July 2005
————————
Issue Index
————————
Home
Volume Index
Search
Editorial Board
Copyright & Citing
Submission
Transliteration
————————
Hugoye
Email List
Beth Mardutho
————————
Issue Index
————————
Home
Volume Index
Search
Editorial Board
Copyright & Citing
Submission
Transliteration
————————
Hugoye
Email List
Beth Mardutho
Septuaginta and Peshitta
Jacob of Edessa quoting the Old Testament in Ms BL Add 17134
juckel@uni-muenster.de
Institut fr Neutestamentliche Textforschung
(Institute for New Testament Textual Research)
University of Mnster
Georgskommende 7 D-48143 Mnster, Germany
The Old Testament quotations in the margins of Ms BL Add. 17134 (the Hymns of Severus Antiochenus translated by Paul of Edessa and revised by Jacob of Edessa) derive from Jacob himself and reflect the beginnings of his Old Testament revision completed during the last years of his life. The Peshitta text of the quotations is improved and often substituted by renderings of the Septuagint. This paper presents 207 verses in two sections (of 41 and 21 items) according to their derivation from the Peshitta or the Septuagint.
[1] In 1910/11 E.W. Brooks published1 the Syriac version of The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others, originally translated by Paul of Edessa between 619/29, and revised by Jacob of Edessa in 674/752. Based on the two extant manuscripts3 of Jacobs revision (Ms BL Add. 17134 and Add. 18816), Brooks edition is a typographical master-piece by the meticulous presentation of Ms BL Add. 17134 and of its revisional features. This manuscript substantially gives the text of Pauls translation and carefully denotes the revisional alterations Jacob introduced to it inter lineas or by red ink.4 In a note on fol. 75rv Jacob explains the reason and the method of his revision for which he used Greek manuscripts, and gives the date A. Gr. 986 (A. D. 674/75) for his work5:
[...] and they [scil. the hymns] have been with great care and industry corrected and compared with the Greek manuscripts with all possible accuracy by me the poor and sinful Jacob the industrious,6 in the year nine hundred and eighty-six of the Greeks [...] and with all the carefulness in my power I have distinguished between the words of the doctor [i. e., Severus] and those that were added by the same Mar Paul in order that the number of rhythmical divisions might be equal when the words are pronounced, on account of the brevity and succinctness of the expressions of this Syriac language in comparison with the Greek language, by writing the words of the doctor [i. e., Severus] in ink, and writing those that were added in red paint (shrikn); while the words which the translator altered, for the same reason, inserting one expression in place of another, in order that the measure of the period might agree with the rhythm of the Greek words, I have written for you in small, fine letters above the same groups of words between the lines, in order that you may easily know how they stand in the Greek whenever you wish to do so; and how the proofs and testimonies from the scriptural words of the Holy Scriptures in the hymns themselves run, without variation and without addition or diminution (Brooks translation in PO 7.5 page 801/02).
[2] Impressed by this note and by the actual presence of the revisional features it describes, W. Wright suggested Ms Add. 17134 to be an autograph7 of Jacob and took the date A. Gr. 986 as the date of the manuscript itself. Brooks in the preface of his edition, however, rejected Wrights suggestion by declaring that the second manuscript Add. 18816 often gives a better text than Ms Add. 17134. A check of the readings rejected by Brooks indeed gives an idea about a certain inferiority of Ms Add. 17134 to Ms Add. 18816. The text is slightly corrupted by scribal errors and orthographical mistakes,8 which reflect the process of transmission and can hardly be ascribed to Jacob himself. As Ms Add. 17134 can be assigned to the 8th cent. on palaeographical ground,9 it is a copy perhaps written already during Jacobs lifetime or not long after his death in 708.
[3] The authenticity of Jacobs revisional principles is not affected by the slightly corrupted text of Ms Add 17134. Although Ms Add. 18816 does not exhibit these corruptions, it is of restricted critical value especially with regard to Jacobs revisional imprint. This manuscript, which Wright assigns to the 9th cent., basically gives the same text and the same sequence of hymns as Ms Add. 17134; but it omits all revisional features: no corrections, no coloured words or letters are given (except in the hymns 131 and 132), and the revisers note is excluded. In few instances, however, the text of this manuscript tacitly adopts Jacobs corrections in the main text. The reduction of the revisional features in Ms Add. 18816 gives a greater significance to Ms Add 17134 with the fully preserved revisional features;10 in text-critical respect, however, Ms Add. 18816 often is to be preferred. A later arrangement and supplementation of the hymns according to the eight tones to which they are set (Octochos) can be found in numerous manuscripts.11
[4] Ms Add. 17134 of the British Library is a treasury of biblical quotations of both Testaments. There are two different kinds of quotations: Those inside the text, and those outside in the margins. Jacob not only revised Pauls translation of the hymns including its biblical allusions and quotations; he also introduced biblical material to this revision which is not an integral part of Pauls translation but drawn from his own resources. These independent marginal quotations are the subject of the present study.12
[5]
Texts of sometimes considerable length (e.g., Luke xv, 3-32) Jacob quotes in the upper and lower margins of Ms Add. 17134. Their intention is—according to Jacobs note on fol. 75rv—to present the full scriptural texts (without variation and without addition or diminution) alluded to or distorted by adaptation to the Greek metre in Pauls translation.13 All marginal quotations belong to the original lay-out of the manuscript; by a graphical sign they are attached to words in the main text. Brooks biblical index14 gives ca. 1000 Old Testament quotations. Fully quoted in the margins are ca. 600, additional 365 short quotations from the Psalms are used as headers for the 365 hymns inside the text; the rest is represented by a marginal reference only (e.g., 
). From the New Testament ca. 350 texts are quoted.
[6] According to Brooks index, ca. 150 of these marginal texts are classified as being quoted from the Septuagint; 17 are neither P nor LXX;15 4 are taken from Theodotion, 1 from the Syro-Hexapla; and all 13 quotations from Acts are given according to the Harklean version. The majority of unclassified references in the index are quotations from the Peshitta. This mixture of versions seems to be inconsistent with the revisers intention to give the scriptural words without variation and without addition or diminution. To contrast the allusions and distorted quotations in Pauls translation we expect him to quote a uniform Greek text (i.e., the Syro-Hexapla, and the Harklean) in accordance with the original language of the hymns. Instead of fully adopting the existing versions from the Greek, Jacob is quoting the Septuagint (and Theodotion) in translations of his own; although there are agreements with the Syro-Hexapla, these translations are independent renderings of the Septuagint.
[7] How to explain Jacobs versional inconsistency with quoting the scriptural texts? The versional diversity of scriptural quotations does not derive from the specific wording of the allusions and quotations in Pauls text. The dominating text quoted (of both Testaments) is the Peshitta, followed next by the Septuagint, while the Syro-Hexapla, Theodotion, and the Harklean are too infrequently quoted to contribute much to the versional inconsistency. With regard to the general intention of Jacobs marginal quotations to cite an unvaried text, the Septuagint quotations are likely to take the place of Peshitta texts which differ too much from Jacobs standard, i.e., the Greek (Septuagint). This suggestion receives support from the distribution of the Septuagint quotations: Most of them are in poetic books, poetic passages or in the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, i.e., not in texts of simple narrative structure.16 In these portions the Peshitta could be easily incongruent with the Septuagint. The Peshitta texts accepted by Jacob for quoting, however, are also far from being fully aligned with the Septuagint; but they are in a remarkably better alignment with the Septuagint than the Peshitta texts rejected by Jacob. The criterion for adoption or substitution of Peshitta text obviously is not the literal agreement with the Septuagint, but the general congruence given by (almost) identical structure of the verse and by (almost) identical sense.
[8] A hint to Jacobs intention of substituting Peshitta texts by Septuagint renderings of his own is his obvious refusal to replace the rejected Peshitta texts by the Syro-Hexapla. This refusal might derive from the extreme Graecised style of this translation. His own renderings match better the style of the Peshitta by the occasional adoption of Peshitta elements without adopting the Peshitta as such. The influence of the Peshitta in Jacobs own renderings of the Septuagint is mainly on the lexical level, while the syntax and the general structure of the verse are taken from the Septuagint. On the other hand, numerous minor adaptations to the Septuagint Jacob introduces to those Peshitta texts taken over by him without, however, introducing substantial changes to the text.
[9] With regard to the New Testament quotations there is some reason to believe that Jacob was satisfied with the Peshitta version and its translational features. The New Testament quotations in Ms Add 17134 are hardly affected by diversity or revisional activity. With the exception of thirteen quotations from the Harklean version of Acts,17 they are all taken from the Peshitta. According to the ca. 120 quotations from the Corpus Paulinum,18 the textual character of the New Testament quotations agrees with the majority text of that version.19 This agreement and the versional uniformity are in strong contrast with the diversity of Jacobs Old Testament quotations and may be taken as his acknowledgement of the New Testament Peshitta as a satisfactory translation. While Jacob might have taken the New Testament texts in the margins of Ms Add 17134 from a Peshitta manuscript, he carefully checked for the congruence of the Old Testament quotations with the Septuagint.
