The Canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in the Manuscript IOM, RAS Syr. 34

Abstract

The article deals with the manuscript IOM, RAS Syr. 34, one leaf of parchment originating from the collection of Nikolai Likhachev. It contains a Syriac translation of selected documents of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (AD 325): the introduction to the canons, a bilingual Greek-Syriac list of 42 bishops, and the first five canons of the council. Most of the texts are incomplete and damaged. The present article focuses mainly on the study and commented publication of the five Nicaean canons from IOM, RAS Syr. 34. On the basis of comparative textual research the author aims to show the place of the St. Petersburg manuscript in the history of Syriac translations of the canons.

Full Text

Natalia Smelova The Canons of the First Ecumenical Council 1 of Nicaea in the Manuscript IOM, RAS Syr. 34 Abstract: The article deals with the manuscript IOM, RAS Syr. 34, one leaf of parchment originating from the collection of Nikolai Likhachev. It contains a Syriac translation of selected documents of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (AD 325): the introduction to the canons, a bilingual Greek-Syriac list of 42 bishops, and the first five canons of the council. Most of the texts are incomplete and damaged. The present article focuses mainly on the study and commented publication of the five Nicaean canons from IOM, RAS Syr. 34. On the basis of comparative textual research the author aims to show the place of the St. Petersburg manuscript in the history of Syriac translations of the canons. Key words: Christian Church, Late Roman Empire, Ecumenical Councils, canon law, Syriac translations from Greek, Syriac manuscripts Introduction 1. IOM, RAS Syr. 34: the study of provenance and paleographic description The subject of this paper is a remarkable one-leaf parchment manuscript IOM, RAS Syr. 34, which contains fragmented documents of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (AD 325) (hereafter, Nicaea I): a final portion of the introduction to the canons (f. 1r), the bilingual Greek-Syriac list of 42 bishops (f. 1r), and the first five canons (incomplete and badly damaged) (f. 1v). The manuscript came into the Institute as part of the collection of the historian Nikolai Likhachev (1862-1936). This remarkable private collection was formed in the course of the late 19th and early 20th cс. It included various types of script and writing material, both Eastern and Western, due © Natalia Semyonovna Smelova, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences 1 This is a revised and corrected version of my article in the PPV No. 2(11) (SMELOVA 2009). to the collector’s special interest in the history of writing, paleography and codicology. In 1918, the nationalised collection became the basis for the newly-founded Cabinet of Paleography that first was part of the Archeological Institute, and then (since 1923) of the Archeological Museum of the Petrograd University. In 1925 it was renamed the Museum of Paleography and came under the administration of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Later on, in 1930, following Likhachev’s arrest, this was reorganised as the Museum of the Book, Document and Writing, which was soon afterwards renamed Institute and subsequently, in 1936, ceased its existence as an independent organisation. From 1930 until 1935 the collection was gradually distributed among different institutions in Leningrad, such as the State Hermitage Museum, the Leningrad Branches of the Institute of History and the Institute of Oriental Studies (now IOM) of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, depending on the language and nature of the material.[36] The scope, scale and significance of the collection could be fully appreciated at the exhibition held in the Hermitage in 2012, which brought together artefacts and manuscripts that once belonged to Likhachev and are now kept in different depositories in St. Petersburg.[37] Among the numerous Oriental materials from the Likhachev Collection, six items were identified as Syriac, in some cases by their script rather than by language.[38] The provenance of the manuscripts can be established, albeit only approximately, from the hand-written notes taken by Yurii Perepelkin of Likhachev’s own statements, now in St. Petersburg Branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[39] Regarding the manuscript later classified as Syr. 34, we know that it was acquired from an antiquarian bookseller in St. Petersburg around 1900 along with two others, the liturgy of John Chrysostom in the form of a paper scroll, and 53 loose leaves of parchment carrying the Homiliae Cathedrales by Severus of Antioch.[40] However, there is another piece of testimony provided by Heinrich Goussen who writes that most probably this is the same leaf of parchment which was offered to the University of Strasbourg by an antiquarian from Frankfurt around 1896/1897. Goussen saw and copied the manuscript himself and he tends to date it to the 7th-8th cс.[41] Thus it well may be that Likhachev purchased the manuscript from an antiquarian bookseller in Frankfurt rather than St. Petersburg. Apart from this information, we are fortunate to have further notes testifying to the time when our manuscript reached St. Petersburg and was first examined there. The manuscript is still kept in its original folder along with two handwritten notes in French dated 14th November 1859. These were made by two librarians of the Imperial Public Library (hereafter - IPL) in St. Petersburg, Eduard de Muralt and Bernhard (Boris) Dorn, who examined and provided an expert opinion on the two manuscripts, the Homiliae Cathedrales (now Syr. 35) and the Nicaean documents (now Syr. 34). Muralt describes the latter as containing the first five canons of the Council of Nicaea of AD 325 issued and subscribed by 318 bishops, of whom 41 (sic! - N.S.) signature survived in Greek writing of approximately the 9th-10th cc. and in Syriac esṭrangelo writing. He then lists the names of the bishops in French. In Dorn’s note the manuscript is described as being written in the “Nestorian” script and is dated, on the basis of paleography, to the 9th c.[42] In October 1859 Constantine Tischendorf returned to St. Petersburg from his expedition to the Middle East and brought a collection of 109 Greek and Oriental manuscripts, predominately Christian, which was solemnly presented to the Tsar Alexander II, who had sponsored the expedition, and subsequently deposited in the IPL. Among Tischendorf’s finds was the other portion of the Homiliae Cathedrales manuscript (23 leaves; now NLR, Syr. new series 10). We can only conjecture that the two manuscripts (IOM, RAS Syr. 34 and Syr. 35) might also have been brought to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf in 1859. However, it is unclear why, having been seen and described by Bernhard Dorn, the librarian at the IPL Manuscripts Department as well as the director of the Asiatic Museum, they were acquired neither by the IPL nor by the Museum. Probably, in 1859, they entered a private collection in Russia, from which they were sold to an antiquarian, either in St. Petersburg, or in Frankfurt, where they were eventually purchased by Likhachev at the turn of the 20th c. The first scholarly description of the manuscript, the study and publication of the bilingual Greek and Syriac list of bishops was undertaken by Vladimir Beneshevich in the 1910s.[43] The researcher highlighted the bilinguality of the list as a feature which made the St. Petersburg manuscript unique, since no other examples were known to him at that time. He thoroughly analysed the Greek script used in the names of the bishops (majuscule form) as well as in the names of the provinces and marginal notes (transitional form with elements of minuscule), and came to the conclusion that the writing can be dated to the 8th(?)-9th cc. Quoting Prof. Pavel Kokovtsoff’s opinion, he described the Syriac script as “a Jacobite cursive” of approximately 9th- 10th cc. In addition to this, Beneshevich stated that both parts of the list were written simultaneously, although the Greek and parallel Syriac column (the names of the bishops and provinces) could have been written by one scribe and the three columns of Syriac text by another hand.[44] Another significant conclusion drawn by Beneshevich was that the Syriac text of the canons in the St. Petersburg manuscript is virtually the same recension as that in the manuscript Paris syr. 62 in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. He supposed that this translation of the Greek canons was made around the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, i.e. AD 451 (see the discussion on this text in chapter 2 below).[45] A short description of the IOM, RAS Syr. 34 was included in the “Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Leningrad” by Nina Pigulevskaya.[46] Agreeing with Kokovtsoff’s opinion, she defined the script of the manuscript as a clear cursive in its transitional form from esṭrangelo to serṭo (the WestSyrian writing). She added also that the ductus is similar to that seen in the manuscript containing a work by Sahdona copied in AD 837 (AG 1148) by a monk called Sergius who donated it to the Monastery of Moses on Sinai (NLR Syr. new series 13; Strasbourg MS 4116).[47] This statement is somewhat unclear because the main text of the latter manuscript is written in esṭrangelo. Apparently, Pigulevskaya was referring to the cursive writing used in the colophon, which does make sense, although the two scripts are obviously not identical, as the Sahdona manuscript contains more elements of cursive than IOM, RAS Syr. 34. The dimensions of the IOM, RAS Syr. 34 are 195×293 mm. The upper right corner of f. 1r is damaged, so that the final part of the introduction on the recto as well as the title and the initial part of the canons on the verso have been lost. The text on the hair (recto) side of the parchment is generally better preserved than the text on the flesh side, where it was rubbed or washed off. The text is written with iron gall ink, while the names of provinces in both Greek and Syriac (f. 1r) as well as the titles and numbers of the canons (f. 1v) are in red ink. The recto contains two columns of text; the right-hand column and the text in the lower margin are further divided to include parallel lists of bishops in two languages. The left edge of the right-hand column is more or less observed, in contrast to the right edge which is virtually ignored. Thus it becomes obvious that the Greek names were written prior to the Syriac ones, which were fitted into the space available. The left column contains 42 lines of plain Syriac text of the so-called introduction to the canons. In the left margin, there are a few Greek words corresponding to those given in Syriac transcription in the introduction. Writing area: variable, 272×164 mm maximum; right column: variable, 272×88 mm maximum; left column: 224× 64 mm; upper margin - 20 mm; lower margin: filled with names of bishops and, in the bottom right corner, four lines of smaller Syriac text in a vertical direction published by Beneshevich;[48] right margin: between 7 and 16 mm; left margin: up to 25 mm, gap between columns about 10 mm. The verso contains two columns of Syriac text (42 lines in the right column, 41 in the left column) with Greek glosses in the right margin and in the gap between the columns. The traces of ruling include four pinholes marking the edges of the columns. Writing area: 224×150 mm; right column: 224×64 mm; left column: 224×67 mm; upper margin - up to 23 mm; lower margin - up to 48 mm; right margin - up to 30 mm; left margin - 17 mm; gap between columns 20 mm. Measurememts were taken from the pinholes. The writing of the main Syriac text is a transitional form of esṭrangelo with some elements of serṭo (ܪ ܡ ܘ ܗ ܕ ܐ). The Syriac list of bishops is written in a rather cursive script with occasional elements of esṭrangelo (letters ܒ ܡ ܦ ܩ). It is, however, unlikely that the two were written by different scribes, as Beneshevich suggested. Such ductus features as the slope of the letters and final strokes, especially, the final ܢ , testify to the fact that both parts were written by the same hand. It is difficult to say whether the Greek text was executed by the same scribe. However, taking into account the high level of translation activity and the widespread use of Greek marginal notes in West-Syrian manuscripts, it would seem reasonable to assume that both texts were written by the same Syriac scribe well versed in the Greek language and calligraphy. Although a similar transitional form of the script can be found in a number of 9th c. West-Syrian manuscripts (e.g. BL Add. 12159 of AD 867/868 and BL Add. 14623 of AD 823),[49] it is also characteristic of some SyroMelkite manuscripts, presumed to be of the same period (e.g. Syr. Sp. 68, Syr. Sp. 70, 9th c., according to Sebastian Brock).[50] Therefore in our case the writing per se cannot be decisive in determining whether the manuscript belongs to one tradition or the other. However, the Greek words in the margins form part of the specifically West-Syrian system for the presentation of translated texts (cf. Greek scholia in IOM, RAS Syr. 35, BL Add. 17148 (AD 650-660), BL Add. 17134 (AD 675), BL Add. 12134 (AD 697) and many other West-Syrian manuscripts from the 7th c. onwards).[51] This latter feature as well as the recension of the text, which is only preserved in WestSyrian manuscripts, may testify to the West-Syrian origin of the St. Petersburg leaf. 2. Documents of Nicaea I in Syriac translation: an overview Paraphrasing Michel Aubineau, the question of the exact number of bishops who participated in the Council of Nicaea is likely to remain for ever insoluble.[52] Even the 4th c. writers, who attended the council, do not agree on this matter. The Vita Constantini, ascribed, although not without some doubt, to Eusebius, gives the smallest number, to wit “more than two hundred and fifty bishops”.[53] Theodoret, quoting the words of Eustathius of Antioch, who chaired the council before his deposition and exile, mentions about 270 bishops.[54] Other sources give a number around or above 300. These are the letter from Emperor Constantine to the Church of Alexandria (AD 325) quoted by Socrates Scholasticus, Gelasius of Cyzicus and others; Apologia contra Arianos (AD 350-351) and Historia Arianorum ad monachos (AD 358) by Athanasius; Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi by Jerome, etc.[55] However, at some point in the 4th c., the precise number of 318 bishops emerged and gained currency, being associated with the number of Abraham’s servants in Gen. 14:14.[56] Among the earliest sources which give the number 318, scholars mention De Fide ad Gratianum by Ambrose, Epistola ad Afros by Athanasius, De synodis and Liber contra Constantium imperatorem by Hilary of Poitiers.[57] I should add that the tradition does not always specify whether 318 refers to the total number of bishops gathered in Nicaea or to those who signed the canons and other resolutions of the council (some bishops were deposed in the course of the sessions and sent into exile before the end of the council; others refused to put their signatures to the Creed).[58] In either case, the number 318 became widely reflected in the title of the Nicaean canons in Syriac translations (e.g. BL Add. 14528, BL Add. 14526, BL Add. 14529, and also the 72 pseudo-Nicaean canons associated with Maruta of Maiperqaṭ) as well as in some later Greek versions of the list of bishops.[59] The written records of Nicaea I have not survived unlike the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (AD 431) and all subsequent Ecumenical Councils. The main resolutions concerning Church structure and internal discipline, including issues of private life and ordination of priests and bishops, were formulated in the form of 20 canons. Karl Joseph Hefele in his Conciliengeschichte made a thorough study of the question of the number of the Nicaean canons. On the one hand, he cites Theodoret, Gelasius of Cyzicus, Rufinus and other Church historians who spoke of 20 canons, and mentions numerous western (Latin) and eastern (Greek and Slavonic) medieval canonic manuscripts (Syntagmas, Nomocanons and other collections of canon law) containing 20 Nicaean canons. On the other hand, he shows some Arabic versions which preserved up to 84 canons ascribed to the Council of Nicaea. First published in the course of the 16th c. by the Jesuits François Torrès and Alphonse Pisani, then re-published in mid- 17th c. by the Maronite Abraham Ecchelensis, the Latin translation of these was included in all major collections of the proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils.[60] Hefele sums up the conclusions of various scholars that these additional canons were products of later Eastern traditions. Some of them could not have been composed before the Council of Ephesus (431), others not before Chalcedon (461).[61] In 1898, the publication by Oscar Braun made known the corpus of works ascribed to Maruta, Bishop of Maiperqaṭ, on the basis of the East-Syrian manuscript from the former Borgia Museum in Vatican, now Borg. sir. 82. Among a dozen works dealing with the Council of Nicaea, he published a transcription of 73 Syriac “Nicaean” canons.[62] The scholarly publication of these texts was undertaken by Arthur Vööbus.[63] As follows from the title, the canons of the council of 318 [bishops] were translated by Maruta at the request of Mar Isḥaq, Bishop-Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.[64] In AD 410 Maruta assisted Mar Isḥaq in convening the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. That synod was an important milestone in the formation of the Church structure within the Sasanian Empire. In order to stress its legitimate status and continuity from the Ecumenical Church, the Synod accepted the main resolutions of Nicaea I, including the Creed and the canons. On the occasion of the synod, Maruta apparently translated from Greek the main documents of the Council of Nicaea, including 20 canons, the Creed, the Sacra, letters of Constantine and Helena and the names of the bishops (220 in number, without the Western bishops) and also composed his own overview of the Canon of Nicaea and various related explanatory pieces, i.e. on monasticism, persecutions, heresies, on terms, ranks and orders, etc. All these texts were included in the edition prepared by Vööbus on the basis of the manuscript from the Monastery of Our Lady of the Seeds in Alqoš (Alqoš 169; later in the Chaldean monastery in Bagdad, No. 509) with variants from Vat. sir. 501, Borg. sir. 82, Mingana Syr. 586, and Mingana Syr. 47 (see details of some of these manuscripts in Table 1 below).[65] Braun considered Maruta to be the author of the 73 canons originally composed in Syriac.[66] Vööbus neither supports nor rejects this attribution due to the lack of evidence, as well as the critical edition and stylistic analysis of the text.[67] Moreover, he adds that the East-Syrian recension, which associates the canons with Maruta, is not the original one and must have been adopted from the West-Syrian tradition. He also mentions Arabic and Ethiopic versions of these canons.[68] In a number of Syriac manuscripts the authentic Nicaean canons are accompanied by the list of bishops who approved and signed them (the list can be included either before or after the canons). Being originally a collection of signatures in Greek, the list underwent certain transformations within the Greek tradition and was subsequently translated into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic and Armenian.[69] Among the variety of versions Dmitrii Lebedev distinguished two forms of the list. In “systematic” lists, which include all extant Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Armenian versions, the names are arranged according to provinces. The “non-systematic” lists published by Gelzer, Hilgenfeld and Cuntz from selected Greek and Arabic manuscripts lack the names of the provinces and arrange the bishops’ names in a different, somewhat peculiar, way.[70] All Syriac lists, which can be found in both West-Syrian and East-Syrian manuscripts, are in the “systematic” form and derive from the Greek recension of Theodoros Anagnostes (the list of 212 names, originally included in Socrates Scholasticus’s Historia Ecclesiastica).[71] Besides anonymous collections of ecclesiastical law, the lists are included in the Chronicle of the 12th-c. Syrian Orthodox patriarch Michael the Great and the Nomocanon of ‘Abdišo‘ bar Brika, the Metropolitan of Nisibis (Church of the East) (13th- 14th cc.). According to Vladimir Beneshevich, the version of the list in the manuscript IOM, RAS Syr. 34 corresponds to the West-Syrian recension used by Michael the Great in his Chronicle (VII:2).[72] This perfectly supports our assumption regarding the West-Syrian origin of the St. Petersburg manuscript. Beneshevich also states that the original Greek version of the Syriac list must have been composed after 371 under a certain influence from the Coptic tradition. It also became the source for the Latin translations.[73] Another curious observation by Beneshevich about the Greek text of the list in IOM, RAS Syr. 34 is that it represents a transcription of the Syriac forms of the names of provinces and bishops rather than being the authentic Greek forms.[74] However, Hubert Kaufhold demonstrates that this is not particularly correct and the scribe must have had the original list of bishops before his eyes. The fact that the Greek names of the provinces are in the nominative rather than the genitive is not decisive here, as some Greek and Syriac forms in this recension (which can be fully evaluated on the grounds of Mardin Orth. 309) are clearly different (e.g. ΕΔΕΣΗΣ - ܐܘܪܗܝ).[75] Beneshevich wrote his work in the first decades of the 20th c. when no other manuscripts containing bilingual lists of bishops were known. Thus the St. Petersburg leaf was considered unique. However, due to new acquisitions made by the Vatican Library and Arthur Vööbus’s exploration of Middle Eastern manuscript collections, some other bilingual Greek-Syriac lists have become known, among them the 8th-c. codex Mardin Orth. 309 and Vat. sir. 495, a 20th-c. manuscript “copied from an ancient codex”.[76] The Mardin manuscript attracted a lot of attention, particularly, from Hubert Kaufhold who published the lists of bishops of the early Greek councils and synods on its basis.[77] Alongside the above-mentioned 20 canons and the list of bishops, the Nicaean documents in both West-Syrian and East-Syrian manuscripts, mostly of legislative contents, include the Nicaean Creed, the letter of Constantine of AD 325 calling on the bishops who assembled in Ancyra to move to the new venue in Nicaea, the Sacra, i.e. the decree of Constantine against the Arians;[78] the letter of the bishops to the Church of Alexandria, and an introduction to the canons.[79] This last work has not yet been fully identified. According to Vladimir Beneshevich, it may be a combination of two different texts: the afterword to the Nicaean Creed included in Gelasius’s Historia Ecclesiastica (II:27), also known in Latin, Coptic and Armenian translations, and the council’s resolution on the celebration of Easter.[80] This text in Syriac translation was thought to be present in full in the manuscript Paris syr. 62 only. However, it can be also identified in the two Mardin manuscripts discovered by Arthur Vööbus, Mardin Orth. 309 and Mardin Orth. 310, as well as the Birmingham manuscript Mingana Syr. 8 that was copied in 1911 from the fragmented Mardin Orth. 310. 3. The place of IOM, RAS Syr. 34 in the textual history of the Syriac canons of Nicaea I We are indebted to Friedrich Schulthess for the initial identification of different Syriac translations and recensions of the canons of Nicaea I. Through a critical study of eight Syriac manuscripts, he uncovered the fact that the canons were translated twice. One translation (A) is attested by the London codex BL Add. 14528 of the 6th c. The first of its two independent parts that were bound together is an archaic form of Synodicon of the councils from Nicaea to Chalcedon with the exception of the Council of Ephesus (ff. 1- 151). This form of canonical collection is known as the “Corpus canonum” and is thought to have been compiled in Antioch shortly before the Council of Constantinople (381). It included the canons of the Greek councils and synods of the 4th c. (Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodiceia and Constantinople itself) with later added canons of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.[81] It represents the core and the initial part of subsequent Synodica, i.e. the corpora of ecclesiastical legislation, both West-Syrian (e.g. Paris syr. 62, Damascus 8/11) and East Syrian (e.g. Alqoš 169 and its copies).[82] The colophon of Add. 14528 informs us that the entire collection of 193 canons of various synods was translated from Greek into Syriac in Mabbug in the year 500/501 (AD 812).49 Schulthess described this translation as precise, and Vööbus suggested that it was the later of the two. He states that translation A (hereafter, I use Schulthess’s letters indicating the published manuscripts as a designation of translations contained in them) was intended to correct and improve the existing rendering which permitted certain leeway in the interpretation of Greek canon law.[83] The manuscript BL Add. 14528 is also interesting as it contains a very well preserved Syriac list of the bishops at Nicaea I which became the basis for a number of modern publications (see Table 1 for details). The beginning of the 6th c. was the time when Philoxenus, a strong advocate of Miaphysitism, was active in Mabbug, where he was a bishop from 485 until his deposition in 519. In all probability, the translation of the canons made in Mabbug in 501 (as is claimed in the colophon of Add. 14528) was the result of a large-scale translation activity, which consisted primarily in the translation of the Old and New Testament, commissioned by Philoxenus and performed by his horepiskopus Polycarpus. Hubert Kaufhold adds an interesting detail: another Miaphysite leader, Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-518), mentions in his letters a collection of canons of the imperial councils which was available to him, although no Greek original for this existed at his time.