Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BY
Samuel RUBENSON
My attempt is not to give a full survey, which at the present state of research
is hardly possible, but only to present what studies we do have and the basic
status questionis.
SYRIAC
Beginning with the Syriac we can first note the strange fact that alt-
hough the sayings were translated into Syriac already in the first decades of
the 6th century, as attested by several mss. dated in the 530’s A.D., that is
within some fifty years after the first major Greek compilations were made,
the Syriac version seems to be the least studied. The only editions we have
are the edition by Paul Bedjan from 1897 and Alfred Willis Budge’s printed
text of a single and late ms in 19049. But has been pointed out by René Dra-
guet and several other scholars none of these publications is a proper critical
edition and both are, moreover, based on manuscripts preserving the later
Syriac compilation of monastic texts made by the famous monk ‘Enanishô in
the 8th century10. In spite of this it is, as Draguet remarks, the text offered by
Bedjan that has become the only access to the Syriac version of the apo-
phthegmata.
This is actually even more surprising given the fact that the Syriac ver-
sions of the other ascetic texts that are parts of ‘Enanishô large compilation,
primarily the Vita Antonii, the Historia Lausiaca and the Historia Mona-
chorum in Aegypto, have been discussed at length, both by the various edi-
tors of these texts as well as in separate articles. The Syriac version of the
Vita Antonii was edited with detailed discussion of its origin by René Dra-
guet in 1980, and has since been discussed by several scholars11. Two years
earlier, in 1978, Draguet published his detailed analysis of the various Syriac
recensions of the Historia Lausiaca including a discussion of the entire
compilation of ‘Enanishô producing a partial edition of a Syriac version sup-
9) P. BEDJAN, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum VII, Paris, 1897, pp. 442-990; E.A.W.
BUDGE, The Book of Paradise II, London, 1904, pp. 442-766.
10) For a detailed discussion of the Syriac text as published by BEDJAN see R. DRA-
GUET, Les formes syriaques de la matière de l’Histoire Lausiaque (CSCO 389-390), Peeters,
Louvain, 1978, and idem, “Fragments de l’Ambrosienne de Milan à restituer aux Mss syri-
aques du Sinaï 46 et 16”, J.N. BIRDSALL & R.W. THOMSON (eds.), Biblical and Patristic Stud-
ies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, Herder, Freiburg, 1963, pp. 167-178.
11) René DRAGUET, La vie primitive de s. Antoine conservée en syriaque (CSCO 417-
418), Peeters, Leuven, 1980. For the subsequent debate see David BRAKKE, “The Greek and
Syriac Versions of the Life of Antony”, Le Muséon 107 (1994), pp. 29-53, and Sebastian
BROCK, “Saints in Syriac: A Little-Tapped Resource”, JECS 16 (2008), p. 189f.
308 SAMUEL RUBENSON
posed to be earlier than the one represented by Bedjan12. In his recent studies
Peter Tóth, on the basis of previous studies, analyzes the Syriac recensions
of the Historia Monachorum, including the text used by Bedjan and Budge
as well as other and earlier and recensions13. Thus out of the four main
works contained in the Enanishô compilation, it is only the largest of them,
the collection of apophthegmata that has not been studied in any detail.
In his detailed discussion of the Syriac manuscripts, Draguet, asserts
however, that the apophthegmata were not originally part of the compilation
by ‘Enanishô. On the basis of a list of the contents of ‘Enanishô’s work dat-
ed AD 794, they were only added somewhat later, but before Thomas of
Marga commented on the compilation in AD 84014. Furthermore Draguet
points out that in many early mss. the apophhegmata have an independent
transmission. For the future study of the Syriac apophthegmata it thus seems
reasonable to make the research on the other works on Enanishô compilation
a basis and see to what degree the translation and transmission of the apo-
phthegmata mss. can be situated in the recensions of the other works and the
text history suggested, including the mss. not consulted in the studies of the
HL and the HM, either since they only contain apophthegmata, or since they
were not known to the scholars15.
An important witness to the Syriac transmission of the apophthegmata
is, furthermore, the so called commentary on them by Dadisho‘ Qatrâyâ, a
text unfortunately still to be edited16. This Syriac work was later in Arabic as
well as Ethiopic tradition attributed to Philoxenos of Mabboug17. Other im-
portant sources for an analysis of the Syriac transmission are the quotations
of apophthegmata found in Syriac authors, some of which have recently
been pointed out by Grigory Kessel18.
