woodbrookestudie03theouoft_bw.pdf

يستخدم القارئ النص الأرشيفي المحفوظ عند توفره، ويعرض النص حسب ترتيب القراءة المتاح؛ وقد يختلف عن تنسيق الملف والصيغ والصور المضمنة. الاستماع يقرأ النص كما هو ولا يترجمه.

WOODBROOKE STUDIES VOL. Ill

PUBLISHED FOR THE TRUSTEES OF THE WOODBROOKE SETTLEMENT, SELLY OAK, BIRMINGHAM BY W. HEFFER & SONS LIMITED CAMBRIDGE

WOODBROOKE STUDIES CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS IN SYRIAC, ARABIC, AND GARSHUNI, EDITED AND TRANSLATED WITH A CRITICAL APPARATUS BY A. MINGANA VOLUME III 1. VISION OF THEOPHILUS 2. APOCALYPSE OF PETER Reprinted from the " BULLETIN OF THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY,' Volumes 13 and 14, 1929-1930 CAMBRIDGE W. HEFFER & SONS LIMITED 1931

INTRODUCTORY NOTE. The present volume is the third of my series of Woodbrooke Studies, the contents of which are drawn from MSS. in my collection. The delay in its appearance is mainly due to the fact that it was considered desirable to have the three parts of the lengthy Apocalypse ofPeter bound in one volume instead of two. As the whole of the volume deals with Christian apocrypha, which, although preserved for us in Syriac and in Garshuni, are undoubtedly of Coptic-Ethiopic origin, the editor would consider himself repaid for the labour that the publication of such works entails if more attention were given in future generations to the history of these Christian productions, which seem to constitute a valuable storehouse of early Christian folk-lore. I noticed recently in the course of cataloguing the Syriac MSS. of my collection, that the Apocalypse ofPeter as published in this volume is also found in Mingana Syr. 555 with an almost identical text. The interest shown in these " Studies " by such scholars as F. Nau in France, J. P. Margoliouth in England, Riicker and Strothmann in Germany, and Montgomeiy in America to name only a few out of many is a great encouragement for any editor or author to proceed with his work, however arduous his task may be. Here I would take the liberty of renewing my sincerest thanks to Mr. Edward Cadbury, whose generosity has made possible the pub- lication of these " Studies." My thanks are also due to my colleague Dr. H. Guppy for his keen interest in the "Studies," and to the Aberdeen University Press for the satisfactory way in which they have performed a difficult task, and for the promptness with which they have responded to my sug- gestion to acquire Syriac and Arabic type of the latest design. A. MINGANA. JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY, llth February, 1931.

CONTENTS. VISION OF THEOPHILUS 1-92 Prefatory Note 1-8 Translation 8-43 Text 44-92 APOCALYPSE OF PETER 93-450 [Part 1]: Prefatory Note 93-100 Translation 100-152 Facsimile reproductions of Mingana Syr. 70 . . . 153-208 [Part 2] : Prefatory Note . . .... 209-215 Translation 215-282 Facsimile reproductions of Mingana Syr. 70 . . 283-348 [Part 3] : Prefatory Note 349-356 Translation 356-407 Facsimile reproductions of Mingana Syr. 70 . . . 408-449

WOODBROOKE STUDIES. CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS IN SYRIAC, ARABIC, AND GARSHUNI, EDITED AND TRANSLATED WITH A CRITICAL APPARATUS. BY A. MINGANA. FASCICULUS 5. VISION OF THEOPHILUS. Or the Book ofthe Flight ofthe Holy Family into Egypt. PREFATORY NOTE I GIVE in the following pages the text and the translation, ac- companied by a critical apparatus, of an apocryphal story dealing with the flight of the holy family into Egypt and the life which it led in that country. The story is cast in the mould of a vision and entitled Vision of Theophilus, who was Patriarch of Alexandria in A.D. 385-4 12. 1 Of all the Patriarchs of that great city he is probably the one who showed more zeal in the destruction of pagan temples and monuments. I have edited the text from the three extant manuscripts. Two of them belong to my own collection of manuscriptsand are numbered Mingana Syr. 5, and Mingana Syr. 48 (henceforth M. 5 and M. 48 respectively). The third manuscript is the Borgian Syr. 128 or to give it its full title : Borgiano Siriaco \ 28, now in the Vatican (henceforth V.). M. 5 is dated 1790 of the Greeks (A.D. 1479), and M. 48 is dated A.D. 1906, but is copied from a manuscript dated A.D. 1757. As to the Borgian manuscript it is dated A.D. 1 720. Of all the three manuscripts the only one that gives a complete and continuous text is M. 48, because M. 5 is incomplete at the beginning and its text begins after the middle of the story, while V. has two The sources for his life are well analysed in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. pp. 999- 1 008, and in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographic ecde'siastiques, ii. pp. 3 19-323.

