Alexander Rahm

INTRODUCTION

THE TEXT AND THE GREEK TRANSLATION¹

The present English text has been translated from the edition of the original Syriac by P. Bedjan², p. 1–581. The rest of Bedjan’s publication contains some extracts from other works of Isaac, which Bedjan did not edit, because he did not possess manuscripts which seemed to him sufficient for this purpose. The works from which these extracts were taken, are considered as genuine by Bedjan. I have not been able to consult them, as they are preserved in several places in Western Asia. I do not consider the fact, that these writings are still unknown to us, as an important lacuna in our knowledge concerning the ideas of Isaac. For the present text contains – sometimes repeated – expositions of his thoughts on themes which in their totality give a survey of the whole system.

That these treatises are genuine is the opinion of Chabot and Bedjan; I think that we have no ground to doubt it. The style, the vocabulary and the ideas are uniform throughout the whole work. And the few indications as to the personality of the author concord with particulars which are known to us from other sources³.

Bedjan’s text has been determined from several manuscripts, which he enumerates in his avant–propos, and may be called a good one, especially as the style and the subjects treated cannot have been easily intelligible to ordinary scribes. For some passages, indeed, the help of an accurate translation| would have been of value to me. But, as far as I see, none of the accessible ones deserves this description. I need not enumerate them here, I may refer the reader to Chabot’s dissertation on Isaac⁴. To the Mss. containing an Arabic translation of the genuine and spurious works of Isaac, must now be added a codex which F. Krenkow presented to the John Rylands Library at Manchester. On his request Dr. A. Mingana was so kind as to copy for me some passages, which show a close affinity with the extracts from the Mss. at Rome, given by Assemani. According to Chabot this translation was made from the Greek. At any rate it seems not to afford valuable help for a literal understanding of the Syriac text; consequently I have not deemed it worth while to burden the present publication with new costs, which a photographic reproduction of these Arabic Mss. for my use would have imposed. One Arabic translation I could use at liberty, viz. that contained in Cod. 5 belonging to the Royal Academy at Amsterdam, to which my attention was drawn by Dr. van Arendonk. The Ms. contains nearly one half of Bedjan’s text; long passages fo the translated treatises have been left out; sometimes a few sentences are added. On the whole, the translation is not bad, but not literal enough to afford a valuable basis for corrections of the Syriac text.

The Greek translation, concerning which Chabot has given the necessary communications, was at my disposition in the Leiden library through the kindness of the direction of the University Library at Leipzig, a liberality which is highly to be prized, as copies of the book are very rare, as has been pointed out by Chabot, whose severe judgment concerning the way in which the translation was made, must be acknowledged to be just.

I willingly acknowledge that in some cases the Greek text has been of value to me. Yet I have not deemed it necessary to collate it throughout with the Syriac original; this was a labour which it did not deserve.

In one respect the Greek translation – or at any rate the printed text – differs totally from its original, viz. in the sequence of the chapters. In order to facilitate its collation with Bedjan’s text I give a table of the corresponding chapters| in a footnote, as far as I could identify them1). Thus of the 82 treatises of the Syriac text 14 are missing in the Greek translation, or more than one sixth. Among these chapters there are some of the most difficult; so that it is not unjust to suppose that the translators gave them up for this reason. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that also large parts of the translated chapters are left out, and usually those which contain difficult passages.

On the other hand the translators have added four treatises which are not in the Syriac text, and which appear to belong to the writings of the so–called John Saba, viz. n°. 2, 7, 43 and 80 which are respectively found in the Syriac Mss. Add. 14. 758 (British Museum), fol. 249^a⁵, and in the Ms. described by Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, I, p. 440, sermo 20; in

Syr.

4 5 6

7 8 9

12 13

16 18

23 24

25 26 27

Gr.

Syr. 28 29

30 3i

33 34 35

38 39

44 45 46

48 49

5°

Gr. Syr.

Gr.

P– 379–385 – 33 p. 385– end . . 3

74 53

p. 2O – 22 . . p. 22–30 . . P– 30–37

p. 37– end. .

. 82 83 44 45 23

p. 208 – 211 . . 42 54 p. 211 – end . . 55 55 56

68 57

p. 218 – 219 . . – 58 p. 219 – end . . 24 59 1 6 ^o

p. 224–267 • . 85 61 p. 267–269 . . 47 2 p. 269–271 . . 51 3 p. 271–275 . . 52 4 p. 275–276 . . 53 65 p. 276– end . . 54 gg

P– 443–446 –

p. 446 – end 34

Epist. 3

J–

p. 291–292 –

p. 292– end 27 6g

partly and in a free manner incorporated in Gr. 69

p. 139–142 . p. 142–144 . p. 144–146 . p. 146 – 144 . p. 148 – end .

29 75 76 77 78 79

17 <;„

Epist. 1

Epist. 2

72 7

5°

73 74

p. 335–337 39 76

P– 337–338 40 ?7

57 7g

p. 163–165 . p. 165 – end .

P– 343–353 • • 58 P– 353–359 • • 60 S0 52 81

P– 546–549 • – 28 p. 549 sqq. . . –

66 82

| Assemani, I, p. 437, sermo 8; in Assemani, I, p. 436, sermo i; Add. 14. 728 fol. 250b⁶ and Assemani, I, p. 440, sermo 22.

Further the table shows that the Greek translators have dealt freely with the division of the Syriac text in chapters. On a much smaller scale the Syriac Mss. have also used some liberty in this respect.

The Greeks had the more reason to act thus, because they adopted a system of sequence totally different from the Syriac one. Whoever compares the sequence of the chapters in the Greek text, will observe that here the arrangement has been made according to the subjects treated in the different chapters; here is united what is alike in nature: the chapters on love are put together, equally those on temptations, and so on.

This arrangement, at first sight, would seem entitled to a claim of originality, especially when it is contrasted with the Syriac text, which does not betray a systematic arrangement.

Still, the Syriac Mss. extant show the same order with slight variations. This points to a fixed tradition in this, respect.

A close examination of the Syriac text provides us with material which is sufficient to settle this question.

The first six treatises (which are scattered over the Greek translation) have this subscription in the Syriac text: Finished are the six treatises on the behaviour of excellence. In accordance herewith is the fact that none of these chapters has a title of its own as the other ones have, but that they are simply indicated by: Treatise the first, and so on. The title of the seventh chapter, which apparently – as well as all the other titles – was given by Isaac himself, runs thus: Further, on other subjects, chapter (rel*–’iA»)⁷ by chapter, etc

Here is a proof of the authenticity of the arrangement of the Syriac text.

There are further indications which point in the same direction. On p. 94 the author speaks of the later chapters in which he promises to deal with the significance of tears. This is in accordance with the facts, as a consultation of the register s. v. Tears can teach. – At the beginning of chapter 33 the author refers to chapter 32; the Greek translation has torn these chapters asunder. Likewise the beginning of chapter 36

6)INTRODUCTION

points back to the end of chapter 35; here the connection is equally disregarded by the Greek translators. – In the beginning of the chapter on inspiration (n°. 54) the author reminds the reader of his treating this subject previously; this has taken place on pages 107 and 160. – Chapter 73 entitles itself as a succinct rendering of n°. 72; here the right sequence is preserved even in the Greek translation. – On p. 573 the author, explaining his definite ideas on solitude and intercourse, warns the reader not to argue against him on account of quotations from foregoing pages, taken at random from the context. As a matter of fast Isaac has dealt with this subject largely in his book, as again may be seen from the Register. – This evidence is conclusive in my opinion. Still, the fact remains, that the Syriac text, taken as a whole, has nothing to do with a real composition.

In this respect it is in sharp contrast with other mystical works written by congenial spirits. Bar Hebraeus shows a great predilection for systematic order, a tendency which he already found in his example al–Ghazali. The Book of Hierotheos is also systematically arranged. Isaac’s example, however, is imitated by John Saba, whose works, according to the descriptions of the Mss., also seem to consist of single treatises which are not linked together by any progessive idea.

The present text, therefore, is only to be taken as a long – a very long – exposition of the many sides and theories and experiences of mystical life. Of course this lack of compositional lines has given rise to many repetitions, which are sometimes fatiguing, but often welcome to us as containing explanations. Perhaps Isaac’s way of proceeding should be ascribed to some extent to the fact that at a certain age – and he wrote the present book when very old – his eyesight was lost, so that he could no longer read but was obliged to have recourse to scribes. Perhaps this fact accounts also for his style, which is full of too lengthy periods and anacolouthons.

It is in accordance with the defective composition of the book, that it has no distinct title. Bedjan has called it De per–fectione religiosa, which seems to be a free rendering of the subscription of the first six treatises ,on the behaviour of excellence’. Some, but not all Mss.J), give the title ,On the way

INTRODUCTION

of monasticism’. Both are equally in harmony with the contents of the book, but many similar ones would have been also possible. The author seems not to have been minded to look for such a one as at once prints itself into the memory, as eg. Bar Hebraeus and Ghazall did.

One peculiar feature of the Greek translation has still to be discussed, viz. the way in which it deals with Isaac’s authorities. The names of the Fathers of Scete appear without exception; likewise, the great theologians of the fourth century are left in their place, as e. g. Athanasius, Basil, Ephraim; and in the only passage where Dionysios (the Areopagite) occurs, his name is not suppressed. Euagrius on the other hand, who is very often cited in the original, never occurs in the Greek text. He is either left out, or replaced by such names as Nilos, the blessed Marcus, the divine and great Gregory. Likewise the Commentator, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is also often cited in the original text, is either left out by the Greeks, or replaced by Gregory, John Chrysostom, Martinianus. In stead of Diodorus Rhetor or Diodorus of Tarsosl] Dionysius the Areopagite or ,one of the great sages’ appear. And in another passage ,the blessed Cyril’ is introduced by the translators on their own authority. This means that they thought it better to suppress those names which were not accepted by the Monophysite church; the mention of Cyril is in accordance with this. In this connection I may refer to Bedjan’s preface, p. VIII, who has shown that some passages on the nature of Christ have been altered by non–Nestorian scribes and translators.

1 All further references are to the pages of Bedjan’s edition.

2 Mar Isaacus Ninivita de perfectione religiosa (Paris 1909 (p. 582–639).

3 Cf. beneath, p. XVII sq.

4 De Isaaci Ninivitae, vita scriptis et doctrina (Louvain, 1892).

5 Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss., Ill, p. 583.

6 Wright, o. l., III, p. 583.

7 The Arabs apparently have taken one the metaphorical senses of <–Jj from the Syrians.

Suche: