Details in the margin – not marginal details: A liturgical annotation in the Syriac Codex Ambrosianus

I have been interested for a while in the importance of marginal annotations for the study of manuscripts and the texts they contain. In the same period I have also been working on the attestation of the so-called First Epistle of Baruch in Syriac manuscripts. In this blog post I combine these two interests, discussing a marginal note in the 6^th or 7^th century Codex Ambrosianus, also known as the important ms 7a1 of the Leiden List of Old Testament Peshiṭta Manuscripts.

This blog post deals with an annotation in the margin of folio 177v, situated close to the first column containing the end of chapter 7 and the beginning of chapter 8 of the First Epistle of Baruch. The note reads q (with a superlinear stroke) dzdyq’. The note is written vertically, in red ink, by a second hand, and according to Antonio M. Ceriani, in “charachtere maronitico” (Monumenta V,2, 177n83). I read this annotation as a liturgical note and I would translate it as “Lection for [the commemoration of] the just”, suggesting that the passage in the column next to it was intended by someone, who at a certain point engaged with the codex, to be read at an occasion of commemoration of the just (pl.), alternatively at a commemoration of a particular just person (sg.).  

 

The pdf of the facsimile edition of the codex is available online at syri.ac https://archive.org/details/CerianiTranslatioSyraPescittoVeterisTestamentiExCodiceAmbrosiano_201312

A small annotation such as this one may seem (literally) a marginal detail. However, it may turn out to be an interesting detail, since it sheds some additional light on a hypothesis that has been repeated in scholarship ever since Ceriani published the facsimile edition of the codex in 1876/1883. In the Praefatio of this edition, Ceriani suggestes that the codex was probably not produced for ecclesiastical use, since it includes neither liturgical notes, nor an index of lessons. He notes, though, that the occasional liturgical note occurs in the columns of some texts, but suggests that this is due to the fact that the scribe copied the texts in question from an exemplar that contained such notes (p. 8).

Ceriani’s hypothesis was reiterated and discussed critically by Konrad D. Jenner in, for example, the 1993 article “A Review of the Methods by Which Syriac Biblical and Related Manuscripts Have Been Described and Analysed: Some Preliminary Remarks,” and other scholars have later chimed in. In this article, Jenner engages Ceriani’s arguments one by one. He also points out that, in addition to the notes in the texts of the columns mentioned by Ceriani, the Ambrosianus also contains some liturgical notes in the margins added by later hands. He points to a series of notes in Genesis (1-39), to nine notes mentioning the Consecration of the Myron/Chrism (my inspection of the manuscript suggests that there are more), and to two liturgical titles in Genesis and Numbers. Jenner concludes that the codex could have been used in public worship after all (pp. 256-57).

Despite Jenner’s finds, Ceriani and his hypothesis continues to be referenced in books and articles discussing the codex and/or the writings contained in it. It is repeated even in recent publications, and I must confess that I am myself guilty of that crime (Lied, “Reception of the Pseudepigrapha”). Sometimes Ceriani’s hypothesis is even rephrased in research literature, now saying that the codex has not been used liturgically. In other words, an argument about production and intent has become an argument about later use.

The note qdzdyq’ on folio 177v of the Codex Ambrosianus displays a quite common format for liturgical annotations in Syriac biblical manuscripts.  The qoph with the superlinear stroke is a widely used abbreviation for qryn’, “lection.” It should be noted, furthermore, that the note is written in red ink (The red ink does not show neither in the printed facsimile edition, nor in the online pdf, but it is easy to spot in the manuscript itself). Hence, it generally resembles the format of rubrics in Syriac manuscripts, and appears similar to the liturgical notes that were in fact copied in the columns of the Codex Ambrosianus by the scribe for instance, in Job (folio 62v, column 1, line 13) and in 1 Samuel (folio 82r, column 1, line 15). It is likely that the note on folio 177v is recorded in this way to appear like a rubric. Anyhow, it serves as a bookmark, noting that this is a reading for the commemoration of the just.

