Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in Its Greco-Roman Context 9788863583557, 9782728311071, 9781575064215, 9781575064222, 9783805348324, 9789519047782, 9782351597057, 9786148019166

Citation preview

TWO NEW WITNESSES TO THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION* A manuscript from Vienna important for the transmission of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has also proven an intriguing source for traditions related to the Acta Pilati cycle of texts. The cycle includes several versions of the Acts of Pilate (or Gospel of Nicodemus as it is known in medieval Latin manuscripts), the Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, the Vindicta Salvatoris, as well as several letters of Pilate and reports of his death1. Also related are a number of medieval sermons that draw upon either the cycle or common sources. Some of these sermons have yet to receive comprehensive treatment from scholars. When such a treatment materializes, the Vienna manuscript will have a role to play in establishing critical editions of two texts: In sancta et magna Parasceue et in sanctam passionem Domini (On the Passion, for the Preparation Day = BHGa 635b; CPG 5526) attributed to Eusebius of Alexandria, and a previously unknown sermon detailing the burial of Jesus and the imprisonment of Joseph of Arimathea. The manuscript is cataloged as Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. hist. gr. 91, (pap., 220/225 × 150 mm, 208 fols.) of the 14th or 15th century2. It contains a variety of texts, including NT excerpts (e.g., Luke 7:216 fol. 22r-22v), homilies (e.g., by Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and others), sermons, hagiographica, and other miscellaneous texts (the Abgar Correspondence, various chronicles and church histories), many of which are without titles. The version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas found in the manuscript belongs to the Greek A recension established by Tischendorf; indeed, it is the only known complete witness to the recension – all other manuscripts, including those used by Tischendorf, lack significant portions of the text3. Until recently, the manuscript was *  My thanks to Jack Horman, Andrew Bernhard, and Sarah Veale for their assistance in constructing the Greek editions of the two texts featured here. 1   For an accessible discussion of the various texts along with English translations see Ehrman – Pleše, Apocryphal Gospels, p. 419-585. A more thorough treatment can be found in Izydorczyk, Nicodemus’ Gospel. See also Geerard, CANT 64-78, as well as the Garshuni texts “Lament of the Virgin” and “Martyrdom of Pilate”, in Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies, 2, p. 163-332; and the Georgian Story of Joseph in van Esbroeck, L’histoire de Lydda, p. 119-127. 2   For a complete description of the manuscript see Hunger, Katalog, vol. 1, p. 94102. 3   The first mention of the manuscript in connection to Infancy Thomas was made by Noret, Pour une édition. It was then used peripherally by Rosén in his Slavonic Translation.

Le Muséon 129 (3-4), 251-278. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3178244 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 251

29/11/16 06:02

252

t. burke

overlooked in research on the gospel; it has been overlooked also in discussions of the Acta Pilati, likely because the two related texts it contains are fragmentary and without titles. 1. On the Passion, for the Preparation Day4 The first of the two texts under examination has been known in scholarship for centuries5. It is one among a group of homilies attributed to Eusebius of Alexandria, four of which have parallels of content with the Acta Pilati tradition6. Upon its initial publication, On the Passion was placed among the spuria of John Chrysostom7, due to the information provided in the incipit of the manuscript used by Henry Saville in 16128. Saville did not reveal full details of this manuscript, only that it was from Vienna (he called it “ms. Caesareo”). Guy Lafontaine believed it to be either theol. gr. 247 or theol. gr. 263, both of which attribute the text to Chry­ sostom9. Saville’s edition was reproduced a century later in Bernard de Montfaucon’s collection of Chrysostom’s works10. The determination that the text should belong to the corpus of Ps.-Eusebius was made by J.C. Thilo in 183211. Thilo wrote in objection to Johann Christian Wilhelm Augusti’s position that three of the Ps.-Eusebius sermons (numbered 13, 14, and 15) should instead be credited to another Eusebius: Eusebius of Emesa12. Thilo included in his refutation a reproduction of Saville/Montfaucon’s Comprehensive treatment is found in Burke, De infantia Iesu, p. 131-132 and ChartrandBurke, Greek Manuscript Tradition, p. 138. 4   Greek text and translation, below p. 260-267. 5   Comprehensive overviews of the publishing history of the text can be found in Leroy – Glorie, ‘Eusèbe d’Alexandrie’, and Gounelle, Collectio Sermonum, p. 249-272. Lafontaine, La version arménienne, contains the clearest discussion of the text’s early publishing history and includes a detailed list of the known Greek manuscripts. 6   The other three are On “Art Thou He That Should Come?”, On the Coming of John into Hades, and On the Devil and Hades. For an initial discussion of the four homilies see McCulloch, Harrowing of Hell, p. 174-191. 7  See de Aldama, Repertorium Pseudochrysostomicum, Nr. 489. 8   Saville, S. Ioannis Chrysostomi opera, graece, vol. 7, p. 459-462. 9   Lafontaine, La version arménienne, p. 99 and also Noret, Un fragment homilétique, p. 172, n. 1. Only a comparison of Saville’s edition to the Vienna manuscripts will resolve this issue. For catalog entries see Hunger et al., Katalog, p. 161-169 and 212-215. Saville’s own copy of the text made from the unnamed manuscript is available at the Bodleian Library (Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Auct. E. 3. 8). For further information see Aubineau, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci, p. xv-xvii (on the history of the Saville collection), p. 122125 (on the contents of the booklet containing his transcription of On the Passion). 10   de Montfaucon, Sancti Patris nostri Iohannis Chrysostomi, vol. 11, p. 793-796. 11   Thilo, Eusebius von Alexandrien, discussion p. 30-32, text p. 81-91. 12   See the summary in Gounelle, Collectio Sermonum, p. 250-253.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 252

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

253

edition of On the Passion (now numbered Sermon 17) but with variants from a second Vienna manuscript: theol. gr. 30713. A revised edition of Montfaucon’s study appeared soon after and incorporated some of Thilo’s notes and variants14. This second edition was used for Migne’s PG (62, col. 721-724). In both works, however, the homily is featured among works of Ps.-Chrysostom, not Ps.-Eusebius. A number of additional Greek manuscripts of On the Passion have been mentioned in subsequent scholarship. Angelo Mai published another edition of the sermons based on Vat. gr. 1633 from the 10th/11th century; however, he did not include Sermon 17 because the text had already been edited15. F. Nau discussed another manuscript – Paris, suppl. grec 407, fol. 203-206; copied 1592 – which is said to be identical to Mai’s manuscript16. M. Gronewald has published a fragmentary sixth-century papyrus17. And a 12th/13th-century fragment (MS 3219, fol. 209) at the National Library of Scotland, published initially by I.C. Cunningham18, was identified as belonging to On the Passion by Jacques Noret19. Noret mentioned also a manuscript with similar readings at Lesbos: Μονὴ Ὑψηλοῦ 57, fol. 217-219. In the course of his discussion, Noret characterized Cunningham’s Edinburgh manuscript as superior in value to the Vienna manu­script used in previous editions of the text. Virtually all of these additional sources and many more are presented in a comprehensive list of 47 manu­ scripts made by Guy Lafontaine20. The text is available also in languages other than Greek, including Latin21, Armenian22, Arabic23, and Slavic24. Clearly much work has yet to be done to establish the text of the sermon. 13   Thilo identifies the manuscript only as “Vind”; the identification of the manuscript as theol. gr. 307 is made in Lafontaine, La version arménienne, p. 100. 14   de Montfaucon, Editio parisina, vol. 11, p. 867-871. 15   Mai, Spicilegium Romanum. 16   Nau, Notes. 17   Gronewald, Kein durchtriebener Räuber. 18   Cunningham, Greek Manuscripts, p. 369. 19   Noret, Un fragment homilétique. 20   Lafontaine, La version arménienne, p. 100-101. Two of these manuscripts are listed in BHG: Cod. Athen. 273 and Cod. Paris, 979, but BHG adds also Cod. Athen. Constamon. 14. A few others are mentioned in Thilo’s introduction to his edition (Thilo, Eusebius von Alexandrien, p. 30-32). 21   It is found combined with Sermon 15 (De Confusione Diaboli) in an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th/6th century published by Rand, Sermo; see further, Izydorczyk, Two Newly Identified Manuscripts. And J. Leroy and F. Glorie note another witness in Vat. lat. 3835-3836, though here it is attributed to Augustine (Leroy – Glorie, ‘Eusèbe d’Alexandrie’, p. 50-51 and reproduced p. 67-70 with readings from two other manuscripts: Vat. lat. 3828 and 1270). 22   Lafontaine, La version arménienne. 23   Sauget, Une ébauche d’homéliaire copte, p. 196, n. 37. 24   Hannick, Maximos Holobolos, p. 263.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 253

29/11/16 06:02

254

t. burke

For a start, the precise contents of each manuscript must be established; this has led to great confusion in the literature and makes difficult the process of situating new manuscripts in the transmission history of the text. The presence of On the Passion in Vienna, Cod. hist. gr. 91 has not been previously noted. Hunger’s catalog merely refers to the text as “Apokryphes Fragment über die Aufnahme des rechten Schächers im Paradise” (about the admission of the Good Thief into Paradise). The fragment contains roughly the last quarter of the text. On the Passion begins with a brief account of the betrayal, arrest, trial, scourging, and crucifixion of Jesus. The Devil witnesses these events and fears the arrival of Jesus; so, he closes the gates to Hades. The Powers (angels) and prophets call for him to open the gates. Then Jesus approaches, tears down the gates, binds the Devil, and casts him down to the lowest parts of Hades. At this point the Vienna manuscript takes up the story. The prophets enter Paradise, see the Good Thief and wonder why he has preceded them. The thief responds with the story of his encounter with Jesus on the cross and his subsequent entry into Paradise where he encountered Enoch and Elijah. The text concludes with a restatement of Jesus’ victory over the Devil. The following edition of On the Passion presents the text of the Vienna manuscript with readings from Migne’s edition (represented by the siglum M) provided in the apparatus for comparison. The Vienna manuscript differs from Migne’s text in several significant ways; at paragraph 3 (line 10-11) it lacks the prophets’ concern that the thief will steal in heaven as he did on earth; paragraph 5 (line 18) lacks the explicit parallel to Luke 23:43; and the conclusion in paragraph 9 differs considerably. 2. On the Funeral of Jesus25 The second text in the Vienna manuscript fills two pages (fol. 18r18v), beginning mid-sentence at an undetermined place in the narrative and running to the doxology that concludes the text. Likely it is a medieval homily similar in form and content to other such homilies that draw upon traditions from the Acta Pilati cycle. The homiletic character of the text is apparent in 1.5 where the narrator breaks into the story to ask why the face cloth was rolled up in a place by itself, and again at the close of the text (3.6) to indict the priests for not showing kindness to those who 25

  Greek text and translation, below p. 266-275.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 254

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

255

believed in Jesus. Unfortunately, neither the title of the text nor the name of its author is known; Hunger’s catalog refers to it only as “Anonyme. Fragment über die Bestattung Jesu Christi”. The Acts of Pilate, the prime text of the Acta Pilati cycle, is extant in two forms: Greek A and B26. Greek A is believed to be the earliest, dating perhaps to the fourth century. It presents a new telling of the trial of Jesus (chs. 1-9), augmenting the canonical accounts with detailed testimony against Jesus and reports of witnesses who speak in his defense. Then, after a quick recounting of the crucificion (chs. 10-11), the text turns its attention to Joseph of Arimathea, who is imprisoned by the Jewish leaders as a Christian sympathizer. But when the leaders return to retrieve Joseph from his cell, he is gone (ch. 12). Reports then come in of Jesus’ resurrection – first from the guards at the tomb (ch. 13, recalling Matt 28:115), then from elders, priests and Levites who have seen Jesus and his disciples in Galilee (ch. 14). The Jewish leaders search for Jesus without success but find Joseph, who reports to them how Jesus appeared to him in his cell and transported him home (ch. 15). This tale of Joseph’s imprisonment and miraculous escape are expanded in another Acta Pilati cycle text: the Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea. The Greek A text of the Acts of Pilate concludes with the Jewish leaders once again interrogating the witnesses to the resurrection; though the leaders remain resolute in their denial of Jesus’ divinity, the people as a whole are convinced and return to their homes glorifying God (ch. 16). The Greek B form of the text is believed to be a retrotranslation from the Latin A recension of the Gospel of Nicodemus, the title given to the Acts of Pilate in its Latin forms (divided into Latin A, B and C)27. The most significant departure in the Greek B text is the addition of the Descensus Christi ad inferos (chs. 17-27), in which two of the dead saints restored to life in Matt 27:52-54 report Jesus’ entry into Hell to redeem the righteous dead. There Jesus breaks open the gates, binds Satan, and brings the patriarchs, martyrs and ancestors to Paradise. On their way into Paradise they see Enoch and Elijah, who rose up to heaven body and soul (Gen 5:24; 2 Kgs 2:11; Heb 11:5), and the Good Thief, who Jesus promised would precede him in Paradise (Luke 23:42-43).

26  Edited by Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, p. 210-286 (Greek A), 287-332 (Greek B). 27   Gounelle, Les recensions byzantines, has proposed a revision to Tischendorf’s sigla so that Greek B is now referred to as Greek M (for “Medieval”) and divided into three distinct recensions: M1 (created 9th-10th cent.), M2 (12th-14th cent.), and M3 (14th15th cent.).

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 255

29/11/16 06:02

256

t. burke

On the Funeral of Jesus begins with an unnamed figure, presumably Pilate, granting the body of Jesus to Joseph (cf. Acts Pil. 11.3)28. Nicodemus asks to be involved with preparing the body for burial, and the two do so in a sequence that incorporates passages from the canonical Passion accounts (1.2, 6). Jesus is referred to several times here as a “foreigner” (or perhaps “stranger”; 1.1, 3), perhaps because he is a Galilean in Judea, though this would be a peculiar appellation. If the text is here understood correctly, there seems to be some dispute about the appropriate burial responsibilities when it comes to foreigners; Nicodemus overhears the priests questioning whether a foreigner is to be buried “differently than a family member and heir”. They worry that granting Jesus such honours would bring “every dying foreigner into Jerusalem from the temples” looking for similar treatment (1.3). Nicodemus then goes to “request the delivery of the body of Jesus” (1.4) – an odd development given that Joseph and Nicodemus have already been granted the body. Indeed Nicodemus is not shown making the request, though he does obtain the face cloth (sudarium) mentioned in John 20:6-7 (1.5). Reference is made here of why the face cloth was “rolled up in a place by itself”; it appears that the face cloth was not accepted as part of the sacrifice of Jesus (because it is from the temple?). The text then continues, stating that Joseph and Nicodemus accepted the linen wrappings (othonia) as a “sacrifice and burnt offering” (1:5). The sudarium may appear later in the text, when Joseph is accused of taking “the shroud of the foreigner” from the temple (2.5), but note that here it is called an entafia (burial shroud). While Acts Pil. covers the event of Jesus’ burial, it does not do so in the detail we find here. The Greek A version mentions the request for the body and the burial only in passing (in ch. 11.3, though essentially just repeating Luke 23:50-53). Greek B offers more detail, but nothing is said of the burial cloths, nor the foreigner(s). Note also that the new text does not contain the subsequent laments of Mary and Mary Magdalene found in Greek B. Greek A Jesus’ acquaintances stood off at a distance, along with the women who accompanied him from Galilee, who saw these things. But acertain

Greek B And as the day of the preparation was drawing towards evening, Joseph, a man well-born and rich, a Godfearing Jew, finding Nicodemus, whose

28   Quotations from Acts Pil. and related texts are drawn from Ehrman – Pleše, Apocryphal Gospels, op.  cit., except for the Greek B text, given in full only in Roberts – Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, p. 426-434.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 256

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

257

man, named Joseph, a member of the council from the city of Arimathea, who was anticipating the kingdom of God, approached Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. He took him down, wrapped him in a clean linen cloth, and placed him in a stonehewn tomb, where no one had ever been placed.

sentiments his foregoing speech had shown, says to him: I know that thou didst love Jesus when living, and didst gladly hear his words, and I saw thee fighting with the Jews on his account. If, then, it seem good to thee, let us go to Pilate, and beg the body of Jesus for burial, because it is a great sin for him to lie unburied. I am afraid, said Nicodemus, lest Pilate should be enraged, and some evil should befall me. But if thou wilt go alone, and beg the dead, and take him, then will I also go with thee, and help thee to do everything necessary for the burial. Nicodemus having thus spoken, Joseph directed his eyes to heaven, and prayed that he might not fail in his request; and he went away to Pilate, and having saluted him, sat down. Then he says to him: I entreat thee, my lord, not to be angry with me, if I shall ask anything contrary to what seems good to your highness. And he said: And what is it that thou askest? Joseph says: Jesus, the good man whom through hatred the Jews have taken away to crucify, him I entreat that thou give me for burial. Pilate says: And what has happened, that we should deliver to be honoured again the dead body of him against whom evidence of sorcery was brought by his nation, and who was in suspicion of taking the kingdom of Caesar, and so was given up by us to death? And Joseph, weeping and in great grief, fell at the feet of Pilate, saying: My lord, let no hatred fall upon a dead man; for all the evil that a man has done should perish with him in his death. And I know your highness, how eager thou wast that Jesus should not be crucified, and how much thou saidst to the Jews on his behalf, now in entreaty and again in anger, and at last how thou didst wash thy hands, and declare that thou wouldst by no means take part with those who wished him to be put to death; for all which reasons I entreat thee not to refuse my request. Pilate, therefore, seeing Joseph thus lying, and supplicating, and weeping, raised him up, and said: Go, I grant thee this dead man; take him, and do whatever thou wilt. And then Joseph, having thanked Pilate, and kissed his hands and his garments, went forth, rejoicing indeed in heart as having obtained his desire, but carrying tears in his eyes. Thus also, though grieved, he was glad. Accordingly he goes away to Nicodemus, and discloses to him all that had happened. Then, having bought myrrh and aloes a hundred pounds, and a new tomb, they, along with the mother of God and Mary Magdalene and Salome, along with John, and the rest of the women, did what was customary for the body with white linen, and placed it in the tomb.

Jesus’ resurrection in On the Funeral is greeted by the priests and scribes with cries of “Horror, horror!” (2.1). They conspire to tell the people that Joseph and Jesus’ disciples stole Jesus’ body (2.2), thereby

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 257

29/11/16 06:02

258

t. burke

evoking Matt 28:12-14, which is the basis also for the expanded scene of the interrogation of the guards in Acts Pil. 13. The people take Joseph to the high priests for questioning (2.3); Joseph defends himself by illustrating that he and the disciples would be unable to bypass the guards and break the seals on the tomb (2.4, evoking Matt 27:65-66). Joseph is then brought before Pilate, and the people lay out three charges: preparing Jesus’ body out of their (sic?) own means (recall the dispute in 1.3), taking the entafia from the temple, and stealing the body of Jesus and claiming he rose from the grave. In response, Pilate becomes angry at the delegation and, recalling the trial of Jesus, washes his hands of Joseph’s blood (1.6-7; cf. Matt 27:24). This episode has a partial parallel with Acts Pil. 12 (see also Narr. Jos. 1), in which Joseph is seized by “the Jews”, but only because they suspect he is a sympathizer since he asked for the body of Jesus. Joseph rebukes them, and he is imprisoned. But when they open the prison the next day, he has vanished. No mention is made in Acts Pil. of a trial before Pilate; indeed, the antagonists do not hear the news of the resurrection until the following chapter. In the text’s final episode, Joseph laments his fate in prison (3.1). Jesus appears, accompanied by the Good Thief of Luke 23:39-43 (3.2-3). Jesus then brings Joseph to Galilee so that he might “proclaim to [the disciples] his resurrection” (1.4); Joseph thus is presented in this text as the first witness to the resurrection of Jesus. When the priests discover Joseph’s absence, they lament their treatment of “those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ” (3.6). It is in this final episode that we see the most significant parallels to the Acta Pilati tradition. In Acts Pil., Joseph disappears from prison in ch. 12 and then he is found in Arimathea in ch. 15. Joseph returns to Jerusalem and appears before the Sanhedrin. When asked about his disappearance, he says he was praying in prison and Jesus appeared to him, though Joseph first thought he was Elijah. Jesus took him to see the empty tomb, and then home to Arimathea where he is told to remain for 40 days while Jesus visits his disciples. Joseph does not proclaim the resurrection to the disciples, nor do we see the Good Thief. The only text to mention the thief in the prison scene is the Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea (ch. 4), a text that goes into great detail about the fate of the two thieves. Narr. Jos. also has Joseph journey with Jesus and the Good Thief to Galilee, not Arimathea, though they stay there only for a brief time, during which they speak to the apostle John. On the Funeral of Jesus is a curious mix of canonical and apocryphal traditions. The NT gospels provide information about Jesus’ burial preparations and location, as well as the germ for such details as the fate of the Good Thief, the guards at the tomb, and the portrayal of Pilate in the

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 258

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

259

trial of Joseph. The Acta Pilati cycle provides the framework for the imprisonment and liberation of Joseph, but On the Funeral differs from Acts Pil. significantly in the details. The reason for the combination of these traditions is unclear. One can observe a certain anti-Semitism in the narrative in the way the priests treat Joseph and their resultant shame at the discovery of his absence; Nicodemus and Jesus tell Joseph not to fear the “threats of the Jews” (1.4; 3.2). But the Jews, on the whole, are largely innocent of wrongdoing – they only follow the directives of the priests and scribes, and the author of the text expresses his anger only at the priests (3.6). Similar treatment of Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus is found in Acts Pil.; indeed, the text even concludes with the people accepting the crucifixion, “if his rememberance extends until the year which is called Jubilee” (Acts Pil. 16.7). However, without the complete text of On the Funeral, it is difficult to determine the precise purpose of its portrayal of Joseph’s antagonists. There is more still about On the Funeral that is unclear. The Vienna manuscript presented some difficulties in transcription and translation. Some of this difficulty is due to iotacism, some to manuscript damage – note line 4 of 2.8, and lines 1 and 2 of 3.1. It is possible that some of the more troublesome readings (particularly in 1.3-5) result from scribal omission; certainly this has occurred in 2.2 (at line 1) where a word has dropped out of the text (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ). Undeniably, On the Funeral of Jesus is a fascinating text that warrants further exploration. It is a welcome addition to the corpus of homiletic literature inspired by the Acta Pilati traditions.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 259

29/11/16 06:02

260

t. burke

Text 1 Pseudo-Eusebius, Sermon 17 Τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ Παρασκευῇ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πάθος τοῦ Κυρίου [1]  (fol. 104r) . . . ἐπιγελῶντες αὐτόν1. Ὁ δὲ Κύριος λαβὼν πάντας2 ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ᾅδου, πρῶτον Δαυὶδ κρούων τὴν κιϑάραν3 λέγων4 · “Δεῦτε, ἀγαλλιασώμεϑα τῷ Κυρίῳ, ἀλαλάξωμεν τῷ Θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν ὅτι ὁ βασιλεὺς5 ἡμῶν πολεμήσας ἐνίκησεν”. καὶ πάντες ἔλεγον6 τὸ ἁλληλουϊά. [2]  Και πάλιν7 · “Πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη κροτήτωσαν8 χεῖρας καὶ ἀλαλάξετε τῷ Θεῷ ἐν ϕωνῇ ἀγαλλιάσεως”9. καὶ οὕτως ἐπορεύοντο10 ἀγαλλιώμενος εἰς11 τὸν παράδεισον12. “Χαῖρε σϕοδρῶς ϑύγατερ Ζιὼν καὶ μετ᾿ ὀλίγον ἐξεγείρου Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐνδύσαι τὴν δόξαν σου ὅπου βασιλεύς σου πολεμήσας ἐνίκησεν”13. [3]  Καὶ εἰσελϑόντες ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ14 εὗρον15 ἐκεῖ16 τὸν λῃστὴν17 καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτόν18 · “Τίς εἶ σύ; τίς εἰσήγαγέν σοι ὧδε19; τίς δέ σοι τὰς πύλας ἤνοιξεν20; τί21 πεποιηκὼς22 ἡμῶν πρῶτον εἰσῆλϑες ὧδε”23.

  ἐπιγελῶντες αὐτόν om. M   add. τοὺς προϕήτας M 3   πρῶτον Δαυὶδ (αον δ͞α͞δ cod.) – κιϑάραν om. M 4   add. πορεύεσϑε εἰς τὸν παράδεισον. οἱ δὲ χαίροντες ἐξεπήδησαν ἐκ τοῦ ᾅδου. πρῶτος Δαυΐδ κρούων τὴν κιϑάραν ἔλεγεν εὐϕραινόμενος M 5   add. ὑπὲρ M 6   ἔλεγον: ὑπήκουσαν M 7   add. ὁ αὐτός M 8   κροτήτωσαν: κρωτίτωσαν cod., κροτήσατε M 9   add. ὅτι ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πολεμήσας ἐνίκησε M 10   ἐπορεύοντο om. M 11   εἰς: ἐπὶ M 12   add. ἔτρεχον M 13   χαῖρε – ἐνίκησεν om. M 14   ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ om. M 15   εὗρον M: εὗρων cod. 16   ἐκεῖ om. M 17   λῃστὴν M: λῃστὸν cod. 18   καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτόν: καὶ ἐξέστησαν καὶ ἔλεγον αὐτῷ M 19   pr. τίς – ὧδε: τίς εἰσήγαγέ σε ὧδε M 20   πύλας ἤνοιξεν: ϑὺρας ἀνέῳξε M 21   add. δὲ M 22   πεποιηκὼς M: πεποιηκὰς cod. 23   ἡμῶν – ὧδε: εἰσῆλϑες πρῶτος ἡμῶν ἐνϑάδε μὴ καὶ τὰ ἐνταῦϑα λῃστεύειν εἰσῆλϑες; μὴ συλῆσαι τὰ ὧδε παρεγένου; οὐκ ἠρκέσϑης τῶν ἐπιγείων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐπουράνια ἁρπάσαι ϑέλει; εἰπὲ ἡμῖν, τίς εἰσήγαγέ σε ὧδε; οὑ ϕϑονοῦμέν σοι, διότι εἰσῆλϑες, ἀλλὰ τὴν αἰτίαν ζητοῦμεν M 1 2

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 260

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

261

Text 1 Pseudo-Eusebius, Sermon 17 On the Passion, for the Preparation Day [1]  …laughing at him1. And the Lord, taking everyone2, led out of Hades first David (who was) playing the harp, saying, “Come3, let us sing to the Lord, that we may shout to the Lord our Saviour that our king, waging war, has conquered”4. And everyone said5 hallelujah. [2]  Again (he said), “Let all the peoples clap their hands and shout to God in a joyful voice”6. Thus they went7 joyfully into Paradise. “Rejoice greatly, daughter Zion, and after a little, awaken Jerusalem to enter your glory, where your king, waging war, has conquered”8. [3]  Going in to Paradise9, they found the thief and they said10 to him, “Who are you?11 Who brought you here? And who opened the gates to you? What have you done that you have entered here before us?”12.

1   The fragment begins just after Jesus has bound the Devil and cast him down to the lowest parts of Hades. 2   M has “all the prophets”. 3   For “first…‘Come’” M reads: “saying, ‘Go into Paradise’”. And the ones rejoicing rushed out from Hades. First David playing the harp said rejoicing”. 4   Psalm 94:1. 5   M has “answered”. 6   Psalm 47:1. Then M adds: “because the king above us waging war, conquered”. 7   M has “ran”. 8   It is not clear who is the speaker here; it may even be the homilist. M lacks this sentence. 9   M lacks “into Paradise”. 10   M has “were amazed and said”. 11   M lacks “Who are you?” 12   M has “What has happened that you went before us here? Did you not also come here to thieve? Did you not come here to steal? Were you not satisfied with the earthly, he wants also to steal the heavenly? Tell us, why have you come here before us? We do not grudge you, because you came but we are looking for the cause”.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 261

29/11/16 06:02

262

t. burke

[4]  Λέγει αὐτοῖς24 · “Ἐγὼ λῃστής εἰμι25. ἄλλος δεσπότης ϕιλάνϑρωπός ἐστιν26 καὶ ἐλεήμων.27 ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ οὐδένα ἀγαϑὸν κεκτημένος.28 ὅϑεν καὶ κατέκρινάν με29 ἀποϑανεῖν σταυρώσαντές με30 σὺν τῷ ἀϑανάτῷ βασιλεῖ.31 καὶ ϑέλοντές με ἀπολέσαι μᾶλλον ἐζωοποίησάν με32. ἔβλεπον γὰρ33 τὰ σημεῖα τὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ γενόμενα34 καὶ νοήσας ὅτι υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἐστιν35, ἐβοήσα ϕωνῇ μεγάλῃ36 λέγων · Μνήσϑητί μου Κύριε ὅταν ἔλϑῃς ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου”. [5]  Καὶ εὐϑέως ὡς37 δεξάμενος ὁ Κύριος τὰς ἱκεσίας μου38 ἔδωκέν με39 τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ σημεῖον καὶ ἀπέστειλέν μοι ἐνϑάδε.40 καὶ λέγει μοι41 · “Ἔαν42 κωλύσωσιν43 σε ἡ ϕλογία44 ῥομϕαία μὴ εἰσελϑεῖν εἰς τὸν παράδεισον45 ἐπίδειξον τοῦτο46 τὸ βασιλικὸν σημεῖον καὶ ἀνοίξει σοι47 τὰς ϑυρὰς τοῦ παραδείσου”48. [6]  Καὶ ἦλϑον καὶ49 ἰδοῦσέ με ϕλογιά50 ῥομϕαία ἡ ϕυλάσσουσα αὐτὸν51 παράδεισον ἔκλεισεν τὰς ϑυράς. ἐγὼ δὲ εἶπον ὅτι ὁ βασιλεύς52 με ἀπέστειλεν. καὶ ὑπέδειξα αὐτὴν τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ σημεῖον53.   λέγει αὐτοῖς: ὁ δὲ ἀποκριϑεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς M   ἐγὼ λῃστής εἰμι: διὰ τὰ ἔργα μου οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος εἰσελϑεῖν ἐνταῦϑα M 26   ἄλλος – ἐστιν: ἀλλ’ ὁ ϕιλάνϑρωπος δεσπότης M 27   add. εἰσήγαγέ με ὧδε M 28   ἐγὼ – κεκτημένος: ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἀγαϑὸν κέκτημαι M 29   add. ϑανάτου M 30   σταυρώσαντές με om. M 31   σὺν – βασιλεῖ: μετὰ τοῦ ἀϑανάτου βασιλέως οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι M 32   ἀπολέσαι – με: ἀποκτεῖναι ἐζωοποίησαν μᾶλλον συσταυρώσαντές με τῷ Χριστῷ M 33   ἔβλεπον γὰρ: καὶ ἰδὼν ἐγὼ M 34   γενόμενα: γινόμενα M 35   υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἐστιν: υἱὸς ἦν τοῦ Θεοῦ M 36   ϕωνῇ μεγάλῃ M: ϕωνὴν μεγάλην cod. 37   ὡς om. M 38   ὁ Κύριος – μου: μου τὴν δέησιν λέγει μοι · Ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, σήμερον μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ M 39   ἔδωκέν με: καὶ ἔδωκέ μοι M 40   καὶ – ἐνϑάδε: om. M 41   καὶ λέγει μοι: λέγων M 42  ante ἔαν add. τοῦτο λαβῶν πορεύου εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ M 43   κωλύσωσιν: κωλύσῃ M 44   ϕλογία: ϕλογίνη M 45   μὴ εἰσελϑεῖν [εἰσελϑεὶς cod.] – παράδεισον: εἰσελϑεῖν M 46   τοῦτο: αὐτῇ M 47   ἀνοίξει σοι M: ἀνοίξη σε cod. 48   τοῦ παραδείσου om. M 49   add. εὐϑέως M 50   ϕλογιά: ἡ ϕλογίνη M 51   ϕυλάσσουσα αὐτὸν: ϕυλάττουσα τὸν M 52   add. ὁ νῦν σταυρωϑεῖς αὐτός M 53   ὑπέδειξα – σημεῖον: ἔδειξα τοῦ σταυροῦ τὸ σημεῖον M 24 25

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 262

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

263

[4]  He said to them, “I am the thief13. But the Lord is gracious and merciful14. For I am one who had gained nothing good. Therefore, they condemned me15 to die also, crucifying me16 with the immortal king. But those wishing me to die instead gave me life17. For I saw the signs taking place upon the cross. And realizing he is the son of God, I cried out greatly saying, ‘Remember me, Lord, when you go in your kingdom’”18. [5]  Instantly, after the Lord accepted my supplications19, he gave me the sign of the cross and sent me here20. He said to me21, “If the flaming sword hinders you22 from going into Paradise23, show this royal sign and the gates of Paradise24 will open to you”. [6]  I went in and25, seeing me, the flaming sword that guards Paradise closed the gates. I said that the king26 sent me. And I showed it the sign

  M adds “because of my deeds I am not worthy to come here”.   M adds “he led me here”. 15   M has “the Jews condemned me”. 16   M lacks “crucifying me”. 17   M adds “crucifying me with Christ”. 18   Luke 23:42. 19   M has instead “instantly accepting my prayer he said to me, ‘Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise’” (Luke 23:43). 20   M omits “and sent me here”. 21   M has “And saying, ‘Take this and go into Paradise and’”. 22   The Vienna Ms here has the third person plural. 23   For “from going into Paradise”, M has “to go in”. 24   M omits “of Paradise”. 25   M adds “instantly”. 26   M adds “he who was crucified”. 13 14

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 263

29/11/16 06:02

264

t. burke

καὶ ευϑέως ἤνοιξέν μοι καὶ εἴσελϑον. καὶ54 οὐδένα εὗρον καὶ ἐξέστη μου ἡ διάνοια λέγων πρὸς αὐτόν55 · “Ποῦ ἐστιν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ56 καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν57 πλῆϑος τῶν προϕητῶν58;” [7]  Καὶ ϑαυμάσοντός μου καὶ διανοουμένου59, ἰδοὺ ἐϕάνησαν60 εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη61 τῆς ἀνατολῆς δύο ἄνδρες παλαιοὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ62 ϑαυμαστοὶ τῇ ἰδέᾳ63 καὶ ἐκλεκτοὶ τῷ προσώπῳ. Καὶ ἦλϑον ἐγγύς μου64 καὶ ἐπηρώτησάν με λέγοντες · “Σύ τίς εἶ65; Ἀβραὰμ οὐκ ἦν66. ἐκεῖνος ἱερατικὸν κέκτηται σχῆμα67. Μωϋσῆς οὐκ ἦν68. ἐκεῖνος ἰσχνόϕωνος καὶ βραδύγλωσσος. ἡ δέ συ69 λαλιὰ τρανή70. σὺ λῃστής71 ϕαίνῃ καὶ γὰρ λῃστρικόν ἐστι72 τὸ σχῆμά σου”. καὶ ὡμολόγησα73 ὅτι λῃστής εἰμι. καὶ ὁ Κύριος74 τοῦ παραδείσου ἤγαγέν75 με ὧδε ἐπειδὴ συνώδευσα76 αὐτὸν77 εἰς τὸν ϑάνατον ὅν ὑπέμεινεν ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων78. [8]  Ἐγὼ δὲ πάλιν ἠρωτήσα αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν79 · (fol. 104v) “Ὑμεῖς τίνες ἐστέ; δέομαι ὑμῖν80 ἵνα μοι ἀπαγγείλατε”81. καὶ ἀποκριϑεὶς εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶπέν μοι · “Ἐγὼ Ἠλίας ὁ ϑεσβίτης82 εἰμί. καὶ ὑπὸ83

  εἴσελϑον καὶ: εἰσελϑὼν M   λέγων πρὸς αὐτόν: καὶ ἔλεγον ἐν ἐμαυτῷ M 56   καὶ Ἰακὼβ om. M 57   τῶν λοιπῶν: τῶν λυπῶν cod., τὸ λοιπὸν M 58   τῶν προϕητῶν: τῶν ἁγίων προϕητῶν M 59   add. μου M 60   add. μοι M 61   μέρη M: μέρει cod. 62   τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ: ἡμερῶν M 63   ἰδέᾳ M: εἰδεὰν cod. 64   καὶ ἦλϑον ἐγγύς μου: om. M 65   σύ τίς εἶ: τίς εἶ σύ M 66   ἦν: εἶ M 67   ἐκεῖνος – σχῆμα: ἐκείνου γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα ἱερατικὸν ἦν M 68   ἦν: εἶ M 69   συ: σὴ M 70   add. σύ τίς εἶ M 71   add. ἡμῖν M 72   λῃστρικόν ἐστι post σου transp. M 73   ὡμολόγησα M: ὁμολογῆσα cod. 74   καὶ ὁ Κύριος: καὶ ὅτι ὁ δεσπότης M 75   ἤγαγέν: εἰσήγαγέ M 76   συνώδευσα M: συνόδευσα cod. 77   αὐτὸν: αὐτῷ M 78   ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων: δι᾿ ἡμᾶς M 79   ἐγὼ – εἶπεν: καὶ εἶπον αὐτοῖς M 80   ὑμῖν: ὑμῶν M 81   ἵνα μοι ἀπαγγείλατε: om. M 82   ὁ ϑεσβίτης [ϑεσβήτις cod.] post εἰμί transp. M 83   ὑπὸ: ἀπὸ M 54 55

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 264

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

265

of the cross. Instantly (the gates) opened to me and I went in. I found no-one and my mind was amazed, saying to it27, “Where is Abraham and Isaac and Jacob28 and the rest of number of the prophets?”29. [7]  While I was marveling and thinking to myself, behold, on the right side of the east appeared two men old of days, marvelous in form and pure in appearance. They approached me30 and asked me saying, “Who are you? He was31 not Abraham; he possessed a priestly likeness. He was not Moses; he (was) weak-voiced and slow of tongue, and you (have) clarity of speech. You appear to be a thief, for also your likeness is that of a thief”. I agreed that I was a thief and that the Lord of Paradise brought me here because I travelled with him into the death which he endured at the hands of the Jews32. [8] Again I entreated him and said33, “Who are you? I beg you, tell me”34. Answering one of them said to me, “I am Elijah the Tishbite.

  M has “to myself”.   M omits “and Jacob”. 29   M has “holy prophets”. 30   M omits “they came near me”. 31   Here and following, M has “you are”. 32   M has “which he endured on account of us”. 33   M has only “And I said to them”. 34   M omits “tell me”. 27 28

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 265

29/11/16 06:02

266

t. burke

πυρίνου ἅρματος ἀνηνέχϑην84 ἐνταῦϑα, καὶ οὐκ εἶδον ϑάνατον85. καὶ αὐτὸς86 ὁ μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ Ἐνώχ ἐστιν ὁ μετατεϑεὶς ἐνταῦϑα ῥήματι Θεοῦ”. [9]  Οἱ δὲ προϕῆται ἀκούσαντες ἐδόξασαν τὸν Θεὸν ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ δωρεὰν τὴν δοϑεῖσαν87 τοῖς ἁμαρτωλοῖς. ὁ δὲ Κύριος σκυλεύσας τὸν ᾅδην δήσας τὸν διαβολὸν συντρίψας τὰς πύλας συνϑλάσας τοὺς μοχλοὺς εἰς τὸ μηκέτι τις ἐξ αὐτῶν τυραννεῖσϑαι88 καὶ τὸν κόσμον ἐλευϑερώσας καὶ εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβιβάσας89. ὁ ἀντὶ τῶν ἐπιγείων τὰ ἐπουράνια ὑποσχόμενος90 δοῦναι, ὁ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστὰς Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα91 εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. Text 2 Εἰς τὴν Κηδείαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ 1. [1] (fol. 18r)… ἐϕοβήϑη σϕόδρα. Λέγει πρὸς τὸν Ἰωσήϕ · “Χαρίζομαί σοι, Ἰωσήϕ, τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ”. Ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Νικόδημος ὅτι Ἰωσὴϕ ἔλαβεν ἐξουσίας τοῦ καϑελεῖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, δραμῶν1 ἤρχετο πρὸς τὸν Ἰωσὴϕ λέγων · “Κύριε μου Ἰωσήϕ, μὴ στερίσῃς2 μου τοῦ μισϑοῦ σου, ἀλλὰ κἀγὼ ἔσομαι3 μετά σου εἰς τάϕον τοῦ ξένου ἵνα εὕρωμεν ἔλος”. [2]  Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴϕ ἤνεγκε σινδόνα4 καϑαράν. Νικόδημος δὲ σμύρναν καὶ ἀλόην5 ὡς λίτρας ρ̅. καὶ καϑελόντες τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐσμύρνησαν αὐτὸ6 καὶ ἔϑηκαν εἰς τὴν σινδόνα7.   ἀνηνέχϑην: ἠνέχϑην M   add. ἀκμὴν M 86   αὐτὸς: οὗτος M 87   τὴν αὐτοῦ – δοϑεῖσαν: τῇ τοιαύτῃ δωρεᾷ τῇ δοϑεῖσῃ M 88   ὁ δὲ Κύριος – τυραννεῖσϑαι: ὁ δὲ Κύριος σκυλεύσας τὸν ϑάνατον καὶ τὸν ᾅδην πατήσας, καὶ τῷ ξύλῳ τὸ ξύλον ἰασάμενος, καὶ τὰς πύλας συγκλάσας, καὶ τοὺς μοχλοὺς συντρίψας, καὶ τὸν διάβαλον δήσας M 89   καὶ εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβιβάσας: πάντας εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνεκόμισεν ἀναστὰς ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν τοιγαροῦν μνήσωμεν τὸν σαρκωϑέντα, δοξάσωμεν τὸν σταυρωϑέντα εὐχαριστήσωμεν τὸν ἀναστάντα, ὅπως καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ζόϕου τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐξέληται, καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλείας κληρονόμους ποιήσῃ M 90   ἐπουράνια ὑποσχόμενος: ἐπουνία ὑποσχούμενος cod. 91   ὁ ἀντὶ – δόξα: αὐτῷ γὰρ πρέπει τιμὴ καὶ προσκύνησις σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ αὐτοῦ πατρὶ, καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ζωοποιῷ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ M 84 85

  δρομαίεν cod.   εἰστερίσης cod. 3   ἔσωμαι cod. 4   συνδώνα cod. 5   ἀλώην cod. 6   αὐτὼ cod. 7   συνδώνα cod. 1 2

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 266

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

267

I was taken up here by a fiery chariot and I did not see death35. He who is with me is Enoch, the one taken up here by the word of God”. [9]  The prophets listening praised God concerning his gift given to sinners. And the Lord stripped Hades, bound the Devil, broke the gates, shattered the bars at once so that this one would no longer be a ruler36, and he set the world free and ascended into heaven37. The one who took upon himself to entrust the heavenly with the earthly, Christ risen from the dead, our God, to him the glory forever and ever, amen38.

Text 2

On the Funeral of Jesus 1. [1]  …he was very afraid. He said to Joseph, “I grant to you, Joseph, the body of Jesus”1. And Nicodemus2, having heard that Joseph received the right to take down the body of Jesus, came running to Joseph saying, “My Lord Joseph, do not deprive me of your reward; rather, I too shall be with you at the tomb of the foreigner so that we may obtain mercy”. [2]  And Joseph brought a clean linen cloth3 and Nicodemus about one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloe4. And taking down the body of Jesus from the cross, they embalmed it with myrrh and laid (it) in the linen cloth.

  M adds “even now”.   M reads “And the Lord stripped death, trampled Hades and restored the tree by the tree, broke the gates, shattered the bars, and bound the Devil”. 37   M expands “and ascended into heaven” as “raised all of the dead into heaven, so we may remember the one made flesh, praise the one crucified, give thanks for the one raised, that also he will rescue us from the darkness of our sins, and make us heirs of his kingdom”. 38   M reads “For honour is fitting to him and worshipping with his father without beginning and the all-holy and creative spirit, now and always, and forever and ever, amen”. 35 36

  Mark 15:45; Luke 27:56.   John 19:39. 3   Matt 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:39. 4   John 19:39. 1 2

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 267

29/11/16 06:02

268

t. burke

[3]  Λέγει Ἰωσὴϕ πρὸς Νικόδημος · “Γινώσκεις, ἄδελϕε, ὅτι παράτυπον ἐγένετο εἰς τὴν ἐνταϕίαν τοῦ ξένου; αὐτὸς ξένος. κἀγὼ ἐχϑὸς8 ἐγενόμην τῆς συναγωγῆς καϑὼς λέγουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ ὡς ξένον οὐκ ἐνταϕιάζομεν9 αὐτὸν ἄλλως ἴδιον καὶ κληρόνομον. καί συ εἶδες10 ὅτι πᾶς ξένος ἀποϑνῄσκων εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐκ τῶν ναῶν11 γίνηται ἡ ἔξοδος αὐτοῦ”. [4]  Λέγει Νικόδημος · “Μὴ ϕοβοῦ Ἰωσὴϕ διὰ τὰς παγίδας καὶ ἀπειλὰς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. ἐγὼ πορεύσομαι12 πρὸς τὸν ναὸν καὶ ἐρῶ τὴν ἔξοδον τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ περὶ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ξένοις”. λέγει ὁ Ἰωσήϕ· “Πορεύου ἐνταχύ”. [5]  Καὶ ἐπορέυϑη Νικόδημος εἰς τὸν ναὸν καὶ ἤνεγκεν τὸν σουδάριον ὅν ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς κεϕαλῆς αὐτοῦ οὐ μετὰ τῶν ὀϑονίων13 κείμενον ἀλλὰ χωρὶς ἐντετυλιγμένον14 εἰς ἕνα τόπον15. διὰ τί χωρίς; διότι εἶτον16 ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐδέξατο εἰς ϑυσίαν ἀλλὰ μόνον τὰ ὀϑόνια17 τὰ ἐόα ἅ18 Ἰωσὴϕ καὶ Νικόδημος ὡς ϑυσίαν καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα ἐδέξατο. [6]  Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐλϑεῖν τὸν Νικόδημον ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ ἔϑηκεν τὸ19 σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὸν τάϕον τοῦ Ἰωσὴϕ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας κατέναντι τοῦ τόπου κρανίου ὅπου ὁ Χριστὸς ἐσταυρώϑη. καὶ ἐκύλισαν20 λίϑον μέγαν εἰς τὴν ϑύραν τοῦ μνημείου καὶ ἀνεχώρησεν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. 2. [1]  Μετὰ δὲ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ταϕίας ὥρας γ ἀνέστη ὁ Κύριος. λέγουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς · “Οὐαὶ οὐαί, τίς ἡμῶν ἡ ταλαιπωρία αὕτη; δεῦτε οὖν εἴπωμεν ὅτι Ἰωσὴϕ καὶ οἱ μαϑηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἔκλεψαν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτοὶ ὅτι ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν. λοιπὸν21 παραδώσωμεν τὸν Ἰωσὴϕ εἰς ϑάνατον ἵνα ἐλησμονηϑὴ22 ἡ ἀνάστασις τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀϕορμὴν τοῦ Ἰωσήϕ”.   ἐχϑρὸς cod.   ἐνταϕιάζωμεν cod. 10   εἶδας cod. 11   τὸν ναὸν cod. 12   πορεύσωμαι cod. 13   ὀϑῶνιων cod. 14   ἐντετηλειγμένων cod. 15   τόπων cod. 16   ητον cod. 17   ὀϑυόνια cod. 18   τὰ εἰο ἅ cod. 19   τῶ cod. 20   ἐκύλησαν cod. 21   λοιπῶν cod. 22   ἐλισμονηϑὴ cod. 8 9

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 268

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

269

[3]  Joseph said to Nicodemus, “Do you know, brother, that there is dispute5 concerning the burial of the foreigner? This foreigner. And I was outside the synagogue just as the priests were saying that, ‘We do not prepare a foreigner himself for burial differently than a family member and heir. Do you understand that his delivery would bring every dying foreigner into Jerusalem from the temples?’”6. [4]  Nicodemus said, “Fear not Joseph, because of the snares and threats of the Jews. I shall go to the temple and I shall request the delivery of the body of Jesus and (ask) also about the other foreigners”. Joseph said, “Go quickly”. [5]  Nicodemus went to the temple and brought the face cloth that was on his head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself 7. Why by itself? Because it was from the temple and he did not accept in sacrifice but only his own linen wrappings, which Joseph and Nicodemus accepted as a sacrifice and a burnt offering. [6]  After Nicodemus came from the temple, he placed the body of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph, which was hewn out of rock8 opposite the place of the skull9 where Christ was crucified. They rolled a great stone against the entrance of the tomb10 and returned each to his home. 2. [1] And after the third day of burial, at the third hour, the Lord rose. The priests and the scribes said, “Horror, horror! Why is this misery for us? Come then, let us say that Joseph and his disciples stole him, and that they say he rose from the dead. In addition, we will sentence Joseph to death so that the resurrection of Jesus will be forgotten as the pretext of Joseph”. [2]  Making a plot, the priests and the scribes on the day of the Lord said to the synagogue of the Jews, “Listen, people of Israel, the promise of Jacob: Joseph of Arimathea did not want to come into our council, but to go with the nailed one, the enemy of us and of God and the law. He prepared him for burial in his garden and in his tomb. Then he devised with the disciples of Jesus and stole his body and they said that he rose from the dead”. 5   παράτυπος: LSJ has “counterfeit,” but in modern speech it means “irregularity.” The meaning here might be closer to τύπτω: “beat, strike.” 6  Matt 27:52-53?; Matt 21:14?; Luke 9:31. The temples mentioned here may be healing sites of Asclepius, abandoned by supplicants in search of more effective healing. Note, in Acts Pil. 1.1 the Jewish leaders state that “No one can cast out demons by an unclean spirit, but only the god Asclepius.” Healing plays a large part in the trial of Jesus (see Acts Pil. 2.6; 6.1-2, 7). 7   John 20:7. 8   Mark 15:46 par. 9   Mark 15:22 par / John 19:17. 10   Mark 15:46; Matt 27:60.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 269

29/11/16 06:02

270

t. burke

[2]  Συμβούλιον23 ποιήσαντες οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς 24 τῇ κυριακῇ λέγουσι πρὸς τὴν συναγωγὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων · “Ἀκούσατε λαὸς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ κληρονομία τοῦ Ἰακώβου Ἰωσὴϕ ὁ ἀπὸ Ἀριμαϑαίας οὐκ ἠϑέλησεν ἐλϑεῖν εἰς τὴν βουλὴν ἡμῶν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀπελϑεῖν ἀπὸ καϑήλωσιν τὸν ἐχϑρὸν ἡμῶν25 καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου. καὶ ἐνεταϕίασεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν κῆπον αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὸν τάϕον αὐτοῦ. εἶτα εὕρησε26 τοῖς μαϑηταὶς τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔκλεψαν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ λέγουσιν ὅτι ἀνέστη ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν”. [3]  Καὶ λέγει ὁ λαός · “Τί ϑέλωσιν τὸ σῶμα νεκρόν;” ἠδὲ27 δραμόντες τὸ πᾶν πλῆϑος ἥρπασαν τὸν Ἰωσὴϕ πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς. (fol. 18v) καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς πρὸς αὐτόν · “Τί τοῦτο ἐποίησας ὦ παράνομε καὶ παραβάτα τοῦ νόμου”. [4]  Ἀποκριϑεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴϕ εἶπεν · “Ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ τυϕλοὶ καὶ ἀναίσχυντοι, οὐκ αἰσχύνεσϑε λέγοντες28 τοιαῦτα, τίς ϑέλῃ κλέψαι νεκρὸν σῶμα, μάλιστα29 δὲ καὶ γυμνοῦν30; ποῦ αἱ σϕραγῖδες τοῦ μνῆματος καὶ ἡ τοῦ Πιλᾶτου κουστωδία; πῶς ἐσυλήϑη ὁ νεκρὸς ὑπὸ ταπεινῶν καὶ εὐτελῶν ἀνϑρώπων; οὐκοῦν μὴ ϕλυαρεῖτε”. [5]  Ἀκούοντες δὲ τὸν Ἰωσὴϕ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ἅπας ὁ λαὸς καὶ ἡ συναγωγὴ πᾶσα ἔβρυχον τοὺς ὀδόντας. καὶ ἐϑυμώϑησαν σϕόδρα καὶ δύσαντες τὸν Ἰωσὴϕ ἀπήγαγον πρὸς Πιλᾶτον λέγοντες · “Οὗτος31 ὁ ἄνϑρωπος παραβάτης ἐστὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον κατήγαγεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου καὶ ἐνεταϕίασεν32 αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων πραγμάτων. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἐντάϕια τοῦ ξένου ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ προσκομίζεται καὶ οὐκ ἠρκέσϑη εἰς τὸ τοιοῦτον τόλμημα ἀλλὰ καὶ εὕρησεν καὶ τοῖς μαϑητοῖς αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. καὶ ἔλϑοντες ἔκλεψεν33 τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ λέγουσιν ὅτι ἠγέρϑη ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν”. [6]  Θυμωϑεὶς34 δὲ ὁ Πιλᾶτος λέγει τοῖς Ἰουδαιοῖς ἐν ὀργῇ μεγάλῃ ἐμβριμώμενος35 · “Ὦ βίαν μεϑ᾿ ὑμῶν, σκληροτράχηλοι καὶ στερεοκάρδιοι καὶ ἄμωμοι. χϑὲς ταραχὴ ἐγενήϑη καὶ ϑόρυβος μέγας καὶ ἄνϑρωπον δίκαιον ἐσταυρώσατε ἀδίκως. τὸν τοιαῦτα σήμεια καὶ   συμβούλιονται cod.   τῇ ἡμέρᾳ scripsi 25   ὑμῶν cod. 26   εὕρησεν cod. 27   εἰδε cod. 28   λεγὸν cod. 29   μάλλιστα cod. 30   γυμνὸν cod. 31   οὗτως cod 32   ἐνταϕίασεν cod. 33   ἔκλειψεν cod. 34   Θυμωϑὴς cod. 35   ἐμβρημοῦμενος cod. 23 24

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 270

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

271

[3]  The people said, “Why do they want the dead body?” And the whole crowd ran and took Joseph by force to the high priests. And the high priests said to him, “Why did you do this, O wrongdoer and transgressor of the law?” [4]  Joseph answered and said, “O foolish and blind and shameless, are you not ashamed saying such things? Who wants to steal a dead body, especially one stripped bare? Where (are) the seals of the tomb, and the guard of Pilate11? How was the dead one carried off by lowly and shabby men? So, do not accuse”. [5]  Hearing Joseph, the high priests and all the people and the entire synagogue were gnashing their teeth. They were very furious and, coming upon Joseph, they led him away by force to Pilate saying, “This man is a transgressor of the law. He took down the crucified one from the tree and prepared him for burial out of their own means. But also the burial shroud of the foreigner was brought from the temple. And, unsatisfied with such a shameless act, he devised also with the disciples of Jesus himself, and coming, they stole his body and said that he was risen from the dead”12. [6]  Pilate, becoming furious, said to the Jews, speaking angrily in great anger, “O violence among you! Stubborn, hardhearted, and impious! Yesterday a disturbance happened and great confusion13. And you crucified a just man unjustly. Such signs and wonders were accomplished and you

  Matt 27:66.   Matt 27:64. 13   Matt 27:51-54. 11 12

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 271

29/11/16 06:02

272

t. burke

τέρατα ποιήσαντα καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε. καὶ πάλιν σήμερον συναγωγὴ καὶ ταραχὴ εἰς τὸν ποιήσαντον ἀγαϑόν. ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ κρίνω οὐδὲ κελεύω ἐν τούτῳ”. [7]  Τότε ἐκέλευσεν ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἐξέβαλεν αὐτοὺς ἔξω λέγων · “Ὕπαγε καί τι36 ϑέλετε ποιήσατε. ὑμεῖς ὄψεσϑε. ἀϑῷός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου τούτου καὶ πᾶς ὁ οἶκός μου”. [8] Ἐξέλϑοντες δὲ οἱ ἱερεῖς ἦλϑον εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ ἀπέκλεισαν37 τὸν Ἰωσὴϕ εἰς ϕυλακὴν σκοτεινὴν38 λέγοντες · “Αὔριον λιϑοβολήσομεν39 αὐτὸν ὡς παράνομον”. Στήσαντες ϕύλακας πιστοὺς ἐπὶ τὴς ϑύρας τῆς ϕυλακῆς μὴ ἵέλϑοντες οἱ δούλοι αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐξενέγκωσιν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ϕυλακῆς. 3. [1]  Ἐκάϑη δὲ Ἰωσὴϕ ἐν τῇ ϕυλακῇ μόνος40. καὶ ἔκλαιεν πικρῶς λέγων · “Τί μοι τὸ ὄϕελος ἄρτι ἐκ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ; ἰδού, τὰ  γνωτόν41 μου ἐξωλέϑρευσαν42 ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ψυχή μου ἀποκτείνεται. αὔριον γὰρ λιϑοβολοῦμαι ὡς παράνομος καὶ ἀποϑνῄσκω ἀδίκως”. [2]  Ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνϑυμωμένου43 ϕῶς μέγα ἔλαμψεν καὶ ϕωνὴ ἦλϑεν πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγουσα · “Μὴ ϕοβοῦ Ἰωσήϕ, ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμὶ μετά σου. μὴ ϕοβηϑεὶς τὰς ἀπειλὰς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. ἔγειρε”. [3]  Ὁ δὲ ἀνάβλεψας Ἰωσὴϕ εἶδεν ἐν μέσῳ τῆς ϕυλακῆς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἕστωτα μετὰ τοῦ λῃστοῦ βαστάζοντα44 τὸν σταυρὸν. καὶ γνώρισας τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἔπεσεν εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ λέγων · “Ἀληϑῶς εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. ἀληϑῶς ἠγέρϑης ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου45 ὡς δυνατὸς καὶ κατίσχυσας πάντας τοὺς μισοῦντάς σε”. [4]  Τότε ἁπλώσας ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐπελάβησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴϕ καὶ ἐκβάλων αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως ἀπήγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. καὶ δίδαξας αὐτὸν ἀπέλυσεν46 αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς μαϑητὰς αὐτοῦ ὅπως κήρυξῃ47 αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ.   τη cod.   ἀπέκλησαν cod. 38   σκοτινὴν cod. 39   λιϑοβολίσωμεν cod. 40   μονοττ cod. 41   γνουτῶν cod. 42   ἐξολέϑρευσαν cod. 43   ἐνϑϋμωμονμενου cod. 44   βαστάζωντα cod. 45   μνημϊου cod. 46   ἀπέλισεν cod. 47   κήρυξει cod. 36 37

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 272

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

273

did not believe. And again today an assembly and disturbance (occurs) at the good thing accomplished. But I do not decide nor command about this”. [7]  Then Pilate commanded and sent them away outside saying, “Go and do what you wish; see to it yourselves. I am innocent of this man’s blood and all my house”14. [8]  The priests, coming out, went into the synagogue and locked Joseph in a dark prison, saying, “Tomorrow we will stone him as a wrongdoer”, placing faithful guards at the entrance of the prison, their slaves may not come in with the disciples of this very Jesus and carry him out from the prison. 3. [1]  Joseph sat alone in the prison. And he cried bitterly, saying, “What advantage is there to me now from Jesus? Look! The 15 destroyed my friend, and likewise my soul is condemned to death, for tomorrow I will be stoned like a wrongdoer and I will die unjustly”. [2]  As he was thinking these things, a great light shone and a voice came to him saying, “Fear not, Joseph, for I am with you. Do not be afraid of the threats of the Jews. Rise”. [3]  Looking up, Joseph saw in the middle of the prison Jesus standing with the thief, holding the cross16. Discovering Jesus, he fell down at his feet saying, “Truly you are the son of the living God. Truly you were raised from the grave, so mighty and prevailing over all who despise you”. [4]  Then Jesus, stretching out his right hand, took hold of Joseph and, bringing him out of the city, he led him to Galilee. And, after teaching him, he delivered him to his disciples so that he might proclaim to them his resurrection.

  Matt 27:24.   Damage to the manuscript has obscured the text here. The missing word or partial word is about three letters long. The tail of a rho is visible, suggesting that the subject is “the priests”; however, the word must be a neuter plural. 16   Grammatically, Jesus is holding the cross, but the thief is often depicted holding his own cross (see Acts Pil. B 26; Narr. Jos. 5.3). 14 15

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 273

29/11/16 06:02

274

t. burke

[5]  Τῇ ἐπαύριον συναχϑέντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγουσι τοῖς ἱερεῦσι48 · “Δότε ἡμῖν τὸν παραβάτην Ἰωσὴϕ ὅπως λιϑοβολήσωμεν αὐτόν”. οἱ δὲ ἱερεῖς ἀπελϑόντες ἐν τῇ ϕυλακῇ τὰς σϕραγῖδας αὐτῶν εὗρον σῶας. ἀνοίξαντες δὲ ἔσω οὐδένα εὗρον. [6]  Λέγουσι οἱ ἱερεῖς πρὸς τὰς ϕυλακάς · “Ποῦ Ἰωσήϕ;” ἠδέ · “Οὐκ οἴδαμεν”. Τότε οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐγνῶντο49 τὸ πταῖσμα αὐτῶν. ϕόβῳ καὶ δειλίᾳ συνεχόμενος ἔπεσον50 χαμαὶ ὡς νεκροί. ὦ τῆς αὐτῶν πωρώσεως51, ὦ τῆς αὐτῶν ταλαιπωρίας μὴ ϑέλοντας εὐεργετῆσαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. [7]  Ὅτι αὐτῷ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα κράτος, τιμή, μεγαλοπρέπεια νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.

  ἱερεῖς cod.   γνῶντο cod. 50   ἔπεισον cod. 51   πορρώσεως cod. 48 49

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 274

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

275

[5]  The next day, the Jews assembled and said to the priests, “Give us the transgressor Joseph so that we may stone him”. The priests went into the prison, found their seals preserved. And opening, they found nothing inside. [6] The priests said to the guards, “Where is Joseph?” And (they said), “We do not know”. Then the priests knew their failure. Afflicted by fear and timidity, they fell to the ground as if dead. O their stubbornness, O their misery, not wishing to show kindness to those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ! [7]  Because to him is fitting all glory, power, honour, magnificence, now and then and forever, amen.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 275

29/11/16 06:02

276

t. burke

Bibliography Aubineau, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci = M. Aubineau, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci, t. 1. Codices Britanniae et Hiberniae, Paris, 1968. BHG = F. Halkin (ed.), Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, 3rd ed. (Subsidia hagiographica, 8), Brussels, 1957. Burke, De infantia Iesu  =  T. Burke, De infantia Iesu euangelium Thomae graece (Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum, 17), Turnhout, 2010. Chartrand-Burke, Greek Manuscript Tradition = T. Chartrand-Burke, The Greek Manuscript Tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in Apocrypha, 14 (2004), p. 129-151. CPG = M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, vol. 3, Turnhout, 1979. Cunningham, Greek Manuscripts = I.C. Cunningham, Greek Manuscripts in the National Library of Scotland, in Scriptorium, 24 (1970), p. 360-371. de Aldama, Repertorium Pseudochrysostomicum = J.A. de Aldama, Repertorium Pseudochrysostomicum (Documents, Études et Répertoires publiés par l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 10), Paris, 1965. de Montfaucon, Sancti Patris nostri Iohannis Chrysostomi = B. de Montfaucon, Sancti Patris nostri Iohannis Chrysostomi…opera omnia quae exstant…, 13 vols., Paris, 1718-1738. de Montfaucon, Editio parisina  =  B. de Montfaucon, Sancti Patris nostri Iohannis Chrysostomi… Editio parisina altera, emendata et aucta, 13 vols., Paris, 1834-1840. Ehrman – Pleše, Apocryphal Gospels = B. Ehrman – Z. Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations, Oxford – New York, NY, 2011. Geerard, CANT = M. Geerard, Clauis Apocryphorum Noui Testamenti, Turnhout, 1992. Gounelle, Collectio Sermonum = R. Gounelle, Les éditions de la Collectio Sermonum d’Eusèbe d’Alexandrie, in Analecta Bollandiana, 127 (2009), p. 249-272. Gounelle, Les recensions byzantines = R. Gounelle, Les recensions byzantines de l’Évangile de Nicodème (Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum, Instrumenta, 3), Turnhout, 2008. Gronewald, Kein durchtriebener Räuber = M. Gronewald, Kein durchtriebener Räuber (P. Lit. Lond. 245 = Ps. Eusebius, Sermo 17), in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 34 (1979), p. 22-25. Hannick, Maximos Holobolos = C. Hannick, Maximos Holobolos in der Kirchenslavischen homiletischen literatur (Wiener Byzantinische Studien, 14), Vienna, 1981. Hunger, Katalog = H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, 4 vols., Vienna, 1961. Hunger et al., Katalog = H. Hunger – O. Kresten – C. Hannick, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Teil 3/2. Codices theologici 101-200 (Museion N.F. 4, Bd. 1, T. 3,2), Vienna, 1984. Izydorczyk, Nicodemus’ Gospel = Z. Izydorczyk, Nicodemus’ Gospel Before and Beyond the Medieval West, in Z. Izydorczyk (ed.), The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus: Texts, Intertexts, and Contexts in Western Europe (Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 158), Tempe, AZ, 1997, p. 1-20.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 276

29/11/16 06:02



THE ACTA PILATI TRADITION

277

Izydorczyk, Two Newly Identified Manuscripts = Z. Izydorczyk, Two Newly Identified Manuscripts of the Sermo de confusione diaboli, in Scriptorium, 43 (1989), p. 253-255. Lafontaine, La version arménienne = G. Lafontaine, La version arménienne du sermon d’Eusèbe d’Alexandrie ‘Sur la Passion du Seigneur’, in Le Muséon, 95 (1982), p. 99-113. Leroy – Glorie, ‘Eusèbe d’Alexandrie’ = J. Leroy – F. Glorie, ‘Eusèbe d’Alexandrie’ source d’‘Eusèbe de Gaule’, in Sacris erudiri, 19 (19691970), p. 33-70. M = J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Graeca, t. 62, col. 721-724. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum = A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, vol. 9. Graeca vetera Eusebii Alex. …, Rome, 1843. McCulloch, Harrowing of Hell = J.A. McCulloch, The Harrowing of Hell: A Comparative Study of an Early Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1930. Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies, 2 = A. Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshuni, vol. 2, Cambridge, 1928. Nau, Notes = F. Nau, Notes sur diverses homélies pseudépigraphiques, sur les œuvres attribuées à Eusèbe d’Alexandrie et sur un nouveau manuscrit de la chaîne Contra Severianos, in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 13 (1908), p. 429-433. Noret, Pour une édition = J. Noret, Pour une édition de l’Évangile de l’enfance selon Thomas, in Analecta Bollandiana, 90 (1972), p. 412. Noret, Un fragment homilétique = J. Noret, Un fragment homilétique grec à Édimbourg, in Analecta Bollandiana, 92 (1972), p. 171-172. Rand, Sermo = E.K. Rand, Sermo de confusione diaboli, in Modern Philology, 2 (1904-1905), p. 261-278. Roberts – Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers = A. Roberts – J. Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols., New York, NY, 1916. Rosén, Slavonic Translation = T. Rosén, The Slavonic Translation of the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Slavica Upsaliensia, 39), Uppsala, 1997. Sauget, Une ébauche d’homéliaire copte = J.-M. Sauget, Une ébauche d’homéliaire copte pour la Semaine Sainte: le manuscrit Borgia arabe 99, in Parole de l’Orient, 14 (1987), p. 167-202. Saville, S. Ioannis Chrysostomi opera, graece = H. Saville, S. Ioannis Chrysostomi opera, graece, 8 vols., Eton, 1612. Thilo, Eusebius von Alexandrien = J.C. Thilo, Über die Schriften des Eusebius von Alexandrien und des Eusebius von Emisa. Ein kritisches Sendschreiben an Herrn Consistorialrath Dr. Augusti zu Bonn. Mit einem Anhange mehrerer bisher unbekannter Homilien des Eusebius von Alexandrien, Halle, 1832. Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha = C. von Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, 1853, 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1876. van Esbroeck, L’histoire de Lydda = M. van Esbroeck, L’histoire de Lydda dans deux textes géorgiens, in Bedi Kartlisa, 35 (1978), p. 109-131.

York University 18 Troy St. Kitchener, ON N2H 1L8, Canada [email protected]

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 277

Tony Burke

29/11/16 06:02

278

t. burke

Abstract — A 14th/15th-century Greek manuscript in Vienna (Cod. hist. gr. 91) contains two fragmentary texts relating to the Acta Pilati corpus of the Christian Apocrypha. The first is a fragment of On the Passion, for the Preparation Day, a sermon attributed to Eusebius of Alexandria drawing upon the Descensus ad inferos, found appended to several versions of the Acts of Pilate. The paper includes a transcription and translation of the fragment along with an overview of the publication history of the sermon. The second text is an unpublished, untitled excerpt from an unknown homily dealing with the burial of Jesus and the imprisonment of Joseph of Arimathea. This paper presents a diplomatic edition of the text with an English translation along with a discussion of its relationship to the Acts of Pilate and the related Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_01_Burke.indd 278

29/11/16 06:02

A NEW CHRISTIAN PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION IN A MOSAIC PAVEMENT AT ḤURA, ISRAEL 1. The Site In a salvage excavation carried out near the entrance to the Bedouin township of Ḥura in the northern Negev, a monastery dated to the 6th7th centuries was recently discovered1. The site is located about 10 km north-west of Tell Masos, and is now the southernmost site possessing a Christian Palestinian Aramaic (hereafter CPA) inscription2. Additionally, the mosaic pavements of the monastery bear several Greek inscriptions and a bilingual Greek-CPA one3. The purpose of this article is to publish the CPA part of this inscription. The room in which the mosaic was laid is 5 × 3.7 m, with a crypt (found empty) in its center. The entrance to the room was through the southern wall. The mosaic includes a geometric design that could have been viewed from the entrance. The inscription on the other hand, set adjacent to the eastern wall, is set within the ‘border’ of the mosaic, and was to be seen and read when standing facing east [See Ill. 1]. The bilingual three-row’ inscription was laid inside a rectangular framework of 2.5 × 0.65 m [See Ill. 2]. The Greek part of the inscription occupies the entire two first rows and a third of the third row, and it commemorates the completion of the pavement in the equivalent of November-December 596 CE, giving an exact dating to our inscription. 2. The CPA Inscription The CPA portion of the inscription occupies two thirds of the last row, beginning in the right-lower corner of the rectangle, and its composers had compelled to adjust the text to the remaining space following the ending of the Greek part in this shared row. 1   The excavations were carried out by Dr. Daniel Varga, and they will be published by Dr. Daniel Varga and Prof. Rina Talgam in Israel Exploration Journal. 2   See an updated inventory of CPA inscriptions in Hoyland, CPA and Old Arabic, p. 37-39. 3   All the Greek inscriptions including the Greek part of the bilingual one, will be full published by Prof. Yulia Ustinova and Dr. Daniel Varga in Israel Exploration Journal. We would like to thank them for supplying a preliminary decipherment and comment of the Greek text.

Le Muséon 129 (3-4), 279-284. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180781 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_02_Vainstub.indd 279

29/11/16 06:05

280

d. vainstub – M. sokoloff – D. varga

It can be clearly seen that the CPA text was executed by two different hands, each of them composing three words. The abrupt diminution of the letters’ size after the third word should not by any means be interpreted as a consequence of the awareness of a unique writer that there is insufficient room for three other words executed in the size of the first three. The two-hand conclusion can be deduced from the following facts: a) The first writer has a rough and simple calligraphic style, and committed calligraphic errors. The second writer, obviously a more literary one, shows a well-trained hand. This can be seen, for example, in his use of double lines of tesserae to express the thick strokes of some letters, emulating ink scribes’ customs, while the first writer use one-tessera lines for any stroke. b) The second writer was strict in laying the letters well leveled on two rows of white background tesserae, while the first writer attributed no importance to the issue. c) The two writers formed some letters in a quite different form. This is very evident in the case of wau and ālaf. d) The second writer began his work leaving a bigger space after the first one, than the space he used to separate between words he himself wrote. 3. Paleography The completely rounded tau is the typical CPA one, the base of which is usually slightly flattened when written in a line on soft materials, but entirely rounded examples of it can be seen, especially in non-joining taus as in the ῾Evron mosaic4. The first writer, most probably an illiterate mosaic artist who was provided with a copy of the text to set in the mosaic, made calligraphic mistakes in each one of the three words that he wrote. In the first one he attached the final nun to the top edge of the dālath5; in the second one he joined the non-left-joining letter rēsh to the row line and joined it to the following ῾ayin, making it look like an exact bēth. Of course, the clear context of the text and the diacritical dot above the letter determine its reading as rēsh. In the third word the writer omitted the left vertical stroke of the mīm, which caused it to look like a bēth. Undoubtedly, the context determines its reading as rēsh.   Jacques, ῾Evron Inscription, p. 54*. The tau is inside the circle.   However though a nun is expected to be written lower and separate from the preceding dālath, anomalies in these rules are found in mosaic inscriptions: in the Wadi Rajib Ajlun inscription a similar final nun was executed in the word ‫( ܗܖܢ‬Puech, Ouadi RajibAjloun, p. 318). See also Puech, ῾Ayoun Mousa on a possible too-high nun in an inscription from ῾Ayoun Mousa in the word ‫ܠܡܪܢ‬. 4 5

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_02_Vainstub.indd 280

29/11/16 06:05



A NEW CHRISTIAN PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION

281

The second writer, showing a more stylized hand, wrote his ṣādhē with a typical CPA short upper element using a double line of tesserae and a wide horizontal stroke. The ṣādhē touches slightly the following dālath. In the upper stroke of the dālath a tessera is missing at the right of the edged tessera giving the false sense of an isolated dot leveled with the roof of the dālath. Obviously a black tessera must be reconstructed forming the roof of the letter that rises very moderately toward the left. Qōfs and waus are well distinguished, the former being angular and the latter oval with a pointed vertex at the top, and flattened at the bottom upon the line. The ālaf has a very stretched left-wavy head in line with some CPA examples6, whereas our example shows the most impressive curl in the upper part of the letter. 4. The Text ‫ܗܕܢ ܘ ܬܪܥܗ ܕܡܪܐ ܨܕܝܩܝܐ ܝܥܘܠܘܢ ܒܓܘܗ‬ This is the CPA translation of Ps 117:20 [MT 118:20]: “This is the gate of the Lord. The righteous will enter within it.” The verse is one of the most prevalent among biblical citations in Greek inscriptions from the Late Roman – Byzantine period, occurring about fifty times. Moreover, with the exception of one inscription from Numidia, all these occurrences come from the Syria-Palestinian area, almost always in a cultic context7. Among them thirty-seven were found in Dioecesis Orientis, including one from Beer-Sheva, very close to our site, which dates also to the sixth century8. This verse in the inscription is an addition to the corpus of known CPA material and was not previously attested9. The text is composed in correct CPA of the Early Period, but presents several paleographic peculiarities: 1. Connection of final nun to the dālath in the first word, against all of the rules governing the connection of letters.  See Marcoff – Chitty, Monastic Research, plate III, no. 5 (the last letter), and the ālaf in the ῾  Evron mosaic in Jacques, ῾Evron Inscription. 7  See Felle, Biblia epigraphica, p. 421. Only Ps. 120:8 [MT 121:8] is cited more times than this verse. See also p. 412-413 on geographical and chronological distribution of the biblical citations, and p. 413, 419 on the impressive preference of the book of Psalms in the East. We are grateful to Dr. Leah Di Segni for her helpful comments on this topic. 8   Felle, Biblia epigraphica, no. 196 with full bibliography. 9  For a list of all the known CPA texts, see Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. xxvii-xli. For Psalms, see p. xxviii-xxix. 6

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_02_Vainstub.indd 281

29/11/16 06:05

282

d. vainstub – M. sokoloff – D. varga

2. The following waw, which is a shortened form of the pronoun ‫ܘܗ‬, appears here independently, apparently a feature nowhere else attested in CPA, even as an enclitic. 3. The word ‫ ܡܪܐ‬appears to be written with a clear bēth, but in light of the clear meaning of the passage, and the paleographic peculiarities of the mosaic artist, mīm is clearly intended. Finally, we may note that the usage of ‫ ܥܠܠ‬with the preposition ‫ܒܓܘ‬ is elsewhere attested in CPA in Ex. 14:22: ‫ ܒܓܘ ܝܡܐ‬... ‫ ܥܠܘ‬10. The Institute of Archaeology, Ariel University Ariel, Israel and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva, Israel Derekh Nahal Prat 7 Nofei Prat 90618, Israel [email protected] Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Hizkiyahu Hamelekh 11, Apt. 55 Jerusalem 95403, Israel [email protected] Israel Antiquities Authority P.O.BOX 271, 84965 Omer, Israel [email protected]

Daniel Vainstub

Michael Sokoloff

Daniel Varga

Bibliography Felle, Biblia epigraphica = A.E. Felle, Biblia epigraphica. La sacra scrittura nella documentazione epigrafica dell’Orbis Christianvs Antiqvvs (IIIVIII secolo), (Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae – Subsidia, 5), Bari, 2006. Hoyland, CPA and Old Arabic = R. Hoyland, Mount Nebo, Jabal Ramm, and the status of Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Old Arabic in Late Roman Palestine and Arabia, in M.C.A. Macdonald (ed.), The development of Arabic as a written language (Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 40), Oxford, 2010, p. 29-46.

10

 See Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 310, mng. 1.b.2.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_02_Vainstub.indd 282

29/11/16 06:05



A NEW CHRISTIAN PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION

283

Jacques, ῾Evron Inscription = A. Jacques, A Palestinian-Syriac Inscription in the Mosaic Pavement at ῾Evron, in Eretz-Israel, 19 (1987), p. 54*-56*. Marcoff – Chitty, Monastic Research = M. Marcoff – D.J. Chitty, Notes on Monastic Research in the Judæan Wilderness, 1928-9, in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 61 (1929), p. 167-178. Puech, ῾Ayoun Mousa = E. Puech, L’inscription christo-palestinienne d’῾Ayoun Mousa (Mont Nebo), in Liber Annuus (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum), 34 (1984), p. 319-328. Puech, Ouadi Rajib-Ajloun = E. Puech, L’inscription christo-palestinienne du Ouadi Rajib-Ajloun et de nouvelles inscriptions christo-palestiniennes de Jordanie, in G.C. Bottini – L. Di Segni – L.D. Chupcala (eds.), One Land  – Many Cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Maior, 41), Jerusalem, 2003, p. 317-325. Sokoloff, Dictionary = M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 234), Louvain, 2014. Abstract — Near the Bedouin township of Ḥura in the northern Negev, in a monastery dated to the 6th-7th centuries was recently discovered a bilingual Greek-Christian Palestinian Aramaic inscription. The purpose of this article is to publish the CPA part of it. As can be clearly seen, the CPA text was executed by two different hands, each of them composing three words. The first writer has a rough and simple calligraphic style, and committed calligraphic errors. The second writer, obviously a more literary one, shows a well-trained hand. The text reads: ‫ܗܕܢ ܘ ܬܪܥܗ ܕܡܪܐ ܨܕܝܩܝܐ ܝܥܘܠܘܢ ܒܓܘܗ‬. This is the CPA translation of Ps 117:20 [MT 118:20]: “This is the gate of the Lord. The righteous will enter within it.” The verse is one of the most prevalent among biblical citations in Greek inscriptions from the Late Roman – Byzantine period in the Syria-Palestinian area.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_02_Vainstub.indd 283

29/11/16 06:05

284

d. vainstub – M. sokoloff – D. varga

Illustration 1: Plan of the site © Natalia Zak – Israel Antiquities Authority

Illustration 2: The inscription © Carmen Hirsch – Israel Antiquities Authority

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_02_Vainstub.indd 284

29/11/16 06:06

EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10 Introduction Manuscript Sinai Syriac 10, a collection of very miscellaneous texts, preserves a number of items that have caught the interest of scholars. Of particular importance for the study of Ephrem’s madrashe is the list of Ephrem’s hymns on f. 165v-178r, which was published and studied by André de Halleux in two magisterial articles1. Another text, of very different character, was also published by de Halleux; this was the short Melkite Chronicle on f. 42r-53v2. Next, in chronological order of publication was the collection of Chalcedonian texts on f. 1-41v, which were edited and translated by Paolo Bettiolo in the CSCO3. This was followed by the photographic edition of a surprising text to feature in a Melkite manuscript, namely Jacob of Serugh’s Memra on the Priesthood (f. 54r59r), with French translation, by Micheline Albert4. Much more recently Paul Géhin has provided a detail inventory of the manuscript’s miscellaneous contents, and has re-united with it four stray folios now in Milan5. For a long time there had been some uncertainty about the date of the manuscript, but Géhin has shown that it must belong to the eighth or early ninth century6. The verse texts incorporated into the manuscript consist of works, not only by Ephrem and Jacob (as has already been seen), but also one by Isaac ‘the Teacher’ (edited in Brock, An acrostic soghitha). Here, however, it is three specific groups of poems attributed to Ephrem that are presented, to be found on f. 80r-94v, f. 181v-187v, and f. 190v-196v7. At first glance the first group of ‘Select madrashe’ commences on f. 93r, since that is where we find the heading ‘Madrashe of Mar Ephrem’. In fact, extracts from his madrashe begin considerably earlier, on f. 80r, with the heading ‘Madrashe on Virginity, to the qala Kallat malka, selected’.   de Halleux, Une clé.   de Halleux, La chronique melkite. 3   Bettiolo, Una raccolta. 4   Albert, Mimro inédit. 5   Géhin, Restitution; for the list of contents, see p. 59-61. 6   Hatch, Album, plate XL, gave the date as 613/4, but, as P. Géhin has shown, this was based on a misunderstanding. 7   The texts are published by permission of the Monastery of St Catherine, Mount Sinai. I am most grateful to the Monastery for this permission. 1 2

Le Muséon 129 (3-4), 285-322. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180782 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 285

29/11/16 06:05

286

s. brock

These madrashe follow immediately on from a collection of madrashe by Jacob of Serugh on Repentance8, and the unwary reader might well have assumed that the ‘Madrashe on Virginity’ were also by Jacob; this, however, is not the case, for the following madrashe can all be identified as being selected stanzas from Ephrem’s De Virginitate (1-3), De Ecclesia (1, 26, 27, 29, 30, 49, 50), and De Nativitate (5, 8, 18). Extracts from De Nativitate (3) continue on f. 93r, now finally with the specific attribution, being headed by the rubric ‘Madrashe of Mar Ephrem’. These extracts are of interest for two reasons in particular. Firstly, they provide a welcome new textual witness to De Ecclesia, for parts of which the textual attestation is very poor; indeed Sinai Syr. 10 at one point provides completely new material for the ending of De Ecclesia 1. Secondly, the selection of stanzas offers an early example of the free way in which Ephrem’s poems were handled in the later tradition (especially in liturgical manuscripts); remarkably, in the case of the excerpts from De Virginitate, groups of stanzas are sometimes presented in reverse order. The second group, on f. 181v-187v, consists of four soghyatha specifically attributed to Ephrem. These appear not to be known from elsewhere, apart from the second and fourth which are quoted in a Melkite manuscript of 882. The third element, on f. 190v-196v, is constituted by a single text, a ‘Memra of Mar Ephrem on the End’. This too appears not to be found elsewhere. It is separated from the soghyatha under Ephrem’s name by two other soghyatha, the first attributed to ‘Isaac the Teacher’, and the second to Jacob9. 1. Select madrashe (f. 80r-94v) Following after seven madrashe on Repentance by Jacob of Serugh there is a new heading, on f. 80r: ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܡܓܒܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܕܖܫܐ ܕܥܠ ܒܬܘܠܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܩ�ܠܐ ܕܟܠܬ ܡܠܟܐ‬

‘Madrashe on Virginity, to the qala Kallat malka (‘Bride of the King’), selected’.