[10] To set out the textual character of Jacobs marginal quotations in some detail, a total of 207 verses in 62 items are presented in two sections (of 41 and 21 items) according to their derivation from the Peshitta or the Septuagint.
[11] In the following list 41 OT texts quoted by Jacob of Edessa in the margins of Ms Add 17134 are compared with the OT Peshitta20 and with the Septuagint.21 The Targumim22 were constantly consulted but did not influence the formation of Jacobs quotations (nor does the Masoretic Text). The Lemmata are taken from the Leiden Peshitta, the variants from Jacobs quotations published by Brooks (I = PO 6.1; II = PO 7.5). Brooks texts are checked with the help of a microfilm.
The beginning and the end of verses not fully quoted by Jacob are indicated by incipit and desinit respectively. Peshitta variants are only quoted (by their Leiden sigla) in support of variants in Jacobs quotations. Scribal errors (already noted by Brooks) are included in the list to proof the slightly corrupted condition of Ms Add 17134.
By their structure and sense the following texts are fairly well congruent with the Septuagint. Not surprisingly, the congruence is not the same in the items of narrative texts (e.g., Gen and 1/2 Sam) and in those of prophetic texts. There are two texts (item 4 and 38) with explicit (though tacit) corrections according to the Septuagint. One more text (item 21) is followed by Jacobs note to the different text of the Septuagint. With regard to the numerous minor adaptations to the Septuagint there is no doubt that Jacob carefully compared the Peshitta text taken over by him with the Greek text.
1) Gen 1:27-28/I 155; fol. 34v
2) Gen 2:15/I 69; fol. 15v
3) Gen 2:21-22/I 157; fol. 35r
4) Gen 3:14-15/II 603 [191]; fol. 40v
Jacob substitutes the Old Testament Peshitta of vs 15b by a translation of the LXX (similar below in no. 38).
5) Gen 3:17-20/I 55; fol. 12r
6) Gen 3:17-20/I Ι 767 [355]; fol. 69v
No variant reading
7) Gen 18:1-5/II 794 [382]; fol. 74r
According to Jacobs text, Abraham is addressing a single person.
8) Gen 19:15.17.26/II 716 [304]; fol. 61r
9) Gen 19:17.26/II 732 [320]; fol. 64r
10) Gen 28:16-17/I 156; 35r
11) Gen 28:16-19/I 161; fol. 35v
12) Gen 50:24-26/II 773 [361]; fol. 70r
no variant reading
13) Lev 14:3-7/II 750 [338]; fol. 67r
14) 1Sam 17:34-36/II 759 [347]; fol. 68r
The variants do not agree with Jacobs later revision, see A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (MPIL 10; Leiden, 1999), part I, 54.
15) 1Sam 17: 49-51/ II 759 [347]; fol. 68r
16) 2Sam 23: 13-17/ II 631 [219]; fol. 46v
Jacobs later revision offers also 
(in vs 14 and 15; in 16 different construction), see A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel part I, 160.
17) Isa 8:23 9:1/II, 605 [193]; fol 41r
18) Isa 10:33 11:3/I, 175; fol. 38v
19) Isa 12:2-3/I, 63; fol. 14v
20) Isa 14:3-15/II, 599 [187]; fol. 40r
21) Isa 14:10-12/I 101; fol. 23r
22) Isa 28:16/II, 662 [250]; fol. 52v
23) Isa 29:13-14/II 742 [330]; fol. 65v
no variant reading
24) Isa 32:1-6/II 596 [184]; fol. 39v
25) Isa 35:3-10/I 134; fol. 30v
26) Isa 40:27-41:2/II 615 [203]; fol. 43v
27) Isa 49:14-18/II 662 [250]; fol. 52r
28) Isa 49:18-21/I 137; fol. 31r
29) Isa 61:3-8/II 639 [227]; fol. 48r
30) Isa 58:1-2/II 710 [298]; fol. 60r
31) Isa 62:1-4/I 136; fol. 31r
32) Isa 66:6-9/I 131; fol. 30r
33) Jer 31:15-17/I 154; fol. 34v
no variant reading
34) Ezek 18:21-23/II 697 [285]; fol. 58r
35) Ezek 37:15-17/ I 176; fol. 38v
36) Hos 2:23-25/I 135; fol. 30v
37) Amos 8:9-10/II 703 [291]; fol. 59r
38) Jonah 3:7-9/I 68; fol. 15v
39) Hag 2:6-9/II 649 [237]; fol. 50r
40) Zech 11:7-8/I 175; fol. 38v
41) Lam 3:25-30/II 731 [319]; fol. 63v
[12] Jacobs 41 marginal Peshitta quotations compared with the Old Testament Peshitta and the Septuagint offer the following interpretation:
, and vs 8: add 
).