As noted above, the marginal annotation appears close to the column containing Ep Bar 8:1 (also identified and known, imprecisely, as 2 Bar 85:1). This means that the note is located in the proximity of the first line of a passage that is copied as a lection in a handful of Syriac lectionary manuscripts, and which is surely appropriate reading at a commemoration of the just. Although of varying length (Ep Bar 8:1-7, or Ep Bar  8:1-15, or  Ep Bar 8:1-3 and 8-15), this excerpted passage is attested in, for instance, Add 14486 (folio 74v), Add 14485 (folios 63v -64r), and Add 14687 (folios 74r-75v) of the British Library. It is also present in a manuscript found in the Church of St George in Bartella (dated 1466 ce) and a manuscript in the Monastery of St Mark in Jerusalem (dated 1559 ce; I am indebted to the work of the Peshiṭta Institute [Willem Baars], and grateful to Jenner for pointing me to the last two manuscripts).

In these manuscripts the excerpted passage is scripted to be read, for example, on the Sunday before Lent, on the Sunday of the departed, and for the commemoration of saints. The term dzdyq’ (in the plural), as well as the event of the commemoration of the just, appears in, e.g., the gospel lectionary manuscript Add 14490 of the British Library (folio 264v), among other commemoration days attributed to the apostles, martyrs, patriarchs, etc. In other words, a hypothesis might be that the annotation on folio 177v of the Codex Ambrosianus points to a passage that has been known to this later active reader as a lection read at occasions of commemoration and for this reason he may have decided to make note of the location of the passage in the margin.

As mentioned above, this note in the margin may not be a marginal detail.

First, it adds one more example to Jenner’s list of annotations by later hands. The number of liturgical annotations in the Ambrosianus is still not high. Compared to other relevant biblical manuscripts, the contrary is rather the case. But the notes are there, and they suggest that this codex may well have been used liturgically, at least by some and on some occasions. In other words, although the Codex Ambrosianus may originally neither have been produced, nor offered to the monastery that kept it (cf. the colophon, folio 330r), in order to be applied liturgically, that did not prevent some later users from using it in this way.

Second, these occasional annotations in the Codex Ambrosianus invite an insight from the field of book history that cannot be repeated too often – namely that although a given manuscript may have been produced with a particular use in mind, the intentions of the producers are often not obeyed by later users. Codices such as the Ambrosianus have lived long lives and they may have been part of a variety of practices. Logically, we cannot use a hypothesis about intent of production to say something about later use. Still, there is this tendency in scholarship to focus on the origin and to make the judgment of that origin valid to the otherwise long history of a given manuscript. The origin is allowed to decide what the manuscript “is,” whatever happens to it later, since, after all, that was what the manuscript once was and was meant to be. This line of reasoning implies that we privilege one point in time over all the others, and we overlook signs of later usage which could have been important correctives to our overall understanding of a manuscript. This scholarly focus also implies that we stop taking interest in the history of the manuscript at the point when it becomes an artifact of relevance to social practice. The result is that we lose sight of the social and cultural functions the codex may have had to those who engaged with it, although this later engagement may be an interesting topic for discussion per se.  

Third, this nuancing of the scholarly use of Ceriani’s hypothesis matters to those of us who work on 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, and their reception history. The inclusion of these two apocalypses, as well as Josephus’s Jewish War, Book 6, in the codex has been mentioned as one possible reason why the codex was not used liturgically (Baars, “Neue Textzeugen,” 477n3). However, given that the observations above are correct, the Codex Ambrosianus does display signs of occasional liturgical use, and hence the inclusion of these unexpected writings may not have been a disqualifying element after all – at least not to all users.  

Literature (selection)

Baars, Willem. “Neue Textzeugen der syrischen Baruchapokalypse.” Vetus Testamentum 13.4 (1963): 476-78.

Ceriani, Antonio M. Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae V, 2. Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosianae Mediolani, 1868.