[84] This may have been the translation produced in Mabbug just a decade before his patriarchate. In this case, why were the canons of the hostile Council of Chalcedon translated and included in all known West-Syrian manuscripts of purely legislative or mixed contents (e.g. BL Add. 14526, BL Add. 14529, BL Add. 12155, Paris syr. 62, Damascus Part. 8/11 etc.)? The answer is probably that they cover and discuss disciplinary rather than doctrinal issues, so their inclusion in the West-Syrian collections would not give rise to any further controversy. By contrast, the canon(s) of Ephesus seems to be a rarer text. Most West-Syrian manuscripts studied by Schulthess and Vööbus include only one canon of Ephesus (namely, canon 7, dealing with the Nicaean Creed) of eight known in the Greek tradition (with the exception of Paris syr. 62 which includes two canons, 8 and 7). They are not included in the East-Syrian Synodicon Borg. sir. 82, although that codex is highly fragmented. The canons of Ephesus are quite different in content as, unlike those of other councils, they have a pronouncedly polemical character. The earliest evidence of another translation (B), which Schulthess characterises as “free”, is the manuscript BL Add. 14526 from the 7th c. It was probably written around or soon after 641.[85] Like the previous manuscript, the first part of this composite codex contains the Corpus canonum, including one canon of the Council of Ephesus. Despite the evidence for this translation being more recent than the previous one, Vööbus points out its archaic character and suggests that this might be the first attempt at interpreting the canons.[86] The further development of both translations of the Nicaean canons is most curious. Translation A emerges in East-Syrian manuscripts which contain the works of Maruta of Maiperqaṭ (Borg. sir. 82, Vat. Syr. 501, Mingana Syr. 586, Mingana Syr. 47). This creates a certain difficulty, as the colophons in the manuscripts contradict each other. Was the Nicaean corpus translated by Maruta on the occasion of the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410 (as East-Syrian manuscripts claim) or were the canons of Nicaea translated together with those constituting the Antiochian Corpus canonum around 501 in Mabbug? This question can only be answered on the basis of comparative stylistic analysis of translation A with the texts ascribed to Maruta on the one hand and with the West-Syrian translations from the 6th c. on the other. Interestingly, other examples of translation A can be found in manuscripts with mixed contents of undoubtedly West-Syrian origin: the polemic florilegium BL Add. 14529 (7th-8th cc.) which includes patristic texts against heretics such as Nestorius and Julian of Halicarnassus;[87] and a highly fragmented 8th-9th cc. codex in the Houghton Library of Harvard University that came from the collection of James Rendel Harris, which also contains apocryphal gospels and apocalypses.[88] The comparison of the different patterns of translation A show minor variants (with the exception of the general title of the canons) and testify to roughly the same recension of the text. Translation B, on the contrary, underwent some major alterations in the course of its textual history, probably due to the free character of the original translation, which was considered unsatisfactory at some point. The first recension (C-D) of this translation is attested by West-Syrian manuscripts with various contents, e.g. BL Add. 12155 (C) (8th c.), a very extensive polemic florilegium,[89] and Vat. sir. 127 (D), a collection of canons similar in structure to the earlier manuscript BL Add. 14526.[90] In the course of the exploration of Syriac manuscripts in the Middle East, Arthur Vööbus discovered in the library of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate in Damascus an important codex that was a compendium of the ecclesiastical law, the Synodicon, belonging to the West-Syrian tradition.[91] According to Vööbus, the version of the Nicaean canons preserved in this manuscript conforms in general to the C-D recension, although it adds a number of variants not attested by any previously known manuscripts.[92] Vööbus identified another example of the same recension in the manuscript Mardin Orth. 320.[93] Another recension (E), the result of further revision of the C-D text, was identified by Schulthess in the 9th-c. manuscript Paris syr. 62, a WestSyrian collection of apocryphal, patristic and canonical texts. An interesting feature is that this compendium of undoubtedly West-Syrian origin contains the previously mentioned 73 pseudo-Nicaean canons associated with Maruta of Maiperqaṭ. Apart from the 20 authentic canons of Nicaea I, the manuscript includes the introduction to the canons which also can be found in all other manuscripts attesting to this recension.[94] Arthur Vööbus and, later, Hubert Kaufhold identified the same revision of the text in two 8th-c. Synodica from the Za‘faran Monastery, namely, Mardin Orth. 309 and Mardin Orth. 310. With regard to the latter, Vööbus mentions a number of variants which “throw more light” on the history of this recension.[95] The copy of Mardin Orth. 310 is a manuscript of 1911 in the Mingana collection at the University of Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 8. Unlike Schulthess, Kaufhold identifies this version as the second translation (or, rather an adaptation of the first translation) of the canons made by Jacob of Edessa at the end of the 7th c.[96] Within the context of comparative textual study of the translations of the Nicaean canons and, in particular, the recension E just mentioned, the main perspective is the preparation of the critical edition of the 20 Nicaean canons and an introduction to the canons through study and collation of the manuscripts Mardin Orth. 309, Mardin Orth. 310, IOM, RAS Syr. 34, Paris syr. 62 and Mingana Syr. 8. There is still a possibility that at some point the manuscript, presumably from the 9th c., to which our leaf originally belonged to, will be found. Table 1 The table below shows the three Nicaean documents preserved in IOM, RAS Syr. 34 in the context of their textual history. For each document I provide a list of the most important manuscripts relevant for this study with their editions and selected bibliography. The table is based on the critical edition of the canons by Friedrich Schulthess to which I have added new material discovered in the second half of the 20th c., mainly by Arthur Vööbus. The table covers selected sources only and in no way claims to be comprehensive. Documents Manuscripts (West-Syrian), selected bibliography and editions Manuscripts (East-Syrian), selected bibliography and editions Canons Translation A BL Add. 14528, after 501, ff. 25v-36r (VÖÖBUS 1972, 94; SCHULTHESS 1908, V; WRIGHT 1870-1872, pt. 2, 1030-1033; COWPER 1857, III-IV; edition: SCHULTHESS 1908, 13-28) BL Add. 14529, 7th-8th cc., ff. 40r-44v SCHULTHESS 1908, VIII; WRIGHT 1870-1872, pt. 2, 917-921; edition: SCHULTHESS 1908, 13-28) Harvard Syr. 93 (Harris 85), 8th-9th cc., ff. 60r-62v, canons 1-2, 6-7, 18-20, fragm. (VÖÖBUS 1970, 452-454; GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN 1979, 75-76; HARRIS 1900, 7-11) Translation A within the corpus of Maruta of Maiperqaṭ Bagdad Chaldean Monastery 509 (Alqoš 169), 13th-14th cс. (VÖÖBUS 1982-1, VI-IX; SELB 1981, 64; SCHER 1906, 55; VOSTÉ 1929, 63; HADDAD, ISAAC 1988, ٢٢٤-٢٢٩; edition: VÖÖBUS 1982-1, 47-55) Borg. sir. 82, a copy of Alqoš 169, ff. 15-18, canons 15-20, imperfect (VÖÖBUS 1982-1, X-XIII; SCHER 1909, 268; SCHULTHESS 1908, VII; BRAUN 1898, 1-26; editions: VÖÖBUS 1982-1, 47-55; SCHULTHESS 1908, 24-28) Vat. sir. 501, 1927, ff. 4v-10v (VÖÖBUS 1982-1, VI-IX; LANTSCHOOT 1965, 34-35; edition: VÖÖBUS 1982-1, 47-55) Mingana Syr. 586, 1932, probably a copy of Alqoš 169, ff. 2r-5v (VÖÖBUS 1982-1, XIII; MINGANA 1933, col. 1109-1116; edition: VÖÖBUS 1982-1, 47-55) Translation B BL Add. 14526, after 641, ff. 13v-16r (VÖÖBUS 1970, 440-2; SCHULTHESS 1908, V-VI; WRIGHT 1870-1872, pt. 2, 1033-1036; editions: COWPER 1857, 20 (canons 6 and 7); SCHULTHESS 1908, 13-28). Documents Manuscripts (West-Syrian), selected bibliography and editions Manuscripts (East-Syrian), selected bibliography and editions Canons Translation B - recension СD BL Add. 12155, 8th c., ff. 207v- 209r (VÖÖBUS 1970, 442-3; SCHULTHESS 1908, VI; WRIGHT 1870-1872, pt. 2, 921-955; edition: SCHULTHESS 1908, 13-28) Vat. sir. 127, ff. 29v-39r (SCHULTHESS 1908, VI; ASSEMANI 1756-1759, vol. III, 178; edition: SCHULTHESS 1908, 13-28) Damascus Patr. 8/11, 1204, ff. 34r-37v (VÖÖBUS 1972, 96- 97; VÖÖBUS 1970, 458-464; edition: VÖÖBUS 1975, 85-93) Mardin Orth. 320 (VÖÖBUS 1972, 97; VÖÖBUS 1970, 471) Translation B - recension E Mardin Orth. 309, 8th c., 37r- 41v (VÖÖBUS 1972, 96; VÖÖBUS 1970, 443-447) Mardin Orth. 310, 8th c. (VÖÖBUS 1972, 96; VÖÖBUS 