seems to be omitted by error). We also find conflations of Peshitta and Septuagint in item 25 (
is from the Septuagint; the verb is from the Peshitta), and 32 (vs 7: the addition of 
derives from the Septuagint, the tempus from the Peshitta).
to (14, 20, 24).
) which is difficult to explain. It is a general statement that God will not forget Zion (suffix 3rd pers. sg.) immediately before the special address to Zion (suffix 2nd pers. sg.).
(for 
) in item 40, and 
(for 
) in item 41 (vs 29) cannot be traced anywhere. The same is true for Jacobs variants in item 4 (vs 14), 5 (vs 17), 13 (vs 6). As these variants are hardly scribal errors, we have to allow for the possibility that Jacob introduced them deliberately.[13] The Syriac text quoted is Jacobs translation of the Septuagint taken from Brooks edition (I = PO 6.1; II = PO 7.5), and checked with the help of a microfilm of Ms BL Add 17134. The text is collated against the printed Septuagint-texts of Rahlfs and Ziegler. As most of the variants in Jacobs Septuagint text can be identified in the apparatus of Rahlfs edition I adopted his sigla and his style of quoting (not Zieglers). The few variants of Jacobs translation attested only in Zieglers fuller edition are quoted without specification of their inner-recensional attestation. The purpose of the apparatus thus compiled is not to give the exhaustive attestation but the affiliation of the variants to Septuagint recensions as far as possible. The Greek Lemmata are taken from Rahlfs text; in all given cases they are identical with Zieglers. The variants quoted are from Jacobs Syriac text presented in Greek.
Recensions in italics: O = recensio Origenis, L = rec. Luciani, C = rec. in Catena magna in prophetas inventa.
Jac = Jacobus Edessenus, P = Peshitta (Leiden Edition), SyH = Syro-Hexapla, SyL = Syro-Lucianic translation (see Zieglers edition, page 16 and 81-82). Further sigla are given according to Rahlfs and Zieglers editions.
Shadowed portions are passages identical with the Peshitta text.
1) Isa 1:4-6/II 697 [285], fol. 58r
2 Isa 3:12-14/II 738 [326], fol. 65r
3) Isa 6:1-7/ ΙΙ 671-72 [259-60], 54r
4) Isa 9:15-16/II 738 [326], 65r
5) Isa 21:3-4/II 744 [332], 66r
6) Isa 24:15-20/II 694 [282], fol. 57v
7) Isa 24:23-25:1/II 683 [271], 55v
8) Isa 25:6-10/II 767 [355], 69v
9) Isa 26:9/I 124, fol. 28r
10) Isa 26:18-19/II 700 [288], fol. 58v
11) Isa 30:18-19/II 768 [356], fol. 69v
12) Isa 46:12-13/II 715 [303], fol. 60v
13) Isa 55:6-9/II 783 [371], fol. 72r
14) Isa 57:19-21/II 710 [298], fol. 60r
15) Isa 59:11-13/II 699 [287], fol. 58r
16) Isa 63:17-18/II 766 [354], fol. 69r
17) Isa 63:19/II 711 [299], 60r
18) Isa 64:4-8/II 772 [360], 70r
19) Isa 65:15-18/II 775 [363], fol. 70v
20) Isa 65:22/II 775 [363], fol. 70v
21) Isa 66:17-19/II 723 [311], fol. 62r (hardly legible in the microfilm)
[14] Jacobs translation of the 21 Septuagint texts presented above includes three formative elements: 1. The Septuagint itself and its different recensions; 2. The Peshitta, and modifications of the Septuagint by the Peshitta; 3. Untraceable modifications of the Septuagint. The Syro-Hexapla may have influenced his translation in a general way, special influence is hardly traceable (see item 7, 11, 18, 19, 21). The Masoretic Text coincides with some Peshitta readings adopted by Jacob (see item 1 vs 4; vs 6:cnouj ante podn; item 3 vs 1: the beginning of the vs; item 13 vs 9); no special influence of the Hebrew is traceable.
[15] Ad 1. Jacob adopts variants from different recensions of the Septuagint (disagreeing with the Peshitta) in item 1 (vs 5), 3 (vs 6), 6 (vs 17), 8 (vs 10), 10, 19, 21 (vs 18). Adoption of different Septuagint recensions with agreement of the Peshitta we meet in item 1 (vss 4 and 6), 3 (vs 6), 11, (vs 7), 18 (vss 5 and 7). All these items show a striking preponderance of the Lucianic recension.
[16] Ad 2. Jacobs rendering of the Septuagint follows the Peshitta, not the Septuagint and/or Septuagint recensions in item 3 (vss 1.3.4.7), 13 (vs 9), 16. It is influenced by the Peshitta (without being exactly traceable to any existing reading) in item 8 (vs 9), 13 (vs 7), 15, 20, 21 (vs 19). With exception of the items 15 and 20 again the Lucianic recension is involved.
[17] Ad 3. Jacob offers untraceable variants in item 2, 6 (vs 16), 8 (vs 8), 14, 18 (vs 5), 21 (scribal errors are possible in item 8, 14, 21). The retroversion of Jacobs quotation is without control in item 6 (vs 20) and 8 (vs 7 in the second quotation). With regard to Jacobs ability to use different textual traditions in the Septuagint renderings of his own, it may be possible that untraceable variants may originate from Jacob himself.
[18] 1. The first result we can draw from the textual material presented above is that Jacobs approach to a translation of the Old Testament text must have started ante A. Gr. 986 (A. D. 674/75). We are not informed about the scope of this approach or about the actual incarnation of his textual material so far; but the consistency of the translational principles point to a well prepared written source which covers most of the Old Testament books. Jacobs decision to add a full-text apparatus of biblical testimonia in the margins to offer the explicit scriptural proof for what is only implicitly said or alluded to in the text was hardly the actual reason for his new approach. Possibly Jacob had started to prepare new translations of unsatisfactorily translated passages of the Peshitta earlier. The preponderance of the Lucianic-Antiochene recension in Jacobs translations may be due to a local Septuagint text.
[19] 2. The second result is that Jacobs introduction of Septuagint renderings in fact is a substitution of unsatisfactory Peshitta texts. The main reason for this interpretation is the mutual influence of Peshitta and Septuagint in Jacobs quotations. Jacobs intention is to maintain the Peshitta where it is congruent with the Septuagint, and to replace it by a rendering of the Septuagint where both differ too much. Full or partial agreement of the Peshitta with the Lucianic recension favoured the inclusion of the Old Testament Peshitta during the process of rendering the Septuagint texts.23 The textual character of Jacobs Septuagint renderings, however, is clearly distinguished from the one of the Peshitta quotations. The accommodation does not eliminate the different textual character of both types of quotations. With regard to translation technique, Jacobs renderings are far from adopting the extreme Graecising translation technique (mirror translation) of the Syro-Hexapla; but they are much better adapted to the Greek than the Peshitta.
[20] 3. The third result is that Jacobs marginal quotations reflect a prehistory of his later Old Testament revision which came into existence few years before his death in 708. For the purpose of this investigation it is sufficient to state that Jacobs revision24 is fundamentally an amalgam of the Peshitta and Greek texts.25 It is based on the Peshitta using the different recensions of the Greek (Septuagint); the Syro-Hexapla may have influenced his renderings, but is no primary source. Special features are a number of regular substitutions in the vocabulary of the Peshitta, glosses and creative expansions to improve the text, and a more Graecised representation of proper nouns than in the Peshitta. A subscription at the end of 1Sam26 provides the link with Jacobs quotations in Ms Add. 17134. It states that
this First Book of the Kingdoms [i.e., 1Sam] was corrected as far as possible and with much difficulty from the different traditions &mdash from that of the Syrians and from those of the Greeks — by the holy Jacob, bishop of Edessa ....
Jacobs quotations in Ms Add. 17134 actually represent the different traditions mentioned in the subscription, thus anticipating the revisional principle of the future work. These traditions, however, are still isolated from each other in Ms Add. 17134 and lack the characteristic later degree of amalgamation, despite their mutual influence already traceable in the single quotations. The dominance of the Peshitta quotations, however, preludes the increased significance of this version for the future revision; and Jacobs own renderings of the Septuagint correspond well with the reduced impact of the Syro-Hexapla on his later work.
