# Heresiology and Florilegia: The Reception of Epiphanius of Salamis' Panarion and Ephrem the Syrian's Prose Refutations and Hymns against Heresies

Flavia Ruani

► To cite this version:

Flavia Ruani. Heresiology and Florilegia: The Reception of Epiphanius of Salamis' Panarion and Ephrem the Syrian's Prose Refutations and Hymns against Heresies. Emiliano Fiori; Bishara Ebeid. Florilegia Syriaca: Mapping a Knowledge-Organizing Practice in the Syriac World, 179, Brill, pp.132-185, 2023, Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements, 978-90-04-52754-6. 10.1163/9789004527553_005. hal-04372287

HAL Id: hal-04372287

https://hal.science/hal-04372287v1

Submitted on 5 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
# Heresiology and Florilegia: The Reception of Epiphanius of Salamis' *Panarion* and Ephrem the Syrian's *Prose Refutations and Hymns against Heresies*

Flavia Ruani

## Introduction: Heresiology and Florilegia

The field of ancient Christian heresiology has been flourishing in the past two decades, especially with regard to the Greek tradition.<fnref n="1" /> As part of this renewed interest, the study of the Syriac heresiological tradition has also recently received scholarly attention.<fnref n="2" /> From its first attestations in the second century

<footnote n="1">1. After Alain Le Boulluec's pioneering essay in two volumes *La notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque IIe-IIIe siècles* (Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 1985), the field has been enriched not only by the publication of new editions and translations of ancient heresiological sources (e.g. Epiphanius' *Panarion* and Pseudo-Hippolytus' *Refutation of all heresies*), but also monographs and articles that explore various facets of the heresiological discourse. Let us mention some important titles: Aline Pourkier, *L'hérésiologie d'Epiphane de Salamine* (Paris: Beauchesne, 1992); Benoît Jeanjean, *Saint-Jérôme et l'hérésie* (Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 1999); Alain Le Boulluec, "Orthodoxie et hérésie aux premiers siècles dans l'historiographie récente," in *Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire* (ed. S. Elm, É. Rebillard, A. Romano; Rome: École française de Rome, 2000), 303–319; Hervé Inglebert, *Interpretatio Christiana: Les mutations des savoirs (cosmographie, géographie, ethnographie, histoire)* dans l'Antiquité chrétienne (Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 2001); Averil Cameron, "How to Read Heresiology," *Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies* 33/3 (2003): 471–492; Judith M. Lieu, *Marcion and the Making of a Heretic. God and Scripture in the Second Century* (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Geoffrey S. Smith, *Guilt by Association: Heresy Catalogues in Early Christianity* (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); Todd S. Berzon, *Classifying Christians: Ethnography, Heresiology, and the Limits of Knowledge in Late Antiquity* (Oakland, Ca.: University of California Press, 2016). For an excellent presentation of the study of ancient heresiology, see Eduard Iricinschi and Holger M. Zellentin, "Making Selves and Making Others: Identity and Late Antique Heresiologies," in *Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity* (ed. E. Iricinschi and H.M. Zellentin; Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 119; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 1–27.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. See Alberto Camplani, "Traces de controverse religieuse dans la littérature syriaque des origines: peut-on parler d'une hérésiologie des 'hérétiques' ?" in *Les controverses religieuses en syriaque* (ed. F. Ruani; ES 13; Paris: Geuthner, 2016), 9–66, and Flavia Ruani, "Les controver-</footnote>
to its later expressions in the thirteenth century, Syriac heresiology has been explored in two main directions: the study of writings that refute “erroneous” doctrines in their philological, historical, and ideological dimensions, and the reception of these writings in later texts.<fnref n="3" /> For the history of Syriac heresiology, the corpus of West Syrian dogmatic florilegia, spanning from the seventh to the ninth century, is interesting in several ways.<fnref n="4" /> Firstly, florilegia sit at a chronologically symbolic juncture in the production of polemical literature in Syriac. Indeed, they follow the peak of the Christological controversy of the fifth and sixth centuries and are contemporary with the first reactions to Islam. Secondly, from the literary point of view, florilegia have their own characteristics, but can also be seen as inheritors of the traditional heresiological style. For example, contrary to polemical texts, they lack an explicit authorial voice that would glue together the quoted extracts to achieve a coherent discourse. However, dogmatic florilegia bear some significant similarities to the conventional way of writing heresiology, both in content and form.

The florilegia's major aim is to affirm the Syrian Orthodox faith by refuting the opinions of a diverse array of opponents, which include Dyophysite adversaries, such as the Chalcedonians and the “Nestorians”, as well as other forms of Miaphysitism, such as the ones proposed by the “Julianists”, the “Agnoetians”, and the “Tritheists”, among several others.<fnref n="5" /> Even though florilegia tend to as-

<footnote>ses avec les manichéens et le développement de l'hérésiologie syriaque," in *Les controverses religieuses en syriaque* (ed. F. Ruani; ES 13; Paris: Geuthner, 2016), 67–103.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 See the example of Titus of Bostra, *Against the Manichaeans*, originally written in Greek but entirely transmitted only in Syriac, which has been recently edited and translated, as well as studied: *Titi Bostrensis Contra Manichaeos* (see the bibliography, under “primary sources”); *Titus de Bostra, Contre les manichéens* (see ibid.); Nils Arne Pedersen, *Demonstrative Proofs in Defense of God. A Study of Titus of Bostra's Contra Manichaeos: The Work's Sources, Aims and Relation to its Contemporary Theology* (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 56; Leiden: Brill, 2004); Paul-Hubert Poirier and Timothy Pettipiece, *Biblical and Manichaean Citations in Titus of Bostra's Against the Manichaeans: An Annotated Inventory* (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia 78; Turnhout: Brepols 2017).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 In this article, “florilegia” refer to compilations of textual excerpts arranged in thematic sections articulated in an organic way. On the other hand, “dogmatic florilegia” refer to florilegia that have doctrinal content aimed at the refutation of religious teachings that are perceived as erroneous and at the joint promotion of one specific confession, perceived as orthodoxy. Therefore, according to this definition, dogmatic florilegia differ from simple collections of doctrinal extracts lacking an internal logic, such as the late antique anti-Jewish *testimonia* (however, see Minov’s chapter in this volume), and from miscellaneous manuscripts, which may contain more than one florilegium.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 For a presentation of the controversies internal to Miaphysitism found in the dogmatic florilegia transmitted in the manuscripts *London, British Library* Add. 12155, 14532, 14533 and 14538, see Yonatan Moss, “Les controverses christologiques au sein de la tradition miaphysite:</footnote>
sociate all these doctrinal opponents, both external and internal, with ancient heresies, they often also group them in a unifying polemical category, that of “heresy”, despite their variety. This calls to mind the traditional heresiological practice of amalgamation, namely, the perception and portrayal of distinct theological doctrines as different manifestations of one single error.<fnref n="6" /> This labelling is most perceivable in titles: the polemical florilegia contained in the eighth-century manuscript *London, British Library Add. 14532* include, among others, anti-Dyophysite, anti-Julianist, anti-Tritheist and anti-Agnoetian florilegia which bear the overarching title of *Volume of Demonstrations from the Holy Fathers against Various Heresies* (ερμηνεία καὶ λόγοι ἀνατομή τῆς πολιτικῆς ἀρχῆ, fol. 1v).<fnref n="7" />

Moreover, some florilegia explicitly mention lists of traditional groups charged with heresy and integrate them in their argumentations. Listing heresies is yet another expression of the amalgamation technique, very widespread in the ancient Christian heresiological discourse, which developed it through the motif of “succession”, or *diadochè*, of erroneous doctrines.<fnref n="8" /> For example, we find such a blacklist of heresies in the narrative introducing the florilegium devoted to the question of the afterlife in MS BL Add. 14532, fol. 213v–217v, such as those (pre-Christian and Christian, up to the third century) gathered under the theme of the rejection of bodily resurrection, as shown below:

> Testimonies from the holy Fathers that show that there will be resurrec-
> tion for those bodies which wrestled with souls here below, and as they
> partook with them in the suffering of this world, they will partake with

> sur l'incorruptibilité du corps du Christ et autres questions," in *Les controverses religieuses en syriaque* (ed. F. Ruani; ES 13; Paris: Geuthner, 2016), 119-136.

<footnote n="6">6 On "amalgamation" as an ancient heresiological practice, see Le Boulluec, *La notion d'hérésie*, 2:643 (index entry: "Amalgame").</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 The first part of this title ("Demonstrations from the Holy Fathers") is also written in red ink on the top margin of the verso of the last folio in each quire (last occurrence at fol. 122v, in a total of 221 folios). For a description of this manuscript and the four florilegia, see William Wright, *Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838* (3 vols.; London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1870-1872), 2:955-967. See also Albert Van Roey, "Un traité cononite contre la doctrine de Jean Philopon sur la resurrection," in *Antidoron. Hulde aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum I* (ed. J. Noret; Wetteren: Cultura, 1984), 123-139, esp. 125-126.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 On the notion of heretical *diadochè*, see Le Boulluec, *La notion d'hérésie*, 2:639 (index entry *διαδοχή*) and Id., "Discours hérésiologique et dénominations des 'sectes'," in *Les communautés religieuses dans le monde gréco-romain. Essais de définition* (ed. N. Belayche and S.C. Mimouni; Bibliothèque de l'école pratique des hautes études, Sciences religieuses 117; Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), 107-122.</footnote>
As a contribution to the history of Syriac heresiology, in this chapter I would like to explore the reception and accommodation of material from heresiological works in medieval florilegia (seventh to ninth century). This research rests on the premise that the act of quoting from previous heresiological writings, among other polemical sources, contributes to define dogmatic florilegia as constructed texts with their own polemical intentions. I will therefore probe the way in which the florilegia's authors lend this status to their compositions: how they built their interpretations by choosing what to include and what to exclude from these sources, as well as by presenting the selected material in a different light, by detaching it from the original context, putting it into a new one, and editing it to fit this new polemical destination.

I shall begin with an overview of the heresiological sources quoted in the florilegia. Such a survey will allow us to understand which texts were in circulation and available to the authors of West Syrian florilegia in seventh- to ninth-century Upper Mesopotamia, and which ones were deemed relevant for their purposes. Two of them, both belonging to the fourth century, will be the focus of the next part of the chapter. These are Epiphanius of Salamis' catalogue of heresies, the *Panarion*, and Ephrem the Syrian's heresiological works, the *Prose Refutations against Mani*, *Marcion and Bardaisan* and the *Hymns against Heresies*. Next, I will probe the selection, organization and content of these excerpts, including the textual modifications carried out to accommodate them into their new contexts. Finally, in order to show that florilegia were polemical works in their own right, rather than mere collections of quotes, the chapter will broaden its scope to previous, contemporary and later authors and texts that quote the same heresiological sources, namely, the writings by Epiphanius and Ephrem mentioned above. More specifically, I will assess if florilegia borrowed the fourth-century heresiological quotations from previous authors, on one side, and if contemporary and later authors took them in turn

<footnote>detail the marks found in the manuscripts that contain West Syrian florilegia, the same
under discussion in the present article; BL Add. 12155, 14532, 14533, 14538. The enemies
marked with these marginal signs include Nestorius, the Council of Chalcedon, Julian of
Halicarnassus, Leo of Rome and Theodoret (see especially 225 and 228–229). Moreover,
Penn points out that, in some instances, the citation of the position to be denounced
occurs within the quote of an authoritative source. In this case as well, the heterodox pas-
sages are signalled with *obeli* or similar symbols in the margins (angle brackets, lines);
this is also the case of Eunomius, quoted by Basil of Caesarea, and Damian of Alexandria,
cited by Peter of Antioch. Along with these reading marks, Penn highlights other strategies
employed by Syriac copyists to present and, at the same time, condemn the adversaries'
claims, such as narrative framing and marginalia, also used in our manuscripts. I thank
Yonatan Moss for pointing out this article to me.</footnote>
from the florilegia, on the other. Elements of comparison will be offered by the writings of three authors who are well-known for their extensive use of patristic texts. For the former aim, I will refer to Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523) and Severus of Antioch (d. 538); for the latter, to Moses bar Kepha (d. 903).

## 1 Heresiological Texts in Seventh- to Ninth-Century Florilegia: A Survey

Since dogmatic florilegia are written by and for Miaphysite communities, one could expect them to display only excerpts from earlier Church writers dealing with theological contents on major topics of the Christological debate, such as the nature of Christ (his divine and human nature, as well as his body, knowledge and will), the Trinity, and the resurrection of the body. However, this assumption can immediately be corrected by taking a glimpse at William Wright's catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts kept at the British Library, and to the section devoted to florilegia specifically.<fnref n="13" /> Wright's very detailed descriptions show that florilegia quote a great diversity of polemical titles, including writings dealing with heresies that do not concern the Christological controversy.<fnref n="14" />

Below, I provide a chronological list of some recurring ones. Irenaeus of Lyon's *Against Heresies*, Clement of Alexandria's *Stromata*, Athanasius of Alexandria's *Against Arius* and *Against Apollinarius*, Ephrem the Syrian's *Hymns against Doctrines (Heresies)* and *Mimre against Doctrines* (= *Prose Refutations*), Titus of Bostra's *Against the Manichaeans*, Gregory of Nyssa's *Against Eunomius*, Epiphanius of Salamis' *Panarion* (*Against Heresies*), Severianus of Gaba-la's *Sermon against Kentorye, Manichaeans and Apollinarists*, Cyril of Alexandria's *Against Julian the Apostate* and *Against Nestorius*, Isaac of Antioch's *Mimro against the Chaldeans*, Severus of Antioch's *Against Julian of Halicarnassus* and *Against John the Grammarian*.