1970, 447-452) IOM, RAS Syr. 34, 9th c., f. 1v, canons 1-5, fragm. (BENESHEVICH 1917-1925, 111- 134) Paris syr. 62, 9th c., ff. 124r- 128v (VÖÖBUS 1970, 456-458; SCHULTHESS 1908, VI-VII; ZOTENBERG 1874, 22-29; editions: SCHULTHESS 1908, 13-28; PITRA, 1883, 227-233) Mingana Syr. 8, 1911, a copy of Mardin Orth. 310, ff. 11v-17r (MINGANA 1933, 25-37) Documents Manuscripts (West-Syrian), selected bibliography and editions Manuscripts (East-Syrian), selected bibliography and editions Canons Translation B, unknown recension Borg. sir. 148, 1576 (SCHER 1909, 280) Vat. sir. 495, before 1926 (LANTSCHOOT 1965, 26-27) Introduction to the canons IOM, RAS Syr. 34, f. 1r, fragm. Paris syr. 62, ff. 121v-124r (editions: SCHULTHESS 1908, 158-159; PITRA 1883, 224-227) Mardin Orth. 309(?) Mardin Orth. 310(?) Mingana Syr. 8, f. 11r-11v List of bishops BL Add. 14528, ff. 18r-25r, 220 names (editions: SCHULTHESS 1908, 4-13; GELZER, HILGENFELD, CUNTZ 1898, 96-117; PITRA 1883, 234-237; COWPER 1857, 6-18) IOM, RAS Syr. 34, f. 1r, Greek and Syriac, 42 names (edition: BENESHEVICH 1917-1925, 116-118; HONIGMANN 1937, 336-337) Mardin Orth. 309, ff. 30r-33r, Greek and Syriac (edition: KAUFHOLD 1993, 57-67) Mardin Orth. 310, f. 1r-1v, fragm. Mingana Syr. 8, f. 11r, fragm. Vat. sir. 495, Greek and Syriac Bagdad Chaldean Monastery 509 (Alqoš 169)(?) Borg. sir. 82, ff. 18-20, 64-65, imperfect (editions: VÖÖBUS 1982-1, 117-122; SCHULTHESS 1908, 4-13; BRAUN 1898, 29-34) Vat. sir. 501, ff. 10v-12v (editions: VÖÖBUS 1982-1, 117-122) Mingana Syr. 586, ff. 5v-6v (editions: VÖÖBUS 1982-1, 117-122) Mingana Syr. 47, 1907 (VÖÖBUS 1982-1, XIV; MINGANA 1933, col. 121-133; VÖÖBUS 1982-1: 117-122) Publication Below is a diplomatic edition of the first five canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in Syriac translation based on the manuscript IOM, RAS Syr. 34. The text was previously published in my article of 2009. However, as the Syriac text was corrupted due to technical issues, it is republished here in full. In the footnote apparatus the variants are from the manuscript Paris syr. 62 (E), which was chosen on the grounds of the availability of the text. Other manuscripts bearing witness to the same recension (Mardin Orth. 309, Mardin Orth. 310, Mingana Syr. 8) will be collated in the course of preparation of a critical edition of the recension E of the full text of 20 Nicaean canons. In this case, the apparatus serves purely as an illustration for the textual history of the canons. In the comments some variants from BL Add. 14528 (A) and BL Add. 14526 (B) are included as an illustration. Sigla used in the edition and translation: () : gaps in the text restored from Paris syr. 62; in the translation, restored text; [] : abbreviated or partially corrupted words restored; in the translation, translator’s stylistic additions; dotted line : corrupted text (spoiled, erased); text in bold : rubrics in the manuscript (headings and canon numbers written in red); + : in the apparatus, added word(s); < : in the apparatus, skipped words. f. 1v, col. 1 ܩܢܘܢܐ ܥܕܬܢܝܐ (ܕܣܘܢܕܘܣ) ܪܒܬܐ ܕܢܐܩܐܝܐ ܥܣܪܝܢ64 (ܬܚܘܡܐ) ܩܕܡܝܐ ܡܛܠ ܗܢܘܢ (ܕܦܣܩܝܢ) ܐܘ ܡܣܪܣܝܢ ܗܢܘܢ ܠܗܘܢ. (ܐܢ ܐܢܫ ܒܟܘܪܗܢܐ) ܡܢ ̈ܐܣܘܬܐ (ܐܬܓܙܪ. ܐܘ ܡܢ ܵܒܪܒܖܝܐ) ܼܐܬܦܣܩ܆ (ܗܢܐ ܢܗܘܐ) ܒܩܠܝܪܘܣ ܐܢ ܐܢܫ ܕܝܢ (ܟܕ ܚܠܝܡ ܼܗܘ ܠܗ) ܦܣܩ. ܗܢܐ ܘܐܦܢ (ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܵܒܩܠܝܖܘܣ܇) ܕܢܒܛܠ ܙܕܩ 65 (ܘܡܢ) ܼܗܫܐ ܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܕܐܝܟ (ܗܟܢ) ܙܕܩ ܿܕܢܬܩܪܒ ܠܩܠܝܪܘܣ܀ 67 66 ܐܟܙܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܗܕܐ ܼܩܕܝܡܐ ܼܝܕܝܥܐ܇ ܕܡܛܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܬܦܪܣܝܢ ܠܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܿܘܡܡܪܚܝܢܕܢܦܣܩܘܢ ܼܗܢܘܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܼܐܡ ܼ ܝܪܐ. ܗܟܢܐ ܐܢ(ܗܘ) ܐܢܫܝܢ ܡܢ ̈ܒܪܒܖܝܐ ܐܘ ܡܢ ̈ܡܖܝܗܘܢ 1 5 10 15 64 < ܥܣܪܝܢ E, f. 124r 65 ܕܐܝܟ E, f. 124v 66 ܕܩܕܝܡܐ E, f. 124v 67 ܕܡܛܘܠ E, f. 124v ܐܣܬܪܣܘ ܼܡܫܬܟܚܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܚܪܢܝܐܝܬ ܼܕܫܘܝܢ ܿܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܟ ܿܗ ܼܟܢ ܿܡܩܒܠ ܿܗܘ ܩܢܘܢܐ ܒܩܠܝܪܘܣ ܬܚܘܡܐ 78ܒٓ ܕܬܪܝܢ68 ܡܛܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܚܢܦܘܬܐ 20 79ΧΕΙΡΟΤ [ΟΝΙΑ ܥܡ ܥܡܕܗܘܢ ̈ܡܬܩܖܒܝܢ ܠܟܝܪܛܘܢܝܐ69 80ΑΝΑΓ ΚΗ ܡܛܠ ̈ܕܣܓܝܐܬܐ70 ܐܘ ܡܢ ܐܢܢܩܝ71܇ ܐܘ ܟܕ ܐܚܪܢܝܐܝܬ ܡܣܬܪܗܒܝܢ ̈ܒܢܝܢܫܐ܇ 72 ܼ̈ܗܘܝ ܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܩܢܘܢܐ ܥܕܬܢܝܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܵܕܐܢܫܝܢ ܡܢ ܕܘܒܪܐ ܚܢܦܝܐ܇ ܟܕ ܗܫܐ 25 ܿܐܬܩܪܒܘ ܠܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ܇ ܘܟܕ ܒܙܒܢܐ ܙܥܘܪܐ ܵܐܬܬܖܬܝܘ ܡܚܕܐ ܠܣܚܬܐ ܪܘܚܢܝܬܐ ܐܝܬܝܘ ܐܢܘܢ܆ ܿܘܥܡܗ ܿܕܗܝ ܼܕܥܡܕܘ ܩܪܒܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܐܦܝܣܩܦܘܬܐ ܿ ܐܘ ܠܩܫܝܫܘܬܐ. ܼܕܫܦܝܪ ܐܝܬ ܿܠܗ ܼܐܬܚܙܝܬ܆ 73 30 ܕܡܟܝܠ ܠܐ ܡܕܡ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܟܢܐ ܢܗܘܐ. ܐܦ ܓܝܪ ܙܒܢܐ ܡܬܒܥܐ ܿܠܗܘ74 ܕܡܬܬܪܬܐ ܘܐܦ ܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܥܡܕܐ ܒܘܩܝܐ ܣܓܝܬܐ܀ ܓܠܝܬܐ ܓܝܪ ܿܐܝܬܝܗ ܿܟ ܿܬܝܒܬܐ ܫܠܝܚܝܬܐ ܼܕܐܡܪܐ܇ ܕܠܐ ܿܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܼܢܨܝܒ 35 ܚܕܬܐܝܬ܇ ܕܠܐ ܟܕ ܢܬܬܪܝܡ ܼܒܕܝܢܐ ܿܢ ܼܦܠ (ܒܦܚܐ) ܕܐܟܠܩܪܨܐ.75 ܐܢܕܝܢ ܟܕ ܡܫܬܘܫܛ ܙܒܢܐ܇ ܚܛܗܐ ܡܕܡ ܢܦܫܢܝܐ ܢܫܬܟܚ ܡܛܠ ܦܪܨܘܦܐ܇ ܼܘܢܬܟܣܣ ܡܢ ܿܬܪܝܢ ܐܘ ܬܠܬܐ ̈ܣܗܕܐ. ܼܢܒܛܠ ܿܗܘ 40 ܕܕܐܝܟ ܗܢܐ ܡܢ ܩܠܝܪܘܣ. ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܕܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܕܐܝܟ ܗܟܢ ܿܥܒܕ 76 ܿ ΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΣ 81 ܟܕ ܕܠܩܘܒܠܐ ܕܣܢܘܕܘܣ ܗܕܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܼܡܡܪܚ . ܼܗܘ ̈ܩܝܢܕܘܢܣܐ77 ܼܢܥܒܕ 68 < ܬܚܘܡܐ ܕܬܪܝܢ E, f. 124v 69 ܠܟܝܪܘܛܘܢܝܐ E, f. 124v 70 ܕܣܓܝܐܢܝܐܵ E, f. 124v 71 ܐܢܢܩܐ E, f. 124v 72 ܵ ܗ ܼܘܘ E, f. 124v 73 ܗܟܢ E, f. 124v 74 ܠܗ E, f. 124v 75 ܕܐܟܠ ܩܪܨܐ E, f. 124v 76 ܕܣܘܢܘܕܘܣ E, f. 125r 77 ܩܝܢܕܘܢܘܣ E, f. 125r 78 ܕܒ̃ E, f. 124v 79 χειροτονία 80 ἀνάγκη 81 κίνδυνος col. 2 1 ܡܛܠ ̈ܩܠܝܖܘܣ܇ ܬܚܘܡܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ. ̃ܓ ܡܛܠ ܵܥܡܘܖܝܬܐ ܐܣܠܝܬ ܠܓܡܪ ܼܘܟܠܬ ܣܘܢܕܘܤ82 ܪܒܬܐ. ܕܠܐ ̄ܠܐܦܝܤ [ܩܘܦܐ]83 ܘܠܐ ܠܩܫܝܫܐ ܘܠܐ ܿܠܫܡܫܐ܇ ܘܐܦܠܐ ܠܐܢܫ. 5 ܣܟ ܡܢ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܒܩܠܝܪܘܤ ܢܗܘܐ ܫܠܝܛ. ܕܥܡܘܪܬܐ ܬܗܘܐ ܠܗ. ܐܠܐ 84 ܐܢ ܐܡܐ ܐܘ ܥܡܬܐ ܐܘ ܚܬܐ ܐܘ ܚܠܬܐ܇ ̈ܦܖܨܘܦܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܼܕܡܫܟܝܚܢ ̈ܥܖܩܝܢ ܡܢ ܟܠܗ ܡܣܒܪܢܘܬܐ. ̄ ܬܚ[ܘܡܐ] 10 ̃ܕ ̈ܕܐܖܒܥܐ85 ܡܛܠ ܡܣܪܚܢܘܬܐ ̄ ܕܐܦ[ ̈ܝܣ ] ̄ܩ [ܘܦܐ]86 ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ87 ܿܙܕܩ ܿܡܢ ܼܝܬܝܪܐܝܬ . ܼܕܡܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ88 ̈ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܒܗܘܦܪܟܝܐ89 ܼܢܬܬܣܝܡ. ܐܢܕܝܢ ܥܣܩܐ ܗܕܐ ܕܐܝܟ 90 ܗܟܢ܇ ܐܘ ܡܛܠ ܐܢܢܩܐ ܼܕܡܣܪܗܒܐ܇ 15 ܐܘ ܡܛܠ ܪܚܝܩܘܬܐ ܕܐܘܪܚܐ. ܡܢ ܟܠ ܿ 91 ܦܪܘܤ ܟܕ ܡܬܟܢܫܝܢ ܬܠܬܐ ܐܟܚܕܐ܇ ܿܘܗܢܘܢ ̈ܕܖܚܝܩܝܢ ܿܓܒܝܢ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܿܘܫܠܡܝܢ ܒܝܕ ̈ܟܬܝܒܬܐ. ܗܝܕܝܢ ܼܢܥܒܕܘܢ 92 ܟܝܪܝܛܘܢܝܐ. ܫܘܪܪܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܗܠܝܢ 20 ̈ܕܗ ܼܘܝܢ. ܢܬܝܗܒ ܒܟܠ ܚܕܐ ܗܘܦܪܟܝܐ.93 95 94 ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟ ΛΙΤΗΣ ܠܡܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܣ. [ܬܚܘܡܐ] ܕܚܡܫܐ ܡܛܠ 113 ̃ܗ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܼܕܡܬ ܼܟܠܝܢ ܡܢ ܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ܀ ܡܛܠ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܼܕܡܬܟܠܝܢ ܡܢ ܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ܇ 25 ܡܢ ̈ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ96 ܕܒܟܠܚܕܐ ܗܘܦܪܟܝܐ܇97 82 ܣܘܢܘܕܘܣ E, f. 125r 83 ܠܐܦܣܩܦܐ E, f. 125r 84 ܐܘ ܚܬܐ ܐܘ ܥܡܬܐ E, f. 125r 85 < ܬܚ[ܘܡܐ] ̈ܕܐܖܒܥܐ E, f. 125r 86 ܕ ܵܐܦܝܣܩܦܐ E, f. 125r 87 ܐܦܝܣܩܦܐ E, f. 125r 88 < ܟܠܗܘܢ E, f. 125r 89 ܕܒܐܦܪܟܝܐ E, f. 125r 90 ܡܛܘܠ E, f. 125r 91 ܟܠܦܪܘܣ E, f. 125r 92 ܟܝܪܘܛܘܢܝܐ E, f. 125r 93 ܐܦܬܟܝܐ E, f. 125r 94 .ܠܡܝܬܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ E, f. 125r 95 < ܕܚܡܫܐ E, f. 125r ܐܢ ܟܝܬ ܡܢ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܕܒܩܠܝܪܘܣ܇ ܘܐܢ ܿܡܢ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܕܒܛܟܣܐ ̈ܕܥܠܡܝܐ. ܢܠܒܘܟ ܼܚܘܫܒܐ98 ܐܝܟ ܩܢܘܢܐ. ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ( ܵܐܚܖܢܐ) ܼܐܫܬܕܝܘ . ܡܢ ̈ܐܚܖܢܐ ܠܐ ܢܬܩܒܠܘܢ. 30 ܬܬܥܩܒ ܕܝܢ ܕܕܠܡܐ ܡܢ ܙܥܘܪܘܬ ܢܦܫܐ ܐܘ ܚܪܝܢܐ ܡܕܡ ܐܘ ܠܙܝܙܘܬܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܕܐ ̄ܕܐܦܝܣ [ܩܘܦܐ].99 ܕܚܝܩ ܡܢ ܟܢܘܫܝܐ 100 ܕܥܕܬܐ. ܐܝܟܢܐ ܗܟܝܠ ܕܗܕܐ ܥܘܩܒܐ ܼܕܦܐܐ ܼܿܬܣ ܼܒ . ܫܦܝܪ ܐܝܬ ܿܠܗ ܿܐܬܚܙܝܬ܇ 35 ܕܒܟܠ ܼܗܘܦܪܟܝܐ 101 ̈ܬܖܬܝܢ ̈ܙܒܢܝܢ ܒܫܢܬܐ ܿܬܬܟܢܫ ܣܘܢܕܘܤ.102 ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܟܕ ܟܠܗܘܢ ̈ܐܦܣܩܘܦܐ103 ܕܗܘܦܪܟܝܐ104 ܟܠܗܘܢ105 ܐܟܚܕܐ ܓܘܢܐܝܬ ܿܡܬܟܢܫܝܢ. ܢܬܥܩܒܘܢ 114ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ ̈ܙܝܛܝܡܐܬܐ106 ܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܘܟܝܬ107 ܬܒܥܬܐ.108 40 ܘܗܟܢܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܓܠܝܐܝܬ ܘܡܬܬܘܕܝܢܐܝܬ 110 109 ܐܬܝܕܥܘ ܕܛܢܘ ܒܗ ܒܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ. 112 111 ܟܢܝܫܐܝܬ ܠܘܬ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܢܫܬܟܚܘܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ 96 ܐܦܝܣܩܦܐܵ E, f. 125r 97 ܐܦܪܟܝܐ E, f. 125r 98 ܚܘܫܒܢܐ E, f. 125r 99 ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ E, f. 125r 100 < ܗܟܝܠ E, f. 125v 101 ܐܦܪܟܝܐ E, f. 125v 102 ܣܘܢܘܕܘܣ E, f. 125v 103 ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐܵ E, f. 125v 104 ܕܐܦܪܟܝܐ E, f. 125v 105 < ܟܠܗܘܢ E, f. 125v 106 ܙܛܝܡܐܵ E, f. 125v 107 ܐܘ ܟܝܬ E, f. 125v 108 ܒܥܬܐ IOM, RAS 34, f. 1v, a scribal error. 