Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 9781463233242

Citation preview

JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies/ de la Société Canadienne des Etudes Syriaques The JCSSS is a refereed journal published annually, and it contains the transcripts of public lectures presented at the Society and possibly other articles and book reviews

Editorial Board General Editor

Amir Harrak, University of Toronto

Editors Sebastian Brock, Oxford University Sidney Griffith, Catholic University of America Adam Lehto, University of Toronto Craig E. Morrison, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome Lucas van Rompay, Duke University Copy Editing

Antoine Hirsch

Publisher Gorgias Press 180 Centennial Avenue, Suite 3 Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies La Société Canadienne des Etudes Syriaques Society Officers 2009-2010 President: Amir Harrak Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer: Khalid Dinno Members of the Board of Directors: Samir Basmaji, Marica Cassis, Khalid Dinno, Geoffrey Greatrex, Amir Harrak, Antoine Hirsch, Zuhair Kassir, Robert Kitchen, Adam Lehto, Albert Tarzi The aim of the CSSS is to promote the study of the Syriac culture which is rooted in the same soil from which the ancient Mesopotamian and biblical literatures sprung. The CSSS is purely academic, and its activities include a series of public lectures, one yearly symposium, and the publication of its Journal. The Journal is distributed free of charge to the members of the CSSS who have paid their dues, but it can be ordered by other individuals and institutions through Gorgias Press (www.gorgiaspress.com). Cover: Armenian Inscription in the Syriac Monastery of MĆr BehnĆm, Iraq (Photo: A. Harrak)

JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

Volume 10 2010

 

Copyright © 2010 by The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-61143-671-6 ISSN: 1499-6367

GORGIAS PRESS 954 River Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

Cover Picture Armenian Inscription in the Syriac Monastery of Mār Behnām, Iraq (Photo: A. Harrak). The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

The Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies

Table of Contents

From the Editor

1

Robert Thomson, Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian

3

Edward G. Mathews, Jr., Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators

20

Claude Cox, The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible, with Special Reference to the book of Genesis

45

Hidemi Takahashi & Jos J.S. Weitenberg, The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in MS. Yale Syriac 9: Part 1

68

Arman Akopian, Babylon, an Armenian-Language Syriac Periodical: Some Remarks on Milieu, Structure, and Language

84

Herman Teule: Dr. J.C.J. (Jan) Sanders (1918-2010)

100

Members of the CSSS for 2009-2010

103

___________________________________________________________________________

FROM THE EDITOR

T

he articles published in this tenth volume of the Journal of the CSSS were originally papers presented at the very successful CSSS Symposium IX, which took place on November 14, 2009. The Symposium theme was The Armenian and Syriac Symbiosis, and the papers reflect this this theme in a very eloquent way. The first article is entitled “Literary Interactions between Syriac and Armenian,” by Prof. Robert Thomson of Oxford, who surveys Syriac writings translated into Armenian beginning in the 5th century, highlighting the indebtedness of Armenian to Syriac in this domain. But indebtedness does not necessarily mean abject dependence, for the Armenians reworked the translated texts, adapting them to their own audience in such a way that Syriac (and Greek) writings were assimilated into the local culture. This Armenian practice of assimilation is also found in other cultures within the Christian East, where the same literary works reappear in different languages and in different contexts. The study of this trend in Eastern Christianity is thus well worth investigating. The next article is authored by Edward G. Mathews, Jr., of St. Nersess Armenian Seminary (NY), and is entitled “Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators.” After stressing that Armenian literature originated in translations, the paper proposes that the bulk of translation from Syriac to Armenian was produced later rather than earlier, during the Cilician period (12th to

13th centuries), a time of intense relations between the Armenian and the Syriac Orthodox churches, and an era of ecumenical activity. This is the time when the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian and the voluminous works of Ephrem and Jacob of Serug, both prose and poetry, were translated. It was thus this later period, and not any earlier one, that can be justly called a ‘golden age of translation’ from Syriac to Armenian. Claude Cox of McMaster Divinity College, in his paper “The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible, with Special Reference to the Book of Genesis,” tackles a difficult question: What kind of Syriac is present in the Armenian translation of the Bible? While the first translation must have been made from a Syriac version, the current state of scholarship does not help to answer this question. There is no critical edition of the Armenian Bible, and what the author detects in this Bible are no more than glosses (which Cox lists at the end of his article). He is therefore right to emphasize the need to take a portion of the text and meticulously compare the Armenian with the Septuagint and the Peshitta, for by going behind the Armenian text one might identify an earlier form (‘Armenian I’). Hidemi Takahashi, University of Tokyo, and Jos J.S. Weitenberg, Leiden University, co-authored the article entitled “The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9.” Syriac-Armenian lexicographical studies are a neglected field, and thus this article is a

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 1

From the Editor ____________________________________________________________________________________

welcome addition to the very few bibliographical references of relevance. Nearly 200 folios of this MS contain a Syriac-Armenian lexicon, and ten folios contain the glossary presented in this article. The authors analyse the transcription used in this manuscript, and make observations on its Armenian dialect. The whole glossary will be included in a separate paper to be published in Hugoye. Arman Akopian, of Yerevan State University, presents a unique Armenian publication in his article “Babylon, an Armenian-Language Syriac Periodical: Some Remarks on Structure and Language.” Babylon was a West Syriac-Assyrian journal published in Boston between 1919 and 1921 by an Assyrian organization originally from Kharberd (Kharput) in eastern Turkey. The language of this publication was Armenian, although it contains some English and Garshuni Ottoman texts. Babylon provides insights into the life of Syriac Christians in the U.S. and the old country, but more importantly for the theme of this volume of the CSSS Journal, it highlights the impact of Armenian on the Syriac people in this much later period of the Symbiosis.

Finally, we wanted to leave alive in JCSSS the memory of a scholar of Christian Arabic and Syriac, who not only dealt with medieval texts and their editions but also cared about Syriac-speaking Christians seeking refuge in Holland during the 20th century. I am grateful to Prof. Herman Teule for the obituary he wrote for Father Dr. Jan Sanders (Amsterdam University), whom I knew personally for at least 50 years. YZ Dr. Mark Dickens, the author of “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan,” published in JCSSS 9 (2009), wishes to thank the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz and the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften for access to and permission to reproduce images of the relevant Turfan manuscript fragments. All images are copyright Depositum der BerlinBrandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin— Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. A. H. November 20, 2010

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 2

____________________________________________________________________________

LITERARY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SYRIAC AND ARMENIAN

ROBERT THOMSON ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY

O

ne of the intriguing aspects of the study of Eastern Christianity, at least in so far as the written texts are concerned, is that the same works may reappear in different languages in different contexts. Writings circulated and were translated, and then reworked for a different audience. Here I shall discuss the Armenian case; more specifically, the impact of texts written in Syriac on the development of Armenian literature. One could of course, make a similar assessment of Greek into Armenian, Greek into Georgian, Armenian into Georgian and vice-versa, Greek into Arabic into Georgian, and so ad infinitum. But from the Armenian point of view, Syriac and Greek writings were assimilated into the local culture from the very beginning of writing in the Armenian language, that is, from the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. The connections between Armenians and other non-Greek speaking Christians of the Near East have been investigated in a very patchy way. That is, some aspects of the question are well known and one can rely on a body of previous scholarship; other aspects have been more or less neglected. The history of the text of the Bible, for example, has received far more attention than the Armenian tradition of biblical commentaries;

and the theological issues in polemical exchanges between Armenian and Syrian Christians have been studied in more detail than the mutual impact of literary genres. In what follows I shall attempt to survey the impact in Armenia of a variety of writings in Syriac, and try to identify the more significant points of contact. The first attempt in modern times at a detailed investigation into contacts between the Armenians and their neighbours to the south was made at the very beginning of the twentieth century by the noted Armenian scholar Erwand Ter-Minasian. After studying at the patriarchal academy in Ejmiacin, he went to Leipzig for doctoral research. There he produced his first book, The Armenian Church in her Relations with the Syrian Church, written in German and published in 1904.1 Ter-Minasian was able to take advantage of the publication three years earlier of the Book of Letters, a collection of correspondence between Armenians, Syrians, Greeks and Georgians, which still forms the basis for research in the field.2 In his book Ter-Minasian treated the main features of contacts between the two churches from the earliest missionary activity down through the thirteenth century. His principal concern, as the title indicates, was theological, involving the debates, letters and credal statements

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 3

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

exchanged between the leaders of both churches. Here I shall attempt something rather different, namely, a study of the texts that came into Armenia from Syria, and their impact on Armenian writers.3 The title, “Literary Interactions between Syriac and Armenian,” may imply that there was a two-way exchange of ideas and literary forms, but this would be misleading. Despite the close contacts between the Christian speakers of Syriac and of Armenian over many centuries, the literary borrowings were primarily, though not exclusively, from Syriac to Armenian.4 My interest here is in what texts the Armenians translated from Syriac, and the ways that such translations may have influenced later Armenian authors. Did, in fact, such texts have an impact on the development of Armenian traditions? This will not be as straightforward as it might seem. Although there is a good deal of information in colophons of Armenian manuscripts regarding translated texts, very little research has been done on the influence of such works in Armenia—with the exception of their theological impact after the council of Chalcedon.5 Contacts between the inhabitants of Armenia and those of Syria and Mesopotamia go back to long before the Christian era. No documents from Armenia survive from that period, other than inscriptions in Aramaic and Greek. The impact of Aramaic on the vocabulary of the Armenian language has attracted some attention, though in linguistic terms the subsequent influence of Christian Syriac was much greater.6 Only when the Armenians began writing in their own language, after the invention of a specific script, just after 400 of the Christian era,7 did they record contemporary relationships with the Syriac speaking world and speculate on what might have happened in the past. Such speculations, as found in the great Armenian historian MovsƝs Xorenac’i, have little historical value in detail, but do point to a

strong sense of interaction in previous ages. MovsƝs derives the name Armenian [which was used by foreigners, not Armenians themselves] from the hero Aram, who was descended from Japheth and was the father of the Armenian king Ara the Handsome.8 He describes the visit of Semiramis to Armenia to woo Ara, for whose sex appeal she had a fateful passion—fateful for Ara, that is! The Armenians call themselves Hay, plural Hayk’, and their eponymous ancestor Hayk lived six generations before Aram. According to MovsƝs the three greatest Armenian heroes, in order of their valour, were Hayk, Aram, and Tigran, the last being confused with the historical first century BC king defeated by the Romans.9 Later on we shall encounter further legendary connections between Armenia and Syria. Syriac, the Christian dialect of Aramaic associated with Edessa,10 entered Armenia with the northward expansion of Christianity from the plains into the mountains. The classic account of the conversion of Armenia through the heroic labours of Saint Gregory the Illuminator is found in the History attributed to a certain Agathangelos. That work is concerned with the eastward thrust of Christians from the Roman empire into Armenia.11 But it is not the earliest Armenian text to describe the arrival of Christianity in Armenia. The composition of the History known as the “Epic Tales,” or in Armenian, Buzandaran Pamut’iwnk’, dates from the 460s.12 Although it takes for granted the basic theme of Gregory’s work and the establishment of an Armenian hierarchy, it indicates in no uncertain terms that the spreading of the gospel in southern Armenia was the result of Syrian activity. The unknown author mentions by name numerous Syrian ascetics and holy men. More importantly from our point of view, the earliest missionary efforts in Armenia are linked to the Syrian tradition of the conversion of Edessa through Addai, known as T’addƝos in Armenia. The Buzandaran does not explicitly associate T’addƝos with Edessa, though it

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 4

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

does obliquely imply that Edessa had been built by Armenian kings,13 a tradition amplified by the later MovsƝs Xorenac’i. He makes Abgar an Armenian, and provides an etymology for the name: since the Syrians could not pronounce his Armenian title awag ayr, they distorted it to Abgar.14 The Buzandaran simply knows of T’addƝos’s coming to Armenia, where he was martyred by king Sanatruk.15 His martyrdom, however, was not incorporated into the Armenian adaptation of the Syriac Doctrina Addai.16 T’addƝos’s importance is that he was considered the spiritual ancestor of Saint Gregory, whose see is called the “throne of T’addƝos.” Furthermore, the Buzandaran gives a lengthy account of the search for Noah’s ark by Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, whom the author calls “the wise Persian, zgon Parsik.”17 When the homilies of Afrahat were translated, they were known as zgon and attributed by the Armenians to the bishop of Nisibis.18 The Buzandaran also knows that Jacob attended the council of Nicaea with Gregory’s son AristakƝs, and the author elaborates on Jacob’s vision of the emperor Constantine’s guardian angel.19 The connection of Jacob with Armenia is elaborated by the translator of Afrahat’s homilies, who turns the introductory letter into one from Jacob to Gregory the Illuminator’s son, Aristakes; a later source even makes Jacob the cousin of Gregory.20 The prevalence of the use of Syriac in southern Armenia, contrasted with knowledge of Greek in western parts, was earlier stressed by Koriwn. His biography of Maštoc’, the inventor of the Armenian script, was written in the 440s. It is the first Armenian composition of its kind, and is more indebted to Greek than to Syrian models.21 Koriwn describes the search for a special script for Armenian by the missionary Maštoc’ in concert with the patriarch Sahak at the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries. Up to that time any written text used by the church had to be

in either Greek or Syriac, languages unknown to the mass of the people. The first attempt at a solution came from a Syrian bishop named Daniel.22 The nature of Daniel’s script is quite unclear from Koriwn’s description, which refers to letters “buried and resurrected from other scripts, yayloc’ dprut’eanc’ t’aáealk’ ew yaruc’ealk’.” One possibility is that Daniel had experimented with letters derived from a script earlier used for some form of Aramaic. It is interesting that no mention is made of any attempt to use Greek script for Armenian, for there were earlier parallels in the writing of Anatolian languages in Greek letters. Daniel’s alphabet was tried for a couple of years, but found unsatisfactory, and Maštoc’ himself managed to create the script that is still in use with the aid of a Greek calligrapher in Samosata on the Euphrates.23 The significance of Armenian contacts with Christian Syria thus became paramount in the first burgeoning of a native Armenian literature. Maštoc’ sent his disciples abroad to translate the texts required for ecclesiastical purposes. Some were sent to Edessa, as well as Greek centres of learning; and an Armenian presence in Edessa is sporadically attested in continuing years.24 To this early period, or at least to the fifth century, may be ascribed the translation of several Syriac texts: the Homilies of Afrahat, for example, and the Letter to the Christians in Persia of Aithalla, bishop of Edessa.25 On the other hand, although the Armenian versions of Ephrem’s works have often been attributed to the fifth century, only some of them are genuine, and most were translated much later. The Commentaries on the Old Testament, for example, reflect ninth century Syrian exegesis and are first cited by Vardan Arewelc’i in the thirteenth century.26 The Hymns on Nicomedia may have been commissioned by Nerses of Lambron;27 the prayers are not genuine, and numerous homilies were commissioned by Gregory Vkayaser.28 The first reference to the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 5

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

Homilies on the Faith, a genuine work, is found in the Letters of Gregory Magistros in the eleventh century.29 The famous Commentary on the Diatessaron had an influence on Armenian homilies of uncertain date, but that work is probably to be attributed to Ephrem’s disciples.30 The Armenian Ephrem tradition is still unclear, though fortunately Dr Ed Mathews is gradually bringing light to bear on it.31 Also influential in Armenia were translations from Syriac of works originally written in Greek: the Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius, considered by all Armenian historians not only as a source of information but especially as an authoritative model;32 and, somewhat later, the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea, which was used by Armenians from the seventh century on. The Hexaemeron is unusual in that not only did the original Syriac translator expand his text in rhetorical fashion, in turn the later Armenian translator expanded his own version.33 This is in contrast to the faithful rendering of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. The translation via Syriac of the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch is attributed to the fifth century.34 The Kephalaia Gnostica by Evagrius of Pontus also came into Armenia via Syriac, but not before the sixth century. Like Basil’s Hexaemeron, the Armenian version was adapted to fit with Armenian preconceptions.35 Nor must one forget that liturgical texts are just as important, if not even more urgently needed, for the conduct of Christian worship. The importance of liturgical and hagiographical material is immediately apparent in the Buzandaran, which was already discussed in the foregoing description of Syrian influence in fourth century Armenia. And it is just as obvious in the second great Armenian composition of the fifth century, the History attributed to Agathangelos that describes the conversion of king Trdat through the work of Saint Gregory the Illuminator.36

Agathangelos emphasises the place of Greek Christianity rather than Syrian. His work is an elaborate defence of the primacy of the holy sites of Vaáaršapat, the modern E‫ݷ‬miacin, where the martyred saints whose death eventually led to Trdat’s conversion were buried, and where Gregory supposedly saw a vision of their martyria. Although Vaáaršapat was not the site of Gregory’s own tomb, it soon became the holy site par excellence for Armenian Christianity. What is significant for our present theme is that Agathangelos, writing in the second half of the fifth century, was already familiar with a range of texts that had been translated from Syriac, notably various Acts of Syrian Martyrs which influenced his description of Gregory’s own torments, and Syrian baptismal rituals that influenced the descriptions of the various mass baptisms supposedly conducted by Gregory.37 The impact of Syrian hagiographical texts on Armenian historiography has not been explored in detail, though Levon TerPetrosyan has made a notable contribution with regard to the Armenian version of the Acts of the Persian Martyrs.38 The collection of the Acts of the Persian Martyrs is attributed to Marutha of Maip’erkat.39 In Armenian the collection did not survive as a whole, and many of the individual lives circulated separately. The translation is attributed to a certain priest Abraham, about whom the late fifth century historian àazar gives us information. After the defeat of the Armenian rebellion against Iran in 451 a large number of nobles and clergy were taken into exile, several of whom were later martyred. Abraham escaped death, but he and another priest named XorƝn had their ears cut off, and were sent to perform forced labour in Asorestan, south of Nisibis. After the death of XorƝn, Abraham was released and returned to Armenia. àazar, writing at the end of the century, states that he had been able to meet Abraham, though he gives no date.40 The historian EáišƝ, in his account of the same

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 6

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

rebellion, elaborates on the story of Abraham, indicating that on his return to Armenia he came a widely venerated holy man.41 But not until the early tenth century is a “book of the history of the martyrs of the East” attributed to him. The historian T’ovma Arcruni mentions it in his description of the martyrs from Armenia, Syria and Palestine who were put to death by Shah Shapuh in the fourth century, more than forty thousand, he claims.42 This certainly would be a collection like that of Marutha, not a description of the Armenians put to death after 451.43 These Acts of martyrs in Sasanian Iran influenced those historians writing about Armenian experiences in the same empire, such as àazar and EáišƝ, or who adapted themes from the Acts to their own hagiographical account of pagan Armenia, such as Agathangelos. The History of Agathangelos is also of interest to our theme, being the only Armenian History translated, or at least adapted, into Syriac.44 As already noted, the story of Armenia’s conversion had from an early date been assimilated to the story of the conversion of Edessa. But the importance of the site of Vaáaršapat in Iranian Armenia, especially after the failed rebellion against shah Yazkert in 451, prompted greater emphasis on the role of Gregory and of the martyrs buried there. Oral traditions concerning Gregory and his work no doubt preceded the formation of the Armenian script and written accounts. The Armenian text of Agathangelos as it has come down to us, plausibly dated to the 470s or 480s, is not the only form of the story, and already displays numerous confusions. Variants of the tale are known from versions in Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Georgian, and other languages. Gregory’s heroic fortitude in torment, the endurance of Rhipsime, who fled from persecution by the Roman emperor only to confront a fate worse than death at the hands of king Trdat in Armenia, her martyrdom with many companions that

caused Trdat and his court to be afflicted by demons, until Gregory was rescued from the dungeon where he had been thrown many years before—all this made a dramatic story that found an audience beyond Armenia. So Gregory came to be celebrated in most calendars of Christendom.45 Several points stand out in the Syriac adaptation of the story. It begins long before Gregory with an account of Addai’s martyrdom in Armenia at the hands of Sanatruk, a tale known to the Buzandaran; it is aware of the division of the Armenian church into pro- and anti-chalcedonian camps at the beginning of the seventh century; it reports the discovery of Gregory’s relics and their burial at T’ordan in the time of the emperor Zeno, which is not found in Armenian until the historian MovsƝs Xorenac’i; and it ends with the emperor Heraclius building a church on the site of Gregory’s tomb. The Syriac thus reflects a sympathetic attitude to the chalcedonian party in the Armenian church, and is generally dated to the first decade of the seventh century. But one may doubt whether the story of Gregory was absorbed into the mainstream of Syrian Christianity. George, bishop of the Arabs in the early eighth century, and noted for his scholarly commentaries on Aristotle among other writings,46 is the author of a famous letter in response to a variety of queries from a monk and priest named Iešu Habiši. The fifth section of the letter is devoted to “the bishop Gregory who instructed the Armenians.”47 George gives a brief resumé of the story, including some direct quotations. These clearly indicate that he is using a text closer to the version known in Arabic than to any other rendering, and certainly not the known Syriac adaptation.48 Then George demonstrates that this Gregory of the Armenians is to be distinguished from other famous Gregories, namely Thaumaturgus, Nazianzenus, and the one from Nyssa.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 7

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

Iešu had been interested in liturgical differences between the Syrians and Armenians, but was clearly unfamiliar with the tradition that Gregory was the founder of Armenian practice. One aspect of this Syriac version of Agathangelos does not seem to have attracted attention. The manuscript which contains the text was written in 1184/85, and Michel van Esbroeck, who published it in 1977, thought that the hand was that of the patriarch Michael. In any event, the Syriac text twice calls the Sasanian shah the “king of Tabriz.” There is a parallel in a much later Armenian text, wrongly attributed to Shapuh Bagratuni, that contains legendary tales of Armenian princes in Muslim times.49 But it is unlikely that this title is original to a Syrian adaptation of Agathangelos made around the year 610. The Syrians could not have been entirely unaware of the Armenian Gregory, for the seventh century historian SebƝos describes in some detail a discussion on religious matters before shah Xosrov following the capture of Jerusalem in 614. This debate brought together the captive bishop of Jerusalem, Zakarias, Greek prisoners from Alexandria, Armenians, and local Christians from Asorestan and the East—a profusion of sects, according to SebƝos.50 The Armenian catholicos Komitas produced what SebƝos calls the “Book of Gregory.” It is not clear how useful this was in a debate concerning the council of Chalcedon, which took place more than a century after Gregory’s death. According to SebƝos the shah declared: “All Christians who are under my authority should hold the faith of Armenia.” The historian EáišƝ refers to a much earlier debate before shah Yazkert in which the shah deceitfully introduced Christianity in a review of all Iranian doctrines, supposedly declaring: “Question, examine, look. Let us choose and hold which is best.”51 In EáišƝ this is part of a rhetorical build-up to Yazkert’s persecution in Armenia, but the historical nature of other

such debates is well attested in Syriac and Greek sources.52 Theological discussions were particularly significant in the sixth century, the period when the Armenians were working out their own position during the controversies that followed the council of Chalcedon. Although the theological issues are not my present concern, it will be interesting to see whether such debates introduced the Armenians to further Syriac texts. We have good evidence for the topics discussed from the surviving correspondence between Armenians and Syrians on the occasions of the two councils held at Dvin in 505-6 and 555. In the letters preserved in the Armenian Book of Letters, the Girk’ T’át’oc’, there are frequent references to Syrian theologians, but no mention of any specific texts that were translated from Syriac into Armenian. Only later texts, such as the early eighth century pro-chalcedonian text known as the Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, which survives not in the original Armenian but in a Greek version, refer to the translation of works by Timothy Aelurus and Philoxenus.53 Timothy’s Refutation of Chalcedon does exist in Armenian translation, but it was made from the original Greek and the date is uncertain.54 As for Philoxenus, no self-standing Armenian version of his dogmatic works is known, though quotations may be found in florilegia. In the earliest Armenian florilegium, known as the Seal of Faith, which is attributed to the seventh century Catholicos Komitas, Philoxenus appears several times; Ephrem is also cited, though he was not mentioned in the sixth century correspondence in the Book of Letters.55 The Letter on the Three Degrees of the Monastic Life by Philoxenus is also known in Armenian, as well as Arabic, but the date of the translation is unknown.56 The next significant encounter of Armenians and Syrians was at the council of Manazkert in 726 in the time of the patriarch YovhannƝs Awjnec’i. It is noteworthy that

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 8

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

the Acts of the council were written in both Armenian and Syriac, and each side kept a copy of the signed document in the other’s language.57 The council was called to discuss the issue of Julianism, or the incorruptibility of Christ’s body, but other matters concerning liturgical rituals also arose. These differences of ritual gave rise to many polemical treatises, of which the most famous in Syriac is probably that by Dionysius Bar-Salibi [+ 1171]. In his Diatribe against the Armenians, Dionysius mentions this council at Manazkert and states that the two patriarchs effected a union. He adds that the Syrian patriarch Mar Athanasius made over to the Armenian patriarch YovhannƝs a monastery on the borders of Armenia and Syria, where young Armenians and Syrians were to learn both languages and translate works of the Fathers from Syriac into Armenian. But after the death of the two patriarchs, according to Dionysius, the Armenians broke their agreement.58 He gives no indication as to what texts might have been translated; and I am not aware of any Armenian source for this agreement and its consequences. Dionysius also attacks the Armenians of later times for moving south into Syrian territory and alienating Syrian churches and monasteries on the Black Mountain. This southward migration was particularly significant in the eleventh century, and did indeed lead to much closer relationships between Armenians and Syrians.59 Armenian evidence for translations from Syriac in the preceding centuries is sparse, but a few moments of interaction deserve mention. After the time of Catholicos Yovhannes Awjnec’i and the consolidation of Armenian traditions and ritual in the eighth century, debates on such matters became more common between Christian protagonists. During the ninth century the influence of Muslim culture and knowledge of the Arabic language penetrated Armenia, and one finds Christian Armenians even adopting Arabic

names; at the same time Armenian attacks on Islam became more focussed.60 Christian writing in Arabic also becomes more significant, and two Syrian writers deserve an especial mention for their involvement with Armenia. Theodore Abu Qurrah is the most noted defender of the Chalcedonian faith writing in Arabic as well as Syriac. His first treatise against the Armenians was written before 813, when it was translated into Greek.61 It was delivered to Armenia, though no Armenian translation is known. In any event, in 817 Theodore was invited to the court of prince Ašot Msaker, who had inaugurated the rise of the Bagratuni family to power. Nonnus of Nisibis also attended the debate. The Armenians were not swayed by Theodore Abu Qurrah, but the real fruits of the occasion only surfaced later. Ašot’s son, Bagarat, prince of Armenia 830-852, requested from Nonnus a commentary on the Gospel of John. Drawing on Syriac sources, but writing in Arabic, Nonnus presented his commentary to Bagarat around 840, but it was not translated until after 856.62 As the origin of the work in a dispute between Chalcedonian and nonChalcedonian theologians might suggest, it is primarily concerned with Christology. The Arabic is lost, so it is not clear to what extent the Armenian translator may have abridged or adapted the original. In any event, it is extensively quoted by later Armenian authors in their own commentaries on John.63 Nonnus makes a final appearance in Armenia at the council of Širakawan, held in 862 à propos of discussions between the Armenian patriarch Zak’aria and Photius, patriarch of Constantinople. This episode and the surrounding correspondence, which extended over many years, is of importance for the relationship of the Armenian church to the ecumenical patriarchate, and has attracted a good deal of attention in recent scholarship.64 Unfortunately, other than the presence of Nonnus at the council, nothing

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 9

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

further is said of his role by Armenian sources. It is, however, an indication of his continuing popularity in Armenian theological circles. At this point the curious Armenian History attributed to Zenob the Syrian, deserves a mention. The work is in two parts: the unknown author claims that the first part was written in Syriac back in the time of Gregory the Illuminator by Zenob, first abbot of the monastery of St John the Baptist at Glak, north-west of Lake Van; the second part, which he attributes to YovhannƝs Mamikonean, gives the history of the monastery from the time of Zenob down to the seventh century. Full of fantastic tales, it is in fact a patriotic work designed to boost the fame of the monastery of St. John, which emerged on the scene in the tenth century. Since it contained relics of St John the Baptist that had been supposedly discovered by John the Evangelist, until its destruction in 1916 the monastery of Glak was an important site of pilgrimage. From the Syrian point of view this History is of interest in making Jacob of Nisibis the cousin of Gregory the Illuminator.65 During the ninth and tenth centuries it is hardly surprising that the relationship of Armenia with imperial Byzantium should figure more prominently in Armenian sources than contacts with Syria and the Church of the East. After the turmoil of the Muslim advances in the late seventh to eighth centuries and the iconoclastic controversies that lasted well into the ninth century, Byzantium began an inexorable eastward expansion. This came to its climax with the brief incorporation of the small Armenian kingdoms: Vaspurakan in 1021, and Ani in 1045. Armenians had already been encouraged to emigrate westwards, and new bishoprics west of the Euphrates had been established by the end of the tenth century. The exodus of Armenians from the homeland was further intensified by the influx of Turkish raiders, beginning around 1019. The

Seljuk advance drove numerous Armenians southwards into the Taurus and Cilicia, where small Armenian principalities were established well before the arrival of the Crusaders at the end of the century. The Armenian patriarchate too was in exile after the fall of Ani. After one hundred years of peripatetic existence, from 1045 to 1147, the new see was finally established in Hromkla on the Euphrates, more or less due west of Edessa.66 As more and more Armenians established themselves in Cilicia, they came into closer contact with indigenous Greeks and Syrian Christians. Thus began the second major period of translation from Syriac into Armenian. Previously, theological works of different kinds had dominated translation activity. Now, secular scholarship made a major impact in the fields of medicine, natural science, law, and history, in addition to a continuing interest in hagiography.67 The last patriarch to reside in Ani, Peter, fell into disgrace in 1033 on charges of cupidity, took refuge in Greek territory, and spent some months as a captive in the castle of Gregory Magistros. This Gregory, a noted scholar, served as dux of Mesopotamia for the Byzantine empire. In his correspondence he refers to Peter in captivity reading Ephrem On the Faith, but he does not indicate when the translation was made.68 Gregory Magistros was a member of the Pahlavuni noble family, and his descendants were to dominate the patriarchate for the next two centuries. His son Vahram took the name Gregory on becoming catholicos in 1066. This second Gregory [after the Illuminator] did not have the administrative ability of his father; and though he inherited his interest in scholarship, it was not Plato, Euclid, or the grammarian Dionysius Thrax that he studied, but rather the lives of saints. He left his duties to co-adjutors and spent his time seeking out biographies of saints that were not yet available in Armenian. For this activity he

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 10

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

acquired the soubriquet “vkayasƝr, lover of the saints.” The lives of Ephrem and of Mar Awgen were among the translations he commissioned. That of Ephrem was made in 1101, but neither the translator nor the place where it was translated is mentioned in the text.69 In the same year another unidentified translator rendered Ephrem’s Homily on the Beheading of John the Baptist. To VkayasƝr the translation of Daniel of Salah’s Commentary on the Psalms is also attributed.70 This was used by later Armenian commentators such as Vardan Arewelc’i. Even Greek texts could also come to Armenia via Syrian hands. For example, the Commentary on the Gospel of John by John Chrysostom was rendered from Greek in 1117 by a certain Kirakos, seemingly with the help of Andreas the Syrian priest.71 In addition to the translation activity of Gregory VkayasƝr, there are numerous references to the work of the later Catholicos NersƝs Šnorhali, which indicate that he had both Greek and Syriac Martyrdoms rendered into Armenian. Unfortunately, the specific texts are rarely mentioned, though colophons of some manuscripts do provide a few details. Thus the Life of Sargis and his son Martiros, “was translated by a priest Michael in 1158, and edited [yarmarec’aw] by NersƝs, brother of the Catholicos,” i.e. NersƝs Šnorhali brother of the Catholicos Gregory III.72 Another translation corrected and put into good Armenian by NersƝs was the Life of Barsauma [the fifth century hermit], which had been translated by Gregory, a priest from Melitene.73 Of greater interest, however, is the development of new genres of literary composition—or at least, if not exactly literary in the sense of belles-lettres, of texts in fields not yet developed in Armenian. Perhaps the most significant in the long run for the history of the Armenian people, both in Armenia itself and in the diaspora, was the development of secular legal codes. From the

beginning of writing in the Armenian language there had always been texts of canon-law, both translations of the acts and decrees of Greek councils and the proceedings of local Armenian ones. The first compilation of such canons was made in the early eighth century by the catholicos YovhannƝs Awjnec’i, whose relationship with the Syrian church was mentioned above.74 Such legislation, however, did not cover secular matters, private or public, from questions of inheritance to marriage, theft or murder. In traditional Armenian society these matters had been settled in the courts of local lords.75 After the collapse of the medieval kingdoms of central Armenia, the infiltration of Muslim emirs, and the dispersal of much of the populace beyond the old borders, i.e. by the mid-eleventh century, this lack of consistent legal guidance became a stumbling block. In particular, ecclesiastical leaders were distressed at Armenians resorting to the local courts of Muslims to settle internal Armenian problems. At more or less the same time solutions were implemented by two scholars at opposite ends of Armenian territory. In the north-east Mxit’ar Goš, learned monk and founder of monasteries, was encouraged in 1184 to begin a Lawcode based on Armenian practice. He used biblical, ecclesiastical and previously unrecorded local practices to work out a code of broad application. This, in various adaptations, formed the basis for later Armenian legal practice at home and abroad into early modern times.76 Probably as yet unaware of Mxit’ar’s work, in the south-west NersƝs of Lambron, bishop of Tarsus and a famous translator and author, reacted in 1193 to an identical problem by translating legal texts from Greek and Syriac. Two Syriac texts were incorporated into the Armenian collection: the first translated was the so-called Sententiae Syriacae, followed by the better-known Syro-Roman Lawcode.77 Unfortunately, there

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 11

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

is little information on how these codes were used in practice. Another new field of activity was that of medicine. The authority of Galen in medical matters was known to Armenians long before the twelfth century, though it is unclear when the first Armenian dictionary of medical terms based on Galen was actually composed, perhaps not until the tenth century. It was, however, via Syriac and Arabic that serious treatises on medicine, and theories about the working of the human body began to circulate in Armenia. The first of these was the work of a Syrian, Abu-Said, born in 1098 at Edessa. The treatise, entitled On the Constitution of Man, is not known in Syriac. It may have been composed in Armenian as a collaborative effort with NersƝs Lambronac’i; that is, it was not translated from a previously existing Syriac text, but written down by NersƝs from an oral presentation by Abu-Said.78 This sort of collaboration, with one person dictating and NersƝs writing down, is known from NersƝs’ Commentary on the Book of Revelation. The latter was adapted from a Greek text that the Armenian metropolitan of Hierapolis read out in Armenian. NersƝs later wrote up his preliminary version in “literary, k’ert’oáakan,” style, adding new material of Armenian interest.79 Other examples of such collaborative translation occur again later. As for the text by Abu-said, it is a detailed description of the human anatomy, and served as the beginning of a long tradition of Armenian medical treatises. The most notable early scholars in this field were Mxit’ar from Her, who in 1184 composed a work called The Treatment of Fevers,80 and his disciple Grigoris, who wrote On the Nature of Man and his Illnesses.81 There are also medieval Armenian treatises on hippiatry, notably one translated in 1296 by a Syrian named Faraj.82 But all these works are primarily based on Arab teaching and terminology, and although Syrians were involved, the texts themselves are not examples of Syriac literature.83

Syrian doctors could also be involved with other branches of learning in addition to their medical duties. Here I refer especially to the Syrian Išox, known to both Syrian and Armenian sources. He was responsible for building a hospital in the Cilician Armenian capital Sis in 1241, and is renowned in Armenian for a brief composition entitled On Nature, which deals not only with anatomy and medicine, but also with cosmography and plants.84 It seems to have been composed in Armenian, rather than Syriac, like the work of Abu-said. Išox also played an important role in the literary sphere as collaborator with Vardan Arewelc’i in the translation of the great Chronicle by the Syrian Patriarch Michael. As for the exchanges of letters between ecclesiastics, Armenian, Syrian and Greek during the Cilician period, their content falls into the sphere of theological issues; from our point of view there is no indication, in the Armenian letters at least, that new translations were made. It was not long until the impact of translations from Latin made itself felt in Armenia, reflecting the influence of the Roman church in the Crusader period, and the missionary activities, especially of the Dominican order, in the East more generally.85 But that is not relevant for the Syrian connection. Of particular interest in that last regard was the Armenian adaptation of Patriarch Michael’s great Chronicle. It appears that the Maphrian Ignatios II, who was consecrated in 1222, had brought the autograph codex of Michael’s work to Hrom-klay. In fact he spent most of his time at the Armenian patriarchate there, rather than at the monastery of Mar Barsauma, and there he eventually died in 1252.86 The Armenian rendering of Michael was made by Vardan Arewelc’i, who is famous for a Chronicle of his own, a Geography, and various commentaries.87 Two points in the rendering of Michael’s work stand out. In the first place, the initial translation was made in 1246 with the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 12

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

assistance of the priest Išox, already mentioned, who on his death was buried at Hromklay; and then a second translation was made by Vardan himself only two years later. Secondly, both versions are different, being abbreviated adaptations of the Syriac original with additional material inserted that is relevant to Armenian interests.88 Although it is not totally unknown in Armenian for there to be two translations of the same foreign text, such as the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, and although it is not unusual for translations to incorporate new, specifically Armenian material, such as the rendering of the Georgian Chronicles, it is unique that both renderings were made by the same person so close in time. Naturally enough, in his own later Chronicle Vardan drew heavily on this translation of Michael. In the same year as the first translation, 1246, Vardan had collaborated with a different Syrian, the priest Smawon, in a rendering of a Eulogy on the Apostle Thaddaeus and Abgar, king of the Armenians and Syrians, which is attributed in the colophon to Jacob of Sarug.89 Some seventeen homilies attributed to Jacob of Sarug are known in Armenian.90 Although he died in 521, not until the twelfth or thirteenth century were these translations made.