The sources belong to both the Greek and Syriac traditions, and they cover the entire patristic age, spanning from the second century (with Irenaeus of Lyon) to the sixth (with Severus of Antioch), with a preference for post-Nicene writers of the fourth and early fifth centuries. They target a variety of adversaries, although they are all quoted in florilegia that aim to affirm Syr-

<footnote n="13">13 Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:904–1015.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 To be sure, these texts are, by far, not the majority out of those quoted in dogmatic florilegia; there are many other texts whose content is theological but not polemical.</footnote>
ian Orthodox identity by condemning especially “Julianists”, “Nestorians” and
Chalcedonians. Indeed, while Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch deal
with the Christological controversy as the authors of florilegia do, other texts
deal with the Trinitarian debate (aimed against Arius and Eunomius). Yet, since
this debate addressed some Christological issues, the sources related to it can
properly support the Miaphysite arguments developed in the anti-Julianist,
anti-Nestorian and anti-Chalcedonian florilegia.<fnref n="15" /> Next to these sources deal-
ing directly with Christological matters that would fit the aims of the florile-
gia, there are others with an apparently unrelated content, directed towards
more ancient heresies: Irenaeus and Clement against the Gnostics, Epiphanius
against the Gnostics and several other early Christian heresies; Cyril against
Julian the Apostate; Ephrem, Titus and Severianus against the Manichaeans;
Isaac of Antioch against the Chaldeans. Surprising as the presence of these
texts may seem, it should be noted that the practice of quoting ancient authors
independently from the adversaries they target is attested since the first patris-
tic expressions of gathering proof for demonstrative purposes. What mattered
were not the opponents but the status of the writer. In the history of the
concept of “auctoritas patrum” and the use of patristic sources, the appeal
to Nicene fathers, as well as authors defending the Nicene orthodoxy, vastly
increased by the fifth century for dogmatic purposes. This explains the cita-
tions, in our medieval compilations, from fourth-century writers such as
Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Ephrem and Epiphanius, who were
considered champions of the faith and paragons of orthodoxy for promoting
the Nicene creed against its contestants. On the other hand, the appeal to ante-
Nicene authors, while decreasing in favour of the defenders of Nicaea, never
ceased, since they were recognized as universal authorities, that is, sources
whose authoritative status was accepted by all parties involved. Relying on
them would have prevented the opponent to contest their validity and, there-
fore, the validity of the claims they were invoked to support. Irenaeus figures
among the pre-Nicene fathers who continued to be quoted the most.<fnref n="16" />

Yet, the presence of these texts, whose content at first sight seems incon-
gruent with the controversies developed in the florilegia, arouses curiosity: for
which goals and in which ways are their contents considered relevant with
regard to the context of their reception? In other words, how did florilegia use

<footnote n="15">15 There are also anti-Arian sections: see BL Add. 12155, chapter 389, fol. 106v (see Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:936).</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 See Robert M. Grant, "The Appeal to the Early Fathers," *The Journal of Theological Studies* 11/1 (1960): 13–24, and Patrick T.R. Gray, "'The Select Fathers': Canonizing the Patristic Past," *SP 23* (1989): 21–36. I thank Yonatan Moss for these references.</footnote>
ancient heresiology? Which parts of these sources were selected and appropriated by the medieval compilers?

At the outset, we may notice the absence of famous late antique heresiological works. While we do have the *Panarion* by Epiphanius, we do not encounter Ps.-Hippolytus' *Refutations of All Heresies (Elenchos)* (first half of the third century) nor Theodoret of Cyrrhus' *Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium* (fifth century), just to mention other well-known texts of this genre. The latter, in particular, was very widespread in Greek, and excerpts from other works by Theodoret are cited in West Syrian florilegia, such as his *Ecclesiastical History*, despite the fact that the author belonged on the other side of the Christological divide.<fnref n="17" /> Possibly, these writings had not reached the Syriac world, or they were not considered relevant for medieval doctrinal debates, or again, they were not found to be doctrinally sound enough for inclusion in what may be called the "identity cards" of Syrian Orthodox faith.<fnref n="18" />

In the past, scholars have exploited the quotes of the heresiological texts contained in the florilegia for philological purposes. This is the case of Irenaeus,<fnref n="19" /> Titus of Bostra,<fnref n="20" /> and Ephrem's *Prose Refutations*.<fnref n="21" /> The prominent tendency was to take these excerpts from the point of view of the "received text" (thus, by using them for stemmatic purposes and critical editions), without paying attention to the "receiving context". We now have the opportunity to

<footnote n="17">17 See André de Halleux, "L'Histoire ecclésiastique de Théodoret dans les florilèges grégoriens syriaques," in *Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont: contributions à l'étude des christianismes orientaux*, avec une bibliographie du dédicataire (ed. R.-G. Coquin; Cahiers d'orientalisme 20; Geneva: P. Cramer, 1988), 221-232. CPG 6223 does not mention any translation of the *Compendium* in any Eastern Christian language.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 I borrow this term from Moss, "Les controverses christologiques", 120-121: "Ces quatre recueils [BL Add. 12155, 14532, 14533, 14538] ... peuvent être considérés comme des 'cartes d'identité théologiques' de l'Église miaphysite syriaque." Perhaps the excerpts from Theodoret's *Ecclesiastical history* were more neutral from a theological point of view, which made them acceptable for the West Syrian compilers of florilegia, or perhaps some theological content was taken out before incorporating them into the florilegia. Giorgia Nicosia is currently conducting a Ph.D. research on this topic at Ghent University, which will shed new light on this important question.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 Irenaeus of Lyon, *Against Heresies*, 1:109-111, 2:113-155, 3:138-141, 4:102-104, 5:163-165.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 Roman et al., *Titi Bostrensis Contra Manichaeos*, 359-360. See also Nils Arne Pedersen, "Titus of Bostra in Syriac Literature," *Laval théologique et philosophique* 62/2 (2006): 359-367.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 See below. This is also the case of Gregory of Nyssa's works; see Martien F.G. Parmentier, "Syriac Translations of Gregory of Nyssa," *OLP* 20 (1989): 143-193; and of Cyril of Alexandria's *Against Julian the Apostate*: see Hubert Kaufhold, "Die syrischen Fragmente," in *Kyrill von Alexandrien, Werke. Erster Band: "Gegen Julian", Teil 2: Buch 6-10 und Fragmente* (ed. W. Kinzig and Th. Brüggemann; GCS.NF 21; Berlin-Boston: de Gruyter, 2017), 821-895.</footnote>
do a methodological shift and analyse the content and function of each quote
in these dogmatic collections from the perspective of studying the heresiolog-
ical tradition in Syriac.

2 Ancient Heresies, New Heresies

The first element of reception worth mentioning is that the citations coming
from heresiological texts are not grouped together;<fnref n="22" /> rather, they appear next
to other polemical texts, as well as writings of exegetical, homiletical and litur-
gical nature. This is different from the reception of other types of sources; for
example, excerpts from historiographical texts tend to be transmitted one after
the other in West Syrian florilegia, to the point that they can form extensive sec-
tions solely of historiographical content.<fnref n="23" /> Moreover, as a general rule, quotes
from the same heresiological text in one florilegium do not follow each other;
rather, they are dispersed all throughout the text. This means that they are inte-
grated in the framework of different polemics to support arguments against
not one but various opponents. In turn, their appearance in various contexts of
debate multiplies the rhetorical effect produced by these quotations; by citing
previous heresiological texts, the authors of florilegia charge a wide range of
theological adversaries with heresy and implicitly equate their “new heresies”
with old ones. Below, we will see concrete examples in the reception of Epipha-
nius’ and Ephrem’s works. Interestingly, such a connection between ancient
and new heresies is carried out also at the conceptual level. In MS *London,
British Library* Add. 14533, fol. 137r (nº 23), amidst various controversies, namely
the debates against John Barbur (no. 16 at fol. 106r and again no. 27 at fol. 140r),
Sergius the Armenian (no. 20 at fol. 135v and again no. 28 at fol. 140r), and the
“Pagans” (no. 25, fol. 138r), we find a chapter on the definition of “heresy” which
is exemplified by two quotations. The first of these quotations, taken from the

<footnote n="22">22 This does not exclude the possibility that they circulated together in collections of quotes later used by the florilegia.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 See for example the sections XVIII and XIX of MS Deir al-Surian 28, fol. 114r–127v, contain-
ing excerpts from Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ *Ecclesiastical History* solely: Sebastian P. Brock
and Lucas van Rompay, *Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of
Deir Al-Surian, Wadi Al-Natrun (Egypt)* (OLA 227; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 197–199. This is a
tendency; however, there are also citations from historiographical sources in dogmatic flo-
rilegia that are not grouped together and appear amidst other kinds of texts. For example,
MS BL Add. 14533, cites excerpts from Eusebius of Caesarea’s and Theodoret’s ecclesiastical
histories (at fol. 170v and 168r respectively) as part of the controversy against the followers
of Paul of Bet-Ukkame (see Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:973).</footnote>
ing. Indeed, thanks to their juxtaposition, the two passages illuminate each
other's meaning. Firstly, it is probable that the ancient meaning of *hairesis* as
“academic school” was completely lost at the time of the compiler, rather than
it being a doctrinal error. Secondly, Severus' definition of the term as something
“away from the word of truth” leaves no doubt as to its negative connotations.
Thirdly, the link between the two citations is further assured by the word “inclini-
nation” (*meṣṭalyanuta*), which they have in common. This common terminol-
ogy (“heresy” and “inclination”) contributes to shedding a negative light back
on Clement's definition, which would otherwise be neutral. In sum, it seems
as if the compiler wished to present Severus' definition as the Syrian Orthodox
prolongation of the ancient definition of heresy, the one provided by Clement,
but in a pejorative sense. He did so by juxtaposing the two passages sharing
the same vocabulary regardless of their original contexts (one dealing with
the philosophical school of the Sceptics, and the other with the rebaptism and
rechrismation of ex-Nestorians), and their primary meanings. As a result, the
Nestorians, whom Severus addresses in his homily, are implicitly associated to
the early Christian notion of “heresy”, and, by extension, they are presented as
a renewed version of the ancient error.

3 First Case of Reception: Epiphanius of Salamis’ *Panarion*

The *Panarion*, or “Medicine Chest”, penned by Epiphanius bishop of Salamis
around 375AD, is a grandiose and renowned catalogue of heresies, featuring
an all-encompassing notion of heresy.<fnref n="28" /> In three books, Epiphanius presents
and refutes 80 heresies, both pre-Christian—including Pagan myths, philo-
sophical schools, and Jewish groups—and post-Christian—including all the
second- to fourth-century sects perceived to deviate from the teaching of the
Great Church, such as Gnostic and Trinitarian trends.<fnref n="29" /> Apart from its individ-
ual chapters, each devoted to one heresy, the *Panarion* also features transitional
parts that summarise the denounced heresies in short paragraphs; this epitо-
mised version of the *Panarion* is called *Anakephalaiosis*. The latter is known

<footnote n="28">28 Edition: Epiphanius, *Panarion* (see bibliography under “primary sources”); English trans-
lation: *The Panarion of Epiphanius* (see ibid.).</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 For a thorough study of the *Panarion*, see Pourkier, *L'hérésiologie*. See also Young R. Kim, *Epiphanius of Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World* (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2015) and Andrew S. Jacobs, *Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity* (Christianity in Late Antiquity 2; Oakland: University of California Press, 2016).</footnote>
in Syriac, where it circulates as a single work detached from the *Panarion*.<fnref n="30" /> On the contrary, there seems to be no attestation of a Syriac translation of the complete version of the *Panarion*.<fnref n="31" /> More importantly for our purpose here, the existence of excerpts from both texts in the indirect tradition has not been explored yet.<fnref n="32" /> The following table shows the passages that I could identify in the Syriac florilegia kept at the British Library and in the Mingana collection, according to their order in the source text.<fnref n="33" />

We notice that the excerpts included in dogmatic florilegia (transmitted by MS Mingana syr. 69, BL Add. 12155 and 14532)<fnref n="34" /> come from chapters that deal with issues regarding the nature of Christ and the Trinity, as they are addressed against the heresies of the Arians and the Anomoeans<fnref n="35" /> and provide a definition of the orthodox faith (which is found in the chapter entitled *De Fide* at the end of the *Panarion*). The fourth manuscript, BL Add. 17194, gathers