Ceriani, Antonio M. Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano, sec. fere VI photolithographice edita. Volume 2. Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosianae Mediolani, 1883.

Jenner, Konrad D. “A Review of the Methods by Which Syriac Biblical and Related Manuscripts Have Been Described and Analysed: Some Preliminary Remarks,” ARAM (1993):255-66.

Jenner, Konrad D. “De perikopentitels van de geïllustreerde Syrische kanselbijbel van Parijs (MS Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Syriaque 341). Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de oudste Syrische perikopenstelsels”, Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Leiden, 1993.

Lied, Liv Ingeborg. “The Reception of the Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Traditions: The Case of 2 Baruch”. In ‘Noncanonical’ Religious Texts in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Lee M. McDonald. Library of Second Temple Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2012.

Lied, Liv Ingeborg and Marilena Maniaci, eds. Bible as Notepad. Manuscripta Biblica. Berlin: De Gruyter. In progress.

Thanks are due to Konrad D. Jenner, Jeff Childers, Philip M. Forness, and Wido T. van Peursen.

This blog post is based on my research and is part of the wider dissemination of my work. If you want to use the information in this post, please cite it!

Lied, Liv Ingeborg. “Details in the margin – not marginal details: A liturgical annotation in the Codex Ambrosianus,” posted on Religion – Manuscripts – Media Culture, 24 September 2015 (URL, retrieved [date]).

If you want to discuss any of the findings or hypotheses, feel free to contact me in the commentary field below.

4 Ezra in Syriac lectionary manuscripts – three points for further reflection

In the article, “On a Bilingual Copto-Arabic Manuscript of 4 Ezra and the Reception of this Pseudepigraphon in Coptic Literature,” recently published in the September issue of the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (here), Alin Suciu brings to our attention a new Sahidic fragment of 4 Ezra, containing 4 Ezra 5:33-35 and 37-40 (BnF Copte 132¹). New manuscript fragments of 4 Ezra do not appear every day, and certainly not Coptic ones. As Suciu points out, this is but the third fragmentary manuscript leaf containing portions of 4 Ezra in Sahidic to be published so far. The other two were published in 1904 by Johannes Leipoldt (P. Berol. 9096, containing 4 Ezra 13:30-33 and 40-46) and by Hans-Gebhard Bethge in 2004 (Or. 6201 C, containing 4 Ezra 10:32-47).
 
There is still much research to be done on the reception history of 4 Ezra in the Christian East and, as Suciu’s article has shown, new manuscript evidence may still surface. Inspired by this publication of this Sahidic fragment, and drawing on my own work on Syriac manuscripts containing 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, I will post two short pieces on the manuscript attestation and research history of 4 Ezra on this blog. This is the first. The second will appear in late autumn. 
 
One of the aspects of the reception history of 4 Ezra that has still not received enough scholarly attention is the fact that passages excerpted from 4 Ezra are attested in a handful of Syriac lectionary manuscripts. This means that passages excerpted from 4 Ezra were scripted to be read as lections from the Old Testament in worship contexts by some Syriac Christians. This post will present them briefly, suggesting three points for further methodological and theoretical reflection.  
 
To my current knowledge, lections from 4 Ezra survive in four Syriac lectionary manuscripts: Add 14686 and Add 14736 of the British Library, Dayr al-Suryan Ms 33 (DS Syr 33, noted on this blog before), as well as in Ms 77 of the A. Konat Library in Pampakuda, Kerala. Whereas Ms 77 is dated 1423, the other three manuscripts have been dated to the thirteenth century (Add 14686 is dated 1255 in the colophon; Add 14736 is dated to the thirteenth century by William Wright [Catalogue, p. 174]; Ds Syr 33 is dated by Sebastian Brock and Lucas van Rompay [Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, p. 249]).
 