Conclusion: Enough has been said to indicate the long symbiosis of Armenian and Syrian Christians from the earliest days of missionary activity through the middle ages. Relationships were sometimes friendly and influential, but sometimes fraught with animosity over theological differences. In the sphere of literary borrowings, the Armenians were more indebted to their southern neighbours than vice-versa, which is perhaps not surprising given the earlier development of literature in Syriac. This is especially noticeable in texts of a theological or hagiographical nature. In the writing of history, however, at which the Armenians excelled, only Michael’s Chronicle made a serious impact; the previous Armenian tradition was primarily indebted to Greek models. But all in all, Armenian culture owes a remarkable debt to Syriac. And in the broader area of Eastern Christianity generally, the interest of different traditions in the same literary materials points to common traits which have not yet been fully explored. Many of the points raised here deserve more space for elaboration; and the significant gaps point to the need for more research in the numerous areas of Armenian literary activity that remain more or less unexplored.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 13

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

E. Ter-Minassiantz, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den syrischen Kirchen, Texte und Untersuchungen, NS XI, 4 (Hinrichs: Leipzig, 1904); Armenian version: Hayoc’ Ekeáec’u Yaraberut’iwnnerƟ Asorwoc’ Ekeáec’ineri het, Mayr At’or (Ɯjmiacin, 1908). See also H.G. Melk’onyan, Hay-asorakan haraberut’yunneri patmut’yunic’ (Erevan, 1970). 2 Girk’ T’át’oc’, Matenagrut’iwn naxneac’, ed. Y. Izmireanc, (ęotineanc’ Press: Tiflis, 1901); 2nd edition, ed. N. Poáarean (St. James: Jerusalem, 1994). 3 References to Armenian texts given in the notes will include a translation, if one exists. Further details concerning different editions, translations and secondary literature may be found in R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD (Brepols: Turnhout, 1995), and idem, “Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD: Publications 1993-2005,” Le Muséon 120 (2007) 163–223. 4 For examples of Armenian into Syriac [of a later period] see S.P. Brock, “Armenian in Syriac script,” Armenian Studies in Memoriam H. Berbérian, ed. D. Kouymjian (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation: Lisbon, 1986), 75-80; and A. Van Lantschoot, “Un texte arménien en lettres syriaques,” Mélanges E. Tisserant III, Studi e Testi 233, (Vatican City, 1964), 419–428. Brock also notes a Syriac palimpsest in the Monastery of St. Catherine with lower writing in Armenian: S.P. Brock, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (St. Catherine’s Monastery: Athens, 1995), 9–11, 71–72; I am grateful to Emilio Bonfiglio for this reference. 5 For the impact of Philoxenus, for example, see S.P. Cowe, “Philoxenus of Mabbug and the Synod of Manazkert,” Aram 5 (1993) 115–129; and for Timothy Aelurus, A.B. Schmidt, “Die Refutatio des Timotheos Aelurus gegen das Konzil zu Chalcedon. Ihre Bedeutung für die Bekenntnisentwicklung der armenischen Kirche Persiens im 6. Jh,” Oriens Christianus 73 (1989) 149–165. 6 See H. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik. Erster Teil, Armenische Etymologie

(Leipzig, 1897; reprinted Georg Olms: Hildesheim, 1972), 281-321. The recent work by Nerses Mkrtchyan, Semitiskie jazyki i armjanskij, Erevan 2005, was not available to me. In addition to loanwords as such, the adaptation of terms of Syriac origin is also noteworthy; see, for example, E. Shirinian, “Reflections on the ‘Sons and Daughters of the Covenant’ in the Armenian sources,” Revue des études arméniennes 28 (20012001) 261–285; for the Syrian bnay qeyama see S. Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria,” in Asceticism, ed. V. Wimbush and R. Valantasis (Oxford University Press: New York, 1995), 220– 45. For Armenian vocabulary in Syriac see C.A. Ciancaghlini, Iranian Loanwords in Syriac, Beiträge zur Iranistik, 28, (Ludwig Reichert: Wiesbaden, 2008), 270–72 [221 words noted]; I am grateful to Sebastian Brock for this reference. 7 The invention of a script for Armenian was the work of Maštoc’. See the biography written by his disciple Koriwn: Vark’ Maštoci/Vita di Maštoc’, ed. P. Ananean with Italian translation by Y. Ashrafian, Biliotheca Armeniaca, 4 (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1998); and G. Winkler, Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Maštoc. Übersetzung und Kommentar, OCA 245 (Pontificio Istituto Orientale: Rome, 1994). 8 MovsƝs Xorenac’i, Patmut’iwn Hayoc’, ed. M. Abeáean and S. Yarut’iwnean (Mnac’akan Martiroseanc’ Press: Tiflis, 1913; reprinted Caravan Books: Delmar NY, 1981), and Armenian Academy of Sciences, Erevan, 1991; translation, R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenats’i, History of the Armenians (Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1978), reprinted Caravan Books: Ann Arbor MI, 2006. See Book I, ch. 5 for Aram’s genealogy, and ch. 12: “By his name all races call our land.” 9 MovsƝs Xorenac’i, I, 31. 10 Edessa is called Urha in both Syriac and Armenian. 11 Agat’angeáos, Patmut’iwn Hayoc’, ed. G. TƝr-Mkrtþ’ean and S. Kanayeanc’ (Mnac’akan Martiroseanc’ Press: Tiflis, 1909); R.W. Thomson, Agathangelos: History of the Armenians (State University of New York Press: Albany NY, 1976). 12 This anonymous History was wrongly attributed to a certain P’awstos called Buzand. See the Introduction to N.G. Garsoïan, The Epic Histories attributed to P’awstos Buzand

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 14

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ [Buzandaran Patmut’iwnk’] (Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1989), for an explanation of buzand, “narrator of epic tales, bard,” and the date of composition. Armenian text, Pawstosi Buzandac’woy Patmut’iwn Hayoc’, ed. K’ Patkanean (Imperial Academy of Sciences Press: St. Petersburg, 1883; reprinted Caravan Books: Delmar NY, 1984). 13 Buzandaran, V 32. 14 MovsƝs Xorenac’i, II 26 and 27. Awag ayr is not a historical title; it means “senior man.” 15 Buzandaran, III 1. 16 Armenian tradition attributes the authorship of this Syriac text to Labubna; Labubneay T’uát’ Abgaru, ed. à Ališan (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1868); idem, Lettre d’Abgar, ou Histoire de la conversion des Édesséens par Laboubnia (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1868). 17 Buzandaran, III 10. 18 For the Armenian version of Afrahat see G. Lafontaine, La version arménienne des oeuvres d’Aphraate le Syrien, 3 vols., CSCO Scriptores Armeniaci, 7–12 (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain 1977-1980). A similar epithet came to be applied to Ephrem, xorin, “the profound;” see, for example, the extracts in the seventh century catena known as the “Seal of Faith:” Knik’ Hawatoy, ed. K. TƝr-Mkrtþ’ean (Mayr At’or: Ɯjmiacin, 1914), reprinted as Sceau de la Foi (Peeters: Louvain, 1974). 19 Buzandaran, III 10. 20 See the History attributed to Zenob below p. 10. 21 See E.G. Mathews Jr., “The Life of Maštoc’ as an Encomium: A Reassessment,” Revue des études arméniennes 24 (1993), 5–26; also J.-P. Mahé, “Une lègitimation scripturaire de l’hagiographie: La Préface de Koriwn (443) à la Vie de Maštoc’, inventeur de l’alphabet arménien,” in De Tertullien aux Mozarabes. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Fontaine, Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 132 (Paris 1992), tome I, 29–43. 22 It is possible, though unproven, that this is the same Daniel, bishop of Arzon on the Tigris north of Nisibis, who is mentioned in the Acts of the council of Ctesiphon held in 410; see Winkler, Koriwns Biographie, 235–36, and N.G. Garsoïan, L’Eglise arménienne et le grand schisme d‘Orient, CSCO 574, Subsidia 100 (Peeters: Leuven, 1999), 23.

23

Once the scripts were firmly established, then one does find Armenian texts written in Syriac letters; see note 4 above. Curiously, the earliest surviving example of written Armenian letters on papyrus is Greek written in Armenian script by a learner; see J. Clackson, “A Greek Papyrus in Armenian Script,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129 (2000) 223–58. The papyrus is in Paris. Inscriptions on stone date from the fifth century. 24 See Garsoïan, Schisme, 69 and notes; also Ter-Minassiantz, Die armenische Kirche, 59, who notes the presence of an “Armenian” bishop in Edessa. 25 For Afrahat see above, note 18. Text and translation of Aithalla in Y. T’orosean, At’eáahay episkoposi Urhay T’uát’ ar K’ristoneays ašxarhin Parsic’ vasn hawatoy (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1942); see also D. Bundy, “The Letter of Aithalla (CPG 3340). Theology, Purpose, Date,” IIIe Symposium Syriacum 1980, OCA 221 (Rome, 1983), 135–42. 26 The Armenian version of the Old Testament commentaries is being edited by E.G. Mathews Jr: The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, and idem, The Armenian Commentaries on Exodus—Deuteronomy attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO, Scriptores Armeniaci 23-26 (Peeters: Leuven, 1998-2001). 27 C. Renoux, MƝmrƝ sur Nicomédie, PO XXXVII 2, 3 = 172, 173 (Brepols: Turnhout, 1975); see p. xix for the translation being sponsored by NersƝs Lambronac’i. 28 For this Gregory’s translation activity, see below pp. 10 and 11. 29 See below, note 69. 30 For the Armenian text see L. Leloir, S. Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, version arménienne, CSCO 137, 145, Scriptores Armeniaci 1, 2 (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain, 1953). For its influence on the Homily on the Passion attributed to EáišƝ, see R.W. Thomson, A Homily on the Passion of Christ attributed to Elishe, Early Christian Texts in Translation, 5 (Peeters: Louvain, 2000), 8–11. 31 E.G. Mathews Jr., “The Armenian Literary Corpus attributed to Ephrem the Syrian: Prolegomena to a Project,” Saint Nersess Theological Review 1 (1996) 394–402. Further bibliographical information in Thomson, A Bibliography, and “Supplement,” s.v. Ephrem.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 15

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ 32

The Armenian translation of the Ecclesiastical History is a close rendering, unlike some of the later translation via Syriac discussed below; see the comparison of the Syriac and Armenian by A. Merx in W. Wright and N. McLean, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili. Syriac text with a Collation of the ancient Armenian version by A. Merx (Cambridge University Press: London, 1898), reprinted Amsterdam 1975. 33 Armenian text in K. Muradyan, Barseá Kesarac’i: Yaáags vec’awreay ararþ’ut’ean (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1984). The argument for the Syriac origin of the Armenian version is summarised in R.W. Thomson, “The Syriac and Armenian Versions of the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993) 113–117. 34 Text of Ignatius in T’uát’k’ S. Ignatosi (Constantinople, 1783); see also R. Pane, “Un’ antica traduzione dimenticata: la versione armene delle lettere di S. Ignazio di Antiochia,” Le Muséon 112 (1999) 47–63. 35 For the Armenian texts see B. Sargisean, Srboy hǀrn Ewagri Pontac’woy Vark’ ew Matenagrut’iwnk’ (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1907). For the changes see R. Darling Young, “The Armenian Adaptation of Evagrius’ Kephalaia Gnostica,” Origeniana Quinta, ed. R.J. Daly (Peeters: Leuven, 1992) 535–541. 36 For Syrian influence in Agathangelos and the Buzandaran see G. Winkler, Das armenische Initiationsrituale, OCA 217 (Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium: Rome, 1982), and eadem, Über die Entwicklungsgeschichte des armenischen Symbolums, OCA 262 (Pontificio Istituto Orientale: Rome 2000). 37 See the Introduction to R.W. Thomson, Agathangelos. History of the Armenians (State University of New York Press: Albany, 1976). 38 L.H. Ter-Petrosyan, Abraham Xostovanoái Vkayk’ Arewelic’Ɵ (Armenian Academy of Sciences: Erevan 1976). M. Van Esbroeck, “Abraham le Confesseur (Ve S.), traducteur des passions des martyrs perses,” Analecta Bollandiana 95 (1977) 169–179, gives a précis of Ter-Petrosyan’s book and a good mise-en-scène. For the Armenian version see G. TƝr-Mkrtþ’ean, Abraham Xostovanoái Vkayk’ Arewelic (Ɯ‫ݷ‬miacin, 1921); in the Introduction he notes parallels with passages in Agathangelos, the Buzandaran, EáišƝ, and MovsƝs Xorenac’i.

39

The attribution has been questioned; see the Introduction to G. Wiessner, Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, 1967). 40 àazar P’arpec’i, Patmut’iwn Hayoc’, ed. G. TƝr-Mkrtþ’ean and S. Malxasean (Tiflis, 1904; reprinted Caravan Books: Delmar NY, 1985), 106; trans. R.W. Thomson, The History of àazar P’arpec’i (Scholars Press: Atlanta GA, 1991). 41 EáišƝ, Vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc’ Paterazmin, ed. Ter-Minasyan (Armenian Academy of Sciences: Erevan, 1957), 183-192; trans. R.W.Thomson EáišƝ. History of Vardan and the Armenian War (Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1982). 42 T’ovma Arcruni, Patmut’iwn Tann Arcruneac’, ed. K’. Patkanean (St. Petersburg 1887; reprinted Tiflis, 1917, and Caravan Books: Delmar NY, 1991), 65, and 208 for Abraham’s later years; trans. R.W. Thomson, Thomas Artsruni. History of the House of the Artsrunik’ (Wayne State University Press: Detroit, 1985). 43 On the other hand, T’ovma, 80, later ascribes to Abraham an account of the defeat in 451 when a total of 696 Armenians were killed, but such a work is quite unknown. 44 Text and translation in M. van Esbroeck, “Le résumé syriaque de l’Agathange,” Analecta Bollandiana 95 (1977) 291-358. For a detailed commentary see his earlier study of the Karshuni version, which was rendered from the Syriac, “Un nouveau témoin du livre d’Agathange,” Revue des études arméniennes 8 (1971) 13–167. 45 See the general survey in R.W. Thomson, The Lives of Saint Gregory (Caravan Books: Ann Arbor, 2010); it includes English translations of the Armenian, Greek, Arabic and Syriac versions. 46 For George and his commentaries on Aristotle see I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca, 2nd edition (Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum: Rome, 1965), 183–4. 47 For the Syriac text, first printed in P. de Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca (Teubner: Leipzig, 1858), 108-134, see G. Garitte, Documents pour l’étude du livre d’Agathange, Studi e Testi 127 (Vatican City, 1946), 408–419. English translation in B.H. Cowper, Syriac Miscellanies (London, 1861), 69–75. 48 Analysis and comparison of the quotations in G. Garitte, Documents pour l’étude du livre

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 16

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ d’Agathange, Studi e Testi 127 (Vatican City, 1946), 420–425. 49 M. Darbinyan-Melik’yan, Patmut’iwn ananun zruc’agir karcec’yal Šapuh Bagratuni (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1971), 55; trans. R.W. Thomson, “The Anonymous Story-Teller [also known as “Pseudo-Šapuh”], Revue des études arméniennes 21 (1988/89) 171–232. 50 SebƝos, Patmut’iwn, ed. G. Abgaryan (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1971), 149–161, for the gathering and related documents; trans. The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos. Translated Texts for Historians, 31 (Liverpool University Press, 1999), translation by R.W. Thomson, historical commentary by J. Howard-Johnston, assistance from T. Greenwood. 51 EáišƝ, Vasn Vardanay, 15. 52 See, for example, A. Cameron, “Disputations, Polemical Literature and the Formation of Opinion,” Disputation Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Medieval Near East, ed. G.J. Reinink and H.L.J. Vanstiphont, Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta, 42 (Leuven, 1991), 9–108; or B. Lewis and F. Niewöhner, Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter (Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1992). 53 For Timothy and Philoxenus in the Narratio see G. Garitte, La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, CSCO 132, Subsidia 4 (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain, 1952), 163–66. An Armenian text of dubious authenticity also refers to the translation of Timothy and Philoxenus; translation in Garsoïan, L’Eglise arménienne, 481–83. Philoxenus is quoted by Sahak Catholicos in his attack on the Nestorians, Girk’ T’át’oc’, 1901 edition, 451; this text is not included in the 1994 edition. See further M. van Esbroeck, ”Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691,” in The Council in Trullo Revisited, ed. G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone, Kanonika 6 (Pontificio Istituto Orientale: Rome 1995), 323–466; the quotation is on p. 406. 54 K. Ter-Mekerttschian and E. TerMinassiantz, Timotheus Älurus’ des Patriarchen von Alexandrien Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalcedon festgesetzen Lehre (Hinrichs: Leipzig, 1908); Armenian version, Hakaþa‫۾‬ut’iwn (Ɯ‫ݷ‬miacin, 1908). See also A.B. Schmidt, “Die Refutatio des Timotheos Aelurus gegen das Konzil zu Chalcedon. Ihre Bedeutung für die Bekenntnisentwicklung der armenischen Kirche

Persiens im 6. Jh,” Oriens Christianus 73 (1989) 149–165. 55 See note 18 above for the Knik’ Hawatoy. For Philoxenus see further S.P. Cowe, “Philoxenus of Mabbug and the Synod of Manazkert,” Aram 5 (1993) 115–29. 56 For the Armenian translations see A. De Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain, 1963), 112. 57 See Ter-Minassiantz, 73–75, quoting Barhebraeus: The copy in Syriac was given to the Armenians, and the one in Armenian to “us Syrians.” 58 A. Mingana, The Work of Dionysius Bar‫܈‬alƯbi against the Armenians, Woodbrooke Studies, 4 (Heffer: Cambridge, 1931), 55. 59 For Armenian settlement in Cilicia between 1068 and 1150 see G. Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans, et Croisés, 2 vols. (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation: Lisbon, 2003). 60 For early Armenian attitudes to Islam see R.W. Thomson, “Muhammad and the Origin of Islam in Armenian Tradition,” Armenian Studies in Memoriam Haïg Berbérian, ed. D. Kouymjian (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation: Lisbon, 1986), 829-858; reprinted in R.W. Thomson, Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity, Variorum, CS 451 (Ashgate: Aldershot, 1994). 61 By the noted Byzantine author Michael the Synkellos. See further J.C. Lamoreaux, “An unedited Tract against the Armenians by Theodore Abnj Qurrah,” Le Muséon 105 (1992) 327–341. 62 For the text see K’. ý’rak’ean, Meknut’iwn Yovhannu Awetaranin (Surb Lazar: Venice 1920); and D.D. Bundy, “The commentary of Nonnus of Nisibis on the Prologue of John,” Actes du premier congrès d’études arabes chrétiennes, OCA 218 (Rome, 1982), 123-33. For the historical background, see L. Mariès, “Un commentaire sur l’Evangile de saint Jean, rédigé en arabe (circa 840) par Nonnos (Nana) de Nisibe, conservé dans une traduction arménienne (circa 856),” Revue des études arméniennes 1 (1920-21) 273–296. 63 See, for example, the many citations in Grigor Tat’ewac’i’s commentary of the late fourteenth century, Meknut’iwn Yovhannu Awetarani, ed. à. Zak’aryan (Mayr At’or: Ɯ‫ݷ‬miacin, 2005). 64 For the council see K. Maksoudian, “The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early Bagratids: The

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 17

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Council of Širakawan,” Revue des études arméniennes 21 (1988-89) 333–44. On the correspondence between Photius and Zak’aria see I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et Byzantins à l’époque de Photius: Deux débats théologiques après le Tromphe de l’Orthodoxie, (CSCO 609, Subsidia 117 (Peeters: Leuven, 2004); and T. Greenwood, “Failure of a Mission? Photius and the Armenian Church,” Le Muséon 119 (2006) 123–167. 65 For a study of this History see L. Avdoyan, Pseudo-YovhannƝs Mamikonean. The History of Tarǀn (Scholars Press: Atlanta GA, 1993). There are several editions of the Armenian text, the most recent being Patmut’iwn Tarǀnoy, ed. A. Abrahamyan (Erevan, 1941). That Jacob of Nisibis was Gregory’s cousin is not found in the documents cited by P. Krüger, “Jakob von Nisibis in syrischer und armenischer Überlieferung, “Le Muséon 81 (1968) 161–179. 66 For these developments see A.E. Redgate, The Armenians (Blackwell: Oxford, 1998), chapters 9 and 10. 67 See A.B. Schmidt, “Die armenischsyrischen Beziehungen im Spiegel der kilikischen Ubersetzungsliteratur,” Armenologie in Deutschland, ed. A. Drost-Abgaryan, H. Goltz, Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte, 35 (Münster, 2005) 119–126; and L.H. TerPetrosyan, “Asorineri derƟ haykakan Kililioy mšakut’ayin keank’um žb-žg darerum,” BazmavƝp 145 (1987) 122–161. 68 See letter 1 in K’. Kostaneanc’, Grigor Magistrosi t’át’erƟ (GƝorg Sanoyeanc’ Press: Alexandropol, 1910), 3–4. 69 For the Life of Ephrem see L. TƝr Petrossian and B. Outtier, Textes arméniens relatifs à S. Éphrem, CSCO 473, 474, Scriptores Armeniaci 15, 16 (Peeters: Louvain, 1985). 70 For the colophon see the description of Bzommar 120, dated to 1289, in M. Keschischian, Katalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Bibliothek des Klosters Bzommar (Mechitarist Press: Vienna, 1964), 239–43. Armenian text by K’. ý৘ak’ean, “DaniƝl vardapeti Asorwoy Meknut’iwn Saámosac’ Dawt’i,” BazmavƝp 124127 (1966-1969). See also S.P. Cowe, ”Daniel of ৡalaত as Commentator on the Psalter,” Studia Patristica 20 (1989) 152–59. 71 See the colophon in A.S. Mat’evosyan, Hayeren Jeragreri Hišatakaranner E-Žb dd.

(Matenadaran: Erevan, 1988), 145-50. VkayasƝr’s translation activity is discussed in M. Ormanean, Azgapatum, 2nd ed. (Sevan Press: Beirut, 1959), vol. I, col. 1281–83. 72 See the colophon in Mat’evosyan, 178–79. 73 See the colophon in H.S. Anasyan, Haykakan Matenagitut’yun, vol. II (Armenian Academy of Sciences: Erevan, 1976), 1438. 74 For the Armenian texts see Kanonagirk’ Hayoc’, ed. V. Hakobyan, 2 vols. (Armenian Academy of Sciences: Erevan 1964, 1971). For a study of early Armenian canon law see A. Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk’ Hayoc’) de YovhannƝs Awjnec’i, CSCO 606, Subsidia 116 (Leuven 2004). 75 For traditional law see J.-P. Mahé, “Norme écrite et droit coutûmier en Arménie du Ve au XIIIe siècles,” Travaux et Mémoires 13 (2000) 683–705. 76 For the Armenian text see Mxit’ar Goš, Girk’ Datastani, ed. H. T’orosyan (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1975); trans. and commentary in R.W. Thomson, The Lawcode [Datastanagirk’] of Mxit’ar Goš, Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature, 6 (Rodopi: Amsterdam/ Atlanta GA, 2000). 77 See H. Kaufhold, Die armenischen Übersetzungen byzantinischer Rechtsbücher, Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechsgeschichte, 21, (Löwenklau-Gesellschaft: Frankfurt am Main, 1997), which includes the text of the Sententiae Syriacae. For the Syro-Roman code see H. Bruns and E. Sachau, Syrisch-römisches Rechtsbuch (Brockhaus: Leipzig, 1880); reprinted Wiesbaden 1985. 78 See J.-P. Mahé, “La version arménienne du médecin Abou-Saïd,” Hommage rendu à Jean Filliozat, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Institut de France: Paris, 2006), fasc. 4, 21-36. For the Armenian text see C.A. Vardanyan, Abusayid. Yaáags kazmut’ean mardoy (Matenadaran: Erevan 1974). There is a curious brief text where Abusaid, learned in both profane and ecclesiastical knowledge, questions Nerses Catholicos; see F.N. Finck, “Kleinere mittelarmenische Texte.” Zeitschrift für armenische Philologie 1 (1903) 206. 79 See R.W. Thomson, Nerses of Lambron. Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John, Hebrew University Armenian Studies, 9 (Peeters: Leuven, 2007), 16–19, for the collaboration.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 18

Literary Interactions Between Syriac and Armenian ____________________________________________________________________________________ 80

See E. Seidel, Mechitars des Meisterarztes aus der ‘Trost bei Fiebern’ nach dem Venediger Druck vom Jahre 1832 zum ersten Male aus dem Mittelarmenischen übersetzt und erläutert (Leipzig, 1908). 81 Text in A. Kcoyan, K’nnut’iwn bnut’ean mardoy ew norim c’awuc’ (Erevan, 1962). 82 See B.L. ý’ugaszyan, Bžškaran jioy ew a hasarak grastoy (Matenadaran: Erevan 1980). For medieval Armenian medicine see S.A. Vardanyan, Histoire de la médicine en Arménie de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Paris 1999 [trans. R.H. Kévorkian]; Armenian version: Hayastani bžškut’yan patmut’yun, Erevan 2000. Further bibliography in Thomson, Bibliography, 280–81, and “Supplement,” 222. 83 Similar translations from Arabic around this time include a work on chemistry, or rather alchemy, by Ibn Baitar, and a Calendar that Syrians translated from Arabic into Armenian. More important was the rendering from Arabic of the Greek Geoponica, a 10th century Byzantine compilation on agriculture, based on earlier sources; text in à Ališan, Girk’ Vastakoc’, t’argmanut’iwn naxneac’ yarabaci lezuƝ (Surb Lazar: Venice, 1877).

84

Text in S. Vardanyan, Išox, Girk’ i veray bnut’ean (Matenadaran: Erevan, 1979). 85 See in general S.P. Cowe, “The Armenians in the era of the Crusades 1050-1350,” chapter 17 of The Cambridge History of Christianity. Eastern Christianity, ed. M. Angold (Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 2006), 404–429. 86 See Honigmann, Le couvent de Bar‫܈‬aumƗ et le patrirchat jacobite d’Antioche et de Syrie, CSCO 146, Subsidia 7 (Imprimerie orientaliste: Louvain, 1954), 68. Ignatios was a great builder of churches; he constructed one at Hrom-klay itself, and also at Melitene, Antioch and Sis. 87 For details see Thomson, Bibliography, 210–212, and “Supplement,” 203 88 For the two versions see A.B. Schmidt, “Die zweifache armenische Rezension der syrischen Chronik Michaels des Grossen,” Le Muséon 109 (1996) 299–319. There are two editions of the Chronicle, Žamanakagrut’iwn St. James: Jerusalem 1870 and ibid 1871. 89 The colophon is in Jerusalem, 1365; see N. Poáarean, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, vol. IV (St. James: Jerusalem, 1969), 644. 90 ýaĠk’ eranelwoyn Yakobay Srþoy, in Girk’ ew þaĠ hogešah (Constantinople, 1722).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies10 (2010) — Page 19

____________________________________________________________________________

SYRIAC INTO ARMENIAN: THE TRANSLATIONS AND THEIR TRANSLATORS

EDWARD G. MATHEWS, JR. ST. NERSESS ARMENIAN SEMINARY, NY

W

hen one considers the Armenian Church, several important highlights of her legacy will perhaps come to mind. Among the most prominent of these highlights must be the painted miniatures so prevalent in Armenian manuscripts, and the important translation work carried out through most of its history— it is indeed remarkable that so much of either has survived considering the turbulent and tragic history of Armenia. With regard to the latter, it must be acknowledged that, in fact, Armenian literature had its origins in translations.1 Even non-specialists will be aware of the great treasures that have survived solely due to the diligence of Armenian translators. One thinks immediately of the great Chronicle of Eusebius, otherwise preserved only partially in an embellished Latin version,2 and The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, the apologetic work composed by Irenaeus, the second-century bishop of Lyons.3 Less well known, perhaps, are the many important works translated from Syriac into Armenian. Apart from a number of works attributed to Ephrem, the great fourth-century poet and, perhaps, those of Aphrahat, the so-called ‘Persian Sage,’ this considerable corpus of translated works remains relatively unknown except to the specialist.

The fact that Armenian ecclesiastics translated works from Syriac should really not be surprising as early Armenia and Syria were essentially sibling cultures that were both almost entirely under Persian rule, and not under the more familiar Roman/Byzantine Empire of the Western Church.4 Armenian and Syrian cultures were not at all identical —they had distinct languages and separate political structures—, but they were both distinctly eastern, both deeply colored by their Zoroastrian overlords and only lived on the fringe of their Roman and Hellenistic neighbors. Their early adoption of the new Christian movement only brought them closer together against their Zoroastrian oppressors, eventually forcing them both to look in a more western direction. While the Armenian and Syriac languages stem from two distinctly different language groups, Indo-European and Semitic, respectively, they nevertheless had certain features in common, such as nomenclature and common vocabulary, some of which stemmed from having lived so long in a Persian dominated culture. These common items of vocabulary are found mainly in the realms of social structure, political structure, and even the days of the week.5 In the ecclesiastical realm too much of the vocabulary was borrowed from Syriac: Armenian ʛɸʇɸʍɸʌ [kahanay] clearly

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 20

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

derives from Syriac ¾åÌÜ, as does ʅʏʋ [tsom] from Syriac ¾â†–. Even such obvious Greek terms ਥțțȜȘıੁĮ (Arm. ɼʆɼʉɼʘʂ [yekeghetsǥi]), ਥʌੁıțȠʌȠȢ (Arm. ɼʑʂʔʆʏʑʏʔ [episkopos]), and țĮșȩȜȚțȠȢ (Arm. ʆɸʀʏʉʂʆʏʔ [katǥoghikos]) came into Armenian via Syriac.6 Recent study has also shown that the early ascetic vocabulary of the Armenians is entirely from Syriac, either as a direct borrowing such as abeghay (ɸɹɼʉɸʌ) from abîlâ (āÙÁ~), or as a calque such as vanakan/vaneray (ʕɸʍɸʆɸʍ/ ʕɸʍɼʗɸʌ) from dayrǀyô (¾Øû؃), or anapatawor (ɸʍɸʑɸʖɸʙʏʗ) from madbČrǀyô (¾ØûÁÊâ).7 Two of our earliest sources, Koriwn’s Life of Mashtotsǥ8 and the History of Armenia composed by Ghazar Pǥarpetsǥi9, provide clear evidence of how predominant Syriac was in Armenia during the fourth and fifth centuries, particularly in the southern regions around Tarôn. Koriwn informs us that Mashtotsǥ “from childhood had been tutored in Greek literature”,10 which presumably served to help him procure his later position as royal secretary to Arvan, then the hazarapet of Armenia. Since Syriac/Aramaic was the official language of the Arsacid court,11 it seems rather evident that the only reason Koriwn recounts this detail of the training that Mashtotsǥ received is to highlight the fact that he was one of the rare Armenians to be trained in Greek; that Mashtotsǥ spoke Syriac was apparently a fact too obvious to mention. This same presumption surfaces once again further on in Koriwn’s account. When Mashtotsǥ sent the first translators “to the city of Edessa in the region of the Syrians . . . [it was] for the purpose of translating and writing down the traditions of the church fathers from Syriac into Armenian.”12 But afterwards, when the same two translators, HovsƝp and Eznik, were sent “to the region of the Greeks,” Koriwn considered it necessary to add the fact that first “they studied and became

proficient translators from the Greek language (emphasis added).”13 It is again the History of Ghazar Pǥarpetsǥi that informs us that the general education of Armenian students was conducted primarily, though not exclusively, in Syrian schools. He also adds that the liturgy of the Armenian Church was celebrated in Syriac. Ghazar is no doubt expressing his own dismay when he records that The blessed Mashtotsǥ in his anxiety wept continuously on seeing the great effort and the even greater expense of the young men of Armenia, who at great cost and through long journeys and with continual distractions were spending their days in the schools of Syrian learning. For the worship of the church and the readings of scripture were conducted in Syriac in the monasteries and churches of the Armenian people. But the congregations of such a large country were quite unable to comprehend or profit from it, and the incomprehension of the Syrian tongue caused labor to the ministers and was unprofitable to the congregations.14

Ghazar’s oft-noted disdain for things Syrian would not be so acute if not for the fact that he considered Syrian influence to be far too widespread.15 Finally, MovsƝs Xorenatsǥi adds that “Sahak the Great [was] engaged in translating from Syriac, there being no Greek [books available], for the Greek books of the entire land had previously been burned by Mehrujan, and again at the division of Armenia, the Persian governors did not allow anyone to learn Greek in their part but only Syriac.”16 It is within this context that these early missionaries made the first translations, translations that were to become such integral elements in the formation of Armenian theology throughout the history of the Armenian Church. There have been several substantive descriptions, or at least lists, of those works that have been translated into

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 21

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

Armenian, but they have all been compiled alphabetically by author, with no distinction with regards to source language.17 In the only real attempt to provide any chronological schema to the Armenian work of translation, Levon Ter Petrosyan has divided this activity into five fairly distinct periods:18 a. Classical Period — 5th century b. Hellenizing school — end of 5th to 8th centuries c. Cilician Period — 12th to 13th centuries d. Period of the Unitores — 14th century e. Later Medieval Translations — 17th to 18th centuries In addition to noting the considerable gaps from the eighth to twelfth centuries and again from the fourteenth to the seventeenth, one can readily discern in this schema a great bias towards translations from western, i.e., Greek and Latin, sources. These categories also serve well to highlight the main types of translations, but provide little help in determining the nature or chronology of the considerable number of translations that were made from Syriac or, possibly in one case as we shall see, from Arabic. It is here my purpose—and hope—then not only to catalogue the many Syriac works that have survived in Armenian translation, but also to make a first attempt at trying to provide a chronological framework of this translation activity from Syriac into Armenian. The sources will not allow this to be done with any great precision, but I hope nonetheless at least to draw some skeletal outlines, however tentative they must be, that will be of some use to future researchers.

FIFTH CENTURY a. The Bible As soon as the Armenians had a workable alphabet they immediately engaged in a fullscale project to translate ecclesiastical works and the writings of the fathers. The first work

to be translated into Armenian was, of course, the Bible. Writing just before the middle of the fifth century Koriwn, in his Life of Mashtotsǥ, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, tells us that Mashtotsǥ, “together with two of his disciples, began the translation of the Bible, beginning with the Proverbs of Solomon…”19 Koriwn adds nothing further, but in the context that we have just so briefly sketched out, it is very difficult to imagine that this initial translation was not made from a Syriac bible, which would have already been in use in the Armenian churches. Unfortunately, no trace of this first translation has survived. A little further on, in the same account, Koriwn tells us that a second, revised translation was also effected under the leadership of the Patriarch Sahak, so it is little surprise that nothing of this first attempt has survived. And again, Koriwn provides no further details and, despite decades of modern study, the surviving evidence has left us with far more questions than answers. While there is general scholarly consensus that the first Armenian translation was made from a Syriac exemplar, concrete evidence still eludes us. For an idea of the difficulty of trying to detect Syriac influence on the surviving Armenian biblical texts, let the reader refer to the paper of Claude Cox, below, who is the leading contemporary scholar on this issue.20 b. Ecclesiastical Works As is evident from the earliest witnesses, these early Armenian clerics threw themselves into the work of translating works from both Greek and Syriac, primarily in the respective centers of Constantinople and Edessa. Traditional opinion is that this initial translation work comprised a very large number of texts. Yet, the task of identifying exactly what these works were or how many works were translated during this period is one of great difficulty. The sources reveal no details and neither the literary evidence nor

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 22

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

the historical circumstances lend themselves to the support of traditional opinions here. Our earliest source, Koriwn’s Life of Mashtotsǥ, tells us only that after completing the translation of the Bible, or possibly even concurrently, the translators seem to have set immediately to work on the translation of ecclesiastical works into Armenian but, unfortunately, neither Koriwn nor any of our other early sources, provides us with any of the details that we would like. With respect to the mission to Edessa Koriwn says only that: [Sahak and Mashtotsǥ] dispatched two brothers from among their pupils to the city of Edessa in the region of the [Syrians] the first one HovsƝp, and the second, Eznik by name, from the village of Koghb in the province of Ayrarat, for the purpose of translating and writing down the traditions of the church fathers from Syriac into Armenian.21

As one can see, Koriwn does preserve for us the names of the two persons sent to carry out—or oversee?—the translations, but he does not provide a single further detail as to what these works were or who their original authors were. Ghazar Pǥarpetsǥi merely summarizes the account of Koriwn.22 Some time later,23 MovsƝs Xorenatsǥi provides us with one additional detail that is of significant interest here. In II.10 of his History of the Armenians, MovsƝs, in the course of putting forth the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea as “a guarantee” that the books of Aba Catina were still to be found in Edessa, adds as an aside that Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History is a book “which our blessed teacher Mashtotsǥ had had translated into Armenian.”24 Regardless of the question of the dating of Xorenatsǥi’s History, we can with reasonable certainty presume an early translation of the Church History of Eusebius,25 although MovsƝs’ claim that it was commissioned by Mashtotsǥ himself is, perhaps, not so certain. The Syriac textual history clearly shows that this work was

translated into Syriac by the beginning of the fifth century, and it has been clearly demonstrated that the Armenian version was translated from an early Syriac text.26 One other Greek text, the Hexaemeron of St. Basil of Caesarea,27 seems also to have been translated during this early periodʊand again, from a Syriac exemplar.28 Doubt has been cast on whether this work was a product of the first translators, but again there is little doubt that it was translated at a fairly early date. An Armenian translation of Basil’s Hexaemeron seems to have been utilized by Anania Shirakatsǥi (ca. 600-670), the famous seventh-century scientist.29 These few details are the sole direct evidence that has come down to us; it is not possible to assign any other texts with any certainty to this early period. Scholars to date have, in general, simply made the presumption—not completely without reason, but based mostly on the basis of the chronology of the authors’ lives rather than a study of the texts—that these early translations from Syriac must have included, if not actually have been primarily comprised of, the Homilies, or Demonstrations, of Aphrahat, and a very large corpus of works attributed to Ephrem the Syrian. These two men were the two great fourth century Syrian authors and a large number of texts attributed to them have indeed survived in Armenian. There is very little certainty here, but it seems that an early translation for the works of Aphrahat is not unlikely. Recent study, however, has cast much doubt about an early date of the translation of works attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, especially the vast commentary material (see further, below).30 First, the Demonstrations of Aphrahat. As most Syriac scholars are well aware, Aphrahat composed twenty-three discourses or, as they are better known, Demonstrations, on various aspects of the Christian faith. From internal evidence, Demonstrations 1-10 are dated to 337, Demonstrations 11-22 to

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 23

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

344, and Demonstration 23 is dated to 345. Apart from a few lines of the opening letter, the text has survived completely. The Armenian version of these Demonstrations, as is the case in the Latin tradition,31 is attributed to Jacob of Nisibis.32 Jacob of Nisibis, or Hakob Mcbin as he is known in Armenian, was an important figure in the early Armenian Church, already figuring prominently in the Buzandaran, or Epic Histories, composed in the 470s.33 Later tradition even makes Jacob a close relative of Gregory the Illuminator, the fourth-century evangelizer of Armenia.34 Perhaps due to such popularity, the Armenian version of the Demonstrations, known simply as Zgǀn Girkǥ, “The Sage Book,” has survived in at least thirty-five manuscripts from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries, but none is complete; of the twenty-three homilies a few small sections as well as the entirety of Demonstrations 20-23 are lacking. In addition, the second part of Demonstration 12 has been separated and inserted between Demonstrations 18 and 19. According to the editor of the critical edition of this Armenian version, it is very likely that these texts were translated in the second half of the fifth century.35 There is no concrete evidence to argue one way or the other. On the one hand, the lateness of the manuscripts may suggest a later translation, whereas on the other hand, it has been argued, that parallels can be found already in The Teaching of St. Gregory, a work of the mid- to late fifth century.36 Leaving aside the question of Ephrem, for the moment, a number of other works can be reasonably presumed, on other grounds, to have been translated during this initial period of activity. The so-called Pastoral Letter attributed to Aithallah, Bishop of Edessa (324/5-ca. 345), survives only in Armenian. This short text is included in Geerard’s Clavis Patrum Graecorum, and for a long time scholars therefore presumed that it had been translated from Greek.37 David Bundy,

however, in a pair of short studies, has clearly demonstrated that it was translated from a Syriac original. In the earlier of these two studies, he also showed that while the letter is concerned primarily with the teaching of the Council of Nicea, it nonetheless betrays awareness of the Creed propagated at the Council of Constantinople in 381.38 Thus, it is quite impossible that this text, in the form that it has come down to us, was composed by Aithallah, since he died ca. 345. Such a concern with the Council of Nicea suggests a translation in the fifth century when, according to the witness of Koriwn, the Armenian Church was collecting council documents for translation, as well as patristic texts; it is little likely that there would have been much interest in such a text later when far different questions of Christology prevailed. Later texts do manifest interest in the Council of Nicea,39 but in these texts there is no discernible knowledge of the Letter attributed to Aithallah, which may suggest that it had already attained a certain “state of oblivion”. Other texts that may have been translated during these early missions of Mashtotsǥ or shortly thereafter, include several short works of one Zenob, known in Armenian as Zenob Gaziratsǥi, presumably because he came from the Upper Jezira.40 He was an early bishop, and of the various lists of the disciples of Ephrem, his name is the only one that is included in every one.41 Several short works attributed to him survive, including a short treatise On Great Wednesday against Judas who betrayed the Lord, On the Memorial of the Martyrs, On the Washing of the Feet of the Disciples, and a Panegyric On Meletius, the Patriarch of Antioch.42 A modern, critical edition of these texts would be of great importance as none of them seems to have survived in their original Syriac versions. Zenob is cited as an authority both in the Armat Hawatoy, “The Root of Faith,” a twelfth century Catena of religious works,43 and even earlier by Stepǥanos