<footnote n="30">³⁰ See Luise Abramowski, “Die Anakephalaiosis zum Panarion des Epiphanius in der Handschrift Brit. Mus. Add. 12156,” *LM* 96 (1983): 217–230. The Syriac *Anakephalaiosis* proved very popular in later Syriac literature; for the example of its material on Jewish sects used by Theodore bar Koni and Dionysius bar Şalibi, see Sebastian P. Brock, “Some Syriac Accounts of the Jewish Sects,” in *A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East* (ed. R.H. Fischer; Chicago, Illinois: The Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977), 265–276.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ *CPG* 3745 mentions an Arabic and a Georgian translation, but not a Syriac one.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Another dogmatic work of Epiphanius of Salamis, the *Ancoratus* (*CPG* 3744), composed a few years before the *Panarion* and centered on the theme of the Trinity, also contains polemical hints against Origen and others. Equally unknown in Syriac translation (no reference to such a tradition is made in *CPG*, which mentions Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Arabic versions), there are several excerpts from it quoted in the West Syrian theological florilegia. In the future, it would be worth collecting and studying all these quotations as well.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ To this table, one should add the manuscripts BL Add. 14533 (eighth–ninth century), and 14538 (tenth century), which share a nearly identical content with BL Add. 14532 as far as the anti-Julian and anti-Tritheist florilegia are concerned. See Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:967–976, esp. 969, for the first, and 1003–1008, esp. 1007, for the second. See the Appendix for the exact folios where the quotes from Epiphanius appear. The passages cited in more than one manuscript transmit the same text.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ For a description of MS BL Add. 12155 and BL Add. 14532, see n. 10 and n. 7 above, respectively. For the Mingana manuscript, dated to around 650AD, see Alphonse Mingana, *Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts. I, Syriac and Garshūni Manuscripts* (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933), 173–178. I use the foliation of the manuscript, which differs by one from the foliation given by Alphonse Mingana in his catalogue (the folio given by Mingana for these quotations is 24r).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Anomoeanism was a theological current which promoted an extreme form of Arianism, founded by Aetius and Eunomius in the mid-fourth century.</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 4.1 Passages from Epiphanius of Salamis' *Panarion* quoted in florilegia manuscripts</caption><thead><tr><th>Epiphanius<br>Panarion</th><th>Birmingham, Cadbury<br>Research Library Min-<br>gana syr. 69<br>(ca. 650 AD)</th><th>London, British<br>Library Add.<br>12155<br>(747 AD?)</th><th>London, British<br>Library Add.<br>14532<br>(8th c.)</th><th>London, British<br>Library Add.<br>17194<br>(886 AD)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>Anakephalaiosis</i> 1, 3, 1-7<br>(against Hellenism)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 17<sup>v</sup>-18<sup>r</sup></td></tr><tr><td><i>Anakephalaiosis</i> 11, 21, 1-3<br>(against the Simonians)</td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 217<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Anakephalaiosis</i> 11, 27, 1<br>(against the Carpocratians)</td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 217<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Anakephalaiosis</i> 11, 31, 1<br>(against the Valentinians)</td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 217<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Panarion</i> 21, 4, 4<br>(against the Simonians)</td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 217<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Cf. Panarion</i> 30, 29, 1-2<br>(against the Ebionites)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 52<sup>r</sup></td></tr><tr><td><i>Panarion</i> 31, 7, 6<br>(against the Valentinians)</td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 217<sup>v</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Anakephalaiosis</i> III, 38, 1-2<br>(against the Cainites)</td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 217<sup>v</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Panarion</i> 69, 24, 6<br>(against the Arians)</td><td>fol. 23<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 66<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 43<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Panarion</i> 76, 6, 3-4<br>(against the Anomoeans)</td><td></td><td>fol. 13<sup>v</sup></td><td>fol. 96<sup>v</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Panarion</i> 76, 39, 6<br>(against the Anomoeans)</td><td>fol. 23<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 66<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 43<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Panarion</i> 76, 50, 5-6<br>(against the Anomoeans)</td><td></td><td>fol. 13<sup>v</sup></td><td>fol. 96<sup>v</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>De Fide</i> 17, 8-9</td><td></td><td>fol. 21<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 126<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

patristic citations on various biblical and theological subjects.<fnref n="36" /> We observe that it contains two passages from the *Panarion* which are not found in the dogmatic florilegia (as far as these British manuscripts are concerned). This variety in the reception of the excerpts raises a few questions. How are the excerpts treated in their various receiving contexts? With which specific topics and debates are they associated? Do they undergo any textual variation that would signal their integration into these new, Syrian Orthodox doctrinal settings?

<footnote n="36">36 See Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:1002-1003 for its description. For a definition of “spiritual florilegia” as collections of excerpts dealing with “the good practice of Christian life, asceticism and spiritual progress”, see M. Richard, “Florilèges spirituels grecs,” in *Dictionnaire de spiritualité*, 5:475-512.</footnote>
To answer these questions, we need to distinguish between the reception in dogmatic and spiritual florilegia. For the latter category, the aforementioned BL Add. 17194 cites an excerpt from the *Anakephalaiosis* (1, 3, 1–7) denouncing “Hellenism”, namely Greek polytheism, and quotes it as the first witness of section 24 entitled “Which shows how and when idols entered the world” (fol. 17v). Further below (fol. 52r), the manuscript features what seems to be a shortened periphrasis of *Panarion* 30, 29, 1–2, which deals with the sect of the Ebionites. Yet, the quoted passage contains a reference to the Magi offering gifts to the newborn baby Jesus, as it fits the topic: “Indication of how old our Lord was when the Magi arrived” (fol. 51v). We thus see how two passages coming from a polemical work end up in thematic sections of religious-historical interest.

The thematic contexts are naturally different when we look at the reception in dogmatic florilegia. Given that MS BL Add. 14532 contains all the passages quoted in the two other manuscripts and has some more of its own, we will examine the organization and text of the citations from the *Panarion* that appear in it. (The full text and translation of all the passages mentioned in the table are provided in the Appendix at the end of this contribution; in what follows, we will provide a discussion of their content relevant for our purpose.)

In the dogmatic florilegia contained in BL Add. 14532, the citations from the *Panarion* are quoted in support of two main controversies: one against the Julianists and their doctrine of the impassibility of the body of Christ, and the other against the Tritheists and their notion of the consubstantiality of the persons of the Trinity.

More specifically, in the anti-Julianist florilegium (fol. 36r–94v), two excerpts are quoted one right after the other: *Panarion* 69, 24, 6, against the Arians, and *Panarion* 76, 39, 6, against the Anomoeans, and more specifically, their leader Aetius. Despite being extracted from two different chapters, these two passages share the topic of the passibility of the incarnated Christ and the impassibility of God. Their selection reveals to be very relevant for supporting the denunciation of the Julianists’ doctrine on Christ’s incorruptibility. In this regard, the Syriac version of the second passage presents one significant variant compared to the original Greek text. Whereas the first passage and almost all of the second are literal translations from the Greek, the second passage contains a sentence that differs slightly from the original. This sentence reads “those who are subject to the pain of the flesh (besra)”, instead of “those who are subject to the pain of death”.<fnref n="37" /> The variant “flesh” in the place of “death” puts a further emphasis on

<footnote n="37">37 There is also another variant in the second passage, which seems to be less relevant, where “of old” replaces “before him”.</footnote>
convenient to him for his doctrinal controversy, or he may have *modified* the one he consulted which can be Severus' or a text bearing the same reading as the one kept by Severus, to fit the context to a greater degree. In both scenarios, it seems that the florilegium opposes Julianism even more than its historical champion detractor, Severus!

At any rate, by selecting these two quotes from the *Panarion* to address the polemics concerning Christ's suffering, the florilegium is indirectly equating the sixth-century Julianists to the fourth-century Arians and Anomoeans. Not only does the recourse to this heresiological source allow the florilegium to implicitly present the former as an actualization of the latter's doctrines, but, obliquely, it also projects on the Julianists the historical condemnation of Arians and Anomoeans by official ecclesiastical authorities, namely the councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381), respectively. As a result, the Julianists are portrayed as already defeated, in the same way as their earlier counterparts.

If we now consider the anti-Tritheist debate, which is the second main point of discussion where MS BL Add. 14532 quotes excerpts from the *Panarion*, we should divide the matter further, according to the two different settings in which the citations appear. Three excerpts are indeed mentioned in a section that seems to be compiled directly by the author of the florilegium (fol. 94v–133v), whereas a group of six quotations appears in the last section of the manuscript, which is said to be borrowed from a treatise written by the Tritheists against the philosopher John Philoponus (d. 570), also a defender of Tritheism (fol. 213v–221r). Thus, if the former section is the work of an anti-Tritheist author (the author of the florilegium), the latter reproduces internal conflicts between divergent conceptions of Tritheism, which the florilegium leverages. This difference in the confessional origin of the quoting text is coupled by a difference in content, since the quoted extracts from the *Panarion* do no overlap in the two sections.

The first three excerpts are taken from the chapter against the Anomoeans and the final profession of faith (*Panarion* 76, 6, 3–4; 76, 50, 5–6, and *De Fide* 17, 8–9).41 They all deal with the distinction of the persons of the Trinity and the concomitant unicity of God, a doctrine that at first glance seems to fit the polemic against the adversaries labelled as Tritheists. Nevertheless, a closer look at the original context of the citations allows us to perceive that a conceptual transposition has occurred in the new reception setting. In this regard, it is worth considering the second passage, *Panarion* 76, 50, 5–6. In Epiphanius’

<footnote n="41">41 Neither of them presents significant differences from the original Greek text.</footnote>
work, these lines are part of the refutation of a specific claim by Aetius, which
is the following:

> If the Ingenerate transcends all cause but there are many ingenerates,
> they will [all] be exactly alike in nature. For without being endowed with
> some quality common [to all] while yet having some quality of its own—
> [a condition not possible in ingenerate being]—one ingenerate nature
> would not make, while another was made.

We observe that the terms of the debate rely on the subordinationist concep-
tion of the second person of the Trinity. By extension, this conception denies
the identity between the substances of the Trinity, since it argues for a differ-
ence between the creating substance of the Father and the created substance
of the Son. In spite of this, the heart of the debate does not coincide with what
the Tritheists claim, which is more philosophical. More importantly, Trithe-
ism, as a movement within the Miaphysite community, saw itself as upholding
anti-Arianist, Nicene orthodoxy.<fnref n="42" /> Therefore, and once more, the florilegium
updates an ancient controversy and throws back against the sixth-century
Tritheists arguments developed in the frame of the fourth-century Trinitarian
controversy. As a result, it indirectly attributes to the former the claims of the
latter, despite their divergent conceptual presuppositions and especially their
opposing confessional standpoints, and polemically makes new Arians of the
Tritheists.

Finally, bl Add. 14532, fol. 213v-221r contains a florilegium in support of
the resurrection of the bodies. I quoted its opening paragraph above, which
lists several ancient heretics. This florilegium cites a Tritheist writing that
cites in turn many patristic texts, including six passages from the *Panarion* (at
fol. 217).43 The writing in question has been identified by Albert Van Roey as a
sixth-century Cononite florilegium composed against the doctrine on the res-
urrection defended by John Philoponus. The latter, a Miaphysite, was a fellow
Tritheist, but his view on the resurrected body as new and incorruptible was

<footnote n="42">42 On Tritheism and the Tritheist controversy, see Alois Grillmeier, "The Tritheist Contro-
versy in the Sixth Century and Its Importance in Syriac Christology," in *Christ in Christian
Tradition. Vol. 2/3 The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451 to 600* (ed. A. Grillmeier
and T. Hainthaler, trans. by M. Ehrhardt; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 268-
280.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43 This borrowing is shown in the manuscript with marks in the margins, next to each line
of each passage. The same extracts are quoted in BL Add. 14538, fol. 147v.</footnote>
rejected by Conon, the metropolitan bishop of Tarsus, and his followers, who
believed that the mortal body would be resurrected identical.<fnref n="44" /> Among the
quoted sources, including ante-Nicene and fourth- and fifth-century fathers,
the six extracts from Epiphanius are all, with one exception, taken from the
*Anakephalaiosis* and follow one another as one continuous citation.<fnref n="45" /> They
solely concern first- and second-century heresies, labelled as Gnostic, that
have in common the denial of the bodily resurrection and the rejection of
the Old Testament. These heresies are quoted in chronological order, the same
adopted in the *Panarion*; they are from the followers of Simon Magus, Car-
pocrates, Valentinus, and the Cainites. Differently from the previous passages
by Epiphanius that we analysed above, here the citations do not correspond
literally to the Greek original, nor to the Syriac version of the *Anakephalaio-
sis* preserved entirely in MS *London, British Library* BL Add. 12156.<fnref n="46" /> In some
instances, they seem to be paraphrases rather than proper citations, given the
discrepancies found in the content. For the parallel sentences, however, it is
possible that the Syriac translator of the Tritheist work, probably originally
composed in Greek, did not consult a pre-existing Syriac translation of the
*Anakephalaiosis*, but rather, they rendered directly the Greek found in the text-
source. This may account for the differences in vocabulary and syntax between
these extracts and the *Anakephalaiosis* of MS BL Add. 12156. To make just one
example, let us compare the first citation dealing with the followers of Simon
Magus (*Anakephalaiosis* II, 21, 1–2) contained in our florilegium and the paral-
lel passage of the Syriac version of the *Anakephalaiosis* preserved in BL Add.
12156:

<footnote n="44">44 On the Cononite florilegium and this intra-Tritheist controversy, see Van Roey, “Un traité cononite.” Van Roey identifies all the sources and edits and translates the passages that were still unpublished, including those extracted from John Philoponus’ writings themselves, to which the florilegium reacts (nº 25, 29–33). As he points out, the florilegium is also contained in MS London, BL Add. 14538, fol. 147r–148v, with some omissions (at 125–126).</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 The six extracts are identified by Van Roey, “Un traité cononite,” 131, n° 17; he does not edit and translate them, since they are published in the original Greek in the *Patrologia Graeca* 41, to which he refers. We offer an edition and a translation in the Appendix, based on both manuscripts BL Add. 14532 and 14538.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 This seems to be the case of other citations as well; Van Roey, “Un traité cononite,” remarks that the quotes from Titus of Bostra (nº 16) and Severus of Antioch (nº 18 and 28) differ from the published Syriac translations of the works from which they are taken.</footnote>
for both anti-Tritheist authors (the compilers) and (at least some) Tritheist thinkers; both found it useful in supporting their various claims and drew on different parts of it. Therefore, by first attacking and then using Tritheist theories, the compilers may have had as one of their objectives to show the Tritheists that one of their proof texts, on which they relied to defend their doctrine on resurrection, may just as well contain arguments that would support a rejection of their doctrine on the persons of the Trinity.<fnref n="47" />

The evidence presented above for the employment of Epiphanius' heresiology in medieval polemical florilegia points to a fairly circumscribed interest in this encyclopedia of ancient errors. Out of the 80 chapters of the *Panarion* aimed against pre-Christian and post-Christian heresies, the anti-Julianist and the anti-Tritheist florilegia selected the positions of the bishop of Salamis as anti-Arian theologian and a defender of the Nicene formulation of the *homoousios*. The reaction to the fourth-century Trinitarian controversy was perceived as particularly relevant and fruitful for sixth-century theological debates. Most significantly, perhaps, we observe that the quotations come from the chapters against Aetius and Eunomius, whose radical subordinationist teachings were particularly influential in Syria and the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire.<fnref n="48" /> In addition to the thematic relevance of the excerpts taken from these chapters, this local dimension may also have been part of the motivations underlying the compilers' practice of selection.