ARABIC
In Arabic the apophthegmata are richly represented in a bewildering va-
riety of collections often combining one or several minor collections of apo-
phthegmata with a wide spectrum of other monastic texts. However, or per-
haps because of the very complex textual transmission, no critical edition of
any Arabic version of the apophthegmata exist, except for the unpublished
thesis of Jean Mansour giving the text of one extremely important manu-
script. In addition there are, of course, modern printed versions such as the
Bustân ar-Ruhbân of the Coptic Orthodox Church used in the monasteries in
Egypt today19. The extensive list of manuscripts preserving apophthegmata
printed in Graf’s Geschichte is, moreover, by no means complete20.
The scholarly study of the Arabic versions is intimately connected with
the late Vatican librarian and scholar Joseph-Marie Sauget. Based on a small
number of important manuscripts, primarily from the Vatican library and
from Sinai, Sauget was able to identify several different Arabic recensions,
based on several different translations of Greek sources as well as one based
on a Syriac text very close to the one edited by Bedjan21. On the Copto-
Arabic tradition I do not know of any work identifying manuscripts and the
istycny 59 (2006), pp. 281-296. No study of the Arabic transmission of the work is known to
me, but several manuscripts are known, see GRAF (1944), pp. 384-385. Additional manu-
scripts are found in the library of the monastery of St. Antony according to the unpublished
catalogue of the monastery.
18) See his “A fragment from the lost ‘Book of Admonition(s)’ by Abraham bar Dašan-
dad, in ‘Risâla fî fadîlat al-‘afâf’ («Letter on priority of abstinence»)” of ELIAS OF NISIBIS,
Proceedings of the Conference “Gotteserlebnis und Gotteslehre. Christliche und islamische
Mystik im Orient” (Göttinger Orientforschungen, I, Syriaca 38), Wiesbaden, 2011, and his
“Leter of Thomas the Monk. A Study of the Syriac Text and its Author”, JECS 61 (2009), pp.
43-110.
19) Bustân al-Ruhbân li-Abâ al-Kanîsa al-Qibtiyya (ed. by the Metropolitanate of Beni
Suef), Cairo, 1968, reprinted in a revised version, Cairo, 1976.
20) Georg GRAF, GCAL, I, Vatican 1944, pp. 380-388. The often important manuscripts
of the Coptic monasteries are for example not included.
21) For the version translated from Syriac, as well as references to his earlier studies,
see Joseph-Marie SAUGET, Une traduction arabe de la collection d’apophthegmata patrum de
‘Enanishô (CSCO 495), Peeters, Louvain, 1987.
310 SAMUEL RUBENSON
22) O.H.E. KHS-BURMESTER, “Further Leaves from the Arabic MS. in Coptic Script of
the Apophthegmata Patrum”, BSAC 18 (1965-1966), pp. 51-53.
23) See J. OESTRUP, « Über zwei arabische Codices sinaitici der Strassburger Universi-
täts- und Landesbibliothek”, ZDMG 51 (1897), pp. 453-471, Joseph-Marie SAUGET, “La Col-
lection d’Apophthegmes du manuscrit 4225 de la Bibliothèque de Strasbourg”, OCP 30
(1964), pp. 485-509 and Jospeh-Marie SAUGET, “Le Paterikon arabe de la Bibliothèque Am-
brosienne de Milan L 120 Sup.”, in Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie.
Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, s. VIII, 29 (1987), pp. 473-516.
24) Jean MANSOUR, Homélies et légendes religieuses. Un florilège arabe chrétien du Xe
s. (Ms. Starsbourg 422). Introduction et édition critique (Thèse dactyl.), Strasbourg, 1972.
25) FARAGGIANA (2002).
THE APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM IN SYRIAC, ARABIC AND ETHIOPIC 311
taining a collection of several monastic texts, among them the latter part of
an alphabetical-anonymous series of apophthegmata, closely paralleled by
the series of anonymous sayings edited in Greek by Francois Nau26. The Ar-
abic translation must have been done in the last decades of the tenth century
in a Melkite context. Several later Sinai manuscript identified by Sauget con-
tain the same recension.
As for the Arabic version based on a Syriac collection Sauget summa-
rized his findings, first published in a number of articles, primarily in Le
Muséon, in his volume in CSCO27. Choosing the MS Par.ar. 253 Sauget
shows that in contrast to the Arabic recension represented by Strasbourg
4225, this Arabic recension is made up of two originally separate series of
sayings organized alphabetically and a final series of anonymous sayings.
