth. 31013(8th cent.), fol. 137a (B), Ms. Mardin Orth. 32014(20th cent.), fol. 158a-158b (C), Ms. Mardin Orth. 327 (1916), fol. 123a-123b (D), Ms. Mardin Orth. 337 (19th cent.), fol. 82b-83a (E), Ms. Damascus Patr.158/2 (1938), fol. 80a-80b (F),
9 The of the SyrianOrthodoxChurch manuscriptis located at the archbishopric in Mardin. 10 Cf. A. Voobus, New ImportantManuscript Discoveries for the Historyof Syriac Literature (in press).
'1
12 13

Ibid.

See also V66bus, SyrischeKanonessammlungen I, p. 443ff. Ibid., p. 447ff. 4 Ibid.,p. 471. The codex is a copy of a very ancientmanuscript in Midyat. 15 The manuscriptis located at the patriarchateof the Syrian Orthodox Church in Damascus.

Ms. garfeh Patr.1673 (1911),17fol. 91a-91b (G), Ms. Mingana syr. 818(1911), fol. 163a-163b (H), Ms. Vatican syr. 560B19(1936), fol. 121b (I), Ms. Paris syr. 62 (9th cent.), fol. 237b-238a (J). It now becomes possible to edit the text and to furnish it with a textual critical apparatus. The faith that was fixed by the Persian bishops: 1 We believe in one God, the Father, 2 who through His Son made heaven and earth, 3 and through Him established the worlds that are above and that are below, 4 and through Him made the resurrection, 5 and the renewal to the whole creation. And in His Son, the only one, 6 7 who is born of Him, 8 that is, however, from the essence of His Father, 9 God from God, 10 light from light, 11 true God from true God, 12 born and not made, 13 who is of one nature with His Father, 14 who because of us, men, these created by His hands, 15 and on account of our salvation 16 descended and put on body and became man, 17 and suffered and rose on the third day, 18 and ascended to heaven, 19 and sits at the right hand of His Father, 20 and He shall come to judge the dead and the living ones. And we confess the Spirit, living and holy, 21 22 the living Paraclete who is from the Father and the Son, 23 in one essence, 24 in one Trinity, 25 in one will, 26 agreeing with the faith of the 318 bishops that took place in the town of Nicaea.
16 The manuscriptbelongs to the collection of the patriarchateof the Syrian Catholic Church,and is located in the Monasteryof Sarfehin Harissa, Lebanon. 17 Some portions of this codex have been publishedin Syriac and Arabic Documents,edited by A.Vo6bus (Stockholm1960). 18

Cf. A.Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts I (Cam-

bridge 1933)col. 25ff.

19 Cf. A. van Lantschoot, Inventaire des manuscrits syriaques (Citta del Vaticano 1965) p. 84.

:ijb J

(>I(JQ W <?* /

.1f,

&oL"
o*s

,I t-'. e
S,

~o,,m
ob

A :iJ\A Zo

*HoZA -., cl A, -o o , o I /I, a .,/ (' p: po

Z', 23 7

z, )L

'oc .~:o

_3oo

:a_Lo I:o-G l^o FL t .

l >~?
a9 o
^o

23
/
'y

: ^ FL\js

t, - ,o

GU 14

L j C

tz sOs

\C c 6 C 8~~ , H 2-

Ll

Ho I

LL

4P

^o?^

3 11 &oHLl

>'/ ^t

t_

& 23 ?

I?lf4L^

*lo?)1,_

3L ^

. J

/^d.

9 J)

'

Uo

1,^0
r,
e

J
>Do

tA^^,
3
e

3]^A\^o.
coo 28 J 3CDE?^ {

J
I3

^^
Z3

^
l/<&'

? D

I/ LjL
cSf J

> 6c 2
26 e

f G H1J

/^

9 '& t

CT)eF

^\

A*- BC

E F.G HX3

296

A. VOOBUS

As this presentation of the textual evidence shows, the authentic form of the symbol is quite different from that given by Lamy. The creed but of "light". The most important rectificadoes not speak of "fire"20 tion, however, concerns which constitutes the crescendo of the first section of the creed. That part concerns a term which Lamy translated "gaudium".21 It is, of course, a corruption. The original contains something entirely different. What the text reads is not "joy for the entire world", a corruption easily recognizable on palaeographical grounds, but "renewal of the whole world". This makes sense and restores the true reading of this primitive East Syrian symbol. We stand face to face with a baffling phenomenon. The evidence demonstrates that the codex which was the only one available to Lamy, is the worst of all those now known. It is ironic that the scholar who was led to this discovery should have had in his hands just the manuscript which was the worst for this particular text. Oak Park, III. 60302, 230 So. Euclid Avenue

20 Lamy'stranslationreads "lumen"which is not a correctrenderingof the term which appearsin the Syriactext which he edited; cf. Concilium, col. 28.

21

Ibid., col. 28.