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 24

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

Siwnetsǥi (ca. 685-735), in his treatise On the Incorruptibility of Christ’s Flesh.44 This latter detail lends strong support to the argument that Zenob’s works were translated in this early period. It is quite possible that a version of the Syriac Teaching of Addai was rendered into Armenian during this first period of translation.45 This text has a very complicated history and had almost certainly not reached its final form by this time.46 The Armenian text differs in such significant details that it is difficult not to conclude that the Armenian account is not a translation but a separate, native development of the conversion of the region of Edessa at a time when the two churches seem to have been much closer before the invention of the alphabet and subsequent separation; it is at the least rather an adaptation than a translation.47 The account preserved in the History of MovsƝs Xorenatsǥi, who first calls King Abgar the “King of Syria and Armenia,” subsequently became the “official” Armenian version of his conversion.48 Various acts of early martyrs might also have been available at this time, but even the originals of these texts are very difficult to date and require much further study before any conclusion can be reached as to the date of their translation.49 The translation of one collection, however, known as The Lives of the Eastern Martyrs, concerning the fourth-century martyrs of Syria and Persia, is generally considered to be the work of the fifth-century Abraham Xostovanogh (the Confessor) and can very likely, therefore, be considered a product of the fifth century, although probably from some time after the initial missions of Mashtotsǥ.50 As for many of the rest, either the martyr him/herself is later or the text itself is full of later hagiographical topoi, and/or is clearly based on an earlier life of a saint or martyr; therefore, it is much more likely that the Armenian translations of these works were effected during the Cilician period; see further,

below. One last text, the famous Story of Ahikar, was clearly translated into Armenian from a Syriac exemplar and it is very possible, though not demonstrable, that this translation was accomplished in this early period.51 INTERMEDIATE PERIOD Shortly after this initial period of translation, in what we might call the intervening period, the period that Ter Petrosyan refers to as the period of the Hellenizing School—a category that manifestly excludes anything Syriac!52— there were a small number of texts that were translated from Syriac into Armenian, but these few texts seem to have been translated on a more ad hoc basis; there does not seem to be any evidence of continuous or sustained translation activity. These works include the Letters of the Syrian bishop Abdishô, written sometime before the convening of the second Council of Dvin in 555, and now preserved in the Girkǥ Tǥghtǥotsǥ (the Book of Letters).53 The work composed by the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, Timothy Aelurus ‘the Weasel’, and now generally known as the Refutation of the Council of Chalcedon, is another work of great importance that was translated into Armenian during this period.54 Again, both this work and the just mentioned Letters preserve texts that are no longer available in the original. In the case of Timothy’s work, the Armenian preserves an even fuller version than the extant Syriac version, which is itself a translation of the original lost Greek. The Chalcedonian document, known as the Narratio de rebus Armeniae, records that all these texts, along with writings of Philoxenos, were translated and brought to the Council by Abdishô,55 which opens up the possibility that the Armenian version of Timothy’s Refutation was made from a Syriac exemplar.56 We might also make note here of the very important Commentary on the Gospel of John, composed by Nonnus (Arm., Nana), the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 25

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

ninth century Monophysite archdeacon of Nisibis, who is perhaps most famous for his dispute, while still a young man, against the Chalcedonian teaching of Theodore Abu Qurra in the Bagratid court of Ashot MsakƝr in 812. He was also known to have been present at the council of Shirakawan in 862.57 His Commentary on John, commissioned by King Ashot, was originally composed in Arabic, but survives only in its Armenian translation, and is an important witness of ninth-century Armenian christology.58 Critical study may show that it had a Syrian intermediary.59

CILICIAN PERIOD This then brings us to the Cilician period, where we find what seems to have been a major renaissance of interest in Syriac literature.60 The Catholicos Gregory II VkayasƝr (the ‘Lover of Martyrs’, d. 1105) is fairly well known for his translation activity; he travelled throughout much of the Eastern Mediterranean world specifically to collect, and to translate into Armenian, lives of saints. Because of this mission, he seems, however wittingly or intentionally, to have spawned a movement of translation that is vastly underappreciated and which, on the basis of the evidence that we are here presenting, far surpassed that of the early period, the socalled Golden Age. A rather large number of the lives of later saints and martyrs have also survived, which include those of Bardishô, Barsauma the Hermit, Marutha of Maipherkat, Yazdandukht, Sarkis the General, Mar Awgen the reputed founder of Syrian monasticism, and Ephrem, among many others. Since it was Gregory’s self-proclaimed mission to acquire and translate lives of saints, we can reasonably presume that many of these were translated during his lifetime, although the important questions of which ones, when and by whom cannot be determined. Only in a

few cases do we know this information. We know that translation of the Life of Ephrem was commissioned by Gregory himself in 1101.61 He also commissioned a Syrian priest named Michael to translate for him the Life of Sarkis; Michael’s translation was then revised by the great Catholicos, NersƝs Shnorhali, ‘the Graceful,’ in 1158.62 A short time later, Gregory III Pahlawuni (Catholicos 11131166) also commissioned another Syrian priest, this time a Gregory from Melitene, to translate the Life of Barsauma the Hermit; this life too was revised by NersƝs Shnorhali,63 who would become Gregory III’s successor as Catholicos. Gregory II VkayasƝr no doubt translated or had translated a great deal more lives of saints than these few that can be dated and attributed to him. Another work of great importance, commissioned by that same Armenian Catholicos Gregory II VkayasƝr, is the Commentary on the Psalms composed by David, Abbot of the monastery of Salah (hence his name), who later became Bishop of Tell Mawzalt. The original Syriac text, composed by Daniel in the year 541/2 AD, and which seems to be the oldest surviving Syrian commentary on the Psalter, does not survive in any complete version. The entire commentary survives in a complete version only in this still unedited Armenian version.64 No edition currently exists, but it is to be hoped that editions and translations of both the Syriac and Armenian versions will appear in the not too distant future.65 We also know that Gregory II commissioned a number of other theological works as well. Among these are a translation of John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Gospel of John, first from a Syriac version, with the help of a Syrian priest named Andrew, then revised on the basis of the Greek, with the assistance of a Theophist, a Greek teacher of rhetoric.66 The translation was incomplete at the time of Gregory’s death and was completed by his disciple Kirakos

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 26

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

Drazarktsǥi.67 We also know that Gregory commissioned at least two homilies attributed to Ephrem, along with his Life (see further, below). Historical works were also translated during this period, and special notice ought to be made of the very important Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, a huge chronicle that covers both world and ecclesiastical events from the creation of the world to the end of the twelfth century. This work was twice translated into Armenian and both recensions were published in Jerusalem in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The first, commissioned by the Catholicos Constantine I, was translated by a Syriac priest and doctor named Ishox in 1248,68 barely fifty years after the original Syriac composition; the second, completely very shortly afterwards but probably in the same year, was an edited and revised version by Vardan Arewelcǥi.69 At the same time two short, less well-known, works of the same Michael were translated into Armenian: the Treatise on the Priesthood and his Profession of Faith.70 One other—nonecclesiastical—work that was translated from a Syriac version at this time is the very curious work, known as On the Care of Horses, and composed by Faraj the Syrian. We know that this work was commissioned by King Hetum I of Cilicia (1226-1269), but we remain ignorant of the name of the translator. Ter Petrosyan also notes that at this time, there was a great impetus on the part of Syrians to transfer knowledge of Syrian and Arab science, particularly medical and natural science, into Armenia.71 Notice should also be made here of the translation work of NersƝs Lambronatsǥi, the great biblical scholar and translator, who was bishop of Tarsus from 1175 until his death in 1198. Tremendously active as a biblical commentator and in ecumenical work, he also effected a number of translations particularly of a canonical nature. In addition to translations of a number of Byzantine works he,

with the help of a Syrian monk named Theothorus, translated the Syrian Law Code in 1173.72 It was also during this time that several additional Greek works seem to have been translated. We note them here because again it has been demonstrated that they were translated from Syriac versions and not from the Greek originals. These works include some texts from the large corpus of monastic writings composed by Evagrius of Pontus.73 Irénée Hausherr long ago demonstrated that the Armenian versions were not only translations from Syriac, but were actually translated from different Syriac versions than those that have come down to us. He hazards no opinion on the date of the translation, nor of its translator, though he does note the possibility of multiple translators.74 Armenian versions of a fairly large number of works attributed to the fifth-century monk Nilus of Ancyra have also survived. As J. Muyldermans demonstrated over a half century ago, there are two distinct Armenian translations, and some of the works in this corpus were translated from Syriac exemplars rather than from Greek.75 With regard to these latter two authors, it is a fact of some interest to note here, that it is only in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries when there suddenly begin to appear a number of Armenian commentaries on the works of Evagrius and Nilus.76 It does not seem, therefore, utterly implausible to posit the opinion that these commentaries were the result of a renewed interest in the works of Evagrius and Nilus that followed upon the translation of their works that had been carried out only some years earlier. Further study may eventually reveal a number of other Greek works that found their way into an Armenian version by way of a Syriac translation. These translations seem to have provided added impetus to an already blossoming renaissance in Armenian learning.77 This now brings us to the two most important figures—for our purposes

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 27

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

here—of this later period of translation activity.

a. Ephrem the Syrian/Yepǥrem Asori It has been the traditional opinion that the vast Armenian corpus of works attributed to Ephrem the Syrianʊnow well over six volumes and which Ter Petrosyan has called “the greatest contributions to the field of patristics,”78ʊformed the heart of the body of literature that was translated in the fifth century during that mission on which Mashtotsǥ sent Eznik and HovsƝp to Edessa specifically in order to translate Syriac works into Armenian.79 It is indeed hard to imagine that in the fifth century no work from the pen of Ephrem was included in this early Armenian mission to Edessa. Yet recent study has shown that many of these Armenian works attributed to him were clearly later products and could not possibly have been translated at any time before the Cilician period. In the case of the majority of these works attributed to Ephrem, it is those very Armenian works themselves that betray the fact that they were translated in this later period. This pertains especially to the biblical commentaries attributed to Ephrem.80 The Old Testament commentaries attributed to him are clearly translations from Syriac, but equally clearly reflect later Syrian exegesis from the ninth century. Specifically, they not only cite verbatim the Catenae materials associated with Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), but they also show clear acquaintance of these Catenae as found in a later, more embellished, version generally associated with Severus, a monk in Edessa, and composed in the second half of the ninth century. It is quite evident, therefore, that these Commentaries cannot have been translated into Armenian before the tenth century.81 There is no other evidence, internal or external, that these commentaries ever existed in Armenia before their first citation

in the biblical commentaries of Vardan Areweltsǥi (ca. 1200-1271);82 it seems even more than just a possibility that Vardan himself was the translator. As for Ephrem’s New Testament Commentaries, the Commentary on the Diatessaron83 is generally considered to be an early translation, although neither of the Armenian manuscripts, both of which contain the entirety of this work, can be dated before the late twelfth century. The single manuscript of the original Syriac text of this work has still not been recovered fully,84 while the Armenian manuscripts just mentioned both preserve an integral and complete text, though it differs in several ways from the surviving Syriac. On a careful study of both these versions, it has now been shown that this Commentary on the Diatessaron was rather a product of Ephrem’s disciples, which even displays characteristics of the nascent diophysite teaching in the School of Edessa.85 The author of the Teaching of St. Gregory, the long catechetical treatise found within the History of Agatǥangeghos, seems to be acquainted with this Commentary, but whether in a Syriac or Armenian version cannot be determined.86 Associated with the Commentary on the Diatessaron, as it survives only in both the same manuscripts, is a curious work entitled An Exposition of the Gospel.87 The modern editor of the text has steadfastly maintained that it was a genuine work of Ephrem, but his argument has persuaded almost no one.88 I only mention this work here because one of the two surviving Armenian manuscripts that contains this work, Ms. Ven. 312, was copied by the learned Archbishop NersƝs Lambronatsǥi, in the year 1195. I would like simply to proffer the suggestion here that what we have is actually another project from this Cilician period where Lambronatsǥi was simply revising a translation commissioned by one of his contemporaries, most likely the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 28

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

Catholicos Gregory II; we have no evidence that NersƝs Lambronatsǥi was ever a simple copyist. The commentaries attributed to Ephrem on the Letters of Paul were printed in 1836, by the Mekhitarist fathers of Venice, from a single manuscript. This corpus of commentaries includes a short commentary on the Third Letter to the Corinthians, but lacks altogether Philemon, thus reflecting the Syriac and Armenian canons of the first millennium.89 The very little study that has been done on these commentaries has been entirely concerned with reconstructing the underlying biblical text.90 Over thirty Armenian manuscripts contain these commentaries, not a few of which are combined with the homilies of John Chrysostom, so a critical edition is a great desideratum before any serious study can begin.91 The Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, for which we now have a critical edition, published subsequent to the Mekhitarist edition, has also received no substantial study.92 But, one can rather safely venture to say that it is less than likely that any of these last-mentioned New Testament commentaries are genuine, since there is no trace of a Syriac original,93 nor does there exist any reference to Ephrem’s having composed such works apart from notices found in later, unreliable hagiographical texts. There also exist two substantial collections of hymns attributed to Ephrem which survive only in Armenian. The first, known simply as Armenian Hymns, is a collection of various madrâšê (Arm., ɘʘʏʙʗɻʛ) on assorted subjects such as virginity and the Eucharist.94 It also includes several examples of dialogue hymns.95 In general, the hymns preserved in this collection all seem to be genuine works of the great fourth-century hymnographer, but there is no evidence for the date of translation. Again, no manuscript predates the fourteenth century; scholars have simply presumed that

because they are genuine they must have been translated early. This same reasoning was also applied to the other collection of hymns. The Hymns on Nicomedia is one of the few genuine examples of Ephrem’s mêmrê (Arm., ɜɸʓʛ).96 Of these sixteen hymns only the ninth and a few small fragments cited in later works have survived of the original Syriac. The single manuscript, Jerusalem 326, which contains this entire collection, explicitly names the scribe as YovhannƝs, disciple of NersƝs of Lambron, mentioned above. There is no clear indication, but one might speculate —as we did above—on the possibility that NersƝs was the one who commissioned, and perhaps even assisted with, the translation of this collection. It is not unlikely that he was himself responsible for the corrections found in this manuscript, which we know from the colophon was completed before his death.97 Last of the collected works, there is a very beautiful collection of Armenian Prayers attributed to Ephrem, which also survive only in Armenian. This collection comprises seven “books” of prayers of very uneven length; the first book is further subdivided into 141 short prayers. These prayers are a single example of several collections of prayers attributed to Ephrem, nearly all of which are unique to the language in which they are found.98 This Armenian collection is certainly a late composition and has no correspondence whatsoever with surviving Syriac prayers; these Armenian prayers were certainly not composed by Ephrem himself.99 It is unknown whence came a collection of Canons attributed to Ephrem and preserved in the Armenian Code of Canon Law;100 no such canons survive in Syriac nor, to my knowledge, do they exist in any other early Christian language. In addition to these collections, a large number of homilies (ɜɸʓʛ) on various topics have survived in Armenian under the name of Ephrem the Syrian. Only a few of these have been the object of critical study, but in nearly

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 29

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

every case it has been demonstrated that the work in question cannot be the work of the fourth-century poet. They do not correspond to any of his surviving Syriac works, they show none of the characteristics of the genuine Ephrem and, in several cases, it has been demonstrated the work in question has been translated from a late Greek or even an Arabic work.101 We do know that two of these were commissioned by Gregory II VkayasƝr: a “Homily on John the Baptist, the Precursor,” and another entitled “The Canon on the Washing of the Feet.”102 It is perhaps noteworthy that the seventhcentury Knikǥ Hawatoy (The Seal of Faith) preserves fragments from, among other things, Ephrem’s genuine Sermons on Faith and from the Homily on Our Lord,103 for which no other Armenian version is known. It is not at all clear whether these texts already existed in Armenian translation, since no complete translation has survived, or whether they were translated specifically for the Knikǥ Hawatoy. It is, however, very curious that such clear remains of Ephrem’s genuine works do survive from the seventh century only to “disappear” later in favor of a huge “new” corpus of works attributed to Ephrem that contains so many works that are clearly not genuine; as already stated, only two collections of hymns seem to be genuine works of the fourth-century deacon of Nisibis and Edessa. In any case, it does appear that the traditional opinion that the majority of Ephrem’s works were translated into Armenian in the early fifth-century must now be abandoned, as the preponderance of evidence compels us to assign nearly all of this Armenian corpus to the Cilician period.

b. Jacob of Sarug/Hakob Srjetsǥi The last figure to be considered here is the very important sixth-century bishop and poet Jacob of Sarug, known in Armenian as Hakob Srjetsǥi.104 A number of his works can

be found among the holdings of the major Armenian manuscript collections. Nearly a century and a half ago, Zarpǥanalean had catalogued a total of eleven hymns,105 eight of which had already been published more than a century earlier.106 Despite this publication and the notice in Zarpǥanalean’s very important reference work, the Armenian works attributed to Jacob have been almost completely ignored by modern scholars; they have never been edited, translated, or even studied.107 On the basis of a still incomplete perusal of the catalogues of the major manuscript collections, the list that Zarpǥanalean compiled can now be increased to seventeen homilies. At least one of these is a turgƗmâ while the rest are certainly mêmrê. Nearly all of these are found in manuscripts that are known as Ja‫܀‬Ɵntir (ɜɸʓɿʍʖʂʗ). A Ja‫܀‬Ɵntir, literally, “selection of homilies,” is a manuscript comprised of various homilies gathered together, usually for specific liturgical purposes.108 The very existence of these works ought to be of particular interest to Syriac scholars, but of even greater interest is that of these seventeen turgƗmê and mêmrê that I have so far identified seven of them have no counterpart in the surviving Syriac corpus of Jacob’s works.109 Thus, from our gleanings to date, the following list of Jacob’s works surviving in Armenian can be set out:110 I. Texts with surviving Syriac originals: 1. TurgƗmâ On the Resurrection of Our Savior111 2. On the Raising of Lazarus [III.564-581]112 3. On the Ascension [VI.196-220] 4. On the Symbols of Our Lord [Br 206] 5. On the Star [indicating] the Coming [of the Lord] [I.84-153] 6. In Praise of John the Baptist [Br 183] 7. On New Sunday and the Apostle Thomas [II.649-669] 8. On the Death of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God [VI.97-107]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 30

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

9. On Thaddeus and Abgar, King of Armenia and Syria [Br 99] 10. On the Birth of Christ, our God [Br 366] II. Texts with no apparent surviving Syriac original: 1. On Good Friday 2. On Antioch 3. In Praise of the Holy Virgin 4. On the Resurrection of the Lord and on the Soldiers guarding the Tomb 5. On the Ninevites 6. On the Conversion of the City of Antioch 7. On the Mystery of the Tabernacle In addition to these works, Zarpǥanalean includes in his list one additional work that I have not yet been able to locate. He provides only a title, “On the Capture of the Ark by the Philistines,” with no incipit.113 According to the recent list of Jacob’s Syriac mêmrê compiled by Sebastian Brock, there is an unedited mêmrâ, titled On the Philistines,114 that might be the same work, but until an Armenian exemplar can be located and compared to the Syriac text, the relationship of these two works cannot be determined. In addition to these poetic works, Levon Ter Petrosyan, some thirty years ago, published a prose work titled “On the Life of Daniel of Galash and on the miracles that he wrought from the account and the interpretation of Jacob, the Patriarch of Sarug,” utilizing one of two known Armenian manuscripts.115 A Syriac text of this Life has survived, but it has yet to be edited.116 François Nau expressed some minor reservations about its being the work of Jacob,117 but it was considered a genuine work by Baumstark.118 And Sebastian Brock, who also notes that this text is the earliest text to make mention of the famous mandylion of Christ, expresses no hesitation about Jacob’s authorship of this Life.119

There remains to mention a single manuscript, Ms. Nor Julfa 464, which is a Kǥarozagirkǥ (ɭɸʗʏɽɸɺʂʗʛ), a collection of various homilies.120 This manuscript contains mostly translations of Syriac texts, and the majority of them are attributed to Jacob of Sarug. According to the catalogue, this manuscript contains one work each by Anania Shirakatsǥi (ca. 600-ca.670) and YovhannƝs ƿjnetsǥi (ca. 650-729), three works from Sargis Vardapet Kund (ca. 1100ca.1185),121 four works from Ephrem, and twenty-three works attributed to Jacob of Sarug. Unfortunately, the cataloguer TƝrAvetisean provides only short titles and no incipits for any of these works. Judging from the titles that TƝr-Avetisean gives, there is no question that they all seem to be concerned with subjects or themes that are found among the genuine works of Jacob, so that it is possible that at least some of them will turn out to be authentic, but until the manuscript itself can be looked at, no such determination can be made. As my search is still in progress, there remains the possibility that even more Armenian works of Jacob of Sarug will also surface. As for the dating of these translations of Jacob’s works, we can place them here in the Cilician period with certainty as the manuscripts provide us with some rather precise information concerning the date of their translation. Zarpǥanalean, in his brief catalogue, records a colophon from a manuscript then kept in the Monastery of Sevan which reads: “This homily [i.e., The Homily on Good Friday] was translated from the Syriac [language] into our [Armenian language], at the command of Gregory, the Catholicos of the Armenians, by the hand of a certain priest whose name was Isaac, a Syrian by race, and who is learned in our literature”.122 One might immediately presume that this Catholicos Gregory was the same Gregory VkayasƝr, the “Lover of Martyrs,” who was already mentioned above

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 31

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

as being well-known for his translation activity. But the colophon goes on to add that this Syrian Priest Isaac “was approved by our great, holy and just Archbishop NersƝs, the orator and lover of wisdom,” who is no doubt NersƝs Shnorhali (ca.1102-1173), the brother of Gregory Pahlawuni and his successor as Catholicos; Gregory VkayasƝr died while NersƝs was only five or six years old.123 Therefore, the Gregory mentioned here in the colophon must actually be Gregory III Pahlawuni, who was Catholicos from 11131166. I have not yet been able to discover the present location of this manuscript, but I have found the same colophon in another manuscript from Tǥokatǥ, now kept in the Matenadaran,124 as well as in Ms. Armash 12.125 Two other homilies, “On the Apostle Thaddeus and King Abgar” and another “On the First Mystery and on the Patriarchs and Prophets (known also as “On the Symbols of Our Lord”),” were both translated by a Syrian priest Simeon and then revised by Vardan Areweltsǥi who had commissioned them.126 So, on the basis of this evidence it seems reasonable to conclude that these along with the rest of the works of Jacob of Sarug were translated in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Robert W. Thomson has already remarked on the overemphasis that has been put on the role and the quantity of production of those early translators and disciples of Mashtotsǥ.127 The preceding description of these Armenian translations from Syriac, even with those few precise details that we do possess, is still necessarily tentative in many cases. Nevertheless, the overall picture lends further support to Thomson’s warning. If the scenario that we have attempted to describe has any validity, the large majority of the surviving translations of Syriac literature into

Armenian now seems to have been carried out during the Cilician period. Where we have precise information, nearly all of these translations stem from, by direct translation or by commission, a small group of translators associated with four principal figures: Gregory VkayasƝr, NersƝs Shnorhali, NersƝs Lambronatsǥi and Vardan Areweltsǥi, arguably the greatest of the Cilician ecclesiastical luminaries. It is not irrelevant here to note that these four were also heavily involved in ecumenical activity, or even involved in the official discussions. As Ter Petrosyan noted sometime ago, the period of the twelfth to thirteenth centuries was one of particularly close relationship between the Armenian and Syrian churches;128 it seems, though, that the translation work carried out during this period was not only an integral part of this close relationship as Ter Petrosyan has persuasively argued, but was an even more extensive enterprise than he had thought. It has long been known to specialists that a number of Syriac works were translated during this period; these include the various works of Michael the Syrian and the Syrian Lawbook, the Life of Ephrem and now Daniel of Salah’s Commentary on the Psalms. Perhaps, it should come as no surprise then that it was the same great Cilician scholars, who were responsible for the translation of these works, who were also responsible for the translation of the works of Jacob of Sarug, and for the bulk of the vast corpus attributed to Ephrem. Thus, if we are permitted to reappropriate old categories, it seems that with regard to Armenian translations from Syriac, it was the Cilician period that actually deserves the epithet “golden age.” Further study will hopefully bring even further clarification and precision to the following, very tentative, chronological schema.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 32

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX ARMENIAN TRANSLATIONS OF SYRIAC WORKS 1 Fifth Century Bible Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Basil of Caesarea, Homilies on the Hexaemeron Aphrahat [Jacob of Nisibis], Demonstrations (Ps.-[?]) Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron Aithallah, Pastoral Letter Zenob of Gazir, Homilies Teaching of Addai Lives of the Eastern Martyrs

Mashtot‘/Sahak Mashtotsǥ (?)

Abraham Xostovanogh

Intervening Period Abdishô of Nisibis, Letters Timothy Aelurus, Refutation of Chalcedon Nonnus of Nisibis, On Gospel of John

mid-VI mid-VI late-IX

Cilician Period Life of Ephrem Life of Sarkis Life of Barsauma Daniel of Salah, On Psalms John Chrysostom, On the Gospel of John Michael the Syrian, Chronicle Michael the Syrian, On the Order of the Priesthood Michael the Syrian, Profession of Faith Faraj the Syrian, On the Care of Horses Syro-Roman Lawbook Evagrius, Monastic Works Nilus, Monastic Works EPHREM THE SYRIAN/YEPREM ASORI On Old Testament [Gen-II Chron] Exposition of Gospel Hymns on Nicomedia On John the Baptist Canon of the Washing of Feet JACOB OF SARUG/HAKOB SRJETS‘I On Good Friday On Thaddeus and Abgar On the Symbols of Our Lord

1101 1158

Gregory II Michael/NersƝs Shnorhali Gregory II, Gregory/NersƝs Shnorhali ca. 1100 Gregory II Gregory II, Andrew/Theophist/Kirako 1248 Ishox 1248 Vardan Areweltsǥi ca.1250 Ishox/Vardan Areweltsǥi (?) ca.1250 Ishox/VardanAreweltsǥi (?) mid-XIII 1173 NersƝs Lambronatsǥi/ Theodore Bar-Vaboun mid-XII(?) mid-XII(?) Vardan Areweltsǥi (?) NersƝs Lambronatsǥi (?) NersƝs Lambronatsǥi (?) Gregory II Gregory II 1151 1246 1246

Gregory III, Isaac/NersƝs Shnorhali Simeon/Vardan Areweltsǥi Simeon/Vardan Areweltsǥi

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 33

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

As already noted in J.J.S. Weitenberg, “Eusebius of Emesa and Armenian Translations,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5, ed. J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 163. 2 M. Awkerean, Ɏʙʔɼɹʂ ɣɸʋʚʂʃɼɸʌ

ɘɼʔɸʗɸʘʙʏʌ ɓɸʋɸʍɸʆɸʆɸʍʛ ɼʗʆʋɸʔʍɼɸʌ [The Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea in two parts]/Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis Episcopi, Chronicon Bipartitum, 2 vols. (Venice: Mekhitarist Press, 1818). The Chronicle has been translated twice into Latin: Y. Zohrabean and A. Mai, Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis Episcopi, Chronicum Libri duo, Scriptorum veterum nova Collectio 8 (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1833), 1–406 [reprinted in PG 19, 99-598], and by H. Peterman, in A. Schoene, Eusebii Chronicorum libri duo (Berlin: Weidmann, 1866-1875); and into German: J. Karst, Die Chronik des Eusebius aus dem armenischen übersetz mit textkritischem Apparat, Eusebius Werke 5; GCS 20 (Leipzig: J.CA. Hinrichs, 1911). An English translation is in preparation; see Tim Greenwood, “‘New Light from the East’: Chronography and Ecclesiastical History through a late Seventh-Century Armenian Source,” JECS 16 (2008) 197–254. 3 K. Ter-Mekerttschian and E. TerMinassiantz, Des heiligen Irenaeus Schrift zum Erweise der apostolischen Verkündigung, TU 31.1 (Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1907). It has been translated into a number of modern languages including English, of which there exist at least five different translations. 4 Much of this introductory material has been condensed from E.G. Mathews, Jr., “The Syrian Presence in the Early Armenian Church,” in The History of the Armenian Church, ed. K.B. Bardakjian, forthcoming. See also L. Van Rompay, “Armenian Christianity, Syriac contacts with,” in The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, ed. S.P. Brock, et al. (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, forthcoming). 5 H. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik, I. Theil: Armenische Etymologie, Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken 6 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897), 281–321, lists

hundreds of such words. His list can easily be supplemented. 6 A. Meillet, “Le mot ekeáeci,” REA 9 (1929) 131–36; see also idem., “De l’influence parthe sur la langue arménienne,” REA 1 (1920) 9–14. 7 Some of these terms were already noted in E. Ter-Minassiantz, Die Armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den Syrischen Kirchen bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur Neue Folge, XI.4 (Leipzig: J.CA. Hinrichs, 1904), 11–12, but see now E.G. Mathews, Jr., “The Early Armenian Hermit: Further Reflections on the Syriac Sources,” in Festschrift In Honor of Professor Nina G. Garsoïan, SNTR 10 (2005) 141–67. These two sample calques given here are based on the root for ‘dwelling,’ i.e., both literally mean “dweller,” and on the root ‘desert,’ i.e., both literally mean “desert[-dwell]er”. 8 M. Abeghyan, ed., ɘʏʗʌʏʙʍ, ɧɸʗʛ ɝɸʎʖʏʘʂ [Koriwn, Life of Mashtotsǥ] (Erevan: Haypethrat, 1941). This volume also contains an English and a Russian translation of this short work. Prof. Abraham Terian is preparing a new translation and study of this important text; it is scheduled to appear in the St. Nersess Seminary Series, AVANT: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition. On Koriwn, see also E.G. Mathews, Jr., “Early Armenian and Syrian Contact: Reflections on Koriwn’s Life of Maštocǥ,” SNTR 7 (2002) 5–27. 9 G. TƝr-Mkrtþean and S. Malxasean, eds.,

ɛɸɽɸʗɸʌ ɬɸʗʑɼʘʙʏʌ ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ [Ghazar Pǥarpetsǥi, History of the Armenians] (Tiflis: Aragatip Mnacǥakan Martiroseantsǥi, 1904); Eng. tr. in R.W. Thomson, The History of Lazar Pǥarpecǥi, Suren D. Fesjian Academic Publications 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). 10 M. Abelyan, ed., ɘʏʗʌʏʙʍ, ɧɸʗʛ ɝɸʎʖʏʘʂ [Koriwn, Life of Mashtotsǥ], 84 (text), 275 (translation). 11 A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1944), 48-49. 12 Thomson’s claim that these disciples were sent to Edessa to translate from Syriac “into Greek” is an apparent printing error; see, R.W. Thomson, “Syrian Christianity and the Conversion of Armenia,” in Die Christianisierung des Kaukasus/The Christianization of Caucasus

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 34

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ (Armenia, Georgia, Albania), Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften PhilosophischHistorische Klasse Denkschriften 296: Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik 9, ed. W. Seibt (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 160; unfortunately repeated in R.W. Thomson, “Early Armenian Christianity in Edessa,” in Armenian Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa, UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series. Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces 6, ed. R.G. Hovannisian (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2006), 99. 13 M. Abeghyan, ed., ɘʏʗʌʏʙʍ, ɧɸʗʛ ɝɸʎʖʏʘʂ [Koriwn, Life of Mashtotsǥ], XIX; these two texts are found on p. 122, and the translations on pp. 290, 291. 14 G. TƝr-Mkrtþean and S. Malxasean, eds.,

ɛɸɽɸʗɸʌ ɬɸʗʑɼʘʙʏʌ ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ [Ghazar Pǥarpetsǥi, History of the Armenians], 13; Eng. tr. in R.W. Thomson, The History of Lazar Pǥarpecǥi, 47–48. 15 G. TƝr-Mkrtþean and S. Malxasean, eds.,

ɛɸɽɸʗɸʌ ɬɸʗʑɼʘʙʏʌ ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ [Ghazar Pǥarpetsǥi, History of the Armenians], 16, 111, 117, 137, 167–68; R.W. Thomson, The History of Lazar Pǥarpecǥi, 50, 163, 170, 194, 228-29; Ghazar also recounts the less than virtuous habits of the Syrian Catholicoi, Brkishô and Samuel, who were imposed on the Armenians by the Persian king Vahram; these hierarchs no doubt only exacerbated his dislike for anything Syrian; 26 (text), 61-62 (trans.). 16 M. Abeghyan and S. Yarutǥiwnean, eds.,

ɝʏʕʔɾʔ ɖʏʗɼʍɸʘʂ, ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ [MovsƝs Xorenatsǥi, History of the Armenians] (Tiflis: Aragatip Mnacǥakan Martiroseantsǥi, 1913 [Facsimile edition with additional collations by A.B. Sargsean as ɝʏʕʔɾʔ ɖʏʗɼʍɸʘʂ, ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ [MovsƝs Xorenatsǥi, The History of the Armenians] (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1991]), III.54; Eng. tr. in R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenatsǥi, History of the Armenians, Revised Edition (Ann Arbor: Caravan Books, 2006), 318 (emphasis added). 17 The most important of these are K. Zarpǥanalean, ɝɸʖɼʍɸɻɸʗɸʍ əɸʌʆɸʆɸʍ

ɒɸʗɺʋɸʍʏʙʀɼɸʍʘ ɟɸʄʍɼɸʘ (ɍɸʗ ɍ–ɓɌ) [Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations (Fourth-Thirteenth Centuries)] (Venice: Mekhitarist

Press, 1889), B. Sargisean, Dei Tesori Patristici e Biblici conservati nella letteratura armena (Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1897), A.G. Ghazikean,

əɸʌʆɸʆɸʍ ʍʏʗ əɸʍʗɸɺʂʖɸʗɸʍ

ɝɸʖɼʍɸɺʂʖʙʀʂʙʍ ɼʙ əɸʌ ɘɼɸʍʛʂ/Nouvelle

bibliographie Arménienne et encyclopédie de la vie Arménienne 1512-1905. 3 vols. (Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1909-1912), S.J. Voicu, “Testi Patristici in Armeno (secc. v-viii),” in Patrologia, vol. V: Dal Concilio di Calcedonia (451) a Giovanni Damasceno (†750). I Padri orientali (secoli V-VIII), ed. A. Di Berardino (Genoa: Marietti (1820), 2000), 577-96 [Eng. trans. “Patristic Texts in Armenian (5th to 8th Centuries: Patristic Translations),” trans. by A. Walford in Patrology. The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (†750), ed. A. Di Berardino (Cambridge: James Clarke & Company, 2006), 571–88], R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 29-88, idem, “Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD: Publications 1993-2005,” LM 120 (2007) 169–79. 18 L.H. Ter Petrosyan, Ancient Armenian Translations (New York: St. Vartan’s Press, 1992), 3 (pages refer to the English section). 19 M. Abeghyan, ed., ɘʏʗʌʏʙʍ, ɧɸʗʛ ɝɸʎʖʏʘʂ [Koriwn, Life of Mashtotsǥ], VIII, 98 (text), 279 (translation). 20 Further citation can also be found there. 21 M. Abeghyan, ed., ɘʏʗʌʏʙʍ, ɧɸʗʛ ɝɸʎʖʏʘʂ [Koriwn, Life of Mashtotsǥ], XIX, 122 (text), 291 (translation). 22 G. TƝr-Mkrtþean and S. Malxasean, eds.,

ɛɸɽɸʗɸʌ ɬɸʗʑɼʘʙʏʌ ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ [Ghazar Pǥarpetsǥi, History of the Armenians], 13–17; Eng. tr. in R.W. Thomson, The History of Lazar Pǥarpecǥi, 46–51. 23 Debate still rages over the dating of MovsƝs’ History; unfortunately, it is not always a scholarly debate. See the introduction in R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenatsǥi, History of the Armenians, and, most recently, N.G. Garsoïan, “L’Histoire attribuée à Movsês Xorenac‘i: que reste-t-il à en dire?” REA 29 (2003-2004) 29–48. 24 M. Abeghyan and S. Yarutǥiwnean, eds., ɝʏʕʔɾʔ ɖʏʗɼʍɸʘʂ, ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ [The History of the Armenians by MovsƝs Xorenatsǥi],

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 35

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ II.10; p.120; Eng. tr. in R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenatsǥi, History of the Armenians, 144. 25 A. ýarean, ed., Ɏʙʔɼɹʂʏʔʂ ɘɼʔɸʗɸʘʙʏʌ ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ Ɏʆɼʉɼʘʙʏʌ [Eusebius of Caesarea, History of the Church] (Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1877). The Syriac text has been printed twice, P. Bedjan, ed., Histoire ecclésiastique d’Eusèbe de Césarée (Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1897), and W. Wright and N. McLean, eds., The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac. With a Collation of the Ancient Armenian Version by A. Merx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898 [reprinted, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003]); a critical edition is a desideratum. 26 W. Wright and N. McLean, eds., The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac, xiiixv. The Armenian version actually fills in gaps that have been lost in the extant Syriac manuscript. 27 K. Muradyan, ed., ɋɸʗʔɼʉ ɘɼʔɸʗɸʘʂ, ɞɸʉɸɺʔ ɧɼʘɸʙʗɼɸʌ Ɋʗɸʗʐʏʙʀɼɸʍ [Basil of Caesarea, On the Six Days of Creation] (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1984). 28 The Syriac text was edited by R.W. Thomson, The Syriac Version of the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea, CSCO 222-223 (Louvain: Peeters, 1995). See also L.H. Ter Petrosyan, ɘɼʔɸʗɸʘʏʙ ɧɼʘɸʙʗɼɸʌʛʂ “ɋɸʗʔɼʉ ʇɸʌɼʗɾʍ ʀɸʗɺʋɸʍʏʙʀʌɸʍ ʍɸʄʏʗʂʍɸʆɿ [An Early Example of the Armenian Translation of Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron],” Patmabanasirakan HandƝs 101/102 (1983) 264–78, and R.W. Thomson, “The Syriac and Armenian Versions of the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea,” SP 27 (1993) 113–17. 29 R.W. Thomson, “The Fathers in Early Armenian Literature,” SP 12 (1975) 467. 30 R.W. Thomson, “Syrian Christianity and the Conversion of Armenia,” 163, rightly cautions that it would have taken many years to translate all the texts that are traditionally held to have been translated during this mission; it is likely that some of those texts that were actually translated at this time were actually carried out later, as we know that the Armenians had a school in Edessa for some time afterwards; see J. Flemming, Akten der Ephesinischen Synode vom Jahre 449 Syrisch, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. PhilologischHistorische Klasse; Neue Folge, Bd. 15, n.1 (Berlin: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917 [reprint,

1970]), 24, 25, and in B.L. Add. 17,102, f. 60r. A critical study of the history of the School of Edessa is a great desideratum; for now, see E.R. Hayes, L’école d’Édesse (Paris: Presses Modernes, 1930). 31 E.C. Richardson, ed., Hieronymus liber de viris inlustribus. Gennadius liber de viris inlustribus, TU 14 (Leipzig: J.CA. Hinrichs, 1896), I. An English translation can now be found in T. Halton, tr., Saint Jerome, On Illustrious Men, FC 100 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1999). 32 The two older editions both follow the manuscript attribution to Jacob of Nisibis, known in Armenian as “Zgǀn, the Sage”: N. Antonelli, Opera S. Jacobi Nisibi (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1756 [reprinted 1765]), and əɸʆʏɹ ɝʅɹʍɸʌ Ɍʂʗʛ ʏʗ ʆʏʐʂ ɏɺʜʍ [The Writings of Jacob of Nisibis, known as ‘The Sage’] (Constantinople, 1824). A critical text, with Latin translation is found in G. Lafontaine, ed. and tr., La version arménienne des oeuvres d’Aphraate le Syrien, CSCO 382-383, 405-406, 423–424 (Louvain: Peeters, 1977, 1979, 1980). 33