These all turn out to be excerpts from Ephrem’s madrashe, even though only the final section, (k), is specifically attributed to him, thus giving the impression that the preceding sections, (a) - (j), were still by Jacob.   An edition of these, based as well on other manuscripts, is in preparation.  Beginning ...‫ ;ܐܒܐ ܡܪܚܡܢܐ‬also found in British Library Add. 17141, f. 19v; it is attributed to Ephrem in the Rome edition of Ephrem’s works (Ephrem, ed. Assemanus et al., VI, p. 447). 8 9

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 286

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

287

In the following inventory, the stanzas are identified, and a collation with the text in Beck’s editions in the CSCO is provided, noting any agreement with other manuscripts used by Beck. (a)  f. 80v-83r Stanzas from De Virginitate 1-3, in the following sequence: De Virginitate 3:16, 10, 11, 1; 2:15, 14, 13, 6, 4; 1:14, 13, 12, 8, 7, 6. Collation (following the sequence of Beck’s edition)10: 1:6, 1:8, 1:13, 1:14, 2:4, 2:13, 2:14, 2:15, 3:16, 3:10, 3:11, 3:1,

lines 2, 3 ‫=( ܣܡ [ܣܡܘ‬ De Virginitate) ̇ ‫ܦܚ‬ ̈ ̈ line 6 ‫[ܦܚܐ‬ ‫ܝܗ‬ ̈ ̈ line 1 ‫ܫܐܕܐ [ܚܒܪܬܐ ܕܫܐܕܐ‬ ‫ܚܒܪܬ‬ line 3 ‫ܪܚܘܡܬ [ܪܚܡܬ‬ line 5 om. ‫ܗܝ‬ line 6 ‫ [ܡܫܚܢܬܐ‬11 ‫ܡܫܝܚܢܬܐ‬ ̇ line 4 [ ‫ܕܫܘܝܗ [ ]ܡܠܦܢܗ‬ line 1 (orth.) ‫ܪܘܝܚܐ [ܐܪܘܝܚܐ‬ ̇ ̇ line 1 ‫[ܡܪܓܢܝܬܗ‬ ‫ܡܪܢܝܬܗ‬ line 2 (orth.) ‫ܟܘܬܢܗ [ܟܘܬܝܢܗ‬ line 4 ‫=( ܐܢ [ܕܐܢ‬ E) ̇ line 4 ‫ܠܗ [ܠܗ‬ ̈ ̈ line 4 ‫ܢܨܚܢܝܟܝ [ܠܢܨܚܢܝܟܝ‬ ̈ line 2 ‫ [ܥܠ ܐܝܕܝܟܝ‬om. (vid.) line 4 ‫ܕܝܘܩܢܗ [ܘܝܘܩܢܗ‬ line 2 ‫ܫܡܪ [ܐܪܫܠ‬ ̇ line 3 ‫ܚܝܪܗ [ܚܝܪܟܝ‬ line 4 ‫ܕܝܘܢܐ [ܝܘܢܐ‬ ̈ ̈ line 4 ‫[ܟܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܖܟܒܐ‬ line 6 ‫ܚܬܘܡ [ܚܘܬܡ‬ line 3 ‫ܛܥܝܢܢ [ܛܥܝܢܝܢ‬ line 6 ‫ܕܥܠܝܡܬܐ [ܕܥܠܝܡܘܬܐ‬ introduced by: !‫ܒܪ ܩܠܗ‬ ̈ line 1 ‫[ܦܐܖܐ‬ ‫ܦܐܪܐ‬

10   Unless otherwise stated, Sin. Syr. 10 (= S) supports the readings in square brackets in Beck’s text. Obvious errors in S are not included (e.g. in De Virginitate 2:6, line 1 ‫ܥܠܝܡܝܬܐ‬ for ‫ ;ܥܠܝܡܬܐ‬De Nativitate 18:30, line 5 !‫ ܩܘܒܢܗ‬for ‫)ܩܘܪܒܢܐ‬. The readings of S (some of which are clearly superior to Beck’s text) are to the right of the square brackets. 11   For this term in connection with Potiphar’s wife, cf. Isaac of Antioch, ed. Bedjan, p. 337.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 287

29/11/16 06:05

288

s. brock

(b)  f. 83r-85v ‫ܬܘܒ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܥܠ ܩ�ܠܐ ܕܒܟ ܗܘ ܡܪܝ ܡܬܚܨܦ ܐܢܐ‬

De Ecclesia 1:1-4, 6, 10 + four.

̈ ̈ 1:1, line 7 ‫[�ܡܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܢܐ‬ 1:2, line 5 ‫=( ܒܚܢܢ [ܒܐܚܝܢܢ‬ J) line 6 ‫ܪܡܢܢ! ܚܢܢ [ܪܡܝܢ ܐܢܚܢܢ‬ line 7 ‫ܫܒܩܢ ܚܢܢ [ܫܒܩܢܢ‬ 1:3, line 1 ‫ܣܚܘܦܐ [ܣܚܘܦܢ‬ lines 3, 5 (habet ‫(ܬܒܪ ܐܣܪܚ‬ line 4 ‫�ܠܐܝܘܒ [ܐܝܘܒ‬ line 5 ‫=( ܐܣܓܝ [ܐܣܓܐ‬ J) 1:4, line 2 ‫( ܨܐܕ [ܨܝܕ‬cf. J) ̈ 1:6, line 6 ‫ܕܦܟܖܐ‬ ‫ܫܪܝܗ ܕܦܟܪܐ [ܫܪܝܐ‬ 1:10, line 5 (lacuna in Beck’s ms.) S continues ̈ .‫ܘܫܐܠܘ ܫܘܥܒܕܐ ܕܡ�ܠܐ ܫܘܢܩܐ‬ ‫ܣܟ�ܠܐ ܕܐܬܚܪܪܘ ܘܠܢܝܪܐ ܐܬܝܐܒܘ܀‬

S then provides four further stanzas, only the fourth of which was legible in Beck’s manuscript. The intermediary fragments printed by Beck, however, do not correspond with anything in the first three of the further stanzas in S; S’s second stanza, however, is to be found as the second stanza in the Appendix to Beck’s edition, where he prints five further stanzas evidently belonging to De Eccl. 1, to be found in British Library Add. 14506 (his J)12. 10a ̈ ̈ ̈ .‫ܘܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܓܒܖܐ‬ ‫  ܠܫܡܗܐ‬ ‫ܚܠܝܛܐܝܬ ܢܐܡܪ ܐܢܘܢ‬ .‫   ܕܚܢܐ ܫܘܫܢ ܘܕܡܪܝܡ‬.‫ܕܝܘܣܦ ܙܡܪܝ ܘܕܓܚܙܝ‬ .‫   ܘܐܝܬ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܕܐܚܦܪܘ‬.‫ܐܝܬ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܕܢܨܚܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ .‫ܕܘܟܖܢܐ‬ )‫ܢܨܚܢܐ   ܘܫܒܘܩܘ (=ܘܫܒܩܘ‬ ‫   ܫܩܠܘ ܓܝܪ‬.‫ܛܒܐ ܫܩܠܘ ܘܫܒܩܘ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫   ܘܫܒܩܘ ܡܘܝܩܐ‬.‫ܒܝܫܐ ܫܩܠܘ ܘܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܗܐ ܩܒܝܥܝܢ‬ ‫ ܩܒܝܥܐ ܗܝ ܡܚܙܝܬܐ �ܠܐܝܢܐ ܕܡܨܛܒܬ܀‬.‫ܚܫܐ �ܠܐܝܢܐ ܕܡܕ�ܡܐ‬ 10b ̈ ̈ .‫ܕܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܘܡܝ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ   ܒܝܘܡ ܦܘܪܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܬܟܣܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ̇ ‫  ܥܒܕܘܗܝ ܩܘܕܡܬ‬ .‫ܕܝܢܐ ܙܗܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘܐ ܟܠ ܐܢܫ ܛܥܝܢ‬ ‫�ܡܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ .‫  ܢܨܚܢܐ ܖܓܝܓܐ‬ ‫ܘܙܕܝܩܐ ܗܘܝܢ ܫܩܝܠܝܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ .‫ܡܘ�ܡܐ ܕܫܘܟܪܐ‬ ‫ܚܒܖܝܗܘܢ   ܗܘܝܢ ܛܥܝܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܚܛܝܐ ܒܝܢܬ‬ ‫ܘܛܡܐܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܢܨ�ܠܐ ܚܒܝܒܝ ܟܠܢ ܥܠ ܟܠܢ܀‬

  The fragments of B printed by Beck on p. 4, come from four different stanzas: lines 7-11 (of his p. 4) belong to J’s stanza c (on p. 137), and lines 12-18 are the final stanza in both S and J; lines 6 and 11, however, must come from two completely lost stanzas. How the last stanzas of the original poem fitted together remains a problem which cannot be further discussed here. 12

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 288

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

289

10c ̇ .‫  ܕܝܢܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܢܫܬܐܠ‬ ‫ܠܦܘ�ܡܐ ܓܝܪ ܡܫܬܩ ܠܗ‬ ̇ ̈ .‫ܚܙܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܟܠܗ ܦܓܪܐ   ܡܚܙܝܬܐ ܩܕܡ‬ ̇ ̈ ̈ .‫ܗܘܝܢ ܣܘܥܖܢܘܗܝ ܛܒܝܥܝܢ   ܒܓܘܗ ܘܡܕܝܩܝܢ ܡܢܗ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ .‫   ܡܢ ܦܓܖܐ ܛܢܦܐ   ܡܕܝܩܝܢ ܣܘܖܚܢܐ‬.‫ܢܨܚܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܦܓܖܐ ܢܟܦܐ ܡܕܝܩܝܢ‬ ‫ܦܘܪܣܝܐ ܗܘ ܪܒܐ   ܘܥܒܝܕ ܡܢ ܒܠܢ܀‬ 10d .‫   �ܠܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚ ܩܘܕܫܐ‬.‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܠܬܠܬܐ‬ .‫ܬܠܝܬܝܐ ܛܫܐ ܣܢܝܘܬܝ   ܚܠܦ ܫܘܦܪܐ ܕܢܦܩ ܡܢ ܦܘܡܝ‬ ̈ .‫ܨܒܬܐ ܡܢ ܓܘܗ‬ ‫ܫܒܛܗ ܡܪܝ ܕܐܗܪܘܢ   ܐܦܪܥ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܦܩ‬ .‫ܦܓܪܐ ܡܪܝ ܕܟܣܐ   ܒܓܘܗ ܟܘܐܪܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܘܡܘܗܝ   ܒܝܘ�ܡܐ ܕ�ܡܐܬܝܬܟ‬ ‫�ܠܐ ܢܓܣܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܩܥܐ ܒܗܘ ܥܕܢ   ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܕܚܢܢܝ܀‬

In the following translation Beck’s verse 10, in its now complete form, is also included. 10 In ignominious and harsh servitude   were the People in Egypt, in pure and delightful freedom   were the People in the Wilderness, but because of sweet converse   with the sin with which Egypt was full, they rejected the freedom   they was filled with delight, and asked for the servitude   that was filled with torment – the fools, who had been set free,   but they yearned for the yoke! 10a Let us mention, mingled together,   the names of men and women – of Joseph, Zimri and of Gehazi,   of Hanna, Susanna and of Miriam: some of them were successful,   some of them were put to shame. The good received and left behind: they received success   and left behind commemorations, the wicked received woe   and left behind a mockery. Sufferings are fixed   for the person who imitates (sc. the People), a mirror is fixed   for the person who adorns himself13. 10b May Your grace cover up my stains   on the day when hidden things are laid bare, when everyone is carrying   his own actions in the presence of the resplendent Judge, and the just will be taking up   (their) desired victories whereas the impure and the sinners   amongst their companions will be carrying   the stains of shameful action. Let us pray, my beloved,   all of us for each other. 13   This stanza has an extra 5+5 syllables. The various metrical problems of these stanzas cannot be discussed further here.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 289

29/11/16 06:05

290

s. brock

10c For the Judge will silence   the mouth from making excuses, since the entire body will become   a mirror before onlookers; its actions will become   imprinted on it and they will peer out from it: from chaste bodies   victories will peer out, from impure bodies   vices will peer out. It will be a vast disclosure,   one effected by ourselves (lit. our heart/mind). 10d Praise from all to the Three,   to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. O Threefold One/Intercessor, hide my ugliness   in exchange for any beauty that has proceeded from my mouth. O Lord, the staff of Aaron sprouted and brought forth  embellishments from within itself; may the body, Lord, within which   is hidden its own reproach not burst forth with its stains   on the day of Your coming, and may I cry out at that time   praise to the One who has had pity on me!

(c)  f. 85v-86v De Ecclesia 26:1-6, 11. ‫ܬܘܒ ܥܠ ܩ�ܠܐ ܕܐܘ ܬܠܡܝܕܝܟ‬ 26:1, line 5 (orth.) ‫ܟܠ [ܟܘܠ‬ om. rubric ‫ܥܘܢܝܬܐ‬ 26:2, line 1 ‫ܓܡܝܪܬܟ! [ܓܡܝܪܘܬܟ‬ line 2 ‫ܠܓܒܪܘܬܟ [ܠܓܢܒܪܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ‫[ܚܫܐ‬ ‫  ܚܫܐ‬ 26:3, line 4 (orth.)‫ܒܐܓܘܢܐ [ܒܐܝܓܘܢܐ‬ 26:5, line 5 ‫=( ܛܘܒܐ [ܛܘܒܗ‬ D) line 7 ‫=( ܛܒܥܗ [ܛܥܡܗ‬ D F) ‫  ܕܐܒܐ [ ܕܒܪܐ‬ ̈ 26:6, line 3 ‫ܟܝ�ܠܐ [ܟܝ�ܠܐ‬ line 4 ‫=( ܢܬܬܓܪ [ܡܬܬܓܪ‬ D F) line 5 ‫ܓܝܪ [ܕܝܢ‬ 26:11, line 6 ‫( ܫ�ܠܐ [ܫܦܠ‬D F ‫)ܫܦܐ‬

(d)  f. 86 v-87v De Ecclesia 27:1, 4, 9, 11. 27:1, 27:4, 27:9,

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 290

line 3 line 2 line 5 line 1 line 3 line 4 line 6 line 8

(orth.) ‫=( ܕܡܡܬܘܡ [ ܕܡܢ ܡܬܘܡ‬ D E) ̈ ‫ܚܝܐ ܠܡܪܬ! [ ܠ�ܡܐܪܬ‬ ̈ (cf. D) ‫ܚܝܐ‬ ‫ [ܒܗ‬om. (= D) ‫=( ܡܪܝ ܠܟ [ ܠܟ ܡܪܝ‬ E) ̇ ‫[ܨܒܐ‬ ‫=( ܨܒܐ‬ F) ̇ ̇ (orth.) ‫[ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ܕܝܢ‬ ̇ ‫ ܨܒܐ [ܨܒܐ‬ ‫=( ܘܩܢܝܢܝ [ܘܩܢܝܢ‬ D)

‫ܒܪ ܩܠܗ‬

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

291

(e)  f. 87 v-88v De Ecclesia 29:1, 3, 5, 7-12, 14. ‫ܥܠ ܩ�ܠܐ ܕܐܢܬ ܡܪܝ ܐܟܬܒܬܝܗܝ‬ 29:5, line 3 (orth.) ‫ܐܩܠܝܕܐ ܡܠܠܝܐ! [ ܩܠܝܕܐ ܡܠܝ�ܠܐ‬ 29:7, line 2 ‫ [ܠܡܦܪܥ‬om.! ̈ 29:10, line 4 ‫[ܫܘܦܖܝܟ‬ ‫ܫܘܦܪܟ‬

(f)  f. 88v-89r De Ecclesia 30:1, 3, 8-9, 20. ̇ ̇ 30:1, line 4 ‫[ܒܪܗ‬ + ‫ ܒܪܗ‬ ̇ 30:3, line 2 ‫[ܝܗܒ‬ ‫=( ܝܗܒ‬ D; against the metre) ܼ ̇ (against the metre) ̇ line 3 ‫ܫܩܠ‬ ... ‫[ܗܦܟ‬ ‫ܫܩܠ‬ ... ‫ܗܦܟ‬ ܼ ܼ 30:8, line 4 (orth.) ‫ܟܘܠܝ [ܟܠܝ‬ 30:20, line 1 ‫ܕܡܘܗܒܬܐ [ܕܡܘܗܒܬܟ‬ ‫ [ ܡܢ‬om.!

‫ܒܪ ܩܠܗ‬

(g)  f. 89v-90r De Ecclesia 49:8-13, 18-21. ‫ܥܠ ܩ�ܠܐ ܕܐܝܢܘ ܕܢܓܝܪܐ ܪܘܚܗ‬ ̈ ̈ 49:9, line 1 (orth.) ‫[ܒܖܐܙܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܒܖܙܘܗܝ‬ 49:13, line 3 ‫ܕܣܒܪܝܢ ܕܝܘܬܪܢܐ [ܕܣܪܒܝܢ ܕܝܘܪܬܢܐ‬ 49:21, line 3 (orth.) ‫ܒܐܓܘܢܐ [ܒܐܝܓܘܢܐ‬

(h)  f. 90r-91r De Ecclesia 50:1-3, 5-7. ‫ܒܪ ܩܠܗ‬

50:5, line 3 (orth.) ‫ܕܐܝܕܥ [ܕܝܕܥ‬ 50:6, line 2 (orth.) ‫ܐܪܙܐ [ܪܙܐ‬ 50:7, line 3 (orth.) ‫ܕܢܚܐ [ܕܢܐܚܐ‬

(i)  f. 91r-v De Nativitate 5:2, 6-8, 10; 8:2, 3. 5:7,

line 4

‫ܕܥܝܕܐ [ܕܥܐܕܐ‬

̇ ‫ܣܦܩ ܠܡܡܠܠܘ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܩ�ܠܐ ܕܡܢܘ‬

(j)  f. 91v-93r De Nativitate 18:1, 2, 4-9, 12, 15, 30, 36. 18:2, line 4 ‫ܘܐܦ [ܐܦ‬ 18:4, line 5 ‫=( ܡܢܝܢܗ [ܡܘܠܕܗ‬ H J O P) 18:9, line 4 ‫ܕܬܣܩ [ܕܬܣܦܩ‬

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 291

‫ܒܪ ܩܠܗ‬

29/11/16 06:05

292

s. brock

̇ 18:12, line 1 ‫ܗܝ‬ om. line 4 ‫=( ܕܝܢܩ [ܘܐܝܢܩ‬ J O P) 18:15, line 1 ‫ܚܕ! [ܚܕܐ‬

(k)  f. 93r-94v

̈ ‫ܡܕܖܫܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ̈ ]‫ܥܠ ܩ�ܠܐ [ܕܒܝܐ ܒܡܘܠܟܢܐ‬

‘Next, madrashe of Mar Ephrem to the qala Bayya b-mulkane’. De Nativitate 3:1-9. 3:1, line 1 ‫=( �ܠܐܢܫܘܬܢ [�ܠܐܢܫܘܬܐ‬ J Ja) ̇ ̇ line 5 (orth.) ‫[ܠܟܘܠܗ‬ ‫ܠܟܠܗ‬ ‫ [ܥܘܢܝܬܐ‬om. 3:4, line 3 ‫=( ܙܥܪ ܘܢܚܬ [ܢܚܬ ܘܙܥܪ‬ J Ja) ̇ line 4 ‫ܠܗ [ܠܗ‬ 3:5, line 2 ‫ܡܬܬܡܝܫ [ܡܬܓܫܫ‬

2. Four soghyatha (f. 181v-187v) In these four soghyatha each soghitha has an alphabetic acrostic and thus consists of 22 stanzas; the metre in all of them is 7+7, 7+7 syllables for each stanza; this is a metre used by Ephrem for De Ecclesia 6, De Fide 2-3, and De Nativitate 1, with varying qala (melody) titles, including hanaw yawma, the opening of De Nativitate 1. None of these poems, however, all of which are designated madrashe14, has an alphabetic acrostic, though one is found in the dialogue part of Beck’s Soghitha 4 (Mary and the Magi) and 5 (John the Baptist and Jesus), sometimes wrongly attributed to Ephrem15. What makes especially the first three of these four soghyatha very unusual is the fact that the alphabetic acrostic is kept for each stichos of 7 syllables, with only a small number of exceptions (for these, see 2.2. Discussion, below, p. 307-308); only slightly less unusual in later acrostic poems is the presence of the acrostic in the third stichos as well as the first16. 14   Soghitha seems simply to be a term used for a madrasha with short verses and a straightforward metre; cf. Brock, Dialogue and other Sughyotho. More surprising is the title memra given to a short poem in the same metre in Ephrem, ed. Lamy, III, col. 953, though this would of course apply to couplets in this metre in extended poems, such as Ephrem’s Sermones de Fide, whence the association of the metre with his name. 15   Soghitha 4 is also attributed to Narsai. 16   An example of the acrostic in the third, as well as the first stichos, is to be found in an anonymous soghitha on Julian Saba in Deir al-Surian Syr. 30, f. 231r-232v (10th/ 11th cent.).

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 292

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

293

At the end of the first two soghyatha there is the puzzling statement that these were ‘on the interpretation of the mysteries/symbols of our Lord and of Moses’, which does not conform to the content of either of those two soghyatha; no obvious explanation for this suggests itself, but possibly the title was simply mistakenly taken over from another group of poems. 2.1.  Text and Translation (a)  Soghitha 1 (f. 181v-182v) Next, soghyatha uttered by the blessed Mar Ephrem the Teacher, which progress by an alphabetic acrostic. 1.  Alaph O Essential One who exists in His Essence, O God who cannot be tracked, multiply Your gift to us as Your grace is wont. 2.  Beth Our feeble state knocks at Your door: in You may our needs be fulfilled, for Your compassion is concerned at all times to assist us. 3.  Gamal Your Essence is concealed on high17, Your humanity is manifest down below: the two are utterly astonishing, Your revealed state and Your hidden state. 4.  Dalath The Watchers of fire are in fear to look in the direction of Your region lest their eyes be dazzled by the appearing of Your fierce radiance. 5.  He But here, out of Your mercy You are mingled with beings made of dust: this is a wonder that the mind is not ever able to grasp.

̈ ‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ ܕܐܡܝܪܢ‬ ‫( ܬܘܒ‬181v) ̈ ‫ܠܛܘܒܢܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܕܣܠܩܢ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܐܠܦ ܒܝܬ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܒܐܝܬܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܬܥܩܒ‬ ‫ܐܣܓܐ ܠܘܬܢ ܡܘܗܒܬܟ‬ ‫ܐܝܟ ܕܡܥܕܐ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ܀‬ .‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒܬܪܥܟ ܢܩܫܐ ܡܚܝܠܘܬܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܣܘܢܩܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܒܟ ܢܬܡܠܘܢ‬ ‫ܒܛܝܠ ܗܘ ܠܗ ܓܝܪ ܠܚܢܢܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܟܠ‬ ‫ܙܒܢܝܢ ܥܠ ܥܘܕܪܢܢ܀‬ .‫ܓ‬ ‫ܓܢܝܙܐ ܒܪܘ�ܡܐ ܐܝܬܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܓܠܝܐ ܒܥܘܡܩܐ ܐܢܫܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܬܖܬܝܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܓܡܝܖܢ ܒܬܗܪܐ‬ ‫ܓܠܝܘܬܟ ܐܦ ܟܣܝܘܬܟ܀‬ .‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܝܖܐ ܕܓܘܙܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܢܚܘܪܘܢ ܠܘܥܕܗ ܕܐܬܪܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܝܢܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܕܠ�ܡܐ ܢܓܗܪ‬ ‫ܕܢܚܗ ܕܙܝܘܟ ܥܙܝܙܐ܀‬ .‫ܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܗܪܟܐ ܕܝܢ ܡܛܠ ܖܚܡܝܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܦܖܢܐ‬ ‫ܗܐ ܚܠܝܛ ܐܢܬ ܥܡ‬ ‫ܗܢܘ ܬܗܪܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܫܟܚ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܚܕ ܠܟ܀‬ ‫ܗܘܢܐ ܡܡܬܘܡ‬

 Cf. De Fide 42:3, ‫ܐܝܬܘܬܐ ܓܢܝܙܬܐ‬.

17

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 293

29/11/16 06:05

294

s. brock

6.  Waw (All) locations far and wide, and all extremities, all distances and all boundaries, everything that has come into being is laid in Your palm18 – yet Your dwelling is in a womb of flesh! 7.  Zayn Your small state is with those below, Your radiance affrights those above; Your palm measured out the heaven19, yet a palm of flesh was sufficient for You.

.‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܣܘܦܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܬܚܐ ܘܟܘܠ‬ ‫ܘܥܕܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܟܠ‬ ‫ܣܟܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܘܫܚܢ ܥܡ ܟܠ‬ ‫ܘܟܠ ܕܗܘܐ ܣܝܡ ܒܙܘܪܟ‬ ‫ܘܒܟܪܣܐ ܕܒܣܪܐ ܥܘܡܪܟ܀‬ .‫ܙ‬ ̈ ‫ܬܚܬܝܐ‬ ‫ܙܥܘܪܘܬܟ ܨܝܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܙܝܘܟ ܡܪܗܒ‬ ‫ܥܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܙܪܬܟ ܡܫܚܬ ܠܫܡܝܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒܣܪܐ ܣܦܩܬ ܠܟ܀‬20‫ܙܪܬܐ‬

8.  Ḥeth Your mercies led You to mingle with human beings – the Power that is hidden from the Watchers: our dead state came to life with Your Cross, O Living One who died and gave life to our race.

.‫ܚ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܚܠܛܘܟ ̈ܖܚܡܝܟ ܥܡ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܝܖܐ‬ ‫( ܚܝ�ܠܐ ܕܟܣܐ ܡܢ‬182r) ‫ܚܝܬ ܡܝܬܘܬܢ ܒܙܩܝܦܟ‬ ‫ܚܝܐ ܕܡܝܬ ܘܐܚܝ ܠܓܢܣܢ܀‬

9.  Ṭeth The wood of the Cross carried You because of our iniquity, O Good One who carries all in His compassion. Error has been defeated and conquered, darkness is dissipated and the ends (of the earth) have become light.

.‫ܛ‬ ‫ܛܥܢܟ ܩܝܣܐ ܚܠܦ ܥܘܠܢ‬ ‫ܛܒܐ ܛܥܝܢ ܟܠ ܒܚܢܢܗ‬ ‫ܛܘܥܝܝ ܚܒܬ ܘܐܙܕܟܝܬ‬ ̈ 21 ‫ܣܘܦܐ܀‬ ‫ܛܠܩ ܚܫܟܐ ܘܢܗܪܘ‬

10.  Yodh The womb of Essence22 gave You birth, O Child who is not younger than His Father. Overflowing compassion gave You to us, Image who resembles His Begetter.

.‫ܝ‬ ‫ܝܠܕܟ ܥܘܒܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܝܠܕܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܛ�ܠܐ ܡܢ ܐܒܘܗܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܦܝܥܐ‬ ‫ܝܗܒܘܟ ܠܟ ̈ܖܚ�ܡܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܕܡܐ ܠܝܠܘܕܗ܀‬ ‫ܝܘܩܢܐ‬

11.  Kaph You are completely in the height with Your Father, You are completely in the depth with humankind; You are hidden from all, but everything is revealed to You, O Hidden One who is far distant in His Essence.

.‫ܟ‬ ‫ܟܠܟ ܒܪܘ�ܡܐ ܨܝܕ ܐܒܘܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܟܠܟ ܒܥܘܡܩܐ ܨܝܕ‬ ‫ܟܣܝܬ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܘܓ�ܠܐ ܠܟ ܟܠ‬ ‫ܟܣܝܐ ܕܡܒܥܕ ܒܐܝܬܘܬܗ܀‬

  Isaiah 40:12.   Isaiah 40:12. 20  Ms. ‫ܘܙܪܬܐ‬ 21  Ms. ‫ܘܢܗܪ‬ 22  Thus De Fide 3:13; cf. 37:26. 18 19

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 294

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

12.  Lamadh Your might on high is conveyed by the Cherubim, below, the Daughter of Man23 carries You; with Your Father (You are) Hidden Being24, whereas with us, revealed in the body. 13.  Mim The Chariot of fire is too feeble to carry the weight of Your magnificence, but because You willed it, a chariot of flesh – Mary – was sufficient for You.

295

.‫ܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܟܖܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܠܥܠ ܚܝܠܟ ܛܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܬܚܬ ܒܪܬ ܐܢܫܐ ܛܥܝܢܐ ܠܟ‬ ‫ܠܘܬ ܐܒܘܟ ܐܝܬܝܐ ܟܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܠܘܬܢ ܓܝܪ ܦܓܪܐ ܓܠܝܐ܀‬ .‫ܡ‬ ‫ܡܚܝ�ܠܐ ܗܝ ܡܪܟܒܬܐ ܕܢܘܪܐ‬ ‫ ܬܘܩܦܐ ܕܪܒܘܬܟ‬25‫ܕܬܛܥܢ‬ ‫ ܕܨܒܝܬ ܣܦܩܬ ܠܟ‬26‫ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܡܪܟܒܬܐ ܕܒܣܪܐ ܡܪܝܡ܀‬

14.  Nun O Light that stirs the Seraphim into action, O Source of Life27, Provisioner of all28, Your compassion drew You on, because it was pleasing to You to receive the drops of (Mary’s) milk.

.‫ܢܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܡܪܗܒ ܠܣܖܦܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܙܐܢ ܟܠ‬ ‫ܕܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܢܒܥܐ‬ ‫ܢܓܕܘܟ ̈ܖܚܡܝܟ ܘܕܫܦܪ ܠܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܢܘܛܦܬܐ ܕܚܠܒܐ ܩܒܠܬ܀‬

15.  Semkath The Seraphim are bounded by Your fire, the heights are set (ready) at Your bidding, (yet) a manger suffices for You to repose there, venerated by all, since Your compassion so willed it.

.‫ܣ‬ ̈ ‫ܣܖܦܐ ܚܒܝܫܝܢ ܒܢܘܪܟ‬ ‫ܣܝܡܝܢ ̈ܖܘ�ܡܐ ܒܦܘܩܕܢܟ‬ ̇ ‫ܣܦܩ ܠܟ ܐܘܪܝܐ ܕܬܫܪܐ ܒܗ‬ ‫ܣܓܝܕ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܕܨܒܘ ̈ܖܚܡܝܟ܀‬

16.  ‘e On the back of flaming (fire) the might of Your power is conveyed, but on earth bodily beings have carried You on hands of flesh. 17.  Pe (Issuing from) the flame your incisive command caused the spirit choirs dismay and wonder in our midst for You are clothed in a body, as a human being.

.‫ܥ‬ ‫( ܕܫܠܗܒܝܬܐ‬182v) ‫ܥܠ ܚܨܐ‬ ‫ܥܘܫܢܐ ܕܚܝܠܟ ܡܙܕܝܚ‬ ̈ ‫ܦܓܖܢܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܝܕܐ ܕܒܣܪܐ ܛܥܢܘܟ܀‬ ‫ܥܠ‬ .‫ܦ‬ ‫ܦܘܩܢܕܟ ܡܢ ܓܘܙܠܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܓܘܕܝ ܪܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܦܣܩ ܘܥܒܕ‬ ‫ܦܗܝܐ ܘܬܗܪܐ ܒܝܢܬܢ‬ ‫ ܠܒܝܫܬ ܐܝܟ ܐܢܫܐ܀‬29‫ܦܓܪܐ‬

 Thus De Ecclesia 36:4.   ‫ ;ܐܝܬܝܐ ܟܣܝܐ‬cf. De Fide 72, 11 and Contra Haereses 30:1, ‫ܟܣܐ ܒܐܝܬܘܬܗ‬. 25   Perhaps emend to ‫ܡܛܥܢ‬: see 2.2. Discussion, below, p. 308. 26  Ms. ‫ܘܡܛܠ‬ 27   Likewise 4:14, below. 28  Cf. Carmina Nisibena I 14:8. 29  Ms. ‫ܕܦܓܪܐ‬ 23 24

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 295

29/11/16 06:05

296

s. brock

18.  Ṣadhe The fair Image of the (divine) Essence30, the Depiction and Type of His Begetter, Your compassion willed that You should become (one) of us, O Fashioner of all, who became an infant!

.‫ܨ‬ ‫ܨܠ�ܡܐ ܦܐܝܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܨܘܪܬܐ ܘܛܘܦܣܐ ܕܝܠܘܕܗ‬ ‫ܨܒܘ ̈ܖܚܡܝܟ ܕܬܗܘܐ ܡܢܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܨܐܪ ܟܠ ܕܗܘܐ ܥܘ�ܠܐ܀‬

19.  Qoph You remained totally with Your Father, You acquired a mother among humankind; (listen to) the sound of the Cherubim blessing You, (listen to) the sound of Mary singing to You!

.‫ܩ‬ ‫ܩܘܝܬ ܟܠܟ ܨܝܕ ܐܒܘܟ‬ ‫ܩܢܝܬ ܠܟ ܐ�ܡܐ ܨܝܕ ܐܢܫܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܘܖܟܬܟ‬ ‫ܟܖ ̈ܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܩܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܠ ܢܘܨܖܬܟ ܨܝܕ ܡܪܝܡ܀‬ .‫ܪ‬ ‫̈ܖܘ�ܡܐ ܙܥܘܪܝܢ �ܠܐܝܬܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܪܘܝܚܐ ܟܢܦܐ �ܠܐܢܫܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܪܡ ܗܘ ܡܢ ܟܠܢ ܕܢܡܠܠ‬ ‫ܪܒܘܬܟ ܘܙܥܘܪܘܬܟ܀‬

20.  Resh The heights are too small for Your Essence, a lap is wide enough for Your humanity. To speak of Your greatness and smallness is a matter far too lofty for everyone.

.‫ܫ‬ ‫ܫܘܝܬ ܒܐܝܬܘܬܐ ܥܡ ܐܒܘܟܝ‬ ‫ܫܘܝܬ ܐܦ ܥܡܢ ܒܐܢܫܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܫܝܢܐ ܐܢܬ ܡܪܝ ܕܒ�ܡܐܬܝܬܟ‬ ‫ܫܝܢܬܢ ܥܡ ܝܠܘܕܟ܀‬

21.  Shin In Essence You are equal to Your Father, You are equal, too, with us in Your humanity. You are (a source of) peace, Lord at Your coming, having made us at peace with Your Begetter. 22.  Taw The mind is astounded at how great You are, the mind is astounded (too) at Your humility: the telling of both of these is (too) deep – draw me up, by Your grace! End of the first soghitha.

.‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬܗܪ ܠܗ ܗܘܢܐ ܒܪܒܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܬܗܪ ܗܘ ܒܡܟܝܟܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܬܖܬܝܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܬܗܘ�ܡܐ ܗܘ ܫܪܒܐ‬ ‫ܬܕܠܝܢܝ ܡܟܝܠ ܒܛܝܒܘܬܟ܀‬ (183r) ‫ܫܠܡܬ ܣܘܓܝܬܐ ܩܕܡܝܬܐ‬

(b)  Soghitha 2 (f. 183r-184r) Second soghitha by Mar Ephrem.

‫ܕܡܪܝ‬

1.  Alaph O God, abounding in compassion, make Your salvation abound in us, for You have never held back even from the person who has not asked of You.

30

‫ܕܝܠܗ‬

‫ܕܬܪܬܝܢ‬

‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܦܪܝܡ‬

.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܣܓܝ ̈ܖܚ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܣܓܐ ܠܘܬܢ ܦܘܪܩܢܟ‬ ‫ܐܢܬ ܓܝܪ ܡܡܬܘܡ �ܠܐ ܟܠܝܬ‬ .‫ܐܦ ܡܢ ܐܝܢܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܫܐܠܟ‬

 Cf. Contra Haereses, 32:17, ‫ܨܠ�ܡܐ ܕܟܣܝܘܬܗ‬.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 296

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

2.  Beth In grace You created us from the dust31, in compassion have pity on us, being Good: of our own will we have grown slack, in Your mercy, revitalize our slack state. 3.  Gamal Your compassion was abundant with us made from dust: You created us without our requesting it, Your creature now requests You, the Creator, to have compassion on Your creatures.

297

.‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒܛܝܒܘ ܒܪܝܬܢ ܡܢ ܥܦܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܖܚ�ܡܐ ܚܘܢܢ ܐܝܟ ܛܒܐ‬ ‫ܒܨܒܝܢܢ ܐܬܪܦܝܢܢ‬ ‫ܒܚܢܢܟ ܚܘܨ ܪܦܝܘܬܢ܀‬ .‫ܓ‬ ‫ܓܠܘ ̈ܖܚܡܝܟ ܥܠ ܕܚܝܚܢ‬ ‫ܓܒܠܬܝܗܝ ܟܕ �ܠܐ ܐܦܝܣܟ‬ ‫ܓܒܝܠܬܢ ܗܫܐ ܡܦܝܣܐ ܠܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܓܒܝ�ܠܐ܀‬ ‫ܓܒܘ�ܠܐ ܚܘܢ‬

4.  Dalath Love stirred in You, O Compassionate One, to make human beings in Your image; since the stains of our free will have multiplied, cleanse them in Your compassion.

.‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܠ ܒܟ ܚܘܒܐ ܚܢܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܢܫܐ ܬܥܒܕ‬ ‫ܕܒܨܠܡܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܘ�ܡܐ ܕܚܐܪܘܬܢ‬ ‫ܕܣܓܝܘ‬ ‫ܕܟܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܚܢܢܟ܀‬

5.  He Your grace has become a mother for us: it depicted and carried us; having created us from the beginning may it mend the breaches we have made!

.‫ܗ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ ܠܢ ܐ�ܡܐ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܨܪܬ ܐܦ ܗܝ ܛܥܢܬ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܒܪܬܢ ܡܢ ܫܘܪܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܬܘܖܥܬܢ܀‬ ‫ܗܝ ܡܪܝ ܬܣܘܓ‬

6.  Waw And even if mothers forget32 and show no love for their infants, let there be a place of meeting for Your grace, and let it not forget our feeble state.

.‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܝܠܕܬܐ‬ ‫ܛܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܥܘܠܝܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܖܚܡܢ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܘ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܘܥܕܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܠܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܘ�ܠܐ ܬܛܥܐ ܠܡܚܝܠܘܬܢ܀‬

7.  Zayn The Cross which You endured on our behalf – let it be a hidden protection for us, You purchased us with Your precious blood – may Your hyssop make white our stains33.

.‫ܙ‬ ̈ ‫ܙܩܝܦܐ ܕܣܝܒܪܬ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܢ‬ ‫ܙܝܢܐ ܟܣܝܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܠܢ‬ ‫ܙܒܢܬܢ ܒܕܡܟ ܝܩܝܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܘܬܡܬܢ܀‬ ‫ܙܘܦܟ ܢܚܘܪ‬

8.  Ḥeth Because of our iniquity Your love endured sufferings and abuse in the court of law. You liberated us by Your crucifixion. Far be it, Lord, that you should overlook us!

.‫ܚ‬ ‫ܚܠܦ ܥܘܠܢ ܣܝܒܪ ܚܘܒܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܚܫܐ ܘܨܥܪܐ ܒܝܬ ܕܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܚܪܪܬܢ ܒܙܩܝܦܘܬܟ‬ ‫( ܬܗ�ܡܐ ܡܢܢ܀‬183v) ‫ܚܣ ܠܟ ܡܪܝ‬

  Gen. 2:7.   Cf. Isaiah 49:15. 33   Cf. Ps. 51:7 31 32

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 297

29/11/16 06:05

298

s. brock

9.  Ṭeth Your grace holds us as if in a bosom because of Your mercies; Preserve us by Your name from the Evil One, O Beneficent One who is never angry34. 10.  Yodh Your Father begot You without beginning, the Hidden Child35 of Essence; He gave You to be for creation an ocean full of assistance. 11.  Kaph The sea’s measure is finite, the vault of the heavens can be measured, but Your mercies, Lord, have no limit, for all that has come into being was established by them.

.‫ܛ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܒܟܢܦܐ‬ ‫ܛܥܝܢܐ ܠܢ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܛܝܒܘܬܟ ܡܛܠ ̈ܖܚܡܝܟ‬ ‫ܛܘܪܢ ܒܫܡܟ ܡܢ ܒܝܫܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܛܒܐ ܕܡܡܬܘܡ �ܠܐ‬ ‫ܪܓܙ܀‬ .‫ܝ‬ ‫ܝܠܕܟ ܐܒܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܫܘܪܝ‬ ‫ܝܠܕܐ ܟܣܝܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܝܗܒܟ ܕܬܗܘܐ ܠܒܪܝܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܘܕܖܢܐ܀‬ ‫ܝ�ܡܐ ܕܡ�ܠܐ‬ .‫ܟ‬ ‫ܟܝܠܗ ܕܝ�ܡܐ ܡܣܬܝܟ‬ ‫ܟܦܬ ̈ܖܘ�ܡܐ ܡܬܡܫܚܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܝ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܠܖܚܡܝܟ �ܠܐ ܐܝܬ‬ ‫ ܕܗܘܐ ܒܗܘܢ ܐܬܬܩܢ܀‬36‫ܟܠ‬

12.  Lamadh For a woman giving birth it is easy to bear all the vexation of an infant37; to bear our iniquity as well befits Your grace, because of Your mercies.

.‫ܠ‬ ‫ܠܝܠܕܬܐ ܦܫܝܩ ܕܬܣܝܒܪ‬ ‫ ܥܝܛܗ ܕܝܠܘܕܐ‬38‫ܠܟܠܗ‬ ‫ܠܡܛܥܢ ܥܘܠܢ ܬܘܒ ܦܐܝܐ‬ ‫ܠܛܝܒܘܬܟ ܡܛܠ ̈ܖܚܡܝܟ܀‬

13.  Mim You do not withhold either rain or sun39 from the wicked and the oppressors. Who is capable of giving thanks for Your mercies, O Lord, who provides for all?

.‫ܡ‬ ‫ܡܛܪܐ ܘܫܡܫܐ �ܠܐ ܟܠܝܬ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܡܢ‬ ‫ܛܠܘ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܒܝܫܐ ܘܡܢ‬ ̇ ̈ ̇ ‫ܡܢ ܣܦܩ ܢܘܕܐ ܠܖܚܡܝܟ‬ ̇ ‫ܡܪܐ ܕܠܟܠ ܗܘ ܙܐܢ܀‬

14.  Nun You taught us to call upon You and You would answer us, let us ask, and we will receive – (so) You have instructed us. Let us thank You for Your grace, (for You are) patient and weary not.

.‫ܢܢ‬ ‫ܢܩܪܝܟ ܘܬܥܢܝܢ ܐܠܦܬܢ‬ ‫ܢܒܥܐ ܘܢܣܒ ܚܟܡܬܢ‬ ‫ܢܘܕܐ ܠܟ ܥܠ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܢܓܝܪ ܪܘܚܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡ�ܡܐܢ܀‬

  Similarly 2:15 [= sogh. 2: st. 15] and 3:9.  Thus Commentary on the Diatessaron, VII.1 (see Ephrem, ed. Leloir). 36  Ms. ‫ܕܟܠ‬ 37   Same phrase in 4:15. 38  Ms. ‫ܟܠܗ‬ 39   Cf. Matt. 5:45. 34 35

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 298

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

15.  Semkath When a tutor educates a child he strives to make him excel; may Your compassion (act as) teacher to educate me, O greatly merciful (God) who is never angry. 16.  ‘e Your assistance acts as a (protective) wall for us on all sides; multiply for me the wealth of Your mercies, O Opulent One who is never impoverished.

299

.‫ܣ‬ ̇ ‫ܣܦܪܐ �ܡܐ ܕܪܕܐ ܠܛܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܣܓܝ ܕܢܘܬܪ ܡܬܚܦܛ‬ ‫ܣܦܪܐ ܚܢܢܟ ܢܪܕܐ ܠܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܣܓܝ ̈ܖܚ�ܡܐ ܕ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܪܓܙ܀‬ .‫ܥ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܘܕܖܢܝܟ ܒܕܡܘܬ ܫܘܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܓܒܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܒܝܕܝܢ ܠܢ ܡܢ ܟܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܘܬܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܖܚܡܝܟ ܐܣܓܐ ܠܢ‬ (184r) ‫ܥܬܝܪܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܬܡܣܟܢ܀‬

17.  Pe Your gift is spread over all, Your treasury is open before all, may all mouths give You thanks (for) the Table of Salvation, O Provisioner of all.

.‫ܦ‬ ‫ܦܪܝܣܐ ܗܝ ܥܠ ܟܠ ܡܘܗܒܬܟ‬ ‫ܦܬܝܚ ܗܘ ܩܕܡ ܟܠ ܒܝܬ ܓܙܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܦܘܡܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܠܟ ܢܘܕܘܢ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܦܬܘܪ ܚܝܐ ܙܐܢ ܟܘܠ܀‬

18.  Ṣadhe You clothed us with the depiction of beauties, the fair image of Your majesty. The abuse You bore freed us from servitude, may Your Cross act as a (protective) wall for us.

.‫ܨ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܘܦܖܐ ܐܠܒܫܬܢ‬ ‫ܨܘܪܬ‬ ‫ܨܠ�ܡܐ ܦܐܝܐ ܕܪܒܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܨܥܪܟ ܚܪܪ ܥܒܕܘܬܢ‬. ‫ܨܠܝܒܟ ܫܘܪܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܠܢ܀‬

19.  Qoph Your living killing, O Giver of life to all40, has slain death, our killer; Your cry overthrew perdition, Your resurrection was the cause of our resuscitation.

.‫ܩ‬ ̇ ‫ܩܛܠܟ ܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܡܚܐ ܟܠ‬ ‫ܩܛܠܗ ܠܡܘܬܐ ܩܛܘܠܢ‬ ‫ܩܠܟ ܣܚܦܗ �ܠܐܒܕܢܐ‬ ‫ܩܝܡܬܟ ܗܘܬ ܠܢ ܢܘܚ�ܡܐ܀‬

20.  Resh The head of the serpent who deceived us was crushed41 by the sign of Your Cross; You brought us reconciliation with Your Begetter, thanks be to You, who loves mankind42.

.‫ܪ‬ ‫ܪܨܝܨ ܗܘ ܒܢܝܫܗ ܕܨܠܝܒܟ‬ ‫ܪܝܫܗ ܕܚܘܝܐ ܕܐܛܥܝ ܒܢ‬ ‫ܪܥܝܬܢ ܥܡ ܝܠܘܕܟ‬ ̇ ‫ܪܚܡ ܐܢܫܐ ܬܘܕܝ ܠܟ܀‬

21.  Shin May Your name serve as a refuge for us, Your truth a fortification that never collapses; Your humiliated state is a source of pride for us, Praise to You, for You have raised us up.

.‫ܫ‬ ‫ܫܡܟ ܢܗܘܐ ܠܢ ܒܝܬ ܓܘܣܐ‬ ‫ܫܪܪܟ ܫܘܪܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ̇ܢܦܠ‬ ‫ܫܘܒܗܪܐ ܗܘ ܠܢ ܡܘܟܟܟ‬ ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܪܡܪܡܬܢ܀‬

 Thus De Paradiso 6:8, De Nativitate 1:13, 32, and elsewhere.   Cf. Ps. 74:14. 42  Thus De Nativitate 4:2, 14:6. 40 41

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 299

29/11/16 06:05

300

s. brock

22.  Taw You, Lord, are a source of ineffable wonder, a marvel that is beyond comprehension, the Mediator43 who is not divided; Thanks be to You who are so exalted! Ended are the two soghyatha on the interpretation of the symbols of our Lord and of Moses, uttered by the holy Mar Ephrem the Syrian teacher.

.‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬܗܪܐ ܐܢܬ ܡܪܝ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܬܡܠܠ‬ ‫ܬܕܡܘܪܬܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܬܕܪܟܐ‬ ‫ܬܠܝܬܝܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܬܦܠܓ‬ ‫ܬܘܕܝ ܠܟ ܕܥ�ܡܐ ܪܒ ܐܢܬ܀‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܬܖܬܝܢ ܕܥܠ ܦܘܫܩ‬ ‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܫܠܡ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܖܙܘܗܝ ܕܡܪܢ ܘܕܡܘܫܐ ܕܐܡܝܖܢ‬ ‫ܠܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܡܠܦܢܐ‬ (184v) .‫ܣܘܪܝܝܐ‬

(c)  Soghitha 3 (f. 184v-186r) [Next, soghyatha alphabetic acrostic.

] which progress by an

1.  Alaph Father, Eternal Being give birth in me to the utterance of Your praise; may I be inebriated with love of Your gift, may I give thanks for the wealth of Your grace.

‫] ܕܣܠܩܢ‬

̈ [‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ] ܒܪ‬ ‫[ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܐܠܦ ܒܝܬ‬

.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܒܐ ܐܝܬܝܐ ܕܡܢ ܥܠܡ‬ ‫ܐܘܠܕ ܒܝ �ܡܐܡܪ ܫܘܒܚܟ‬ ‫ܐܪܘܐ ܒܚܘܒܐ ܕܡܘܗܒܬܟ‬ ‫ܐܘܕܐ ܠܥܘܬܪܐ ܕܛܝܒܘܬܟ܀‬

2.  Beth O Son, Offspring without beginning, create in me words that are beneficial so that in You I may give to You what belongs to You, and through You give thanks to Your Begetter.

.‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒܪܐ ܝܠܕܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܫܘܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܒܪܝ ܒܝ ܡܠܬ ܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܒܟ ܠܟ ܐܬܠ ܡܢ ܕܝܠܟ‬ ̈ ‫ ܐܘܕܐ ܠܝܠܘܕܟ܀‬44‫ܒܐܝܕܝܟ‬

3.  Gamal Your grace is manifest to all, enquiry into You is hidden from all. O Treasury that (is always) full and never diminishes, reveal Your riches in the face of my deficiency.

.‫ܓ‬ ‫ܓܠܝܐ ܗܝ ܨܝܕ ܟܠ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܓܢܝܙ ܗܘ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܥܘܩܒܟ‬ ̇ ‫ܚܣܪ‬ ‫ܓܙܐ ܡܠܝܐ ܕ�ܠܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܘܬܖܝܟ ܥܠ ܚܣܝܪܘܬܝ܀‬ ‫ܓܠܝ‬

4.  Dalath O Awesome One, who sets the Cherubim in motion, whose majesty is hidden from them, who was pleased to mingle with (us) human beings – a wonder beyond description!

.‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܚܝ�ܠܐ ܕܡܪܗܒ ܠܟܖܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܕܟܣܝܐ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܪܒܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܕܥܡ ܐܢܫܐ ܨܒܐ ܘܐܬܚܠܛ‬ ‫ܕܘܡܪܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܬܡܠܠ܀‬

43  Since tlithaya here refers to Christ, rather than to the Trinity, it must have the sense of ‘mediator, intermediary’, and not ‘three-fold’; thus De Fide 22:7, 75:6 and elsewhere; cf. also Murray, Symbols, p. 162, note 1. 44 ̈  Ms. ‫ܘܒܐܝܕܝܟ‬

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 300

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

5.  He Fiery Blossom of the (divine) Essence, Offspring and Might of His Begetter, grant to the needy one who calls out to You a mind that (can) grope around hidden matters. 6.  Waw O Place of Meeting that is distant from Death and whosoever reaches there does not die, at Your encounter provide us with the journey and in You may we travel to Him who begot You. 7.  Zayn The glorious radiance of Your (divine) Essence gives sustenance to the supernal ranks; may those bought with Your blood46 have life in You, the guests who eat of Your Body. 8.  Ḥeth O Power of the Father who establishes all, O Love of the Son who visits all, O Wisdom of the Spirit who sanctifies all, may Your compassion wipe out our debts. 9.  Ṭeth Grace, the merciful mother, carries the worlds like an infant, O Good One who never causes any harm, O Abused One, who never becomes angry. 10.  Yodh The Hosts to which the (divine) flame gave birth suck life from Your radiance; they give praise to Your Essence, the beings whom Your bidding has established. 11.  Kaph You are wholly compassionate towards all, all the (heavenly) ranks find their support in You, all extremities are contained within You, O (divine) Nature that is far from being contained.

301

.‫ܗ‬ ̇ ‫ܢܘܪܗ ܕܐܝܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܗܒܬ‬ ‫ ܘܬܘܩܦܐ ܕܝܠܘܕܗ‬45‫ܝܠܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܗܒ ܠܣܢܝܩܐ‬ ‫ܕܩܪܐ ܠܟ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܕ�ܡܐܫ ܟܣܝܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܗܘܢܐ‬

.‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܥܕܐ ܕܪܚܝܩ ܡܢ ܡܘܬܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܕܡܛܐ ܠܗ �ܠܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܡܐܬ‬ ‫ܘܥܕܟ ܐܘܪܚܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܠܢ‬ ‫ܘܒܟ ܢܪܕܐ ܨܝܕ ܝܠܘܕܟ܀‬

.‫ܙ‬ ̇ ‫ܙܝܘܗ ܓܐܝܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܬܟ‬ ̇ ̈ ̈ ‫ܬܓ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܥܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܙܐܢ‬ ̈ ‫) ܒܕܡܟ ܢܐܚܘܢ ܒܟ‬185r( ‫ܙܒܝܢܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܙܡܝܢܐ ܕܐܟܠܝܢ ܡܢ ܦܓܪܟ܀‬ .‫ܚ‬ ‫ܚܝܠܗ ܕܐܒܐ ܡܬܩܢ ܟܠ‬ ̇ ‫ܣܥܪ ܟܠ‬ ‫ܚܘܒܗ ܕܒܪܐ‬ ‫ܚܟܡܬ ܪܘܚܐ ܡܩܕܫ ܟܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܚܘܒܬܢ܀‬ ‫ܚܢܢܟ ܢܥܛܐ‬

.‫ܛ‬ ̈ ‫ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܐ�ܡܐ ܕܖܚ�ܡܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܥܠ�ܡܐ ܐܝܟ ܥܘ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܛܥܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܛܒܐ ܕܡܡܬܘܡ �ܠܐ ܡܒܐܫ‬ ̇ ‫ܛܠܝ�ܡܐ ܕܡܡܬܘܡ �ܠܐ‬ ‫ܪܓܙ܀‬ .‫ܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܝܢܩܝܢ‬ ‫ܚܝܐ ܡܢ ܙܝܘܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܝܗܠܐ ܕܝܠܕܬ ܓܘܙܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܝܗܒܝܢ ܫܘܒܚܐ �ܠܐܝܬܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܐܬܩܢ ܦܘܩܕܢܟ܀‬47‫ܩܢܘ�ܡܐ‬ .‫ܟ‬ ‫ܟܠܟ ܨܝܕ ܟܠ ܚܢܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܬܓܡܝܢ ܒܟ ܡܣܬܡܟܝܢ‬ ‫ܟܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܠ‬ ‫ܣܟܝܢ ܠܟܐ ܡܢ ܣܟܟ‬ ‫ܟܝܢܐ ܕܪܚܝܩ ܡܢ ܣܟܐ܀‬

  Sic ms.; perhaps emend to ‫ܗܕܪܐ‬: see 2.2. Discussion, below, p. 308.   zbinay ba-dmak, very common later, already occurs in Aphrahat, Demonstrationes 14 (PS I, col. 680). 47   Sic ms.; see 2.2. Discussion, below, p. 308. 45 46

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 301

29/11/16 06:05

302

s. brock

12.  Lamadh Your bidding controls the height, Your will serves as a guide to the depth; for those above it is a matter of Your might, for those below it is a matter of Your humility. 13.  Mim The heavens are stretched out above the sky/air, the Tabernacle that You will set up, the edifice which Your dominion constructed is set there and established over nothing. 14.  Nun Your majestic Being made the light, Your authority put in place the luminaries – let the dust which You fashioned give thanks to You, let (Your ) image, endowed with speech, give praise to You. 15.  Semkath Your bidding placed the firmament as the boundary dividing between the (two) seas48; it was Your knowledge that defined, weighed out separated and put the two (seas) in place. 16.  ‘e Above the vault of the heights is the abode of the uppermost seas established, Your will provides the boundary for them for Your majestic Being has bounded them. 17.  Pe It is a matter of utter amazement how the floods stand confined: the command of Your act of creation has held in check the flowing (water). 18.  Ṣadhe (The waters) stand there, controlled and serene the region is inclined but (the waters) are not emptied out; the Will which set them in place has depicted them as (being) contained. 48 49

.‫ܠ‬ ‫ܠܪܘ�ܡܐ ܐܚܝܕ ܦܘܩܕܢܟ‬ ‫ܠܥܘܡܩܐ ܡܕܒܪ ܨܒܝܢܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܥܠܝܐ ܥܙܝܙܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܬܚܬܝܐ ܡܟܝܟܘܬܟ܀‬

.‫ܡ‬ ‫ܡܬܝܚܐ ܫܡܝܐ ܥܠ ܐܐܪ‬ ‫ܡܛܠܬܐ ܕܐܩܝܡ ܨܒܝܢܟ‬ ‫ܡܬܩܢ ܣܝܡ ܒܝܬܐ ܕܒܢܬ‬ ‫ܡܪܘܬܟ ܥܠ �ܠܐ ܡܕܡ܀‬ .‫ܢܢ‬ ‫ܢܘܗܪܐ ܥܒܕܬ ܪܒܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܢܗܝܖܐ ܣܡ ܫܘܠܛܢܟ‬ ‫ܢܘܕܐ ܠܟ ܥܦܪܐ ܕܓܒܠܬ‬ ‫ܢܫܒܚܟ ܨܠ�ܡܐ ܡܠ�ܠܐ܀‬

.‫ܣ‬ ‫( ܠܪܩܝܥܐ‬185v) ‫ܣܡ ܦܘܩܕܢܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܝܡ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܣܝܓܐ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܒܝܬ‬ ‫ܣܝܟܬ ܬܩܠܬ ܝܕܥܬܟ‬ ‫ܣܡܬ ܦܪܫܬ ܠܬܪ݀ܝܗܘܢ܀‬

.‫ܥ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܩܘܒܬ ̈ܖܘ�ܡܐ ܡܬܩܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܝܡ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܥܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܥܘܡܪܐ‬ ‫ܥܒܝܕ ܠܗܘܢ ܪܡܙܐ ܬܚܘ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ ܬܚܡܬ ܐܢܘܢ܀‬49‫ܕܪܒܘܬܟ‬ .‫ܦ‬ ‫ܦܗܝܐ ܘܬܗܪܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܦܟܝܪܝܢ ܩܝܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܡܘ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܕܥܒܘܕܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܖܕܝܐ܀‬ ‫ܦܓܘܕܐ ܐܪܡܝ‬

.‫ܨ‬ ‫ܨܡܝܕܝܢ ܩܝܡܝܢ ܘܒܗܝܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܨ�ܠܐ ܐܬܪܐ ܘ�ܠܐ ܡܙܕܠܥܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܒܙܩܐ‬ ‫ܨܪ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܨܒܝܢܐ ܕܛܟܣ ܐܢܘܢ܀‬

  Gen. 1:7.   Sic ms.; see 2.2. Discussion, below, p. 308.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 302

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

19.  Qoph Fixed and extended above them is the dome of the central heights where the spiritual ranks stand, beings to whom the (divine) flame gave birth. 20.  Resh The sound of the cries of ‘Holy’50 is a source of delight, the (utterance of) praise from their mouths is lovely; too great to be heard is the awesome thunder of their wings.

303

.‫ܩ‬ ‫ܩܒܝܥܐ ܡܬܝܚܐ ܠܥܠ ܡܢܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܨܥܝܐ‬ ‫ܩܘܒܬ ̈ܖܘ�ܡܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܝܡܝܢ ܒܗ ܣܕܖܝ ܪܘܚܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܢܘ�ܡܐ ܕܝܠܕܬ ܓܘܙܠܬܐ܀‬ .‫ܪ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܩܘܕܫܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܪܓܝܓ ܩ�ܠܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܦܘܡܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܪܚܝܡ ܫܘܒܚܐ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܪܒ ܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܡܢ ܡܫܡܥܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܓܦܝܗܘܢ܀‬ ‫ܪܥ�ܡܐ ܕܚܝ�ܠܐ‬

21.  Shin Their choirs are full of peace, peace reigns among them, harmony (issues) from their assemblies as their mouths bring forth the fruits of praise.

.‫ܫ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܝܢܐ ܡ�ܠܐ ܓܘܕܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܫܠ�ܡܐ ܡܡܠܟ ܒܝܢܝܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܢܫܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܫܘܝܘܬܐ ܡܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܡܦܪܝܢ ܦܘܡܝܗܘܢ܀‬

22.  Taw Their appearance is wondrous, the radiance of their faces is powerful, at every moment their mouths reiterate praise to Him who has made them.

.‫ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܚܙܘܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܡܝܗܝܢ ܣܓܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܦܝܗܘܢ‬ )186r( ‫ܬܩܝܦ ܙܝܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܦܘܡܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫̇ܬܢܝܢ ܟܠ ܫܥ‬ ‫ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܠܕܥܒܕ ܐܢܘܢ܀‬

(d)  Soghitha 4 (f. 186r-187v) The fourth soghitha of Mar Ephrem 1.  Alaph O God who at all times acts as a (protective) wall to His beloved, incline Your ear to our prayer and speedily respond to our requests. 2.  Beth Trusting in You, Lord, the diligent have been victorious in their struggles; through Your strength may those who worship You vanquish the Evil One who fights against them.

‫ܕܡܪܝ‬

̈ ‫ܕܐܖܒܥ‬

‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ‬

‫ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܐܦܪܝܡ‬

.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܕܒܟܠܥܕܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܚܒܝܒܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܫܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܐܪܟܢ ܐܕܢܟ ܠܨܠܘܬܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܐܠܬܢ܀‬ ‫ܘܦܢܐ ܒܥܓܠ‬ .‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒܬܘܟܠܢܟ ܡܪܝ ܐܬܢܨܚܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܬܟܬܘܫܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܟܫܝܖܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܚܝܠܟ ܢܙܟܘܢ ܣܓܘܕܝܟ‬ .‫ܠܒܝܫܐ ܕܥܡܗܘܢ ܡܬܟܬܫ‬

  Isaiah 6:3.

50

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 303

29/11/16 06:05

304

s. brock

3.  Gamal The might of all the nations is considered by You as a drop in a bucket51, O Mighty One who controls the ends (of the earth), do not fail to assist us.

.‫ܓ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܡܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܓܢܒܪܘܬܐ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ܢܘܛܦܬ ܩܕܣܐ ܚܫܝܒܐ ܠܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܣܘܦܐ‬ ‫ܓܢܒܪܐ ܕܐܚܝܕ‬ ‫�ܠܐ ܬܗ�ܡܐ ܡܢ ܥܘܕܪܢܢ܀‬

4.  Dalath Yours is the raised arm, for You alone are victorious; seeing that we have taken refuge in Your mercies, make Your salvation abound for us.

.‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܟ ܗܘ ܕܪܥܐ ܪ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܙܟܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܚܕܢܢ ܓܘܣܐ‬ ‫ܒܖܚܡܝܟ‬ ‫ܐܣܓܐ ܠܘܬܢ ܦܘܪܩܢܟ܀‬

5.  He See how our Adversary vaunts himself like Goliath52, (ready) for the fight; be for us the armour of truth and so in You we shall succeed in the contest. 6.  Waw And just as there was salvation for the Hebrews through David53, so also for us may there be assistance in Your Name, O Jesus, Son of David. 7.  Zayn Neither armour nor sword will deliver54, nor will it save the one who wears it, clothe us in the armour of the Spirit so that in it we may be victorious in all our struggles. 8.  Ḥeth Fortifications and strong walls do not protect those who live (within them); may Your compassion, Lord, be our wall for it is the Power that fortifies all. 9.  Ṭeth Your righteous zeal is burning (and) if it gives rise to chastisement, may Your grace grab hold of the rod lest we be beaten (with it) in accordance with our folly.

.‫ܗ‬ ‫ܗܐ ܒܥܠܕܪܢ ܡܫܬܥ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܟ ܓܘܠܝܕ ܥܠ ܬܟܬܘܫܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ ܠܢ ܙܝܢܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܟ ܢܬܢܨܚ ܒܐܓܘܢܐ܀‬ .‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܦܘܪܩܢܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܐܝܕܝ ܕܘܝܕ‬ ‫ܠܥܒܖܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ܠܢ ܢܗܘܐ ܥܘܕܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܒܫܡܟ ܝܫܘܥ ܒܪ ܕܘܝܕ܀‬ .‫ܙ‬ ̇ ‫ܙܝܢܐ ܘܣܝܦܐ �ܠܐ ܦܪܩ‬ ‫ܐܦ �ܠܐ ܡܦܨܐ ܠܠܒܘܫܗ‬ ‫ܙܝܢܐ ܕܪܘܚܟ ܐܠܒܫ ܠܢ‬ ̈ )186v( ‫ܬܟܬܘܫܝܢ܀‬ ‫ܕܒܗ ܢܙܟܐ ܟܠ‬ .‫ܚ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܬܩܝܦܐ‬ ‫ܘܫܘܖܐ‬ ‫ܚܣܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܝܬܒܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫�ܠܐ ܡܣܬܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܚܢܢܟ ܡܪܝ ܢܗܘܐ ܫܘܪܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܚܣܢ ܟܠ܀‬ ‫ܕܗܘܝܘ ܚܝ�ܠܐ‬ .‫ܛ‬ ‫ܛܢܢܐ ܫܓܝܪܐ ܕܟܐܢܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܗܘ ܕܡܥܝܪ ܡܪܕܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܛܝܒܘܬܟ ܬܠܒܘܟ ܫܒܛܐ‬ ‫ܕ�ܠܐ ܢܒܠܥ ܐܝܟ ܣܟܠܘܬܢ܀‬

  Cf. Isaiah 40:15.   Cf. I Sam. 17:23. 53   I Sam. 17:50. 54   Cf. Ps. 44:6. 51 52

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 304

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

10.  Yodh You know our weak state for You fashioned us out of dust, it is right that You should urge Yourself not to chastise us in accordance with our iniquity. 11.  Kaph However many our perverse sins, You, Lord, have overflowing mercies; let Your Righteousness avert (its glance) a little so that we are not punished in accordance with our wickedness.

305

.‫ܝ‬ ̇ ‫ܝܕܥ ܐܢܬ ܠܡܚܝܠܘܬܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܓܒܠܬܢ ܡܢ ܥܦܪܐ‬ ‫ܝܐܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܠܟ ܬܦܝܣ‬ ‫ܕ�ܠܐ ܬܪܕܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܒܝܫܘܬܢ܀‬ .‫ܟ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܟ�ܡܐ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܢ ܚܘܒܐ ܒܠܝ�ܠܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܦܝܥܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܠܟ ܡܪܝ ̈ܖܚ�ܡܐ‬

‫ܟܐܢܘܬܟ ܬܗ�ܡܐ ܩܠܝܠ‬ ‫ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܟ ܥܘܠܢ ܢܬܢܓܕ܀‬

12.  Lamadh Your abundant gift towards us is not as our iniquity deserves but it befits You when You grant to those who are unworthy the requests they make.

.‫ܠ‬ ‫ܠܘ ܒܕܫܘܝܐ ܒܝܫܘܬܢ‬ ‫ܫܦܝܥܐ ܠܘܬܢ ܡܘܗܒܬܟ‬ ̇ ‫ܠܟ ܗܘ ܦܐܐ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܝܗܒ ܐܢܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܐܠܬܐ ܠܕ�ܠܐ ̇ܫܘܝܢ܀‬

13.  Mim Your compassion is wont to open the door to whoever knocks at it, Your grace is wont to answer whoever calls upon You with suffering.

.‫ܡ‬ ̇ ‫ܡܥܕ ܗܘ ܚܢܢܟ ܦܬܚ ܠܗ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܢܩܫ ܒܗ‬ ‫ܠܬܪܥܟ �ܠܐܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܥܕܐ ܗܝ ܕܬܥܢܐ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ ̇ ‫ܠܡܢ ܕܒܚܫܐ ̇ܩܪܐ ܠܟ܀‬

14.  Nun You are become a fountain of life55, Lord, for Your gift is sufficient for all, let us give thanks to You for Your Grace, since in You our needs are fulfilled.

.‫ܢܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܚܝܐ ܥܒܝܕ ܐܢܬ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܢܒܥܐ‬ ‫) ܣܦܩܐ ܡܘܗܒܬܟ‬187r( ‫ܕܠܟܠ‬ ‫ܢܘܕܐ ܠܟ ܥܠ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܣܘܢܩܢܝܢ܀‬ ‫ܕܒܟ ܡܬܡܠܝܢ‬

15.  Semkath Most fitting it is for Your compassion to carry (away) our great iniquity; a woman who has given birth, out of her love, puts up with the vexation of (her) infant56. 16.  ‘e A doctor binds up the sick and if he is abused he gets furious, may Your bandaging, Lord, heal our wounds for You are the Good One who does not get angry.

.‫ܣ‬ ‫ܣܓܝ ܦܐܐ ܠܗ ܠܚܢܢܟ‬ ‫ܕܠܥܘܠܢ ܪܒܐ ܢܛܥܢ‬ ‫ܣܒ�ܠܐ ܗܝ ܥܝܛܗ ܕܝܠܘܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܚܡܝܗ܀‬ ‫ܝܠܕܬܗ ܡܛܠ ̈ܖ‬ .‫ܥ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܠܟܖܝܗܐ‬ ‫ܥܨܒ ܐܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ ܡܨܛܚܐ ܡܬܚܡܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܘܚܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܨܒܟ ܡܪܝ ܢܐܣܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܛܒܐ ܕ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܪܓܙ܀‬

  Same phrase in 1:14.   Same phrase in 2:12.

55 56

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 305

29/11/16 06:05

306

s. brock

17.  Pe Your door is open, O Compassionate One, and You respond to whoever calls out to You. It is easy for You to grant our requests, since mercy is inherent in Your Essence. 18.  Ṣadhe For You desire at all times to give a reward to our prayer. It is only our will which holds back from asking and receiving all kinds of good things. 19.  Qoph The righteous called upon You in their times and Your assistance was not slow, for Your salvation is close at hand at all times to those who seek it.

.‫ܦ‬ ‫ܦܬܝܚ ܗܘ ܬܪܥܟ ܚܢܢܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܥܢܐ ܐܢܬ �ܠܐܝܢܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܩܪܐ ܠܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܦܫܝܩ ܠܟ ܕܬܬܠ ܫܐܠܬܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܖܚ�ܡܐ ܥܙܝܠܝܢ ܒܐܝܬܘܬܟ܀‬ .‫ܨ‬ ‫ܨܒܝܬ ܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܟܠܥܕܢ‬ ‫ܬܬܠ ܐܓܪܐ ܠܨܠܘܬܢ‬ ‫ܨܒܝܢܢ ̇ܟ�ܠܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܢܒܥܐ ܘܢܣܒ ܟܠ ܛܒܢ܀‬ .‫ܩ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܩܪܐܘܟ ܟܐܢܐ ܒܙܒܢܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ�ܠܐ ܐܫܬܘܚܪ ܥܘܕܪܢܟ‬ ‫ܩܪܝܒ ܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܦܘܪܩܢܟ‬ ̇ ‫ܠܕܒܥܝܢ ܠܗ܀‬ ‫ܟܠ ܥܕܢ‬

20.  Resh Great is the power of prayer when it is a just person who prays it, very much greater is Your grace which does not neglect even the wicked.

.‫ܪ‬ ̇ ‫ܚܝܠܗ ܕܨܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܪܒ ܗܘ‬ ̇ ‫�ܡܐ ܕܙܕܝܩܐ ܡܨ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܪܒܐ ܗܝ ܣܓܝ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܦ �ܠܐ ܡܢ‬ .‫ܒܝܫܐ ܡܗ�ܡܐ ܐܢܬ‬

21.  Shin The serenity of Your nature57 is not disturbed by our wickedness. Praise to You who, in Your grace, bear up with the vexation of our iniquity.

.‫ܫ‬ ‫ܫܦܝܘܬܗ ܓܝܪ ܕܟܝܢܟ‬ ‫�ܠܐ ܡܬܕܠܚܐ ܡܢ ܥܘܠܢ‬ ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܟ ܕܒܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ )187v( ‫ܣܒܠܬ ܥܝܛܐ ܕܒܝܫܘܬܢ܀‬

22.  Taw You spare us from striking us to our destruction and You do not (even) know how to be angry. Thanks be to You, for even if You chastise (us) Your chastisement is full of mercy. Ended are the four soghyatha of Mar Ephrem the Teacher.

57

.‫ܬ‬ ̇ ‫ܚܐܣ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ܬܡܚܐ �ܠܐܒܕܢ‬ ‫ܘܕܬܪܓܙ �ܠܐ ̇ܝܕܥ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ܬܘܕܝ ܠܟ ܕܐܦܢ ܪܕܝܬ‬ ‫ܡܪܕܘܬܟ ̈ܖܚ�ܡܐ ܡܠܝܐ܀‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܖܒܥ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ‬ ‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܫܠܡ‬ ‫ܡܠܦܢܐ‬

 Cf. Contra Haereses 29:4, kyana d-šapyuteh.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 306

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

307

2.2.  Discussion Soghyatha 2 (stanzas 1ab, 2, 4-10, 21) and 4 (stanzas 12-13) are both quoted in the Melkite ‘Codex Syriacus Secundus’, f. 59v (= Codex Syriacus Secundus, ed. Strothmann, p. 73), under the heading ‘Prayers of Mar Ephrem’; the only variant of any consequence is in 2:2a, where ‘in mercy’ replaces ‘in grace’. As far as vocabulary, general style and thought are concerned, it would not be difficult to find parallels, beyond those given in the notes, to some of the phraseology in poems generally considered genuine. Thus paradoxical pairings, such as ‘hidden’ and ‘revealed’ (1:3, 11-12), ‘greatness’ and ‘smallness’ (1:20), ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ (beings) (1:7; 3:12), and the balancing of ‘justice’ and ‘grace’ (4:9), are all very typical of Ephrem; the same applies to the use of the terms ithya and especially ithutha58, and of participial forms followed by kull (e.g. za’en kull, 1:14, 2:17: in Ephrem, e.g. De Nativitate 4:178, 5:24), though not all the examples in these soghyatha can be paralleled in Ephrem59. A small number of features of usage, however, would seem to add some weight to the hesitations intimated by the acrostic pattern. Thus at 3:8 the Spirit is treated grammatically as masculine, against Ephrem’s normal usage60, as well as that of virtually all early authors prior to the fifth century. Another possible indicator is the title ‘Chariot of flesh’ used of Mary (1:13): this is not found in any of Ephrem’s genuine hymns, and otherwise only features in later writers, such as the anonymous author of one of the Hymns on Mary61. Furthermore, while the other Greek loan words used in the soghyatha are all common in Ephrem, there are two which may be significant: kados (4:3) is not found in Ephrem, although the source (Isaiah 40:15) is cited twice in Aphrahat (Demonstrationes 18:2 and 22.17); and tagma (3:7 and 11) occurs only once in Ephrem (Carmina Nisibena I 41:12), but in later writers it becomes very common (kull tagmin, at 3.7. is frequent in Narsai). These hesitations are only strengthened by the unusual features of the acrostic, without parallel in the rest of Ephrem’s poems. A separate 58   Ithutha is especially frequent, though there are no parallels to the ‘fire’ (3:5), ‘radiance’ (3:7) or ‘image’ (1:18) of the ithutha; for the less common itya, see e.g. De Fide 5:13, 27:1, 63:6. ̇ ̇ (4:8), ‫ܣܥܪ ܟܠ‬ ̇ (3:8), ‫ܨܐܪ ܟܠ‬ 59   Thus there are no examples in Ephrem of ‫ܚܣܢ ܟܠ‬ (1:18); and instead of ‫( ܡܬܩܢ ܟܠ‬3:8; common in later authors), Ephrem has ‫ܬܩܢ ܟܠ‬ (Sermones de Fide, I, 146). 60   There are, however, two exceptions: De Fide 12:16, and De Ecclesia 45:15. 61   No. 16 of a series on Hymns on Mary in British Library Add. 14520; translated in Brock, Bride of Light, p. 109-110 (no. 29).