DS Syr 33 contains two lections from 4 Ezra. 4 Ezra 7:26–42 was scripted to be read on the Sunday of the Departed (folios 72v–74v). 6:18–28 is found among the lections for the Feast of Mount Tabor (folios 222r–223r). Add 14686 contains the same lections at the same events (folios 75v–77r; 195r–196v), but also includes a third lection, 12:31–38, to be read at the Revelation of Joseph (folio 16r–v; note that the relevant folios in DS Syr 33 are lost). Add 14736 survives in fragments only, but one of the few remaining folios of this codex contains 4 Ezra 12:31–38 at the Revelation of Joseph (folio 18v) as well.
 
Ms 77, our fifteenth-century manuscript, assigns 7:26–42 for reading on the Sunday of the Departed (folios 49v–50r), and 12:31–38 on (probably) the Revelation of Joseph (folio 10v; this sheet is worn and repaired, and the event rubric is no longer showing properly). It should be noted that this much used lectionary manuscript does not include a lection from 4 Ezra on the Feast of Mount Tabor.
 
Thus, in these Syriac lectionary manuscripts, three excerpted passages of 4 Ezra (6:18–28; 7:26–42; 12:31–38) are variously scripted to be read on three Sundays of the Church Year (The Feast of Mount Tabor; Sunday of the Dead; The Revelation of Joseph).
 
Based on these surviving bits and pieces of manuscript information, I want to shed light on three issues:
 
First, it is likely that the excerpts from 4 Ezra were read primarily in monastic contexts (not a big surprise). At least in the thirteenth century, the lectionary manuscripts containing lections from 4 Ezra were produced, used and kept in monastic settings. The colophon and notes in Add 14686, for instance, state explicitly that this lectionary was produced in order to be read and recited by the monks in the Dayr al-Suryan (folio 205v), and the codex was later kept there.  
 
However, we should not assume that lections from 4 Ezra were standard scriptural readings even in these milieus. The large majority of extant Syriac lectionary manuscripts do not contain lections from 4 Ezra. Furthermore, most of the manuscripts that do contain them are in various ways related to each other; for instance, by copying and by co-circulation. What we may be looking at is the remains of a chain of transmission circulating a given list of lections – one among many.
 
We cannot, of course, assume that the sources that have been kept until today provide us with a full picture of the circulation of lections from 4 Ezra, but the manuscript evidence that has survived suggests that these passages from 4 Ezra have been read by some, at some locations, during the Middle Ages – not by all at all times. Thus, it is an interesting contribution to our theoretical thinking about scriptural status to ponder how we conceptualize and categorize a work that displays these features: is it ‘sometimes scriptural’, or ‘scriptural to some’? (Cf.  Lied, ‘Die syrische Baruchapokalypse’).
 
Second, the surviving manuscripts suggest that lections from 4 Ezra co-circulated with lections from 2 Baruch. With the exception of Add 14736 (from which only a few sheets survive) all the lectionary manuscripts mentioned above also contain excerpts from 2 Baruch. On the occasion of the Sunday of the Departed, 4 Ezra 7:26–42 and 2 Bar 44:9–15 are even scripted to be read together, one after the other, after Ezek 37:1–14 and before James 4:6–5:11.
 
Furthermore, this co-circulation of excerpts of the two works in lectionary manuscripts mirrors the general fact that the book of 2 Baruch never occurs in extant Syriac manuscripts without the book of 4 Ezra. In fact, with the exception of a small fourth- or fifth-century Greek fragment of 2 Bar 12:1–13:2 and 13:11–14:2 (mentioned here), all surviving manuscript witnesses to 2 Baruch, stemming from the sixth or seventh to the fifteenth centuries, also contain 4 Ezra.
 
This situation may matter to studies of 2 Baruch. What are the implications of this co-circulation for our broader assumptions of the relationship between the two compositions, and for our hypotheses about the production, revision and transmission of 2 Baruch in particular? Scholarship on the two writings has long noted the close relationship between the two apocalypses, explaining the similarities between them in context of the first centuries ce. As far as I know, the manuscript basis of 2 Baruch has never been brought up and debated in this discussion. Including this consideration in the debate may not change the scholarly consensus, but in the name of methodological transparency we should allow for the following question: based on the manuscript material that we in fact have, how do we know that 2 Baruch’s similarities with 4 Ezra are not the result of later co-circulation? Note that I pose this in the form of a question, we may not arrive at a fixed conclusion; but the very fact that the source material allows for this question means that we should indeed pose it. I am addressing this issue in further detail in my ongoing work.