## 4 Second Case of Reception: Ephrem the Syrian's *Prose Refutations and Hymns against Heresies*

Given that Epiphanius' *Panarion* is used for its Christological and Trinitarian content, Ephrem the Syrian's heresiological works offer a complementary case study, as they concern different adversaries and debates, thus providing us with different polemical material.<fnref n="49" /> Chronologically, Ephrem's heresiological works

<footnote n="47">47 On arguments over the same patristic sources in fifth- and sixth-century dogmatic controversies, see Grant, "The Appeal to the Early Fathers."</footnote>

<footnote n="48">48 See Christine Shepardson, *Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy. Ephrem's Hymns in Fourth-Century Syria* (North American Patristics Society, Patristic Monograph Series 20; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 111–116, for this regional influence at the time of Ephrem the Syrian.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 This is why we exclude from the examination Ephrem's *Hymns on Faith*, which are also a heresiological writing, as they represent a response to Arian positions, and we focus instead on the reception of "external" heresies—to use Ephrem's own terminology in</footnote>
preceded the *Panarion* by several years.⁵⁰ One of them is in prose, known as *Prose Refutations*, and the other in verses, the *Hymns against the Erroneous Doctrines*, or *Heresies* (henceforth *HcH*). Both writings were likely composed or completed during the Edessene period of the author's life, namely between 363 and 373.⁵¹ Even if the *Prose Refutations* are usually considered as a more mature and sophisticated work addressed to a well-educated readership, and the *Hymns* as a popular version meant for wider circulation,⁵² both writings display the same notion of heresy and target the same opponents. In this regard, compared to Epiphanius' *Panarion*, Ephrem's works have a double cultural advantage for the West Syrian polemical florilegia, as they are penned by a Syriac author admired and vastly quoted by subsequent writers, including champions of Miaphysitism, such as Jacob of Serug and Philoxenus of Mabbug, and they mostly combat three major “local” heresies that represent the past history of Syriac Christianity itself, namely Marcion (d. 160), Bardaisan (d. 222) and Mani (d. 277). Their content does not deal with Christological matters, but rather, with broader theological questions, such as the conception of the divinity and the created world, the constitution of the human being, free will, resurrection, in addition to Scriptures and religious rituals. It is thus interesting to see how these polemics intervene in the Christological debates of the West Syrian sixth-century florilegia.⁵³

*Hymns against Heresies* 3, 9 (Syr. *barraye*). While these “external” adversaries, namely Marcion, Bardaisan and Mani, are also condemned in Epiphanius' *Panarion*, they do receive a full refutation in Ephrem's writings, which devote to them the 12 treatises of the *Prose Refutations* and the 56 hymns of his poetical heresiological collection. A study of the citations from Ephrem's *madraše* surviving in dogmatic florilegia is a desideratum: see Sebastian P. Brock, “The Transmission of Ephrem's *madrashe* in the Syriac liturgical tradition,” *SP* 33 (1997): 490–505, esp. 492, n. 12.

It is even possible that Epiphanius knew these works by Ephrem; in *HcH* 22–24, Ephrem lists many heretical groups that are all mentioned in the *Panarion* as well. These groups, belonging to Gnostic and Trinitarian confessions, may be included in the category of “internal” heresies, following Ephrem's expression in *HcH* 3, 9 (Syr. *gawwaye*).

Edition and translation of the *Prose Refutations*: S. Ephraemi Syri Opera Selecta, 21–58 edition of *Discourse* 1 *Ad Hypatius*; 59–73 edition of *Discourse* 2; Ephrem, *Prose Refutations*, edition (except of *Discourse* 1) and English translation of the 12 treatises. Edition of the *Hymns against Heresies*: Ephrem, *Hymnen contra Haereses*, and *Éphrem de Nisibe. Hymnes contre les hérésies* (Cerbelaud and Ruani; see the bibliography, under “primary sources”).

André de Halleux, “Saint Éphrem le Syrien,” *Revue théologique de Louvain* 14 (1983): 328–355, esp. 335.

On the reception of Ephrem as anti-Manichaean polemicist, see Flavia Ruani, “Recherches sur la place d’Éphrem de Nisibe dans la littérature syriaque anti-manichéenne,” *PdO* 38 (2013): 83–108, and “Sur les traces syriaques des manichéens: les réfutations de Moïse bar Kepha (IXe s.) et de Jacques bar Šakko (XIIIe s.),” in *Gnose et manichéisme. Entre les oasis*
## 4.1 The Prose Refutations

As mentioned above, the extracts from the *Prose Refutations* quoted in medieval florilegia have already been identified by the editors of the text at the beginning of the twentieth century. The following table provides an overview of the passages in question and their place in the manuscript tradition:⁵⁴

d'Égypte et la route de la soie. Hommage à Jean-Daniel Dubois (ed. A. Van den Kerchove and L.G. Soares Santoprete; Bibliothèque de l'école pratique des hautes études, Sciences religieuses 170; Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 299-332. The present contribution represents a further opportunity for me to extend my enquiry to a part of Syriac literature that I have not explored yet.

54

Compared to the manuscripts known and used by the editors, I only add MS Mingana syr. 69 and BL Add. 14533, which escaped their notice, but which contain the same identical passage as BL Add. 12155 and Add. 14532, namely, *Against Bardaisan* st. 88 (contrary to what suggested by the apparatus in Mitchell, Bevan and Burkitt, *Prose Refutations*, 2:166 and the notes to the translation at 2:1xxviii, all five manuscripts present the same variants compared to the edited text, including the omission of the *dalat* at l. 34). It should be noted that MS BL Add. 14538 contains the title of the same extract at f. 107v, but the passage itself is lost in the material lacuna that ensues. MS BL Add. 17194 was known to Joseph Overbeck, who published the quote it transmits in S. *Ephraemi Syri Opera Selecta*, 136. The quoted passage bears the title "From Ephrem, from the *Discourse against Bardaisan*" but remains unidentified to this day (it does not correspond to any of the extant stanzas of the *Against Bardaisan*, nor to any other part of the *Prose Refutations* reconstructed from the palimpsest). For this reason, I will reproduce the Syriac text and offer an English translation of this passage in the Appendix, in the hope that the excerpt will be identified. On the other hand, I will not provide the texts and translations of the other citations, which can be reconstructed by consulting the critical edition. On a related note, it is interesting to remark that a passage circulating under the title of *Against Bardaisan* (مع مسندهی وله محل دنیای و دهیه می خه م فنون) is quoted in an East-Syrian florilegium of monastic and ascetic content, transmitted by MS *Cambridge, University Library* Or. 1319 (a nineteenth-century copy of a manuscript dated to 1233/4 or 1333/4AD). The passage is edited and translated by Luise Abramowski and Alan E. Goodman in *A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts. Cambridge University Library, MS. Oriental 1319* (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 1:219-220 (text), 2:132-133 (trans.). It is also contained in an East-Syrian monastic collection, *Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz* Syr. 27 (Sachau 302), fol. 21v-22r, dated to the seventh or eighth century; see Eduard Sachau, *Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin* (2 vols.; Berlin: Asher, 1899), 1:110-111, who reproduces the citation. The passage does not correspond to any citation quoted in the West Syrian florilegia, nor is it taken from the *Prose Refutations*, but from a *memra* attributed to Ephrem which was published twice in 1904, by A.S. Duncan Jones and E. Rahmani (see Abramowski and Goodman, *A Nestorian Collection*, 2:1). For a recent analysis of this *memra*, see Izabela Jurasz, "Le Nom et le Lieu de Dieu. Étude d'un témoignage inconnu de la cosmologie bardesanite," *OCP 2* (2108): 297-337.
<table><caption>TABLE 4.2 Passages from Ephrem the Syrian's *Prose Refutations* quoted in florilegia manuscripts</caption><thead><tr><th>Ephrem,<br><i>Prose</i><br><i>Refutations</i></th><th>BL Add.</th><th>BL Add.</th><th>Ming.</th><th>BL Add.</th><th>BL Add.</th><th>BL Add.</th><th>BL Add.</th><th>BL Add.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Fourth Discourse</td><td>fol. 84<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I, 118, 31–119, 31</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fourth Discourse</td><td>fol. 84<sup>rv</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I, 119, 42–120, 15</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fourth Discourse</td><td>fol. 84<sup>v</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I, 121, 17–35</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fifth Discourse</td><td>fol. 105<sup>v</sup>–</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I, 127, 30–44</td><td>106<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Against<br>Bardaisan</td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 91<sup>v</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 7<sup>v</sup>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>St. 33–42<br>(except 40)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Against<br>Bardaisan</td><td></td><td>fol. 34<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 71<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 54<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 62<sup>v</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>St. 88</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Against<br>Bardaisan” =<br>not identified</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 24<sup>v</sup>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>25<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The editors C.W. Mitchell, A.A. Bevan and F.C. Burkitt used these excerpts in their critical edition of the famous palimpsest *London, British Library Add. 14623*.<fnref n="55" /> The passages are mentioned in the apparatus whenever they present a textual variant with regard to the edited text, and oftentimes they help with the reading of the palimpsest when it is barely legible, or fill in its lacunae. The variants of the passages in the medieval florilegia are quite scanty; the text they transmit is fundamentally stable.<fnref n="56" /> This remark is quite important

<footnote n="55">55 Description in Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:762–766.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">56 The variants of the manuscripts BL Add. 14612 and 17214 are given in Ephrem, *Prose Refutations*, 1:230–231 in a Corrigenda section. The manuscripts BL Add. 12155 and 17193 are mentioned at the beginning of *Against Bardaisan* in 2:143, but only the variants of the latter are presented at 151–154 in stanzas 33–42 (and lxx for the translation). In this regard, it must be stated that the editors do not give all the textual differences of MS BL Add. 17193, but only the most important ones. The preference of 17193 over 12155 is not entirely clear, since, in fact, MS BL Add. 17193 presents a more corrupted text than BL Add. 12155, with omissions and *sauts-du-même-au-même*. Finally, the variants of the BL Add. 12155 and 14532 for st. 88 are given in Ephrem, *Prose Refutations*, 2:166–167 (text) and lxxviii (trans.).</footnote>
for the history of the *Prose Refutations*, which, for the most part, are otherwise attested only in the undertext of the palimpsest manuscript.<fnref n="57" /> Medieval florilegia play a major role in further preserving this Ephremian text by quoting passages from it; especially from *Discourses* 4 and 5, which were entirely erased at the beginning of the ninth century, when the manuscript was brought from Northern Mesopotamia to Egypt, to make room for writings of a more ascetical nature.

Having underlined the importance of the florilegia for the transmission of the received text, we now consider its selection and the contexts of its reception. First of all, the fact that passages from the *Prose Refutations* are quoted in sixth- to ninth-century manuscripts shows that they were still deemed relevant to the cultural interests of those epochs in Northern Mesopotamia.<fnref n="58" /> This datum contrasts with the perceived irrelevance of Ephrem's polemical works in early ninth-century Egypt, when they were erased. Nevertheless, we notice that only three texts out of the twelve originally composing the *Prose Refutations* were used by the compilers.<fnref n="59" /> Compared to other texts by Ephrem, as well as polemical writings by other authors, the *Prose Refutations* turn out not to be very popular. The content of the selected passages, as well as the receiving contexts in which they are embedded, confirm this by revealing that the reasons for their inclusion are not related to their initial polemical valence.