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 307

29/11/16 06:05

308

s. brock

problem is raised by the various irregularities in the acrostic: these are not likely to go back to the author, whether or not the author was Ephrem. Many of these irregularities can readily be removed by the suppression of a waw or dalath, or the addition of lamadh (thus at 1:7, 13, 17; 2:11, 12; and 3:2). Four further cases, however, are more problematic: at 1:13 it seems likely that a scribe has provided a more usual construction, replacing ‫ ܡܛܥܢ‬by ‫ ;ܕܬܛܥܢ‬at 3:5 the solution might well be to replace ‫ ܝܠܕܐ‬by ‫ܗܕܪܐ‬, although it is not clear why a scribe should have felt the need to alter ‫ ;ܗܕܪܐ‬at 3:10 no satisfactory solution comes to mind, and ̈ would have been repeated; an alterit does not seem likely that ‫ܝܗ�ܠܐ‬ ̈ ̈ native might be ‫ܝܘܩܢܐ‬: the plural is used of human beings (‫ܝܘܩܢܐ‬ 62 ̈ ‫ )ܡܠܝ�ܠܐ‬several times by Jacob of Serugh , but never of heavenly beings, as would seem to be required here; 3:16 is equally problematic, and ‫ܥܒܘܕܐ ܬܚܡ ܐܢܘܢ‬, which would fit, does not really commend itself as a possible emendation. Even if the four soghyatha should prove not to be by Ephrem himself, it is very probable that they are all by the same author63, and are all consonant with the general style of Ephrem. 3. Memra on ‘the End’ (f. 190v-196v) The memra is in couplets of 7+7 syllables (known as the ‘metre of Mar Ephrem’). The flow of the couplets appears to be interrupted at line 104, and it is possible that a half line (or a line and a half) has been lost. Although it might be thought that the final half line at 179 might resolve this, and that the lines 105 and following should be rearranged, the symmetry of the couplets in this final section militates against that solution64. It is, of course, also possible that the incomplete lines are intended for effect. Apart from three short narrative sections, the poem consists of three main speeches; these are by personified Righteousness addressing the author (followed by his short reply, addressed to Grace); the Disciples, putting their questions about the Second Coming and the End to Christ; and Christ’s own reply.  E.g. Jacob of Serugh, ed. Bedjan, VI, p. 741, 757.   Cf. the pair ‘dust’ and ‘image’ (1:5; 2:2-4; 3:14; 4:10), grace as ‘mother’ (2:5 and 3:9), ‘who never becomes angry’ (2:9, 25; 3:9; 4:16, 22); the ‘vexation’ of an infant (2:12 and 4:15) etc. 64   The punctuation in the manuscript, as well as the sense units, largely supports the arrangement of the lines as set out in the edition below. 62 63

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 308

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

309

The poem opens with the author recalling the voice of the Lord, so he runs to the Lord’s door, open before him (1-5). When he kneels down in fear Righteousness comes out and asks what is he doing there, outside, when the door is open for anyone whose ‘heart does not reprove him’; she tells him of what he would find if he entered, pointing out that even the Repentant Thief on the Cross was there. At the end, however, she warns the author not to act boldly if ‘your heart reproves you’ (6-23). All fearful as a result, the author is afraid to enter, and instead addresses Grace; he acknowledges his sins, and assures Grace that he has come to learn, and not to investigate (24-29). He then tells how he opened the Gospel where the Disciples asked Christ about the Second Coming (3032). A long series of their imagined questions follows (33-101). The author introduces Christ’s reply to them as they were inclined in prayer (102-105). Christ’s extended reply, given in the first person, continues right up to the end of the poem (106-179). 1-5    Introduction. 6-23    Righteousness addresses the author. 24-28   The author replies, addressing Grace. 29-32  The author opens the Gospel and reads about how the disciples asked Christ about his Second Coming and ‘the End’. 33-101   Their questions. 102-105  Introducing Christ’s reply. 106-179  Christ’s reply. 3.1.  Text Sinai Syr. 10, f. 190v-196v

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 309

‫ܬܘܒ �ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܕܥܠ ܚܪܬܐ‬



‫ܩܠܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܐܬܕܟܪܬ   ܘܪܗܛܬ ܩܡܬ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܗ‬ ‫ܘܚܙܝܬܗ ܕܦܬܝܚ ܘܦܨܝܚ   ܘܣܘܚ ܪܥܝܢܝ ܕܐܩܪܘܒ ܠܗ‬ ‫) ܫܠܝ ܐܚܕܢܝ ܕܘܡܪܐ   ܘܬܗܪܬ ܠܝ ܟܕ ܕܚܠ ܐܢܐ‬191r( ‫ܘܡܢ‬ ‫ܘܒܪܟܬ ܘܣܓܕܬ ܒܚܕܘܬܐ   ܠܛܒܐ ܕܦܬܝܚ ܩܘܕܡܬ ܟܠ‬ ‫ܘܐܘܕܝܬ ܠܗ ܕܦܬܝܚ ܬܪܥܗ   ܘܩܠܝܕܐ ܥܠܘܗܝ �ܠܐ ܐܪܡܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ ܫܐܠܬܢܝ‬ ‫ܘܢܦܩܬ ܒܥܓܠ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ   ܘܥܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܢܘ ܡܢ ܠܒܪ ܩܐܡ ܐܢܬ   ܘ�ܠܐ ܥܒܝܕ ܐܢܬ ܡܢ ܓܘܝܐ‬ ‫ܬܪܥܐ ܕܥܠܘܗܝ ܩܐܡ ܐܢܬ   ܥܠ ܟܠܢܫ ܗܘ ܐܩܠܝܕܗ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ ̇ܨܒܐ ܐܢܫ ܕܢܥܘܠ ܒܗ   �ܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܕܡܨܐ ̇ܟ�ܠܐ ܠܗ‬ ‫�ܠܐ ܢܬܦܠܓ ܪܥܝܢܟ   ܐܢ ܠܒܟ �ܠܐ ܡܟܣ ܠܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܣܘܥܖܢܝܟ   ܘܛܥܢ ܣܒ ܐܝܟ ܨܒܝܢܟ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܥܘܠ ܘܓܠܝ‬



5

1 0





29/11/16 06:05

‫ ‪310‬‬

‫‪s. brock‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܛܟܣܐ ܘܫܘܚܠܦܐ   ܠܓܘ ܡܢ ܬܪܥܐ ̇ܚܙܐ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ܚܙܝ ܟ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ܗܢܐ ܣܕܪܐ ܥܠܝܐ   ܕܐܠܝܐ ܘܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܫܠܝܚܐ‬ ‫ܕܢܒܝܐ   ܘܗܐ ܠܩܘܒܠܗ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܘܗܢܐ ܕܬܪܝܢ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܣܗܕܐ ܒܖܝܟܐ   ܘܗܐ ܠܩܘܒܠܗ ܬܘܒ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫‪ 15‬ܗܐ ܓܘܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܢܬܠܒܒ ܪܥܝܢܟ   ܗܐ ܬܘܒ ܡܟܣܐ ܥܡ ܙܟܝ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܗܐ ܬܘܒ ܣܝܥܬܗ ܕܓܝܣܐ   ܚܝܒܐ (‪ )191v‬ܕܙܟܐ ܠܢܘܪܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ܒܐܝܢܐ ܣܕܪܐ ܕܫܘܐ ܐܢܬ   ܥܘܠ ܘܬܪܘܨ ܘܚܒܘܨ ܩܘܡ ܠܟ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ܘ�ܠܐ ܬܦܢܐ ܒܥܩܒܐ ܕܐܬܝܬ   ܕܬܗܘܐ ܡܓܢ �ܡܐܬܝܬܟ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 20‬ܘ�ܠܐ ܬܬܥܝܩ �ܡܐ ܕܥܛܦ ܐܢܬ   ܡܢ ܗܢ ܬܪܥܐ ܣܦܝܩܐܝܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫  ܘܦܢܐ ܡܢܗ ܒܟܪܝܘܬܐ‬ ‫ �ܠܐ ܓܝܪ ܐܢܫ ܩܐܡ ܥܠܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܕܝܢ ܠܒܟ ܡܟܣ ܠܟ   �ܠܐ ܬܡܪܚ ܕܠ�ܡܐ ܬܐܩܕ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܘܒܘܗܝ ܚܣܝ‬ ‫  ܕܒܕܡܥܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܒܥܝ ܘܐܬܚܢܢ ܐܝܟ ܕܘܝܕ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܠܗ   ܠܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܟܕ ̇ܕܚܠ ܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܗܝܕܝܢ ܫܪܝܬ ܕܐܡܪ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܟܐܝܢ ܒܝ‬ ‫  ܘܚܘܒܝ ܟܘܠ ܝܘܡ‬ ‫‪ 2 5‬ܕܐܥܘܠ ܪܥܝܢܝ ܡܟܣ ܠܝ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܪܗܛ ܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ   ܐܦ�ܠܐ ܕܐܒܨܐ‬ ‫ܠܘ ܕܐܥܩܒ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡܫܐܠ ܐܢܐ ܟܕ ܝܠܦ ܐܢܐ   ܘܡܘܕܐ ܐܢܐ ܟܕ ܣܓܕ ܐܢܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ ܓܠܝܢ ܠܝ   ܕܒܪܢܫܐ ܐܢܐ ܚܠܫܐ‬ ‫ܠܘ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ܠܣܒܪܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܦܬܚܬ   ܕܐܩܪܐ ܡܬܝ ܥܡ ܠܘܩܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫‪ 30‬ܘܩܪܝܬ ܒܚܕܐ ܬܫܥܝܬܐ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܨܐ ܠܒܐ ܡܣܝܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܖܝܬܐ ܕܡܫܬܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܚܪܬܐ ܘܥܠ ܫܘܠ�ܡܐ (‪  )192r‬ܘܥܠ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܠܡܝܕܐ ܠܡܪܢ ܫܐܠܘ   ܟܕ ܕܚܝܠܝܢ ܘܐܡܪܘ ܠܗ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ܕܪܒܢ ܘܡܪܢ ܘܡܠܦܢܢ   ܐܡܪ ܠܢ ܐܬܐ ܕ�ܡܐܬܝܬܟ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐܬܐ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ܘܥܠ ܓܠܝܢܐ ܕܪܒܘܬܟ   ܕܒܐܝܢܐ ܚܙܘܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 35‬ܡܨܝܐ ܥܝܢܐ ܚܙܝܐ ܠܟ   ܐܘ ܒܒܬܐ ܕܬܬܒܩܐ ܒܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܡ�ܠܐܟܐ‬ ‫ܕܓܦܐ‬ ‫ܡܨܝܐ ܒܪܝܬܐ ܕܬܣܝܒܪ   ܩ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܟ�ܡܐ ܪܒ ܩܠܗ ܕܫܝܦܘܪܐ   ܕܡܢ ܣܘܦܐ ܠܣܘܦܐ ܪܗܛ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܣܘ ̇‬ ‫  ܐܙܠ ܩܠܗ ܬܩܝܦܐ‬ ‫ܦܗ ܕܐܪܥܐ‬ ‫ܘܥܕ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܫܝܗ ܕܒܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܫܖ‬ ‫ܬܚܬܝܐ   ܘܡܙܝܥ‬ ‫ܬܗܘ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܪܗܒ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡ�ܠܐܟܐ   !ܐܡܠܠ! ܒܗ ܒܫܝܦܘܪܐ‬ ‫‪ 40‬ܡܢܘ ܟܝ ܡܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܛܒܝܥܐ‬ ‫  ܡܝܬܐ ܡܥܝܪ‬ ‫ܕܒܬܩܝܦܘܬܐ ܕܩܠܗ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪65‬‬ ‫ܘܡܢ ܐܝܢܐ ܐܬܪܐ ܐܬܐ ܐܢܬ   ܘ�ܠܐܝܢܐ ܐܬܪܐ ܐܙܠ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ܫܡܝܐ ܘܐܪܥܐ �ܠܐ ܡܩܘܝܢ   ܘܒܐܝܕܐ ܕܘܟܬܐ ܫܪܐ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܥܝܖܐ ܐܬܝܢ ܥܡܟ   ܘܟ�ܡܐ ܦܝܫܝܢ ܨܝܕ ܐܒܘܟ‬ ‫ܟ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 4 5‬ܫܠܝܢ ܟܝ ܡܢ ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ   ܐܘ ܝܬܝܪ ܡܣܩܝܢ ܩ�ܠܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܦܘܩܕܢܝܟ‬ ‫ܐܝܟܢ ܝܕܥܝܢ (‪ )192v‬ܨܒܝܢܟ   ܘܢܚܬܝܢ ܣܥܪܝܢ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܕܖܝܗܘܢ   ܐܘ ܐܟܚܕ ܟܝ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܡܫܢܝܢ ܟܝ ܡܢ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܫܡܫܝܟ‬ ‫ �ܠܐܝܟܐ ܕܐܙ�ܠܐ ܡܪܟܒܬܐ   ܠܬܡܢ ܐܙܠܝܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܛܟܣܝܢ ܡܬܦܠܓܝܢ   ܠܢܝܚܟ ܘܠܬܫܡܫܬܟ‬ ‫ܛܟܣܝܢ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 50‬ܐܝܬ ܕܠܡܪܟܒܬܐ ܛܥܝܢܝܢ   ܘܐܝܬ ܕܠܟܘܪܣܝܐ �ܠܐ ܡܛܝܢ‬ ‫‪  Om. (but needed for the metre, read as two syllables, i.e. ātēt [as lines 89 and 94]).‬‬

‫‪29/11/16 06:05‬‬

‫‪65‬‬

‫‪99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 310‬‬

‫‪311‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪5 5‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪6 0‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪6 5‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪7 0‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 75‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪8 0‬‬

‫‪8 5‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫ ‬

‫‪EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܫܝܦܘܖܐ ܐܚܝܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܒܩܖܢܬܐ ̇ܩܪܝܢ   ܘܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ̇‬ ‫ܕܓܠܝܢ ܐܦܝ ܬܪܥܐ   �ܡܐ ܕܥܐܠܢ ܓܘܕܝ ܟܐܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܓܒܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܕܩܝܡܝܢ ܩܕܡ ܦܬܘܪܐ   ܘܡܫܡܫܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܥܒܕ   ܐܘ ̇‬ ‫ܓܒܪܝܐܝܠ ܟܝ ̇‬ ‫ܡܢ ̇‬ ‫ܡܢ ̇ܣܥܪ ܡܝܟܐܝܠ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠ�ܡܐ ܟܝ ܗܢܘܢ ܡܫܬܟܚܝܢ̣   ܒܩܕ�ܡܐ ܚܕܖܝ ܪܒܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܡܨܝܐ ܥܒܪܐ ܡܪܟܒܬܐ   ܒܝܢܬ ܐܪܥܐ ܠܫܡܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܘܕܖܐ ܡܬܟܪܟܐ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܕܪܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܝܠܝܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܥܢܢܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܬܐ ܐܢܬ   ܐܘ ܥܠ ܟܬܦܐ ܕܟܖܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܓܝܓ�ܠܐ ܠܡܢܐ ܕܡܐ   ܕܛܥܝܢܝܢ ܠܗ ܠܡܪܟܒܬܟ‬ ‫ܩܠ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܥܒܪ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫(‪  )193r‬ܒܟܠܗ ܒܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܪܦܦ ܥܝܢܐ ܩܠܝ�ܠܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐܬܐ ܐܢܬ   ܕܠ�ܡܐ ܡܘܚܪ ܓܠܝܢܟ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ ܠܢ‪ 66‬ܐܡܬܝ‬ ‫‪67‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܡܬܬܥܝܩܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܚܒܝܒܝܟ   ܥܠ ܬܘܚܪܬܐ ܕ�ܡܐܬܝܬܟ‬ ‫ܡܢܘ ܟܝ ܩܐܡ ܩܘܕܡܝܟ   ܘܡܨܐ ܡܓܝܒ ܦܬܓ�ܡܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܛܟܣܐ ܕܩܕܡܝܟ‬ ‫  ܒܚܝ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܡܫܟܚ ܟܝ ܐܢܫ ܡܬܒܩܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܐܝܟ ܒܪܩܐ ܘܐܝܟ ܠܡܦܝܕܐ   ܥܒܝܕ ܙܝܘܐ ܕܦܖܨܘܦܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܩܢܘܡܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟ ܐܬܘܢܐ ܕܢܒܪܫܬܐ   ܡܬܗܦܟܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡܢܗ ܕܐܪܥܐ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܠܒܪܝܬܐ   ܘܡܢ ̇ܓܕܫ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܡܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡܨܐ ܥܠ�ܡܐ ܩܐܡ ܩܘܕܡܝܟ   ܒܟܠܗ ܗܕܐ ܕܚܝܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܩܠܟ ܐܢ ܫܡܥܝܢ ܒܠܚܘܕ   ܒܕܡܘܬ ܓܠܝܕܐ ܡܬܦܫܪܝܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܖܡܬܐ  ‬ ‫ܫܩܝܦܐ‬ ‫  ܛܘܖܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܝܢܐ ܐܬܪܐ ܡܬܒܠܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܟܝ ̇ܙܠܦ ܠܗ ܠܝ�ܡܐ   ܘܛܘܦܬܐ ܒܗ �ܠܐ ܡܫܬܟܚܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܨܒܥܬܟ‬ ‫  ܥܒܕܐ ܕܐܬܩܢ‬ ‫ܡܣܝܒܪ ܚܘܒܟ ܕܢܚܒܠ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܗܠܝܢ ܟܠܗܝܢ �ܠܐ ܡܕܡ   ܡܬܚܫܒ ܠܟ ܒܗܘ ܥܕܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫  ܒܗ ܬܘܒ ̇ܦܢܝܢ ܡܬܒܠܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܒܗܝ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܒܪܝܬ ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟ ܗܘ ܕܢܒܥܘ ܡܢ (‪ )193v‬ܓܘܗ   ܗܟܢ ܒܓܘܗ ܡܣܬܝܟܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܚܡܠ ܐܢܬ   ܠܗܢܐ ܝܠܕܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܐܕܡ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ ܠܝ ܕܐܝܟܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܐܝܟ ܗܕܐ ܒܪܝܬܐ ܐܢ ܬܒܪܐ   ܥܪܝܐ ܗܝ ܠܟܠܗ ܐܢܫܘܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܡܝܟܐ‬ ‫ܥܒܪ ܐܢܬ   ܬܩܪܐ ܘܬܩܝܡ‬ ‫ܩܒܖܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܟܠ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐܘ ܩܠܟ ܫܡܥ ܟܠܢܫ   ܘܩܐܡ ܡܢ ܥܦܪܗ ܕܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܝܠܝܢ ̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܟܠܗ ܐܢܫܘܬܐ‬ ‫  ܫܡܗܐ‬ ‫ܟܖܟܐ ܟܬܝܒܝܢ ܠܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܐܝܕܐ ܡܓܠܬܐ ܘܕܝܘܬܐ   ܪܫܝܡܝܢ ܥܒܕܐ ܘܣܘܥܖܢܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܬܡܢ ܫܘܠ�ܡܐ   ܐܘ ܢܘܓܪܐ ܗܘ ܕ�ܠܐ ܣܟܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܦܢܝܐ ܒܪܝܬܐ ܡܬܒܪܝܐ   ܐܘ ܦܣܩܬ ܠܗ ܘܠܥܠܡ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܟܝ ܖܚ�ܡܐ ܒܝܬ ܕܝܢܐ   ܐܘ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ ܘܬܒܥܬܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܝܩܕ ܦܓܪܐ ܕܓܒܠܬ‬ ‫ܡܨܝܬ ܟܝ ܕܬܚܙܐ ܘܬܣܝܒܪ   �ܡܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘ�ܠܐ ܟܝ ܡܬܓܘܙܠ ܚܘܒܟ   ܕܐܝܟ ܛ�ܠܐ ܬܥܒܕ ܖܚܡܝܟ‬ ‫ܕܐܦܢ ܐܝܟ ܒܪܦܦ ܥܝܢܐ   ܢܗܘܐ ܚܢܢܟ ܒܝܬ ܕܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܕܫܢܝܐ   ܐܘ ܙܒܢܐ ܕܒܗ ̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܢܚ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ܐܝܕܝܥ ܡܢܝܢܐ‬ ‫)‪ + (against the metre‬ܡܪܢ  ‬ ‫ܬܘܚܘܪܬܐ  ‬

‫‪66‬‬ ‫‪67‬‬

‫‪29/11/16 06:05‬‬

‫‪99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 311‬‬

‫ ‪312‬‬

‫‪s. brock‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪9 0‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 95‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪1 00‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 105‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪1 10‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪1 15‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 120‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 125‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܓܠܝܢܟ   ܐܘ ܕܠ�ܡܐ ܒܩܝܛܐ ̇‬ ‫ܐܬܐ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ܒܣܬܘܐ‬ ‫ܠ�ܡܐ (‪ )194r‬ܒܟܢܘܢ ܕܒܗ ܐܬܝܠܕܬ   ܐܘ ܒܢܝܣܢ ܝܪܚܐ ܕܢܘܚܡܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܐܝܡ�ܡܐ ܟܝ ̇ܕܢܚ ܐܢܬ   ܘܚܫܟ ܫܡܫܐ ܡܢ ܩܘܕܡܝܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐܘ ܕܠ�ܡܐ ܒܠܝܠܘܬܐ   ܘܥܪܒ ܣܗܪܐ ܘܢܗܝܖܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܬܝܢ ̈‬ ‫ܢܦܫܬܐ   ܐܘ ܡܫܬܕܪܢ ܠܗܝܢ ܩܘܕܡܝܟ‬ ‫ܥܡܟ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܐܬܐ ܐܢܬ ܡܫܟܚ ܐܢܬ ܟܕ ܥܝܪܝܢ   ܟܠܗܘܢ ܡܝܬܐ ܫܘܝܐܝܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡ�ܠܐܟܐ  ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܠܗܝ ܫܥܬܐ ܡܥܩܒܝܢܢ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܝܕܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܘ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܬܗܪܐ ܓܝܪ ܐܦ ܕܘܡܪܐ   ܕܡܢ ܗܘܐ ܒܗܘ ܥܕܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܟܫܝܖܐ‬ ‫ܒܖܝܬܐ   ܘܒܗ ܡܬܢܚܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܒܗ ܡܬܚܒܠܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܒܝܫܐ ܒܟܐܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܦܘܪܥܢܐ   ܠܛܒܐ‬ ‫ܒܗ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܒܗ ܟܘܠ ܡܕܡ �ܠܐ ܡܕܡ   ܕܨܒܐ ܡܪܗ ܕܟܐܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܟܠ ܐܣܟܝ�ܡܐ ܕ�ܡܐܬܝܬܟ   ܠܟ ܪܒܢܢ ܒܥܝܢܢ‬ ‫ܙܘܗܪܐ ܓܝܪ ܥܫܝܢܐ   ܩܢܝܢܢ ܡܢ ܬܫܥܝܬܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ ܡܠܠ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܗܝܕܝܢ ܡܪܢ ܢܝܚܐܝܬ   ܥܡ‬ ‫ܘܒܝܢܘܗܝ ܘܠܗܘܢ ܚܘܝ ܠܗܘܢ   ܥܠ ܚܪܬܐ ܘܥܠ ܫܘܠ�ܡܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܡܫܬܖܝܢ‬ ‫ܒܖܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܥܠ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܒܣܝ�ܡܐܝܬ   ܟܕ ܒܨܠܘܬܐ ܓܗܝܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܒܗܢܐ ܦܓܪܐ ܕܚܙܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ   ܒܗ ̇‬ ‫ܐܬܐ ܐܢܐ ܠܒܪܝܬܐ (‪)194v‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫  ܒܗ ܢܚܬ ܐܢܐ ܡܢ ܪܘ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܒܗܕܐ ܕܡܘܬܐ ܕܥܛܝܦ ܐܢܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܥܒܕ ܐܢܐ ܫܘܠ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܪܡܙܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܝ ܩܠܝ�ܠܐ   ܘܒܗ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܒܗܘ ܥܕܢܐ‬ ‫  ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܢܐ ܘܐܒܝ ܗܘ ܪܓܝܫܝܢܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܦܣܝܩܬܐ   ܘܕܕܝܢܐ ܘܕܦܘܪܥܢܐ‬ ‫ܝܘ�ܡܐ ܗܘ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫‪68‬‬ ‫  ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܡܟܝܠ ܫܘܠ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܟܕ ܡܥܒܪ ܐܢܐ ܒܒܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܟܕ ܡܬܩܢ ܗܘܝܬ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ   ܚܫܒܬ ܣܡܬ ܬܚܝܬ ܣܟܐ‬ ‫ܡܢܝ ܐܬܝܠܕ ܫܘܪܝܐ   ܘܡܢܝ ̇‬ ‫ܢܒܥ ܐܦ ܫܘܠ�ܡܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܘܒܖܐ‬ ‫  ܛܟܣܐ ܘܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܙܒܢܐ ܡܬܚܠܦܝܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܣܝܗ ܕܐܪܥܐ‬ ‫ܫܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܝܖܐ ܕܠܥܠ   ܘܙܝܥܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܬܪܗܒܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܬܥܝܪ ܨܒܝܢ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ   ܘܠܒܫܐ ܛܢܢܐ ܥܠ ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܡܬܩܦ�ܠܐ ܡܛܠܬܐ ܕܪܘ�ܡܐ   ܘܡܬܓܕܕ ܢܚܬܗ ܕܪܩܝܥܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܟܐܢܐ ܛܒ ܡܢܗ‬ ‫ܚܫܟ ܫܡܫܐ ܢܗܝܪܐ   ܘܢܗܝܪܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܛܒܐ ܐܝܟ ܢܘܗܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܚܫܟܝܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܢܗܝܖܐ   ܘܗܘܝܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫  ܘܥܒܕ ܐܢܐ ܠܗܝܢ ܡܪܟܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܢܢܐ ܕܠܥܠ‬ ‫ܡܦܓܕ ܐܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܛܥܢܢ ܠܝ ܥܠ ܚܨܝܗܝܢ (‪  )195r‬ܘܩܠܝܠ ܐܢܐ ܗܘ ܛܒ ܡܢܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܢܫܖܐ ܡܢ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܩܢܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܥܝܖܐ   ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܦܩܕ ܐܢܐ ܘܢܦܩܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܝܗܒ ܐܢܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ   ܐܝܟ �ܡܐ ܬܒܥ ܣܘܥܪܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܡ�ܠܐܟܐ‬ ‫ܩܥܐ ܒܩܪܢܐ   ܕܗܘܝܘ ܪܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܓܒܪܝܐܝܠ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܝܟܐܝܠ ܬܘܒ ܫܠܝܛܐ   ܢܦܩ ܒܬܪ ܚܒܝܒܝ  ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܣܐܡ ܐܢܐ ܐܬܐ ܥܠ ܕܝܠܝ   �ܡܐ ܕܐܬܢܚܡܘ ܡܢ ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܫܩܠܝܢ ܠܗ ܠܨܠܝܒܝ ܩܘܕܡܝ   ܐܝܟ ܐܝܩܘܢܐ ܩܕܡ ܡܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܒܪܝܬܐ  ‬

‫‪29/11/16 06:05‬‬

‫‪68‬‬

‫‪99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 312‬‬

‫‪313‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪1 30‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 135‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 140‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 145‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 150‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪1 55‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 160‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 165‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪29/11/16 06:05‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10‬‬

‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܛܟܣܝܗܘܢ   ܚܕ ܒܬܪ ܚܕ ܫܘܝܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܢܦܩܝܢ ܒܩܕ�ܡܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢܘܖܢܐ   ܘܡܢ ܒܬܪܗܘܢ ̈ܖܘܚܢܐ‬ ‫ܢܦܩܝܢ ܒܩܕ�ܡܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܚܖܢܐ ܬܘܒ ܨܝܕ ܡܪܟܒܬܐ   ܚܕܝܢ ܦܪܚܝܢ ܫܘܝܐܝܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܥܙܝܙܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܓܦܝܗܘܢ   ܐܝܟ ̈ܖܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܘܢܗܡ ܩ�ܠܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܚܐܪ ܐܢܐ ܒܟܠ �ܡܐ ܕܒܪܝܬ   ܘܐܝܟ ܐܐܪ ܗܟܢ ܥܒܪ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܦܢܐ‬ ‫̇ܓܪܣ ܝ�ܡܐ ܥܫܝܢܐ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܡܟܝܠ‬ ‫ܘܡܝܬܝܢ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܢܘܢܐ ܕܒܓܘܗ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܡܟܝܠ ܨܝܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܝܒܫܝܢ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢܒܥܐ ܕܒܪܝܬܐ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܡܟܝܠ ܫܬܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܥܒܪܝܢ ܦܐܖܐ ܕܐܝܠܢܐ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܬ (‪ )195v‬ܡܟܝܠ ܩܛܘܦܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܨܘܕܐ‬ ‫ܥܒܪ ܙܪܥܐ ܘܚܨܕܐ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܡܟܝܠ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܥܒܪ ܥܘܬܪܐ ܘܩܢܝܢܐ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܓܡܪ ܝܖܘܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܦܝܗ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܥܒܪܐ ܒܪܝܬܐ ܘܡܫܬܪܝܐ   ܕ�ܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܐܢܫܐ ܥܠ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܥܒܪ ܠܠܝܐ ܘܐܝܡ�ܡܐ   ܘܒܛܠܝܢ ̈‬ ‫ܘܥܕܢܐ‬ ‫ܙܒܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܬܓܡܝܢ ܛܘܖܐ ܖ�ܡܐ   ܘܖܡܬܐ �ܠܐ ܡܫܬܟܚܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫  ܕܒܪܝܢ ܠܗ ܘ�ܠܐ ܡܪܦܝܢ ܠܗ‬ ‫ܟܠܢܫ ܐܝܟܐ ܕܚܙܝܢ ܠܗ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܦܝܣܗ ܕܐܢܫ �ܠܐ ܡܬܩܒܠ   ܘ�ܠܐ ܒܥܘܬܐ ܡܫܬܡܥܐ‬ ‫ܕܚ�ܠܐ ܘܙܘܥܐ ܘܪܬܝܬܐ   ܥܠ ܟܘܠ ̇ܫܪܐ ܡܢ ܫܠܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܒܝܘܡܝ ܛܘܦܢܐ   ܗܟܢ ̇ܓܕܫ ܒܒܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܘܝܐ   ܓܪܦܘ ܗܘܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܡܡܘ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܟܕ �ܠܐ ܪܓܝܫܝܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܚܘܖܒܐ ̈‬ ‫ܩܫܝܐ‬ ‫  ܘܩܖܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘ�ܡܐ ܕܚܙܝܬܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܕ ܐܬܐ ̇‬ ‫ܝܗܒ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ   ܕܡܛܐ ܠܗ ܝܘ�ܡܐ ܐܚܪܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܗܘܝܢ ܒܒܪܝܬܐ   ܘܡܘܬܢܐ ܕ�ܠܐ ܡܢܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܟܦܢܐ‬

‫ܩܐܡ ܥ�ܡܐ ܥܠ ܥ�ܡܐ   ܘܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܚܖܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܣܕܩܐ‬ ‫  ܘܣܓܝܢ‬ ‫ܟܗܢܐ‬ ‫ܟܗܢܐ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܩܝܡܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܡܠܟ ܥܘ�ܠܐ (‪ )196r‬ܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ   ܘܪܕܦܝܢ ̈‬ ‫ܠܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܒܝܫܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܣܓܝܢ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܛܥܝܐ   ܘܢܒܝܐ ܕܟܕܒܘܬܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܢܫܐ ܒܓܠܝܐ   ܘܡܬܪܝܡ ܓܒܐ ܕܣܡ�ܠܐ‬ ‫ܘܟܦܪܝܢ ܒܝ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܬܩܦܚܝܢ ܒܢܝ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ   ܡܢ ܒܢܝ ܓܒܐ ܕܚܛܝܬܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫  ܘܡܝܬܝܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܒܬܥܫܐ‬ ‫ܫܬܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܟܠܝܢ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܘܗܘܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܝܘܡܗ‬ ‫  ܩܝ�ܡܐ ܒܪܝܬܐ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܘ�ܡܐ ܕܓܕܫ ܗܠܝܢ ܟܠܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܩܫܝܐ   �ܠܐܪܥܐ ܕܬܐܠܕ ܕܒܓܘܗ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܚܒ�ܠܐ ̈‬ ‫ܠܗ ̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܡܚܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܡܥܒܪ ܐܢܐ ܟܠܗ ܥܘܠܗ   ܘܫܕܐ ܐܢܐ ܠܗ ܒܓܗܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܘܩܢܐ‬ ‫ܚܘܦܢܝ‬ ‫ܒܖܝܬܐ   ܘܒܓܘ‬ ‫ܣܝܡܢ‬ ‫ܒܙܘܪܝ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܩܦܣ ܐܢܐ ܠܙܘܪܝ ܦܬܝܐ   ܘܐܬܚܦܝ ܟܘܠ �ܡܐ ܕܒܪܝܬ‬ ‫ܘ�ܡܐ ܕܓܕܫ ܗܠܝܢ ܟܠܗܝܢ   ܘܫܠܡ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܟܬܝܒܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܕܖܘܚܢܐ‬ ‫  ܕܡ�ܠܐܟܐ‬ ‫ܙܝܚܐ ܘܢܦܩܐ ܡܫܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢܫܖܐ   ܘܪܟܝܒܝܢ ܖܟܫܐ ܕܢܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܘܝܢ ܦܪܚܝܢ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܡܠܠܗܘܢ ̇‬ ‫ܢܗܡ ܐܝܟ ܝ�ܡܐ   ܘܢܗܡܬܗܘܢ ܕܐܖܝܘܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܩܝܦܐ (‪  )196v‬ܘܩܢܘܡܗܘܢ ܢܘܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܒܖܩܐ‬ ‫ܘܚܙܘܗܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܕܡܘܬ ܝܬܖܐ ܙܡܡܝܗܘܢ   ܘܐܝܟ ܫܝܦܘܖܐ ܙܡܖܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܩܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܝܗܒܝܢ ܩ�ܠܐ ܒܫܝܦܘܪܐ   ܘܒܩܪܢܐ ܙܘܥܐ‬

‫‪99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 313‬‬

314

s. brock

̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܚܝܕܐ‬ ‫ܩܒܖܐ‬ ‫ܐܛܝ�ܡܐ   ܘܡܬܦܬܚܝܢ‬ ‫ܫܘܥܐ‬ ‫ܡܨܛܖܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܒܓܫܝܢ ܒܫܝܘܠ ܛܒܝܥܐ   ܕܩܠܗ ܫܡܥܝܢ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬1 70 ̈ ‫ܓܖ�ܡܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܩܒܝܖܐ‬ ‫ܓܘܫ�ܡܐ‬ ‫ܙܖܝܩܐ   ܘܡܬܛܒܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܬܟܢܫܝܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܪܗܛ ܥܦܪܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܐܕܡ   ܘܡܬܬܪܝܡ ܡܢ ܥܦܪܐ ܐܚܪܢܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫  ܒܐܝܕܝ ܥܦܪܐ ܕܐܢܫܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܫܩܠ ܐܢܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܒܟܘܪܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܘܙܝܚ ܐܢܐ ܒܫܘܒܚܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ   ܘܢܦܩ ܐܢܐ �ܠܐܘܪܥܐ ܕܟܐܢܐ‬ ̈ ̇ ̇ ‫ܒܖܝܟܘܗܝ ܕܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܗܘܢ   ܕܬܘ ܒܫܠܡ‬ ‫ܘܩܪܐ ܐܢܐ‬ 175 ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܒܢܝ ܡܠܟܘܬܝ   ܬܘ ܥܘܠܘ ܘܓܢܘ ܥܠ ܦܬܘܪܝ‬ ‫ܘܝܖܘܬܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܚܨܝ   ܐܝܟ �ܡܐ ܕܐܡܪܬ ܘܐܫܬܘܕܝܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܢܐ ܐܣܪ ܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܫܡܫܟܘܢ ܥܠ ܦܬܘܪܝ   ܘܐܡܪ ܠܟܘܢ ܬܘ ܥܘܠܘ ܘܐܝܪܬܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܓܢܘܢܐ ܘܚܝܐ ܘܡܠܟܘܬܐ܀‬

3.2.  Translation Next, a memra of Mar Ephrem on the End. I recalled the voice of our Lord:   I ran and stood at His door; I saw it was open and my mind was glad   and eager to approach it when all of a sudden wonder seized hold of me,  and in my astonishment I was afraid. I knelt down and worshipped in joy   the Beneficent One who was opened up before me. 5 I gave thanks to Him whose door was open,   for He had not kept it locked. Straightway Righteousness came out,   and asked me about hidden things: ‘Why are you standing outside,   and have not been made one of those inside? The door at which you are standing   – everyone has the key to it, and if someone wants to enter it,   there is no one who can prevent him. 10 Do not let your mind be in doubt:   if your heart does not reprove you, come and enter and disclose your affairs;   carry and take off what you like: look at how many different ranks there are:   inside the door you will see this lofty order   of Elijah and of the priesthood, and the second one, of prophets,   and opposite it, also of the apostles. 15 Here is the band of the blessed martyrs,   and facing it, that of the saints; and, so that your mind may be encouraged,  here also is the publican and ­Zacchaeus69; here too is the gang of the Robber70,   the guilty man who overcame the fire. Into whatever order you are worthy of,   enter straight in, press on and take your stand. Do not turn on your heals (and leave)   the way you came, for (then) your coming will have been in vain; 20 do not be grieved, returning   from this door empty handed, for no one ever stands beside it   and returns in sorrow. But if your heart reproves you,   do not act boldly lest you get burnt.

69 70

  Luke 18:11, 19:2.   Luke 23:43; ‘the gang’ will refer to subsequent converted robbers.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 314

29/11/16 06:05



25



30



35





40



45



50



55



60

EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

315

Make supplication and request, as did David   who made amends with his tears for his sins’71. Then I began to speak   to Grace, all afraid to enter: my mind reproves me,   my sins each day reproach me. ‘I do not seek to pry,   nor am I in a hurry to investigate, I am asking in order to learn,   and I give thanks as I adore. Hidden things have not been revealed to me,   for I am just a feeble human being’. I opened the Gospel of our Lord,   to read Matthew and Luke, and I read in one narrative   which the heart cannot contain  concerning the final end   and the dissolution of created beings. The disciples asked our Lord,   saying to Him in their fear, ‘Our Master, our Lord and our Teacher,   tell us the sign of Your (Second) Coming, and about the revelation of Your Majesty:   in what appearance will You come? Will the eye be able to see You?   Or the pupil to scrutinise You? Will creation be able to endure   the sound of the angels’ wings? How loud will be the sound of the trumpet,   for from one end (of the earth) to the other will it quickly reach. To the extremities of the earth   will its mighty sound come? For it will stir the bottom-most depths,   shaking the very foundations of Creation. Who among the angels will speak(?)72   with the trumpet, for at the might of its blast   it will awake those who are sunk in death. From what place will You ,   to what place will You go? Heaven and earth will not remain:   where will You reside? How many angels are coming with You,  and how many will remain with Your Father? Will they be silent from praise,   or raise up their voices even more?  How will they know Your will,   or come down and carry out Your bidding? Will they depart from their ranks,   or will they all be together? To wherever the Chariot goes,   there Your ministers will go, divided up into different rankings,   in service and attendance on You: some carry the Chariot,   some do not reach the Throne, some sound out on horns,   some hold trumpets, some open up the Curtain   when the bands of the upright enter in; some stand before the Table   and minister to the elect. What will Gabriel be doing,   and what is Michael’s task? Will they be found   in the front place around Your Majesty?  Will the Chariot be able to pass   between heaven and earth? In what circuits does it go round   – for there is no well-trod path. Is it on the clouds that You will come, Lord,   or on the shoulders of the cherubim? What is the sound of the Wheels like   as they convey Your Chariot? – For You will cross over the entire universe   in the twinkling of an eye.   II Sam. 12:13; cf. Ps. 6:6 etc.   The text has emallel ‘I will speak’, which makes no sense in the context and so must represent a corruption; perhaps the text should read mmallel (taken as 3 syllables) ‘will speak’; a further alteration could be to delete the beth before shipora, ‘with which of the angels will the trumpet speak’ (for mallel used of a trumpet, cf. Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel, ed. Henze, sections 35 and 36; section 19 of this Apocalypse may possibly show some influence from the present memra). 71 72

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 315

29/11/16 06:05

316

65



70



75



80



85



90



95



s. brock

Tell us, Lord, when are You coming?   Is it that Your revelation is delayed? – For Your beloved are grieved   at the delay of Your coming. Who can stand before You,73   or is able to answer a word? Is anyone able to enquire   into the ranked powers in Your presence?  – For like lightning and like a flare   is the radiance of their faces and they revolve in themselves   like a flaming furnace. What will happen to Creation,   what will be the fate of the Earth? Can this world stand before You   amidst such great fearfulness? If they heard only Your voice,   they would melt like ice. In what region will the mountains,   crags and heights be engulfed?  Who will bale out the sea,   and (so) no drop is left in it? Will Your love endure destroying   the works Your fingers have made74? All these things will be considered   by You as nothing at that time. With that utterance by which You created them,   they will turn round and be swallowed up; Just as they had sprung up from its midst,  so they will come to an end in its midst75. Tell me, how will You contain   this offspring of Adam and Eve? For if You created (another world) like this one,   will it contain the whole of human kind? Will You pass along all the graves,   calling out and raising those asleep, Or will everyone hear Your voice,   and rise up from the dust of death? On what scrolls have You written   the names of all human kind? In what ledger are acts and deeds   marked down in ink? Will the final end be there?   Or a long wait, without any end? Will Creation turn around and be re-created,   or is it finally finished for ever? Is there compassion at Judgement,   or strict justice and exaction? Will You be able to endure the sight   when the body You fashioned is burnt up? Will not Your love burst into flame,   so that You make Your mercy like dew? For, even if for just a twinkling of an eye,   Your compassion will be present at the Judgement. Is the number of years, or the time,   known when You will shine forth? Will Your revelation be in winter,  or maybe is it in the summer that You will come? Will it be in December, when You were born,   or in April, the month of Your Resurrection? Will You shine forth in the daytime,   with the sun appearing dark in Your presence, Or perhaps in the night,   and the moon and the luminaries will set? Will souls accompany You,   or will they be sent to Your presence? Will You come and find   all the dead simultaneously awake? We are not enquiring into the hour,   which is something (even) the angels do not know, For it is a matter of amazement and wonder   what will happen at that time   Ps. 76:7.   Cf. Ps. 8:3. 75   The syntax implies that the suffix refers to melta, ‘word’, but the sense seems to presuppose ar‘a, and the translation implies this. 73 74

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 316

29/11/16 06:05



100



105



110



115



120



125



130



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

317

When all that is created will be destroyed,   and when the diligent will be r­ esurrected. Then repayment will also be made,   for the good and for the bad, with righteousness. Then everything will be no thing,   for the Lord of righteousness has willed it. We are asking You, our Master,   about the manner of Your coming, For we have acquired from the narrative   about You a dire warning’. Then our Lord spoke   gently with His disciples: To them, all by themselves,   did He make manifest concerning the final End And about the dissolution   of all that is created. He said to them kindly,   as they were inclined in prayer, ‘In this body which you see   will I come to creation; In this form with which I am wrapped   will I shine forth from on high. At my swift indication   I will effect the end. I and my Father are aware   of what will occur at that time,  for it a day of decisions,   of judgement and of retribution. For when I pass through Creation,   then the End will take place. When I was establishing everything,   in my thought I imposed a limit; The beginning had its birth from me,   and from me will issue the End. At that time all orderings   and modes of conduct will be changed:  The Watchers above will be in commotion,  and the earth’s foundations will shake76. The Will of righteousness will be aroused,   and it will clothe itself in zeal against Death. The tent on high will be rolled away,   and the garment of the firmament cut off (the loom)77; The sun will grow dark,78 and so will the luminaries,   while the Righteous will be far more bright. All the luminaries will grow dark,   and the Good will act as the light. I will yoke the clouds79 above   and make them a Chariot; They will convey me on their backs,   but I will be much swifter than them. I will give the command for the Watchers  to come forth like eagles from their nests; I will give them authority,   as the situation demands: Gabriel will sound the horn,   for he is the chief of the angels; And Michael, also having authority,   will come out after my beloved. I will place a sign on those who belong to me  once they have been resurrected from death. They will take up my Cross in front of me,   like an icon in front of a king; Their ranks will go forth first,   one after another, of one accord. First to come out are the beings of fire,   and following them, the beings of spirit; Others again are by the Chariot,   rejoicing as they fly about in harmony; The sound of their wings roars out,   resembling strong winds. I will look upon all that I have created,   and, like the air, thus shall it pass away. The mighty sea will perish   because there are no more sailors;   Cf. Isaiah 24:18.   Cf. Isaiah 38:12. 78   Matt. 24:29, Mark 13:24. 79   Cf. Matt. 24:30. 76 77

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 317

29/11/16 06:05

318

s. brock



The fish will die in its midst,   for there will no longer be any fishermen.



The fruits on the trees will wither away,   for there will be no one left to pick them; Seeds and harvest will pass away,   for there will no longer be any to make harvest. Riches and possessions will pass away,  because there will be no one to inherit them. The created world will pass away,   for there will be no people left upon it. Night will pass away, and so will day;   times and seasons will be at an end. Lofty mountains will be toppled,   no peaks will be found any more. Wherever they (angels[?]) see anyone,   they will take him off, and not leave him: no one’s plea will be accepted,   nor will any supplication be heard. Fear, fright and trembling   will fall upon everyone all of a sudden.  What happens to Creation   will be as in the days of the Flood80 – The flood-waters will engulf   the wretched people without their being aware. When you see the signs,   the wars81 and dire devastations, This is the sign I give you82,   that the Last Day has arrived. There will be famines in creation,   and plagues83 without number;  One people will rise up against another,   one realm against another84; priests will rise up against priests,   and schisms and disputes will multiply. Evil will reign on earth,   and the wicked will persecute the holy. Those in error and prophets of deceit85   will multiply on earth, People will openly deny me86,   and those on the left side will be exalted. The followers of righteousness   will be battered by the adherents of sin; They will all be eating,   drinking87 and dying amidst toil. When all this happens,   creation will resist88 its day. Dire pangs89 will strike the earth,   so that it gives birth to what is within it. I will cause all its evil to pass away,   casting it into Gehenna. The works of creation are placed   in the palms of my hands, I will close my wide hand,   and everything I have created will be covered over. When all these things have occurred,   and when what is written has come to completion, an encampment of angels and spiritual beings   will stir and come forth: They will be flying about, like eagles,   and mounted on stallions of fire; Their speech roars out like the sea,   their roar is like that of lions, Their appearance is mighty flashes of lightning,   their being is of fire and spirit; Like bow-strings their sounds,   like trumpets their songs. They will sound out on the trumpet,   and with the horn they cry out ‘Terror’. Solid rocks will be rent apart,   and closed graves opened up.

135 Creation’s fountains will dry up,   for there will no longer be anyone to drink;



140



145



150



155



160





165



  Cf. Matt. 24:37.   Cf. Mark 13:7, Luke 21:9, 11. 82   Matt. 24:30. 83   Luke 21:11. 84   Matt. 24:11, Luke 21:10. 85   Matt. 24:11, 24. 86   Matt. 10:33. 87   Matt. 24:38. 88   The sense here of qayma ‘al is not clear. 89   Matt. 24:8, Mark 13:8. 80 81

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 318

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

319

170 Those who are submerged in Sheol pour forth90,   for they hear the voice of Christ;

Scattered bones are gathered together,91   and buried bodies that are submerged. The dust of the House of Adam   hastens to be raised above the other dust, and I will take up, as though in a furnace,   the dust of humanity in my hand, I will process in the splendour of the Spirit,   and go forth to meet the Righteous;  175 I will call out and say to them,   Welcome, blessed ones of the Father, the heirs and members of my Kingdom92.   Come, enter and rest at my Table, and I will gird my loins93,   just as I said and promised, and I will serve you at my Table94,   and tell you, ‘Come, enter and inherit the Bridal Chamber95, Life, and the Kingdom’.



3.3.  Discussion Since narrative memre in the ‘metre of St Ephrem’ often get attributed, whether inadvertently or not, to Ephrem, one should at the outset be wary of the attribution here as well, all the more so since the five memre ‘on the End’ which Beck republished in his Sermones III are all certainly not genuinely by Ephrem. The present poem indeed shares a number of features with some of these, in particular: –  Righteousness personified (13): 5:13 –  trumpet to awaken the dead (37; Matt. 24:31): 1:495 –  ‘in a twinkling of an eye’ (60, 87; I Cor. 15:52): 1: 500; 2:201, 205 –  Gabriel and Michael (124-5): 2:229-32, 315-316, 353 ̈ will dry up (135): 5:373 –  springs (‫)ܢܒܥܐ‬ –  famines and plagues (149; Luke 21:11): 5:20-21 –  realm against realm (150; Matt. 24:11): 5:28 –  schisms and disputes (151; cf. Gal. 5:20): 4 Appendix, 96 –  ‫( ܓܒܐ ܕܣܡ�ܠܐ‬154)96: 5:32 –  ‫( ܓܒܐ ܕܚܛܝܬܐ‬155): 5:34 –  dust of the House of Adam ... other dust (172): 1:507-8 – ‘Come, enter...the bridal chamber’ (176-179; Matt. 25:34): 2:556-8. 90   The verb bgash, here translated ‘pour forth’, is unrecorded in the Syriac dictionaries; I take it to be a cognate of Arabic bajasa ‘gush out, flow freely’. 91   Cf. Ezek. 37. 92   Matt. 25:34. 93   John 13:4; cf. Luke 12:37. 94   Cf. Matt. 20:28 and Luke 22:30. 95   The frequent description of the Kingdom of Heaven as a ‘bridal chamber’ (often with the added ‘of light’, ‘of glory’, is probably based on Matt. 25:10, where gnona (perhaps deriving from the Diatessaron), instead of ‘wedding feast’, was a reading familiar to many early Syriac authors; see further Brock, Bridal Chamber. 96   While Ephrem employs the phrase ‘party of...’ (‫)ܓܒܐ ܕ‬, several times (e.g. Ser̈ ̈ ̈ mones de Fide 52:9 ‫;ܕܚܖܝܝܐ‬ 60:1, 4 ‫;ܕܡܖܚܐ‬ Contra Haereses 39:5 ‫)ܕܫܖܝܪܐ‬, he appears not to use these two.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 319

29/11/16 06:05

320

s. brock

Of these, only the parallels with Sermones III.5 would seem to be of significance, and these parallels to lines 135, and 154-155 are striking enough to suggest that there is almost certainly a literary connection; since Sermones III.5 (which is also on Gog and Magog) is to be dated to the seventh century97, it will certainly be the borrower from our poem, and not the other way round. The general character of the poem in Sinai Syr. 10 is very different from that of these other memre ‘On the End’, and it would seem to have a considerably better chance of being by Ephrem himself; the tone of the opening words, in particular, along with the assurance ‘I do not seek to pry’, are entirely in harmony with Ephrem’s approach to ‘hidden things’. The lexicon employed does not include anything that would point against Ephrem’s authorship. The one Greek word not found elsewhere in Ephrem, iqona (instead of the more usual yuqna) is attested in the early Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History98, and is no doubt used instead of yuqna for metrical reasons. 4. Conclusion It is clear that the List of Ephrem’s qale, published by de Halleux, is by no means the only section of Sinai Syr. 10 which is of interest for the study of Ephrem’s poetry. The ‘Selection of madrashe’ offers, not only another witness to some of Ephrem’s more poorly witnessed poems, but it also supplies lost material (even though some of this raises problems). The four soghyatha and the memra, not attested elsewhere, could, in spite of certain hesitations, be genuine, although this must at present remain uncertain. In any case they should be included under his incerta, rather than under his dubia, and whether or not they are by Ephrem, they are poems which are of interest in their own right. Bibliography Albert, Mimro inédit = M. Albert, Mimro inédit de Jacques de Saroug sur le sacerdoce et l’autel, in Parole de l’Orient, 10 (1981-1982), p. 51-77. Aphrahat, Demonstrationes = J. Parisot (ed./tr.), Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (Patrologia Syriaca, I/1-2), Paris, 1894, 1907. 97  See Reinink, Pseudo-Ephrems ‘Rede über das Ende’ and Idem, Pseudo-Methodius. The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel, which may also know the memra (see note 72) also probably dates from the seventh century. 98   IX.9.10; IX.11,2 and 7 (the latter two refer to imperial icons, as in the memra).

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 320

29/11/16 06:05



EPHREMIANA IN MANUSCRIPT SINAI SYR. 10

321

Bettiolo, Una raccolta = P. Bettiolo, Una raccolta di opuscoli calcedonensi (Ms. Sin. Syr. 10), (CSCO, 403-404; Script. Syri, 177-178), Louvain, 1979. Brock, An acrostic soghitha = S.P. Brock, An acrostic soghitha by Isaac ‘the Teacher’ in Sinai Syr. 10, in Collectanea Christiana Orientalia, 12 (2015), p. 47-62. Brock, Bridal Chamber = S.P. Brock, The Bridal Chamber of Light: A Distinctive Feature of the Syriac Liturgical Tradition, in The Harp, 18 (2005), p. 179-191. Brock, Bride of Light = S.P. Brock, Bride of Light: Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches, Piscataway, NJ, 2010. Brock, Dialogue and other Sughyotho = S.P. Brock, Dialogue and other Sughyotho, in A. Chahwan (éd.), Mélanges offerts au Prof. P. Louis Hage (Université Saint-Esprit de Kaslik. Faculté de Musique, Études, 9), Kaslik, 2008, p. 363-384. Codex Syriacus Secundus, ed. Strothmann = W. Strothmann (ed.), Codex Syriacus Secundus (Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Syriaca, 13), Wiesbaden, 1977. CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. de Halleux, La chronique melkite = A. de Halleux, La chronique melkite abrégée du ms. Sinaï syr. 10, in Le Muséon, 91 (1978), p. 5-44. de Halleux, Une clé = A. de Halleux, Une clé pour les hymnes d’Éphrem dans le ms. Sinaï syr. 10, in Le Muséon, 85 (1972), p. 171-199. Ephrem, ed. Beck: Appendix =  E. Beck (ed.), Nachträge zu Ephraem Syrus (CSCO, 363; Script. Syri, 159), Leuven, 1975. Carmina Nisibena I = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena, I (CSCO, 218; Script. Syri, 92), Louvain, 1961. Contra Haereses = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses (CSCO, 169; Script. Syri, 76), Louvain, 1957. De Ecclesia = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Ecclesia (CSCO, 198; Script. Syri, 84), Louvain, 1959. De Fide = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide (CSCO, 154; Script. Syri, 73), Louvain, 1955. De Nativitate = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate (Epiphania) (CSCO, 186; Script. Syri, 82), Louvain, 1960. De Paradiso = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Paradiso und Contra Julianum (CSCO, 174; Script. Syri, 78), Louvain, 1957. De Virginitate = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate (CSCO, 223; Script. Syri, 94), Louvain, 1962. Sermones III = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones, III (CSCO, 320; Script. Syri, 138), Louvain, 1972. Sermones de Fide = E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones de Fide (CSCO, 212; Script. Syri, 88), Louvain, 1961. Ephrem, ed. Lamy = T.J. Lamy (ed.), Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, vol. III, Malines, 1889. Ephrem, ed. Leloir = L. Leloir (éd./trad.), S. Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, texte syriaque (manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), (Chester Beatty Monographs, 8), Dublin, 1963 [Supplement: Leuven, 1990].

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 321

29/11/16 06:05

322

s. brock

Ephrem, ed. Assemanus et al. = J.S. Assemanus – P. Benedictus [Mobarak] – S.E. Assemanus (ed.), Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia, I-VI, Rome, 1732-1746. Géhin, Restitution = P. Géhin, Restitution et datation d’un recueil syriaque melkite, Ambr. A.296 inf., ff. 222-224, et Sinaï syr. 10, in Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, ns 42 (2005 [publ. 2006]), p. 51-68. Hatch, Album = W.H.P. Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, Boston, MA, 1946 (repr. Piscataway, NJ, 2002). Isaac of Antioch, ed. Bedjan = P. Bedjan (ed.), Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antio­ cheni, Paris – Leipzig, 1903. Jacob of Serugh, ed. Bedjan  = P. Bedjan (ed.), Homiliae selectae Mar Jacobi Sarugensis, I-VI, Paris – Leipzig, 1902-1910 (reprint, with supplementary volume, Piscataway, NJ, 2006). Murray, Symbols = R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge, 1975 (repr. Piscataway, NJ, 2004). Reinink, Pseudo-Ephrems ‘Rede über das Ende’ = G. Reinink, Pseudo-Ephrems ‘Rede über das Ende’ und die syrische eschatologische Literatur des siebenten Jahrhunderts, in Aram, 5:1-2 (1993), p. 437-463. Reinink, Pseudo-Methodius = G. Reinink, Pseudo-Methodius and the PseudoEphremian ‘Sermo de fine mundi’, in R.A. Nip et al. (eds.), Media Latinitas (Instrumenta Patristica, 28), Turnhout, 1995, p. 317-321. Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel, ed. Henze = M. Henze (ed.), The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 11), Tübingen, 2001.

University of Oxford Faculty of Oriental Studies – Oriental Institute Pusey Lane Oxford, OX1 2LE, United Kingdom [email protected]

Sebastian Brock

Abstract — The manuscript Sinai Syr. 10, of the 8th/9th century, contains a very miscellaneous collection of texts among which are several which concern works under Ephrem’s name. Besides the important list of Ephrem’s madrashe and their qale, published by A. de Halleux, there are three further items of interest: (1) a collection of select madrashe; (2) four soghyatha; and (3) a memra ‘on the End’. The select madrashe prove to be excerpts from De Virginitate, De Ecclesia (including some otherwise lost stanzas), and De Nativitate; for these, collations with Beck’s editions (CSCO) are provided. Items (2) and (3), all specifically attributed to Ephrem and none of them attested elsewhere, are here published and translated for the first time. The question of their authenticity is also discussed.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_03_Brock.indd 322

29/11/16 06:05

THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN In Search of Intercultural Transmission in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Syriac Introduction Near the turn of the eighth century, Armenian nobles rebelled against Arab rule and turned to Byzantium to secure their independence. Muḥammad b. Marwān, the brother of the caliph ῾Abd al-Malik, responded and defeated the Greek forces in order to reclaim Armenia as a caliphal province. He told the Armenian nobles that he wanted to increase their stipends and under this pretext he gathered them in the churches of the province Vaspurakan in southern Armenia. He then ordered his forces to burn the churches down, immolating the Armenians as punishment for their rebellion. This event, “the year of the fire” as Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ calls it, reverberated through the Near East and today we have accounts of the fires in Arabic, Armenian, Syriac, and Greek, dating as early as the eighth century. These accounts exhibit substantial differences, though: the reigning caliph is either ῾Abd al-Malik or al-Walīd; the date is 696, 703, 704, or 705; the churches are in Xram or Khilāṭ/Xlat‘ and/or al-Nashawā/Naxčawan (modern: Naxçıvan); the victims are the Armenian nobles or maybe just their troops; and the names of the instigators and captives change, although Muḥammad b. Marwān remains as a constant thread. This article joins the search for intercultural transmission between the various literatures of the Near East by untangling the discrepancies between the different accounts about the fires in Naxčawan. The goal is not to determine which account best describes “what really happened,” though there are some details that we might forward as possibilities; instead, this article places each version into its proper context and questions what we mean by reliability in texts about the Umayyad period. It first introduces the three main sets of traditions: Armenian sources, nonArmenian Christian sources, and Muslim Arabic sources. Subsequently, it identifies the main discrepancies between the various versions, such as the date, caliph, place, victims, and captives. Finally, it presents the context of two different renditions in order to speculate on the use and value of this particular event in the Arabic and Armenian historiographical traditions and thereby to explain some of the more notable discrepancies.

Le Muséon 129 (3-4), 323-362. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180783 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 323

29/11/16 06:05

324

A. vacca

1. A Brief Note on Scholarly Context With the publication of M. Cook and P. Crone’s Hagarism: the Making of the Islamic World in 1977, historians of Islam met the zenith of the skeptic movement that was born from transferring the methods of Biblical criticism into the context of Near Eastern history1. In the decades since, scholars are still responding to the charges of the skeptics by examining deficiencies of the Arabic sources, struggling to justify their continued use. Hagarism is a wonderfully provocative book; it is the great “what if…?” of early Islamic historiography2. In rejecting the traditional Arabic accounts for early Islamic history, Cook and Crone venture into fraught territory. First, this approach assumes that Arabic traditions are wholly other, independent of the historical sources in other Near Eastern languages. Second, it rejects one set of flawed sources for another several sets of flawed sources, putting the onus on the modern historian to reveal and mediate the problems inherent in a number of diverse Christian and Jewish texts. None of our sources, whether Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, are inherently impartial or flawless. Since the publication of Hagarism, numerous scholars have explored the relationship between Muslim and Christian historical writing, foremost among whom we find L. Conrad and R. Hoyland. Hoyland published his Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam in 2007 and Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam in 20113. Hoyland logically advocates for a “promiscuity of approach” in writing Islamic history due to the shared experience and similar circumstances of the disparate groups in the Near East. He supported this with the argument that “no one tradition was insulated from the influence of others”4. At the same time, he is quick to clarify that ties between different literary traditions cannot always be explained by direct textual transmission: “I am not denying that there was influence and borrowing, but rather doubting that enough groundwork has been done as yet to allow determination of its nature”5. Hoyland continues to contribute significantly to this discussion, and his subsequent 1   Cook – Crone, Hagarism. On the relationship between the skeptic movement and Biblical criticism, see Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu; Donner, Narratives, p. 3563. 2   Humphreys, Islamic History, p. 81. 3   See also Hoyland, Historiography. 4   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 32. 5   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 34, n. 8.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 324

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

325

work on Theophilus of Edessa suggests that “a lot more historical material was circulating between the Muslim and Christian communities than is usually assumed”6. There have been several other recent studies that have honed in on the question of intercultural transmission, notably those of A. Borrut, M. Conterno, and L. Conrad7. In particular, though, this study is inspired by L. Conrad’s insightful case-study on the Arab conquest of Arwād8. In studying closely the texts concerning the Arab conquest of this small Mediterranean island off the coast of Syria, Conrad is able to demonstrate that the accounts in Arabic must be read with a broader eye to their placement in the works of history. He successfully demonstrates the confusion between Arwād, Cyprus, and Crete in Arabic texts. However, Conrad’s conclusion, namely that it is impossible to obtain much information about the Arab conquests based on the futūḥ genre in Arabic, is hopefully one that future scholarship will continue to challenge. While Conrad’s case about Arwād is convincing, the only way we can verify his conclusion is to repeat comparable case studies to see if these corroborate his findings. This article attempts just that, while also adding an extra layer: historical texts composed in Armenian. Some historians of Armenia share Conrad’s conclusion about the reliability of Arabic sources on the seventh century. In their historical commentary to the translation of Sebēos, R. Thomson, J. Howard-Johnston, and T. Greenwood note that …the latter-day historian should not expect more than a highly distorted view of both the general and the particular in Arab accounts of the conquests… The historian determined to try to grasp something of what happened to change the late antique world out of all recognition in the seventh century cannot start from the Islamic sources any more than from the Syrian and Byzantine. A start has to be made elsewhere, in the fourth of the Near East’s historical traditions, that of Armenia9.

Presumably the authors here intend to offer Sebēos as an alternative to the troublesome futūḥ narratives. The problem, of course, is that we cannot assume that the Armenian sources are independent from the Arabic, Greek, or Syriac, let alone that they are a single undifferentiated group or that they tend to be more correct.

  Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 29.   Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir; Borrut, La circulation; Conterno, La ‘Descrizione dei tempi’; Conrad, The mawālī; Conrad, Theophanes; Conrad, Arabic Chronicle. 8   Conrad, The Conquest of Arwād. 9   Thomson et al., Sebeos, vol. 2, p. 237. 6 7

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 325

29/11/16 06:05

326

A. vacca

T. Greenwood engaged with exactly this question when he published his extensive “Reassessment of the History of Łewond” (2012)10, an updated study of the source that preserves one of the most significant accounts of the fires in Naxčawan. One of his main arguments is that we cannot read Armenian sources as independent from broader trends in Near Eastern historiography: Although its Armenian character and language gives the text an exotic flavour for modern scholars, and hence an impression of otherness, an opposite contention shall be advanced, that Łewond’s History was influenced by both Armenian and non-Armenian historical traditions and that far from being conceived and written in historiographical isolation, it should be seen as an expression of cross-cultural engagement and acculturation in early medieval Armenia11.

Given these significant advances in Islamic and Near Eastern historiography, this article offers Muḥammad b. Marwān’s fires as a case study, like Conrad’s exposition of the Arab conquest of Arwād, to examine the independence, coherence, and reliability of Near Eastern sources. 2. The Corpus There are three main sets of traditions about the fires in Naxčawan: the Armenian sources, the non-Armenian Christian sources, and the Muslim Arabic sources. 2.1.  The Set of Armenian Sources The longest and most specific accounts of the fires at Naxčawan and Xram are in Armenian. Specifically, the oldest known account of the event, should we trust the traditional late eighth-century date, is Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn, or History, which has confusingly attained the modern title Aršawank‘ Arabac‘ i Hays, or Arab Incursions into Armenia12. A priest, Łewond wrote his history of the Caliphate from 632 to 788 in Armenian at the behest of a Bagratid sponsor. In his Patmabanut‘iwn, Łewond describes how the Armenians and Byzantines joined forces against the Arabs and faced an army with Muḥammad b. Marwān at its head. The Arabs defeated the Greeks, killing many as   Greenwood, Reassessment.   Greenwood, Reassessment, p. 102. 12   On the date of Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn, see Akinean, Łewond erēc‘ patmagir; Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm; Mahé, Le problème; Greenwood, Reassessment. The title used here, Patmabanut‘iwn, is pulled from the oldest extant manuscript of the text (Matenadaran 1902). 10 11

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 326

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

327

they ran away from the battle. Muḥammad then returned to Dabīl/Dwin, the caliphal capital of Armenia, where he received an order from the caliph al-Walīd himself. Since the Armenians had led the Greek forces, the caliph demanded that Muḥammad eliminate the Armenian nobility (henceforth: naxarark‘) in punishment. Mahmet received the wicked order and commanded a certain Kasm, who was his commander in the region of the city of Naxčawan, to call to him the Armenian naxarark‘ with their cavalry under the pretext of recording [their names] in the royal record, collecting their salary, and returning. They, in their typical credulity, reckoned the deception of the stealthy hunters to be trustworthy and arrived there immediately. When they gathered there, they [the Arabs] ordered to divide them into two groups, one of which they gathered in the church of Naxčawan. They sent [the other] half to the village of Xram and threw them into its church, fixing guards over [them]. They pondered how to kill them. All of them together agreed to remove those of noble birth (azatatohmn) from the prison and to burn those who were imprisoned in the sanctuary; and they set fire to the roof of the divine altar. When they who were trapped in such bitter danger saw that they were deprived of human help from all sides, they took refuge in the God of all. They implored Him alone, saying: “You, who are Refuge for the tormented, Aid for those in danger, and Comforter for the weary! Come to the aid of us [who are] tormented and in this danger that they set upon us. Save us from the bitter death that they have inflicted upon us. For, behold, the heat of the flame has grown insupportably strong over us and, enveloping us, is burning seven times more than the heat of the fire of Babylon. Just as You sent aid, the protective power of the angel, to the three children, so too do not neglect us in Your compassion, for we are also Your servants. Even though we sinned many times and angered Your sweet benevolence, nevertheless even in Your anger may You remember to show mercy to Your servants. For behold Your sanctuary and the place where Your name is glorified is a grave for us. On account of which we, thanking Your holy and formidable name, commend our spirits, our breath, and our bodies into Your hands.” Having said this, all of them together raised hymns on high and departed from this world. But they threw the noble naxarark‘ in chains into prison and tormented them with insupportable tortures13.

Łewond completes his story with a short list of naxarark‘ who were tortured and killed after having offered all of their possessions to the Arabs: Smbat the son of Ašot Bagratuni, Grigor and Koriwn Arcruni, and Varašapuh Amatuni and his brother. Łewond states, though, that there were so many naxarark‘ killed in this way that he could not enumerate 13   Łewond, ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca, in preparation. For published versions, see Łewond, trans. Chahnazarian, p. 31-33; Łewond, trans. Ter-Łewondyan, p. 38-39; Łewond, trans. Arzoumanian, p. 64-65. In Armenian, see Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian, p. 55-57; Łewond, ed. Ezean, p. 33-34; Łewond, ed. Ter-Vardanean, p. 754-756.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 327

29/11/16 06:05

328

A. vacca

them all. Due to the unending complaints about the excessive behavior of Muḥammad b. Marwān in Armenia, Łewond claims, al-Walīd finally recalled the general to Damascus and sent in his place “Abdlaziz,” or ῾Abd al-῾Azīz b. Ḥātim al-Bāhilī. Shorter accounts of the fires appear in the works of T‘ovma Arcruni, Dasxuranc‘i, Drasxanakertc‘i, Asołik, and Vardan Arewelc‘i. It is quite clear that these versions do not all link back to a common source, as two of the tenth-century versions are considerably different from Łewond’s account as seen above. This is hardly surprising, as scholars have noted the lack of transmission of Łewond’s text in Armenian histories before the eleventh century14. T‘ovma Arcruni wrote his Patmut‘iwn tann Arcruneac‘, or History of the Arcruni House, in the tenth century to celebrate the role of the Arcruni family in Armenian history. He includes a brief note on the fires of Naxčawan: Vlid, son of Abdlmelik‘, [ruled] for ten years. He planned even more evil. By a deceitful trick he trapped the princes (naxarark‘) of Armenia and burned them all in the city of Nakhchavan and in the town of Khram which is below the monastery of Astapat on the bank of the Araxes15.

T‘ovma may very well have relied on Łewond for this account, as he includes details shared with Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn in his description of the Umayyad and ῾Abbasid-era North16. However, his description of the fires reveals his interest in the province of Vaspurakan, which was Arcruni territory when he wrote his history. Accordingly, he focuses on physically placing the event and not the victims, who were scions of Arcruni rivals, the Bagratids. Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, sometimes known as John the Historian, similarly wrote Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn, or The History of Armenia, in the tenth century. Immediately preceding the account of the fires, he identifies the goals of the Arabs, namely to “burn, tear down and destroy the Armenian churches, take captive all of the population and mercilessly put them to the sword”17. His version of events, though, is different from Łewond’s in several key aspects. At this time, after the eighty-fifth year of their era [-anno Hegirae], ῾Abd al-Malik became the Ishmaelite caliph. Soon thereafter his troops that were 14   This was the rationale for Gero’s hypothesis that Łewond’s text was much later, see Mahé, Le problème, p. 122-124. 15   T‘ovma Arcruni, trans. Thomson, p. 170-171; T‘ovma Arcruni, ed. Vardanyan, p. 166. 16   T‘ovma Arcruni, trans. Thomson, p. 37. 17   Drasxanakertc‘i, trans. Maksoudian, p. 108; for the Armenian, see Drasxanakertc‘i, ed. T‘usunyan, p. 100.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 328

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

329

in Armenia burned a fire in our midst, since the satan had blown its wrath into them. Subsequently, by deceit, fraud, vain hopes and heartening promises they gathered in one place everyone, both the azats and the cavalry forces, and registered their names in the archives, as if to give them their annual wages. Then, depriving them of their arms, they imprisoned them in the temple of God in the city of Naxǰawan, and shutting on them the gates with bricks, enclosed all the exits. But when they [the Armenians] learned of the treachery, they chanted aloud the words of the children in the furnace. Then the wicked prosecutors tore down the roof of the church, filled it with fire, and through incendiary material raised the flames higher than those of Babylon. Thus, the ceiling of the wooden church burned, and hot bricks mixed with smoke and fire fell from above, and killed all of them. Their ceaseless thanksgiving did not stop until they had exhausted their last breath. The avenging foreigners, however, being secure from the fear of the brave troops, took captive the surviving families of those who had been burnt, and brought them to the city of Dvin, from whence they were sent to Damascus18.

Drasxanakertc‘i then places the death of ῾Abd al-Malik and the ascension of al-Walīd after this account, making the destruction of the church at Naxčawan ῾Abd al-Malik’s only deed in Armenia. Significantly, he offers a date of 85AH, or 704CE. The hijrī dating suggests that Drasxanakertc‘i was familiar with Arabic traditions about the fires, but, as we will see shortly, none of the extant Arabic accounts corroborate 85AH. The only other source to identify 85AH as the year of the fires is the martyrology of Vahan Gołt‘nec‘i. R. Hoyland points out that Drasxanakertc‘i serves as one of the earliest references to the martyr19, but it is clear that Drasxanakertc‘i here also serves as one of the earliest references to the martyrology, as well. His account of the fires matches the one in Vahan’s martyrology, a text that cannot be easily dated. Asołik refers to a martyrology extant in his time, the eleventh century20, but it is not clear if the martyrology was the source for Drasxanakertc‘i’s account of the fires or vice versa. The text of the martyrology itself claims that a monk wrote it around the year 744CE, seven years after the death of Vahan in 737CE, after hearing the story from someone named Theophilus, whom the Arabs called Abu Step‘an, in Greek when he traveled to the martyrium21. If the martyrology is indeed from the early eighth century, it served as the basis of Drasxanakertc‘i’s account of the fires and, as we will see later, possibly even the confusion of Łewond’s chronology.   Drasxanakertc‘i, trans. Maksoudian, 108-9; Drasxanakertc‘i, ed. T‘usunyan, 100.   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 375. 20   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 374, n. 120. 21   Gatteyrias, Élégie, p. 212-213. 18

19

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 329

29/11/16 06:05

330

A. vacca

Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, also known as Movsēs Kałankatwac‘i, wrote his Patmut‘iwn Ałwanic‘ ašxarhi, or History of the land of the Albanians, in the tenth century, though the irregular organization of this text makes it likely that it is composite and compiled several layers of historical narratives22. Like Drasxanakertc‘i, Dasxuranc‘i provided a version of the fires that differs substantially from Łewond’s account. He had Muḥammad b. Marwān appear in Armenia in 146 of the Armenian era, or 697-8CE, on his way to Darband; he does mention the significance of 85AH, but only as a date for the ecclesiastical Council of Bardh῾a/Partaw. The Armenians rebelled and called on Byzantine reinforcements when Muḥammad was in Darband. Passing thence into Armenia, he defeated the Greek and Armenian armies. All the Armenian leaders whom he was unable to capture he seduced by means of a mighty oath, gathering them together by fraud and treachery. Taking them to the town of Naxijewan, he shut 800 men in the churches and burned them alive; in the same way he burned 400 in Xram and put the rest to the sword. The cause of their downfall was that they were all inspired by the spirit of error, despised and mocked the patriarchs and priests, and harassed the monks23.

Muḥammad b. Marwān’s punishment, Dasxuranc‘i continues, was that when he returned to die in Syria, the ground refused to accept his body and so spit him back out three times. They finally succeeded in burying him by tying his corpse to a dead dog. Although Dasxuranc‘i had earlier mentioned that the Armenians were written into the dīwān during the caliphate of ῾Abd al-Malik, he did not link this to the fires and, in fact, explains that it was instead a way to clarify to the caliph which of the naxarark‘ were monophysite24. Next we find Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i, known as Asołik, “the storyteller,” who wrote his Patmut‘iwn Tiezerakan, or Universal History, in the eleventh century. This work is the first to show significant borrowing from Łewond’s text, though he collapsed the latter’s extensive explanation of the martyrs into just a few short lines. Nach Abdlmēlikhs Tod herrschte über die Araber [tačiks] sein Sohn Wlith 10 Jahre. (Schon) im ersten Jahre seiner Herrschaft gedachte dieser, das Adelsheer [azatagund] der Armenier vom Erdboden zu vertilgen und gab dem Feldherrn Mahmet den Befehl, dies zu bewerkstelligen. Und dieser (hinwiederum) gab einem gewissen Kasm, der Befehlshaber im Gebiet der   Zuckerman, The Khazars.   Dasxuranc‘i, trans. Dowsett, p. 208; Dasxuranc‘i, ed. Aṙak‘elyan, p. 318. 24   Dasxuranc‘i, ed. Aṙak‘elyan, p. 305. 22 23

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 330

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

331

Stadt Naḫčavan war, den Auftrag, die Satrapen [naxarark‘] der Armenier mit ihrer Reiterei zu sich zu berufen (unter dem Vorwande) eine Parade abhalten und ihnen Sold aus dem königlichen Schatze auszahlen zu wollen. Und diese versammelten sich in ihrer Arglosigkeit auch sofort dort. Und es wurde der Befehl gegeben, sie in zwei Gruppen zu teilen, die einen in der Kirche von Naḫčavan und die andere Gruppe in der Kirche von Ḫram (einzuschliefsen [sic]). Sie legten aber Feuer an die Kirchen an und verbrannten sie auf diese Weise alle, im Jahre 153 der Ära. Und die vornehmsten Satrapen verurteilten sie dazu an Bäume gehangen zu werden. Unter diesen waren begriffen Smbat, der Sohn Ašots Bagratuni, sowie Grigor und Koriun aus dem Hause Arcruni. Ihre Frauen und Kinder aber wurden in die Gefangenschaft geführt. Wardan aber, den Sohn Ḫosrows, den Fürsten von Gołthn, (noch) ein kleines Kind, den führten sie weg, zogen ihn auf und unterwiesen ihn in ihrem gottlosen Gesetze25.

It is clear that Asołik worked with a copy of Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn: he places the fires under the caliph al-Walīd, provides the same motive, offers the same Kasm as the Arab commander in Naxčawan, and had the Arabs torture the naxarark‘ before hanging them. There are a few notable changes, though. First, he provides a specific year: 153 of the Armenian era, which is 704-5CE, before or immediately after the ascension of alWalīd. Second, he omits the martyrdom narrative as found in Łewond. Third, Asołik is the first Armenian source to specify the significance of the captives taken in the aftermath of the fire, i.e. that the martyrology of Vahan Gołt‘nec‘i traces the start of his story to this event. Finally, Vardan Arewelc‘i’s thirteenth-century Hawak‘umn patmut‘ean, or Compilation of History, relies heavily on Asołik’s account of the fires26. We may therefore trace a common thread of an Armenian tradition from Łewond to Asołik and thence to Vardan. The tenth-century sources, though, demonstrate the richness of the Armenian historiographical tradition in that some of them may be independent of Łewond and clearly incorporated other traditions. Determining if “Armenian” sources offer reliable accounts of the seventh century, then, is not a reasonable task, since these do not always evince common ground from one to the next. 2.2.  The Set of Non-Armenian Christian Sources The fires also appear in a set of non-Armenian Christian texts in Greek, Arabic, and Syriac that have attracted considerable attention recently. Although there are a few significant differences between the accounts in 25   Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i, trans. Gelzer – Burckhardt, p. 91; Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i, ed. Malxasyanc‘, p. 124-125. 26   Vardan Arewelc‘i, ed./trans. Muyldermans, p. 51 (Armenian), and p. 97-98 (French).

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 331

29/11/16 06:05

332

A. vacca

this set, it is the most cohesive set of the corpus of accounts of the fires. Further, these offer the only incontrovertible argument for intercultural transmission of the accounts of the fires of Naxčawan. This is due to a common source, frequently identified as Theophilus of Edessa, a Maronite Christian and astrologer in the court of the caliph al-Mahdī (r. 158AH/ 775CE – 169AH/785CE). R. Hoyland reconstructed the history of Theophilus of Edessa by organizing common traditions in the eighth-century Syriac history of Dionysius of Tellmaḥre, a source that has not survived except as excerpts in Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle and the Chronicle to 1234; the ninth-century Greek chronicle of Theophanes; and the tenthcentury Arabic history of Agapius of Manbij27. Theophilus was long recognized as the “eastern source” or the “Syriac common source” of this set of texts28. Recently M. Conterno argued that this common source was instead written and circulated in Greek, though with clear elements of Arabic influence, whether via textual or oral transmission29. Our goal here is not to ascertain the exact relationship between each of these texts, but to evaluate which, if any, demonstrate common ground with the other two sets of Armenian and Muslim Arabic traditions. Theophanes, d. 818CE, was a Byzantine iconophile who wrote his Chronographia in Greek30. Although his chronology is famously suspect31, he places the fires in 703CE, during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Tiberius III Apsimar, who ruled from 698 to 705CE: The Armenian chieftains rebelled against the Saracens and killed the Saracens who were in Armenia. Once more they made contact with Apsimarus and brought the Romans into their country. Muhammad (ibn Marwan), however, made an expedition against them and killed many people. He subjugated Armenia to the Arabs and as for the Armenian chieftains he gathered them in one place and burned them alive32.

This same account appears in an Arabic history a century later. Agapius was a Melkite bishop of Manbij, who wrote his Kitāb al-῾unwān, or The Book of the Title, the full title of which is actually a dedication to Abū Mūsā ῾Isā b. Ḥusayn, in Arabic in the 940s. From what we can tell, his text tends to remain more faithful to the history traditionally ascribed   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 631-671; Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa.   Conrad, Theophanes, p. 5-6; Conrad, The Conquest of Arwād, p. 322-348; Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 4-29. 29   Conterno, La ‘Descrizione dei Tempi’. See also Debié, Oriental Source, p. 378-379. 30   On the possibility of Theophanes’ familiarity with the Arabic historical tradition, see Conrad, Theophanes. 31   Ostrogorsky, Die Chronologie. 32   Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 195. 27 28

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 332

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

333

to Theophilus than Theophanes Chronographia33, and he also had access to Muslim Arabic sources34. His version of the fires is as follows: The people of Armenia shut themselves in their fortresses; Muhammad b. Marwan marched out to them and defeated them and killed a group of Romans there. Then he assembled the patricians of Armenia, confined them in a great church and set fire to it, thus burning them, and he allowed their women to be taken as spoil35.

Theophilus tradition also appeared in the now-lost history of the Miaphysite Dionysius of Tellmaḥre (d. 845CE), which we know today only through the later Syriac texts of Michael the Syrian (d. 1199CE) and the anonymous Chronicle to 1234. Michael the Syrian was the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch from 1166 to 1199CE, and wrote his Chronicle in Syriac, though it was translated into Armenian as the Žamanakagrut‘iwn in 124836. The Syriac version reads: Muhammad ibn Marwan gathered the Armenian leaders in one place and had them enter a church, which he then set on fire, burning them all to death37.

The translator of the slightly later Armenian version was familiar with the versions outside of this set of non-Armenian Christian sources, though, since he added the city name. This is not at all surprising, since Vardan Arewelc‘i, whose account we saw above, was responsible for the text’s translation from Syriac to Armenian. Placing the event in 75AH/6967CE, the Armenian version of Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle, the Žamanakagrut‘iwn, adds a new twist. This Mahmēt gathered the Armenian princes (ark‘ayazunk‘) in Naxǰawan with a trick and tried to convert (them) to his religion. And when they did not believe this, he put (them) in a big church and burned them with fire38.

Despite the translator’s familiarity with the Armenian tradition, the use of ark‘ayazunk‘ here, where all of the other Armenian versions use naxarark‘ or azatk‘, suggests that he is working mainly from the Syriac. The addition of the Arab attempt to convert the Armenians to Islam, though, is unique to the Armenian Žamanakagrut‘iwn.   Howard-Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis, p. 230-231.   Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 14. 35   Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 195; the Arabic is not available in the printed editions of Agapius and appears only in Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 323 / f. 106r. 36   Brock, Syriac Sources, p. 22. 37   Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 196; Michael the Syrian, ed. Chabot, vol. IV, p. 448-449. 38   Michael the Syrian, Žamanakagrut‘iwn, p. 329. 33 34

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 333

29/11/16 06:05

334

A. vacca

The Chronicle to 1234, despite the author’s apparent knowledge of Armenian39, records the event as per the so-called Theophilus with little indication of familiarity with the set of Armenian sources as seen above. The Armenian leaders organized a revolt against the Arabs. Muhammad ibn Marwan went up and crushed the Romans who had come to Armenia and he also killed many Armenians. Then Armenia reverted to Arab control40.

Finally, Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), also known as Gregory Abū l-Faraj, wrote his Makhtĕbhânûth Zabhnê, or Descriptions of the Times, in Syriac in the thirteenth century. He places Muḥammad b. Marwān’s arrival in Armenia under ῾Abd al-Malik, after the ascension of Apsimaros in 1010AG/699CE. After trying to convert Christian Arabs (not Armenians) to Islam, then “he also collected the chiefs of the Armenians and shut them up in one of the churches of Armenia, and then he set the church on fire and burnt them all”41. Bar Hebraeus omits this passage in his Arabic abridgement, Ta᾿rīkh mukhtaṣar al-duwal42. While the reliance on a “common source” clearly demonstrates intercultural transmission among these Christian texts in Greek, Arabic, and Syriac, it is not until the thirteenth-century Armenian translation of Michael the Syrian’s Žamanakagrut‘iwn that we find evidence of dialogue between this set of sources and the Armenian tradition. Further, while we know that some of these historians had access to the Islamic sources in Arabic, there is no evidence that they made use of them for the accounts of the fires. 2.3.  The Set of Muslim Arabic Sources The transmission of the accounts in Arabic is particularly interesting, in part because the fires do not appear in texts later than the ninth century43. Although Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ (d. 240AH/854-5CE), al-Balādhurī (d. 297AH/ 892CE), and al-Ya῾qūbī (d. 284AH/897-8CE) all report the event, al-Ṭabarī 39   Conrad, Syriac Perspectives, p. 13; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, p. 148149. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 13 claims that the Chronicle of 1234 remains more faithful to Theophilus than Michael the Syrian. 40   Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 196. For the Syriac, see Chronicon ad 1234, ed. Chabot, I, p. 297 (p. 339 in margin). 41   Bar Hebraeus, trans. Budge, p. 104; Bar Hebraeus, ed. Bedjan, p. 112. 42   Bar Hebraeus, ed. Salihani, p. 193-194: his coverage of ῾Abd al-Malik’s Caliphate involves the fitna of Ibn al-Zubayr and Ibn Hajjāj, not Muḥammad b. Marwān. 43   The only other reference I have found postdates the parameters of this study, as it is from the fifteenth century. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm, vol. I, p. 207: “In it (the year 84AH), Muḥammad b. Marwān raided Armenia, vanquished them, and burned their churches. And this was called the year of the fire.” Given the date of 84AH and the phrase “the year of the fire” here, presumably Ibn Taghrī Birdī’s source is Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 334

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

335

does not, which might possibly explain its exclusion from texts such as those by Ibn al-Athīr or Yāqūt. Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s description of the fires in his Ta᾿rīkh is the earliest extant Arabic rendition. He places the fires in 84AH/703-4CE: Abū Khālid b. Sa῾īd informed me on the authority of Abū Barā᾿. He said: The Romans marched against Muḥammad b. Marwān in Armenia and God defeated them. It was the year of the fire, and this was because Muḥammad b. Marwān, after the defeat of the people, sent Ziyād b. Jarrāḥ the mawlā of ῾Uthmān b.  ῾Affān and Hubayra b. al-A῾raj al-Ḥaḍramī. He burned them in their churches, their places of worship, and their villages. The fire was in al-Nashawā and al-Basfurrajān. And Abū Barā᾿ said: in that raid, the mother of Yazīd b. Usayd was captured from al-Sīsajān. She was the daughter of its patrician44.

The details of Khalīfa’s report place him apart from the other Arabic versions. For example, al-Balādhurī uses the name al-Basfurrajān several times in his Futūḥ al-buldān, but not in reference to the fires. Al-Balādhurī’s rendition does not include specific dates, but places the original rebellion during the fitna of Ibn al-Zubayr: When it was the fitna of Ibn al-Zubayr, Armenia broke away and its nobles and their followers rebelled. And when Muḥammad b. Marwān was governor of Armenia on behalf of his brother ῾Abd al-Malik, he fought them. He defeated, killed, and imprisoned them and subdued the land. Then he promised those of them who remained that he would allocate for them their rank (al-sharaf)45. Then they gathered for that in churches from the region of Khilāṭ. Then he locked them in and put guards at their doors, then he frightened them. And in that raid, the mother of Yazīd b. Usayd was captured from al-Sīsajān. She was the daughter of its patrician46.

Al-Balādhurī’s ‫خوفهم‬, “he frightened them,” should read ‫حرقهم‬, “he burned them,” as corroborated in Khalīfa’s version47. The second khabar about the mother of Yazīd b. Usayd appears with identical wording in Khalīfa and al-Balādhurī’s accounts even though the latter omits the sanad, indicating that both historians have access to the same broad tradition about the fires, even if it is worked into their accounts in very different ways. The final version in Arabic is in al-Ya῾qūbī’s Ta᾿rīkh, which follows the other two Arabic versions with the basic information: the Armenians rebelled, Muḥammad b. Marwān offered them a higher rank, and then the Arabs burned the churches down. Despite the fact that al-Ya῾qūbī lived in Armenia, there is similarly little to suggest reference to the Armenian   Khalīfa, ed. Fawwāz – Kishlī, p. 183.   Laurent – Canard, L’Arménie, p. 416: “an yafriḍa lahum fî l-šaraf, c’est-à-dire šaraf al-῾aṭâ᾿, ῾aṭâ᾿ signifiant cadeau, présent et solde, paye des soldats.” 46   Al-Balādhurī, ed. de Goeje, p. 205. 47   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 374. 44 45

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 335

29/11/16 06:05

336

A. vacca

traditions about the fires. He described how ῾Abd al-Malik appointed his brothers over several of the main provinces of the Caliphate: And he appointed his brother Muḥammad over al-Mawṣil. He sent the Azd and the Rabī῾a there from Baṣra. And he raided Armenia. The people [of the land] had rebelled. He killed and took prisoners, then he wrote to the nobles (al-ashrāf) from the people of the land, to those who are called freemen (aḥrār). He gave them protection (amān) and promised that he would allocate for them their rank (al-sharaf). Then they gathered for that in the churches in the region of Khilāṭ and he ordered to gather wood around the churches. He locked their doors against them and then lit those churches on fire. He burned them all. And Muḥammad b. Marwān remained in Armenia until he died48.