ɬɸʙʔʖʏʔʂ ɋʏʙɽɸʍɻɸʘʙʏʌ ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ ʂ ʐʏʗʔ ɻʑʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʔ [The History of Armenia by Faustus of Byzantium in Four Books] (4th edition; Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1933), 33-36; cf. N.G. Garsoïan, The Epic Histories attributed to Pǥawstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmutǥiwnkǥ), Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 8 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 77–80, 431. 34 L. Avdoyan, Pseudo-YovhannƝs Mamikonean, The History of Tarǀn [Patmutǥiwn Tarǀnoy], Occasional Papers and Proceedings, Suren D. Fesjian Academic Publications 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 72: “Some, however, are spreading the rumor that Zgǀn, who is Jacob, was Gregory’s brother. Yet they do not know this correctly, for Jacob was the holy Gregory’s cousin, whose mother’s name was Xosrovouhi.” 35 G. Lafontaine, ed., La version arménienne des oeuvres d’Aphraate le Syrien, vol. 383, (1977), v, asserts rather than demonstrates that the translation of the works of Aphrahat was “exécutée vraisemblement dès la deuxième moitié du Ve siècle”. 36 L.H. Ter Petrosyan, “«Ɍʗʂɺʏʗ ɕʏʙʔɸʕʏʗʐʂ ɧɸʗɻɸʑɼʖʏʙʀʌɸʍ» Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ Ɋʉɹʌʏʙʗʍɼʗɿ [Syriac Sources for ‘The Teaching

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 36

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ of Gregory the Illuminator’,” Banber Matenadarani 15 (1986) 95–109; and the notes in R.W. Thomson, tr., The Teaching of Saint Gregory, Revised ed.; Avant: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 1 (New Rochelle: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, 2001). 37 M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vols., Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974), II.245, n. 3340. For the argument of a Greek exemplar, see M.G. de Durand, “Un document sur le Concile de Nicée?” RSPh 50 (1966) 615–27. 38 Cf. D.D. Bundy, “The Letter of Aithallah (CPG 3340): Theology, Purpose, Date,” in III° Symposium Syriacum 1980: Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221, ed. R. Lavenant (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1983), 135–42; and idem., “The Creed of Aithallah: A Study in the History of the Early Syriac Symbol,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 63 (1987) 157–63. Further bibliography for most of the authors discussed here can be readily found under the relevant heading in R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 29–88, and R.W. Thomson, “Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD: Publications 1993-2005,” LM 120 (2007) 169–79. 39 E.g., the twelfth-century theologian, YovhannƝs Sarkawag, known as “the Philosopher”, composed a work entitled “Concerning the Symbol of Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen at the Council of Nicea.” This work, which lent its title to a collection of fourteen treatises on the councils and various christological issues, betrays no awareness of the work of Aithallah. Cf. M. Aramian, “YovhannƝs Sarkawag’s ‘Concerning the Symbol of Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen [Fathers] at the Council of Nicaea,” SNTR 4 (1999) 1–32, with further bibliography. 40 A. Vööbus, Literary, Critical and Historical Studies in Ephrem the Syrian, PETSE 10 (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1958), 115, posits the opinion that he may rather have been from the village of Gozarta. In general, see I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium

Studiorum, 1958), 79. He is sometimes referred to as Zenob[ius] of Amida. 41 See the convenient chart found in B. Outtier, “Saint Éphrem d’après ses biographies et ses œuvres,” PdO 4 (1973) 20. 42 The Armenian texts were printed in several short articles by an L.T. in the Venice Mekhitarian journal BazmavƝp 1922; for full citations, see R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature, 88. See also A. Vardanean, “ɏɼʍʏɹ Ɍɸɽʂʗɸʘʂ ɼʙ ʂʗ ɍɸʔɸʆɸʍ ɝʍɸʘʏʗɻʍɼʗɿ [Zenob of Gazir and his Classical Remains],” HA 35 (1921) 54554; 36 (1922) 73–79, reprinted together in idem., ɍɸʔɸʆɸʍ ɝɸʍʗ ɋʍɸɺʂʗʍɼʗ ɼʙ

ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʆɸʍ

əɸʋɼʋɸʖʏʙʀʂʙʍʍɼʗ

ɋ

[Short Classical Texts and Manuscript Comparisons II], Azgayin Matenadaran 97 (Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1923), 96–120. 43 This work, also known as Hawatarmat, has never been edited; see R.W. Thomson, “The Shorter Recension of the Root of Faith,” REA 5 (1968) 249–60. 44 For a long time, one had access only to the text of G. TƝr-Mkrtþǥean, “ɦʖɼʚɸʍʍʏʔʂ

ɔʋɸʔʖɸʔʂʗʂ Ɋʔɸʘɼɸʃ «ɧɸʔʍ ɸʍɸʑɸʆɸʍʏʙʀɼɸʍ ʋɸʗʋʍʏʌʍ» [Stepǥannos the Philosopher, “On the Incorruptibility of the Flesh”],” Ararat 35 (1902) 368–400 (Zenob is cited on pp. 375-76), but see now the text of Y. KǥƝosƝean in Z. Ekawean, et al., eds., ɝɸʖɼʍɸɺʂʗʛ əɸʌʏʘ [Armenian Classical Authors], Vol. VI: 8th Century (Antelias: The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 2007), 439–57 (Zenob is cited on p. 443). 45 G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai, Texts and Translations 16, Early Christian Literature Series 4 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1981), with accompanying translation. The Armenian text is found in ɛɼʗʏʙɹʍɸ Ɏɻɼʔɸʘʂ, ɒʏʙʉʀ Ɋɹɺɸʗʏʙ

ɒɸɺɸʙʏʗʂ əɸʌʏʘ ɼʙ ɭɸʗʏɽʏʙʀʂʙʍʛ ɦʗɹʏʌʍ ɒɸɻɾʂ Ɋʓɸʛɼʃʏʌ [Gherubna of Edessa, The Letter of Abgar, King of the Armenians, and the Preaching of the Holy Apostle Thaddeus] (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1868), and in ɒʏʙʉʀ Ɋɹɺɸʗʏʙ [The Letter of Abgar] (Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1868). 46 See the discussion of the various versions in A. Desreumaux, Histoire du roi Abgar et de Jésus. Présentation et traduction du texte syriaque

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 37

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ intégral de la Doctrine d’Addaï (Paris: Brepols, 1993), and the extensive discussion of the literary, polemic climate at the time in A. Mirkovic, Prelude to Constantine: The Abgar Tradition in Early Christianity, Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums/Studies in the Religion and History of Early Christianity 15 (Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, 2004). 47 For instance, Addai does not die in Edessa as in the Syriac Teaching of Addai, but rather goes on to Armenia and establishes the first church there, where he is finally martyred by King Sanatruk; see the discussion in R.W. Thomson, “Syrian Christianity and the Conversion of Armenia,” 165-66, and idem., “Early Armenian Christianity and Edessa,” 107-10. For a recent, magisterial study of the relationship of the Armenian Church with, and eventual separation from, both the Byzantine and the Syrian churches, see N.G. Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le Grand Schisme d’Orient, CSCO 574; Subsidia 100 (Louvain: Peeters, 1999). 48 M. Abeghyan and S. Yarutǥiwnean, eds., ɝʏʕʔɾʔ ɖʏʗɼʍɸʘʂ, ɣɸʖʋʏʙʀʂʙʍ əɸʌʏʘ [The History of the Armenians by MovsƝs Xorenatsǥi], II.26-33; Eng. tr. in R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenatsǥi, History of the Armenians, 160–71. 49 For the Syriac versions, see P. Bedjan, ed., Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, 7 vols. (Paris/ Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1890-1897); G. Wiessner, Untersuchungen zur syrischen Literaturgeschichte, I: Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II (Göttingen: Harrassowitz, 1967). 50 G. TƝr-Mkrtþǥean, ed., ɧʆɸʌʛ Ɋʗɼʙɼʃʂʘ, ɒɸʗɺʋɸʍʏʙʀʂʙʍʛ ʌɊʔʏʗɸʆɸʍɾʍ [Lives of the Eastern (Martyrs): Translations from Syriac] (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1976); and see L. TƝr Petrosyan, Ɋɹʗɸʇɸʋ ɖʏʔʖʏʕɸʍʏʉʂ “ɧʆɸʌʛ Ɋʗɼʙɼʃʂʘɿ” [Abraham the Confessor, “Lives of the Eastern (Martyrs)”] (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1976). 51 The most accessible text is probably F.CA. Conybeare, R. Harris, A.S. Lewis, The Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions, 2nd rev. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press, 1913). 52 By this assertion, of course, we have no intention of undermining Ter Petrosyan’s category;

the period was certainly dominated by the translation of Greek works, mostly of a philosophical or philological nature, characterized by an ultra literal style of translation; see, among others, A. Terian, “The Hellenizing School: Its Time, Place, and Scope of Activities Reconsidered,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Dumbarton Oaks Symposium, 1980), ed. N.G. Garsoïan, T.F. Mathews, and R.W. Thomson (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982), 175–86. 53 There survive four letters that Abdishô addressed to the Armenian hierarchy; see Ɍʂʗʛ ɒʉʀʏʘ [Book of Letters] (Tiflis, 1901), 58-69, and N. Pogharean, ed., Ɍʂʗʛ ɒʉʀʏʘ [Book of Letters] (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1994), 181– 95. Letters 2-4 were translated into English in L. Frivold, The Incarnation: A Study of the Doctrine of the Incarnation in the Armenian Church in the 5th and 6th Centuries according to the Book of Letters (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1981), 88-106, and more recently, they were all translated into French in N.G. Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le Grand Schisme d’Orient, 463–73. 54 Timothy himself seems to have given the work a very long title that begins “On the Unity of Christ.” The Syriac epitome was only recently edited and translated in R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus: Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon,” in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18, ed. CA. Laga, J.A. Munitiz and L. van Rompay (Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1985), 11566. The full Armenian version was published in K. Ter-Mekerttschian and E. Ter-Minassiantz, Timothy Aelurus, des Patriarchen von Alexandrien, Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalcedon festgesetzten Lehre. Armenischer Text (Leipzig: J.CA. Hinrichs, 1908); see also J. Lebon, “Version arménienne et version syriaque de Timothée Aelure,” HandƝs Amsorya 41 (1927) 713–22. 55 G. Garitte, ed., La Narratio de rebus Armeniae: Édition critique et commentaire, CSCO 132 (Louvain: Peeters, 1952 [reprint 2003]), §71; p. 36, and commentary on pp. 163–66. No integral translation of Philoxenos has survived, only a few citations. 56 J. Lebon, “Version arménienne et version syriaque de Timothée Aelure,” which appeared before the publication of the Narratio, argued that

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 38

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ the Syriac was an epitome, while the Armenian reflected the original Greek text. 57 K. Maksoudian, “The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early Bagratids: The Council of Širakawan,” REA 21 (1988) 333–44. 58 Kǥ. ýǥrakǥean, ɟɸʍɸ Ɋʔʏʗʂʂ

ɝɼʆʍʏʙʀʂʙʍ

ɞʏʕʇɸʍʍʏʙ

Ɋʙɼʖɸʗɸʍʂʍ

[Nonnus the Syrian’s Commentary on the Gospel of John] (Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1920). See also L. Mariès, “Un commentaire sur l’évangile de sain Jean rédigé en arabe [circa 840] par Nonnus [Nana] de Nisibe, conservé dans une traduction arménienne [circa 856],” REA 1 (1920) 273–96, and D.D. Bundy, “The Commentary of Nonnus of Nisibis on the Prologue of John,” in Actes du premier congrès d’études arabes chrétiennes, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 218 (Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1982), 123–33. 59 Although he was known more for scientific works, this was the time that Hunayn ibn Ishaq (809-873) was translating works from Greek and Arabic using his own Syriac intermediaries; it is thus at least possible that Nonnus’ Commentary was translated into Armenian from a Syriac intermediary; in general, see D. Lacy O’Leary, How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs (London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1949). 60 For a general overview of Syrian-Armenian relations at this time, see L.H. Ter Petrosyan, “Ɋʔʏʗʂʍɼʗʂ ɍɼʗɿ əɸʌʆɸʆɸʍ ɘʂʃʂʆʂʏʌ

ɝʎɸʆʏʙʀɸʌʂʍ ɘɼɸʍʛʏʙʋ ɓɋ-ɓɌ. ɍɸʗɼʗʏʙʋ [The Role of the Syrians in the Cultural Life of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Thirteenth Centuries],” BazmavƝp 145 (1987) 122–61; idem., “Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ Ɋʉɹʂʙʗʍɼʗɿ ɓɋ-ɓɌ ɍɸʗɼʗʂ

əɸʌ-Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ ɞɸʗɸɹɼʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʍɼʗʂ ʋɸʔʂʍ [Syrian Sources for Armenian-Syrian Relations in the Twelfth to Thirteenth Centuries],” BazmavƝp 146 (1988) 112–54; these articles were later published together as L.H. Ter Petrosyan,

Ɋʔʏʗʂʍɼʗʂ ɍɼʗɿ əɸʌʆɸʆɸʍ ɘʂʃʂʆʂʏʌ ɝʎɸʆʏʙʀɸʌʂʍ ɘɼɸʍʛʏʙʋ ɓɋ-ɓɌ ɍɸʗɼʗʏʙʋ [The Role of the Syrians in the Cultural Life of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Thirteenth Centuries], Bibliothèque d’Arménologie «Bazmavep» 28 (Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1989); see also J.J.S. Weitenberg, “Armeno-Syrian cultural relations in the Cilician period (12th-14th ca.),” in The Syriac Renaissance, Eastern Christian Studies 9, ed. H. Teule, & C.F. Tauwinkl with R.B. ter

Haar Romeny and J.J. van Ginkel (Louvain: Peeters, 2010), 341–52. 61 The Armenian Life of Ephrem has been edited, with French translation, in L. TerPétrossian, ed., and B. Outtier, tr., Textes arméniens relatifs à S. Éphrem, CSCO 473–474 (Louvain: Peeters, 1985). Outtier notes how quickly the copyists changed Gregory’s commission of this translation to his having translated the work himself; vol. 474, p. vii. 62 For a list of the lives that we know were translated by Gregory, see N. Covakan (Pogharean), “Ɍʗʂɺʏʗ ɧʆɸʌɸʔɾʗ ɼʙ ɒɸʗɺʋɸʍʏʙʀʂʙʍʛ ɧɸʗʏʙʘ ɦʗɹʏʘ [Gregory II VkayasƝr and the translations of Lives of the Saints],” Sion 41 (1967) 430–32. 63 For this information, see L.H. Ter Petrosyan, “Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ Ɋʉɹʂʙʗʍɼʗɿ ɓɋ-ɓɌ ɍɸʗɼʗʂ

əɸʌ-Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ ɞɸʗɸɹɼʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʍɼʗʂ ʋɸʔʂʍ [Syrian Sources for Armenian-Syrian Relations in the Twelfth to Thirteenth Centuries],” 154 (in French summary). 64 For details, see S.P. Cowe, “Daniel of Salah as Commentator on the Psalter,” SP 20 (1989) 152–59. Again, no translator of this work has yet been identified. 65 David Taylor of Oxford is working on an edition and translation of the Syriac text, see D. Taylor, “The Great Psalm Commentary of Daniel of Salah,” The Harp 11-12 (1998-99) 33–42; several graduate students have stated intentions of editing the Armenian version for their dissertation but unfortunately, none of these seem to be carrying out this intention. 66 This is very likely the same Theophist against whom Gregory’s contemporary Paul of Tarôn polemicized; see N. Pogharean, əɸʌ Ɍʗʏʉʍɼʗ [Armenian Writers] (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1971), 207. 67 On this figure, also known as Kirakos Vardapet Gitnakan, see N. Pogharean, əɸʌ Ɍʗʏʉʍɼʗ [Armenian Writers], 203–6, and N. Akinean, “Kirakos Gitnakan (1050-1127),” HandƝs Amsorya 66 (1952) 481–546. 68

ɝʂʄɸʌɾʃʂ Ɋʔʏʗʙʏʘ ɣɸʖʗʂɸʗʛʂ ɓɸʋɸʍɸʆɸɺʗʏʙʀʂʙʍ [Chronicle of Michael, Patriarch of the Syrians] (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1870). A French translation of this version can be found in V. Langlois, Chronique de Michel le grand, patriarche des syriens jacobites, traduite

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 39

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ pour la première fois sur la version arménienne du prêtre Ischôk (Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1868). 69

ɓɸʋɸʍɸʆɸɺʗʏʙʀʂʙʍ ɨɼɸʓʍ ɝʂʄɸʌɾʃʂ Ɋʔʏʗʙʏʘ ɣɸʖʗʂɸʗʛʂ [Chronicle of St. Michael, Patriarch of the Syrians] (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1871). See also, A.B. Schmidt, “Die zweifache armenische Rezension der syrischen Chronik Michaels des Grossen,” LM 109 (1996) 299–319, which provides a detailed synoptic chart of the original Syriac text and the two Armenian recensions. 70 Neither the Syriac nor the Armenian version of either of these two texts has ever been edited. 71 See L.H. Ter Petrosyan, “Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ

Ɋʉɹʂʙʗʍɼʗɿ ɓɋ-ɓɌ ɍɸʗɼʗʂ əɸʌ-Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ ɞɸʗɸɹɼʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʍɼʗʂ ʋɸʔʂʍ [Syrian Sources for Armenian-Syrian Relations in the Twelfth to Thirteenth Centuries],” 154; idem., Ancient Armenian Translations, 9: “According to a valuable colophon (which he does not identify!), King Hetum I of Cilicia ordered translations of works on copper smelting, the care of horses, swordmaking, and astrology.” 72 The text has never been edited. For the translation activity of NersƝs, see R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, 176-77, and M. Ashjian, St. Nerses of Lambron: Champion of the Church Universal (New York: The Armenian Prelacy, 1993), 40. 73 B. Sarkisean, ɦʗɹʏʌ əʜʗʍ Ɏʙɸɺʗʂ

ɣʏʍʖɸʘʙʏʌ ɧɸʗʛ ɼʙ ɝɸʖɼʍɸɺʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʛ [The Life and Works of Our Holy Father, Evagrius of Pontus] (Venice: Mkhitarean Press, 1907). 74 I. Hausherr, Les Versions syriaque et arménienne d’Évagre le Pontique, OC XXII.2 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1931), esp., pp. 99–100. A. Sahinian, et al., eds., G(h)eghard, Documenti di Architettura Armena 6 (Milan: Edizioni Ares, 1973), 11, citing no source, attributes a translation of the life and works of Evagrius to Mxitar Ayrivanetsǥi (1220ca.1290), but there is no evidence that Mxitar ever effected any such translation. Sahinian is perhaps basing his assertion on the basis of Ms. Maten. 1500. This manuscript is certainly an autograph of Mxitar and it contains a number of works attributed to Evagrius, but it is unlikely that Mxitar himself actually translated any of the works contained in this manuscript; cf. ɝɸʌʗ

ɪʏʙʘɸʆ

əɸʌɼʗɾʍ

ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʘ

ɝɸʎʖʏʘʂ

Ɋʍʏʙɸʍ ɝɸʖɼʍɸɻɸʗɸʍʂ [General Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Mashtocǥ Matenadaran], ed. P. Antabyan, et al., 5 vols. to date (Erevan: “Nairi” Publishing House, 2007), IV.1449–62, esp., 1458, for the works of Evagrius. R. Darling Young, “The Armenian Adaptation of Evagrius’ Kephalaia Gnostica,” in Origeniana Quinta, BETL 105, ed. R.J. Daly (Louvain: Peeters, 1992), 535–41, very tentatively posits a sixth-century date for the Armenian translation, but she bases her position on rather superficial parallels with contemporary Armenian literature. 75 See J. Muyldermans, “S. Nil en version arménienne,” LM 56 (1943) 77–113. 76 The manuscripts have preserved such commentaries by Grigor Skewratsǥi (1150-1230), Kirakos Erznkatsǥi (ca.1280-1355), and MatthƝos Jughayetsǥi (1352-1412); unfortunately, none of these works has been edited. A study of the relation of these works with similar –also unedited– Syriac commentaries by Dionysius bar Salibi, et al., would be most enlightening. 77 See the works of J.J.S. Weitenberg and L.H. Ter Petrosyan, cited above, n. 60. 78 L.H. Ter Petrosyan, Ancient Armenian Translations, 30; on p. 31, he further names Ephrem as “the greatest authority in Oriental patristic literature”. A fuller, though still incomplete, discussion from which the following is summarized, with fuller bibliography, can be found in E.G. Mathews, Jr., “The Armenian Literary Corpus Attributed to St. Ephrem the Syrian: Prolegomena to a Project,” SNTR 1 (1996) 145–68. 79 See, among others, L.H. Ter Petrosyan, Ancient Armenian Translations, 5; M. Albert, R. Beylot, R.G. Coquin, B. Outtier, Ch. Renoux, eds., Christianismes orientaux. Introduction à l’étude des langues et des littératures (Paris: Le Cerf, 1993), 136 (re: the translations of Aphrahat and Ephrem): “Ces traductions, effectuées dans les premières décennies du Ve siècle, ont profondément marqué la culture arménienne”. 80 The Armenian texts of these Commentaries were first printed in ɦʗɹʏʌʍ Ɏʚʗɼʋʂ ɝɸʖɼʍɸɺʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʛ [The Works of St. Ephrem], 4 vols. (Venice: Mekhitarist Press, 1836): vol. I contains the commentaries on the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, I-IV Kings, and I-II Chronicles; all of these are in the process of being

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 40

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ re-edited, with accompanying English translations; those on the Pentateuch have already appeared in E.G. Mathews, Jr., ed. and tr., The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO 572-573 (Louvain: Peeters, 1998); idem., ed. and tr., The Armenian Commentaries on Exodus-Deuteronomy attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO 577-578 (Louvain: Peeters, 2001). Vol. II contains the Commentary on the Diatessaron and the Exposition of the Gospel, both also re-edited, see below; and vol. III contains the Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul. 81 The fullest demonstration is to be found in E.G. Mathews, Jr., The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, Columbia University Ph.D. Thesis (Ann Arbor: UMI, 1996); see also idem., “The Armenian Version of Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. A Collection of Essays, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5, ed. J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 143– 61; and, more fully, idem., “The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem the Syrian: General Characteristics and Considerations,” SNTR 2 (1997) 199–232. 82 Vardan Areweltsǥi wrote on a variety of subjects, including history, biblical commentaries, philosophy and grammar, much like his near contemporary Bar Hebraeus. His very large still unedited Commentary on the Pentateuch, which survives in over seventy manuscripts, contains so many citations from the corresponding commentaries attributed to Ephrem that it almost seems a commentary on Ephrem’s commentaries rather than on the biblical books; see N. Pogharean, əɸʌ Ɍʗʏʉʍɼʗ [Armenian Writers], 294–300. 83 L. Leloir, ed. and tr., Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de l’évangile concordant, version arménienne, CSCO 137, 145 (Louvain: Peeters, 1953, 1954). 84 L. Leloir, ed. and tr., Saint Ephrem Commentaire de l'évangile concordant. Texte Syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), Chester Beatty Monographs 8 (Dublin: Hodges Figgis, 1963); idem., ed. and tr., Saint Ephrem Commentaire de l'évangile concordant. Texte Syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709) Folios Additionnels, Chester Beatty Monographs 8

(Louvain: Peeters, 1990). Eng. tr. in CA. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. An Eng. tr. of Chester Beatty Syriac Ms 709 with Introduction and Notes, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 85 See C.A. Lange, The Portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron, CSCO 616, Subsidia 118 (Louvain: Peeters, 2005). 86 R.W. Thomson, tr., The Teaching of Saint Gregory, 49. 87 G. Egan, ed., An Exposition of the Gospel by Saint Ephraem, CSCO 291-292 (Louvain: Peeters, 1968). 88 See G. Egan, “A Re-consideration of the Authenticity of Ephrem’s ‘An Exposition of the Gospel’,” in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, edd. P. Granfield and J. Jungmann (Münster: Westf. Aschendorff, 1970) I. 128-34, and idem, An Analysis of the Biblical Quotations of Ephrem in “An Exposition of the Gospel”, CSCO 443 (Louvain: Peeters, 1983). Among those who argued against the authenticity of this work are A. Strobel, “Der Begriff des ‘vierkapileligen Evangeliums’ in Pseudo-Ephrem C,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 70 (1959) 112-20; B. Outtier, “Une explication de l’Evangile attribuée à Saint Ephrem,” PdO 1 (1970) 385-407; D.D. Bundy, “Criteria for Being ‘in communione’ in the Early Syriac Church,” Augustinianum 25 (1985) 597-605; idem, “Marcion and the Marcionites in Early Syriac Apologetic,” LM 101 (1988) 21–32; idem, “The Anti-Marcionite Commentary on the Lucan Parables (Pseudo-Ephrem A): Images in Tension,” LM 103 (1990) 111-23. 89 The commentaries on the fourteen letters of Paul have still not been seriously studied; as noted above, the texts are found in ɦʗɹʏʌʍ Ɏʚʗɼʋʂ ɝɸʖɼʍɸɺʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʛ [The Works of St. Ephrem], vol. III. 90 See, especially, J. Schäfers, Evangelienzitate in Ephräms des Syrers Kommentar zu den Paulinischen Schriften (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herders Verlag, 1917), and J. Molitor, Der Paulustext des hl. Ephräm aus seinem armenisch erhaltenen Paulinenkommentar untersucht und rekonstruiert, Monumenta biblica et ecclesiastica 4 (Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1938). 91 See the preliminary catalogue of these manuscripts in V.S. Hovhannesian, “Armenian

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 41

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ Manuscripts of the Commentaries on the Letters of the Apostle Paul attributed to Saint Ephrem the Syrian,” The Harp 24 (2009) 311–27. 92 The text is in N. Akinian, ɦʗɹʏʌʍ Ɏʚʗɼʋʂ Ɋʔʏʗʙʏʌ ɝɼʆʍʏʙʀʂʙʍ Ɍʏʗʅʏʘ Ɋʓɸʛɼʃʏʘ [St. Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles] (Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1921). An English translation is in process. 93 My own personal –albeit preliminary– research into these texts suggests that they were actually based on Greek commentaries; there is no discernible evidence of an underlying Syriac text. 94 These hymns have been published with Latin translation in L. Mariès and C.A. Mercier, eds. and trs., Hymnes de Saint Ephrem conservées en version arménienne, PO 30.1 (Paris, 1961). An English translation and study of this collection is currently in progress. 95 Three of these have been translated in E.G. Mathews, Jr., “Armenian Hymn #9, On Marriage, by St. Ephrem the Syrian,” JSAS 9 (1996, 1997 (1999) 55–63, and idem., “St. Ephrem the Syrian: Armenian Dialogue Hymns on Virginity and Chastity, Armenian Hymns ## 4-5,” REA 28 (2001-2002) 143–69. 96 These mêmrê were published, with Syriac remains and French translation, in CA. Renoux, ed. and tr., Ephrem de Nisibe Mêmrê sur Nicomedie, PO 37.2-3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975). 97 CA. Renoux, Ephrem de Nisibe Mêmrê sur Nicomedie, xix. 98 These Prayers, which survive in Syriac, Greek and Arabic (and which do not survive in a nice collection like the Armenian), remain unedited. Only a Russian collection, compiled by Theophan the Recluse, has been edited (several times); it has also been translated into English in A. Janda and I.E. Lambertsen, trs., A Spiritual Psalter, or Reflections on God: Together with the Life of St. Ephraem (Liberty, TN: St. John of Kronstadt Press, 1997). Not only are the Armenian and Russian collections entirely different, neither is genuine Ephrem. 99 There are two primary editions of the Prayers: ɦʗɹʏʌʍ Ɏʚʗɼʋʂ ɝɸʖɼʍɸɺʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʛ [The Works of St. Ephrem] IV.227-76, and Ɍʂʗʛ

ɸʉʜʀʂʘ ɸʔɸʘɼɸʃ ɦʗɹʏʌʍ Ɏʚʗɼʋʂ ɖʏʙʗʂʍ Ɋʔʏʗʙʏʌ [The Book of Prayers composed by St. Ephrem the Syrian Cleric (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1933), 43–233; an English translation is in

progress. See E.G. Mathews, Jr., “A First Glance at the Armenian Prayers attributed to Sourb Epǥrem Xorin Asorwoy,” in Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, AVANT: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition 3, ed. R.R. Ervine (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006), 159–72. 100 V. Hakobyan, ed., ೵ഔഩ ഫ ഩ ഔഖ ഞ ള ഷ ೶ ഔന ഫ ഴ [Canon Book of the Armenians] 2 vols. (Erevan: Haykakan Sah Gitut‘yunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchout‘yun, 1964, 1971), II.55–58. 101 Most of these homilies have received no attention at all; see E.G. Mathews, Jr., “The Armenian Literary Corpus Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian: Prolegomena to a Project,” 150–53, for status quaestionis and further references. 102 See L.H. Ter Petrosyan, “Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ

Ɋʉɹʂʙʗʍɼʗɿ ɓɋ-ɓɌ ɍɸʗɼʗʂ əɸʌ-Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ ɞɸʗɸɹɼʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʍɼʗʂ ʋɸʔʂʍ [Syrian Sources for Armenian-Syrian Relations in the Twelfth to Thirteenth Centuries],” 154. 103 K. Ter Mkrtcǥean, ed., ɘʍʂʛ əɸʙɸʖʏʌ [The Seal of Faith] (Ejmiacin: Holy See Press, 1914 [reprinted Louvain: Peeters, 1974, and again Antelias: The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 1998), 4-7, 257-58. To date, no Syriac equivalent of J. Lebon, “Les citations patristiques grecques du Sceau de la Foi,” RHE 25 (1929) 5–32, exists; I hope to be able to remedy this in the near future. 104 Much of what follows here has been condensed from E.G. Mathews, Jr., “Jacob of Sarug, Homily on Good Friday and other Armenian Treasures: First Glances,” in Jacob of Sarug and His World, Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 8, ed. G. Kiraz (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010), 133–161. 105 K. Zarpǥanalean, ɝɸʖɼʍɸɻɸʗɸʍ

əɸʌʆɸʆɸʍ ɒɸʗɺʋɸʍʏʙʀɼɸʍʘ ɟɸʄʍɼɸʘ (ɍɸʗ ɍ–ɓɌ) [Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations (Fourth-Thirteenth Centuries)], 572-75. 106 See Ɍʂʗʛ ɼʙ ʊɸʓ ʇʏɺɼʎɸʇ [Spiritual Writings and Homilies] (Constantinople, 1722). The eight hymns are titled: On the Entry of Christ into Bethany, On the Resurrection of Christ I and II, On the Mystery of Sunday, On the Ascension of Christ, On the Ancient Mysteries, On the Mystery of the Ark, and On the Dormition. 107 Apart from E.G. Mathews, Jr., “Jacob of Sarug, Homily on Good Friday and other Armenian Treasures: First Glances,” the sole exception is a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 42

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ modern Armenian translation, from the Constantinople text, of the two hymns on the Resurrection; see H. Kǥyoseyan, əɸʆʏɹ ɦʗʊɼʘʂ ɜɸʓ ɦʏʙʗɹ əɸʗʏʙʀʌɸʍ [Jacob of Sarug, Homily on the Holy Resurrection], Spiritual Library 15 (Etchmiadzin: Mother See Press, 1998). 108 Mss. Mat. 993 and 7729, two of the larger and more famous Ja‫܀‬Ɵntir manuscripts, have been discussed and catalogued in M. van Esbroeck and U. Zanetti, “Le manuscrit Érévan 999. Inventaire des pièces,” REA 12 (1977) 123–67, and M. van Esbroeck, “Description du repertoire de l’Homéliaire de Muš (Maténadaran 7729),” REA 18 (1984) 237–80. 109 This number was arrived at by a comparison of the incipits as provided by the Armenian manuscript catalogues with the list of incipits of the Syriac homilies compiled by S.P. Brock; see P. Bedjan, ed., with additional material by S.P. Brock, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 6 vols. (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2006 [original publication Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis, 5 vols.; Paris and Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1905-1910]), VI.372–99. I have not yet been able to see the manuscripts of any of these works. 110 The following list is abbreviated from that found in E.G. Mathews, Jr., “Jacob of Sarug, Homily on Good Friday and other Armenian Treasures: First Glances,” where one can also find all the incipits, both Armenian and Syriac. I hope to be able, in the near future, to produce a complete list of all the surviving works of Jacob in Armenian, along with a detailed catalogue of all the manuscripts where they can be found. 111 The Syriac text of this work has been edited twice; see S.P. Brock, TurgƗmê da-simin lqaddišâ Mar Yaǥqob da Sarûg MalpƗnâ (Holland: Losser, 1984), 36–46, and again by F. Rilliet, Jacques de Saroug, Six Homélies Festales en Prose, PO 43.4 [196] (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986), 610-28, with facing French translation. An English translation can be found in T. Kollamparampil, Jacob of Serugh, Select Festal Homilies (Rome: Centre for Indian and Interreligious Studies, 1997), 279–91. 112 I have provided here, in brackets, the most basic reference to where the text has been published in Bedjan’s edition (volume number in Roman numerals, and pages) or, if not yet published, to the corresponding number in

Brock’s recent list of Jacob’s known Syriac mêmrê; see P. Bedjan, ed., with additional material by S.P. Brock, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, VI.372-99 (indicated as Br in brackets. Fuller references can be found in E.G. Mathews, Jr., “Jacob of Sarug, Homily on Good Friday and other Armenian Treasures: First Glances.” 113 Arm., “ɋɸʍʛ ʕɸʔʍ ɸʓʋɸʍ ʖɸʑɸʍɸʆʂʍ ʂ ɬʉʎʖɸʘʙʏʘ”; K. Zarpǥanalean, ɝɸʖɼʍɸɻɸʗɸʍ

əɸʌʆɸʆɸʍ ɒɸʗɺʋɸʍʏʙʀɼɸʍʘ ɟɸʄʍɼɸʘ (ɍɸʗ ɍ–ɓɌ) [Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations (Fourth-Thirteenth Centuries)], 575. 114 See P. Bedjan, ed., with additional material by S.P. Brock, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, VI.373, no. 8. 115 L.H. Ter-Petrosyan, “ɞɸʆʏɹɸʌ ɦʗʊɼʘʙʏʌ «ɧɸʗʛ ɦʗɹʏʌʍ ɍɸʍʂɼʃʂ Ɍɸʃɸʎɸʘʙʏʌ» [Jacob of Sarug’s ‘Life of Mar Daniel of Galash’,” Ɯjmiacin 36.3 (1979) 22-40; he prints the Armenian text as found in Ms. Mat. 2270. Another copy, which shows some substantial differences, can be found in Ms. Jer. Arm. 3681; see N. Pogharean, ɝɸʌʗ ɪʏʙʘɸʆ ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʘ ɦʗɹʏʘ ɞɸʆʏɹɼɸʍʘ [Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts], 11 vols. (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1966-1991), XI.106. 116 L.H. Ter-Petrosyan, “ɞɸʆʏɹɸʌ ɦʗʊɼʘʙʏʌ «ɧɸʗʛ ɦʗɹʏʌʍ ɍɸʍʂɼʃʂ Ɍɸʃɸʎɸʘʙʏʌ» [Jacob of Sarug’s ‘Life of Mar Daniel of Galash’,]” 22, lists four Syriac manuscripts that preserve the original Syriac text of this Life: Mss. Syr. Mardin 259.3 and 273, Mss. Syr. Damascus 9/8 and 12/17. 117 F. Nau, “Hagiographie Syriaque,” ROC 2ème Série V (1910) 60–62, where he notes that the text is found in only Ms. Par. Syr. 235. 118 A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlichpalästinensischen Texte (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber Verlag, 1922), 149, also lists only Ms. Par. Syr. 235. 119 E. Balicka-Witakowski, S.P. Brock, et al., The Hidden Pearl. The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage, II: The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage (Rome: Trans World Film Italia, 2001), 122. On the history of the mandylion see, most recently, S.P. Brock, “Transformations of the Edessa Portrait of Christ,” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 18 (2004) 46–56.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 43

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ 120

S. TƝr-Avetisean, ɪʏʙʘɸʆ əɸʌɼʗɾʍ

Ɋʗʋɸʎʂ ɧɸʍʛʂʍ [Catalogue of the Manuscrits

ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʘ ɟʏʗ ɤʏʙʉɸʌʂ Ɋʋɼʍɸʚʗʆʂʐ ɧɸʍʛʂ [Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts

in the Monastery of Armash] (Venice: St. Ghazar Press, 1962), 76; the colophon is found on f. 380v. This latter colophon was already noted in N. Covakan (Pogharean), ɧɸʍɸʖʏʙʗ:

in the All-Saviour Monastery in New Julfa], 2 vols. (Vienna: Mekhitarist Printing Press, 1970), I.729–30. 121 For these figures, see N. Pogharean, əɸʌ Ɍʗʏʉʍɼʗ [Armenian Writers], 89-94, 98-102, 243-44, respectively. 122 K. Zarpǥanalean, ɝɸʖɼʍɸɻɸʗɸʍ

əɸʌʆɸʆɸʍ ɒɸʗɺʋɸʍʏʙʀɼɸʍʘ ɟɸʄʍɼɸʘ (ɍɸʗ ɍ–ɓɌ) [Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Trans-lations (Fourth-Thirteenth Centuries)], 573. 123 N. Pogharean, əɸʌ Ɍʗʏʉʍɼʗ [Armenian Writers], 194–99, 226–27, 233–39. 124 See ɝɸʌʗ ɪʏʙʘɸʆ əɸʌɼʗɾʍ ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʘ ɝɸʎʖʏʘʂ Ɋʍʏʙɸʍ ɝɸʖɼʍɸɻɸʗɸʍʂ [General Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Mashtotsǥ Matenadaran], III.952; the colophon is found on f. 98v. 125 See Y. Tǥopǥþean, ɪʏʙʘɸʆ ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʘ

ɋɸʍɸʔʂʗɸʆɸʍ ɞʜɻʏʙɸʅʍɼʗʏʙ ɓʏʉʏʕɸʅʏʌ [Vanatur: Collected Philological Studies] (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1993), 193. 126 L. H. Ter Petrosyan, “Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ

Ɋʉɹʂʙʗʍɼʗɿ ɓɋ-ɓɌ ɍɸʗɼʗʂ əɸʌ-Ɋʔʏʗɸʆɸʍ ɞɸʗɸɹɼʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʍɼʗʂ ʋɸʔʂʍ [Syrian Sources for Armenian-Syrian Relations in the Twelfth to Thirteenth Centuries],” 153. 127 R.W. Thomson, “Syriac and Armenian Versions,” 117: “There has been a general tendency in Armenian scholarship to exaggerate the role of the circle of pupils gathered by Mashtots, to compress the time frame within which so many translations were produced, and to identify later scholars who wrote formative works of history and philosophy with actual pupils of Mashtots.” 128 See the works cited in n. 60, above.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 44

____________________________________________________________________________

THE SYRIAC PRESENCE IN THE ARMENIAN TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE BOOK OF GENESIS

 CLAUDE COX MCMASTER DIVINITY COLLEGE

W

hat if Syriac readings could be retrieved from the Armenian translation of the Bible? This question runs contrary to the interests of Septuagint criticism, my specialization, to such a degree that it requires a jolting aboutface of mindset. If such readings are found in the Armenian text, it is preliminary for Septuagint criticism to isolate them and “get rid of them.” For New Testament text criticism the situation cannot be much different: such readings only confuse the textual character of the tradition in relation to the Greek and might even be called corruptions, except, to the degree they can be localized, they may be relics from an earlier time. If we can retrieve these “relics” they might be useful for the textual criticism of the Syriac Bible and they would illuminate its early textual history. So the possibilities are intriguing.

INITIAL CAUSES FOR HOPE A glance at an historical atlas shows that Armenia is proximate to Syria and always has been. It is a priori reasonable to assume cultural and then theological connections between the two.1 It has often been pointed out that some of the vocabulary of the

Christian faith has been taken over from Syriac into Armenian, e.g., ʛɸʇɸʍɸʌ “priest.” What is a priori expected is confirmed in Armenian historiography of the 5th century, where the story of the translation of the Bible is told. Koriwn, our primary source, relates how, after a Syrian bishop named Daniel was unsuccessful inventing an alphabet, Mashtots‘ and his students travelled to Syria and met with bishops in Edessa and Amida. In Syria Mashtots‘ arranged for students to work in Edessa in a Syriac school and sent others to Samosata to study Greek. The Armenian alphabet was invented in Samosata and the work of translation began, with Proverbs. The language of its parent text is not specified. Later he sent Yovsep‘ and Eznik of Koghb to Edessa to translate the works of the Syrian fathers; following that the two students journeyed to Constantinople to work on Greek fathers. The connections with Syria and Syriac Christianity are clear.2 The inclusion of 3 Corinthians—it did not exist in Greek—in the Armenian corpus of Scripture is plain evidence of a Syriac connection for the New Testament, even before we get to an analysis of the translation of biblical texts per se. In the Old Testament, the organization of the book of Jeremiah

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 45

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

points to a Syriac connection: the arrangement of chapters and verses follows the Syriac, not the Old Greek.3 Finally, the existence of two different translations for certain biblical books suggests the possibility of different parent texts. For example, the books of Chronicles: the translation found in Zohrapian’s edition of the Bible, and another, published by Khalat‘iants‘.4

BUT 5TH CENTURY HISTORICAL SOURCES LOOK WEST (GREEK) There are two 5th century sources that relate the translation of the Bible into Armenian: Koriwn’s Life of Mashtots‘ and Ghazar of P‘arp’s History of the Armenians.5 The latter is dependent upon the former, so Koriwn is primary.6 While Armenian ties to Syria are clear in Koriwn, a closer examination reveals that those with the West (Greek) are specifically emphasized. The Life of Mashtots‘ celebrates the life of Koriwn’s teacher. For our interests it is enough to note that Koriwn tells us Mashtots‘ was educated in Greek literature from his childhood. While undertaking missionary work in Goght‘n—in Siwnik‘, a southern province—he was faced with the challenge that the mass of people could not understand the Scriptures in Greek and Syriac. This he brought to the attention of the Catholicos, Sahak. That, in turn, led eventually to the invention of the alphabet in Samosata where, however, Mashtots‘ students study Greek. Indeed, Hrop‘anos, the scribe who produces the Armenian script, writes Greek. The translation of the Bible began; the date is ca. 406. When they returned to Vagharshapat, the capital of Armenia, Mashtots‘ and his students continued their work of translation. Next, Mashtots‘ travelled west, to the region of the Greeks, specifically to Constantinople, where he was received by the Greek Patriarch, Atticus. He returned home with books of the (Greek) church fathers, where he

found Sahak writing and translating. Students Hovsep and Eznik were sent to Edessa to translate patristic works from Syriac, then to the region of the Greeks where they became proficient translators of Greek. Sometime later Koriwn and Ghevondes joined Eznik in Constantinople. Following the Council of Ephesus (431) these students returned to Armenia with reliable copies of the Scriptures, patristic works, and church canons. Sahak, says Koriwn, had rendered into Armenian all the ecclesiastical books and wisdom of the church fathers from Greek. Now the earlier, hasty translations were established on the basis of the accurate (Greek) exemplars brought back from Ephesus.7 To read Koriwn is to see stressed the Greek background to Armenian biblical translation: he himself is Greek educated; the scribe who does the calligraphy on the alphabet is trained in Greek; at the time of its invention Mashtots‘ is in Samosata, but his students are studying Greek; subsequent travels take him to Constantinople, where students are then sent to study Greek; after the Council of Ephesus, students bring back to Armenia reliable copies of the Scriptures; upon their return, Sahak is said to have translated church books from Greek; the newly acquired exemplars, highly esteemed Greek copies, form the basis for further work on what had been accomplished before, i.e., what was translated before, whatever its parent language, is regarded as somehow in need of improvement on the basis of Greek manuscripts. Koriwn’s description involves a two-stage process of translating the Bible: an initial stage of translation, based upon parent texts whose language is not specified; and a second stage during which the earlier translation work was confirmed (revised? corrected? checked?) on the basis of Greek manuscripts brought back from Ephesus. The textual character of these

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 46

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

Greek witnesses (hexaplaric? Lucianic?) is unknown, based on Koriwn. If there is a Syriac-based Armenian translation, it seems likely to have belonged to an earlier stage, but it is also possible that Syriac-based Bible translation was being done at the same time that Greek manuscripts were being used for this purpose, prior to the “revisionary” work performed after 431. And, one might allow for Syriac readings to be introduced later, after 431, based upon Syriac text embedded in the memory of early copyists, as happened with the Old Greek so long as copyists were bilingual (Greek, Hebrew).

LYONNET AND ARMENIAN 1 AND ARMENIAN 2 What understanding of the process of Bible translation into Armenian satisfies the considerations just set forth? The classical formulation says the translation of the Bible proceeded in two stages, first a translation from Syriac and then, second, a translation or revision based on Greek witnesses. This sweeping generalization, so compelling in its simplicity, easily achieved dominance in the literature on the subject.8 The brilliant mid-20th century work of S. Lyonnet on the Armenian version and the Diatessaron represents a watershed in the study of the Armenian Bible.9 Its importance lies not only in its results but even moreso in its methodology. In Les origines Lyonnet makes a convincing case for there having existed in Armenian a translation of Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels, the Diatessaron. By examining quotations of the Gospels in Armenian writers and in Armenian translations of Greek and Syriac writings (on the grounds that copyists, rather than translating quotations, would substitute the Armenian biblical text with which they were familiar), the Georgian version (on the basis that the Georgian derives

from the Armenian), and Armenian liturgical books, Lyonnet finds a form of text older than Zohrapian. This older version he calls Armenian 1, and he identifies it with the Diatessaron. Among his conclusions he says that the model of Armenian 1 was certainly a Syriac text. If the earliest text is Armenian 1, the later is to be designated Armenian 2. Of course, Lyonnet’s study is limited to the Gospels, but this useful nomenclature, “Arm 1 and Arm 2,” has been extended to studies across the biblical corpus. Perhaps inadvertently, it may have lent credence to a supposition that the entire Bible emerged in Armenian translation by such a process. At any rate, it proved that a Syriac component can be identified in some Armenian biblical translation work and that gave impetus to such investigation. The presumption that “if it isn’t from a Greek text, it’s from Syriac” has led to some serious missteps, none more noteworthy than the assumption that the other version of Chronicles must be Syriac-derived, an argument Ter Petrosyan pursued.10 Six or seven years later Cowe demonstrated this was untrue when he compared the Armenian with a full edition of the Old Greek—the “other version” derives from a Lucianic Greek text.11 This should be taken as a cautionary tale for those of us undertaking similar research.

COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUE The level of difficulty of finding vestiges of a Syriac-based Armenian 1 in the Armenian textual tradition of the Bible is like that of trying to line up the planets: the textual traditions involved were all fluid at the beginning of the 5th century; no original witnesses survive but, rather, must be reconstructed, based upon manuscripts that are, in most cases, hundreds of years later. Work done in the absence of critical editions of the texts involved proves to be more or less inaccurate, even untrustworthy.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 47

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

NEW TESTAMENT In the NT, Leloir believes that a Syriac origin for the Gospels appears certain; he is likewise convinced of a Syriac base for the Acts of the Apostles, and thinks that the presence of 3 Corinthians in the Armenian NT speaks in favour of a Syriac origin for the first Armenian version of the Pauline corpus. And this presumption, he believes, can probably be extended to the major catholic epistles. Unexpected plurals in the Armenian text he takes to be indicators of Syriac, where the seyame has now been lost in Syriac witnesses. Finally, he can offer examples of Syriac influence in James.12 This goes beyond what Lyonnet had suggested: he saw for Acts no particular relation to the old Syriac; for the Epistles he thinks that the translators relied on a Greek text, but were inspired by (Syriac) interpretations they were familiar with.13 Garitte, in his study of the Georgian of Acts, believes an old, lost Armenian was a model for the Georgian; the Armenian, in turn, appears to have been dependent on an old Syriac version.14 And Molitor finds the Armenian translation of Ephesians to rest on an old Syriac version, traces of which are present in the Peshitta. These Syriacisms are often represented in the variant readings of Zohrapian’s apparatus.15 Such divergences of opinion, even relatively recent opinion, should encourage the preparation of critical editions of the Armenian texts. So far there is no critical edition of any book of the Armenian NT. The publication of Alexanian’s edition of Acts, just completed, is eagerly anticipated.

OLD TESTAMENT, OR THE EARLIER TESTAMENT More has been done to explore the textual origins of the Old Testament than the new, thanks largely to Michael Stone and J.W. Wevers, who steered graduate students in the

direction of preparing editions of texts. Those students, Cox, and perhaps especially Peter Cowe, developed a familiarity with the Armenian biblical manuscripts and the textual tradition. Several of Cowe’s articles must be regarded as “required reading” for the issue of Armenian-Syriac textual relations: I refer in particular to his article on the problematics of editions and that on the two versions of Chronicles.16 The textual affiliations and parent texts of parts of the Armenian Old Testament can be summarized as follows. This list is limited to books where the Armenian manuscript tradition has been examined. Psalms might have been included, but its study sought to exclude evidence of a possible relationship to the Peshitta! Nevertheless, collations for chapters 10-20 are published, based on an established Armenian text, and await analysis.17 • Deuteronomy: Byzantine Greek, influenced by the Hexapla18 • Ruth: kaige Greek19 • 1-2 Samuel (= 1-2 Rgns): Lucianic Greek text20 • 1-2 Chronicles Arm 1: Lucianic Greek Arm 2: hexaplaric Greek21 • Job: Lucianic Greek text22 • Epistle of Jeremiah: Greek23 • Daniel Arm 1: P and Lucianic Greek text consulted simultaneously24 Arm 2: revision of Arm 1 on basis of another Greek text25 • The Canticle of Azariah (= Daniel 3:2645) Arm 1: Lucianic Greek (and Peshitta26) Arm 2: revised on the basis of a Greek text27 Daniel and “The Prayer of Azariah” are the exceptions in this list of translations. In the former the Peshitta-based element awaits

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 48

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

analysis from the side of the Syriac; in the latter, a short text, the extent of Syriac influence deserves more precise examination.

ARMENIAN GENESIS AND THE SYRIAC The study of the Armenian translation of a biblical book that contains a section devoted precisely to the question of a residual Syriac element is rare, so one picks up Jinbachian’s treatment of Genesis with a certain anticipation.28 The section that interests us is entitled “Les Textes de Base. Vestiges du Syriaque dans la Traduction de la Genèse en Arménien classique,” pp. 32–74. Genesis would seem to be a good candidate for such an examination. For the Syriac there is the Leiden edition of the Peshitta which, while not a critical edition of the text, is a reliable, corrected copy of Codex Ambrosianus (6th-7th century), with an apparatus that collates some 55 MSS and 35 lectionaries for Genesis.29 For the Old Greek, we have the critical edition of Wevers.30 And for the Armenian there is the edition of Zeyt‘unian which, in spite of its title, and as Jinbachian recognizes,31 is a diplomatic edition: it does not present a critically established text. Its chief advantage over Zohrapian’s edition lies in the wealth of information provided in the apparatuses.32 The section on “Vestiges” unfolds in eight subsections: 1. additions whose source is Syriac; 2. omissions due to the Syriac; 3. changes in word order due to the Syriac; 4. turns of phrase that come from Syriac; 5. prepositional constructions due to the influence of the Syriac; 6. proper names derived from Syriac; 7. words indebted to the Syriac; 8. Armenian and Hebrew. This last, no. 8, we can set aside; under no. 7, no examples are offered from Genesis! We shall limit ourselves to nos. 1-6.

Just a cursory glance across the footnotes in this section of the book raises flags of concern for a Septuagint student. Again and again Jinbachian says that Wevers omits or neglects the Syriac. The fact is, however, that Wevers did not collate the Syriac, apart from the Syro-hexapla! At the end of the book there are pages of corrections to Wevers’ collation of the Armenian. Many of these involve the supposed addition of the Armenian to the evidence cited by Wevers for a variant reading. I say “supposed” because Jinbachian adds the Armenian to evidence cited as “rell[iqui],” i.e., “the rest,” apparently unaware that “rell” means “all the rest,” including the Armenian! Indeed, there are many problems with Jinbachian’s handling of the texts; throughout it exhibits a lack of rigour and care. In spite of a realization that Zeyt‘unian’s edition is a diplomatic edition, Zeyt‘unian’s text is cited as as if it were the original Armenian; it is not. Sometimes, too frequently, the original text is to be found in Zeyt‘unian’s apparatus. Similarly, Wevers’ eclectic, as-original-aswe-can-determine text is cited as if it were the parent text of the Armenian; that is not so: the Greek parent text of the Armenian version is often to be found in Wevers’ apparatus. Add to the potential for error due to this uninformed treatment of the texts subtle spelling mistakes and partial citation of evidence and one is dealing with a presentation where nothing can be trusted; each and every word and citation of evidence has to be checked to see if it is so. Maybe that is not a bad thing—one can be too trusting of what one reads, but it is certainly disappointing, time consuming, and unexpected. As an example of what I mean, we may take the very first example Jinbachian cites under the first sub-section heading, “Additions rooted in the Syriac.” The citation is as follows:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 49

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

2.15 – e)n tw~| paradei&sw – ʂ ɻʗɸʄʖʂʍ + ʚɸʚʆʏʙʀɼɸʍ – en syriaque Êîƒ + ¾é؃ûòÁ signifiant “de volupté”. Wevers affirme que cela ne se trouve pas en grec. The footnote on “Wevers ... en grec” reads: Wevers donne l’information suivante: + thj trufhj latAmbr Ps duod I 1.1 Hi Quaest V 13 Vulg rell: cf. Nd(b Tar; Nd( Sam The information attributed to Wevers is wrong. Wevers’ citation of the evidence is: paradei&sw| A Mmg 911(vid) 72 129 121 120-122 509 La Aeth Co Pal = Ald] + thj trufhj latAmbr Ps duod I 1.1 Hi Quaest V 13 Vulg rell: cf. ʯʣʲʡ Tar; ʯʣʲ Sam What the citation of evidence means is that a minority of Greek manuscripts and versions read the shorter text; that evidence is cited with the lemma, paradei&sw|. The longer text, with the plus, is attested in some Latin quotations and by “rell[iqui],” i.e., by all the other evidence, Greek and otherwise! I wish I could say that what happens in this example is unique. Unfortunately it is typical: at every turn mistakes of various kinds bedevil the treatment of the Syriac question. But all is not lost ... It is useful to work through Jinbachian’s presentation to see where someone thinks vestiges of a Syriac text might possibly be found. In what follows I examine each of the six sub-sections listed above.

1. Additions deriving from the Syriac Some 28 examples are offered of “additions” rooted in the Syriac. Of course, they are not really additions. What is meant is that in these instances the Armenian translation is longer than the Septuagint. They could be called additions only if they were added to a

translation based on Greek, whether at the time of translation or later. But by the use of the word “vestiges” Jinbachian means remnants of an earlier stage of the text so the word “addition” is not helpful. None of the twenty-eight examples is compelling. Among them are three hexaplaric readings, including 2:15; the others are at 9:10; 18:4. Zohrapian’s edition reproduces the asterisk in the text at 9:10 and Zeyt‘unian records it in his apparatus; at 18:4 Wevers cites the Armenian evidence together with hexaplaric Greek MSS = the Massoretic text. How could the source of the readings be clearer? In some twelve instances the Armenian “addition” = Syriac consists of a pronoun (14:2, 7, 17—counted as one; 19:1, 10; 24:23; 30:26b; 31:6; 37:35; 42:9, 27; 45:20, where the pronoun is attested in Greek hexaplaric MS 376; 47:21). It is hard to imagine pronouns that are left as vestiges in a revision of a translation if, in fact, we are dealing with a Greek-based revision of an earlier Syriac-based translation. More interesting are three examples where the Armenian and Syriac are similar and involve a similar treatment of the parent text or a similar translation technique (20:12; 37:24; 49:10). To these we might add the Armenian translation at 32:16. Jinbachian’s citation is: 32:16(17) – ʇɸʙʖʔ ʇɸʙʖʔ ɸʓɸʍʈʂʍʍ – ƒÍÐàÁ À˜ÎÄ À˜ÎÄ. La répétition de ʇɸʙʖʔ est l’influence du syriaque À˜ÎÄ. The context is Jacob’s fearful meeting with his estranged brother, Esau. The morning they meet Jacob sends on a large number of livestock. The MT says, wdbl rd( rd( wydb(-dyb Ntyw “These he delivered into the hand of his servants, every drove by itself” (RSV); DCH renders wdbl rd( rd(, the words in question, like the RSV, “each drove by itself.” The Septuagint translates, kai_ e1dwken dia_ xeiro_j toi~j paisi_n au)tou~ poi&mnion kata_ mo&naj “And he gave them under

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 50

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

control to his servants, a flock separately.” Wevers says of the OG rendering, “This represents wdbl rd( rd( quite adequately, since the repeated rd( is distributive, i.e., “each flock,” which Gen[esis] shows by a single unarticulated poi&mnion.”33 The Peshitta translates, “(And he gave [them] into the hand of his servants) each flock by itself.” The repetition, À˜ÎÄ À˜ÎÄ, is distributive in Syriac, as in Hebrew.34 The same is true of the Armenian ʇɸʙʖʔ ʇɸʙʖʔ: it indicates distribution,35 i.e., “flock by flock,” and with ɸʓɸʍʈʂʍʍ following, is to be rendered, “flock by flock alone,” i.e., “each flock by itself.” The entire sentence in Armenian is, Ɏʙ ɼʖ ʂ ʈɼʓʔ ʅɸʓɸʌʂʘ ʂʙʗʏʘ ʇɸʙʖʔ ʇɸʙʖʔ ɸʓɸʍʈʂʍ “And he gave (them) into the hands of his servants, flock by flock separately,” i.e., each flock by itself. The question is whether the Armenian is textually dependent on the Syriac. Or does the translator use Armenian idiom to render the Greek, an idiom shared with Syriac? Or, does the Armenian translation reflect a memory of the Syriac?36 The doubling of ʇɸʙʖʔ does not represent an addition. The question is one of translation technique.

2. Omissions due to the Syriac Thirteen cases of “omission” are cited. Again, these are not really omissions but instances where the Armenian is shorter than the Septuagint and where Jinbachian thinks an underlying Syriac text is responsible. In the first case, 1:12, where the Armenian ostensibly lacks kai_ kaq' o(moio&thta = Peshitta, the text Zeyt‘unian prints is probably corrupt: original ɿʔʖ ɸɽɺʂ ʞ ɿʔʖ ʍʋɸʍʏʙʀɼɸʍ “according to kind and according to likeness” has been displaced by ʏʗ ʂ ʕɼʗɸʌ ɸʋɼʍɸʌʍ ɼʗʆʗʂ “that is upon all the earth,” which has come

from v. 29. Jinbachian’s statement of the example reads: 1.12 – spei~ron spe&rma kata_ ge&noj kai_ kaq' o(moio&thta – ʔɼʗʋɸʍɼʃ ʔɼʗʋʍ, ʏʗ ɾ ʂ ʕɼʗɸʌ ɸʋɼʍɸʌʍ ɼʗʆʗʂ – “˜ƒÎ⃠ÌéæÅß ¾î˜‡. Omission de kai_ kaq' o(moio&thta: l’arménien suit le syriaque en omettant la phrase. Il y a néanmoins quelques manuscrits arméniens portant cette phrase [in footnote: b A9 B37 C8 G18 H3679 J56 K2 aehlyd137], ce qui indique qu’ils étaient familiers avec la lecture de la Septante, mais préféraient l’omettre. The textual situation is more complicated than the explanation indicates. A check of Zeyt‘unian over against the Greek tradition and a comparison of his text at v. 12 with v. 29 makes it clear that the Armenian text he has printed is not original. In that case kai_ kaq' o(moio&thta is, in fact, represented in the Armenian translation. It thus differs from the Syriac. Further, a look at the Syriac shows that it renders the hif‘il participle ((yrzm “producing (seed)” with a relative clause, “˜ƒÎ⃠“that produces (seed).” The Greek has the participle spei~ron “producing.” Zohrapian and Zeyt‘unian print ʔɼʗʋɸʍɼʃ “to produce,” i.e., the infinitive, but this may be an abbreviated participle, i.e., ʔɼʗʋɸʍɼɸʃ, in which case the Armenian reproduces the Greek. It goes without saying that there is no proof that the Armenian follows the Syriac at 1:12. Indeed, there is indication that it is following the Greek text. Among the other dozen examples of “omissions,” one is intriguing, namely, that at 49:19. Jinbachian’s citation is: 49.19 – Omission de Peirath&rion et de au)to&n: Ga&d, peirath&rion peirateu&sei au)to&n – Ɍɸɻ ʇʂʍʂ ɼʃʘɾ –—Íòå ¾éÙÅÁ ÊÄ.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 51

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

L’arménien suit le syriaque en laissant tomber la figura etymologica peirath&rion et au)to&n. The citation is cryptic in its brevity, so further explanation is necessary. The underlying Hebrew is wndwgy dwdg dg; it contains an obvious word-play. The translation is, “(As for) Gad, a raiding party shall raid him.” English translations often offer a note: e.g., the RSV has a note on “raiders” in its translation (“Raiders shall raid Gad”): “Heb gedud, raiding troop.” The LXX preserves the so-called figura etymologica in its translation: Ga&d, peirath&rion peirateu&sei au)to&n “Gad, a raider gang shall raid him.” This represents a literal translation. The Peshitta translates —Íòå ¾éÙÅÁ ÊÄ “Gad shall go out in a raiding party” or, perhaps, “Gad shall go raiding.” This is hardly a literal translation and does not preserve the play on words. How the Syriac arrived at this is not our concern. Armenian translators give us Ɍɸɻ ʇʂʍʂ ɼʃʘɾ “Gad shall go out on a raid,” or “Gad shall go raiding.” We should take into account v. 19b as well: [from v. 20a M]bq( dgy )whw “but he shall raid at their heels”; au)to_j de_ peirateu&sei au)tw~n kata_ po&daj “but he shall raid close on their heels”; ¾Âùî ÊÅå †…† “and he will attack the heel”; ʞ ʂʍʛʍ ɼʃʘɾ ʇʂʍʂʙ ɽʇɼʖ ʍʏʘɸ “and he will go on a raid after them.” What is striking about the Armenian of v. 19a is not the “omissions” but the fact that its translation, its understanding of the text, is the same as that of the Peshitta. However, the Armenian of v. 19b, like the LXX, and unlike the Syriac, uses the same vocabulary as in v. 19a and appears to be closer to the Greek.

3. Changes of word order due to the Syriac What Jinbachian means is that the Armenian attests a word order different from the LXX

and in agreement with the Peshitta. Eighteen examples are offered. For the Greek Jinbachian again cites Wevers’ critically established text, which is not the parent text of the Armenian or any other version. In seven of the eighteen examples Greek MSS attest the word order of the Armenian (3:5; 4:23; 23:11; 29:32; 31:12 [cf. MS 426, a hexaplaric witness]; 42:13; 45:21); in one case (29:32) the word order of the Armenian is that of the majority Greek text. Another five of the examples simply involve pronouns (12:1; 3:15; 16:8; 22:2; 44:27). It is difficult to establish textual relations for the Armenian on the basis of word order. Johnson tried it for Samuel, also without success. Nevertheless, one of the examples offered by Jinbachian is of interest, not because of agreements in word order but because of similarity of idiom. His citation of the evidence is: 42.23 – o( ga_r e(rmhneuth_j a)na_ me&son au)tw~n h]n38 – ɽʂ ʀɸʗɺʋɸʍ ʆɸʌʗ ʂ ʋʂʒʂ. †…ÿæÙÁ ¿†… ½ø ¾æãʚƒ áÓâ. The context is Joseph’s demand that the brothers bring their youngest brother back with them from Canaan. The brothers talk among themselves, not aware that Joseph can understand them, “for there was an interpreter between them” (RSV). The Hebrew for this last clause is Mtnyb Cylmh yk. The LXX renders this as o( ga_r e(rmhneuth_j a)na_ me&son au)tw~n h]n “for the interpreter was between them.” The Greek supplies the verb “to be,” i.e., h]n in rendering the verbless clause of the parent text. The Peshitta also supplies a verb, the participle ½ø “was standing”: “for a translator was standing between them.” For its part, the Armenian translator also adds a verb, ʆɸʌʗ “was standing,” the impf. of ʆɸʋ “be; stand.” That verb is a precise equivalent of äø. But does this represent a textual relation, or does it not simply reflect a similar

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 52

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

sensitivity in translation. Do note that the Armenian uses neither a)na_ me&son au)tw~n nor †…ÿæÙÁ “between them,” but simply ʂ ʋʂʒʂ “between.”

4. Turns of phrase deriving from the Syriac This is by far the most productive sub-section of the part of the book dealing with residual Syriac in the Armenian translation of Genesis. Jinbachian lists some fifty-one examples. Again there are failures to establish the Armenian text, and other cases where hexaplaric readings in the Armenian are claimed as evidence of Syriac, but there are about fifteen examples which, cumulatively, point to some kind of textual relationship between the Armenian and the Syriac. We turn now to these. 1. 14:11, 16 Chapter fourteen contains the famous story about the raid by eastern kings upon four Canaanite kings, including the king of Sodom. In v.11 we read Mds #kr-lk-t) wxqyw “they took all the goods of Sodom.” The LXX translator points #kr not as #kur: “goods” but as #kere “horse” and renders the clause into Greek as e!labon de_ th_n i#ppon pa~san th_n Sodo&mwn “Then they took all the cavalry of Sodoma.” The word #kr “goods” (RSV) appears again twice in v.16. There the LXX reads i!ppon in the first case and ta_ u(pa&rxonta “possessions” in the second. In all three instances the Peshitta has ¾æÙæø “possessions”; the Armenian ɸʙɸʗ “booty” in v. 11; ɸʙɸʗʍ “the booty” and then ʔʖɸʅʏʙɸʅʔ “possessions” in v. 16. At v. 11 and v. 16 where the LXX has “horse” the Armenian appears to attest the Syriac as parent text. We may note that in both instances Wevers cites the Armenian as praedam “booty.” Such a unique reading strikes one as odd in the Greek text tradition; where it came from seems clear when one looks at the Syriac.

2. 19:17 The angelic visitors have a warning for Lot. The text records, -l) K#pn-l( +lmh rm)yw Kyrx) +ybt “They [RSV note: Gk Syr Vg: Heb he] said, ‘Flee for your life; do not look back.’” The LXX translates, kai_ ei]pan Sw~|ze th_n seautou~ yux&hn: mh_ perible&yh|j ei)j ta_ o)pi&sw “then they said, ‘In saving, save your own soul; do not look around backwards.’”39 The words of interest to us are, “do not look back.” The Peshitta translates, Ìß †ûâ~ ˜ÿéÂß ¾æñšš Ā Þýòå Ôàñ “they said to him, ‘Save yourself; do not turn back.‘” The Armenian has ɸʔɼʍ. Ɋʑʗɼʘʏ ɽɸʍʈʍ ʛʏ, ʋʂ ɻɸʓʍɸʌʘɼʔ ʌɼʖʔ “they said, ‘Save yourself; do not turn back.’” Do note that the Armenian does not read “(they said) to him (Ìß).” However, crucially, the Armenian reads “do not turn back,” like the Peshitta. Greek MS 799, of the n group, attests epistreyh, i.e., “he (she?: cf. v. 26) will not turn around,” so that corruption from v. 26 is possible. But the supposition that the Armenian derives from the Syriac is an easy one to make. 3. 21:33 The text says that, after Abraham settled his differences with Abimelech, r)bb l#) (+yw (b# “he planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba.” The Genesis LXX translator seems not to have known the meaning of l#), a rare word whose meaning is uncertain, and renders the clause kai_ e)fu&teusen )Abraa_m a!rouran “And Abraam planted a ploughed field [NETS mg.: or an aroura].”40 The Peshitta glosses the clause with ¿ÿÁ÷å …ûÁ~ €÷å† “And Abraham planted a planting,” i.e., “And Abraham did planting.” The translator apparently does not know what to do with ʬʹʠ, so simply renders it with the cognate noun of the verb he has just used. Symmachus does the same thing: he represents l#) with futei&an. As for the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 53

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

Armenian, it has Ɏʙ ʖʍʆɼɸʘ Ɋɹʗɸɸʋ ʖʏʙʍʆ “And Abraam planted a planting,” i.e., “And Abraam did planting,” like the Syriac. It might be said that the translator has simply resorted to the same kind of technique as Symmachus and as the Peshitta translator who dealt with the Hebrew, independently, but it seems likely that the Armenian either reflects the text of the Peshitta or its translation technique. 4. 23:8 Sarah has died. Abraham wants to buy a plot of ground from Ephron. He says to Ephron’s Hittite community, Mk#pn-t) #y-M) “If you are willing ...” The LXX translator provides a literal rendering of this, Ei) e!xete th~| yuxh|~ u(mw~n “If you have it in your heart ...” The Syriac offers an interpretative rendering, with K çÙÁ– ~ “If your souls are willing,” ÍÜÿýòå i.e., “If you are willing.” It adds the participle çÙÁ–, which clarifies what the text means. For its part the Armenian reads Ɏʀɼ ʌɸʙʁɸʗ ʂʘɾʛ ʂ ʋʖʂ ʈɼʗʏʙʋ “If you should be agreeable in your mind ...”41 The question is whether ʌɸʙʁɸʗ “agreeable” has come from the Syriac. Perhaps. What we find in the Armenian is also interpretative: ʂ ʋʖʂ ʈɼʗʏʙʋ is a fine choice. The introduction of the word “willing” suggests a connection between the Armenian and Syriac. 5. 23:13 Negotiations continue. Abraam does not want to accept the plot of ground without paying for it. He says, xq hd#h Psk yttn yn(m# [read yl] wl ht)-M) ynmm “But if you will, hear me; I will give the price of the field; accept it from me.” The hexaplaric Greek text, reflected in the Armenian with its inclusion of “I am giving,” is as follows: )Epeidh_ pro_j e)mou~ ei{, a!kouson mou: didwmi to_ a)rgu&rion tou~ a)grou~: la&be par' e)mou~

“Since you are in my presence, listen to me! I am giving the money for the field. Accept it from me.” The Peshitta reads .ÚæÙïãü ÿå~ ¾Á– ~ K ¾òéÜ Þß Žš~ “If you are Úæâ Ãè .āùÏ Ú⃠willing, listen to me. I will give you money, the price of the field. Accept (it) from me.” The Armenian translation reads, ɡʗʏʕʇɼʖɼʙ ɸʍʔɸʘɼʗ ʂʍʈ, ʏʙʍʆʍ ɻʂʗ ʂʍʈ. ɨɸʘ ʛɼɽ ɸʗʅɸʀ ɿʍɻ ɸɺɸʗɸʆʂʍ, ɸʓ ʌʂʍɾʍ “So, give way to me. Listen to me. Let me give you money for the field; receive (it) from me.” The Armenian does not appear to be a literal translation, even if it derives from the Syriac. It contains the idea of will, not in the Greek, but whereas the Syriac says “If you are willing” the Armenian has an imperative, “give way; acquiesce,” and adds the pronoun ʂʍʈ “to me.” ɨɸʘ is subjunctive, “I will give” or “Let me give.” didwmi is present tense, “I am giving” or perhaps, in the context, “I am going to give.” Jinbachian thinks the presence of ʛɼɽ “to you” is significant.42 It may be, but it may also be an ad sensum addition, like ʂʍʈ, i.e., it need not necessarily come from Þß “to you.” If the Armenian derives from the Syriac, K it does not represent Ú⃓the price of,” which is not in the Hebrew, LXX, or Armenian. On the other hand, the idea of will is not in the LXX, and the mood of the verb ʖɸʘ might suit derivation from the Syriac imperfect Xߚ~ “I will give” better than it does translation of didwmi “I am giving.” If from the latter the translator understands it as, “I am going to give.”43 6. 23:16b An agreement is struck: Abraham will pay Ephron for the plot of ground. We read, Pskh-t) Nrp(l Mhrb) lq#yw “and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver.” The LXX translation is, kai_ a)pekate&sthsen )Abraa_m tw|~ )Efrw_n to_ a)rgu&rion “and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 54

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

Abraam handed over to Ephron the money.” The Syriac is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, ¾òéÜ †ûòïß …ûÁ~ áøš† “and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver.” Finally, the Armenian translation: ʆʎʓɼɸʘ Ɋɹʗɸɸʋ ɽɸʗʅɸʀʍ Ɏʚʗʏʍʂ “Abraam weighed out the money for Ephron.” At issue is where “weighed out” in the Armenian comes from. It appears not to have come from the Greek but from the Syriac. 7. 26:35 The context is the difficulties that Esau’s marriages brought to Isaac and Rebekah’s household: hqbrlw qxcyl xwr trm Nyyhtw “and they (i.e., the wives) made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah.” The verb is the preterit 3rd feminine plural of hyh “they were,” followed by the bound phrase xwr trm “bitterness of spirit,” and the prepositional phrases introduced by _l “for; to.” The combination of the verb “to be” and the bound phrase is challenging to translate. The LXX renders this as, kai_ h]san e)ri&zousai tw|~ )Isaa_k kai_ th|~ (Rebe&kka “And they were contending with Isaak and with Rebekka.” The Greek uses a periphrastic construction consisting of the verb “to be” in the aorist with the feminine participle e)ri&zousai, so “they were contending.” K For its part the Peshitta reads ăã⠋†…† ¾ùñ˜ƒ† úÐéØ~ƒ Ìφûß “and they were embittering the spirit of Isaac and Rebekah.” This translation too uses a combination of verb “to be” and participle, but the participle is that of the verb ûâ “be bitter,” in the pa‘el “make bitter.” The Armenian translation at least follows the interpretation of the Syriac: Ɏʙ ɻɸʓʍɸʘʏʙʘɸʍɾʂʍ ɽɔʔɸʇɸʆ ʞ ɽɥɼɹɼʆɸ “And they were embittering Isahak and Rebekah.” This translation does not represent the word “spirit” (Ìφ˜), which we do not find in the LXX either, but it does use the same terminology as the Peshitta, namely, “embitter.” The Armenian shares

with the Syriac the same understanding of the text. Is there a textual connection? Does the Armenian represent a combination of the Greek and Syriac, since it lacks “spirit”? 8. 27:20 Here Isaac wonders how Esau—Jacob is really masquerading as his brother—found so quickly the game that Isaac desired. Jacob explains, ynpl Kyhl) hwhy hrqh yk “Because the Lord your God granted me success.” The LXX attests for this, #O pare&dwken ku&rioj o( qeo&j sou e)nanti&on mou “That which the Lord your God delivered up before me.” The verb hrq “happen,” in the hif‘il, requires some kind of interpretation: the Hebrew literally says, “Because the Lord your God brought it about before me.” The choice of the OG translator is the verb paradi&dwmi “give over.” The Syriac reads Ìß~ ¾Øûâ ÃÙ҃ Êâ ÚâÊø “what the Lord your God prepared before me.” The verb is €ÍÒ pa‘el “prepare, provide.” At the crucial point, namely the verb, the Armenian translation reflects the same exegesis as the Syriac: ɡʗʑɾʔ ʑɸʖʗɸʔʖɼɸʘ ʖɾʗ Ɋʔʖʏʙɸʅ ɸʓɸʒʂ ʂʋ “as the Lord God prepared before me.” This translation displays some freedom, whether the parent text is Syriac or Greek: where does ʏʗʑɾʔ “as” come from? The Syriac reads “your (God),” and the Armenian does not, in agreement with many Greek MSS, hexaplaric and not. It was not in the Greek parent text of the Armenian. However, with its use of the word “prepare” the Armenian agrees with the Peshitta; that does not come from the Old Greek. 9. 31:30 Laban pursued Jacob, his wives, and their children. He was most upset about the loss of his household gods. He begins his complaint by saying, Klh tklh ht(w “And now you have gone away ...” This remark is notable

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 55

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

because it couples the infinitive absolute KwOlh and the finite verb tfklh “you have gone.” The nuance indicated by the infinitive is that of continuity,44 but (English) translations are in no agreement on how to represent it in this verse: cf. NRSV NEB TNIV JB.45 The LXX translator renders the clause nu~n ou]n pepo&reusai “So now you have gone ...” This is the only occurrence of the perfect of poreu&omai in Genesis, rare indeed. The Peshitta represents the Hebrew with ÿå~ Ž‡~ Ž‡½â ¾ü…†, i.e., it reproduces the Hebrew infinitive, then uses a participle followed by the required personal pronoun. The meaning must be much the same, “And now you are really going.” When we look at the Armenian, we see that it appears indebted to the Semitic construction: Ɏʙ ɸʗɻ ɺʍɸʘɼɸʃ ɼʗʀɸʔ “And now having gone you are going,” i.e., perhaps “And now you’ve up and gone.” Here the construction involves the aorist participle of ɺʍɸʋ “go,” ɺʍɸʘɼɸʃ, followed by the finite verb ɼʗʀɸʔ, present tense, from ɼʗʀɸʋ, a synonym of ɺʍɸʋ. However, lest this be too simple, we may note that the same Hebrew construction, i.e., infinitive absolute followed by finite verb, is used again immediately afterwards: Kyb) tybl htpskn Pskn-yk (tklh Klh)

“(you have gone away) because you longed greatly for your father’s house.” The LXX reads, e)piqumi&a| ga_r e)pequ&mhsaj a)pelqei~n ei)j to_n oi[kon tou~ patro&j sou “for with longing you longed to go off to your father’s house.” This use of the dative e)piqumi&a| is not unexpected in the Old Greek. Note that the translator has added the verb a)pelqei~n “to go away” ad sensum, “to go away to your father’s house.” How does the Peshitta deal with the second use of the Hebrew construction? It reads, áÓ⠍ÍÁ~ ÿÙÂß ÿÄûʚ~ ÍÄûĘÿ⃠“because you really desired your father’s house.” The

verbal construction mirrors the Hebrew: infinitive ÍÄûĘÿâ + finite verb ÿÄûʚ~. And the Armenian? The Armenian reflects the Greek: ɽʂ ʘɸʍʆɸʍɸʃʏʕ ʘɸʍʆɸʘɼɸʃ ɼʔ ɼʗʀɸʃ ʂ ʖʏʙʍ ʇɸʙʗ ʛʏʌ “because with longing, you have longed to go to your father’s house.” The dative e)piqumi&a| is represented by the instrumental ʘɸʍʆɸʍɸʃʏʕ “with longing”; the cognate finite verb e)pequ&mhsaj is translated by means of the past participle and the required personal pronoun, so ʘɸʍʆɸʘɼɸʃ ɼʔ “you longed for.”46 The presence of the word ɼʗʀɸʃ = a)pelqei~n also signals dependence on the LXX. So it appears that the Armenian in v. 30 has contact with the Syriac but, for the most part, follows the Old Greek.47 10. 32:10 (MT 11) The context is Jacob’s prayer, uttered in fear, as Esau and a company with him approach. It is a prayer for deliverance. Jacob reminds God of God’s promise to do good to him, and says, r#) tm)h-lkmw Mydsxh lkm ytn+q “I am not worthy of the least of all the steadfast love and all the faithfulness which ...” The Hebrew idiom uses N+q “be small” and the comparative Nm, so “I am smaller than,” i.e., “I am unworthy of.” As Wevers says, the LXX translator had difficulty with this and paraphrases it as i(kanou~tai& moi “it is sufficient for me,” i.e., “I am content with.”48 The Old Greek then reads, i(kanou~tai& moi a)po_ pa&shj dikaiosu&nhj kai_ a)po_ pa&shj a)lhqei&aj, h{j “it is sufficient for me because of all the righteousness and because of all the truth that ...” The Peshitta translates, çØÌàÜ çâ ¾å~ ûØ÷Á K ...ƒ ¿ÿüÍø ÌàÜ .šÍÂÙÒ “I am less than all your acts of kindness; all the truth that ...” The translator uses the passive participle ûØ÷Á and the pronoun ¾å~. The metaphorical meaning is close to that of the Hebrew, “I am unworthy of ...”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 56