109 ܕܛܪܘ (lit. they struck upon) IOM, RAS 34, f. 1v and E, f. 125v, a scribal error corrected in PITRA 1883, 229. 110 ܒܐܦܝܣܩܦܐ܇ E, f. 125v 111 ܟܝܫܐܝܬ IOM, RAS 34, f. 1v, a scribal error. 112 Here the text in IOM, RAS 34 is interrupted. The final part of canon 5 from E, f. 125v: ܠܐ ܵܡܫܘܬܦܐ܇ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܠܓܘܐ ܿܐܘ ܠܗ ܠܐܦܝܣܩܦܐ ܬܬܚܙܐ܇ ܿܕܦܣܩܐ ܼܕܪܚܡܬ ܐܢܫܘܬܐ ܼܿܢܦܩ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ܀ ܗܢܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܵܣܘܢܘܕܘܣ ܵܢܗܘܝܢ܇ ܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܨܘܡܐ ܵܕܐܖܒܥܝܢ. ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܟܕ ܵܟܠܖܘܥܡܐ ܘܙܥܘܪܬ ܢܦܫܐ ܵܡܬܬܖܝܡܢ. ܩܘܪܒܢܐ ܕܒܝܐ ܢܬܩܪܒ ܠܐܠܗܐ. ܗܝ ܕܝܢ ܵܕܬܖܬܝܢ ܠܘܬ ܙܒܢܐ ܕܬܫܪܝܬܐ. 113 μητροπολίτης. 114 ζήτημα, pl. ζητήματα. Translation Twenty Ecclesiastical Canons 115 of the Great (Council) of Nicaea First (canon). On those who (castrated) 116 themselves, or made themselves eunuchs (If a man with a disease) (was operated on) by doctors or castrated (by barbarians), (then let him be) in the clergy. If a man (while in [good] health) castrated himself and if (he is in the clergy), he ought to be removed, (and from) now on no such men ought to be accepted into the clergy. Thus it is clear that this first [canon] is concerned with those who plan the deed and dare to castrate themselves. If, however, people happen to be made eunuchs 115 Defective portions of text in IOM, RAS Syr. 34 were translated on the basis of Paris syr. 62 (E). 116 Reflections on the nature of this canon are complex due to the multiple meanings of the word ἐκτέμνω (I. to cut out/off; II. to castrate) (LIDDELL, SCOTT 1901, 444) and its Syriac equivalent ܦܣܩ (to cut off, mutilate, castrate) (PAYNE SMITH 1879, vol. 2, col. 3192; PAYNE SMITH 1902, 452).Traditionally, the act dealt with in the canon is understood as self-castration - this is how it was understood by the 12th-c. commentators John Zonaras, Alexis Aristenos and Theodor Balsamon (PRAVILA 1877, 3-5). Similar rules can be found in various canon law documents, Greek and Syriac, such as, for instance, the “Apostolic canons” 21-24 (JOANNOU 1962, 17-18) and the rule 55 for priests and bny qym’ of Rabbula of Edessa (VÖÖBUS 1960, 49). This testifies to the fact that such a practice did exist in the Early Church and afterwards. Probably the best known example is the case of Origen described by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. VI, 8). Another widely known event narrated by Athanasius and cited by Theodoret and Socrates which, according to Beveridge and Hefele, resulted in the issue of this particular canon, was the act of self-castration of an Antiochene cleric named Leontius, who was removed from office by the bishop after his deed was uncovered (HEFELE, LECLERQUE 1907, 529-532). Archbishop Peter L’Huillier, however, doubts that such an insignificant person could influence wide-scale church legislation. Moreover, it is appropriate to mention that in 344 Leontius was made Bishop of Antioch with the support of Emperor Constantine himself (L’HUILLIER 1996, 32). Although the title of the canon in the recent edition of Giuseppe Alberigo et al. runs “Περὶ τῶν εὐνουχιζόντων ἑαυτοῠς καὶ περὶ τῶν παρ’ἄλλων τοῠτο πασχόντων” (On those who made themselves eunuchs or who suffered this from others) (ALBERIGO 2006, 20), which leaves no doubts about the contents, it is not particularly clear, when the titles were added to the Nicaean canons and what is the base of the published text. Another possible connotation arising from the first meaning of the verb ἐκτέμνω / ܦܣܩ is mutilation in the form of cutting off ears. Here we can recall the episode of mutilation of the deposed Jewish king Hyrcanus II described by Flavius Josephus and retold with variants by Julius Africanus and George Syncellus. After Antigonus cut off his ears (ἀποτέμνει αὐτοῠ τὰ ὦτα), Hyrcanus could not be re-elevated to the high priesthood, as the law stipulated that only bodily sound persons could hold the office (Jewish Antiquities XIV:13, 10; JOSEPHUS 1962, 640-643). However, this is hardly relevant in the case of the first Nicaean canon as there is no evidence of self-mutilation of this nature, but only of violent acts. by barbarians or their masters, and are otherwise worthy, then this canon admits them to the clergy. Second canon. On those [converted] from paganism who are brought to ordination 117 at the time of their baptism As it happened to many, either out of necessity or in a human haste, in contradiction of the ecclesiastical canon, that people, who recently came from the pagan life to the faith, being catechumens for a short time, immediately afterwards are brought to the spiritual font; and at the time of their baptism they are ordained bishop or priest - it is considered fair that from now on nothing of this kind [ever] should happen. Both the catechumen needs time, and [a person] after baptism [has to undergo] many trials. Because the apostolic writings clearly say: “Let him not be newly converted,118 so that having exalted himself to [the point of] condemnation, he might not fall into (the snare) of the Adversary”. If, as the time passes, any sin of the soul is found concerning this person and he is accused by two or three witnesses, then he should be deposed from the clergy. He who dares to act against what has been approved by this Great Council, is in danger of [losing his position in] the clergy. 117 This canon is based on 1 Tim. 3:6: “μὴ νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου” (NESTLE-ALAND 1993, 545) (Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil) (AKJV). It has not yet been mentioned by commentators that the canon quotes the Biblical text precisely with one exception, where it probably attempts to elucidate a somewhat obscure formula “κρίμα… τοῦ διαβόλου” (the condemnation of the devil) by adding another object: “Μὴ νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου” (Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation and the snare of the devil) (my underlining - N.S.) (ALBERIGO 2006, 21). Cf. the text in the Peshitta: .ܘܠܐ ܼܢܗܘܐ ܛܠܐ ܬܘܠܡܕܗ܆ ܕܠܐ ܢܬܪܝܡ ܘܢܦܠ ܒܕܝܢܗ ܕܣܛܢܐ (And not a newly converted so that he would not be exalted and fall into condemnation of Satan) (KTB’ KDYŠ’ 1979, 279). Both archetypic Syriac translations A and B generally follow the Peshitta with the exception of a few variants (underlined in the texts below), while the recension E, as well as IOM, RAS Syr. 34, tend to reflect the meaning of the Greek sentence rather than to follow the phraseology of the Peshitta. Translation A (f. 26v): .ܘܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܛܠܐ ܬܘܠܡܕܗ ܕܠܐ ܟܕ ܡܬܪܝܡ ܒܕܝܢܐ ܢܦܠ. ܘܒܦܚܐ ܕܣܛܢܐ (And not a newly converted so that having been exalted he would not fall into condemnation and the snare of Satan). Translation B (f. 14r): .ܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܛܠܐ ܬܘܠܡܕܗ܆ ܕܠܐ ܟܕ ܡܬܬܪܝܡ ܒܕܝܢܐ ܢܦܠ܇ ܘܒܦܚܐ ܕܐܟܠܩܪܨܐ (Not a newly converted so that having been exalted he would not fall into condemnation and the snare of the Adversary). The same subject is dealt with, directly or indirectly, in the “Apostolic” canon 80 (JOANNOU 1962, 48); canons 3 and 12 of the Council of Laodicea, canon 10 of the Council of Sardica, etc. (HEFELE, LECLERQUE 1907, 532-536; L’HUILLIER 1996, 33-34). 118 Lit. newly planted, established. 119 Third canon. On women who dwell together [with clerics] The Great Council absolutely rejects and forbids that a bishop, a priest or a deacon, or any other man in the clergy have a woman who dwells together [with him], unless she is [his] mother, or [his] father’s sister, or [his] sister, or [his] mother’s sister, [that is] only those persons who can demonstrate that they are beyond any suspicion. 120 Fourth canon. On consecration of bishops A bishop ought to be consecrated by all bishops in the province. If this is difficult, either because of the need for haste or the length of the journey, let 119 This canon is thought to reflect an ancient practice of spiritual matrimony which existed in the Early Church. It involved the cohabitation (but not physical relations) of clerics with women called συνείσακτος (lit. co-entered; syn. ἀγαπητή, επείσακτος, Lat. subintroducta) (HEFELE, LECLERQUE 1907, 538-539; L’HUILLIER 1996, 34-36). Syriac ܥܡܘܪܬܐ, pl. ܥܡܘܖܝܬܐܵ (lit. cohabitant) in the status emphaticus is used as an equivalent to συνείσακτος (PAYNE SMITH 1879, vol. 2, col. 2920-2921). However, another meaning of the Syriac word refers to concubines, probably due to the multiple known cases of concubinage of priests and bishops with cohabitants (PAYNE SMITH 1902, 417). The earliest mention of this practice can be found in the polemics of Malchion and others with Paul of Samosata (3rd c.) described by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 7:30), further evidence comes from the 4th-6th-cc. authors, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom (in his homily “Contra eos qui subintroductas habent”), Epiphanius (Panarion haer. 78:11), in the Novels of Emperor Justinian (Nov. 6, 6; 123, 49), etc. (SOPHOCLES 1957, vol. 2, 1043; Ibid., vol. 1, 494; LAMPE 1961, 1317-1318). 