Just as there are verbatim passages in both Khalīfa’s Ta᾿rīkh and al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-buldān, here there are exact parallels between al-Balādhurī’s text and al-Ya῾qūbī’s Ta᾿rīkh: al-Balādhurī’s “then he promised those of them who remained that he would allocate for them their rank (al-sharaf). Then they gathered for that in churches from the region of Khilāṭ” appears nearly verbatim. Thus the “unreliable” futūḥ genre, at least as it is represented by al-Balādhurī, cannot be separated from other early Arabic historical genres. Still, al-Balādhurī’s and al-Ya῾qūbī’s versions are substantially different: al-Balādhurī’s version supplied the fitna as a casus belli and mentions Yazīd b. Usayd, while al-Ya῾qūbī was interested in the region’s ties to Mesopotamia and the Arabization of Armenia. He also defines the term aḥrār, suggests that the Armenians had been granted amān, and ends his account with the death of Muḥammad b. Marwān. These three traditions are the only references to the fires in Arabic, though several other sources mention an Armenian rebellion, sometimes with the support of Byzantine troops, at the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century49. We are left with the impression that the traditions circulating about the fires in Arabic were extremely short, along the lines of a single sentence, and that even though Khalīfa, al-Balādhurī, and al-Ya῾qūbī may have heard the same akhbār, these were dissected and repurposed to serve different goals in each text. Each of these sets of sources, the Armenian sources, the non-Armenian Christian sources, and the Muslim Arabic sources, is distinct, despite the fact there are clear points of disagreement even within each set. The nonArmenian Christian set offers the only clear example of intercultural transmission, as the version frequently ascribed to Theophilus of Edessa appears in Theophanes’ Greek, Agapius’ Arabic, and the later Syriac 48 49

  Al-Ya῾qūbī, ed. Houtsma, vol. II, p. 324-325.   Ter-Łewondyan, 703-t‘vakani apstambut‘yunə, p. 40.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 336

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

337

chronicles of Michael the Syrian, Bar Hebraeus, and the anonymous Chronicle to 1234. The goal of this article, though, is to evaluate the specific details in each account to ascertain whether, and in what form, there was intercultural transmission between the three sets outlined above. 3. The Discrepancies At first glance, these three sets of texts seem independent of one another, at least until the Armenian translation of Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle in the thirteenth century. They certainly evince a number of details that are not consistent from one to the next. The main differences between the versions above are the date and reigning caliph, the location of the fire, the victims, and the captives. 3.1.  The Date and Caliph We encounter a number of difficulties in the attempt to untangle these traditions, the first of which is that the sources do not agree on the date or the reigning caliph. Further, there are at least four sets of traditions that are combined differently in these sources. These include: Muḥammad b. Marwān’s campaign against the Byzantines and/or the Armenians, the Armenian recognition of Arab control of the North, the burning of the churches, and the taking of captives. While these appear as distinct events in some of the sources, even separated by years, they are collapsed in other sources, appearing as a single moment. Łewond’s version of the fires offers the most problematic chronology. Łewond places the fires in the first year of the reign of al-Walīd, r. 86AH/ 705CE - 96AH/715CE. This seems to be based largely on the chronology internal to the Patmabanut‘iwn: Muḥammad b. Marwān first arrived in Armenia in his brother’s sixteenth regnal year, meaning c. 700CE, then he stayed there for two years before leaving. In ῾Abd al-Malik’s eighteenth year, or c. 702CE, Muḥammad returned but remained tranquil for three years. At this point, logically, Łewond arrived at 705CE and so placed the death of ῾Abd al-Malik and the ascension of al-Walīd. The insertion of al-Walīd’s ascension creates a tension in the text, as Łewond claimed that the caliph “again” tried to kill the naxarark‘. This would have made more sense if the caliph here were ῾Abd al-Malik, given that al-Walīd was only in his first year as caliph: how was he doing this “again”? Łewond’s text had already exposed ῾Abd al-Malik’s antagonism for the Armenian nobility. Further, this chronology makes al-Walīd the caliph who appointed the next governor of Armenia, ῾Abd al-῾Azīz b. Ḥātim al-Bāhilī. According to

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 337

29/11/16 06:05

338

A. vacca

Łewond, ῾Abd al-῾Azīz then invited the émigrés back to Armenia after an absence of six years from the time of the fires. If al-Walīd did indeed appoint ῾Abd al-῾Azīz and ῾Abd al-῾Azīz did invite the Armenians back from P‘oyt‘ six years after the fires, those émigrés returned, at the earliest, in 711CE, though A. Ter-Łewondyan marks 709CE as the end of ῾Abd al-῾Azīz’s position as governor, based on the nomination of Maslama b. ῾Abd al-Malik as provincial governor in 91AH/709-10CE50. If the fires took place instead during the reign of ῾Abd al-Malik, then it was possible for the émigrés to return six years later under ῾Abd al-῾Azīz. In his Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge, J. Markwart suggests that we reconsider Łewond’s troublesome chronology by replacing ῾Abd al-Malik’s sixteenth regnal year with his thirteenth, placing the arrival of Muḥammad b. Marwān in Armenia c. 697CE, instead of 700CE51. The passage that Markwart proposed as problematic (the sixteenth year of ῾Abd al-Malik’s reign) also appears in the martyrology of Vahan Gołt‘nec‘i. Should there be a relationship between the Patmabanut‘iwn and the martyrology, though, the insecure dating of the latter text makes it impossible to verify if it was dependent on Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn or vice versa. Although we have no convincing reason to alter the text, this change would pull the fires back into the reign of ῾Abd al-Malik and, additionally, would put Łewond’s text in line with Dasxuranc‘i’s, which offers the date 146 of the Armenian era, or 697-8CE. Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i corrects Łewond’s chronology, putting the death of ῾Abd al-Malik immediately after the fires. As we saw above, Drasxanakertc‘i starts his account as follows: “after the eightyfifth year of their era, ῾Abd al-Malik became the Ishmaelite caliph.” Here Drasxanakertc‘i’s chronology is unique not just as it pertains to the fires, but to ῾Abd al-Malik’s regnal dates, as well. The start of ῾Abd al-Malik’s reign, usually designated as 65AH, is hard to pin down due to the second fitna, but he died in 86AH. Drasxanakertc‘i’s chronology therefore works better if al-Walīd were responsible for the fires, as Łewond claimed, since unlike his father he did become caliph “after the eighty-fifth year of their era.” It seems, then, that Drasxanakertc‘i is attempting to correct a corrupted chronology by placing the event in ῾Abd al-Malik’s reign even though his source attributed it to al-Walīd. Theophanes, presumably working with Theophilus’ history, places the fire in the fifth year of Apsimaros, the twentieth year of ῾Abd al-Malik, 50   Ter-Łewondyan, Arminiayi ostikanneri, p. 119. M. Canard circumvented this with the suggestion that ῾Abd al-῾Azīz may have remained in Armenia after the arrival of Maslama; see Laurent – Canard, L’Arménie, p. 417-418, n. 10. 51   Marquart, Streifzüge, p. 444.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 338

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

339

and the tenth year of the bishop Kallinikos of Constantinople. This corresponds to 6195AM, or 703-4CE. That said, some of the traditions related to the fires as found in the other versions also appear in the Chronographia under different years: Muḥammad b. Marwān defeated the troops of Justinian II in 6184AM/692-3CE, then the Armenians under Smbat capitulated the following year, in 6185AM/693-4CE. Muḥammad returned to Armenia in 6187AM/695-6CE to take prisoners, then the fires, as we saw above, occurred in 6195AM/703-4CE. The Armenian set and the non-Armenian Christian set thus agree that the fires occurred in Muḥammad b. Marwān’s second campaign in Armenia: he fought Byzantine and Armenian troops at the end of the seventh century, then ordered the fires of Naxčawan in the beginning of the eighth century, either in the last year or ῾Abd al-Malik’s reign or the first year of al-Walīd’s. The Arabic sources show no common ground beyond agreeing that the fires occurred during the reign of ῾Abd al-Malik. Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s text agrees with the set of non-Armenian Christian sources and places the fires in 84AH/703-4CE. However, unlike Theophanes, he continues that the prisoners were taken immediately after the fires in the same year. Al-Balādhurī pushes the fires, or at least the Armenian rebellion, earlier: the Armenians rebelled during the fitna of Ibn al-Zubayr, who died in 73AH/692CE. In other words, al-Balādhurī’s version places the fires in Muḥammad b. Marwān’s campaign against the Byzantines (6184AM/6923CE). This first campaign, at least, is corroborated in other Arabic sources, as al-Ṭabarī, Ibn al-Athīr, and Ibn A῾tham mentioned the Arab expedition against the Byzantines in Armenia in 73AH/692CE52, though they did not refer to fires or churches. It seems possible that al-Balādhurī shifted the fires back roughly a decade by conflating Muḥammad’s two campaigns against Armenia, either by mistake or to present the fitna as an explanation for the rebellion and the subsequent fires. 3.2.  The Location The Armenian tradition is consistent in placing the fires in Naxčawan and Xram, both towns in the southern Armenian province Vaspurakan. The only Armenian accounts that sit apart from the others are Drasxanakertc‘i’s Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn, which names only Naxčawan, and T‘ovma Arcruni’s Patmut‘iwn tann Arcruneac‘, which locates the town of Xram for his audience. The set of non-Armenian Christian sources, with the exception of the Armenian translation of Michael the Syrian’s Žamanakagrut‘iwn, does not 52   Al-Ṭabarī, ed. de Goeje, vol. II, p. 853; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. IV, p. 135; Ibn A῾tham, Kitāb al-futūḥ, vol. II, p. 351-352.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 339

29/11/16 06:05

340

A. vacca

place the fires specifically, except that they were in Armenia. Two of the works, Theophanes’ Chronographia and the Chronicle to 1234, even omit that the fires were set in churches. The Arabic sources, though, offer a more specific glance at the varied nature of Arabic historical sources. Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ places the fires in “al-Nashawā and al-Basfurrajān.” The use of Vaspurakan here is interesting. First, it does not appear in the other Arabic renditions, even though the name Vaspurakan appears elsewhere in al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-buldān. Second, it suggests, albeit weakly, that Khalīfa’s sources knew enough about Armenian geography to avoid the stumble that we see in the other Arabic versions. Al-Balādhurī and al-Ya῾qūbī place the fires “around Khilāṭ” (Xlat‘), a city that presumably would have been much more recognizable than Xram, but that is not actually located in Vaspurakan. 3.3.  The Arab Leaders The Armenian sources list a certain Kasm, clearly the Armenian version of the Arabic Qāsim, as the local leader responsible for following Muḥammad b. Marwān’s orders. This name does not appear in any of the Arabic versions of the fires53. There had been a governor of Armenia with the name Qāsim before the fires, Qāsim b. Rabī῾a b. Umayya b. Abī l-Salt al-Thaqafī, whom al-Balādhurī and al-Ya῾qūbī place in Armenia under the caliph ῾Uthmān (r. 23AH/644CE – 35AH/656CE)54, but no other Qāsim appears in the Arabic sources about Armenia in the late-seventh or early-eighth century. The other sources are silent on this matter, with the sole exception of Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, who noted the presence there of a mawlā of the caliph ῾Uthmān named Ziyād b. al-Jarrāḥ and a certain Hubayra b. al-A῾raj al-Ḥaḍramī. The former appears in Tahdhib al-tahdhib, where Ibn Hajar admits that he was uncertain whether this Ziyād was the same person as Ziyād b. Abī Maryam. Although he specifies that “Ziyād b. al-Jarrāḥ was a man from the people of the Hijāz, one of the mawlās of ῾Uthmān, while Ziyād b. Abī Maryam was a man from Kūfa who settled in Ḥarrān,” he also ends his account with a claim that the two Ziyāds were one in the same, and he concludes with the literary equivalent of a shrug: “and God knows best.” Still, Ibn Hajar notes that Ziyād b. al-Jarrāḥ transmitted on the authority of ῾Abd Allāh b. Ma῾qil and ῾Amr b. Maymūn, while Ja῾far 53   Ter-Łewondyan, Arminiayi ostikanner, p. 119, n. 5, notes: “It is not clear whether he was a ostikan or some other high-level official.” Ter-Łewondyan here cites only Łewond. 54   Laurent – Canard, L’Arménie, p. 409, n. 3.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 340

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

341

b. Barqān and ῾Abd al-Karīm al-Jazarī narrated on his authority55, which is consistent with the date of his death around the year 100AH/718-9CE56. Although this fits our timeline, his presence in Armenia is not corroborated elsewhere. 3.4.  The Armenian Leaders Some of the accounts of the fires, notably those dependent on Łewond, explain that the naxarark‘ were pulled from the churches, tortured, and then hung. This adds an extra layer to the deprivation that the nobles suffered under Muḥammad b. Marwān, as their deaths were stretched out over a longer time and followed the surrender of all of their wealth and goods. According to Łewond, then, only the troops of the naxarark‘ were killed in the churches. The Greek, Syriac, Arabic, and even many of the later Armenian renditions differ on this matter, as they claim that the Armenian nobles perished in the fires. Specifically, though, we can see the separation of the three main sets based on the words they use to refer to the Armenian nobles. Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn is unusual in that it refers to the victims as naxarark‘. Drasxanakertc‘i and Vardan specified that the lesser nobility, the “freemen” (azatk‘), and their cavalry burned. Dasxuranc‘i uses “all of the Armenian leaders” (amenayn glxawork‘ Hayoc‘). Asołik explains that the nobles (naxarark‘) were hung, following Łewond, but he uses a different word (azatagund) for the nobles who rebelled. This is not from Łewond, but appears in Theophanes’ Chronographia, where the “Armenian princes” (hoi arxontes Armenias) rebelled against the Caliphate, while the “grandees of Armenia” (megistanas tōn Armeniōn) died in the fires. Agapius used the word “patricians” (baṭāriqa), while the Syriac versions used either “chiefs of the Armenians” (raorbāne d-Armīn) or “princes of Armenia” (rišanē d-Arminiā), which appears in the Armenian version of Michael the Syrian as “princes” (ark‘ayazunk‘). Khalīfa did not specify who died in the fires, saying merely “he burned them,” but both al-Balādhurī and al-Ya῾qūbī use “freemen” (aḥrār). The later also clarifies that by “freemen,” he means the “nobles” (ashrāf). Arabic sources frequently use the words “freemen” (aḥrār), “patricians” (baṭāriqa), and “sons of kings” (abnā᾿ al-mulūk) to refer to the nobles in Armenia without consistently differentiating in rank. Armenians used azatk‘ to refer to the lower nobility, while the naxarark‘ were the higher lords57.   Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. III, no. 701.   Mitter, Islamic Patronate, p. 88, n. 73. 57   Toumanoff, Āzād. 55 56

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 341

29/11/16 06:05

342

A. vacca

The Arabic sources, by contrast, used aḥrār, a term that is probably a direct translation of the Persian āzādān58 and therefore analogous to azatk‘. 3.5.  The Captives It is not until the very end, the postscript of most of the accounts, that we reach a glimmer of a tradition that might have crossed between the Armenian and the Muslim Arabic sets, even if there is no evidence for direct textual transmission. Several of the texts, both Christian and Muslim, note that the Arabs took captives and transported them to Damascus. This appears in the non-Armenian Christian set, as well; Theophanes mentions that Muḥammad b. Marwān took captives from Armenia, but he places this in 6187AM/695-6CE. Specifically, though, Drasxanakertc‘i notes that there were captives sent to Dabīl/Dwin after the fires and thence to Damascus. Asołik explains why the reader should care: Vahan Gołt‘nec‘i was taken to Damascus as one of these prisoners. Raised as a Muslim, Vahan returned to Armenia as an adult and served as the governor of his region59. He then decided to convert back to Armenian Christianity and was put to death for apostasy under Hishām in 186 of the Armenian era, or 737CE60. Two of the three Muslim Arabic sources also mention a specific captive taken after the fires: the patrician of al-Sīsajān/Siwnik‘’s daughter, whose son was Yazīd b. Usayd b. Ẓāfir al-Sulamī. Yazīd, like Vahan, returned to Armenia and served as governor, starting in 134AH/751-2CE. Yazīd gained fame for his campaigns against the Khazars and for his marriage to the daughter of a Khazar khāqān. Stories about him seem fluid, though. The accounts of his marriage and the death of his wife, as found in the works of Łewond, al-Balādhurī, and Ibn A῾tham, also reappear in al-Ṭabarī and al-Azdī’s histories, but in the later the groom appears as al-Faḍl b. Yahyā l-Barmakī. Here Yazīd’s life parallels Vahan Gołt‘nec‘i, an example of how the captive-turned-governor should have behaved. The common plot of Vahan Gołt‘nec‘i and Yazīd b. Usayd cannot prove intercultural transmission, but it does in fact reveal a disconnect between the concerns of the historians preserving this tradition. Some of the Armenian sources portray the fires as religious persecution, and they produced the background story for the life of a governor when he returned 58   Ibn al-Faqīh, ed. de Goeje, p. 317; al-Suhaylī, al-Rawḍ, vol. I, p. 189; see also Yāqūt, Muj῾am al-buldān, vol. I, p. 161. Amabe, The Emergence, p. 113, suggested that aḥrār is an Arabic calque of the Armenian naxarar, but it is a translation of āzādān and therefore roughly equivalent to azatk‘. 59   Gatteyrias, Élégie, p. 190. 60   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 375.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 342

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

343

to the North to claim his ancestral religious identity. Meanwhile, the Arabic sources portray the fires as political retribution, and they produced the background story for the life of a governor of Armenia when he returned to the North to claim his ancestral right to rule (as the grandson of the patrician of al-Sīsajān/Siwnik‘). The traditions about Yazīd, both his marriage and his connection to the fires at Naxčawan, may very well have been manipulated based on the concerns of traditionalists in the ninth and tenth centuries. If the khabar that links Yazīd to the fires of Naxčawan was modeled on the life of Vahan, this suggests that Arabs were familiar enough with the martyr to forward their own captive-turned-governor. Given these discrepancies between the different versions of the fires, there is no clear evidence for intercultural transmission, beyond the wellknown resilience of Theophilus’ traditions in the non-Armenian Christian set. We can certainly forward the conclusion that there exists considerable variety even within the sets of sources seen above. 4. The Discrepancies in Context This case study cannot adequately resolve questions about the reliability of these traditions, whether Arabic, Armenian, Greek, or Syriac. In fact, the question of reliability is in itself disingenuous. Presumably, every source is reliable in some way or another, as reliability is tied inextricably to the questions asked of the text. If our question to the text is “what really happened?” then one of these must indeed be more reliable than the others, though we frequently lack the ability or methodology to divine which one to trust. Understanding the purpose of the passage in the broader schema of these histories and explaining why so many historians found this particular event worth remembering may be admittedly speculative endeavors, but they help figure out which questions modern scholars should be asking of these texts to clarify the discrepancies. 4.1.  Łewond: Multiple Loyalties during Marwānid Occupation One of the most interesting and unique aspects of the Armenian accounts of the fires is the persistence of martyrdom narratives. In particular, Łewond especially, but also Dasxuranc‘i and Drasxanakertc‘i, couch their descriptions in terms to vaunt the spiritual triumph of the Christian martyrs. That said, T‘ovma, Asołik and, subsequently, Vardan do not refer to the victims of the fires as martyrs. Asołik’s reliance on Łewond is clear, but he excises the religiously-charged drama. If we turn to the other Christian renditions, this is even more striking. Theophanes, for example, does not even mention a church. The fires could have been anywhere. Recent

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 343

29/11/16 06:05

344

A. vacca

studies have suggested that as a whole the Armenian Church fared remarkably well in the early Islamic period61, a fact that is easily forgotten in Łewond’s drama of martyrdom. How, then, can we understand the martyrdom narrative in Łewond’s text? The context of the account about the fires is extremely significant, as Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn includes two episodes immediately beforehand that work in tandem to place the event in Arab-Armenian relations at the turn of the eighth century. There are three important events in Muḥammad b. Marwān’s tenure as governor of Armenia that should be seen as a single narrative. Together they demonstrate that Łewond’s primary concern was to denigrate Arab presence in Armenia by lamenting the fate of the Armenian clergy and churches, while still balancing the interests of his pro-Arab sponsors, the Bagratids. Łewond was clear to specify: (1) that Muḥammad b. Marwān was acting against the interests of the Armenian nobility; (2) that the nobility, and specifically the Bagratids, recognized Muḥammad’s treachery from the start; and (3) that the Armenian nobility, and specifically the Bagratids, were nobler than the Arabs. First, in the sixteenth year of his reign, ῾Abd al-Malik sent his brother, “the bloodthirsty and devil-possessed” Muḥammad b. Marwān, to Armenia during the reign of Ap‘semeros (Tiberius III). Muḥammad wreaked havoc in the land, making false promises to make people trust him before killing them. Finally, after two years of wanton destruction and devastation, the Arabs became familiar with the Church and piety of the Christians. “They were wounded by envy in their souls, so they deceitfully contrived their fatal ruin”62. They proceeded to kill their own servant and to hide his body as a pretext to torture the clergy of the church at Zwart‘noc‘. On Muḥammad’s direct order, the Arabs cut off the hands and feet of the Armenians, then hung them in punishment for the crimes that the Arabs themselves had committed. With this, Łewond leads into several pages of lamentation, as he weeps for the state of the Church and the unjust fate of its clergy. Significantly, Łewond sees in this a demonstration of Muḥammad’s plans for the naxarark‘. “He fabricated a vile plot to remove the noble houses along with their cavalry from this land of Armenia. His treachery was immediately apparent to Smbat, who was from the Bagratid house, and to the other naxarark‘ and their cavalry”63. Łewond is here setting the scene for the 61   On the development of the Armenian Church under the Arabs, see Garsoïan, Interregnum; Jinbashian, Church-State Relations. 62   Łewond, ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca; Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian, p. 41. 63   Łewond, ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca; Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian, p. 44.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 344

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

345

fires at Naxčawan by letting the readers (and his Bagratid sponsor) know that Muḥammad planned to eliminate the Armenian nobles and that the Bagratids saw through his deception. He even provides the method of execution: hanging. He concludes that Muḥammad subsequently left Armenia, while “[t]he inhabitants of this land remained like a firebrand smoldering in the fire”64. The second event that precedes the fires in Łewond’s narrative is a clash between Armenians and Arabs in Vaspurakan. The Armenians were victorious, leaving 280 Arabs who fled to take sanctuary in a church. Łewond recounts: When they [the Armenians] were not able to prevail, they thought to set fire to the sanctuary; however, Smbat, the prince of the region of Vaspurakan and the son of the prince Ašot, did not permit them and would not allow [them] to commit such wickedness, for he said: “Far be it from us to lay hands on the dwelling place of the glory of God, who has granted us such a triumph.” They assigned guards to watch over them until the shrine itself should dislodge them65.

After negotiating with a traitor, the Armenians killed all of the Arabs without burning the church. As a result, ῾Abd al-Malik sent Muḥammad b. Marwān back to Armenia. Here we can make a direct comparison between two sets of church-bound captives who met their deaths in Vaspurakan. The Armenians were able to achieve their goals without burning the church, but, interestingly, that had been their exact plan: it was the intervention of a nobleman, a Bagratid, that saved the church. The third event, the fires of Naxčawan and Xram as discussed above, is explicitly linked to the first event: al-Walīd “again ordered Mahmet to complete that same malicious plan,” namely: to eliminate the naxarark‘66. Al-Walīd “thought to rid this land of Armenia of naxarar houses with their cavalry because of the resentment that they [the Arabs] harbored for the curopalates Smbat, for he [al-Walīd] said that ‘they will always be a hindrance and an obstacle to our rule’”67. The fires at Naxčawan and Xram thus exhibit the culmination of Muḥammad’s and, by extension, the caliph’s goal: “In killing all of them, they rendered this land heirless of naxarark‘. At that time this land of Armenia was empty of its naxarar houses and they were delivered like sheep in the midst of wolves”68.

  Łewond,   Łewond, 66   Łewond, 67   Łewond, 68   Łewond, 64 65

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 345

ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca; ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca; ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca; ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca; ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca;

Łewond, Łewond, Łewond, Łewond, Łewond,

ed. Chahnazarian, p. 44. ed. Chahnazarian, p. 48. ed. Chahnazarian, p. 55. ed. Chahnazarian, p. 54. ed. Chahnazarian, p. 58.

29/11/16 06:05

346

A. vacca

The three events, placed one after another along with the battle at Warthān/Vardanakert, work to expose a problem of loyalty in Łewond’s description of the Arab occupation. He clearly abhorred Marwānid control of Armenia, but he wrote his Patmabanut‘iwn at the behest of a Bagratid and the Bagratids generally followed a pro-Arab policy in the ῾Abbasid period69. In these sections, we see Łewond’s arguments against supporting Arab rule: his laments for the state of the Armenian Church under Muslim governors, but more importantly, his explanation to his Bagratid sponsor of why pro-Arab policy was harmful to the interests of the naxarark‘ and, further, how his sponsor’s ancestors had been capable of recognizing the deceit and danger of Arab ambitions in the North. Łewond prioritizes his point, namely about Muḥammad b. Marwān’s brutality and the dangers of pro-Arab policy, over chronology. This is very much in line with the other main anachronism of the eighth century as described in the Patmabanut‘iwn, Maslama b. ῾Abd al-Malik’s campaign against Constantinople. Łewond’s account places the ill-fated Umayyad siege of Constantinople as late as the 730s70. Łewond contorts his chronology so that Maslama, despite his successes in the North, would die immediately after his more catastrophic defeat. By the end, he admitted his own errors to the Byzantine emperor and concluded “I could not fight against God”71. T. Greenwood addresses the corrupted chronology in Łewond’s descriptions of Maslama’s campaigns by explaining that “[a]n error of this magnitude is hard to interpret unless one understands it as somehow intentional on the part of Łewond himself. It has the effect of postponing the humiliation of Maslama to the end of his career, much as the final notice describing the actions of Muḥammad b. Marwān also contemplates his failure on campaign”72. The inconsistencies in dating both the account of Muḥammad b. Marwān’s fire at Naxčawan and Maslama’s defeat at Constantinople are part of the same narrative agenda to compare Maslama and his uncle Muḥammad, leaving the reader with the sense that they both died defeated and, at least in Maslama’s case, full of regrets. This further explains the remarkable disconnect between Łewond’s version of Muḥammad’s final defeat, a disastrous campaign against China, and the Arabic accounts of Umayyad campaigns in the East at this time. The only way to make sense of Łewond’s account of Muḥammad’s final   On Bagratid pro-Arab policy, see Greenwood, Reassessment, p. 113-115.   Book of K‘art‘li, trans. Thomson, p. 259 also places Maslama’s campaign later, after Ašot became curopalates in 813. 71   Łewond, ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca; Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian, p. 143. 72   Greenwood, Reassessment, p. 131. 69

70

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 346

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

347

campaign based on the Arabic sources requires changing China to Transoxania, Muḥammad b. Marwān to Qutayba b. Muslim, and the Bawtis to the Oxus. Muḥammad b. Marwān’s last deeds in the Patmabanut‘iwn are a ruinous attempt to take a rival empire, and Maslama’s Byzantium becomes Muḥammad’s China. Given the comparison between Maslama b. ῾Abd al-Malik and Muḥam­ mad b. Marwān, compounded by the discrepancies in the accounts of both leaders’ campaigns, the unique chronology found in Łewond’s text is suspect. It is determined by internal concerns specific to the author. Of course, this does not suggest that Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn is wholly unreliable. Instead, it informs the modern scholar about the types of questions Łewond’s text is likely to answer. In particular, a surface reading of the Patmabanut‘iwn will add to the perception that the Arabs persecuted the Armenian Church and Christian Armenians. While we have several accounts of martyrs from the period of Arab control of Armenia, we actually face a number of obstacles in identifying any endemic persecution of the Armenian Church. The seventh century was a formative period of both Armenian identity and the Armenian Church. Instead of taking his account at face value and prioritizing the prayers of the martyrs, we should be looking to Łewond to deliberate on the question of multiple loyalties and complex religious and political identities in the early Islamic world and, specifically, the autonomy of individual naxarar families that is at odds with the modern perception of a single unified Armenian society. 4.2.  Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ: the Arab Expeditions against the Khazars If the evaluation of Łewond’s account of the fires hinges on its placement in relation to other events and his political agenda, this demonstrates the clear role of the historian in crafting the narrative. It is difficult to mimic this approach with Arabic sources given the nature of early Islamic historiography. Each of the reports (akhbār) are discrete and at times even ahistorical. We still need to examine the context of each source, but comparing a khabar to the one immediately before or after is less likely to garner results. We turn here to Khalīfa’s account of the fires, since it is the one that evinces the most promise to demonstrate intercultural transmission: he gives a date that matches the one offered in the set of non-Armenian Christian sources and, further, he avoids the slip from Xram to Khilāṭ/ Xlat‘ as found in the other Arabic sources. For this particular project, our task is not to decide about the role of Khalīfa as compiler, but to analyze his traditions in an attempt to ascertain if there is any link between his sources and the Armenian, Greek, or Syriac sources. As such, we are not

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 347

29/11/16 06:05

348

A. vacca

as concerned here with what Khalīfa is trying to do with his sources so much as whence he is getting the information. Khalīfa offers his sources for the account of the fires: Abū Khālid b. Sa῾īd, whom Wurtzel identifies as Abū Khālid Yūsuf b. Khālid al-Samtī, d. 190AH/805-6CE. Wurtzel notes that “[m]uch of Abū Khālid’s information is unique to Khalīfa” and covers historical events in the Caucasus and North Africa73. Khalīfa also lists Abū Khālid’s sources, usually Abū Barā᾿ al-Numayrī or Abū l-Khaṭṭāb. The line of transmission for the account of the fire is thus Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, on the authority of Abū Khālid, on the authority of Abū Barā᾿. Almost every single one of Abū Barā᾿’s traditions in Khalīfa’s Ta᾿rīkh concerns the Arab-Khazar wars between 84AH/704-5CE and 117AH/7356CE. The sole exception predates the Umayyad period and ties the Khazars to the Arab conquest: Salmān [b. Rabī῾a] raided al-Baylaqān and they made peace with him. Then he went to Bardh῾a and they made peace with him and he seized it. He sent its lord to Jurzān and they made peace with him. Salmān advanced to Ḥayzān and they made peace with him, then he went to Masqaṭ and its inhabitants made peace with him. And he reached Balanjar74.

Normally, the accounts of the Arab conquest of the North do not bring troops as far as Balanjar, so Abū Barā᾿ here reaches out of his normal field in order to locate the start of the Arab-Khazar wars in the reign of the caliph ῾Uthmān. All of Abū Barā᾿’s other traditions, as they appear in Khalīfa’s text, concern the first and second Arab-Khazar wars. Floating out of context, then, the story of the fires demonstrates Arab concern for the archetypal nemesis (Byzantium). In context of Abū Barā᾿’s information, though, the story becomes an expression of Arab concern for the other nemesis in the North (Khazaria). This may explain why the dīwān crops up: it is not just a ruse to lure Armenians into the churches, but a reminder to the readers that the Armenian cavalry formed a significant contingent in the ArabKhazar wars. The argument that the fires of Naxčawan are transmitted out of interest in the Arab-Khazar wars is further substantiated by Dasxuranc‘i’s version of the fires, which has Muḥammad b. Marwān arrive in Armenia from a campaign in Darband. This sets Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ apart from the other Arabic versions, namely al-Balādhurī, who, as we saw above, marks concerns internal to the Caliphate (the fitna of Ibn al-Zubayr) as a casus belli for the fires. In brief, the discrepancies between the different versions, in this case the dating, point to the different reasons each historian had in compiling the relevant reports: if Abū Barā᾿ (or Khalīfa) 73 74

  Wurtzel, The Umayyads, p. 48.   Khalīfa, ed. Fawwāz – Kishlī, p. 94.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 348

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

349

is concerned with the Khazars, al-Balādhurī is working to fit the North into a broader Islamic history and al-Ya῾qūbī is more focused on the society in Armenia where he lived. Since the other Arabic sources do not offer a specific date, where did Khalīfa hear that the fires occurred in 84AH/703-4CE? This date matches the information from the set of non-Armenian Christian sources, such as Theophanes who places the fires in 6195AM/703-4CE. If this were actually evidence of intercultural transmission, though, we should expect some other overlap in the traditions transmitted on the authority of both Abū Barā᾿ and Theophilus. In fact, except for the account of the fires, almost none of Abū Barā᾿’s akhbār appear in Theophanes’ Chronographia or the other sources transmitting Theophilus’ history. The only other common ground between Abū Barā᾿’s akhbār and the traditions from Theophilus is the account of al-Jarrāḥ b. ῾Abd Allāh al-Ḥakamī’s final campaign against “the son of the Khagan” in Azerbaijan in (according to Michael the Syrian) 1039AG/727-8CE and the subsequent retaliation by Maslama in 1042AG/ 730-1CE75. According to Abū Barā᾿’s akhbār, the Khazars reached as far as Warthān/Vardanakert under “the son of the khāqān” in 108AH/726-7CE, when they were defeated by al-Ḥārith (not al-Jarrāḥ), then as far as Ardabīl/ Artawēt and then later reached al-Mawṣil under “the son of the khāqān” in 112AH/730-1CE when they defeated al-Jarrāḥ. Theophilus’ tradition seems to refer to the later campaign, since it involves al-Jarrāḥ. Theophanes, Agapius, Michael the Syrian, and the Chronicle to 1234 all continue with Maslama b. ῾Abd al-Malik’s campaign against the Khazars at the Caspian Gates, which could refer to Abū Barā᾿’s account of Maslama’s attack of Darband before al-Jarrāḥ’s defeat, in 110AH/728-9CE, or more likely, his campaign in Sharwān and Laks in 113AH/731-2CE. Even though there is some overlap between Theophilus and Abū Barā᾿ here, it is hard to believe that this could be traced back to a single account due to a number of details, such as the name of the “son of the khāqān” (missing in Theophilus, but present in Abū Barā᾿’s account), the knowledge of specific toponyms, and the spin on the events. Specifically, the accounts tracing back to Theophilus do not note al-Jarrāḥ’s death, while the Arabic conveys this as a martyrdom. Further, the Theophilus set has Maslama run away from the Khazars, while Abū Barā᾿’s Maslama is always victorious. Thus despite the fact that Khalīfa, relying on Abū Barā᾿, offered information that corroborates the date of the fires of Naxčawan as found in the non-Armenian Christian set, this cannot possibly be attributed to intercultural transmission. At the same time, there are several points of   Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa, p. 228-229.

75

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 349

29/11/16 06:05

350

A. vacca

commonality between Abū Barā᾿’s traditions and the Patmabanut‘iwn of Łewond, such as the rebuilding of Dabīl/Dwin by ῾Abd al-῾Azīz al-Bāhilī or the episode about “the son of the khāqān” (Khalīfa named “the son of the khāqān” Mārdīk, which appears in other Arabic and Persian sources as Bārjīk or Bārsbīk; Łewond named his mother P‘arsbit‘)76. Even though we lack clear proof of textual borrowing, we must here recognize the immense significance of orality in historical transmission. Łewond reveals little about the sources of the Patmabanut‘iwn, though he at one point claims to have heard descriptions “from the enemy himself”77. Additionally, he or his source heard ῾Abd al-῾Aziz al-Bāhilī recount the story of the conquest and rebuilding of Dabīl/Dwin: “He is said to have related this about himself with his own mouth”78. Abū Barā᾿ also took information directly from people (specifically: Arabs) who were present in the North during the Arab-Khazar wars, as he lists his informants as Yazīd b. Usayd himself; “a Bāhilī tribesman” who was on campaign with Maslama; Sawāda, “a credible shaykh who was with al-Jarrāḥ at Balanjar”; and Mālik b. Adham, who fought the Khazars with al-Jarrāḥ. Al-Balādhurī, although he does not offer a sanad for his account of the fires, substantiates the significance of oral transmission among Arabs in Armenia and Albania by claiming to have heard about the provinces from local Arabs living in the North79. While we cannot prove textual transmission from one set of sources to the other, it seems likely that stories about the wars and the governors of the North, including the accounts of the fires at Naxčawan, were circulating orally among a diverse community including Arabs and Armenians. 5. Conclusions 5.1.  Coherence and Reliability The various accounts of the fires in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Syriac demonstrate a few basic principles of Near Eastern historiography. We should obviously be careful of discussing “Arabic sources” or “Armenian sources,” a habit seemingly born more from practicality 76   Khalīfa, ed. Fawwāz – Kishlī, p. 218; Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian, p. 131; Kurat, Kitāb al-futūḥ, p. 280-281. 77   Łewond, ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca; Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian, p. 183. Łewond refers here to the account about the battle of Bagrewand. This passage does not correspond exactly with any accounts in Arabic, but it is certainly worth noting that it shares several details in common with Ibn A῾tham, Kitāb al-futūḥ, vol. VIII, p. 366, which tells of a caliphal foray against the Ṣanāriyya/Canark‘ immediately following Bagrewand. 78   Łewond, trans. La Porta – Vacca; Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian, p. 60. 79   Al-Balādhurī, ed. de Goeje, p. 193.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 350

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

351

than any sustained expectation that there is agreement between any set of sources based on language. But still, there are broad groups that, while they demonstrate significant variety from one text to the other, were clearly produced in dialogue. The verbatim passages in al-Balādhurī and al-Ya῾qūbī, for example, and the resilience of the traditions attributed to Theophilus demonstrate that there are sets of texts that we should approach as various interpretations of a single body of traditions. That said, the variety within each set encapsulates why it is important not to speak of broad tendencies of reliability, but to assess narratives on a case-by-case basis. It is not clear that we can adequately weigh in on the question of reliability, given the number of accounts and the discrepancies between them. Some, like al-Balādhurī’s placement of the fires during the second fitna, stand apart from the others and seem to indicate the concerns of the compiler or historian. This is, as we saw, very much a possibility for the problematic chronology offered in Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn or T‘ovma’s omission of the identity of the victims, as well. We could dismiss the discrepancies as misinformation, but we should assess whether these discrepancies in fact reveal the tampering of the compiler or historian. If so, the misinformation is at least as significant as the “correct” account, because it provides clues to the goals of the historian. Why and how traditions changed provide more fertile ground for inquiry than “what really happened” when the churches burned down in Naxčawan. In that, reliability is a moot point, as we could hope that, mistakes aside, every text is a reliable indicator of what its author was trying to say. If we dismiss texts for their unreliable nature, we are in fact prioritizing the question “what really happened?” over “what does this source tell us?” This means that we must speculate on the goals of the author, a task that is not possible to complete with any sense of surety. 5.2.  Independence The heart of this article, though, was the search for intercultural transmission about the fires of Naxčawan. Although there is clear evidence of intercultural transmission in the Arabic, Greek, and Syriac of the account attributed to Theophilus, there is nothing to support the argument that the authors of the Armenian set or the Muslim Arabic set were familiar with or influenced the non-Armenian Christian set. Our best bet to continue on this path is the prospect that the Muslim Arabic and Armenian accounts all lead back to the same group of Arab informants on the ground in Armenia. Presumably, there was some discussion of events, as we saw recorded as sources in Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn and the sanad provided in Khalīfa’s Ta᾿rīkh.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 351

29/11/16 06:05

352

A. vacca

First, it is important to recognize that Armenian sources should certainly been seen as internal to the development of Islamic history80 and, specifically, that Armenian historians inhabited a setting that had much in common with that of other Christian historians writing in Arabic, Syriac, and Greek in the Islamic world81. The significance of T. Greenwood’s argument about “cross-cultural engagement and acculturation in medieval Armenia” cannot be overstated. That said, there is little to no evidence that Armenians were familiar with Arabic historiography or vice versa before the tenth century. Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn certainly does demonstrate familiarity with a biography of the caliphs, some sort of sīrat al-khulafā᾿, as Greenwood pointed out82, but these were circulating in several languages by the eighth century. Until we identify a specific example that exhibits close similarity to Łewond’s regnal lengths or characteristics of each caliph, it is not yet possible to determine if this information is coming from Arabic or, just as likely, Syriac83. This consideration of the fires at Naxčawan is the third case study to demonstrate that Łewond’s material is at odds with Arabic traditions about the Umayyads84. The issue of textual transmission is inextricable from the question of how pervasive knowledge of Arabic was in Armenia before the tenth century, a topic for which our sources offer little concrete data85. While there must have been bilingual Arabs and Armenians before the tenth century, there is little indication that Arabic was a literary language86, something that should be seen as a prerequisite for the textual transmission of historical accounts from one language to the next. Our earliest examples of 80   Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, p.  137-140  ; Debié, Oriental Source, p. 367368 on how this relates to the phrase “intercultural transmission.” 81   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 34. 82   Greenwood, Reassessment, p. 121-133. 83  The eighth-century examples of caliphal lists do not match Łewond’s; see, for example, the Liber Calipharum = Chronicon ad annum 724, in Cowper, Syriac Miscellanies, p. 75-92. I suspect that the Syriac is more likely because there are a few hints of common ground between Łewond’s text and Syriac sources, such as the use of the Armenian zuzē to render the Syriac zuz in passages about neck-sealing (a topic found more commonly in Syriac than Armenian histories) and a passage in Łewond’s text that seems based on Ps.-Methodius: compare Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian, p. 123-124 to Brock, Syriac Sources, p. 34; Palmer, Seventh Century, p. 233. 84   The other two are both in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, which examines traditions about Maslama b. ῾Abd al-Malik and ῾Umar b. ῾Abd al-῾Azīz. 85   Thomson, Arabic in Armenia, p. 614 wrote that “There is no specific reference to Armenians speaking Arabic in the early stages of the seventh to tenth centuries”; note, however, that Ibn Ḥawqal, ed. Kramers, p. 348-349, who is pulling a passage directly from al-Iṣṭakhrī, mentions traders and lords of Armenia speaking Arabic in the tenth century. 86   Outtier, Traductions de l’arabe, p. 59-60.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 352

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

353

translation are Nonnus of Nisibis’ Commentary on the Gospel of John, twice translated from Arabic to Armenian (presumably due to the fact that Armenians could not read Arabic)87, and the Arabic version of the Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn, or History of the Armenians, of Agat‘angełos, translated first from Armenian into Greek and only then into Arabic88. Both demonstrate that the circulation of texts between Armenians and Arabs was not yet an easy or direct process. There is a reason that studies of translations between Arabic and Armenian start in the tenth century89. This does not suggest that Armenian sources before the tenth century should be seen as isolated from the other Near Eastern historical traditions. The Melkite translation of Agat‘angełos and the Armenian version of the Greek correspondence between ῾Umar b. ῾Abd al-῾Azīz and Leo the Isaurian preserved in Łewond’s Patmabanut‘iwn are indicators of the continued ties between Greek and Armenian literature in the early period of Arab control. But the relationship between Armenian and Arabic literature before the tenth century, should any exist, seems to be rooted in oral transmission instead of textual. This might be related to genre (history, as opposed to theological or scientific texts) and, if so, this adds another dimension to the reasons and expectations of history as a genre in the Near East as a whole. Bibliography Agat‘angełos, trans. Thomson = R. Thomson (trans.), Agathangelos History of the Armenians. Armenian text and English translation of Patmowtʻiwn, Albany, NY, 1976. Akinean, Łewond erēc‘ patmagir = N. Akinean, Łewond erēc‘ patmagir: matenagrakan-patmakan usumnasirut‘iwn mə, in Handēs Amsōreay, 43 (1929), p. 330-348, 458-472, 593-619, and 705-718. Amabe, The Emergence = F. Amabe, The Emergence of the ῾Abbāsid Autocracy: the ῾Abbāsid Army, Khurāsān and Adharbayjān, Kyoto, 1995. al-Balādhurī, ed. de Goeje = M.J. de Goeje (ed.), al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ al-buldān, Leiden, 1866. Bar Hebraeus, ed. Bedjan  =  P. Bedjan (ed.), Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum, Paris, 1890. Bar Hebraeus, ed. Salihani = A. Salihani (ed.), Bar Hebraeus, Ta᾿rīkh mukhtaṣar al-duwal, Beirut, 1890. 87   On the Commentary of Nonnus of Nisibis, see Mariès, Un commentaire; van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibe; Thomson, Nonnus of Nisibis. 88   On the Arabic translations of Agat‘angełos, see Garitte, Documents; van Esbroeck, Un nouveau témoin; the introduction to Agat‘angełos, trans. Thomson; Ter-Łewondyan, Araberen hamaṙotumə; Ter-Łewondyan, Nor xmbagrut‘yunə; Ter-Łewondyan, Bnagirə. 89  Cf. Mkrtč‘yan, T‘argmanut‘yunnerǝ.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 353

29/11/16 06:05

354

A. vacca

Bar Hebraeus, trans. Budge  =  E.A.W. Budge (trans.), The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj the son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, London, 1932. Book of K‘art‘li, trans. Thomson = R. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History: the Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles, the Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation, Oxford, 1996, p. 255-308. Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir = A. Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir. L’espace syrien sous les derniers Omeyyades et les premiers Abbassides (v. 72-193 / 692-809), (Islamic History and Civilization, 81), Leiden, 2011. Borrut, La circulation = A. Borrut, La circulation de l’information historique entre les sources arabo-musulmanes et syriaques. Élie de Nisibe et ses sources, in M. Debié (éd.), L’historiographie syriaque (Études syriaques, 6), Paris, 2009, p. 137-159. Brock, Syriac Sources = S. Brock, Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History, in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2 (1976), p. 17-36. Chronicon ad 1234, ed. Chabot = J.B. Chabot (ed.), Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens. I. Praemissum est Chronicon anonymum ad A.D. 819 pertinens (CSCO, 109; Scriptores Syri, 56 [=Syr. III, 14]); II (CSCO, 82; Scriptores Syri, 37 [=Syr. III, 15]), Paris, 1916. Conrad, Arabic Chronicle  = L. Conrad, On the Arabic Chronicle of Bar Hebraeus: his aims and audience, in Parole de l’Orient, 19 (1994), p. 319378. Conrad, Syriac Perspectives = L. Conrad, Syriac Perspectives on Bilād al-Shām during the Abbasid Period, in M.A. al-Bakhit – R. Schick (eds.), Bilād al-Shām during the Abbasīd Period (132AH/750AD – 451AH/1059AD). Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the History of Bilād al-Shām, (…) March 1990. English and French Section, Amman, 1991, p. 1-44. Conrad, The Conquest of Arwād = L. Conrad, The Conquest of Arwād: a Source-Critical Study in the Historiography of the Early Medieval Near East, in A. Cameron – L. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam), Princeton, NJ, 1992, p. 317-401. Conrad, The mawālī = L. Conrad, The mawālī and Early Arabic Historiography, in M. Bernards – J. Nawas (eds.), Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam (Islamic History and Civilization, 61), Leiden, 2005, p. 370-425. Conrad, Theophanes = L. Conrad, Theophanes and the Arabic Historical Tradition: Some Indications of Intercultural Transmission, in Byzantinische Forschungen, 15 (1990), p. 1-44. Conterno, La ‘Descrizione dei tempi’ = M. Conterno, La ‘Descrizione dei tempi’ all’alba dell’espansione islamica. Un’indagine sulla storiografia greca, siriaca e araba fra VII e VIII secolo (Millennium-Studien, 47), Berlin, 2014. Cook – Crone, Hagarism = M. Cook – P. Crone, Hagarism: the Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge, 1977. Cowper, Syriac Miscellanies = B.H. Cowper, Syriac Miscellanies, or Extracts relating to the first and second general councils, and various other quotations, theological, historical, and classical, translated into English from

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 354

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

355

mss. in the British Museum and Imperial Library of Paris, with notes, London, 1861. CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Dasxuranc‘i, ed. Aṙak‘elyan = V. Aṙak‘elyan (ed.), Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn Ałwanic‘ ašxarhi, Yerevan, 1983. Dasxuranc‘i, trans. Dowsett = C.J.F. Dowsett (trans.), Dasxuranc‘i, The History of the Caucasian Albanians (London Oriental Series, 8), London, 1961. Debié, Oriental Source = M. Debié, Theophanes’ “Oriental Source”: What can we learn from Syriac Historiography?, in M. Jankowiak – F. Montinaro, Studies in Theophanes (Travaux et mémoires du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies, 19), Paris, 2015, p. 365-582. Drasxanakertc‘i, ed. T‘usunyan = G.B. T‘usunyan (ed.), Drasxanakertc‘i, Hayoc‘ patmut‘iwn (Usanołi Gradaran), Yerevan, 1996. Drasxanakertc‘i, trans. Maksoudian  =  K.H. Maksoudian (trans.), Yovhannès Drasxanakertc’i History of Armenia (Occasional Papers and Proceedings), Atlanta, GA, 1987. Donner, Narratives = F. Donner, Narratives of Early Islamic Origins. The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 14), Princeton, NJ, 1998. Garitte, Documents = G. Garitte, Documents pour l’étude du livre d’Agathange, (Studi e testi, 127), Città del Vaticano, 1946. Garsoïan, Interregnum = N. Garsoïan, Interregnum: Introduction to a Study on the Formation of Armenian Identity (ca 600-750), (CSCO, 640; Subsidia, 127), Louvain, 2012. Gatteyrias, Élégie = M.J. Gatteyrias, Élégie sur les malheurs de l’Arménie, et le martyre de Saint Vahan de Kogthen, épisode de l’occupation arabe en Arménie, in Journal Asiatique, Série 7, 16 (1880), p. 177-214. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm = S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources (CSCO, 346; Subsidia 41), Louvain, 1973. Greenwood, Reassessment = T. Greenwood, A Reassessment of the History of Łewond, in Le Muséon, 125 (2012), p. 99-167. Hoyland, Historiography = R. Hoyland, Arabic, Syriac and Greek Historiography in the First Abbasid Century. An Inquiry into Intercultural Traffic, in ARAM, 3 (1991), p. 211-233. Hoyland, Seeing Islam = R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It. A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 13), Princeton, NJ, 2007. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa = R. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (Translated Texts for Historians, 57), Liverpool, 2011. Howard-Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis = J. Howard-Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis. Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century, Oxford, 2010. Humphreys, Islamic History = R.S. Humphreys, Islamic History. A Framework for Inquiry (Studies in Middle Eastern History, 9), Minneapolis, MN, 1988. Ibn A῾tham, Kitāb al-futūḥ = Ibn A῾tham, Kitāb al-futūḥ, Beirut, 1991. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil = Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-ta᾿rīkh, Cairo, date unknown.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 355

29/11/16 06:05

356

A. vacca

Ibn al-Faqīh, ed. de Goeje  =  M.J. de Goeje (ed.), Ibn al-Faqīh, Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, Leiden, 1885. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib = Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib al-kamāl fī ma῾rifat al-rijāl, Beirut, 1968 [reprint]. Ibn Ḥawqal, ed. Kramers = J. Kramers (ed.), Ibn Ḥawqal, Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ, Leiden, 1939. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm = Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-Zāhira fī mulūk Miṣr wa-l-Qāhira, 16 vols., Cairo, 1963. Jinbashian, Church-State Relations = M.M. Jinbashian, Church-State Relations in Armenia during the Arab Domination. From the First Invasion to the Time of the Early ῾Abbāsids, Lisbon, 2000. Khalīfa, ed. Fawwāz – Kishlī = M. Fawwāz – Ḥ. Kishlī (ed.), Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Ta᾿rīkh, Beirut, 1995. Kurat, Kitāb al-futūḥ = A.N. Kurat, Abū Muḥammad Aḥmad b. A῾tham al-Kūfī’s Kitāb al-futūḥ and its importance concerning the Arab conquest in Central Asia and the Khazars, in Ankara Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografiya Fakültesi Dergesi, 8 (1949), p. 274-282. Laurent – Canard, L’Arménie = J. Laurent – M. Canard, L’Arménie entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusqu’en 886 (Armenian Library of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation), nouv. éd. rev. et mise à jour, Lisbonne, 1980. Łewond, ed. Chahnazarian  =  K. Chahnazarian (ed.), Łewond, Aršawank‘ Arabac‘ i Hays, Paris, 1857. Łewond, ed. Ezean  =  K. Ezean (ed.), Łewond, Patmut‘iwn Łewondeay meci vardapeti Hayoc‘, St. Petersburg, 1887. Łewond, ed. Ter-Vardanean = G. Ter-Vardanean (ed.), Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ VIII d., Antelias, 2007. Łewond, ed./trans. La Porta – Vacca  =  S. La Porta – A. Vacca (ed. and trans.), Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, or History. An Armenian History of the early Caliphate, 632-788, in preparation. Łewond, trans. Arzoumanian = Z. Arzoumanian (trans.), History of Ghevond, the Eminent Vardapet of the Armenians (VIII century), Burbank, CA, 1982. Łewond, trans. Chahnazarian = K. Chahnazarian (trad.), Histoire des guerres et des conquêtes des Arabes en Arménie par l’éminent Ghévond, vardabed arménien, écrivain du huitième siècle, Paris, 1856. Łewond, trans. Ter-Łewondyan = A. Ter-Łewondyan (trans.), Łewond, Patmut‘yun, Yerevan, 1982. Mahé, Le problème = J.-P. Mahé, Le problème de l’authenticité et de la valeur de la chronique de Łewond, in N. Garsoïan (dir.), L’Arménie et Byzance: histoire et culture (Publications de la Sorbonne. Série Byzantina Sorbonensia, 12), Paris, 1996, p. 119-126. Mariès, Un commentaire = L. Mariès, Un commentaire sur l’évangile de saint Jean en arabe (circa 840) par Nonnos (Nana) de Nisibis conservé dans une traduction arménienne (circa 856), in Revue des Études Arméniennes, 1 (1920-21), p. 273-296. Marquart, Streifzüge = J. Marquart [Markwart], Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge; ethnologische und historisch-topographische Studien zur Geschichte des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts (ca. 840-940), Leipzig, 1903.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 356

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

357

Michael the Syrian, ed. Chabot = J.B. Chabot (éd./trad.), Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d‘Antioche (1166-1199), éditée pour la première fois et traduite en français, Paris, 1899-1924. Michael the Syrian, Žamanakagrut‘iwn = Michael the Syrian, Žamanakagrut‘iwn, Jerusalem, 1871. Mitter, Islamic Patronate = U. Mitter, The Origin and Development of the Islamic Patronate, in M. Bernards – J. Nawas (eds.), Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam (Islamic History and Civilization, 61), Leiden, 2005, p. 70-133. Mkrtč‘yan, T‘argmanut‘yunnerǝ = Y.N. Mkrtč‘yan, Arabakan gełarvestakan arjaki nmušneri hay mičnadaryan t‘argmanut‘yunnerǝ [Medieval Armenian Translations of Arabic Prose], (Hay-Arabakan Matenagrakan Aṙnčut‘yunner), Yerevan, 1998. Ostrogorsky, Die Chronologie = G. Ostrogorsky, Die Chronologie des Theophanes im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert, in Byzantinische-neugriechische Jahr­ bücher, 7 (1928-1929), p. 1-56. Outtier, Traductions de l’arabe = B. Outtier, À propos des traductions de l’arabe en arménien et en géorgien, in Parole de l’Orient, 21 (1996), p. 5763. Palmer, Seventh Century = A. Palmer, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles (Translated Texts for Historians, 15), Liverpool, 1993. PBH = Patma-Banasirakan Handes. Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i, ed. Malxasyanc‘  =  S. Malxasyanc‘ (ed.), Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i, Patmut‘iwn tiezerakan, St. Petersburg, 1885. Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i, trans. Gelzer – Burckhardt  =  H. Gelzer – A. Burckhardt (Übers.), Des Stephanos von Taron Armenische Geschichte (Scriptores Sacri et Profani, 4; Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig, 1907. al-Suhaylī, al-Rawḍ = al-Suhaylī, al-Rawḍ al-unuf fī sharḥ al-sīrat al-nabawiyya l-Ibn Hishām, Beirut, 2000. al-Ṭabarī, ed. de Goeje = M.J. de Goeje (ed.), al-Ṭabarī, Ta᾿rīkh al-rusul wa-lmulūk, Leiden, 1881. Ter-Łewondyan, Araberen hamaṙotumə = A. Ter-Łewondyan Agat‘angełosi norahayt araberen hamaṙotumə [The Newly-Discovered Arabic Abridgment of Agat‘angełos], in Ējmiacin (1961), p. 27-32. Ter-Łewondyan, Arminiayi ostikanneri = A. Ter-Łewondyan Arminiayi ostikanneri žamanakagrut‘yunə [The Timeline of Ostikans of Armenia], in PBH (1977), n. 1, p. 117-128. Ter-Łewondyan, Bnagirə = A. Ter-Łewondyan Agat‘angełosi arabakan xmbagrut‘yan norahayt ambołǰakan bnagirə [The Entire Text of the NewlyDiscovered Arabic Recension of Agat‘angełos], in PBH (1973), n. 1, p. 209237. Ter-Łewondyan, Nor xmbagrut‘yunə = A. Ter-Łewondyan, Agat‘angełosi arabakan nor xmbagrut‘yunə [The New Arabic Recension of Agat‘angełos], Yerevan, 1968. Ter-Łewondyan, 703-t‘vakani apstambut‘yunə = A. Ter-Łewondyan, 703t‘vakani apstambut‘yunə Hayastanum xalifayut‘yan dem [The Rebellion against the Caliphate in Armenia in 703], in PBH (1982), n. 3, p. 33-45.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 357

29/11/16 06:05

358

A. vacca

T‘ovma Arcruni, trans. Thomson  =  R. Thomson (trans.), T‘ovma Arcruni, History of the House of the Artsrunik‘ (Byzantine Texts in Translation), Detroit, MI, 1985. T‘ovma Arcruni, ed. Vardanyan  =  V. Vardanyan (ed.), T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn tann Arcruneac‘ (Usanołi Gradaran), Yerevan, 1985. Thomson, Arabic in Armenia = R. Thomson, Arabic in Armenia before the Tenth Century, in A. Mardirossian, A. Ouzounian – C. Zuckerman (éd.), Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé (Travaux et mémoires du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies, 18), Paris, 2014, p. 691706. Thomson, Nonnus of Nisibis  = R. Thomson (trans.), Nonnus of Nisibis, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John. Translation of the Armenian text with introduction and commentary (Society of Biblical Literature. Writings from the Islamic World, 1), Atlanta, GA, 2014. Thomson et al., Sebeos  =  R. Thomson – J. Howard-Johnston – T. Greenwood, The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, vol. 2, Liverpool, 1999. Toumanoff, Āzād = C. Toumanoff, Āzād (Iranian nobility), in Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. III/2, London, 1989, p. 169-170; available online at http:// www.iranicaonline.org/articles/azad-older-azat (accessed online at 25 July 2016). van Esbroeck, Un nouveau témoin = M. van Esbroeck, Un nouveau témoin du livre d’Agathange, in Revue des Études Arméniennes, N.S. 8 (1971), p. 13171. van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibe = A. van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibe, Traité apologétique. Étude, texte et traduction (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 21), Louvain, 1948. Vardan Arewelc‘i, ed./trans. Muyldermans  =  J. Muyldermans (éd. et trad.), La domination arabe en Arménie, extrait de l’Histoire Universelle de Vardan, traduit de l’arménien et annoté. Étude de critique textuelle et littéraire, Paris, 1927. Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu = J. Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (London Oriental Series, 34), Oxford, 1978. Wurtzel, The Umayyads = C. Wurtzel, The Umayyads in the History of Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, unpublished dissertation (Yale University), New Haven, CT, 1977. al-Ya῾qūbī, ed. Houtsma  =  M.T. Houtsma (ed.), al-Ya῾qūbī, Ta᾿rīkh, Leiden, 1883. Yāqūt, Muj῾am al-buldān = Yāqūt, Muj῾am al-buldān, Beirut, 1995. Zuckerman, The Khazars = C. Zuckerman, The Khazars and Byzantium – the First Encounter, in P. Golden – H. Ben-Shammai – A. Rona-Tas (eds.), World of the Khazars: New Perspectives (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Achte Abteilung, Handbook of Uralic Studies, 17), Boston, MA, 2007, p. 399-432.

University of Tennessee, Knoxville  Department of History 2633 Dunford Hall, 915 Volunteer Blvd Knoxville, TN 37996-4065, USA [email protected]

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 358

Alison Vacca

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

359

Abstract — This article questions the independence, coherence, and reliability of Near Eastern sources by focusing on the various Muslim and Christian accounts of a single event. Around the turn of the eighth century, Arab forces under Muḥammad b. Marwān defeated an Armenian-led Byzantine army in the Umayyad North. In retribution for their rebellion, Muḥammad subsequently tricked the Armenian nobility into gathering into churches in southern Armenia, then he locked the doors and ordered his men to burn the captives alive. Sources from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries record the fires in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Syriac. The first goals of this article are to examine each extant report and to record the discrepancies between the different versions. From there, the article delves into more detail about two accounts, the first in Łewond’s eighthcentury Armenian Patmabanut‘iwn and the second in Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s ninthcentury Arabic Ta᾿rīkh. This speculates about why the stories concerning the fires were so compelling across linguistic, religious, and cultural divides and why the accounts differed one from the next. This article concludes that questions of reliability are tied to authorial intention, as the details in any given account may not reflect “what really happened” so much as why the author cared about the event. Finally, this article also concludes that, with the exception of the traditions related to Theophilus, there is no evidence of intercultural transmission of accounts of the fires until the thirteenth century.

Appendix 1 Traditions in Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s Ta᾿rīkh from Abū Khālid b. Sa῾īd, on the authority of Abū Barā᾿ al-Numayrī Year

Page

Summary of the Report

29AH 94 649-50CE

Salmān conquered al-Baylaqān, Bardh῾a, Jurzān, Ḥayzān, and Masqat. He reached as far as Balanjar. ῾Uthmān sent Ḥabīb b. Maslama to Jurzān to reinforce him.

84AH 703-4CE

183

The Year of the Fire account, as seen above.

84AH 703-4CE

184

The mother of Yazīd b. Usayd was captured.

85AH 704-5CE

184

Muḥammad b. Marwān returned to Armenia and appointed first ῾Abd Allāh b. Ḥātim b. al-Nu῾mān al-Bāhilī then his brother ῾Abd al-῾Azīz. The later rebuilt Dabīl, al-Nashawā, and Bardh῾a.

95AH 713-4CE

196

Maslama b. ῾Abd al-Malik raided Sharwān and Ṣūl as far as Bāb al-Abwāb/Darband.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 359

Abū Barā᾿’s source

Yazīd b. Usayd

29/11/16 06:05

360 Year

A. vacca

Page

95AH 713-4CE

Summary of the Report A traitor gave Bāb al-Abwāb to Maslama. The battle ends with the takbīr.

Abū Barā᾿’s source Abū Marwān al-Bāhilī, on the authority of a Bāhilī tribesman who was on the expedition

99AH 717-8CE

204

The Turks raided Azerbaijan and ῾Abd al-῾Azīz responded, killing them all before joining the caliph ῾Umar.

103AH 721-2CE

210

Ma῾laq b. Ṣaffār, the governor of Armenia, led the campaigns against the Khazars, meeting defeat at Marj al-Ḥijāra during the winter (Ramaḍān).

104AH 722-3CE

211

Al-Jarrāḥ b. ῾Abd Allāh al-Ḥakamī, the governor of Armenia, fought the Khazars in Balanjar and near Bāb al-Abwāb in Albania. He accepted the surrender of the inhabitants and displaced them to Ḥayzān. He accepted the surrender of Targu and displaced them.

104AH 722-3CE

211

Al-Jarrāḥ’s attack on Balanjar was hindered by the fortification of the city with a barricade of wagons. The ṣāḥib of Balanjar escaped as al-Jarrāḥ took the city. Al-Jarrāḥ fought 40 families of Turks, who agreed to join Arab fight against the Khazars. Together they moved on Warthān.

Sawāda, a credible shaykh who was with al-Jarrāḥ at Balanjar

105AH 723-4CE

213

The Arabs won a battle against the Khazars.

Mālik b. Adham, who was with al-Jarrāḥ on his expedition against the Khazars

106AH 724-5CE

216

Al-Jarrāḥ made peace with the Alans, who agreed to pay jizya and kharāj and raided Khazar territory.

107AH 725-6CE

217

On the order of Maslama b. ῾Abd al-Malik, al-Ḥārith b. ῾Amr al-Ṭā῾ī raided Kh-sh-dān in the land of the Kurr.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 360

29/11/16 06:05



THE FIRES OF NAXČAWAN

Year

Page

Summary of the Report

361 Abū Barā᾿’s source

107AH 725-6CE

217

Maslama b. ῾Abd al-Malik raided from Malatya as far as Qaysāriyya.

108AH 726-7CE

218

Mārtīk, the son of a khāqān, raided Warthān. Al-Ḥārith responded and routed the Khazars, but he himself was killed.

110AH 728-9CE

219

Maslama routed the Khazars near Bāb al-Abwāb in Jumādā II while he was en route to Talmīs (read: Tiflīs).

110AH 728-9CE

219

Maslama met the Khazars on his way ῾Abd Allāh back from Bāb al-Lān; they fought b. Usayd al-Kilābī until nightfall then Maslama returned.

112AH 730-1CE

220

The son of the khāqān sieged Ardabīl, so al-Jarrāḥ responded. He was martyred in Ramaḍān. The Khazars overpowered Azerbaijan, reaching as far as al-Mawṣil. When Ardabīl fell, the Khazars took captives and killed many.

112AH 730-1CE

221

Sa῾īd b. ῾Amr al-Ḥarashī fought the Khazars, who fled. Sa῾īd informed Hishām b. ῾Abd al-Malik.

113AH 731-2CE

222

Maslama fought Ḥayzān and killed all of them, then made peace with the people of S-w-rān (read: Sharwān?), Masqaṭ, and the Laks. He fought the Khazars at Ghazāla and defeated them, while the khāqān fled.

114AH 732-3CE

223

Marwān b. Muḥammad, as governor of Armenia and Azerbaijan, raided against the Slavs (Saqāliba).

117AH 735-6CE

225

Marwān b. Muḥammad sent expeditions into the Caucasus (jabal al-Qabq): one attacked the Alans and took fortresses, while the other brought the Tūmān Shāh under his rule. Marwān sent him to Hishām b. ῾Abd al-Malik, who sent him back to his kingdom.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 361

29/11/16 06:05

362

A. vacca

Appendix 2 Accounts of the Fires in Naxčawan Armenian

13th c.

Vardan Arewelc‘i Michael Syrian

Greek

Arabic

Bar Hebraeus Chron1234

Michael Syrian

12th c.

11th c.

Syriac

Asołik

Dasxuranc‘i 10th c.

Agapius

Drasxanakertc‘i T‘ovma Dionysius of Tellmaḥre

9th c.

Theophanes

al-Ya῾qūbī al-Balādhurī Khalīfa

Łewond 8th c.

Vahan Gołt‘nec‘i

Theophilus

Italics: no longer extant Double arrows: connected accounts with uncertain provenance.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_04_Vacca.indd 362

29/11/16 06:05

THE SENSE OF AN ENDING Eschatological Prophecy and the Armenian Historiographical Tradition (7th-10th Centuries)* From the earliest historical writings in Armenian, eschatological prophecy1 has played a prominent role in the interpretation of socio-political change. A recently published collection presented several facets of how apocalyptic texts and eschatological prophecies figure in that tradition2. None of the contributions to that volume, however, specifically addresses the role of eschatological prophecy in Armenian historiography of the seventh to tenth centuries. This article attempts to partially fill that lacuna by examining how eschatological prophecy was employed in the Armenian historiographical tradition in response to the Arab invasions of the Caucasus of the seventh century and to the continuation of Arab political dominance in the region into the early tenth3. While this question has not been the focus of a separate study, certain aspects of the role of eschatological prophecy in reaction to the Arab invasions of the seventh century have received scholarly treatment. Tim Greenwood, in particular, has emphasized the role of “apocalyptic” in the History attributed to Sebēos. Some of his arguments, however, deserve to be revisited, especially his assessment of the History as an apocalyptic text and his analysis of other witnesses to seventh-century Armenian eschatological expectations. In addition to re-evaluating this material, this article will propose that the eighth-century History of Łewond also preserves evidence for the heightening of eschatological tensions in Armenia in the seventh century as well as in the second half of the eighth following *  I would like to extend my deep appreciation to Prof. Alison Vacca of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, for her gracious feedback and encouragement. The first part of the title of this essay is a nod to Frank Kermode’s 1967 book of that name. 1   I use the phrase “eschatological prophecy” to refer to predictions of an end, whether that be the End of the World (to eschaton in the technical sense), or the end of a political order such as the Caliphate. The prediction can be an “actual” prophecy created or reported by an author that refers to a future moment, or it can reflect the interpretative fulfillment of a biblical prophecy. 2   Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic. See also Garsoïan, Reality and Myth, p. 136-143. 3   This essay does not address the interpretation of foreign invasion and domination as a tool of divine punishment for sins shared by Armenian and other Eastern Christian historiographical traditions; on which see, for example, Garsoïan, Reality and Myth; Thomson, Christian Perception, p. 40; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 524-526.

Le Muséon 129 (3-4), 363-393. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180784 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 363

29/11/16 06:05

364

s. la porta

the ‘Abbāsid revolution. I will argue, however, that Łewond himself not only does not share the eschatological expectations and interpretative framework of his contemporaries, but also actively tries to suppress them. Finally, this article examines whether an end-time perspective regarding Muslim Arab rule can still be discerned in the tenth-century histories of T‘ovma Arcruni and Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i. Throughout this essay, I try to bring the Armenian examples into conversation with other eschatological expectations in neighboring traditions in order to highlight how the Armenian evidence fits into a broader Eastern Mediterranean framework. 1. Revisiting Sebēos The seventh-century History attributed to Sebēos represents one of the earliest Christian attempts to include the rise of the Arabs4 within its historiographical scope5. The compiler of this text begins by briefly recounting the rebellion of Vahan Mamikonian in the 480s against the Sasanian Shāh Pērōz, but quickly passes to the middle of the sixth century and completes his narrative with the victory of the Caliph Mu‘āwiya after the first Arab civil war (fitna) in ca. 661, the likely point of composition of the History. His account presents the rise of the Arabs as a continuation of Armeno-Byzantine-Sasanian conflict, and its author famously uses the four-beast / four-kingdom schema of Daniel 7 to explain the change in the socio-political topography of the region following Arab ascendancy6. In his explanation, the four beasts of Daniel’s vision indicate the four kingdoms of the earth, which are distinguished geographically rather than chronologically. Thus, the first beast represents the kingdom of the west, that is, of the Greeks; the second beast, that of the east or of the Sasanians, 4   I will refer to what is often called the rise of Islam as the rise of the Arabs when discussing seventh-century narratives as it is clear that the political implications of the Arab military victories were foregrounded in the authors’ imagination. The religious “threat” posed by Islam seems to have only emerged later. See also the comments of Thomson, Muhammad, p. 830-831; for the analogous situation among Syriac writers, see Penn, Envisioning Islam, p. 53-63. 5  Edition: Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn; English translation with commentary: Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History. As noted above, Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, has provided a detailed treatment of the eschatological elements in the History. I will therefore not repeat all of his arguments nor all of the questions he addresses, but point out the significant eschatological themes in the work and those instances where my interpretation differs from his. 6   Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 141-142; Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 105. On the Book of Daniel in the Armenian tradition, see Cowe, Reception.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 364

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

365

including the Persians, Medians, and Parthians; the third, the kingdom of the north, which is Gog and Magog and their companions, a likely reference to the invasions of the Western Turkic Khaganate, aligned with the Emperor Heraclius, in 626 and 628/97; and the fourth beast, the kingdom of the south or the kingdom of the sons of Ishmael, “‘which shall be greater than all [other] kingdoms; and it will consume the whole earth’8.” Greenwood has studied the composition of the History in detail and has convincingly showed that the last third of the work, in which the three references to Daniel are found, should be attributed to the pen of the compiler of the History himself and be seen to reflect his own concerns9. In the final chapter of his work, the author humbly claims that his narrative has been constructed “in accordance with the unintelligent thought of my own mind” (ěst anhančar xorhrdoy mtac‘s imoc‘), but he has found confirmation of his account in the prophetic writings10. There follows a litany of biblical citations that he interprets as predicting the Muslim defeat of the Roman Empire. For the compiler of the History, then, prophecy provided a logical explanation and ‘proof’ for his own interpretation of historical events. Greenwood further argues, correctly in my opinion, that the compiler’s application of the Danielic schema represents more than just a way of endowing the past with significance, it reveals his own perspective that the end was imminent11. Reacting to the first Arab fitna (65661) and the brief resurgence of Byzantium and of the pro-Byzantine party in Armenia, Sebēos educes a quotation forged from Is. 13:6 and Jer. 46:21 to support his analysis of the eventual destruction of the Caliphate as well, which “will be fulfilled in its own time” (kataresc‘i i žamanaki iwrum)12. 7   Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 376-377, thinks that the compiler had difficulties finding a suitable power in the recent past that could be identified with the northern kingdom. Based on the “Table of Contents” of the work, which mentions Heraclius’ meeting with the king of the T‘ētalac‘ik‘ (to be identified with the Western Turkic Khaganate) and the sending out of a large number of people, he tentatively suggests that the text may have originally contained passages that covered these invasions. On the identification, see now Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist, p. 229-230. 8   Dan. 7:23. 9   Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 375. 10   Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 176-177; Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 152. Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 373, remarks that this is not just a sign of false humility, but reflects an actual admission on the part of the compiler of the chronological incoherence of the text at points. 11   Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 377-388. 12   Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 177; Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 153. On the textual complexity of the conclusion of Sebēos’ account, see Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 151-152, n. 923.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 365

29/11/16 06:05

366

s. la porta

I would also suggest that the compiler’s view of the imminence of the eschaton may rest behind his reorientation of Daniel 7 from a temporal axis to a spatial one, an uncommon reading that explicitly contradicts the text. By flattening out or compressing history, so to speak, he is able to both heighten the intensity of the coming end as well as express it as a global phenomenon encompassing all four directions of the earth and not just as a local event13. On the other hand, Greenwood’s arguments that the lack of an Antichrist episode in the History is indicative of a greater sense of urgency in the compiler; and that the presence of that episode in the Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius represents a way of distancing the end from the present are unconvincing14. In my opinion, Greenwood does not pay enough attention to the question of genre when comparing the History attributed to Sebēos with apocalyptic literature of the period. While there are common aspects of perspective between the compiler of the History and the author of Ps.Methodius, they are writing in two very different genres. The compiler of the History did not compose an apocalypse, nor does his work contain an apocalypse; it is a work of historiography that employs eschatological motifs and interpretative moves that are also used in apocalyptic texts. Granted that a seventh-century author may have possessed different generic expectations than a modern literary critic, nevertheless, it is clear that he chose to compose his text in a very different literary tradition from Ps.Methodius or other apocalypses. Thus, I cannot concur with Greenwood’s assessment that the History attributed to Sebēos should be considered “the first apocalyptic text to confront the rise of Islam15.” The compiler of the History attributed to Sebēos was by no means unique in his contextualization of the Arab victories over the Byzantine and Persian Empires within an eschatological schema, although he seems to have been the first to recast the fourth beast and kingdom as that of the Arabs, an interpretative move that would become more common in apocalyptic visions by the early eighth-century16. The Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati, a Christian apology written in Greek ca. 634, held that Rome was the fourth beast of Daniel, and that the Arabs were the little horn and “the abomination of desolation,” while Muḥammad was a false prophet and the Antichrist17. The military conquests of the Arabs and their subsequent   Cf. also Thomson, Christian Perception, p. 38.   Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 383-384. 15   Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 383 (italics mine). 16  Cf. Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and the Vision of Enoch, as well as the Coptic Apocalypse of Ps.-Athanasius and the difficult-to-date Fourteenth Vision of Daniel, Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 534; Suermann, Use of Biblical Quotations, p. 78, 87-88. 17   Kaegi, Initial Byzantine Reactions, p. 141-142. 13 14

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 366

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

367

governance also inspired a number of apocalyptic visions throughout Eastern Christianity, the most famous of which is that of Ps.-Methodius, as well as among Zoroastrians and Jews18. Although eschatological interpretation of the rise and rule of the Arabs was not common among seventhcentury historiographers, the History is not the only text to employ it. For example, in his Rīš Mellē (Epitome), a chronicle of world history composed in 687, Jacob bar Penkāyē presents the first Arab fitna as a form of divine retribution19 and the natural disasters, plague and famine that occurred during the second fitna as an indication of the “destruction of the Ishmaelites” and possibly of the world. The only thing missing, he reflects, is “the advent of the Deceiver20.” Moreover, it is possible that eschatological overtones were attributed to states of fitna within the Arab Muslim tradition as well during the first civil war21. The author of the History therefore formed part of a larger interpretative tradition expressed in genres throughout the Eastern Mediterranean that viewed the transformations of the political landscape of the Near East as the beginning of the end-times. The compiler’s eschatological perspective was also not unique in the Armenian historiographical tradition. The History of Ałuank‘ (Caucasian Albania), although assembled in the tenth century by Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, preserves earlier material which similarly read contemporary political changes within an eschatological framework22. Book II, chapters 9-16 describes the final stages of the war between Heraclius and Khosrow II, the Turkic invasions of 626 and 628/9, and the destruction they inflicted 18   Hoyland, Seeing Islam, ch. 8, p. 257-335. In the Zoroastrian tradition, several texts interpreted the end of Sasanian rule and the rise of the Arabs within eschatological frameworks. Although these texts may date to the ninth century, it is possible that they preserve seventh-century reactions to the end of Zoroastrian political power. The apocalyptic vision of Grigor Lusaworič‘ (Gregory the Illuminator) found in the narrative of the conversion of Armenia to Christianity attributed to Agat‘angełos may have been inspired by apocalyptic elements in the Zoroastrian conversion narrative, see La Porta, Vision of St. Grigor. The Arab military victories were apparently regarded positively at first by some Jewish circles as punishment against the Byzantine Empire for its persecution of Jews and as the vehicle of their deliverance. The perceptions of others, however, apparently soured over the course of the seventh and eighth centuries as Jewish expectations of deliverance went unfulfilled, Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 308. 19   Brock, North Mesopotamia, p. 60-61. 20   Brock, North Mesopotamia, p. 72-73; see also Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 198-199. 21   Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs, p. 38. 22  Edition: Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn; English translation: Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians. The authorship of the work was also misattributed to Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i; on questions of authorship and dating, see Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. xvii-xx. The compiler of the text seems to have worked in the late tenth century, but to have used an eighth century source for bk. II. Based on a notice in bk. III, ch. 22, the last hand to have added to the text lived in the twelfth century.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 367

29/11/16 06:05

368

s. la porta

on Ałuank‘. The composition of the text, which suffers from chronological inconsistencies, has challenged scholars. Greenwood has argued that these chapters form a textual whole dating to the 630s and that the anachronisms found in it can be attributed to a later redactor who probably worked in the 680s23. Zuckerman, however, has proposed that we may discern two sources, which he labels Source A and Source B, in the passages24. He argues that Source A comprises chs. 9-11; and Source B comprises chs. 12-16. According to Zuckerman, Source B reflects an eyewitness account of the times, including the fall of the Sasanian Empire and the rise of the Arabs, and its author probably wrote his text not much later than the 640s. By contrast, the author of Source A emphasizes the amount of time that has elapsed since these events occurred, does not presume to have experienced them himself, and contains errors and anachronisms. Zuckerman observes that the two sources largely present the same historical material, although from different perspectives, since Source A was written “many years after” what transpired, while Source B was a contemporary eyewitness. Finally, Zuckerman contends that chs. 9-11 formed the first part of the elaborate panegyric on the renowned Ałuank‘ prince Juanšer that occupies chs. 18-28 of Book II. The latter recounts the deeds of the prince up to the thirty-third year of his reign, which corresponds to 669/70. 670, therefore, should be taken as the date of its composition as there is no indication that Juanšer was not alive when it was written25. The chronological difference between Source A, written ca. 670, and Source B, written ca. 640, explains the anachronisms and errors in the former and the greater accuracy of the latter. The two sources were possibly fused together by an eighth-century redactor upon whom Dasxuranc‘i relied in the tenth. I tend to agree with Zuckerman’s conclusion that we are dealing with two sources for chapters 9-16, although I am not convinced that his Source A (chs. 9-11) constituted part of the panegyric of Juanšer in chs. 18-28. I would also feel comfortable dating Source B (chs. 1216) even closer to the events described, i.e., to the 630s rather than to 23   Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 386-388. The eschatological outlook shared by both chapters 9 and 16 as well as thematic and linguistic connections are the reasons he provides for why he thinks the chapters form a textual unit. 24   Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, p. 404-417. Zuckerman’s conclusions were presumably reached in 1999 when he presented his paper at the colloquium on which his essay is based. Cf. his remark on p. 405, n. 19 that he was aware of the single textual unit thesis. See also, Shapira, Armenian and Georgian Sources, p. 340-345. 25   The death of Juanšer is reported later in the text, book II, ch. 34, Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 224; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 144-145.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 368

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

369

the 640s26. Source A, which anachronistically refers to the Turkic invaders as Khazars in ch. 1127, may have been composed shortly after 685 when the Khazars invaded Transcaucasia for the first time28. Both sources, however, contour their narratives through the employment of biblical prophecy that reveals the eschatological tension of the period. The chronologically prior Source B identifies the Turkic invaders of 626 and 628/9 as the armies of ‘the North’29 and represents their king and his ‘son’ as a lion and whelp. Although the animal designations are indebted to the Bible30, it may be an association derived from the Byzantine lion whelp metaphor found in various apocalyptic texts31. The 26   Zuckerman’s reason for dating this source to the 640s seems to be mention of the rise of the Arabs which he thinks the author of his source witnessed, p. 405. The text asserts that after the death of Shāh Kawād II in 628, “the kingdom was about to be removed from the house of the Sasanians and given to the hands of the children of Ismael” (Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 149; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 92). This may imply that the author thought the Sasanians to be finished soon after the end of the reign of Kawād II, possibly following the Persian defeats at the battle of Qādisiyyah (636) or of Nahāvand (641). Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 380, remarks that Sebēos similarly understood the reign of Kawād II’s father, Khosrow II (d. 628), to mark the beginning of the eschatological process. The ninth-century historian T‘ovma Arcruni also understood the period between Khosrow II and Yazdgerd III to initiate the end of the Sasanians, see below, n. 74. On the crisis of legitimacy of the Sasanians beginning with the reign of Kawād II, see Daryaee, When the End is Near. On the other hand, Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 388, takes the text to refer to the extinction of the Sasanian dynasty in 651 after the death of Yazdgerd III, which he dates, however, to 653. If this is the case, the author could not have lived in the 630s or 640s, but must have written post-651. If we are to still accept a date of ca. 630 for the composition of these chapters, this piece of information must be considered a later interpolation, an ‘update’ possibly made by the eighth-century redactor who merged the two sources. 27   As both Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 387 and n. 21, and Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, p. 410, note, this is the only time the designation Khazar (Xazirk‘) appears in the Armenian text. In his English translation, Dowsett inserted “Khazar” in several places where the subject is not defined in order ‘to clarify’ the meaning of the passage. In doing so, he unfortunately further obscured it. 28   Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, p. 430. 29   In ch. 16, he calls them the “cauldron of the North” (katsayn hiwsisoy: Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 169; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 106) alluding to Jer. 1:13-14. On the relationship of the king of the North to Heraclius’ Turkic allies, see Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, p. 412-413. For our purposes here, however, the biblical topos of the enemy from the north is more significant than the historical situation, on which see below. 30   Cf. Gen. 49:8, Jer. 51:38, Ezek. 19:3. 31  See Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 172-173. Bousset, Antichrist Legend, p. 77, traced the origin of the metaphor to the wars of Heraclius against Khosrow II; cf. Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist, p. 151-156 for the propagation by Heraclius of the lion cub image. In these traditions, however, Heraclius is the young Lion, while in the Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra (11th-12th c.?), his Turkic allies are depicted as the Leopard of the North (Baethgen, Beschriebung, p. 207; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 278, Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist, p. 227-228). The History attributed to Sebēos,

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 369

29/11/16 06:05

370

s. la porta

author understands their invasion of Ałuank‘ in 628 and the famine that accompanied it as the fulfillment of Amos 5:19. Similarly, the author presents a subsequent famine and plague that followed the invasion as the actualization of Jer. 22:19, Jer. 16:7, and Amos 8:10. The eschatological expectations built up in these passages, however, are relieved in chapter 16 as the Turkic occupation of Ałuank‘ ended in 629/30 due to internal conflict in the Khaganate. The author explains the delivery of Ałuank‘ from the Turkic invaders as divine retribution for their pride that surpasses biblical precedents32. This transformation of the representation of the Turkic invasions and occupation from an end-time drama to the manifestation of theodicy points to a contemporary adjustment in the interpretation of the historical context as the situation evolved and suggests the narrative was written very soon after these events occurred. The later Source A exhibits a similar, though not identical, eschatological interpretative lens as Source B. The author prefaces his account in ch. 9 with an explicit citation of Jesus’ warnings of the end-time in Mt. 24:6-7, 29 and 25:13. He also remarks that he will relate what happened “suppressing the fear and dread that still possess us,” indicating that he continued to live in a time of anxiety. Finally, he portrays the Turkic armies as “the universal wrath” in terms evocative of depictions of the armies of Gog and Magog33. As noted above, given the anachronistic mention of the Khazars, this perception of the Turkic invasions in all likelihood slightly post-dates 685. Source A’s placement prior to Source B restores the eschatological tension that was resolved in the latter as the implication from Source A’s “preface” to the entire episode is that the time of “fear and dread” persists, although the exact hour of the end is unknown. Regardless of whether these chapters preserve two discrete sources, one from ca. 630 and another from ca. 685, that were fused together or one account from the 630s that was updated in the 680s, they do present us with two seventh-century perspectives that share an eschatological employment of prophecy to interpret the historical events of their time. too, designates the third beast, identified with Gog and Magog and presumably the Western Turkic Khaganate, as a Leopard, Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 142; Thomson – HowardJohnston, Armenian History, p. 105. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i’s source thus seems to have taken the metaphor in a different manner from that promoted by Imperial propaganda. 32   Cf. bk. I, ch. 16, where the text proposes that the Hephthalite attack against Shāh Pērōz was foreseen by Is.13:3-8 as divine retribution for the Sasanian’s arrogance. 33   See the comments of van Donzel – Schmidt, Gog and Magog, p. 38-39, where the anachronistic label “Khazar” is repeated. The terms used, however, are neologisms in Armenian. See also, Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist, p. 217-242, esp. p. 224228, for the identification of the Turkic invaders with Gog and Magog and a discussion of this passage.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 370

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

371

Although they do not speak directly to the Arab invasions, they do provide evidence that the compiler of the History attributed to Sebēos was not alone in seeing foreign invasion of the Caucasus as the prophetic fulfillment of the end. In addition to the History attributed to Sebēos and the passages preserved in the History of Ałuank‘, Greenwood also mentions the Seventh Vision of Daniel (7Dan) as another possible seventh-century eschatological reaction to the Arab invasions that may have influenced the compiler of the History attributed to Sebēos34. This apocalyptic text was originally composed in Greek between 484 and 491, but seems to include an interpolated reference to the Arab invasions of the seventh century35. The date of the text’s translation into Armenian is unknown; the earliest manuscript of the text dates to the twelfth century36. The first attestation of its title, which much have been added in the Armenian tradition, is in Mxit‘ar Ayrivanec‘i’s list of apocryphal books in ca. 1285, although we are not certain of the contents of the text to which he was referring. Whether the allusion to the Arab invasions was added in the Greek tradition or by the Armenian translator or in the subsequent Armenian tradition is not clear. Greenwood bases his association of the History attributed to Sebēos and 7Dan primarily upon the phrase “the race of the Kark‘edovmayec‘i empire” with reference to those who brought an end to the Armenian Aršakuni dynasty in the preface to the History37. Like scholars before him, Greenwood links the Kark‘edovmayec‘i with the toponym Kark‘edovn/ Kark‘edon that appears in 7Dan in connection with the Persians in the list of prophetic disasters that will befall cities and provinces at the beginning of that work38. I am not convinced, however, that the two readings reflect the same place. The presence of Kark‘edovn/Kark‘edon in 7Dan is likely attributable to a scribal error in Greek of Carthage (Karxēdōn) for Chalcedon (Xalkēdōn), a locale which fits in the list of cities given   Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 385.  See La Porta, Seventh Vision, for an English translation and introduction to 7Dan with a bibliography of editions, previous translations, and studies. 36  In La Porta, Seventh Vision, p. 415-416, I speculated that the work may have been translated into Armenian in the sixth century, but the evidence is by no means conclusive. 37   The sole surviving ms. of the History – codex 2639 of the National Manuscript Library of Armenia (Matenadaran) dated to 1672 – actually reads Kark‘edomayec‘i, but it was “corrected” by T‘adēos Mihrdatean, the first publisher of the text, and was followed by all subsequent scholars although there seems to be little justification for doing so, see Bartikian, “Azgn Kark‘edomayec‘i išxanut‘eann”, p. 85-86. Bartikian contends that the phrase is not a scribal error, as some have suggested, but refers to Karěkā dě-Mēšān/Mayšān (Gk. Charax Spasinou) and has nothing to do with the usual interpretation of Carthage. See also his study of the seal of Ašuša bdeašx, Bartikian, Gugarac‘ Ašuša. 38   See the studies mentioned in the articles by Bartikian cited in the previous note. 34 35