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

The Armenian translator must also look for an idiomatic rendering and provides ʐɼʋ ɹɸʙɸʆɸʍ ɸʋɼʍɸʌʍ ɸʗɻɸʗʏʙʀɼɸʍ ʞ ʊʎʋɸʗʖʏʙʀɼɸʍʍ, ɽʏʗ “I am not worthy of all the right treatment and the truth that ...” This rendering consists of a negated verb “to be” in the first person singular, so ʐɼʋ, with the predicate adjective ɹɸʙɸʆɸʍ “enough; worthy,” followed by the genitive. Whether the parent text is Greek or Syriac, the translation does not repeat the word “all,” but that does not mean it was not in the parent text. The result is an excellent, idiomatic translation. The Armenian rendering of the difficult phrase is certainly closer to the Syriac than to the Greek. That is even more the case if the Greek parent text of the Armenian attested what is the majority text, not i(kanou~tai moi “it is sufficient for me” but ikanousqw moi “let it be sufficient for me.” That reading is the text of the hexaplaric manuscripts that, in Genesis, often appear to be the lineage of the Armenian translation. If the Armenian translator resorted to the Syriac in difficult questions of translation, that might say something about the place of the Syriac in Armenian Genesis. But, of course, one example does not a case make: it is simply to be born in mind for the larger picture of possible textual relations. 11. 39:9 Joseph refuses to have sex with his master’s wife. His first reason to decline is that his master has put everything in the house, except the wife, in his trust. He continues, ynmm hzh tybb lwdg wnny) “he is not greater in this house than I am.” The LXX translator renders this kai_ ou)x u(pere&xei e)n th~| oi)ki&a| tau&th| ou)qe_n e)mou~ “and nothing in this house is above me.”49 This represents the correct understanding of the parent text but it is cast in a different idiom. The Hebrew uses the negative particle

of existence, Ny), followed by a comparative use of the preposition Nm. The antecedent of wnny) is understood to be the master by the RSV, so “he.” The OG translator supplies, instead of “he,” ou)qe&n “nothing.” The comparison is made using the verb u(pere&xw “be above.” What does the Peshitta do? It preserves the Semitic idiom: Úæâ ¾å… ¿ÿÙÂÁ €˜ƒ ÿÙ߆ “there is nothing greater in this house than me.” It employs the adjective €˜ followed by the preposition çâ. The Armenian reads ɼʙ ʐʂʛ ʂʍʐ ʂ ʖɸʍ ɸʔʖ, ʏʗ ʋɼʅ ɾ ʛɸʍ ɽʂʔ “there is nothing in this house that is greater than me.” This attests the idiom of the Hebrew and Syriac, namely, “greater than,” not that of the Greek, “above (/ below).” At a minimum we would have to say that the Armenian understanding of the text is that of the Syriac. 12. 42:27 Joseph sent his brothers on their way, having put their money back in their sacks. They departed. Later one of them opened his sack to provender his ass, it says, Nwlmb “at the lodging place.” For this the LXX translator uses a circumlocution, ou{ kate&lusan “where they had lodged.” The Peshitta interprets, ÿÙÁ ¿šÍÁ “(at) the house of lodging,” i.e., “at the inn.” The Armenian reads ʌʂʒɸʕɸʍʂʍ “in the inn,” “in the place of lodging.” It does not follow the Greek with its circumlocution and either knows the Syriac or uses the same brief identification. Wevers cites the Armenian as follows: ou{ kate&lusan] Ú in deversorio Armte: cf MT. The asterisk should be placed before the preceding hexaplaric plus, (toi~j o!noij) autou “(to) his (asses).” It is misplaced in the Armenian tradition, including Zohrapian’s base manuscript and is not present in some other MSS that Zohrapian used (Armmg). But that is beside the point. The Armenian

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 57

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

translation is unique in the Greek tradition. Where does it come from? One might suggest the Syriac. 13. 44:11 Joseph sent officials after his brothers to search their sacks of grain. He had arranged for his silver cup to be put in Benjamin’s. As the inspection began, we read, #y) wdrwyw wrhmyw hcr) wtxtm)-t) “Then every man quickly lowered his sack to the ground.” It is this first use of the word “sack” that Jinbachian cites, but we should add the last part of the verse as well. The text continues, wtxtm) #y) wxtpyw “and every man opened his sack.” The LXX renders wtxtm) “his sack” in both instances with to_n ma&rsippon au)tou~ “his bag.” The Peshitta uses the word ÌæïÒ “his burden, load” both times. The Armenian has as its translation the words ɹɼʓʍ “burden” and ɸʋɸʍ “bag, sack,” respectively. The question is how the word “burden” came into the Armenian. Did it come from the Syriac? Perhaps so. That is the most probable explanation. The use of the two words, ɹɼʓʍ and ɸʋɸʍ in the same sentence reflects an interest in variety on the part of the Armenian translator. The MT, LXX and Syriac use the same word twice in v. 11. We may note that the Armenian translator uses the word ɹɼʓʍ again in v. 13. The word “sack” does not appear there in the MT, nor in the Syriac. The latter follows the idiom of the Hebrew, …ûãÏ áî ûÂÄ Ìàùü† “and they loaded up, each one, his ass.” The Armenian translation is, ɼʙ ɼɻʂʍ ʂʙʗɸʛɸʍʐʂʙʗ ɽɹɼʓʍ ʂʙʗ ʂ ʕɼʗɸʌ ʂʎʏʌ ʂʙʗʏʌ “and they set, each one, his burden upon his ass.” This is a literal rendering of the Old Greek, kai_ e)pe&qhkan e@kastoj to_n ma&rsippon au)tou~ e)pi_ to_n o!non au)tou~ “and they set, each one, his sack upon his ass,” except “burden” stands in the place of “bag.”

Complicating the situation in v. 13 is the fact that some hexaplaric witnesses (72´-426 LaS Syh) lack to_n ma&rsippon au)tou~ “his bag.” That appears not to be true of the Greek parent text of the Armenian. Though “burden” does not appear in the Syriac here, the Armenian translator uses “burden” to render the Greek word “bag.” That the parent text of v. 13b is Greek and not Syriac is proved by the use of the word ɼɻʂʍ = e)pe&qhkan “they set.”

SPLITS IN THE TEXTUAL TRADITION? Is it possible to find earlier and later readings in the Armenian text tradition of Genesis? That is, are there places where the Armenian MSS are divided between two different readings, one possibly from an earlier Syriac rendering and the other from a later Greekbased translation? Two examples in Jinbachian’s list under “Turns of phrase” might relate to that question. 14. 17:17 The context is God’s revelation to Abraham that Sarah is going to have a child in her old age. Abraham laughed, and wblb rm)yw “and said to himself ...” “To say in one’s heart” is not an uncommon biblical expression: see Deut 8:17; 9:4; 18:21; Eccl 1:16; 2:15; Isa 49:21; Jer 5:24; 13:22; Matt 24:48; Rom 10:6. The LXX rendering of this expression from Hebrew in 17:17 is unusual: kai_ ei]pen e)n th|~ dianoi&a| “and spoke in his mind.” The majority Greek text adds autou, so “and spoke in his mind,” a corruption that has spread across the textual tradition from the Hexapla. The Peshitta reads ÌÂàÁ ûâ~† “and he said in his heart.” Zohrapian’s base manuscript, Venice 1508, attests ɼʙ ʄɸʙʔɼʘɸʙ ʂ ʔʗʖʂ ʂʙʗʏʙʋ “and he said in his heart.” His edition has no

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 58

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

footnote to indicate that a divergent reading exists. Zeyt‘unian follows Zohrapian’s text but, thanks to a more extensive collation of manuscripts, we find in his apparatus another reading, namely, ʋʖʂ instead of ʔʗʖʂ, so “he said in his mind.” The latter, of course, has the Greek as its parent text. What has happened? Is ʂ ʔʗʖʂ ʂʙʗʏʙʋ a Syriac-based Arm 1 reading? Zeyt‘unian cites the following MSS as attesting ʋʖʂ “mind”: V(enice)1312 J(erusalem)1925 M(atenadaran, Yerevan)1500 M206 V1007 V935 M346 M141 M143 M185 M354 V1270 M207 SP/OI(St. Petersburg, Oriental Institute)C29. This list includes Jerusalem 1925 and Matenadaran 1500, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the Armenian tradition, as well as other early witnesses, i.e., of the 13th century. Where they have been studied J1925 and M1500 have been found to preserve an early form of text. It seems to me likely that the earlier unusual expression “he said in his mind” has been corrupted to the more common, “he said in his heart.” That is, “he said in his mind” is original and the other reading is a corruption. However, such a judgement may be premature. The text tradition must be studied more thoroughly.50 15. 43:23 Joseph’s brothers feared their lunchtime meeting with Joseph. He allayed their fears, and said, w)ryt-l) Mkl Mwl# “Rest assured, do not be afraid,” or literally, “Peace to you, do not be afraid.” The LXX translates, #Ilewj u(mi~n, mh_ fobei~sqe “May he (God) be gracious to you; do not be afraid.” It should be noted that Greek manuscript group n attests eirhnh u(mi~n “Peace to you.” The group n reading comes from the Hexapla, as Wevers’ second apparatus shows.51 Armenian Genesis has rare and inconsequential agreements with the n group.52 The Peshitta reads, Íàσš Ā ÍÝß äàü “Peace to you, do not be afraid.” And the

Armenian has ʄɸʉɸʉʏʙʀʂʙʍ ɿʍɻ ʈɼɽ, ʋʂ ɼʗʆʍʐʂʛ “Peace to you, do not be afraid.” This translation appears to derive from the Syriac. The common Armenian reproduction of #Ilewj + dative, in expressions of wish, as in v. 23, is ʛɸʙ ʃʂʘʂ + dative, as at 2 Rgn 20:20; 1 Makk 2:21. The “split witness” occurs later in the verse. Unfortunately it is not without its problems. Joseph explains how their money came to be back in their sacks. He says, yhl)w Mkyhl) Mkytxtm)b Nwm+m Mkl Ntn Mkyb) “your God and the God of your father must have put treasure in your sacks for you.” We are interested in the word Ntn “put; give,” rendered “must have put” by the RSV. In the LXX we read, o( qeo_j u(mw~n kai_ o( qeo_j tw~n pate&rwn u(mw~n e!dwken u(mi~n qhsaurou_j e)n toi~j marsi&ppoij u(mw~n “your God and the God of your fathers gave you treasures in your bags.” This is Wevers’ critical text and the Greek parent text of the Armenian appears to have been identical to it. Note that the translator has used the verb di&dwmi “give,” in the aorist, e!dwken, to represent Ntn. The Peshitta reads, ÍÜÍÁ~ƒ ¿Ìß~ ÍÜÌß~ K ÍÝÙæïÓÁ ¿ÿãÙè ÍÝß äè “your God, the God of your father, put for you a treasure in your loads.” Note that the Syriac uses the verb äè “put, place.” There are also other subtle differences from the Greek: it lacks “and (the God of ...)”; attests “(the God of your) father,” rather than “fathers”; “treasure” rather than “treasures”; and, “loads” rather than “bags.” Zeyt‘unian follows Zohrapian’s text, Ɋʔʖʏʙɸʅʍ ʈɼʗ ʞ ʇɸʗʘʍ ʈɼʗʏʘ ɼɻ ʈɼɽ ɽɺɸʍʈʔ ʌɸʋɸʍʔ ʈɼʗ “Your God and (that) of your fathers put treasures for you in your sacks.” The crucial word is ɼɻ “put,” the aorist of ɻʍɼʋ. Now, thanks to Zeyt‘unian’s larger collation base, we see that some Armenian manuscripts attest not ɼɻ “put” but

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 59

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

ɼʖ “gave.” The latter verb is the aorist 3rd person singular of ʖɸʋ. We can see that the Armenian follows the LXX except in this detail, but what of this detail? The textual variation can be set up as follows: ɼɻ] ɼʖ M(atenadaran)178 V(enice)1312 J(erusalem)1925 J353 M1500 V1007txt53 Here again J1925 M1500 attest the minority reading, as does V1007, a 13th century manuscript chosen as the base text for the edition of Deuteronomy. The possibility of confusion between ɼɻ and ɼʖ is easy to see: each is only two letters and they share the first of these. Perhaps more importantly, as western Armenian developed the pronunciation of these two consonants switched, i.e., ɻ was pronounced as ʖ and viceversa! Rather than preserving an earlier Syriacbased translation—the majority text—and a later Greek-based translation, so Arm 1 and Arm 2, it appears much more likely that one of these readings represents a textual corruption. In my opinion, it is more likely that ɼʖ is original: 1) “give” is the more difficult reading in the context: who “gives” rather than “places” a treasure in a sack? 2) The manuscript evidence for ɼʖ represents witnesses that elsewhere are superior to the majority of Armenian manuscripts. 3) ɼɻ and ɼʖ are easily confused and, in western Armenian the former is pronounced as the latter. Therefore we may conclude that, at 43:23, there is no split in the Armenian manuscript tradition, one part preserving a Syriac-based translation and the other a Greek-based translation. Rather, we are dealing with a simple, or not so simple matter of textual corruption.

5. Prepositional constructions due to the influence of the Syriac Four times in Genesis the Armenian translation has “in the eyes of” where the

LXX reads e)nanti&on “before” (16:4, 5; 19:14; 29:20). The usual translation of e)nanti&on is ɸʓɸʒʂ “before.” Jinbachian believes these cases of ʌɸʐʔ derive from the Syriac “in the eyes of,” which, in turn, simply replicates the Hebrew. This is not convincing. A cursory glance at a lexicon reveals that there are numerous idioms in Armenian that employ ɸʐʛ “eyes.” For example, ʌɸʐʔ ɻʍɼʃ means “to despise”; ʌɸʐɸʘ ɼʃɸʍɼʃ “to be in disgrace, to lose the good graces of any one.”54 I mention these idiomatic expressions because the first two examples, 16:4 and 16:5, involve those very ideas. Both concern the dishonour that Sarah experienced following Hagar’s pregnancy; in both cases the LXX uses h)tima&sqh / -n e)nanti&on “was dishonored before.” The Armenian, ɸʗʇɸʋɸʗʇɼʘɸʙ / - ɸʌ ʌɸʐʔ is a good, colloquial translation. The same can be said of the last two examples: the translator has a choice in the rendering of e)nanti&on, including ʌɸʐʔ. Whether Armenian translators were influenced by Syriac idiom is another question. The conjunction between the Armenian and the Syriac in these instances appears to be coincidental.55

6. Proper names derived from Syriac It is difficult, but intriguing, to use the spelling of proper names to demonstrate textual relations. For a variety of reasons peoples arrive at their own spelling of names, sometimes by oral traditions. That some Armenian proper names should be indebted to Syriac is not a surprise. For more common names there need be no textual relationship involved. This section is inhibited by the fact that Jinbachian cites as the Greek spelling the critical text of Wevers. That was not the parent text of the Armenian, to whatever extent the Greek is its parent text. Again there are many mistakes and each and every example must be checked.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 60

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

It appears that the Armenian name for the river Jordan, i.e., ɞʏʗɻɸʍɸʍ, is borrowed from Syriac ç僘ÍØ rather than Greek )Iorda&nhj (pp. 68-69) but that probably tells us nothing about textual relations in Genesis. There are many proper names in Genesis and a review of the evidence set out by Jinbachian indicates that proper names are for the most part from a Greek text, except perhaps in the case of some common names. To further complicate matters, while scribes were bilingual it was possible for more familiar forms of names, rooted in Syriac, to replace originally Greek-based names in the text tradition. An example of divergent spellings of a common name is Shmavon versus Simeovn “Simon” (cf. p. 67).

CONCLUSION This overview of the question concerning vestiges of Syriac-based translation in the Armenian Bible reveals how complex the issue is. The historical sources relating the story of the translation of the Bible are a most welcome aid to the investigation but we must admit that they—or perhaps “it,” i.e., Koriwn—is tantalizingly vague precisely where we wish it were clear! The geographical position of Armenia a priori suggests that we expect biblical documents translated from Syriac. And, indeed, much has been preserved in Armenian, sometimes uniquely, that was once originally in Syriac. Armenian Christianity had a voracious appetite for all things relating to its religious faith, whether originally in Syriac or Greek. Koriwn reflects the quest to find and translate resources. Lyonnet made a convincing case for the Diatessaron in Armenian. He was able to separate an older “Arm 1,” based on Syriac, from a later “Arm 2,” based on Greek. There has been a tendency to extend this two-stage process across the Armenian Bible, to assume

that what is true in the Gospels is true everywhere else. This modest examination has used the earlier study by Jinbachian on Genesis to look at the Syriac question. It is possible now to make some suggestions and draw some conclusions based on this analysis. These may be applied more generally in future research. 1. At the outset it is necessary to establish the Armenian text. We are almost completely lacking in critical editions of the books of the Bible. For Genesis, Zeyt‘unian’s text is not a critically-established text, so one must at every turn try to determine the original text. In some ways, this edition is a step back from Zohrapian in that, with the latter, one knows exactly what one has in the text, namely, a medieval manuscript. The use of the word “critical” in the title to Zeyt‘unian’s edition is misleading, because the user might think it offers a critical text like that of Wevers for the Greek. On the other hand, Zeyt‘unian provides the user with a greater wealth of material in his apparatus than does Zohrapian. Establishing the text is left up to the user. 2. The Armenian text of Genesis is a full text. That is, it contains the results of Origen’s work in the Hexapla. Where the Septuagint text was originally shorter, Origen brought it to the same length as the Hebrew by adding to it, usually on the basis of another translation, attributed to Theodotion. That means looking for where the Armenian is shorter than the Old Greek, or longer, proves unproductive. To argue for a Syriac parent text in places where there are hexaplaric additions can provide no clear answer about the lineage of the Armenian. On the other hand, examining fragments of the LXX which Origen marked with an obelus could prove insightful. Such text, present in the Greek but not in the Hebrew or, therefore, in the Syriac, if present in the Armenian can only have come from the LXX.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 61

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

3. The most fruitful area of Jinbachian’s comparison is that of turns of phrase that are the same in the Armenian and Syriac over against the Septuagint. Here too, we see, caution is necessary. Is the translator working from a Syriac text or is the translator recalling the Syriac from memory? Is the translator working from Greek and Syriac texts simultaneously, as Cowe has argued for in Armenian Daniel? Does the translator consult the Syriac when the Greek text is difficult? If that is so, it represents a different modus operandi than translation from Syriac and revision on the basis of the Greek: rather what is extant is translation from Greek with some use of Syriac. The process of translation may have involved more than one of these options.

We have seen that the Armenian uses similar turns of phrase and, sometimes, one is convinced that something from the Syriac is preserved in the Armenian. That certainly applies to a couple of the examples Jinbachian cites, where what the Armenian preserves is unique in Wevers’ apparatus: praedam “booty” (14:11, 16); in deversorio “in the inn” (42:27). In both these instances the stories in which they are embedded are well known, so they may represent glosses introduced from memory in the course of translating from Greek. It is premature to say. Such readings remain of interest, whatever the case. 4. We can compile the examples of agreements with the Syriac in Genesis that have been examined above:

14:11, 16

¾æÙæø

ɸʙɸʗ

“booty”

19:17

¾æñšš Ā

ʋʂ ɻɸʓʍɸʌʘɼʔ

“do not turn”

21:33

¿ÿÁ÷å ... €÷å

ʖʍʆɼɸʘ ... ʖʏʙʍʆ

“he planted”

23:8

çÙÁ– ~

ɼʀɼ ʌɸʙʁɸʗ ʂʘɾʛ

“if you are willing”

23:13

ÿå~ ¾Á– ~

ɸʍʔɸʘɼʗ ʂʍʈ*

23:16b

áøš

ɘʎʓɼɸʘ

“he weighed out”

26:35

ăã⠋†…

ɻɸʓʍɸʘʏʙʘɸʍɾʂʍ

“they were” embittering

27:20

ÃÙÒ

ʑɸʖʗɸʔʖɼɸʘ

“he prepared”

31:30

Ž‡~ Ž‡½â

Ɍʍɸʘɼɸʃ ɼʗʀɸʔ

“you are really going”

32:10

çâ ¾å~ ûØ÷Á

ʐɼʋ ɹɸʙɸʆɸʍ

“I am unworthy of”

32:16(17)

ÀĂÎÄ ÀĂÎÄ

ʇɸʙʖʔ ʇɸʙʖʔ

“flock by flock”

39:9

çâ ... €˜ƒ ÿÙß

ʐʂʛ ʂʍʐ ... ʋɼʅ ɾ ʛɸʍ

“there is nothing greater than”

42:23

½ø

ʆɸʌʗ

“was standing”

42:27

¿šÍÁ ÿÙÁ

ʌʂʒɸʕɸʍʂʍ

“at the inn”

44:11

çïÒ

ɹɼʓʍ

“load”

49:19

—Íòå ¾éÙÅÁ ÊÄ Ɍɸɻ ʇʂʍʂ ɼʃʘɾ

“Gad shall go raiding”

--* The Peshitta: “If you are willing;” Armenian: “acquiesce to me.” The immediately preceding ɸʍʔɸʘɼʗ appears to represent e0peid੾. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 62

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________

If we look through this list it appears that we are dealing with glosses rather than extended passages. At times there is a similar interpretation of the text, as at 32:10; 49:19. 5. The form of Syriac text that the Armenian translators of Genesis knew was like that of the Peshitta, based on the agreements that have been collected. This conclusion is of interest to those who work on the history of the Syriac text of the Old Testament. For one thing, the Syriac readings

cited above can be dated to the beginning of the 5th century. What is necessary now is to take a portion of text and rigorously compare the Armenian with the Septuagint and the Peshitta. We can come to that research with some useful information in our hands. Following Lyonnet’s lead, using quotations and the Georgian version might enable us to get behind the Armenian text as we have it to an earlier form, if such existed.56

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 63

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________ 7

NOTES Abbreviations: AKWG HUAS MSU SBLSCS UPATS 1

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Hebrew University Armenian Series Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies

Independently of L. Leloir, “Orientales de la Bible (Versions): II. Versions arméniennes,” in Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, eds. L. Pirot, A. Robert, H. Cazelles (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1960), 6, col. 812. 2 Vark‘ Mashtots‘ (The Life of Mashtots‘), ed. M. Abeghian (Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1941), chapters 6-8, 19. For Syrian connections in Vark‘ Mashtots‘ see the useful study of Edward G. Mathews, “Early Armenian and Syrian Contact: Reflections on Koriwn’s Life of Mashtots‘, St. Nersess Theological Review 7 (2002) 12-17. 3 Noted already by F. C. Conybeare, “Armenian Version of the O.T.,” A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons / Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), 1, p. 152, col. 1. 4 H. Zohrapian, ed., Astuatsashunch‘ Matean ew Nor Ktakaranats‘ (Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments) (Venice, 1805; reprint, with Introduction by Cox, Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series; Delmar, NY: Caravan, 1984; repr. ed. Tigran Aivazian, London, 2008); G. Khalat‘iants‘, Girk‘ Mnats‘ordats‘ est hnagoyn hay t‘argmanut‘ean (The Books of Chronicles according to the Oldest Armenian Translation) (Moscow, 1899). 5 Patmargirk‘ Hayots‘, ed. G. Ter-Mkrtch‘ian and St. Malkasian (Tiflis: Aragatip Mnats‘akan Martirosiants‘i, 1904). 6 See Peter Cowe, The Armenian Translation of Daniel (UPATS 9; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 229-238, for a discussion of the relationship of the sources that tell the story of the translation of the Bible into Armenian.

Vark‘, ch. 19, lines 6-11: ɔʔʆ ɼʗɸʍɼʃʙʏʌʍ ɦɸʇɸʆɸʌ ɽɼʆɼʉɼʘɸʆɸʍ ɺʗʏʘ ɺʏʙʋɸʗʏʙʀʂʙʍʍ ʆɸʍʄɸʙ ʂ ʌʏʙʍɸʆɸʍ ɹɸʗɹɸʓʏʌʍ ʂ ʇɸʌɼʗɾʍ ɻɸʗʈʏʙʘɼɸʃ, ʞ ɹɸɽʏʙʋ ʞʔ ɽʇɸʌʗɸʑɼʖɸʘ ʔʗɹʏʘ ɽʊʎʋɸʗʂʖ ɽʂʋɸʔʖʏʙʀʂʙʍʍʟ ɍɸʗʈɼɸʃ ʌɼʖ ɸʌʍʏʗʂʆ ɸʓɼɸʃ ʇɸʍɻɼʗʈ Ɏɽʍɸʆɸʙ ɽʌɸʓɸʒɸɺʏʌʍ ɽʌɸʍʆɸʗʅɸɺʂʙʖ ɽʚʏʙʀɸʍɸʆʂ ɽʀɸʗɺʋɸʍʏʙʀʂʙʍʔ ʇɸʔʖɸʖɾʗ ʊʎʋɸʗʂʖ ʜʗʂʍɸʆʜʛ ɹɼʗɼʃʏʕʛʟ Ɏʙ ʎɸʖ ʞʔ ʋɼʆʍʏʙʀʂʙʍ ɺʗʏʘ ʀɸʗɺʋɸʍɾʂʍʟ English translation: “Now earlier the Blessed Sahak had rendered the mass of ecclesiastical writings from Greek into Armenian. Once again, after that, with Eznik, he took up the earlier improvised and hastily executed translations and confirmed them on the basis of the reliable exemplars that had been brought back [from Ephesus]. And they were translating much biblical commentary as well.” 8 For a nice, succinct summary see Lyonnet, “Les versions arménienne et géorgienne,” in M.-J. Lagrange, Introduction à l’Étude du Nouveau Testament, Deuxième Partie, Critique Textuelle, II La Critique Rationelle, avec la collaboration du St. Lyonnet, deuxième édition (Études Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1935), 23: until the work of Macler (Le text arménien de l’Évangile, 1919), historians, almost unanimously, adopted the thesis inspired in Richard Simon by Oskan, according to which the Armenian version was translated from Syriac. Following Zohrapian, having recognized the Greek character of the Armenian, but not daring to abandon earlier opinion, they decided in favour of a double translation, the first on the basis of Syriac, then on the Greek. 9 Les Origines de la Version arménienne et le Diatessaron (Biblica et Orientalia 13; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1950). 10 L. H. Petrosyan, “La plus ancienne traduction arménienne des Chroniques. Étude préliminaire,” REArm N.S. 18 (1984) 215-25. Petrosyan apparently did not have access to A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H. St. J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus ..., Vol. II, part 3, I-II Chronicles (Cambridge, 1932), and perhaps not even the provisional edition of A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). 11 S. Peter Cowe, “The Two Armenian Versions of Chronicles, their Origin and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 64

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________ Translation Technique,” REArm 22 (1990-91) 5396. “Arm 2” in Chronicles is Origenic (53-55). 12 L. Leloir, “La version arménienne du Nouveau Testament,” in Die alten Übersetzungen des neuen Testaments, die Kirchen väterzitate und Lektionare, ed. K. Aland (Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 5; Berlin / NY: de Gruyter, 1972), 301-04. On the other hand, Christoph Burchard, who has worked strenuously on the text tradition of Armenian James, concludes that it is an open question whether there was an initial Syriac-based or Syriac-influenced first translation followed by a revision or new translation from Greek. There are no manuscripts of James that show a clearer Syriac colouring than the rest and the only possible support for Arm 1 is supposed Syriacisms in the text transmitted. See “Zur altarmenischen Übersetzung des Jakobusbriefes,” in Horizonte der Christenheit. Festschrift für Friedrich Heyer zu seinem 85. Geburtstag, ed. M. Kohlbacher and M. Lesinski, Oikonomia 34 (1994) 206. 13 Lyonnet, “Les versions arménienne et géorgienne,” 455, 525. 14 Gerard Garitte, L’ancienne Version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres d’après deux manuscrits du Sinai (Bibliothèque du Museon, Vol. 38; Louvain: Publications Universitaires / Institut Orientaliste, 1955). 15 J. Molitor, “Der armenische Epheserbriefe und die syrische Textüberlieferung,” Handes Amsorya 78 (1964), cols. 301-10. 16 “Problematic of Editions of Armenian Biblical Texts,” Armenian Texts Tasks and Tools, ed. H. Lehmann and J.J.S. Weitenberg (Acts Jutlandica 69:1; Humanities Series 68; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993), 26-37; “The Two Armenian Versions of Chronicles,” cited in note 11. 17 Cox, “The Armenian Version and the Text of the Old Greek Psalter," in Der SeptuagintaPsalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen (Symposium in Göttingen 1997), ed. A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast (AKWG; MSU XXIV; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 18188 (noting readings unique to the Armenian when collated against Rahlfs’ Göttingen edition of the Old Greek) and 241-43. 18 Cox, The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy (UPATS 2; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981), 298.

19

Cowe, “The Armenian Version of Ruth and its Textual Affinities,” La Septuaginta en la Investigacion Contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), ed. N. Fernández Marcos (Textos y Estudios “Cardinal Cisneros” 34; Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano” C.S.I.C., 1985), 18297. This represents a preliminary study. We await Cowe’s edition of Armenian Ruth. 20 Cowe, “La versión armenia,” El Texto Antioquena de la Biblia Griega. I. 1-2 Samuel, ed. Natalio Fernández Marcos and José Ramón Busto Saiz, with the collaboration of María Victoria Spottorno and Díaz Caro and S. Peter Cowe (Textos y Estudios “Cardinal Cisneros” 50; Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano” C.S.I.C., 1989), p. LXXIX (in English). According to Cowe the Armenian preserves features of a (Greek) preLucianic text. 21 “The Two Armenian Versions of Chronicles,” p. 53; and p. 71: “a Lucianic text featured as the prime exemplar.” Cowe does not say there is no Syriac influence upon Arm 1, but “the actual amount of direct influence on Arm 1 from the Peshitta is rather limited” (p. 70). That remains to be explored. 22 Cox, Armenian Job. Reconstructed Greek Text, Critical Edition of the Armenian with English Translation (HUAS 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2006). 23 Cowe, “The Armenian Version of the Epistle of Jeremiah: Parent Text and Translation Technique,” VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven, 1989, ed. C.E. Cox (SBLSCS 31; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 37391. A preliminary investigation. 24 Cowe, Daniel, 350, 420. 25 Cowe, Daniel, 428-29. 26 “The Canticle of Azariah and its Two Armenian Versions,” JSAS 5 (1990-91) 23-48. On p. 35 Cowe says, “the Armenian translator utilized the Peshitta primarily as an exegetical resource rather than a translation base.” 27 A Greek text like Vaticanus?—cf. “The Canticle,” 43-44. 28 Manuel M. Jinbachian, Les Techniques de Traduction dans la Genese en Armenien classique (Bibliothéque Arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian; Lisbon, 1998). The book is the author’s 1989 Strasbourg dissertation, published, it appears, without changes or corrections.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 65

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________ 29

The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. Part I, Fasc. 1. Genesis, based on material collected and studied by J. Jansma, prepared by the Peshitta Institute; Exodus, prepared by M.D. Koster (Leiden: Brill, 1977). Jinbachian attributes the preparation of Genesis to Koster (pp. 7, n. 15; 322). 30 John William Wevers, ed., Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. I Genesis. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974). 31 Traduction, p. 15: “Zeyt‘unyan intitule son texte de la Genèse ɭʍʍɸʆɸʍ ɋʍɸɺʂʗ Texte critique, mais il serait plus juste de l’appeler ‘Texte diplomatique.’” 32 A.S. Zeyt‘unyan, ed., Ɍʂʗʛ ɗʍʍɻʏʘ. ɭʍʍɸʆɸʍ ɋʍɸɺʂʗ (Book of Genesis. Critical Text) (əɸʌ əʍɸɺʏʙʌʍ ɒɸʗɺʋɸʍɸʆɸʍ əʏʙʎɸʗʈɸʍʍɼʗ 1; Yerevan: Matenadaran, 1985). 33 John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBLSCS 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), p. 536. He continues, “The servants with their several flocks are to go ahead before Jacob, but not in a group. A much greater impression can be made if they are strung along, ...” 34 Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, tr. James A. Crichton (London, 1904; repr. Tel-Aviv: Zion Publ., 1970), §240. 35 Hans Jensen, Altarmenische Grammatik (Indogermanische Bibliothek; 1. Reihe Lehr- und Handbucher; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959), §196. 36 The Armenian translation ʇɸʙʖʔ ʇɸʙʖʔ ɸʓɸʍʈʂʍʍ is taken up again on pp. 56-57, where it is argued that ɸʓɸʍʈʂʍʍ reflects ƒÍÐàÁ rather than kata_ mo&naj. 37 These are Zeyt‘unian’s idiosyncratic sigla. The numbers are subscript in Zeyt‘unian; MSS B3 and C8 designate, respectively, the important witnesses Jerusalem 1925 and Yerevan 1500. Greek letters represent fragments; letters of the Roman alphabet designate lectionaries. Zeyt‘unian has simply taken over a corruption that was already in Zohrapian’s edition; it is there because Zohrapian reproduces one medieval manuscript. In his edition too the original reading is found in the apparatus. 38 The parent text of the Armenian probably read ermhneuj. There is no difference in meaning from e(rmhneuth&j and it is impossible to be certain.

39

The parent text of the Armenian lacked sw&|zwn (sw~|ze), contra Jinbachian’s citation of the Greek. 40 See Wevers NTGG, p. 315 for further details on the LXX translation. 41 Note that Jinbachian’s citation of the Armenian and Syriac is incomplete, lacking K and ʂ ʋʖʂ ʈɼʗʏʙʋ. ÍÜÿýòå 42 He says, “Le problème ne réside pas dans l’addition de didwmi comme le pense Wevers, mais faut aussi tenir compte de l’addition de ʛɼɽ = Þß. How didwmi could be a “problem” or “issue” for Wevers is not clear. Wevers rightly puts it in his apparatus as a hexaplaric plus, with its support, MSS 15´[not 15’]-376-oI and Arm, and suggests the reader look at the Hebrew. 43 “Give” is in the Syriac and the hexaplaric Greek text. Should “give” in the Armenian derive from the former, that would have implications for the use of the Armenian as a hexaplaric witness. No hexaplaric signs are preserved for v. 13. Is it possible to imagine that readings in the Armenian that = MT were marked with hexaplaric signs based on comparison with hexaplaric MSS but that the readings themselves came earlier from the Syriac? It is too soon to introduce those kinds of questions. 44 See, for example, Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. and rev’d by T. Muraoka; 2nd ed. (Subsidia Biblica 14/I and II; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993; repr. 1996), §123s. 45 Wevers renders, “And now you have actually gone!” NGTG, ad loc. He suggests that the Genesis translator has passed over the infinitive, a loss, which, he notes, may have occurred by homoioarchton. 46 On this use of the participle, i.e., as a main verb, in classical Armenian, see Robert W. Thomson, An Introduction to Classical Armenian (Delmar, NY: Caravan, 1975), p. 72. 47 Wevers comments on the Greek construction e)piqumi&a| e)pequ&mhsaj. Otherwise I might not have seen it! Such are the dangers of an atomistic approach. 48 Some of these remarks are directly from Wevers, NGTG, 533. 49 The Greek parent text of the Armenian may have transposed e)n th~| oi)ki&a| tau&th| and ou)qe&n, as attested by hexaplaric MSS 15-17-72-426.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 66

The Syriac Presence in the Armenian Translation of the Bible ____________________________________________________________________________________ 50

The few manuscripts that attest “mind” are not an indication of a preference in the manuscript tradition for the Syriac-based reading, if it is such, contra Jinbachian. Copyists had no choice if they rewrote correctly what was before them. Coincidentally we have seen ʂ ʋʖʂ + possessive in this list before, at 23:8. There the Syriac is K and the LXX its equivalent, except in ÍÜÿýòå number, th~| yuxh~| u(mw~n. The Armenian translation reflects sensitivity to context and idiom. 51 On the n group, see Wevers, Text History of the Greek Genesis (AKWG; MSU 11; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 101-11. It consists of but two manuscripts, 75-458. 52 See the lists of n group readings in Text History, pp. 101-04. 53 There may be other witnesses that attest ɼʖ because Zeyt‘unian used only 43 of the extant 106 manuscripts of Genesis, having employed an arbitrary cut-off date to limit the number of manuscripts to a manageable number. No 17th or 18th century manuscripts were employed. Thus, manuscripts like the British and Foreign Bible

Society MS, 17th century but preserving an early form of text in, at least, Deuteronomy and Job, was left out of consideration from the start. Six manuscripts out of forty-three is not an inconsiderable number, though, of course, textual criticism is not a matter of counting heads. 54 M. Bedrossian, New Dictionary ArmenianEnglish (Venice: S. Lazarus Armenian Academy, 1975; repr. Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1973; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009), s.v. ɸʐʛ. 55 Jinbachian adds a fifth example at 16:6, but this is clearly hexaplaric (+ en ofqalmoij sou). Outside Genesis he offers examples at Exodus 11:3 and Numbers 36:6. In the first case, “in the eyes of the people,” which Jinbachian says is not found in Greek, is, in fact, a hexaplaric plus in Greek manuscripts; indeed, some Armenian MSS attest a hexaplaric sign for it, albeit an obelus instead of the (correct) asterisk. 56 I would like to express special thanks to Roland Telfeyan for helping me convert the (Yerevan font) Armenian in the provisional copy of the paper to a Unicode font, namely, Sylfaen. His website is www.telf.com.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 67

______________________________________________________________________

THE SHORTER SYRIAC-ARMENIAN GLOSSARY IN MS. YALE SYRIAC 9 PART 1

HIDEMI TAKAHASHI, THE UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO AND

JOS J. S. WEITENBERG, LEIDEN UNIVERSITY

1. INTRODUCTION

A

mong the more neglected fields of research in Syro-Armenian studies is that of the relevant lexicographical material, which includes a number of extensive Syriac-Armenian lexica written in Syriac characters. At least three manuscripts are known to have survived that contain such lexica: (1) Harvard University, Houghton Library, Syriac 54 (373 folios, dated 1657–60),2 (2) Cairo, Centre Franciscain d’Études Orientales Chrétiennes, Syriac 11 (333 pages, dated 1665/6, trilingual in Syriac-Arabic [Garshuni]Armenian),3 and (3) Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Syriac 9 (lexicographical material on p. 4–199, 231–241). A detailed investigation of this material may be expected to yield many results relevant to the study of both Syro-Armenian relationships and Armenian dialectology, but that is an undertaking which is likely to take years to complete. It seems advantageous, therefore, to begin with the smallest item in this group, namely, the shorter glossary

1

found detached from the main lexicon on p. 231–241 of Ms. Yale Syriac 9. It is this glossary which is presented and commented upon in what follows.