Of the eight manuscripts listed in the table above, four contain demonstrations from the Church fathers on various biblical and theological subjects. BL Add. 14612 is a compilation of patristic excerpts organized by author and not by theme, where Ephrem is quoted together with other Syriac and Greek ecclesi-

<footnote n="57">57 Exceptions are *Discourse 1* as well as some stanzas from *Against Bardaisan* and the entire treatise *On Virginity*. The former is transmitted by two manuscripts, *London, British Library Add. 14570* and Add. 14574; BL Add. 14574 is composed of 19 folios that were detached from the manuscript BL Add. 14623 before it was transported to Egypt and erased (see Wright, *Catalogue, 2:406–407* and 407–408 respectively. BL Add. 14574 also contains part of *Discourse 2*; another manuscript, *London, British Library* Add. 14581, contains two folios with parts of *Discourse 1*. See S. *Ephraemi Syri Opera Selecta*, vi–vii). The latter were copied by the monk Aaron from the very manuscript he erased; these texts thus appear in both the inferior and superior script of the manuscript BL Add. 14623.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 This remark follows the methodology delineated by A. Butts to analyse manuscripts “as evidence for the time and place in which they were written”; see Aaron M. Butts, “Manuscript Transmission as Reception History: The Case of Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373),” *Journal of Early Christian Studies* 25/2 (2017): 281–306, esp. 285–288 for the *Prose Refutations* (quote at 288).</footnote>

<footnote n="59">59 This is true as far as these manuscripts are concerned and since the last passage has not been identified yet.</footnote>
astical writers.<fnref n="60" /> BL Add. 17214,<fnref n="61" /> 17193⁶² and 17194⁶³ deal with a great diversity of topics; thus, the *Prose Refutations* are quoted as proof text for demonstrating “What Golgotha is, and concerning the Cross and that everyone dies at his appointed time” (*Against Bardaisan* st. 33–42, in BL Add. 17193 and 12155), or that “Satan cannot enter man without God’s command” (the unidentified passage in BL Add. 17194). Accordingly, the selected lines fit perfectly the thematic chapter heading under which they feature. For example, stanzas 33–42 form a digression from the principal topic of the text, which is the refutation of Bardaisan’s doctrine of body and soul, and they explicitly address the question of theodicy through the example of Adam’s and Abel’s deaths, which were determined by God. In particular, in Ephrem’s interpretation, Abel’s killing was perpetrated at the hand of a man, Cain, but in the moment sentenced by God, who is the master of time and has decreed a temporal limit for everyone. Therefore, we can imagine that the lack of polemical weight in their original context made these stanzas an “easy” pick for the authors of the florilegia, who could thus extract them and use them for demonstrations that have no polemical connotation either.<fnref n="64" />

We are thus left with the four manuscripts of dogmatic content that feature polemical florilegia, namely Mingana syr. 69, BL Add. 12155, 14532 and 14533. As

<footnote n="60">60 Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:696–701.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">61 Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:915–917.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">62 Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:989–1002.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">63 On this manuscript, see n. 36 above.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">64 These stanzas, devoid of overt polemical hints, provide a biblical exegesis and promote a general notion of God’s omnipotence. Their digressive character is quite unique in the twelve treatises of the *Prose Refutations*. The digression is announced at st. 31: “Now let us turn for a little to a question ...” (Ephrem, *Prose Refutations*, 2:lxix). This may be the reason why the monk Aaron would have copied them from the undertext of MS BL Add. 14623 that he erased and saved them for his overtext. See the question asked by Butts, “Manuscript Transmission,” 287: “Monks such as Aaron were more interested in texts of an ascetical nature ... This would account for the selection of authors that are found in the overtext as well as for why Aaron recopied Ephrem’s *Hymn on Virginity*. It would not, however, explain why he recopied part of Ephrem’s *Discourse against Bardaisan*. The answer may thus lie in the content of the stanzas; they are not ascetical, but they are exegetical. Indeed, next to works of ascetical character, highlighted by Butts, the monk Aaron also copied texts dealing with biblical interpretation, such as John Chrysostom’s *Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew*, Jacob of Serug’s *Mimro on the prophet Jonah*, and excerpts from the Apostolic Epistles. This may further explain the otherwise somewhat curious coincidence that one set of the stanzas kept by Aaron in 822 almost overlaps with the ones quoted in the florilegia: st. 31–42 for the former, st. 33–42 for the latter. This content-wise explanation may be applied to the other set of quotes by Aaron, namely st. 86–94, since they also contain an interpretation of Adam’s transgression.</footnote>
stated above, they share in particular the anti-Julianist florilegium. It is in this
same context of debate that we find the only citation from the *Prose Refutations*
used in a polemical setting. The citation reproduces st. 88 of the *Discourse
against Bardaisan* and reads as follows:

*From the Blessed Ephrem, from the Discourse on Resurrection and Against Bardaisan:* "An example He depicted—and a likeness He impressed—and a mirror He fixed by His Body,—He was victorious and tasted suffering—and was raised and put on glory;—and He taught that everyone who thus—conducts himself is thus glorified—and he that fights thus conquers—and he that conquers thus is crowned."<fnref n="65" />

The broad context within which this stanza was originally written aims to condemn Bardaisan's teaching on resurrection; according to Ephrem's words, Bardaisan would have taught the resurrection of the souls alone, not that of the bodies. Ephrem reacts to this by citing two main examples; the first is Christ's bodily resurrection (st. 88), the second, more developed, is Adam's story of fall and mortality followed by immortality (st. 89–91). The compilers selected only the first one and used it in support of chapter 41 of the anti-Julianist florilegium, entitled “On the glory after the resurrection.” In light of this new receiving context, the passage acquires another significance. It is as if we saw the florilegists in action; attracted by the theme of resurrection, they adroitly detached the stanza from its original anti-Bardaisanite context and, leveraging the terminology that combines the body of Christ with suffering (*haša*), transformed it into a proof text against the doctrine of incorruptibility defended by the Julianists. In other words, the shift in emphasis and in target is achieved through an artful selection and reemployment of the source-text: this example shows once more the extent of the florilegists’ subtlety in their reading of the patristic tradition. The case of the *Hymns against Heresies* provides us with a look at yet another skill of the florilegists, one that treads on more uncertain ground and we have

<footnote n="65">65 I am reproducing the English translation in Ephrem, *Prose Refutations*, 2:xxviii, with the two variants of the text preserved in the medieval manuscripts, namely “He was victorious”, instead of “that was victorious”, and “is glorified”, rendering the *etpaʾal* participle instead of the *paʾel* passive participle. The Syriac text preserved in the florilegia is as follows:</footnote>

<footnote>爾لمדמיה ה offem מ מזומנה דحل לדשמח מלהPUBLIC מזומנה דحل לדשמח כח
ינומ. מזומנה דמ כח. מזומנה דחנ ומשה. מזומנה דחנ ומשה. קדיש מיהדש שמח.
קדיש מיהדש מלהדד ומשה. קדיש מיהדש מלהדד ומשה. קדיש מיהדש שמח.
כדיש. כח. קדיש כח. כח. קדיש כח. כח. קדיש כח. כח. קדיש כח. כח. קדיש.</footnote>
already seen. We are referring to the compilers intervening in the text to adapt to the receiving context a quotation of a passage from Epiphanius' *Panarion*.

## 4.2 The *Hymns against Heresies*

The *Hymns against Heresies* present us with a situation similar to the *Prose Refutations* as far as the reception in a polemical context. Only one citation taken from them is indeed used in such a polemical setting, namely, once more, in the anti-Julianist florilegium. The following table lists the passages that appear in the medieval florilegia, neither of which, to the best of my knowledge, had been spotted yet.

Before analysing the reception context and the textual variants linked to it, let us first consider the manner in which the *Hymns* are introduced. The most common way mentions the author and the title, “From Mar Ephrem, from the Volume against the Doctrines” (*דָמָח, אֲדֹמָח מִחָמָה וְדָלָמָח*) (“From Mar Ephrem, from the *Hymns against the Doctrines*” (*מִח*), or “From Mar Ephrem, from the *Hymns against the Doctrines*” (*מִחְלָחָה*, *מִחְלָחָה וְדָלָמָח מִחְלָחָה*), sometimes with the addition of the specific melody attached to the hymn in question. While the name of the author is always present, there are two major anomalies concerning the rest of the introductory formula. The first one relates to *HcH* 12, 3 (in BL Add. 17214) and *HcH* 29, 37 (in BL Add. 12155, 14532, and 14533), in which the work is not specified. In both occurrences, the florilegia instead give the indication of the melody according to which the hymn should be sung: “From Mar Ephrem, according to the melody ‘Oh my disciple’” (for *HcH* 12, 3) and “From the Blessed Mar Ephrem, from the hymn according to the melody ‘Your flock, sadly’” (for *HcH* 29, 37). The second anomaly is in fact a case of misattribution; in the passage quoted in MS BL Add. 14532, fol. 68<sup>rv</sup> (= BL Add. 14538, fol. 111<sup>rv</sup>), this time the title is given according to the usual formula (“From the Volume against the Doctrines”, *מִחָמָה וְדָלָמָח מִחְלָחָה*), but the quoted stanza corresponds to that of a hymn belonging to another collection, *Carmina Nisibena* 46, 11.<sup>66</sup> The conclusion that can

<footnote n="66">66 The same stanza is quoted in BL Add. 12155, fol. 76<sup>v</sup>, but it is introduced without reference to the title of the hymn collection (“From the same, from the Volume whose beginning is: ‘The Sons of error will be persuaded’, according to the melody ‘Paradise’”); and in BL Add. 14533, fol. 68<sup>v</sup>, but here the quoted stanza is correctly attributed to the *Carmina Nisibena*: “From the same, from the Volume about Nisibis, from the hymn whose beginning is: ‘The Sons of error will be persuaded’, according to the melody ‘Paradise’”. The identification was achieved thanks to the excellent tool provided by Sebastian P. Brock, “In Search of St. Ephrem,” *Христианский Восмок* NS 6 [12] (2013): 13–77, which offers an index of the first words of Ephrem’s published *madraše* (at 66, *חָמָם דָּלָמָח*, Nis 46).</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 4.3 Passages from Ephrem the Syrian's *Hymns against Heresies* quoted in florilegia manuscripts</caption><thead><tr><th>Ephrem the Syrian,<br><i>Hymns against<br>Heresies</i></th><th>BL Add.<br>17214<br>(7th c.)</th><th>BL Add.<br>12155<br>(747 AD?)</th><th>BL Add.<br>14532<br>(8th c.)</th><th>BL Add.<br>14533<br>(8th/9th c.)</th><th>BL Add.<br>17194<br>(886 AD)</th><th>BL Add.<br>14538<br>(10th c.)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>12, 3</td><td>fol. 34<sup>v</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17, 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 27<sup>rv</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21, 7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 27<sup>v</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23, 5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 16<sup>v</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>29, 5–15<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 32<sup>v</sup>–33<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>29, 23–24</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 31<sup>rv</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>29, 37</td><td></td><td>fol. 80<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 78<sup>r</sup></td><td>fol. 72<sup>r</sup></td><td></td><td>fol. 114<sup>v</sup></td></tr><tr><td>30, 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>f. 15<sup>rv</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Hymns Against<br>Doctrines”</td><td>[fol. 76<sup>v</sup>]</td><td>fol. 68<sup>rv</sup></td><td>[fol. 68<sup>v</sup>]</td><td></td><td></td><td>fol. 111<sup>r</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

a Except st. 7.

be drawn from the absence of the title and the misattribution is that, unless these anomalies are due to material reasons,<fnref n="67" /> at a symbolic level, the florilegists would not consider as a source of authority the work itself, but rather the author under whose name the work circulates, and whom they systematically acknowledge. This would mean, in the perspective of Syriac heresiology, that Ephrem's heresiological writings do not matter by themselves as much as their author does, who, on the contrary, is evoked as a continued prestigious name.