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 371

29/11/16 06:05

372

s. la porta

in that text39. As the History does not exhibit any other connections with the text of 7Dan, this single piece of circumstantial evidence does not in my opinion provide sufficient support for Greenwood’s hypothesis that the compiler of the History was familiar with 7Dan. Given the uncertainties of the date of translation of 7Dan and of the exact meaning of the interpolation, the most that can be said regarding it is that a Greek apocalypse from the end of the fifth century was possibly updated to account for the Arab invasions of the seventh century in either the Greek or Armenian tradition sometime before the twelfth century. 2. Łewond: Swimming Against the Tide In addition to the testimony of the History attributed to Sebēos, there is another historiographical witness to the application of eschatological interpretations of prophetic texts to contextualize the Arab invasions and civil wars in the seventh century. The evidence is found in a passage contained in Łewond’s History composed in the eighth century40. In his depiction of the conquest of Duin in 64041, Łewond finds an explicit comparison with the “prophetic lament” of Ps. 78(79):1-3: “O God, heathens entered your inheritance, profaned your holy temple, and cast the corpses of your servants as food for the birds of the skies and the bodies of your saints to the beasts of the land. And there was no one to bury them.” Łewond explains that just as all these calamities happened in the past, it had become fitting that they occurred “to us,” which intimates that the author was a contemporary of the events42. 39   La Porta, Seventh Vision, p. 412-413, n. 12, and on the confusion of Carthage and Chalcedon in Greek, Alexander, Oracle, p. 112, n. 48. 40  Edition: Łewond, Patmut‘iwn; English translation: Arzoumanian, History of Lewond. An online English translation with notes by R. Bedrosian can also be found on his Historical sources page at rbedrosian.com. Prof. Alison Vacca and myself are currently preparing a diplomatic edition of the text based on the oldest manuscript (Matenadaran codex 1902=M1902) and a new English translation with historical commentary. Translations of the text are my own, although for convenience I also provide a reference to the equivalent text in Arzoumanian, History of Lewond. The date of Łewond has been challenged by Greenwood, A Re-assessment, but his arguments are not wholly convincing, see below, n. 57. On the dating of the text, see also Mahé, Le problème. At the time of writing this essay, the new translation of Łewond into French by J.-P. Mahé and B. MartinHisard was not available to me. 41   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 8-11; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51-52. The date of the attack is based on the History attributed to Sebēos, Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 138-139; Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 100-101. For problems with Łewond’s chronology, see Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 135. 42   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 10; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51. Pace Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 146-147, who considers this passage to be the product of

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 372

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

373

There are resonances with other prophetic texts, however, that are implicit in Łewond’s portrayal of the attack on Duin43. He observes that Armenian forces under T‘ēodoros Ṙštuni were unable to reach the Joroy pass in time to defend it because the Arabs attacked with the speed of “winged serpents” (ōjk‘ t‘ewawork‘), an allusion to the oracle against Philistia in Is. 14:2944. Describing the massacre inside Duin once it was taken, Łewond comments that the clergy were massacred by “insolent and cruel” (žpirh ew anołorm) enemies, a phrase found in Jer. 6:2345. In both scriptural allusions the terms are marked as they refer to the unidentified foe from the north46. In his selection of biblical allusions, Łewond or, more likely, his source may have been drawing upon an exegetical tradition that associated the lament of the Psalmist with the enemy from the north within an eschatological context. Already in the post-Exilic prophetic tradition, the foe from the north was mythologized and identified in Ezek. 38:15 with the eschatological armies of Gog. More proximate to the time of Łewond, the seventh-century author of the Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius similarly links the enemies from the north with an allusion to Ps. 78(79):3 when he ‘prophesies’ that after the invasion of the men from the north many will die “and there will be no one who will be able to bury them47.” This combination of an invasion by the enemy from the north and Ps. 78(79):3 may thus represent an eschatological formula known in the region. In addition to the prophetic scriptural allusions, the episode on the sack of Duin possesses another textual reference. Łewond recounts that in the attack the “delicate women” (tiknayk‘ p‘ap‘kasunk‘) of Duin were beaten mercilessly and dragged to the marketplaces48. The phrase “delicate women” is the same as that used by the historian Ełišē to describe the women of Armenia in the aftermath of the defeat of Vardan Mamikonean at the battle of Avarayr in 45149. The image here, however, has clearly been repurposed. Whereas Ełišē’s use of delicacy emphasizes the women’s Łewond’s hand, see also below. On p. 152, he cautiously takes this use of the first person to suggest that Łewond may have had a particular attachment to the city of Duin, although he prudently does not insist on the point given our knowledge of the author. In my opinion, it is more likely that it was present in a source contemporary with the events upon which Łewond relied. 43   These are not pointed out by Greenwood, A Re-assessment, nor are they indicated in any of the published translations or editions of Łewond’s work. 44   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 9; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51. 45   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 10; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51. 46   On the ‘foe from the north’ in the prophetic books of the Bible, see Childs, Enemy. 47   Ps.-Methodius, Apokalypse, XIII, 19. 48   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 10; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51. 49   Ełišē, Vasn Vardanay, p. 201; Thomson, Eḷishē, p. 246.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 373

29/11/16 06:05

374

s. la porta

ability to overcome their nature, rise to the occasion, and hold society together despite the fact that they had not been accustomed to hard work or physical difficulties, its reemployment in Łewond’s History underscores the savagery of the attackers. The evocation of Ełišē, if it was present in Łewond’s source and not added by him, nevertheless points to an Armenian literary context for the provenance of this material. Given the above evidence, I suggest that Łewond’s text attests to earlier Armenian eschatological speculations on the early Arab incursions into the region in a manner similar to, though not identical with, that articulated in Sebēos. If the Ełišean reference was not added by Łewond, then I would favor a literary rather than an oral source for this material. This narrative provided not only an account of a specific historical event, but a re-enactment of a charged biblical confrontation between Israel and the enemy from the north that is tied to both a future eschatological battle and an eschatologically-charged historical one50. Notwithstanding the use of the first person plural in his account of the events of Duin in 640, another piece of evidence indicates that this material did not originate from Łewond himself, namely, that he did not share the eschatological perceptions of his source. In contrast to the compiler of the History attributed to Sebēos, Łewond does not employ eschatological prophecies to give shape and order to the socio-political transformations of the seventh and eighth centuries; nor does he ever evoke them to point to the fulfillment of anticipated social-political change. In fact, his use of prophecies seems intended to counter such interpretative acts by localizing their implications. For example, in the account mentioned above, the scope of impact of the prophetic texts is restricted to the city of Duin during this one attack; Łewond does not employ them to provide a hermeneutical framework for the early Arab invasions in general. We may notice a similar application of prophetic discourse in other parts of his History. In a manner reminiscent of Sebēos’ presentation of the first Arab fitna, Łewond presents the second and third Arab fitna-s as the actualization of biblical prophecy. His scope, however, is far more limited than that of Sebēos. According to Łewond, the second Arab fitna of 680-692 realized the fulfillment of Ps. 36(37):15: “Their swords shall enter into their hearts and their bows shall be broken51.” Although Łewond welcomes the respite from attacks granted to Christians by the Arab civil 50   On the eschatological dimension of the Armenian war against the Persians, see La Porta, Vision of St. Grigor. 51   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 15; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 54.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 374

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

375

war and attributes the killing of Muslims by Muslims to divine justice and retribution, he does not extrapolate further on other possible ramifications of Arab internal discord52. When treating the third Arab fitna of 744-47, Łewond employs biblical prophecy in an even more specific manner, localizing its application to Caliph Marwān II’s subjugation of Syria and siege of Damascus, in which he sees the completion of Amos 1:3-553. The Armenian version of the biblical text in 1:5 reads, following the LXX, that the Lord will destroy the men of Ḥarrān. As Łewond himself indicates, the evocation of Ḥarrān facilitated the association of the pericope with Marwān’s siege of Damascus as Ḥarrān served as one of his bases54. Although the biblical prophecy predicts that the men of Ḥarrān will be destroyed, Łewond explicitly reinterprets it so that it will be the inhabitants of Ḥarrān who will destroy Damascus. He further provides his own exegesis of v. 3a, “for three acts of iniquity of Damascus, or for four, I will not turn from it,” to explain the transgressions the citizens of the city committed to engender the Lord’s wrath. In addition to the three sins of murder, theft, and acting upon lustful desires, they committed a fourth by not expecting punishment for their actions and justifying them as divinely sanctioned. Again, instead of taking a broad interpretation of this act of internal Muslim violence, Łewond holds a very narrow exegetical lens to unpack the correspondences between the siege of Damascus and Amos 1:3-5, even replicating in his explanation the unusual use of the preposition ‘on’, ‘above’ (i veray) which occurs in the biblical passage. Thus, despite Łewond’s willingness to take individual events in the second and third Arab fitna-s as the fulfillment of certain biblical prophetic verses, he restrains himself from reading into them an end to Caliphal rule as Sebēos was tempted to contemplate. In his reassessment of Łewond’s History, Greenwood draws a comparison between the author’s treatment of the sack of Duin and that of Damascus. He remarks upon the similar structure of, and the employment of biblical prophecy in, both episodes and concludes that the similarities in their construction indicate “the direct involvement of Łewond in their composition55.” He contextualizes his discussion of these similarities within Łewond’s more general concern with urban history, which, as Greenwood 52   This laconic treatment of the second Arab fitna contrasts starkly with the chronicle of John bar Penkāyē and the apocalyptic texts, such as that of Ps.-Methodius, composed in its wake. 53   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 117-118; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 116-117. 54   Hawting, Marwān II, p. 623-624. 55   Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 147.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 375

29/11/16 06:05

376

s. la porta

observes, represents a new trend in Armenian historiography56. While Greenwood’s insight is sound and perspicacious, I think it can be further nuanced. In particular, although I do not disagree that Łewond contoured the structure of both passages, it may be useful to point out two differences between the treatments of the attack on the cities. First, Łewond’s explication of the text of Amos is more exegetically textured than his application of Ps. 78(79). The exegetical techniques of hook-word association and of mimicking syntax found in Łewond’s interpretation of Amos in his account of the siege of Damascus are not found in his application of Ps. 78(79) with reference to the sack of Duin. Second, Łewond’s portrayal of the sack of Duin is far more literarily allusive than that of the siege of Damascus. As noted, the former contains not only one biblical prophetic reference, but three, including the eschatologically marked association of the peoples from the north with Ps. 78(79). Łewond’s account of the siege of Damascus, while highly descriptive, does not appear to contain any specific allusions to other prophetic texts beyond the explicit citation of the verses from Amos. Echoes of Ełišē’s History are similarly not discernible in his remarks on the violence committed during the attack on Damascus, but this discrepancy may be attributable to the fact that at Damascus it was Arab Muslims who were killed and not Armenian Christians, as at Duin. The dissimilarities between the accounts of the two attacks likely reflect differences present in the source material from which Łewond worked. As argued above, the use of eschatologically marked phrases in his account of the sack of Duin suggests that Łewond had recourse to an eschatological interpretation of the Arab invasions for Łewond himself does not evince any such hermeneutic lens in his History. By contrast, his portrayal of the siege of Damascus, which occurred a century later during his own lifetime, was likely composed by the author himself and patterned upon the episode at Duin. His use of the first person singular in this instance therefore reflects his own interpretation of the verses of Amos. Despite these differences, Greenwood is certainly correct that the structural correspondences between the two passages are meant to link the attacks in the reader’s mind. The correspondences between these two episodes point to a coherent approach to prophetic discourse in the History. A remarkable feature of the passages is how Łewond limits the implications of prophecy to the explanation of specific circumstances. Whereas Sebēos and, later, John bar Penkāyē and Ps.-Methodius amongst others are willing to contextualize 56

  Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 152-153.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 376

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

377

the sudden Arab expansion and the Arab fitna-s within an eschatological framework, Łewond, by localizing the scene of the action to the cities of Duin and Damascus, neutralizes any eschatological implications or expectations of greater socio-political transformation these events may have borne, and limits their effects to the immediate context. We may observe that he similarly constrains his interpretation of the second Arab fitna. This dampening of “prophetic hope” culminates in Łewond’s explicit rejection of the prophetic ‘nonsense’ of the monk who encouraged the Armenian nobles to rebel against the Caliphate in 774/557. Relying on a prophecy apparently related to that attributed to the Patriarch Sahak in the fifth- to sixth-century History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i58, this monk misled the nobles into thinking that the end of Muslim rule had arrived and that the Armenians would shortly achieve the restoration of their kingdom. Despite the counsel of Ašot Bagratuni, Prince of Armenia, who cautioned that such a rebellion would end in their ruin, the nobles pushed ahead with their plans and were eventually slaughtered. A similar limited application of prophecy is discernible in the correspondence attributed to the Emperor Leo and the Caliph ‘Umar included in the History59. Although the Armenian text of the correspondence was clearly translated from Greek and was not of Łewond’s creation60, I think 57   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 172-173; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 131-132. Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 112, argues that this passage is not a prophetic expression of an unfulfilled desire for Armenian independence, but that it actually refers to the establishment of the Bagratuni kingdom in 884. It comprises one of the arguments Greenwood puts forth to support a ninth-century date for the History. His argument, however, is unconvincing. There is no sense that Łewond approved of this expectation at all, and it seems inconceivable, if not outright dangerous, that once the Bagratuni kingdom had been established that he would explicitly reject a prophecy predicting its rise as prophesying “empty nonsense”. 58   Łazar, Patmut‘iwn, p. 29-37; Thomson, History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, p. 65-72. Sahak foresees, in a manner reminiscent of Daniel and Nersēs in the Buzandaran (III.xiv; IV.xv; Garsoïan, Epic Histories, p. 89, 142), the end of the patriarchate and monarchy. A significant difference, however, is that he also prophesies that “soon the monarchy will be renewed from the Aršakuni family and the priesthood from the progeny of the worthy patriarch Grigor.” Although it is not certain whether the prediction of the restoration of the Aršakuni monarchy and of the Grigorid patriarchate formed part of the original prophecy (and therefore a later interpolation), it proved to be productive in subsequent employments of the vision, see Muradyan, Vision. 59  The correspondence occupies a large portion of the text, Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 42-98; an English translation of it, heavily dependent upon the French of Chahnazarian, Ghewond, can be found in Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text, upon which Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 70-105, relied. 60   Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text, p. 274-275, held that the Armenian was a translation from Greek; he is followed by Arzoumanian, History of Lewond. Gerö, Byzantine Iconoclasm, p. 164-171, however, posited that the correspondence was originally written in Armenian.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 377

29/11/16 06:05

378

s. la porta

we may be justified in speculating that if Łewond included the correspondence in his text, he was at least in general accordance with the defense of Christianity attributed to Leo. It is therefore worth looking at how prophecy is employed within that text, especially as the prophets and prophecy figure prominently within it. A repeated accusation of ‘Umar against Christianity is that Christians follow the words of the prophets rather than only those of Jesus. Leo in his response is at pains to defend the reliability of prophetic texts and show how they point towards the incarnation of the Logos and the establishment of the sacraments. The correspondence thus portrays prophecy as primarily concerned with typological exegesis rather than as a method of historical interpretation. A particular dispute emerges, however, over the interpretation of Isaiah 21:7: “I saw two riders: one rider on an ass and one rider on a camel61.” According to ‘Umar, this verse foretold the prophetic equality of Jesus and Muḥammad. Leo retorts that the ass refers to the Jews and the camel to the heathens. After the fall of Babylon, Satan led the ass and camel to the Arabian desert and gave them to the Arabs. He then deceived them into following the errors of both and into calling their barbarous killings and raids to procure captives ‘the way of God’. This latter idea would seem to be echoed by Łewond in his exegesis of Amos 1:3a when he asserts that the inhabitants of Damascus were guilty of thinking their iniquities were divinely sanctioned. Moreover, at no point does Leo claim that Muslim rule will come to an end. He does remind ‘Umar that the Persians reigned for 400 years, thereby alluding to the possibility of a termination of Arab dominance, but asserts that Christians will receive their reward in the next life after suffering persecutions in this world. Leo’s He also thinks that it was a later invention inserted into the text, possibly in the eleventhtwelfth century, composed to expand upon T‘ovma Arcruni’s mention of the correspondence in the tenth century. The language of the correspondence suggests that it is indeed a translation. 61   Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 45, 95-96; Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text, p. 278, 327-328; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 71, 102-103; Thomson, Muhammad, p. 838-839, 850, 855. Dispute over this verse is also recognized in the later Armenian historiographers T‘ovma Arcruni (early 10th c.), Mxit‘ar Anec‘i (12th-13th c.), and Kirakos Ganjakec‘i (13th c.). As Thomson observes, this prooftext of Muḥammad’s prophetic calling does not figure in Greek polemics, but it is known in Syriac as it appears in the East Syriac Catholicos Timothy’s dialogue in 781 with the Caliph al-Mahdī (reg. 775-785). Timothy interprets the rider on the ass as Darius and that on the camel as Cyrus, Mingana, Timothy’s Apology, p. 37. The interpretation of this verse as referring to a prophet of the Ishmaelites appears very early in a passage in the Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yoḥai, which is apparently contemporary with the Arab invasions. According to the text, the verse reveals that the Arabs will liberate the Jews from the Byzantines, Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 309-310.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 378

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

379

reply thus conforms to both Łewond’s conception of prophecy and his resignation towards Arab power. Łewond, of course, benefited from hindsight in all of the instances noted above and knew that the desired results – whether of the completion of the world or of Caliphal rule – did not occur. His narrative, however, provides further testimony to the popularity of eschatological interpretation in the Eastern Mediterranean in the seventh and eighth centuries. His account of the attack on Duin almost certainly attests to another form of eschatological interpretation of the early Arab invasions. His treatment of the second and third Arab fitna-s indirectly reveals that Armenians may have conceived eschatological responses to these civil conflicts that Łewond has tried to constrain. Finally, his explicit mention of the use of prophecy as an encouragement for the Armenian nobles to rebel and put an end to Caliphal dominance attests to the receptivity of Armenian elites to eschatological prophecy. While the events of the rebellion are cast as a response to a purely local prophecy, it is worth noting that the onset of the year 800CE and 200AH also bore eschatological overtones in both Western Christendom and Islam, and therefore the Armenian nobles’ antici­ pation may have formed part of a wider phenomenon of intensification in eschatological expectation62. On the other hand, Łewond’s own approach to these events underscores that, however popular such eschatological interpretations may have been, there were alternative views that also circulated among Armenian elites which downplayed reading eschatological meaning into these events and rejected prophecy as either a ‘predictor’ of socio-political change or an overarching hermeneutic of history. This is not to say that they rejected the interpretative power of prophetic discourse per se, but found it most valuable to restrict its use. Movsēs Drasxanakertc‘i’s History may again provide further support for the building of eschatological expectations in Armenian historiography towards the end of the eighth century. The beginning of bk. III, ch. 20, entitled “the events which happened in Ałuank‘ in the third century of the Armenian era” (=751-850 CE), provides a brief report on the ‘Abbāsid revolution63. The text remarks that at that time the tyranny of 62   Cf. the remark of Cook, Apocalyptic Year, p. 42, that a “strong surge in apocalyptic feeling during the early ‘Abbasid age (132-247/749-861) has been recorded in numerous sources”; see also Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs, p. 50-58; Landes, Lest the Millennium be Fulfilled, p. 191-203; and below. The year 200AH is equivalent to 815/6 CE and fell in the middle of the fourth Arab fitna. 63   Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 324-325; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 212-213, where it is ch. 19.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 379

29/11/16 06:05

380

s. la porta

the Arabs spread throughout the land, a development which it asserts should be understood through the words of Paul that the Judge is at the door and the Day of Judgment is nigh (James 5:9). In this context it refers to the Arabs as the “precursors of the Antichrist, the children of perdition” (karapetac‘ Neṙinn` ordwoc‘n korstean). The chapter then recounts the sending of the Armenian patriarch Esayi (sed. 775-788) to meet with the representative of the ‘Abbāsids in Partaw64. In chapter 1 of bk. III the Arabs are also described as the “precursors and armies of the Antichrist” (karapetk‘ ew zōrk‘ Neṙinn)65, but the remainder of the book after chapter 20(19) does not exhibit any eschatological interpretation of Arab rule in the Caucasus. The only other reference to the Antichrist in bk. III is to the Ałuank‘ Catholicos Nersēs Bakur who was deposed for his Chalcedonian tendencies by the Armenian Catholicos Ełia I (sed. 703-717) and arrested by the Arab authorities. Dasxuranc‘i’s text notes that Nersēs “occupied the patriarchal throne for fourteen years as an orthodox priest, and for three and a half years as a heretic resembling the Antichrist who prepares to come in the last days66.” I would therefore suggest that the remarks concerning the Arabs reflect the sentiments of a late eighth- early ninth-century source that was disturbed by the ‘Abbāsid revolution and the slaughter of the Armenian nobles in 775 and saw in them the inception of the last times. Dasxuranc‘i seems to have been more impressed by the “exhaustion” of the Arabs, whose rule in Transcaucasia he observes was brought to an end by the Daylamite Musāfirids67, as well as by the Russian invasion of the Ałuank‘ capital of Partaw/Barda‘a in 943-44. The latter bear some of the hallmarks attributed to the armies of Gog and Magog reminiscent of the earlier Turkic invaders. They are described as “a people of strange and foreign appearance” (ayladēm, ōtaranšan azg) who attacked “from the lands of the north… rushing like a tempest” (i kołmanc‘n hiwsiswoy… ěnt‘analov ibrew zmrik), but this typology is not further developed68. 64   On this episode, see also Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 167-168, Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 148-149. 65   Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 289; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 187. 66  “kalaw zat‘oṙn ułłap‘aṙut‘eamb ams ŽD ew i č‘arap‘aṙut‘eann ams G ew kēs, ­nmaneal Derak‘ristosi Neṙinn, or handerjeal ē linel i yetin awursn,” Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 297; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 192. For the three and a half years for the rule of the Antichrist, cf. Dan. 7:25, 12:7; Rev. 11:2, 13:5; and Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 216. 67   Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 337; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 223-224. See Minorsky, Studies, p. 161; Minorsky, Caucasia IV, p. 514-529. 68   Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 338; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 224.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 380

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

381

3. The End is Near… Maybe By the tenth century, the original Arab invasions could no longer be seen as signs of the imminent end, nor could the conflicts amongst Arab factions signal the end of the Caliphate. This did not mean, however, that eschatological prophecies ceased being used by Armenian historiographers. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i’s inclusion in his tenth-century History of the eschatological predictions associated with both the Turkic and Arab invasions of the seventh century as well as of the ‘Abbāsid revolution of the eighth point to how persistent these prophecies remained, even when they would seem to have been obsolete. Other authors, however, responded differently to the continuation of the Caliphate. Writing at the beginning of the tenth century, T‘ovma Arcruni relies heavily on biblical texts to shape his History of the House of Arcrunik‘69. He employs the fulfillment of biblical prophecy in several instances to rhetorically enhance his narrative, and especially to describe the campaign of the ‘Abbāsid general Būgha. Nonetheless, an overarching eschatological perspective to T‘ovma’s work is not readily discernible70. Instead, T‘ovma casts his account of Armenian-Muslim relations in the ninth century in the mold of Ełišē’s History of Vardan and the Armenian War. As Thomson has argued, T‘ovma’s indebtedness to Ełišē exceeds merely the borrowing of imagery for rhetorical effect; rather, it presents the current struggles between Armenians and Muslims as the continuation of an older conflict and allows Armenian readers to interpret the current situation through that historical lens, possibly seeing themselves in the heroes of the fifth century71. Another important aspect of the Armenian-Sasanian conflict, however, that may have inspired contemporary readers was that the Sasanian Empire came to an end. If the two historical situations did parallel each other, then it stands to reason that Arab and Islamic dominance would also be limited72. We may observe the expectation of the finite nature of Arab rule present in a series of prophetic passages in bk. II of T‘ovma’s History in which the author builds upon this correspondence when he discusses the end of the Sasanian Empire and rise of Islam. 69  Edition: T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn; English translation: Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘. 70  Cf. Thomson, Christian Perception, p. 40. 71   Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 50; see also Garsoïan, Reality and Myth, p. 126-127. 72   Cf. the remarks made by Leo to ‘Umar in the correspondence preserved in Łewond noted above.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 381

29/11/16 06:05

382

s. la porta

In bk II, ch. 3, T‘ovma includes a prophecy of “the ancient historian,” concerning the defeat of the Sasanian Empire by Heraclius73. Subsequently, in the same chapter, T‘ovma remarks that the Persian Empire was weakened and split apart on account of the chaos over succession between the death of Khosrow II in 628 and the accession of Yazdegerd III in 632, with whom “the Persian kingdom came to an end74.” According to T‘ovma, the weakened Sasanian Empire recalled the prophecy of Daniel in which he saw the statue of mixed materials (Dan. 2.31-45)75. T‘ovma then passes to the rise of Islam and the life of Muḥammad in which he presents a variant of the legend of Sergius Baḥīrā76. In relating that account, T‘ovma compares the revelation Muḥammad received to the conception of the Antichrist by a daughter of the tribe of Dan. After summarizing the “teachings” of Muḥammad, T‘ovma again invokes a prophecy by “the ancient historian77.” Although this prophecy is not identical to the earlier one, it evinces the same structure and is clearly meant to complement it. It predicts that God will judge the Arabs more than anyone else, striking them with heavy blows, and proclaims that “the whole world will see you smoking, and fire will never leave you for ever. Like a furnace for potters will you burn, and you will have no rest78.” Thomson sees in the phrase “a furnace for potters” (hnoc‘ xec‘agorcac‘) a reference to Hos. 7:7-879; however, the word potter (xec‘agorc) does not occur in that verse, nor anywhere else in the Armenian Bible. Thus, the reference to a ‘furnace’ seems to be more general and may also refer to Ps. 20:10 (21:9), where 73   T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 93; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 159-160. Thomson, p. 159, n. 2, remarks that this prophecy is “reminiscent of the prophecy concerning Tyre in Ezek., chs. 26-27.” While this is true in a general way, the passage echoes several verses from the prophets: cf. the ‘woe’ form of the prophecy to Is. 10:5 amongst others; the reference to the trampling by hooves to Ezek. 32:2; the evocation of woodcutters to Jer. 46:22; and the consummation of sons and daughters to the ‘woe’ of Moab in Jer. 48:46. 74   T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 98; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 164. Cf. n. 26 above. 75   T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 98; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 164. 76   Roggema, The Legend, p. 171, observes that T‘ovma’s use of the double name ‘Sargis Bhira’ reveals either direct or indirect knowledge of Syriac or Christian Arabic sources. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i also mentions Baḥīrā, but does not know the double name. On the Baḥīrā legend and the figure of Muḥammad in Armenian, see also Thomson, Armenian Variations; and Thomson, Muhammad. 77   T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 103; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 169. 78   “Ew aṙhasarak amenayn tiezerk‘ cxeal tesanic‘en, ew i k‘ēn amenewin hurn oč‘ pakasesc‘ē yawitean, ibrew zhnoc‘ xec‘agorcac‘ ayresc‘is, ew k‘ez oč‘ ełic‘i hangist,” T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 103; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 169). 79   Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 169, n. 5.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 382

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

383

God will make His enemies like a fiery furnace when He appears, or Mal. 4:1 where the prophet declares that: “Behold, the day of the Lord will come burning like a furnace, and it will burn them, and all the Philis­ tines and all those who work iniquity will be the stubble.” The word Philistine (aylazgi, lit. of another nation)80 in this verse is the same as that often used by Armenian authors to refer to Muslims and may have thus triggered the association with the Arabs in the prophecy. Regardless of the allusion, the prophecy points to the punishment of the Arabs, perhaps at the end of days. The prophecy does not seem to have been engendered by any of the Arab fitna-s, at least as employed by T‘ovma, as he situates it at the inception of Islam, immediately prior to recording the death of Muḥammad. Given the parallelism with the earlier prophecy about the defeat of the Sasanian Empire, T‘ovma’s intent here is apparently to signal to his readers in a general way and without any specific chronological speculation that Arab rule, too, will come to an end. T‘ovma’s slightly later contemporary, Catholicos Yovhannēs V Drasxanakertc‘i (sed. 898-929)81, similarly does not contextualize the rise of the Arabs within an end-time narrative, although he too presents Muḥammad and his followers in a negative light82. His portrayal of the governor of Armenia, the Sadjid emir Yūsuf (901-28), and his attacks, however, is constructed around the fulfillment of several prophecies from Isaiah and Jeremiah and evokes many eschatological motifs83. After the   On the use of this term in Armenian, see Thomson, Christian Perception, p. 38-39.   Armenian text: Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn; English translation: Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i. 82   Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 101. The passage on Muḥammad was removed from the Jerusalem printing of the text not to offend the authorities. 83   Cf. Drasxanakertc‘i’s account of the attack of Yūsuf in 910 (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 277-279; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 168) citing Ps. 68:21(69:20); Isaiah 51:17, 19-20; 3:3, 8-9. He refers to Zachariah 5:1-2 and cites Hos. 13:7-8 while describing the context of Yūsuf’s execution of Armenian nobles (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 281-282; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 169170), and notes that the survivors hid in caves and rocky crags (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 285; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 171; see also below, n. 94). Simi­lar to Łewond, he also evokes Ełišē’s depiction of the hardships of women after the battle of Avarayr (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 285-286; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 171). Continuing with the attacks of 910, he notes that Yūsuf’s action fulfilled the prophecy of Is. 3:2-4, and that the Lord “showed us what to expect in the future, in the days of retribution” (ec‘oyc‘ mez yawurs vrēžxndrut‘iwn meroy` zinc‘ lineloy ēr yapa žamanaki), Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 290; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 173. He also labels Yūsuf the “insidious serpent of Dan” (daranakal ōjn Danay; cf. Gen. 49:17 and below, n. 87) and characterizes him as “agitated like a boiling cauldron” (ibrew zkat‘say yeṙandean; cf. Jer. 1:13-14 and n. 29 above), Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 295, 297; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 175, 176. 80 81

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 383

29/11/16 06:05

384

s. la porta

martyrdom of King Smbat Bagratuni, Yovhannēs describes Armenia as open to attack from all sides, destroying the prosperity of the realm and bringing to realization the prophecy of Is. 1:784. The question is whether his descriptions represent mere rhetorical flourishes; and, if not, are they indicative of an eschatological worldview? Some light on Yovhannēs’ employment of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and eschatological imagery is shed by his letter to the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos85. The purpose of the letter was to inform the Emperor of the afflictions that have beset the Armenian kingdoms and to request an imperial invasion of Armenia. Yovhannēs remarks that “as long as all the nations acknowledged fear of you as a protective bastion against the enemies86,” the “confederate of Beliar” (martakic‘ beliaray) did not assault the Church. Once the Armenian kingdoms were not responsible to the Empire, however, “the venom of the insidious serpent of Dan defied your righteous majesty, and there was no one to seek vengeance from our slanderer87.” The narrative Yovhannēs presents the Emperor resembles a recapitulation of episodes from the Antichrist legend recast to suit the current context. The description of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire as the “protective bastion” (lit. the protective wall of fortitude) reflects the interpretation of the Roman Empire as “the restraining power,” to katexon, in 2 Thess. 2:6 which holds back the son of Perdition88. The phrase, “insidious serpent of Dan” (daranakal ōjin Danay) alludes to the prophecy of Jacob in Gen. 49:17 that “Dan will be an insidious serpent on the path” (ełic‘i dan` ōj daranakal). Several interpretative traditions, including Hippolytus and the Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius, attest that this verse was understood to refer to the birth of the Antichrist who was to be from the tribe of Dan89. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jacob   Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 322-323; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 185. Cf. also the subsequent description of the depredations of the kingdom in ch. 53, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 325-332; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 186-189. 85   Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 340-354; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 192-197. 86  “Ew k‘anzi yaytni ēr amenayn azgac‘ pahpanakan parisp amrut‘ean erkiwłi jeroy ěnddēm t‘šnameac‘n,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 343; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 193. 87  “zanxul ełew t‘oynk‘ daranakal ōjin Danay yirawadat mecut‘enē, ew oč‘ xndrec‘aw partapanut‘iwn vrižuc‘ č‘araxōsin meroy,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 344; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 193. 88   Bousset, Antichrist Legend, p. 123-126; Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 183. 89   Bousset, Antichrist Legend, p. 171-174; Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 50-51, 195-196. 84

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 384

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

385

relates that he knows that the children of Dan will distance themselves from God “for I have read in the writings of Enoch the Just, that your prince will be Satan90.” Dan, too, in this chapter bears associations with Beliar, against whom the Messiah will battle, although the evidence is too scant to suggest that Yovhannēs may have had this tradition in mind when he refers to the Arabs as the confederate of Beliar. According to Yovhannēs, Muslims and apostates in particular have desecrated the Christian churches, offering “impious sacrifices and impure victims” (zenumn anōrēnut‘ean, ew…zohs płcut‘ean)91. This occupation and desecration of churches mirrors the Antichrist’s establishment of himself in the Temple in Dan. 9:27, Mt. 24:15, and Mk. 13:14, as well as many apocalyptic texts92. It also alludes to the defilement of the temple lamented in Ps. 78(79):1, which Yovhannēs continues to paraphrase (v.23a) in his description of how the Muslims disparaged the Christian dead: “they cast the corpses of the ones holy to the Most High as food for beasts and as for the birds of the skies. In vain, the blood of the clergy of the church [was shed] like the water poured around Jerusalem93.” Describing the survivors of Muslim attacks, Drasxanakertc‘i asserts that both nobles and commoners “were all scattered throughout the face of the earth, and took refuge on mountains, in caves and crevices without any clothing, hungry, daunted and terrified,” echoing the end of times predicted in Mt 24:16; Mk 13:14; Rev 6:1594. Yovhannēs then informs the Emperor of the martyrdom of the Armenian king, Smbat Bagratuni, and explains how the land is without a defender or savior95. With similar biblical overtones, he tells the Emperor of his 90   “vasn zi kardac‘i es i girs Enovk‘ay ardaroy, zi išxan jer satanay ełic‘i,” Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Ankanon Girk‘, p. 109; English translation: Issaverdens, Uncanonical Writings, p. 427. The reference to the writing of Enoch the Just is not to the Armenian text of that name. 91   Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 345; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 194. 92   Bousset, Antichrist Legend, p. 160-166; Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 203-206; cf. also the Vision of Ps.-Shenute, Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 281. 93   “i kerakur gazanac‘ ew i gēšs t‘ṙč‘noc‘ erknic‘ arkin zdiakuns marmnoc‘ srboc‘ Barjreloyn, ew tarapart ariunk‘ kłerc‘ ekełec‘woy ibrew zǰur hełan šurǰ zErusałēmaw,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 345; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 194. Cf. the source of Łewond’s description of the sack of Duin in 640 discussed above. 94   “c‘an ew c‘ir c‘ndmamb sp‘ṙealk‘ ěnd eress erkri, łōłealk‘ ew t‘aguc‘ealk‘ i lerins yayrs ew i p‘apars, merkut‘eamb ew sovov ew sasanut‘eamb ew dołmamb ahi,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 345; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 194. 95   Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 346-348; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 194-195. His lament is couched in biblical analogies to the Babylonian captivity, the conquest of Hazael, and the rule of Antiochus. Cf. Ps.-Methodius XIII, 6

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 385

29/11/16 06:05

386

s. la porta

own imprisonment and release. Yovhannēs explicitly requests Constantine’s help not only for himself but for all Armenians since “we all drank the cup of wrath from the southern tyranny” (aṙhasarak arbak‘ zbažakn barkut‘ean i harawayin bṙnut‘enē) an allusion to Is. 51:1796. He then begs him, evoking Ps. 73(74):3: “raise your hands against the insolence of the enemy utterly” (hambarjǰik‘ zjeṙs jer i veray ambartawanut‘ean t‘šnamwoyn minč‘ew ispaṙ)97. Yovhannēs encourages the Emperor by referring to Ps. 136(137):8 that “you will inherit bliss by paying back the daughters of Babylon the harm which she meted out upon us98.” Continuing with this Psalm, he declares that he writes his letter “sitting by the rivers of Babylon, scorched by many tears, when I recall the captivity of Sion99.” As may be discerned from the above summary, Yovhannēs’ dense letter skillfully interweaves allusions to biblical verses that possess eschatological overtones, particularly to the legend of the Antichrist, with those associated with national deliverance. That the ideas expressed in it are Yovhannēs’ own is confirmed by his use of the same or similar biblical prophecies associated with the Antichrist to refer to the attack of Yūsuf in the spring of 910100. Yovhannēs’ appeal to Emperor Constantine clearly portrays the latter with messianic coloring as the combatant of the Antichrist and Beliar, as well as the one who will exact vengeance from the enemies of the Church. On the other hand, it seems just as evident that he did not have any notion of the famous Last Roman Emperor legend in mind when sending his epistle. There is nothing specific in the letter in which the Ishmaelites will disparage the Christians by declaring that they have no ‘savior’ (parūqā), a notion found also in the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, Kraft, Last Roman Emperor, p. 222, 224. ‘Savior’ is rendered ‘rescue’ (anarrusis) in the Greek version of Ps.-Methodius. Kraft speculates that the translator found the close association of the Last Roman Emperor with the term savior problematic and so tried through his translation “to reduce the association of the rising Roman Emperor with the Messiah, i.e., Christ.” 96   Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 349; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 195. 97   Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 350; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 195. 98  “žaṙangesǰik‘ zeranut‘iwnsn, hatuc‘anelov dstern Babelac‘woc‘ t‘šuaṙakanin, zors ew na mezn hatoyc‘,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 350; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 196. 99   “i gets Babelac‘woc‘ nsteal toč‘orim bazum artasuōk‘, yoržam yišem zgerut‘iwn Sioni,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 351; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 196. 100   Notably the reference to Yūsuf as the serpent of Dan, and the description of the survivors of Yūsuf’s attempt to exterminate the Armenian nobles as hiding in caves. On the authenticity of the letter, see Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 37-38.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 386

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

387

itself that would point to his identification of the Emperor with that figure, although he may have been familiar with the related motif of the Victorious Emperor101. It is important to recall that Yovhannēs was not attempting to write an apocalypse or an eschatological prophecy, but a letter requesting military aid, and we should therefore not expect to find all the literary elements common to the former genres. His application of prophetic verses and eschatological motifs, however, not only attests to Drasxanakertc‘i’s familiarity with apocalyptic traditions, but also shows how end-time speculations could be repurposed to suit the aims of a contemporary political agenda. One may further conjecture that at the very least Yovhannēs thought that he was appealing to Imperial ideology and that the Imperial court would be receptive to his dramatic presentation of events102. In the end, his plans did not work out as he would have liked, and Yovhannēs tarried on Mt. Sepuh for several months while presumably awaiting a response from Constantinople. The Emperor did eventually provide the Armenian Bagratuni King Ašot with troops, but the Armenian kingdoms continued to be plagued with internal fighting and no successful offensive was launched. It is not certain whether Yovhannēs felt that he was living at the end of days, but eschatological prophecy does figure most prominently in the events that occurred in his own lifetime. Given that he completed his work ca. 923/4 and that he seems preoccupied with the appearance of the Antichrist, it is plausible that Yovhannēs harbored eschatological expectations at the coming completion of the first millennium as some of his other tenth-century contemporaries103. 4. Conclusion The above review of the use of eschatological prophecies by Armenian historiographers indicates that many of them shared similar anxieties and expectations of the end as others in the Eastern Mediterranean. The   On the figure of the Victorious Emperor, see Kraft, Last Roman Emperor.  Cf. Magdalino, History of the Future, p. 23-26; Magdalino, The Year 1000, esp. p. 253-256. 103   Landes, Fear of an Apocalyptic Year; Magdalino, The Year 1000. The prophecy regarding the solar eclipse of 1033, recorded by the eleventh-century historian Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i and more expansively in the twelfth-century by Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i (Matthew of Edessa), provides evidence for Armenian concerns over the approach of the millennium of Christ’s crucifixion. See Pogossian, Last Roman Emperor, p. 459-471, bibliography cited there, and now La Porta, Persistence of History. 101

102

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 387

29/11/16 06:05

388

s. la porta

dramatic socio-political changes of the seventh century due to the climax of Byzantine-Sasanian hostilities, the Arab invasions, and the first Arab fitna-s provoked anticipations of the end across the region. Likewise, expectations of the eschaton again intensified in the middle and second half of the eighth century as civil discord within the Caliphate continued, often combined with natural disasters and famine, and the eschatologically charged years of 800CE and 200AH approached. The History of Łewond and passages in Bk. III of Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i’s History, in particular, underscore that Armenian elites shared in this broader phenomenon of heightened eschatological tension. In the tenth century, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i reveals himself to have been in tune with contemporary millennialist expectations and apocalyptic traditions of the Antichrist. At the same time, these accounts do not reflect a homogenous eschatological perception of history. The sheer variety of biblical prophecies present in these texts is remarkable, and with a few notable exceptions, each source employs its own set of references. Furthermore, Łewond’s reluctance to draw broader implications from the application of prophetic texts to the crises of the seventh and eighth centuries reveals that an endtime perspective was not the only mode of interpretation possible among Armenian historiographers. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i apparently felt no need to ‘update’ the eschatological interpretations of the seventh and eighth centuries for his tenth-century audience. This reticence suggests that while the compiler remained loyal to the eschatological expectations of his sources, he did not necessarily share those concerns for his own historical time, despite the rapidly changing political environment and the approach of the millennium. T‘ovma Arcruni’s conversation with Ełišē’s History of the war against the Sasanian Empire in the mid-fifth century enabled him to imagine the end of the Caliphate, if not read into it the end-times. The lack of specificity in his application of the prophecy leaves it openended, imbuing a sense of caution in his anticipation. On the other hand, Yovhannēs Drasxankertc‘i not only informed his pessimistic appraisal of the political situation of the Armenian kingdoms with eschatological significance, but also thought it expedient to re-employ it to promote his political agenda of a Byzantine invasion of Armenia. Bibliography Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic = P. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, Los Angeles, CA, 1985. Alexander, Oracle = P. Alexander, The Oracle of Baalbek. The Tiburtine Sibyl in Greek Dress, Washington, D.C., 1967.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 388

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

389

Arzoumanian, History of Lewond = Z. Arzoumanian (trans.), History of Lewond, the Eminent Vardapet of the Armenians, Wynnewood, PA, 1982. Baethgen, Beschriebung = F. Baethgen, Beschriebung der syrischen Handschrift “Sachau 131” auf der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 6 (1886), p. 193-210. Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic = K.B. Bardakjian – S. La Porta (eds.), The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition. A Comparative Perspective (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, 25), Leiden, 2014. Bartikian, “Azgn Kark‘edomayec‘i išxanut‘eann” = H. Bartikian, “Azgn Kark‘edomayec‘i išxanut‘eann,” aṙełcvaci lucumě’ [The solution to the mystery of “the principality of the Kark‘edomayec‘i people”], in Ēǰmiacin, (1999), n° 4, p. 85-94. Bartikian, Gugarac‘ Ašuša = H. Bartikian, Gugarac‘ Ašuša bdešxi knik‘i hunaren arjanagrut‘yan aṙełcvaci lucumě [The solution to the mystery of the Greek inscription on the seal of Ašuša, bdeašx of Gugark‘], in PatmaBanasirakan Handes, (2005), n° 1, p. 81-90. Bousset, Antichrist Legend = W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend. A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore, tr. by A.H. Keane (Text and Translation Series, 24), Atlanta, GA, 1999 [reed. of London, 1896]. Brock, North Mesopotamia = S. Brock, North Mesopotamia in the LateSeventh Century. Book XV of John Bar Penkāyē’s Rīš Mellē, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 9 (1987), p. 51-75. Chahnazarian, Ghewond = G. Chahnazarian (tr.), Ghewond. Histoires des guerres et des conquêtes des Arabes en Arménie, Paris, 1856. Childs, Enemy = B. Childs, The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 78.3 (1959), p. 187-198. Cook, Apocalyptic Year = D. Cook, The Apocalyptic Year 200/815-16 and the Events Surrounding it, in A. Baumgarten (ed.), Apocalyptic Time (Studies in the History of Religions, 86), Leiden, 2000, p. 41-68. Cowe, Reception = S.P. Cowe, The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Late Ancient and Medieval Armenian Society, in Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic, p. 81-125. Daryaee, When the End is Near = T. Daryaee, When the End is Near. Barbarized Armies and Barracks Kings of Late Antique Iran, in M. Macuch – D. Weber – D. Durkin-Meisterernst (eds.), Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference of Iranian Studies, held in Vienna, 18-22 September 2007, Wiesbaden, 2010, p. 4352. Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians = C. Dowsett (tr.), The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i (London Oriental Series, 8), London, 1961. Ełišē, Vasn Vardanay = E. Tēr Minasean (ed.), Ełišē. Vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc‘ Paterazmin, Erevan, 1957, facs. reprod. with intro. by R.W. Thomson, Delmar, NY, 1993. Garsoïan, Epic Histories = N. Garsoïan (tr.), The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘), (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 8), Cambridge, MA, 1989. Garsoïan, Reality and Myth = N. Garsoïan, Reality and Myth in Armenian History, in The East and the Meaning of History. International Conference

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 389

29/11/16 06:05

390

s. la porta

(23-27 November 1992), (Studi Orientali dell’Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, 13), Rome, 1994, p. 117-145. Gerö, Byzantine Iconoclasm = S. Gerö, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources, Louvain, 1973 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 346; Subsidia, 41). Golden et al., World of the Khazars = P. Golden – H. Ben-Shammai – A. Róna-Tas (eds.), The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives. Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium hosted by the Ben Zvi Institute (Handbook of Oriental Studies  /  Handbuch der Orientalistik, 17), Leiden, 2007. Greenwood, A Re-assessment = T. Greenwood, A Re-assessment of the History of Łewond, in Le Muséon, 125 (2012), p. 99-167. Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes = T. Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes and Apocalyptic Expectations: A Re-evaluation of the Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos, in Le Muséon, 115 (2002), p. 323-397. Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist = L. Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist: politische Apokalyptik unter Juden und Christen des Nahen Ostens am Vorabend der arabischen Eroberung (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana, 21), Wiesbaden, 2014. Hawting, Marwān II = G.R. Hawting, Marwān II, in C.E. Bosworth et al. (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. VI, Leiden, 1991, p. 623-625. Hoyland, Seeing Islam = R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 13), Princeton, NJ, 1997. Issaverdens, Uncanonical Writings = J. Issaverdens, The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament Found in the Armenian Mss. of the Library of St. Lazarus, Venice, 1901. Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text = A. Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III, in Harvard Theological Review, 37 (1944), p. 269-332. Kaegi, Initial Byzantine Reactions = W. Kaegi, Initial Byzantine Reactions to the Arab Conquest, in Church History, 38 (1969), p. 139-149. Kraft, Last Roman Emperor = A. Kraft, The Last Roman Emperor Topos in the Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, in Byzantion, 82 (2012), p. 213257. La Porta, Persistence of History = S. La Porta, The Persistence of History: Two Armenian Reactions to the Failure of Prophecy, in I. Bueno – C. Rouxpetel (eds.), Historical Writings Between East and West, forthcoming. La Porta, Seventh Vision = S. La Porta, The Seventh Vision of Daniel. A new translation and introduction, in R. Bauckham – J. Davila – A. Panayotov (eds.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, Grand Rapids, MI, 2013, vol. I, p. 410-434. La Porta, Vision of St. Grigor = S. La Porta, The Vision of St. Grigor Lusaworič‘ and the Role of Apocalyptic in the Conversion of Armenia, in Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic, p. 296-312.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 390

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

391

Landes, Fear of an Apocalyptic Year = R. Landes, The Fear of an Apocalyptic Year 1000: Augustinian Historiography, Medieval and Modern, in Speculum, 75 (2000), p. 97-145. Landes, Lest the Millennium be Fulfilled = R. Landes, Lest the Millennium be Fulfilled. Apocalyptic Expectations and the Pattern of Western Chro­ nography 100-800 CE, in W. Verbeke – D. Verhelst – A. Welkenhuysen (eds.), The Use and Abuse of Eschatology in the Middle Ages, Louvain, 1988, p. 137-211. Łazar, Patmut‘iwn = G. Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean – S. Malxasean (eds.), Łazar P‘arpec‘i. Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Tiflis, 1904, repr. Delmar, NY, 1986. Łewond, Patmut‘iwn = K. Ezean (ed.), Patmut‘iwn Łewondeay meci vardapeti Hayoc‘, St. Petersburg, 1887. Magdalino, History of the Future = P. Magdalino, The History of the Future and its Uses. Prophecy, Policy and Propaganda, in R. Beaton – C. Roueché (eds.), The Making of Byzantine History. Studies Dedicated to Donald M.  Nicol (Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London, 1), Aldershot – Brookfield, 1993, p. 3-34. Magdalino, The Year 1000 = P. Magdalino, The Year 1000 in Byzantium, in P. Magdalino (ed.), Byzantium in the Year 1000 (The Medieval Mediterranean, 45), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2003 Mahé, Le problème = J.-P. Mahé, Le problème de l’authenticité et de la valeur de la chronique de Łewond, in L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et culture (Byzantina Sorbonensia, 12), Paris, 1996, p. 119-126. Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i = K. Maksoudian (tr.), Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i. History of Armenia, Atlanta, GA, 1987. Mingana, Timothy’s Apology = A. Mingana, Timothy’s Apology for Christianity (Woodbrooke Studies, 2), Cambridge, 1928. Minorsky, Caucasia IV = V. Minorsky, Caucasia IV, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 15 (1953), p. 504-529. Minorsky, Studies  = V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History (Cambridge Oriental Series, 6), London, 1953. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn = V. Aṙak‘elyan (ed.), Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn Ałuanic‘ Ašxarhi, Erevan, 1983. Muradyan, Vision = G. Muradyan, The Vision of St. Sahak in the History of Łazar P‘arpeci‘, in Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic, p. 313-325. Penn, Envisioning Islam = M.P. Penn, Envisioning Islam. Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World, Philadelphia, PA, 2015. Pogossian, Last Roman Emperor = Z. Pogossian, The Last Roman Emperor or the Last Armenian King? Some Considerations on Armenian Apocalyptic Literature from the Cilician Period, in Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic, p. 457-503. Ps.-Methodius, Apokalypse = G. Reinink (ed. and tr.), Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 540541; Scriptores Syri, 220-221), Louvain, 1992. Roggema, The Legend = B. Roggema, The Legend of Sergius Baḥīrā. Eastern Christian Apologetics and Apocalyptic in Response to Islam (The History of Christian-Muslims Relations, 9), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2009. Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn = G. Abgaryan (ed.), Patmut‘iwn Sebēosi, Erevan, 1979.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 391

29/11/16 06:05

392

s. la porta

Shapira, Armenian and Georgian Sources = D. Shapira, Armenian and Georgian Sources on the Khazars. A Re-evaluation, in Golden et al., World of the Khazars, p. 307-352. Suermann, Use of Biblical Quotations = H. Suermann (ed.), The Use of ­Biblical Quotations in Christian Apocalyptic Writings of the Umayyad Period, in D. Thomas (ed.), The Bible in Arab Christianity (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 6), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2007, p. 69-90. Thomson, Armenian Variations = R.W. Thomson, Armenian Variations on the Baḥira Legend, in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 3-4 (1979-80), p. 884-895. Thomson, Christian Perception = R.W. Thomson, Christian Perception of History – The Armenian Perspective, in J.J. van Ginkel – H.L. Murre-van den Berg – T.M. van Lint (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 134), Louvain, 2005, p. 35-44. Thomson, Eḷishē = R.W. Thomson (tr.), Eḷishē, History of Vardan and the Armenian War (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 5), Cambridge, MA, 1982. Thomson, History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i = R.W. Thomson (tr.), The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Atlanta, GA, 1991. Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘ = R.W. Thomson (tr.), History of the House of Artsrunik‘, Detroit, MI, 1985. Thomson, Muhammad = R.W. Thomson, Muhammad and the Origin of Islam in Armenian Literary Tradition, in D. Kouymjian (ed.), Armenian Studies  / Études arméniennes: in memoriam Haïg Berbérian, Lisbon, 1986, p. 829-858. Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History = R.W. Thomson – J. HowardJohnston (tr. and comm.), The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos (2 parts), (Translated Texts for Historians, 31), Liverpool, 1999. T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn = K. Patkanean (ed.), T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn tann Arcruneac‘, St. Petersburg, 1887. van Donzel – Schmidt, Gog and Magog = E. van Donzel – A. Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources (Brill’s Inner Asian Library, 22), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2010. Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn = Patmut‘iwn Yovhannu Kat‘ołikosi, Jerusalem, 1867. Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Ankanon Girk‘ = S. Yovsēp‘eanc‘ (ed.), Ankanon Girk‘ Hin Ktakaranac‘ [Non-canonical Books of the Old Testament], Venice, 1896. Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs = H. Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs and Imperial Politics in Medieval Islam. The ‘Abbāsid Caliphate in the Early Ninth Century, Columbia, SC, 2009. Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium = C. Zuckerman, The Khazars and Byzantium – The First Encounter, in Golden et al., World of the Khazars, p. 399-432.

California State University, Fresno Armenian Studies Program 5245 N. Backer Ave. M/S PB4 Fresno, CA 93740, USA [email protected]

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 392

Sergio La Porta

29/11/16 06:05



THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

393

Abstract — This essay examines the employment of eschatological prophecies by Armenian historiographers between the 7th and 10th centuries. Eschatological perceptions were quite common in the Armenian tradition, particularly when they also appeared in cultures throughout the region. Political upheavals such as the seventh-century Byzantine-Persian wars, the Islamic invasions, and the Abbāsid revolution, as well as the approach of eschatologically marked years such as 800CE or 200AH, and 1000CE, served as touchstones for speculation on the end of the world or for looking at the past through an eschatological lens. On the other hand, there is evidence that indicates that not all members of the Armenian literary elite shared these sentiments. This paper argues that the eighth-century historian Łewond, for example, attempted to de-eschatologize many of the critical historical events that precipitated eschatological tensions.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 393

29/11/16 06:05

REVISITING THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS ON THE PORTAL OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM* For centuries, pilgrims carved their names on the columns flanking the southern entrance to the Holy Sepulchre Church in Jerusalem in a variety of scripts – Greek, Latin, Arabic, Armenian, Georgian, Syriac, and Slavonic. This paper is dedicated to the graffiti left there by Georgian pilgrims. The study is based on data that was gathered in the 1980s by the “Rock Inscriptions and Graffiti Project” (RIGP) of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and on personal observations of the authors. None of the inscriptions has a date; however, most of them can be attributed to the 13th-17th centuries by paleographic criteria and comparative evidence of Georgian manuscripts. 1. Researchhistory The first Georgian traveler who left an account of his pilgrimage to the Holy Land was the Georgian archbishop Ṭimote Gabašvili, who visited the Holy Land in the years 1757-58. His text mentions various evidence of lost Georgian glory “written on stone or in books”1. More detailed evidence comes from the Georgian monk Laurentius of Oḳriba, who made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the years 1805-1807, and described “the wooden doors of the Temple [Holy Sepulchre] which were all covered by old Georgian inscriptions”. He also contributed new information regarding the church and the city, and important evidence to the role of Georgians in the Holy Land”2. In the year 1883 Alexander Cagareli, an eminent Georgian scholar who was sent on an expedition to the Holy Land and Sinai to document and study Georgian antiquities, examined the inscriptions of the Holy Sepulchre. His report displays no special excitement: “I saw Georgian letters, or better to say, scratches, on the wall near the main doors. But those, as much as I could see, were only the names of pilgrims, besides – they were late ones”3. * This article was written in Hebrew University of Jerusalem, during my research project conducted in the Center for the Study of Christianity(T. Pataridze). 1 GABASHVILI, Pilgrimage, p. 144-145. 2 Cit. according to CAGARELI, Pamiatniki, p. 114. 3 CAGARELI, Pamiatniki, p. 115.

LeMuséon 129 (3-4), 395-422. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180785 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

396

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

For almost a century the Georgian inscriptions of the Holy Sepulchre remained neglected. The first attempt to collect the graffiti of pilgrims in the Holy Land was made in the 1980’s by members of the RIGP, directed by Michael E. Stone. Work concentrated primarily on the inscriptions of the Sinai Peninsula, to which were added the graffiti from the main holy places: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, etc.4. The latter, which remains largely unpublished, includes numerous inscriptions on the entrance to the Holy Sepulchre5. Even in the case of this site, which is open to the public and researchers alike, the graphic and photographic documentation of RIGP is crucial, since some of the inscriptions have partially deteriorated already, or have even been demolished6. A preliminary account of the Georgian graffiti of the Holy Sepulchre has been written by the Georgian scholar G. Gagošiʒe7: these inscriptions are revisited in this study. 2. TheSouthernPortaloftheHolySepulchre The well-known entrance to the Holy Sepulchre8 has been in service for almost 900 years. In July 15, 1149, the fiftieth anniversary commemorating the capture of the Holy City by the Crusaders, the renovated building was dedicated9. Three entrances led to the original Crusader structure: on the west, the entrance from Patriarch Street; on the south, the large twin doors to the large new parvis, from the street connecting the city market with Patriarch Street; and a minor entrance from the parvis through the stairway leading to Calvary. The southern façade of the church is one of the most remarkable and eclectic examples of Crusader architecture, combining various decorative styles and media, new and reused fragments. It incorporates Byzantine and even Roman elements – columns, STONE, TheRockInscriptions.The Armenian, Georgian, Latin, and Ethiopian inscriptions from Sinai were published separately by VAN ESBROECK, TheGeorgianInscriptions; ADLER, LatinInscriptions; and PUECH, Uneinscriptionéthiopienne. 5 The Syriac inscriptions were published independently of the RIGP work: BROCK et al., TheSyriacInscriptions. 6 The authors are indebted to M.E. Stone of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for his kind permission to use the RIGP collection. 7 GAGOŠIƷE,Inscriptions. 8 Literature on the architecture and archaeology of the Holy Sepulchre Church is enormous. To mention only a few main studies: COÜASNON, TheChurchoftheHolySepulchre; CORBO, IlSantoSepolcro; PATRICH, TheEarlyChurchoftheHolySepulchre; GIBSON – TAYLOR, BeneaththeChurch; BIDDLE, TheTombofChrist; KRUGER, DieGrabeskirche; PRINGLE, TheChurches, p. 6-72. 9 However, the renovation was not completed before 1167-1169. BIDDLE, The Tomb ofChrist, p. 89-98. 4

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

397

capitals, and frieze fragments10. The double portal, echoed by a double window in the upper storey, had marble lintels adorned with relief decoration. The left lintel depicts the events of the Holy Week, from the Raising of Lazarus to the Last Supper, and the right one presents a wine scroll, inhabited with fantastic beasts: centaurs, harpies, etc.11. It is possible that the pair of lintels was chosen with specific intent: the right door, decorated with symbols of temporal and ephemeral human nature, was intended for entrance, and the left one, symbolizing the imperishable nature of Christ, for exit12. The tympana above the entrance were originally decorated with mosaics – the Virgin and Child above the left door, Christ appearing to Mary Magdalene above the right13. The portal is flanked by two groups of three marble columns, with the third group between the two doors. The columns, clearly spolia from Byzantine structures, include three types of white-greyish Proconnesian marble and the dark green verdeantico. The Crusader loss of Jerusalem to Salah ad-Din in 1187 led to significant changes in the Holy Sepulchre complex. The western entrance to the church was blocked, and never reopened. The southern, main entrance was narrowed: the eastern doorway of the double portal was walled up, leaving only one side for passage. The concentration of Georgian inscriptions on both sides of the left entrance clearly shows that the graffiti postdate this modification. The stairway leading to Calvary was turned into the Latin Chapel of Our Lady of Sorrows, known also as Chapel of the Franks. The columns that supported the Crusader arcade in the southern side of the parvis were removed and sent to Mecca in the 13th century. A relatively low but massive wall was erected opposite the central columns of the entrance. It formed part of the diwan of the Muslim doorkeepers, narrowing the passage even more. Notably, no Georgian inscriptions were preserved on the lower part of the central columns and on their bases, which were blocked by the diwan wall. In 1808 the church was considerably damaged by fire. In the subsequent restoration of 1809-1810, the wooden doors were removed, and with them the inscriptions that were described by the monk Laurentius14. 10 A number of studies were dedicated to the decorative scheme of the southern portal of the church. See: KENAAN-KEDAR, LocalChristianArt, esp. p. 221-227; PRAWER, The Lintels; ROSEN-AYALON, TheFaçade; KÜHNEL, DerRankenfries; FOLDA, TheArtoftheCrusaders, p. 214-229; HUNT, ArtisticandCulturalInter-Relations; REUVEN, EarlyMoslemCapitals. 11 The marble lintels were removed to the Palestine Archaeological Museum by the British authorities after the earthquake of 1927. 12 HUNT,ArtisticandCulturalInter-Relations, p. 75. 13 PRINGLE, TheChurches, p. 55. 14 CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 114.

398

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

3. GeorgiansandtheHolySepulchreChurch Georgian monks in the Holy Land appear in various historical, hagiographic, and pilgrimage sources since the 5th century AD. The earliest archaeological evidence of Georgian presence is dated to the same time15. Pilgrims’ inscriptions bear witness to active pilgrim-traffic from Georgia to Palestine and Sinai from the 5th century onward16. It is astonishing how soon after the adoption of Christianity Georgians began to go on pilgrimage to the Holy Places. At this very early stage they succeeded in reaching even the most distant sanctuaries, which were not always part of the standard pilgrimage. Surprisingly, the earliest Georgian graffiti were preserved in these distant places – Nazareth and Sinai. There is little doubt that pilgrims would not have bypassed the major sanctuaries of the Nativity and the Resurrection on their way to the more remote pilgrimage centers, and therefore the absence of early Georgian pilgrims’ graffiti in Jerusalem and Bethlehem can only be explained as random preservation. In the 11th century the Georgians began to settle in the vicinity of the Holy Sepulchre Church. Evidence to the existence of the Georgian “Monastery of Golgotha” dates to 1049. Colophons preserve names of monks that translated and copied manuscripts here: the hegumen Iovane Golgoteli, Mikaeli, Nisṭereoni, and Ḳviriḳe aġdgomeli17. Most probably, the monastery was established as a result of King Bagrat IV (1027-1072) participation in the Byzantine project of rebuilding the Holy Sepulchre Church, which had been destroyed by Caliph al-Ḥakim18. At the same time the Georgian community renovated the Monastery of the Holy Cross, which will remain the main spiritual and cultural center of the Georgians in the Holy Land for almost half a millennium19. Georgian presence in the church was interrupted by the Crusaders, and was reestablished only in the 14th century. From this period on, the 15 CAGARELI, Pamiatniki; PERADZE, An Account. The archaeological remains of the ancient Georgian monasteries and epigraphic material that dates to the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods were first discovered in the 1930s, and the corpus is constantly growing. See ILLIFE, Cemeteries and “Monastery”; CORBO, Monastero di Bir El-Qutt; LANDAU – AVI YONAH, Excavations of the Family Vault; DI SEGNI, The Date of the Beit Safafa Inscription; SELIGMAN, A Georgian Monastery; IDEM, Excavations at the Georgian Monastery. 16 TCHEKHANOVETS, EarlyGeorgianPilgrimage. 17 CAGARELI, Pamiatniki, p. 182-183; TOMADZE, Literaturnyechkoly. 18 OUSTERHOUT, RebuildingtheTemple, with further references. 19 The Monastery of the Holy Cross to the west of Jerusalem was renovated by the Georgian monk Prochorus Shavsheli in 1050-60. The construction of the monastery church was completed ca. 1056, the oldest manuscript of the Holy Cross scriptorium (Sin.Geo. 77) is dated to 1055: vAN ESBROECK, LecouventdeSainte-Croix.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

399

Georgian community had full possession of Golgotha20. The sources of the Armenians, their main competitors for possession of the holy place, state that the first attempt to gain the rights for the Place of Crucifixion goes back to 1316. The struggle between the Georgians and the Armenians continued, with varying degree of success, for two centuries21. Scattered evidence also testifies to Georgian possession of other parts of the Holy Sepulchre complex: the Chapel of the Finding of the Holy Cross; the Chapels of St. Helena, St. Mary Magdalene, and the Prison of Christ; and the chapel on the footsteps of Golgotha, the burial place of the Latin Kings of Jerusalem22. A number of treaties that were signed between the Georgian kings and the Egyptian Mamelukes during the 15th-early 16th centuries guaranteed the special rights of the Georgian community in the Holy Places. In addition to parts of the Holy Sepulchre Church, the community owned fifteen monasteries and nunneries in Jerusalem, as well as altars in Gethsemane, the Nativity Church in Bethlehem, and the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai23. However, the community lost its influence after the Ottoman conquest of the Holy Land, and gradual loss of all the Georgian property ensued in the 17th-18th centuries. There is evidence to the Georgians being one of the Christian communities that controlled the Holy Sepulchre Church since the middle of the 11th century and until the beginning of the 17th century. This evidence seems to constitute a relevant background for a discussion of the Georgian inscriptions from the portal of the Holy Sepulchre. 4. TheInscriptions To facilitate the reading, the columns that have inscriptions on them will be numbered from left to the right. Columns 1-3 are to the left of the open entrance; columns 4-8 to the right. Georgian inscriptions were found on columns 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Fig. 1). CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 57-61; PERADZE, AnAccount, p. 217-218. TER-HOVHANNESIANTS, ChronologicalHistory, p. 222-229, presents the translation of numerous archival documents in the possession of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. See also: SAWALANIANTS, HistoryofJerusalem,р. 533-535. We thank Fr. Pakrat Berjekian of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem for his generous help with the Armenian sources. For a brief overview of the struggle between the Armenians and Georgians over Golgotha, see also SANJIAN, TheArmenianCommunities, p. 172-173. 22 For review of relevant sources see PERADZE, AnAccount, p. 218-220. 23 The first list of the Georgian property in Jerusalem was compiled by archbishop Ṭimote Gabašvili in 1758: GABASHVILI,Pilgrimage, p. 140-141. See also CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 89-130; VAN ESBROECK, LecouventdeSainte-Croix. The location of certain monasteries remains in doubt. 20 21

400

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

The inscriptions are written in the Asomtavruli and Nusxuri scripts, although they date to a period in which the Mxedruli script was also in use24. The reason for excluding the Mxedruli script can be found in it being used primarily for non-religious purposes. It should be noted that repertories containing information about Georgian clergy and pilgrims associated with the Holy Land are published and analyzed. An example is the study of the agapae of the Monastery of the Holy Cross by E. Meṭreveli. The agapae give invaluable information about the activities of the community in the 13th-17th centuries25. Meṭreveli’s work complements the repertory available in the Sin.Geo.77 manuscript. The final quire of Sin.Geo.77 was written by a later hand than the main body of the text, and offers a Synodikon with a long list of the names of Georgian clergy who worshipped in the Holy Land and Sinai, ktetors of the Georgian monasteries and the eminent pilgrims who visited holy places26; all with requests for divine mercy27. The main part of the manuscript is from the 13th-15th centuries, while most of the final quire was written at the beginning of 15th century, and gradually added to during the 15th16th centuries28. 24 The Georgian alphabet had three stages of development. Between the 5th-10th centuries the uncial Asomtavruli script was primarily used. In the 9th century, the Nusxuri script first appeared, and developed as a cursive variety of Asomtavruli. It is first attested in the inscription of Aṭenis Sioni (AD 835), and is present in the colophon of Sinai Polykephalon which was copied at St. Sabbas monastery in AD 864. From the 10th century the number of manuscripts written in the Nusxuriscript increased considerably. The first use of the third, Mxedruli script, is attested in the inscription of the same Aṭenis Sioni (AD 982-986), demonstrating that by the 10th century all three scripts were used concurrently. Nevertheless, the AsomtavruliandNusxuri scripts were primarily used in religious literature, while Mxedruli script was considered as the most appropriate for secular literature. Since the 17th century all types of texts have been written in Mxedruli, which is the only remaining script today. 25 MEṬREVELI, Materials for the History. This publication compiles the repertory of agapaefrom different sources, carefully dated and analyzed: Jer.Iber. 24-25, a Synaxarium which began in the 11th century, and continued to compile the repertory of agapae from the Monastery of the Holy Cross until the 13th-14th centuries. This material was first published by MARR, Sinodik. Another source are the parchment folios containing agapae from the Monastery of the Holy Cross, which werebrought to Leipzig in 1845 by Constantin von Tischendorf. Meṭreveli dates the first part of this repertory to the 13th-15th centuries, and its second part to the 15th-beginning of the 17th centuries. 26 CAGARELI was the first scholar to pay attention to this list. It is partly reproduced in CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 218-221. The text was published again by ǮAVAXIŠVILI, Catalogue, p. 241-251. For the integral edition based on a thorough study,see ḲLDIAŠVILI, Georgian MonasticSynodika. 27 This repertory, which apears on ff. 129r-205v, has a general title: ძოსახსენებელი და ძატიანე პატიოსნისა წძიდისა ძონასტრისა, ღძრთისა დაძყარებულისა სინაჲსაჲ [CommemorationandChronicleoftheHonourableHolySinaiMonasteryEstablishedby theLord]. 28 ḲLDIAŠVILI, GeorgianMonasticSynodika,p. 61-62 and 194.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

401

Column1 INSCR. 1 (RIGP GEO HS 2) Right side, 199 cm above ground; length: 9.5 cm; height: 3.5 cm; Asomtavruli script (Fig. 2). ბა(რ)თ(ო)ლ(ო)ძ(ე)ს შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ God have mercy on Bartolome.

Bartolome is mentioned in the manuscript Sin.Geo. 77: “ბართოლოძეს და ძისთა ძშ(ო)ბ(ე)ლთა შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“God, have mercy on Bartolome and his parents”)29, – dated to the 15th century. Another ბართოლოძე is mentioned by Jer.Iber. 39, dated to the 12th-14th centuries30. Column2 INSCR. 2 (RIGP 5) Left side, 113 cm above ground. The inscription has three lines: the first is 6.4 cm long and 3.3 cm high; the second is 11 cm long and 4 cm high; and the third is 12.2 cm long and 4.5 cm high. The script is Asomtavruli, but some letters have a features of Nusxuriscript (Figs. 3a, 3b). ჯ(უა)რო ქ(რისტე)ს(ო) და ს(ა)ფ(ლავ)ო ქ(რისტ)ესო, შ(ეიწყალ)ე ჯეაე The Cross of Christ and the tomb of Christ, have mercy on Ǯeaʒe.

The reading of the patronym as suggested by Gagošiʒe – ჯვა(რა)ე, seems implausible because of the letters e and a which are clearly legible. It should be noted that both of these letters, as well as every other e in this line, have features of the Nusxuriscript: they are angular, inclined, and smaller than the letter a. On the other hand, for the reading ჯვა(რა)ე to be possible, we must consider the letter v to be likewise written in Nusxuri. All the abbreviated words in this inscription are written below the sign ქარაგძა [karagma], which signifies abbreviation. This sign is missing in the full patronym ჯეაე. As far as we know, there are no common abbreviations that omit consonants from the roots of patronyms, because abbreviations require obvious interpretation. No mention of ჯეაე, or ჯვარაე exists in the ancient Georgian sources that relate to the Holy Land. ḲLDIAŠVILI,GeorgianMonasticSynodika,p. 167 and 217. G. Gagošiʒe draws attention to this name in GAGOŠIƷE, Inscriptions, p. 144. The number of the manuscript referred to here, is from the catalog of Cagareli. Carageli himself did not mention this note, which was copied only by N. Marr in his own catalogue (MARR, AShortCatalogue, number 48). Marr transcribes the commemorative note that mentions Bartolome: MARR, A Short Catalogue, p. 83. However no dating based on palaeography is suggested for this note. Blake could not found this evidence in the library. 29

30

402

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

INSCR. 3 (RIGP 8) Left side, 118 cm above ground (Fig. 4). The inscription in Asomtavruli script has four lines, measuring (from the top): 12.5 cm long and 4 cm high; 4.8 cm long and 7 cm high ; 6 cm long and 3.2 cm high; 6 cm long and 3.8 cm high. თოძ(ა) ყ(ო)ფ(ი)ლი ივკ ვნც ბრნ შ(ეუ)ნ(დო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ Toma previously Ivḳ Vnc brʒn God, have mercy.

The reading at the beginning is unambiguous: თოძ(ა) ყ(ო)ფ(ი)ლი…: “Toma, previously…”, the same is true for the last line: შ(ეუ)ნ(დო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ: “God have mercy”. The middle part of this inscription is quite difficult to interpret. ივკ ვნც ბრნ are abbreviated words. ივკ must be another name for Toma, his secular name, before he became a monk. Gagošiʒe interpreted the sentence as: თოძ(ა) ყ(ო)ფ(ი)ლი ი(ო)ვ(ა)კ(იძ). ვ(ი)ნც ბრ(ა)ნ(ოს), შ(ეუ)ნ(დო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ: “Iovaḳim, previously Toma. God have mercy (on he) who mentions (him)”. Request of divine mercy for anyone who will mention the name of the dedicator is indeed a frequent formula, even if it is more usual to use the verb ძოიჴსენოს instead of ბრ(ა)ნ(ოს)31. It seems that there is a mention of the name Ioaḳim in the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, precisely in the same location, on the column just to the right of the door leading to the grotto of the Nativity. The column is now incorporated in the newly constructed wall. The inscription says: ქ(რისტე) ღ(ძერთ)ო შ(ეიწყალ)ე იოკი ქ… ლელი( ?)32 [Christ God, have mercy on Ioḳi k…leli(ʒ ?)] (Fig. 5). The reading Iovaḳim, which Gagošiʒe suggests, poses a problem of uncommon abbreviation, which is formed by omitting the last consonant of the 31 Similar requests: “ესე ჯუარი ბარნაბაჲსი რ(ოძელძა)ნ აღძოიკითხოს, ლოცვა[სა ძოძიჴსენეთ]” (“Anyone who will read this cross of Barnabas, please, mention me in prayer”): FÄHNRICH, DieältestengeorgischenInschriften, p. 38-39 and ŠOŠIAŠVILI, Corpus, p. 84; “სალოცველად ჩეძდა და ძათა ჩეძთა ძეოხებისათჳს ყოველსა ჭირსა აძას საწუთროს და საუკუნეს და ვინ აღძოიკითხოს ლოვცასა ძოძიჴსენიეთ” (“…to pray for me and for the assistance of my brothers in all pains occurring in this world and the one who will read this please, mention me in your prayer”): FÄHNRICH, DasältestengeorgischenInschriften, p. 64, and ŠOŠIAŠVILI, Corpus,p. 103; “... და როძელთა აღძოიკითხოთ, ძე, ბეჟან ცოდვილი ლოცვასა ძოძიჴსენეთ” (“…anyone who will read this, please mention me, the sinner Bejan, in your prayer”): FÄHNRICH, DieältestengeorgischenInschriften, p. 71-72, and ŠOŠIAŠVILI, Corpus, p. 107; “როძელძან თ(აჳყან)ისცეს ს(უ)ლი ჩუენი ლოცვასა ძოიჴსენენ” (“anyone who will venerate it, please, mention our soul”): FÄHNRICH, DieältestengeorgischenInschriften, p. 69-70, and ŠOŠIAŠVILI, Corpus, p. 105; “ვინ წაიკითხოთ, ლოცვა ყავთ” (“anyone who will read this, pray”): VAN ESBROECK, The GeorgianInscriptions,p. 174. 32 იოაკიძ ქართლელი (Ioaḳim from Kartli) is the reading proposed by GAGOŠIƷE, GeorgianInscriptions,p. 35.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

403

first name. In the case of Iovaḳim for example, the usual abbreviation would be Ivḳm or Iḳm33instead of Ivḳ or Ioḳi. It should also be pointed out that the monastic and secular names often, although not always, begin with the same letter. Clearly, this is not the case if Toma was indeed replaced by Iovaḳim.If Iovaḳim can be considered a legitimate reading, then the only Iovaḳim known in the context of the Holy Land is an abbot of the Monastery of the Holy Cross ca. 1538 AD. He was mentioned in the inscription on the Patriarchal throne which was donated by the Georgians to the Holy Sepulchre: “The King of the Georgians and Kakhetians, King Leon, sent Ioakim, Abbot of the Cross, with money, and he rebuilt Christ’s ruined Sepulchre and Golgotha”34. There is no other information about this Iovaḳim’s other name or his origin (from Kartli). A certain Toma is mentioned by the agapeof the Monastery of the Holy Cross as someone who offered money and an icon to the monastery. Paleographically this note is datable to the 12th-13th centuries, a date that seems too early for the present inscription on paleographic consideration35. INSCR. 4 (RIGP 4) At the centre of the column, 182 cm above ground (Fig. 6), there is an Asomtavruli inscription consisting of two lines: the first line is 7 cm long and 3 cm high, and the second is 6 cm long and 3 cm high. იოს(ე)ბს შ(ეეწიე)ნ ღ(ძერთძა)ნ May God have mercy on Ioseb.

Three abbots of the Monastery of the Cross in Jerusalem were called Ioseb36: the first lived in the 14th-15th centuries, the second, at the end of the 16th century, and the third was an abbot in 1666. There was also Ioseb Xunṭusʒe, a priest of the Church of Resurrection in the 13th-14th centuries. The first Ioseb is associated with two agapae of the Monastery of the Holy Cross, which were written by “archimandrite Ioseb”. These agapae, from the end of 14th century, determine the commemoration days 33 Iovaḳim is a name with a consonantic root, and it is usual to preserve the last consonant of the root in the abbreviated form. 34 See GABASHVILI,Pilgrimage, p. 134 and 139; MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 37. The throne vanished in the fire of 1808. 35 For this Toma see MEṬREVELI,MaterialsfortheHistory,p. 103 and 173. 36 See the list of the abbots of the Monastery of the Holy Cross which was compiled by MEṬREVELI,MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 37, 40; VAN ESBROECK,LecouventdeSainteCroix, p. 146; GAGOŠIƷE, Inscriptions, p. 143.

404

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

for the donors of the monastery37. Other agapae that were written by Ioseb the abbot, date to the end of the 14th-beginning of the 15th centuries38. There is also a note in Jer.Iber.15 saying : “აძა წიგნისა შეძკაზძავსა პატრონსა ჯვარისა ძონასტრისა არქიძანდრიტსა ძაძას იოსებს შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“God have mercy on the head of the Cross monastery, archimandrite father Ioseb, the binder of this book”)39. Ioseb Xunṭusʒe is mentioned numerous times: “სულსა აძა წიგნისა კაზძავსა აღდგოძელსა იოსებს ხუნტუს ესა... ძისსა ძაძასა გობნასა და ძეუღლესა ძისსა ძზექალს შ(ეუნდო)ს ღძერთძან” (“God have mercy on the soul of the binder of this book Ioseb Xunṭusʒe from the (Church) of the Resurrection and on his father Gobna and his wife Mzekala”), Jer.Iber.2 (14th-16th cent.)40; “შეძკაზძელი იოსებ ყოფილი – იონაჲ ძღდელძონაზონი ხუნტუსე” (“the bookbinder former Ioseb, (now) Iona, the hieromonachus Xunṭusʒe”), Jer.Iber.111(12th-14th cent.)41, and in the same manuscript, catalogued by Blake as Jer.Iber.51 (12th cent.) – იოსებ ყოფილისაჲ [ი]ონაჲ ხუნტუს ისა;42 in the Sin.Geo.77 he is metioned twice: სულსა ი(ოვა)ნე – ყოფილსა ი(ო)ს(ე)ბს, ხუნტუსესა, შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ [God have mercy on the soul of Ioane former – Ioseb Xunṭusʒe] and სულსა ი(ოვა)ნე – ყ(ო)ფილსა ი(ო)ს(ე)ბს, შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ (“God have mercy on the soul of Ioane, former – Ioseb”)43. According to paleographic analysis, both entries in the Sin.Geo.77 date to the second half of the 15th century44. On the basis of these sources, it seems likely that this person named Iona/Iovane, or Ioseb in his secular life, became hieromonachus of the Church of Resurrection 37 See agapae 96 and 110 in MEṬREVELI,MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 87, 144, and 89, 147 respectively. 38 See agapae 19, 82 and 208 in MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 81 and 123, 86 and 117, and 98 and 164 respectively. 39 A. Cagareli dates this manuscript to the 11th century, but the note dates to the 13th16th centuries: CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 156. Blake dates this manuscript (his number 76) to the 16th century, because it was “écrit en l’an 32 du régime des Turcs (1517+32=1549)” (“დაიწერა წინაშე წ(ძიდი)სა საფლავისა წელსა ლბ (32) თურქთა ქონებისასა”): BLAKE, Catalogue des manuscrits, 4/24, p. 409. Metreveli dates the manuscript to the 13th-14th centuries, and the above-mentioned note to the 14th-15th centuries, saying that they refer to the same Ioseb, the first abbot of the Monastery: MEṬREVELI,Materialsfor theHistory, p. 47. 40 CAGARELI, Pamiatniki, p. 153. The same manuscript is catalogued by Blake as No. 66. Blake noticed that Jer.Iber.66, which he dated to the 13th-14th centuries, was repaired by Ioseb Xunṭusʒe in the 17th century: “Le réparateur (XVIIe siècle) du manuscrit s’appelait Ioseb Khuntusdze (fol. 240v)”, BLAKE, Cataloguedesmanuscrits, 4/24, p. 400. 41 CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 174. 42 BLAKE,Cataloguedesmanuscrits, 4/24, p. 393. 43 ḲLDIAŠVILI,GeorgianMonasticSynodika, p. 177 and 225. 44 ḲLDIAŠVILI,GeorgianMonasticSynodika.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

405

in Jerusalem. He was the binder of two manuscripts in the Jerusalem collection. Ioseb Xunṭusʒe’s activity should be dated to the 15th century and not to the 17th century, as Blake assumed. Column3 INSCR. 5 (RIGP 12) The Asomtavruli inscription is split by a breaking line (Fig. 7). The inscription is 14.5 cm long, the letters are 5.5 cm high. ნიკ(ოლოზ) გ(რ)(ე)ლს შ(ეუნდვე)ნ ღ(ძერთძა)ნ God have mercy on Niḳoloz G(r)ʒeli.

Three letters are clearly legible in the first name niḳ. The following letter is only partly preserved, and it may be l or e. Since there are no more letters before, the reading თორნიკე becomes impossible and the name should presumably be ნიკოლოზ. The same Niḳoloz G(r)ʒeli left his mark in the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, on the first column to the left, next to the newly built wall adjacent to the entrance to the grotto (Fig. 8 and 9). This inscription is almost identical: ნიკ(ო)ლ(ოზ)ს გ(რ)(ელ)ს შ(ეუნდვე)ნ ღ(ძერთძა)ნ (“God have mercy on Niḳoloz G(r)ʒ(el)i”). The only Niḳoloz known in the context of the Holy Land was an influential person named ნიკოლოზ in his secular life, who became ნიკიფორე (Niḳipore), an abbot of the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem in 1643-1649 AD45. However, his family name was Čoloq̇ašvili, which rules out any possible identification with the visitor of the Holy Sepulchre and the Nativity Church. Gʒeli/Grʒeli is a known surname/patronym in Georgian onomastic. For example, the colophon of Sinai Polykephalon Sin.Geo.32-33-57 (864 AD) mentions გრიგოლი გრელი (Grigoli Grʒeli)46. სტეფანე გრელი (Stepane Grʒeli) is mentioned in Jer.Iber.119 (10th-11th centuries)47. 45 Three surviving building inscriptions in the Monastery of the Holy Cross refer to this person, saying that thanks to the donation of the Georgian Prince Levon Dadiani, abbot Niḳipore-Niḳoloz repaired the Church in 1643 AD: CAGARELI, Pamiatniki, p. 243 and 250; GABASHVILI,Pilgrimage, p. 140, see also p. 145; a great number of agapae are linked to abbot Niḳipore’s name, see MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 47, 74, 76, 79-81, 83, 87, 88, 95, 102, 106. 46 “ძე ძაკარი ლეთელელი ჱ გრიგოლი გრელისაჲ ცოდვილი ფრიად ღირს ძყო ღძერთძან შესაქძედ წძიდისა აძის წიგნისა ძრავალთავისა” (“God gave grace to me, Maḳari Leteleli, son of Grigoli Grʒeli, to create this holy book of Polycephalion”): see GARITTE, Cataloguedesmanuscritsgéorgiens, p. 94. 47 CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 178; BLAKE,Cataloguedesmanuscrits, 3/23, p. 411-412, Jer.Iber. 32.