2. ON MS. YALE SYRIAC 94 The presence at Yale University of a manuscript containing a Syriac-Armenian lexicon was known to Goshen-Gottstein, who mentions it in a note following his description of Harvard Syriac 54. More recently, this manuscript was made more widely known in the checklist of Syriac manuscripts at Yale published by Depuydt.5 What Goshen-Gottstein and Depuydt either did not know or fail to mention is the fact that Ms. Yale Syriac 9 is one of the six Syriac manuscripts acquired by Yale’s Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library in 1967–68 from Mrs. Melâhat Menemencioglu, a Turkish scholar of French literature resident at the time in Besançon.6 Like Paris syr. 395– 398, which were sold to the Bibliothèque nationale by the same Mrs. Menemen-

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 68

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

cioglu, and the now missing manuscript of the Chronicle of the Year 1234, these six manuscripts formerly had their home in Istanbul, in the manuscript collection of Petros (Fehim Beg) Eronur, the son of a Syrian Orthodox bishop who became the Master of Ceremonies (teúrifatçÕ) at the Ottoman Court.7 In the catalogue of that collection by Yuতanon Dolabani, the manuscript that is now Yale Syriac 9 is described as containing a Syriac-TurkishArmenian lexicon.8 Most, if not all, of the manuscripts in the collection of Fehim Beg seem to have been acquired in Urhoy (Urfa, U৘ha) by his father, Bishop Timotheos Paulos (bishop of Urhoy 1883– 87, patriarchal vicar in Istanbul 1887– 1913). One item (now Yale Syriac 11), at least, once belonged to the Church of Saints Peter and Paul in Urhoy, so that other items in the collection may also come from there. Many of the manuscripts deposited in the Church of Saints Peter and Paul in Urhoy are, in turn, reported originally to have come from the Monastery of Mor Abতay near Gargar (Gerger, on the bend of the Euphrates between Urhoy and Melitene/Malatya),9 and a number of manuscripts dating from around 1600 in the collection of Fehim Beg are certainly connected with the region around Gargar and Mor Abতay,10 a region that once had a significant number of Armenian speakers, or at least bearers of Armenian names, belonging to the Syrian Orthodox Church,11 so that there is a good chance that Yale Syriac 9 also originates from that area. It will be remembered that the other two SyriacArmenian lexica have similar origins: Harvard Syr. 54 was copied in the Monastery of Mor Abতay, while the copyist of the Cairo lexicon was a native in the region of Gargar, although the copying of the latter took place in Amid (DiyarbakÕr). There appears to be no dated colophons or notes in Yale Syriac 9, but

the manuscript was judged to date from the seventeenth century by Dolabani, that is to say, a date similar to the other two lexica. Yale Syriac 9 is an octavo-size manuscript, measuring 15.5 cm by 10.5 cm, with wooden covers, and with 288 written pages. The Western (W) page numbering in pencil starts on the front and the Syriac (S) on the back of the first folio, but the Western numbering inadvertently skips two pages, while one folded sheet (4 pages), part of the section for letter ҵƝ in the Syriac-Armenian lexicon, was misplaced between the time of the Syriac and Western numbering by someone incapable of distinguishing Syriac ҵƝ (ĺ) and lƗmad (ĵ), so that the two series of numbering now correspond as follows: S1–51 = W2–52; S52–173 = W57–178; S174–177 = W53–56 (misplaced sheet); S178–210 = W179–211; S211–212 = (skipped in W); S213–286 = W212–285; (S unnumbered) = W286. The Syriac page numbering is followed in this paper. The main Syriac-Armenian lexicon occupies p. 4–199 of the manuscript. The text of the lexicon in the Yale manuscript was evidently copied from an exemplar whose beginning had been lost and whose first leaves were in disarray.12 Some of the stanzas in the poem preceding the lexicon (pp. 1–3) are taken from Barhebraeus. As indicated by Dolabani (though not by Depuydt), the miscellaneous items in the rest of the manuscript include a number of stories, as well as pieces attributed to Ephrem and Mark the Ascetic. The last part of the manuscript (pp. 262–284) seems to have been copied by a different hand from that of the lexicon. Many of the texts in the latter half of the manuscript are accompanied by marginal glosses giving the Armenian renderings (in Syriac characters) of words occurring in the Syriac text.13

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 69

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

3. SYRIAC-ARMENIAN GLOSSARY The Syriac-Armenian glossary has no words marking its beginning and end, and takes up just over nine pages of the manuscript, starting near the bottom of p. 231 (Fig. 1) and ending near the middle of p. 241. The bulk of the glossary consists of a list of verbs in imperative forms. It has not been possible so far to detect any rationale according to which these verbs are arranged. Near the end of the glossary, starting on p. 239, we are given various forms of the verb “to do.” This is then followed by a list of some basic words, such as personal and demonstrative pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions and common adverbs. The whole of this glossary is presented in Part 2 of this paper in transcription. Each entry in the glossary is indicated by the page and line number and its position within the line.14 In each case, the transcription of the Syriac is followed by a translation of the Syriac in brackets and, separated by a colon, by the transcription of the Armenian counterpart. This is then followed, separated by a dash, by the equivalent of the Armenian word in a more standard form, either in Modern Western Armenian (= mod.; in which case the verbs are normally given in their infinitive forms) or in Classical Armenian (= class.; in which case the 1sg. pres. indicative forms are used),15 followed by the meaning of the Armenian word given there in guillemets («»). Further comments are given as necessary, together with cross-references (the latter usually separated by a further dash).

4. ON THE TRANSCRIPTION In the Latin-alphabet transcription of the Syriac-language material that follows, the ‘classical’ pronunciation is followed for

ease of identification, although the way the Armenian vowels are represented in the glossary makes it clear that the author(s) and the copyist of the glossary pronounced the Syriac words according to the later West Syrian tradition. In the transcription of the Armenian material in the glossary, circumflex accents are used to indicate the presence of the letters Ɨlap, waw and yǀd employed as matres lectionis; i.e. “â” indicates an instance where a consonant with ptƗ‫ۊ‬Ɨ (º› ª or º) § is followed by Ɨlap; “î” where a ¥ is followed by consonant with ‫ۊ‬bƗ‫܈‬Ɨ (º) yǀd, etc. It is to be noted that the use of the circumflex accent here has no bearing on the length of the vowel. The relatively rare Ņ combination of zqƗpƗ with waw (ĭš), where the waw may on occasion represent a consonant (i.e. -ʏʕ-, so probably in 241.1.1 and perhaps also in 239.1.3), has nevertheless consistently been rendered by Ņ “ô” (e.g. 237.20.2 ƢƀƐƌŴ = ʛʏʍʒʂʗ; ō ñ ƃ/kônĞîr Ņ 239.22.3 ĭĭĭ/wôw = ʏʕ). Where a vowel sign appears attached to an Ɨlap in the middle of a continuous sequence of letters (which typically occurs when the group of letters would normally be written as two words in Armenian), the “hiatus” will ł be ł indicated by a hyphen (e.g. 232.5.3. ƢƀŌ ū õ ŤźƉ: ł łł ma৬-aঠîr; 232.21.3. ŧĿŤʼn ūĥ ñ űƤōſĥ: îšadâg-erâ = ʌʂʎɸʖɸʆ ɿʗɾɳ). It is not always possible to decide whether a word division is intended or not when the letter preceding the Ɨlap is one that does not connect with the following ł letter (i.e. whether ŧĿĥʼn ŁŴŨĥ Ő Ľł should be transcribed as “ৢâbût-erâ” or “ৢâbût erâ”). Lines modelled on the Syriac lineae occultantes are placed above or below the letters in the glossary to indicate the Armenian schwa sound (e.g. in 232.15.1, 232.16.1). These lines are indicated by “ԥ” in the transcription below. In some cases, the lines are drawn above or below several consecutive letters, making it unclear with

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 70

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

which letters the scribe intends us to read the schwa. In such cases, the words are first transcribed as written in the manuscript, followed, as appropriate, by the likely intended pronunciation (e.g. 235.6.1. “kԥsԥpԥsdâ [lege kԥspԥsdâ]”). Special diacritical points (almost always in red ink) are used in the glossary for certain Armenian consonants. The following signs are used in the transcription to indicate the letters carrying these diacritical points: g: gƗmal [Ĩ] with point above [usually = ʆ] ঠ: gƗmal with point below [invariably = ʉ (with the possible exception of 236.5.3)] ÷: gƗmal with point in centre of letter [= ʒ (232.5.1, 232.6.2, 232.6.3, 233.8.3, 233.14.3, 234.11.2, 235.7.1 [dial.], 237.12.2, 237.16.3, 238.7.2); = ʊ (233.9.1, 233.20.1, 235.1.2, 235.15.3, 236.4.1, 237.3.3, 237.4.1, 238.3.1, 238.18.2); = ʐ (232.11.2, 233.1.1, 235.21.1, 236.12.2, 239.11.2, 240.9.2, 240.11.1, 240.16.1); = ʁ (233.4.2, 235.23.2, 237.2.1); = ʉ [?] (235.15.3, 235.19.1)] Ī: zayn [Į] with point above [almost invariably = ʅ, except at 240.6.4 (knĪ/ ʛɸʍʘ); note also 234.1.1 (Īârar = Arab. ‫ڲ‬arar)] k: kƗp [Ĵ] with point above [usually, = ɺ or ʛ] ঴: kƗp with point below [usually, = ʄ, but corresponds to standard ʉ at 233.9.1, 237.4.1 (÷î঴kdâ, ÷঴kdâ/ ʊ(ɼ)ʉʛʏʖɾɳ), 236.21.2 (ko঴Ğîr/ ɺʏʉʘʂɳʗ), 238.15.3 (ma঴trâ/ ʋɼʉɸɻʗɾɳ); note also use for Arab. প (Υ) at 232.16.3, 234.13.1, 234.22.3, 238.10.2; and correspondence to standard Arab. q (ϕ) at 240.11.1 (în÷঴dâr), 240.17.2 (înš঴dar)]

৖: pƝ [Ļ] with point above [= ʚ (237.7.2, -š৖â/ʎʚɾɳ); = ɹ (234.16.2, ৖anĞrĞû/ ɹɸʗʈʗɸʘʏʙɳ)]. ৔: pƝ with point inside circle [= ʚ (232.7.3, ৔orĞâ/ʚʏʗʈɾɳ, but cf. 238.20.1, porĞâ); = ɹ/ʚ (236.4.1, ÷an৔â/ʊɸʋɹɾɳ/ ʊɸʋʚɾɳ, but cf. 233.20.1, ÷ânpakpîr)] f: pƝ with point (sign ‫ )ޔ‬below (?) [= ʝ (only once at 232.21.3, waqԥf/ʕɸɺɿʝ, in a later addition; see footnote ad loc.)]. Ğ: semkat [ĸ] with point above [= ʘ (231.24.1 et passim); = ʈ (232.7.3, 233.5.3, 234.16.2, 236.2.1, 236.14.3, 240.4.4)]. š: šƯn [ŀ] with three points above or below (a device no doubt inspired by Pers./Turk. ̧) [= ʁ (237.16.2); = ʒ (232.20.1); = ʐ (239.11.1, 240.15.2, etc. in negative verbs; also 240.8.3 (înšes/ ʂʍʐʑɾʔ), 240.22.1 (înšsor/ʂʍʐʏʗ); and in unidentified words at 234.20.2, 236.6.1, 237.7.3, 237.8.1, 238.2.1, 238.2.2]. The ‘letters’ ÷ and š are apparently freely interchangeable, to judge from the use of both for the negative particle ʐ, and from those instances where a word written with š in one place appears elsewhere (often in the main lexicon in Yale Syriac 9) with ÷ (e.g. 240.8.3. înšes, but 6.8.1. în÷es, for ʂʍʐʑɾʔ; 234.19.1. špla঴Ğû, but 103.15.1. ÷৖lâ঴, 151.12.2. gû÷plâ঴Ğnâ). It seems unlikely that any phonetic or phonemic difference can be posited between the sounds represented by ৖, ৔ and p (i.e. pƝ without diacritical point).16 The letters ‫ۊ‬Ɲt, ‫ܒ‬Ɲt, ҵƝ, ‫܈‬ƗdƝ and qƗp are used on rare occasions in Armenian words, often to represent equivalent Arabic consonants in loanwords, but sometimes without any immediately apparent reason.17

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 71

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

ত [į]: in loanwords: 232.7.1 (তsebâ < Arab. ‫ۊ‬isƗb); 233.6.2 (šarতâ < Arab. šar‫ ;)ۊ‬233.20.3 (তasûdĞîr < Arab. ‫ۊ‬asnjd); 235.4.2 (paতmâ, prob. < Syriac pa‫ۊۊ‬em); but see 238.13.1 (তepdar); 232.2.1 (তas৬îr); 232.14.1 (তazârâ). – Cf. use of “h” for Arab. “ত” in: 233.16.1 (hadrâ, cf. Arab. ‫ۊ‬a‫ڲڲ‬ara, ‫ۊ‬Ɨ‫ڲ‬ir); 235.3.2 (habsâ, prob. < Arab. ‫ۊ‬abasa); 238.13.2 (hûkûm-erâ < Arab. ‫ۊ‬ukm). ৬ [İ]: in loanwords: 233.12.1 (mû৬î‫= ޏ‬ Arab. mu‫ܒ‬Ưҵ); 235.18.2 (zab৬ = Arab. ‫ڲ‬ab‫ ;)ܒ‬235.19.2 (mûsl৬ = Arab. musalli‫ܒ‬/musalla‫ ;)ܒ‬237.18.1, 238.1.2 (bâ৬lâ, prob. < Syriac ba‫ܒܒ‬el or Arab. ba‫ܒܒ‬ala); 238.20.3 (das৬ûr, with unwarranted ‫ܒ‬Ɲt for Pers./Arab. dastnjr); 232.5.3 (ma৬- = Pers. mƗt). – Used for Armenian ɻ/ʖ: 232.9.4, 233.18.1, 236.2.1 (৬arĞ- = ɻɸʗʈ-); 239.8.3 (৬nâzâ = ʖʍɸɽɾɳ, but 231.25.2, dnâzâ)18; 236.5.1 (৬ûrâ = ɻʏʙʓɿ, but 237.14.1, tûrâ); see also 232.2.1 (তas৬îr). – Cf. use of “t” for Arab. “৬” in: 235.8.1 (bîrtil = Arab. bir‫ܒ‬Ưl). ‫[ ޏ‬ĺ]: 236.23.3 (tabe‫ޏ‬: Arab. tƗbiҵ); 240.23.1, 241.8.2 (yâ‫ޏ‬neh/ya‫ޏ‬neh: Arab. yaҵnƯ); 240.12.1 (‫ޏ‬â÷ab: Arab. ҵa÷ab, but 240.14.2. a÷âb, 235.6.2. a÷bîĞîr); 238.8.1 (‫ޏ‬îzâtworâ < Arab. ҵizza [?]); 240.19.2 (‫ޏ‬âparîn, with unwarranted ҵƝ for Pers. ƗfirƯn, Turk. âferin) ৢ [Ľ]: in loanwords: 234.14.2 (ৢûrât < Arab. ‫܈‬njra); 240.14.3 (aৢlâ < Arab. a‫܈‬lan); 232.14.2 (ৢâbût, prob. erroneously for Arab. ‫ܔ‬Ɨbit [Turk. sabit]); in genuine Armenian words: 233.22.1 (ৢîrdâharĞîr), 236.4.2 (-ৢîrdîr = ʔʗʖɼʗ); 236.9.2 (haৢîr = ʇɸʔʂɳʗ, cf. 237.10.2 hasîr); cf. use of “s” for Arab. “ৢ” in: 234.13.2 (sabrîr < Arab. ‫܈‬abr)19; 235.9.3 (঴âlîsâ, cf. Arab. ‫ې‬alla‫܈‬a).

q [ľ]: 236.4.3 (qonahrĞîr = ʄʏʍɸʗʇʘʂɳʗ); 237.21.1 (qûqan); 237.23.1 (qrbâ) The letter ‫ܒ‬Ɲt with point in the circle [ı] (here, = ৰ), which is often used for Arabic ‫ڲ‬Ɨd (ν) and ܲƗҴ (υ) in Garshuni, does not occur in our glossary, but does occur in the main lexicon in Yale Syriac 9: e.g. 8.8.3: emayyeq [I mock]: ৰnâzîm = ʖʍɸɽɼʋ (cf. 231.25.2); 150.13.1: nešgƝ men šgƗyƗ [he errs, as in “error”]: gû঴alৰnâ.

5. OBSERVATIONS ON THE ARMENIAN DIALECT OF THE GLOSSARY 5.1. General Linguistic Classification In what follows a preliminary overview is given of the place of the Armenian material found in the glossary in the general Armenian linguistic context. The overview is largely limited to phonetic aspects and does not aim at exhaustivity; a more detailed study is required for a full description of the dialect in question. A complete picture of the dialect can only be gained with the examination also of the related material in the other SyriacArmenian lexica. It will be seen that many of the characteristics mentioned below were already noted by Margoliouth in his treatment of the lexicon which is now at Harvard.20 In a general sense, the language of the glossary belongs to the Western branch of Modern Armenian. It shared in the youngest common innovations of this group, such as the elision of medial vowels in polysyllabic words (e.g. 238.18.2. ÷ardrâ: mod. ʊɸʗʖɸʗɾɳ «construct!»),21 and the use of ʆʏʙ, ʆɿ in the formation of the present indicative (e.g. 239.14.2, tûn genîs: ɻʏʙʍ ʆɵɿʍɼʔ «you do»). These two features go back to the Early Middle Armenian period (ca. 10th–12th centuries).

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 72

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

From a more precise, dialectological, point of view the language of the glossary is most likely a member of Dialect Group 5.22 This classification is based on the consonant system of the glossary (see 5.2 below), where aspiration is apparently no longer phonemic, producing a binary opposition D – T‫ ޏ‬against classical ʖ – ɻ – ʀ, as well as on its vowel system (see 5.3 below) and a number of morphological features. Classical T Cilician D Tigranakert D

D T‫ޏ‬ T T‫( ޏ‬Group 4) T‫ ޏ‬T‫( ޏ‬Group 5)

The vowel system of the glossary, in particular the representation of classical ɸ as either “a” or “ä” (as in Tigranakert), speaks in favour of its identification with Group 5, while its identification as a member of Group 4 (which also includes literary Modern Western Armenian) seems to be ruled out by the fact that the glossary does not show the typical Cilician reflex “o” for classical ɸ.23 The main dialects that belong to Group 5 are the dialects of Malatya, Tigranakert (DiyarbakÕr), Urfa, and, in the west, Rodosto (Tekirdaۜ) and Smyrna (Izmir). Therefore the data of the glossary should be compared with these dialects rather than with the Modern Western literary language. In what follows, the western Group 5 dialects are left out of account; the dialect of Tigranakert [= Tigr.] will be adduced in most cases for comparative purposes. 5.2. Consonant System 5.2.1. Obstruents 5.2.1.1. Overview Class. voiceless ʆ Gloss. g Class. voiced ɺ Gloss. k Class. Aspirated ʛ Gloss. k

ʖ d/(৬) ɻ t/(৬) ʀ t

ʑ b ɹ p/(৔/৖) ʚ p/(৔/৖)

ʅ ʊ: Ī/(z) ÷ ʈ ʒ: Ğ/(s/z) ÷/š ʘ ʐ: Ğ/(s) ÷/š/(š)

The use of the Syriac letter “৬” for ʖ and ɻ has been noted in Section 4 above. The varying outcomes of the classical apicodental (ʅ, ʈ, ʘ) and palatodental (ʊ, ʒ, ʐ) fricatives require further study. We may in many cases be dealing with the results of scribal error (omission of diacritical points), as, for example, in those cases where we find class. ʐ in the initial position in negative verbs represented by “š” (239.13.1 etc.) as opposed to “š” (i.e. š with three points; so 239.11.1 etc.; alongside “÷” in 239.11.2, 240.9.2).24 On the other hand, the orthography with “š” in the equivalent of class. ɸʐʛ «eyes» is no error; it represents dialectal ɸʎʛ (233.3.3, 235.14.2).25 The use of “s” for ʘ instead of “Ğ” (s with point) seems in many cases to be erroneous (232.20.3, 233.12.2, 235.23.3). It is known, on the other hand, that the dialectal (Tigranakert) outcome of ʘ may sometimes be “s”. This may be the case with “Ğԥkâ” in 233.5.3 versus “skâ” in 236.20.3 (class. ʈɺɼʋ «to bend, cast»; cf. Tigr. [‫ۑ‬sgil]). Another instance of variation in orthography is found in the class. group ʗʈ [rj]: porĞâ (238.20.1; class. ʚʏʗʈɼʋ «to try, test»); arsagâ (236.12.3); arzgâ (237.23.2; class. ɸʗʈɸʆɼʋ «to release»). 5.2.1.2. Examples of Regular Correspondences (a) Classical voiceless: p (ʑ): badâ: ʑɸʖɾɳ «wall!» (238.21.2); t (ʖ): dâr: ʖɸɳʗ «bring!» (232.9.1); k (ʆ): gartâ: ʆɸʗɻɸɳ «read!» (231.23.2); c (ʅ): ĪeĪâ: ʅɼʅɾɳ «beat!» (233.19.2); þ (ʊ): ÷ardrâ: ʊɸʗʖɸʗɾɳ «construct!» (238.18.2). (b) Classical voiced: b (ɹ): pâĞ: ɹɸɳʘ «open!» (233.4.1); d (ɻ): tûn: ɻʏʙʍ «you» (239.14.2); ৬ûrâ: mod. ɻʏʙʓɿ «the door» (236.5.1); g (ɺ): kowâ: ɺʏʕɾɳ «praise!» (232.21.1); j [dz] (ʈ): Ğîzî: mod. ʈɼɽʂ «to you [pl.]» (240.4.4); Ƶ [dzj] (ʒ): arâšâ: ɸʓɸʒɾɳ «precede!»

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 73

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

(232.20.1); ÷râĞû: «irrigate!» (232.5.1)

mod.

ʒʗɸʘʏʙɳ

(c) Classical aspirated: p‫( ޏ‬ʚ): porâ: ʚʏʗɾɳ «dig!» (234.3.2); t‫( ޏ‬ʀ): tûঠ: ʀʏɳʉ «let!» (234.3.1); k‫( ޏ‬ʛ): kerâ: ʛɼʗɾɳ «scratch!, rub!» (233.3.2); c‫[ ޏ‬tsh] (ʘ): imperatives in -Ğu: -ʘʏʙ (passim) [but note ঴zgâ/঴îzgâ: ʄʘʆɾɳ «shut!» (233.17.2, 238.11.3)]; þ‫ޏ‬ [tsjh] (ʐ): ÷ar÷ârâ: ʐɸʗʐɸʗɾɳ «torture!» (232.11.2). 5.2.1.3. Clusters (a) Classical voiceless obstruents in clusters usually show the same development as in other positions: rk (ʗʆ): ergîr: ɼʗʆʂʗ «earth» (233.9.2); ৘k (ʓʆ): bargîr: mod. ʑɸʓʆʂɳʗ «sleep!» (238.6.1); rc (ʗʅ): gorĪâ: ʆʏʗʅɾɳ «destroy!» (232.10.1); rt (ʗʖ): ÷ardrâ: ʊɸʗʖɸʗɾɳ «construct!» (238.18.2); át (ʉʖ): gâঠdûdâ: ʆɼʉʖʏʖɾɳ «defile!» (233.8.2); áþ (ʉʊ): ঴ঠ÷îr: ʄʉʊʂɳʗ «pity!» (237.3.3); nk (ʍʆ): dngâ: ʖʍʆɾɳ «plant!» (235.3.3); but note: st (ʔʖ): nîst: ʍʂɳʔʖ «sit!» (233.10.2); sp (ʔʑ): spânâ: class. ʔʑɸʍɸʍɾɳ (237.16.1). (b) Classical voiced obstruent after “r” shows the same development as in other positions: rb (ʗɹ): sԥrpâ: ʔʗɹɾɳ «wipe!», cf. Tigr. [sԥrp‫ޏ‬il] (233.2.3); rd (ʗɻ): gartâ: ʆɸʗɻɸɳ «read!», cf. Tigr. [gärt‫ޏ‬äl] (231.23.2); rƵ (ʗʒ): tr÷â: ʀʗʒɾɳ «wet!, soak!», cf. Tigr. [t‫ۑޏ‬rþ‫ޏ‬il] (232.6.2); rj (ʗʈ): ৔orĞâ: ʚʏʗʈɾɳ «try!», cf. Tigr. [p‫ޏ‬orc‫ޏ‬-] (232.7.3); arsagâ/arzgâ: ɸʗʈɸʆɾɳ «release!», cf. Tigr. [arc‫ޏ‬ԥgil] (236.12.3, 237.23.2). (c) In the group “nasal + obstruent” the opposition between voiced and voiceless has become lost since the classical period. The glossary seems to show a voiced realisation: gendĞîr (235.6.3),

gendĞû «make alive!» (239.9.1): cf. class. ʆɼʍɻɸʍʂ «alive», but Tigr. [kİnt‫ޏ‬äni]; ঴ԥndâ: ʄʍɻɸɳ «laugh!», cf. Tigr. [xndäl] (233.5.2, 234.15.3); ঴on÷eĞîr: ʄʏʍʒɼʘʂɳʗ «be weary!», cf. Tigr. [xonƵän] (233.14.3); dân÷wîr: ʖɸʍʒʏʙʂɳʗ «be tortured!, suffer!», but Tigr. [danþ‫ޏ‬il] (238.7.2). 5.2.1.4. Exceptions The following are exceptions to the general representations given above. (a) Classical voiceless: [k = class. ʆ]: šîkâ: ʎʂʆɸ «there is not» (240.15.2; < ʐʂ + ʆɸʌ; cf. the regular gâ: ʆɸʌ «there is» 240.12.2; cf. Tigr. [igä]); zârk: ɽɸɳʗʆ «strike!», mod. ɽɸʗʆɼʃ, Tigr. [zärgil] (232.3.1). (b) Classical voiced: [g = class. ɺ]: gîdĞîr: ɺʂʖʘʂɳʗ «know!», mod. ɺʂʖʍɸʃ, cf. Tigr. [k‫ޏ‬inäm] (238.7.1); hogâ: ʇʏɺɸɳ «take care!», cf. Tigr. [hok‫ޏ‬äl] (239.4.1). (c) Classical aspirates: In clusters with aspirate ʘ the preceding stops may shift their articulation base: dagĞû: ʖɸʛʘʏʙɳ «heat!» (238.17.2); logĞîr: ʃʏɺʘʂɳʗ, mod. ʃʏɺɸʍɸʃ «to bathe, wash» (233.3.1); as expected, on the other hand, are: awdĞîr: ɸʙɼʖʘʂʗ «announce!» (236.24.2); hešdĞû: ʇɼʎʖʘʏʙɳ «make easy!» (237.19.3); hakĞû: ʇɸɺʘʏʙɳ(ʗ) «clothe!» (235.2.3, 238.3.1). 5.2.2. Classical Spirants ʔ ɽ ʎ ʁ ʕ/ʙ ʝ ʄ ʉ ʇ ʌ s/(ৢ) z š ÷/š w p/f ঴/(q) ঠ h/(ত?) ø/y/h Examples: s (ʔ): sîrâ: ʔʂʗɾɳ «love!» (235.5.3); haৢîr: mod. ʇɸʔʂɳʗ «reach!» (236.9.2); z (ɽ): zârtarwîr: mod. ɽɸʗɻɸʗʏʙʂɳʗ «be adorned!» (232.1.1); š (ʎ): îšadâg-: ʌʂʎɸʖɸʆ «remembrance» (232.21.3); ž (ʁ): ÷oঠwâ: ʁʏʉʏʕɾɳ

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 74

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

«collect!» (235.23.2); šam-: ʁɸʋ «prayer(time)» (237.16.2); v/w (ʕ/ʙ): wâzâ: ʕɸɽɾɳ «run!» (236.5.2); zârtarwîr: mod. ɽɸʗɻɸʗʏʙʂɳʗ «be adorned!» (232.1.1); ÷oঠwâ: ʁʏʉʏʕɾɳ «collect!» (235.23.2)26; f (ʝ): sapar: Arab. safar «journey» (234.20.1); waqԥf: Arab. waqf «donation» (232.21.3, in a later addition to the glossary); x (ʄ): go঴â: ʆʏʄɾɳ «trample» (231.25.3); qonahrĞîr: mod. ʄʏʍɸʗʇʘʂɳʗ «humble!» (236.4.3); á (ʉ): kâঠâ: ʛɸʉɾɳ «pick!» (233.12.3); h (ʇ): hrâ: ʇʗɾɳ «push!» (232.1.2); তas৬îr (232.2.1): cf. hasdîr «be seated!» (236.7.3); y (ʌ)27: îšâ < class. ʌʂʎɼʋ «to remember» (234.14.3); ûlâĞîr < class. ʌʏʙʃɸʍɸʋ «to become idle» (238.22.3); yûr: ʌʏʙʗ «to where?» (240.8.1); hanzanĞû < ʌɸʍʈɸʍʈɼʋ «to ł bring to one’s side» (236.14.3); ha-îr (ƢōſĥĬ) < ʇɸʌʂʋ «to look at» (234.2.2). 5.2.3. Classical Nasals and Liquids ʋ m

ʍ n

ʃ l

ʓ r

ʗ r

Examples: m (ʋ): maঠâ: ʋɸʉɾɳ «sift!» (237.22.1); n (ʍ): nedâ: ʍɼʖɾɳ «throw!» (238.6.2); l (ʃ): latîr: ʃɸʀɼʗ «clothing [pl.]» (236.1.1); ৘ (ʓ): râzî-: ʓɸɽʂ (Arab. rƗ‫ڲ‬in) «satisfied» (235.12.1); borâ: ʑʏʓɸɳ «cry out!» (233.6.3); r (ʗ): -ৢîrdîr ʔ(ʂ)ʗʖɼʗ «hearts [pl.]» (236.4.2). The glossary does not express the opposition ʓ : ʗ, although the dialects of Group 5 (and Group 4) preserve this opposition. 5.2.4. Other Consonantal Features The nature used in the determine preserved responsible

of the Syriac writing system glossary28 makes it difficult to whether double stops were in the speech of those for the glossary: oঠâ < class.

ʏʙʉʉɼʋ «to straighten» (235.17.3); spânâ: Middle Armenian ʔʑɸʍʍɼʃ «to kill» (237.16.1). Seemingly unmotivated duplication of stops is a frequent feature of Group 5 dialects (e.g. Tigr. [vazzil] «to run», ʕɸɽɼʃ; ԥssor «today», ɸʌʔʜʗ; [lap‫ޏ‬p‫ޏ‬il] «to lick», ʃɸʚɼʃ).29 This feature likewise is not indicated in the glossary. Mention may be made here of further irregularities, often shared with other dialects, in the treatment of consonants: lman- for ʍʋɸʍ-: lmanĞû: ʍʋɸʍʘʏʙɳ (235.4.2; also 233.23.3, 239.6.1, 241.9.2); men(Ğ)- [< menĪ(Ğ)-] for ʋɼʅ(ʘ)-: menĞû < ʋɼʅʘʍɼʃ (238.16.1)30; panĞr- for ɹɸʗʈʗ-: ৖anĞrĞû: ɹɸʗʈʗɸʘʏʙɳ (234.16.2)31; -ndrfor -ʍʗ-: mandrĞû < ʋɸʍʗɼʃ (237.1.3), ĪândrĞû < ʅɸʍʗɸʘʍɼʃ (238.1.1); -hr- for -ʗʇ- [metathesis]: qonahrĞîr: ʄʏʍɸʗʇʘʂɳʗ (236.4.3); wl- for lw-: wlâ: ʃʏʙɸɳ (237.12.1; also 237.18.2); -rš- for -ʗʇ-: oršnâ < ʏʗʇʍɼʃ (237.9.1); -št- for -ʖ- [?]: gîštaĞîr < ɺʂʖʍɸʃ [?] (236.1.3); addition of initial h-: hԥndrâ: ɿʍʖʗɾɳ (236.13.3); omission of -r- [-š- for -ʗʁ-]: šaštûr: ʎɸʗʁ ʖʏʙɳʗ (235.8.3); [-d- for -ʗʖ-]: adorĞîr: ɸʗʖʏʗʘʂɳʗ (236.1.2); absence of preconsonantal -n-: anûk: mod. ɸʍʏʍʛ (240.1.3, 234.9.2); mîk-genîk: mod. ʋɼʍʛ ʆɵɿʍɼʍʛ (239.18.1, but cf. 240.1.1, mînk); see also 233.1.1; 237.9.2. 5.3. Vowel System 5.3.1. Classical vowel “a” (ɸ) The representation of Classical Armenian “a” (ɸ) in the glossary is by either “a” or “â”. A tentative distribution is given below. Because the sign “â” also renders classical Ɲ (ɾ) (= open [İ]) we may assume that Classical Armenian ɸ shows a twofold representation in the glossary: either “a” or a palatal variant “ä”. The precise distribution

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 75

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

and phonological opposition require further study. This type of palatalisation is common in the Tigranakert dialect.32 It is not related to the palatalisations that result from Aþa৘yan’s Law. (a) Classical initial ɸ is always rendered with “a”, whether stressed or not (Tigr. usually has “ä” in these instances): azâdâ: ɸɽɸʖɾɳ «free!», Tigr. [azäd], but [äzädil] (232.19.1); arâšâ: ɸʓɸʒɾɳ «precede!» (232.20.1); adâ: ɸʖɾɳ «hate!» (234.6.1); ɸʉɸɳ «grind!», Tigr. [äáäl] (238.20.2); absprâ: ɸʑʔʑʗɾɳ «request!», Tigr. [äb‫ۑ‬sb‫ۑ‬ril] (233.16.3); ašk: class. ɸʐʛ, ɸʎʛ «eyes», Tigr. [äšk‫( ]ޏ‬236.18.1); ar: ɸɳʓ «take!», Tigr. [a৘] (233.23.1). (b) Classical interconsonantal ɸ is rendered with either “a” or “â”, in stressed and in unstressed position: kâঠâ: ʛɸʉɾɳ «pick!», Tigr. [k‫ޏ‬äáil] (233.12.3); kalâ: ʛɸʃɾɳ «walk!», mod. ʛɸʃɼʃ, class. ʛɸʌʃɼʋ, but Tigr. [k‫ޏ‬İáäl] (235.5.2); bâঠeĞû: ʑɸʉɼʘʏʙɳ «cool!», Tigr. [bäá] (233.13.1); karozâ: ʛɸʗʏɽɾɳ «preach!», but Tigr. [k‫ޏ‬äroz] (233.15.3); tâdâ: ɻɸʖɾɳ «judge!», Tigr. [t‫ޏ‬ädil] (238.12.1); tâঠâ: ʀɸʉɾɳ «inter!», Tigr. [t‫ޏ‬äáil] (234.12.3); dâঠâ: ʖɸʉɾɳ «cauterise!», Tigr. [däáil] (239.4.2); lâĞ : ʃɸɳʘ «weep!», Tigr. [iläl] (233.2.2); pâĞ: ɹɸɳʘ «open!», Tigt. [p‫ޏ‬anal], [p‫ޏ‬ac‫]ޏ‬ (233.4.1); bâk: ʑɸɳɺ «kiss!», Tigr. [bäk‫ޏ‬nil] (237.13.2). (c) In final (= stressed) position classical ɸ is rendered with “â” (in all these instances Tigr. has “ä”): knâ: ɺʍɸɳ «go!» (235.11.1); šîkâ: ʐ + ʆɸʌ «there is not» (240.15.2); orsâ: ʏʗʔɸɳ «hunt!» (233.15.2); aঠâ: ɸʉɸɳ «grind!» (238.20.2). 5.3.2. Classical vowels “e” (ɼ) and “Ɲ” (ɾ) In all “Western” dialects classical stressed “e” (ɼ) has developed into [jİ], while

unstressed “e” (ɼ) has merged with “Ɲ” (ɾ) into an open “İ”. In the glossary, classical stressed “e” (ɼ) is rendered with “î” (from an historical point of view this attests the development ɼ e Æ jİ Æ i), while unstressed “e” (ɼ) has merged with classical “Ɲ” (ɾ) into [İ], and is rendered with “e” or “â”. (a) Stressed ɼ: lîĞ: ʃɼɳʘ «fill!» (class. ʃʍʏʙʋ) (232.5.1); pîr: ɹɼɳʗ «bear!» (class. ɹɼʗɼʋ) (232.12.2); îl: ɼɳʃ «go up!» (ɼʃɸʍɼʋ) (232.17.1); dîs: ʖɼɳʔ «see!» (ʖɼʔɸʍɼʋ) (234.2.3); îd: ɼʖ «backwards» (236.18.2); gîr: ʆɼɳʗ «eat!» (237.11.2); perîm: class. ɹɼʗɼʋ «I bring» (232.12.3); îs genîm: mod. ɼʔ ʆɵɿʍɼʋ «I do», Tigr. [jİs gİnim] (239.13.2).33 (b) Unstressed ɼ: This vowel does not show diphthongisation, in particular not in initial position: epâ: ɼʚɾɳ «cook!», Tigr. [İp‫ޏ‬il] (233.7.1); ergîr: ɼʗʆʂʗ «earth» (233.9.2); ertmĞîr: mod. ɼʗɻʋʘʂɳʗ «swear!» (236.19.3). In other positions: heĪîr: ʇɼʅʂɳʗ «ride!» (232.5.2); kerâ: ʛɼʗɾɳ «scratch!» (233.3.2); perîm: ɹɼʗɼʋ «I bring» (232.12.3); but note: awîrâ: ɸʙɼʗɾɳ (which represents dialectal ɸʙʂʗɾɳ) «destroy!» (232.8.2). (c) In the glossary, ɼ appears as “â” before class. “á” (ʉ): gâঠdûdâ: ʆɼʉʖʏʖɼʋ «to defile», but Tigr. [giád] «dirt» (233.8.2); nâঠeĞû: mod. ʍɼʉɸʘʍɼʃ «to oppress» (237.3.1); aঠâw: mod. ɼʉɸʙ «it became» (240.11.2); aঠîr-â «it was»: mod. ɼʉɼʗ ɾ (participle + ɾ) (240.11.3). Note also the same change before “৘”: hârû hârû: ʇɼʓʏʙ ʇɼʓʏʙ «far away» (240.15.1); târ: ɻɼʓ «yet» (241.8.1). (d) Classical vowel “Ɲ” (ɾ): In classical texts ɾ only appears in stressed (i.e. final) position. The glossary has “â” in absolute

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 76

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

final position in imperatives and in the 3sg. “he is”; other instances of classical absolute final ɾ are rendered with “-eh” and “-ê”. In pre-consonantal position classical ɾ is rendered with “e”. As has been noted above, the phonetic results of palatalised ɸ (rendered in dialectological studies as ɸࡇ “ä”) and final ɾ (open “İ”) are both rendered by the glossary as “â”; it is not immediately clear how this situation relates to the other renderings of ɾ. Absolute final ɾ as “-â”: maঠâ: ʋɸʉɾɳ «sift!» (237.22.1) and passim; idem, as “-eh”/“-ê”: îrneh: mod. ʂʗʋɾ «from him», Tigr. [irnİn] (240.9.3); kîzneh: mod. ʛɼʘʋɾ, ʛɼʍɾ «from you», Tigr. [k‫ۑޏ‬znİn] (240.10.2)34; tê: class. ʀɾ «or» (240.18.4); preconsonantal classical ɾ: asbes: class. ɸʌʔʑɾʔ «thus» (241.6.1); tûk genek: mod. ɻʏʙʛ ʆɵɿʍɾʛ «you [pl.] do», Tigr. [t‫ޏ‬uk‫ ޏ‬gİnİk‫( ]ޏ‬239.16.1). 5.3.3. Classical vowel “u” (ʏʙ) Classical “u” (ʏʙ) is rendered by “û” both in stressed and in unstressed position: mûd: ʋʏʙɳʖ «enter» (237.11.3); tûn: ɻʏʙʍ «you [sg.]» (239.14.2); în÷û: ʂʍʐʏɶʙ «why?» (240.16.1); ûšâĞîr: ʏʙʎɸʘʂɳʗ (ʏʙʎɸʍɸʃ «to be late») (231.24.1); ûzâ: ʏʙɽɾɳ (mod. ʏʙɽɼʃ «to will, want», class. ʌʏʙɽɼʋ) (232.4.3). – Before “á” (ʉ), unstressed ʏʙ appears as “o”: oঠrtâ: ʏʙʉʉʏʗɻɾɳ «straighten!» (233.1.3); oঠrgâ «send!» (mod. ʏʙʉɸʗʆɼʃ, class. ʌʏʙʉɸʗʆɼʋ) (237.15.1); oঠâ: ʏʙʉʉɼʃ «to direct, correct» (235.17.3).

and ʏʕ, while the unstressed “o” remains unchanged.35 (a) Stressed ʏ: tûঠ: ʀʏɳʉ «come on!» (233.7.2); pû঴-: ʚʏʄ «loan» (235.11.2); asûr: ɸʔʏʗ «to this» (240.4.2); asûnĞ: ɸʔʏʍʘ «to these» (240.5.3); wûr mîn: ʏʗ ʋʂʍ «which one?» (240.7.1); wûw-â: ʏɶʕ ɾ «who is?» (dialectal vov ʕʜɶʕ). (b) Unstressed ʏ: kowâ: ɺʏʕɾɳ «praise!» (232.21.1); borâ: ʑʏʓɸɳ «cry out!» (233.6.3); norâ: ʍʏʗɾɳ «renew!» (233.13.2); orsâ: ʏʗʔɸɳ «hunt!» (233.15.2); karozâ: ʛɸʗʏɽɾɳ «preach!» (233.15.3).36 5.3.5. Classical vowel “i” (ʂ) Classical “i” (ʂ) is rendered with “î” in stressed and in unstressed position. Stressed ʂ: nîst: ʍʂɳʔʖ «sit!» (233.10.2); tîr: ɻʂɳʗ «put!» (235.22.3). Unstressed ʂ: sîrâ: ʔʂʗɾɳ «love!» (232.6.1); în÷û: ʂʍʐʏɶʙ «why?» (240.16.1). 5.3.6. Armenian schwa “Ω” (ɿ) The Armenian schwa may remain unexpressed, be indicated by lines drawn above or below consonants (here “ԥ”), or, in more restricted cases, be expressed by a full vowel (“a”, “e”, “î”). These devices may occur within a single lexeme: e.g. 232.18.3. anrkâ, but 238.23.2. anîrkâ (ɸʍɸʗɺɾɳ «revile!», cf. Tigr. [anԥrk‫ޏ‬il]); 235.12.3. hԥrâ, but 232.1.2. hrâ (/ʇɿʗɾɳ/ «push!»).