Turning to the reception settings, we immediately observe, as we did for the *Prose Refutations*, that the great majority of the poetic quotes are not contained in polemical florilegia. Rather, they are transmitted by one manuscript (BL Add. 17194), which, as we have already seen, is a highly miscellaneous florilegium. The stanzas are extracted from the polemical hymns to serve a very diverse array of subjects, such as biblical subjects (such as “the interpretation of the fact that God repented”, ch. 22 of the florilegium, quoting *HcH* 30, 1, which deals

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Namely, that the authors of the florilegia had access to untitled isolated stanzas and a textual attribution that was already wrong. These two scenarios are not unlikely, since analogous textual phenomena are attested for the circulation of Ephrem's *madraše* in liturgical manuscripts, which, similarly to florilegia, are based on selection; see Brock, “The Transmission.”</footnote>
with God's remorse), cultural topics (ch. 23 "Which demonstrates from where the Hebrews were called", citing *HcH* 23, 5, which indeed offers the explanation that the word Hebrew comes from Heber), theodicy (ch. 34, "Which reveals ... that evil does not exist by nature", reproducing *HcH* 17, 1 and the end of 21, 7 which proclaim that evil is not a divine entity but derives from free will), and themes related to human behaviours (ch. 39, on dreams, citing *HcH* 29, 23–24, entirely devoted to the oneiric experience; ch. 30, on nocturnal pollution, with several stanzas from the same hymn and addressing precisely this topic, *HcH* 29, 5–15). In their original conception, all these stanzas bear either explicit or implicit polemical contents. God's remorse in *HcH* 30, 1, for example, is used by Ephrem as an argument against Marcion's views on the evil Creator; *HcH* 17, 1 and 21, 7 clearly aim against Mani and his doctrine of the existence of a principle of Evil, coeternal with God; finally, *HcH* 23, 5 wedges the etymology of Hebrews from Heber in a wider accusation against Bardaisan, which is traditional in Christian heresiology, and which consists of accusing the heretics of calling the community of their disciples after their name, instead of the name of Christ as true Christians do.<fnref n="68" /> With their reception in this spiritual florilegium, the passages have lost their original polemical quality and gained a demonstrative significance for the topics of interest of the florilegium, which do not pertain to religious controversy. This is further proved by the fact that all these citations literally reproduce Ephrem's text and do not present any meaningful variant.<fnref n="69" />

On the contrary, the only quotation that is preserved in the polemical context of the anti-Julianist florilegium (*HcH* 29, 37, in BL Add. 12155, 14532, 14533 and 14538) displays a divergent reading from the edited text and thus signals an adaptation to the new doctrinal framework. The immediate context of reception is a chapter demonstrating the immortality of the soul. Contrary to the reference edition of the first lines of *HcH* 29, 37, which reads "Since it is immortal, the soul does not sleep,"<fnref n="70" /> the text cited in the florilegium has "The soul is immortal because it does not sleep."<fnref n="71" /> By changing the place of the *dalat*,

<footnote n="68">68 This heresiological strategy emerges with Justin Martyr and derives from the denominations of philosophical sects; see Le Boulluec, *La notion d'hérésie*, 1:48–51, 79–80.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">69 They are usually orthographical variants. By making a comparison with the critical edition by E. Beck, we can observe that the text of the stanzas quoted by MS BL Add. 17194 tends to follow the variants of manuscript A (= *London, British Library Add. 12176*, sixth century) given by Beck in the apparatus.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">70 דל מיהו נופי לא ירומע נופי (Ephrem, *Hymnen contra Haereses*, 1:119).</footnote>

<footnote n="71">71 דל מיהו נופי לא ירומע נופי: BL Add. 14532, fol. 78r and Add. 14538, fol. 114v. The passage quoted in BL Add. 12155, f. 80r features a double *dalat*, one at the beginning, like the edition, and the other in the second half of the verse, like the previous manuscript.</footnote>
the florilegium has inverted the entire cause-effect logic of the passage and makes Ephrem claim something he did not claim. The emphasis is now on the immortality of the soul, as required by the thesis to support, rather than on the sleep and condition of the soul while consciousness is suspended, which is the subject of Ephrem's hymn 29. As we can see, we are not in the presence of a lexical variant which would indicate an adjustment of Ephrem's expressions to meet sixth-century West Syrian theology. Our variant is far from the well-known example of Ephrem's excerpts cited in Miaphysite liturgical manuscripts, where his Christological language was changed to fit the post-Chalcedonian context.<fnref n="72" /> Yet, probably because the framework under examination here does not require specific terminology, even a tiny inversion of syntax would suffice to mark the transformation of the original quote into a proof-text in support of a specific claim. This direct intervention on the source-text, however small, shows that florilegists operated on their textual witnesses in order to make them better adhere to their own argumentative goals.

In sum, neither the *Prose Refutations* nor the *Hymns against Heresies* were really exploited by West Syrian polemicists. The majority of the citations taken from these heresiological writings are included in spiritual or exegetical, non-dogmatic, florilegia, to demonstrate a wide range of subjects, next to other patristic, non-polemical sources. Only one quote from the treatises in prose and one from the poetical text appear in the anti-Julianist florilegium. There, contrary to what one would have expected, it is not the incomparable material on Manichaeism that they offer, for example, that attracted the attention of the opponents to Julian of Halicarnassus. This is surprising, given the frequency with which Julian is associated with Manichaeans for his “phantasiastic” doctrine, on the one side,<fnref n="73" /> and the presence of citations from Julian’s works in which he rejects this association in the florilegium itself, on the other.<fnref n="74" /> Rather than for Ephrem’s anti-Manichaean condemnation, then, it is for the topics

<footnote>The first *dalat* could indicate the beginning of the citation, rather than being part of it, or it could further testify to the process of adaptation of the original text. Thus, BL Add. 12155 would have kept the original *dalat* while at the same time inserting the second one to fit the thematic context of the reception. By contrast, the passage cited in BL Add. 14533, fol. 72r is identical to the edited text.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">72 Butts, “Manuscript Transmission,” 288–302.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">73 See Moss, *Incorruptible Bodies*, 24, and Frédéric Alpi, “Les manichéens et le manichéisme dans les *Homélies cathédrales* de Sévère d’Antioche (512–518): observations sur l’*HC* 123 et sur quelques passages négligés,” *ARAM* 16 (2004): 233–243, esp. 234, and n. 9 there.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">74 Citations from Julian’s *Treatise against the Manichaeans and the Eutychians* are contained in BL Add. 14532, fol. 39v, 40r, 41r, 57v.</footnote>
of the resurrection and immortality that these works of Ephrem were used
as proof-texts. This demonstrates that florilegists kept quoting the authorial
figure of Ephrem, by referring to a palette of his literary output; however, it
also points towards a decline in the relevance of traditional heresies such as
those of Marcion, Bardaisan and Mani. For the medieval authors of the florileg-
gia, Ephrem's heresiology does not offer relevant arguments of refutation, nor
a suitable rhetoric of polemics, such as the easy association of a contemporary
enemy with an opponent of the past. It is probably just regarded as not pertinent
for medieval controversies.

5

Before and after the Florilegia

The examination of the heresiological quotes has demonstrated that a certain
degree of independence exists between florilegia that share the same cita-
tions. The most telling example is offered by the anti-Julianist florilegium, in
which both Epiphanius' and Ephrem's polemical texts are included. This flo-
rilegium is attested in several manuscripts (chiefly Mingana syr. 69, BL Add.
12155 and BL Add. 14532), which transmit the heresiological quotes that they
have in common in an identical textual form and in the company of the same
patristic texts. Nevertheless, we could notice that they do not always include
the same number of quotes. As we have seen with Epiphanius, BL Add. 12155
and 14532 include an excerpt that is not attested in the Mingana manuscript,
nor in any other.<fnref n="75" /> The same observation can be made by enlarging the focus
beyond the individual florilegia to embrace their organization within the sin-
gle manuscripts. In this respect, we will not find one manuscript identical to
another. Even when two manuscripts bear entire sections of identical content,
they may differ as regards what precedes and what follows these common sec-
tions, thus ultimately providing different florilegia altogether. This is true of the
three manuscripts containing the anti-Julianist florilegium, which is never pre-
ceded nor followed by the same texts in any of them. This is even more evident
in the case of two manuscripts that can be qualified, at first blush, as transmit-
ting a diverging content altogether. For example, MS BL Add. 12155, which is of
a dogmatical nature, shares one Ephremic quote with MS BL Add. 17193, whose

<footnote n="75">75 For the affinity between Mingana Syr. 69 and the BL manuscripts, see Fiori's chapter in the present volume. Since the manuscript Mingana Syr. 69 is heavily mutilated, it may have contained Epiphanius' passage. Another example is offered by the anti-Tritheist florilegium, where BL Add. 12155 and 14532 share many citations from Epiphanius; however, as we have seen, BL Add. 14532 also includes several quotes of its own.</footnote>
character is spiritual and exegetical. Both manuscripts insert this quote in a
section that runs parallel between them, but only up to a certain point, where
they thematically part ways.

These dynamics of dependence and independence, of imitation and cre-
ation, that characterize the florilegia shared by more than one manuscript,
both in their internal structure and in their articulation with other florilegia, are
further expounded by the comparison with selections of themes and patristic
authorities that predate our medieval manuscripts. We are lucky that, at times,
the compilers of the florilegia indicate their borrowing from an earlier collec-
tion of quotes while signalling their dissociation from this previous model. A
marginal note in ms bl Add. 12155, fol. 87r states that “up to this (point), these
demonstrations were taken from the book of Mar Sergius of Ḩuzri, the remain-
ing fourteen being added by the compiler of the volume.”<fnref n="76" /> Unfortunately, we
do not know this “book” to which the note refers (although the identity of this
“Mar Sergius of Ḩuzri” seems to have been discovered), but we can deduct from
this that to the fourteen further citations belongs the quote from Ephrem’s
*Against Bardaisan* st. 33–42, at fol. 91v. Ephrem’s quote thus stems from an
independent choice of the author of the florilegium. The example of Ephrem’s
*Hymns against Heresies* confirms the florilegists’ autonomy. There is one known
inclusion of excerpts from the *Hymns against Heresies* in a more ancient Mia-
physite Syriac collection of patristic demonstrations, known as Florilegium of
Philoxenus of Mabbug (dated to around 482).<fnref n="77" /> This florilegium is appended
to Philoxenus’ polemical *Discourses against Habib* and gathers 227 passages
from the Church fathers in order to refute Dyophysitism. Remarkably, Ephrem
is the only cited Syriac authority, the others being all Greek writers. Yet, he
alone scores 105 quotes, thus surpassing any other author in terms of repre-
sentation.<fnref n="78" /> Three of these quotes are taken from the *Hymns against Heresies*:
*HcH* 21, 3; 35, 12 and 39, 11.<fnref n="79" /> We observe that none of them are quoted in our
medieval florilegia, despite the fact that they would share the same adversaries
with Philoxenus. This means that, as far as I could see and as far as Ephrem is
concerned, the compilers of the medieval florilegia made their own selection
without resorting to already available ones, even if the latter would match their
Miaphysite, doctrinal intentions.

<footnote n="76">76 The note is reproduced and paraphrased as such in Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:933. For the identity of Sergius of Ḩuzri, see Fiori’s chapter in the present volume.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">77 Edition and French translation in Philoxenus, *Mémre contre Habib*, 58–123.</footnote>

<footnote n="78">78 See Brock, “The Transmission,” 491–492. See also Lucas van Rompay, “Mallpânâ dilan *suryâyâ*. Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenus of Mabbog,” *Hugoye* 7 (2007): 83–105.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">79 They correspond to quotes 188–190 (= § 229–231): Philoxenus, *Mémre contre Habib*, 114–115.</footnote>
The case of Epiphanius' *Panarion* sheds light on another aspect of this original approach. We have seen that one excerpt from the *Panarion* cited in the anti-Julianist florilegium is also quoted in the anti-Julianist works *Critique of Julian's Tome* and *Apology for the Philalethes* by Severus of Antioch. We have stressed above the textual difference between the two versions of this quote in the florilegium, and Severus' texts. Presently, we would like to highlight that, despite the fact that the same quote already exists in a selection of patristic authorities for similar intents (Severus), this quote is not inserted in the same cluster of citations in the florilegium. Indeed, although the florilegium cites the same *Panarion* quote as Severus and although it is with the exact same textual extent, it transmits it together with differing citations than Severus. More specifically, it inserts said quote after another citation of the *Panarion* and before Amphilochius of Iconium's *Discourse on "My Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me"* (Lk 22:42) and Isaac of Antioch's *Mimro on Faith*. In Severus' writings, by contrast, Epiphanius' citation follows Cyril of Alexandria's *Discourse to the Emperor Theodosius* and *Scholia* as well as Gregory of Nazianzus's *Letter to Cdonius*; moreover, it is followed by Cyril's *Commentary on John* (in the *Critique*) and appears between Athanasius' *On Trinity against the Arians* and Gregory of Nazianzus's *Letter to Cdonius* and *On Baptism* (in the *Apology*).<fnref n="80" />

If the cases we discussed show that florilegia are not just simple recipients of previous doctrinal elaborations and selections, what can we say in turn about

<footnote n="80">80 Another example of independent selection when it comes to florilegia is when they feature the same topics as previous sources but do not cite the same quotes in their support. MS BL Add. 17194 offers an interesting case study. It contains a florilegium of numerous exegetical and spiritual subjects, for some of which the source may have been Jacob of Edessa. Indeed, we find similar topics in Jacob's *Letters XII and XIII to John of Litharb*, devoted to the explanation of some biblical themes, such as the absence of writing before Moses (Ch. 2), which language is the first one and wherefrom are the Hebrews called (Ch. 14) (see François Nau, "Traduction des lettres XII et XIII de Jacques d'Édesse," *Revue de l'Orient Chrétien* 10 (1905): 197-208, 258-282, esp. 206 and 273-274). These themes correspond to Ch. 23 of the florilegium ("which demonstrates which language is the first and from where the Hebrews were called and (why) there was no writing before Abraham", fol. 16r-17v). Both Jacob and the florilegium cite Clement of Rome as an authority, but this is the only patristic witness they have in common. The florilegium is original in the way it orders its themes and adds new testimonies (in this case, Ephrem, Severianus of Gabala and John Chrysostom, who do not appear in Jacob of Edessa's letter). The study of why certain topics are still deemed relevant in the ninth century is a desideratum that should take into account the broader religious context in the composition of florilegia. For example, it would be fruitful to compare the subjects of florilegia with contemporary canon laws, monastic rules, and exegetical writings, in order to understand if and for which reasons specific topics are in fashion in precise times and places.</footnote>
the usage that was made of them by contemporary and later Syriac authors? Did they use the selections made by the florilegia as if the latter's purposes were simply to offer anthologies of excerpts arranged in thematical order without an inner logic of their own? To illustrate this point, we will consider the example of the *Prose Refutations*. It has been demonstrated by Mikael Oez that the *Treatise Against Bardaisan* st. 33–42 (with the omission of st. 40), which is quoted in BL Add. 12155, is also quoted in two ninth-century authors, namely Cyriacus of Tagrit, in his *De Providentia* 18.1 (the same extract), and Moses bar Kepha, in the *Treatise On Free Will*, Discourse 3, Ch. 2 (st. 33–36, 38, 41–42, in a chapter against Bardaisan).<fnref n="81" /> By comparing the quote in these three sources, as well as with the edited text of the *Prose Refutations*, Oez concludes that both Cyriacus and Moses relied on a florilegium—Cyriacus used the one transmitted by BL Add. 12155, whereas Moses, given his different wording from both Cyriacus and BL Add. 12155, probably consulted another florilegium, which is not extant.<fnref n="82" /> This would mean that, at least for this passage of the *Prose Refutations*, the source of Bar Kepha’s heresiological discourse is a florilegium, and not the original text.