Third, the lections from 4 Ezra in the surviving Syriac lectionary manuscripts are entitled, variously, ‘From Ezra the Prophet’ (DS Syr 33, folio 222r; Add 14686, folio 195r), ‘From the Prophecy of Ezra’ (DS Syr 33, folio 72v; Add 14686, folio 75v), ‘From the Book of Ezra’ (Add 14686, folio 16r; Add 14736, folio 18v; Ms 77, folio 10v), and ‘From Ezra the Scribe’ (Ms 77, folio 49v). Adding to the generally bewildering historical identifications of Ezra literature in Greek, Latin, Coptic, etc. sources, take a moment to think about the information yielded by these titles in the Syriac lectionary manuscripts: to which book of Ezra do you think it is likely that the lections once excerpted from 4 Ezra would have been attributed by the Syriac Christians who heard them read in worship contexts in the thirteenth century? These titles do not provide a clear identification of the composition from which the excerpts were taken, and we should not expect it: this kind of ambiguity is what we commonly find in the manuscript material; biblical books were often identified by more names in lectionary manuscript and this practice could easy give rise to a certain confusion of books. An expectation of clarity would be ours. Apart from the fact that the confusion illustrates the efficiency of the phenomenon of pseudepigraphical attribution, what are the implications to the perceived circulation of 4 Ezra and the Ezra lections among Syriac Christians, and what are the implications to the ways we tend to think about the reception of one given work (e.g. 4 Ezra), vis-à-vis the reception of a (conceived) group of not so easily distinguishable books ascribed to Ezra?  

 

Select literature

 
Betz, Hans-Gebhard, “Neue Bibelfragmente: Ein Überblick. ” Pages 195-207 in Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millenium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden 27 August – 2 September 2000. 2 volumes. Edited by Mat Immerzeel and Jacques van der Vliet. OLA 133-34. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.
 
Bidawid, R.J. “4 Esdras.” Pages i–iv; 1–50 in The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version. Part IV, fascicle 3. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973.
 
Brock, Sebastian and Lucas Van Rompay. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 227. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.
 

Leipoldt, Johannes and Bruno Violet. "Ein säidisches Bruchstück des vierten Esrabuches." ZÄS 41 (1904): 137-40.


Lied, Liv Ingeborg. "Die syrische Baruchapokalypse und die 'Schriften' - Die syrische Baruchapokalypse als 'Schrift'." Pages 327-49 in Old Testamant Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures. Edited by Eibert Tigchelaar. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 270. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

Outtier, Bernard. “Un fragment syriaque inédit de IV Esdras.” Apocrypha 4 (1993):19–23.

• In this article Bernard Outtier suggests that the Supplément turc 983, folios 113/116, containing 4 Ezra 8:33–41a and 41c–48, may also stem from a liturgical manuscript (p. 19). More here.

Suciu, Alin. “On a Bilingual Copto-Arabic Manuscript of 4 Ezra and the Reception of This Pseudepigraphon in Coptic Literature.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 25.1 (2015): 3-22.

Tarchnischvili, Michel. Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jerusalem. 2 volumes. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 188–189, 204–205. Scriptores Iberici volumes 9 and 10. Louvain, Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1959, vol. 9, p. 15 and vol. 10, p. 19.

• In the Georgian Jerusalem lectionary, 4 Ezra 5:22–30 is scripted to be read on Epiphany.

Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. 3 volumes. London: The British Museum, 1870–1872. Online: http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofsyria01brituoft#page/168/mode/2up

 

Thanks are due to Matthias Henze, James R. Davila, and Matthew P. Monger for their helpful inputs.

