Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators 9781463234553

Citation preview

Syriac into Armenian

Analecta Gorgiana

1091 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Syriac into Armenian

The Translations and their Translators

Edward G. Mathews

9

34 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2012 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 2010 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

2012

9

‫ܒ‬

ISBN 978-1-4632-0139-5

ISSN 1935-6854 Reprinted from the 2010 Piscataway edition.

Printed in the United States of America

____________________________________________________________________________

SYRIAC INTO ARMENIAN: THE TRANSLATIONS AND THEIR TRANSLATORS

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

W

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

here—of this later period of translation activity.

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

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

Mashtot‘/Sahak Mashtotsǥ (?)

Abraham Xostovanogh

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

1101 1158

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1 As already noted in J.J.S. Weitenberg, “Eusebius of Emesa and Armenian Translations,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5, ed. J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 163. 2 M. Awkerean, Ɏʙʔɼɹʂ ɣɸʋʚʂʃɼɸʌ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

əɸʌʆɸʆɸʍ ʍʏʗ əɸʍʗɸɺʂʖɸʗɸʍ

ɝɸʖɼʍɸɺʂʖʙʀʂʙʍ ɼʙ əɸʌ ɘɼɸʍʛʂ/Nouvelle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʆɸʍ

əɸʋɼʋɸʖʏʙʀʂʙʍʍɼʗ

ɋ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ɝɼʆʍʏʙʀʂʙʍ

ɞʏʕʇɸʍʍʏʙ

Ɋʙɼʖɸʗɸʍʂʍ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ɪʏʙʘɸʆ

əɸʌɼʗɾʍ

ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʘ

ɝɸʎʖʏʘʂ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators ____________________________________________________________________________________ 120 S. TƝr-Avetisean, ɪʏʙʘɸʆ əɸʌɼʗɾʍ ɚɼʓɸɺʗɸʘ ɟʏʗ ɤʏʙʉɸʌʂ Ɋʋɼʍɸʚʗʆʂʐ ɧɸʍʛʂ [Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts

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

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

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

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

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

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