Although the collection arranges the sayings according to the alphabetical
order of the name of the fathers, as in the Greek alphabetic collections, in-
troducing the alphabetical sections with Arabic transcriptions of the Greek
letters, the pieces attributed to any given father are presented in a completely
different order. Comparing the Arabic text with the systematically organized
Syriac version of Enanishô, Sauget could prove that one of the Arabic series
is based on the Syriac version, but rearranged alphabetically by placing the
sayings of each individual father according to the order of the chapters to
which they belong in the Syriac. He moreover shows that text is closer to the
version presented by Budge than the one given in Bedjan’s edition. On the
basis of the spelling Sauget also concludes that this rearrangement must have
been done in Arabic, not in Syriac. Since we have not yet identified any Ar-
abic ms that contains an Arabic translation of the Syriac version arranged in
the same manner as the Syriac, it seems as if the rearrangement was done in
the same process as the translation. Moreover it is evident that the Arabic ed-
itor who alphabetisized the translation of the Syriac must have known Greek.
This series translated from Syriac must subsequently have been com-
pared to the Greek alphabetic collection, or more probably an Arabic version
of it, and the sayings missing in the version based on the Syriac systematic
collection, have then been added making up a new series of additional mate-
rial. As for the Arabic recension used in the series complementing the one
translated from Syriac, Sauget came to the conclusion that it is of the same
ETHIOPIC
Coming finally to the Ethiopic version we are in a very different situa-
tion. Here a number of different Ethiopic collections of early monastic litera-
ture including apophthegmata have been edited by Victor Arras in the
CSCO29. But unfortunately the editions are generally based on a single or
very few manuscripts and there is no accompanying analysis of the transmis-
sion of the text and the relation of the various versions to each other. The on-
ly detailed discussion of the Ethiopic text is the long review of Arras’ edition
of the so called Ethiopic Paterikon by Sauget30. The text is an Ethiopic com-
pilation made on the basis of several earlier Ethiopic monastic texts, includ-
ing versions of the apophthegmata as well as other texts. On the basis of the
spelling of names Sauget proves that the Ethiopic text of the apophthegmata,
28) See Jospeh-Marie SAUGET, “Le Paterikon du ms Mingana Christian Arabic 120a”,
OCP 28 (1962), pp. 402-417.
29) V. ARRAS, Collectio Monastica (CSCO 238-239), Peeters, Louvain, 1963; Pateri-
con Aethiopice (CSCO 238-239), Peeters, Louvain, 1967; Ascetikon (CSCO 238-239), Pee-
ters, Louvain, 1984; Geronticon (CSCO 238-239), Peeters, Louvain, 1986; Quadraginta his-
toriae monachorum (CSCO 238-239), Peeters, Louvain, 1988. The last is most probably an
original Ethiopic composition.
30) Joseph-Marie SAUGET, “Un exemple typique des relations culturelles entre l’arabe-
chrétien et l’éthiopien: un Paterikon récemment publié”, Problemi attuali di scienza e di cul-
tura. IV congrsso internazionale di Studi etiopici, I, Roma, 1974, pp. 321-388.
THE APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM IN SYRIAC, ARABIC AND ETHIOPIC 313
and probably also the other contents are based on Arabic sources, and even
identifies two Arabic ms of two different recensions as being the sources for
the two series of apophthegmata, namely Vat. ar. 566 for the first series in
the Ethiopic text and Vat. ar. 77 for the second, thus relating the Ethiopic
text to the Arabic recension based on ‘Enanishô’s Syriac compilation.
CONCLUSION
A detailed study of the text and transmission of the apophthegmata in
the Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic traditions is important for several reasons:
1) It has become increasingly clear that due to the relatively late dates
of the Greek manuscripts and the wide variety of versions existing in them, it
is necessary to look at the early translations not only into Latin and Coptic,
but also into Syriac in order to gain a better understanding of the first stages
of the emerging apophthegmatic literature. But also later translations into
Arabic and Ethiopic might be important since many of the Arabic recensions
were made on the basis of early Syriac and early Greek texts that were later
revised. The Ethiopic texts, based on Arabic sources may also be witnesses
to old traditions.
2) Given the fact that the apophthegmata are primarily educational ma-
terial the specific use of them in the various oriental versions and the combi-
nation of them with other material give important insights to the develop-
ment of monastic teaching and training in the monasteries in the East.
3) The establishment of how texts and translations were transmitted
from one monastery or monastic centre is an important indication of cultural
and religious contacts, and given the fact that the apophthegmata and most
often the other monastic texts accompanying them, do not belong to a specif-
ic confession, the transmissions of specific recensions and collections might
also show to what extent, in which periods and for which purposes contacts
between monasteries of different confessions were lively.