 

This blog post is based on my research and is part of the wider dissemination of my work. If you want to use the information in this post, please cite it!

 Lied, Liv Ingeborg. “4 Ezra in Syriac lectionary manuscripts – three points for further reflection,” posted on Religion – Manuscripts – Media Culture, 4 September 2015 (URL, retrieved [date]).

If you want to discuss any of the findings or hypotheses, feel free to contact me in the commentary field below.

I am shaping up my blog

I am shaping up my blog. I have been blogging for two years and felt that it was time to decide whether I should stop (this is what happens to most blogs), or continue and, if so, in which format. I have decided to continue, and I am making some changes.

First. Although I have decided to keep the fluffy name, I have written an introductory statement presenting the explicit purposes and limits of my blog. This is a blog on the history of transmission, use and transformation of the so-called Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, drawing on my ongoing research on the reception of 2 Baruch and related literature. At the heart of the blog are methodological and theoretical reflections on the manuscripts that contain these writings, the media culture that decided their use in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and the scholarly paradigms that form the way we think about them today. Hence, on this blog you will find some posts on manuscript details, but more commonly I will share reflections on scholarly practices and engagement with the manuscript material, inspired by insights from New Philology, Book History and Media Studies, as well as studies of ritual and materiality.

Second. I will focus on posting a limited number of substantial posts. From now on you will find one to three of these posts each semester, in addition to the occasional smaller posts on relevant conferences, new publications, etc. These substantial posts are drawing explicitly on my research, and as such I consider them part of the wider dissemination of my academic work. Hence, I kindly ask you to cite them (Liv Ingeborg Lied, “[Title of the post]”, posted on Religion – Manuscripts – Media Culture [date], [URL], [Date of retrieval]) or to enter into discussion with me. Note, however, that the posts published on this blog will contain neither the central parts of my research, nor my main findings – those are reserved for my book-in-progress and articles published in established, ‘vintage’ academic media. The items published on this blog are all those other things: those interesting details in the source material I happen to come across while looking for something else, the material I could not find room for in an article on a topic but still find relevant, things I want to put out there for discussion immediately or because I assume that it will be helpful for somebody, reflections on my work that matter to a wider academic audience, and my reflections on carrying out scholarship in a digital era. 
 

Third. I will be much more careful how I style myself and when selecting what I choose to post (and not). I will not try to entertain you or attract clicks. Sure, in some ways this runs against the grain of the blog medium, it might make my blog more boring, and it means that I choose a different direction to many other bloggers, but I do it for a reason. Here is what I have learned during these two years: a blog is a very powerful medium. Some of my blog posts have more readers than my articles and books, for sure. And, I suppose that many of those coming here will never read any of my other publications. And let’s face it (even though we don’t have to like it): some readers may even use online sites like this one as their main venue for gathering information and for learning. Furthermore, I will be explicit on what I do in my research and what I don’t. My work is interdisciplinary. I cut across disciplinary borders and draw on insights from various fields, while not necessarily obeying completely any established disciplinary canon. This makes it particularly important to communicate clearly what I do and what I don’t, what I am and what I am not. I am a professor of the Study of Religions, I have published on the OT Pseudepigrapha in their ancient context, I have also published on New Philology and Media Culture (medieval and modern), and now I am tracing the reception history of the Pseudepigrapha, starting with the main media that contain them: the manuscripts.

 The blog posts that will appear here in the foreseeable future are,

• a post on 4 Ezra, “4 Ezra in Syriac lectionary manuscripts – three points for further reflection” (in a few weeks),  

• a post on the possible liturgical use of the Syriac Codex Ambrosianus, “Details in the margin – not marginal details: a liturgical annotation in the Codex Ambrosianus” (September/ October)

• another post on 4 Ezra, discussing cross-disciplinary interaction and things ‘lost in translation’ between academic fields

• a post on the Epistle of Baruch, discussing some editorial choices and paradigms.