2 WOODBROOKE STUDIES lacunae towards the end. I have placed the text of M. 48 in the body of the story and relegated the variants of V. and M. 5 to the footnotes. M. 5 and M. 48 do not exhibit many important variants when compared with each other and seem to emanate from a single manuscript, while V. 128 in which textual discrepancies are deeper in quality and more numerous in quantity seems to have been copied from a manuscript that had undergone more changes at the hand of the copyists. In the three manuscripts the story is entitled the ThirdBook and forms part of a work divided into five (in reality six) Books containing the apocryphal history of the Virgin and her Son. The first Book deals with the Annunciation of Mary, the second with the Nativity of our Lord * ; the third contains the present Vision of Theophilus ; the fourth is the Gospel of the Infancy ; the fifth and the sixth deal with the death and the Assumption of the Virgin. As I shall presently point out, all these texts, with the exception of the third Book or the Vision of Theophilus, have already been published. If we assume that this division of the story is original we shall have no difficulty in maintaining that from relatively ancient times the Vision of Theophilus constituted an integral part of the apocryphal life of Christ and His mother in some communities belonging to the Monophysite West Syrian Church. The East Syrian Church being mainly Nestorian knows nothing of the Vision of Theophilus in any shape or form. My collection of manuscripts contains also two Garshuni texts of the story, one of which, MinganaSyr. 39, is dated 1 773 of the Greeks (A.D. 1462). The second is numbered Mingana Syr. 1 14 and is of much later date. I have, however, made no use either in the text or in the translation of any of these Garshuni texts. I had a glance at the text of Mingana Syr. 1 14 and I am under the impression that it is a translation of the Syriac text that I am editing and translating in the following pages. The text that immediately follows the Vision of Theophilus is that edited by Wright in 1865 2 and by Mrs. Lewis in 1902. 8 With 1 It is attributed to James, " the brother of our Lord." 2 Journal of Sacred Literature, 1865, ri. 41 7-448 ; vii. 110-160. 3 Apocrypha Syriaca (Studia Sinaitica, xi.).

VISION OF THEOPHILUS 3 this text should be compared Budge's text and translation of the life of the Virgin, which covers a more extensive ground. 1 For the Greek and Latin texts of the tradition we refer the reader to M. R. James' well-known book. 2 As Nau z has pointed out in a short analysis that he gave of the story according to the imperfect Borgian manuscript some traditions embodied in the narrative are attested by Rufinus 4 and Sozomen. 3 These historians will be quoted in the footnotes that I have added to the translation. There is probably a reference to our document in an Arabic Jaco- bite Synaxarium of Coptic origin, 6 which under the 6th of Hatur (2 November) reads : "On this day the Saviour our God, our King, and our Lord Jesus Christ was united to His pure disciples at Kuskam, which is al-Muharraq. It is there that the first Mass was said, as testify St. Philotheus (read : Theophilus) and St. Cyril." I believe that the above reference is to the present document, which informs us that the first Mass was said at Kuskam, and which, as we shall presently see, is attributed at the end to St. Cyril of Alexandria. The document bears out also the fact that it was at Kuskam that Jesus was united to His disciples. As to the copyist's error of Philotheus for Theophilus it can easily be explained through early and undotted Arabic characters. Other references will be found in the footnotes. The author makes the mistake of mentioning in connection with some events of his story the name of Theodosius " the Younger," but as the life of John the Baptist which I edited and translated in the first volume of my Woodbrooke Studies shows 7 it is under Theodosius the Great (376-395) that those events, including the destruction of the temple of Serapis in 391, took place. Other historical inaccuracies will be corrected in the footnotes. It does not seem probable that either Theophilus or St. Cyril wrote the story. I incline to the view that the work is by a late Coptic Bishop, such as Cyriacus, Bishop of Oxyrhynchus whose 1 The History ofthe Blessed Virgin Mary, 1899. 2 The ApocryphalNew Testament, \924. *R.p.C.,*r. 126-127. *Pat. Lot., kxiii. 1155. ^Hist. Eccl., v. 21. ' * Pat. Orient., iii 255. 7 Woodbrooke Studies, L 255.

4 WOODBROOKE STUDIES edition of the apocryphal Gamaliel's work, the Lament of the Virgin and the Martyrdom of Pilate I edited and translated in 1928. 1 Indeed themise en scene andmany stylistic expressions that characterise the present Vision of Theophilus point to the author of the two above works. In a note that I added to my edition and translation of the above Lament of the Virgin? I followed Schermann 3 and Cheikho 4 in placing Bishop Cyriacus in the fifteenth century. From the fact, however, that he is the author of the Ethiopic liturgy of St. Mary, it does seem probable that he flourished at an earlier date. As the Rev. R. M. Woolley has pointed out to me, the threefold Coptic liturgy of Basil, Gregory, and Cyril was definitely fixed and stereo- typed before the twelfth century and it seems unlikely that a Coptic Bishop should have composed another as late as the fifteenth century. Further, the Ethiopic liturgy itself, which has been ascribed to the above Bishop Cyriacus seems to postulate a much earlier date than the fifteenth century. I cannot, therefore, find any strong reason militating against the hypothesis that Cyriacus might have lived, say in the eleventh century of our era. The above opinion receives a striking demonstration from the fact that Arabic seems to be the original language in which this pseudo- Theophilus wrote his treatise. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the Syriac text that I am editing and translating is a transla- tion from Arabic. The proofs for this assertion are numerous and undoubted. The following will be deemed sufficient : 1. There are in the narrative distinct Arabic words which could not have crept into the Syriac text except through an Arabic original : (a) V^*XLDO ojfli\. which in Arabic would be AaJL-j Ul>- alfa and rush-nut. (b) )i^ )^;/ ^J^ JpUj ^o^o before another Church is dedicated on the earth. This verb tithikraiz is here undoubtedly a transliteration of the Arabic j^$2r which in vulgar parlance of Egypt stood for j*jfi . That the verb is to be so considered is i Woodbrooke Studies, ii. pp. 178-332. * Ibid., ii. p. 182. 3 Aegypt. Abendmahlsliturgien. He places him c. 1444 "nach mittei- lung. ron H. Prof. Euringer." 4 Catalogue des manuscrits des auteurs arabes Chretiens, p. \ 70.

VISION OF THEOPHILUS 5 borne out by the fact that it occurs over and over again in Egyptian Arabic documents. 1 (c] JJLpa_5 jlfja a virgin girl. The word bukhrtha is

تُعرض الأصوات المحلية المثبتة على جهازك فقط. إذا لم يظهر صوت عربي، أضفه من إعدادات الجهاز.