[21] From the very beginning of his revisional activity Jacob adopted the principle of graeca veritas, but in a different way than the Harklean version and the Syro-Hexapla half a century before him. While the latter two versions by their mirror translation are intended to be read as Greek texts, Jacob is anxious to offer a Syriac text without dropping, however, the substantial relation to the Greek. The graeca veritas is reduced to the Septuagint traditions to which a Syriac textual incarnation is given by adoption, correction, and substitution of the traditional Peshitta text. In the marginal quotations of Ms BL Add 17134 this principle is in its infancy and still lacks the refinement and maturity of the later revision.27
_______
1 E. W. Brooks, Jacob of Edessa. The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others (PO 6.1 and 7.5; Turnhout, 1910/1911).
2 On this translation and its revision see A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschlu der christlich-palstinensischen Texte (Bonn, 1922), 190 and 253; R. Duval, La littrature syriaque. Des origines jusqu la fin de cette littrature aprs la conqute par les arabes au XIII sicle (Paris, 1907/Amsterdam, 1970), 317-18; W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894/Piscataway, 2001), 135 and 149; J.-B. Chabot, La littrature syriaque (Paris, 1934), 86; I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia syriaca (Rome, 1965), 173 and 180; F. Nau, LAramen chrtien (Syriaque). Les traductions faites du grec en syriaque au viie sicle, RHR 99 (1929) 263-65.
3 W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838, 1 (London, 1870/Piscataway, 2003), 330-339 (no. ccccxxi) and 339-340 (no. ccccxxii). A facsimile of Ms Add 17134 in 3 (London, 1872/Piscataway, 2003), plate v.
4 Brooks puts Jacobs corrections inter lineas in the notes; the words and single letters that Jacob painted red, are represented by Estrangelo-type to distinguish them from Pauls text in Serto-type, and by italics in the translation.
5 Syriac text by W. Wright, Catalogue 1, 336-37; text and translation by Brooks, The Hymns of Severus (PO 7,5), 801-02.
6 The identification of Jacob the industrious with Jacob of Edessa was rejected by F. Nau, Notice sur un nouveau manuscript de lOctoechus de Svre dAntioche, et sur lauteur Jacques Philoponus, distinct de Jacques ddesse, JA 12 (9 srie, 1898), 346-51; but later he accepted the identification (F. Nau, Les traductions, 264 note 1).
7 Wright, Catalogue 1, 338: The reasons for supposing that this manuscript is an autograph of the famous Jacob, bishop of Edessa, are 1. The antiquity of the volume. 2. The character of the handwriting, which is not regular enough for that of a professional scribe. 3. The absence of any indication of another scribe. 4. The care with which the specifications contained in the note, fol. 75a, have been adhered to throughout the whole volume, thus giving it an entirely different character and appearance from those of such copies as Add 18816 [...]. 5. The transcription in full, on the upper and lower margins, of all the passages of Scripture referred to in the hymns. 6. The general accuracy with which the Greek proper names and other words are written in Greek letters; and the correctness with which they are represented in Syriac characters [...].
8 F. Nau gives a different (and certainly wrong) interpretation: Il semble prfrable de dire que le scribe du seconde manuscript [i.e., Add. 18816] a simplifi et parfois corrig le premier [i.e., Add. 17134] qui resterait ainsi lautographe de Jacques dEdesse (F. Nau, Les traductions, 263-64).
9 The script is almost identical with the one of plate LIII (Ms Sachau 321, A.D. 740/41) in W. H. P. Hatch, An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston, 1946/Piscataway, 2003).
10 This manuscript, however, is already affected by a fading-out of the revisional features. In several cases the biblical text usually fully cited in the margins (see below) is not given, but replaced by the reference only.
11 See Brooks, The Hymns of Severus (PO 6.1) 6. — Mss Add. 17134 and Add. 18816 do not yet indicate the tones to which the hymns later were set; but in a few places the tones are added secunda manu. Brooks edition throughout adds the tones drawn from the later collections. On the Syriac Octochos see A. Baumstark, Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr der syrischen Jakobiten. Eine liturgische geschichtliche Vorarbeit auf Grund handschriftlicher Studien in Jerusalem und Damaskus (SGKA 3; Paderborn, 1910), 45-48; J. Jeannin/J. Puyade, LOctochos syrien, OrChr N.F. 3 (1913), 82-104; 277-98; J. Jeannin, Octochos syrien, in DACL 12/2 (1936) 1888-1899.