Now, if we look at an earlier chapter of the treatise *On Free Will*, Discourse 2, chapter 5, entitled “Against the followers of Mani and Marcion who destroy free will by saying that good and evil things are given by the mixture of entities” (BL Add. 14731, fol. 10<sup>r</sup>–11<sup>r</sup>), we observe that, despite the fact the Moses does not mention any source, the entire chapter is in fact composed by the jux-

<footnote n="81">81 Mikael Oez, *Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence* (Gorgias Eastern Christianity Studies 33; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012), 191–194. Moses bar Kepha’s *On Free Will* is still unedited and is contained in one manuscript witness, *London, British Library Add. 14731* (see Wright, *Catalogue*, 2:853–855, who dates it to the eleventh century on palaeographical grounds). See Herman Teule, “Mushe bar Kepha,” in *Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History*. 2 (900–1050) (ed. D. Thomas and A. Mallet; HCMR 4; Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2010), 98–101, for a short presentation, as well as Sidney Griffith, “Disputes with Muslims in Syriac Christian Texts: From Patriarch John (d. 648) to Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286),” in *Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter* (ed. B. Lewis and F. Niewöhner; Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 4; Wolfenbüttel: Harrassowitz, 1992), 251–273, esp. 267–268. It should be mentioned that Oez mistakenly states that *On Free Will* contains st. 33–36 and 41–42 (at 191, n. 16), while, in fact, he gives the text of st. 38 as well (in the table at 193), which is indeed quoted by Moses. This text is known and cited by the editors of the *Prose Refutations*; see Ephrem, *Prose Refutations*, 2:151–154, who use it in the apparatus, and Ixx, for the translation. Also, Oez mentions another manuscript containing the same extract, namely BL Add. 17193, but he mistakenly states that it transmits st. 33–42; just as in BL Add. 12155 and *Cyriacus’ De Providentia*, the manuscript omits st. 40.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">82 Oez, *Cyriacus*, 194. We compared Moses’ text to the excerpts contained in BL Add. 17193, and we conclude that this florilegium is not the one from which Moses borrowed these stanzas.</footnote>
taponition of various quotes taken from the *First Discourse* of Ephrem's *Prose Refutations*.<fnref n="83" /> They are, in order of quotation in Moses' text, as follows:<fnref n="84" /> I, p. 37, ll. 5–12; p. 38, ll. 14–21; p. 40, ll. 11–15; p. 40, ll. 18–25; p. 40, ll. 3–9; p. 43, ll. 22–25; and p. 44, ll. 16–23. We see that the general progression of the borrowing is linear (from p. 37 to 44); however, while parts of the text differ only slightly from the edited one, as far as minor lexical variants and syntactical rearrangements are concerned, some other parts differ more greatly, as if Moses bar Kepha had summarised or paraphrased his source text. Where did Moses take these extracts from? Since he probably used a florilegium for his quotes of the *Against Bardaisan*, it is possible that he consulted a florilegium containing all these quotes from the *First Discourse* too. Yet, as far as we can tell, this florilegium would not be extant anymore. As highlighted above, the surviving parts of the *Prose Refutations* in medieval florilegia concern excerpts from *Discourses* 4 and 5, and the one *Against Bardaisan*, not from *Discourse* 1. Thus, it could also be possible that Moses consulted directly Ephrem's text. This would fit with the size of the quotes, which are longer than the already extended citation of *Against Bardaisan* st. 33–36, 38, 41–42 taken from a florilegium. Additionally, it would maybe explain the difference that exists with the introduction of the excerpts from *Against Bardaisan*. The latter are explicitly attributed to Ephrem: “From Mar Ephrem, in (the writing) towards Bardaisan” (*מַר אֶפְרִיּוֹמ* דְּמַרְתָּם), with a formula very close to the citational mode of the florilegia; whereas the quotes from the *First Discourse* are anonymous and not flagged in any way. This example may represent, with all due caution, a proof of the fact that Moses, together with florilegia, directly consulted Ephrem's heresiological works as well.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have discussed the reception of early Christian heresiological
writings in medieval dogmatic florilegia, which share some formal and con-
tent characteristics with them. I focused on two fourth-century case studies,
one emanating from the Greek tradition, the other from the Syriac. These are

<footnote n="83">83 One paragraph does not correspond verbatim to any passages of Ephrem's *Prose Refutations*; however, it reflects the general content of Ephrem's argument. See the Appendix for more.</footnote>

<footnote n="84">84 The following page and line numbers refer to the edition in S. *Ephraemi Syri Opera Selecta*. In the Appendix to this article, I provide Moses’ and Ephrem’s texts in parallel and with a translation.</footnote>
Epiphanius' *Panarion* and Ephrem the Syrian's *Prose Refutations* and *Hymns against Heresies*. The analysis of contexts and modalities of reception, both in the florilegia and in comparison with previous and later texts, have produced two coherent sets of evidence, which ultimately demonstrate the status of these compilations as polemical works in their own right.

Firstly, dogmatic florilegia, which carefully select their proof texts, seem to give prominence to the heresiological passages which deal with Christian issues. This is not surprising, considering the anti-Julianist and anti-Tritheistic debates in which they engage. For this reason, thanks to its chapters against Trinitarian heretics, such as Arians and Anomoeans, Epiphanius' work turns out to offer more useful material than Ephrem's texts, aimed against Marcion, Bardaisan and Mani. Therefore, on one side, florilegists leverage fourth-century arguments originally meant to refute anti-Nicene doctrines in order to make sixth-century Christological opponents appear like recent manifestations of these ancient errors. On the other side, they do not quote Ephrem's works for their polemical content. The adversaries targeted in the past by the deacon of Nisibis are no longer a threat for the present time of the compilers of the florilegia, but neither are they considered as meaningful polemical associations to exploit. Ephrem's texts are rather cited for other purposes. Thus, the reception of Ephrem's heresiological texts in a later and religiously different milieu disregards their original polemical aims (as demonstrated by the omission of the title and the case of misattribution for the *Hymns*) and even their polemical nature, as they are quoted in various thematic sections, the majority of which deal with spiritual contents rather than with controversial ones. This is further proven by the absence of any interpolation, addition, deletion or rewriting that would signal an appropriation of the quotes in line with the new doctrinal setting of the reception. The quotes I analysed show that they are at best syntactically reconfigured to better adhere to specific doctrinal points.

Secondly, the selection of heresiological excerpts of the florilegia is not shared by previous or later texts. Moreover, when they quote extracts already existing in a previous selection, they do not insert them in the same cluster of citations, but rather create their own. This suggests that the florilegia's compilers had a certain editorial independence, and that they were animated by precise argumentative goals as any other polemical authors. Finally, the fact that later authors seem to use direct sources next to florilegia further says something on how the latter were perceived by Syriac authors: not just as mere reservoirs of quotes to be exploited, such as sterile lists of *testimonia*, but as any other source at their disposal with its own authorial status.
למה מתחמ ממה. מהדלה מלהממה מלהוהלמה מלהשתלמה
תתחמה מחלמה. תחמה להלמה. שתה דמ חנומ תחמה חוממה.
מ לחיי דחח חמה דחלה. חשתל דמ חנומ. מ איהו
דיהו דחלה. דחלה. מחלמה: חלה ונהו פנה ליה. חס
דיהו שתה חלה.

From Saint Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, from the Book against Heresies: “Therefore, paganism initially began with Serug. For they say that they were honouring through some portrait for incommensurable memory those who did a contest and won it either through a war or some other stratagem. But in the time of Terah, they showed their folly by means of statues and made golden, silver and wooden images and made potteries, and appointed them as gods through their craftmanship and offered to them the veneration that is due to a creator. Thus, they designated the gods Cecrop, Zeus, Apollo and many other names. The pagans say that they are named after a man who was dwelling in Hellas, but others say (that they are named) after the olive that sprouted at Athens, since in Greek the olive is called elaia, like the pagan Hellenos.”<fnref n="114" />

8. Add. 17194. f. 52r: cf. *Panarion* 30, 29, 1–2 (Holl 1:372, l. 21–373, l. 1)

דמיה דחפלה... (דמ מתחמ?) ... דלה محل דתיה ויהו
דייה ליה דחלה ויהו. דחלה ויהו. חל... מיהו ליה. מנהה ליה
115 מתחל
כ

From Saint Epiphanius ... (from the Discourse?) ... against the heresies: "And there in Bethlehem in the second year of his birth ... and they wor- shipped him and offered him gifts."<fnref n="116" />

*Ephrem the Syrian, Prose Refutations (? Unidentified)*

Add. 17194, 24v–25r<fnref n="117" />

דלה מתח, דחפלה. ליה דמ מתח דלה محل כ. דיהו
יהו כלה. דחפלה. דחלה ויהו. חל. חלה כ. חלה כלה.
תחלמה. חלה. דחלה. כלה. חלה כלה. חלה כלה.

<footnote n="114">114 Cf. *The Panarion of Epiphanius*. Book I, 9–10.</footnote>

<footnote n="115">115 The manuscript has humidity stains that prevent a clear reading of the text.</footnote>

<footnote n="116">116 Cf. *The Panarion of Epiphanius*. Book I, 157.</footnote>

<footnote n="117">117 This text was published in S. *Ephraemi Syri Opera Selecta*, 136.</footnote>
(cont.)

<table><thead><tr><th>Moses bar Kepha<br><i>On Free Will 2.5</i><br>(BL Add. 14731, fol. 10<sup>r</sup>-11<sup>r</sup>)</th><th>Ephrem the Syrian<br><i>Prose Refutations</i><br><i>First Discourse</i></th><th>Overbeck's<br>edition</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>because they have freewill, they did not wish to be taught.</td><td>is freewill. And if he is not convinced, this unteachableness of his teaches that because there is freewill he did not wish to be taught.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>For he who says that there is no freewill hastens to ascribe his folly to God, is found without folly and his Maker is accused. But he commits three evil things: one, that his folly is ascribed to God, two, that he frees Satan from rebuke, and, three, that he saves himself from blame so that all the blame may rest with God.</td><td>But whoever denies that there is freewill utters a great blasphemy in that he hastens to ascribe his vices to God; and seeks to free himself from blame and Satan from reproach in order that all the blame may rest with God.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>And if they say that they do not know what will is, they should know that, since they knew what a 'bound nature' is, they can know what an unconstrained nature is, but that which is unconstrained cannot be constrained. But in what is it unconstrained except in that it has (the power) to will and not to will?</td><td>It would not be right for any one, after he heard about the will, to ask "But what, again, is the will?" Does he know everything and has this (alone) escaped his knowledge, or does he know nothing at all since he cannot know even this? But if he knows what a 'bound nature' is, he can know what an unconstrained will is, but that which is unconstrained cannot be constrained, because it is not subject to constraint. But in what is it unconstrained except in that it has (the power) to will and not to will?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>There is no man who goes down to the struggle and receives a crown with great joy who says: "I have no freewill", lest he lose his glory and his crown. But he is someone who has not conducted himself aright through his freewill, the one who says "I have no freewill."</td><td>But there is no man who has gone down and brought up a crown with great toil from the hard struggle, and (then) says that there is no freewill, lest the reward of his toil and the glory of his crown should be lost. The man who has failed says there is no freewill that he may hide the grievous failure of his feeble will. If thou seest a man who says there is not freewill, know that his freewill has not conducted itself aright.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

And if they say that if freewill comes from God, then the good and evil impulses which belong to it are from God, they should thus know that if the impulses that are stirred in freewill belong to God

And if they say that if freewill comes from God, then the good and evil impulses which belong to it are from God ...
(cont.)

<table><thead><tr><th>Moses bar Kepha<br>On Free Will 2.5<br>(BL Add. 14731, fol. 10<sup>r</sup>-11<sup>r</sup>)</th><th>Ephrem the Syrian<br>Prose Refutations<br>First Discourse</th><th>Overbeck's<br>edition</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>and not to it [freewill], they get wrong since they called freewill a bound nature. For he who says that God moves our freewill stands against his own word, since he said freewill but added that God moves it; and he destroys his word which said that there is freewill. For God did not give freewill and went on to move impulses in it; he did not give it so that it does whatever it wants; and he brought it forth for this, so that it become freewill, do not serve the impulses that are stirred in it, but he who moved the impulses in it, which is not proper to the one who gave freewill.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>For how does one call that freewill and goes on to bind it so that it is not freewill? For it is not possible to enslave something free; it is independent and not a nature, it is loose, not bound. And just as when any one speaks of fire, its strength is declared by the word, and by the word 'snow,' its coolness, so by the word 'freewill' its independence is revealed.</td><td>For how does he call that freewill when he goes on to bind it so that it is not freewill? For the name of Freewill stands for itself; for it is free and not a slave, being independent and not enslaved, loose, not bound, a will, not a nature. And just as when any one speaks of fire, its heat is declared by the word, and by the word 'snow,' its coolness is called to mind, so by the word 'Freewill' its independence is perceived.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## Bibliography

### Primary Sources

* S. Ephraemi Syri Opera Selecta = Overbeck, J. Joseph, ed. S. Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae Episcopi Edesseni, Balaei aliorumque Opera Selecta. Oxford: Clarendon, 1865.