406

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

INSCR. 6 (RIGP 11) At the central part there is an Asomtavruliinscription of two lines: the first line is 10 cm long and 3.5 cm high, and the second is 9.9 cm long and 4.7 cm high (Fig. 10). ს(ა)ფლ(ავ)ო ქ(რ)ი(სტეს)ი შ(ეიწყალ)ე ს(უ)ლი ჩ(ე)ძი The tomb of Christ, have mercy on my soul.

INSCR. 7 (RIGP 13) On the wall between the third column and the wooden door, 269 cm above ground, there is a carved Asomtavruli inscription, 22 by 13 cm. (Figs. 11 and 12)48. ს(ა)ფლ(ავ)ო ქ(რისტ)ე(ს)ო შ(ეიწყალ)ე ს(ო)ფ(რო)ნ The tomb of Christ, have a mercy on Sopron.

Gagošiʒe already pointed out that the name სოფრონ is mentioned in two manuscripts in the Jerusalem collection49. Indeed, Jer. Iber. 12, which is dated to the 11th century50, has a note written by a “later hand” that mentions “ცოდვილი სოფრონ, შეგირდი ყოველთა” (“a sinner Sopron, disciple of everyone”). Interesting testimony is found also in Jer.Iber.93 (14th-16th centuries)51, where it says: “აძა წიგნისა შეძძოსავსა, ცოდვილსა საბა, ყოფილსა სოფრონს, შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“May God have mercy on the sinner Saba, former Sopron, binder of this book”). The same Sopron is likewise named in the manuscript Jer.Iber.39 (12th-14th centuries)52, which mentions the Georgian kings Aleksandre (1389-1442) and his son Giorgi VIII († 1469), and immediately continues to say: “ფ(რია)დ ცოდვილსა საბა ყოფილსა სოფრონს შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“God have mercy on the greatest sinner Saba, previously Sopron”). This Sopron is undoubtedly the same person who left his signature on the entrance to the Church of St. Nicholas in Jerusalem53: “ცოდვ(ი)ლს

48 Precise measurements are not available due to the distance of the inscription from the ground. 49 GAGOŠIƷE, Inscriptions, p. 139. 50 MARR, AShortCatalogue, p. 68. For this manuscript see also BLAKE, Cataloguedes manuscrits, 3/23, p. 376-377, and CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 176-177. 51 CAGARELI, Pamiatniki, p. 171. For Blake this is manuscript Jer. Iber. 119 (13th14th cent): Catalogue des manuscrits, p. 427, but he did not cite this note. See also GAGOŠIƷE, Inscriptions,p. 139. 52 CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 165. Blake did not find this manuscript in the Jerusalem collection. 53 See GAGOŠIƷE, GeorgianInscriptions, p. 36.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

407

ს(ა)ბა ყო(ფი)ლს სოფრ(ო)ნს შ(ეუ)ნ(დო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“God have mercy on the sinner Saba, previously Sopron”) (Fig. 13). Presumably, we have here a monk who worshipped in the 15th century in the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem and paid for the binding of manuscript(s), or bound them himself, and probably left his name on the stone of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher54. Column4 INSCR. 8 (RIGP 15) On the lower part of the fourth column several Asomtavruli inscriptions are carved (Figs. 14 and 15). დ(ავი)თ შ(ეიწყალე)ნ ღ(ძერთძა)ნ [ა](ძე)ნ God have mercy on Davit.

David (დავითი/Davit) is a very common name in the Georgian tradition, and it is therefore difficult to identify this person without further information. Indeed, many agapae are dedicated to different Davids who were donors to the Monastery of the Holy Cross55. There are also numerous commemorations of David in the manuscriptSin.Geo.7756. INSCR. 9 (RIGP 19) The next inscription is 8.8 cm long, with letters 5 cm high. It is written in the Nusxuri script(Fig. 16) and reads as follows: ქ(რისტ)ე, შ(ეიწყალ)ე იოს(ებ)/იოს(ია) Christ have mercy on Ios(eb) (Iosia?)

Of the first name only Ios is preserved, and it may have been either Ioseb or Iosia. We have already discussed the name Ioseb in the context of the Holy Land. No mention of Iosia is known in this context. INSCR. 10 (RIGP 20) Only a few letters are preserved from the final Asomtavruli inscription on column 4 (Fig. 17). The inscription is 4 cm long, the letters are 3 cm high. 54 Not to be confused with another Saba, who was an abbot of the Monastery of the Holy Cross in the second part of the 13th century. For the list of the abbots see MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 36-40 and VAN ESBROECK,LecouventdeSainte-Croix, p. 146. 55 Agape 305 refers to a David from the end of 13th and beginning of 14th centuries; another agape, 191 mentions a David in the 14th-15th centuries; a third David is mentioned inagape 298, which is dated to the 13th-14th centuries. See respectively MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 107 and 177; 96 and 128; 106 and 176. 56 ḲLDIAŠVILI,GeorgianMonasticSynodika, p. 166, 168, 170, 172.

408

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

ქ(რისტ)ე, შ(ეძიწყალ)ე Christ, have mercy on me.

Column5 INSCR. 11 (RIGP 26) Left side, 124 cm above ground; 11.5 cm long, and the letters are 5 cm high. This inscription is the first line associated with the Fig. 18, in which the Nusxuri and the Asomtavruli scripts are used together. The name Mate is written in Nusxuri. Indeed, the letters ძ, ა and ე are already rectangular and the letter თ is likewise in Nusxuri script. The letters ღ, შ show characteristics of the Asomtavruli script. ნ is written twice with the Nusxuri feature of significantly angular forms. ძათე ღ(ძერთძა)ნ შ(შეიწყალე)ნ God have mercy on Mate.

There is a 16th century agape in the Monastery of the Holy Cross which is dedicated to Mate who, with others, offered a vineyard to the monastery57. The Sin.Geo.77 mentions numerous pilgrims in the 15th century whose name was Mate58. Certain Mate left his signature likewise on the entrance to the St. Nicholas Church in Jerusalem (Fig. 19), but this inscription is not fully preserved: ქ(რისტ)ე ჳინ რსა ძ(ა)თეს ძთ ისვრსა შ(ეუ)ნ(დო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ ა(ძე)ნ Christ (…) Mate (…), God, have a mercy

INSCR. 12 (RIGP 26) The second line which is associated with the picture in Fig. 18 is in Asomtavruli script, with letters 4.5 cm long and 3.5cm high: გ(რი)გ(ო)ლს To/on Grigol 57 See agapae 161 in MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 94 and 161: “აძასვე დღესა წირვა და აღაპი საუკუნო კანდელაკისა ნიკოდიძესი, ძათესი და ანტონესი. შეძოვსწირეთ ჯუარსა პატიოსანსა ვენაჴი, აძბროსაულსა ვენაჴსა ზედათ არს...” (“this day (will be) for liturgy and agapae eternally for Ḳandelaḳi Niḳodime, Mate and Anṭone. We offered to the (monastery) of the Holy Cross a vineyard (located) under Ambrosauli…” For the same vineyard see also agape 58. 58 “ს(უ)ლსა ძ(ა)თეს და ყ(ოვე)ლთა ძისთა ძიცვ(ა)ლებ(უ)ლთა შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“God have mercy on the soul of Mate and have mercy on all his departed”): ḲLDIAŠVILI,GeorgianMonasticSynodika, p. 168, 217; and more: “ძათეს და ძშ(ო)ბ(ე)ლთა ძისთა შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“God have mercy on the souls of Mate and his parents”), ibidem, p. 171, 220; “ს(უ)ლსა ძ(ა)თეს და ძისსა ძეუღლესა რუსუდანსა შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“God have mercy on the souls of Mate and his wife Rusudan”), ibidem, p. 172, 220. All three commemorative inscriptions are dated to the 15th century.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

409

We consider that the two lines in Fig. 18 were written by different hands, and therefore the dative case of the name “Grigol” may be considered as an independent inscription. The handwriting of the dative case of the abbreviated Grigol (გგლს) is very similar to the dative case of the abbreviated name Germanoz (გერზს), which appears on the same column in Fig. 21 (see below). Thus, both of these proper names in the dative case are autonomous59. Keeping declined proper names as a stand-alone brief version of [Godhaveamercy]onGrigol or [Godhaveamercy]onGermanoz, is understandable. Deacon Grigol is known in the Monastery of Holy Cross as a binder of the manuscript Jer.Iber.143 (11th-12th centuries) in 1649 AD60. Cagareli already noticed that the same person is mentioned in the inscription on the main entrance of the Monastery of the Holy Cross, where his image is also depicted in a fresco61. Another Grigol Panasḳerṭeli (გრიგოლ ფანასკერტელი) is known for offering a considerable sum of money to the Monastery of the Holy Cross twice at the end of 13th-beginning of the 14th centuries, as well as donating land. Consequently, six different agapae were dedicated in his memory62. INSCR. 13 (RIGP 23) On the right side of the column, 133 cm above ground, there is another inscription in Asomtavruliscript. It has two lines, the first is 10.5 cm long and 4 cm high, the second 3.5 cm long and 3 cm high (Fig. 20). აშ(ო)ტ შ(ე)ნს(ა) შ(ეეწიე)ნ Have mercy on your Ašoṭ

Ashot is clearly an Armenian name. Most probably this visitor belonged to the Chalcedonian Armenian community. There are a few graffiti inscriptions 59 According to GAGOŠIƷE, the two lines refer to the same person who had two names: “ძათე გ(რი)გ(ო)ლს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ შ(ეუნდვე)ნ” (“God have mercy on Mate – Grigol”), GAGOŠIƷE,Inscriptions,p. 146. If this was indeed the case, it is difficult to understand why the names are written in separate lines, by different hands, and in letters of different size. Two first names are very rare in the Georgian tradition. If the reference is to secular and monastic names, ყოფილი (“previously”) should have been added, as in other inscriptions (see above). 60 “ჯვარო პატიოსანო, შეძიწყალე ძე ცოდვილი აძის შეძკვრელი ფ(რია)დ ცოდვილი დიაკონი გრიგოლ პატიოსნისა ჯვარისა ქართუჱლთა ძონასტრისაჲ” (“Holy Cross, have mercy on me, the great sinner deacon Grigol from the Holy Cross Monastery of the Georgians for (he) made the binding of this (book)”). The note dates to 1649: CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 183. 61 “ქ. ჯვარო, შეიწყალე ცოდვილი დეკანოზი გრიგოლ, აძინ” (“Cross of Christ, have mercy on a sinner deacon Grigol, amen”), CAGARELI, Pamiatniki, p. 241 and see also p. 244. 62 See MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory,agapae I.32, I.62, I.70, 123, 135 and 182, p. 72, 75, 90, 92 and 95. For Grigol Panasḳerṭeli see also p. 151-152.

410

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

that were left by Armenian pilgrims using the Georgian language, as for example in the Gareji Laura in Georgia63. INSCR. 14 (RIGP 25) The last inscription, 124 cm above ground, 8.8 cm long and 5.2 cm high, contains a single proper name written in the Asomtavruli script. (Fig. 21). გერ(ძანო)ზს To Germanoz

Germanoz from the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem is mentioned in Jer.Iber44 (14th century): “ქრისტეს საფლავო ძილხინე ძე, ცოდვილსა გერძანოზს ჯუარის ძაძას და ცოდვები შეუნდვენ” (“The Tomb of Christ, have mercy on me, sinner Germanoz hegumenos of the Cross, and forgive (my) sins”)64. The reference to Germanoz as the abbot of the Monastery of the Holy Cross makes it possible to trace him in the list of the abbots of the monastery to the 14th century65. Germanoz is also named among the abbots of the monastery in Sin. Geo. 77 : “ძოჴსენებისათ(ჳ)ს და გ(ა)ნსუჱნებისათ(ჳ)ს ჯ(უარ)ისა ძაძათათ(ჳს) – გი(ორგი)სთ(ჳ)ს, ლ(უ)კასთ(ჳ)ს, ძარტიანესთ(ჳ)ს, გ(ა)ბრიელ სანატრელისთ(ჳ)ს, ძარტიანესთ(ჳ)ს, საბასთ(ჳ)ს, სჳძონისთ(ჳ)ს, სჳძონისთ(ჳ)ს, გერძანოზისთ(ჳ)ს, ი(ოვან)ესთჳს ვთქ(უა)თ ყ(ოვე)ლთა, შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“In the commemoration and for the departed Father Superiors of the Monastery of the Holy Cross: Giorgi, Luḳa, Marṭiane, Gabriel Sanaṭreli, Marṭiane, Saba, Svimon, Svimon, Germanoz, Iovane, let all of us say this, have mercy”)66 and “სულსა გერძანოზს შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ” (“God, have mercy on the soul of Germanoz”)67. Both of these commemorations (197v) are from the 15th century. Germanoz is another version of the name Germane, and we should therefore mention the evidence regarding two members of the Georgian community called Germane. Germane Zedavelisʒe was known as a book binder68. MIRIANASHVILI, EulogiaBroughtfromJerusalem, p. 370. See MEṬREVELI,MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 36, and GAGOŠIƷE, Inscriptions, p. 146. 65 MEṬREVELI,MaterialsfortheHistory, p. 37. 66 ḲLDIAŠVILI,GeorgianMonasticSynodika, p. 165 and 216. 67 ḲLDIAŠVILI,GeorgianMonasticSynodika, p. 168 and 218. 68 For Germane Zedavelisʒe see Jer.Iber. 105 (1055 AD), which contains a note written by a ‘later hand’: “ესე დიდებული და ყ(ოვლა)დ პატიოსანი დიდი ბასილი ძე, ცოდვილძან და საწყალძან გერძანე ძონაზონძან ეზდაველიეძან შევკაძბე (sic) სულისა საცხოვნებლად ძას ჟაძსა ოდეს ძოწყალებისა კარი ჩუენი აძოხსნეს თათართა და ზღუდე გაათავეს ... სულსა გერძანეს ეზდაველიესა და ძისსა ძეუღლესა თაძარს და ძისთა დედა-ძაძათა, ძათა, ძისწულთა შ(ეუნდო)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ”: CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 173, and BLAKE, Cataloguedesmanuscrits, 3/23, p. 380,Jer.Iber.14 (1055 AD): “Ce magnifique et très vénérable Basile le Grand (?), moi, le pécheur et misérable moine Gérmané 63 64

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

411

Another Germane was a priest in the Monastery of the Holy Cross, who is known for offering an orarion to the tomb of Christ69. 5. Paleographicobservations The inscriptions were carved directly on the surface of the hard marble, often by unskilled people, taking advantage of random opportunities, possibly in brief moments during the pilgrimage visit. These conditions may have dictated the very concise style, the mere indication of proper names, and even these abbreviated. All that is omitted in fact follows conventional formulae, easy to reconstruct. The script, with the exception of Inscr. 9, was Asomtavruli, at times mixed with Nusxuri. The ‘e’ (ე) for example (Inscr. 2), is angular, not monumental and inclined, as it is in a cursive Nusxuri script. It is reasonable to assume that the scribes became accustomed to the Nusxuri script during the period in which these inscriptions were written, when it was turning into the accepted script for religious writings. Mixing scripts is a known phenomenon in the Georgian tradition70. A particular paleographic feature of the inscriptions discussed here is the horizontal lines that extend to the left of the letters and above them. This is, for example, the case for the letters l (ლ), v (ვ), e (ე) g (გ) in inscriptions 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 14. This phenomenon is almost unknown in earlier inscriptions; only a few examples are known predating the 9th century71. In the 10th century and later, on the other hand, it becomes very common72. The long and wavy tail of the letter g (გ) (Inscr. 14) is attested since the 9th-10th centuries73. Ezdavélidze, je reliais afin d’intercéder pour mon âme, quand les Tartares ouvrirent la Porte de Compassion (?) et déblayèrent le mur”. See also LERNER – CHERNIN, InformationoftheHistory. 69 For hieromonachus Germane see CAGARELI,Pamiatniki, p. 250: “ძე, ძონაძან და ძლოცველძან ქრისტეს ღუთისაძან, ჯვარის ძონასტრის ძღუდელ-ძონაზონძან გერძანე, შევაკერვინე საძხრეთი ესე საწყალისა სულისა ჩეძისა სახსოვრად და სადიდებლად ჩუენის ეკკლესიისა” (“I, a slave who prays for Christ God, hieromonachus of the Holy Cross Monastery Germane, ordered to sew this, for my poor soul and for the memory and glory of our church”). 70 Combining scripts is very common in the 10th century, and is therefore considered to be a characteristic of 10th century paleography: SXIRṬLAƷE, MuralInscriptions, p. 133. See also SILOGAVA, Corpus, p. 111. Similarly, a combination of estrangela and serto can be seen in the Syriac inscriptions on the same pillars: BROCK etal., TheSyriacInscriptions, p. 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, and 424. 71 FÄHNRICH, DieältestengeorgischenInschriften, p. 96 shows an example from the 9th century. 72 See FÄHNRICH, DieältestengeorgischenInschriften, p. 103, 115, 117, 126, 128, 133 for the 10th centuries and p. 118, 124 for the 10th-11th centuries. See also the numerous examples in SXIRṬLAƷE, MuralInscriptions, especially p. 34. 73 SXIRṬLAƷE, Mural Inscriptions, p. 35; BARNAVELI, Inscriptions of Aṭenis Sioni, p. 17-18. Some sporadic examples are earlier: for the Church of the Cross in Mcxeta, dated to the 6th-7th century, see FÄHNRICH, DieältestengeorgischenInschriften, p. 48.

412

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

The small vertical line, or point, at the bottom left of the letters m (ძ), l (ლ), e (ე), g (გ) is attested since the beginning of 11th century, but becomes common only during the 13th-14th centuries and later. It is a common feature in the inscriptions of the Holy Sepulchre. Indeed it is found in the ძ/m (Inscr. 1 and 4), ვ/v (Inscr. 3), ლ/l (Inscr. 5, 6, 7) and ე/e (Inscr. 6). The paleographic characteristics of the graffiti, and the strong influence of the Nusxuriscript on the Asomtavruli,suggest that these inscriptions date to the 13th-17th centuries. Bibliography74 ADLER, LatinInscriptions = W. ADLER, LatinInscriptions, in STONE, TheArmenianInscriptions, p. 183-186. BARNAVELI, InscriptionsofAṭenisSioni = T. BARNAVELI, InscriptionsofAṭenis Sioni, Tbilisi, 1957 (Georgian). BIDDLE, TheTombofChrist = M. BIDDLE, TheTombofChrist, Stroud, 1999. BLAKE, Catalogue des manuscrits = R.P. BLAKE, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiensdelaBibliothèquepatriarcalegrecqueàJérusalem, in Revuede l’OrientChrétien, 3e S., 3/23 (1922-1923), p. 345-413; 4/24 (1924), p. 190210, 387-424. BROCK etal., TheSyriacInscriptions = S. BROCK – H. GOLDFUS – A. KOFSKY, TheSyriacInscriptionsattheentrancetoHolySepulchre, in ARAM, 18-19 (2006-2007), p. 415-438. CAGARELI, Pamiatniki =A. CAGARELI, PamiatnikigruzinskoistarinynaSviyatoi ZemleinaSinae[TheOldGeorgianMonumentsfromtheHolyLandand Sinai], St. Petersburg, 1888 (Russian). COÜASNON, TheChurchoftheHolySepulchre = C. COÜASNON, TheChurchof theHolySepulchreinJerusalem(OxfordUniversityPressforTheBritish Academy), London, 1974. CORBO, Il Santo Sepolcro = V.C. CORBO, Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme: aspettiarcheologicidalleoriginialperiodocrociato(Collectiomaior, 29), Jerusalem,1981-1982. CORBO, MonasterodiBirEl-Qutt = V. CORBO, MonasterodiBirEl-Qutt, in Gli scavi di Khirbet Siyar El-Ghanam (Campo dei pastori) e i monasteri dei dintorni, Jerusalem, 1955, p. 110-139. DI SEGNI, TheDateoftheBeitSafafaInscription = L. DI SEGNI, TheDateofthe Beit Safafa Inscription Again, in Israel Exploration Journal, 43 (1993), p. 157-168. ǮAVAXIŠVILI, Catalogue = I. ǮAVAXIŠVILI, CatalogueoftheGeorgianmanuscripts ofSinai, Tbilisi, 1947 (Georgian). 74 With respect to transliteration system for Georgian, this article is using “TITUS 2000”: http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Georgian.pdf. However the patronyms of those Georgian authors who had been published in European languages are presented according to their author’s own choice.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

413

FÄHNRICH, Die ältesten georgischen Inschriften = H. FÄHNRICH, Die ältesten georgischenInschriften, Leiden – Boston, MA, 2013. FOLDA, TheArtoftheCrusaders = Y. FOLDA, TheArtoftheCrusadersinthe HolyLand,1098-1187, New York, NY, 1995. GABASHVILI, Pilgrimage = T. GABASHVILI, PilgrimagetoMountAthos,ConstantinopleandJerusalem,1755-1759, transl. and annot. by M. EBANOIDZE and J. WILKINSON, Richmond, VA, 2001. GAGOŠIƷE, Georgian Inscriptions = G. GAGOŠIƷE, Georgian Inscriptions of the HolyLand, in Academia, 5 (2003), p. 34-45 (Georgian). GAGOŠIƷE,Inscriptions =G. GAGOŠIƷE,InscriptionsofGeorgianPilgrimsonthe Entrance of the Church of Holy Sepulchre, in Macne, Series of History, EthnographyandArt, 1 (1992), p. 134-148 (Georgian). GARITTE, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens = G. GARITTE, Catalogue des manuscritsgéorgienslittérairesduMontSinaï (CorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium,165; Subsidia, 9), Louvain, 1956. GIBSON – TAYLOR, Beneath the Church = S. GIBSON – J.E. TAYLOR, Beneath theChurchoftheHolySepulchre,Jerusalem.TheArchaeologyandEarly HistoryofTraditionalGolgotha(PalestineExplorationFundmonograph. Seriesmaior, 1),London, 1994. HUNT, Artistic and Cultural Inter-Relations = L.-A. HUNT, Artistic and CulturalInter-RelationsbetweentheChristianCommunitiesattheHolySepulchreinthe12thCentury, in A. O’MAHONY – G. GUNNER – G. HINTLIAN (eds.), The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, London, 1999, p. 5796. ILLIFE, Cemeteriesand“Monastery” =J.H. ILLIFE, Cemeteriesand“Monastery” attheY.M.C.A.,Jerusalem, in QuarterlyoftheDepartmentofAntiquitiesin Palestine, 4 (1935), p. 70-80. KENAAN-KEDAR, LocalChristianArt = N. KENAAN-KEDAR, LocalChristianArt in Twelfth Century Jerusalem, in Israel Exploration Journal, 23 (1973), p. 167-175, 221-229. ḲLDIAŠVILI, GeorgianMonasticSynodika = D. ḲLDIAŠVILI, GeorgianMonastic Synodika, Vol. I. Synodikon of the Georgian Church at the Monastery of St.CatherineonSinai, Tbilisi, 2008 (Georgian). KRUGER, Die Grabeskirche = J. KRUGER, Die Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem. Geschichte–Gestalt–Bedeutung, Regensburg, 2000. KÜHNEL, Der Rankenfries = B. KÜHNEL, Der Rankenfries am Portal der Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem und die romanische Skulptur in den Abruzzen, in ArteMedievale, 2 (1987), p. 87-126. LANDAU – AVI YONAH, ExcavationsoftheFamilyVault = J. LANDAU – M. AVI YONAH, ExcavationsoftheFamilyVaultnearBeitSafafa, in Bulletinofthe StateofIsraelDepartmentof Antiquities, 5-6 (1957), p. 40-43 (Hebrew). LERNER – CHERNIN, Information of the History = K. LERNER – M. CHERNIN, Information of the History of Jerusalem in the Ancient Georgian Manuscripts, in Cathedra, 112 (2004), p. 46-54 (Hebrew). MARR, AShortCatalogue = N. MARR, AShortCatalogueofGeorgianManuscripts oftheGreekOrthodoxPatriarchateofJerusalem, Tbilisi, 1955 (Georgian). MARR, Sinodik = N. MARR, Sinodik Krestnogo monastyria v Ierusalime [Synodikon from the Monastery of Holy Cross in Jerusalem], St. Petersburg, 1914 (Russian).

414

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory = E. MEṬREVELI, MaterialsfortheHistory of the Georgian Colony in Jerusalem, 11th-17th Centuries, Tbilisi, 1962 (Georgian). MIRIANASHVILI, Eulogia Brought from Jerusalem = L. MIRIANASHVILI, How Did anEulogiaBroughtfromJerusalemintheSixthCenturyAssistinPromoting Davit-Gareji’sCaveMonasteriestotheRegionalCaucasianSignificance, in S. KUZMOVÁ – A. MARINKOVIĆ – T. VEDRIŠ (eds.), Cuius Patrocinio Tota GaudetRegio:Saints’CultsandtheDynamicsofRegionalCohesion (BibliothecaHagiotheca;SeriesColloquia),Zagreb,2014, p. 369-376. OUSTERHOUT, RebuildingtheTemple = R. OUSTERHOUT, RebuildingtheTemple: ConstantineMonomachusandtheHoly Sepulchre, in JournaloftheSociety ofArchitecturalHistorians,48 (1989), p. 66-78. PATRICH, The Early Church of the Holy Sepulchre = J. PATRICH, The Early ChurchoftheHolySepulchreintheLightofExcavationsandRestoration, in Y. TSAFRIR (ed.), AncientChurchesRevealed, Jerusalem, 1993, p. 101-117. PERADZE, An Account = G. PERADZE, An Account on the Georgian Monks and Monasteries as Revealed in the Writings of Non-Georgian Pilgrims, in Georgica, 4-5 (1937), p. 181-246. PRAWER, TheLintels = J. PRAWER, TheLintelsoftheHolySepulchre, in Y. YADIN (ed.), JerusalemRevealed: ArchaeologyintheHolyCity1968-1974, Jerusalem, 1976, p. 111-113. PRINGLE, TheChurches = D. PRINGLE, TheChurchesoftheCrusaderKingdom ofJerusalem:Acorpus, Vol. 3. TheCityofJerusalem, Cambridge, 2007. PUECH, Une inscription éthiopienne = E. PUECH, Une inscription éthiopienne ancienneauSinaï (WadiHajjaj),in RevueBiblique,87 (1980), p. 597-600. REUVEN, EarlyMoslemCapitals = P. REUVEN, EarlyMoslemCapitalsTransferred fromtheAl-AqsaMosquetotheChurchofHolySepulchre, in A. FAUST etal. (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem, vol. 17, Ramat Gan, 2011, p. 427-452 (Hebrew). ROSEN-AYALON, The Façade = M. ROSEN-AYALON, The Façade of the Holy Sepulchre, in RivistadegliStudiOrientali, 59 (1985), p. 289-296. SANJIAN, TheArmenianCommunities = A.K. SANJIAN, TheArmenianCommunitiesinSyriaunderOttomanDominion (HarvardMiddleEasternStudies, 10), Cambridge, MA, 1965. SAWALANIANTS, HistoryofJerusalem = T. SAWALANIANTS, HistoryofJerusalem, vol. 1,Jerusalem,1931 (Armenian). SELIGMAN, A Georgian Monastery = J. SELIGMAN, A Georgian Monastery at UmmLeisun,Jerusalem, in E. BARUCH – A. FAUST (eds.), New Studieson Jerusalem, Vol. 10, Ramat Gan, 2004, p. 163-167 (Hebrew). SELIGMAN, ExcavationsattheGeorgianMonastery = J. SELIGMAN, Excavations at the Georgian Monastery from the Byzantine Period in Umm Leisun, Jerusalem, in ῾Atiqot, 83 (2015), p. 145-181. SILOGAVA, Corpus = V. SILOGAVA (ed.), Corpus of Georgian Lapidary Inscriptions, Part I.EasternGeorgia, Tbilisi, 1980 (Georgian). ŠOŠIAŠVILI, Corpus = N. ŠOŠIAŠVILI, Corpus of Georgian Inscriptions, Vol. I. EasternandSouthernGeorgia,5th-10thCenturies, Tbilisi, 1980 (Georgian). STONE, The Armenian Inscriptions = M.E. STONE, The Armenian Inscriptions fromtheSinai(HarvardArmenianTextsandStudies, 6), Cambridge, MA, 1992.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

415

STONE, TheRockInscriptions = M.E. STONE, TheRockInscriptionsandGraffiti Project: Catalogue of Inscriptions, 3 vols. (Society of Biblical Literature.ResourcesforBiblicalStudies, 28, 29, 31), Atlanta, GA, 19921994. SXIRṬLAƷE, MuralInscriptions = Z. SXIRṬLAƷE, MuralInscriptionsofSabereebi, Tbilisi, 1985 (Georgian). TER-HOVHANNESIANTS, Chronological History = A. TER-HOVHANNESIANTS, ChronologicalHistoryofHolyJerusalem,vol. I,Jerusalem, 1890 (Armenian). TCHEKHANOVETS, Early Georgian Pilgrimage = Y. TCHEKHANOVETS, Early GeorgianPilgrimagetotheHolyLand, in LiberAnnuus,61 (2011), p. 453471. TOMADZE, Literaturnyechkoly = M. TOMADZE, Literaturnyechkolypalestinskikh monastyrei [Literary Schools of Palestinian Monasteries], in Pravoslavnaya Enciklopedia [Orthodox Encyclopedia], vol. XIII, Moscow, 2006, p. 252-254 (Russian). VAN ESBROECK, Le couvent de Sainte-Croix = M. VAN ESBROECK, Le couvent de Sainte-Croix de Jérusalem selon les sources géorgiennes, in Studi sull’OrienteCristiano, 4-2 (2000), p. 139-170. VAN ESBROECK, TheGeorgianInscriptions = M. VAN ESBROECK, TheGeorgian Inscriptions, in STONE, TheArmenianInscriptions, p. 171-179.

Université catholique de Louvain Centre d’études orientales (CIOL) Place Blaise Pascal 1, bte L3.03.32 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique [email protected] Israel Antiquities Authority P.O.B. 586, Jerusalem, Israel [email protected]

Tamara PATARIDZE

Yana TCHEKHANOVETS

Abstract— For centuries, pilgrims carved their names on the columns flanking the southern entrance to the Holy Sepulchre Church in Jerusalem in a variety of scripts – Greek, Latin, Arabic, Armenian, Georgian, Syriac, and Slavonic. Discussing Georgian inscriptions of Holy Sepulchre Church this article places them in the proper context of Georgian pilgrimage towards the Holy Land, and identifies mentioned pilgrims on the base of manuscript evidence, especially agapae and memorial notes. The paleographic characteristics of the graffiti, and the strong influence of the Nusxuri script on the Asomtavruli, suggest that these inscriptions date to the 13th-17th centuries.

416

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

APPENDIX: Illustrations (21 figures) © T. Pataridze

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

Fig. 3a.

Fig. 3b.

Fig. 4.

417

418

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10.

419

420

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14.

Fig. 15

THE GEORGIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

Fig. 16.

Fig. 17.

Fig. 18.

421

422

T. PATARIDZE – Y. TCHEKANOVETS

Fig. 19.

Fig. 20.

Fig. 21.

GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT OF THE LONDON SACHAU COLLECTION The manuscript Or. 9321 of the British Library, Asia Pacific & Africa Collections (formerly Oriental and India Office Collections) contains a prose text (f. 231b-244a) that derives directly or indirectly from Arabic sources and belongs to a genre very popular in the literatures of the Islamicate world. It is a collection of short descriptions of wonders (Arabic ‘aǧā’ib) to be found in various regions of the world, including Alexandria, Egypt, al-Andalus, Syria, the Caspian Sea, and a few other places that are difficult to identify. The text is divided into two parts, each consisting of twelve descriptions: the first is about wondrous cities and buildings and the second contains wonders about rivers, wells, and seas. Titles or formulae such as ‘A Wonder’, ‘Another’ or ‘There was in...’, ‘There is in...’ introduce the 24 short notices. Structure and contents of the text and the fact that it is preserved in two languages, Neo-Aramaic on the right-hand pages and Arabic on the left-hand pages, raise a number of questions that must be kept distinct and to which we shall try to give provisional answers, at least as working hypotheses. One is the question whether a text preexisted the copy preserved in this manuscript or it was compiled in this form by the copyist himself, out of his memory or using written sources. Another is what was the language of the Vorlage, its written or oral source(s). Was it Arabic (less probably Persian or Kurdish), Neo-Aramaic or Classical Syriac? Yet a third question is whether the Neo-Aramaic text is the original from which the facing Arabic text was translated or vice versa. However, before addressing nature and contents of the text, a couple of preliminary remarks seem necessary about the multiple-text manuscript in which it has been preserved. 1. Sachau collections of Neo-Aramaic manuscripts Professor of semitic philology and from 1887 first director of the Semi­ nar für Orientalische Sprachen in Berlin, in the last two decades of the 19th century Eduard Sachau (1845-1930) expended much effort in pursuing manuscripts or obtaining the compilation of new miscellaneous collections of texts to document a variety of Neo-Aramaic dialects. The results of such efforts are two collections of Neo-Aramaic manuscripts

Le Muséon 129 (3-4), 423-456. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180786 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 423

29/11/16 06:04

424

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

now preserved at the Berliner Staatsbibliothek – Preußischer Kulturbesitz1 and the British Library, Asia Pacific & Africa Collections in London2. Rifaat Ebied and Nicholas Al-Jeloo published a number of letters addressed to Eduard Sachau by the informant, copyist, translator, and book dealer Jeremiah Shamir, preserved in the ms. London B.L. Or. 93263. Unfortunately, we do not have the letters sent by Sachau. However, the replies of his correspondents in the Near East contain valuable information on the books and manuscripts they were collecting, copying, and translating for the German orientalist. At least as far as Neo-Aramaic is concerned, the letters are nevertheless rather vague on the sources and criteria they used. We have therefore to rely on the manuscripts themselves for a partial reconstruction of Sachau’s methods and criteria in selecting the texts and we do not know with certainty to what extent the texts collected by the copyists reflect his actual requests and wishes or if they are materials circulating among these communities in oral or written form. A survey of the dialects and the genres of both collections confirms the description of the Neo-Aramaic materials that Lidzbarski produced on the basis of the Berlin collection only4. A first concern of Sachau must have been to collect texts that might bear witness to the variety of dialects that characterize the largest portion of the Neo-Aramaic continuum (today South-Eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq, and North-Western Iran). Both collections include texts in Ṭuroyo as well as varieties of what we now know as North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (henceforth NENA). As far as methods are concerned, Neo-Aramaic texts were usually copied for Sachau in Syriac script, serṭo for Ṭuroyo and East-Syriac script for NENA, and provided with an Arabic translation en face or in a separate manuscript. The choice of the Syriac script possibly derives from Sachau’s awareness of the existence of an indigenous tradition of writing vernacular texts in the Classical Syriac alphabet (the earliest manuscripts including NeoAramaic texts date from the 18th century) and was certainly well-accepted among copyists faithful to their scribal habit and cultural tradition. Nevertheless it soon attracted criticism from Western scholars in search of more precise phonetic transcriptions5. As an exception, the Gospel of St John in   Lidzbarski, Die neu-aramäischen Handschriften.   Mengozzi, Neo-Aramaic Manuscripts. 3   Ebied, Letters to Sachau and Ebied – Al-Jeloo, Letters to Sachau. 4   Lidzbarski, Die neu-aramäischen Handschriften, vol. 1, p. vii-xv. 5   Heinrichs, Written Ṭūrōyo, p. 183; Mengozzi, Neo-Aramaic Manuscripts, p. 460. On the scarce reliability of Sachau NA manuscripts for dialectological investigations, see Mutzafi, Ṭyare Neo-Aramaic. 1 2

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 424

29/11/16 06:04



GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT

425

the Ṭuroyo translation by Isaiah of Qyllith (London B.L. Or. 9327, dated 1889-90) has a synoptic transcription in Roman script with diacritics. Wolfhart Heinrichs identified an 1877 copy of this Ṭuroyo translation of St. John in a manuscript of the Union Theological Seminary in New York6. Lidzbarski observes that the Ṭuroyo texts “were all copied by Isaiah of Qyllith and they might all have been translated from Arabic. All of them except ms. 245 have the Arabic original included en face”7. Ms. Sachau 245 (= Berlin Kgl. Bibliothek 281) contains the translation of the Gospel of St. John. It is, however, difficult to imagine that Isaiah of Qyllith actually translated Biblical texts, such as Genesis 1-108, Psalms 1-20, Ester and Acts 1-10, from an Arabic original rather than from the Peshiṭṯa. Similarly, an Arabic original can be excluded for most NENA texts, with absolute certainty for those belonging to traditional poetic genres such as songs, hymns, dialogue poems, and metrical fables. For NENA texts, the Arabic translations were probably intended as a helping tool for Western scholars to read the Aramaic original and this was indeed their function in the ground-breaking text edition and lexicographic work by Lidzbarski. As far as genres are concerned, Isaiah of Qyllith prepared for Sachau 1) the selection of Biblical texts mentioned above and a number of 2) prose texts, including hagiographic tales, geographical notices on Mesopotamia (in form of questions and answers, most probably from a school book), Ṭur-‘Abdin, Midyat and Christian villages, as well as 3) pieces of wisdom and entertainment literature that apparently were very popular and circulated among Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews9 and Muslims alike: Islamic versions of the Story of Salomon, Story and Proverbs of Aḥiqar and the beginning of a story of Sindbād the Sailor. Lidzbarski published the Story and Proverbs of Aḥiqar and the Arabic Vorlage of the Ṭuroyo text has   Heinrichs, Written Ṭūrōyo.   “Die jakobitischen Texte sind sämtlich vom Lehrer und Diakon Jesaias aus Qyllith niedergeschrieben. Sie dürften sämtlich aus dem Arabischen übersetzt sein, und ihnen allen, bis auf Cod. 245, ist das arabische Original beigegeben” (Lidzbarski, Die neu-aramäischen Handschriften, vol. 1, p. vii). Before 1877, Isaiah (Eša‘yō) of Qyllith translated the Gospel of John at the request of the American missionaries. Sachau (Reise, p. 420) presents him as the teacher of the school of Qyllith, founded and supported by the American Mission of Mardin. 8   The Ṭuroyo translation of Genesis 1 was published by Gottheil, Salamās, p. 306-310. 9   Small publishers active from 19th-century in Baghdad such as Dangur published along with Biblical texts, such as the Targums and Peshiṭṯa, Judeo-Arabic versions of stories of the Arabian Nights, including the stories of Ḥayqar, Salomon, Sindbād the Sailor, short stories from Hārūn al-Rašīd’s cycle and a whole copy in Judeo-Arabic of the Thousand and One Nights. 6 7

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 425

29/11/16 06:04

426

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

been recognized as one of the three main recensions of the Arabic Ḥayqār10. The oral version recorded and published by Shabo Talay in the Neo-Aramaic dialect of Mlaḥso would also seem to have an Arabic origin11. Biblical texts, hagiography, local history, and sacred geography are rather obvious choices in a Syriac Christian context, whereas the inclusion of the third group of texts may have been elicited by Sachau on the basis of his own literary taste and research interests. In any case we do not know as yet from which Arabic or Garshuni manuscripts Isaiah copied his Arabic Salomon, Ḥayqār, and Sindbād and whether those manuscripts had a Christian readership in late 19th-century Ṭur-‘Abdīn or rather belonged to a local node of the Middle-East network of Christian multilingual libraries. Jeremiah Shamir12 was the key figure in collecting NENA texts for Eduard Sachau; he was a copyist, possibly author of the Biblical translations and certainly translator into Arabic of the Neo-Aramaic manuscripts copied by others such as the priest Manṣūr Soro of Alqosh and Fransi Mīri. He also compiled multilingual vocabularies (Arabic, Neo-Aramaic, Kurdish and English), now in Berlin. In 1882 Father Samuel Jamīl13 answered negatively from Mosul to Sachau’s request to find stories in the Neo-Aramaic dialects of Ṭiyare and Jilu (Hakkari mountains)14. The multiple-text ms. London B.L. Or. 9321, the most conspicuous manuscript of the London Sachau collection, was compiled by the Chaldean priest Gabriel Quryaqoza, whose short autobiography is attached, probably as a CV, to the manuscript itself15.   Rostagno Giaiero, Ḥayqār, p. 227.   Talay, Aḥiqar in Mlaḥsō, p. 696. 12   Jeremiah Shamir of ‘Ankawa (Karemlesh 1821 – Mosul? 1906) offered his services to European scholars such as Wallis Budge and Sachau. “Relations between Shāmīr and Sachau appear to have been very cordial and affectionate during the early years of correspondence. Shāmīr, however, in his later correspondence, expresses his dissatisfaction and frustration and complains to Sachau about the delay in receiving the money and the method of dispatching the books, etc. Relations between the two men appear to have been restored to a good state in the late 1890’s” (Ebied, Letters to Sachau, p. 82-83 and Ebied – Al-Jeloo, Letters to Sachau, p. 5). Jeremiah Shamir accompanied the American missionaries Henry Lobdell and Justin Perkins in their visits to the Mosul region, the Hakkari mountains and Urmia (Tyler, Henry Lobdell, p. 198 and 210; Guest, Kurds, p. 112-121). He eventually became a preacher of the American mission in Mosul (Tyler, Henry Lobdell, p. 179). His sons Nasir and Gabriel Jeremiah also served Western travelers as dragoman and copyist respectively (Guest, Kurds, p. 128 and 148). 13   The priest Shmuel Jamīl (1847–1917) was in 1889 the abbot superior of the Chaldean monasteries in Telkepe. He is author of a Syriac grammar (Assfalg, Syrische Handschriften, p. 110) and was active in the collection and production of Classical Syriac manuscripts (see, e.g., Haddad – Isaac, Syriac Manuscripts, p. 406). 14   Mengozzi, Neo-Aramaic Manuscripts, p. 485. 15   The document (London B.L. Or. 9321, p. 696-695), written in Baghdad in 1897, is entitled Translation of the Life of the priest Gabriel Quryaqoza. Gabriel was born in 10 11

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 426

29/11/16 06:04



GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT

427

The types of texts collected for Sachau in NENA varieties show remarkable similarities to the Ṭuroyo corpus. As Lidzbarski observed, 1) the chapters of Biblical books translated by Jeremiah Shamir into ‘Fellīḥi’ – i.e., the Christian (from fallāḥ ‘peasant’) Neo-Aramaic varieties of the Mosul plain – are exactly the same translated into Ṭuroyo by Isaiah of Qyllith (see above)16. 2) NENA poetic texts belong to three traditional genres of Christian Neo-Aramaic and Classical Syriac literature: religious hymns (durekyāṯā), the erotic triplets (rāwē) and the dialogue poems17. 3) On the contrary, prose stories may have enjoyed popularity among Aramaic-speaking Christians, but the Neo-Aramaic versions collected for Sachau were probably drawn from Arabic sources or models. They include the Ten Viziers, Kahramaneh and the Prince, and the inevitable Aḥiqar18. It is fairly apparent that the choice reflects a method in collecting texts. Sachau’s agenda included: 1) translations of a specific set of chapters of the Bible, 2) texts that bear witness to local culture and indigenous literary traditions (hagiographical and geographical notices19 in Ṭuroyo and Telkepe in 1867 and learned Syriac and Sureth as a pupil of Joseph ‘Azzarya in Mosul (on ‘Azzarya, see Mengozzi, Religious Poetry, p. xx; on his school in Telkepe, see, e.g., Assfalg, Syrische Handschriften, p. 109-111). He studied at the Patriarchal Seminary in Mosul where he was ordained a priest in 1893 (see also Braida, Neo-Aramaic Aḥiqar. Introduction, n. 8). Therefore he cannot be identified with Gabriel son of Jeremiah Shamir, as I wrongly did in Mengozzi, 19th Century, p. 55. 16   Lidzbarski, Die neu-aramäischen Handschriften, 1, p. ix, n. 2. 17   On the traditional genres of oral-oriented Christian Neo-Aramaic literature, see Mengozzi, Traditional Genres; on the Classical Syriac genre of the dialogue soghiyatha and their fortune in Neo-Aramaic, see Mengozzi, Religious Poetry, p. xix-xx, and Mengozzi ‒ Ricossa, The Cherub and the Thief. 18   Braida (Braida, Neo-Aramaic Aḥiqar. Text) published the NENA Aḥiqar from London B.L. Or. 9321, with English translation. Braida (Braida, Neo-Aramaic Aḥiqar. Introduction) hypothesizes that Gabriel Quryaquza translated into Neo-Aramaic one or more Syriac versions of Aḥiqar, which would appear to be linked with the Syriac Aḥiqar partly published by Grünberg (Grünberg, Achikar) and especially with a Syriac version preserved in a 1908 manuscript from Alqosh (version II in Nau, Aḥikar, p. 14). According to Nöldeke (Nöldeke, Achikarroman, p. 51-54) the Syriac text published by Grünberg depends on an Ar. Aḥiqar. The name of the protagonist has the Ar. form Ḥayqār in another Syriac version of the story (version I in Nau, Aḥikar, p. 1, from a 16th-century manuscript). We are possibly dealing with a sub-branch of the tradition, in which late Classical Syriac and 19th-century Neo-Aramaic versions derive from and/or are contaminated with Ar. versions. 19   A fascinating poetic reflex of this kind of texts can be seen in a long lullaby from Qaraqosh (Talia, Lullabies, p. 48-59), where the anonymous poet lets the mother sing to her child blessings linked with churches, shrines, ruins of sacred places, saints and martyrs of Qaraqosh and all the other Christian villages of the Mosul plain. In the mother and her listeners’ hearts hagiography and sacral geography concur in fostering communal Christian identity in a remarkable ecumenical perspective and summons all the saints of the Nineveh heaven to protect the child’s sleep.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 427

29/11/16 06:04

428

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

poems of various genres in NENA), and 3) adab-like texts of probable Arabic origin. The latter were probably requested so as to cover a gap in the prevalently oral literary space of Aramaic-speaking Christians, namely the lack of a written tradition of stories and short novels in Neo-Aramaic. Arabic and Garshuni manuscripts containing this kind of stories were produced or circulated among Middle-East Christians for a long time and they played an important role in the shaping of the European editions of the One Thousand and One Nights. These Arabic Christian anthologies, in turn, were possibly influenced by the form that the Arabian Nights had taken between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the enormous success it had encountered in the West. More than a century before the Neo-Aramaic translations, Sindbād the Sailor had been included in the Mille et une nuits (Paris, 1704-17) by Antoine Galland, while Ḥayqār entered the European corpus of the Arabian Nights as Histoire de Sinkarib et de ses deux vizirs20. The appeal of the Nights may have oriented Sachau’s choice of these specific texts as prose samples to be translated from Arabic into Neo-Aramaic. 2. Arabic or Neo-Aramaic ‘aǧā’ib? The language of the right-hand pages is a form of literary Neo-Aramaic (henceforth NA) based on a Christian variety of the Mosul plain. Words such as magenyānā ‘the West’ (20) and kġāmeṭ ‘it sinks’ (14) as well as the Aramaicized forms of Kurdish words such as gamyā, gyānā, zaxmā (see here, below) are described by Maclean as typical of Alqosh21, hence of the poetic koine based on that dialect. Gabriel Quryaqoza was born in a Telkepe family and the dialect of Telkepe is very close to that of Alqosh. Furthermore, he learnt in Mosul with Joseph ‘Azzaryā luġat al-baldah (suraṯ) ‘the local language (Sureth)’22, whereby is probably meant the spoken and occasionally written koine of Mosul23 in its turn not very different from the Alqosh and Telkepe dialect cluster. Against the purist and classicizing attitude of the standard language of Urmia, the text is written in the phonetically oriented spelling of Iraqi NA manuscripts24 and the lexicon, possibly influenced by an Arabic   Braida, Neo-Aramaic Aḥiqar. Introduction, p. 41.   Maclean, Dictionary. 22   London B.L. Or. 9321, p. 696. See also, above, n. 15. 23   Sachau, Fellichi. 24   Etymological pharyngeal /ḥ/, e.g., is written according to the modern pronunciation as a velar fricative in words as xḏā ‘one, a(n)’, Aramaic etymological /‘/ is pronounced and written as in arbā ‘four’ or ar’ā ‘land’. In (8) ṭarwāṯā probably 20 21

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 428

29/11/16 06:04



GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT

429

(henceforth Ar.) original or model, is replete with words and roots of foreign etymology. The wonders are labelled with a NA term of clear Ar. origin (‘eǧubē, pl. ‘eǧbāwāṯa)25, usually paralleled by ‘aǧība in the facing Ar. text, but twice by the closest etymon u‘ǧūba (16 and 23). In the initial rubric and in the titles of wonders (8) and (9) NA ‘eǧubē curiously corresponds to Ar. nādira (pl. nawādir), which suggests that the author of the Ar. text considered nādira and ‘aǧība as synonyms26. Arabisms in the NA text are often paralleled by their etymons in the Ar. text: mḍurrē ‘harmed’ (2); bellur ‘crystal’ (3); marē 27 ‘mirror’ (4); šabah ‘brass’ (5 and 9); d-ḥaḍri (h)wā ‘who were visiting’ (5); maǧrēṯā ‘stream’ and forms of the verb ‘to flow’ from the root ǧry (5 and passim)28; mex ‘ādet-āh – with long ā marked with as in Ar. – is a calque of the facing ka-‘ādati-hi ‘as usual’ (5); the Ar. spelling of long ā also occurs in maṭrān ‘Metropolitan’ (12) and ḥiwān ‘animal’ (14)29; knāqeṣ ‘it decreases’ (15); nefeṭ ‘naphtha’ (17); zē’mut-ēh ‘its offensive smell’ perfectly corresponds to Ar. zuhūmatu-hu (18)30; Ar.-derived ramel follows the Aramaic equivalent xālā ‘sand’31 and kmākennē (ܐܪܒܐ< ܸܢܗ̈ܪܘ ܼܬܐ ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ܆‬ ‫�‬

‫‪9‬‬

‫ܓܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ‬ ‫ܸܥ ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܛܘܢܐܵ‬ ‫ܸܐ ܼܬ ܵܘܐ �ܒܐܪܐܐ ܕ ܸܡ ܸܨܪ ܸܐܣܛܘ ܹܢܐ ܸܘܒ ܹܪܫܐ ܕܟ ܼܘܠ ܸܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܕܫ ܲܒܗ ܵ‬ ‫ܗܘܠ‬ ‫ܛܦܝ ܵܘܐ ܵܡ ܵܝܐ ܡܕ ܼܘܟ ܹ̈ܢܐ ܕ ܹܣܐ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܼ‬ ‫ܹܣܐ ܹ̈ܪܐ � �‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܣܛܘܢܐܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫�ܦܠ ܸܓܕ ܕ ܸܐܣܛܘܢܐ ܘܠܐ ܹܦܝܬ ܼܝܘܐ ܡܝܐ ܡ �ܦܠ ܸܓܕ ܸܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܨܘ ܿܒ ܠܬܝܟ‪ܵ .‬‬ ‫ܦܝ ܵܬܐ [‪ ]235b‬ܠܐܵ‬ ‫ܘܠܐ ܲܩܛܐܝ ܵܘܐ ܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܛܘ ܼܵ‬ ‫ܹ ܼ‬ ‫� ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܝܠܝ܆‬ ‫ܒ ܹܠܝ ܹܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܕܘܟ ܹܢܐ ܕܐ �ܢܝܢ ܡܝܐ ܝ ܼ̈ܪܘ ܹܩܐ �‬

‫منها الى البحر܀‬

‫الش َبه في يوم عيدهم كانت تنبع‬ ‫فارس من َ‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫[‪ ]234a‬الميآه من تلك المنارة وكافة الناس‬ ‫كانت تشرب منها الذين كانوا يحضرون‬

‫الى هناك ويسقون َد ّوابـهم ويملأون جميع‬

‫الاوعية التي كانت تكون معهم والقُ َرب‬

‫العيد ينقطع َم ْج َرى‬ ‫التي كانت هناك وبعد ْ‬ ‫الميآه ولا تجرى بعد ذلك كعادته܀‬

‫يوجد مدينة لها سبعة اسوار الواحد داخل‬

‫الآخر‪ .‬وبين مسو ٍر الى ُمسو ٍر آخر سبعة‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫وكل ثلاثة يساوى فرسخ واحد وبين‬ ‫اميال‪.‬‬

‫ُمسو ٍر الى ُمسو ٍر آخر فراديس وانـهر وكروم‬

‫رحى܀‬ ‫وسواقي َو ً‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫الملوك هو من بحر‬ ‫ايضا مسو ٌر َب َنا ُه‬ ‫ويوجد ً‬ ‫[‪ ]235a‬الخزر الى بحر سور ّيا مسير ثمانية‬

‫ا ّيام܀‬ ‫ܲܫ ܵ‬ ‫ܒܐܐ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܘܡܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫�ܲܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܪܒܐ‬

‫نادر ٌة‬

‫مدين ٌة ما‬

‫‪86‬‬

‫وهي مدينة كبيرة لها سبعة‬

‫ابواب وبنآء المدينة كان النحاس ومن‬ ‫الحديد وكانت من تحت سرير الملك‬

‫اربعة >اربعة< انـهر كبار‬

‫نادرة‬

‫يوجد في ارض مصر اهرام وفي راس ّ‬ ‫كل َه َر ٍم‬ ‫الش َبه وكانت امواه تنضح من‬ ‫اقمار من َ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫َم َحال الأقمار جارية الى نصف الهرم ولم‬ ‫تكن تتجاوز المياه من نصف الهرم الى‬

‫اسفل ِه‪ .‬ولم تكن تنقطع قطرات الامواه لا‬

‫ليل ًا [‪ ]236a‬ولا ن ََه ًارا‪ .‬ومواضع تلك‬

‫الامواه هي َخ ْض َرآء܀‬

‫‪86‬‬ ‫‪ ‘Memphis’,‬منف ‪  Mā al-ibhāmiyya (see, above, n. 46) or, perhaps, a corruption of‬‬ ‫‪that is probably the city described in (8).‬‬

‫‪29/11/16 06:04‬‬

‫‪99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 442‬‬

‫‪443‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT‬‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫ܓܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ‬ ‫ܸܥ ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܪܟܝܒܐܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܢܓ ܸ‬ ‫ܸܐ ܼܬ ܵܘܐ �ܒܐܪܐܐ �ܕܐܢܕ ܸܠܣ‪� .‬ܪܟܒܐ ܼܟܐ ܸܕܒ ܸܪ ̰‬ ‫ܕܘܘܐ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܟܪ ܵܕ ܵ‬ ‫ܐܘܐ‬ ‫ܸܐ ܸܠܕ ܼ‬ ‫ܦܫܝܛܬܐ ܼܟ ܹܕ ܹ‬ ‫ܘܐܝ ܹܕܗ ܼ‬ ‫ܢܓ‪ܼ .‬‬ ‫ܣܘ ܵܣܐ ܸܕܒ ܸܪ ̰‬ ‫ܪܡ ܵܙܐ ܘ ܿܟ ܵܐܡܪ ܕܡܢ ܲ‬ ‫ܘܙܠܗ ܠܝܬ ܕܘܟܐܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܕܖ ܸܡ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܙܘܐ‬ ‫ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ ܸ ܼ �‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܟܘܠ ܵܡܢܝ ܕ ܿܟܦܵ ܸܝ ܿܬ ܸܐܠܕ ܿܐܘ ܲܪ ܵܟܒܐܵ‬ ‫ܵܬܐ ܥܡܖܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܕܐܝ ܼܬ ܬܡܐ‪..‬‬ ‫ܠܐܝ ܹܠܗ ܸܫܟܘ ܹܢܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܟ �ܒ ܼ‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫ܓܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ‬ ‫ܸܥ ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܪ ܹܟܗ �ܐܪܒܐ ܸܐ ܹܡܐ ܕܖ ܹܐܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܝ ܼܬ �ܒܐܪܐܐ ܕ ܸܡ ܸܨܪ ܼܟܐ ܸܒܢܝܢܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܪܒܐ ܐ ̈ܡܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܕܖ ܹܐܐ ݇ܝ ܹܠܗ‪.‬‬ ‫݇ܝ ܹܠܗ ܘ ܸܦ ܼܬ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܘ ܹܬܗ �ܗܡ �ܐ ܵ ܸ ܹ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ‬ ‫ܝܠܢ �ܲܐ ܼܕ‬ ‫ܸܘܟ ܼܬ ܼܝ ܼܒ ܹܠܗ ܠ ܸܐܠ ܸܡ ܹܢܗ [‪� ]236b‬ܕܐ ܼܟ ܼܢܝ ܒ ܹܢ �‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܸܒ ܵ‬ ‫ܢܝ ܵܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܫܘܕ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܐܝ ܼܬ ܒܓ ܹܘܗ ܼ ܹܟܝܠܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܟܘܠ �ܡܠܟܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܲܫܐܠܝܠܗ‪ .‬ܘ ܵ‬ ‫ܒܢ ܵܝܐ‪ܿ .‬‬ ‫ܫܠ ܵܐܐ ܒܫ ܵ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܹܠܗ ܸܡ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܟ ܼܘ ܲ �ܠܝ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫� ܹ ܹ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܲܡ ̈ܠ ܿܟܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܕܥ ܵ‬ ‫ܠܡܐ ܹܠܐ ܵܡ ܲ�ܨܝ ܸܠ ܼܟ ܵܖ ܹܒܗ܆‬ ‫� ܹ‬

‫‪12‬‬

‫ܓܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ‬ ‫ܸܥ ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܡܬ ܼܘ ܹܢܝ ܹܠܗ ܝܘ ܹܣܦ ܐ ܼܟܘܢܐ ܕܡܪܝ �ܥ ܼܒ ܼܕܝܫܘܥ �ܡܛܖܐܢ‬ ‫ܢܝܐ ܡܕܝ ݇ܢ ܵܬܐ‪ .‬ܘܐܘܿ‬ ‫ܕܥܝ ܵܠܡ‪ .‬ܕܟܙܝܠܗ ܵܟܐ ܲܓܒ ܵܖܐ ܒܩܘܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܸܼܹ ܹ ܼ �ܼ‬ ‫ܲ ܵ ܲ‬ ‫ܪܗ ܿܘ ܵܡ ܵܝܐ ܹܘ ܵ‬ ‫ܲ �ܓܒ ܵܖܐ ݇‬ ‫ܠܦ̈ܐ‬ ‫ܝܘܐ‪ .‬ܘ ܸܐ ܼܬ ܵܘܐ ܹܠܗ �ܫ ܼܒܐܐ �ܐ ܹ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܒܙܘ ̈ܙܐ ܕܝܝܗ ܘܐܬ ܹܝ̈ܐ ܸܐܠܗ ܵ‬ ‫ܡܒ ܿ ܹܒܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫�ܦ̈ܪ ܹܕܝ ܹܣܐ ܙ ܼܒ ܼܝ ܹܢܐ‪ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ 87‬‬ ‫ܹ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܫܘܪܗ ܡܢܗ ܐܠܗ ܸܘܟܕܝܖܐܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼܼܼ‬ ‫ܘ ܸܝ ܹܡܗ‪ .‬ܘܟ ܼܘܠ �ܦܪ ܹܕܝܣܐ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܸ ܸ ܸ‬ ‫ܐܠܗ ܵ‬ ‫ܘܠܐ ܟ ܼ ܵܟ ܹܘ ܼܟ [‪]237b‬‬ ‫ܸ ܹ‬

‫عجيبة‬

‫نحاس‬ ‫فارس من‬ ‫كان في ارض الاندلس‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫راكب على ِح َصان من النحاس‪ .‬و َيدُ ُه‬

‫ممدود ٌة كانّه يشير اشار ًة ويقول فانّه من‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫وكل‬ ‫محل بعد الاستيطان‬ ‫الآن َ‬ ‫وصاعدً ا لا ّ‬ ‫من كان يجتاز على ذلك الفارس كانت‬

‫تبتلعه النمل الموجودة هناك‪:‬‬

‫عجيبة‬

‫طوله اربعمائة‬ ‫يوجد في ارض مصر بنآء ما‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ذراع ِ‬ ‫ايضا‪ .‬وقد‬ ‫ذراع‬ ‫وع ْر ُض ُه اربعمائة‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ُكتب فوقه انّنا نحن [‪ ]237a‬قد َشيَّدْ نا هذا‬

‫ّ‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫ملك ُله قدرة فليستأصله والهدم‬ ‫فكل‬ ‫البنآء‪.‬‬ ‫َ‬ ‫الب ْن َيان‪ .‬فكافة الملوك لم يقدروا‬ ‫اسهل من ُ‬ ‫على َهدْ ِم ِه‪:‬‬ ‫عجيبة‪:‬‬

‫حكى يوسف اخو ماري عبد يشوع مطران‬ ‫ِعيلاَم‪ .‬انه َر َاى رجل ًا في مدينة قونيا‪ .‬وذلك‬ ‫الرجل كان ُروميًّا‪ .‬وكان له سبعة آلآف‬

‫بستان ُم ْب َتاعة ب َِمال ِه وآتيته اليه بالورث من‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫وكل بستان ُمسو ُر ُه منه والي ِه محتاط‬ ‫َأ َب َويه‪.‬‬ ‫فردوس َما بِغَ ْي ِر ِه‬ ‫َح َوا َلي ِه بدون ان يختلط‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫[‪]238a‬‬

‫‪13‬‬

‫‪14‬‬

‫ܵ‬ ‫ܓܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ ܕ ܲ�ܢ ܿܒ ܼ ̈ܘ ܹܐܐ ܘ ܹܢܗ̈ܪ ܵܘ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܸܐ ܸܠܕ ܸܥ ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܗܖܐ ܕ ܿܟܦܵ‬ ‫ܪܝܐ ܵܒ ܲ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܵܟܐ ܢ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܐܛܠܣ ܼܕ ܿܟ ܵ ̰ܓ �ܪܝ ܵܡ ܹܝܗ‬ ‫ܩ‬ ‫ܫ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܸ ܹ ܸ‬ ‫ܼܼ ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܠܝ ܵܡܐ ܲ‬ ‫̈ ܵ‬ ‫ܡܫܪ ܵ‬ ‫ܝܬܐ ܵ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܛ ܲ �ܠ ܼܬ ܵܫ ̈ܐ ܵܝ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܛ �ܠ ܼܬ ܵܫܐ ܵܝ ܼܬܐ ܵ ܹ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܡܐ‪ .‬ܘ ܸ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܝܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܟ ܹܦܝܫܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܟܠܝ ܼܬܐ �ܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪ ܼ‬ ‫ܕܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪ ܼ‬ ‫ܝܬܐ ܸܘܟ �ܝ ܼܒܫܐ ܼܕܘܟ ܼܬܐ �‬ ‫‪:‬ܟ ܵ‬ ‫ܪܬܐ  ‪:‬‬ ‫ܸ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܩܬܐ ܟ ܼܘܕ ܟܢ ܹܦܠ ܒܓܘܗ �ܒܪܢܫܐ ܐܘ ܼܚܝܘܐܢ‬ ‫ܵܝܡܐ ܣܡܘ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܐܝ ܼܬ ܒܓ ܹܘܗ ܓܝܢܐ ܟܛ ܸܝܦ ܠ ܸܐܠ‬ ‫ܒܝ ܼܟ ܹܝܐ ܼ‬ ‫�ܡܩܐ ܼܕܝ ܹܠܗ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܟܓ ܸܡܛ ܒܡܝܐ܀‬ ‫ܡܡܝܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܟܘܕ ܟܡ ܹܝ ܼܬ ܼ‬

‫ُ‬ ‫في عجيبة الينابيع والأن ُْهر‪:‬‬ ‫يوجد ن َْه ٌر ما ُي َسمَّى َب َ‬ ‫مياه ُه‬ ‫اطلاس َت ْن َصبُّ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫بداية‬

‫في البحر مدّ ة ثلاث ساعات من‬

‫‪88‬‬

‫ايضا‬ ‫النهار‪ .‬وينقطع مجرا ُه ثلاث ساعات ً‬ ‫المـ ْج َرى܀‬ ‫فيبقى َياب ًِسا موضع َ‬

‫عجيبة‬

‫َ‬ ‫البحر الأ ْح َمر اذا وقع فيه انسان او َحيوان‬ ‫فما َد َامت فيه الحيوة ويوجد فيه نفس‬

‫وض في‬ ‫يطوف فوق المياه واذا مات َيغُ ُ‬ ‫المياه܀‬ ‫‪.‬ܙ ܼܒ ܹܝ ܹܢܐ ‪  The ms. has‬‬ ‫‪.‬مذ ‪  The ms. has‬‬

‫‪87‬‬ ‫‪88‬‬

‫‪29/11/16 06:04‬‬

‫‪99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 443‬‬

‫‪f. bellino – A. Mengozzi‬‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫ܓܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ‬ ‫ܸܥ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼܐܝ ܼܬ ܒܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܘܪܝܩܘܣ‬ ‫ܟܕܐ ܼܕܘܟ ܼܬܐ ܸܕܟ ܹܦܝܫܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܩܪܝ ܼܬܐ ܹܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܪܝܐ [‪ ]238b‬ܘ ܿܟ ܲܩ ܵ‬ ‫ܛܐܐ ܵ ܵ‬ ‫ܟ ܲ ̰ܓ ܵ‬ ‫ܛ ܲ �ܠ ܼܬ ܲ �ܓ ̈ܗ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܸ �‬ ‫ܒܝܘܡܐ ܸ‬ ‫�‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܝܬܗ ܟ ܹܦܝܫܐ ܚ ܸܡܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܛ �ܠ ܼܬ ܫܐ ܵܝ ܼܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪ ܹ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܵܿ ܲ ܵ ̈ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܗܘܠ‬ ‫ܘܥܘ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܡܩܘ ܼܬܗ � ܼܟܡܫܐ ܸܐ ܸܡܐ ܕ̈ܪ ܹܐܐ ܘܒ ܸܬܖ ܸܕ ܼܝܟ ܟܢ ܸܩܨ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ ܲ ܵ‬ ‫ܪܐܐ ܑܝܒܝ ܵ‬ ‫ܕ ܿܟ ܹܦ ܵ‬ ‫ܫܬܐ܆‬ ‫ܝܫܐ ܕ ܸܐܠܬܐ �ܐ ܼ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ‬

‫‪16‬‬

‫ܸܥ ̰ܓ ܼܘ ܵܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܲ‬ ‫ܒܐܬ ܵ̈ܪ ܵܘ ܵܬܐ ܕܣܘܿ‬ ‫ܪܝܐ ܵܟܐ ܢ ܵ‬ ‫ܗܖܐ ܸܕ ܿܟ ܲ �ܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪܐ ܵܡܝܐܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼܼ �ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܘܡܐ ܘ ܿܟܙܝܕܝ ܵܡܝܗ‪ .‬ܘܒ ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܫܬܐ ܼ ̈‬ ‫ܒܫ ܿܒ ܵܬܐ ܵܟܐ ܵܝ ܵ‬ ‫ܝܘ ܵܡ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܸܟ ܹ̈ܢܐ‬ ‫ܸ ܹ ܼ ܹ‬ ‫� ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܝܫܐ ܟܙܝܬܐܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܝܫܝ‬ ‫ܗܘܠ �ܕܐܪܐܐ ܟ ܹܦ‬ ‫ܩܛܝ ܹܐܐ ܡܝܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ ܼܼ‬ ‫ܟ ܹܦ ܼ‬ ‫ܝܒܝ ܵ‬ ‫ܫܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܲ‬ ‫ܒܐܬ ܵ‬ ‫ܪܐܐ ܼ ܵܟܐ ܹܒ ܵܖܐ ܼܟ ܵܕܐ ܕ ܸܟܡ �ܲܦ ܵ‬ ‫ܠܛܐ ܵܡ ܵܝܐ ܘ ܸܡܠ ܼ ܵܟܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܫܝ‬ ‫ܩܛܝ̈ ܹܐܐ ܵܡ ܵܝܐ ܒ ܼ ܵܟܐ ܲ �ܓ ܵܖܐ ܟ ܵ ̰ܓ �ܪܝ‬ ‫ܘ ܸܢ ܸܦܛ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܟܘܕ ܟ ܹܦ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ ܲ‬ ‫ܵܡ ܵܝܐ ܵܡ ܼ ̈‬ ‫ܠܘ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܘ ܹܟܐ [‪ܸ ]239b‬ܘܟ ܵܗ �ܘܝ ܸܡܠ ܼܟܐ � ܲܚ ܼ‬ ‫ܪܬܐ ܘܠܐܵ‬ ‫ܘܟ ܵܘ ܵ‬ ‫ܘܗܡ ܠܐܵ‬ ‫ܟܗܘܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܒܓ ܵܘ ܿܗ ܛ ܵܡܐ ܕܢ ܿܦܛ‪ܲ .‬‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܹ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܸܸ‬ ‫ܸ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܬ‬ ‫ܼܪܝ ܼܟܐ ܕ ܸܢ ܸܦܛ ܟܦ ܹܝܫ ܼ‬ ‫ܒܕܘܟܗ ܸܘܒܓ ܸܘܕ ܸܢ ܸܦܛ ܹܠ ܼ‬ ‫ܲܛ ܵ‬ ‫ܥܡܐ ܕ ܸܡܠ ܼ ܵܟܐ‪..‬‬ ‫�‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪18‬‬

‫ܡܥܘ ̰ܓ ܵܒܐ‬ ‫ܫܘ ܵܠܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܕܦܘܫܬ ܼܝܕܪ ܼܐܝ ܼܬ ܹܐܝܢܐ ܒ ܼܟܐ ܹܟܐܦܐ ܸܕܟ �ܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪܐ‬ ‫�ܒܐ ܼܬܖܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܐܡܘ ܹܬܗ ܸܡ ܼܟ ܵܘ ܸܬܕ ܸܕ ܵܡܐ ܸܘ ܿܟ ܵ ̰ܓ ܹܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܙ ܼ‬ ‫ܸܕܡܐ‪ .‬ܘ ܹܪܝ ܹܟܗ ܘ ܸ‬ ‫ܛ ܹܡܗ ܹ‬ ‫ܣܡܘ ܵܩܐ ܟܘ ܿܕ ܠܝܬ ܛ ܵܡܐ ܘܠܐܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܦܖܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܸܘܟܝ ܹܒܫ ܸܘܟܗ ܹܘܐ ܼܐܘ‬ ‫ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܿܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܚܢ ܵܢܐ ܲܝܥܢܝ ܼܐܘ ܵ‬ ‫݇ ̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܦܖܐ‬ ‫ܩܠܝ ܸܡ ܸܢܗ ܐ ܵܢ ܹܫܐ ܵ � ܼ‬ ‫ܼܪܝ ܼܟܐ ܕ ܸܕܡܐ‪ܸ .‬ܘܟ �ܫ ܼ‬ ‫ܕܒܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܪܟ ܼ ܵܬܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫ܟ ܵ‬ ‫ܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܵ ܲ ܵ‬ ‫ܕܫ ܿܒܬܐܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܡܐ ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܒܝ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܡܐ ܼܬ̈ܪܘ ܼܬܐ ܼܐܝ ܼܬ ܸܢܗܖܐ ܸܕܟ ̰ܓ ܹܪܗ‬ ‫ܒ ܼܟܐ �‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܘܬܡ ܵ‬ ‫ܡܬܐ ̈ ܵ ܵ‬ ‫ܩܛܝ ܵܐܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫� ܸ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܡ ܼܬܐ ܟܦ ܹܝܫ ܼ‬

‫‪20‬‬

‫ܲ‬ ‫[‪ ]240b‬ܐܝܬ ܢ ܵ‬ ‫ܗܖܐ ܼ ܵܟܐ ܸܕ ܲ �ܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪܗ ܿܟ ݈ܠܗ ܼ ܵܟ ܵܠܐ ܘ �ܪ ܸܡܠ‬ ‫ܼܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܝܒܝ ܵܫܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܕܠܐ ܵܡ ܵܝܐ‪ .‬ܘܠܐ ܟܡ ܸܟ ܸܢܗ �ܒܪܢܫܐ ܘܠܐ ܸܚܝܘܐܢ‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܵ ܲ‬ ‫ܒܓܘܗ‪ .‬ܘ ܿܒ ܿܝܘ ܵܡܐ ܲ‬ ‫ܡܝܐ ܠ ܿܦ ܵܝ ܵܬܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܕܫ ܿܒ ܵܬܐ ܟ ܹܦܝܫܐܵ‬ ‫ܹ ܸ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܘܠܐ �ܓ ܼ ܵ ܸ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ ܲ‬ ‫ܿ ܵ ܲ‬ ‫ܿܵ‬ ‫ܝܬܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪ ܹ‬ ‫ܐܠܝ ܼܕܘܟ ܼܬܐ �‬ ‫ܟܠܝ ܼܬܐ �ܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪܝܬܐ ܼܕܝ ܹܝܗ ܸܘܟܕ ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܪܩܘܠ ܲ �ܡ ܸܓܢܝܢܐ܀‬ ‫�ܒ ܼ‬ ‫ܸܥ ̰ܓ ܼܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫݇‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼܐܝ ܼܬ �ܒܐ ܼܬܖܐ ܕ̈ܪܗܘܡ ܹܝܐ ܸܐ ܸܠܕ ܝܡܐ ܕ �ܟܙܪ �ܐ ܼܬܖܐ ܸܕܟܦ ܹܝܫ‬ ‫ܪܝܐ ܲܡ ܵ‬ ‫ܛܠ ܵܝܐ‪ܵ .‬ܠܐ ܟܦܵܝܫ ܩܛܝ ܵܐܐ ܡܢܗ ܡ ܵ‬ ‫ܛܖܐ ܵܠܐ‬ ‫ܸܸ ܸ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܹ‬ ‫ܸܩ ܵ �‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܲܣ ܿܬ ܵܘܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܘܗܡ ܠܐ ܘܐܝ ܲܒܝ ܠܡ ܵܓ ܿ‬ ‫ܝܛܐ ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܩ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܠ‬ ‫ܡܘ ܹܥܐ‬ ‫ܹ ̰‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܼ�‬ ‫ܵ�̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܡܒ ܹܿܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܝ‬ ‫�ܕ ܼܟܠܐ‪ܸ .‬ܐܠܐ ܠܓ ܼ‬

‫‪21‬‬

‫ ‪444‬‬

‫عجيبة‬

‫دعى ُاوريقوس‬ ‫يوجد في البحر مكان ُي َ‬ ‫يجرى [‪ ]239a‬وتنقطع‪ 89‬في النهار ثلاث‬

‫َدف َْعات وايقاف مجرا ُه يكون مدّ ة ثلاث‬ ‫ساعات َ‬ ‫اعا وبعد‬ ‫وغ ْو ُر ُه هو خمسمائة ِذ َر ً‬

‫تتبين الارض يابسة‪:‬‬ ‫ذلك ينقص حتى ّ‬ ‫اعجوبة‬

‫مياه ُه‬ ‫نهر واحد َيصبُّ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫يوجد في بلاد ُسو ِريَّا ٌ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫اه ُه وفي الايام‬ ‫يوما واحدً ا وتزداد ِم َي ُ‬ ‫كل اسبوع ً‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫الستة الأ َخر تنقطع حتى ُت ْن َظر الارض يابسة ܀‬

‫لحا‬ ‫مآء و ِم ً‬ ‫يوجد في احد البلاد بئر ُي ْخرج ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫منقطعة الى‬ ‫ولـما تعتزل المياه‬ ‫و َنفْ ًطا‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫َصهريج ما تسبل المياه اﻟﻤﺎ ِل َحة وتصير‬ ‫حلوا وابيض بدون ان يكون‬ ‫ملحا‬ ‫[‪ً ]240a‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫في ِه طعم نفط ولا يبقى في موضع ِه رائحة‬

‫ايضا܀‬ ‫ايضا ولا في النفط طعم الملح ً‬ ‫نفط ً‬ ‫شيء غريب‬

‫في اقطار بوستيدَ ار َع ْي ٌن في صخر ٍة يجري‬ ‫وطعم ُه وزهوم ُت ُه كالدم‪.‬‬ ‫منها د ٌم‪ .‬رائح ُت ُه‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫فيجرى وييبس ويكون ت َُرا ًبا أ ْح َمر حيث لا‬ ‫يوجد فيه لا طعم دم ولا رائح ُت ُه وانام تلك‬

‫البلاد يأخذون منه الاحنان اي تراب البركة܀‬ ‫غيرها‬

‫في احد البلاد ن َْه ٌر يسبل يوم السبت‬ ‫وبقية ا ّيام ينقطع܀‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫نهر يجري منه رمل يابس بدون‬ ‫[‪ ]241a‬يوجد ٌ‬ ‫مآء‪ .‬ولا يتمكن الانسان او الحيوان او السفينة‬

‫من العبور فيه‪ .‬ونـهار السبت يقف مجرا ُه‬ ‫والناس ينظرون موضع مجراه بازآء المغرب܀‬

‫عجيبة‬

‫يوجد في بلاد الروم على جانب بحر الخزر‬ ‫المـ ْط َلاي لا ينقطع منه مطر لا‬ ‫َب َلدٌ ُي َسمَّى‬ ‫َ‬

‫ايضا الناس ان‬ ‫شتآء ولا َص ْيفً ا ولا يقدرون ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫يجمعوا َغلاَّت‪ .‬الا داخل البيوت܀‬ ‫‪ in 238a.‬وينقطع ‪  The ms. has‬‬

‫‪29/11/16 06:04‬‬

‫‪89‬‬

‫‪99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 444‬‬

‫‪445‬‬

‫ ‬

‫‪GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT‬‬

‫‪22‬‬

‫ܥܓܘ ܿܒܐ ܟ ܵ‬ ‫ܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܸ ̰ܼ ܹ ܸ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܼܬ ܵܖܐ �ܲܕܕܫܬܐ ܸܘܕ ܸܚ ̰ܓܐܙ‪ .‬ܟܗ ܹܘܐ [‪ ]241b‬ܟ ܼܘ ܹܠܗ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܛܐ ܡ ܵ‬ ‫ܛܖܐ ܸܘܒ ܸܣܬ ܵܘܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܟܗ ܹܘܐ ܹܩ ܵ‬ ‫ܝܛܐ܀‬ ‫ܹܩ ܵ ܸ‬

‫عجيبة ُأ ْخ َرى‬

‫‪23‬‬

‫ܸܥ ̰ܓ ܼܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ‬ ‫ܝܫܐ ܩܪܝܬܐܵ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܒܒܝܬ ܕܠܝܫ ܟ ܵܕܐ ܡܕܝ ݇ܢ ܵܬܐ ܕܟܦܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܸ ܹ‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼܼ ܹ ܼ‬ ‫ܼܼ‬ ‫ܲܥ ܵܡܣ ܵܟܐ ܵܢܒܘ ܵܐܐ ܿܙܘ ܵܖܐ ܐܠܕ ܣ ܵ‬ ‫ܦܬܐ ܵ‬ ‫ܕܝ ܵܡܐ ܸܕ ܿܟ ܲ �ܡ ̰ܓ ܹܪܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸ ܸ ܸ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܿ̈ ܵ‬ ‫ܵܵ ܲ ܵ‬ ‫ܛ ܸܡܗ‬ ‫ܵܡ ܵܝܐ ܣܡܘ ܹܩܐ ܘ ܼܟ ܼ‬ ‫ܡܘ ܹ̈ܨܐ ܸܡ ܼܝܟ ܼܟܠܐ �ܙ ܼܟܡܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܐܝ ܼܬ ܒ ܸ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵܟܪܝ ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܩܝ ܿܘܢ ܼܐܝ ܹܠܗ ܸܘ ܿܟ ܵ ̰ܓ �ܪܝ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܝܟܕ ܸܕܙ ܸܪ ܼ‬ ‫ܦܘ ܼܬܐ ܘܓܘ ܹܢܗ ܼܟ ܸܕ ܸ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܝܫܝ ܐ �ܢܝ ܡ ܵܝܐ ܣܡܘ ܹܩܐ ܹܟܐܦ ܹܢܐ‬ ‫ܦܠܝ ܒ ܸܢܗܖܐ ܸܘܟ ܹܦ ܼ‬ ‫ܸܘܟ ܵܢ ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܙܩܐ܀‬ ‫ܘ ܸܒ ܹ‬

‫اعجوبة‬

‫‪24‬‬

‫ܸܥ ̰ܓ ܼܘ ܿ ܹܒܐ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܝܬ‬ ‫ܼܐܝ ܼܬ �ܒܐ ܼܬܖܐ ܸܕܟܦ ܹܝܫ ܸܩܪܝܐ ܦܢܘܪ ܹܒ ܼ‬ ‫ܠܒ ܼ‬ ‫ܝܬ �ܚܙܐܢ ܹ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܡܫܘ ܼܟ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܹܪ ܹܫܗ ܼ ܵܟܐ [‪]242b‬‬ ‫ܛܘ ܵܖܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܠܝܫ ܼܟܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܲܦܪܣ ܵܟܐ‪ .‬ܘܐ ܿܬܗ ܲܡ ܵ‬ ‫ܣܩ ̈ܢܐ ܡ ܿܬ ܵܖ ܲܘܝܗܝ ܕܦ̈ ܵܢ ܵܬܐ ܲ‬ ‫ܘܡܢ ܼܟ ܼ ܵܬܢܐ̈‬ ‫ܸܸ � ܹ ܸ � ܼ ܸ ܼ‬ ‫�ܸ ܼ‬ ‫� ܸ ܹ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܲܪܘܬ ܲܢܝܗܝ ܡܝܟ ܵܢ ܿܒܘ ܵܐܐ ݇ܝ ܲܠܝ ܘ ܿܟ ܵܢܦܩ ܡܢܗ ܢ ܵ‬ ‫ܗܖܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸ �ܼ� ܼ ܸ‬ ‫� ܸ ܸ ܸܹ ܸ‬ ‫ܫܬܐ ܠ ܵܟܐ ܵ ܵ ܿ‬ ‫ܿܲ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܢܝܣܢܵ‬ ‫ܕܛܘ ܵܖܐ‪ܸ .‬ܟ ܵ‬ ‫ܡܛ̈ܪ ܹܦܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܡܫ ܹܪܐ ܡ ܹܪ ܵܫܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸܘܟ �ܡ ܹ‬ ‫ܠܛ ܲܪ ܿܦ ܕܒܝܬ ܕܠܝܫ ܲ‬ ‫ܘ ܿܟܦܵܠܛ ܘ ܿܟ ܲܡܫܬܐܿ‬ ‫ܠܐܬܖܐܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫�ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܹ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ � ܹ‬ ‫��‬ ‫ܸ ܸ‬ ‫ܪܝܐ ܵܛܛܝܩ‪ܿ .‬‬ ‫ܘܐܘ ܲ �ܛ ܲ�ܪ ܿܦ ܼܟ ܵܢܐ ܹܩ ܵ‬ ‫ܸܕ ܿܟܦܵ ܹܝܫ ܸܩ ܵ‬ ‫ܟܘ ܹܠܗ‬ ‫ܝܛܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܘܡܪ ܵܫܐ ܕܓܪܝ ܟܦܵܝܫ ܩܛܝ ܵܐܐ ܢ ܵ‬ ‫ܿܟ ܹܐܝܩܝ ܡܨ ܵ‬ ‫ܗܖܐ‬ ‫ܹ‬ ‫ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܹ̰ ܼ‬ ‫ܸ ܹ‬ ‫ܼ ܸ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܛ ܲܪ ܿܦ ܟ ܵܢܐ ܕܛܘܖܐܵ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܸܘ ܿܟ ܵܝ ܸܒܫ ܵܢ ܿܒ ܼܘ ܹܐܗ‪ܸ .‬ܘܟܦ ܹܠܛ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܸ‬ ‫��‬ ‫ܕܚ ܵܙܐܢ ܲ‬ ‫ܪܝܐ ܵܩ ܵ‬ ‫ܸܒ ܿܬ ܼܟ ܼܘ ܵܡܐ � ܲ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܼܬ ܵܖܐ ܸܕ ܿܟܦܵ ܹܝܫ ܸܩ ܵ‬ ‫ܐܬ ̰ܓ ܸܘ ܿܟ ܵ ̰ܓ ܹܪܗ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿܵ‬ ‫݁‬ ‫ܠܝ‬ ‫݈‬ ‫ܟܕܐ ܦܐ ܹܝ ܹܕܗ‪ .‬ܘܟܡ ܸܡ ܼܬ ܼ‬ ‫ܟܠܗ ܸܣܬܘܐ‪ .‬ܘܠܐ ܟܒ ܹܪܐ ܸܡ ܸܢܗ ܼ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫݇‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܲ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܡܪܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܓ ܹܘܗ ܐܢ ܹܫܐ �ܕܐ ܼܬܖܐ �ܡ ܼܬܠܐ [‪ܹ ]243b‬ܘܟ �ܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܵ‬ ‫ܛܝܩ ܘ ܼ ܸܟܣܪܘܢܐ ܒܩܐܬ ̰ܓ܀‬ ‫ܕ ܸܢܨܚܢܐ ܒܛ ܼ‬