12 The revisional procedure probably is the same as that Thomas of Harqel used at the beginning of the 7th century revising the Philoxenian version.
13 The last sentence of Jacob note quoted above (and how the proofs and testimonies ...) refers to the biblical texts in the margin, not to Jacob interlinear corrections of biblical quotations inside the text. These interlinear corrections are part of the general corrections of Pauls translation according to the Greek text of the Hymns; they are not corrections according to an unvaried Bible text. Brooks obviously missed an explicit reference to the margin in Jacob note, and declared: Some words have perhaps fallen out in this sentence (802).
14 The index is appended to PO 14.1 300-309 [470-479] (Letters of Severus of Antioch, ed. by Brooks).
15 Unfortunately these texts are very short, only Lam 3:22 is suitable for comparison. It shows a mixture of the Septuagint and the Peshitta, a characteristic feature of a large number of Jacob marginal quotations (see below). Although Exod 3:2 (PO 7.5 page 639 [227]) is a rather long quotation, there are no significant distinctive features between Jacobs text, the Syro-Hexapla and the Peshitta. The remaining 15 quotations (Psalms) are short headers of the hymns.
16 Brooks declares [...] I cannot trace any principle except that in Genesis they [i.e., the citations] are from P, in the rest of the law from LXX, in Job and in the books not contained in the Hebrew from LXX, in Daniel from Theodotion, and in Isaiah in the earlier hymns generally from P, in the later generally from LXX (PO 7.5 page 6).
17 The Harklean quotations are studied by W. D. MacHardy, James of Edessas citations from the Philoxenian text of the Book of Acts, JThS 43 (1942), 168-173; The text of Jacob of Edessas citations and in the Cambridge Add. MS 1700, JThS 50 (1949), 186-87.
18 These quotations are included in the comparative edition of that Corpus published by B. Aland/A. Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer berlieferung, II, 1-3 (ANTT 14, 23, 32; Berlin-New York, 1991, 1995, 2002).
19 This majority text of the Corpus Paulinum was prepared by G. H. Gwilliam and J. Pinkerton and included in the New Testament volume issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1920. The majority character of this text, however, needs to be improved by additional collations.
20 The Peshitta follows the Leiden edition: Liber Genesis (based on material collected and studies by T. Jansma, prepared by the Peshitta Institute (I,1 1977); Leviticus ed. D. J. Lane, (I,2 1991); Liber Samuelis ed. P. A. H. de Boer (II,2 1978); Liber Isaiae ed. S. P. Brock (III,1 1987); Liber Ezechielis ed. M. J. Mulder (III,3 1985); Dodekapropheton, ed. A. Gelston (III,4 1980); for Jeremiah and Lamentations (both to be published in the Leiden Edition) I use the edition of S. Lee (1823). — The Syro-Hexapla is used according to the edition of Ceriani (and Vbus, where appropriate): Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Anbrosianus photolithographice editus [Monumenta sacra et profana 7]. Mediolani, 1874; A. Vbus, The Book of Isaiah in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla. A facsimile edition of Ms. St. Mark 1 in Jerusalem (CSCO 449/Subs. 68; Louvain 1983).
21 The Septuaginta are quoted according to the Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum; I: Genesis, ed. J.W. Wevers (1974), II,2: Leviticus, ed. J. W. Wevers, U. Quast (1986), XIII: Duodecim prophetae, ed. J. Ziegler (1943), XIV: Isaias, ed. J. Ziegler (1939), XVI,1: Ezechiel, ed. J. Ziegler (1952), XV: Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, ed. J. Ziegler (Gttingen 1957). For the books of Samuel I used the edition of A. E. Brooke/N. McLean/H. J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek, II,1:1 and 2 Samuel (Cambridge, 1927).
22 A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Based on old manuscripts and printed texts. 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959); 2: The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden, 1959); 3: The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan (Leiden, 1962).
23 The textual affinity between the Old Testament Peshitta and the Lucianic recension is disputed, but it was already acknowledged at the end of the 19th century, see Th. Stockmayer, Hat Lucian zu seiner Septuaginta revision die Peschito bentzt?, ZAW 12 (1892) 218-223; and M.P. Weitzmann, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (UCOP 56; Cambridge, 1999) 83-84.