5.3.4. Classical vowel “o” (ʏ)

5.3.6.1. Armenian schwa as “ø” or “ԥ”

Parallel to classical “e” (ɼ), the classical vowel “o” (ʏ) appears in Western dialects as [wo] in stressed position, while it remains “o” in unstressed position. In the glossary, stressed “o” [wo] further develops to “û”, except in the words ʏʗ

(a) The schwa may remain unexpressed in clusters of any type: krâ: /ɺɿʗɾɳ/ «write!» (ɺʗɼʃ) (232.2.2); ঴mâ: /ʄɿʋɾɳ/ «drink!» (ʄʋɼʃ) (232.2.3); ঴ostwanîr: /ʄʏʔʖɿʕɸʍʂɳʗ/ «confess!» (ʄʏʔʖʏʕɸʍʂʃ) (232.4.2); dngâ: /ʖɿʍʆɾɳ/ «plant!» (ʖʍʆɼʃ) (235.3.3);

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 77

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

lmanĞû: dial. /ʃɿʋɸʍʘʏʙɳ/ «compare!» (standard mod. ʍʋɸʍʘʍɼʃ) (235.4.2). (b) The schwa may equally be found expressed by “ԥ” in clusters of any type: mԥdmdâ: /ʋɿʖʋɿʖɾɳ/ «meditate!» (ʋʖʋʖɼʃ) (232.20.2); sԥrpâ: /ʔɿʗɹɾɳ/ «wipe!» (ʔʗɹɼʃ) (233.2.3); Ğԥkâ: /ʈɿɺɾɳ/ «throw!» (ʈɺɼʃ) (233.5.3; cf. 236.20.3. skâ, Tigr. [ԥsgil]); sԥdgâ: /ʔɿʖʆɾɳ/ «clean!» (ʔʖʆɼʃ) (234.3.3); ঴ԥngâ: /ʄʍʆɾɳ/ «incense!» (ʄʍʆɼʃ) (234.8.3). 5.3.6.2. Armenian schwa as full vowel in the glossary The presence of a full vowel as a representative of schwa is rare but (in the case of “î” and “â”) also morphologically motivated. (a) Armenian schwa as “î”: The use of “î” seems to be incidental in a few lexemes: mîgradâ «cut (hair)!» (ʋʆʗɸʖɼʋ) (234.8.1); wî÷ârâ «pay!» (ʕʊɸʗɼʋ) (235.1.2; cf. 235.14.3, w÷ârâ); anîrkâ (238.23.2; see above); note also îngîr «friend» (ɿʍʆɼʗ) (237.6.1). Its use is structural in the following examples: erîsîd: mod. ɼʗɼʔɿɻ «your face» (238.9.1); ašgîd: dial. ɸʎʛɿɻ «your eyes» (235.14.2). Here the junction between noun and possessive is not “ԥ” as in most dialects, but “i”. This conforms to the situation in Tigranakert.37 (b) Armenian schwa as “â”: It is doubtful whether the glossary uses “a” for schwa other than in the definite article. In the case of 237.11.1. asâ (mod. ɿʔɾɳ, ɿʔɼʃ «to say»), we may be dealing with the dialectal variant ɸʔɼʃ (but Tigr. has ɿʔʔʂʃ). The suffixed definite article -ɿ appears in the glossary as a full vowel “-â”: ৢîrdâ- «the heart»: ʔʂʗʖɿ

(233.22.1); ৬ûrâ «the door»: ɻʏʙʓɿ (236.5.1; cf. 237.14.1); bâdâ- «the wall»: ʑɸʖɿ (236.11.1); kûhîdâ «with you»: ʛʏʙ ʇɼʖɿ (240.13.1).38 The definite article also appears as a full vowel “İ” (ɾ) in Tigranakert and “a” in Urfa.39 (c) Armenian schwa as “û”: This representation is the result of incidental assimilation and is found in: mûhûrâ: ʋʜʇɿʗɾɳ (ʋʜʇʗɼʃ «to seal») (238.10.3)40; zûrûĞâ: mod. ɽɿʗʏʙʘɾɳ (ɽɿʗʏʙʘɼʃ «to tell, speak», class. ɽɿʗʏʌʘ «story»; the glossary represents ɽʏʙʗʏʙʘɾɳ in conformity with many Anatolian dialects, e.g. Polis, Sivas, but cf. Tigr. ɽɿʗʏʙʘ) (238.4.2). (d) Armenian schwa as “e”: The use of “e” for Armenian schwa in the glossary is doubtful. It may occur in: 233.1.2. han÷eĞû: ʇɸʍɺɿʘʏʙɳ «rest!» (ʇɸʍɺɿʘʍɼʃ), cf. 233.13.1. bâঠeĞû: ʑɸʉɼʘʏʙɳ «cool!» (ʑɸʉɼʘɿʍɼʃ, with full ɼ); 237.10.1. pernâ: ɹɿʓʍɾɳ «take!, hold!» (ɹʓʍɼʃ), cf. Tigr. ʚɿʓʍʂʃ. The literary Western variant of the classical ɸʓʍɼʋ «to do» is ɿʍɼʃ. The glossary consistently writes this verb with “e-”. This may represent the Group 5 variant ɾʍɼʃ (Tigr. ɾʍʂʃ). Thus we find: 2 sg. imperat.: erâ «do!»; West: ɿʗɾɳ ; Tigr. [İrİ] (237.13.1) participle: enoঠ «doing»; West: ɿʍʏʉ; Tigr. [İnoá] (239.19.3) 1 sg. pres.: genîm «I do»; West: ʆɵɿʍɼʋ; Tigr. [gİnim] (239.13.2) 3 sg. pres.: genâ «he does»; West: ʆɵɿʍɾ; Tigr. [gİnİ] (239.10.1) 1 pl. pres.: mîk-genîk «we do»; West: ʆɵɿʍɼʍʛ; Tigr. [gİnink‫( ]ޏ‬239.18.1) 2 pl. pres.: tûk genek «you do»; West: ʆɵɿʍɾʛ; Tigr. [gİnİk‫( ]ޏ‬239.16.1) 1 sg. aor.: erî «I did»; West: ɿʗʂ; Tigr. ɐʗɾʘʂ (239.12.3)

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 78

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

2 sg. aor.: erîr «you did»; West: ɿʗʂʗ; Tigr. ɐʗɾʘʂʗ (239.12.1) 3 sg. aor.: erâĞ «he did»; West: ɿʗɸʙ; Tigr. ɾʗɸࡇʘ (239.9.3) 1 pl. aor.: erâk «we did»; West ɿʗʂʍʛ; Tigr. ɐʗʂʘʂʍʛ (239.18.2) 5.4. Morphology and Syntax A number of points relating to the morphology of the Armenian material in the glossary have already been touched upon. A brief list is provided below of some of the notable features. (a) 1 pl. aorist ending in -âk: 239.18.2 (erâk: ɿʗʂʍʛ, dial. -ɸʍʛ) (b) past participle in -man: 235.23.1 (tԥrmân), as in Tigr. and Urfa41 (c) present tense marker gû- (g- before vowels): 239.6.1 (gûlmanĞnâ: ʆɿ ʍʋɸʍʘʍɾ); and passim in the main lexicon in Yale Syriac 9 (d) future tense marker d-: 239.19.2 (denîk: ʑʂʖʂ ɿʍɼʍʛ); cf. Tigr. [mԥn], Urfa [bԥd(ԥr)] 42 (e) ego «go!»: 236.24.3 (araštûn-ego: ɸʓɸʒ ʖʏʙʍ ɼʆʏ); cf. Tigr. [İgo] (f) plural in -ʖɸʛ: 239.22.1 (gendâk «women»)43 (g) pronominal ablative ending in -n-: 240.9.3 (îrneh), 240.10.2 (kîzneh); cf. Tigr. [irnİn, k‫ۑޏ‬znİn] (h) ʇɼʖ with genitive (and article): 240.13.1–4 (kûhîdâ, îrhîdâ, îm hîdâ) 5.5. Loanwords The Armenian vocabulary found in the glossary includes a significant number of

loanwords from Arabic, Persian and Turkish (see indices 3–5 in Part 2). The very fact that much of the Armenian material in the lexicon in Harvard Syriac 54 consists of translations from the Arabic parts of Bar Bahlul’s lexicon indicates that the milieu in which the Syro-Armenian lexica were produced was one that was not without acquaintance with literary Arabic, while the presence of a number of Arabic interlinear glosses in the main part of the lexicon in Yale Syriac 9 shows that the copyist of our manuscript was himself capable of writing Arabic. It may be noted, on the other hand, that a number of Arabic loanwords in the glossary occur in forms that clearly reflect the spoken dialectal, as opposed to literary, forms of the words, e.g. ÷ûwâb- < ÷awƗb «answer» (232.7.2, 234.18.2); তsebâ < ‫ۊ‬isƗb «calculation, consideration» (232.7.1), with the imƗla typical of northern Mesopotamian and Anatolian dialects (“Ɨ” > “Ɲ” in the neighbourhood of -i-, e.g. ktƝb < kitƗb «book»);44 meretâ, perhaps < mƯrƗ‫ܔ‬ (232.16.2; again with imƗla). In the treatment of interdentals, we find both of the two types of development reported for the area (৮, ঎, ঌ/਌ > s, z, ਌, in certain dialects of Batman and Mardin provinces; but > t, d, ঌ, in DiyarbakÕr);45 ৢâbût < Arab. ‫ܔ‬Ɨbit «stationary», cf. Turk. sabit (232.14.2); kzmat/঴zmat < ‫ې‬idma (frequent variant: ‫ې‬i‫ڴ‬ma) «service», cf. Turk. hizmet (233.21.2, 238.10.2); Īârar < ‫ڲ‬arar «harm», cf. Turk. zarar (234.1.1); râzî- < rƗ‫ڲ‬in (defined form: rƗ‫ڲ‬Ư), «satisfied», cf. Turk. razÕ (235.12.1); but hadrâ, prob. < ‫ۊ‬Ɨ‫ڲ‬ir «ready», cf. Turk. hazÕr (233.16.1); also meretâ (see above).

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 79

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

What is presented here is the first part of a revised and expanded version of a paper prepared by Takahashi and read (in absentia) at the 9th symposium of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies. The original paper consisted of the introductory material and a transcription/ translation of sample excerpts from the glossary. The paper has been expanded to include the transcription/translation of the rest of the glossary and the indices, as well as comments on the phonological and dialectological aspects of the Armenian material. The introductory material, including the phonological and dialectological discussions, appears here; the remainder of the paper, consisting of the transcription/translation of the glossary and the indices, has been submitted to Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies for publication. In the preparation of the paper, Takahashi has been largely responsible for the Syriac material and the preliminary identification of the Armenian material, while Weitenberg has been responsible for the more advanced treatment of the Armenian material. Notes of thanks are due here to the staff of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library for their kindnesses during Takahashi’s visits to the library in the summer of 2009, to Prof. Luk Van Rompay for his suggestion that Takahashi contact Weitenberg and for his assistance in doing so, and to Dr. Masayuki Ueno (The University of Tokyo) for his valuable suggestions and his help with the proofreading. 2 See Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, Syriac Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library. A Catalogue (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 59–60. The existence of this lexicon, which was then in the possession of James Rendel Harris, was first indicated by David Samuel Margoliouth, whose project of publishing the entire lexicon saw little progress, but who has left us some useful observations in the one article that he published on the subject (D. S. Margoliouth, “The Syro-Armenian Dialect,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1898: 839– 861; cf. Sebastian Brock, “Armenian in Syriac Script,” in Armenian Studies. In Memoriam Haïg Berbérian, ed. Dickran Kouymjian

[Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986], 75–80). 3 See S. Brock, “Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques, éthiopiens et arméniens du Centre d’Etudes Orientales Chrétiennes du Mouski, Le Caire. A) Syriac Manuscripts,” Studia Orientalia Christiana Collectanea 18 (1985) 213–218, here 215f.; also id., “Armenian in Syriac Script,” 77. One correction may be made to the information given in the articles just cited; Melke b. Nicodemus ( ƑƟ ƎŨĥ ųƄƇƉ ĸŤƊƣ ĸŴƊſĪŴƠƀƌ), the copyist of the Cairo manuscript, was not “from Zalmaz in Gargar”, but was “from the environs (acmƗl) of Gargar (ƢūƢū ĵŤƊƕĥ ƎƉ)” (with thanks to Mr. Benjamin Trigona-Harany for forwarding to me the images of the manuscript just as the present paper was going to press). 4 Digital images of the whole of this manuscript have now been made available on the website of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (see http://beinecke. library.yale.edu/digitallibrary/). 5 Leo Depuydt, “Classical Syriac Manuscripts at Yale University: A Checklist,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies (http:// syrcom.cua/Hugoye/) 9/2 (July 2006). 6 A more detailed account of the six manuscripts sold to Yale by Menemencioglu will appear in H. Takahashi, “Also via Istanbul to Yale: Mss. Yale Syriac 7–12,” in In the Shadow of the Pyramids: Festschrift for Dimitri Gutas, ed. D. Reisman & F. Opwis (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming [2010]). 7 See, for example, Hanna Dolapönü [Dolabani], Tarihte Mardin. Itr-el-nardin fi tarih Merdin, trans. Cebrail AydÕn (Istanbul: Hilal MatbaasÕ, 1972), 166; Samuel Akdemir, østanbul mozai÷inde Süryaniler/The Syrian Orthodox Community in the Mosaic of Istanbul, vol. 1 (Istanbul: østanbul Süryani Ortodoks Kilisesi ve Yönetim Kurulu, 2009), 101–103. 8 Filuksinǀs Yuতanon DǀlabƗnƯ, M‫ۊ‬awyono da-ktobe sri‫ܒ‬e d-botay arke d-dayroto wa-dҵidoto suryoyoto da-b-Madn‫ۊ‬o (Fihris ma‫ܒې‬nj‫ܒ‬Ɨt al-suryƗnƯya), ed. Grigǀriyǀs Yuতanon Abrohom [IbrƗhƯm] (Aleppo: Mardin Publishing House, 1994), 19–20. 9 IƥnƗ৬iynjs AfrƗm al-awwal Barৢaum, alLuҴluҴ al-man‫ܔ‬njr fƯ taҴrƯ‫ ې‬al-ҵulnjm wa-l-ƗdƗb assuryƗnƯya, 4th ed. (Holland [Glane/Losser]: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1987), 26, no. 23; = Ignatius

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 80

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, trans. Matti Moosa, 2nd ed. (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003), 15–16, no. 23. 10 Fehim Beg 2 = Yale Syriac 7 (copied in the Monastery of Mor Abতay in 1590); Fehim Beg 3 = Istanbul, Meryemana 7 (copied in the Monastery of Mor Barৢawmo in 1574); Fehim Beg 6 = Paris syr. 395 (notes of ordinations for Vank and Abnj GhƗlib, ca. 1624); Fehim Beg 7 (copied in Ma‫ޏ‬arrat Mor Zakkay in 1590/1). 11 See Hubert Kaufhold, “Notizen zur späten Geschichte des Barsaumô-Klosters,” Hugoye 3/2 (July 2000); cf. Muzaffer øris, Bütün yönleriyle Süryaniler (Istanbul: Ekol YayÕmcÕlÕk, 2003), 120–136. 12 The lexicon begins, immediately after the ornamental drawing marking the beginning of ł the work, with the entry “ĖķŤƏł ŴƍƆ Ŋ Ł .ŴƀŎ ŨƦƣĥʼn ”, and runs to “ƁƍūŁĥ” (end of p. 5) in alphabetical ō order. It then returns to “ĿŴƊŹĥ” (p. 6), goes as ł far as “ĵĥƦʼn ƣŎ ĥʼn ” (p. 13), and jumps to “IJűƌŁĥ” (p. 14). From that point the rest of the lexicon is in regular alphabetical order. 13 On pages 200, 218, 220, 224, 241–243, 247, 248, 251–253, 258, 260, 261, 263, 267– 269, 279, 281, 282, 284. 14 The same three-number system is also used below for the indication of entries in the main lexicon on p. 4–199 of Ms. Yale Syriac 9. 15 In the body of the glossary the identification is normally with the modern Western Armenian lexemes and forms, the literary language to which the language of the glossary stands closest. Classical forms, on the other hand, are normally used in the observations on the language of the glossary in Section 5 below, where the historical development is of concern to us. 16 The two signs ৖ and ৔ occur only on two occasions each in the glossary. The sign ৖ occurs frequently in the main lexicon in Yale Syriac 9; ৔ is rarer, but does occur in at least about ten cases (22.20.2, 33.3.1, 33.10.2, 33.13.1, 43.4.2, 95.11.1, 133.3.1, 177.6.6, 197.4.2). 17 Cf. Margoliouth, “Syro-Armenian Dialect” (as n. 2 above), 858–860. 18 With such use of ‫ܒ‬Ɲt for “d” (ʖ), one might compare the frequent use of ‫ܒ‬ƗҴ for “d” in Ottoman Turkish (e.g. ύΎρ alongside ύ΍Ω for mod. Turk. da÷ «mountain», ίϮϗϮρ alongside ίϮϗϭΩ for dokuz «nine»).

19

The same verb is found written with “ৢ” in the page of the Harvard lexicon reproduced in Margoliouth, “Syro-Armenian Dialect,” opposite p. 850, left column, l. 1; cf. ibid., p. 853. 20 See Margoliouth, “The Syro-Armenian Dialect” (as n. 2 above). 21 The elision is more marked in the glossary than in literary modern Western Armenian; see, e.g., 232.4.2 (঴ostwanîr: ʄʏʔʖʏʕɸʍʂɳʗ), 233.18.3 (bašrtrâ: ʑɸʎɸʗɸɻʗɾɳ), 235.1.3 (m঴tarâ: ʋʄʂʀɸʗɾɳ), 235.23.2 (÷oঠwâ: ʁʏʉʏʕɾɳ), 236.24.2 (awdĞîr: ɸʙɼʖɸʘʂɳʗ); but note the absence of elision in 233.9.2. ergîr bakanâ «worship!» (cf. class. ʑɸɺɸʍɼʋ, mod. ʑɸɺʍɼʃ), probably due to ecclesiastical usage helping preserve the classical pronunciation. 22 On the classification of Armenian dialects, see Andrzej Pisowicz, “Matériaux pour servir à la recherche du consonantisme arménien. Continuation dialectale des occlusives et affriquées de la langue classique,” Folia Orientalia 17 (1976) 197–216; Bert Vaux, Phonology of Armenian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 7–12; cf. Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia. A Historical Atlas (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2001), 227 (map no. 218). On the dialects of Group 5, in particular the Tigranakert (DiyarbakÕr) dialect, see Bert Vaux, “The Armenian dialects of Tigranakert/ Dikranagerd and Urfa,” in Armenian Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series. Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces 6), ed. Richard Hovannisian (Costa Mesa: Mazda Pubishers, 2006), 191–207, with extensive literature. The data on the Tigranakert dialect in the discussion below are taken from Anahit H. Haneyan, Tigranakerti barba‫۾‬Ϸ [The Dialect of Tigranakert] (Erevan: Haykakan SSH GA Hratarakþ‫ޏ‬ut‫ޏ‬yun, 1978). 23 On the dialect of Cilicia, see Hraþ‫ޏ‬ya Aþa৘yan, Kҵnnutҵyun Kilikiayi barba‫۾‬i [Study of the Dialect of Cilicia] (Erevan: Erevani Hamalsari Hratarakþ‫ޏ‬ut‫ޏ‬yun, 2003). 24 The negative particle is regularly represented by ÷-/÷î in the main part of the lexicon in Yale Syriac 9. 25 Cf. Margoliouth, “The Syro-Armenian Dialect” (as n. 2 above), 848. 26 In 234.15.2, pîbrâ < class. ɹɼʙɼʓɼʋ «to nail», the sequence ʙʓ created by the elision of

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 81

The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9 Part 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________

the middle syllable is then assimilated to ɹʓ. The use of “î” for ɼ here in unstressed position is unexpected. 27 On the dialectal development of initial Classical Armenian ʌ (y), see J.S.S. Weitenberg “Diphthongization of initial E- and the development of initial Y- in Armenian,” in Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, 1. Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Studies, Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32, ed. A. Lubotsky et al. (Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi, 2008), 609–616. 28 The one instance in the glossary where a double consonant is likely to be explicitly indicated as such occurs in a loanword that involves an element subject to exceptional orthographical treatment in the original language (240.20.4: šallâ, probably < Arab. in šƗҴa AllƗh). 29 Haneyan, Tigranakerti barba‫۾‬Ϸ (as n. 22 above), 55–57. 30 Cf. Margoliouth, “The Syro-Armenian Dialect” (as n. 2 above), 848. 31 Cf. Margoliouth, “The Syro-Armenian Dialect” (as n. 2 above), 854. 32 Haneyan, Tigranakerti barba‫۾‬Ϸ (as n. 22 above), 32–33. 33 The form “îs” is consistent with the material of the glossary, but does not agree with Tigr. [jİs]. 34 The “î” in kîzneh is unexpected. 35 The imperative -ego ɼɺʏɳ «come!» in 236.24.3 is an incidental secondary development from ɼʆʏʙ (cf. Tigr. [İgo]).

36

In gâঠdûdâ (class. ʆɼʉʖʏʖɼʋ «to soil», 233.8.2), the irregular reflex of unstressed “o” is influenced by the basic form ʆɼʉʖʏʖ «dirty». 37 See Haneyan, Tigranakerti barba‫۾‬Ϸ (as n. 22 above), 37; e.g. ʔʂʗɻʂʔ «my heart». 38 Cf. Margoliouth, “The Syro-Armenian Dialect” (as n. 2 above), 848. 39 See Haneyan, Tigranakerti barba‫۾‬Ϸ (as n. 22 above), 37; Vaux, “The Armenian dialects of Tigranakert/Dikranagerd and Urfa” (as n. 22 above), 192. 40 Cf. the parallel phenomenon in 238.13.2. hûkûm- < Arab. ‫ۊ‬ukm (cf. Turk. hüküm), although the additional vowel may in this case be due to the influence of Turkish. 41 See Vaux, “The Armenian dialects of Tigranakert/Dikranagerd and Urfa” (as n. 22 above), 192. On instances of participles in -man in Harvard Syriac 54, see Margoliouth, “The SyroArmenian Dialect” (as n. 2 above), 850–851. 42 See Vaux, “The Armenian dialects of Tigranakert/Dikranagerd and Urfa” (as n. 22 above), 193. 43 Cf. Margoliouth, “The Syro-Armenian Dialect” (as n. 2 above), 844 (text, l. 4), 846 (a঴prdâk «brethren»: ɼʉɹɸʗʛ, etc.). 44 See Otto Jastrow, “Das mesopotamische Arabische,” in Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte, ed. Wolfdietrich Fischer and Otto Jastrow (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980), 140– 154, here 140 (also, libr. cit. 55). 45 See Jastrow, “Das mesopotamische Arabische” (as n. 44 above), 142 (also, libr. cit. 26, 50, with the literature cited there).

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) ʊ Page 82



  7KH6KRUWHU6\ULDF$UPHQLDQ*ORVVDU\LQ0V Ωmshiho, dΩmoran > Ωdmoran, etc.), and transliterating Syriac ‘qof’ as ‘kh’ (sumoqo > sumokho, [qam] > khum). 35 Yabdoshnushto inside the periodical. 36 It should be noted that the order of the last five entries in the table of contents, starting with the Syriac lesson, does not correspond to the actual order in which these entries appear inside the periodical. 37 “Babylon” always uses the original Armenian name of the city, and never “Kharput” or “Harput.” 38 Apparently the “Assyrian Ladies Aid Society,” established in 1909.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 100

___________________________________________________________________________

OBITUARY

DR. J.C.J. (JAN) SANDERS (1918-2010)

D

r. Jan Sanders, Roman Catholic Priest of the Diocese of HaarlemAmsterdam and Associate Professor Emeritus of Syriac and Christian Arabic (University of Amsterdam) peacefully passed away Saturday evening, March 20, 2010 in Hoofddorp near Amsterdam. He was 91 years old.

Sanders was already interested in the study of Semitic languages at a very young age. As a secondary school student he attended the Hebrew lessons taught by the famous Dutch Rabbi S. Ph. de Vries, author of Joodse Riten en Symbolen (Jewish Rites and Symbols), a popular and often reprinted introduction to Jewish life and doctrine; during his whole life he kept a keen interest in Rabbinical exegesis and Jewish liturgy, especially from the perspective of Jewish

influences on Christian liturgy and exegesis. Ordained a priest in 1943, in the middle of the War, and under Nazi rule finding himself in the impossibility of practicing pastoral youth work—the task assigned to him—, he came across a copy of Brockelmann’s Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik which he studied intensively. This first contact with Syriac led to his first publication: a Dutch translation of the West Syrian Maundy Thursday Ceremony of the Washing of the Feet in the St Marcus Monastery in Jerusalem, with commentary.1 After a few years of pastoral work, he received permission to study Arabic at the University of Amsterdam (1953-59), which was interrupted by one year of Oriental Studies, especially Old South Arabian, in Louvain. After his studies he went to Nazareth in order to perfect his knowledge of spoken Arabic; there he stayed at the Minor Seminary of the Melkite Church. In Nazareth he adopted the Melkite rite and started to celebrate the Liturgy in Greek and Arabic. In this period, he also began to work on his doctorate, the Arabic Genesis commentary of the East Syrian author Abnj l-Faraj ‘Abdallah Ibn A‫ܒ‬-ܑaiyib, which he defended at Amsterdam University in 1963 (Faculty of Arts).2 After his doctorate, he spent one year in Mosul in order to study the East-Syrian liturgy. Here he also adopted the Chaldean rite. A few years later, he was appointed Associate Professor for “Syriac and nonclassical Arabic” at Amsterdam University,

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 101

Obituary ____________________________________________________________________________________

where he pursued his studies in Syriac exegesis3 and Christian Arabic theology4 and literature,5 but also developed new fields of interest such as Church music (a study of possible Jewish, synagogical influences),6 spirituality,7 patristics,8 and Muslim-Christian relations.9 Sanders’ scholarly activities did not prevent him from remaining active in the pastoral field. In the seventies, The Netherlands became one of the lands of emigration of the Syrian Orthodox from Tur ‘Abdin and since the eighties also of the Chaldeans from the Geznach region in Turkey and later from Iraq. Sanders was one of the first to recognize the specific needs of these Christians—by the broader society often considered as Muslims on account of their Turkish or Iraqi passports. He was a regular visitor of many Syrian Orthodox and Chaldean families throughout the Netherlands, whom he tried to help in several ways (contacts with schools, the authorities, …). Listening to the stories of these Chaldeans about their homeland, their traditions and their books and manuscripts, he realized that these narratives were a unique source of information on the recent Christian history of Eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq, which unless duly recorded, would get irrevocably lost with the death of the first

generation of these migrants. Thus he conceived the idea of writing a cultural atlas of Eastern Turkey, Western Iran and Northern Iraq,10 based on the travelogues (published or unpublished) of western missionaries, but especially the stories of migrants living in the Netherlands and Belgium. This work was published in Dutch and in an (not very felicitous) English translation in 1997.11 Its main objective is to give recognition to the presence of an important Christian population in Eastern Turkey, whose memory risks being obliterated not only by the events of 1915, but also by the assimilation of their last survivors to the western societies, where they found shelter and refuge. The Melkite Patriarch Maximos V Hakim made him an archimandrite in recognition of his work for the eastern and oriental Christians. The impressive funeral service on 26.3.2010 was attended by a great number of members of different eastern churches. N. Tossa, who translated his Atlas into Arabic (Baghdad, 2007), sang the beautiful hymns for the funeral of a priest according to the Chaldean rite. Ìß ¾éÐâ ¿Ìß~ Herman Teule Nijmegen-Louvain

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 102

Obituary ____________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1 J.C.J. Sanders, “De ritus van de mystieke voetwassing bij de Syrische Monophysieten in het St. Markosklooster te Jeruzalem,” Het Christelijk Oosten en Hereeniging 9 (1957) 253–268. 2 Inleiding op het Genesiscommentaar van de Nestoriaan Ibn A‫ܒ‬-ܑaiyib (Leiden, 1963). Closely related to this doctoral thesis are his critical edition and translation of the text of the commentary: Ibn A‫ܒ‬-ܑaiyib: Commentaire sur la Genèse (2 vol.), CSCO 274-5 (Louvain, 1967). 3 Cf. “Moses bar Kepha bei Ibn A৬-৫aiyib,” OCA 221 (1983) 253–260; “Le commentaire de Denis Bar Salibi sur la Genèse,” in P. Pestman (ed.), Proceedings of the Congress of the Dutch Oriental Society, May 1970, Acta Orientalia Neerlandica (Leiden, 1971), pp. 46–50; “Le manuscrit arabe 128 de Diarbékir retrouvé,” Le Muséon 88 (1975) 31–57. 4 Cf. Le traité ‘De l’incarnation’ de ms. Paris B.N. syr. 371, F. 107v-125v (1e partie),” Le Muséon 101 (1988) 343-73, Le Muséon 102 (1989) 147-63. 5 La littérature nestorienne, (Heemstede, 1985)—French updated translation of G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur II (Città del Vaticano, 1947), pp. 103–219. 6 “The Beth Gazo or the Octo-Echoes (sic) of the West Syrian Church,” The Harp V (1992) 15– 28; “Quelques observations à propos de la musique chaldéenne,” ZDMG Suppl. 4 (1980), pp. 178–180.

7

“Une prière inédite de Jacques de Ninive,” in Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P., AOAT 211 (1982) 499–511; “Un manuel de prières populaires de l’église syrienne,” Le Muséon 90 (1977) 81–102; “Mar Bishoi, a unique witness of Ascetic Life in Eastern Turkey,” in R. Lavenant, Symposium Syriacum VII Uppsala University, Department of Asian and African Languages 1114 August 1996, OCA 256 (1998), pp. 233–242; “Introduction to the Life of Mar Bishoi,” The Harp VIII-IX (1995-96) 277–288; Naar Christus’ lichtend aanschijn. Zes preken van Mar Bishoi (achtste eeuw), vertaald uit het oost-Syrisch (Voorhout, 2001, 2005²); 74 pp. 8 “Autour de la didascalie,” in R. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to A. Vööbus (Chicago, 1977), pp. 47–54. 9 “Commentaire coranique d’un chrétien. Quelques pages presque perdues,” in C. Laga, J. Munitiz & L. Van Rompay (eds), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey, OLA 18 (1985), pp. 297–308. 10 “Atlas of the Christian Aramaic Civilization,” The Harp 1 (1988) 31–37. 11 Assyro-chaldese Christenen in Oost-Turkije en Iran. Hun laatste vaderland opnieuw in kaart gebracht, (Hernen, 1997); 100 pp. + maps; Assyrian-Chaldean Christians in Eastern Turkey and Iran: Their Last Homeland Re-charted (Hernen, 1997); 96 pp. + maps.

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 103

___________________________________________________________________________

THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

MEMBERS OF THE YEAR 2009-2010

Honorary Member BROCK, Sebastian, Oxford, UK GRIFFITH, Rev. Sidney H., Gaithersburg MD Corporate Members GORGIAS ORESS, Piscataway NJ SALAM Social Club, Toronto ON ZINDA Online Magazine, San Jose CA Life Members BADWI, Fr. Abdo, Kasilik, LEBANON DAVID, Sargon, Scarborough ON DINNO, Khalid, Mississauga ON EMMANUEL, Mar Emmanuel, Toronto ON GREATREX, Geoffrey, Ottawa ON GREATREX, Marina, Ottawa ON MALAS, Gabriel, UK MURAD, Janan, Mississauga ON SMITH, Helen, Toronto ON Members ABBA, Rev. Yusif, Toronto ON ABDULAHAD, Raika, Thunder Bay ON AFRAM, Zyad, Mississauga ON AKOPIAN, Arman, Ottawa ON ALIBERTIS, Demetrios3, Toronto ON ASTO, Sami, Scarborough ON BADOVINAC, J. & Ed. Mississauga ON BANDAK, Jean, Scarborough ON BANDAK, John, Markham ON

BASMAJI, Samir, Markham ON BASMAJI, John, Markham ON BEAULIEU, Paul-Alain, Toronto ON BENJAMEN, Alda, Maple ON BENJAMIN, Renya, Maple ON BIHNAN, Adnan, Brampton ON BOUJIKIAN, Stephen, Scarborough, ON BRIQUEL CHATONNET, Françoise, Paris, FRANCE BROWN, Kenneth, Aberdeen MD BOUTROS, Ramez, Toronto ON BUDSKA, Nina, Toronto ON BUTSKA, Nina, Toronto ON CASEY, Kevin, Toronto ON CASSIS, Marica, St. John’s NL CHAMOUN, John, Scarborough ON CHAMOUN, Ramia, Scarborough ON CHAMOUN, Issa, Scarborough ON CHAMOUN, Ruba, Scarborough ON CLARKE, Colin S., Hamilton ON COCHRANE, Steve, Weston CO CONTINI, Riccardo, Napoli, Italy CORBETT, John H., Kingston ON COX, James, King City ON DAKGI, Mike, Scarborough ON DAKGI, Abdo, Scarborough ON DAOD, Nagham, Toronto ON DAWOID, Fatdal, Täby, Sweden DAWOOD, Fadi, Thunder Bay ON DAWOOD, Issam, Thunder Bay ON

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 104

Members of the Year 2009-2010 ____________________________________________________________________________________

DAWOOD, Massarah, Thunder Bay ON DEBIÉ, Muriel, Paris, FRANCE DESREUMAUX, Alain, Paris, FRANCE DINNO, Deena, Mississauga ON DODD, Erica, Victoria BC DOERFLER, Maria, Durham NC DOHLER, Anna, Toronto ON DONABED, Sargon, Toronto ON FAIBISH, Neil, Toronto ON FATHI, Jean, Toronto ON FOX, James B., Notre Dame IN FRAME, Grant, Philadelphia PA FRANCOIS, Mark, Toronto ON GEORGE, Elia, Toronto ON HANNA, Robert, Mississauga ON HANNAWI, Abdul Ahad, Toronto ON HANNAH-SHMOUNI, Fady, Richmond BC HARRAK, Amir, Toronto ON HARRAK, Ryan, Toronto ON HARVEY, Susan A., Lincoln, RI HEAL, Kristian S, Provo UTAH HINDO, Tariq R., Toronto ON HIRSCH, Antoine, Toronto ON HUMPHRYS, Peter, Peterborough ON ISSA, Rev. Stephanos, Scarborough ON ISSAK, Rev. John, Hamilton ON JOHNSON, Nola J., Toronto ON JWAIDEH, Albertine, King City ON KASSIR, Zuhair, Milton ON KEOUGH, Shawn, Leuven, Belgium KESSEL, Grigory, Marburg GERMANY KIRAZ, George, Piscataway NJ KITCHEN, Rev. Robert, Regina SK KRIZNANIC, Dorothy, Toronto OB KYDD, Ronald, Colborne ON LAWSON, Todd, Toronto ON LEHTO, Adam, Waterloo ON LONDES, Arlette, Thornhill ON

MATHEW, Parackel, Rev. Dr. Toronto ON MATHEWS Jr., Edward G, Tunkhannock PA MICHELSON, David, Princeton, NJ MORRISON, Rev Craig, Rome, ITALY MOUSSA, Helene, Toronto ON NINAN, Mathew, Brampton ON ORAHA, Alhan, Toronto ON POSSEKEL, Dr. Ute, Reading MA POIRIER, Paul-Hubert, Quebec PQ RASSAM, Suha, Surrey, UK ROMENY, R. B. ter Haar, Leiden, NL ROYEL, David, San Jose CA RUSSELL, Rev. Paul S., Chevy Chase MD SAATI, Zak, Scarborough ON SAATI, Jack, Scarborough ON SAATI, Jacklin, Scarborough ON SAATI, Rema, Scarborough ON SALEH, Walid, Toronto ON SHAMANI, Toma, Toronto ON SHAMON, Isaac, Mississauga ON SHAMOUN, Ashorina, Mississauga ON SKIL, Sonia, Toronto ON TAKAHASHI, Hidemi, Tokyo, JAPAN TALIA, Shawqi, Washington DC TARZI, Habib, Unionville ON TARZI, Albert, Unionville ON TARZI, George, Unionville ON TARZI, Salwa, Unionville ON TREIGER, Alexander, Halifax NS VAN ROMPAY, Lucas, Durham NC THEKEPARAMBIL, Rev. Jacob, Kerala INDIA WEATLEY-IRVING, Linda, Chicago IL WERYHO, Jan, Montreal PQ WHATELY, Conor, Winnipeg, MB YACOUB, Fr. Jack, Montreal, PQ YOUSIF, Ashoor, Toronto ON YU, Alexander, Toronto ON ZAIYOUNA, Ahsan, Thornhill ON

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010) — Page 105