* Ephrem, Hymnen contra Haereses = Beck, Edmund. ed. and trans. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses. 2 vols. CSCO 169-170, Scriptores Syri 76-77. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1957.

* Ephrem, Hymnes contre les hérésies, Cerbelaud = Cerbelaud, Dominique. Éphrem de Nisibe. Hymnes contre les hérésies, Tome I: Hymnes contre les hérésies I-XXIX, Tome II: Hymnes contre les hérésies XXX-LVI et Hymnes contre Julien. SC 587 and 590. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2017.
Ephrem, *Hymnes contre les hérésies*, Ruani = Ruani, Flavia. *Éphrem de Nisibe. Hymnes contre les hérésies*. Traduction du syriaque, introduction et notes. Bibliothèque de l'Orient chrétien 4. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2018.

Epiphanius, *Panarion* = Holl, Karl, ed. *Epiphanius. Ancoratus und Panarion. Band 1: Ancoratus und Panarion, haer. 1–33, Band 2: Panarion haer. 34–64, Band 3: Panarion haer. 65–80. De fide*. 3 vols. GCS 25, 31, 37. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915–1933.

*The Panarion of Epiphanius* = Williams, Frank. *The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1–46)*. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 63. 2nd ed. revised and expanded. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2009; Williams, Frank. *The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Books II and III. De Fide*. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 79; 2nd and revised ed.; Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2013.

Irenaeus of Lyon, *Against Heresies* = Rousseau, Adelin and Louis Doutreleau, ed and trans. *Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies*. 10 vols. SC 100.1–100.2, 152–153, 210–211, 263–264, 293–294. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1965, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1982.

Philoxenus, *Mémre contre Habib* = Brière, Maurice and François Graffin, ed. and trans. *Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertations decem de Uno e sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo (Mémre contre Habib)*, v. Appendices: 1. *Tractatus*; 11. *Refutatio*; III. *Epistula dogmatica*; IV. *Florilegium*. PO 41,1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1982.

Severus of Antioch, *Critique of Julian's Tome* = Hespel, Robert, ed. and trans. *Sévère d'Antioche, La polémique antijulianiste I. Premier échange de lettres, deuxième échange de lettres, critique du Tome de Julien, troisième échange de lettres, réfutation des Propositions hérétiques*. CSCO 244–245, Scriptores Syri 104–105. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1964.

Severus of Antioch, *Apology for the Philalethes* = Hespel, Robert, ed. and trans. *Sévère d'Antioche, La polémique antijulianiste III. L'Apologie du Philalèthe*. CSCO 318–319, Scriptores Syri 136–137. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1971.

Titus de Bostra, *Contre les manichéens* = Roman, Agathe, Thomas S. Schmidt, and Paul-Hubert Poirier, eds. *Titus de Bostra, Contre les manichéens*, introduction, transmission, notes et index. Corpus Christianorum in translation 21. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015.

*Titi Bostrensi Contra Manichaeos* = Roman, Agathe, Thomas S. Schmidt, Paul-Hubert Poirier, Éric Crégheur, and José Declerck, eds. *Titi Bostrensis Contra Manichaeos libri IV*. Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 82. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013.

## Secondary Literature

Abramowski, Luise. "Die Anakephalaiosis zum Panarion des Epiphanius in der Handschrift Brit. Mus. Add. 12156." LM 96 (1983): 217–230.

Abramowski, Luise and Alan E. Goodman, ed. and trans. *A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts. Cambridge University Library, MS. Oriental 1319*. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Alpi, Frédéric. "Les manichéens et le manichéisme dans les *Homélies cathédrales* de Sévère d'Antioche (512-518): observations sur l'*HC* 123 et sur quelques passages négligés." *ARAM* 16 (2004): 233-243.

Berzon, Todd S. *Classifying Christians: Ethnography, Heresiology, and the Limits of Knowledge in Late Antiquity*. Oakland, Ca.: University of California Press, 2016.

Brock, Sebastian P. "Some Syriac Accounts of the Jewish Sects." Pages 265-276 in *A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East*. Edited by R.H. Fischer. Chicago, Illinois: The Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977.

Brock, Sebastian P. "The Transmission of Ephrem's *Madrashe* in the Syriac Liturgical Tradition." *SP* 33 (1997): 490-505.

Brock, Sebastian P. "In Search of St. Ephrem." *Христианский Восток* NS 6 [12] (2013): 13-77.

Brock, Sebastian P. and Lucas van Rompay. *Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir Al-Surian, Wadi Al-Natrun (Egypt)*. OLA 227; Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

Butts, Aaron M. "Manuscript Transmission as Reception History: The Case of Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373)." *Journal of Early Christian Studies* 25/2 (2017): 281-306.

Cameron, Averil. "How to Read Heresiology." *Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies* 33/3 (2003): 471-492.

Camplani, Alberto. "Traces de controverse religieuse dans la littérature syriaque des origines: peut-on parler d'une hérésiologie des 'hérétiques'?" Pages 9-66 in *Les controverses religieuses en syriaque*. Edited by F. Ruani. ES 13. Paris: Geuthner, 2016.

de Halleux, André. "Saint Éphrem le Syrien." *Revue théologique de Louvain* 14 (1983): 328-355.

de Halleux, André. "L'Histoire ecclésiastique de Théodoret dans les florilèges grégoriens syriaques." Pages 221-232 in *Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont: contributions à l'étude des christianismes orientaux*, avec une bibliographie du dédicataire. Edited by R.-G. Coquin. Cahiers d'orientalisme 20. Geneva: P. Cramer, 1988.

Draguet, René. *Julien d'Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d'Antioche sur l'incorruptibilité du corps du Christ. Étude historique, littéraire et doctrinale, suivie des fragments dogmatiques de Julien (texte syriaque et traduction grecque)*. Louvain: Smeesters, 1924.

Gonnet, Dominique. "Liste des œuvres patristiques traduites du grec en syriaque." Pages 195-212 in *Les Pères grecs dans la tradition syriaque*. Edited by A. Schmidt and D. Gonnet. ES 4. Paris: Geuthner, 2007.

Grant, Robert M. "The Appeal to the Early Fathers." *The Journal of Theological Studies* 11/1 (1960): 13-24.

Gray, Patrick T.R. "'The Select Fathers': Canonizing the Patristic Past." *SP* 23 (1989): 21-36.
Griffith, Sidney. "Disputes with Muslims in Syriac Christian Texts: From Patriarch John (d. 648) to Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286)." Pages 251–273 in *Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter*. Edited by B. Lewis and F. Niewöhner. Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 4. Wolfenbüttel: Harrassowitz, 1992.

Grillmeier, Alois. "The Tritheist Controversy in the Sixth Century and its s in Syriac Christology," Pages 268–280 in *Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2/3 The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451 to 600*. Edited by A. Grillmeier and T. Hainthaler. Translated by M. Ehrhardt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Inglebert, Hervé. *Interpretatio Christiana: Les mutations des savoirs (cosmographie, géographie, ethnographie, histoire) dans l'Antiquité chrétienne*. Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 166. Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 2001.

Iricinschi, Eduard and Holger M. Zellentin. "Making Selves and Making Others: Identity and Late Antique Heresiologies." Pages 1–27 in *Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity*. Edited by E. Iricinschi and H.M. Zellentin. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Jacobs, Andrew S. *Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity*. Christianity in Late Antiquity 2. Oakland: University of California Press, 2016.

Jeanjean, Benoît. *Saint-Jérôme et l'hérésie*. Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 161. Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 1999.

Jurasz, Izabela. "Le Nom et le Lieu de Dieu. Étude d'un témoignage inconnu de la cosmologie bardesanite." *OCP* 84 (2108): 297–337.

Kaufhold, Hubert. "Die syrischen Fragmente." Pages 821–895 in *Kyrill von Alexandrien, Werke. Erster Band: "Gegen Julian", Teil 2: Buch 6–10 und Fragmente*. Edited by W. Kinzig and Th. Brüggemann. GCS.NF 21. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2017.

Kim, Young R. *Epiphanius of Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World*. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2015.

Le Boulluec, Alain. *La notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque 11e–IIIe siècles*. Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 110. 2 vols. Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 1985.

Le Boulluec, Alain. "Orthodoxie et hérésie aux premiers siècles dans l'historiographie récente." Pages 303–319 in *Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire*. Edited by S. Elm, É. Rebillard, and A. Romano. Rome: École française de Rome, 2000.

Le Boulluec, Alain. "Discours hérésiologique et dénominations des 'sectes'." Pages 107–122 in *Les communautés religieuses dans le monde gréco-romain. Essais de définition*. Edited by N. Belayche and S.C. Mimouni. Bibliothèque de l'École des hautes études, sciences religieuses 117. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003.

Lieu, Judith M. *Marcion and the Making of a Heretic. God and Scripture in the Second Century*. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Mingana, Alphonse. *Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts. 1, Syriac and Garshūni Manuscripts*. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933.
Mitchell, Charles W., Anton A. Bevan, and Francis C. Burkitt, ed. and trans. *Saint Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan*. 2 vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1912 and 1921.

Moss, Yonatan. *Incorruptible Bodies. Christology, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity*. Christianity in Late Antiquity 1. Oakland: University of California Press, 2016.

Moss, Yonatan. "Les controverses christologiques au sein de la tradition miaphysite: sur l'incorruptibilité du corps du Christ et autres questions." Pages 119-136 in *Les controverses religieuses en syriaque*. Edited by F. Ruani. ES 13. Paris: Geuthner, 2016.

Nau, François. "Traduction des lettres XII et XIII de Jacques d'Édesse." *Revue de l'Orient Chrétien* 10 (1905): 197-208, 258-282.

Oez, Mikael. *Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence*. Gorgias Eastern Christianity Studies 33. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012.

Parmentier, Martien F.G. "Syriac Translations of Gregory of Nyssa." *OLP* 20 (1989): 143-193.

Payne Smith, Robert. *Thesaurus Syriacus*. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879-1901.

Pedersen, Nils Arne. *Demonstrative Proofs in Defense of God. A Study of Titus of Bostra's Contra Manichaeos: The Work's Sources, Aims and Relation to its Contemporary Theology*. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 56. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Pedersen, Nils Arne. "Titus of Bostra in Syriac Literature." *Laval théologique et philosophique* 62/2 (2006): 359-367.

Penn, Michael Philip. "Know Thy Enemy: The Materialization of Orthodoxy in Syriac Manuscripts," Pages 221-241 in *Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology*. Edited by L.I. Lied and H. Lundhaug. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 175. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017.

Poirier, Paul-Hubert and Timothy Pettipiece. *Biblical and Manichaean Citations in Titus of Bostra's Against the Manichaeans: An Annotated Inventory*. Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia 78. Turnhout: Brepols 2017.

Pourkier, Aline. *L'hérésiologie d'Epiphane de Salamine*. Paris: Beauchesne, 1992.

Richard, M. "Florilèges spirituels grecs." Pages 475-512 in vol. 5 of *Dictionnaire de spiritualité*. Paris: Beauchesne, 1962.

Ruani, Flavia. "Recherches sur la place d'Éphrem de Nisibe dans la littérature syriaque anti-manichéenne." *PdO* 38 (2013): 83-108.

Ruani, Flavia. "Les controverses avec les manichéens et le développement de l'hérésiologie syriaque." Pages 67-103 in *Les controverses religieuses en syriaque*. Edited by F. Ruani. ES 13. Paris: Geuthner, 2016.

Ruani, Flavia. "Sur les traces syriaques des manichéens: les réfutations de Moïse bar Kepha (IXe s.) et de Jacques bar Šakko (XIIIe s.)." Pages 299-332 in *Gnose et manichéisme. Entre les oasis d'Égypte et la route de la soie. Hommage à Jean-Daniel Dubois*. Edited by A. Van den Kerchove and L.G. Soares Santoprete. Bibliothèque de l'École des hautes études, sciences religieuses 170. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017.
Sachau, Eduard. *Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. 2* vols. Berlin: Asher, 1899.

Shepardson, Christine. *Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy. Ephrem's Hymns in Fourth-Century Syria*. North American Patristics Society, Patristic Monograph Series 20. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

Smith, Geoffrey S. *Guilt by Association: Heresy Catalogues in Early Christianity*. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Teule, Herman. "Mushe bar Kepha." Pages 98–101 in *Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. 2* (900–1050). Edited by D. Thomas and A. Mallet. HCMR 4. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2010.

Van Roey, Albert. "Un traité cononite contre la doctrine de Jean Philopon sur la résurrection." Pages 123–139 in *Antidoron. Hulde aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum 1*. Edited by J. Noret. Wetteren: Cultura, 1984.

van Rompay, Lucas. "Mallpânâ dilan suryâyâ. Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenus of Mabbog." *Hugoye* 7 (2007): 83–105.

Wilson, William. *Ante-Nicene Fathers* Vol. 2. Edited by A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.

Wright, William. *Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838*. 3 vols. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1870–1872.