24 The books of Samuel are the best presented and studied part of Jacob revision so far; see R. J. Saley, The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa. A Study in Its Underlying Textual Traditions (MPIL 9; Leiden, 1998); A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (MPIL 10; Leiden, 1999); A. Salvesan, Jacob of Edessas version of Exodus 1 and 28, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 8:1 (2005) [http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye]. An instructive article on Jacob revision was written by W. Baars, Ein neugefundenes Bruchstck aus der syrischen Bibelrevision des Jakob von Edessa, VT 18 (1968) 547-54. — For further literature, see D. Kruisheer and L. van Rompay, A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa, Hugoye 1:1 (1998), section II A [http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye].
25A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel, x.
26
Syriac text in A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel, part I, 90.
27 The present study presents only a limited number of Jacobs marginal quotations. Further investigations have to study the remaining quotations and compare all of them with Jacobs later Old Testament revision extant in a small number of manuscripts, see W. Baars, Ein neugefundenes Bruchstck, 548-549.
Aland, B. and A. Juckel. Das Neue Testament in syrischer berlieferung, II: Die Paulinischen Briefe, Teil 1-3 (ANTT 14, 23, 32; Berlin-New York, 1991, 1995, 2002).
Baars, W. 'Ein neugefundenes Bruchstck aus der syrischen Bibelrevision des Jakob von Edessa', VT 18 (1968) 547-54.
Baumstark, A. Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr der syrischen Jakobiten. Eine liturgische geschichtliche Vorarbeit auf Grund handschriftlicher Studien in Jerusalem und Damaskus (SGKA 3; Paderborn, 1910).
—. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschlu der christlich-palstinensischen Texte (Bonn, 1922/Berlin, 1968).
Brooke, A. E., N. McLean, and H. J. Thackeray. The Old Testament in Greek, II, 1: 1 and 2 Samuel (Cambridge, 1927).
Brooks, E. W. Jacob of Edessa. The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others (PO 6.1 and 7.5; Turnhout, 1910/1911).
Ceriani, A. M. Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Anbrosianus photolithographice editus (Monumenta sacra et profana 7; Mediolani, 1874).
Duval, R. La littrature syriaque. Des origines jusqu' la fin de cette littrature aprs la conqute par les arabes au XIII sicle (Paris, 1907/Amsterdam, 1970).
Hatch, W. H. P. An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston, 1946/Piscataway, 2003).
Chabot, J.-B. La littrature syriaque (Paris, 1934).
Jeannin, J. and J. Puyade. 'L'Octochos syrien', OrChr N.F. 3 (1913), 82-104; 277-98.
Kruisheer, D. and L. van Rompay. 'A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa', Hugoye 1:1 (1998) [http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye].
MacHardy, W. D. 'James of Edessa's citations from the Philoxenian text of the Book of Acts', JThS 43 (1942), 168-173.
—. 'The text of Jacob of Edessa's citations and in the Cambridge Add. MS 1700', JThS 50 (1949), 186-87.
Nau, F. 'L'Aramen chrtien (Syriaque). Les traductions faites du grec en syriaque au viie sicle', RHR 99 (1929) 263-65.
—. 'Notice sur un nouveau manuscript de l'Octoechus de Svre d'Antioche, et sur l'auteur Jacques Philoponus, distinct de Jacques d'desse', JA 12 (9 srie, 1898), 346-51.
Ortiz de Urbina, I. Patrologia syriaca (Rome, 1965).
Saley, R. J. The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa. A Study in Its Underlying Textual Traditions (MPIL 9; Leiden, 1998).
Salvesen, A. 'Jacob of Edessa's version of Exodus 1 and 28', Hugoye 8:1 (2005) [http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye].
—. The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (MPIL 10; Leiden, 1999).Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum; I: Genesis, ed. J. W. Wevers (1974), II,2: Leviticus, ed. J. W. Wevers, U. Quast (1986), XIII: Duodecim prophetae, ed. J. Ziegler (1943), XIV: Isaias, ed. J. Ziegler (1939), XVI,1: Ezechiel, ed. J. Ziegler (1952), XV: Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, ed. J. Ziegler (Gttingen, 1957).
Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic. based on old manuscripts and printed texts. 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959); 2: The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden, 1959); 3: The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan (Leiden, 1962).
Stockmayer, Th. 'Hat Lucian zu seiner Septuagintarevision die Peschito bentzt?', ZAW 12 (1892) 218-223.
The Old Testament in Syriac Accordin