‫في اقطار ال َت ْي َمئ والحجاز الصيف ك ّل ُه يكون‬ ‫َم َط ًرا‪ ]242a[ .‬وفي الشتآء يكون صيفً ا‪.‬‬

‫ُدعى‬ ‫يوجد في اقطار بيت َداليش مدينة ت َ‬

‫َعمَّاس‪ :‬هناك ينبوع صغير الى شاطي البحر‬ ‫يجري منه اموآه حمرآء وحا ِمضة مثل َخلٍّ‬

‫قويٍّ وفي طعم ِه حدّ ٌة ولون ُُه نظير لون‬ ‫زريقيون‪ .‬فتجري وتقع في ال َن ْه ِر فتصير تلك‬ ‫إِ‬ ‫ّ‬

‫وح ًصى‬ ‫الامواه الحمرآء حجارة َ‬ ‫عجيبة‬

‫في بلا ٍد ت َُسمَّى فانور بيت َحزَّان بجانب بيت‬ ‫اح ُة ُقمَّ ِت ِه فرسخ واحد‪.‬‬ ‫داليش َج َب ٌل َم َس َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫وله َم َعارج من ِكل َا ط َرفَي ِه وأ َسا ِفل‬ ‫[‪ُ ]243a‬‬

‫منه ن َْه ٌر‪.‬‬ ‫ِكلاَهما ُه َما مثل ينبوع‪ .‬يتك ّون ُ‬ ‫و ُيسقي احد َط َرفَي الجبل فيبتديء من بداية‬ ‫شهر نيسان فيخرج و َي ْسقي جهة بيت داليج‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫خرى‪.‬‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫بلاد تُسمَّى طاطيق‪ .‬ومن الجهة الأ ُ‬ ‫الصيف ُكل ُُّه تشتدّ عليهم الضيقة من العطش‬ ‫فينقطع النهر من ُغرَّة شهر تشرين وينشف‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ينبوع ُه‪ .‬فيخرج من الجهة الأخرى في الجبل‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫في حدود َحزَّان في ن ِ‬ ‫َاح َي ٍة ت َُسمَّى قاتاج‪.‬‬ ‫فيج ِرى ّ‬ ‫كل الشتآء فلا ينتج منه فائدة ما‪ .‬واهل‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫تلك البلاد يمثلون به َمثَل ًا ويقولون [‪]244a‬‬

‫الفائدة في طاطيق والخسارة في قاتاج܀‬

‫‪7. English translation‬‬ ‫]‪Again, with God’s help, we shall write some wonders found in [Ar.: some‬‬ ‫‪cities, seas and islands.‬‬ ‫‪1.  Alexander built a city on an island that is a four-month walk away and he put‬‬ ‫‪many treasures in it90. This city is [Ar.: extraordinarily] big and smooth. It has‬‬ ‫‪no gates91.‬‬ ‫‪90‬‬ ‫‪  Various traditions have that under the lighthouse of Alexandria there were many ‘trea‬‬‫‪sures’ (kunūz), which, however, no one has ever found. See al-Ṯa‘ālibī, Ṯimār al-qulūb,‬‬ ‫‪p. 523-524, nr. 859; Yāqūt, Mu‘ǧam al-buldān, vol. 1, nr. 629, p. 219-220. Al-Bakrī‬‬ ‫‪(al-Masālik, vol. 2, nr. 1069, p. 640) adds that ‘all [Alexandria] is [full of] hidden treasures‬‬ ‫‪(dafā’in) and treasures (kunūz)’.‬‬ ‫‪91‬‬ ‫)‪  Ibn al-Faqīh, Muḫtaṣar K. al-buldān, p. 89-91, refers to a city (Madīnat al-Baht‬‬ ‫‪without gates.‬‬

‫‪29/11/16 06:04‬‬

‫‪99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 445‬‬

446

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

2.  The cities of Alexandria and Rome92 were built in [Ar.: a period of] three hundred years93. No one could walk in them by day unless he had his eyes veiled by black veils, so as not to be harmed by the great whiteness94, the rays, lights, fires and buildings of the [Ar.: that] city. 3.  In the city of Alexandria, there was a lighthouse built on an elevated place of glass95. In this city, there were also six thousand Jews besides innumerable other peoples. 4.  In the city of Alexandria, there was a mirror hanging on the top of a lighthouse. Whoever sat under it could see Constantinople and every ship that came from it into the sea. 5.  In a place, there was a brass [Ar.: copper] lighthouse, on the top of which there was a knight of copper. In their feast days, water sprang up from the lighthouse and all people who were visiting there drank from it and watered their cattle. They filled up all the jars they had with them and all the waterskins that were there96. After the feast, the water stream stopped and it did not flow any longer as it used to. 6.  There is a city that has seven walls97, one within the other. Between one wall and the other, there are seven miles. Every three miles is a parasang [Ar.: three miles are equivalent to a parasang]. Between wall and wall, there are gardens, rivers, vineyards, brooks and mills98. 7.  There is a wall built by the kings from the Caspian to the Syrian sea, measuring a distance of eight days. 8. A Wonder – A city, which is a big city and has seven gates, the buildings of this city were of brass [Ar.: copper] and iron. Four large rivers issue from beneath the king’s throne. 92   ‘There are also ... some who believe that he who built Rome was the same who built the city of Alexandria, its lighthouse and the pyramids in Egypt’ (al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūǧ al-ḏahab, vol. 2, p. 105, nr. 836). 93   Ibn Ḫurdāḏbah, al-Masālik, p. 160, nr. 125; Ibn al-Faqīh, Muḫtaṣar K. al-buldān; p. 70; al-Maqrīzī, al-Mawā‘iẓ wa-l-i‘tibār, vol. 1, p. 274. 94   Ibn al-Faqīh, Muḫtaṣar K. al-buldān, p. 70, and 71-72; al-Bakrī, al-Masālik, vol. 2, nr. 1052, p. 631; al-Maqrīzī, al-Mawā‘iẓ wa-l-i‘tibār, vol. 1, p. 274. 95   According to Yāqūt, Mu‘ǧam al-buldān, vol. 1, p. 220, Alexander wished to choose the most durable material to build the Pharos. He found that glass stayed unaffected by water and used this material to build the foundation of the Pharos. This account alludes to the descriptions of the crab-shaped columns of glass that support the lighthouse. See, e.g., Ibn al-Faqīh, Muḫtaṣar K. al-buldān, p. 71, and al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūǧ al-ḏahab, vol. 2, p. 108, nr. 841. 96   Ibn Rustah, K. al-a‘lāq al-nafīsa, p. 78, describes a similar lighthouse, from which it is possible to drink water. Al-Bakrī, al-Masālik, vol. 1, p. 96, tells that in the lands of ‘Ād water flows under the lighthouse in the blessed month. 97   Al-Bakrī (al-Masālik, vol. 2, nr. 1035, p. 631), al-Qazwīnī (Āṯār al-bilād, p. 144; from al-Mas‘ūdī) and al-Maqrīzī (al-Mawā‘iẓ wa-l-i‘tibār, vol. 1, p. 280) say that Alexandria has ‘seven city walls’ made of different stones of different colors. According to al-Zuhrī, K. al-ǧuġrāfiyā, p. 73-74, Constantinople ‘has seven gates’ built one inside the other. 98   Al-Ḥimyarī, al-Rawḍ al-mi‘ṭār, p. 54, says that between the various city walls of Alexandria there are ditches.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 446

29/11/16 06:04



GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT

447

9.  A Wonder – In the land of Egypt, there were columns [Ar.: pyramids] and on the top of each column brass moons. Water dropped from places of the moons until half way down the column [Ar.: pyramid], but the water did not pass below the half of the column [Ar.: pyramid]. Drops did not stop day and night and the places where that water flows are green. 10.  A Wonder – In the land of al-Andalus, there was a copper knight, who was riding a copper horse. His hand was stretched out, as if he was beckoning and saying: ‘From now on, there is no place to dwell in. The ants that are there swallow everyone who passes by that knight [Ar.: past tense]’. 11.  A Wonder – In the land of Egypt, there is a building, whose length is four hundred cubits. Its width too is four hundred cubits. It is written on it: ‘We built this building. Every king who has the power in himself let him uproot it! It is easier to destroy than to build. All the kings of the world will not be able to demolish it.’ 12.  A Wonder – Joseph brother of Mar ‘Abdisho‘ Metropolitan of Elam told that he had seen a man in the city of Konia and that man was a Greek and had seven thousand gardens, bought with his money and inherited [NA, lit.: come (pl.) to him] from his father and mother [Ar.: his parents]. Each garden has its own wall [NA, lit.: its wall from it to it] around it and it does not overlap with another [lit., it does not mix (Ar.: with another)]. On the Wonder of Wells and Rivers 13. There is a river that is called Bāṭlās, whose waters flow to the sea three hours from the beginning of the day. The water-stream then stands still three hours and the riverbed dries up. 14.  Another [Ar.: A Wonder] – The Red Sea, when a man or an animal falls into it, as long as life remains in him and as there is breath in him, he floats upon the water, but when he dies, he sinks into the water. 15.  A Wonder – In the sea, there is a place called Eurikos. It flows and it stops three times a day and its water-stream stands still three hours. Its depth is five hundred cubits and it decreases afterwards until dry land can be seen. 16.  A Wonder – In Syria, there is a river that lets the water flow only one day per week, and then the water level increases. On the other six days the waterstream stops until dry land can be seen99. 17.  In a country, there is a well that puts out water, salt and naphtha. When the water stops flowing in a pool, salted water flows and the salt is sweet and white [NA, lit.: sweetness and whiteness are salt (?); Ar. lit. When the water of the well is separated, and it is no longer provided by the well, the salt water becomes sweet salt of pleasant taste] and there is no taste of naphtha in it nor does the smell of naphtha remain in the river bed [Ar.: in its place]. Naphtha does not taste salty100.   According to al-Qazwīnī, ‘Aǧā’ib al-maḫlūqāt, p. 223, a river with the same characteristics is located in the country of the Slavs (in Ar. Saqāliba). 100   In a chapter on the different types of salt, al-‘Umarī, Masālik al-abṣār, vol. 22, p. 337, has a similar notice. Numerous works of geography and cosmography describe water sources or wells that deposit (or bring to the surface) different materials, including naphtha. 99

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 447

29/11/16 06:04

448

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

18.  A Wonderful Thing – In the land of Pushtidar,101 there is a source in a stone that puts out blood. It smells, tastes and stinks like blood. It flows, stops and becomes a red dust that does not [NA, lit.: while it does not] taste or smell like blood. People take it to make the ḥnānā, which is dust for blessing. 19.  Another – In a country, there is a river that flows on Saturday and stops flowing on the remaining days. 20.  There is a river that flows dry sand with no water. Neither man, nor animal, nor ship can pass through it. On Saturday, its stream stops flowing. People see where it flows facing West. 21.  A Wonder – In the Byzantine Empire, on the Caspian sea, there is a country called Maṭlāy where it never stops raining, neither in winter nor in summer, so that they cannot even store corn [Ar.: crops] but within the houses. 22.  Another Wonder – In the country of Taima [NA: the plain] and Hejaz it is raining all the summer and it is summer in the winter102. 23.  A Wonder – In Beth Dlish [Ar.: Bayt Dālīsh] there is a city that is called ‘Ammās. [Ar.: there is] a small well on the seashore that puts out water that is red and sour like strong vinegar. [...?] It tastes pungent and its color is like [Ar.: the color of] zircon [bright red?]. That red water flows, falls in a/the [?] river and becomes cobbles and pebbles. 24.  A Wonder – There is in a country called Pānor [Ar.: Fānūr] Beth Ḥazzān103 to [?] Beth Dlish [Ar.: near Dālīš], a mountain104 whose top [Ar.: the surface of whose top] measures a parasang. It has slopes upwards on both sides and both their slopes downwards are like a well from which a river comes out and irrigates one of the sides of the mountain. From the beginning of Nisan it starts coming out to irrigate the side of Beth Dlish [Ar.: Bayt Dālīǧ], the country called Ṭāṭīq, while [on] the other side they are afflicted by thirst the whole summer. From the beginning of Teshrin the river stops flowing and its well dries up. It comes out on the other side of the mountain in the district of Ḥazzān, in the country called Qātāǧ, and it flows the whole winter, but it does not have any of its benefits [Ar.: without any benefits (for them)]. This is why they have a proverb in that country which says: ‘Victory [Ar.: benefit] in Ṭāṭīq and loss in Qātāǧ’.

8. A Patchwork of Arabic geographical notices External and internal evidence suggests that the collection of NA and Ar. mirabilia preserved in the ms. London B.L. Or. 9321 derives from a so far unidentified patchwork of geographical notices drawn from classical Arabic sources. 101   Persian pusht ‘back’ is a town in Khorasan and a district near Nishapur. The compound pusht dār means ‘prop, thick clothing, propped’ (Steingass, Dictionary, p. 251-252). 102   ‘The people of Ḥiǧāz and Yemen shower with rain (yamṭurūna) all the summer’ (Ibn Ḫurdāḏbah, al-Masālik, p. 156). 103   A misreading of Ḥarrān in a source written in Ar. script? In the same area of eastern Anatolia, there is a mountain Arzan. 104   If Beth Dlish (23-24) is Bitlis, this might be to the Mountain Arzan, in eastern Anatolia.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 448

29/11/16 06:04



GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT

449

As for other prose texts preserved in the Berlin and London Sachau collections of NA manuscripts (e.g., the Ṭuroyo version of an Ar. Ḥayqār story), Sachau probably asked Gabriel Quryaqoza, perhaps via Father Shmuel Jamīl, to translate into his own NA dialect Ar. texts dealing with genres and contents that reflect the intellectual and literary interests of the German scholar. A perusal of the genres attested in both Sachau collections shows that this choice was part of his method in collecting NA texts. Both for Ṭuroyo and NENA dialects, he asked: 1) the NA translation, probably from Classical Syriac, of a specific set of Biblical texts; 2) copies of NA texts belonging to local literary traditions and provided at his request with an Ar. working translation; 3) the NA translation of samples of Ar. prose. The collection of ‘aǧā’ib probably belongs to the third group. The Vorlage used for the geographical mirabilia was probably a Christian Arabic text, written or transmitted in East Syrian milieu, as the short isnād (12) and the ḥnānā ‘dust of blessing’ (18) demonstrate. It is not clear whether the scribe Gabriel Quryaqoza copied or abridged an Ar. Vorlage before translating it into NA. However, it is less probable that he copied the NA version of an Ar. text and then translated it back into Ar. It is difficult to think of a NA readership for this kind of text in 19th century Northern Iraq. Furthermore he uses a NA vocabulary rich in terms of Ar. etymology, which is not surprising in a Christian Iraqi NA text, but here they often correspond to roots and words occurring in the facing Ar. text. In (22) it is easier to imagine that he translated al-taymā’ wa-l-ḥiǧāz ‘Tayma and Hejaz’ with NA (d-) daštā we-(d-) ḥeǧāz ‘plain and Hejaz’ than the reverse. He apparently copied and literally translated a number of mistakes belonging to the Ar. Vorlage and its sources. The first words of (8) seem to derive from a corrupt Ar. text, but Gabriel reproduced them in his NA translation. Ar. madīnatun mā is probably the corruption of a source speaking about madīnat Manf ‘the city of Memphis’ and it is interpreted as the enclitic – mā expressing indefiniteness, followed by the circumstantial wa-clause wa-hiya madīna kabīra ‘a certain city, being a big city, it has seven gates’. In the NA text the w- is repeated after the circumstantial clause: mdittā xḏā w-ilāh mdittā rabṯā w-ettāh šav’ā ṭarwāṯā ‘a city, being a big city, and it has seven gates’. In the following lines the numeral ‘four’ is twice copied in Ar. and twice translated in NA. A number of other oddities or mistakes were probably present in the Vorlage, as the product of a long chain of mistakes in reading and copying: qudra ‘power’ instead of qubūr ‘tombs’ (11), izriqiyyūn ‘zircon (?)’ instead of zarqūn ‘bright red’ (23) and perhaps Ḥazzān instead of Ḥarrān (24).

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 449

29/11/16 06:04

450

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

Curiously, in (9) it is the NA text that faithfully reproduces an Ar. source on columns surmounted by metal, probably moon-shaped, rings from where water flows. The Ar. text en face, instead, speaks of pyramids with the same wondrous features. Here Gabriel was clearly not translating the Ar. text into NA. The Egyptian location of the whole notice may have induced him to write pyramids instead of columns in the Ar. page, whereas a more faithful translation of the Vorlage is probably found in NA. It is always possible to find Ar. sources providing the data and kinds of information that are given in the Ar. and NA mirabilia in abridged, sometimes barely recognizable, forms. They are works of geographers of the first centuries of Islam, such as Ibn Rustah, Ibn Ḫurdāḏbah, Ibn al-Faqīh, etc., and the author of the Vorlage would appear to have been especially interested in the geographical notices that, in those works or their later epigones, described wondrous buildings and intermittent rivers, as mentioned in the epic narratives on Alexander the Great. Bibliography 1)  Arabic sources al-Bakrī, al-Masālik = al-Bakrī, al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, Beirut, 1992. al-Bīrūnī, K. al-āṯār al-bāqiya = E. Sachau (ed.), al-Bīrūnī, Kitāb al-āṯār albāqiya ‘an al-qurūn al-ḫāliya, Leipzig, 1878 [transl. by E. Sachau, The Chronology of Ancient Nations, London, 1879]. al-Bīrūnī, K. taḥqīq al-Hind = E. Sachau (ed.), al-Bīrūnī, Kitāb taḥqīq mā li-lHind min maqūla maqbūla fī al-‘aql aw marḏūla, London, 1887 [transl. by E. Sachau, Alberuni’s India, 2 vols., London, 1888 and 1910]. al-Ġarnāṭī, al-Mu‘rib = I. Bejarano (ed.), al-Ġarnāṭī, al-Mu‘rib ‘an ba‘ḍ ‘aǧā’ib al-Maġrib (Elogio de algunas maravillas del Magrib), Madrid, 1991. Ḥāǧǧī Ḫalīfa, Kašf al-ẓunūn = G. Flug ̈ el (ed.), Ḥāǧǧī Ḫalīfa, Kašf al-ẓunūn ‘an asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn  /  Lexicon bibliographicum et encylopaedicum, repr. Beirut, 1941. al-Ḥimyarī, al-Rawḍ al-mi‘ṭār = al-Ḥimyarī, al-Rawḍ al-mi‘ṭār fī ḫabar al-aqṭār, Beirut, 1980. Ḥudūd al-‘ālam = Anonymous, Ḥudūd al-‘ālam, Cairo, 2002. Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr = C.C. Torrey (ed.), Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr wa-aḫbāruhā. The History of the Conquest of Egypt, North Africa and Spain, Frankfurt am Main, 2008. Ibn al-Faqīh, Muḫtaṣar K. al-buldān = M.J. De Goeje (ed.), Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamaḏānī, Muḫtaṣar Kitāb al-buldān, Leiden, 1885. Ibn Ḫurdāḏbah, al-Masālik = M.J. De Goeje (ed.), Ibn Ḫurdāḏbah, al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, Beirut, 1889. Ibn Rustah, K. al-a‘lāq al-nafīsa = Ibn Rustah, Kitāb al-a‘lāq al-nafīsa, Leiden, 1892. al-Iṣṭaḫrī, al-Masālik = al-Iṣṭaḫrī, al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, Beirut, 1927.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 450

29/11/16 06:04



GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT

451

al-Maqrīzī, al-Mawā‘iẓ wa-l-‘itibār = al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Mawā‘iẓ wa-l-i‘tibār bi-ḏikr al-ḫiṭaṭ wa-l-āṯār, al-ma‘rūf bi-l-ḫiṭaṭ al-maqrīzīyah, Beirut, 1998. al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūǧ al-ḏahab = Ch. Pellat – Ch. Barbier de Meynard – A. Pavet de Courteille (eds.), al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūǧ al-ḏahab wa-ma‘ādin al-ǧawhar, Beirut, 1966. Nawādir Ǧuḥā = Nawādir Ǧuḥā al-kubrā, translated from Turkish into Arabic by Ḥ.Š. al-Tarabulsī, Cairo, n.d. [anonymous, reprint of the Arabic transl. Beirut, 1980]. al-Qalyūbī, Nawādir = al-Qalyūbī, Nawādir, Cairo, 1890. al-Qazwīnī, ‘Aǧā’ib al-maḫlūqāt = F. Sa‘d (ed.), al-Qazwīnī, ‘Aǧā’ib al-maḫlūqāt wa-ġarā’ib al-mawǧūdāt, Beirut, 1981. al-Qazwīnī, Āṯār al-bilād = al-Qazwīnī, Āṯār al-bilād wa aḫbār al-‘ibād, Beirut, 1960. al-Ṯa‘ālibī, Ṯimār al-qulūb = M. Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm (ed.), al-Ṯa‘ālibī, Ṯimār al-qulūb fī al-muḍāf wa-l-mansūb, Cairo, 1985. al-‘Umarī, Masālik al-abṣār = al-‘Umarī, Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār, Abu Dhabi, 2003. Yāqūt, Mu‘ǧam al-buldān = Yāqūt, Mu‘ǧam al-buldān, Beirut, 1990. al-Zuhrī, K. al-ǧuġrāfiyā = M.Ḥ. Ṣādiq (ed.), al-Zuhrī, Kitāb al-ǧuġrāfiyā, Cairo, 1989. 2)  Bibliographical references Argárate, Joseph Ḥazzāyā = P. Argárate, The Semantic Domain of Fire in the Writings of Joseph Ḥazzāyā, in J.P. Monferrer-Sala (ed.), Eastern Crossroads. Essays on Medieval Christian Legacy, Piscataway, NJ, 2007, p. 97-107. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis = J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis clementino-vaticana, Vol. 2, De scriptoribus syris monophysitis, Rome, 1721. Assfalg, Syrische Handschriften = J. Assfalg, Syrische Handschriften (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 5), Stuttgart, 1963. Bacqué-Grammont, L’arbre du Waqwaq = J.-L. Bacqué-Grammont (ed.), L’arbre anthropogène du Waqwaq, les femmes-fruits et les îles des femmes. Recherches sur un mythe à large diffusion dans le temps et l’espace, Napoli, 2007. Baumstark, Geschichte = A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn, 1922. Bausani, Lingue islamiche = A. Bausani, Le lingue islamiche. Interazioni e acculturazioni, in A. Bausani – B. Scarcia Amoretti (a cura di), Il mondo islamico tra interazione e acculturazione, Roma, 1981, p. 3-19. Becker, Assyrian Nationalism = A.H. Becker, Revival and Awakening. American Evangelical Missionaries in Iran and the Origins of Assyrian Nationalism, Chicago, IL, 2015. Behrens-Abouseif, Lighthouse of Alexandria = D. Behrens-Abouseif, The Islamic History of the Lighthouse of Alexandria, in Muqarnas, 23 (2006), p. 1-14. Braida, Neo-Aramaic Aḥiqar. Introduction = E. Braida, The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II, in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 15 (2015), p. 41-50.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 451

29/11/16 06:04

452

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

Braida, Neo-Aramaic Aḥiqar. Text = E. Braida, The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321, in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 14 (2014), p. 50-78. Brock, Narsai’s Homilies = S.P. Brock, A Guide to Narsai’s Homilies, in Hugoye, 12.1 (2009), p. 21-40. Brockelmann, Lexicon = C. Brockelmann, Lexicon syriacum, Halle, 1928. Burkitt, Mss. of Narsai = F.C. Burkitt, The Mss. of Narsai on the Mysteries, in Journal of Theological Studies, 13 (1912), p. 269-275. Chabot, Livre de la chasteté = J.-B. Chabot (publié et traduit par), Le livre de la chasteté composé par Jésusdenah, évêque de Baçrah, in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 16 (1896), p. 225-292. Chyet, Dictionary = M.L. Chyet, Kurdish-English Dictionary, New Haven, CT – London, 2003. CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Doufikar-Aerts, Alexander Magnus Arabicus = F.C.W. Doufikar-Aerts, Alexander Magnus Arabicus. Survey of the Alexander Tradition through Seven Centuries: From Pseudo-Callisthenes to Ṣūrī, Leuven, 2010. Doufikar-Aerts, Founder of Alexandria = F.C.W. Doufikar-Aerts, A Legacy of the Alexander Romance in Arab Writings: al-Iskandar, Founder of Alexandria, in J. Tatum (ed.), The Search for the Ancient Novel, Baltimore, MD, 1994, p. 323-343. Doufikar-Aerts, Gog and Magog = F.C.W. Doufikar-Aerts, Dogfaces, Snaketongues, and the Wall against Gog and Magog, in A.A. Seyed-Gohrab – F.C.W. Doufikar-Aerts – S. McGlinn (eds.), Gog and Magog. The Clans of Chaos in World Literature, Amsterdam – Lafayette, LA, 2007, p. 3952. Doufikar-Aerts, Pharos of Alexandria = F.C.W. Doufikar-Aerts, Alexander the Great and the Pharos of Alexandria in Arabic Literature, in M. Bridges – J.Ch. Bürgel (eds.), The Problematics of Power. Eastern and Western Representations of Alexander the Great, Bern – Berlin – New York, NY, 1996, p. 191-202. Ducène, La géographie chez les auteurs syriaques = J.-Ch. Ducène, La géographie chez les auteurs syriaques: entre hellénisme et moyen âge arabe, in J.-L. Bacqué-Grammont – P.-S. Filliozat – M. Zink (éd.), Migrations de langues et d’idées en Asie, Paris, 2015, p. 21-36. Ebied, Letters to Sachau = R. Ebied, A collection of letters in Syriac and Arabic addressed to Eduard Sachau (1845-1930), in ARAM, 21 (2009), p. 79105. Ebied – Al-Jeloo, Letters to Sachau = R. Ebied – N. Al-Jeloo, Some further letters in Syriac, Neo-Aramaic and Arabic addressed to Eduard Sachau by Jeremiah Shāmīr, in Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, 24 (2010), p. 1-45. EI2  / EI3 = Enclyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd / 3rd edition. Ferrand, Monuments = G. Ferrand, Les monuments de l’Égypte au xiie siècle d’après Abū Ḥāmid al-Andalusī, in Mélanges Maspero, vol. 3. Orient islamique, Cairo, 1940, p. 57-66. Fiori, Jundīshāpūr = E. Fiori, Jundīshāpūr, in EI3, vol. 3, Leiden 2015, p. 139141.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 452

29/11/16 06:04



GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT

453

Fleisch, Philologie arabe = H. Fleisch, Traité de philologie arabe, Beirut, 1979. Fodor, Pyramids = A. Fodor, The Origins of the Arabic Legends of the Pyramids, in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 23 (1970), p. 335-363. Gasparini, Grammaticalization = F. Gasparini, Grammaticalization of Adnominal Demonstratives in Neo-Aramaic. Towards the Creation of a Single Determiner, in Ricognizioni, 2 (2014), p. 95-107. Gottheil, Salamās = R.J.H. Gottheil, The Judaeo-Aramaean dialect of Salamās, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, 15 (1893), p. 297-310. Grünberg, Achikar = S. Grünberg, Die weisen Sprüche des Achikar nach der syrischen Hs. Cod. Sachau Nr. 336 der Kgl. Bibliothek in Berlin herausgegeben und bearbeitet, Berlin, 1917. Guest, Kurds = J.S. Guest, Survival among the Kurds: A History of the Yezidi, Oxford – New York, NY, 1987. Haddad – Isaac, Syriac Manuscripts = P. Haddad – J. Isaac, Syriac and Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the Chaldean Monastery Bagdad, Part 1. Syriac Manuscripts, Baghdad, 1988 [in Arabic]. Hamarneh, Monuments of Alexandria = S. Hamarneh, The Ancient Monuments of Alexandria According to Accounts by Medieval Arab Authors (IX-XV Century), in Folia Orientalia, 13 (1971), p. 77-110. Heinrichs, Written Ṭūrōyo = W. Heinrichs, Written Ṭūrōyo, in Idem (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic, Atlanta, GA, 1990, p. 181-188. Kleiber, Caspian Wall = K. Kleiber, Alexander’s Caspian Wall – A TurningPoint in Parthian and Sasanian Military Architecture?, in Folia Orientalia, 42/43 (2006/07), p. 173-195. Lentin,  Normes orthographiques en moyen arabe = J. Lentin, Normes orthographiques en moyen arabe. Sur la notation du vocalisme bref, in L. Zack – A. Schippers (eds.), Middle Arabic and Mixed Arabic: Diachrony and Synchrony, Leiden – Boston, MA, 2012, p. 209-234. Lidzbarski, Die neu-aramäischen Handschriften = M. Lidzbarski, Die neuaramäischen Handschriften der Kgl. Bibliothek zu Berlin, 2 vols., Weimar, 1896. Maclean, Dictionary = A.J. Maclean, A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac, Oxford, 1901. Malick, The American Mission Press = D. Malick, The American Mission Press. A Preliminary Bibliography, Chicago, IL, 2008. Marzolph, Jocular Fiction = U. Marzolph, “Focuses” of Jocular Fiction in Classical Arabic Literature, in S. Leder (ed.), Story-telling in the Framework of non-Fictional Arabic Literature, Wiesbaden, 1998, p. 118-129. Marzolph, Mirabilia = U. Marzolph, Mirabilia, Weltwunder und Gottes Kreatur. Zur Weltsicht populärer Enzyklopädien des arabisch-islamischen Mittelalters, in I. Tomkowiak (ed.), Populäre Enzyklo­pädi­en. Von der Auswahl, Ordnung und Vermittlung des Wissens, Zürich, 2002, p. 85-101. McCollum, Belles-lettres in Syriac = A.C. McCollum, Philosophy, Science, and Belles-lettres in Syriac and Christian Arabic Literature. A Gentle Introduction and Survey, in HMML Lectures. Paper 4, 2011. [digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/hmml_lectures/4].

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 453

29/11/16 06:04

454

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

Mengozzi, 19th Century = A. Mengozzi, Religious Poetry from Alqosh and Telkepe (North Iraq). Contacts between Sureth-Speaking Communities and Europe in the 19th Century, in ARAM, 21 (2009), p. 49-59. Mengozzi, Neo-Aramaic Manuscripts = A. Mengozzi, The Neo-Aramaic Manuscripts of the British Library: Notes on the Study of the Durıkyātā as a Neo-Syriac Genre, in Le Muséon, 112 (1999), p. 459-494. Mengozzi, Religious Poetry = A. Mengozzi (ed.), Religious Poetry in Vernacular Syriac from Northern Iraq (17th-20th Centuries). An Anthology (CSCO, 627 [T.]-628 [V.]; Scriptores Syri, 240 [T.]-241 [V.]), Leuven, 2011. Mengozzi, Traditional Genres = A. Mengozzi, ‘That I might speak and the ear listen to me!’: On Genres in Traditional Modern Aramaic Literature, in Journal of Semitic Studies, 57 (2012), p. 321-346. Mengozzi, Vernacular Syriac = A. Mengozzi, A Story in a Truthful Language: Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac by Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe (North Iraq, 17th century), (CSCO, 589 [T.]-590 [V.]; Scriptores Syri, 230 [T.]-231 [V.]), Leuven, 2002. Mengozzi ‒ Ricossa, The Cherub and the Thief = A. Mengozzi – L.B. Ricossa, The Cherub and the Thief on YouTube: An Eastern Christian Liturgical Drama and the Vitality of the Mesopotamian Dispute, in Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 73 (2013), p. 49-65. Mion, Indétermination = G. Mion, L’indétermination nominale dans les dialectes arabes. Une vue d’ensemble, in A. Arioli (ed.), Miscellanea arabica, Roma, 2009, p. 215-231. Mutzafi, Ṭyare Neo-Aramaic = H. Mutzafi, The Sound Change *t > š in Ṭyare Neo-Aramaic, in Le Muséon, 120 (2007), p. 351-364. Nau, Aḥikar = F. Nau (édités et traduits par), Documents relatifs à Aḥikar. Textes syriaques. Extrait de la Revue de l’Orient chrétien, t. XXI, Paris, 1920 [= ROC, 21 (1918-1919), p. 274-307 et 356-400]. Nöldeke, Achikarroman = Th. Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zum Achikarroman, Berlin, 1913. Nöldeke, Zur Grammatik = Th. Nöldeke, Zur Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch, Wien, 1896 (reprint 1963). Payne Smith, Dictionary = R. Payne Smith – J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, Oxford, 1903. Payne Smith, Thesaurus = R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus syriacus, Oxford, 1879. Pellat, Nādira = Ch. Pellat, Nādira, in EI2, Leiden, 1993, vol. 7, p. 856-858. Pennacchietti, Fiumi intermittenti = F.A. Pennacchietti, Stranga, Ammorrus e Sambatiòn: storie di fiumi intermittenti, in Rivista di Studi Orientali, 72 (1998), p. 23-40. Pennacchietti, Pronomi arabi = F.A. Pennacchietti, La natura sintattica e semantica dei pronomi arabi «man», «mā» e «ʼayyun», in Annali dellʼIstituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 16 (1966), p. 57-87. Pennacchietti, Romano = F.A. Pennacchietti, Significati accessori del termine siriaco per ‘romanoʼ, in E. Adami – C. Rozzonelli (eds.), To a Professor Sahab: Essays and Writings in Honour of Alessandro Monti, Alessandria, 2011, p. 101-110. Reckendorf, Arabische Syntax = H. Reckendorf, Arabische Syntax, Heidelberg, 1921.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 454

29/11/16 06:04



GEOGRAPHICAL ‘AǦĀ’IB IN A NEO-ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPT

455

Rostagno Giaiero, Ḥayqār = P. Rostagno Giaiero, Tre recensioni arabe della Storia di Ḥayqār, in R. Contini – C. Grottanelli, Il saggio Ahiqar: Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale. Il testo più antico e le sue versioni, Brescia, 2005, p. 227-253. Rubin, Grammaticalization = A. Rubin, Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization, Winona Lake, IN, 2005. Sachau, Fellichi = E. Sachau, Skizze des Fellichi-Dialekts von Mosul, Berlin, 1895. Sachau, Reise = E. Sachau, Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, Leipzig, 1883. Sachau, Verzeichniss = E. Sachau, Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zur Berlin, Berlin, 1899. Sadan, al-Adab al-‘arabī = J. Sadan, al-Adab al-‘arabī al-hāzil wa-Nawādir al-ṯuqalā’ [Humour in Classical Arabic Literature and the ‘Anecdotes on boring people’], Tel Aviv, 1983. Sadan ‒ Fraenkel, Manāra = J. Sadan – J. Fraenkel, Manār, Manāra, in EI2, vol. 6, Leiden, 1991, p. 358-360. Steingass, Dictionary = F.J. Steingass, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, London, 1892. Talay, Aḥiqar in Mlaḥsō = Sh. Talay, Die Geschichte und die Sprüche des Aḥiqar im neuaramäischen Dialekt von Mlaḥsō, in W. Arnold – H. Bobzin (Hrsg.), „Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!“. 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik. Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 2002, p. 695-712. Talay, Hasköy Arabic = Sh. Talay, Some grammatical remarks on the Arabic dialect of Hasköy (East Anatolia), in I. Ferrando – J.J. Sanchez Sandoval (eds.), AIDA 5th Conference: Proceedings, Cádiz, September 2002, Cádiz, 2003, p. 119-129. Talia, Lullabies = Sh. Talia, Neo-Aramaic Lullabies from the Plain of Nineveh (Northern Iraq), in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 11 (2011), p. 45-55. Thiersch, Pharos = H. Thiersch, Pharos: Antike, Islam und Occident. Ein Beitrag zur Architektur-geschichte, Leipzig – Berlin, 1909. Toowara, Wâq al-wâq = Sh. Toowara, Wâq al-wâq: Fabulous, Fabular, Indian Ocean (?) Islands, in Emergences: Journal of the Study of Media and Composite Cultures, 10 (2000), p. 387-402. Tyler, Henry Lobdell = W.S. Tyler, Memoir of Rev. Henry Lobdell, M.D. Late Missionary of the American Board at Mosul, Including the Early History of the Assyrian Mission, Boston, MA, 1859. van Donzel – Schmidt, Gog and Magog = E. van Donzel – A. Schmidt (eds.), Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources. Sallam’s Quest for Alexander’s Wall, Leiden, 2009. von Hees, ‘Aǧā’ib literature = S. von Hees, The Astonishing: a Critique and Re-reading of ‘Aǧā’ib Literature, in Middle Eastern Literatures, 8 (2005), p. 101-120. Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh = J. Th. Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh. Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq, Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, 2006. Wright, Grammar = W. Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic language, 3rd ed., 2 vols., Cambridge, 1896.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 455

29/11/16 06:04

456

f. bellino – A. Mengozzi

Zadeh, ‘Aǧā’ib = T. Zadeh, The Wiles of Creation: Philosophy, Fiction, and the ‘Aǧā’ib Tradition, in Middle Eastern Literatures, 13 (2010), p. 21-48. Zadeh, Mapping frontiers = T. Zadeh, Mapping Frontiers across Medieval Islam. Geography, Translation and the ‘Abbāsid Empire, London, 2011.

University of Turin Department of Humanities Asian and African Studies Via Giulia di Barolo 3/A 10124 Torino, Italy [email protected] [email protected]

Francesca Bellino Alessandro Mengozzi105

Abstract ‒ A collection of Neo-Aramaic and Arabic mirabilia, preserved in the ms. London British Library Or. 9321, is here published with introduction and English translation. The first part of the collection contains short descriptions of wondrous buildings and monuments that are found in various regions of the world, including Alexandria, Egypt, al-Andalus, Syria, and the Caspian Sea. The second part describes wondrous rivers, wells and water streams in Syria, Anatolia, and the Arabian Peninsula. It is always possible to find Arabic geographical sources providing the data and kinds of information that this collection gives in abridged forms. The author of the collection or its Vorlage would appear to have been especially interested in the geographical notices that, in the works of classical Arabic geographers such as Ibn Rustah, Ibn Ḫurdāḏbah, Ibn al-Faqīh, or their later epigones, described wondrous buildings and intermittent rivers, as mentioned in the epic narratives about Alexander the Great. As for other prose texts preserved in the Berlin and London Sachau collections of Neo-Aramaic manuscripts, Sachau probably asked his informant to translate into his own Aramaic dialect Arabic texts that may reflect the literary and scientific interests of the German scholar.

  Francesca Bellino is the author of paragraphs 3-5, the edition and translation of the Arabic text, and most footnotes to the English translation. Alessandro Mengozzi is the author of the introduction, paragraphs 1-2 and 8, edition and translation of the Neo-Aramaic text. The authors are grateful to Faustina Doufikar-Aerts, Jérôme Lentin and Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti for their valuable suggestions. 105

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_07_Bellino.indd 456

29/11/16 06:04

UN MANUSCRIT ARABE RÉCENT NON ENCORE DÉCRIT : LEPARISINUSARABICUS6981* 1. Introduction Le fonds des manuscrits arabes chrétiens de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France conserve des trésors qui demeurent jusqu’à nos jours partiellement inexplorés. En effet, après la parution du dernier volume du catalogue de Gérard Troupeau, entièrement consacré à ce fonds1, la BNF a acquis, au fil du temps, de nouveaux manuscrits arabes tant chrétiens que musulmans. Concernant ces nouvelles acquisitions, nous ne disposons jusqu’à ce jour que d’un index édité par la bibliothèque elle-même2, classé par auteurs, copistes et titres. Parmi les nouvelles acquisitions de manuscrits chrétiens, on trouve un codex du milieu du XIXe siècle, qui renferme les œuvres des plus importants théologiens arabes chrétiens du Moyen Âge, aussi bien que des œuvres anonymes : il s’agit du manuscrit portant la cote 6981. Le manuscrit a été acheté par la bibliothèque en 1974 ; l’année suivante la même institution a restauré le codex en lui donnant une nouvelle reliure. Puisqu’il manque encore à l’heure actuelle une description minutieuse de ce manuscrit, on donnera ici les détails codicologiques et paléographiques, ainsi que d’amples extraits, en arabe et en traduction française, des incipit et desinit des œuvres qui y sont contenues. 2. Descriptioncodicologique Codex in quarto, dimensions : 265 × 185 mm, surface écrite 195 × 120 mm. Matériaux de support: papier filigrané; on a identifié des fragments de filigrane aux folios suivants : 11r, 21r, 24r, 35r, 38r, 39r, 42r, 43r, 50r, 51r, 52r, 54r, 55r, 56r, 57r, 58r, 61r, 62r, 63r, 64r, 67r, 68r, 73r, 74r, 75r. Total de folios : 115. Lignes à la page : 19-20. Écriture nasḫī en encre noire, rubriquée et avec ponctuation en rouge. Titres des traités à l’encre rouge avec points diacritiques et signes orthoépiques en noir. Datation : * Je tiens ici à manifester ma vive reconnaissance à Cécile Bonmariage, Laurence Tuerlinckx et Marcel Pirard pour leurs précieuses suggestions et leur expertise, et pour avoir aussi contribué à améliorer le texte français. 1 TROUPEAU, Catalogue, 1 et 2. 2 SAUVAN et al., Cataloguedesmanuscritsarabes.

LeMuséon 129 (3-4), 457-482. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180787 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

458

P. LA SPISA

21 amšīr 1583 an copte ère des martyrs (= 21 juin 1867 apr. J.-C.)3. On constate la présence de deux systèmes différents de foliotation: la foliotation en chiffres coptes cursifs dits « epact », qui sont très semblables aux chiffres rūmī4, est la foliotation originale du codex. L’autre, en chiffres arabes et marquée au crayon, est la foliotation ajoutée après la restauration du manuscrit (1975), et qui indique le nombre des folios présents à l’heure actuelle dans le codex. Afin de donner un aperçu des folios manquants, nous fournissons ci-dessous en translitération la foliotation originale en chiffres coptes cursifs dits « epact ». Tiret = une suite continue, [italique] = folios perdus, ? = folio présent mais non numéroté ou numérotation illisible. 1-5, [6-10], 11-26, [27], 28, [29-32], 33, [34], 35-113, [114], 115-122, [123-124], 125-131, ?, ?, ? En conclusion on remarque 13 folios manquants et trois folios non numérotés. Une nouvelle reliure a été exécutée par la Bibliothèque en 1975, il est donc évident qu’elle relève des reliures dites « occidentales », avec deux plats et un dos. Comme seul le dos présente un habillage en peau, il s’agit d’une demi-reliure5. La couture du corpus du volume est telle qu’elle ne permet pas une ouverture complète des cahiers ; c’est pourquoi il n’a pas été possible de procéder à une analyse minutieuse de la constitution de chaque cahier. 3. Caractéristiquespaléographiques Les consonnes tā’, bā’, nūn et yā’ en position mediane, présentent souvent deux dents au lieu d’une seule.

Les consonnes qāf et fā’ en position médiane ont la même forme que ‘ayn et ġayn.

3 Cf. colophon f. 24v ici reproduit entièrement à la p. 462 ; dans SAUVAN etal., Catalogue desmanuscritsarabes, p. 62 on lit une datation différente, à savoir 1865 AD / 1281-1282 H. 4 Cf. RITTER, Griechisch-koptischeZiffern ; MALLON, Grammairecopte, p. 234 ; TROUPEAU, Àproposdeschiffres ; DÉROCHE etal., Manueldecodicologie, p. 105 ; GACEK, A Vademecum, p. 232. 5 Cf. DÉROCHE etal., Manueldecodicologie, p. 279.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

459

On constate une utilisation particulière des voyelles et des signes orthoépiques : la šadda est souvent utilisée au lieu du sukūn, tantôt sur le wāw tantôt sur le yā᾿ ; sa fonction reste encore obscure. Lafatḥase trouvelà où on s’attendrait à une kasra ou un sukūn6,par contre la fatḥa est toujours sur le ῾ayn, en tant que signe de distinction (῾alāmaal-᾿ihmāl)7 par rapport au ġayn. Par ailleurs, on constate la présence quasi constante d’un tanwīn sur la lettre sīn comme ᾿ihmāl entre sīn et šīn. Dans les citations qui suivent, nous respectons soigneusement la ponctuation du texte arabe en vue d’illustrer ce phénomène souvent négligé par les spécialistes. 4. Contenu8 4.1. Dialogueanonymeentreunjuifetunchrétien9 Incipit (f. 1r [1r] ; reproduction de ce folio en fin d’article) : ‫بسم ا﷽ بسم الاب والابن والروح القدس اله واحد له المجد دايما‬ ‫[ ما بين‬sic] ‫جرة‬ ّ ‫نبتدي بعون ا﷽ تعالي وحسن توفيقه بنسخ كتابة مجادلة‬ ‫يهودي ونصراني مما كتب ذلك عن بعض الرهبان الصالحين برك صلاتهم تكون‬ ‫مع الناسخ والقاري امين‬ ‫ واحببت ان ينظر‬.‫قال سالتني يا اخي ان اكتب ما جري بين اليهودي والنصراني‬ .‫ لجاتليق بالمشرق ويقف عليه‬.‫فيه ابونا الطاهر طيماتاووس‬ Au nom de Dieu, au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit, un seul Dieu, à lui la gloire pour toujours. Nous commençons, avec l’aide et la bienveillance du Dieu Très Haut, la copie du livre de la discussion qui a eu lieu entre un juif et un chrétien au sujet de moines justes, que la prière bénie soit avec le copiste et le lecteur, amen. Il dit : « Oh mon frère, tu m’as demandé d’écrire ce qui se déroula entre le juif et le chrétien. J’ai bien voulu que notre père pur Timothée, le Catholicos d’Orient, l’examine et devise à son sujet ».

6 À propos de la vocalisation brève dans des manuscrits d’époques différentes, voir notamment LENTIN, Normesorthographiquesenmoyenarabe, où l’on donne un premier essai d’interprétation des signes orthoépiques. 7 GACEK, TheArabicManuscriptTradition, p. 147 ; GÉHIN, Lirelemanuscritmédiéval, p. 102 ; WITKAM, TheNeglectNeglected. 8 Les nombres entre crochets indiquent la foliotation originale du manuscrit en chiffres coptes, tandis que les nombres hors parenthèses indiquent les chiffres ajoutés lors de la restauration du codex. 9 Cf. Parisar.214, f. 203v-220r [TROUPEAU, Catalogue, 1, p. 186].

460

P. LA SPISA

Desinit (f. 18v [26v] ; le f. 27 est manquant): ‫ وقبولنا ما امرنا به‬.‫ من خلافنا للتوراه‬.‫فهل فهمت يا موسي الذي سالتني عنه‬ ‫ قد‬.‫ قال موسي اليهودي‬.‫ ولكن اتمها وصدقها‬.‫ وانه لم يبطلها‬.‫المسيح مجيبنا‬ [mutil.] ‫ فاسال ا﷽ ان يقويني‬.‫فهمت‬ « As-tu compris, Moïse, ce à propos de quoi tu m’as interrogé ? Sur notre divergence autour de la Torah, le fait d’avoir accepté ce que le Christ qui nous exauce, nous a ordonné. En réalité, il ne l’a pas abolie mais il l’a accomplie et l’a jugée vraie ». Moïse le juif répondit : « J’ai bien compris, alors je vais demander à Dieu de me fortifier [...] ».

Sur les f. 21v et 22r, on remarque des lacunes qui concernent plusieurs lignes. Les f. 23v et 24r sont blancs, mais on y distingue toutefois des réglures au crayon ensuite effacées. Une autre lacune est observable au f. 24v première ligne, elle concerne les trois premiers mots. 4.2. RisālahdeSulaymānal-Ġazzī 10 Incipit (f. 19r [28r]) : ‫[ والصفات‬sic] ‫[ باالاقانيم‬sic] ‫بسم ا﷽ الواحد بالذات المتلة‬ ‫[ لبعض تلاميده جوابا‬sic] ‫رساله قالها الاب القديس سليمان مطران بغرغره‬ ‫عنما ذكروه المسلمون اذ يناظروا عليه بالكلام لكونهم يقولون ان النصاري يعبدوا‬ .‫ ادام ا﷽ توفيقك‬.‫ والولد المبارك النجيب‬.‫ قال اعلم ايها الاخ الحبيب‬.‫ثلاثت الهه‬ ‫ ان المسلمين يعايرونا بما لا‬.‫[ طريقك‬in margine] ‫وسهل الي العالم الروحاني‬ .‫يلزمنا‬ Au nom du Père, unique dans son essence, trine dans les hypostases et les attributs. Épître prononcée par le père, le saint Sulaymān métropolite de Gaza à quelques-uns de ses disciples, pour répondre à ce que les musulmans ont dit lorsqu’ils ont débattu avec lui en disant que les chrétiens adoraient trois dieux. Il a répondu : « Sache, mon cher frère et enfant béni et noble, que Dieu rende éternel ton succès et aplanisse ton chemin vers le monde spirituel, que les musulmans nous disent des injures à propos de ce qui ne s’attache pas nécessairement à nous ».

Les f. 29-32 et 34 sont manquants. 10 GRAF, Geschichte, Bd. 2, p. 84-86 ; NASRALLAH, Sulaïmān al-Ġazzī, NASRALLAH, Histoire, III, t. 2, p. 118-130 ; EDELBY, Sulaymān al-Ġazzī, Muqaddimah ; EDELBY, Sulaymānal-Ġazzī,al-Dīwān ; EDELBY, Sulaymānal-Ġazzī,al-Maqālātal-lāhūtiyya ; LA SPISA, L’œuvrethéologiquedeSulaymānal-Ġazzī ; LA SPISA, ITrattatiteologici ; NOBLE, Sulaymānal-Ghazzī 1 ; NOBLE, Sulaymānal-Ghazzī2. Le texte de cet épitomé merite une édition complète à part entière.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

461

Desinit (f. 21r [35r]) : .‫ وما تظمنته الامانه المستقيمه‬.‫ والمايتي بافسس‬.‫والمايه والخمسين بالقسطنطنيه‬ .‫دايما‬ ‫ له المجد‬.‫ وفي الناس المسره‬.‫ وعلي الارض السلام‬.‫والمجد ﷽ في العلاء‬ ً . ‫ امين امين‬.‫ابد ًيا امين‬ ‫[ بسلام من‬sic] ‫ التي للقديس سليمان مطران بغرغره‬.‫ الرساله المباركه‬.‫ثم وكمل‬ .‫الرب‬ Les cent-cinquante à Constantinople, les deux cents à Ephèse, et ce que la foi droite renferme. Gloire à Dieu Très Haut, paix sur la terre, allégresse parmi les gens, à lui toujours la gloire, dans les siècles des siècles, amen, amen, amen. Fin de l’épître bénie de saint Sulaymān évêque de Gaza avec la paix du Seigneur.

4.3. Traitéthéologiqueanonymeenproserimée Incipit (f. 21v [35v]) : ‫دايما ملزم في المذهب‬ ‫بسم الاله الواحد الاب والروح القدس له المجد‬ ً ‫ثلاثه صحيح وروحه‬ ‫المسيحي جزل كل مية عشر كلمات هذا ما يقول اقانيمه‬ ُ .‫ قبل كون الكاينين‬.‫ كلمته من اليه‬.‫ كلمة ا﷽ هو المسيح‬.11‫لم يزل الاله قبل الازل‬ ‫ ولخلايق‬.‫امر الكون صار اليه‬ .‫ والامور له راجعين‬.‫ كل ذلك بين يديه‬.‫اجمعين‬ َ Au nom de Dieu l’unique, le Père et le Saint-Esprit, gloire à lui pour toujours, [est] imposée dans la confession chrétienne, l’abondance de chaque cent-dix mots. Ceci est ce qu’il dit : ses hypostases sont exactement trois, et son Esprit a toujours été Dieu avant l’éternité. Le Verbe de Dieu est le Christ. Son Verbe est de [lui] jusqu’à lui, avant l’existence des existants ; il a ordonné l’existence, elle a abouti à lui et à toutes les créatures. Tout cela est en son pouvoir, et les choses lui reviendront.

Desinit: (f. 24r [38r]) : ‫ سر تالوت الحكيم في اسمايه‬.‫ كلمة ا﷽ هو المسيح‬.‫ا﷽ هو رحمن رحيم‬ ‫ قاهرا عادل‬.‫ عاليا جبار حكيم‬.‫ يقبله العقل الرفيع‬.‫ ا﷽ هو رحمن رحيم‬.‫الجميع‬ .‫ كلمة ا﷽ هو المـسـيح‬.‫ فوق اعلا العاليا‬.‫ تالوت صحيح‬.‫ ادوناي‬12‫ اهيا ثراهيا‬.‫بديع‬ 11 Ici le copiste ajoute un zed copte qui doit avoir la valeur numérique de « sept », à savoir le nombre qui dans la pneumathologie chrétienne est normalement associé au SaintEsprit et à ses sept dons divins, tout en s’appuyant sur le passage classique d’Isaïe 11, 2-3 et sur ICor. 12, 1-11 ; cf. GARDEIL, DonsduSaint-Esprit ; G. BARDY, DonsduSaintEsprit–I.ChezlesPères. 12 Il s’agit d’une translittération quelque peu maladroite de l’hébreu biblique d’Exode 3, 14 où Dieu répond à Moïse ; le texte en hébreu lit : ‫ « אהיה אשר אהיה‬je serai qui je serai » c’est-à-dire « l’invariable ». Je tiens à remercier Laurence Tuerlinckx pour m’avoir

462

P. LA SPISA

Dieu est le clément et miséricordieux, le Verbe de Dieu est le Christ, le mystère de la Trinité sage est dans tous ses noms. Dieu est le clément et miséricordieux, la haute raison croit en Lui, le Très Haut, le dominateur sage, le conquérant juste, le merveilleux «Ehyeh Acher Ehyeh », Adonaï (le Seigneur), Trinité parfaite, sur la plus sublime hauteur, le Verbe de Dieu qui est le Christ.

Colophon (f. 24v [38v]) : ‫[ هذا الكتاب المبارك في اليوم الحادي والعشرين‬sicadd.supra] ‫وكان الفراغ‬ ‫ الف وخمسمايه ثلثه وثمانين قبطيه للشهدآ الاطهار‬13‫من شهر امشير المبارك سنه‬ ‫والسعدا الابرآر رزقنا ا﷽ اياهم بمقبول صلواتهم وطلباتهم تكون معنا ومعكم يا‬ .‫اباي واخوتي امين‬ Ce livre béni a été achevé le vingt et un du mois béni de amšīr en mille cinq cent quatre-vingts-trois [de l’ère] copte des martyrs purs, bienheureux et justes. Que Dieu nous leur accorde, que leurs prières et demandes soient avec nous et avec vous, mes pères et frères. Amen.

Subscriptio  : ‫والمهتم بهذآ الكتاب المبارك الذي اصرف عليه من مآله وصلب حاله الاخ‬ ‫الحبيب الفرع الزاهر النسل الطاهر الدهب الابريز الماهر اللبيب الشماس المكرم‬ ‫طالبا‬ ‫الارخن المبجل المعلم ميخاييل ابشاي المقدس القاطن بنا حيت صدقه‬ ً ‫بدلك الاجر السمايي من ا﷽ بشفاعة الست السيده والدة الآله ان يعوضه عوض‬ ‫الواحد ثلثون وستون ومآيه في ملكوت السموات امين والناسخ المسكين البايس‬ ﷽‫المهين الحقير تحله يوحنا شرابي من ناحية اولاد الياس طالب الخلاص من ا‬ ‫ومن الست البتول الزكيه وكامل من ارضوا الرب باعمالهم الصالحه من دريت‬ .‫ابونا ادم الي اخر الدهور امين‬ Celui qui a eu soin de ce livre béni, pour lequel il a payé de son propre bien et a crucifié soi-même, le frère bien aimé, le chef lumineux, noble, pur, or pur, valeureux, intelligent, le diacre honoré, le notable vénéré, le maître sanctifié Michel Abšāy, qui habite en nous, puisqu’il l’a jugé digne de foi en suggéré cette référence textuelle. Du point de vue phonétique, on peut expliquer la présence du phonème /ṯ/ en arabe au lieu du /š/ de l’hébreu par une confusion du copiste entre les lettres sīn et šīn qui dans l’alphabet hébreu ne se distinguent que par un point au-dessus de la lettre à gauche ou à droite. Or il se peut que le copiste ayant lu sīn au lieu de šīn, ait rendu la dentale sifflante sourde par le phonème /ṯ/ arabe à cause d’une hypercorrection. En effet le passage de /ṯ/ à /s/ est assez fréquent dans les dialectes arabes modernes (cf. COWELL, AReferenceGrammar, p. 3). Par ailleur Cantineau ne manquait pas de remarquer qu’un tel passage peut être vérifié aussi dans certains mots de l’arabe classique à une époque plus ancienne, cf. CANTINEAU, Coursdephonétiquearabe, p. 42. En revanche la correspondence phonétique entre /ṯ/ proto-sémitique et arabe et /š/ hébreu ne manque pas d’intérêt ici, comme dans le cas du mot arabe ṯawr (taureau) et l’hébreu šōr ; cf. MOSCATI, AnIntroductiontotheComparativeGrammar, p. 28. 13 La même date est écrite au-dessus du mot en chiffres coptes cursifs.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

463

demandant à Dieu cette récompense céleste par l’intercession de Notre Dame mère de Dieu, qu’il le récompense de six cent trente et un dans le Royaume des cieux, amen. Le copiste misérable, malheureux, honteux, méprisable par l’accomplissement de Yūḥannā al-Širābī, de la part des fils d’Elias, en demandant le salut à Dieu et à la Dame pure et chaste, il a achevé la descendance de notre père Adam qui a accompli la volonté du Seigneur avec ses bonnes actions, pour les siècles des siècles, amen.

4.4. TraitédeSim῾ānibnKalīlibnMaqāra14 Incipit (f. 25r [39r] ): ‫بسم ربنا يسوع المسيح الاهنا ومخلصنا بالحقيقه‬ ‫[ ابو الفرج الاسكندري التاجر بخط انسان ملكي‬sic] ‫سوال احضره الشيخ التقه‬ ‫من اهل الاسكندريه والتمس من الاب القديس سمعان ابن كليل مصنف كتاب‬ ‫روضة الفريد وسلوت الوحيد الجواب عن ذلك نسخته‬ .‫ ينبتق من الاب‬.﷽‫ روح القدس روح ا‬.‫ والابن الكلمه‬.‫[ ا﷽ الاب‬sic] ‫لبسم‬ ‫ ورياسه‬.‫ وسلطانه واحده‬.‫ وقوه واحده‬.‫ وطبيعه واحده‬.‫ بجوهر واحد‬.‫ويستقر في الابن‬ .‫ موحد بتثليث‬.‫ مثلث بتوحيد‬.‫ آله واحد ورب واحد‬.‫واحده‬ Au nom de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, notre Dieu, notre Sauveur dans la vérité. Le šayḫ que le marchand Abū l-Farağ d’Alexandrie a rencontré, lui a apporté une question écrite par la main d’un Melkite d’Alexandrie, il a imploré le père saint Siméon ibn Kalīl, auteur du livre Lejardindel’ermite etlaconsolationdel’isolé. J’ai copié la réponse à cela. Au nom de Dieu, le Père, le Fils, le Verbe, le Saint-Esprit, l’Esprit de Dieu, qui procède du Père, établi dans le Fils, avec une seule substance, une seule nature, une seule puissance, une seule autorité et une seule souveraineté, un seul Dieu, un seul Seigneur, trine dans l’unicité, un dans la Trinité.

Desinit (f. 30r [44r] ): .‫ مسيح واحد‬.‫ والذي لم يلمس لمس بالجسد‬.‫فان الذي لم ينظر نظر بالجسد‬ ‫ ولا‬.‫ بلا اختلاط ولا امتزاج‬.‫ وفيه كمال الناسوت‬.‫ فيه كمال اللاهوت‬.‫ورب واحد‬ ‫ والمطلوب من ربنا يسوع‬.‫ امين‬.‫ امين‬.‫ امين‬.‫ ابد ًيا‬.‫دايما‬ .﷽ ‫ والمجد‬.‫استحاله‬ ً ‫ علي كل‬.‫ والسلطان‬.‫ فان له القدره‬.‫ المستقيمه‬.‫ علي تبات الامانه‬.‫ ان يعينا‬.‫المسيح‬ 15 […] ‫ الي‬.‫ الحي المحيي‬.‫ والروح القدس‬.‫دايما مع ابيه الصالح‬ ً .‫ فله السبح‬.‫شي‬ ‫[ بعون ا﷽ تعالي الي ابد‬sic] ‫ ثم وكمل مختصر الاماته‬.‫والي ابد الابدين امين‬ .‫الابدين امين امين امين امين‬

14 Cf. ms. Salemar. 216 (Sbath 1018) [DEL RÍO SÁNCHEZ, ManuscritsdelafondationSalem, p. 120] ; ms. Balamand 146 (438) [SALĪM, al-Maḫṭūṭātal-῾arabiyya, p. 119] ; ms. HattonOr. 33 ; GRAF, Geschichte, Bd. 2, p. 336-338 ; SAMIR, Bibliographiedudialogueislamo-chrétien, p. 229 ; SWANSON, Sim῾ānibnKalīl. 15 Quelques mots ici ont été effacés.

464

P. LA SPISA

Celui qui n’a pas regardé avec le regard corporel et celui qui n’a pas touché avec le corps, un seul Christ, un seul Seigneur, en lui est la perfection de la nature divine et en lui est la perfection de la nature humaine, sans confusion, ni mélange, ni changement. Gloire à Dieu toujours, pour toujours, amen, amen, amen. Nous demandons à Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ de nous assister dans la solidité de la foi orthodoxe, puisqu’il a la puissance et l’autorité sur toute chose. À lui la louange toujours, avec son Père juste et le Saint-Esprit vivant et vivifiant, […] pour les siècles des siècles, amen. Fin du résumé de la foi grâce à l’aide de Dieu le Très Haut, pour les siècles des siècles, amen, amen, amen, amen.

4.5. VersenraǧazdeBuṭrosal-Sadamantī16 Incipit (f. 30v [44v]) : ‫[ ا﷽ الواهب العقل والفهم والاب غافر خطايانا هذا ارجوزه من قول‬sic] ‫لبسم‬ [inmargine] ‫القديس انبا بطرس السدمنتي‬ ‫ وانما صفاته‬.‫ في داته كما وصف بالازليه‬.‫ بالوحدانيه‬.‫المجد ﷽ الموصوف‬ ‫ وما‬.‫ وجوده مع الحياه والنطق‬.‫ يعمها ثلثه في الحق‬.‫ كثيره كذلك والعقليه‬.‫الداتيه‬ .‫ يري من الاضداد والانداد‬.‫[ الصفات‬sic] ‫ قد جمعها هذا‬.‫بقي من ساير الحالات‬ .‫واحدً ا لا يشبهه الاحاد‬ Au nom de Dieu Celui qui donne l’intelligence et la compréhension, le Père qui pardonne nos péchés, ceci est le poème de saint Anba Buṭros al-Sadamantī. Gloire à Dieu qui est qualifié par l’unicité dans son essence comme il l’est par l’éternité. Les attributs de son essence sont nombreux, de même que l’intelligence, mais trois les incluent en vérité: son existence, avec la vie et la parole, et tout ce qui reste des autres cas est recouvert par ces attributs. Des opposés et des comparaisons il ne voit qu’une seule [chose] qui ne ressemble à aucune unité.

Desinit (f. 32v [46v]): ‫ هو‬.‫ وانما العاقل الخبير‬.‫ ومن تبعها قد فاته الخلاص‬.‫هذا حجه عند عوام الناس‬ .‫ لمن يسال في معرفة الاديان‬.‫ قد نظمها الخاطي في الرهبان‬.‫الذي يقري ويستشير‬ ‫ مشتغلا باللهو‬.‫ فانه قد ضيع الزمان‬.‫ ساير الزلات والذنوب‬.‫اغفر له يا علام الغيوب‬ .‫دايما‬ .﷽ ‫ والمجد‬.‫ وعدتها تسعه مع تسعين‬.‫ قايلها بطرس المسكين‬.‫والعصيان‬ ً .‫ كلها امين‬.‫ الي اباد الدهور‬.‫ وصانع الايات والعجايب‬.‫مبدع الغرايب‬ ‫ بسلام من‬.‫ السدمنتي‬.‫ بطرس‬.‫ التي للقديس‬.‫ هدا الارجوزه المباركه‬.‫ثم وكمل‬ .‫ امين‬.‫الرب‬ Ceci est une preuve chez les hommes communs, celui qui la suit perd le salut. Seul l’intelligent qui connaît est celui qui lit et consulte. Le pécheur 16 GRAF, Geschichte, Bd. 2, p. 354 ; ATIYA, Buṭrusal-Sidmantī ; VAN DEN AKKER,Butrus al-Sadamanti ; AWAD, Buṭrusal-Sadamantī.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

465

d’entre les moines l’a établie pour celui qui interroge sur la connaissance des religions. Toi qui connais les mystères, pardonne-lui toute faute et tout péché. En réalité il a perdu son temps, occupé dans les divertissements et la désobéissance. Buṭros le pauvre l’a énoncée (la preuve) : « Je l’ai promis quatre-vingt-dix-neuf [fois] ». Gloire à Dieu toujours! Celui qui crée les merveilles, fait les prodiges et les miracles, jusqu’à l’éternité des siècles, amen. Fin de ce poème béni, qui est de Buṭros al-Sadamantī avec la paix du Seigneur, amen.

4.6. Traitédethéologieetd’hérésiographieanonyme17 Incipit (f. 33r [47r]) : ‫بسم الاب والابن والروح القدس الاله الواحد له المجد‬ ‫ موصوف‬.‫ فصل في الذات ومعاني الصفات دات الباري تعالي جوهر واحد‬.1 ‫ فالاب هو‬.‫ والروح القدس‬.‫ والابن‬.‫ بالاب‬.‫يعبر عنها النصاري‬ ّ ‫ وهي التي‬.‫بثلثة اقانيم‬ .‫ والروح القدس‬.‫ مع صفة البنوه‬.‫[ الجوهر‬supra] ‫ والابن هو‬.‫ مع صفة الابوه‬.‫الجوهر‬ [...].‫ مع صفة الانبثاق‬.‫هو هذا الجوهر الواحد‬ (f. 33r [47r]) ‫ فصل في معني الجوهر‬.2 v v (f. 33 [47 ]) ‫ فصل في معنآ الاقانيم وهي الصفات فانها غير الذات مع تعلقها به‬.3 (f. 34r [48r]) ‫ فصل في كون الاقانيم الالهيه ثلثه‬.4 (f. 34v [48v]) ‫ فصل في معني العقل والعاقل والمعقول‬.5 (f. 35v [49v]) ‫ فصل في اقسام معاني الواحد‬.6 ‫ فصل في وجوب وصف الباري تعالي بالتوحيد والتتليت الدي وصفه به‬.7 ‫النصاري‬ (f. 37r [51r]) ‫ فصل في حد الاتحاد عند المتكلمين وبيان القسم الدي تعتقده النصاري‬.8

‫من اقسامه‬ (f. 38r [52r]) (f. 38v [52v]) ‫ فصل في معني الاتحاد المعتقد‬.9 (f. 39r [53r]) ‫ فصل في معني التانس‬.10 (f. 40r [54r]) ‫ فصل في ان اتحاد فعل الاقانيم الثلثه والقبول والقنوم الكلمه‬.11 (f. 41r [55r]) ‫ فصل| في اسباب الاتحاد وموجباته‬.12 ‫[ والنسطوريه والملكيه عليه‬sic] ‫ فصل فيمآ اتفقت الفرق الثلث العيقوبيه‬.13 (f. 41v [55v]) (f. 44r [58r]) ‫ فصل في تاييد حجة اليعقوبيه يعثون الابن الازلي‬.14 (f. 47r [61r]) ‫[ علي الملكيه‬sic] ‫ فصل فيما يورد‬.15 (f. 48v [62v]) ‫[ علي النسطوريه‬sic] ‫ فصل ممآ يورد‬.16

17 La numérotation des chapitres du traité est nôtre, tandis que la numérotation de la liste des sectes hérétiques dressée au chapitre 17 est du copiste. Les numéros de la liste des hérésies sont toujours en chiffres coptes cursifs.

‫‪P. LA SPISA‬‬

‫‪ .17‬فصل في ذكر ملل المخالفه وما قالته كل طايفه )]‪(f. 51r [65r‬‬ ‫)‪ (1‬ومله تدعي السبتيه وهم بقايه اليهود الدين دخلوا في النصرانيه بقلوب غير‬ ‫السيمونيه وهم حزب سيمون الساحر الدي رام ان يشتري‬ ‫نقيه‪ (2) .‬ومله تدعي‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫نعمة ]‪ [supra‬روح القدس بالدراهم‪ (3) .‬ومله تدعي المرقونيه والمرقونين‪ .‬وهم‬ ‫السفسطانيه‬ ‫الدين يومنون بثلثة الهه صالح وطالح وعدل بينهمآ‪ (4) .‬ومله تدعي‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫وهم الذين يقولون بالتناسخ ونقلة الارواح الي البهايم والناس‪ (5) .‬ومله تدعي‬ ‫المانيه وهمآ ]‪ [sic‬اصحاب ماني الملقب بالمجنون‪ .‬وهم الذين يومنون بالهين‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫اتنين صالح وطالح‪ (6) .‬ومله تدعي البوليه والبوليانيون وهي ملت بولي‪ .‬وهو بولس‬ ‫الفودانيه وهم الذين يقولون ان‬ ‫الشميساطي بطريرك انطاكيه‪ (7) .‬ومله يقال لها‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫الاقانيم الثلثه مركبه‪ .‬وانها انمآ تجتمع بالتركيب‪ (8) .‬ومله تدعي البربرانيه وهم‬ ‫اقدار انجاس فساق ارجاس‪ (9) .‬ومله تدعي الفوقانيه وهم الذين يشبهون السامره‬ ‫في افعالهم‪ .‬وينجسون الاشيآ كلهآ‪ (10) .‬ومله يقال لها الديضانيه وهم يومنون‬ ‫بالهين صالح وطالح‪ .‬وهم يقولون بقول المآنيه اصحاب مانيطس‪ (11) .‬ومله تدعي‬ ‫الاريوسيه‪ (12) .‬ومله تدعي الاونوميوسيه‪ (13) .‬ومله تدعي المقدونيه‪ (14) .‬ومله‬

‫تدعي البوليانيه وهذه الملل الاربع هم الدين يتفقون في بعض الاومور ويختلفون‬ ‫في بعضها‪ (15) .‬ومله تدعي مونطس اعني منطاس وهولا الذين يقال لهم المريميه‪.‬‬ ‫وهولاء متفقين مع المومنين في كل شي‪ .‬ولم يخالفوا‬ ‫)‪ (16‬ومله تدعي الطيماتانيه‬ ‫َ‬ ‫الايمان ولا حرفوا الكتب‪ (17) .‬ومله تدعي العباديه‪ .‬وهم الاتقيا وتفسير الاتقيا‬ ‫النضاف‪ .‬هولا الذين يستعملون كترة الصوم‪ .‬والغسل من كل الاشيا )‪ (18‬ومله يقال‬ ‫كالمريميه يعتقدون‪ .‬ان المسيح ومريم امه‬ ‫لها البربرانيه ويسمون المولمين وهم‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫الاهان من دون ا﷽‪ .‬ومنهم من كان يقول بان المسيح من الاب بمنزلت شعلة نار‪.‬‬ ‫فصل يشتمل علي ذكر نص الامانه الارتدكسيه التي ثبتها التلتمايه وتمانيت‬ ‫عشر‪ .‬المجتمعون بنيقيه‪(f. 55r [69r] – 62r [76r]) .‬‬ ‫!‪Au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit, le Dieu unique, gloire à lui‬‬ ‫‪1. Chapitre sur l’essence et les significations des attributs. L’essence du‬‬ ‫‪Créateur le Très Haut est une seule substance, qualifiée par trois hypostases,‬‬ ‫‪qui sont ce que les chrétiens désignent comme Père, Fils et Saint-Esprit. Le‬‬ ‫‪Père est la substance avec l’attribut de la paternité ; le Fils est la substance‬‬ ‫‪avec l’attribut de condition de fils ; le Saint-Esprit est cette substance seule‬‬ ‫‪avec l’attribut de la procession.‬‬ ‫‪2. Chapitre sur la signification de la substance.‬‬ ‫‪3. Chapitre sur la signification des hypostases qui sont les attributs; ils‬‬ ‫‪sont autres que l’essence mais lui sont liés.‬‬ ‫‪4. Chapitre sur le fait que les hypostases divines sont trois.‬‬ ‫‪5. Chapitre sur ce que signifient la raison, l’intelligent et l’intelligible.‬‬ ‫‪6. Chapitre sur les types de significations de l’Unique.‬‬ ‫‪7. Chapitre sur la nécessité de qualifier le Créateur Très Haut par l’uni‬‬‫‪cité et la Trinité, ce par quoi les chrétiens l’ont qualifié.‬‬ ‫‪8. Chapitre sur la définition de l’unité chez les théologiens et démonstra‬‬‫‪tion de la partie en laquelle croient les chrétiens.‬‬

‫‪466‬‬

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

467

9. Chapitre sur la signification de l’unité qui est l’objet de la foi. 10. Chapitre sur la signification de l’incarnation. 11. Chapitre sur l’unité de l’action des trois hypostases, l’acceptation et l’hypostase du Verbe. 12. Chapitre sur les causes et les raisons de l’unité. 13. Chapitre sur ce sur quoi s’accordent les trois confessions, la jacobite, la nestorienne et la melkite. 14. Chapitre sur [comment] appuyer la démonstration [que] les Jacobites altèrent le Fils éternel. 15. Chapitre sur ce qui est répondu aux Melkites. 16. Chapitre sur ce qui est répondu aux Nestoriens. 17. Chapitre sur la mention des communautés religeuses hérétiques et sur ce qu’affirme chaque secte. (1) Les sabatéens (al-sabatiyya) : ils sont les autres hébreux qui sont devenus chrétiens ayant le cœur impur ; (2) le simonisme (al-sīmūniyya): ils sont le parti de Simon le Mage qui désira acquérir la grâce du Saint-Esprit avec les dirhams ; (3) le marcionisme (al-marqūniyya) et les marcionites : ils sont ceux qui croient en trois dieux : le bon, le méchant, l’impartial entre les deux autres ; (4) les safsaṭanites (al-safsaṭāniyya) : ils sont ceux qui affirment la transmigration et le transfert des esprits vers les animaux et les hommes ; (5) les manichéens (al-māniyya) : ils sont les partisans de Mani surnommé le fou, ils sont ceux qui croient en deux dieux : le bon et le méchant ; (6) le paulinisme (al-būliyya) et les pauliniens (al-būlyāniyūn), c’est-à-dire la secte de Paul, à savoir Paul de Samosate, patriarche d’Antioche ; (7) la doctrine appelée al-fūdāniyya, ils sont ceux qui disent que les trois hypostases sont composées et que la seule chose qu’elles ont en commun est le fait d’être composées ; (8) les barbarianites (al-barbarāniyya): ils sont au rang des immondes, des impies impurs ; (9) al-fawqāniyya, ils sont ceux qui dans leurs actions ressemblent aux samaritains ; (10) al-dayḍāniyya : ils sont ceux qui croient en deux dieux, le bon et le méchant, et qui parlent selon le discours des manichéens (al-māniyya), les partisants de Mani (Mānīṭus) ; (11) l’arianisme (al-āriyūsiyya) ; (12) l’anoméisme (al-ūnūmiyūsiyya) ou secte des eunomiens ; (13) les macédoniens (almaqidūniyya) ; (14) le paulianisme (al-būliyāniyya). Ces quatre communautés religeuses sont celles qui s’accordent en certains points (de la foi), et divergent en d’autres ; (15) le montanisme (mūnṭas c’est-à-dire munṭās), ils sont ceux qui sont appelés « ceux de Marie » (al-Maryamiyyah) ; (16) les timothéens (al-ṭīmātāniyya), ceux-là sont d’accord en chaque chose avec les croyants ; ils n’ont pas contredit la foi, ni falsifié les écritures ; (17) le dévotionisme (al-῾abādiyya), ils sont les pieux et l’explication des pieux est ‘les propres’ ; ce sont ceux qui pratiquent beaucoup le jeûne et l’ablution en toute occasion ; (18) le barbarianisme (al-barbarāniyya), ils sont appelés les pénibles, ils sont comme « ceux de Marie », ils croient que le Christ et sa mère Marie sont deux divinités inférieures à Dieu. Parmi eux il y en a qui disent que le Christ (vient) du Père comme la flamme vient du feu. 18. Chapitre qui consiste en la mention du texte de la foi orthodoxe qui a été établi par les trois cent dix-huit Pères réunis à Nicée.

468

P. LA SPISA

Desinit (f. 61v-62r [75v-76r] ): ‫ وسيظهر المره التانيه بلا خطايا | الحيات‬.‫وقال بولس في رسالته الي العبرانيين‬ ‫ له المجد‬.‫الذين يترجونه ويتوقعونه‬ .‫دايما امين‬ ً Paul dit dans son épître aux Hébreux : « Il se montrera la deuxième fois sans les péchés de la vie, [à] ceux qui l’espèrent et l’attendent18 ». Gloire à lui toujours, amen.

4.7. CommentaireduCredoparSāwīrūsibnal-Muqaffa῾ 19 Incipit (f. 62r [76r]): . ‫مختصر من شرح الامانه للاسقف انبا ساويروس ابن المقفع نفعنا ا﷽ ببراكته امين‬

‫ الايمان هو التصديق والتصديق مجامع الاقرار مع‬.‫قال قولنا نومن باله واحد‬ ‫عقد النيه واليقين فيجب علي المومن ان لا ينطق الا بما قد امن به واعتقده وتيقنه‬ .‫وصدقه‬ Résumé du commentaire de la foi de l’évêque Anbā Sawīrus ibn al-Muqaffa῾, que Dieu nous fasse bénéficier de sa bénédiction, amen. Il a dit : « Lorsque nous disons : ‘Nous croyons en un seul Dieu’, la foi c’est croire et le fait de croire est [représenté par] les conciles qui ont déclaré (la foi) avec intention et conviction. Le croyant ne doit parler que de ce en quoi il croit, de ce dont il est convaincu, de ce dont il est certain et qu’il considère comme véridique20 ».

Desinit (f. 68v-69r [82v-83r]): ‫ ولم تخطر علي قلب‬.‫ ولم تسمع بها اذن‬.‫ويتمتعون بلخيرات التي لم تراها عين‬ ‫ وتلك المنزله هي التي قال‬.‫ ودهر الدهرين‬.‫ ويكونون احيآ الي ابد الابدين‬.‫بشر‬ ‫ اعانآ ا﷽ علي الاعمال الموصله‬.‫ حيث اكون انآ هناك يكون خادمي‬.‫الرب عنها‬ .‫اليها برحمته ورافته امين‬ Ils apprécient les bonnes actions qu’aucun œil n’a vues ni aucune oreille entendues, et dont le cœur des hommes ne se souvient pas ; ils sont vivants pour l’éternité et dans les siècles des siècles. Cette station est celle dont a parlé le Seigneur (en disant): « Où je suis, là sera aussi mon serviteur21 ». Que Dieu nous assiste dans les actions qui font parvenir à elle, par sa miséricorde et sa compassion, amen.

18

Cf. Hébr. 9, 28. GRAF, Geschichte, Bd. 2, p. 312-313 ; CHEBLI et al., Sāwīrus ibn al-Muqaffa῾ ; ATIYA, Sawirusibnal-Muqaffa῾ ; SWANSON,Sāwīrusibnal-Muqaffa῾. 20 Cf. AL-BĀŠĀ, Mayāmir Abī Qurra, p. 23-48 ; LA SPISA, I trattati teologici, [T.], p. 71-81. 21 Cf. Jean 12, 26. 19

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

469

4.8. Traitésurlesconfessionschrétiennes Incipit(f. 69r [83r]) : .‫ذكر سبب الفرق الحادث في البيعه لم تزل البيعه متحده والكنيسه متفقه‬ ‫ والعقيده القويمه تجتمع الآباء البطاركه‬.‫وكلما ظهرة بدعه في الامآنه المستقيمه‬ ‫ ويساعدهم علي‬.‫ ويبطلون تلك البدع‬.‫ ويحلون تلك الشكوك‬.‫والايمه الاساقفه‬ .‫ذلك المومنون من الملوك‬ Mention de la cause de la séparation qui se produit dans l’Église. L’Église est toujours unie et dans la concorde. Chaque fois qu’une hérésie est apparue dans la foi orthodoxe et la croyance droite, les pères patriarches et les guides épiscopaux se sont réunis et ont dissout ces doutes, ont annulé ces hérésies. Les rois croyants les aident en cela.

Desinit (f. 71r [85r]) : ‫وكانت اقامته علي كرسي انطاكيه ستة سنين واقام في الجهاد ثلثين سنه وهذان‬ . ‫[ وصلواتهما تكون معنا امين‬sic] ‫[ الآمانه وحفظ اصول الدآينه‬sic] ‫شيد‬ ّ ‫الابوان‬ Il est resté sur le siège d’Antioche durant six ans, il a poursuivi la lutte pendant trente ans. Ces deux pères ont édifié la foi et ont gardé les fondements de la religion. Leurs prières soient avec nous, amen.

4.9. Histoiredesseptconcilesdontquatrepetitsettroisgrands Incipit (f. 71r [85r]) : ‫ذكر السبعة مجامع التي للكنيسه المقدسه اربعه صغار وثلثه كبار المجمع‬ ‫[ ومن برمهات اجتمعوا تمانيه عشر اسقف بجزيرة‬deficit] ‫الاول من الصغار في‬ ‫ بسبب قوم يقال لهم الاربعه‬.‫بني عمر في رياست انبا دمتريوس علي الاسكندريه‬ . ‫ هولاء كانوا يعملوا عيد القيامه مع اليهود‬.‫عشريه‬ Mention des sept conciles de la sainte Église, quatre petits et trois grands. Le premier concile parmi les petits a eu lieu à [...]. Dans le mois de Barmahāt, pendant le patriarcat de Anbā Démétrius à Alexandrie, dix-huit évêques se sont réunis dans la Ğazīra ibn ῾Umar22, à cause d’un groupe appelé « les quartodécimains »23. Ces gens fêtaient la fête de la Résurrection avec les juifs. 22 Aujourd’hui nommée Cizre, ville en Turquie sud-orientale dans la province de Şırnak, fondée par le troisième calife ῾Umar ibn al-Ḫaṭṭāb en 865 apr. J.-C. Au fil du temps, elle a joué un rôle important tant commercial que stratégique, étant située au carrefour des plus importantes routes caravanières de la Haute Mésopotamie ; cf. ELISÉEFF, Ibn῾Umar, Djazīrat. 23 Il s’agit de la secte chrétienne qui croit que la Pâque hébraïque et le jour de la Résurrection du Christ tombent le même jour, à savoir le 14 du mois de Nisan ; cf. TREVETT, AsiaMinorandAchea, p. 320, n. 48 ; STEWART-SYKES, Thelamb’shighfeast ; LOHSE, Das PassafestderQuartodecimaner.

470

P. LA SPISA

Desinit (f. 72v [86v]) : ‫ وانصرفوا‬.‫ فاحرموه ووضعوا قوانين مقدسه‬.‫فرجعوه الابآ المجتمعين فلم يرجع‬ .‫بسلام بركاتهم علينا امين‬ Les Pères conciliaires le dissuadèrent mais il ne renonça pas, alors ils l’excommunièrent et établirent les lois saintes, ensuite ils s’en allèrent dans la paix. Que leurs bénédictions soient avec nous, amen.

4.10. D  ’aprèslesloisdesrois,leshommesetlesfemmesdoivents’abstenir les uns des autres lorsque le baptême de leurs enfants est proche.Officedesheures,prièresdenuitetdejour. Incipit (f. 72v [86v]) : .‫من قوانين الملوك ينبغي للرجال والنسآ ان يمسكوا انفسهم بعضهم عن بعض‬ ‫ تلك الليله وذلك اليوم تكرمت لروح القدس الذي‬.‫عند قرب معموديه اولادهم‬ .24‫قبلوه بالميرون‬ ‫ ومنجات‬.‫فصل في ترتيب الصلوات الليليه والنهاريه الصلاه هي زكات النفس‬ .‫ وشكره لخالقه‬.‫ وصلات المخلوق لخالقه‬.‫ والاعتراف له بذنوبه‬.‫الانسان لباريه‬ ‫ والمصلي لا يتقدم الي الصلاه وفي قلبه وجد علي اخيه‬.‫ والاقرار بربوبيته‬.‫وتمجيده‬ .‫ والا فكيف يقول اغفر لنا خطانا كما نغفر نحن لمن اخطآ الينا‬.‫من ابني جنسه‬ D’après les lois des rois, les hommes et les femmes doivent s’abstenir les uns des autres lorsque le baptême de leurs enfants est proche. Cette nuit et ce jour-là sont devenus nobles à cause du Saint-Esprit qu’ils ont reçu par le (saint) chrême. Chapitre sur l’ordonnance des prières nocturnes et diurnes. La prière est l’aumône de l’âme et l’abri de l’homme auprès de son Créateur, la confession de ses péchés, la prière et la gratitude de la créature à son Créateur et sa glorification ; la reconnaissance de sa seigneurie. L’orant ne s’approche pas de la prière si dans son cœur se trouve [quelque chose] contre son frère, fils de sa lignée ; sinon comment peut-il dire : « pardonne-nous notre péché comme nous pardonnons à qui a péché contre nous ».

Desinit (f. 78r [92r]) : ‫ ولربنا له المجد‬.‫وجميع هذه التسابيح يقالوا يوم الاحد‬ ‫دايما امين الليلوياه‬ ً ‫امين‬ ‫الرب‬ ‫من‬ ‫بسلام‬ ‫ ثم وكمل ترتيب هذه الصلوات الليليه والنهاريه‬.‫كيرياليصون‬ ّ Toutes ces louanges sont prononcées le dimanche et à notre Seigneur va la gloire pour toujours, amen, alléluia, kyrie eleyson. Fin de l’ordonnance de ces prières nocturnes et diurnes avec la paix du Seigneur, amen.

24 Cf. μύρον, …{üÚã : onguent ; GRAF, Verzeichnis,p. 110 ; COSTAZ, Dictionnaire syriaque-français, p. 192.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

471

4.11. É  pîtredeDenysl’AréopagiteàTimothéediscipledePaul,surle martyredesApôtresPierreetPaul 25 Incipit (f. 78v [92v]) : ‫دايما‬ ‫بسم الاب والابن والروح القدس اله واحد له المجد‬ ً ‫رسالة القديس الكبير ديوناسيوس الي القديس طيماتاووس تلميد بولس السليح‬ ‫من اجل استشهاد بطرس وبولس الرسولين الطاهرين بمدينت روميه في اليوم‬ ‫الخامس من ابيب وهذه الرساله تسمي التعزيه للكبير الاريوباجيدس ديوناسيوس‬ ‫البولسي الاتناسي الاريوباجيدس وهي لفظه يونانيه ومعناها صاحب مجلس القضآ‬ ‫بسلام من الرب علينا رحمته امين‬ Au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit, un seul Dieu, à lui la gloire pour toujours, amen. Épître du grand saint Denys à saint Timothée, disciple de Paul l’Apôtre, sur le martyre de Pierre et Paul, les deux apôtres purs, dans la ville de Rome, le cinquième jour du mois d’abīb. Cette épître s’appelle la consolation pour le grand Aréopagite Denys, le paulinien, l’athanasien, l’Aréopagite, qui est un terme grec signifiant ‘chef de l’assemblée des juges’. Que la paix du Seigneur et sa miséricorde soient sur nous, amen.

Desinit (f. 84r [98r]) : ‫ والامور‬.‫ هو يجازيك عوض المصاعب والتعب‬.‫وا﷽ المجازي علي قدر الاتعاب‬ ﷽‫ وبا‬.‫[ جميع الذين خدمتهم في رباطاتهم‬sic] ‫يصلوات‬ َ .‫التي صبرة عليها مع بولس‬ ‫ الي دهر الداهرين امين‬.‫ يليق التسبيح‬.‫ وبابنه الوحيد والروح القدس‬.‫الاب ضابط الكل‬ ‫ ثم وكمل رساله القديس ديوناسيوس بسلام من الرب وعلينا رحمته الي‬.‫امين امين‬ .‫ابد الابدين امين‬ Que Dieu qui rend selon les peines, te récompense en échange des difficultés et de la peine et des situations que tu as supportées avec Paul. Avec les prières de tous ceux que tu as servis dans leur lieu de retraite, pour Dieu le Père, le tout-puissant, son Fils l’unique et le Saint-Esprit qui mérite la louange pour les siècles des siècles, amen, amen, amen. Fin de l’épître de saint Denys, avec la paix du Seigneur, sur nous sa miséricorde, dans les siècles des siècles, amen.

4.12. Résumédesbéatitudesetdesditsspirituels Incipit (f. 84v [98v]) : ‫دايما‬ ‫بسم الاب والابن والروح القدس اله الواحد له المجد‬ ً ‫نبتدي بعون ا﷽ تعالي وحسن توفيقه بنسخ مختصر من الاداب الطوبانيه‬ .‫والامثال الروحانيه من قول احد الابا معلمي البيعه رحمنا ا﷽ بقبول صلواتهم امين‬ 25 Mss. Par.ar.4771 [TROUPEAU, Catalogue, 2, p. 22] ; GODET, Denysl’Aréopagite ; RAYEZ, InfluenceduPeudo-Denys ; GRAF, Geschichte, Bd. 1, p. 268-271 ; TREIGER, The Arabic Version of Pseudo-Dionysius ; BONMARIAGE – MOUREAU, Corpus Dionysiacum arabicum.

472

P. LA SPISA

‫ قد تيقظة‬.‫ المجاهد المرابط المكافح‬.‫الفصل الاول اذ كنت ايها الشجاع الصالح‬ .‫الي مآ اخطيته من الذنوب القاتله المميته‬ Au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit, un seul Dieu, à lui la gloire pour toujours. Nous commençons, avec l’aide du Dieu Très Haut et de sa bonne assistance, la copie du résumé des conduites bienheureuses et des exemples spirituels [tirés] du discours d’un des Pères, docteurs de l’Église, que Dieu aie pitié de nous en acceptant leurs prières, amen. Chapitre premier : Oh courageux, juste, combattant, assidu, lutteur, lorsque tu t’es réveillé des péchés mortels entraînant la mort, que tu as commis.

Desinit (f. 92v [106v]) : ‫وقال يوحنا الرسول فمن زعم انه في النور وهو مبغض لاخآه فانه يعد في‬ ‫ وربنا له المجد‬.‫ فامآ الدي يحب اخاه فهو تابت في النور لا شك فيه‬.‫الظلمه‬ ‫ ثم وكمل مختصر الاداب الطوبانيه والامثال الروحانيه‬.‫ امين‬.‫ سرمديا‬.‫ ابديا‬.‫دايما‬ .‫بسلام من الرب وعلينا رحمته وبركته الي ابد الابدين امين‬ L’Apôtre Jean dit que celui qui estime qu’il est dans la lumière, alors qu’il déteste son frère, il sera considéré [comme étant] dans les ténèbres. Quant à celui qui aime son frère, il sera affermi dans la lumière, sans aucun doute. Gloire à notre Seigneur pour toujours, dans les siècles des siècles, amen. Fin du résumé des conduites bienheureuses et des exemples spirituels, avec la paix du Seigneur ; sur nous sa miséricorde et sa bénédiction, dans les siècles des siècles, amen.

4.13. D  ialogueentreunprêtreetunpatriarched’Alexandrieenquinze questions Incipit (f. 93r [107r]) : ‫بسم ا﷽ العلي الودود الحي الناطق المعبود المجد له الدايم‬ ‫نبتدي بعون ا﷽ تعالي وحسن توفيقه بنسخ مسايل من قول القس الاب‬ ‫[ عن مسايل‬sic] ‫البطريرك لما كان بالاسكندريه فحضر اليه هذا القس وبدآ يسايله‬ ‫مدونه في الانجيل وغيره ايضا مما دعة اليه الضروره في المذهب المسيحي‬ ‫بركاتهم تكون علينا امين‬ ‫ ينصرف عنه‬.‫ كلمن اصطبغ بالمعموديه‬.‫قال القس ان الانجيل المقدس يقول‬ .‫ ويصير مسكنا للآله‬.‫ الموكل به‬.‫ النجس‬.‫ذلك الشيطان‬ Au nom de Dieu le Très Haut, le bienveillant, le vivant, le doué de parole, l’adoré, à lui la gloire pour toujours. Nous commençons, avec l’aide du Dieu Très Haut et sa bonne assistance, la copie des questions qui se trouvent dans le discours du prêtre, le père, le Patriarche, lorsqu’il était à Alexandrie et que lui fut présenté ce prêtre qui entreprit de l’interroger au sujet de questions qui sont écrites dans l’Évangile et dans d’autres livres, sur la nécessité qui l’a poussé vers le christianisme, leurs bénédictions soient sur nous, amen. Le prêtre affirme que le saint Évangile dit : « Ce démon immonde qui compte sur lui, quittera chacun qui a été marqué par le baptême, et il deviendra habitacle de Dieu ».

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

473

Desinit (f. 103v [118v]) : ‫ يا رب ارحمنآ واجعلنآ من جملة العداري‬.‫ويجآزي كل احدا كنحو عمله‬ .‫ والقوه‬.‫الحكيمات التي عن يمينك بنعمتك ورافتك لان لك المجد والملك‬ ‫ ثم‬.‫والعظمه والسلطان والسجود من الان وكل اوان والي دهر الداهرين امين‬ ‫ البطريك والجواب عنها‬.‫[ التي سال عنها القس‬sic] ‫وكملوا الخمسة عشر مثاله‬ .‫سلام من الرب امين‬ Il rend à chacun selon ses actions. Oh Seigneur, sois miséricordieux envers nous, compte-nous parmi les vierges sages qui sont à ta droite, par ta grâce et ta compassion, parce qu’à toi la gloire et la royauté, la force, la grandeur, le pouvoir, l’adoration, dès maintenant et pour toujours, dans les siècles des siècles, amen. Fin des quinze questions au sujet desquelles le prêtre interrogea le Patriarche et la réponse correspondante. La paix vient du Seigneur, amen.

4.14. C  ommentaireanonymesurlesparolesdeslivressaintsetdivinset solutiondesproblèmesd’interprétationetdessymbolesspirituels Incipit (f. 104r [119r]) : [inmargine] ‫بسم السيد يسوع المسيح الهنا ومخلصنا بالحقيقه‬ ‫شرح اقوال من الكتب المقدسه الالهيه وحل مشكلاتها المعنويه ورموزها‬ ‫الروحانيه من معلمي البيعه الرسوليه بركاتهم الطاهره تشمل جميع شعب النصرانيه‬ .‫الي النفس الاخير امين كيرياليصون‬ ‫القول علي تاويل قول السيد المسيح لتلاميده ابي الذي هو ابوكم والاهي‬ ‫[ ارآد المسيح بهذا القول تعريفهم انه قد اشركهم في بنوته‬sic] ‫والهكم وتتمتله‬ .‫واشركهم في كونهم مآ لوهين‬ ‫القول في الفردوس‬ (f. 105v [120v]) ‫القول علي الصلاه وشروطها‬ ‫ القول علي‬.‫القول علي الركوع والسجود الذي هو من شروط الصلاه‬ ‫الجنابه والغسل بالمآ‬ (f. 106v [121v]) (f. 107 [122 ].) ‫القول علي الاعياد‬ (f. 108 [125 ]) ‫ القول علي ايمان با﷽ تعالي‬.‫القول علي كشف روس الشمامسه‬ ‫ القول علي عيابي‬.‫[ الدم‬sic] ‫القول علي منع الناموس من اجل‬ ‫ القول‬.‫الشهدآء‬ َ v

r

v

r

‫في الرآجيآزين‬

(f. 108v [125v]) Au nom du Seigneur Jésus Christ, notre Dieu et notre Sauveur en vérité. Commentaire sur les paroles des livres saints et divins et solution de leurs problèmes moraux et de leurs symboles spirituels, (écrites) par les docteurs de l’Église apostolique, que leurs bénédictions pures s’étendent à tout le peuple chrétien jusqu’à la dernière âme, amen, kyrie eleyson. Explication du discours du Seigneur le Christ à ses disciples: « Mon Père qui est votre Père, mon Dieu et votre Dieu ». Imagine que le Christ

474

P. LA SPISA

avec ce discours a voulu leur faire savoir qu’il a partagé avec eux sa condition de Fils et leur faiblesse. Discours sur le Paradis. Discours sur la prière et ses conditions. Discours sur les agenouillements et les prosternations qui sont les conditions de la prière. Discours sur l’impureté rituelle et l’ablution avec l’eau. Discours sur les fêtes. Discours sur la tête découverte des diacres. Discours sur la foi en Dieu Très Haut. Discours de l’interdiction de la loi concernant le sang. Discours sur ceux qui critiquent les martyrs. Discours sur les impurs.

Desinit (f. 110v [127v]) : ‫وختم القداس بالبركه الاخيره ووضع الكاهن يده علي الشعب مثال بركه الذي‬ .‫باركها سيدنا لتلاميده عند الصعود الي السمآ لمآ رفع يده وباركهم‬ Il a terminé la liturgie avec la dernière bénédiction, et le prêtre posa sa main sur le peuple en suivant l’exemple de la bénédiction que notre Seigneur donna à ses disciples lors de son ascension au ciel, il éleva la main et les bénit.

4.15. RéfutationdesastrologuesparAbūl-Fatḥ῾Abdallāhibnal-Faḍl 26 Incipit (f. 110v [127v]) : ‫القول علي المنجمين والرد عليهم من الشيخ ابي فتح ابن عبد ا﷽ ابن الفضل‬ ‫رحمه ا﷽ تعالي‬ ‫قال الدليل علي ان احكام النجوم امر شيطاني حسبما يزعم القديس يوحنا فم‬ [...] ‫الذهب‬ ﷽‫القول علي كلام في صدور الامور الكاينه للانسان في دار الدنيا عن مسره ا‬ (f. 111v [128v]) ‫تعالي ذكره وعن السياسه والتخليه‬ Discours sur les astrologues et leur réfutation par le šayḫ Abū Fatḥ ibn ῾Abdallāh ibn al-Faḍl, que Dieu le Très Haut aie pitié de lui. La preuve que les pouvoirs des étoiles sont une affaire satanique, en accord avec ce que saint Chrysostome affirme [...]. Discours à propos de l’origine des affaires qui arrivent à l’homme en ce monde, à partir de la joie de Dieu, très haute est sa mention, de la gouvernance et du renoncement.

Desinit (f. 112r [129r]) : ‫يجبرهم كما انه لم يجبلهم علي ذلك له المجد والشكر‬ ‫لم يقهرهم ولم‬ ّ ‫والمجد والتسبحه والقدره والسلطان والعز والسجود الان وكل اوان والي دهر‬ .‫الدآهرين آمين آمين آمين‬ 26 Cf. Parisar. 82 [TROUPEAU, Catalogue, 1, p. 65], GRAF, Geschichte, Bd. 2, p. 62 ; NASRALLAH, Histoire, III, t. 1, p. 228 ; SAMIR, Bibliographiedudialogueislamo-chrétien, p. 213-214 ; TREIGER, ῾Abdallāh ibn al-Faḍl al-Anṭākī ; NOBLE, ῾Abdallah ibn al-Fadl al-Antaki.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

475

Il ne les a ni dominés ni forcés, comme il ne les a pas prédéterminés. Gloire, grâces, gloire, louange, puissance, pouvoir, force et adoration à Lui, maintenant et pour toujours, dans les siècles des siècles, amen, amen, amen.

4.16. Traitésurceuxdontlanaissanceaétéannoncéeparlesseptanges Incipit (f. 112r [129r]) : [sic] ‫القول علي الذين ولدوآ ببشارت الملايكه سبعه‬

Desinit (f. 112v [129v]) : .‫مريم آم يوحنآ الذي دعي مرقس بركة الجميع تشملنآ الي النفس الاخير امين‬ Marie, mère de Jean qui est appelé Marc. Que la bénédiction de tous nous embrasse jusqu’à la dernière âme, amen.

4.17. Épîtredulivredessessionsd’ÉliedeNisibe27 Incipit (f. 112v [129v]) : ‫بسم ا﷽ الازلي العظيم المعطي الحكمه وبكل شي عليم‬ ‫نسخة رساله كتبها مآر ايليآ مطران نصيبين للوزير الكاين بها ابي القاسم‬ ‫ارسل اليه يطلب منه جواب الامور الذي اشتبهت‬ ً ‫الحسين ابن علي المغربي لمآ‬ ‫عليه لما كان يتذاكر معه في مجلسه قبل توجهه لمستقره‬ ‫كان الوزير احضر مآر ايليآ مطران نصيبين في مجلسه في مدينة نصيبين‬ ‫ في سنة اربعمايه واربعة عشر‬.‫ لانه | كان متولي تلك الاعمال باسرها‬.‫نفسها‬ .‫ وساله في نوع التالوت والتوحيد والتجسد‬.‫للهجره‬ Au nom de Dieu l’éternel, le très grand, qui donne la sagesse, l’omniscient. Copie de l’épître écrite par Mār Élie évêque de Nisibe, au vizir de cette ville, Abū-l-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn ibn ῾Alī al-Maġribī. Lorsqu’il lui envoya l’épître, avant de retourner à sa résidence, il lui demanda la réponse sur des questions qui lui étaient obscures lorsqu’il conversait avec lui pendant son entretien. Le vizir fit appeler Mār Élie évêque de Nisibe, à son entretien dans la même ville de Nisibe puisqu’il était chargé de l’administration de cette ville, dans l’année quatre cent quatorze de l’hégire28. Il lui posa des questions sur la nature de la Trinité, de l’Unicité et de l’Incarnation.

Desinit (f. 114r [131r]) : ‫فلمآ وقف علي هذه الرساله تعجب من اجآبته وعلم ان عند كل طايفه مآ‬ ‫يقنعها ويضدهآ عن غيرهآ فعاد الوزير وكاتب المطران وتشكر منه بالدلايل التي‬ .‫عندهم في القرآن وتكلم بالاستوي والاعتدال‬ 27 GRAF, Geschichte, Bd. 2, p. 177-179 ; SAMIR, Bibliographie du dialogue islamochrétien, p. 213-214 et IDEM, ÉliedeNisibe(975-1046) ; IDEM, Entretiend’ÉliedeNisibe, p. 31-117 ; IDEM, FoietcultureenIrak ; MONFERRER SALA, EliasofNisibis. 28 Qui correspond à 1023/24 apr. J.-C.

476

P. LA SPISA

Lorsqu’il lut l’épître, il s’émerveilla de sa réponse et il apprit que dans chaque confession religeuse il y a ce qui est en accord ou en désaccord avec les autres confessions. Le vizir rentra donc chez lui, l’évêque lui écrivit en le remerciant pour les preuves qu’ils ont dans le Coran. Il parla avec équanimité et justice.

4.18. D  ialogue entre ῾Abdišū῾, Abū Qurra et Abū Rā’iṭa en présence d’unvizir 29 Incipit (f. 114r [131r]) : ‫وقيل ان عبد ايشوع المطران النسطوري وابو قره الاسقف الملكي وابو رايطه‬ ‫اليعقوبي اجتمعوا عند احد وزيرآ امير المومنين فطلب منهم ان يصف كل احد‬ ‫منهم اعتقاده بقول موجز ولا يعترض احد منهم علي صاحبه فقال النسطوري اقول‬ .‫ان المسيح شخصان شخص لم يزل مولودآ من الاب مساويا له في طبيعته‬ On dit que ῾Abd Īšū῾, évêque nestorien, Abū Qurra, évêque melkite, et Abū Rā᾿iṭa, (évêque) jacobite, se sont réunis auprès d’un vizir du prince des croyants. Il leur demanda que chacun d’eux décrive sa foi de manière succincte et que personne ne critique son compagnon. Alors le nestorien dit : « J’affirme que le Christ est deux personnes, l’une a toujours été engendrée par le Père, de même nature que Lui ».

Desinit (f. 115r [???r]) : ‫وهذآ محال للتسميه والمعني فاستحسن الوزير جوآبهم ومآ اتوا به من الكلام‬ ‫مكرمين مسرورين و﷽ السبح والشكر والمجد‬ ‫المعقول وانعم عليهم واصرفهم‬ ّ .‫الدآيم الي الابد امين‬ ...c’est impossible à cause de la nomination et de la signification. Le vizir trouva admirable leur réponse et le discours rationnel qu’ils présentaient. Il fut bienveillant à leur égard et il les laissa partir honorés et satisfaits. Louange, grâce et gloire à Dieu ! Toujours et pour toujours, amen.

4.19. Chroniquedelacréationjusqu’àl’andesmartyrs1583/89(1283H) Incipit (f. 115v [???v]): (‫[ ابن ادم الي تاريخه الذي الف وخمسمايه وتسعه وتمنين )تلته وتمانين‬sic] ‫شرح‬ ‫ للهجرة العربيه حكم بالرساله التي تسمي جوهرة‬1283 ‫الي الشهدا الاطهار الموافق‬ ‫النفس في معرفة التاريخ وحل درجة الشمس السلطان الوغ بيك‬ ‫فمن بدوء خلقة السموات والارض وكلمآ فيهم الي مجي المسيح الهنا خمسة‬ [...] ‫ ومن المسيح الي الشهدآ مآيتين سته وسبعين‬.‫الاف وخمسماية سنة‬ 29 Cf. Paris ar. 82 [TROUPEAU, Catalogue, 1, p. 65] ; GRAF, Geschichte, Bd. 2, p. 22-23 ; GRAF, Die Schriften, [T.] ; NASRALLAH, Histoire, III, t. 2, p. 134 ; TOENIES KEATING, ḤabībibnKhidmaAbūRā᾿iṭal-Takrītī ; IDEM, Dialog῾AbdIshū῾,AbūQurra, AbūRā᾿iṭa ; LAMOREAUX, TheodoreAbūQurra.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

477

‫وفصل الميآه علي ثلثة اجزآ وجعل الثلث فوق الرقيع والثلث فوق الارض فهو‬ [mutil.] ...‫البحر المالح والثلث تحت الارض يوم الثلثا خلق الاشجار وساير النبتات‬ Commentaire [...] fils d’Adam jusqu’à la date de mille cinq cent quatrevingt neuf (quatre-vingt trois) des martyrs purs, qui correspond à 1283 de l’hégire arabe30. Il a promulgué une épitre intituléeJoyaudel’âmedansla connaissancedel’histoireetlarésolutiondudegrédusoleilduSultanUlūġ Bek31. Depuis le commencement de la création du ciel et de la terre et de tout ce qui s’y trouve jusqu’à l’avènement du Christ notre Dieu, cinq mille cinq cents ans, depuis le Christ jusqu’aux martyrs morts deux cent soixanteseize [ans]. Les eaux ont été divisées en trois parties : un tiers au-dessus du ciel, un tiers sur la terre qui est la mer salée, un tiers sous la terre. Le troisième jour, il créa les arbres et toutes les plantes [mutilus].

Bibliographie ATIYA, Buṭrus al-Sidmantī = A.S. ATIYA, Buṭrus al-Sidmantī, dans A.S. ATIYA (ed.), CopticEncyclopedia, vol. 2, New York, NY, 1991, p. 431-432. ATIYA, Sāwīrus ibn al-Muqaffa῾ = A.S. ATIYA, Sāwīrus ibn al-Muqaffa῾, dans A.S. ATIYA (ed.), CopticEncyclopedia, vol. 7, New York, NY, 1991, p. 20102012. AWAD, Buṭrusal-Sadamantī = W. AWAD, Buṭrusal-Sadamantī, dans THOMAS – MALLET, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 4, p. 416-420. AL-BĀŠĀ, Mayāmir Abī Qurra = Q. AL-BĀŠĀ, Mayāmir Ṯāwdūrus ᾿Abī Qurra ᾿usqufḤarrān[HoméliesdeThéodoreAbūQurra,évêquedeḤarrān], Bayrūt, 1904. BARDY, Dons du Saint-Esprit = G. BARDY, Dons du Saint-Esprit – I. Chez les Pères, dans Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, vol. 3, Paris, 1957, col. 15791587. BONMARIAGE – MOUREAU, Corpus Dionysiacum arabicum = C. BONMARIAGE – S. MOUREAU, CorpusDionysiacumarabicum.Étude,éditioncritiqueettraductiondesNoms DivinsIV,§1-9, dans LeMuséon, 124 (2011), p. 181227, 419-459. CANTINEAU, Cours de phonétique arabe = J. CANTINEAU, Cours de phonétique arabe, suivi de Notions générales de phonétique et de phonologie, Paris, 1960. 30

Qui correspond à 1866/67 apr. J.-C. Il s’agit du gouverneur tīmūride de Transoxiane, ensuite Sulṭān, Ulūġ Beg (796853/1394-1449). Son nom reste associé à l’observatoire qu’il fit bâtir en Transoxiane, considéré comme le plus grand de son époque, ainsi qu’aux tables astronomiques les plus modernes et précises utilisées partout dans le monde musulman et ensuite traduites en latin ; cf. MANZ, UlughBeg ; SEZGIN, WissenschaftundTechnik, p. 64-65. Il est à remarquer qu’il s’agit ici d’une fausse attribution, car l’ouvrage cité ci-dessus est normalement attribué à ῾Abd Allāh al-Danšūrī, connu aussi comme al-Miṣrī Abū-l-Fatḥ al-Šāfi῾ī al-Ṣūfī (m. 1025/1616), cf. KAḤĀLA, Mu῾ğamal-Mu᾿allifīn, p. 251. 31

478

P. LA SPISA

CHEBLI et al., Sāwīrus ibn al-Muqaffa῾ = P. CHEBLI – L. LEROY – S. GRÉBAUT (éd.), Sāwīrusibnal-Muqaffa῾.LaréfutationdeSa῾īdibnBatrīq(Eutychius): lelivredesconciles (PatrologiaOrientalis, 12 [3.2] & 29 [6.4]), Paris, 1906 & 1911. COSTAZ, Dictionnaire syriaque-français = L. COSTAZ, Dictionnaire syriaquefrançais,Syriac-EnglishDictionary,qāmūssuryānī-῾arabī, Beyrouth, 20023. COWELL, AReferenceGrammar = M.W. COWELL, AReferenceGrammarofSyrianArabic(basedontheDialectofDamascus), Washington, D.C., 1964. CSCO = CorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium. DEL RÍO SÁNCHEZ, Manuscrits de la fondation Salem = F. DEL RÍO SÁNCHEZ, ManuscritsdelafondationGeorgesetMathildeSalem(Alep,Syrie), Wiesbaden, 2008. DÉROCHE etal., Manueldecodicologie = F. DÉROCHE, avec la coll. de A. BERTHIER etal., Manueldecodicologiedesmanuscritsenécriturearabe, Paris, 2000. EDELBY, Sulaymān al-Ġazzī. Muqaddimah = N. EDELBY, Sulaymān al-Ġazzī. Muqaddimah῾āmmahli-mu᾿allafātihial-ši῾riyyahwa-l-naṯriyyah [Sulaymān al-Ġazzī.Introductiongénéraleàsesécritsenpoésieetenprose], (al-Turāṯ al-῾Arabī al-Masīḥī [Patrimoine Arabe Chrétien], 7), Beyrouth – Rome, 1984. EDELBY, Sulaymān al-Ġazzī, al-Dīwān = N. EDELBY (éd.), Sulaymān al-Ġazzī, al-Dīwānal-ši῾rī (al-Turāṯal-῾Arabīal-Masīḥī[PatrimoineArabeChrétien], 8), Beyrouth – Rome, 1985. EDELBY, Sulaymān al-Ġazzī, al-Maqālāt al-lāhūtiyya = N. EDELBY (éd.), Sulaymānal-Ġazzī,al-Maqālātal-lāhūtiyyaal-naṯriyya (al-Turāṯal-῾Arabī al-Masīḥī [PatrimoineArabeChrétien], 9), Beyrouth – Rome, 1986. ELISÉEFF, Ibn῾Umar,Djazīrat = F. ELISÉEFF, Ibn῾Umar,Djazīrat, dans Encyclopédiedel’Islam, vol. 3, Boston, MA – Leiden, 1986, p. 960b-961b. GACEK, A Vademecum = A. GACEK, Arabic Manuscripts. A Vademecum for Readers(HandbookofOrientalStudies.Section1:NearandMiddleEast, 98), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2009. GACEK, TheArabicManuscriptTradition = A. GACEK, TheArabicManuscript Tradition. A Glossary of Technical Terms and Bibliography. Supplement (HandbookofOrientalStudies.Section1:NearandMiddleEast, 95), Leiden – Boston, MA – Köln, 2001. GARDEIL, DonsduSaint-Esprit = A. GARDEIL, DonsduSaint-Esprit, dans DictionnairedeThéologieCatholique, vol. 4, Paris, 1911, col. 1754-1779. GÉHIN, Lirelemanuscritmédiéval = P. GÉHIN (sous la dir. de), Lirelemanuscrit médiéval :observeretdécrire (U.Histoire), Paris, 2005. GODET, Denysl’Aréopagite = P. GODET, Denysl’Aréopagite(lePseudo-), dans DictionnairedeThéologieCatholique, vol. 4, Paris, 1939, p. 430-436. GRAF, DieSchriften = G. GRAF (Hrsg./Übers.), DieSchriftendesJacobitenḤabīb ibnḪidmaAbūRā᾿iṭa (CSCO, 130 [T.]-131 [V.] ; Script.Arabici, 14 [T.]15 [V.]), Louvain, 1951. GRAF, Geschichte = G. GRAF, GeschichtederchristlichenarabischenLiteratur, Bd. 1. Die Übersetzungen (Studi e Testi, 118), Città del Vaticano, 1944 ; Bd. 2. DieSchriftstellerbiszurMittedes15.Jahrhunderts (StudieTesti, 133), Città del Vaticano, 1947. GRAF, Verzeichnis = G. GRAF, VerzeichnisarabischerkirchlicherTermini (CSCO, 147 ; Subsidia, 8), Louvain, 19542.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

479

KAḤĀLA, Mu῾ğamal-mu᾿allifīn = ῾U.R. KAḤĀLA, Mu῾ğamal-mu᾿allifīn.Tarāğim muṣannifīl-kutubal-῾arabiyya [Dictionnairedesauteurs.Biographiesclasséesdesécrivainsarabes], Damas, 1958. LA SPISA, I trattati teologici = P. LA SPISA (ed. e trad.), I trattati teologici di SulaymānibnḤasanal-Ġazzī (CSCO, 648 [T.]-649 [V.] ; Script.Arabici, 52 [T.]-53 [V.]), Louvain, 2013. LA SPISA, L’œuvre théologique de Sulaymān al-Ġazzī = P. LA SPISA, L’œuvre théologiquedeSulaymānal-Ġazzī:unautreexempledemoyenarabestandard ?, dans L. BETTINI – P. LA SPISA (éd.), Au-delàdel’arabestandard : moyen arabe et arabe mixte dans les sources médiévales, modernes et contemporaines (QuadernidiSemitistica, 28), Firenze, 2012, p. 209-225. LAMOREAUX, Theodore Abū Qurra = J.C. LAMOREAUX, Theodore Abū Qurra, dans THOMAS –ROGGEMA, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 1, p. 439-491. LENTIN, Normesorthographiquesenmoyenarabe = J. LENTIN, Normesorthographiquesenmoyenarabe:surlanotationduvocalismebref, dans L. ZACK – A. SCHIPPERS (eds.), MiddleArabicandMixedArabic.DiachronyandSynchrony(StudiesinSemiticLanguagesandLinguistics, 64), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2012, p. 209-234. LOHSE, DasPassafestderQuartodecimaner = B. LOHSE, DasPassafestderQuartodecimaner (BeiträgezurFörderungchristlicherTheologie, 54), Gütersloh, 1953. MALLON, Grammairecopte = A. MALLON, Grammairecopte.Bibliographie,chrestomathieetvocabulaire, Beyrouth, 1904 [20015]. MANZ, UlughBeg = B.F. MANZ, UlughBeg, dans Encyclopédiedel’Islam, vol.10, Boston, MA – Leiden, 1998, p. 876a-878a. MONFERRER SALA, Elias of Nisibis = J.P. MONFERRER SALA, Elias of Nisibis, dans THOMAS – MALLET, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 2, p. 727-741. MOSCATI, An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar = S. MOSCATI, An IntroductiontotheComparativeGrammaroftheSemiticLanguages.PhonologyandMorphology, Wiesbaden, 1964. NASRALLAH, Histoire, III = J. NASRALLAH, Histoiredumouvementlittérairedans l’ÉglisemelchiteduVeauXXesiècle.Contributionàl’étudedelalittérature arabechrétienne, vol. III, t. 1, Louvain, 1983 ; vol. III, t. 2, Louvain, 1981. NASRALLAH, Sulaïmān al-Ġazzī = J. NASRALLAH, Sulaïmān al-Ġazzī, évêque melchitedeGaza, dans OriensChristianus, 62 (1978), p. 144-157. NOBLE, ῾Abdallahibnal-Fadlal-Antaki = S. NOBLE, ῾Abdallahibnal-FadlalAntaki, dans NOBLE – TREIGER, TheOrthodoxChurchintheArabWorld, p. 171-187. NOBLE, Sulaymānal-Ghazzī 1 = S. NOBLE, Sulaymānal-Ghazzī, dans THOMAS – MALLET, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 2, p. 617-623. NOBLE, Sulaymānal-Ghazzī 2 = S. NOBLE, Sulaymānal-Ghazzī, dans NOBLE – TREIGER, TheOrthodoxChurchintheArabWorld,p. 160-170. NOBLE – TREIGER, The Orthodox Church in the Arab World = S. NOBLE – A. TREIGER (eds.), TheOrthodoxChurchintheArabWorld700-1700.An AnthologyofSources(OrthodoxChristianStudies), DeKalb, IL, 2014. RAYEZ, InfluenceduPseudo-Denys = A. RAYEZ, InfluenceduPseudo-Denysen Orient, dans DictionnairedeSpiritualité, vol. 3, Paris, 1957, p. 286-318. RITTER, Griechisch-koptischeZiffern = H. RITTER, Griechisch-koptischeZiffern inarabischenManuskripten, dans RivistadegliStudiOrientali, 16 (1936), p. 212-214.

480

P. LA SPISA

SALĪM, al-Maḫṭūṭātal-῾arabiyya = S. SALĪM, al-Maḫṭūṭātal-῾arabiyyafī-l-adīra al-᾿urṯūḏuksiyya al-᾿anṭākiyya fī Lubnān [Les manuscrits arabes dans les monastèresorthodoxesantiochiensauLiban], Beyrouth, 1994. SAMIR, Bibliographie du dialogue islamo-chrétien = Kh. SAMIR, Bibliographie du dialogue islamo-chrétien (2e partie: auteurs arabes chrétiens, XIe et XIIesiècles), dans Islamochristiana, 2 (1976), p. 201-249. SAMIR, ÉliedeNisibe(975-1046) = Kh. SAMIR, Bibliographiedudialogueislamochrétien:ÉliedeNisibe(975-1046), dans Islamochristiana, 3 (1977), p. 257286. SAMIR, Entretien d’Élie de Nisibe = Kh. SAMIR (éd./trad.), Entretien d’Élie de NisibeaveclevizirIbn‘Alīal-Maghribī,surl’UnitéetlaTrinité (Introduction, édition critique du texte arabe et traduction annotée), dans Islamochristiana, 5 (1979), p. 31-117. SAMIR, FoietcultureenIrak = Kh. SAMIR, FoietcultureenIrakauXIesiècle. ÉliedeNisibeetl’Islam (VariorumCollectedStudiesSeries, 544), Aldershot – Brookfield, 1996. SAUVAN etal., Cataloguedesmanuscritsarabes = Y. SAUVAN – M.-G. BALTYGUESDON – T. TAMARI, Cataloguedesmanuscritsarabes:indexnos68367214, Paris, 1987. SEZGIN, Wissenschaft und Technik = F. SEZGIN, Wissenschaft und Technik im Islam,Bd. 1.EinfürungindieGeschichteinderarabisch-islamischenWissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main, 2003. STEWART-SYKES, The lamb’s high feast = A. STEWART-SYKES, The lamb’s high feast.Melito,PeriPaschaandtheQuartodecimanPaschalLiturgyatSardis (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 42), Leiden – Boston, MA – Köln, 1998. SWANSON, ῾AbdIshū῾ibnBahriz = M.N. SWANSON, ῾AbdIshū῾ibnBahriz, dans THOMAS – ROGGEMA, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 1, p. 550-552. SWANSON, Sāwīrusibnal-Muqaffa῾ = M.N. SWANSON, Sāwīrusibnal-Muqaffa῾, dans THOMAS – MALLET, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 2, p. 491-509. SWANSON, Sim῾ānibnKalīl = M.N. SWANSON, Sim῾ānibnKalīl, dans THOMAS – MALLET, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 4, p. 199-206. THOMAS – MALLET, Christian-Muslim Relations = D. THOMAS – A. MALLET (eds.), Christian-MuslimRelations. ABibliographicalHistory, Vol. 2 (9001050), (History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 14), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2010; Vol. 3(1050-1200), (HistoryofChristian-MuslimRelations, 15), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2011; Vol. 4 (1200-1350), (HistoryofChristian-Muslim Relations, 17), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2012. THOMAS – ROGGEMA, Christian-Muslim Relations = D. THOMAS – B. ROGGEMA (eds.), Christian-MuslimRelations.ABibliographicalHistory, Vol. 1 (600900), (History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 11), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2009. TOENIES KEATING, Dialog῾AbdIshū῾,AbūQurra,AbūRā᾿iṭa = S. TOENIES KEATING, Dialog ῾Abd Ishū῾, Abū Qurra, Abū Rā᾿iṭa, dans THOMAS – ROGGEMA, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 1, p. 554-555. TOENIES KEATING, ḤabībibnKhidmaAbūRā᾿iṭal-Takrītī = S. TOENIES KEATING, ḤabībibnKhidmaAbūRā᾿iṭal-Takrītī, dans THOMAS – ROGGEMA, ChristianMuslimRelations, vol. 1, p. 567-581.

LE MANUSCRIT PARISINUSARABICUS6981

481

TREIGER, The Arabic Version of Pseudo-Dionysius = A. TREIGER, The Arabic Version of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagit’s Mystical Theology, Chapter1: Introduction,CriticalEdition,andTranslation, dans LeMuséon,120 (2007), p. 365-393. TREIGER, ῾Abdallāhibnal-Faḍlal-Anṭākī = A. TREIGER, ῾Abdallāhibnal-Faḍl al-Anṭākī, in THOMAS – MALLET, Christian-MuslimRelations, vol. 3, p. 89113. TREVETT, Asia Minor and Achea = C. TREVETT, Asia Minor and Achea, dans M.M. MITCHELL – F.M. YOUNG (eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 1. OriginstoConstantine, New York, NY, 2006, p. 314-329. TROUPEAU, Catalogue, 1 = G. TROUPEAU, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes. Premièrepartie :manuscritschrétiens,t. 1 :nos1-323, Paris, 1972. TROUPEAU, Catalogue, 2 = G. TROUPEAU, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes. Premièrepartie :manuscritschrétiens, t. 2 : Manuscritsdispersésentreles nos780et6933, Paris, 1974. TROUPEAU, Àproposdeschiffres = G. TROUPEAU, Àproposdeschiffresutilisés pourlefoliotagedesmanuscritsarabes, dans Arabica, 21 (1974), p. 84. VAN DEN AKKER, Butrus al-Sadamanti = P. VAN DEN AKKER (éd.), Butrus alSadamanti, Introduction sur l’herméneutique (Recherches, nouvelle série, B.OrientChrétien, 1), Beyrouth, 1972. WITKAM, The Neglect Neglected = J.J. WITKAM, The Neglect Neglected. To PointorNottoPoint,ThatistheQuestion, dans JournalofIslamicManuscripts, 6 (2015), p. 376-408.

Università degli Studi di Firenze Paolo LA SPISA Dipartimento di Lingue, Letterature e Studi Interculturali Piazza F. Brunelleschi, 3-4 50121 Firenze, Italia [email protected]

Abstract — In the 20th century the French National Library purchased new Arabic manuscripts of both Christian and Muslim provenance. As yet, most of them are not described in details, but we have only an Index published in 1987 by Sauvan, Balty-Guesdon, Tamari. Here one can find the main contents of the 19th century Arabic6981 which is actually an important collection of the most famous Christian Arabic writers of the Middle Ages, as well as the witness of anonymous unknown works. The aim of this article is to provide a detailed description of this manuscript by paying special attention to it contents. Accordingly a full list with incipit and desinit of each treatise has been drawn up, without forgetting to present some codicological and palaeographic features of this neglected codex.

482

P. LA SPISA

ILLUSTRATION

Paris,BNF,Arabe 6981, f. 1r (© BNF)

Comptes rendus Samer Soreshow Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses (Biblica et Orientalia, 52), Roma, Pontifical Biblical Institute – Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2015, 196 p., 4 tab., 165 × 240 mm. ISBN 978-88-7653-674-8 [HBK]. Il n’est pas inutile, pour les lecteurs de la revue peu habitués aux versions orientales de la Bible, de faire le point sur les versions syriaques de la Bible, en particulier du Nouveau Testament et singulièrement des évangiles. L’histoire des versions syriaques des évangiles commence avec Tatien qui, vers 170, réalisa une compilation des quatre évangiles en un seul document, en une «  Harmonie  » appelée Diatessaron ou encore en syriaque «  Évangiles (des) mélangés  ». La langue originale est encore une question débattue  : en grec ou plus probablement en syriaque. L’œuvre originale est perdue, mais elle subsiste dans des manuscrits rédigés en une vingtaine de langues ou dialectes. Jusqu’au ve siècle, le Diatessaron était le texte standard de l’Église syriaque  ; il est utilisé dans la liturgie et c’est lui que les Pères syriaques anciens commentent ou citent. Il resta en faveur jusqu’au moment où Théodoret de Cyr en fit détruire tous les exemplaires, une fois Tatien considéré comme hérétique. À partir de ce moment, le Diatessaron commence sa longue descente aux enfers. Une première version des «  évangiles séparés  » est attestée par deux manuscrits découverts au xixe s. Ils ne contiennent toutefois pas le texte complet des évangiles (un peu moins de la moitié pour le premier et les trois quarts pour le second  ; la Sinaïtique n’a pas la finale longue de Marc, mais la Curetonienne oui). Le premier, le ms. Londres, British Library, Add. 14451, provenant du monastère de Deir es-Surian en Égypte et daté du ve s., a été édité pour la première fois par William Cureton en 1858, d’où son nom de syriaque Curetonienne, puis par Francis Crawford Burkitt en 1904 (édition de référence)  ; un dernier folio a été découvert et édité en 1987 par Daniel McConaughy. Le second manuscrit, daté aussi du ve s., provient du Monastère Sainte-Catherine du Sinaï (Sinaï, syriaque 60) et a été découvert en 1892 par les infatigables sœurs, Agnes Smith Lewis et Margaret Gibson. Après une série de publications, l’édition définitive de la syriaque Sinaïtique parut enfin en 1910. Ces deux témoins représentent ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler «  la vieille version syriaque des évangiles  ». Toutefois ils n’en sont pas des représentants exacts. En effet, entre le moment où la vieille version a été réalisée et le moment où les deux témoins ont été copiés, trois siècles se sont écoulés, durant lesquels le texte original a été corrompu ou remanié (voire corrigé par endroits sur le Diatessaron ou la Peshitta). On situe en effet la réalisation de la vieille version syriaque au deuxième siècle. La question est encore débattue de savoir si elle est antérieure ou postérieure au Diatessaron. Bien qu’un consensus se soit établi aujourd’hui sur l’hypothèse de l’antériorité du Diatessaron sur la vieille version syriaque, des voix se font encore entendre pour défendre l’opinion inverse, et elles ont de bons arguments. Certains vont même jusqu’à affirmer que la Sinaïtique (qui a les traits les plus archaïques) précède le Diatessaron et que la Curetonienne lui est postérieure et a été remaniée sur lui (elle contient en effet davantage de leçons confluentes, ce qui est la caractéristique

Le Muséon 129 (3-4), 483-493. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180788 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 483

29/11/16 06:03

484

Comptes rendus

propre du Diatessaron). Troisième version syriaque du Nouveau Testament, la Peshitta est aujourd’hui la version reçue, la vulgate pourrait-on dire, des Églises syriaques. Conformément au canon scripturaire des Églises syriaques, elle ne contient ni la deuxième épître de Pierre, ni les deuxième et troisième épîtres de Jean, ni l’épître de Jude, ni l’Apocalypse. Elle a aussi quelques lacunes, ainsi pour les évangiles Mt 27,35b  ; Lc 22,17-18 (la bénédiction sur la coupe) et surtout Jn 7,53 – 8,11 (la péricope de la femme adultère). Son texte est transmis, de manière très uniforme, par plusieurs centaines de manuscrits dont les plus anciens remontent au ve s. On s’accorde à penser aujourd’hui que la Peshitta date de la seconde moitié du ive s. La quatrième version, la Philoxénienne, est mise sous le patronage de Philoxène de Mabboug qui confia à son chorévêque Polycarpe le soin de réviser et de compléter le texte de la Peshitta. Cette version n’a pas survécu, si ce n’est dans les citations qui parsèment les œuvres de Philoxène de Mabboug. Sa disparition s’explique sans doute parce qu’elle aussi a fait l’objet d’une révision. Cette révision a donné naissance à la cinquième forme attestée du Nouveau Testament syriaque. Elle est l’œuvre de Thomas de Harkel, d’où son nom de syriaque Harkléenne. Thomas de Harkel entreprit en 615-616 de réviser la Philoxénienne sur base de quelques manuscrits grecs (de type byzantin). L’intention de Thomas était de proposer une version miroir du grec. C’est ainsi qu’à un adjectif et un substantif grecs correspondent toujours un adjectif ou un substantif syriaques. L’ordre des mots grecs est reproduit en syriaque, quitte à faire violence à la langue (un exemple  : un démonstratif pourra se placer avant le substantif qu’il détermine, alors que la règle syriaque veut qu’il se place toujours après). On y lit aussi quantité de mots décalqués du grec, ainsi ‫ ܓܘܢܝܐ‬pour γονίας (Mc 12,10), ‫ ܠܦܛܐ‬pour λεπτά (Mc 12,42) ou ‫ ܦܝܪܐܟܘܪܐ‬pour περίχωρον (Mc 1,28). Les composés grecs sont rendus par deux mots, ainsi προ-θέσεως (et non προθέσευς comme indiqué par l’A. p. 14) est rendu par ‫( ܣܝܡܘܬ ܩܕ�ܡܐ‬Mc 2,26). Le tout est accompagné d’un appareil éditorial (astérisques et obèles) et de notes marginales en grec et en syriaque. Il s’agit donc d’une édition critique avant la lettre. Avec le temps, l’appareil éditorial n’a plus été compris  ; d’où l’apparition d’erreurs nécessitant que la Harkléenne subisse à son tour quelques révisions (Denys Bar Salibi au xiie s., et une version plus tardive encore attestée par le ms. Oxford, New College 333). Une édition critique complète de la Harkléenne fait encore défaut. L’édition princeps de Joseph White (1778) se fonde essentiellement sur le manuscrit Oxford, New College 333. Pour les évangiles, Georg Heinrich Bernstein (1853) a édité le texte de Jean à partir du manuscrit Vatican syriaque 271. Plus récemment, Andreas Juckel a édité le texte de la Harkléenne des quatre évangiles sur la base du seul manuscrit Vatican syriaque 268 (un choix judicieux)  ; son travail a été incorporé dans l’édition comparée des évangiles syriaques de Georges Kiraz (2002). C’est donc avec le plus grand intérêt qu’on lira et utilisera l’édition de l’évangile de Marc proposée par Samer Soreshow Yohanna. Des manuscrits datés du premier millénaire, Yohanna en a retenu quatorze (dont treize sont utilisés pour la première fois)  ; il vaut la peine de les citer  : Couvent chaldéen de saint Hormisdas (Notre-Dame des Semences), ms. n° 25 (son ms. C  ; voir p. 109-115 une analyse plus détaillée de ce témoin, avec plusieurs reproductions en couleurs)  ; Moscou, Société archéologique, syr. 1 (ms. M1, c’est le plus ancien manuscrit  : il date du viie s.)  ; Beyrouth, Université américaine, ms. 220.43  : B58s  : c.1 (ms. B)  ; Harvard, Houghton Libr., syr. 16 (ms. H1)  ; Birmingham, Selly Oak, Mingana

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 484

29/11/16 06:03



Comptes rendus

485

syr. 124 (ms. S1) et 42 (ms. S2)  ; Florence, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Pl. 1.40 (ms. F)  ; Vatican, Bibl. Apost. Vatic., syr. 267 (ms. V1) et syr. 268 (ms. V2)  ; Kiel, Universitätsbibl., Ori 1 (ms. K)  ; Londres, Brit. Libr., Add. 7163 (ms. L1) et Add. 14469 (ms. L2)  ; Rome, Bibl. Angelica, Or. 74 (ms. A) et Dublin, Chester Beatty Libr., syr. 703 (ms. D). Chaque manuscrit est décrit et accompagné d’une bibliographie (p. 20-49). Dans un diagramme (p. 102), l’A. aide à visualiser les trois groupes mis en lumière  : C+H1+S1, V1+V2+L1+D et A+S2+K+L2  ; les trois autres manuscrits (B, M1 et F) ne rentrent dans aucun de ces groupes. Le manuscrit C (débarrassé de ses fautes manifestes), du ixe-xe s., est le manuscrit de base de l’édition (Yohanna ne s’explique pas sur les raisons de ce choix). Cela le conduit parfois à noter au lemme une leçon que ce seul manuscrit transmet à l’encontre de tous les autres  ; il maintient cette leçon si elle a le soutien de l’un ou l’autre témoin grec (voir son affirmation p. 62-63). On peut signaler les ajouts suivants  : «  et quarante nuits  » (Mc 1,13), «  qu’il appela apôtres  » (3,14), «  le collecteur d’impôts  » après Matthieu (3,18), voir aussi 5,34  ; 7,18  ; 9,19, 31  ; 10,17, 40, 50, 52  ; 11,19, 28  ; 12,1, 7, 21 et 13,35. Ces ajouts correspondent toujours à des notes marginales dans les autres témoins. L’édition brouille donc en partie la distinction si importante pour la Harkléenne entre leçons du texte et leçons marginales (à vrai dire elle est plus importante pour les Actes et pour Paul, car pour ces livres les leçons marginales sont de type occidental et non byzantin). Yohanna expose (p. 50-56) les principes méthodologiques de son édition et présente la division du texte et les notes marginales. Il se penche ensuite (p. 56-62) sur les signes critiques, diacritiques de la Harkléenne reproduits dans son édition, ainsi que sur la ponctuation. Il détaille (p. 62-67) les endroits où il a corrigé le texte du manuscrit C. C’est en particulier le cas pour les omissions par passage du même au même ou par haplographie  ; ces corrections, qu’elles s’appliquent au texte ou aux marges, sont toujours signalées par un signe diacritique (†). Dans un quatrième chapitre (p. 68-115) Yohanna présente les éléments propres à la tradition harkléenne, en particulier l’introduction due à Eusèbe (la Lettre à Carpien est éditée en syriaque pour la première fois et elle est accompagnée d’une traduction). On y trouve également les tables des canons eusébiens, les kephalaia et les titloi, ainsi que le texte du colophon de la version harkléenne. Un tableau (p. 105-109) présente les développements dans la graphie des noms propres d’un manuscrit à l’autre. Le texte syriaque de l’évangile de Marc est édité aux pages 132-196. Il est d’une lisibilité et d’une clarté remarquables, tant pour le texte (en estrangelo) que pour les marges (en estrangelo et en lettres grecques majuscules) et pour les apparats. Il s’agit là d’une réussite exceptionnelle dont les spécialistes de la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament peuvent féliciter l’auteur. Jean-Claude Haelewyck (Louvain-la-Neuve) Ugo Zanetti, Saint Jean, higoumène de Scété (viie siècle). Vie arabe et épitomé éthiopien édités et traduits (Subsidia hagiographica, 94), Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 2015, 288 p. (1-142 [fr.] + 1*-65* [pages doublées fr./ar.] + 66*-73* [pages doublées fr./éthiop.]), 160 × 250 mm. ISBN 978-287365-031-5. John of Scetis was an outstanding Egyptian monk who lived between the 6th and 7th centuries. According to his hagiography (p. 63*) he died at the age of ninety, thus his life time has been tentatively dated from 585 to 675. He

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 485

29/11/16 06:03

486

Comptes rendus

would then have witnessed the Arab conquest of Egypt in 640, led by the troops of ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ. His hagiography by an anonymous composer though is quiet about the Muslim occupation of Egypt, a silence that can have a couple of explanations: initial sentiments of relief from Byzantine pressure, which according to Coptic traditions was expressed by cheering and bell-ringing from Alexandria to Aswān at the arrival of the Arab troops. Secondly, the heavy hand of the Arab invaders on Jews and Christians had yet to disclose itself. Many of the historical details of John of Scetis’ life remain shrouded in obscurity. Some of the more rehearsed circumstances are: his captivity at the hands of barbarians who were often raiding the area, his participation in the translation of the 49 Martyrs of Scetis, and his appointment as hegumenos of Scetis in around 641. Despite the absence of his name in the book of the consecration, he is credited with having assisted Patriarch Benjamin I (632-662) in the restoration of the monastery of Scetis. Professor Ugo Zanetti has brought to the fore once again the hagiography of John of Scetis with an improved re-edition of the Arabic version, equipped with an extensively annotated French translation, understated by the editor as “quelques notes” (p. 15). An Ethiopic epitome is also supplied with a French annotated translation. A useful summary of the text’s contents and introductions dealing with textual, historical, linguistic, and liturgical analyses of the material precede both parts. As hinted, Ugo Zanetti had already published the Arabic hagiography of John of Scetis, together with a French translation in Analecta Bollandiana 114 (1996), p. 273-405, and has laid the basis for the Gə’əz version in a contribution under the title: The Ethiopian Short Life of John of Scetis (Seventh Century)1. The present issue offers both versions in a single book. The volume is articulated in seven main parts: introduction, “new” data on John’s life, John’s life, the manuscripts, features of the Arabic language, the Arabic text (edition and translation), and the Ethiopic epitome (edition and translation). The Arabic and Gə’əz have been written neatly. A more generous and accurate vocalization would have helped people who do not read Arabic daily. One of the manuscripts used for the edition of the Arabic text belongs to the monastery of Saint Macarius (= M) in Wādī al Naṭrūn and goes back to the first half of the 16th cent. The second codex too comes from the same area, namely from the monastery of Baramus (= B [Ar.]). The Editor states (p. 67) that from a summary paleographic analysis, the manuscript seems to be of the 13th cent., adding that its Arabic spelling is more precise than the first one. The relationship between the two manuscripts is concisely described in terms that can be summed up in three sentences: “B est à placer très haut dans la tradition manuscrite arabe, mais pas à son sommet”; “des divergences qui obligent à regarder B et M comme appartenant à des branches distinctes du stemma codicum”; “néanmoins, ces deux manuscrits ne sont pas étrangers l’un à l’autre  : nombre de formes communes … militent clairement pour un ancêtre commun” (p. 70). The kinship suggested in the last statement is not explained. Following the partitioning of the text that the Editor declares to have found in the manuscripts, he has divided the Arabic text into 39 chapters and has split it further into 285 paragraphs in a way 1  Published in D. Nosnitsin (ed.), Veneration of Saints in Christian Ethiopia. Proceedings of International Workshop Saints in Christian Ethiopia: Literary Sources and Veneration, Hamburg, April 28-29, 2012 (Aethiopica Supplements, 3), Wiesbaden, 2015, p. 221-232.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 486

29/11/16 06:03



Comptes rendus

487

that “corresponds to the inner logic of the text” (p. 30). In the translations, reasonable titles have been placed to introduce the various sections. Interested readers who do not know French would have been helped if those titles and at least the biblical (and eventually the patristic) quotations were placed in the Arabic edition too. This hagiography, which, as in the majority of the compositions of the same literary genre, has a marked parenetic character, with a logic in the sequence and style of the narrative (e.g. sudden transitions from the third person to the first) which is not easy to follow. The language is not simple to read, among other reasons, because often it is Coptic coated with Arabic. Several aspects of relevance to liturgical science have been singled out and masterfully treated in ten paragraphs in the introduction (p. 43-57). The monthly celebration of the Virgin Mary, the ritual of priestly consecration, the Eucharistic fasting, Easter Vigil and the Eucharistic service “celebrated only by one priest”, are some of the topics addressed in the introduction. The Editor states that the Gə’əz epitome has been translated from a lost Arabic document (p. 14). The edition makes use of two manuscripts, one from Berlin (= B [Eth.]). Basing himself on the paleography of the codex, Ugo Zanetti would date it in the first half of the 15th cent. The second manuscript, EMML 7602 (= C), is from the 14th cent., as attested by its colophon harking back to the reign of Dawit II (1379/1380-1413). An interested readership, not reared in Western classical studies, will need to learn Latin in order to read the comments in the critical apparatus, Greek and Coptic for the biblical and extrabiblical references, and French to access the introduction and the translations. The method employed for editing the text also demands knowledge of the text critical system adopted by the Editor. A good number of biblical and patristic quotations have been identified. As a matter of fact, this text offers passages of interest to Biblical textual critics, especially with regard to the history of translation and transmission of the Arabic Bible which is still a wide open area for research. Among other biblical texts, I found intriguing the quotation of I Cor. 13:4 in chap. 5, §45, which reads: ‫الم ِحب لا يحسد ولا يعجم‬ ُ “the loving one does not envy and does not test”. In this Arabic Pauline version, two items capture the reader’s attention. The first issue at stake lies in the origin and significance of the verb ‫]و[لا يعجم‬, which in theory, in the Coptic versions would be the counterpart of [ϯⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲥⲉⲣⲡⲉⲣⲡⲉⲣⲟⲥ in the Buḥayric2, and in the Ṣa‘īdic3 [ϯⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ] ⲙⲉⲥⲣ̄ⲡⲉⲣⲡⲉⲣⲟⲥ “[love] does not boast”. The form of the verb “to boast”, in both Coptic languages matches the Greek: [ἡ ἀγάπη] οὐ περπερεύεται. The oldest Arabic manuscript with the Pauline letters (undated, but of the 13th cent.?) that I know, Paris, BNF, Coptic 17 [Delaporte 24]4, f. 84v reads: ‫المحبَّة ليس يعجم‬ َ “love does not test”. In Arabic manuscripts of the immediately following centuries, the abstract term ‫المحبَّة‬ َ “love” appears in a different, ad hominem, explanatory form, namely, ‫الم ِحب‬, ُ ‫“ صاحب‬the one who loves”, etc. At least in one Gə’əz ُ ‫الحب‬ version, avowedly translated from Arabic, namely, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Comboniani Aethiopici S8, f. 90va, the text of this Pauline verse reads: 2   Cf. G. Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect otherwise called Memphitic and Bohairic, vol. III, Oxford, 1905, p. 194. 3  P.J. Balestri, Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani, Vol. III. Novum Testamentum, Romae, 1904, p. 361. 4   L. Delaporte, Catalogue sommaire des manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris), in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 15 (1910), p. 133-134.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 487

29/11/16 06:03

488

Comptes rendus

ብእሴ  : ተፋቅሮ  : ኢይቀንእ  : ብእሴ  : ተፋቅሮ  : ኢይዔምፅ, “the man of love does not envy, the man of love does not act unjustly”5. Worthy of mention is also the typical Arabic variation of Heb 11:39b, both in the Arabic (p. 51*) and in the Gə’əz versions (p. 72*). The Greek reads: οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν “they did not receive the promise”. The Buḥayric and the Ṣa‘īdic texts adhere to the Greek. The Arabic version (followed by the great majority of the Gə’əz witnesses) omits the οὐκ of negation, thus rendering “they received the promise”, which represents a theological correction. It is a measure taken by a “theologically sensitive” copyist, similar to the tiqqūn sōferīm “scribal corrections” in the Rabbinic tradition. These considerations confirm yet again the relevance of hagiographies in the effort of reconstructing the process of evolution of biblical texts. As far as the quotations of the Old Testament are concerned, Ugo Zanetti refers always to the Greek text and provides every biblical quotation, Old and New Testament, in Greek and sometimes in Coptic as well. Occasionally, it is added that the text is drawn from the LXX. Yet, in footnote 285, he uses the abbreviation “Qoh” for Qohelet (Hebrew) instead of Ecclesiastes (Greek). A paragraph in the introduction, at least on the text(s) of the Old Testament in this hagiography would have been more than welcome. The bibliography is pertinent to the subject matter and it does not disdain Arabic and Ethiopian sources. Translating from the so-called Semitic languages into the Neo-Latin ones is quite a challenge, even to seasoned experts on both sides of the divide. The numerous notes trying to reproduce the text literally and/or to explain it, reflect Ugo Zanetti’s constant endeavor to remain loyal to the texts, at the same time keeping an eye steadily open to the reader of the French translation. The notes concerning the morphology, syntax, and vocabulary are placed in the introduction (for the Arabic on p. 72-89; for the Gə’əz on p. 101-107). Often, the critical apparatus refers the reader back to the introduction for an explanation. This choice may have been made to spare some space which anyway is often left widely empty, between the text and the apparatus. Nonetheless, going back and forth can discourage the reader who would find it more convenient to have the comments right below, on the same page. As in any human work, questions can be raised here and there about the Editor’s spelling. The šadda and the hamza apparently added and especially omitted at random are a cause for concern that, at least in some cases, might be due to an automatic corrector. The treatment of some variants and a handful of apparent oversights in the translations into French, both from the Arabic and the Gə’əz, is another area for questions. It would be misplaced to go into those details, as the volume in its entirety is a sound scientific contribution. With one exception: the hagiography mentions twice (p. 31*; p. 38*) a ‫( حبشي‬evil spirit). ‫ حبشي‬is the name of a population found in ancient inscriptions, thus in my opinion it would have been more appropriate to leave it as it stands. The Coptic Church reads the “spiritual battle” of John of Scetis in the Synaxarion of Kyahk 30, Taḫśaś 30 in the Gə’əz Synaxarion (= December 26), the day of his death. The Coptic Anaphora of Saint Basil mentions John “the hegumen” in the maǧma‘, and the other two Coptic canonical Anaphorae too. Gregory and Cyril evoke John in the same sequence as in Basil, albeit without the title “hegumen”. On p. 9, footnote 1, Professor Zanetti makes a distinction 5  Cf. Tedros Abraha, The Ethiopic Versions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Roma, 2014, p. 243.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 488

29/11/16 06:03



Comptes rendus

489

between John Nain “the Small” from the John of his edition, and on p. 11 he states that the John of Scetis here, is not remembered in the maǧma‘ the “prayerful memory of the Saints” during the Eucharistic celebration. Both are plain statements, without any argument to substantiate them. Some articles and entries in encyclopedias hold the opposite, namely, that it is the latter John of Scetis the one named in the maǧma‘. Obviously this is not a major issue, but it would deserve an answer. Tedros Abraha (Roma) Ulrich Marzolph (herausgegeben von), Orientalistische Studien zu Sprache und Literatur. Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Werner Diem, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2011, xxiii-486 pages, 175 × 245 mm. ISBN 978-3-44706481-1 [HBK]. Le livre dont je donne le compte rendu ici constitue les hommages parus à l’occasion de la mise à la retraite de Werner Diem. L’ouvrage comporte vingthuit contributions qui touchent aux différents domaines dans lesquels le récipiendaire s’est distingué  : la philologie des langues orientales (p. 3-109), la dialectologie arabe (p. 111-171), l’épistolographie et la papyrologie arabe (p. 173-261), la poésie et la littérature (p. 263-388), ainsi que l’histoire littéraire et religieuse (p. 389-486). Je ne recenserai ici spécifiquement que la section relative à l’épistolographie et à la papyrologie arabe (p. 173-261), laquelle comporte cinq contributions. Dans la première, p. 175-186, G. Khan édite le brouillon d’une pétition issue de la Geniza du Caire et adressée au calife al-Āmir bi-᾿aḥkām Allāh (1101-1130). Le pétitionnaire, un certain Manṣūr b. Salāma, fait part de ce qu’il a hérité d’une maison de sa mère, mais que ses droits lui sont contestés. Il demande au calife de bien vouloir, comme il est ordinaire, émettre un rescrit au dos de la pétition (yasal … bi-ltawqī῾ ῾alā ẓahr ruq῾atihi) et de lui en adresser une copie à lui-même ainsi qu’au juge local. Ce n’est qu’une fois ses droits saufs, dit le pétitionnaire, qu’il pourra vivre en cette époque heureuse (li-yaḥyā fī hāḏihi l-᾿ayyām l-zāhira). L’édition est excellente et les commentaires riches  ; immédiatement après le titre qāḍī, où l’éditeur a lu le participe al-muwaffaq, je lirais cependant un ethnique, probablement la nisba al-Tanūḫī. F. Niessen étudie lui aussi du matériel de la Geniza en consacrant son article (p. 187-202) à deux fragments de la version samaritaine de la Bible. Il s’agit plus précisément de fragments d’une traduction arabe de la Genèse et d’une version bilingue arabe-araméenne du même livre. Ces deux folios sont précieux en ce qu’ils constituent pour ainsi dire les seules traces d’une présence samaritaine dans le Caire médiéval, où Mešullam b. Menahem de Volterra dénombrait en 1481 à peine une cinquantaine de familles de cette obédience. Quant à Lucian Reinfandt, il offre, p. 203-216, l’édition de deux très belles lettres, qui sont écrites respectivement au recto et au verso d’un même coupon de papyrus  ; l’éditeur y a vu une lettre et sa réponse. Pourtant, là où l’éditeur a lu la première adresse min ῾Uṯmān b. Sa῾d ᾿ilā . . . . . ᾿akramaka llāh («  An … Gott ehre Dich!, von ῾Uṯmān b. Sa῾d  »), il faut lire li-᾿Abī ῾Uṯmān ᾿akramaka llāhu (vacat) min Sa῾d b. Muẓaffar («  À ῾Uṯmān – que Dieu t’honore  ! – de la part de Sa῾d b. Muẓaffar  ») et la seconde adresse, qui avait été déchiffrée ᾿ilā ῾Uṯmān ᾿akramaka llāh min Sa῾d b. Muẓaffar, doit être corrigée de la même manière li-᾿Abī ῾Uṯmān

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 489

29/11/16 06:03

490

Comptes rendus

᾿akramaka llāh [min] Sa῾d b. Muẓaffar. Les adresses sont donc identiques et, plutôt que d’une lettre et de sa réponse, nous nous trouvons plus vraisemblablement en présence de deux brouillons de lettres envoyées par Sa῾d b. Muẓaffar à un certain Abū ῾Uṯmān. Sa῾d s’est apparemment rendu en visite d’inspection dans le village de Qalahā, un bourg de l’Hérakléopolite (région d’Ihnās). Ce document, qui est analysé par l’éditeur essentiellement d’un point de vue philologique, aurait peut-être mérité une analyse historique ou socio-économique plus poussée. Le papyrus laisse en effet entrevoir l’existence, dans l’Égypte médiévale, de grands domaines viticoles qui étaient, à l’instar de ce qui se faisait aux époques romaines et byzantines, gérés à distance depuis les grandes métropoles d’Égypte6. Les propriétaires du domaine sont ici manifestement des musulmans, et ce malgré les interdits que l’Islam formule en matière d’alcool. Les deux lettres ont par ailleurs ceci d’intéressant qu’elles rapportent le mécontentement des ouvriers agricoles qui travaillent dans le domaine, car ῾Uṯmān ne les a pas payés depuis un an. Le document contient malheureusement de trop brèves allusions à la culture proprement dite des vignes  : seuls l’emploi d’engrais (sibāḫ) et des problèmes d’irrigation dans certaines parcelles sont mentionnés. P. 217-249, Irene Schneider s’attache à une étude de genre dans les pétitions adressées à Nāṣir al-Dīn Šāḥ (1848-1896). Elle montre que les femmes écrivaient sensiblement moins de pétitions que les hommes et, que parmi ces femmes, nombreuses étaient des veuves libérées du pouvoir masculin. Elle suggère aussi, chiffres à l’appui, l’existence de différences profondes entre les pétitions envoyées par des hommes et celles envoyées par des femmes. Une dernière contribution de Rudolf Veselý vient clore cette section de papyrologie (p. 251-261). L’auteur, qui a consacré plusieurs articles fondamentaux aux procédures d’authentification des documents juridiques, en étudie une nouvelle  : l’᾿imdā qui permettait à des juges d’authentifier et de confirmer les décisions prises par des juges antérieurement. Pour ce faire, R. Veselý prend en considération un corpus de waqf-s de l’époque mamelouke qu’il a pu compulser au ministère des waqf-s au Caire et dont il édite des extraits choisis. Ses déchiffrements ne peuvent, malheureusement, être confrontés avec des reproductions. Ces contributions variées à l’étude des documents arabes rendent un juste hommage aux travaux considérables qu’a menés W. Diem pendant près de trente-cinq ans dans le domaine de la papyrologie arabe. Naïm Vanthieghem (Bruxelles) Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Death of a Prophet. The End of Muhammad’s Life and the Beginnings of Islam (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion), Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012 (PBK: 2015), 408 pages, 160 × 235 mm. ISBN 978-0-8122-4356-7 [HBK], 978-0-8122-2342-2 [PBK], 978-0-8122-0513-8 [EBOOK]. L’auteur reprend la question des traditions relatives au moment de la mort du Prophète, notamment par rapport à la conquête de la Palestine. Stephen Shoemaker indique d’emblée qu’il se situe dans les problématiques ouvertes par l’ouvrage 6   Cf. entre autres D. Rathbone, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in ThirdCentury A.D. Egypt. The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge, 1991 et T.M. Hickey, Wine, Wealth, and the State in Late Antique Egypt. The House of Apion at Oxyrhynchus, Ann Arbor, MI, 2012.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 490

29/11/16 06:03



Comptes rendus

491

Hagarism de Patricia Crone et Michael Cook (Cambridge, 1977) et celui de Robert Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw it (Princeton, 1997). En l’espèce, les traditions non musulmanes n’auraient-elles pas conservé des éléments retravaillés ultérieurement par l’historiographie musulmane  ? Dans le cas d’une réponse positive, le leadership de Muḥammad durant l’invasion de la Palestine a-t-il pu influencer les croyances des premiers musulmans et cela aurait-il joué un rôle dans l’établissement de sa date de mort  ? Le premier chapitre («  A Prophet Has Appeared, Coming with the Saracens  : Muhammad’s Leadership during the Conquest of Palestine According to Seventh- and Eighth-Century Sources  ») passe en revue de manière chronologique onze sources non musulmanes des viie et viiie siècles, qui attestent du fait que le Prophète est encore en vie lors de la conquête de la Palestine. Pour l’auteur, puisque ces sources émanent de confessions, de cultures et de lieux différents – même s’il ne nie pas l’influence parfois de l’une sur l’autre –, et comme elles sont antérieures à la mise par écrit de la tradition musulmane, elles enregistreraient une autre tradition musulmane, perdue ou écartée par ailleurs. Les sources étudiées sont la Doctrina Iacobi nuper Baptizati (datée de juillet 634), l’Apocalypse de Rabbi Shim‘ōn b. Yohai dont le premier noyau narratif est daté aux environs des années 635-645, la chronique syriaque anonyme ou Chronique du Khuziztan (ca 660), la chronique partielle de Jacob d’Édesse qui place la mort du Prophète en 627/628 et le début de la conquête de la Palestine en 626/627, soit toujours du vivant de Muḥammad. S. Shoemaker continue en traitant de la Vie du patriarche Benjamin (écrite avant 717) dans l’Histoire des Patriarches d’Alexandrie, qui fait de Muḥammad le conquérant de Damas et de la Syrie. L’auteur passe alors aux chroniques latines d’Espagne, à savoir la chronique arabo-byzantine de 741 et celle de 754 mais dont les fonds sont orientaux et pourraient remonter à une chronique syriaque aujourd’hui perdue, mais passée chez Théophile d’Édesse, Agapius de Manbij et Michel le Syrien. Pour avoir accès au texte attribuable à Théophile d’Édesse, l’auteur s’appuie sur celui de la Chronique syriaque de 1234. Toujours parmi les textes historiques syriaques, il passe à la Chronique syriaque de 775, mais dont l’expression ramassée ne permet pas de tirer un argument fort. Il continue avec la Chronique de Zuqnin qui fait de Muḥammad le roi des Arabes qui ont conquis la Palestine. Il passe alors la chronique samaritaine d’Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī qui, quoique achevée après 1355, contient un fonds plus ancien (viie siècle) important pour la conquête de la Palestine et qui présente le Prophète comme en vie à ce moment-là. Enfin, il termine avec la Lettre de ‘Umar à l’empereur byzantin Léon III connue par la chronique arménienne de Łewond et par une rédaction arabe, mais ici l’auteur ancien qui fait parler ‘Umar n’est pas vraiment explicite sur le statut de Muḥammad à ce moment. Tous ces textes, d’une manière plus ou moins explicite indiquent que Muḥammad était encore en vie lors de la conquête de la Palestine et pour certains, il conduisait cette conquête. Cette tradition commence dès 634, et comme ces textes appartiennent à des genres différents, mais non polémiques et à des confessions distinctes, il est improbable qu’ils se soient contaminés l’un l’autre. Dans le deuxième chapitre («  The End of Muhammad’s Life in Early Islamic Memory: The Witness of the Sīra tradition  »), Stephen Shoemaker examine de manière hypercritique les sources arabes qui décrivent la mort de Muḥammad en soulignant la difficulté qu’il y a d’utiliser le matériel traditionnel islamique car la Sīra d’Ibn Isḥāq (m. 767) compile des traditions dont l’historicité est invérifiable alors que sa chronologie reste floue. Ce texte nous transmet surtout ce que

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 491

29/11/16 06:03

492

Comptes rendus

la communauté croyait au milieu du viiie siècle à propos de la vie du Prophète. Quant à l’épisode de sa mort et de son enterrement, elle est placée juste après l’évocation de l’expédition d’Usāma ibn Zayd vers le sud de la Syrie. L’essentiel de ces traditions remontent à al-Zuhrī (m. 742), mais le moment et l’endroit du décès ne sont pas indiqués avec évidence, l’événement a lieu en milieu urbain, mais rien n’indique que ce soit à Médine. Comme la chronologie de la Sīra paraît artificielle ou à tout le moins reconstruite, il est tout aussi délicat de situer l’expédition militaire vers Mu’ta – qu’il est de toute manière impossible de faire correspondre avec une présence byzantine avérée à l’endroit – et celle de Tabūk. Toutefois, on peut en déduire une stratégie de conquête du nord de l’Arabie ou de la Palestine par le Prophète. Au chapitre suivant («  Beginnings of Islam and the End of Days: Muhammad as Eschatological Prophet  »), l’auteur aborde la vision eschatologique développée dans l’islam des origines, d’abord en montrant que le texte coranique est ici essentiel pour percevoir cette orientation dans la prédication du prophète. Élément qui a été mis en exergue par certains historiens occidentaux, comme Snouck Hurgronje, Paul Casanova et Tor Andrea. Cependant, dans le passage en revue de cette historiographie, l’auteur constate que ce sont surtout les études qui font de Muḥammad «  a prophet of ethical monotheism, interested to reforming the world rather than heralding its impending dissolution  » qui sont prédominantes depuis un siècle, citant Richard Bell, Montgomery Watt, Maxime Rodinson, Tilman Nagel et finalement Tariq Ramadan. S. Shoemaker revient alors sur la problématique du Coran comme texte et il étend la standardisation du texte jusque sous ‘Abd al-Malik avec pour conséquence que ce texte reflète les aspirations de la communauté de cette époque. Il passe ainsi en revue les approches occidentales du Coran, en comparant cette critique avec la critique textuelle biblique, pour appuyer sur la nécessité de l’étude du contexte de la diffusion d’une tradition orale et sur la formation du corpus écrit. Pour le chercheur, il faut se détacher d’une explication du texte coranique qui s’attacherait à la carrière du Prophète pour la rechercher dans l’évolution de la communauté au premier siècle. Il s’appuie ici sur AlfredLouis de Prémare. L’auteur suppose alors le déplacement du contenu eschatologique du Coran par la communauté primitive vers Médine. Muḥammad aurait été convaincu de cette imminence, d’où son silence à propos de sa succession et cela se retrouve aussi dans le ḥadīṯ, ce qui aurait été déterminant pour la communauté primitive. Muḥammad pensait que le Jugement adviendrait de son vivant, quoiqu’un verset (III, 141) contredise cela, mais ce dernier serait à considérer comme une addition ultérieure. Le dernier chapitre («  From Believers to Muslims, from Jerusalem to the Ḥijāz  : Confessional Identity and Sacred Geography in Early Islam  ») aborde l’identité confessionnelle et la géographie sacrée de l’islam primitif. L’absence de Jugement dernier aurait bousculé les certitudes de la première communauté et l’aurait obligée à un changement de paradigme. Le Jugement étant attendu du vivant du Prophète mais comme celui-ci était mort, que rien ne s’était produit mais que les conquêtes élargissaient les frontières d’une religion centrée sur Jérusalem, il fallut l’enraciner dans l’ethnicité arabe et élever le Ḥiǧāz comme territoire sacré, avec comme conséquence le déplacement de la mort du prophète vers Médine. Des témoignages chrétiens (Chronique arménienne attribuée à Sébéos) et juifs (Les secrets de Rabbi Shim‘ōn b. Yoḥai) interprètent l’émergence de l’islam comme un mouvement messianique  ; cela et d’autres éléments autorisent à voir dans l’islam

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 492

29/11/16 06:03



Comptes rendus

493

du viiie siècle un monothéisme eschatologique englobant, dans lequel juifs et chrétiens étaient incorporés, jusqu’au moment où sous ‘Abd al-Malik l’islam fut reformulé. Cet islam n’aurait pas eu un aspect confessionnel, sectaire fort, mais aurait été plutôt une confédération monothéiste. Un élément à l’appui de cela est les témoignages de la participation des musulmans aux rites chrétiens juste après la prise de Jérusalem. Cela expliquerait aussi la facilité de la conquête du ProcheOrient. La libération de la Terre promise de la présence des Byzantins était ainsi au cœur du projet de Muḥammad, cet événement étant en rapport avec l’imminence du jugement. L’auteur de pointer l’importance de Jérusalem comme qibla et la construction du Dôme par ‘Abd al-Malik avec pour conséquence une émergence tardive des villes arabes de la Mecque et de Médine comme villes saintes, finalement «  consacrées  » au début de l’époque abbasside. Ainsi, les traditions situant la mort de Muḥammad dans la chambre de ‘Ā’iša remontent au milieu du viiie siècle. La thèse de S.J. Shoemaker est audacieuse, en somme il voit dans l’islam primitif un mouvement interconfessionnel, avec une forte composante juive, guidé par une croyance dans un avenir eschatologique très proche, centré sur Jérusalem. La non réalisation de cette espérance et l’évolution politique aboutissant aux Abbassides obligèrent les élites musulmanes à redéfinir l’islam. C’est une brillante reconstruction et on doit souligner la très bonne connaissance de l’historiographie sur l’émergence de l’islam depuis les études de Goldziher jusqu’à l’heure actuelle. L’étude est à classer à côté de celles de Wansbrough, de Crone, de Cook dans la mesure où elle bouscule les hypothèses de l’historiographie traditionnelle en proposant une hypothèse très originale et séduisante. Cependant, si le travail de déconstruction est par endroit remarquable et soulève des questions épineuses (par exemple les premières qibla et les plus anciennes mosquées, ou les rites musulmans à l’époque omeyyade au Dôme du Rocher), l’ensemble de la reconstruction se ressent du modèle hypothétique. Puisque la question historique ne peut recevoir de réponse avec les sources disponibles, proposons une hypothèse, et prenons ensuite celle-ci pour bâtir un autre modèle  ; et ainsi de suite, mais la somme reste celle d’hypothèses. En outre, S.J. Shoemaker n’explique pas pourquoi, pour quelle raison historique précise, sous ‘Abd al-Malik ou au début des ‘Abbassides, l’islam aurait dû être «  arabisé  ». L’ouvrage, cependant, par la maîtrise de l’historiographie et la clarté de l’exposé ne peut qu’alimenter les rélexions sur l’islam primitif. Jean-Charles Ducène (Paris)

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_09_ComptesRendus.indd 493

29/11/16 06:03

OUVRAGES ENVOYÉS À LA RÉDACTION Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie Orientale, direttore A. Rigopoulos, Venezia, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, 50/or. 42 – Supplemento (2014), p. 259-330, 160 × 230 mm. ISSN 1125-3789. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie Orientale, direttore A. Rigopoulos, Venezia, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, 51/or. 43 (2015), 235 p., 160 × 230 mm. ISSN 1125-3789. Massimiliano Borroni, Simone Cristoforetti, An Index of Nayrūz Occurrences in Abbasid Literary Sources, Firenze, Phasar Edizioni, 2016, 204 p., 170 × 240 mm. ISBN 978-88-6358-355-7 [PBK 16 €]. Sulamith Brodbeck, Jean-Marie Martin, Annick Peters-Custot et Vivien Prigent (études réunies par), L’héritage byzantin en Italie (viii e-xii e siècle). III, Décor monumental, objets, tradition textuelle (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 510), Rome, École française de Rome, 2015, 286 p., 56 ill., 160 × 240 mm. ISBN 978-2-7283-1107-1 [PBK 33 €]. Aaron Michael Butts, Language Change in the Wake of Empire. Syriac in its Greco-Roman Context (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, 11), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2016, xvii-292 p., 155 × 235 mm. ISBN 978-1-57506-421-5 [HBK $57.50]; 978-1-57506-422-2 [PBK]. Klaus Stefan Freyberger, Christine Ertel †, Kathrin Tacke, Hassan Hatoum, unter Mittarbeit von Arwa H. Darwish, Kanatha von hellenisticher bis spät­ antiker Zeit. Band I: Die heiligtümer. Orte der Herrschaft und urbane Kommunikationszentren (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung. Damaszener Forschungen, 16), Darmstadt, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2015, xiv-378 p., 136 Abbild., 91 Tafeln mit 30 Beilagen und 15 Pläne, 230 × 310 mm. ISBN 978-3-8053-4832-4 [HBK 79,90 €]. Antoine Lévy, Pauli Annala, Oli Hallamaa and Tuomo Lankila (edited by), with the collaboration of Diana Kaley, The Architecture of the Cosmos. St Maximus the Confessor. New perspectives (Schriften der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft, 69), Helsinki, Luther-Agricola-Society, 2015, 355 p., 150 × 210 mm. ISBN 978-951-9047-78-2 [PBK 36 €]. Luigi Magarotto, La conquista del Caucaso nella letteratura russa dell’Ottocento. Puškin, Lermontov, Tolstoj (Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici, 29), Firenze, Firenze University Press, 2015, 338 p., 170 × 235 mm. ISBN 978-88-6655891-0 [PBK 20 €]. Joseph Nasrallah †, Rachid Haddad, Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l‘Église melchite du Ve au XIXe siècle. Contribution à l’étude de la littérature arabe chrétienne, Vol. I. Période byzantine 451-634 (Études arabes, médiévales et modernes [PIFD], 285  ; Corpus de Recherches arabes chrétiennes [CRAC], 5), Damas – Beyrouth, Ifpo, Centre de Recherches et de Publications de l’Orient Chrétien, Éditions de l’USJ, 2016, 254 p., 170 × 240 mm. ISBN 978-2-35159-705-7 [Ifpo, PBK 30 €], 978-614-8019-16-6 [CERPOC, PBK $35]. Norbert Nebes (herausgegeben im Auftrag des Instituts von), mit einem archäologischen Beitrag von Iris Gerlach und Mike Schnelle, Der Tatenbericht des Yiṯa῾ ᾿amar Watar bin Yakrubmalik aus Ṣirwāḥ (Jemen). Zur Geschichte

Le Muséon 129 (3-4), 495-496. doi: 10.2143/MUS.129.3.3180789 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2016.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_10_Ouvrages.indd 495

29/11/16 06:03

496

OUVRAGES ENVOYÉS À LA RÉDACTION

Südarabiens im frühen 1. Jahrtausend vor Christus (Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, Bd. 7), Tübingen – Berlin, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut / Orient-Abteilung, 2016, 148 p. + 1 CD, 5 cartes, 27 pl. coul., 200 × 290 mm, ISBN 978-38030-2203-5 [HBK 25 €]. Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano, diretta da Gaetano Passarelli, Roma, Accademia Angelico Costantiniana di Lettere Arti e Scienze. Associazione AngeloComneno onlus, 20/1 (2016), 245 p., 170 × 240 mm. ISSN 1127-2171 [30 € (Italia)/$40 (estero)].

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_10_Ouvrages.indd 496

29/11/16 06:03