120 In the course of the 4th c. the formation of the administrative structure and territorial division of the Church was underway, as reflected in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils as well as regional synods. At this time, ecclesiastical eparchies in many cases were the same civil territorial units as provinces, thus the word ἐπαρχία (Syriac ܗܘܦܪܟܝܐ) here should be understood as province, as is reflected in the translation. Metropolitan (μητροπολίτης) here is the bishop of the main city in the province, or metropolis (some recensions of the Greek text of the canons call him μητροπολίτης-ἐπίσκοπος, metropolitan-bishop). This church official was responsible for ecclesiastical matters across the whole province (HEFELE, LECLERQUE 1907, 539-547; L’HUILLIER 1996, 37-38). The verb καθίστημι, (lit. “set up”; here: “consecrate [a bishop]”), Syriac ܐܬܬܣܝܡ can be found in Acts 7:10, and subsequently, in the writings of Clement of Rome and other Early Christian writers and is applied to the whole of the procedure of elevation to bishop’s cathedra, including the elections and the act of consecration (SOPHOCLES 1957, vol. 2, 613). The term χειροτονία, Syriac ܟܝܪܝܛܘܢܝܐ, “chirotony, ordination” (from χειροτονέω, lit. “stretch one’s hand”, also “vote”) has a double meaning in Christian texts. Along with the general meaning, it has a narrower sense - to consecrate through laying hands upon someone’s head (LAMPE 1961, 1523; L’HUILLIER 1996, 37). According to Hefele, this canon might have been caused by the case of Meletius of Lycopolis who ordained bishops without the approval of the Metropolitan of Alexandria, which lead to the Meletian schism that was dealt with at the Council of Nicaea. Similar canons exist in other collections, e.g. the “Apostolic” canon 1, canon 20 of the synod of Arles, canons of the synods of Laodicea, Antioch etc. and the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (HEFELE, LECLERQUE 1907, 543, 546-547). three [bishops] gather together by all means, and those who are far away, [97]make their choice and approve in writing. Then let them perform consecration. Let the confirmation of what has been done be entrusted to the metropolitan of each province. Fifth [canon]. On those banned 121 from communion Concerning those banned from communion by bishops of each province, whether they are in the clergy, or in the laity, let them follow the opinion in accordance with the canon that those excommunicated by (some), should not be accepted by others. Let it be investigated whether it was because of a quarrel,[98] or any disagreement, or a trouble that this bishop expelled them from the church community. Thus in order that a proper investigation might be undertaken it is seen fair that a synod of the whole eparchy should gather twice a year. So that all bishops of the province having gathered together would investigate these questions, or matters. Thus those who are openly and unanimously considered to envy the bishop, let them all generally be proclaimed[99] (excommunicated until the community or the bishop might consider [it appropriate] to make a benevolent decision about them. Let these synods take place, one during the forty [days of] lent, in order that when all disagreements and quarrels come to an end, a pure offering might be made to God; the second in the autumn[100]). Abbreviations AKJV: Authorized (King James) Version, an English translation of the Bible, 1604-1611 ARAS: Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences CSCO: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium ETSE: Estonian Theological Society in Exile Hist. Eccles.: Historia Ecclesiastica NLR: National Library of Russia IPL: Imperial Public Library PPV: Pis’mennye pamiatniki Vostoka [Written Monuments of the Orient, Russian version] References ALBERIGO, Giuseppe et al. 2006: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta. Editio critica. I: The Oecumenical Councils from Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325-787). Turnhout: Brepols (Corpus Christianorum). ASSEMANI, Stefano Evodio and ASSEMANI, Giuseppe Simone 1756-1759: Bibliothecæ Apostolicæ Vaticanæ codicum manuscriptorum catalogus: in tres partes distributus in quarum prima orientales in altera Græci in tertia Latini Italici aliorumque Europæorum idiomatum codices. vol. 1-3. Rome: Typographia linguarum orientalium Angeli Rotilii. AUBINEAU, Michel 1966: “Les 318 serviteurs d'Abraham (Gen., XIV, 14) et le nombre des pères au Concile de Nicée (325)”. Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 61. (Leuven), 5-43. BENESHEVICH Vladimir Nikolaevich 1908: “Sinaiskii spisok ottsov Nikeiskogo pervogo vselenskogo sobora” [The Sinaitic list of fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea]. Izvestiia Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk [Proceedings of the Imperial Academy of Sciences], 6 ser., 2 (St. Petersburg), BENESHEVICH, Vladimir Nikolaevich 1917-1925: “Novye dannye dlia istoricheskoi geografii Blizhnego Vostoka: iz greco-siriiskogo spiska ottsov Nikeiskogo I vselenskogo sobora” [New data for the historical geography of the Middle East: from the Greek-Syriac list of bishops of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea]. Izestiia Kavkazskogo Istoriko-Arkheologicheskogo Instituta [Proceedings of the Caucasian Institute of History and Archeology] 2. (Tiflis), 111-134. BRAUN, Oscar 1898: De santa Nicaena Synodo. Syrische Texte des Maruta von Maipherkat nach einer Handschrift der Propaganda zu Rom. Münster: Heinrich Schöningh (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, IV. Bd., III. Heft). BRIQUEL CHATONNET, Françoise 1997: Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (nos 356-435, entrés depuis 1911), de la Bibliothèque Méjanes d’Aix-en-Provence, de la bibliothèque municipale de Lyon et de la Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg. Catalogue. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. BROCK, Sebastian 1968: “A further fragment of the Sinai Sahdona Manuscript”. Le Muséon 81. (Leuven: Peeters), 139-154. BROCK, Sebastian 1995: Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation. BROCK, Sebastian 2009: “New Fragments of Sahdona’s Book of Perfection at St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai”. Orientalia Christiana Periodica 75. (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum), 175-178. CHABOT, Jean Baptiste 1902: Synodicon Orientale, ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens (d’après le Ms. syriaque 332 de la Bibliothèque Nationale et le Ms. K. VI, 4 du Musée Borgia, à Rome). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1902 (Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 37). CHABOT, Jean Baptiste 1910: Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199). T. IV. Texte syriaque. Paris: Ernest Leroux. COWPER, Benjamin Harris 1857: Analecta Nicaena: Fragments Relating to the Council of Nice. The Syriac text from an ancient Ms. in the British Museum. London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate. DE HALLEUX, André 1960: “Un nouveau fragment de manuscript sinaitique de MartyriusSahdona”. Le Muséon 73. (Leuven: Peeters), 33-38. DIETTRICH, Gustav 1909: “Bericht über neuentdeckte handschriftliche Urkunden zur Geschichte des Gottesdienstes in der nestorianischen Kirche”. Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse aus dem Jahre 1909. (Göttingen: Commissionverglag der Dietrich’schen Verlagsbuchhandlung), 160-218. EUSEBIUS 1991: Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin. Hrsg. von Friedhelm Winkelmann. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte; Eusebius Werke, 1. Bd., 1. Teil). GELZER, Heinrich and HILGENFELD, Heinrich and CUNTZ, Otto 1898: Patrum Nicaenorum nomina latine, graece, coptice, syriace, arabice, armeniace. Stuttgart und Leipzig: Teubner. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Moshe Henry 1979: Syriac manuscripts in the Harvard College Library: a catalogue. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press (Harvard Semitic studies 23). GOUSSEN, Heinrich 1927: “Über die syrischen Handschriften in Leningrad (Petersburg)”. Oriens Christianus 3 Ser., 1. (Leipzig: Otto Harrasowitz), 169-173. HADDAD, Petrus AND ISAAC, Jacques 1988: Syriac and Arabic manuscripts in the library of the Chaldean monastery Bagdad. Vol. 1: Syriac manuscripts. Bagdad: Iraqi Academy Press (Catalogues of the Syriac manuscripts in Iraq III-1). HARRIS, James Rendel 1900: The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles: together with the apocalypses of each one of them: edited from the Syriac ms. with a translation and introduction. Cambridge: University Press. HATCH, William Henry Payne 1946: An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts. Boston, Mass.: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. HEFELE, Karl Joseph and LECLERCQ, Henri 1907: Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux. Vol. 1, pt. 1. Paris: Letouzey. HONIGMANN, Ernest 1936: “Recherches sur les listes des Pères de Nicée et de Constantinople”. Byzantion 11. (Bruxelles: Secrétariat de la Revue), 429-449. HONIGMANN, Ernest 1937: “Sur les listes des évêques participant aux conciles de Nicée, de Constantinople et de Chalcédoine”. Byzantion 12. (Bruxelles: Secrétariat de la Revue), 323-347. HONIGMANN, Ernest 1939: “La liste originale des pères de Nicée: A propos d’Evêché de «Sodoma» en Arabie”. Byzantion 14. (Bruxelles: Secrétariat de la Revue), 17-76. HONIGMANN, Ernest 1950: “Une liste inédite des pères de Nicée: «cod. Vatic. gr.» 1587, f. 355r-357v”, Byzantion 20. (Bruxelles: Secrétariat de la Revue), 63-71. JOANNOU, Pericles Pierre 1962: Discipline generale antique. I, 2. Les canons des synodes particuliers (IVe-IXe s.). Grottaferrata (Rome): Tip. Italo-Orientale “S. Nilo” (Pontificia commissione per la redazione del codice di diritto canonico orientale. Fonti 9). JOSEPHUS 1962: Josephus with an English translation by Ralph Marcus. In nine volumes. VII. Jewish antiquities, books XII-XIV. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (The Loeb Classical Library). KAUFHOLD, Hubert 1993: “Griechisch-syrische Väterlisten der frühen griechischen Synoden”. Oriens Christianus 77. (Leipzig: Otto Harrasowitz), 1-96. KAUFHOLD, Hubert 2012: “Sources of Canon Law in the Eastern Churches”. The history of Byzantine and Eastern canon law to 1500. Ed. by Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 215-342. KTB’ KDYŠ’ 1979: Ktb’ kdyš’: ktb’ ddytq’ ‘tyqt’ wḥdt’. .ܟܬܒܐ ܵܩܕ ܼܝܫܐ ̄ܗ ܵܟܬܒܐ ܕܕܝܬܩܐ ܼܥܬܝܩܬܐ ܘܚܕܬܐܵ [Holy Scriptures: The books of the Old and NewTestament]. United Bible Societies. LAMPE, Geoffrey William Hugo 1961: A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LANTSCHOOT, Arnold van 1965: Inventaire des manuscripts syriaques des fonds Vatican (490-631), Barberini Oriental et Neofiti. Città del Vaticano : Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Studi e testi 243). LEBEDEV, Dmitrii svyaschennik 1916: Spisok episkopov Pervogo Vselenskogo Sobora v 318 imen: k voprosu o ego proiskhozhdenii i znachenii dlia rekonstruktsii podlinnogo spiska Nikeiskikh ottsov [The list of bishops of the First Ecumenical Council of 318 names: toward its origin and importance for the reconstruction of the original list of Nicaean fathers]. Petrograd (Zapiski Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk. 8 ser., po istoriko-filologicheskomu otdeleniiu [Transactions of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 8 ser., Section of history and filology] 13, 1). L’HUILLIER, Peter Archbishop 1996: The Church of the Ancient Councils: the Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. LIDDELL, Henry George and SCOTT, Robert 1901: Greek-English lexicon. Vol. 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. MINGANA, Alphonse 1933: Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts now in the Possession of the Trustees of the Woodbrooke Settlement, Selly Oak, Birmingham. Vol. 1. Syriac and Garshūni manuscripts. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons (Woodbrooke Catalogues 1). NESTLE-ALAND 1993: Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. PAYNE SMITH, Jane 1902: A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PAYNE SMITH, Robert 1879-1901: Thesaurus Syriacus. Vol. 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. PHILOTHEE DU SINAÏ 2008: Nouveaux Manuscrits Syriaques du Sinaï. Athènes: Mount Sinai Foundation. PIGOULEWSKAYA, Nina 1927: Das Ende der Straasburger Sahdona-Handschrift. Oriens Christianus, Ser. 3, 1. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz), 293-309. PIGULEVSKAIA, Nina Viktorovna 1960: Katalog siriiskikh rukopisei Leningrada [Catalogue of Syriac manuscripts in Leningrad]. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. (Palestinskii sbornik 6(69)) PITRA, Jean Baptiste, card. (ed.) 1883: Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi Parata. T. IV. Patres Antenicaeni. Paris: A. Jouby et Roger. PRAVILA 1877: Pravila Sviatykh Vselenskikh Soborov s tolkovaniiami [The canons of the Holy Ecumenical Councils with commentary]. Moscow: Izdanie Moskovskogo Obschestva liubitelei dukhovnogo prosvescheniia. SCHER, Addai 1906: Scher, Addai, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du couvent des Chaldéens de Notre-Dame-des-Semences”. Journal asiatique X(8). (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 55-82. SCHER, Addai 1909: “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques du Musée Borgia aujourd’hui à la Bibliothèque Vaticane”. Journal asiatique X(13). (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 249-287. SCHULTHESS, Friedrich 1908: Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Neue Folge Bd. X, No. 2). SELB, Walter 1981: Orientalisches Kirchenrecht. Bd. 1: Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Nestorianer (von den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenzeit). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. SELB, Walter 1989: Orientalisches Kirchenrecht. Bd. 2. Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Westsyrer (von den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenzeit). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. SMELOVA, Natalia 2009: “Pravila Pervogo Vselenskogo Nikeiskogo Sobora po rukopisi Sir. 34 iz sobraniia IVR RAN” [The canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in the manuscript IOM, RAS Syr. 34]. Pis’mennye pamiatniki Vostoka [Written Monuments of the Orient], 2(11), 42-65. SMELOVA, Natalia 2011: “Palaeography and Textual Study of some Estrangelo Manuscripts from St. Petersburg: the Homiliae Cathedrales of Severus of Antioch”. In: Actes du 10e Symposium Syriacum (Granada, septembre 2008). Parole de l’Orient 36. Kaslik, Lebanon: Université Saint-Esprit, 453-467. SMELOVA, Natalia 2012: “Siriiskie rukopisi” [Syriac manuscripts]. “Zvuchat lish’ pis’mena…” K 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika Nikolaia Petrovicha Likhacheva. Katalog vystavki [“In Written Words Alone…” On the 150th anniversary of academician Nikolay Petrovich Likhachev. Exhibition catalogue]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 454-461. SOPHOCLES, Evangelinus Apostolides 1957: Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100). 2 vols. New York: Frederick Ungar. SOKRATES 1995: Kirchengeschichte. Hrsg. von Günther Christian Hansen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Neue Folge, Bd. 1). THEODORET 1998: Kirchengeschichte. Hrsg. von Léon Parmentier. Dritte, durchgesehene Auflage von Günther Christian Hansen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Neue Folge. Bd. 5). VÖÖBUS, Arthur 1960: Syriac and Arabic documents regarding legislation relative to Syrian asceticism. Stockholm: ETSE (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 11). VÖÖBUS, Arthur 1970: Syrische Kanonessammlungen: ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde. I. Westsyrische Originalurkunden. 1, A. Leuven: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO (CSCO 307. Subsidia 35). VÖÖBUS, Arthur 1972: “Discovery of important Syriac manuscripts on the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils”. Abr-Nahrain. 12 (1971-1972). Leiden: Brill, 94-98. VÖÖBUS, Arthur 1975: The Synodicon in the West Syrian tradition. 1. [1] [Syriac text]. Leuven: Secrétariat du CSCO (CSCO 367, Scriptores Syri 161). VÖÖBUS, Arthur 1982a: The Canons Ascribed to Mārūtā of Maipherqaṭ and Related Sources. Leuven: Peeters (CSCO 439, Scriptores Syri 191). VÖÖBUS, Arthur 1982b: The Canons Ascribed to Mārūtā of Maipherqaṭ and Related Sources. Leuven: Peeters (CSCO 440, Scriptores Syri 192). VOSTÉ, Jacques Marie 1929: Catalogue de la bibliothèque syro-chaldéenne du couvent de Notre-Dame des Semences près d’Alqoš (Iraq). Rome-Paris: Paul Geuthner. WRIGHT, William 1870-1872: Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum. Parts 1-3. London: British Museum. ZOTENBERG, Hermann 1874: Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque Nationale. [Paris: Imprimerie nationale]. “ZVUCHAT LISH’ PIS’MENA…” 2012: “Zvuchat lish’ pis’mena…” K 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika Nikolaia Petrovicha Likhacheva. Katalog vystavki [“In Written Words Alone…” On the 150th anniversary of academician Nikolay Petrovich Likhachev. Exhibition catalogue]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha.