The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Armenian (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha, 18) 9789042946217, 9789042946224, 9042946210

Citation preview

Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha (18)

The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Armenian VALENTINA CALZOLARI

PEETERS

The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Armenian

Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha Edited by J.N. Bremmer (editor-in-chief), J.E. Spittler and T. Nicklas Advisory Board: I. Czachesz, P. Duncan, M. Pesthy, L. Roig Lanzillotta and L. Vuong Recent years have seen an increasing interest in so-called apocryphal literature by scholars in early Christianity, ancient history, the ancient novel and late antique/Byzantine literature. New editions and translations of the most important texts have already appeared or are being prepared. The editors of Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha welcome contributions, be they proceedings of conferences or monographs, on the early texts themselves, but also their reception in the literary and visual arts, hagiography included.  1. The Apocryphal Acts of John, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Kampen 1996  2. The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Kampen 1996  3. The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 1998  4. The Acts of John: a Two-stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism, P.J. Lalleman, Leuven 1998  5. The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2000  6. The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2001  7. The Apocalypse of Peter, J.N. Bremmer and I. Czachesz (eds.), Leuven 2003  8. Commission Narratives: A Comparative Study of the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts, I. Czachesz, Leuven 2007  9. The Visio Pauli and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Paul, J.N. Bremmer and I. Czachesz (eds.), Leuven 2007 10. The Pseudo-Clementines, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2010 11. The Ascension of Isaiah, J.N. Bremmer, T.R. Karmann and T. Nicklas (eds.), Leuven 2016 12. Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West, J.W. Barrier, J.N. Bremmer, T. Nicklas and A. Puig i Tàrrech (eds.), Leuven 2017 13. Figures of Ezra, J.N. Bremmer, V. Hirschberger and T. Nicklas (eds.), Leuven 2018 14. Ringen um Israel. Intertextuelle Perspektiven auf das 5. Buch Esra, V. Hirschberger, Leuven 2018 15. The Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha, S.J. Shoemaker, Leuven 2018 16. The Protevangelium of James, J.N. Bremmer, J.A. Doole, T.R. Karmann, T. Nicklas and B. Repschinski (eds.), Leuven 2020 17. The Apostles Peter, Paul, John, Thomas and Philip with their Companions in Late Antiquity, T. Nicklas, J.E. Spittler, J.N. Bremmer (eds.), Leuven 2021

The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Armenian VALENTINA CALZOLARI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2022

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2022, Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-4621-7 eISBN 978-90-429-4622-4 D/2022/0602/46 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Contents

Prefacevii List of abbreviations Transcription of the Armenian  I.

An Overview of the Christian Apocryphal Literature in Armenian

xiii xv 1

PART ONE:  THADDAEUS AND BARTHOLOMEW, THE APOSTLES OF ARMENIA II. The Apostle Thaddaeus in the Armenian Tradition

29

III. The Apostle Bartholomew in the Armenian Tradition48 IV. A ‘Diverging’ Version of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew in Armenian

68

PART TWO:  ST. THECLA IN THE ARMENIAN TRADITION: HOLY MARTYR, APOSTLE, AND ­PATRONESS OF NICEAN ORTHODOXY V. The Legend of St. Thecla in the Armenian Tradition: From Asia Minor to Tarragona through Armenia83 VI. Martyrdom and Collective Rescue: The Acts of Thecla and the History of Armenia by Agat‘angełos

104

vi

contents

VII. St. Thecla as a Patroness of Nicean Orthodoxy in the History of Armenia by Faustus of Byzantium (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘)125 VIII. Holy Women Preachers and Apostles: The Acts of Thecla and the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and Sanduxt in Armenian

148

PART THREE: THE ARMENIAN TRANSLATION OF THE MARTYRDOM OF ANDREW AND OF THE MARTYRDOM OF PHILIP IX. The Armenian Translation of the Martyrdom of Andrew: Christology, Encratism, and the ‘Inner Man’181 X. The Encratism of the Martyrdom of Philip: The Evidence of the Armenian Translation

217

XI. Bibliography

240

Index of names, subjects and passages

251

Preface

From the beginning of their literature, in the 5th century, the Armenians paid great attention to the Christian Apocrypha. Until the Middle Ages, they translated (from Greek and Syriac) or wrote directly in Armenian many apocryphal writings, manifesting, among other aspects, much interest in the apostolic traditions. In this respect, we may observe that almost all of the most ancient Apocryphal Acts were known and translated, at least partially (often it was only the final section of these Acts that were translated). This is the case, for example, with the Acts of John, the Acts of Thomas, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Paul (2nd-3rd centuries), but also with the more recent Acts of Andrew and Matthias, the Acts of Philip, and so on. The main aim of this volume is to stress the importance of this literature, providing ten essays on a broad range of topics. The volume begins with a general overview of the Apocryphal Christian tradition in Armenian and of the state of the question in the field (ch. I). After this general introduction, it contains three main parts. The first section (ch. II-IV) provides three essays dealing with the apocryphal literature on the apostles of Armenia, first of all on Thaddaeus, whose cycle merges with the traditions related to Addai, King Abgar, and the old Christianity of Edessa (ch. II). One more essay focuses on the Armenian tradition of the preaching and the martyrdom of Bartholomew in Armenia, and of the discovery of his relics by the bishop Marūtha of Maypherkat, who was also an important figure in ancient Syriac Christianity (ch. III). Thaddaeus and Bartholomew, especially the latter, are considered to be the founders of the Armenian Church, having achieved their apostolic mission by their martyrdom in Armenia. The main texts relating their apostolate and martyrdom were written directly in Armenian and broadly disseminated in the Armenian manuscripts, which is evidence of their importance in the history of Armenian Christianity. A second tradition on Bartholomew has been transmitted by a different Armenian text (not written directly in Armenian, but translated from Greek), according to which the apostle was not martyred in Armenia, but in a different land (Ałuank‘, i.e. the Caucasian Albania). At the end of

viii

preface

this work, an excerpt preserved only in Armenian (probably a late addition to it) states that the corpse of the apostle was later transferred to and safely kept in Armenia. It is interesting to note that this Martyrdom, which on some points diverges from the traditional Armenian version of the apostolate of Bartholomew, has been preserved only in one Armenian manuscript: this is an intriguing fact which merits consideration (ch. IV). The second part of the volume includes four essays on St. Thecla, the disciple of Paul in the Acts of Paul, and on the different paradigms of holiness that she embodies, not only in the apocryphal Acts, but also in the literature written directly in Armenian, and especially in the historiographical literature of the 5th century. The first essay of this second part offers a general overview of the Armenian tradition on Thecla from the 5th to the 14th century. Some particular aspects are more thoroughly analysed in the three further chapters. The first of these deals with the influence of Thecla, as a model of the virgin martyr, in the History of Armenia by Agat‘angełos. In this account, the martyrdom of several consecrated virgins, Hṙip‘simē, Gayianē, and others, who are struggling to defend their vows of chastity, is considered the basis of the Armenian king’s conversion at the beginning of the 4th century, and as a necessary sacrifice to bring the Armenians close to God. The next chapter analyses Thecla’s presence in the History of Armenia by Faustus (or Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘), where the holy woman is portrayed as the patroness of Nicean orthodoxy, probably influenced by the Miracles of Thecla by Pseudo-Basil of Seleucia (5th century). The third essay on Thecla compares and contrasts the Acts of Paul and Thecla with the Armenian Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and the Virgin Sanduxt, and addresses the question of a possible intertextual relation between the two writings. In the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus, the representation of Sanduxt as a preacher before her martyrdom was probably inspired by the model of Thecla as a woman apostle. This chapter also approaches the question of the Armenian apocryphal texts as historical sources on the role of women in the history of ancient Christianity, considering it within the framework of recent critical theory on gender history. Finally, in the third part of the book, the last two chapters (IX-X) are devoted to the Armenian translations of two Greek apocryphal texts, namely the Martyrdom of Andrew and the Martyrdom of Philip, i.e. the last sections, respectively, of the Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Philip. Both these Armenian translations contain some segments of



prefaceix

an Encratite flavour absent from the Greek, as well as some other excerpts also preserved only in Armenian. In both cases, the Armenian translation represents an essential witness for the critical restoration of the original Greek text. Moreover, the comparison between the two texts (Greek and Armenian), and above all the analysis of the divergences between them, may help us identify the doctrinal orientations that guided the translators in their task, and to recover, at last, the Armenian religious milieu in which the translators worked. These two essays, like the previous ones, stress the importance of the apocryphal writings as evidence for a better understanding of ancient Christianity in Armenia in its different facets and in its relations with the neighbouring Christian communities. The origin of this volume is the kind invitation I received from the editors of the collection ‘Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles’, Professors Jan N. Bremmer and Tobias Nicklas, to gather here, in English, some essays I had already published previously (between 2000 and 2014), mostly in French. They have been translated into English, when appropriate, but above all they have been updated, expanded or shortened, and in some cases merged. Special attention was paid to the harmonisation of their content – their footnotes and the references included – in order to lend the volume the character of a monograph. These are the essays that I have developed, reprinted, or merged (see the indications between brackets): I.

II.

III.

‘The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian: Should we turn a new leaf?’, in V. Calzolari (ed.), with the collaboration of M.E. Stone, Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text (Handbook of Oriental Studies/ Handbuch der Orientalistik, section 8, vol. 23. History of Armenian Studies 1) (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014) 264-91 (shortened and updated). Introduction to Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy. Aux origines du christianisme arménien (Apocryphes, 13) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), esp. 27-49 and 103-21 (merged and translated into English). ‘Notes sur le Martyre de Barthélemy aménien inédit conservé dans le ms. 7753 du Matenadaran’, in L. DiTommaso, M. Henze and W. Adler (eds), The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of

x

preface

Michael E. Stone (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, 26) (Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2018) ch. 17, 301-20 (shortened, updated, and translated into English). IV. ‘The legend of St. Thecla in the Armenian tradition: From Asia Minor to Tarragona through Armenia’, in J.W. Barrier, J.N. Bremmer, T. Nicklas, and A. Puig i Tàrrech (eds), Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West (Studies in Early Christian Apocrypha, 12) (Leuven: Peeters, 2017) 285-305 (updated). V. ‘Le sang des femmes et le plan de Dieu. Réflexions à partir de l’historiographie arménienne ancienne (Ve siècle ap. J.-C.)’, in A.A. Nagy and F. Prescendi (eds), Victimes au féminin (Actes du colloque de l’Université de Genève, 8-9 mars 2010) (Equinoxe) (Geneva: Georg, 2011) 178-94 (developed and translated into English). VI. ‘De sainte Thècle à Anahit: une hypothèse d’interprétation du récit de la mort de l’empereur Valens dans les Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘’, in N. Awde (ed.), Armenian Perspectives. (10th Anniversary Conference of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes. SOAS, London) (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1997) 39-49 and 371-7 reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Group (updated and translated into English with some modifications). VII. ‘Les Actes de Paul et Thècle et le Martyre de Thaddée et Sanduxt arméniens: phénomènes d’intertextualité et rôle des femmes’, Le Muséon 128 (2015) 381-414 (updated and translated into English). VIII. ‘La version arménienne du Martyre d’André’, in J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew (Studies in Early Christian Apocrypha, 5) (Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 149-85 (updated and partially reprinted into English, merged with one section taken from the article mentioned below, ch. IX). IX. ‘La versione armena del Martirio di Andrea e il suo rapporto con la tradizione manoscritta dell’originale greco’, Le Muséon 111 (1998) 139-56, esp. 149-54 (translated into English). X. ‘La version arménienne du Martyre de Philippe grec. Passages encratites et manuscrits inédits’, Apocrypha 24 (2013) 111-37 (updated and translated into English). I am grateful to Brepols, Brill, Georg, Peeters and Taylor & Francis Publishers for giving explicit permission to reuse my writings from their volumes.



prefacexi

The ultimate aim of the present volume is to promote new interest in the Armenian Christian apocryphal literature and its rich and multiple implications. It is my hope that the essays gathered here will draw scholarly attention to this field and pave the way for new directions and new fields of research. This book is intended not only for an Armenological readership, but also for scholars and students of broader areas in the history of ancient and medieval Christianity. This volume would not have been possible without the financial support of the Fondation des Frères Ghoukassiantz (Geneva), the University of Regensburg (DFG project ‘Beyond Canon’, directed by professor Tobias Nicklas and coordinated by Dr Stephanie Hallinger), and the University of Geneva – and especially the Département des langues et littératures méditérranéennes, slaves et orientales. It is my pleasure to express here my deepest gratitude to all these institutions. Very special thanks are due to the translators of the articles for their excellent work: Dr Benedict Beckeld (ch. II-IV, VI-IX), Dr Emilio Bonfiglio (ch. I), and Ms Margaret Escandari-Church (ch. V). I am no less grateful to Peeters Publishers and in particular to Elisabeth Hernitscheck for her perfect assistance in each step of the realisation of this book. Last but not least, my very heartfelt gratitude goes to professors Jan N. Bremmer and Tobias Nicklas not only for inviting me to gather here these essays, but also for their learned and collegial support. Valentina Calzolari (University of Geneva)

List of Abbreviations

AA AB AAA

Acta Andreae Analecta Bollandiana R.A. Lipsius and M. Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocryphorum, vol. I, II, 1 and II, 2 (Leipzig, 1891-1903, reprint Darmstadt, 1959) ACA Reg Archivo General de la Corona de Aragon, Registra Curiae AELAC Association pour l’Étude de la Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt AS Acta Sanctorum AST Analecta Sacra Tarraconensia AThec Acts of Thecla BHG Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca BHL Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina BHO Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis BM Banber Matenadarani BP Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ CANT M. Geerard, Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti (Turnhout, 1992) CCSA Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum CrSt Cristianesimo nella Storia DTC Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique EAC, vol. 1 F. Bovon and P. Geoltrain (eds), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (Paris, 1997) EAC, vol. 2 P. Geoltrain and J.-D. Kaestli (eds), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (Paris, 2005) EHR English Historical Review EThL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses ETR Études Théologiques et Religieuses FuF Forschungen und Fortschritte HA Handes Amsorya HThR Harvard Theological Review

xiv JA JECS JSNT JThS MartA MartThad NHC NTS OC PO REA REArm REB RHE RHPR RHR RHT ROC ROL RSLR RSR RThPh ThZ TQ VigChris WUNT ZNW

list of abbreviations

Journal Asiatique Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theological Studies Martyrdom of Andrew Martyrdom of Thaddaeus Nag Hammadi Corpus New Testament Studies Oriens Christianus Patrologia Orientalis Revue des Études Anciennes Revue des Études Arméniennes Revue des Études Byzantines Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Revue de l’Histoire des Religions Revue d’Histoire des Textes Revue de l’Orient Chrétien Revue de l’Orient Latin Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa Recherches de Science Religieuse Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie Theologische Zeitschrift Theologische Quartalschrift Vigiliae Christianae Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Transcription of the Armenian

For the transcription of the Armenian alphabet (quotations, anthroponymes, toponyms, bibliographical references), we followed the romanization system of the Revue des Études Arméniennes, established by É. Benveniste, H. Hübschmann and A. Meillet. In the transcription of the proper names, we have standardised and systematically indicated the vowel ō for both the medieval sign օ [ō] and the classical diphthong աւ [aw], except in the bibliographical references and in the quotations, where the original spelling has been respected. In order to guide the reader to the correct pronunciation of Armenian names, it seemed appropriate to add the following clarifications: c c‘

is pronounced [ts] is pronounced [ts]; see for instance the word endings -ec‘i [-etsi], -ac‘i [-atsi] č, č‘ are pronounced [tch], as in the Italian word ciao ĕ is pronounced [e], as in the French words je, me -ean is pronounced [-ian] h is always aspirated ł is velar and it is pronounced [gh] like the French r j is pronounced [dz] ǰ is pronounced [dj], as in the English word job o is pronounced [vo] at the beginning of a word, [o] in any other positions ṙ is pronounced like the Spanish r s is pronounced [s] and it is always mute š is pronounced [sh], as in the English word shine w is pronounced [v], before a vowel or at the end of a word; [u] after the vowel i x is pronounced [kh], as in the German word nach y is aspirated at the beginning of a word; it is pronouned [y] in the other positions ž is pronounced [j], as in the French word jeu

I. An Overview of the Christian Apocryphal Literature in Armenian*

1.  Christian apocryphal literature: between traditional interpretations and new directions of research Christian apocryphal literature in Armenian language constitutes a field of study that remains largely unexplored. After the first studies, carried out predominantly by the Mekhitarist Fathers between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century,1 recent decades have witnessed a new impulse regarding this vast domain of research. A great deal of work, however, remains to be done. Before presenting the status quaestionis, it is necessary to set the limits of this survey. First of all it is important to make some preliminary observations in order to define the notion itself of what ‘Christian apocrypha’ are. 1.1.  Closing of the canon and Christian apocryphal literature The notion of apocrypha is closely related to the constitution of the canon of the New Testament books, which was the result of a long process of selection that each Eastern and Western Christian c­ ommunity   The first version of this article – published in V. Calzolari (ed.), with the collaboration of M.E. Stone, Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text (Leiden and Boston, 2014) 264-91 –, here updated and revised by the author, was translated from the French by Dr Emilio Bonfiglio. 1   Armenian Congregation of Benedictine monks founded in Sivas in 1701, since 1717 established in the San Lazzaro Island of Venice and (a second branch) also in Vienna since 1811. On the philological activity of the Congregation in the 19th century, see G. Uluhogian, ‘Tra documentazione e filologia: le scuole mechitariste di Venezia e Vienna’, in B.L. Zekiyan and A. Ferrari (eds), Gli Armeni a Venezia. Dagli Sceriman a Mechitar: il momento culminante di una consuetudine millenaria (Venice, 2004) 223-37. *

2

an overview of the christian apocryphal

elaborated in its own way.2 Although it is difficult to say anything more specific concerning the various phases of this development, by the 4th century there seems to be a consensus about the contours of the New Testament collection in most Christian communities,3 with the exception of some texts which remain of uncertain status, such as the Apocalypse of John and certain Epistles.4 The closing of the canon caused very old texts, which until then were regarded with authority, to take second place or, in certain cases, to be rejected. For instance, this is the case of the Acts of Paul (2nd century) or the Gospel of Peter.5 As soon as the works of the canonical collection imposed their authority as the only authentic accounts of the words of Christ and early Christianity, apocryphal texts started to be progressively disregarded, being considered either forgeries, or questionable or even heretical   Concerning the formation of the New Testament canon, see the classical and still fundamental work of Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und altkirchlichen Literatur, 2 vols (Erlangen and Leipzig, 1888-1898 and 1890-1892), as well as B.M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford, 1987). Among the most recent scholarship are worth mentioning the studies collected by G. Aragione et al. (eds), Le canon du Nouveau Testament (Geneva, 2005); J.-M. Auwers and H.J. de Jonge (eds), The Biblical Canons (Leuven, 2003); L.M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon. Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA, 2007); E. Norelli (ed.), Recueils normatifs et canons dans l’Antiquité (Lausanne, 2004). See also F. Bovon and E. Norelli, ‘Dal kerygma al canone. Lo statuto degli scritti neotestamentari nel secondo secolo’, CrSt 15 (1994) 525-40; A. Le Boulluec, ‘Le problème de l’extension du canon des écrits aux premiers siècles’, RSR 92 (2004) 45-87. 3   By the end of the 2nd century a collection of the four Gospels already existed. On the Gospels, see H. Koester, ‘From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels’, NTS 35 (1989) 361-81; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development (London and Philadelphia, 1990); G.N. Stanton, ‘The Fourfold Gospel’, NTS 43 (1997) 317-46; G.N. Stanton, ‘Jesus Traditions and Gospels in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus’, in Auwers and de Jonge (eds), The Biblical Canons, 354-66. 4   A. Jakab, ‘Réception et canonisation des textes chrétiens: le cas de l’Apocalypse de Jean’, in Norelli (ed.), Recueils normatifs et canons, 133-45. On the transmission and the status of the Apocalypse of John in Armenia, see F. Murad, Yaytnut‘eann Yovhannu Hin Hay t‘argmanut‘iwn [The Ancient Armenian Translation of the Apocalypse of John] (Jerusalem, 1911). 5   É. Junod, ‘Eusèbe de Césarée, Sérapion d’Antioche et l’Évangile de Pierre’, RSLR 24 (1988) 3-16. 2



an overview of the christian apocryphal3

products.6 Even though the term ‘apocrypha’ is well attested before the fixing of the canon,7 it becomes charged with a pejorative character and an ideological connotation only after the closing of the New Testament.8 This hostile attitude toward apocryphal literature had ­consequences for the textual transmission of these works.9 Without the protection of the ecclesiastical institution, i.e. without being fixed by ecclesiastical usage that could guarantee these texts some form of stability,10 certain   On this point, see for instance Eusebius of Caesarea’s testimony. In his Ecclesiastical History III, 25, Eusebius distinguishes between books ‘commonly accepted’ (the tetrad of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John); the books ‘disputed’ but accepted by the majority of Churches (Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, Second Letter of Peter, Second and Third Letter of John); the ‘illegitimate’ books (gr. νόθα), sometimes read in the Churches (the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, and, for some, also the Gospel of the Hebrews; the Apocalypse of John would belong, according to some, to the category of inauthentic books, for others to that of received books); the ‘fictions of heretics’, which are ‘in disagreement with the veritable orthodoxy’ and which one has to ‘reject as entirely absurd and impious’ (the ‘Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles’, the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias): see A.D. Baum, ‘Der neutestamentliche Kanon bei Eusebios (Hist. eccl. III, 25, 1-7) im Kontext seiner literaturgeschichtlichen Arbeit’, EThL 73 (1997) 307-48; E.R. Kalin, ‘The New Testament Canon of Eusebius’, in L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders (eds), The Canon Debate: On the Origin and Formation of the Bible (Peabody, MA, 2002) 386-404; A. Le Boulluec, ‘Écrits ‘contestés’, ‘inauthentiques’ ou ‘impies’? (Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, III, 25)’, in S.C. Mimouni (ed.), Apocryphité (Turnhout, 2002) 153-65. 7   In the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, the Greek expression logoi apocryphoi refers to Jesus’ ‘secret’ or ‘hidden words’: see J.-D. Kaestli, ‘Les écrits apocryphes chrétiens. Pour une approche qui valorise leur diversité et leurs attaches bibliques’, in J.-D. Kaestli and D. Marguerat (eds), Le mystère apocryphe. Introduction à une littérature méconnue (Geneva, 20072) 29-44. 8   On the history of the term ‘apocrypha’, see S.C. Mimouni, ‘Le concept d’apocryphité dans le christianisme ancien et médiéval. Réflexions en guise d’introduction’, in Mimouni (ed.), Apocryphité, 1-30 at 13-7. On the word ‘canonical’, see Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 289-93. 9   We can find witnesses in the Fathers of the Church. For an overview, see É. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli, L’histoire des Actes apocryphes des apôtres du IIIe au IXe siècle (Geneva, Lausanne and Neuchâtel, 1982). 10   É. Junod, ‘La littérature apocryphe chrétienne constitue-t-elle un objet d’études?’, REA 93 (1991), 397-414 at 404. 6

4

an overview of the christian apocryphal

apocrypha simply disappeared,11 or survived only in a fragmentary form.12 Furthermore, other texts became subject to the opprobium of censorship, thus being corrected to such an extent that it is now difficult to recover their primitive content. Alterations can also be the result of copyists who, without any intention to modify the text, nevertheless departed from it, often aiming at ameliorating their exemplar by making it clearer or more responsive to the audience’s e­ xpectations. This program of ‘purging’ or, more simply, reworking of these texts did not take place in a homogeneous way among the different communities.13 As a matter of fact, the ancient oriental versions,14 including the Armenian ones, sometimes preserve a state of the text that is closer to the original than that preserved in the Greek manuscripts.15 Thus, the ancient translations constitute first class witnesses for the reconstructions of the primitive texts.   This is the case of the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles mentioned by Origen and other Church Fathers. 12   Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, in use in Judeo-Christian milieus. 13   The role played by monastic circles in the preservation of apocryphal works was very important: see F. Bovon, ‘La vie des apôtres. Traditions bibliques et narrations apocryphes’, in Id. et al. (eds), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva, 1981) 141-58 at 157. On the diffusion in private circles, see also X. Lequeux, ‘La circulation des Actes apocryphes des apôtres condamnés par Photius, jusqu’à l’époque de Nicétas le Paphlagonien’, Apocrypha 18 (2007) 87-108. 14   Without opening the question of the New Testament canon in the East, it is worth mentioning that certain oriental Churches, and especially the Ethiopian Church, granted a greater honour to certain books considered apocryphal by the Greek and Latin Churches: P. Piovanelli, ‘The Adventures of the Apocrypha in Ethiopia’, in A. Bausi (ed.), Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity: Ethiopian (Farnham, 2012) 87-109. For some time, the Armenian Church, as well as the Syriac Church, considered canonical the Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians: see V. Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians. Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (Bern and New York, 2000). 15   This is the case of encratite passages of the Martyrdom of Andrew, which were lost in Greek, but which we were able to recover thanks to the Armenian version: see below, ch. IX; cf. V. Calzolari, ‘La version arménienne du Martyre d’André’, in J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew (Leuven, 2000) 149-85; J.-M. Prieur, Acta Andreae (Turnhout, 1989) 26570, 321-6; see also V. Calzolari, ‘La versione armena del Martirio di Andrea e il suo rapporto con la tradizione manoscritta dell’originale greco’, 11



an overview of the christian apocryphal5

1.2.  Is it possible to speak of Christian apocryphal literature after the 4th century? The above observations invite us to briefly go back to the definition of the term ‘apocrypha’. Traditionally only those works that were not retained in the process of selection that led to the formation and closing of the New Testament canon are considered to be apocryphal. Consequently, here, only works preceding the 4th century have been included in this group. Other approaches go as far as to establish a relationship of constitutive dependence between canonical works and apocryphal works, and believe these latter, in addition to titles and specific terms, actually borrow their literary models from the New Testament sources. Furthermore, the very aim of apocrypha, ­according to this New Testament-centred viewpoint, was to compete with works already canonized or on the way to being canonized. This New Testament point of view of apocryphal literature leads its partisans to consider the apocrypha, in their genesis and development, as fundamentally depending on the normative corpus.16 While from a theological perspective it is possible to explain the concept of ‘apocryphal’ as supposing that of ‘canonical’,17 a historical approach cannot admit Schneemelcher’s hypothesis, i.e. that apocrypha were produced in order to imitate, complete, correct, or compete with canonical writings – with the exception of a very small number of texts.18 Accepting such a hypothesis would signify neglecting the Le Muséon 111 (1998) 139-56. On the Armenian Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, see also L. Leloir, ‘Les Actes apocryphes d’André’, in A. van Tongerloo and S. Gieversen (eds), Manichaica Selecta. Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Leuven and Lund, 1991) 191-201; Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres (Turnhout, 1986) 191-265; ‘Rapports entre les versions arménienne et syriaque des Actes apocryphes des apôtres’, in F. Graffin and A. Guillaumont (eds), Symposium Syriacum 1976 (Rome, 1978) 137-48 and ‘La version arménienne des Actes apocryphes d’André, et le Diatessaron’, NTS 22 (19751976) 115-39. 16   E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1 (Tübingen, 19593) 6. 17   For a theological understanding of these two concepts, see P. Gisel, ‘Apocryphes et canon: leurs rapports et leur statut respectif’, Apocrypha 7 (1996) 225-34; Mimouni (ed.), Apocryphité. 18   Junod, ‘La littérature apocryphe chrétienne constitue-t-elle un objet d’études?’, 404.

6

an overview of the christian apocryphal

extreme diversity of apocryphal traditions, disregarding their origins and overlooking the circumstances of their transmission. The use of the criterion of form is equally misleading. A number of apocrypha bearing the titles, often in themselves secondary – such as ‘Gospel’, ‘Acts’, or ‘Apocalypse’ – actually differ, on a formal level, from the New Testament works with the same titles. Additionally, certain titles may add further confusion to the general picture. The most obvious example is The Ascension of Isaiah, the title of which might lead one to expect an Old Testament apocryphon, while its content is undoubtedly Christian.19 In addition, the 4th century chronological limit is also questionable, for it does not take into consideration the creation and transmission of apocryphal books among the different Western and Eastern communities in later epochs. Many texts presenting features in common with the most ancient apocrypha were in fact compiled after the canon was closed. This fundamental criticism of W. Schneemelcher’s position was formulated by É. Junod who, in 1983, proposed the following ­formula: Textes anonymes ou pseudépigraphes d’origine chrétienne qui entretiennent un rapport avec les livres du Nouveau Testament et aussi de l’Ancien Testament parce qu’ils sont consacrés à des événements racontés ou évoqués dans ces livres ou parce qu’ils sont consacrés à des événements qui se situent dans le prolongement d’événements racontés ou évoqués dans ces livres; parce qu’ils sont centrés sur des personnages apparaissant dans ces livres, parce que leur genre littéraire s’apparente à ceux d’écrits bibliques.20

In reaction to this criticism, in the new edition of his work, published in 1987, Schneemelcher softened his 1959 definition,21 but maintained the 4th century chronological criterion and concerned himself with establishing a precise demarcation between apocryphal and hagiographical works – a question that remains highly complex today. According to Schneemelcher only the texts excluded from the canon and earlier than its closing can be called apocryphal. 19  On Ascension of Isaiah, see E. Norelli, L’Ascensione di Isaia (Bologna, 1994); J.N. Bremmer et al. (eds), The Ascension of Isaiah (Leuven, 2016). 20   É. Junod, ‘Apocryphes du NT ou apocryphes chrétiens anciens?’, ETR  58 (1983) 409-21 at 412. 21   W. Schneemelcher (ed.), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1 (Tübingen, 19875) 52.



an overview of the christian apocryphal7

In opposition to the argument of the chronological limit as well as that of the interdependence between the literary models of the canonical works and the apocryphal works, in 1992 Junod again stressed the artificial character of the designation ‘New Testament apocrypha’ and proposed to substitute it with the formula ‘Ancient Christian apocrypha’,22 which we adopt here. In a certain academic tradition, the title ‘New Testament apocrypha’ actually not only refers to the primacy granted to the canon as central element for determining analysis and comprehension of apocryphal texts, but also suggests that next to the self-contained New Testament corpus there is a corresponding unified category of parallel texts, which can be put together in one circumscribed and homogenous corpus, open to be studied in itself.23 On the contrary, because of its flexible nature, apocryphal literature is not at all suited for the constitution of closed collections. In fact, as already stressed, every   É. Junod, ‘Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament’: une appellation erronée et une collection artificielle’, Apocrypha 3 (1992) 17-46. On the topic, see also F. Bovon, ‘Vers une nouvelle édition de la littérature apocryphe chrétienne’, Augustinianum 23 (1983) 373-8; Kaestli, ‘Les écrits apocryphes chrétiens’; T. Nicklas, ‘Écrits apocryphes chrétiens: ein Sammelband als Spiegel eines weitreichenden Paradigmenwechsels in der Apokryphenforschung’, VigChr 61 (2007) 70-95; J.-C. Picard, Le continent apocryphe (Turnhout, 1999); W. Rordorf, ‘Terra incognita. Recent Research on Christian Apocryphal Literature, especially on some Acts of Apostles’, Studia Patristica 25 (1993) 142-58. Among the recent works on the field, see J. Frey et al. (eds), Between Canonical and Apocryphal Texts: Processes of Reception, Rewriting and Interpretation in Early Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen, 2019). 23   One of the first collections was prepared by Fabricius (Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti [Hamburg, 1703]), who gathered a large number of apocryphal texts grouping them according to the categories of the New Testament works (Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Apocalypses) and choosing titles that underlined the link between apocryphal writings and canonical works. Although Fabricius’ aim was to put works considered dangerous from a doctrinal point of view in a better light, he nevertheless acknowledged them to be of interest as documents for the knowledge of heretical movements in Antiquity. Besides ideological intentions, Fabricius’ collection had the merit of considering apocryphal texts as an object of study. On this topic, see G. Poupon, ‘Les Actes apocryphes des Apôtres de Lefèvre à Fabricius’, in Bovon et al. (eds), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres, 25-47; J.-C. Picard, ‘L’apocryphe à l’étroit; notes historiographiques sur les corpus d’apocryphes bibliques’, Apocrypha 1 (1990) 69-117. 22

8

an overview of the christian apocryphal

apocryphal text is the product of its epoch and place of origin. These works may have complex connections not only with the New ­Testament and with other apocryphal texts, but also with many other ones. They may be contemporary with them, or precede them, while their origins may be Christian, and sometimes Jewish or even pagan.24 Only an approach that takes the diversity of these factors and their interactions into account allows us to understand these texts in their own context and nature. This is all the more so, especially in view of what they can still teach us about the memory of Christian origins as each community pictured it at different moments of its own history25. 2.  The Christian Apocrypha in Armenian We should stress that the chronological criterion adopted by Schneemelcher, the limitations of which were noted above, would oblige us to exclude all apocryphal literature in Armenian language from the field of Christian apocrypha. After all, the Armenian alphabet was only invented at the beginning of the 5th century. However, Armenians took a keen interest in apocryphal literature from the beginning of the 5th century, translating from Greek and Syriac,26 and creating their own versions. To exclude this body of work by applying ­Schneemelcher’s chronological criterion would seriously distort the overall picture of the field.  The Acts of Andrew, just to make an example, have been influenced by hermetism, middle-Platonism, and other texts of the pagan Greek literature, while Scriptural allusions are rare: see Junod, ‘Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament’, 41-3; L. Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae Apocrypha. A New Perspective on the Nature, Intention and Significance of the Primitive Text (Geneva, 2007) 191-265 et passim; Prieur, Acta Andreae, 372-9, 409-12 et passim. It is J. Flamion, Les Actes apocryphes de l’apôtre André. Les Actes d’André et de Matthias, de Pierre et d’André et les textes apparentés (Leuven, 1911) 145-77, who was first able to identify the influence of philosophical texts on the Acts of Andrew, and J. Festugière, La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste (Paris, 1954) 227-31, who showed the influence of the hermetic literature. 25   See Introduction to EAC, vol. 1; Bovon et al. (eds), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres. 26   On the Armenian translations from Syriac, see V. Calzolari, ‘La transmission et la réception des apocryphes syriaques dans la tradition arménienne’, in M. Debié et al. (eds), Les apocryphes syriaques (Paris, 2005) 16995. 24



an overview of the christian apocryphal9

Although we do not intend to offer an exhaustive list of a­ pocryphal Christian works written in Armenian here,27 first of all it is important to recall that Armenians manifested much interest in the apostolic traditions. Almost all the most ancient apocryphal Acts (2nd-3rd centuries) were known and translated, at least partially.28 The text that has often been preferred is the final section of such Acts, i.e. the Martyrdom (or the Dormition, in the case of the Acts of John), because being shorter it was easier to be exploited for liturgical purposes. This was certainly well suited to be read on the day of the commemoration of each apostle. Therefore, in Armenian we have at our disposal the translation of the Martyrdom of Andrew, the Martyrdom of Thomas, the Martyrdom of Paul, the Martyrdom of Peter, as well as the Dormition of John. The Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians, which were two sections of the Acts of Paul, were also translated. Of the apostolic traditions, the Acts of Andrew and Matthias and the Acts of Thomas, were translated from Syriac; the Acts of John by Prochorus and the Acts of Peter and Paul, from Greek. Several Lists of Apostles and other later Histories, such as the History of the preaching of James the Great in Spain, or the History of James and John were also translated. Texts dealing with the apostolic founders of the Armenian Church occupy a special, prominent place: Thaddaeus (and his pupil Sanduxt) and Bartholomew, which seem to have been compiled directly in Armenian and which will be extensively presented in the following chapters of this book.29 Closely connected with the Thaddaeus cycle, the legend of King Abgar of Edessa also found an important place in the ancient Armenian literature, probably already in the 5th century. Among the apocrypha related to Jesus’ coming to earth and passion, the Armenian tradition preserves the works that deal with Jesus’ birth and infancy, such as the translation of the Greek Protevangelium   A list of Armenian apocrypha can be found in H.S. Anasyan, Haykakan Madenagitut‘yun E-ĔŽ dd [Armenian Bibliology, 5th-18th Centuries] (Erevan, 1959) 903; S.J. Voicu, ‘Gli apocrifi armeni’, Augustinianum 23 (1983) 16180 and ‘Testi patristici in armeno (secc. V-VIII)’, in A. Di Berardino (ed.), Patrologia, vol. 5 (Turin, 2000) 575-607; see also different entries in CANT. 28   Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter. 29   V. Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy. Aux origines du christianisme arménien (Turnhout, 2011) 43-4, 106, 120-1. 27

10

an overview of the christian apocryphal

of James (whose real title we now know was Nativity of Mary)30 and the late Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus, which exists only in Armenian.31 The Passion cycle includes first of all the Gospel of Nicodemus (or Acts of Pilate), as well as the Letter of Pilate (i.e. the Anaphora Pilati, followed by the Paradosis Pilati)32. The Marian cycle includes, among others, the Dormitio,33 the ­ pocalypse Epistle of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to Titus,34 the A of Mary,35 as well as other Panegyrics and Homilies.36 In addition to the Apocalypse of Mary, the apocalyptic genre includes the Apocalypse of Paul,37 and an apocryphal Apocalypse of John.38 Among the epistles, undoubtedly the most important are those that form the Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians, which, for a certain period of time, must have been canonical in Armenia, under the influence of the Syriac canon.39 Although the list given here is   É. De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques. Recherches sur le papyrus Bodmer 5, avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée. En appendice les versions arméniennes traduites en latin par Hans Quecke (Brussels, 1961). 31   P. Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes, vol. 2: L’Évangile de l’enfance (Paris, 1914). 32   E. Tayec‘i, Ankanon girk‘ nor ktakaranac‘ [Uncanonical books of the New Testament] (Venice, 1898) 313-45; F.C. Conybeare, The Armenian Apology and Acts of Apollonius and other Monuments of Early Christianity (London and New York, 1894, 18962). 33   P. Vetter, ‘Die armenische Dormitio Mariae’, TQ 84 (1902) 321-49. 34   P. Vetter, ‘Das apokryphe Schreiben des Dionysius des Aeropagiten an Titus über die Aufnahme Mariä. Aus dem Armenischen übersetzt’, TQ 69 (1887) 133-8; edition in G. Sruanjteanc‘, Hnoc‘ ew noroc‘. Patmut‘iwn vasn Dawt‘i ew Movsēs Xorenac‘woy [Of Old Things and New. History of David and Movsēs Xorenac‘i] (Constantinople, 1874). 35  Tayec‘i, Ankanon girk‘ nor ktakaranac‘, 383-401 (versions A and B) and 402-17 (versions C, D, E, F, G). 36   On the Apocrypha of the Virgin, see T. Dasnabedean, Tiramayr [Mother of Lord], 3 vols (Lisbon and Beirut, 1997-1998). 37   L. Leloir, ‘L’Apocalypse de Paul selon sa teneur arménienne’, REArm 14 (1980) 217-80; P. Vetter, ‘Die armenische Paulus-Apokalypse’, TQ 88 (1906) 568-95 and TQ 89 (1907) 58-75; J.-M. Rosenstiehl, ‘Notes sur la première Apocalypse apocryphe de Jean et d’autres apocryphes arméniens’, REArm 18 (1984) 599-603. 38   Indicated in Rosenstiehl, ibid. 39  See supra, note 14. 30



an overview of the christian apocryphal11

not exhaustive, it leads us to formulate a first desideratum, i.e. the preparation of a Clavis Apocryphorum Armeniacorum, whose data would complete those contained in M. Geerard’s Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti (CANT). The wealth of works translated into or written directly in ­Armenian represents an impressive fact and raises a question which goes beyond the limits of this presentation: why did Armenians concern t­hemselves with uncanonical literature, even though their literature began after the closing of the canon? Certainly there are many answers possible: different texts most likely responded to different needs, which can only be clarified, if at all, by specific studies.40 In general, the Armenian Church did not adopt a normative attitude towards this literature, as the absence of canonical decisions implicitly shows. As observed by M. Stone, the Armenian lists of canonical and uncanonical works actually have to be considered as reflecting a scholarly interest rather than the issue of normative decisions: La tradition érudite arménienne accorde un plus grand intérêt aux listes canoniques que ne le fait la loi canonique arménienne. [...] Ces listes n’ont été compilées ni en fonction du contenu de manuscrits bibliques arméniens ni en fonction de l’usage arménien des Écritures.41

A philological inquiry into the conditions of transmission of apocryphal works may also yield useful information as to how Armenians regarded this literature in ancient and medieval times. 3.  Collections of Apocryphal Texts The main manuscript collections preserving apocryphal texts are those belonging to the category of čaṙĕntir (‘chosen-discourses’ or ‘choice of discourses’), in other words medieval compilations containing biblical readings, panegyrics, saints’ martyrdoms and lives, including the 40   V. Calzolari Bouvier, ‘En guise d’introduction: quelques reflexions sur le rôle de la littérature apocryphe dans l’Arménie chrétienne ancienne’, in V. Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds), Apocryphes arméniens. Traduction, création, transmission, iconographie (Lausanne, 1999) 9-18. 41   M.E. Stone, ‘The Study of the Armenian Canon’, in Aragione et al. (eds), Le canon du Nouveau Testament, 289-90. On the connections of canonical and uncanonical works, see also below.

12

an overview of the christian apocryphal

ancient versions of apocryphal texts.42 In the 13th century the versions of the texts contained in the čaṙĕntir contributed towards the formation of the Armenian Synaxarion.43 Channelled by the compendia preserved in the Synaxarion, apocryphal works have often fuelled Armenians’ devotion and gained their own place in the celebrations scheduled in the Armenian Church’s liturgical calendar. Some of the manuscripts preserving apocryphal works have already been described and studied. This is the case of manuscripts 110, 120, and 121 of the Bibliothèque nationale de France,44 and manuscripts 941, 993, 1524, and 7729 of the Matenadaran in Erevan.45 ­Additionally, many observations on these collections of manuscripts were published by Dom L. Leloir in his introduction to the second volume of his translations of   Compiled and arranged by Gregory the Martyrophile in the 11th century, they include several ancient versions, especially of apocryphal works. 43   On the Armenian Synaxarion, see N. Adontz, ‘Notes sur les synaxaires arméniens’, ROC 24 (1924) 211-8; N. Akinean, ‘Yovsēp‘ Kostandnupolsec‘i t‘argmanič‘ Yaysmawurk‘i (991)’ [Joseph of Costantinople, Translator of the Yaysmawurk‘ (991)], HA (1957) 1-12; M. Avdalbegyan, ‘Yaysmawurk‘ žołovacunerĕ ev nranc‘ patmagrakan aržekĕ’ [The Yasmawurk‘ collections and their historiographical value] (Erevan, 1982); S. Der Nersessian, ‘Le synaxaire arménien de Grégoire VII d’Anazarbe’, AB 68 (1950) 261-85 (reprint in Ead., Études byzantines et arméniennes/Byzantine and Armenian Studies, vol. 1 [Leuven, 1950] 417-35); J. Mécérian, ‘Introduction à l’étude des synaxaires arméniens’, in Bulletin arménologique, deuxième cahier (Beirut, 1953) 99-188; P. Peeters, ‘Pour l’histoire du Synaxaire arménien’, AB 30 (1911) 5-26; G. Sarkissian, ‘Grégoire d’Anazarbe, écrivain’, Pazmaveb 17 (1949) 58-66; U. Zanetti, ‘Apophtegmes et histoires édifiantes dans le Synaxaire arménien’, AB 105 (1987) 167-99. 44   J. Muyldermans, ‘Les manuscrits arméniens 120 et 121 de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris’, Le Muséon 74 (1961) 75-90; J. Muyldermans, ‘Note sur le Parisinus arménien 110’, REArm 1 (1964) 101-20. 45   U. Zanetti and M. van Esbroeck, ‘Le manuscrit Érévan 993. Inventaire des pièces’, REArm 12 (1977) 123-67; M. van Esbroeck, ‘Description du répertoire de l’homéliaire de Muš (Maténadaran 7729)’, REArm 18 (1984) 237-80 and ‘La structure du répertoire de l’homéliaire de Mush’, in International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics (Erevan, September 21-25, 1982) (Erevan, 1984) 282-303; A. Matevosyan, ‘Erb ew orteł ē grvel Mšo tōnakan čaṙĕntirĕ’ [When and where was the tōnakan čaṙĕntir of Muš written?], BM 9 (1969) 137-62; V. Calzolari Bouvier, ‘Un projet de répertoire des manuscrits arméniens contenant les textes apocryphes chrétiens’, in Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds), Apocryphes arméniens, 53-70 (offering a list of the apocryphal works contained in MSS 941 and 1524). 42



an overview of the christian apocryphal13

apocryphal writings on the apostles, to which we shall return later. In particular Leloir studied the čaṙĕntir reflecting the ancient collection of the tōnakan of Makenoc‘, which dates back to the 8th century.46 In the introductory pages of the same work, Leloir mentioned several unedited manuscripts, which he identified thanks to the catalogues of the manuscript collections of Venice, Vienna, Paris,47 and Erevan. As far as the Matenadaran manuscripts are concerned, Leloir was able to exploit only the old catalogue that appeared in two volumes in 1965 and 1970. This is an abridged index, in which apocryphal works are often hidden behind the simple marker Vark‘ ‘Life’, Vkayabanut‘iwnk‘ ‘Martyrdoms’ or Patmut‘iwnk‘ srboc‘ ‘Histories of Saints’, or are not mentioned at all. This very succinct information can be completed thanks to the full description of the collections of čaṙĕntir compiled by M. Ter-Movsisyan,48 still unpublished.49 The catalogue gives a detailed description of the main čaṙĕntir manuscripts (ca. fifty) not only of Erevan, but also of Jerusalem, Venice, Vienna, and Paris. A survey of the manuscripts described by Ter-Movsisyan allowed us to establish that the indications given are sometimes imprecise. Thus, inspection of each manuscript remains indispensible. As we pointed out in an article published in 1999, until the publication of the detailed catalogue of the manuscripts of the Matenadaran is completed, it would be useful to compile a thematic list of the apocryphal texts described   On this collection, see van Esbroeck, ‘Description du répertoire’ and ‘La structure du répertoire’. 47   His data are based on F. Macler, Catalogue des manuscrits arméniens et géorgiens de la Bibliothèque nationale (Paris, 1908), for at that time the new catalogue by R.H. Kévorkian and A. Ter-Stepanyan (avec le concours de B. Outtier et de G. Ter-Vardanian), Manuscrits arméniens de la Bibliothèque nationale de France. Catalogue (Paris, 1998) was not yet published. 48   M. Ter-Movsisyan (Magistros), Mayr c‘uc‘ak hayerēn jeṙagrac‘. čaṙĕntir [Grand catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts: čaṙĕntir] (Unprinted catalogues of manuscripts, 133) (Erevan, s.d.). Other useful information can be found in the thematic catalogue of the Lives and Martyrdoms of Saints, which is entitled Vark‘–Vkayabanut‘iwnk‘. It is organized alphabetically by the saints’ names. The unprinted catalogue of čaṙĕntirs by L. Xačikian et al., Oułec‘oyc‘ c‘uc‘ak čaṙĕntrerum ełoł nyut‘eri [Thematic Catalogue of the čaṙĕntir] (Erevan, 1945) is also useful. 49   According to some information received orally during a research stay at the Matenadaran, Ter-Movsisyan worked on this catalogue from the end of the 19th century until 1939, the year of his death. 46

14

an overview of the christian apocryphal

in the catalogue of Ter-Movsisyan, after the necessary verifications.50 This is a long-term enterprise, the success of which depends upon teamwork, i.e. on collaboration with specialists of the Matenadaran who could undertake their research in situ on an ongoing basis. The realisation of such a project remains a desideratum. It is also important to stress that the lack of exhaustive descriptions of the manuscripts of the Matenadaran deprives us not only of the knowledge of witnesses which could prove more trustworthy than those known so far, but also of unedited texts. For instance, B. Outtier identified two unedited apocryphal narratives: the Dialogue of the Paralytic with Christ,51 and another text belonging to the cycle of Abgar.52 By means of an investigation in situ, we ourselves were also able to identify an unedited text on saint Thecla53 and an unedited Martyrdom of St. Stephen.54 4.  From the scholarly work of the Mekhitarist Fathers in the second half of the 19th century to the contemporary critical editions The first and in most cases the only editions of Christian apocryphal texts in Armenian language are due to the Mekhitarist Fathers of Venice, starting from the end of the 19th century. In that epoch the rediscovery of texts of the Christian apocryphal literature fell within the enterprise of valorisation of the patrimony of the past, which characterized the scholarly activity of the Mekhitarists at the time of the Zartōnk‘ (Awakening), that is of Armenian Romanticism.55 This ­activity   Calzolari Bouvier, ‘Un projet de répertoire’.   B. Outtier, ‘Paralytique et ressuscité (CANT 85 et 62). Vie des apocryphes en arménien’, Apocrypha 8 (1997) 111-9 and ‘Dialogue du paralytique avec le Christ’, in EAC, vol. 2, 63-74. See also B.N. Rice, ‘The Dialogue of the Paralytic with Christ. A New Translation and Introduction’, in T. Burke and B. Landau (eds), New Testament Apocrypha. More Noncanonical Scriptures (Grand Rapids, 2016) 140-57. 52   B. Outtier, ‘Une forme enrichie de la Légende d’Abgar en arménien’, in Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds), Apocryphes arméniens, 129-45. 53   V. Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca I: Acta Pauli et Theclae, Prodigia Theclae, Martyrium Pauli (Turnhout, 2017) 411-85. 54   V. Calzolari, ‘The Dossier on Stephen, the first Martyr, in Armenian. An unpublished Martyrdom of Stephen’, in B. Landau (ed.), [Memorial volume in honour to F. Bovon] (forthcoming). 55   See Calzolari, ibid. 50

51



an overview of the christian apocryphal15

­contributed to the process of the formation of the Armenian nation. It is therefore not surprising that among the works they published first, there are apocryphal writings dealing with the tradition of the apostolic origins of the Armenian Church. In 1853, in volume 8 of the collection of the Sop‘erk‘ Haykakank‘ [Armenian Writings], Father Ališan edited the Thaddaeus cycle, which includes the Martyrdom of the Apostle Thaddaeus and his disciple Sanduxt– as well as its abridged version (History of Thaddaeus and Sanduxt) –, a Passion of Sanduxt, and the narration of the discovery of the relics of Thaddaeus and his disciples, including Sanduxt.56 The following year (1854), in the same collection of the Sop‘erk‘, we find the edition of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew. In 1868 Father Ališan also edited the Letter of Abgar attributed to Labubna, i.e. the Armenian translation of the Syriac Doctrine of Addaï, which is also associated with the cycle of Thaddaeus.57 In the same year a second edition of the Letter appeared in Jerusalem. In 1874 Father Ališan edited the collection of the Vark‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwnk‘ srboc‘ [Saints’ Lives and Martyrdoms] in two volumes, which, alongside hagiographical works, also included such apocryphal writings as the Martyrdom of St. Timothy the Apostle, the Martyrdom of St. Titus the Apostle, the Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, and the Life of St. Thecla, the disciple of the Apostle Paul.58 The borders between hagiographical literature and apocryphal literature are currently being debated; the association of apocryphal and hagiographical texts is thus not surprising in a collection published in 1874. It is only in 1898 that a work entirely dedicated to Christian apocrypha appeared with the title of Ankanon girk‘ nor ktakaranac‘ [Uncanonical Books of the New Testament].59 This work was the second volume of the series T‘angaran haykakan hin ew nor dprut‘eanc‘ [Museum of Ancient and New Armenian Literature], which was preceded by the publication of the Ankanon girk‘ hin ktakaranac‘ [Uncanonical Books   [Ł. Ališan], Vkayabanut‘iwn ew giwt nšxarac‘ S. T‘adēi aṙak‘eloy ew Sandxtoy kusi [Martyrdom and Discovery of the Relics of St. Thaddaeus the Apostle and St. Sanduxt the Virgin] (Venice, 1853). 57   [Ł. Ališan], Lettre d’Abgar (Venice, 1868). 58   [Ł. Ališan], Vark‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwnk‘ Srboc‘ hatĕntir k‘ałealk‘ i čaṙĕntrac‘ [Saints’ Lives and Martyrdoms. Anthology gathered from the čaṙĕntirs], 2 vols (Venice, 1874). 59  Tayec‘i, Ankanon girk‘ nor ktakaranac‘. 56

16

an overview of the christian apocryphal

of the Old Testament], in 1896.60 In 1904 a third volume dedicated to the apostolic legends was published, the Ankanon girk‘ aṙak‘elakank‘ [Uncanonical Books on the Apostles], edited by Father K‘. Č‘rak‘ean.61 The publications of these collections explicitly dedicated to ankanon ‘non canonical’ books was an important step in the history of the studies on apocryphal literature. In fact, for the first time in the field of Armenian studies, it specifies apocryphal literature as a distinct field of study. To realise the significance of such an observation one may note that in 1991 É. Junod published an article entitled: ‘La littérature apocryphe chrétienne constitue-t-elle un objet d’études?’,62 in which the author offered observations about the development of the studies on apocryphal literature as an independent field. Having established this preliminary clarification, it is worth examining the borders of the corpus of apocryphal texts published in Venice in order to see more clearly which texts have been chosen and in which order were they published. We shall note that the two volumes of Christian ankanon [uncanonical] writings begin with the accounts of the infancy of Mary and Jesus and continue with the cycle of Pilate, i.e. with narratives that are close to the genre of the canonical Gospels. The last part consists of other works on the Virgin, i.e. the Apocalypse (or Vision of the Theotokos) and the Dormition, viz. texts that complement the narrative of the birth of Mary. Finally, the second volume dedicated to the Christian apocrypha includes the writings on the apostles, i.e. texts similar to the canonical Acts. Thus, the order of the New Testament writings seems to underlie the order chosen by the Mekhitarist Fathers. The Mekhitarists followed a trend evident in the first collection of apocryphal texts, edited in 1703 by Johannes Fabricius.63 From then onwards, up to the most recent period, collections of apocryphal texts usually follow the plan of the New Testament. This choice implicitly presupposes that, as a clearly defined collection of ­canonical texts exists, in the same way a parallel category of texts that could be grouped into a circumscribed and homogenous group should exists as well. This approach, as we have seen, is misleading. 60   S. Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Ankanon girk‘ hin ktakaranac‘ [Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament] (Venice, 1896). 61   K‘. Č‘rak‘ean, Ankanon girk‘ aṙak‘elakank‘ [Uncanonical books on the Apostles] (Venice, 1904). 62   Junod, ‘La littérature apocryphe chrétienne constitue-t-elle un objet d’études?’. 63   See note 23.



an overview of the christian apocryphal17

In the two volumes of the Ankanon girk‘, we may also note a second criterion, i.e. a thematic grouping organized around the figures of Jesus, Mary, the individual Apostles and, finally, the lists of Apostles. Among the writings on the apostles, along with the most ancient apocryphal texts, we sometimes find the abridged versions of the apocryphal stories preserved in the Synaxarion. Later texts, such as the account of the discovery and the translation of the relics of Thomas to Armenia (10th century) have also been added. The edifying purpose of this interest in the apostolic figures is probably the basis for such an enlarged choice of texts.64 Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the contours of the apocryphal collections stemming from the Mekhitarist printing house in the late 19th and early 20th century is determined by an enlarged notion of apocrypha, which is less rigid than that of Schneemelcher. If the Mekhitarists’ editions had unparalleled merits for the preservation of apocryphal texts, they also had an involuntary dissuasive effect. Towards the end of the 19th century, the German scholar P. Vetter had also begun a project of edition of apocryphal texts, basing his editions essentially on manuscripts of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Unlike the Ankanon girk‘ collections,65 Vetter’s volumes were enriched with translations and, sometimes, a Greek retroversion.66 As explicitly stated in the 1906 edition of the Acts of Peter and Paul,  Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, XXXVI.   But see J. Issaverdens, The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament found in the Armenian Manuscripts of the Library of St. Lazarus (Venice, 1901; reprint 1934). 66   See the following studies by Vetter: ‘Das apokryphe Schreiben des Dionysius des Aeropagiten’; ‘Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief neu übersetzt und nach seiner Entstehung untersucht’, TQ 72 (1890) 610-39; Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief (= Einladung zur akademischen Feier des Geburtsfestes Seiner Majestät des Königs Wilhelm II von Württemberg auf den 25. Febr. 1894 im Namen des Rectors und akademischen Senats der Königlichen Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Beigefügt ist eine Abhandlung: Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief von P. Vetter) (Vienna, 1894); ‘Mitteilungen. Armenische Apostelakten’, OC 1 (1901) 168-70; ‘Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelakten. I. Das gnostische martyrium Petri’, OC 1 (1901) 217-39; ‘Die armenische Dormitio Mariae’; ‘Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelakten. II. Die Akten der Apostel Petrus und Paulus’, OC 3 (1903) 16-55, 324-83; ‘Rezensionen: Die armenischen Apokryphen’, TQ 87 (1905) 608-10; ‘Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. I. Die Petrus- und Paulus-­ Akten’, TQ 88 (1906) 161-86 and ‘Die armenische Paulus-Apokalypse’. 64 65

18

an overview of the christian apocryphal

Vetter considered it useless to continue his editorial work, having heard about the parallel enterprise begun by the Mekhitarists.67 Even though the enterprise of the Mekhitarist Fathers does not meet the rigorous requirements of modern textual criticism, their pioneering work was immense and saved a whole corpus of Armenian literature from oblivion. Nonetheless, today these texts should be re-edited using modern principles of text edition. Among the recent critical enterprises, it is worth mentioning the launch, in 2017, of the series Apocrypha Armeniaca, in the collection Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum (volume 20) directed by the Association pour l’Étude de la Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne (AELAC). This first volume, by the present author, contains a new critical edition of the sections of the Acts of Paul translated in Armenian (at the exception of the 3 Corinthians), and of an unpublished text belonging to the tradition on St. Thecla, called Prodigies of Thecla.68 New editions have been published or are in progress: see for example the edition, by G. Muradyan, of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew preserved in the MS 7753 of the Matenadaran of Erevan, which was discovered, for the first time, by M. van Esbroeck.69 See also the works in progress on the Acts of Peter and Paul,70 the Letter of the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,71 the Gospel of Nicodemus.72   Vetter, ‘Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. I. Die Petrusund Paulus-Akten’, 162. 68  Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca. 69   G. Muradyan, ‘T‘adevos ev Bardoułimeos aṙak‘yalneri masin legendi tarberakner miǰnadaryan bnagrerum’ [The variants of the legend on the apostles Thaddaeus and Bartholomew in the medieval MSS], in V. Barxudaryan (ed.), Aršaluys k‘ristoneut‘yan Hayoc‘ [The dawn of the Christianisme of Armenia] (Erevan, 2017) 133-40. An Italian translation (with Armenian text) will be published by C. Antonelli in the CCSA, in a volume devoted to the Greek Martyrdom of Bartholomew of the codex Weimar 729 (codex Froehneri) (see also infra, ch. IV, note 2) 70   Critical edition in progress by S. Scarpellini in the framework of her PhD dissertation at the University of Geneva. See also A. D’Anna and S. Scarpellini, ‘Apostoli che parlano armeno: riflessioni filologico-linguistiche sulla traduzione degli Atti di Pietro e Paolo apocrifi’, Adamantius 25 (2019) 255-80. 71   Work in progress by C. Macé, in the framework of the project of edition of the corpus of the works of/attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite carried out by the University of Göttingen. 72   Work in progress by B. Outtier for the CCSA. 67



an overview of the christian apocryphal19

5.  Translations In the late 19th and early 20th century, few texts were translated. The following translations may be mentioned (the list is not exhaustive): – the abridged French translation of the Letter of Abgar by J.-B. Émine, which appeared in V. Langlois’ Collection des historiens arméniens;73 – the French translation of the Letter of Abgar by Ł. Ališan;74 – the English translation of the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and the Martyrdom of Bartholomew by S.C. Malan;75 – the German translation of the Passion of Sanduxt by M. Schmid;76 – the German translation of the Epistle of the Pseudo-Dionysius to Titus, the Dormition of Mary, the short recension of the Acts of Peter and Paul, and the Apocalypse of Paul by P. Vetter;77 – the English translation of the Acts of Thecla78 and the first six chapters of the Infancy Gospel by F.C. Conybeare;79 – the Latin translation of the Protevangelium of James by H. Quecke, the Martyrdom of Bartholomew by G. Moesinger, and the Dormition of John by J. Catergian;80   J.-B. Émine, ‘Leboubna d’Édesse, Histoire d’Abgar et de la prédication de Thaddée’, in V. Langlois (ed.), Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, vol. 1 (Paris, 1867) 313-21. 74  [Ališan], Lettre d’Abgar. 75   S.C. Malan, The Life and Times of S. Gregory the Illuminator the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church (London, Oxford and Cambridge, 1868); see also Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy. 76   M. Schmid, ‘Geschichte des Apostels Thaddaeus und der Jungfrau Sanducht’, in F.N. Finck et al. (eds), Zeitschrift für armenische Philologie, Erster Band, erstes Heft (Marburg, 1901) 67-73. 77   Vetter: ‘Das apokryphe Schreiben des Dionysius des Aeropagiten’; ‘Die armenische Dormitio Mariae’ and ‘Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelgeschichten’ and ‘Die armenische Paulus-Apokalypse’. 78  Conybeare, The Armenian Apology; see also Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca, for the Italian translation. 79   F.C. Conybeare, ‘Protevangelium Jacobi’, American Journal of Theology 1 (1897) 424-42, reprinted in N.V. Nersessian, The Armenian Church: Heritage and Identity. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare (New York, 2001) 356-70. 80   De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques; G. Moesinger, Vita et Martyrium sancti Bartholomaei apostoli, ex sinceris fontibus Armeniacis in linguam latinam conversa (Salzburg, 1877); J. Catergian, Ecclesiae Ephesinae de obitu Joannis Apostoli narratio ex versione Armeniaca saeculi V nunc primum Latine cum notis prodita (Vienna, [1877]). 73

20

an overview of the christian apocryphal

– the French translation of the Book of the Infancy by P. Peeters;81 – the French translation of the Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians by A. Carrière and S. Berger;82 this text was also translated into German by Vetter.83 During the ’80s of last century, an important scientific and editorial enterprise resulted in the publication of two tomes containing the French translation by L. Leloir of the writings edited in the collection of the Ankanon girk‘ aṙak‘elakank‘. The two volumes appeared in the CCSA, and contributed to fostering new interest for Christian apocryphal literature in Armenian language. Within the domain of translations and, once more, following an enterprise sponsored by the AELAC, it is also important to mention the recent publication of two volumes of the Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (EAC) in the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. For the first time, Armenian texts entered this prestigious collection: the Dialogue of the Paralytic with Jesus, translated by B. Outtier,84 and the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and Sanduxt, translated by the present writer.85 Additionally, the paperback collection of the AELAC (‘Apocryphes’) now hosts an Armenian volume dedicated to the stories of the apocryphal cycle of Thaddaeus and ­Bartholomew.86 Volume 20 of the CCSA offers an extensively commented Italian translation by the present author of the Acts of Thecla, the Prodigies of Thecla and the Martyrdom of Paul.87 In the English-speaking world, the publication of the English translation of the Armenian Infancy Gospel and the Protevangelium of James by 81  Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes; see also below A. Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with three early versions of the Protevangelium of James (Oxford, 2008). 82   A. Carrière and S. Berger, ‘La correspondance apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens. Ancienne version latine et traduction du texte arménien’, RThPh 24 (1891) 334-40 and 347-51. 83   Vetter, ‘Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief’; see more recently S.P. Cowe, ‘Text Critical Investigation of the Armenian Version of Third Corinthians’, in Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds), Apocryphes arméniens, 91-102; S.P. Cowe, ‘Text Critical Investigation of the Armenian Version of Third Corinthians’, St. Nersess Theological Review 2/1 (1997) 39-51; ­Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians. 84   Outtier, ‘Dialogue du paralytique avec le Christ’, 85   Calzolari, ‘Le Martyre de Thaddée arménien’, in EAC, vol. 2, 661-96. 86  Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy. 87  Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca, 230-408, 428-84, 572-652.



an overview of the christian apocryphal21

A. Terian has to be mentioned,88 as well as the translation of the Dialogue of the Paralytic with Jesus by B. Rice.89 6.  Critical works carried out since the end of the 20th century Dom Leloir’s translations went together with an important critical work that formed a necessary preliminary to the enterprise of editing Christian apocryphal texts sponsored by the AELAC (see above). In the ‘Avertissement au lecteur’ of the first two volumes of translations one reads: La présente publication doit permettre aux savants qui ne lisent pas l’arménien d’avoir accès dès maintenant à ces documents. De plus cette version française va amorcer et stimuler une entreprise d’édition critique. […] La traduction de Dom Louis Leloir comble une grave lacune, puisque l’édition de Chérubin Tchérakian n’a jamais été traduite dans une langue moderne. Elle s’impose d’autant plus que ces documents arméniens, jusqu’ici négligés, jouent un rôle considérable dans l’histoire de la tradition des légendes relatives aux apôtres. Pour ne prendre qu’un exemple, c’est la version arménienne qui permet de reconstituer la forme primitive du Martyre d’André que corrigent tous les témoins grecs en leurs diverses recensions.

To each translation a list of unedited manuscripts was added and, in some cases, an evaluation of the critical value of the Armenian witness for the establishment of the original Greek or Syriac text. Introductions of historical-literary nature are generally brief, with some exceptions. Thus, in the introduction to the translation of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias and the Apocalypse of Paul, Dom Leloir set forth the results of previous research concerning the theological orientation of these writings.90  Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy.   Rice, ‘The Dialogue of the Paralytic with Christ’, 152-7. 90   Leloir, ‘La version arménienne des Actes apocryphes d’André’; ‘Rapports’ and ‘L’Apocalypse de Paul’. Other studies by Leloir of philological, but also historical and theological nature appeared independently in several specialized journals: ‘Les Actes apocryphes d’André’ and ‘Les citations évangéliques dans la version arménienne des Actes apocryphes’, in R. Gryson (ed.), Philologia sacra. Studien zu Bibel und Kirchenvätern für H.J. Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburstag (Freiburg, 1993) 364-77. 88 89

22

an overview of the christian apocryphal

This double approach, at the same time philological and historical-literary, has characterized more recent works on apocryphal literature, some which have published in the collection Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha. We may mention the works of M. van Esbroeck on the traditions of the Virgin, as well as on the Apostles Thaddaeus and Bartholomew;91 those of T‘. Dasnabedean on the Marian traditions,92 of B. Outtier on the Evangelium Nicodemi,93 and, more recently, of A. Terian, I. Dorfmann-Lazarev and M. Mamyan on the Gospel of the Infancy.94 The author of the present article has worked   M. van Esbroeck, ‘Chronique arménienne’, AB 80 (1962); ‘Le roi Sanatruk et l’apôtre Thaddée’, REArm 9 (1972) 241-66; ‘L’apôtre Thaddée et le roi Sanatruk’, in M. Nordio and B.L. Zekiyan (eds), Atti del II Simposio Internazionale ‘Armenia-Assiria’. Istituzioni e poteri all’epoca Il-Khanide (Venice, (1988]) 83-106; ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy en Arménie’, REArm 17 (1983) 171-95; ‘The Rise of Saint Bartholomew’s Cult in Armenia from the Seventh to the Thirteenth Centuries’, in Th.J. Samuelian and M.E. Stone (eds), Medieval Armenian Culture (Chico, CA, 1983) 161-78 and Aux origines de la Dormition de la Vierge. Études historiques sur les traditions orientales (Aldershot, 1995). 92  Dasnabedean, Tiramayr; La Mère de Dieu: Études sur l’Assomption et sur l’image de la très-sainte Mère de Dieu (Antelias, 1995) and ‘Un récit arménien du Pseudo-Jean l’Évangeliste sur la Dormition’, Armach 1 (1992) 27-38; see also S.J. Shoemaker, ‘Apocalyptic Traditions in the Armenian Dormition Narratives’, in K.B. Bardakjian and S. La Porta (eds), The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition (Leiden and Boston, 2014) 538-50. 93   B. Outtier, ‘The Armenian and Georgian Version of the Evangelium Nicodemi’, Apocrypha 21 (2010) 49-55. 94  Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy; I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, ‘La transmission de l’apocryphe de l’Enfance de Jésus en Arménie’, in J. Frey and J. Schröter (eds), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen (Tübingen, 2010) 557-82; ‘The Cave of the Nativity Revisited: Memory of the Primæval Beings in the Armenian Lord’s Infancy and Cognate Sources’ (edited texts and critical study)’, in A. Mardirossian et al. (eds), Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé (Paris, 2014) 285-334 and ‘Eve, Melchizedek and the Magi in the Cave of the Nativity According the Armenian Corpus of Homilies Attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis’, in J.N. Bremmer et al. (eds), The Protevangelium of James (Leuven, 2020) 264-94; M. Mamyan, ‘“Mankut‘ean awetaran”-i poxakerpumĕ Aṙak‘el Bałišec‘u “Tał awetman”-um’ [The Transformation of the Armenian Infancy Gospel in the Ode to the Annunciation of Aṙak‘el Bałišec‘i], BM 27 (2019) 402-30 and ‘“Mankut‘ean awetaran”-i ew Hakobosi naxavetarani hayeren t‘argmanut‘yunnerĕ (hame­ matakan verlucut‘yun)’ [The Armenian Translations of the Infancy Gospel 91



an overview of the christian apocryphal23

on the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Prodigies of Thecla,95 the Martyrdom of Paul,96 the Martyrdom of Andrew,97 the Martyrdom and the Discovery of the relics of Thaddaeus,98 the two independent Marand of the Protevangelium of James; A Comparative Analysis], BM 23 (2006) 231-44. 95  Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca; ‘Notes sur la traduction arménienne du texte syriaque des Actes de Thècle’, in D. Sakayan (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics (Delmar, NY, 1996) 233-43; ‘Un nouveau texte arménien sur Thècle: les Prodiges de Thècle (Présentation et analyse linguistique)’, REArm 26 (1996-1997) 249-71; ‘La trasmissione dei testi apocrifi cristiani in armeno: l’esempio degli Atti di Paolo e Tecla’, in A. Valvo (ed.), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale. Forme e modi di trasmissione (Alessandria, 1997) 45-58; ‘De sainte Thècle à Anahit: une hypothèse d’interprétation du récit de la mort de l’empereur Valens dans les Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘’, in N. Awde (ed.), Armenian Perspectives. (10th Anniversary Conference of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes. SOAS, London) (Richmond, Surrey, 1997) 39-49 and 371-7; ‘Srbuhi T‘ekłi awandut‘iwnĕ Hayastani mēǰ’ [The tradition of St. Thecla in Armenia], in P. Muradyan, Armenia and Christian Orient (Erevan, 2000) 55-61; ‘Une traduction latine médiévale de la légende arménienne de Thècle et la translation du bras de la sainte de l’Arméno-Cilicie à Tarragone en 1321’, AB 123 (2005) 349-67; Apocrypha Armeniaca and ‘The Reception of the Acts of Thecla in Armenia: Thecla as a Model of Representation for holy Women in ancient Armenian Literature’, in G. Dabiri and F. Ruani (eds), Thecla and Medieval Sainthood: The Acts of Paul and Thecla in Eastern and Western Hagiography (Cambridge, forthcoming). 96   V. Calzolari, ‘Il rapporto della versione armena del Martirio di Paolo con l’originale greco: nuovi contributi sulla base di undici testimoni armeni inediti’, in V. Calzolari et al. (eds), Bnagirk‘ yišatakac‘/Documenta memoriae. Dall’Italia e dall’Armenia studi in onore di Gabriella Uluhogian (Bologna, 2004) 28-31; ‘La transmission des textes apocryphes chrétiens ou de l’‘excès joyeux de la variance’: variantes, transformations et problèmes d’édition (L’exemple du Martyre de Paul arménien)’, in A. Frey and R. Gounelle (eds), Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques. Études réunies en l’honneur de Jean-Daniel Kaestli et Éric Junod (Lausanne, 2007) 129-60, and Apocrypha Armeniaca, 489-675. 97   V. Calzolari, ‘Particolarità sintattiche e lessicali della versione armena del Martirio di Andrea, messa a confronto con Teone armeno’, Le Muséon 106 (1993) 267-88; ‘La versione armena del Martirio di Andrea’, and ‘La version arménienne du Martyre d’André’. 98   V. Calzolari, ‘Réécriture des textes apocryphes en arménien: l’exemple de la légende de l’apostolat de Thaddée en Arménie’, Apocrypha 8 (1997)

24

an overview of the christian apocryphal

tyrdoms of Bartholomew and the Discovery of the relics of Bartholomew by Marūtha,99 the Recognitions of Pseudo-Clement,100 the Martyrdom of Philip,101 the Infancy Gospel,102 and the writings on Stephen the Protomartyr.103 Here the importance of the study of apocryphal texts as useful sources for a better understanding of the history of ancient Armenian 97-110; ‘‘Je ferai d’eux mon propre peuple’: les Arméniens en tant que peuple élu selon la littérature apocryphe chrétienne en langue arménienne’, RHPR 90 (2010) 179-97, and Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy. 99   Calzolari, ‘Je ferai d’eux mon propre peuple’; Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, and ‘Notes sur le Martyre de Barthélemy aménien inédit conservé dans le ms. 7753 du Matenadaran’, in L. DiTommaso et al. (eds), The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone (Leiden and Boston, 2018) 301-20. 100   V. Calzolari, ‘La tradition arménienne des Pseudo-Clémentines: état de la question’, Apocrypha 4 (1993) 263-93. 101   V. Calzolari, ‘Hayerēn k‘ristonēakan ankanon grut‘iwnnerĕ ew irenc‘ aržēk‘ĕ ibr ałbiwr hay hin k‘ristonēut‘ean patmut‘ean vray (S. P‘ilipposi Vkayabanut‘ean enkratakan vardapetut‘iwnĕ)’ [The Christian Apocryphal Writings in Armenian and their Value as Sources on the History of the Ancient Armenian Christianity. (The Encratite Doctrine of the Martyrdom of Philip)], in Armenian Studies Today and Development Perspectives (Erevan, 2004) 565-72 and ‘La version arménienne du Martyre de Philippe grec: passages encratites et manuscrits inédits’, Apocrypha 24 (2013) 111-37. 102   V. Calzolari, ‘Les récits apocryphes de l’enfance dans la tradition arménienne’, in C. Clivaz et al. (eds), avec la collaboration de B. Bertho, Infancy Gospels. Stories and Identities (Tübingen, 2011) 560-87; ‘Mary and Eve. The Permanence of the First Mother in Armenian Apocryphal Infancy Gospels’, in C. Gislon Dopfel et al. (eds), Pregnancy and Childbirth in the Premodern World. European and Middle Eastern Cultures, to Late Antiquity to the Renaissance (Turnhout, 2019) 193-212, and ‘Eve, the Foremather, in the Nativity Scene in Armenian Apocryphal Literature and Illuminations’, in C. Gislon Dopfel (ed.), Pregnancy and Childbirth. History, Medicine, and Anthropology (Longmont, Col., 2018,) 56-62 and 164-5 (ill.). 103   V. Calzolari, ‘The Dossier on Stephen, the first Martyr, in Armenian’; ‘Stefano il protomartire e i Padri della Chiesa: su alcune omelie greche e siriache tradotte in armeno e un inedito Encomio di santo Stefano attribuito a Basilio di Cesarea’, Adamantius 25 (2019) 230-55, and ‘The Tradition and the Cult of Saint Stephen in Armenia: A Preliminary Assessment’, in I. Dorfmann-Lazarev (ed.), Sharing Myths, Texts, and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus: Apocryphal Themes in Literatures, Arts and Cults from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages (forthcoming).



an overview of the christian apocryphal25

Christianity should also be stressed. For example, the Armenian translations of the Martyrdom of Philip and of the Martyrdom of Andrew offer interesting evidence concerning the diffusion of encratite practices and doctrines in Armenia, in particular as preached by Eustathius of Sebaste, whose doctrine was condemned by the Armenian Church.104 This aspect will be analysed in the last chapters of the volume (ch. IX-X).

104   Concerning the importance of the apocryphal texts as evidence for the history of encratism in Armenia, see below, ch. IX-X; see also Calzolari, ‘La version arménienne du Martyre d’André’; Calzolari, ‘La version arménienne du Martyre de Philippe’ and ‘Hayerēn k‘ristonēakan ankanon grut‘iwnnerĕ’; Leloir, ‘Rapports’.

Part One

Thaddaeus and Bartholomew, the Apostles of Armenia

II. The Apostle Thaddaeus in the Armenian Tradition*

1.  Thaddaeus’ preaching in Armenia according to the Armenian ­historian Faustus of Byzantium According to Armenian tradition, the Church of Armenia is quite distinguished. Its foundation indeed goes back to the apostolic era and supposedly arose from the evangelising mission of Apostle Thaddaeus.1 The first written traces of this tradition are attested in the History of Armenia by the historian Faustus (second half of the 5th century), which we shall discuss also in ch. VII.2 This work is devoted to Armenia’s history in the 4th century, from the adoption of Christianity as state religion to the partition of the country between the Roman and the Sassanid Empires around 387-390. Three narrative threads are at the centre of Faustus’ study: a) the history of the royal Armenian Arsacid dynasty and its conflicts with the Sassanid Empire; b) the history of the Mamikonean family, the holders of military power, which in Armenia was hereditary; c) the history of the Church, e­ specially that of the Gregorid family, which starting in 314 held almost uninterruptedly the title of Catholicos (supreme head) of the Armenian Church. In his work, Faustus repeatedly mentions the ‘seat of Apostle Thaddaeus’ or ‘seat of Thaddaeus’ (T‘adēakan at‘oṙ), the seat on which in the 4th century Gregory the Illuminator3 and his immediate successors were inducted as the first patriarchs (Catholicos in Armenian) of the Church of Armenia and thus became the successors of Armenia’s first apostle (III, 12, 14; IV, 3, 4). Faustus also associates the ‘seat of   Translated from the French by Dr Benedict Beckeld.   On the apocryphal accounts of the apostle Thaddaeus, see CANT 299. 2   See N.G. Garsoïan, The Epic Histories Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘) (Cambridge, MA, 1989) 11. 3   On Gregory the Illuminator, see among others M.-L. Chaumont, ‘Sur l’origine de saint Grégoire d’Arménie’, Le Muséon 102 (1989) 115-45. See also infra, ch. VI, § 1-2, and passim. * 1

30 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition ­ haddaeus’ with the church of Aštišat (in Tarōn), the ‘mother of T ­Armenia’s churches’ (mayrn ekełec‘eac‘n Hayoc‘), around which the first Christian community was formed, when Christianity was still a religio illicita. This is one of the most ancient expressions of Armenian Christianity, predating Gregory the Illuminator’s preaching and showing Syriac influence.4 As a native of Tarōn, a region on the frontier of Osrhoene, Faustus paid particular attention to the connection between the Church of Armenia and the Syriac Church that had originated in Edessa.5 Other historians of the 5th and 6th centuries, such as Agat‘angełos and Łazar of P‘arpi, tended to downplay these connections. Their works insist, rather, on the primacy of the Gregorid family, which distinguished itself by philo-Greek ecclesiastical politics. In his preface, Faustus explicitly states that the teaching and martyrdom of Apostle Thaddaeus, as well as the acts of King Sanatruk,6 ‘apostle-killer’ (aṙak‘elaspan), were written by others.7 We do not know to what works Faustus is alluding, but it is evident that he knew of an older written tradition on the apostolic roots of the Armenian Church and on Thaddaeus’ mission. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding Faustus’ sources, but it should be pointed out that the most 4   P. Ananean, K‘ristonēut‘ean hetk‘er Hayastani mēǰ S. Grigor Lusaworč‘i k‘arozut‘enē aṙaǰ [Evidence on the Christianisation of Armenia before the preaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator] (Venice, 1979). 5   On his identity and origin, see Garsoïan, The Epic Histories, 16. 6   Legendary king of Armenia, who was considered to be the son of Abgar’s sister (cf. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia II, 24, infra, § 7). A certain Sanatruk really was king of Armenia in the 2nd century; he is known for having resisted Emperor Trajan in 114-116 after the deposition of Parthamasiris. He originally had nothing to do with the Thaddaeus legend, but was subsequently associated with it as a paradigm of an enemy of the faith. This association must have arisen in the Christian traditions of southern Armenia, in the region of Angł-Tun (cf. van Esbroeck, ‘Le roi Sanatruk et l’apôtre Thaddée’ and ‘L’apôtre Thaddée et le roi Sanatruk’), although this hypothesis has been doubted by N.G. Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (Louvain, 1999) 20. Sanatruk’s name has influenced the typonomy of the regions Artaz and Šavaršan, where Thaddaeus was killed; in addition to the Plain of Sanatruk and Mount Sanatruk, located in Vaspurakan region (close to Maku), there was a fortress called Sanatruk in Łaradał, in Persarmenia: T.X. Hakobyan et al., Dictionary of Toponymy of Armenia and Adjacent Territories, vol. 4 (Erevan, 1998) 495. 7   On the textual difficulties of the preamble, see Garsoïan, The Epic Histories, 20-2.



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition31

extensive accounts on the origins of the apostolic tradition within the Church of Armenia are to be found in the apocryphal literature, and in particular in the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus (BHO 1145). 2.  The Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and Armenian Christianity of Syriac origin The Martyrdom of Thaddaeus tells of the apostle’s preaching in Armenia, in the village of Šavaršan, in the Artaz canton (in the southeast of the country, today part of Iran). It is here that, in the last section of the account, Thaddaeus was put to death by King Sanatruk. According to the Discovery of the Relics of Thaddaeus (BHO 1146), it was also in the plain of Artaz that the apostle’s and his disciples’ remains were found by the marzpan (governor) Vahan Mamikonean, in the 5th century (the date is fictitious). This account of the discovery aims to show that the apostle’s teaching and martyrdom took place in Armenia. Additionally, the relics’ existence has the effect, in line with the devotional practices of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, of guaranteeing in these loca sacra the continuity of the apostle’s presence and the protection he affords the Armenian people. After a very rhetorically embellished preamble whose style is markedly different from that of the rest of the narration, the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus begins with a scene in which the mission areas are distributed to the apostles; Armenia is explicitly indicated as falling to Thaddaeus: (§ 2)8 ew vičakeac‘ zamenayn Hayastan azgs. zi na ēr k‘aroz banin kenac‘, ew yaṙaǰĕncay i handēs martiwrosakan psakin: [...] zi aṙak‘ec‘aw yamenap‘rkč‘ēn mermē Yisusē K‘ristosē, yet hambaṙnaloy Teaṙn yerkins. [...] Isk ays surb aṙak‘eals ēr [...] vičakeal Hayastan azgis ([Ališan], 11, 1-4, 6-9, 16-19)9 The whole of this Armenian nation went to him by lot; he in fact preached the word of life, and was destined to battle for the crown of martyr. […] For he had been sent by our Jesus Christ, Saviour of all, after the Lord’s ascension to heaven. […] This holy apostle […] had received as his lot this Armenian nation.   Number of paragraph of my French translation: Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, 51-88 (passim). 9  [Ališan], Vkayabanut‘iwn ew giwt nšxarac‘ S. T‘adēi aṙak‘eloy. 8

32 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition After having mentioned the allotting of Armenia, the text proceeds with a summary of Thaddaeus’ acts of preaching in Edessa, under King Abgar (§ 3). One will notice that the author does not avoid the Mesopotamian episode of Thaddaeus’ apostolate, but rather integrates it into the story by making it anterior to the Armenian mission. The Edessa excursus thus establishes a connection between the Church of Edessa and that of Armenia, thereby emphasising older Armenian Christianity’s kinship with the Christianity of Osrhoene.10 This aspect suggests that the composition and diffusion of the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus were probably linked to the philo-Syriac party of the Armenian Church. Furthermore, the Armenian legend of Thaddaeus in its most ancient form probably appeared in Armenia’s southwest, in Hatra and Angł-Tun, not far from Osrhoene.11 The Edessa excursus shows that the author of the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus knew of the Teaching of Addai (mlpnwt’ d’dyšlyh’ ‘Teaching of the Apostle Addai’). The author of this text was presumably a certain Labubna, scribe of Edessan King Abgar, and his Syriac text (BHO 26),12 which is difficult to date,13 was translated into Armenian already in the first half of the 5th century (BHO 9).14   The connections between Armenian and Edessan Christianity are also found in an Armenian hagiography from the 8th-9th centuries: the History of the Hripsimian Saints attributed to Movsēs Xorenac‘i. While fleeing from Rome and Emperor Diocletian, Hṙip‘simē and her companions made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where they had an apparition of Virgin Mary, who ordered them to go to Armenia, the ‘lot of Apostle Thaddaeus’. While obeying this order, before arriving in Armenia they went first to Edessa, where the ‘great church of Abgar’ was located, ‘the founding of St. Thaddaeus’. The different stages of the holy virgins’ journey, whose martyrdom spearheaded the Armenian king’s conversion, thus established a connection between the Edessa mission and Thaddaeus’ Armenian mission, while recalling the link to the Holy Land, where Hṙip‘simē received a relic of the Cross, which she then brought with her to Armenia. On this account, see M. Thierry and B. Outtier, ‘Histoire des saintes Hripsimiennes’, Syria 67 (1990) 695-733; on Hṙip‘simē, see ch. VI. 11  See supra, note 6. 12   G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle..., London, 1876 (reprinted and translated into English by G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai [Chico, CA, 1981]). 13  5th century for A. Desreumaux, in EAC, vol. 1, 1480, and for A. Palmer, ‘Les Actes de Thaddée’, Apocrypha 13 (2002) 63-84, at 66. 14   [Ł. Ališan], Labubneay diwanagir dpri Edesioy, T‘ułt‘ Abgaru [Labubna, archivist scribe of Edessa, Abgar’s Letter] (Venice, 1868); French translation: [Ł. Ališan], Lettre d’Abgar. 10



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition33

3.  The Armenian translation of the Teaching of Addai The Teaching of Addai combines a strong doctrinal content – indicated by its title – with a narrative framework centred around the conversion of Abgar,15 King of Osrhoene, and around the foundation of the Church of Edessa by Addai, Christ’s envoy. In this apocryphal story, King Abgar, stricken by an incurable illness, hears of Jesus and his miracles. Although he has never seen him, Addai believes in his divinity and writes him a letter, which is delivered by his archivist Hannan. In this letter he invites Jesus to come to his county in order to be safe from Jewish machinations and to heal him. Jesus responds to Hannan thus: It is now time for him to ascend toward God the Father, but as soon as he will have ascended to His presence, he will send one of his disciples to Abgar in order to heal him. Jesus also blesses the city of Edessa and promises that no enemy will be able to attack it. The chancellor Hannan creates a portrait of Jesus and brings it, along with the oral response, to Abgar. After the Ascension, according to the text, Apostle Jude Thomas sends Addai to Edessa, ‘one of the seventy-two disciples’ of Christ. Addai heals the king and preaches in the city, teaching and converting the population. He founds a church, organises the community, and ensures his own succession, all before dying of natural causes in Edessa. This Syriac text represents the development of an older tradition (called Acta Edessena by Lipsius), dating to before the beginning of the 4th century.16 There is a parallel but shorter account in HE (I, 13, 1-22) by Eusebius of Caesarea (between 311 and 324). Eusebius claims to have taken his information from official Syriac documents in the archives of Edessa that had been translated literally from Syriac into   King Abgar Ukkama (1st century AD). Some have thought of Abgar VIII (2nd-3rd centuries), who was supposedly converted to Christianity by Bardesanes, but cf. here H.J.W. Drijvers, ‘Ḥatra, Palmyra und Edessa. Die Städte der syrisch-mesopotamischen Wüste in politischer, kulturgeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung’, in ANRW II/8 (Berlin and New York, 1977) 895-6 and ‘Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity’, The Second Century 2 (1982) 157-75 (= Id., East of Antioch. Studies in Early Syriac Christianity [London, 1984], n° VI) 157 and note 3. 16   See R.A. Lipsius, Die edessenische Abgar-Sage (Braunschweig, 1880). On the different documents and traditions related to or part of the Teaching of Addai, see A. Desreumaux, ‘La Doctrina Addaï, le chroniqueur et ses documents’, Apocrypha 1 (1990) 257-67. 15

34 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition Greek.17 Thus, the legend soon developed by which the Church of Edessa was able to claim an apostolic origin. As for the Teaching of Addai, it should be considered to be ‘un récit de fondation sur lequel se sont greffées les formes théologiques et institutionnelles majeures d’une Église d’Edesse qui, entrant au Ve siècle dans sa maturité, repense son origine pour l’ancrer dans la tradition apostolique’.18 In Eusebius’ text, as in the later Greek tradition and in the Armenian one, Addai (Addaeus in the Armenian version of the Teaching) is identified with Apostle Thaddaeus.19 The Syriac text of the Teaching of Addai was translated into Armenian probably in the 5th century. What interest might the Armenians have taken in this account of the founding of the Church of Edessa? One could try to offer an initial response by considering the origins of primitive Christianity in Armenia, a Christianity that was probably rooted in Syriac and, notably, Edessan Christianity. All the same, if one examines more closely the modalities of the translation of the Syriac Teaching of Addai, one can guess at other reasons, too. A comparison of the original with the Armenian version reveals that this translation is generally faithful.20 But toward the end, the Armenian text begins to separate systematically from the Syriac. The death of the saint in Edessa is in the Armenian version nothing more than his departure to the East: wmn btr tlt’ ywmyn ḥrnyn [...] npq hw’ lh mn ‘lm’ hn’ (Phillips, 96, 14-18)21 Three days later [...], he [scil. Addai] went forth from this world ­(Howard, 97, 15-18) ew yet ayl ews eric‘ awurc‘ [...] hambarjeal zjeṙs i ver, ekac‘ yałōt‘s ew ōrhneac‘ znosa: Ew eleal gnac‘ ĕnd Arewels. ew yłarkec‘in zna amenayn bazmut‘iwn mardkann: ([Ališan], Labubneay, 45, 12-19)   For these famous archives, see M. Debié, ‘Record Keeping and Chronicle Writing in Antioch and Edessa’, ARAM 12 (1999/2000) 409-17 and L’écriture de l’histoire en syriaque (Leuven, 2015) 167-73. 18  Desreumaux, Histoire du roi Abgar, 21. 19   On this double appellation, see Drijvers, ‘Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity’, 160 and note 13; see also Palmer, ‘Les Actes de Thaddée’, 66 and note 7. 20   On the translation technique, see J. Dashian, ‘Zur Abgar-Sage’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 4 (1890) 186-95; more recently, Calzolari, ‘Réécriture’, 97-110. 21  Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle. 17



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition35

And after three more days [...], having raised up his hands, he [scil. Addai] remained in prayer and blessed them. And, once he had departed, he went toward the East, and a multitude of people accompanied him.22

Where the Syriac text mentions the illness that was to cause Addai’s death, the Armenian version speaks only of his desire to depart for the East, in order to perform his missionary work there as well: btr hlyn klhyn. ’tkrh hw’ kwrhn’ dnpq hw’ bh mn ‘lm’ hn’ [...] (Phillips, 80, 15-16) After all these things, when he had become ill with the sickness by which he left this world [...] (Howard, 81, 14-16)23 Ew yet aysr amenayni kamec‘aw Adē aṙak‘eal (gnal) i kołmans arewelic‘ ew yerkirn Asorestani k‘arozel ew usuc‘anel ew and znor vardapetut‘iwnn K‘ristosi, ew šinel ekełec‘is yamenayn gawaṙs ew i geōłs i kołmans arewelic‘ ([Ališan], Labubneay, 38, 8-12) And after all this, Apostle Addai wanted (to go) toward the regions of the East and Syria to preach and teach there as well the new teaching of Christ and to build churches in all the provinces and villages of the eastern regions.

Where the Syriac text mentions Addai’s natural death, the Armenian alludes to his martyrdom in the eastern regions. In recalling the death of Aggai, Addai’s disciple and successor, the Syriac text says that on this occasion whw’ hw’ ’bl’ rb’ wmryr’. bkwlh ‘dt’ wbklh mdynt’. ‘l ḥš’ d’bl’ dhw’ bgwh. ’yk dhw’ hw’ ’bl’ kd myt ’dy šlyḥ‘ (Phillips, 104, 5-8) There was great and bitter sorrow in all the church and in all the city, beyond the pain of sorrow which had been in it, like the sorrow which was when the Apostle Addai died (Howard, 105, 4-7) Ew ełew sug mec ew daṙn yekełec‘woǰn ew yamenayn k‘ałak‘n vasn irac‘n ełeloc‘n. orpēs ełew sug ew trtmut‘iwn yoržam vaxčanec‘aw ­bariok‘ vkayut‘eamb Adē aṙak‘eal vardapetn nora i jeṙac‘ amparštac‘, i kołmans Arewelic ([Ališan], Labubneay, 49, 16-20)

  I offer my own translation of the quoted passages.  Howard, The Teaching of Addai; quotations follow this translation. Cf. the French translation: A. Desreumaux, Histoire du roi Abgar et de Jésus (Turnhout, 1993, reprinted in EAC, vol. 1, 1485-1525). 22

23

36 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition Following these events [scil. Aggaeus’ death], there was great and bitter mourning in the Church and in the whole city, as there were mourning and distress when Apostle Addaeus, his master, died in noble martyrdom at impious hands in the regions of the East.24

These alterations of the original text in the Armenian version are quite subtle.25 The translator has ingeniously used all the Syriac elements he could. Where the Syriac mentioned the imminent death of Addai, the Armenian speaks more vaguely of the apostle’s departure, which can be understood literally or metaphorically: [...] kd m‘qyn hww ‘lwhy kwlhwn. dm’t hw’ (Phillips, 96, 8-9) [...] all of whom were distressed concerning him [Addai] because he was dying (Howard, 97, 8-9) Ew trtmeal ēin amenek‘in yałags mekneloy nora ew gnaloy i noc‘anē ([Ališan], Labubneay, 45, 3-5) And they were all dismayed at his departure and the fact that he [Addaeus] was leaving them.

Where the Syriac says that King Abgar bitterly wept over the death of Addai, the translator does not remove the description of the king’s despair but attributes his sadness to the fact that the apostle was about to leave: wb’bl’ rb’ wbḥš’ mryr’ hwt ‘lwhy klh mdynt’. l’ hw’ dyn krsṭyn’ blḥwd m‘qyn hww ‘lwhy. ’l’ ’p yhwdy’ wḥnp’ d’yt hw’ bh bkrk’ hn’. ’bgr dyn   This sentence is repeated in the Armenian Synaxarion (Yaysmawurk‘) on the 16 kalots (= December 24), devoted to the festival of St. Addai (confused with Aggai, his disciple): see PO 18/1 (1924) 101 [787], l. 6-9. Here and elsewhere I base myself on the Synaxarion of Kirakos Arewelc‘i (around 1269), which G. Bayan mistakenly published under the name of Ter Israel (beginning of the 13th century). 25   These alterations have already been observed by, among others, the editor of the Armenian text, who wrote: ‘... the most curious fact is that from this moment onward, the two texts, Syriac and Armenian, separate one from the other; so that while the latter relates Thaddaeus’ departure as a journey to the East, the former shows us his departure from life […]. If this were true, we would have to overturn completely the edifice of our history and our ecclesiastical faith, which maintains, without ever having doubted it, that Apostle Thaddaeus upon completion of his mission with Abgar went… to Armenia.’ ([Ališan], Labubneay, 46, note 2, in Armenian). 24



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition37

mlk’. ytyr mn kl ’nš m‘q hw’ ‘lwhy. [...] wbdm‘’ ḥnygt’ bk’ hw’ lh ‘m kl ’nš. w‘m’ klh dmdynt’ dḥz’ hw’ lh. mtdmr hw’ bh dkm’ ḥ’š hw’ ‘lwhy (Phillips, 96, 20-98, 9) All the city was in great lamentation and bitter sorrow over him. Nor were they Christians alone who grieved over him but Jews and pagans who were in the city as well. But King Abgar, more than anybody, grieved over him [...] With tears of sorrow he wept over him with everyone. All the people of the city who saw him marvelled at how much he suffered over him (Howard, 98, 20-99, 8) Ew sug mec ew trtmut‘iwn yoyž ełew amenayn k‘ałak‘in vasn mekneloy nora i noc‘anē. ew oč‘ et‘ē k‘ristovneayk‘n miayn layin, ayl ew het‘anosk‘n ew Hreayk‘n or ēin i k‘ałak‘in: Ayl Abgar t‘agawor aṙawel k‘an zamenayn ok‘ trtmeal ēr vasn gnaloyn nora [...] Ew lalov mecaw ew artasuōk‘ yułarkeac‘ zna handerj amenayn ekełec‘eawn: Ew amenayn bnakč‘ac‘ k‘ałak‘in teseal zna zarmac‘eal ēin, t‘ē ork‘an vštac‘eal ēr vasn nora: ([Ališan], Labubneay, 45, 20-46, 9) And the whole city was in deep mourning and great distress at the fact that he was going away far from them. And not only the Christians wept, but also the pagans and the Jews who were in the city. But King Abgar was sadder than everyone else due to the fact that he [scil. Addaeus] was leaving […]. And with great wailing and tears he accompanied him with the entire Church. And all the habitants of the city, seeing him, were amazed to see how badly he [scil. Abgar] was afflicted because of him [scil. Addaeus].

Where the Syriac describes Addai’s funeral, the Armenian transforms the funeral procession into a procession of the people of Edessa accompanying Addaeus as he departs toward the East. The Armenian text states that this procession accorded the apostle the same honours as one usually accords the dead: wb’yqr’ rb’ wmytr’. zyḥ hw’ wqbrh. ’yk ḥd mn rwrbn’ m’ dm’t hw’ (Phillips, 98, 10-11) With great and excellent honor he [scil. Abgar] bore him [scil. Addai] in state and buried him like one of the princes when he dies (Howard, 99, 8-10) zor ōrinak yułarkē ok‘ zmeṙeal. ew bazum patuov ew mecaranōk‘ ew trtmut‘eamb yułarkec‘in zna ([Ališan], Labubneay, 46, 9-11) In the same way as one accompanies the dead, they accompanied him with much honour and homage and with sadness.

38 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition The Armenian text adds (ibid.): Ew na el gnac‘ ĕnd arewels k‘arozel zawetarann K‘ristosi ([Ališan], Labubneay, 46, 11-12) And he [Addaeus] departed, going toward to East to preach the gospel of Christ.

This last sentence replaces the description of the tomb and the establishment of a memorial for Addai in the Syriac text.26 One has the impression that the translator of the Teaching of Addai, both here as well as in the rest of the Armenian version, is at pains to respect the elements of the Syriac as much as possible. But there is one fact which he could not or would not leave as is: Addai’s death by natural causes in Edessa. Lest he contradict the ancient Armenian tradition of Thaddaeus’ preaching and martyrdom in Armenia,27 he chose to change the information that undermined these. He completely erased the episode of Addai’s death in Edessa and replaced it with his departure for the East. The rewriting process of the Teaching of Addai in Armenian did not stop there. This adapted Armenian version of the Teaching was in turn reworked in the History of Armenia by the historian Movsēs Xorenac‘i (5th or 8th century?). 4.  The reworking of the Teaching of Addai in the History of Armenia by Movsēs Xorenac‘i The story of Abgar and of Sanatruk, under which monarchs Thaddaeus preached, can be read in chapters 24-36 of the second book of the  Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai, 98, 11-20.   See among others M.A. Carrière, ‘La légende d’Abgar dans l’Histoire d’Arménie de Moïse de Khoren’, Centenaire de l’École des Langues ­Orientales Vivantes (1795-1895) (Paris, 1895) 357-414, at 372-3; van Esbroeck, ‘Le roi Sanatruk et l’apôtre Thaddée’, 267. According to Palmer, ‘Les Actes de Thaddée’, 71-2, the Armenian and Syriac traditions were known to the author of the Greek Acts of Thaddaeus (dated to the era of Heraclius), who mentions some Armenians in the audience of Thaddaeus’ preaching in Edessa. This author presumably wrote the work, among others, in order to replace these Eastern traditions with the Greek ‘truth’ about the apostle. There is a French translation of the Acts of Thaddaeus by A. Palmer in EAC, vol. 2, 643-60. 26

27



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition39

­ istory of Armenia.28 Movsēs Xorenac‘i, as is his usual practice, cites H his sources. He mentions the Teaching of Addai, which he knew in Armenian, as well as Eusebius, for whom he offers the precise citation, namely Ecclesiastical History I, 13, that is, the passage that speaks of Abgar and Thaddaeus.29 In spite of this exactitude, Movsēs does not hesitate to manipulate his source from the outset, alleging that Eusebius in this extract attests that ‘in the Edessa archives are all the acts of our first kings up to Abgar and, after Abgar, up to Ervand’.30 But the Ecclesiastical History in fact does not treat the kings after Abgar at all, and Abgar himself, like his successors, is not presented as Armenian king. If one browses the section where Movsēs Xorenac‘i relates the events in the Teaching of Addai and in the parallel passage in Eusebius, one is struck, among all the different changes, especially by the process of Armenianisation. Movsēs for example introduces the Edessan king, Abgar, into the genealogy of Armenian kings: Abgar was the son of the brother of the Armenian king Tigranes (II, 24), and Sanatruk the nephew of Abgar (II, 33); Edessa, founded by Abgar, becomes an Armenian city (II, 27). The insertion of Abgar and Sanatruk into the lineage of Armenian kings is not, however, an invention of Movsēs Xorenac‘i. We find it, for instance, in the work known by the title Primitive ­History (5th century),31 and in the Garshuni version of the Life of St. Gregory.32   Edition: M. Abełean and S. Yarut‘iwnean (eds), Movsisi Xorenac‘woy, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ [Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia] (Tiflis, 1913; repr. Delmar, NY 1981); English translation: R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians. Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources (Ann Arbor, 2006, revised edition). On Abgar in the History of the Armenians, see more in V. Calzolari, ‘La pseudépigraphie dans la littérature arménienne ancienne et médiévale’, in É. Crégheur et al. (eds), [Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Perspectives on Pseudepigraphy in Antiquity’. Université de Laval, 12-14 September 2019] (forthcoming). 29   On the question of Movsēs Xorenac‘i’s sources, see A. Topchyan, The Problem of the Greek Sources of Movsēs Xorenac’i’s History of Armenia (Leuven, 2006). 30   History of Armenia II, 10, based on Eusebius, HE I, 13, 5. 31   Edition: G.V. Abgaryan, Sebēosi Patmut‘iwnĕ [History of Sebēos] (Erevan, 1979); English translation of § 1-2, 4: R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians (Cambridge, MA and London, 1978) 357-68, cf. 53-6 (not reproduced in the revised edition published in 2006). 32   M. van Esbroeck, ‘Un nouveau témoin du livre d’Agathange’, REArm 8 (1971) 13-167 at 22; van Esbroeck, ‘Le roi Sanatruk et l’apôtre Thaddée’, 279-83. 28

40 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition But Movsēs Xorenac‘i goes further with his Armenianisation: he presents more than one character from the Teaching of Addai as Armenian. He even links them to this or that illustrious Armenian family: the Arcruni (II, 29), the Apahuni (II, 30). Tobias, especially, who according to the Teaching of Addai was the first to welcome the apostle to Edessa and the first after Abgar to believe in the divinity of Jesus, in Movsēs’ account becomes ‘Tobias… of the Bagratuni family’ (II, 33); he thus belongs to the same lineage as Sahak Bagratuni, the sponsor of the History of Armenia (II, 33). The Armenianisation goes further yet when Movsēs offers a fanciful etymology of the name Abgar, which in Syriac means ‘lame’. Because of ‘his gentleness and his wisdom’ he is called awag ayr – ‘great man’ – in Armenian, but the Greeks and Syrians called him Abgar because they were incapable of properly pronouncing his Armenian name (II, 26). We have seen how the Armenian translator of the Teaching of Addai modified some information that contradicted the Armenian tradition of Thaddaeus’ apostolate in Armenia. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, for his part, uses both this ancient tradition and the Armenian version of the Teaching so as to let Thaddaeus play a preeminent role among the Armenians. Since one could not ignore the older tradition that had Thaddaeus preach in Edessa, one instead turned this city, as well as its royalty and notables, into an Armenian city and dynasty! After having effected these and other changes,33 Movsēs concludes the whole section on Abgar with the following sentence: (II, 36) Łebubnay ordi Ap‘šadaray dpri greac‘ zamenayn gorcs, or inč‘ yawurs Abgaru ew Sanatrkoy, ew ed i diwanin yEdesiay (Abełean and Yarut‘iwnean, 161, 14-15). Łebubna, son of the scribe Ap‘šadar, wrote down all the events which took place in the time of Abgar and Sanatruk, and deposited it in the archives of Edessa.34

This passage coincides, with a few small changes, with the end of the Teaching of Addai: hkn’ ’p lbwbn’ br snq br ‘bšdr spr’ dmlk’. ktb hw’ hnyn hlyn d’dy šlyḥ’. mn šwry’ lšwlm’ kd rm’ hw’ ’yd’ dshdwt’. ’p ḥnn ṭbwlr’ šryr’ dmlk’. wsm hw’ byt ‘whdn’ dktb’ dmlk’ (Phillips, 104, 22-106, 5).   There is a detailed analysis of the passage in Carrière, ‘La légende d’Abgar’, 372-3. 34   I offer my translation of the quoted passages. 33



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition41

Labubna, the son of Senaq the son of Abshadar, the scribe of the king, therefore, wrote the things concerning the Apostle Addai from the beginning to the end, while Hannan, the faithful archivist of the king, set the hand of witness and placed it among the records of the royal books (Howard, 105, 20-107, 6)35

There is no mention here of what Movsēs added to the story. The name Łebubna/Labubna and the reference to the archives in Edessa become a mark or guarantee of the veracity of the events that Movsēs has just told, even though he has altered them. 5.  Armenia, Thaddaeus’ lot; the Armenians, chosen people of the Lord, according to the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus Although the preaching in Edessa enjoys a special position at the beginning of the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus, it is only one step on Thaddaeus’ journey, who is hurrying to arrive at his actual allotment, Armenia: (§ 4) Ew ink‘n surb aṙak‘ealn aṙnoyr zašakertsn ew p‘ut‘ov hasanēr yašxarhn Hayoc‘, aṙ t‘agaworn Sanatruk, i gawaṙin Artaz, i k‘ałak‘agewłn Šawaršan ([Ališan], 13, 4-9) And the saint apostle took with him his disciples and hurried to arrive in the land of Armenia, under King Sanatruk, in the province of Artaz, in the village of Šavaršan36 (my emphasis)

The apostle’s concern for his country of mission is continually mentioned throughout the text. Thaddaeus constantly invokes the Lord so that he may not abandon Armenia (§ 25 and § 13, cf. § 29): (§ 25) Tēr Yisus K‘ristos, mi t‘ołur i jeṙanē zsakaw žołovurds k‘o or p‘arin zinew, ew pahea surb aǰov k‘o ([Ališan], 49, 9-12)   The passage has been translated into Armenian as follows: ‘Łebubna, son of Anak, son of Abdašarag, scribe of the king, wrote down all that happened to Apostle Thaddaeus, from beginning to end, with the assistance of Hannan, the king’s confidant, and they placed it in the archives’ (Łĕbubnea ordi Anakay, ordwoy Abdašaragay dpri t‘agaworin, greac‘ zamenayn inč‘ zor miangam irk‘ ełen Adēi aṙak‘eloy, iskzbanē minč‘ew c‘katarac. miabanut‘eamb jeṙn arkanelov ew Ananay hawatarim t‘agaworin. ew edin i tan yišatakac‘ k‘artisic‘) ([Ališan], Labubneay, 51, 7-12). The proper name Anak is perhaps a corruption of Snak, due to a paleographic confusion in Armenian between the first two letters. 36   I offer my own translation of the quoted passages. 35

42 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition Lord Jesus Christ, do not remove your hand from this little people, which belongs to you and has huddled close to me, but protect it with your holy right hand (my emphasis) (§ 13) Tēr im ew Astuac im, ołormea inj. ew mi t‘ołur zsosa ork‘ h­ awatac‘in i surb anund k‘o, ew yet mahun imoy pahea zsosa aǰov k‘ov. ew mi t‘ołur zvičaks k‘o zays, zor šnorhec‘er inj Tēr im [...] ew vičakea zsosa verstin vičakawn i loys astuacut‘eand k‘o. ew ara zsosa žołovurd yawitenakan, ew erknawor gawt‘in cnundk‘. zi miaban p‘aṙaworesc‘en zsurb astuacut‘iwn anušahot varuk‘ iwreanc‘ ([Ališan], 30, 12-18; 30, 26-31,7) My Lord and my God, take pity on me and do not abandon those who have believed in your holy name, but, after my death, protect them with your right hand; and do not abandon this lot which belongs to you and which you have given me, my Lord […] and award them with a lot on high, in the light of your divinity; make of them an eternal people and a progeny of the celestial court, so that, united, they may glorify by their behaviour the holy fragrant divinity (my emphasis)

Thaddaeus’ prayers for Armenia’s protection were heard by the Lord, who made the Armenians his own people: (§ 13) Luay ałač‘anac‘ k‘oc‘. oč‘ t‘ołic‘ zhawatac‘eals i jeṙac‘ imoc‘ minčew i vaxčan ašxarhi, ew oč‘ zvičak bažni k‘o. ayl p‘ut‘ov katarec‘ic‘ zkams k‘o, ew drošmec‘ic‘ zdosa i gund astuacut‘ean imoy, ew araric‘ zdosa i gund lusoy astuacut‘ean imoy: Ew araric‘ zdosa inj žołovurd sep‘hakan, ew tac‘ zawetis im i mits noc‘a, ew araric‘ p‘axstakan zčar gazann i doc‘anē, ew parspec‘ic‘ zdosa yusov astuacut‘ean imoy: Hayec‘ayc‘ i dosa ew ołormec‘ayc‘ doc‘a. ew du xnda ew urax ler ([Ališan], 31, 8-23) I have heard your prayers. I shall not let these believers from my hands, nor your lot, to the end of the world. On the contrary, I shall hurry to achieve your will. I shall enrol them in the cohort of my divinity and make thereof the cohort of my divinity’s light. I shall make of them my own people and give my good news to their thoughts. I shall make the evil beast flee from them and I shall strengthen them with the hope of my divinity like with a rampart. I shall watch over them and have pity on them. As for you, rejoice and be happy (my emphasis)

This passage from the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus is of crucial importance, because it gives us an interpretative key for the whole work. It reveals that this work seeks to recall not only the apostolic origins of the Armenian Church, but also the divine pledge that sanctions the Armenians’ new condition, that of a chosen people destined to fully



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition43

participate in divine providence. On this point, the apocryphal story joins ancient historiographical thought.37 This parallelism at the same time offers us certain clues for responding to the thorny question of the origin of the Armenian text in the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus. 6.  The origin of the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus The origin of the text, which some consider authentically Armenian and others translated from Syriac or Greek, is very controversial. The different points of view rest on diverging interpretations of the final colophon: (§ 32) Es Samuēl episkopos anaržan caṙay K‘ristosi, t‘argmanec‘i zvkayut‘iwn surb aṙak‘eloyn T‘adēosi, ew zsrboy kusin Sandxtoy, ew etu amenayn Hayastan ašxarhi ([Ališan], 58, 1-6) I, Bishop Samuēl, unworthy servant of Christ, have translated/commented on/edited the martyrdom of the holy Apostle Thaddaeus and the holy virgin Sanduxt, and I have given it to all of Armenia (my emphasis)

The ambiguity of the Armenian verb t‘argmanel (‘translate’, ‘comment on’, but perhaps also ‘edit’) does not allow us to determine whether Bishop Samuēl is calling himself the Martyrdom’s author or simply its translator. Samuēl’s identity, furthermore, is very problematic and offers us no help in dating the work, which has been placed at different times from 5th to the 7th century.38 Some scholars have opted for a compromise: the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus was written in Syriac or Greek by an anonymous Armenian writer, working in a for him foreign language, before the invention of the Armenian alphabet.39 Bishop Samuēl then translated this first edition into Armenian. Considering the impossibility of verifying this compromise, the solution must be found beyond the colophon. One may pay greater attention to the numerous textual passages that clearly display an Armenian national sentiment and thereby support the idea of an Armenian  See infra, §7 and note 41; ch. VI, § 1 and passim.   For the state of the question, see N. Akinean, ‘Matenagrakan hete­ zōtut‘iwnner. Vkayabanut‘iwn S. T‘adēosi ew Sandxtoy kusin ew Kanonk‘ T‘adēi’ [Research on Armenian literature. Martyrdom of St. Thaddaeus and virgin Sanduxt, and Canons of Thaddaeus], HA 83 (1969) 399-426 and 84 (1970) 1-34. 39   This is the view of Andrikean and Hac‘uni, cited by Akinean, ibid. 37

38

44 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition origin.40 The theological vision of the history of the Armenian people that the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus shares with ancient Armenian historiography constitutes without any doubt the strongest argument. 7.  The Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and Movsēs Xorenac‘i This notion of a joint mission in Armenia embodying a unitary providential plan is revealed in the apocryphal accounts on Thaddaeus and Bartholomew. It has some parallel in ancient historiographical thought, which retraces the basic phases of national history and emphasises the moments that turned Armenia into a Christian country. The conversion to Christianity is thus, to the ancient writers, the point from which Armenia’s history is deemed worthy of being inscribed in a memorial work. In their eyes, this memorial by dint of its content could lay claim to a legitimacy equalling that of the Bible. In this regard, the reconstruction of the important phases of the past would show, among other issues, how the Armenians, like the Jews, had been the beneficiaries of divine grace and participated in the Lord’s providence, which made of them, too, a chosen people.41 The approximation of key figures and events in Armenian history to those of Jewish history is among the most commonly employed narrative strategies to express this ruling idea of ancient Armenian historiography.42   This is also how one can interpret the allusions to the deities of pagan Armenia, such as Anahit and Aramazd (Ahura Mazdā), and to various figures of Armenian mythology, like the višap (dragons or serpents). We note, however, that the presence of names alluding to the Armenian cultural and religious world might also be due to the substitution or adaptation of a possible model written in another language. These names do not by themselves constitute a sufficient argument. On Armenian paganism, see J.R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge, MA, 1987). 41   On this conception of the history, cf. J.-P. Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet: réflexions sur l’historiographie arménienne’, REArm 23 (1992) 121-53; on the subject of the alliance between God and the Armenian people in ancient Armenian historiography, cf. V. Calzolari, ‘La citation du Ps 78 [77], 5-8 dans l’épilogue de l’Histoire de l’Arménie d’Agathange’, REArm 29 (2003-2004) 9-27 and ‘Écriture et mémoire religieuse dans l’Arménie ­ancienne (Ve s. ap. J.-C.)’, in D. Barbu et al. (eds), Le savoir des religions. Fragments d’historiographie religieuse (Gollion, 2014) 375-94. 42   Moses bringing the Tablets of the Law to the Jewish people is thus compared to Maštoc‘, the creator of Armenian letters, which were c­ onsidered 40



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition45

Similarly, we have had the opportunity to note how much the apocryphal literature distinguished and articulated the first milestones in the Christian progression in Armenia, by insisting on the crucial role the apostolic figures played. The ancient Armenian historians, keen as they were to establish a connection between these initial Christianising milestones and the official conversion of the country in the beginning of the 4th century, did not hesitate to turn their attention toward the apocrypha, which were considered to be true accounts of the primitive history of Christian Armenia. And thus Movsēs Xorenac‘i in his History of Armenia, after having summarised the events surrounding Thaddaeus’ and Bartholomew’s arrival and martyrdom (II, 34), discusses how Armenia’s future Illuminator, St. Gregory, was conceived by his mother in the plain of Artaz,43 in the very place where Thaddaeus’ relics were preserved (II, 74). This notion constituted an obvious sign of the election of Gregory and his destiny of evangelisation.44 Movsēs clearly attributes the function of apostle to Gregory: (II, 74) Ew meṙani ink‘n ew iwrk‘n amenayn, pahelov xnamoc‘n Astucoy zsa miayn, or aknarkut‘eambn Astucoy ew šnorhōk‘ Aṙak‘eloyn ­stełcanel kam lusaworel asemk‘ yargandi mōrn, zaṙak‘elut‘ean iwroy zšnorhs i jeṙn talov nma (Abełean and Yarut‘iwnean, 212, 15-18) He [scil. Anak, father of Gregory] dies with all his dear ones, divine providence having spared only him [Gregory] who was fashioned – I mean illuminated – in his mother’s womb by God’s solicitude and by the apostle’s grace, conferring upon him the grace of his own apostolate.

At the same time, the notion helped demonstrate that the Christianisation of Armenia corresponds to a unique plan in which different to be indispensable for translating and difusing the Bible in Armenian and for evangelising Armenia and guaranteeing Armenians access to salvation. 43   It is difficult to establish a direct lineage between the account in the Discovery of the Relics of Thaddaeus and Movsēs’ version, but one can at least entertain the possibility of a common tradition for the two texts. We may note that the subject of Gregory’s conception in the place of Thaddaeus’ martyrdom is also found in the Life of St. Gregory in ­Garshuni: cf. van Esbroeck, ‘Un nouveau témoin du livre d’Agathange’, 24, 117-9. 44   This episode also appears in a letter by Step‘anos of Siwnik‘: N. Poła­ rean, Girk‘ t‘łt‘oc‘ [Book of Letters] (Jerusalem, 1994) n° 89.

46 the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition people and events are providentially linked to each other. And Movsēs Xorenac‘i concludes: Vasn oroy ew znorin Aṙak‘eloy šnorhsn ĕnkaleal or aṙ hangstaranaw norin zlinelut‘iwn ēaṙ znorin elic‘ zhogewor mšakut‘eann pakasut‘iwn Abełean and Yarut‘iwnean, 212, 10-12) This is why, having received the apostle’s grace, he (scil. Gregory), who received life by his (scil. Thaddaeus’) tomb, fulfilled what was missing from his (scil. Thaddaeus’) spiritual harvest.

An apocryphal tradition – the presence of Thaddaeus’ remains in the canton of Artaz – and a tradition that claims to be historically authentic – Gregory the Illuminator’s conception at the same site – are fused together here in order to demonstrate that the episodes involving Armenia’s Christianisation, far from being incidental and isolated, are integral to that aforementioned unique plan. This section of Movsēs Xorenac‘i’s History of Armenia constitutes a typical instance of the fact that ancient Armenian writers did not feel that apocryphal traditions and historiographical accounts were incompatible. Indeed, each of the two genres participates in its own way in the same overall cultural and religious project, which lies at the foundation of Armenian literature in its first centuries and aims to include the Armenian people in the Historia Sacra. It is interesting to observe that at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, Armenian scholars displayed a similar attitude. Thus, in 1913 M. Ōrmanean, patriarch of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, began his Azgapatum [National History] with two chapters on the apostolic beginning of the Armenian Church that were based entirely on the apocryphal stories we have just presented, which are the only ones that uphold this tradition. In introducing them, he writes: ‘The authentic history of the conversion (lit. illumination) of the Armenian world begins with the arrival of Thaddaeus in Armenia’. In ancient as in modern times, Armenia’s case offers a significant example showing that condemning apocryphal texts, at least some of them, was not the only possible approach. It thereby teaches us first of all to qualify our sometimes too rigid judgment of the value of ancient apocryphal texts as testimonies of ancient Christianity, especially our perception of Christian origins in various communities, as we have tried to illustrate in the first part of the present study. The Armenian case is all the more original in that, to the ancient Armenian



the apostle thaddaeus in the armenian tradition47

writers, the history of humanity’s salvation was intertwined with the national history, for the tracing of which they were inspired by the Bible. After having recognised an affinity between ancient historiography and the apocrypha on Armenia’s conversion, we may conclude that, fascinatingly and paradoxically, it is the Bible itself, based on historiography, that confers legitimacy not only on the work of the first Armenian historians but also on a part of the Armenian apocryphal literature.45

  On the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus, see also ch. VIII.

45

III.  The Apostle Bartholomew in the Armenian Tradition*

1.  Thaddaeus’ and Bartholomew’s joint mission as a sign of God’s providential plan: the Armenian Martyrdom of Bartholomew In addition to the accounts of Thaddaeus’ apostolate, we must mention a second apocryphal text, the Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156), whose Armenian origin has never been questioned. In this account, Thaddaeus’ mission, after he has been put to death by Sanatruk, is continued by Bartholomew, who is ultimately subjected to the same martyrdom as his predecessor. These two traditions are not considered to be in competition with one another but rather to be two complementary parts of God’s unique plan for the Armenians. The Martyrdom of Bartholomew explicitly states that his preaching took place where Thaddaeus had been active: (§ 15-16)1 Ew anc‘eal gnac‘ i Gołt‘n gawaṙ Hayoc‘, ew p‘ut‘ac‘aw hasanel i vičak T‘adēosi, ĕst hramani Hogwoyn srboy. [...] I k‘sanewinnerord ami Sanatrkoy t‘agaworin emut surb aṙak‘ealn Bardołomēos ĕst hramani Hogwoyn srboy i Hayk‘, or ĕntreac‘ zna yaṙak‘elut‘iwn koč‘mann het‘anosac‘. ew T‘ovmayi ĕst verakac‘ut‘ean aṙaǰnordut‘eann iwroy greal aṙ na, zi mi zanc‘ arasc‘ē znok‘ōk‘, k‘arozel zawetarann ark‘ayut‘ean, orpēs ew yamenayn tełis, p‘oxanak T‘adēosi aṙak‘eloyn or ēr yeōt‘anasnic‘ anti (Č‘rak‘ean, 351, 14-16; 352, 9-17)

He passed and left for the Armenian canton Gołt‘n and he hurried to reach Thaddaeus’ allotment, in accordance with the command of the Holy Spirit […] In King Sanatruk’s twenty-ninth year, the holy Apostle Bartholomew entered Armenia, in accordance with the order of the Holy Spirit which had chosen him for the apostolate in order to call the nations. And Thomas, by the superiority of his primacy, had written him not to neglect them, but to preach the gospel of the kingdom to them as in all places, taking over from Apostle Thaddaeus, who was one of the Seventy (my emphasis)   Translated from the French by Dr Benedict Beckeld.   Number of paragraph of my French translation: Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, 51-88 (passim). * 1



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition49

In the final section, after the description of Bartholomew’s martyrdom, the text refers to the reunion of the two apostles’ souls as they ascend to heaven: (§ 19) Zays ibrew asac‘ šaržec‘aw tełin, ew aha kamar lusełēn ekeal ekac‘ i veray srboyn. ew nora hayec‘eal i ver yerkins awandeac‘ zhogin, ew bureac‘ hot anušut‘ean. ew surb aṙak‘ealn T‘adēos ibrew ayn t‘ē marmnawor t‘esleamb gayr ĕnd aṙaǰ nora. ew darjan ĕnd noyn usti ekn surbn Astucoy T‘adēos (Č‘rak‘ean, 356, 9-15) As he said this, the place trembled and an arc of light came and stayed above the saint. And he, having looked up toward heaven, gave up his soul. And a sweet fragrance spread. The holy Apostle Thaddaeus, as in a corporeal apparition, came to meet him, and they departed together the same way as Thaddaeus, the saint of God, had come (my emphasis)

This vision of final reunion suggests that the two phases of the conversion and Christianisation of Armenia are considered part of a unique divine plan in which, according to the text, other apostles participated as well. In his final prayer before dying, Bartholomew addresses the Lord and mentions three other apostles who had also concerned themselves with Armenia: (§ 18) Tēr Astuac hayr Teaṙn meroy Yisusi K‘ristosi, mi t‘ołur i jeṙanē zvičaks zays xndruacovk‘ T‘adēosi ew T‘ovmayi ew Yudayi, ew im Bardołomēosi, or hogac‘ak‘ vasn ašxarhis aysorik. ew mi otnhar lic‘i i t‘šnamwoyn. ayl tur soc‘a zšnorhs ołormut‘ean [...]: Ew tur soc‘a hoviw ew aṙaǰnord (Č‘rak‘ean, 355, 15-356, 6) Lord God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, hear the prayers of Thaddaeus, Thomas, Jude, and me, Bartholomew, we who have concerned ourselves with this land, and do not abandon this allotment. May it not be mocked by the enemy, but give them the grace of pity […] Give them a pastor and a guide2 (my emphasis)

1.1.  The apostles of Armenia This passage mentions several apostolic figures connected to Armenia, on whom we should dwell for a moment before moving on to Bartholomew. We begin with Jude, namely ‘Jude, (brother) of James’, ‘one of the Twelve’, whom Bartholomew met, according to the ­Martyrdom   The text illustrates the apostle’s concern for his succession and for the continued evangelisation of Armenia. 2

50 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition of Bartholomew 16, on the hill of Artaš (Artaz?),3 where the two apostles erected the sign of the cross together before separating. This presupposes, following the text of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew, that Jude was already in Armenia when Bartholomew arrived there. In an abbreviated version of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 160),4 which is later than the Martyrdom itself, the meeting took place when Jude was traveling toward Salamast 5 and Bartholomew toward Ałbak.6 According to the abbreviated text, Jude then went ‘to the Armenian city Ormi’ and Bartholomew to Salamast. It should be noted that Jude has sometimes been identified with Thaddaeus [Lebbaeus] – which indeed is the case in the abbreviated Martyrdom of Bartholomew just mentioned above – and sometimes confused with Simon the Zealot.7 Movsēs Xorenac‘i in his History of Armenia (II, 34) refers to these three apostles – Thaddaeus, Bartholomew, and Simon – as ‘martyrs in Armenia’. Thomas the Apostle is an especially important figure. According to the Doctrine of Addai, it is Thomas who sends Addai [Thaddaeus] to King Abgar. In the Martyrdom of Bartholomew, it is also Thomas who enjoins Bartholomew to go to Armenia.8 Moreover, the medieval Armenian tradition mentions an Armenian phase in Thomas’ own missionary journey. As a matter of fact, the historian Step‘annos Tarōnec‘i (Asołik), in his chronicle up to the year 1004, adopts several pieces of information from Movsēs Xorenac‘i’s History of Armenia (II, 34), but adds a new detail. He says: ‘The apostle Thomas and Bartholomew were allocated Armenia, who also expire among us, in the city of Arabion’.9 The same tradition is assumed in the medieval   See van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance’, 192-3.   Van Esbroeck (ibid., 192) considers this a text from a local tradition, ‘élaborée pour le couvent d’Ałbak. 5   In present-day Iranian Azerbaijan; one also finds the variants Salmast and Salmas. See Hakobyan et al., Dictionary of Toponymy of Armenia, vol. 4, 470-1. 6   In ancient Vaspurakan, close to Bașkalē in Turkey today: Hakobyan, ibid., vol. 1 (Erevan, 1986) 161. 7   On Jude, see Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 727-30; on Jude and Simon, see also van Esbroeck, ‘Chronique arménienne’, 431. On the origin of the name Jude Thomas, see J.J. Gunther, ‘The Meaning and Origin of the Name ‘Judas Thomas’’, Le Muséon 93 (1980) 113-48. 8   More details infra, ch. IV, § 2. 9   English translation by T. Greenwood, The Universal History of Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i, Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford, 2017) 127. Cf. van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 173. 3 4



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition51

Armenian History of the Discovery of the Mortal Remains of the Holy Apostle Thomas (BHO 1224). It mentions the preaching by Apostle Thomas, ‘who taught India, [Caucasian] Albania [Arm. Ałuank‘], and Armenia’.10 Whereas the tradition of the apostolic teaching in Armenia is associated with several people, Bartholomew is the indisputable apostolic figure on which the tradition of the foundation of the Armenian Church is primarily based, as we shall see in the next section. 2.  Apostle Bartholomew in the New Testament, apocrypha, and in the ancient Greek and Latin historiographical literature The New Testament does not offer us any information on Apostle Bartholomew, apart from his name.11 He appears in the list of the twelve disciples in Mark 3:18, Matt 10:3, Luke 6:14, and in Acts 1:13, but nothing is said about his activity. In these lists his name is only mentioned, and in Matt 10:3 he is coupled with Philip the Apostle. In John 1:45-50, it is not Bartholomew but Nathanael who is presented as Philip’s companion. While the New Testament is parsimonious with information on the subject, the apocryphal tradition is rich with texts in various languages that attest to different developments of the Bartholomew legend, which thus enhance his importance. In one branch of the tradition, represented by the Questions of Bartholomew and the Book of the Resurrection, he is considered to be the custodian of divine revelations.12 According to these variants, the apostle preaches in various regions of the world and suffers different forms of martyrdom. We see him beaten with a club, decapitated, flayed, crucified, and thrown  Č‘rak‘ean, Ankanon girk‘, 420 et 424. On the Eastern tradition on Thomas, see Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 531-646. On Thomas’ preaching in India, see L.P. van den Bosch, ‘India and the Apostolate of St. Thomas’, in J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Leuven, 2001) 125-48. 11   For a general overview, see CANT 258-64; M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966) 581-91; Introduction to the Latin Passion of Bartholomew, in EAC, vol. 2, 791-3; R.A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, vol. II, 2 (Braunschweig, 1884; reprint, Amsterdam, 1976) 54-108. 12   J.-D. Kaestli and P. Cherix, L’Évangile de Barthélemy d’après deux écrits apocryphes (Turnhout, 1993). 10

52 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition into the sea. According to one dominant tradition in the Greek Church, Bartholomew, after having jointly preached with Philip, leaves for Lycaonia, where he is martyred on the cross.13 In the Coptic, Arab, and Ethiopian tradition, Bartholomew’s mission is in the ‘Oasis city’, which has been identified with the oasis of al-Bahnasah in Egypt or the oasis of Ammon (today the oasis of Sewâ); he is subsequently martyred in the city of Ni’indos by being put into a sack and thrown into the sea.14 An old tradition attested in the 4th century by Eusebius of Caesarea associates Bartholomew with India and Matthew.15 In his Ecclesiastical History V, 10, 3, Eusebius informs us that during his mission in India, the Alexandrian philosopher Pantaenus († around 200) had come upon Christian communities.16 These traced their origin to Bartholomew’s preaching, which had brought them the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew letters. Eusebius does not specify in what parts of India Bartholomew is meant to have preached.17 But this   Acts of Philip VIII, 3 [95]; Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 54-7, 75-6.   See the translation of the Ethiopian text of the Preaching of Bartholomew in the Oasis City and of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew by A. Bausi in EAC, vol. 2, 873-99; see also Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 76-89. 15   Cf. Jerome, De viris illustribus 36. See also Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 63-5, 72-4. 16   See R. Burnet, Les douze apôtres. Histoire de la réception des figures apostoliques dans le christianisme ancien (Turnhout, 2014) 456-7. 17   We recall that antiquity distinguishes among three Indias: India neighbouring Ethiopia (India citerior), which is often confused with Ethiopia itself and is probably to be identified as Arabia Felix in ancient geography, i.e. Southern Arabia; India bordering the land of the Medes (India ulterior), which has been identified with Iranian Arachosia (cf. Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 133); the farthest and easternmost India, at the end of the world, after which there is but Ocean. The terms India citerior and India ulterior seem to go back to Rufinus (4th century) who with the former means the coastal regions of the Red Sea: cf. Ph.R. Amidon, The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia. Books 10 and 11 (Oxford, 1997) 46, note 18 (see also the following note). On the ancient perception of the Indias, see among others A. Dihle, Umstrittene Daten. Untersuchungen zum Auftreten der Griechen am Roten Meer (Köln and Opladen, 1965) 36-64; A. Dihle, ‘The Conception of India in Hellenistic and Roman Literature’, in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 190 (n. s. 10) (1964) 15-23 (= V. Pöschl and H. Petersmann [eds], A. Dihle, Antike und Orient. Gesammelte Aufsätze [Heidelberg, 1984]); P. Mayerson, ‘A Confusion on Indias: Asian India and 13 14



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition53

attestation is repeated by Rufinus (4th century), who says that the apostle preached in India citerior, which borders Ethiopia.18 In ancient geography, the latter corresponds to Arabia Felix.19 We also mention the Latin Passion of Bartholomew by Pseudo-­ Abdias (Virtutes apostolorum) which states in its first lines that historiographers distinguish three Indias and situates Bartholomew’s missionary activity in the farthest one, which extends to the region of darkness and the Ocean.20 This same tradition of Bartholomew’s preaching in India is repeated in the Armenian Martyrdom of Bartholomew, where the Nile appears, by dint of which the first phase of the apostle’s preaching seems to be connected to India citerior.21 Before getting further into that tradition, we should dwell on that of Bartholomew’s preaching in ‘Greater Armenia’, which is attested by both Greek and Latin sources.

African India in the Byzantine Sources’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 113 (1993) 169-74; M.G. Raschke, ‘New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East’, in ANRW IX/2 (Berlin and New York, 1978) 968, note 1268. On India as a place of Bartholomew’s preaching, see more recently R. Burnet, Les douze apôtres, 458-62; C. Jullien and F. Jullien, Apôtres des confins. Processus missionnaires chrétiens dans l’Empire iranian (Bures-sur-Yvette, 2002) 43-53  ; G. Parker, The Making of Roman India (Cambridge, 2008). 18  Rufinus, HE I, 9 (PL, 21, 478) = X, 9 (GCS, 2/2, ed. Th. Mommsen, 971); cf. Socrates, HE I, 19; Sozomen, HE II, 24, 1; Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE III, 9, 2. 19   The connection between Bartholomew’s preaching and the India ‘that borders Ethiopia’ is also mentioned in the Syriac Chronicle of Zuqnîn (Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē) at the end of the 8th century (Leuven, 1949, 162, ed. J.-B. Chabot). 20   Passion of Bartholomew by Pseudo-Abdias (BHL 1002), translated in EAC, vol. 2, 789- 808 at 795. 21  Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 92-101; van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’. It is interesting to note that Armenian writers knew of this partition of India into three regions. We find it in the Armenian Geography (VII, 35) attributed to Anania Širakac‘i (7th century), which may in turn draw from Greek sources like the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes (see II, 48-49 for India; cf. Expositio totius mundi et gentium § 16-18 and 35).

54 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition 3.  The tradition of Bartholomew’s preaching in the eastern regions of the Byzantine Empire, and the question of the identification of ‘Greater Armenia’ in the Greek and Latin sources As opposed to Thaddaeus’ Armenian mission, Bartholomew’s apostolate and martyrdom in Armenia are also attested outside of Armenian literature. According to M. van Esbroeck, who has studied the Armenian Bartholomew legend in depth, the oldest document we have on the subject is the Breviarium apostolorum, a Latin list of apostles discovered in the 1960s by Father B. de Gaiffier, who dated it to the beginning of the 7th century (600).22 This list stems from an older document that has been lost. We read there: Bartholomeus apostolus […] Liconiam (sic) praedicavit; ad ultimum in Albano maioris Armeniae urbe vivens a barbaris decoriatus atque per iussum regis Astragis decollatus, sicque terrae conditus nono kalendas septembres (Gaiffier, Breviarium, 106-7) The apostle Bartholomew [...] preached in Lycaonia; residing till the end [of his life] in Albanos, a city of Greater Armenia, he was flayed by the barbarians and decapitated on order of King Astragis,23 and he was buried on the ninth day of the Kalends of September (my emphasis)

A Greek list of apostles, attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis († 403), also contains a notice on Bartholomew. It recalls the tradition of Bartholomew’s preaching and diffusion of the Gospel according to Matthew in India; it also has him die in ‘Greater Armenia’, in the city of Albania/Arpanopolis (Albanopolis):24 Βαρθολομαίος δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος Ἰνδοίς τοῖς καλουμένοις εὐδαίμοσι ἐκήρυξε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τὸ Ματθαίον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον αὐτοῖς τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν συγγράψας. ἐκοιμήθη δὲ   Full title: Breviarium apostolorum ex nomine vel locis ubi praedicave­ runt, orti vel obiti sunt. See B. de Gaiffier, ‘Le Breviarium apostolorum (BHL 652). Tradition manuscrite et œuvres apparentées’, AB 81 (1963) 89-116 at 113. 23   His correspondence in Pseudo-Abdias’ Passion of Bartholomew (Virtutes apostolorum, BHL 1002) V, 22 is King Astriges. 24   Th. Schermann, Prophetarum vitae fabulosae. Indices apostolorum ­discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicata (Leipzig, 1907). 22



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition55

ἐν Ἀλβανίᾳ πόλει [v.l. Ἀρπανοπόλει]25 τῆς μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐτάφη (Schermann, Prophetarum, 110) The apostle Bartholomew preached the Gospel of Christ in the region of the Indias that are called happy, and translated for them into the language of the country the holy Gospel according to Matthew. He died in Albania [v.l. Arpanopolis], a city of Greater Armenia, and was buried there26 (my emphasis)

Th. Schermann considered this list of apostles to be pseudepigraphical, and dated it to the 8th century. Nevertheless, according to F. Dolbeau, who has recently returned to the study of the apostle lists, the dating may be older and Epiphanius could indeed be the author.27 If this hypothesis proves true, we will have a testimony of the apostle’s preaching in Armenia that is older than that in the Latin Breviarium (see also infra). The two testimonies, the Greek and the Latin, raise the question of Albanos’ or Albanopolis’/Albania’s identity. Van Esbroeck has proposed an interesting hypothesis, but based on a rather late source, the Palestinian-Georgian calendar of John Zosimus (10th century). Van Esbroeck argues first of all that the name of the Armenian city associated with Bartholomew’s death is attested in numerous variants (in Greek, Latin, and Armenian), including the variant ‘Ourbanopolis’.28  Cf.  Synax. Eccl. CP: ἐν Ἀρβανουπόλει, quoted in van Esbroeck, ‘Chronique arménienne’, 428. 26   On the Armenian traditions of the apostle lists, see Leloir, Écrits apo­ cryphes sur les apôtres, 710-73; on Bartholomew, see in particular 731-2, 742, 749-50, 755. The notice on Bartholomew in the Breviarium and that of the List of Pseudo-Epiphanius are presupposed in the notice that has been conserved in one of the recensions of De ortu et obitu Patrum (BHL 6544, CPL 1191), attributed to Isidore of Seville († 636). The text of De ortu locates Bartholomew’s preaching and martyrdom in Albano maioris Armeniae ‘in Albanos of Greater Armenia’: see F. Dolbeau, ‘Deux opuscules ­latins, relatifs aux personnages de la Bible et antérieurs à Isidore de Séville’, RHT 16 (1986) 83-139; see also Gaiffier, ‘Le Breviarium apostolorum’, 106-7, who advanced the hypothesis that the three texts (Breviarium, List of Pseudo-Epiphanius, and De ortu) have a common ancestor, although they would have had to take some of their information from other texts as well. 27   See Dolbeau in EAC, vol. 1, 462, note 3. 28   The different variants are enumerated in greater detail in van Esbroeck, ‘Chronique arménienne’, AB 80 (1962) 423-45 (esp. 425-8); cf. already ­Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 59-60. There are for example the variants 25

56 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition He then notes that in one of the two attestations in John Zosimus’ calendar for the date of the celebration of the 45 martyrs in Nicopolis,29 the name of the city appears as ‘Ourbanopolis’ rather than ‘Nicopolis’. Van Esbroeck thereby identifies the one appellation with the other, suggesting that the city had been previously called Ourbano­ polis but was then renamed Nicopolis, ‘city of victory’, following Pompey’s military success against Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, in 66 BC.30 The expression ‘Greater Armenia’, which is normally used to indicate Persarmenia (eastern Armenia) and not the adjacent areas of the Byzantine Empire – usually referred to as ‘Lesser Armenia’ – may seem counterintuitive for this western region. But, according to van Esbroeck, this impression disappears if we return to the 6th century. As a matter of fact, he has discovered that in a decree of 528, Justinian referred to the region that includes Ourbanopolis (Nicopolis) as ‘Greater Armenia’. One may also note that in 536, after the same emperor had carried out his administrative reform of Byzantine Armenia, Armenia was divided into four provinces (or Themes). Armenia I, which contained Nicopolis (Ourbanopolis), was called ‘Greater Armenia, as can be verified through official letters and in the conciliar Acts of the region’s bishops.31 Nevertheless, if Dolbeau’s previously mentioned hypothesis on the authenticity of the attribution of the apostle list to Epiphanius is confirmed, the appellation ‘Greater Armenia’ in a 4th-century text will still have to be explained. In this respect, it is important to stress that research in progress by Christophe Guignard has confirmed that some other apostle lists that mention Bartholomew’s preaching in ‘Greater Armenia’ have to be dated to the end of the 4th century: i.e. the so-called Anonymous I B (cf. MS Vatopedinus 853 [AV3]), which is a variant of the so-called Anonymous I A, but with Οὐρβανόπολις τῆς μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας ‘Ourbanopolis in Greater Armenia’, attested in Nicetas the Paphlagonian (10th century), and Κορβανόπολις ‘Korbanopolis’, attested in the Chronicon paschale (7th century). 29   A city on the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. 30   Van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 176 and 180. He considers the older hypotheses of J. Markwart and R. Lipsius invalid, which identified the city with, respectively, Arewan in Syria and Erwandašat, in Greater Armenia; see J. Markwart, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran (Leipzig, 1905) 232-5, and Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 100, cited by van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 181, note 53. 31   See van Esbroeck, ibid., 178-80.



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition57

the addition of a list of the apostles’ burial places.32 This list was the source of a poem written by Paulinus of Nola in 405,33 which is, consequently, the terminus ante quem of the Anonymous I B. If the appellation ‘Greater Armenia’ is still unclear, the spread of the cult of the apostle in the eastern regions of the Byzantine Empire is confirmed by other evidence. Other sources studied by van E ­ sbroeck also inform us on the subject of a Bartholomew cult on the limes of the Empire. After Armenia’s partition between Rome and Persia, around 387-390,34 Theodosius I (379-395) founded two cities on the border by the name of Theodosiopolis, one in the north and the other in the south along the Euphrates. The northern city (present-day Erzurum, which the Armenians used to call Karin) was founded where according to tradition Bartholomew had erected a church dedicated to the Virgin. This tradition is attested by the Narratio de rebus Armeniae (ca. 700), an Armenian philo-Chalcedonian chronicle which has come down to us in a Greek translation.35 In § 5-9, the Narratio reports that Bartholomew, when he went to preach among the Parthians, had baptised ‘the Persian king’s cousin’, along with three thousand other people, in the Euphrates. In the same place, he had erected a church dedicated to the ‘Most holy Theotokos’.36 A village, which formed near this church, the apostle called Kalē Archē. It is here that Theodosius the Great founded the northern Theodosiopolis, because he appreciated the location and its body of water.37   Oral communication delivered at the General Meeting of the AELAC (July 2019): ‘L’Anonyme I (BHG 153c), une catégorie à repenser à la lumière de l’histoire des plus anciennes listes d’apôtres’. See also C. Guignard, ‘La tradition grecque de la liste d’apôtres “Anonyme I” (BHG 153c) avec un appendice sur la liste BHG 152n’, Apocrypha 26 (2015) 171-209. 33   C. Guignard, ‘Poétique des listes apostoliques’, in M. Cutino (ed.), Poetry, Bible and Theology from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages (Berlin, 2020) 366-72. 34   See for example R.C. Blockley, ‘The division of Armenia between the Romans and the Persians at the end of the fourth century A.D’, Historia 36 (1987) 222-34. 35   Narratio de rebus Armeniae, ed. G. Garitte (Leuven, 1952). 36   See van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 175. 37   In other Armenian sources, like Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia III, 59, it is Theodosius II. On this question, see the considerations in Garitte, Narratio, 68-70. On Theodosiopolis’ foundation, see the recent studies by N.G. Garsoïan: ‘The Foundation of Theodosiopolis-Karin’, in R.G. Hovannisian 32

58 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition According to another testimony, conserved in Theodorus Lector (ca. 530), Emperor Anastasius (491-518) built on the southern limes a city called Anastasiopolis (also known as Dara) in 508-509, which he put under Bartholomew’s protection and to which he had the apostle’s relics delivered.38 Bartholomew had appeared to him in a dream and indeed promised to extend his protection over the city and consequently over the Empire’s frontier. The emperor then rebuilt the northern Theodosiopolis, which he based on Anastasiopolis to the south, and renamed the former Anastasiopolis as well. The southern city was not far from Martyropolis, where according to Armenian tradition Bishop Marūtha brought the apostle’s relics in the 5th century.39 On another note, according to one branch of the Greek tradition, attested by Theodorus Studita († 826),40 the apostle’s remains, as well as those of four other martyrs, had been put in a box and thrown into the sea. ‘Upon leaving the lands of Armenia’, these remains arrived at the Lipari Islands off Sicily, where Bishop Agathon received them. We see from this passage that the tradition is adapting itself more to the geography of western Armenia than to that of Persarmenia (eastern Armenia), which never had access to the sea. It also draws on the Cappadocian version of the Bartholomew cult. The tradition of the relics’ sea voyage must have been older than the 9th century, because it is assumed by Gregory of Tours († 595),41 in the section of the Miracula that deals with Bartholomew, although there is no reference here to Armenia. To Gregory, it is in India – the only mission location that he mentions – that the apostle’s remains were stolen by pagans and thrown into the sea, to then arrive at the Lipari Islands. In the 9th century, on the other hand, a more elaborated version of the legend mentions Armenia. Nicetas the Paphlagonian, in his

(ed.), Armenian Karin/Erzurum (Costa Mesa, CA, 2003) 63-72 and ‘La date de la fondation de Théodosioupolis-Karin’, REB 62 (2004) 181-96. 38   Theodorus Lector, HE II, 57 (PG, 86, 212; GCS, 54, 157). See also van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 182-3. 39  See infra, § 4. 40   Laudes in gloriosum et sanctum Christi apostolum Bartholomaeum 6-7 (PG, 99, 797-800). 41   Miraculorum Lib. I. De gloria martyrum 33 (PL, 71, 734).



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition59

Laudatio, dedicated to Bartholomew,42 explicitly mentions his preaching in Ourbanopolis, in ‘Greater Armenia’. In this panegyric, Nicetas relates the story of the relic theft and sea voyage. The box containing the apostle’s remains, as well as those with the remains of the other martyrs, crossed the ‘Pont(os)’ (the Black Sea), the Hellespont, Aegean, and Adriatic, all the way to Sicily. Nicetas further says that in the time of Emperor Theophilus (829-842), after the Muslim capture of Sicily,43 the relics were transferred from the Lipari Islands to Benevento via Amalfi, in Campania, in order to be kept safe.44 From the point of view of historical geography, the beginning of the itinerary on the Black Sea is conceivable if the outset is in the region of Ourbanopolis and northern Theodosiopolis. Nicetas’ panegyric thus joins the tradition of the Bartholomew cult in western Armenia.45 But he mentions the apostle’s death by crucifixion, which is attested in the Greek tradition, not by being clubbed to death, as in the Armenian M ­ artyrdom of Bartholomew and in the memorial contained in the Armenian ­Synaxarion on the 4 kalots (= 12 December).46 3.1.  The Armenian translation of the Greek text of the Laudatio of Apostle Bartholomew by Nicetas These contradictions with the Armenian legend have not stopped the Greek Laudatio from being successful within the Armenian liturgical tradition. On the 14 navasard (= 24 August), in fact, the Armenian Synaxarion preserves a note on the Return of the Precious Remains of Holy Apostle Bartholomew (Veradarjumn patuakan nšxarac‘n surb aṙak‘eloyn Bardołimēosi), in which all the details reported by Nicetas appear.47 The divergences from the Armenian tradition have not been   Oratio X: Laudatio sancti ac celebratissimi Bartholomaei apostoli (PG, 105, 196-217). 43   Palermo was taken in 831. 44   See Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 106-8. The relics are venerated today in Rome, in the Basilica of St. Bartholomew, on Tiber Island, where they were brought by Otto III (983); there is also, however, a tradition that they continue to be venerated in the St. Bartholomew church in Benevento. 45   See also van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 184. 46   G. Bayan, ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. V. Mois de Kalotz’, PO 86 (18/1) (1924) 23-7 [709-13]. 47   G. Bayan, ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. I. Mois de Navasard’, PO 23 (5/3) (1909, reprint 2003) 430-2 [86-8]. 42

60 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition removed, and the Synaxarion thus contains two different versions of Bartholomew’s ordeal.48 The comparison between the Armenian Synaxarion’s notice concerning the 14 navasard with the Greek Laudatio has confirmed that the Armenian text is nothing but the (fragmentary) translation of the panegyric section in Nicetas, which deals with the Bartholomew relics’ voyage at sea. More precisely, it contains the following snippets: PG, 99, 213 C – 215 C (ab Ὁ γὰρ ἁγίος ἀπόστολος κτλ. usque ad κατέπατυσε τὸν λόγον) – with the omission of the route taken by the boxes – followed by PG, 99, 217 B-C.

In addition to obvious textual parallels, the Armenian text preserves a few distorted proper names whose alteration proves its dependence on the Greek model. The Greek name of the city Amalfi, in the genitive plural Ἀμαλφινῶν [Amalphinôn], in Armenian becomes Malp‘inon (with the fall of the initial [a]). The Armenian transliteration of this toponym demonstrates that the name was not known to the Armenian translator; he interpreted the genitive plural ending -ῶν [-ōn] as part of the root and therefore wrote it out in Armenian as well. We also notice that the Greek name Καλαβρίας [Kalabrias] is rendered in Armenian as Kalawriu, a form which presupposes the pronunciation [v] of the Greek Beta. The Greek and Latin sources mentioned thus far have allowed us to identify a tradition around the cult of Bartholomew that is rooted in ‘Greater Armenia’, in a city whose name is spelled in different ways: ex. Albanos, Albania, Albanopolis, Abdiopolis,49 but also Ourbanopolis and Corbanopolis. To van Esbroeck’s hypothesis, who identified this city with Nicopolis (see supra), we may add the hypothesis of Florence and Christelle Jullien, who considered that all these forms could be based on the Hellenised form of ‘Alban’, perhaps representative of the Albanian people of the Caucasus.50   On the information in the Synaxarion on Bartholomew, see Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 483-9 and 515. 49   According to Guignard (private conversation), Abdiopolis could be a deformation of Albanopolis. See also F. Dolbeau, ‘Listes d’apôtres et de disciples’, in Id., Prophètes, apôtres et disciples dans les traditions chré­ tiennes d’Occident. Vies brèves et listes en latin (Brussels, 2012) n° II. 50   Jullien and Jullien, Apôtres des confins, 46. Burnet, Les douze apôtres, 473, advanced the hypothesis that the toponym could refer to a ‘ville imagi­ naire’, whose name might be associated with the ancient Caucasian Albania. 48



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition61

If the question of the identification of ‘Greater Armenia’ in the 4th-century Greek and Latin sources still requires more research in order to reach a definitive conclusion, the tradition of the apostle cult in the regions of the limes of the Byzantine Empire is confirmed by several sources. We have also been able to verify the reception of this tradition in the liturgical collections of the Armenian Church (Synaxarion). But what about the tradition that associates the apostle’s preaching with eastern Armenia? For it is indeed in the eastern kingdom of Armenia that according to the Armenian Martyrdom of Bartholomew this apostle preached.51 As we shall see, an Armenian account of the discovery of the relics will allow us to connect the two traditions (eastern and western) and to base the tradition of Bartholomew’s mission in historical Greater Armenia. 4.  The discovery of the relics of Bartholomew in eastern Armenia by Bishop Marūtha According to the apocryphal account of the Discovery of the Mortal Remains of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew (BHO 159),52 the Syrian bishop Marūtha (4th-5th centuries)53 of Martyropolis (or MaypherIn his interpretation of the Pseudo-Abdias (see supra), he (ibid., 465-6) mentions Colchis, also in the Caucasus, as one of the preaching areas of the apostle. On the Caucasian Albania, see more in ch. IV, § 2.1. 51   In this text, the name of the city where the apostle died is Urbianos (v.l. Ovbianos, Urbanos). Cf. the variants of the Armenian Synaxarion Urbanos (Bayan, ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. V. Mois de Kalotz’, 26 [712]) and Urbanupōlis (Bayan, ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. I. Mois de Navasard’, 431 [87]). 52   Van Esbroeck considered the Martyrdom of Bartholomew, whose dating is difficult, to be ‘probablement contemporain de l’Invention’, supporting this contention with the complementary nature of the content (van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 191). But this is not in itself a compelling reason. The question of the dating remains open. 53   Cf. R. Marcus, ‘The Armenian Life of Marutha of Maipherkat’, HThR 25 (1932) 47-71; J. Noret, ‘La vie grecque ancienne de S. Maruta de Mayferqat’, AB 91 (1973) 77-103; E. Tisserant, ‘Marouta de Maypherqat (saint)’, DTC, vol. 10, 142-9. On Marūtha in the Armenian tradition, see V. Calzolari, ‘Saint Marūtha de Maipherqaṭ à la croisée de traditions orientales: le dossier arménien’, in F. Jullien (ed.), L’Orient en partage. Échanges et transferts culturels entre Tibre et Euphrate (Turnhout, forthcoming). On the Arabic tradition, see H. Munt, ‘Ibn al-Azraq, Saint Marūthā, and the Foundation of

62 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition kat)54 had the privilege of finding, under prodigious circumstances, the relics of the apostle. As in the story of Thaddaeus’ remains,55 this discovery served as irrefutable proof that Bartholomew’s missionary journey led him also into Greater Armenia, where he was then martyred and buried. Marūtha was famous for his diplomatic successes at the Persian court, where he obtained from the Sassanid King Yazdegerd I (399420) peace between the Roman and the Persian Empire, and, according to the Armenian Life of Marūtha (BHO 720), whose Syriac original has been lost,56 tolerance towards Christians. Marūtha also obtained authorisation to move the martyrs’ remains from Persia57 to Sophanene,58 in Mayyāfāriqīn (­Martyropolis)’, in A. Papaconstantinou (ed.), Writing ‘True Stories’: Historians and Hagiographers in the Late Antique and Medieval Near East (Turnhout, 2010) 149-74, and C. Robinson, ‘Ibn al-Azraq, his Ta’rīkh Mayyāfāriqīn, and early Islam’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society III 6 (1996) 7-27. 54  Arabic Mayyāfāriqīn, Armenian Np‘rkert (cf. Syr. Mefrkt); currently Silvan, in the province of Diyarbakır, in Turkey. The Armenians also called it martirosac‘ k‘ałak‘ ‘city of the martyrs’ (cf. Gr. Martyropolis): N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian (Lisbon, 1970) 9-11. 55   See above, ch. II, § 2. 56   This text should have been different for the fragmentary Syriac Life discovered by S. Brock, ‘A Fragment from a Syriac Life of Marutha of Martyropolis’, AB 128 (2010) 306-11. According to the colophon, the Armenian Life was translated by one Gagik (after the 6th century according to Marcus, ‘The Armenian Life of Marutha of Maipherkat’, 54, but in the 9th-10th for L. Ter Petrossian, ‘L’attribution du Recueil des Passions des martyrs Perses à Maroutha de Maypherqat’, AB 97 [1979] 129). The Armenian Life has some affinities with a Greek Life (BHG 2265, cf. BHG 2266), which probably also comes from a Syriac milieu: see Noret, ‘La vie grecque ancienne de S. Maruta de Mayferqat’. English translation of the Armenian text: Marcus, ibid., 55-71. 57   The martyrs were the victims of the persecution by Shapur II, in the 4th century. On the question of the identification of Yazdegert, see Calzolari, ‘Saint Marūtha de Maipherqaṭ à la croisée de traditions orientales’. The more ancient source on the diplomatic activity in Persia is the HE VII, 8 of Socrates. 58   On the Sophanene and the Sophene, see R.H. Hewsen, ‘The “Five Peoples” of Tsopk/Sophene’, in R.G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Tsopk/ Kharpert (Costa Mesa, CA, 2002) 123-36; L. Marciak, Sophene, Gordyene, and Adiabene (Leiden and Boston, 2017); E.L. Wheeler, ‘Southwestern Armenia as a Roman Frontier: Sophene 188 BC-299 A.D.’, in Hovannisian,



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition63

his episcopal city of Maypherkat, which was subsequently renamed Martyropolis, ‘city of martyrs’. The Armenian Life of Marūtha confirms the Syrian bishop’s role as ‘discoverer’ of the relics. It relates that Marūtha, after having brought the remains from Persia, requested Theodosius II’s (402-450) permission to search for other relics across the Empire, including in Armenia. Tens of thousands of pieces were then brought to Martyropolis, with sixty thousand from Armenia. Even if it may be impossible to establish a direct textual link between the Life of Marūtha and the Discovery of the Mortal Remains of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew,59 we may still note that the prologue of the latter begins by mentioning the Syrian bishop’s mission to Yazdegerd,60 as well as the founding of Martyropolis, two subjects that feature in the Marūtha legend. The text then expands the collection area of the relics to include ‘Persia, Armenia, and Syria’. As the Armenian text proceeds, Marūtha, once he has arrived in Armenia, ‘in the city of Yobianos,61 in a place called Barm’, discovers under prestigious circumstances Bartholomew’s remains, which till then had remained hidden. He transports a part of them to Martyropolis, taking care to leave the other part where he found them.62 The relics’ presence in Armenia is thus assured. In his prayers, Marūtha had asked the Lord to satisfy his desire to find the relics ‘without any trouble for the country of ibid., 87-122. These border regions had been ancient Armenian principalities since the 3rd century BC, before becoming part of the Armenian Kingdom of Tigranes the Great, in the 1st century BC. In the first centuries of the Christian era, they had a complicated history as buffer regions between the Roman and the Persian Empires. In 299 AD, they passed under Roman authority as civitates foederatae, with a larger internal autonomy, and in 536, they became part of the province called Armenia Quarta in the context of the administrative reform of Byzantine Armenia under Justinian (see supra). During this period of autonomy, they maintained strong links with the Armenian kingdom, so that the Armenian ancient historiographers presented them as Armenian provinces. A summary of this situation is in Calzolari, ‘Saint Marūtha de Maipherqaṭ à la croisée de traditions orientales’. 59   This is closely linked to the difficulty of dating the two texts. 60   According to both the Greek and Armenian Life, Marūtha’s mother was Armenian. 61   According to van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 191, this is a distortion of Urbianos/Urbanos, sometimes spelled as Ovbianos (Č‘rak‘ean, 353). 62  Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 525-7, based among others on van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’.

64 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition Armenia’ (aṙanc‘ xṙovut‘eanc‘ ašxarhin Hayoc‘, Č‘rak‘ean, 366, 17-18). The primary concern of the author of this story is not so much to emphasise the transfer of a part of the remains to Martyropolis, but rather to ensure the discovery and presence of the apostle’s relics in Armenia.63 At the same time, Marūtha’s move of a part of the relics from east to west constitutes a connection between the Bartholomew cult in the west with the tradition of a cult in Greater Armenia, in the east. Thanks to this account of the discovery, the tradition of Bartholomew’s activity in Persarmenia does not contradict the sources that attest to a privileged link between Bartholomew and the western border. 5.  The tradition of the Bartholomew cult in Armenia as a legitimation of the Armenian Church’s autocephaly Although the dating of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew remains elusive, we know that the cult of the apostle experienced a great upturn among Armenians from the 7th century on.64 At that time, apostolicity represented for the Armenian Church a protection against encroachment from the Byzantine church, from which the former had already broken off.65 Bartholomew appeared to be the apostle that could man the ramparts against Byzantium, more so than Thaddaeus, whom the   The text mentions the beginning of a cult of the relics in Armenia. It recounts that, after this discovery, which occurred during the night, the inhabitants of the city, awakened by the prodigies that accompanied it, immediately went to the place of the inventio. The next morning they made a golden coffin, where they put the relics, and placed it in a block of marble. This event has been celebrated ever since, on the 12th of December. This is the date of the feast of the relics of Bartholomew in the Armenian Synaxarion, which mentions the city of Urbanupōlis and precises that the apostle died i Hayk‘ yarewels ‘in the eastern part of Armenia’ (lit. ‘in Armenia, in the East): Bayan, ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. I. Mois de Navasard’, 431 [87]. 64   Van Esbroeck, ibid. The oldest attestations are in the History of Armenia by Movsēs Xorenac‘i, on whose dating there is no unanimity, and in Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (8th century), which has already been mentioned above (ch. 11, note 44); see also van Esbroeck, ‘Chronique arménienne’, 426. 65   On the religious history of Armenia in this era, see Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne; J.-P. Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne de 611 à 1066’, in J.-M. Mayeur et al. (eds), Histoire du christianisme, vol. 4 (Paris, 1993) 457-547; B.L. Zekiyan, ‘La rupture entre les Églises arménienne et géor­ gienne au début du VIIe siècle’, REArm 16 (1982) 155-74. 63



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition65

ancient sources present now as one of the twelve apostles, now as one of the seventy or seventy-two disciples of Christ – as in the Martyrdom of Bartholomew. 5.1.  From the ‘throne of Thaddaeus’ to the ‘throne of Bartholomew and Thaddaeus’ In the 6th and 7th centuries, the throne of the Catholicos continued to be associated with Thaddaeus alone, as in the passages from Faustus that have been mentioned above. In a letter, the Catholicos John II (557-574) calls Gregory the Illuminator ‘St. Thaddaeus’ successor’. At the beginning of the following century, the Catholicos Abraham (607-611) says, also in a letter, that he was called onto the ‘seat of the blessed Gregory, successor of the great Apostle Thaddaeus’.66 Starting in the 10th century, however, the Armenian historiographical and theological sources refer to the Catholicos’ throne as the apostolic throne of Thaddaeus and Bartholomew. This is the case, for instance, in the History of Armenia by the Catholicos Yovhannēs Dras­ xanakertc‘i,67 who is the first to use this designation.68 In an illuminating passage, emphasised and properly appreciated by van Esbroeck, Yovhannēs first recalls the tradition of the four most ancient patriarchates – Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Ephesus – which derive their legitimacy from the preaching of the four evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). He then says that Jerusalem and, later, Constantinople have also become patriarchal sees due to the prestige that the presence of relics from Christianity’s beginning has bestowed upon them.69 Based on this illustrious precedent,  Połarean, Girk‘ t‘łt‘oc‘, n° 44 and n° 81.   Van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 173-4, 18590 and passim. English translation: K. Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Dras­ xanakertc‘i, History of Armenia (Atlanta, 1987). 68   In the 10th century, this same titulature is also used by Xač‘ik I Aršaruni, who was Catholicos from 972 to 992 (Połarean, Girk‘ t‘łt‘oc‘, n° 93), cited by van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 174, who however confuses Xač‘ik I Aršaruni with his successor Xač‘ik II Anec‘i, Catholicos from 1058 to 1065. Van Esbroeck also mentions the testimony of the Catholi­ cos Anania Mokac‘i (943-967), but without indicating his exact source. 69   Yovhannēs mentions the transfer of the relics of John the Evangelist from Ephesus to Constantinople at the time of Emperor Constantius (337361). As we know, this process of relic transfer to Constantinople, which 66 67

66 the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition ­ ovhannēs asserts the Armenian Church’s right to patriarchal Y rank, too. The legitimacy of this claim rests on Bartholomew’s and ­Thaddaeus’ preaching in Armenia. Yovhannēs reports how in the time of Armenian King Aršak II (ca. 350-368), the king and the nobles ‘took the liberty of raising Nersēs the Great [353-373] to the patriarchate, for our House of T‘orgom [Armenia], justifiably presenting as true proof the holy Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddaeus, who were designated by the Lord as preachers and evangelists for the race of Ashkenaz [Armenia]’ (§ 12, p. 62-3).70 And our historian concludes: (§ 12) Ew nšxareal oskerk‘ noc‘a kan i miǰi merum, zoroc‘ ew zat‘oṙn isk ĕnkalaw kendani martiwrosn Grigorios: Ew apa xorhurdn zgorcn katareal, eōt‘n miangamayn bovandakeal gtanēr t‘iw Patriargut‘ean, or kay ew mnay paheal minč‘ew yawiteans žamanakac‘: (Patmut‘iwn Yovhannu, 63, 3-9) Their relics are to be found among us, and the living martyr Grigorios received their throne. After they [the Armenians] had carried out their intention, the total number of the patriarchal sees became seven. This is still so and shall remain to be so unto the ages of ages (Maksoudian, Yovhannēs, 84).

He again says that following this elevation of the Armenian Catholicate to independent patriarchate, the old tradition of sending the Armenian Catholicos to Caesarea71 for ordination ceased, due to a comparison of customs between the two patriarchates: (§ 13) oč‘ ews ĕst sovorut‘eann aṙaǰnoy aṙak‘eal zna i Kesaria, ayl lk‘eal i bac‘ zōrēnn aṙaǰin, ĕst ōrini patriargac‘ kalan karg, žołov episkoposac‘ jeṙnadrel orpēs Antiok‘, Ałēk‘sandr, Hṙovm, Ep‘esos, Constantine had initiated, continued under Theodosius II (402-450) and Justinian (527-565). On the sanctification of Constantinople thereby, see G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris, 1974); B. Flusin, ‘Construire une nouvelle Jérusalem: Constantinople et les reliques’, in M.A. Amir-Moezzi and J. Scheid (eds), L’Orient dans l’histoire religieuse de l’Europe. L’invention des origines (Paris, 2000) 51-70; V. Limberis, Divine Heiress. The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople (London and New York, 1994). 70   Here and elsewhere, the references are to chapter and to page and line number of the Jerusalem edition: Patmut‘iwn Yovhannu kat‘ołikosi (Jerusalem, 1867). 71   This custom was effectively stopped at the time of King Pap, when Nersēs’ successor received his episcopal consecration, in 373.



the apostle bartholomew in the armenian tradition67

Kostandinupōlis, ew Erusałēm. zi mi ayloc‘ omanc‘ ĕnd jeṙamb ankc‘i or ink‘nakalut‘eambn ē patueal Patriargut‘iwn: (Patmut‘iwn Yovhannu, 67, 24-68, 6) Contrary to the former tradition they did not send him to Caesarea, but abandoning the earlier practice they adopted the rule applicable to patriarchs whereby the synod of bishops did the ordaining as in Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Ephesus, Constantinople and Jerusalem, so that the patriarchate [of Armenia] with its independent status would not become subordinate to certain others (Maksoudian, Yovhannēs, 87)

The apocryphal tradition of Bartholomew’s and Thaddaeus’ preaching, as well as the presence of their relics in Armenia, thus became the basis for the Armenian Church’s autocephaly, with its authority and legitimacy on the same level as the those of the most important ecclesiastical sees in both East and West.72 It is therefore interesting to observe how the ancient apocryphal accounts on Bartholomew and Thaddaeus did not only ‘fill in’ the missing chapters in the canonical Acts of the Apostles by confirming the Armenians’ role in God’s providential plan, but also became an important element in the legitimation of the Armenian Catholicate’s ecclesiastical politics.

  The Armenian tradition includes a third text on Bartholomew’s activity in Armenia, namely the Martyrdom of Bartholomew and Jude (BHO 160). 72

IV. A ‘Diverging’ Version of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew in Armenian*

The Armenian tradition also includes a text recently published by G. Muradyan,1 which attests to a tradition different from the one treated in the previous chapters. As opposed to the Martyrdom of Bartholomew in the last chapter (BHO 156), it was not written directly in Armenian as an authoritative text within Armenian ecclesiastical tradition, but is, rather, an Armenian translation of a Greek text, namely the Acts and Martyrdom of Bartholomew, preserved in the Weimar Q 729 codex (codex Froehneri). Its existence has been known since J. Noret’s 1969 article (cf. BHGa 226z).2 We owe its identification to M. van Esbroeck, and there is but one known testimony of it: MS. 7853 in the Matenadaran in Yerevan (CANT 258). This sole t­estimony, which appears even   Translated from the French by Dr Benedict Beckeld.   Muradyan, ‘T‘adevos ev Bardoułimeos’; the Armenian quotations follow this edition. Muradyan’s article in modern Armenian is preceded by a brief introduction to the text (133-7). No other study has been published on the subject of this Martyrdom, with the exception of the article that is repeated here in part: Calzolari, ‘Notes sur le Martyre de Barthélemy aménien inédit’. 2   J. Noret, ‘Manuscrits grecs à Weimar (Fonds W. Froehner) et Archives Max. Bonnet’, AB 87 (1969) 79-83. The name codex Froehneri comes from the name of the manuscript’s previous owner, Wilhelm Froehner († 1925), who gave it, along with other documents, to the library in Weimar known today as the Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek. On Froehner, see M.-C. Hellmann, ‘Wilhelm Froehner, un collectionneur pas comme les autres, 18341925’, in A.-F. Laurens and K. Pomian (eds), L’anticomanie. La collection d’antiquités aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles (Paris, 1992) 251-64. The text was published and translated by C. Antonelli within the projects supported by the AELAC (forthcoming in CCSA); the Greek quotations follow this edition. I thank Dr Antonelli for giving me the possibility to quote her edition before publication and for her remarks on the Greek text. The codex is available online on the website of the Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek. * 1

a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom69



more isolated in comparison to the rich manuscript tradition of the originally Armenian Martyrdom (BHO 156), is symptomatic of the fortunate – or rather unfortunate – state of this in some ways ‘diverging’ version. Here I should draw attention to some particularities of the Armenian that appear when we compare it to the Greek. I shall first present the title, and then the excerpts that include the place of Bartholomew’s preaching and martyrdom. It is indeed the different location of the apostle’s passion that constitutes the main difference from the tradition of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156) and that probably explains its limited transmission. We specify already now that these are not competing but rather independent traditions. 1.  Title The title of the Greek text differs from that in Armenian. The Greek is Πράξεις καὶ μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ πανευφῆμου ἀποστόλου Βαρθολομαίου ‘Acts and Martyrdom of the Holy and Famous Apostle Bartholomew’, while in Armenian we have Vkayabanut‘iwn surb aṙak‘eloyn Bardołomēosi or i ŽB-anic‘ ‘Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew Who Was One of the Twelve’. The comparison between the two titles allows us to observe that the Armenian translation in its totality does not distinguish between the Acts and Martyrdom, but calls the work as a whole Vkayabanut‘iwn ‘Martyrdom’. In other cases, however, the title Vkayabanut‘iwn is reserved for the translation of the Acts’ last section, which is separate from the rest of the work (e.g. Martyrdom of Andrew, Martyrdom of Philip, etc.). The Armenian text could thus be compared to other works, such as the Armenian Martyrdom of Thaddaeus (BHO 1145) and Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156), which are titled Vkayabanut‘iwn even though they also tell of the apostles’ missionary journeys as a whole. These are not isolated instances, nor is the phenomenon limited to Armenian apocryphal literature; we recall, to cite just one example, the Greek Martyrdom of Matthew (CANT 267), which runs all the way from the beginning of the apostle’s preaching to his death.3 The Greek Acts and Martyrdom of Bartholomew we are dealing with here does, however, limit itself to recapitulating in a brief ­introductory paragraph the earlier part of Bartholomew’s missionary   Cf. F. Amsler and B. Bouvier, ‘Martyre de Matthieu’, in EAC, vol. 1, 541-64.

3

70

a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom

journeys, without ­entering into detail (see infra). The work focuses on the last phase of the apostle’s preaching, in the city of Albania, where he is martyred. Without addressing the question of the original form of the title of this work, we may note that the title Martyrdom in the Armenian seems to be appropriate for the overall content. We note again the mention in Armenian of or i ŽBanic‘ ‘who [was] one of the Twelve’, vis-à-vis the Greek adjective πανευφῆμου ‘famous’. As we know, the titles of the apocryphal works are subject to numerous textual variants, both in Greek and Armenian; the nomina sacra and the epithets for the apostles and saints are especially variable. It is therefore difficult to ascertain whether this Armenian variant derives from a lost Greek text, or whether it is an addition within the intra-Armenian ­transmission. Be that as it may, this insistence in the Armenian on ­Bartholomew’s membership among the Twelve is consistent with the crucial role accorded him in Armenia. As we saw in ch. III, the preaching by an irreproachable apostolic figure like Bartholomew became essential for the Armenians especially from the 7th century on, when the Church of Armenia needed a solid foundation for its claim of apostolic origin and to use such an origin to combat the Byzantine Church’s interference. Bartholomew was all the more important in this regard since Thaddaeus was often described in ancient sources as a member of the Seventy (or Seventy-two) disciples of Christ, and not of the Twelve.4 This feature is not absent from the Greek either: its beginning says that ‘the Lord chose (Bartholomew) among the Twelve’ (… καὶ ἐξελέξατο ἀυτὸν ὁ κύριος εἰς τοὺς δώδεκα, translated into Armenian as … ew ĕntrec‘aw yerkotasansn ‘and he was chosen among the Twelve’). As we shall see later on, the name Bartholomew in the apocryphal literature can also refer to one of the Seventy. But the text currently under consideration belongs to a different tradition, one which never doubts that Bartholomew is an apostolic figure. 2.  The geography of Bartholomew’s journeys in Greek and Armenian The geography of Bartholomew’s journeys is summarised in the first paragraph of the Greek text, which mentions the areas where ­Bartholomew travelled, either with other apostles (Thomas, Philip,   This is the case, for example, in the Armenian Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156), § 16. On this question, see the preceding chapter.

4



a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom71

Matthias) or alone:5 the land of the Parthians (mentioned twice); Phrygia; Lycaonia; India. We also find listed the city of Albania, but without any reference to Armenia: (§ 1, 1) Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπορεύθη εἰς Παρθίαν σὺν τῷ Θωμᾷ καὶ πάλιν σὺν τῷ Φιλίππῳ εἰς Φρυγίαν, ἐκεῖθεν εἰς Λυκαονίαν· ἔπειτα ἐπορεύθη σὺν τῷ Ματθίᾳ εἰς τὴν εὐδαίμονα Ἰνδίαν καὶ εἰς Ἀλβανίαν, ἐκεῖθέν τε εἰς Πάρθους καὶ εἰς πόλιν Ἀλβανίαν. καὶ ὁ μὲν Ματθίας ὑπέμεινεν εἰς τὰς κάτω χώρας κηρύσσων τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. (§1, 2) Ὁ δὲ Βαρθολομαῖος ἐλθὼν σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἰς Ἀλβανίαν πρὸ τῆς πόλεως εὗρεν ἄνθρωπον ἐρριμμένον παρὰ τὸ τεῖχος λελωβημένον πλήρης δυσωδίας· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐδεὶς ἠδύνατο προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ. After the resurrection of Christ, he (Bartholomew) went to the land of the Parthians with Thomas, and then to Phrygia with Philip, and from there to Lycaonia. He then went with Matthias to Happy India and to Albania, and from there [he went] to the Parthians and toward the city of Albania. While Matthias stayed to preach the word of God in the countries below, Bartholomew for his part, having gone with the disciples to Albania, found before the city a man thrown next to the walls, a leper,6 full of stench; because of this, no one could approach him.

The Armenian version follows the Greek text, but with some important differences. I confine myself here to pointing out only those differences that pertain to the apostle’s mission areas: Ew yet yarut‘ean ew hambarjmann K‘ristosi gnac‘ i Part‘ews hramanaw aṙak‘eloc‘n ew k‘arozeac‘ zK‘ristos ew apa gnac‘ i Łikonia ew zbazums usoyc‘ ew darjoyc‘ i K‘ristos ew apa darjaw i Part‘ews, ew   The first lines offer information on Bartholomew’s background (he was from the city of Capernaum and belonged to the tribe of Zebulun) and on the circumstances under which he became an apostle: cf. Gr. Καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν κύριον εἰς Καπερναοὺμ λόγῳ τὸν παράλυτον ἐγείραντα, ἐπίστευσε καὶ ἠκολούθησεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐξελέξατο ἀυτὸν ὁ κύριος εἰς τοὺς δώδεκα ‘Having seen the Lord in Capernaum in the process of healing the paralytic by word (cf. Matt 9:6), he had faith and followed him, and the Lord chose him among the Twelve’, which is translated into Armenian as Ew teseal zTērn K‘ristos i Kap‘aṙnayum, or zandamalucn bžškeac‘ baniw miayn, hawatac‘ i K‘ristos ew mkrtec‘aw ew ašakertec‘aw nma ew ĕntrec‘aw yerkotosansn (Muradyan, ‘T‘adevos ev Bardoułimeos’, 137, 37-40) ‘Having seen in Capernaum the Lord Christ, who by his word alone healed the paralytic, he had faith in the Christ, was baptised, and became his disciple, and he was chosen among the Twelve’. 6  Gr. λώβη has, among other meanings, that of ‘leper’ (cf. Gal., 14.757, ed. C.G. Kühn, MedG, 1-20 [Leipzig 1821-1833]). 5

72

a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom

oč‘ ĕndunec‘an zban nora, ew krkin gnac‘ i Part‘ews, ew oč‘ yaynžam ĕndunec‘an: Gnac‘ yAłuans ew mteal i k‘ałak‘n etes i vera dran parspin ayr mi uruk nsteal i getni (Muradyan, 137, 39-138, 3) After the resurrection and ascension of Christ, he (Bartholomew) went to the land of the Parthians on the order of the apostles and preached the Christ (there); and then he went to Lycaonia and taught (there) and converted many (people) to Christ; he then returned to the land of the Parthians, but they did not accept his words; a second time he went to the land of the Parthians, but this time they also did not accept (his words). He went to Ałuank‘ and, having entered the city, he saw, close to the city gate, a leprous man sitting on the ground.

According to the Armenian version, Bartholomew began his preaching in the land of the Parthians before heading to Lycaonia; Phrygia is not mentioned. Curiously, the Indian voyage is also absent, whereas it constitutes the beginning of Bartholomew’s preaching in the Armenian Martyrdom published by Č‘rak‘ean (BHO 156).7 This suggests that there was no contact between the two texts, as the two different forms of torment suffered by the apostle also confirm: he dies by crucifixion in the Martyrdom of the MS. 7853, and by being clubbed to death in the Martyrdom published by Č‘rak‘ean (BHO 156). The names of the apostles who according to the Greek text followed Bartholomew on the first phases of his journey are not mentioned in the Armenian. Thomas’ absence is striking, since the association between Bartholomew and Thomas is a strong element in the Armenian tradition.8 In the Martyrdom published by Č‘rak‘ean (BHO 156), it is with Thomas that Bartholomew undertakes his preaching (in India) (§ 2); it is Thomas, along with the other apostles of Armenia, whom Bartholomew invokes in his last prayer to the Lord before dying (§ 18); finally, it is Thomas who ‘in accordance with the superiority of his primacy had written him not to neglect them (scil. the Armenians)’ (§ 16 ĕst verakac‘ut‘ean aṙaǰnordut‘eann iwroy greal aṙ na, zi mi zanc‘ arasc‘ē znok‘ōk‘).9 There is something reminiscent of this last item, albeit very indirectly, in the passage of the Martyrdom of MS. 7853 that states that Bartholomew began his preaching ‘on the order of the apostles’ (hramanaw aṙak‘eloc‘n).  See supra, ch. III, § 2.  See supra, ch. III, § 1.1; cf. Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, 48-9; Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 531-3. 9  Č‘ṙak‘ean, Ankanon girk‘, 352, 13-14. 7 8



a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom73

Philip’s absence should also be examined. The apocryphal Armenian literature on this apostle includes stories that mention his joint preaching with Bartholomew (BHO 986-987).10 The latter, however, is not portrayed there as a member of the Twelve, but simply as one of the Seventy disciples of Christ.11 These Armenian texts place Bartholomew’s allotment and martyrdom in Lycaonia;12 we can thus confirm some points in common with the so-called ‘Greek Lycaonian variant’ of Bar­ tholomew’s preaching. One will note that Bartholomew’s membership among the Twelve reconciles the two traditions, namely that of a Lycaonian and that of an Armenian mission, by affording Armenia the privilege of having been visited by an apostle and not a mere disciple of Christ. The translator (or copyist) of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew of MS. 7853 perhaps intentionally deleted the reference to a joint mission of Bartholomew and Philip so as not to cause confusion between Bar­ tholomew, one of the Twelve, and Bartholomew, one of the Seventy.13 In the Armenian Martyrdom of MS. 7853, there is an increased insistence, as compared to the Greek, on the preaching among the Parthians. This led van Esbroeck to place this work in what he called, following Lipsius, the ‘Parthian version’ of the Bartholomew legend.14 These passages on the preaching among the Parthians also offer us another interesting difference from the Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156). In the latter, the Parthians are portrayed positively, as a people that unhesitatingly adhere to Bartholomew’s words: (§ 14) Bazumk‘ i Partewac‘n darjan i Tēr zōrut‘eanc‘ [...] ew lusawo­ real and zbazums… Numerous Parthians turned to the Lord of Powers […] After having illuminating many of them there…

  Cf. the texts V.a.1-2 and V.b of Č‘rak‘ean’s edition, ibid., 300-20 and 321-8; cf. Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 460-70. On Philip’s position within the apocryphal Armenian tradition, see also ch. X. 11   Cf. text V.b of Č‘rak‘ean’s edition, ibid.; the text V.a.2 (see title) makes Bartholomew into Philip’s disciple (ašakert). 12   On the cross, in the texts V.a.2 and V.b; by an ‘obscure martyrdom’ (anyayt ... vkayut‘ean), in the text V.a.1 (Č‘rak‘ean, ibid., 318, 8-9). 13   In the notice of the Armenian Synaxarion for 2 ahekan (= 9 April), we have Bartholomew, one of the Twelve, who is associated with Philip: G. Bayan, ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. VII. Mois de Ahékan’, PO  21/3 (1928) 274 [1318]; cf. Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 429. 14   Cf. van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy’, 175 and note 20; Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten, 62-63. 10

74

a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom

In order to understand this positive attitude, we recall that a younger branch of the Arsacid Parthians of Iran reigned in Armenia from 66 to 428 AD.15 The ancient Armenian historiographical sources present the Parthians in complimentary terms, as opposed to the Sassanids, who dominated Armenia starting in the 4th century and who in the 5th century pursued a very intolerant religious policy. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, for instance, in his History of Armenia, treats the Parthians and Persians differently. To him, the Parthians are the children of Abraham through Keturah (II, 1 and 68; cf. Gn 25, 1-4; 1 Ch 1, 32-33), as well as the illustrious ancestors of Gregory the Illuminator, and thus worthy of respect. The Persians, on the other hand, are impious enemies who believe lies and in obscene and ridiculous fables.16 In the Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156), too, the appreciation of the Parthians serves as an emphatic contrast to the Persians, who in the same text are described as ‘a barbarous nation destined to perish’ (korcaneloc‘n xužaduž azg) and as absolutely resistant to the apostle’s teachings (§ 14).17 In the Martyrdom of Bartholomew preserved in the MS. 7853, there is an almost opposite attitude. The Persians are not mentioned at all, leaving the Parthians to play the negative role. This is another indication of the fact that the two Martyrdoms of Bartholomew – one written directly in Armenian, the other translated from Greek – most likely did not have any contact. 2.1.  Albania/Ałuank‘ According to the Greek text, Bartholomew’s preaching took place ‘in the city of Albania’ (εἰς πόλιν Ἀλβανίαν). We emphasise first of all that contrary to the Greek and Latin sources mentioned in the last chapter, in the text of the Weimar Q 729 codex the name of the city   This Iranian dynasty reigned from 250 BC to 224-226 AD, at which time they were expelled by the Sassanid Persians. 16   See the ‘Excerpt from the Fables of the Persians’ at the end of Book I of the History of Armenia. 17   Č‘rak‘ean, 351, 13. The Persians are identified with their religion. In the same chapter, Bartholomew goes to the ‘countries of the Persians and the Magi’; the representation of Persia is thus associated with the religion of the Mazdean priests. See J.R. Russell, ‘Bad Day at Burzēn Mihr: Notes on an Armenian Legend of St. Bartholomew’, Bazmavep 144 (1986) 258-9, reprinted in Id., Armenian and Iranian Studies (Cambridge, MA, 2004) 138-9. 15



a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom75

is not associated with ‘Greater Armenia’. Furthermore, nothing in the content suggests an Armenian context. On the contrary, in one of the passages referring to an idolatrous cult in the city of Albania, the text mentions ‘a festival of the Greeks’ (ἑορτῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων).18 If one then turns toward the Armenian translation, one finds that the translator has not identified the Greek toponym with the city of Urbianos (v.l. Ovbianos, Urbanos), mentioned in the Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156).19 In the Armenian text, rather, one finds another toponym, namely Ałuank‘, which in ancient and medieval Armenian sources refers to Caucasian Albania (or Ałbania), which in Greek, in turn, is called Ἀλβανία.20 It is interesting to note the coincidence between the hypothesis raised by modern scholars regarding the identification of the problematic city name of Albania/Albanopolis/Corbanopolis/Ourbanopolis and their derivatives with the Caucasian Albania,21 and the translation offered by the Armenian translator, which seems to place the events in the same region. This Armenian toponym leads to further considerations. We find some interesting elements in the last section of the text, where the Armenian version contains a passage that is absent from the Greek. Let us look first at the Greek, right after the description of Bar­ tholomew’s death on the cross: (§ 21, 1) Τὸ δὲ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔρρευσε κάτω εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος τῆς πύλης, καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ θέντες λεκάνην ἐδέξαντο αὐτὸ, καὶ πολλαὶ ἰάσεις ἐγένοντο ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ. πάντες γὰρ οἱ ἁπτόμενοι αὐτοῦ ἀπηλλάσσοντο παντοίων παθῶν. (§ 21, 2) Ἀναβάντες δὲ κατήνεγκαν αὐτὸν καὶ ἔθαψαν μηνὶ Ἰουνίῳ ια’, δοξάζοντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες τὸν 18   The Greek text continues with a mention of ‘the temple of Artemis’ (§ 3,  1 τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος). The Armenian translation has replaced the Greek goddess with a reference to Aramazd (Armenian form of the Iranian Ahura Mazdā), the supreme deity of the pre-Christian Armenian pantheon. For a similar phenomenon in the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus, see Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, 44 and note 41. 19  See supra, ch. III, § 3. 20   Cf. Hakobyan, Dictionary of Toponymy of Armenia, vol. 1, 196. The Greek toponym is known – to cite but one example – to Strabo (see XI, 3, 2; XI, 14, 4 et passim). On Caucasian Albania, see Z. Aleksidze and J.-P. Mahé, ‘Introduction: The History of Caucasian Albania’, in J. Gippert et al., The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mt. Sinai, vol. 1 (Turnhout, 2008) VII-XXIV; M. Bais, Albania caucasica (Milan, 2001). 21  See supra, ch. III, § 3.1.

76

a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom

θεὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς εἶδον καὶ ἤκουσαν. αὐτῷ ᾖ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. ἀμήν. His blood flowed to the bottom of the gate and the brothers placed a pot there to collect it, and numerous healings took place at that moment. For all those who touched it were delivered from all kinds of malady. They went up and carried him down and buried him on the eleventh of the month of June, glorifying and praising God for all that they had seen and heard. Glory to him unto the ages of ages. Amen, amen.

The text is translated into Armenian in a much more compact way: Ew ariwnn heław yerkir, ew edin skawaṙak ew žołovec‘in zariwnn ew t‘ałec‘in zsurb aṙak‘ealn (Muradyan, 140, 15-6) And the blood flowed to the earth, and they put a pot and collected the blood, and they buried the holy apostle.

The Armenian passage that is missing in Greek comes before the doxology. It mentions a surge in paganism immediately after the apostle’s death, a surge that is considered to endanger the apostle’s relics. A few faithful ones thus decide to keep them safe from harm: Isk išxann yet mahuan Artawana episkoposin norogeac‘ zbagins kṙoc‘n ew zmeheans ew molorec‘oyc‘ zk‘ałak‘ac‘isn yaṙaǰin kṙapaštut‘iwnn: Ew xorhec‘aw hanel zoskers aṙak‘eloyn ew ayrel: Ew barepašt omank‘ gałt hanin znšxars aṙak‘eloyn ew taran yerkirn Hayoc‘ ew and t‘ałec‘in i barexawsut‘iwn anjanc‘ meroc‘ (Muradyan, 140, 17-20) After the death of Bishop Artawan,22 the prince restored the altars (another possible translation: the statues) of the idols and temples, and misled the citizens into the old idolatry. And he wanted to take the apostle’s bones and burn them. But some pious persons secretly took the relics of the apostle and brought them into the land of Armenia and there they buried them for the intercession of our souls. [The doxology and colophon follow]23 (my emphasis).

  An ancient priest of idols who had been converted by Bartholomew and had become the bishop of the city. 23   Ew K‘ristosi p‘aṙk‘: Surb aṙak‘eloys barexōsut‘eamb K‘ristos Astuac, ołormea stac‘ołin, ĕnt‘erc‘ołin, grč‘in ew mer yišołin. Amēn ‘Glory to Christ. By the intercession of this holy apostle, Christ God, have pity on the owner, the reader, the scribe and on him who remembers us. Amen’ (Muradyan, 140, 21-2). 22



a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom77

So the relics are brought to Armenia. This merits at least two comments. First, the translator (or a subsequent copyist) knew the tradition that associated Bartholomew’s relics with Armenia. The better-known variant is found in the Discovery of the Relics of Bartholomew (BHO 159) and introduces Marūtha of Martyropolis, as we saw in the last chapter.24 But it not possible to trace the contact between the two texts, because the Marūtha episode situates the relics ‘in the city of Yobianos, in Armenia, in a place called Barm’ (i Yobianos k‘ałak‘ i Hays i tełin or koč‘i Barm),25 and features their transfer from Armenia to Martyropolis. 26 Second, it is clear that for the Armenian translator (or copyist) the toponym Ałuank‘, which presupposes the Greek Ἀλβανία ‘Albania’, does not refer to either eastern or western Armenian geography. The site of the apostle’s death is not in Armenia at all; it is toward Armenia that the relics were brought, after having been removed from the martyrdom site. Everything happens as if the translator (or copyist) had wanted to reconcile the tradition – connected with the aforementioned interpretation of the Greek toponym – that links Bartholomew to Caucasian Albania with the legend that places his relics in Armenia.27 The passage that is attested only in the Armenian version is therefore probably secondary.   Ch. III, § 4. On this account, see also Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, 115-7; Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 525-30. 25   Č‘rak‘ean, 366, 3-4. 26  See supra, ch. III, § 4. 27   To the best of my knowledge, the association between this region of the Caucasus and Bartholomew is not attested by other Armenian apocrypha; we know, on the other hand, of a late Armenian apocryphal text that attri­ butes to Thomas preaching in ‘India, Albania, and Armenia’ (zHndiks ew zAłuans ew zHays): Č‘rak‘ean, Ankanon girk‘, 424, 17; cf. Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 629. A propos of Albania and its Christianisation, we should mention that according to the ancient Armenian sources, the first foray of Christianity was the preaching of one Thaddaeus’ disciples, Elisaeus, who received the mission to evangelise the region directly from Apostle James. There is an implicit connection here between the Christianisation of Armenia and that of Albania. The Armenian sources insist on this: they mention the conversion of the King of Albania, Uṙnayr, by Gregory the Illuminator, who had also converted the Armenian King Tiridates the Great; they also attribute an evangelising mission in Albania, in the 4th century, to the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, Maštoc‘; this is the same Maštoc‘ that had supposedly developed Albanian writing, too. On this question, see 24

78

a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom

One will also note at the end of that passage the possessive adjective ‘our’ (‘intercession of our souls’, i barexawsut‘iwn anjanc‘ meroc‘), which in a text written in Armenian and addressed to an Armenian public can only refer to the Armenians themselves. The presence only in this excerpt of a first-person pronoun may be an indication of the secondary nature of the passage itself; the ‘our’ in fact anticipates the ‘we’ of the colophon in the lines that follow.28 In conclusion The Armenian text of MS. 7853 should no doubt be the object of further research, which will help orient us among the complexities of the tradition on Bartholomew’s preaching in Armenia.29 In the Bais, Albania caucasica, 104-6, on the basis of testimonies in the historians Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i (or Kałankatuac‘i), author of a History of Albania (8th-10th centuries), and Koriwn (5th century); see also Aleksidze and Mahé, ‘Introduction: The History of Caucasian Albania’; J.-P. Mahé, ‘Philologie et historiographie du Caucase chrétien. L’historiographie arménienne de la conversion des Albaniens’, Annuaire de l’EPHE, SHP. Résumés des conférences et travaux 139 (2006-2007) 32-5. 28  See supra, note 23. 29   The present volume does not claim to offer an exhaustive presentation of the rich Armenian apocryphal tradition on Bartholomew. We may nonetheless mention that according to one Armenian branch of the legend of the Dormition of the Virgin, Bartholomew arrived too late in Jerusalem as Mary was dying. In order to console him, Peter and Paul gave him a portrait of the Virgin that had been created before her death (cf. van Esbroeck, ‘La naissance du culte de Barthélemy’). In the medieval liturgical tradition, this icon is considered the source of certain miracles that took place during the apostle’s mission. Thus, in the memorial on Bartholomew of the Armenian ­Synaxarion (4 kalots = 12 December), we read that when he had arrived in the land of the Magi, i.e. Persia, the apostle exposed the icon to the sun, which went into an eclipse; in spite of this miracle, as in the Armenian Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156), only eight people converted (PO 18/1 [1924] 25 [711]). In the Martyrdom of Bartholomew and Jude (BHO 160), the miracle of the solar eclipse is mentioned, but without any connection to the icon of the Virgin. In this story, the apostle raises his hands toward the east next to a fire, facing the sun, to which the Persians and the Magi would sacrifice, and he darkens the sun. The icon of the Virgin does however appear in the Bartholomew legend version connected to the monastery of Hogeac‘ Vank‘, attested by a pseudepigraphical letter by Movsēs



a ‘diverging’ version of the martyrdom79

­ eantime we wish to emphasise that this text, which even today is m almost unknown, attests to an Armenian tradition different from that of the Martyrdom published by Č‘rak‘ean (BHO 156). The latter, which consolidated the tradition of the Armenian Church’s apostolic origins and must therefore have been institutionally favoured, was copied many times in Armenian.30 We may assume that the in some sense diverging nature of the Martyrdom that was translated from Greek contributed to its lapse into oblivion. Having been neglected by Armenian copyists and having come down to us in only one single manuscript, it is precisely its unique character that renders it such an important testimony.

Xorenac‘i to Sahak Arcruni (published in the Venetian edition of Movsēs’ works, in 1895, 282-96). These documents are yet to be studied in depth. 30   There are more than twenty unpublished manuscripts: cf. Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, 194-8.

Part Two

St. Thecla in the Armenian Tradition: Holy Martyr, Apostle, and Patroness of Nicean Orthodoxy

V. The Legend of St. Thecla in the Armenian Tradition: From Asia Minor to Tarragona through Armenia* Thècle n’est pas une sainte ordinaire..., son culte revêt des formes que l’on ne trouve pas ailleurs... L’originalité de Thècle est celle d’une héroïne de roman chrétien qui, au delà de la littérature apocryphe, s’apparente aux grandes figures mythiques de la femme

So wrote G. Dagron in 1978, in his major study on the Life and Miracles of Saint Thecla by the Pseudo-Basil of Seleucia.1 Since Dagron’s study the legend of Thecla has enjoyed a revival of interest from scholars in Europe and the United States within the framework of research on Christian apocryphal literature, hagiography, patristics and gender studies. Greek, Coptic and Arabic2 traditions had been the subject of recent investigations, whereas, in contrast, an analysis of the evidence on Saint Thecla in ancient and medieval Armenian literature had still to be accomplished. This is the subject of the study I have undertaken in an extensive, long-term endeavour, the results of which have been published in a volume dedicated to the Acts of Paul in Armenian   The first version of this article – published in J.W. Barrier et al. (eds), Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West (Leuven, 2017) 283303 –, here updated and revised by the author, was translated from the French by Ms Margaret Escandari-Church. 1   G. Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle. Texte grec, traduction et commentaire (Brussels, 1978) 5. 2   On the Arabic tradition, see S.J. Davis, ‘An Arabic Acts of Paul and Thecla: Text and Translation, with Introduction and Critical Commentary’, in Barrier et al., Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint, 106-51, and, of the same author, ‘From Women’s Piety to Male Devotion: Gender Studies, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Evidence of an Arabic Manuscript’, HThR 108 (2015) 579-93. *

84 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition (CCSA 20).3 This study gave me the possibility to confirm that the Armenians, like other early Christian communities, fell under the spell of the saint’s ‘charm’. Indeed, when attempting to piece together the itinerary by which the saint fully established her position in the religious environment of ancient and medieval Armenia, literary and liturgical accounts may be found across almost ten centuries, from the 5th to the 14th century. To support this research, I took into consideration the ties between Syriac and Armenian Christianity in the 5th century; the ancient Armenian historiography; the correlation between ancient Byzantine and Armenian literature of the 12th century; and finally the diplomatic and religious relationships between Armenians and the Latin kingdoms of the Occident in the 14th century. The different milestones of this itinerary in place and time are indicators of the legend’s established importance in Armenian tradition. At the same time they form interesting evidence regarding the way legends and traditions spread through the Christian communities of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. As it is impossible to summarise all aspects within the limits set by this article, I shall settle for an overview of several markers of this itinerary before focusing on the medieval milestone. It concerns an episode related to the worship of Thecla in Tarragona and to the problematic issue of the saint’s relics. 1.  The legend of St. Thecla in the ancient Armenian literature: An overview It is within the origins of Armenian literature that the legend of T ­ hecla found its first means of written dissemination in Armenia.4 In the first half of the 5th century A.D., the Armenians translated the apocryphal   This volume comprises an extended study on the legend of Thecla in the Armenian tradition from the 5th to 14th century, as well as a philological and linguistic analysis of Armenian sources on Thecla (Acts and Prodigies) and on the Martyrdom of Paul compared to parallel texts in other languages of Oriental and Occidental Christianity, particularly in Greek, Syriac, Latin and Coptic. A critical edition of Armenian texts supported with an extensively commented translation has also been published in the same volume. See also supra. For an overview on the reception of Thecla in Armenia, see also, Calzolari, ‘The Reception of the Acts of Thecla in Armenia’. 4   Armenian literature came into being at the beginning of the 5th  century, immediately after the creation of the Armenian alphabet by Maštoc‘. It was 3



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition85

Acts of Paul and Thecla from an ancient Syriac version of the Greek text (2nd century).5 The Armenian version rapidly furthered the spread of the legend.6 Still within the 5th century, at least three works written directly in Armenian presuppose the legend of Thecla. In these writings the paradigms of holiness embodied by the saint in Greek and Latin literature have influenced the representation of female figures associated with the origins of Armenian Christianity. These paradigms are summarised in the fundamental epithets ascribed to Thecla in Greek tradition, and may be found in a Greek text from the Byzantine era (BHG 1718m) translated into Armenian. The Armenian translation is called The Prodigies of Thecla.7 during this time that the Armenians translated the Bible and other religious works such as the writings of the Church Fathers, the Apocrypha, etc. 5   On the Greek text of the Acts of Thecla, see more in ch. VIII. Among the recent works, see J.W. Barrier, The Acts of Thecla (Tübingen, 2009); cf. J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Kampen, 1996). On the Syriac text, see C. Burris and L. Van Rompay, ‘Thecla in Syriac Christianity’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 5/2 (2002) 225-36 and ‘Some Further Notes on Thecla in Syriac Christianity’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 6/2 (2003) 337-42. Text and translation: W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 (London, 1871, reprinted Amsterdam, 1968) 128-69; cf. A. Smith Lewis, Select Narratives of Holy Women from the Syro-Antiochene or Sinai Palimpsest as written above the Old-Syriac Gospels by John the Stylite, of Beth-Mari-Qanun in A. D. 778 (London, 1900) rṣ-sḥ (‘Appendix II. Thecla. Collated on Dr Wright’s Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles’). On the relationship between the Syriac and the Armenian texts, see Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca, 171-91; Calzolari, ‘Notes sur la traduction arménienne’. 6   Thecla was probably known in Armenia already before the beginning of Armenian literature. In fact, the Cathedral of Etchmiadzin has a pre-5th century bas-relief depicting the saint and the apostle Paul, and giving their names in Greek. Thanks to Z. Hakobyan’s recent discoveries, we know that the iconographic repertoire of Thecla is even richer than one might have thought up to a few years ago: Z. Hakobyan, ‘St. Thecla: The Iconographical Tradition and the Testimony of Her Veneration in Early Medieval Armenia’, in Dorfmann-Lazarev (ed.), Sharing Myths, Texts, and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus (forthcoming). 7   Full title: Hrašk‘ sk‘anč‘eleac‘ or ełen zkni vkayakan handisic‘ srboy aṙak‘eluhoyn T‘ekłi yašxarhin Surac‘woc‘ ‘Miracles of the prodigies that occurred after the agones of the martyrdom of the holy apostle Thecla in the land of the Surac‘ik‘ (?)’. The discovery of the unpublished Armenian translation was disclosed in Calzolari, ‘Un nouveau texte arménien sur T ­ hècle’.

86 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition In this Greek text, Thecla is portrayed as an ‘apostle’ (ἡ ἀπόστολος) and as the ‘first martyr amongst women’ (πρωτομάρτυρος ἐν γυναιξί), a martyr who paradoxically did not die.8 Indeed, twice she was condemned to be martyred and twice escaped due to a miraculous intervention in the amphitheatre. The third epithet in Greek literature defines Thecla as ‘virgin’ (παρθένος), a trait closely associated with her martyrdom and to which further attention should be paid. 1.1.  St. Thecla, the virgin martyr, as a model of St. Hṙip‘simē in the Armenian account on the conversion of Armenia: dying to bring the Armenians close to God According to a topos with multiple versions in ancient Christian literature as of the 4th century,9 Thecla’s endurance before and during the martyrdom is displayed as a form of valiance in the defense of virginity or chastity. Armenian literature also offers an example of this theme in an episode found at the heart of the narrative portraying the conversion of the kingdom of Armenia (at the beginning of the 4th century), written by Agat‘angełos in the second half of the 5th century.10 In this account, the martyrdom of several consecrated virgins, Hṙip‘simē, Gayianē and others, struggling to defend their vows of chastity, is considered as a necessary sacrifice to bring the Armenians close Edition of the Greek text in Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 41621; new edition: J.-D. Kaestli and W. Rordorf, ‘La fin de la vie de Thècle dans les manuscrits des Actes de Paul et Thècle. Édition des textes additionnels’, Apocrypha 25 (2014) 9-101. 8   The first mention of the epithet πρωτομάρτυς ‘first martyr’ may be found in the homily De caeco nato of Severian of Gabala: see S.J. Voicu, ‘Thecla in the Christian East’, in Barrier et al. (eds), Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint, 47-68. 9  The Passion of Perpetua and the Passion of Blandina and others may be evoked here among the many examples found in Greek and Latin literature: on the relations between Thecla and Blandina in the Armenian tradition, see Calzolari, ‘The Reception of the Acts of Thecla in Armenia’. 10   It is noteworthy that the work we may read today, dating back to the second half of the 5th century, is not the oldest form of the so-called A ­ gat‘angełos’ narrative but is the result of an ulterior compilation drafted by an anonymous author: see G. Winkler, ‘Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agat‘angełos and Its Oriental Versions’, REArm 14 (1980) 125-41; R.W. Thomson, Introduction to Agathangełos, History of the Armenians (Albany, NY, 1976); G. Lafontaine, La Version grecque ancienne du livre arménien d’Agathange (Leuven, 1973). On Agat‘angełos, see also Calzolari, ‘La citation du Ps 78 [77], 5-8’.



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition87

to God (§ 249 ‘Now, through the death of these blessed saints, whose blood was poured on your land and who became worthy of divine grace and were sacrificed, therefore you [scil. the Armenians] have been visited and this land of Armenia has been heard’, cf. § 720 ‘These martyrs … were valiant in the shedding of blood, so that by their martyrdom they might bring you [scil. the Armenians] near to God’).11 According to a common idea in the literature on martyrdom, the death of the martyrs can have a collective salvific value. The idea of the collective rescue is also tied to the virginal state of the martyrs. Essentially, in early Christianity, chastity and virginity were considered a privileged way to meet God.12 Renunciators and virgins were regarded as being equal to angels.13 In addition, the status of virgins was thought to be similar to the status of Adam and Eve before the original sin, when humankind was created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, the virgins were considered closest to God and to primordial purity, and, by their martyrdom, they could achieve not only their own redemption, but also that of others.14 In the story of Hṙip‘simē, the holy virgin women prepare the redemption of the Armenian people. The crucial moment of Hṙip‘simē’s fight for the defense of her virginity is portrayed in a parallel between Hṙip‘simē and Thecla. Hṙip‘simē’s struggle against the pagan King Tiridates, during his attempt to rape her, may be compared to Thecla’s resistance to her fiancé Alexander, in the Acts of Paul and Thecla.15 This allusion to the apocryphal legend of Thecla is interesting not only as intertextual evidence between the Acts of Paul and Thecla, certainly known in Armenian, and the History by Agat‘angełos, but also as a parallel that   For the Armenian text, see infra, 110.   A. Rousselle, Porneia. De la maîtrise du corps à la privation sensorielle. IIe-IVe siècles de l’ère chrétienne (Paris, 1983) 13. 13   Regarding the argument of ‘isangelia’ of virgins in ascetic literature, see G. Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia (Rome, 1984) passim; R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, 1986) 347-88. Among ancient primary sources see Methodius of Olympus, Symposium, or on Virginity I, 2, 3, 4. The topic of ‘isangelia’ and closeness (ὁμιλία) to God to which only earthbound virgins may aspire, has been further developed by John Chrysostom, De virginitate, ed. H. Musurillo (Paris, 1966) 44, and note 3. 14   G. Corrington Street, ‘Women as Sources of Redemption and Knowledge in Early Christian Traditions’, in R.S. Kraemer and M.R. D’Angelo (eds), Women and Christian Origins (New York and Oxford, 1999) 330-54. 15   Cf. Agat‘angełos § 191 and Acts of Paul and Thecla 26. 11 12

88 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition enhances the portrait of Hṙip‘simē as a holy virgin. Furthermore other passages of Agat‘angełos’ narrative comprise a second image borrowed from the Acts of Paul and Thecla 5, where the ‘bodies of virgins’ are called ‘temples of God’.16 There are several excerpts in Agat‘angełos’ account where the bodies of virgins are called ‘temples of God’ or ‘temples of divinity’.17 To this respect, we have to stress that, if the tale of the endangered virgin is common in the hagiographical literature as an analogy to express the threat against the Church,18 in the History by Agat‘angełos, we find a particular variant of this trope. In this account, the bodies of the virgins, called ‘temples of God’ and considered as a metaphor of the Church, became literally and figuratively the foundations of the first churches of Armenia.19 De facto, the first churches of the Armenian kingdom were built over the corpses of the martyrs, at the beginning of its evangelisation. The emphasis on virginity highlighted by resorting to Thecla’s model plays a major role in the narrative, which seeks to re-establish the founding milestones of Armenia’s evangelisation.20 If Agat‘angełos’ account contains allusions to the Acts of Paul and Thecla, Thecla’s persona itself is staged in a second historiographical work from the second half of the 5th century, namely the History of   B. Wehn, ‘‘Blessed are the Bodies of Those Who are Virgins’: Reflections on the Image of Paul in the Acts of Thecla’, JSNT 79 (2000) 149-64. 17   This image may also be found in the Acts of Thomas 1, 12; Origen, Contra Celsum IV, 26; Basil of Ancyra, De virginitate 27; Eusebius of Emesa, De virginitate 25, 27, Hom. 6 de martyribus 24 and Vita Melaniae Iunioris 19 (SC, 90, 182); Pseudo-Basil, De virginitate 2, 41. On the topic of the ‘body of the female virgin’ representing the ‘body of the Church’, see K.C. Kelly, Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity in the Middle Ages (London and New York, 2000) 41-2; M.Y. MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion. The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge, 1996) 242-3. 18  Kelly, Performing Virginity, 42: ‘the body of the female virgin and the body of the Church came to be equated often enough in patristic and medieval texts on female virginity’. 19   On this topic, see also A. Cameron, ‘Virginity as Metaphor: Women and Rhetoric of Early Christianity’, in A. Cameron (ed.), History as Text. The Writing of Ancient History (London, 1989) 184-205 at 193. 20   For an analysis of this episode, see ch. VI; cf. V. Calzolari, ‘Le sang des femmes et le plan de Dieu. Réflexions à partir de l’historiographie arménienne ancienne (Ve siècle ap. J.-C.)’, in A.A. Nagy and F. Prescendi (eds), Victimes au féminin (Geneva, 2011) 178-94. 16



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition89

Armenia by Faustus, also known by the (restored by hypothesis) title Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ (Epic Histories).21 1.2.  St. Thecla as a patroness of the Nicean orthodoxy in the History of Armenia by Faustus (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ IV, 10) Faustus’ History of Armenia focuses, amongst other points, on the early Armenian Church of the 4th century and on the history of its first patriarchs. At the time, the Armenian Church was challenged with questions regarding the precision of religious orthodoxy that had troubled the Christian Orient, particularly after the Council of Nicea. In this respect, it is important to mention that the Nicean canons had been adopted by the Armenian Church. The religious politics of the kingdom were influenced by the required loyalty of the Armenian kings to the Roman emperors. Thus the question became complicated in an era where emperors pursued the Arianist tendencies that the Armenian Church had, on the contrary, always firmly condemned. 22 Faustus’ History of Armenia is a revealing indicator of this context that stirred Armenia in the 4th century and reveals the alignment of its author with the doctrinal positions followed by the Church, but seemingly not followed by the Armenian kings of the era.23 However ­Thecla’s persona is at the heart of a section where the Armenian ­patriarch Nersēs, considered a champion of Nicean orthodoxy, clashes with Arian Emperor Valens (364-378) (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ IV, 10). The section is intricate and is the subject of numerous observations. Elsewhere I have published the results of my analysis of the section in an article to which I refer and that will be provided in English in the following pages of this book.24 Thus I shall confine my focus on the main features that link Thecla to Nicean orthodoxy. It is noteworthy in Faustus’ narrative that the death of the Arian Emperor Valens during a disastrous battle against the Goths at Adrianople (378) is portrayed by Faustus as a divine punishment. According to the A ­ rmenian historian, the Emperor was not killed in battle but was put to death by two m ­ ilitary 21   For an analysis of this episode, see ch. VII; cf. Calzolari, ‘De sainte Thècle à Anahit’. 22   On the Ancient Armenian Church, see Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne. 23   Garsoïan, N.G., ‘Politique ou orthodoxie? L’Arménie au quatrième siècle’, REArm 4 (1967) 297-320 (= Ead., Between Byzantium and the Sasanians, n° IV). 24   Calzolari, ‘De sainte Thècle à Anahit’; cf. infra, ch. VII.

90 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition saints, following a decision taken during an encounter between apostles and saints in the sanctuary of Thecla. A sophist travelling towards the capital to meet the Emperor had decided to stay the night in the sanctuary and had thus attended the meeting where the plan was hatched. The traveller was also present when the news was announced at the saints’ second reunion the day after the Emperor’s murder. Here too it is possible to consider Faustus’ episode concerning Valens’ death as an Armenian variant of a topos preserved in different forms in Oriental literature; namely the numerous variants of the death of an impious, ungodly Emperor. This argument was further used in reference to Emperor Julian. However the Armenian variant presents a hapax legomenon, for Faustus’ text is the only one to allude to Thecla’s sanctuary. The analysis of this passage supported the hypothesis that the author of the Armenian narrative was familiar with the features of Thecla’s worship as it was practiced in Seleucia, its main cultural site. The traits of this worship, which reached its peak in the 5th century, have been handed down to us through the Life and Miracles of Thecla by the ­Pseudo-Basil of Seleucia. This work evokes the Christian incubation practices associated with worship in Seleucia, a presumed custom according to the Armenian narrative, and it turned Thecla into a new Athena with a fondness for the literati and sophists; this is also a presupposed second aspect in Faustus’ account. Additionally, in Miracles (Mir 10), the portrait of Thecla as a saint confronting the Arians is depicted for the first time in Greek literature. The Nicean Creed inscribed on the walls of her sanctuary is protected by the saint’s hand. She thus becomes the guarantor of the inviolability of the Nicean canons. These clues reveal that the author of The History of Armenia was either familiar with the Miracles text or at least with an oral form of the legend disseminating the traits of Thecla’s worship as they were practiced in Seleucia and demonstrated in its complete form by the Miracles. 1.3.  A first assessment concerning the dissemination of Thecla’s l­egend in the 5th century These accounts,25 which would be impossible to present exhaustively in this work, embody different milestones of the process whereby the literary legend of Thecla was established and enhanced at different   More in ch. VI-VIII.

25



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition91

periods in the religious history of Armenia, under the influence of cultural and religious encounters with diverse milieus. Nevertheless these texts do not only represent literary evidence, they also advanced the development of Thecla’s worship in Armenia. Hence it is not surprising to find in the Armenian Synaxarion (Yaysmawurk‘ in Armenian) a note corresponding to the 24th of September.26 Thecla’s appearance in the Synaxarion and the Armenian liturgy may be considered, so to say, as an official act of adoption by the Armenian Church of this ‘foreign’ saint; in addition, we may also underline that the legend and in parallel Thecla’s worship continued to be enhanced and enriched with new contributions. If up until this point we studied examples of how the Armenians assimilated a saint borrowed from neighbouring civilisations, it is even more interesting to consider how, in the Middle Ages, the Armenians contributed to the development of a new milestone in the evolution of both Thecla’s worship and literary tradition beyond the borders of their country. Indeed in the first half of the 14th century, the Armenian legend of Thecla, initially borrowed from the Syrians and the Greeks, left Armenia for a new journey from Seleucia, by then an Armenian city, to Tarragona. 2.  The translation of the relics of St. Thecla from the Armeno-Cilicia to Tarragona 27 Like the navigators of the era who roamed the maritime routes connecting the coasts of the Occident and the Orient, let’s follow the itinerary, which in 1321 brought Thecla from Cilicia to the city of Tarragona, in Catalonia. Thecla’s journey should not only be considered figuratively. As a matter of fact it would seem that in 1320-1321, a transfer from Cilicia to Catalonia of a relic belonging to Thecla really did take place. At the time in Cilicia, the saint’s principal cultural site, Seleucia, was under the rule of Armenian dynasts. Indeed following the invasions of the Seljuk Turks several waves of emigration prompted the creation of significant Armenian colonies in Cilicia as of the 11th century. As of   Edition and French translation in G. Bayan, ‘Le synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. II. Mois de Hori’, PO 27 (6/2) (1910) 277-85 [309-17]. 27   I summarise here remarks already published in Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca, 137-60 and ‘Une traduction latine médiévale’. 26

92 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition 1073 these colonies gathered together as a state, first as a principality then as a kingdom (1198-1375).28 The epoch of the Kingdom of Cilicia was a rare moment in history when the Armenians had access to the sea. Well-known ports such as Corycos and Ayas (Lajazzo) were Armenian; the important cities of Konya and Portella had, in turn, become Armenian. These centers were mandatory stopovers for Occidental merchants on their journeys towards the Orient; furthermore the Armenians collected customs duties. The Catalan trade was particularly intense and this evidence is proven by the fact that the Cilician ports were indicated on the Catalan portolan charts of the times as well as in the Catalan maritime laws known as Consulado del Mar. As for the customs duties owed to the Armenians, the Catalan navigators benefited from favourable circumstances.29 It’s precisely the friendly relations between King Ošin and James II, and the kingdoms of Cilicia and Aragon generally speaking, that rendered possible the transfer of Thecla’s relics.30 These relations were not only economic and diplomatic. During Ošin’s regency a rapprochement between the Armenian Church – autocephalous and anti-­Chalcedonian since the 6th century – and the Latin Church was encouraged by the Armenian monarch.31   Regarding Cilicia, see C. Mutafian, L’Arménie du Levant (XIe-XIVe siècle) (Paris, 2012). 29   In his work La pratica della mercatura, Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, a Florentine banker of the Compagnia dei Bardi, relates that he obtained from the Armenians a 50% rebate on customs duties: see F. Balducci Pegolotti, La pratica della mercatura, edited by A. Evans (Cambridge, MA, 1936, reprinted New York, 1970) 60; see also F. Giunta, Aragonesi e Catalani nel Mediterraneo. II. La presenza catalana nel Levante dalle origini a Giacomo II (Palermo, 1972) 41-2. 30   These friendly relations were sustained by matrimonial alliances: see R. Gulbenkian, ‘Les relations entre l’Arménie et le Portugal du Moyen-Age au XVIe siècle’, REArm 14 (1980) 187 and note 68; H. Finke, Acta Aragonensia, vol. 1 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1908, reprinted Darmstadt, 1968) 344-5. Regarding the relations between Armenian Cilicia and Catalonia, see W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen Age (French edition revised and considerably increased by the author. Published by … F. Raynaud), 2 vols (Leipzig, 1936) 1, 365-72; 2, 73-92; C. Marinesco, ‘La Catalogne et l’Arménie au temps de Jacques II (1291-1327)’, extrait des Mélanges de l’Ecole roumaine en France, vol. 2 (Paris, 1923) 5-19; V. Matiossian, ‘An overview of Armenian-­ Spanish relations during the Cilician period’, HA 110 (1996) 296-335. 31  See infra. 28



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition93

2.1.  The circumstances of the transfer The transfer was supported by diplomatic initiatives from both kings and both countries: on the one hand, the Armenian King Ošin (13081320) and his son and successor Levon IV (1320-1341); and on the other, James II, King of Aragon from 1291 to 1327. Ten letters belonging to James II preserved in Barcelona in the General Archives of the Crown of Aragon (Archivo general de la Corona de Aragon) relate to the transfer of Thecla’s relic.32 By contrast no diplomatic Armenian documents are known regarding the matter. The Latin letters were written between 1319 and 1323 and provide insight as to how the transfer took place.33 Thus we are aware that the transfer of the relic was organised by the Armenians in response to a formal request addressed by King James II in 1319. Two letters dating from September 4th of that year make it possible to determine the circumstances. In the first letter addressed to Ošin, James II refers to the pre-existing friendship between the two kingdoms, and announces the arrival of a diplomatic 32   The documents are not originals but authentic registered copies. In addition to these official letters, it should also be noted that ancient works give account of the transfer of Thecla’s relic to Catalonia as well as the preceding diplomatic efforts and the miracles attributed to the relic as of its arrival in the cathedral of Tarragona: see S. Misser, El libro de Santa Tecla (Barcelona and Tarragona, 1977) 320-35, based on prior publications, and notably on J. Sánchez Real, El Brazo de Santa Tecla (Tarragona, 1951). In accordance with Sánchez Real, Misser discerns two interdependent versions of the narrative, i.e. A.V. Doménec, Historia general de los santos varones ilustres en santidad del Principado de Cataluña (Gerona, 1630) 47-50 (non vidi; resumed in AS, Sept., vol. 6 [1757] 563-5) and J. Vilar, El triunfo milagroso de la omnipotencia en la vida, martirios y milagrosos de la esclarecida virgen e invicta prothomartir de las mugeres, Santa Tecla… (Tarragona, 1746) 184-5. See also M. Madurell Marimón, ‘Regesta Documental de reliquias y relicarios (siglos XIV-XIX)’, AST 31 (1958) 291; J. Villanueva, Viage literario a lás Iglesias de España, vol. 19 (Madrid, 1851) 333. 33   ACA Reg 245, fol. 183v-184r; see also K.J. Basmadjian, ‘Jacques II d’Aragon et Oschin, roi de la Petite Arménie (1319-1320)’, ROL 11 (19051908) 2-6; Z. García Villada, ‘La traslación del brazo de Santa Tecla desde Armenia a Tarragona (1319-1323)’, Estudios Eclesiásticos 1 (1922) 43-50; Marinesco, ‘La Catalogne et l’Arménie’; Finke, Acta Aragonensia, vol. 2 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1908, reprint. Darmstadt, 1968) 742, n° 3-5. For a more detailed presentation of the letters, see also Calzolari, ‘Une traduction latine médiévale’, 352-6.

94 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition mission bringing gifts to the Armenian king. The second letter is more official in nature and helps to delineate the immediate and concrete reminder of this alliance. In mentioning the completion of Tarragona’s new cathedral, dedicated to Thecla, James II speaks of his recent knowledge from trustworthy sources, that the saint’s body or part of her body was located in Armenia. Thus he asks King Ošin to send him the relics so that they may be offered in reverence by Thecla’s faithful worshipers in Tarragona. This request does not seem to be inappropriate if we remember that, at the time, Seleucia, (where Thecla died according to the legend)34 had become an Armenian city. It is interesting to note, in the letter, the king’s vague tone when referring to the relic. We may conclude that his informants had not precisely told him whether the Armenians had the whole body or only part of the body. In his query he always uses the term corpus beatae Teclae ... seu pars ipsius ‘the body of blessed Thecla or part of it’. Lacking the possibility to submit a more accurate request James II asks for one of the relics, any one (aliquam), but at least a large one (magnam partem).35 By the means of a later letter dated December 4th, 1320, we learn of the circumstances that, in 1319, had prompted James II to send a diplomatic delegation to Ošin. At the time the Provost of Tarragona, Raymond of Avignon, and the Archbishop of Toledo, John, the son of the said James II – sent to the king by the Archbishop of Tarragona, Ximenez de Luna – had informed the king of the existence of Thecla’s relics. It is due to their pointed insistence that James II hurriedly dispatched an envoy to Armenia. The same letter of December 4th informs us that the relic had first arrived in Valencia, Catalonia, from Cilicia. The relic was Thecla’s arm as indicated in the following passage: Rex (Armenie)... dicte sacre virginis brachium, cum nil aliud de dicto sacro corpore in dictis vel in aliis mundi partibus sciatur a quoquam fuisse repertum, per suos solempnes legatos seu nuncios ... nobis misit (ACA Reg 246, fol. 137)36

34   See however infra regarding the question of Thecla’s death, which was denied by Pseudo-Basil of Seleucia. 35  …de reliquiis… beate virginis aliquam magnam partem… 36   See also García Villada, La traslación del brazo de Santa Tecla desde Armenia a Tarragona, 48-50; Marinesco, ‘La Catalogne et l’Arménie’, 33-34; Finke, Acta Aragonensia, vol. 2, 742, n. 4.



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition95

The King (of Armenia) has sent to us, by his solemn ambassadors and messengers, the arm of the mentioned virgin saint, as we know that no other part of her blessed body was found by anyone neither in the mentioned lands nor in other regions of the world.

According to this text, thanks to the Armenian king’s generosity, the Catalans became the owners of the only conserved relic belonging to Thecla. James II told the archbishop that the relic would be taken from Valencia to Tarragona. In a last letter dated December 31st, 1320, the king finally informs the Provost of Tarragona, Raymond of Avignon, that the ceremonious entry of the relics in the cathedral would take place during the Pentecost celebrations of the following year. The relic, Thecla’s arm, was thus most probably brought to Tarragona in 1321. This transfer was the occasion for both Kingdoms of Cilicia and Aragon to renew the founding of their friendly mutual alliance. Should the event illustrate the history of diplomatic alliances between Cilicia and Catalonia, it also informs us on the manner in which legends and worships were disseminated and evolved in the 14th century. De facto it seems that the transfer of Thecla’s relic to Tarragona coincided with a modification of the saint’s legend. The transfer was accompanied by a document in Latin containing, in its final section, the circumstances of the relic’s discovery in Seleucia. 2.2.  The absence of Thecla’s relics during the Byzantine era If we follow the history of Thecla’s legend and worship, the reference to the transfer of part of the saint’s body as a relic, in the 14th century, seems rather exceptional. Indeed, one of the particularities of Thecla’s worship in Antiquity was on the contrary the absence of relics. During the 5th century, perhaps to justify the lack of relics as well as the absence of the saint’s tomb in the main site of worship in Seleucia, her hagiographer, Pseudo-Basil, went as far as denying Thecla’s death as mentioned in the older apocryphal Acts. According to this hypothesis, to justify a cultic aspect (a worship without relics or tombs), he altered the legend by explicitly refuting its ancient version. Contesting the version of the Acts of Paul and Thecla, in the Life of Thecla, he wrote: (§ 28) ἐκοιμήθη μέν, ὡς ὁ πολὺς καὶ ἀληθέστερος λόγος, οὐδαμῶς, ἔδυ δὲ ζῶσα καὶ ὑπεισῆλθε τὴν γῆν, οὕτω τῷ Θεῷ δόξαν, διαστῆναί τε αὐτῇ καὶ ὑπορραγῆναι τὴν γὴν ἐκείνην, ἐν ᾧπερ τόπῳ ἡ θεία καὶ ἱερὰ καὶ λειτουργικὴ πέπηγε τράπεζα (Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 280, 7-10)

96 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition Did she die? Not at all! as the most widespread and reliable story (may confirm), but she entered alive and penetrated the earth, God having thus decided that the ground should open and split for her in the very place where the divine and blessed table for the liturgical celebration was set.

If we limit ourselves to this 5th century tradition, Thecla never died. How may the discovery in the 14th century of a part of her body, given to the Catalans, be explained? How was the ancient tradition, which refuted the relics’ existence, reconciled with the new tradition claiming the contrary?37 By studying this question, we shall discover how in the Middle Ages, a new cultic requirement shaped a new development of Thecla’s legend. This development is confirmed by a Latin text in a manuscript from the 14th century, now kept in the cathedral of Barcelona: the MS. 105, fol. 282-292. 3.  The Latin Acts of Thecla translated from Armenian This Latin text (BHL 8022b-c), titled De sancta Tecla virgine, was first identified by Z. García Villada, who noted its existence in an article published in 1922.38 The text narrates the legend of Thecla and, in its last section, precisely mentions the discovery and transfer of the saint’s arm.39 A colophon at the end of the account indicates that the legend had been translated from Armenian to Latin at the request of King Ošin by his notary, Nicolas de Ray, and Armenian clergymen: Hec beate tecle legenda que erat armenis scripta uerbis, de mandato serenissimi regis armenie supradicti per manum nicolay de rays notarii prefati domini regis et per aliquos religiosos armenos in villa nova   In this regards it should be remembered that the Greek original of the Prodigies of Thecla (see supra), that came after the Life and Miracles of Thecla written by Pseudo-Basil, informs us of a new element concerning the saint’s relics. According to this account, Thecla escaped through an opening in a rock; nevertheless a piece of her garment’s fabric remained as a sign of the miracle’s evidence and as an object of devotion for her faithful (see Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 421, l. 191-4). To the best of my knowledge, this account contains the only mention of Thecla’s relics before the event uniting Catalonia and Cilicia in the 14th century. This narrative is important but does not explain how, in the 14th century, the Armenians were able to send a part of Thecla’s body to Tarragona. 38   García Villada, La traslación del brazo de Santa Tecla desde Armenia a Tarragona. 39   García Villada, ibid. 37



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition97

tacuorossense, quod in tempore opus regis ossini extitit in latinam litteram translata, in ultimo et flebili statu Christi annorum40 citra marinorum anno a nativitate domini MCCCXX die XX mensis aprilisi (García Villada, 228, 15-20)41 This legend of blessed Thecla, written in Armenian, has been translated into Latin, upon the order of his Serene Highness, King of Armenia aforementioned, by Nicolas de Rays, notary of the said Lord King and by a few Armenian clerics in the new city [villa nova] Tacuorossensis (?) during the times of King Ošin in the recent and doleful situation of Christians before the sea, in the year 1320 since the birth of the Lord, on the twentieth day of April.

Such an occurrence is plausible. We do know that the notary, Nicolas de Rays, and other colleagues of Frankish origin worked in the chancellery of King Ošin.42 The chancellery of the Kingdom of Cilicia was never truly bilingual and it essentially remained Armenian,43 nevertheless it was certain that Latin was sometimes used in diplomatic relations with the Occident.44 According to the colophon, the notary completed the translation with the participation of the Armenians. The city where the Latin translation was carried out remains unfortunately difficult to determine. The reference to overseas Christians suggests that it was written in the Orient; the comment regarding their wretched   Incorrect reading of christianorum.   García Villada, ibid., 228, 15-20. 42   J. Richard, ‘La diplomatie royale dans les Royaumes d’Arménie et de Chypre (XIIe-XVe siècles)’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 144 (1986) 69-86 at 72. 43  Richard, ibid., 69-77. 44   Regarding the use of Latin in the Kingdom of Cilicia, it is noteworthy that in the 14th century, Dominican monks, sent by Pope John XXII, arrived in Cilicia, precisely in the city of Ayas, to teach Latin to the young Armenians. In the 14th century a certain William lived and worked in the city of Ayas and in July 1304 he translated a royal act from Armenian to Latin: see Richard, ibid., 72, n. 3. Agreements between the Armenian kings and the Pope regarding the opening of Latin schools in Cilicia already existed since the time of Levon the Magnificent: see L. Alishan, Sissouan ou l’Arméno-­ Cilicie (Venice, 1899) 558. Following these conventions at the time of King Het‘um II (1289-1297), the Franciscans had thus reached Cilicia: see G. Dédéyan, review of J. Richard, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen-Age (XIIIe et XVe siècles) (Paris, 1977), published in REArm 15 (1981) 469-84. 40 41

98 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition condition incidentally may be liaised with the Mamluk invasion and the ransacking of Ayas in 1322. If the Latin text truly is a translation from Armenian, then it’s a very interesting fact. Armenian philology has many foreign texts (Greek, Syriac, Latin, Arabic) translated into Armenian, nevertheless there are far fewer examples of Armenian texts translated into other languages and ‘exported’. If the colophon is correct, this information is an important element for the history of the dissemination of apocryphal and hagiographic texts. The question was brought up at the time of the Latin text’s publication. In his edition García Villada considered the final colophon to be credible and he thought he had discovered entirely unprecedented evidence of Thecla’s legend as it had been relayed among the Armenians.45 Two years later in a review of García Villada’s publication, the Bollandist J. Simon questioned the opinion of the Castilian scholar on the basis of an argument ex silentio, which in itself is not a determinant.46 Arguing on the basis of the lack of allusions to these Latin Acts in the thank-you letters of James II as well as the absence in Armenian hagiographic literature corresponding to the equivalent of the final note of the Latin text, he believed that the whole of the Latin account was a fake created by the Catalans for the ‘needs’ of Thecla’s worship in Tarragona. What are the origins of the Latin Acts of Thecla held in the Barcelona manuscript? Is it really a pseudo-translation in Latin, written ad hoc by the Catalans, or is it, as maintained by the colophon, a Latin version of Armenian written by the Armenians in the 14th century? To answer these questions, a comparison should be made of the Latin text and the known Armenian documents concerning Thecla. This philological and linguistic analysis has been the subject of a prior study with published results.47 Coming to the point of the matter, the word for word translation between the Armenian text regarding Thecla and the Latin Acts in the Barcelona manuscript enabled me to verify that the first part of the Latin narrative is a translation of the Armenian Acts of Paul and Thecla while the second part of the Latin   García Villada, La traslación del brazo de Santa Tecla desde Armenia a Tarragona, 114. 46   J. Simon, ‘Bulletin des publications hagiographiques’, AB 42 (1924) 166-9, n° 19-20. 47   Calzolari, ‘Une traduction latine médiévale’, 359-63. 45



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition99

text is a translation of the Armenian Prodigies of Thecla. Further to the verification that the origins of the first two sections of the Latin text is indeed a translation of the Armenian legend, the third and last part of the Latin document evoking the discovery and transfer of Thecla’s relic remains a question in regard to its origin. 3.1.  The contents and the origin of the Latin episode regarding the invention of Thecla’s relic Before summarising the third part of the text, it is necessary to recall the conclusion of the Armenian Prodigies of Thecla and remember that this outcome may also be found at the end of the second part of the Latin text. This section narrates how Thecla, assaulted by young scoundrels, penetrated a rock that God had split open for her and how the rock closed behind the saint.48 This miracle confirms God’s unwavering protection for Thecla as well as the inviolability of the saint’s virginal body. It is by appending itself to the episode concerning the saint’s disappearance into the rock, that the Latin text continues and adds a new narrative that we will briefly summarise.49 After a while (Transacto vero aliquo tempore), a search for saints’ relics that, up until then, had been hidden out of fear of pagan reaction, spread throughout the Christian world.50 The Greeks in particular made an effort to find the remains of Thecla’s body which, as indicated in the text, had been hidden in the depths of a rock due to the evil of young infidels (eo quod essent precepto dei propter infidelium prauitatem saxi visceribus intercluse).51 The correlation with the aforementioned event is clear. After many prayers an angel finally appeared to the patriarch of Seleucia urging him to go to the mount where Thecla’s rock lay. A vast procession of consecrated members of the Church and laity made their way to the place the angel had indicated. After a vigil of three days and three nights the following miracle happened: cepit locus, membra virginis continens submoveri et scissus est lapis in medio, et apertus est mons atque intuentibus visibiliter cunctis astandibus cum redolentisimo consolacionis odore universam regionem  Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 421, 188-94.   García Villada, La traslación del brazo de Santa Tecla desde Armenia a Tarragona, 226, 37-227, 20. 50   García Villada, ibid., 226, 8-14. 51   García Villada, ibid., 226, 22-3. 48 49

100 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition implente, tecle dextera coniuncta cum brachis usque ad lacesti iuncturam de saxo progrediens, devote querentibus se concessit (García Villada, 226, 37-227, 4) The place holding the virgin’s limbs started to separate and the stone split in the middle, and the mount opened and, visibly in the presence of all who observed and assisted, as a very perfumed odour of consolation filled the whole region, the right hand of Thecla and her arm to the elbow52 emerging from the rock offered itself to those who desired it with devotion.

The text then specifies that the relic was placed by the Greeks in a church built for the occasion in honour of Thecla and thereafter was given to the Armenians. The Armenians put the relic in a royal treasure at a time when, while leaving the Kingdom of Greater Armenia (de propriis se moventes hospiciis et a regno magno armenie),53 they reached the lands formerly occupied by the Greeks. This is a clear allusion to the historical events of the Cilician period aforementioned, and in particular to the migration of the Armenians caused by the Seljuk invasions. The narrative style is definitely discarded at the end of the account in favour of a genre of historical chronicle. This section mentions the request made by King James II of Aragon as well as King Ošin’s donation to the cathedral of Tarragona that thus became the last guardian of the relic. The episode here summarised brings to light the evidence of a new evolution of Thecla’s legend, used as a scheme to legitimate a new facet of her worship: if the Pseudo-Basil in the 5th century refuted the death of the saint, probably to justify the absence of her relics and her tomb in Seleucia, this narrative on the contrary resurrects Thecla’s tomb and arm to offer a relic for her worship in Tarragona. This new evolution of the legend contains all the hagiographic topoi of relic transfer narratives in the Middle Ages: a warning from heaven, miraculous circumstances accompanying the discovery of the remains, as well as the exhalation of a perfumed odor; the enthusiastic welcome of this discovery by the population; the construction of an edifice suitable to receive the blessed remains.54 We are aware that the worship of relics was very successful as of the Byzantine period: we well know the Constantinople sacralisation procedures carried out,   Literally ‘to the conjunction of the upper part of the arm’.   García Villada, ibid., 227, 15-6. 54   P. Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient (Paris, 1985) 42. 52 53



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition101

inter alia, thanks to arrival of relics belonging to apostles or other saints.55 Nevertheless it was essentially during the Middle Ages that the worship of relics reached its peak. During the Medieval period a full-blown trade fell in place: donations of relics were solicited, relics were bought and often stolen. Hagiographic narratives relate how this or that saint, whose tomb was unknown, revealed its location or participated in the excavation and the transfer of his remains to the church of his choice. The presence of relics was, for the believers of the Middle Ages, the presence of the saints in person who ­continued to live among men and women and bestow both protection and ­miracles.56 A worship site devoted to a saint lacking relics could not aspire to full dignity. Thus relics were sought and if none were found, then their discovery was invented further to a divine announcement or revelation from heaven. The Catalans were already worshiping Thecla in Tarragona, and thus it would explain their interest for the saint’s relics. This also gives us the indications to guess the nature of the last part of the Latin text: in all likelihood its function was to prove the authenticity of the relic sent from Armenia to Catalonia. If the nature and the aim of the narrative regarding the Thecla’s relics seem evident, the origin of this episode still needs to be clarified. Who would have added it? The Catalans for the needs of their worship? The hypothesis of a Catalan fake seems the easiest to accept. Nevertheless the hypothesis of a creation added specifically by the Armenians to their translation is also plausible, even probable. It is possible that, to better serve their Catalan friends, the Armenians may have wished to offer a kind of certified guarantee of the relic itself. If the Armenians were the authors of this part, as we believe, certain passages of the text then appear to be particularly interesting. Further to having said that King Ošin had entrusted the relics to James II, who had asked him for them, the author of this section adds an observation interesting from the point of view of international Armenian relations of the period. 55   See for example Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale; Flusin, ‘Construire une nouvelle Jérusalem’; Limberis, Divine Heiress. 56   P.J. Geary, Furta Sacra. Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton, 1990). Regarding the question of relics, also see E. Bozóky and A.-M. Helvétius (eds), Les reliques. Objets, cultes, symboles (Turnhout, 1999); E. Bozóky, La politique des reliques de Constantin à Saint Louis (Paris, 2006); R. Wiśniewski, The Beginnings of the Cult of Relics (Oxford, 2019).

102 the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition The text explains that even if Thecla’s presence was important for the protection of the Armenian Kingdom, King Ošin nevertheless considered it necessary to send the relics to the Kingdom of Aragon with the specific purpose of increasing the affection between the two kings and multiplying the ties between them.57 The dispatch of this relic (the only existing relic of Thecla!) was a token of friendship and loyalty between the two countries. This sentence collects interest if it is read in the light of Ošin’s philo-Latin and philo-Occidental politics that encouraged the rapprochement with the Pope and Christian Europe, as mentioned above. Two national councils took place during his reign (in 1307 in Sis and in 1316 in Adana) whose resolutions followed these tendencies. In the 14th century, the little Kingdom of Cilicia was, with Cyprus, the only Christian isle in this almost entirely Muslim region of the Orient; thus an alliance with the Christian Occident was vital. The text concludes with the wish that Thecla would continue to consider both Kingdoms of Aragon and Armenia worthy of her protection, she who had lived and died in the land of the Armenians, while sustaining their ‘passion’ (nostra passionem sustinuit),58 she who had thereafter been transferred to the Kingdom of Aragon. By invocation of a double protection bestowed on both kingdoms, Thecla endorsed the role as patroness of the alliance that united them. It is interesting to note how the stakes of diplomacy and international Armenian politics contributed to a new aspect of Thecla’s legend. As a conclusive consideration, it is noteworthy to recall that the traces of this new enhancement of the legend are visible still today in the cathedral of Tarragona and in particular in the altarpiece sculptured in alabaster by Father Pere Johan Vallfogona between 1426 and 1436. Among the different scenes of Thecla’s life offered to the devotion of the faithful in Tarragona, this altarpiece represents the image of the arm’s appearance as per the details in the Latin narrative.59 It is fascinating to think that during the festivities in Thecla’s honour, 57   … ut inter ipsos reges amor persistens et positus augeretur, et eorum ligamina multiplicarentur amoris (García Villada, La traslación del brazo de Santa Tecla, 227, 37-8. 58   García Villada, ibid., 228, 12. 59   For instance, see F. Vicens, Catedral de Tarragona (Barcelona, 1970) 84-8, illustration n° 156; S. Ramon i Vinyes and J. Farré i Roig, El Retaule de l’Altar Major. Catedral de Tarragona (Tarragona, 20082). Regarding the iconography



the legend of st. thecla in the armenian tradition103

which are still celebrated today in a most solemn manner in Tarragona in September, the Catalans are celebrating a form of the legend translated and enhanced in the far away Armenian courts of Cilicia.

of Thecla in Tarragona, see also C. Nauerth and R. Warns, Thekla. Ihre Bilder in der frühchristlichen Kunst (Wiesbaden, 1981) 85-92 and 97, n° 28-9.

VI. Martyrdom and Collective Rescue: The Acts of Thecla and the History of Armenia by Agat‘angełos* So now, on account of the death of those blessed saints, whose blood was shed in your land and who became worthy of divine grace and were sacrificed, therefore you have been visited and this land of Armenia has been sought out.1

1.  Armenia, ‘blessed, envied, and prodigious’ land The introductory quote above was pronounced by Gregory the Illuminator,2 evangeliser of Armenia, in the long Catechesis at the heart of Agat‘angełos’ History of Armenia (§ 249),3 a work devoted to Christianity’s adoption as official religion of the Kingdom of Armenia at the beginning of the 4th century.4 The ‘blessed saints, whose blood   Translated from the French by Dr Benedict Beckeld.   R.W. Thomson, The Lives of Saint Gregory. The Armenian, Greek, Ara­ bic, and Syriac Versions of the History Attributed to Agathangelos. Translated with Introduction and Commentary (Ann Arbor, 2010) 309; edition: G. Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and S. Kanayeanc, Agat‘angełay, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ [Agat‘angełos, History of the Armenians] (Tiflis, 1909; Delmar, NY 1980) 127, 15-128, 5. See also infra. 2   See Chaumont, ‘Sur l’origine de saint Grégoire d’Arménie’. 3   On Agat‘angełos, see supra, ch. V, note 10, with bibliography. 4   In 301 according to the traditional dating, 314 according to most modern historians: see among others P. Ananian, ‘La data e le circostanze della consecrazione di S. Gregorio Illuminatore’, Le Muséon 71 (1961) 43-73, 317-60, followed by Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne, 2, note 3. For a critical overview of the different datings, see M.-L. Chaumont, Recherches sur l’histoire d’Arménie de l’avènement des Sassanides à la conversion du royaume (Paris, 1969) 147-64. Ṙ. Manaseryan, Hayastanĕ Artavazdic‘ minč‘ew Trdat Mec [Armenia from Artavazd to Tiridates] (Erevan, 1997) suggests 306, which is followed by J.-P. Mahé, ‘Le premier siècle de l’Arménie chrétienne (298-387): de la littérature à l’histoire’, in C. Mutafian (ed.), Roma – Armenia (Rome, * 1



martyrdom and collective rescue105

was shed […] and were sacrificed’,5 are the Roman virgins Hṙip‘simē and her companions,6 who according to Agat‘angełos had decided not to break their vow of chastity and thus fled the Roman Empire in order to escape Diocletian’s lustfulness. The latter was infatuated with Hṙip‘simē in particular, and had asked her to marry him. The reference to the vow (uxt in Armenian), which means that they had become especially consecrated virgins, is explicit (§ 143). After they arrived in Armenia they were martyred by the Armenian king, Tiridates, who also was infatuated with and rejected by Hṙip‘simē. The ‘you’ to whom Gregory speaks are the members of the Armenian royal house, who have just been converted, as well as the Armenian population as a whole, who have gathered around Gregory to hear his teaching. The ‘land’ is of course Armenia, which at the end of the story is called ‘blessed, envied, and truly prodigious’ (§ 854 eraneli c‘ankali ew anpayman sk‘anč‘eli).7 But as we shall see, in order for Armenia to achieve such a status, the murderous pagan king first had to expiate his crime against the sacred virgins, a crime that had plunged the country into the most devastating ruin. By the words in the opening quote, and the whole speech, Gregory wishes to communicate to the neophyte Armenians a reassuring message: ‘Armenia has been sought out’. In other words, the country has not been forgotten and is part of God’s design. This message is central to Gregory’s preaching as reported by Agat‘angełos, and it 1999) 64-72; Manaseryan’s suggestions are also adopted by A. Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk’ Hayoc‘) de Yovhannēs Awjnec‘i (Leuven, 2004) 12-4, who however dates the conversion to 311. 5   The Armenian word is pataragec‘an ‘they have been sacrificed’. The same word is used for, inter alia, the sacrificial offering of the Eucharist. 6   On Hṙip‘simē, see P. Ananian, ‘Ripsima, Gaiana e compagne, sante, martiri in Armenia’, BS 11 (Rome, 1968) 206-12 at 206; J.-P. Mahé, ‘Hṙip‘simē ‘jetée de la mort vers la vie’’, in C. Stavrakos et al. (eds.), Hypermachos. Studien zu Byzantinistik, Armenologie und Georgistik. Festschrift für Werner Seibt zum 65. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden, 2008) 235-41; Z. Pogossian, ‘Women at the beginning of Christianity in Armenia’, OCP 69 (2003) 358-63. We recall that e.g. the Bollandists denied the historicity of Hṙip‘simē and her companions. Others think they actually existed. They would have come not from the city of Rome but from a Roman province closer to Armenia, and might have been victims of the persecutions by Maximinus Daia (ca. 311312), who, according to Eusebius, HE I, 9, 8, 2, ruled in Roman Armenia. 7   Tēr Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 447, 12-3.

106

martyrdom and collective rescue

rests on the principal idea of ancient Armenian historiography, which presents the past as the history of a chosen people, like the Jewish one.8 To these ancient historiographers, once the Armenians rejected paganism and adopted Christianity, their history became worthy of being memorialised in a written account. To the biographer Koriwn, inventor of the Armenian alphabet and Agat‘angełos’ model, the writing of Armenian history is a continuation of the Bible, as it is read historically. Koriwn says that ‘the grace of the One Almighty God extends to all nations of the earth’ without distinction (Life of Maštoc‘ IX, 5 mioyn Astucoy amenazōri šnorhk‘ aṙ amenayn azgs erkracnac‘ matakararin).9 This statement allows him to compare Armenia’s history with that of Israel. For him, writing the history of Armenia amounts to creating a memorial to the most important phases of the new Alliance between God and the Armenian people, a memorial that shows which place the Armenians occupy within God’s providence. This theological view of history, devised by Koriwn in the first half of the 5th century, was also pursued by his successors, one of whom was Agat‘angełos. 2.  Armenia’s salvation through the preacher mission of the sacred evangeliser and the blood of the sacred virgins According to the chain of events in Agat‘angełos’ History, the realisation of God’s plan for Armenia includes the activity of many protagonists, both male and female. King Tiridates realised the enormity of his crime and found a path to faith thanks to Gregory’s guidance. He adopted Christianity as official religion and supported Gregory in the destruction of ancient pagan cult places. Agat‘angełos attributes a decisive role to Gregory himself in the Armenians’ march toward salvation, thanks to his work as evangeliser. Several passages of the account insist on Gregory’s role as ‘mediator between God and men’ (§ 793 miǰnord… ěnd Astuac ew ĕnd mardik)10 and portray him as an agent of God’s design among Armenians. The prologue, to mention   See Calzolari, ‘La citation du Ps 78 [77]’, 5-8; ‘Je ferai d’eux mon propre peuple’, and ‘Écriture et mémoire religieuse dans l’Arménie ancienne’; see the seminal work of Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet’. 9   M. Abełean, Vark‘ Maštoc‘i [Life of Maštoc‘] (Erevan, 1941) 52, 18-9. 10   Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 413, 9. 8



martyrdom and collective rescue107

only one example, specifies that the story relates ‘how God had mercy and visited this land of Armenia, and showed great miracles through one man’ (§ 13 kam orpēs gt‘ac‘eal Astucoy ayc‘ arar Hayoc‘ ašxar­ his, i jeṙn aṙn mioǰ ec‘oyc‘ zsk‘anč‘elis mecamecs).11 But even though Agat‘angełos’ History recognises Gregory’s importance, it does not exclude that of others. In order for Armenia to be receptive to Gregory’s mission, the country first had to be infused with the blood of virgin women. It was only after Hṙip‘simē’s and her companions’ martyrdom that Gregory’s ‘illuminating’ work could manifest itself. The term ‘manifest’ is to be taken quite literally. While the events of the virgins’ story were taking place, Gregory found himself helplessly stuck in a deep and reptile-infested pit. The king had thrown him there upon discovering his Christian faith.12 For about fifteen years Gregory lay at the bottom of this pit, and was presumed dead. The figure of Gregory thus disappears completely in the hagiographical excursus on the virgins, as if to allow them to accomplish their task, whose importance, however, will not be emphasised until Gregory’s catechesis. In this way, Gregory and the virgins appear complementary to one another: the one by word and subsequently by pastoral activity, the others by the spilling of their blood, which contributes to saving Armenia and its people. It is only after the virgins’ martyrdom that Gregory is called upon by providence to exit the pit and to bring the king onto the path of repentance and conversion, as well as to explain to the Armenians the sacred virgins’ sacrifice for the redemption of Armenia. According to Agat‘angełos, right after the murder of Hṙip‘simē and her companions the king morphed into a wild boar, or perhaps a pig, according to different passages of the text.13 But how could a boar/pig king rule a country? All Armenia fell into terrible affliction and disarray.   Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 11, 1-3.   Still today the monastery of Xor Virap (‘Deep pit’) is one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in Armenia. 13   On the boar as a symbol of the god Vahagn, god of war and valour in Zoroastrianism, see N.G. Garsoïan, ‘The Iranian Substratum of the ‘Agat‘angełos’ Cycle’, in N.G. Garsoïan et al., East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Washington, DC, 1982) 153-64, reprinted in Ead., Between Byzantium and the Sasanians (London, 1985) n° XII, and ‘Les éléments iraniens dans l’Arménie paléochrétienne’, in N.G. Garsoïan and J.-P. Mahé, Des Parthes au Califat. Quatre leçons sur la formation de 11 12

108

martyrdom and collective rescue

Gregory then left his pit in order to remedy the kingdom’s ill fortune. His first act concerned the martyrs’ remains, which had to receive the abode that Tiridates had refused them at the time of his crime. The bodies of the virgins play a key role in the narration. But one may ask why it was up to the virgins to redeem Armenia by watering its earth with their blood. 3.  Woman and virginity in Christian literature in Agat‘angełos’ time It is in the Christian literature of Agat‘angełos’ time, and especially in its privileged connection between womanhood and virginity, that we find an essential element for understanding why according to the story it was women who had to spill their blood for Armenia’s salvation. We cannot enter into extensive details, but starting in the 4th century, with the era of persecutions having come to an end, Christian writers began to describe the struggle for the preservation of chastity and virginity as a form of endurance comparable to that of a martyr who dies for the faith. The struggle for chastity and virginity was considered to be one of the supreme proofs of loyalty to God and Christ. The 5th-6th centuries abounded with the literary Lives- and Passion-genres about women waging a heroic fight in defence of virginity or chastity until death: this is the case with Hṙip‘simē, who prefers to die rather than accede to King Tiridates’ advances. In the 4th-6th centuries, virginity was still a central subject of patristic literature. The Greek and Latin Church Fathers produced a great many treatises on the subject. We mention Methodius of Olympus, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea (well-known writers in Armenia).14 In the majority of cases ­l’identité arménienne (Paris, 1997) 27-33. This religious Zoroastrian symbol is ridiculed in the passages where Agat‘angełos used the Armenian word xoz ‘swine, pig’ rather than varaz ‘boar’. The pagan king’s metamorphosis is inspired by Daniel 4, notably by the fate announced to Nebuchadnezzar, the idolatrous King of Babylon, who had to be chased away from among men and assume the appearance of a wild animal. 14   See among others F.E. Consolino, ‘La sessualità nella tradizione patri­ stica’, in Comportamenti e immaginario della sessualità nell’Alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 2006) 85-134; Kelly, Performing Virginity, 40-62; Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia, 167-322.



martyrdom and collective rescue109

the texts in question are treatises or exhortations to women, in which the virgin is often called ‘Christ’s fiancée’. In Syria as well, in the 4th century, abstention was at the heart of the preaching by Fathers Ephrem and Aphrahat, whose works exerted great influence on the earliest Armenian literature. Due to a long development from the very beginning of Christianity, if not even earlier,15 virginity and chastity had become by Agat‘angełos’ time a model of Christian perfection and a ‘moyen privilégié de la rencontre exclusive’ with God, in the wording of A. Rousselle.16 Hṙip‘simē and the other virgins were close to God by virtue of their virginity, and therefore were called upon to bring the Armenians closer to God. In order to accomplish this, the spilling of their blood was necessary, as Gregory explains in his catechesis: (§ 720) Ew vkayk‘s ays linic‘in jez ołormut‘eamb nora berd amur ew aštarak hzōr amrut‘ean ew verakac‘uk‘ barexōsut‘eamb, hełmamb ­areann k‘aǰac‘ealk‘, nahatakut‘eambn iwreanc‘ zjez aṙeal aṙ Astuac matuc‘anic‘en (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 375, 11-14)

15   On virginity and continence in late Jewish tradition and in the first centuries of Christianity, see C. Angelidi, ‘Virginité ascétique: choix, contraintes et imaginaire (4ème-7ème siècles)’, in Comportamenti, 675-95; P.F. Beatrice, ‘Continenza e matrimonio nel cristianesimo primitivo’, in R. Cantalamessa (ed.), Etica sessuale e matrimonio nel cristianesimo delle origini (Milano, 1976) 3-68; P. Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Cristianity (New York, 1988); S. Elm, ‘Virgins of God’. The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (Oxford and New York, 1994); L. Perrone, ‘Eunuchi per il regno dei cieli? Amore e sessualità dal Nuovo Testamento al primo cristianesimo’, CrSt 23 (2002) 281-305; Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia, 323-65. On virginity in ancient Greece, see G. Sissa, Le Corps virginal. La virginité féminine en Grèce ancienne (Paris, 1987). On the history of virginity and chastity in pagan circles from the 2nd to the 4th century, see Rousselle, Porneia. On the evolution of pagan sexual morality and its points of contact with Christian morality, see also P. Veyne, ‘La famille et l’amour sous le Haut-Empire romain’, Annales 33 (1978) 35-63, reprinted in his La société romaine (Paris, 1991) 88-130; L. Cracco Ruggini, ‘La sessualità nell’etica pagano-cristiana tardoantica’, in Comportamenti, 1-38. For a feminist interpretation of chastity in the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, see V. Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy: Women in the Stories of the Apocryphal Acts (Lewiston, NY, 1987) cf. infra, 151-6 and note 31. 16  Rousselle, ibid., 13.

110

martyrdom and collective rescue

And these martyrs through his mercy will be for you (scil. the Armenians) a strong fortress and mighty tower, your protectors by intercession. They were valiant in the shedding of blood, so that by their martyrdom they might bring you near to God (my emphasis) (Thomson, Lives, 263, with a few changes).

4.  A comparison of Hṙip‘simē with St. Thecla, as a model of the sacred virgin Many passages and expressions in the story insist on Hṙip‘simē’s and her companions’ virginity as a paradigm of holiness, and demonstrate the link between the virgin and God as well as Christ. For example, the nuptial symbolism in the Parable of the Wise Virgins, in Matt 25:1-10, who were admitted to their weddings, is considered to anticipate the entry into the kingdom of heaven: (§ 149) Ew [...] p‘axsteay linēin, zi […] lusoyn yarut‘ean aržani linic‘in hasanel […] xostac‘eloc‘ bareac‘n hasanel, ant‘aṙam psakōk‘n zardareal ĕnd hngekan kamararsn kusanac‘, gorcovk‘n barut‘ean lusawo­realk‘ i  angist norogakan vayelč‘ut‘ean draxtin, ĕnd astuacakan p‘esayin [...] i bazmakans Abrahamu anpakas uraxut‘eanc‘n linel žaṙangord ­(Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 84, 1-12) Then [...] they [scil. Hṙip‘simē and her companions] decided to flee [...] so that they might become worthy to attain [...] the light of resurrection […] and [...] the promised blessings, adorned with unfading crowns with the five obedient virgins, shining with deeds of virtue in the peace of the renewed splendour of paradise, with the divine bridegroom among the multitudes of the just, to become heirs of unfailing joys at Abraham’s banquet (my emphasis) (Thomson, Lives, 221).

We also find an erotic vocabulary borrowed from the Song of Songs,17 with references to love and to the virgin’s desire for her ‘divine fiancé’ (see the passage just before this one, § 149),18 Christ: (§ 174) Oč‘ ok‘ karē meknel zmez i siroyn K‘ristosi: Zi nma nuirec‘ak‘ zkusut‘iwns mer, zi nma awandec‘ak‘ zsrbut‘iwns mer, zi nma mnamk‘ ew siroy nora c‘ankac‘eal spasemk‘, minč‘ew kac‘c‘uk‘ aṙaǰi p‘aṙac‘   On the erotic language describing the relationship between the virgin and Christ in female ascetic literature, see Cameron, ‘Virginity as Metaphor’, 200-1. 18   On the symbolism of betrothal and marriage, which is also based on 2 Cor 11:2 and Ep 5:27 (the spiritual wedding between Christ and the 17



martyrdom and collective rescue111

g­ ovut‘ean nora aṙanc‘ amōt‘oy ew patkaṙanac‘ (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 96, 8-11) No one can separate us from the love of Christ. For to him we have dedicated our virginity, to him we have commended our purity, for him we wait, and his love we await with longing until we stand before his praiseworthy glory without shame or timidity (Thomson, Lives, 239)

But it is especially the comparison with St. Thecla that allows Agat‘angełos to emphasise the paradigm of Hṙip‘simē’s sanctity in her capacity as virgin. This is also the capacity in which Thecla was venerated, starting in the 4th century, especially by the Church Fathers. In his treatise On Virginity, to mention but one example, Methodius of Olympus (3rd-4th centuries)19 turns her into a new Socrates who has to explain that virginity is the ideal condition for men to find themselves close to God.20 In this respect, it is important to note that, in order to portray Hṙip‘simē at the most crucial moment of her struggle for the defence of her chastity, Agat‘angełos draws inspiration from a famous episode in the Acts of  Thecla, which describes Thecla’s struggle against A ­ lexander – a notable of Antioch who falls in love with Thecla and assaults her at Church), see Brown, The Body and Society, 259, 275-6. The expression ‘fiancée of Christ’ is a leitmotif in ascetic literature. 19   There are many other passages one can cite: e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus, Carmina Moralia II, 190 (= Praecepta ad Virgines [PG, 37, 593]) and II, 87 (= Exhortatio ad Virgines 87 [PG, 37, 639]); Orationes XXIV, 10) and IV, 69; Ambrose, Epistula LXIII, 34; Augustine, Contra Faustum XXX, 4 and De sancta virginitate I, 44; Gregory of Nyssa, In Canticum Canticorum, or. 1 and Vita Macrinae 2; Jerome, Epistula XXII, 41. In hagiographical literature, see e.g. Pseudo-Athanasius, Vita S. Sincleticae (PG, 28, 1489 CD); Martyrium S. Photinae Samaritanae. On Thecla within patristic tradition, see L. Hayne, ‘Thecla and the Church Fathers’, VigChr 48 (1994) 209-18; M. Pesthy, ‘Thecla among the Fathers of the Church’, in Barrier et. al. (eds), Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint, 164-78; Voicu, ‘Thecla in the Christian East’. 20   This is a folk etymology between the Greek παρθενία ‘virginity’ and παρθεΐα ‘being next to God’ (παρά and θεῖος?): cf. Methodius, De virgini­ tate VIII, 1, 171. At the end of the work, Thecla receives the palm of victory for having pronounced the most beautiful speech on virginity. On virginity and proximity to God, see also G.P.C. Streete, ‘Buying the Stairway to Heaven: Perpetua and Thecla as Early Christian Heroines’, in A.-J. Levine (ed.), with M.M. Robbins, A Feminist Companion to the New Testament Apocrypha (London and New York, 2006) 186-205.

112

martyrdom and collective rescue

the entrance of the city – when she rejects his advances. The parallel between the two texts is clear, as can be seen in the following passages, beginning with the excerpt from Agat‘angełos’ History: (§ 191) Ew zōrac‘eal linēr ałǰikn i Hogwoyn srboy. hareal vaneal par­ teal, vastakabek aṙnelov zt‘agaworn mełkeal ĕnkenoyr: Merk kołoput ews i handerjic‘ zt‘agaworn kac‘uc‘anēr ew zpatmučann pataṙeal ew znšan t‘agin c‘rueal kołopteal amōt‘alic‘ t‘ołoyr: Zi t‘ēpēt ew ziwr zges­ tikn k‘čk‘čeal pataṙatun i nmanēn i durs berēr sakayn yałt‘oł pahēr zanjn iwr srbut‘eamb (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 103, 20-104,5) The maiden (scil. Hṙip‘simē) was strengthened by the Holy Spirit; she struck him, beat him off, and overcame him; she wore the king out, weakened him and felled him. She stripped the king naked of his clothes; she tore his robes and threw away his royal diadem, leaving him covered with shame. And although her own clothes had been torn to shreds by him, yet when she went out she still victoriously retained her purity (Thomson, Lives, 256)

This passage is modelled after the following episode in the Acts of Thecla: Ew andēn buṙn harkanēr zAłek‘sandrē ew pataṙēr zpatmučan nora, ew zpsakn oski zkayserakerp, zor unēr i gluxn, hanēr i nmanē ew yerkir ĕnkenoyr, ew zna merk kaput kołoput ew amawt‘alic‘ t‘ołoyr (Calzolari, § 26, 17-21) And straightway she struck Alexander and tore his robes, and threw away the golden crown with the image of the emperor, which he had on his head, and dashed it on the ground, and left him naked, stripped, and covered with shame.

The parallel between Thecla and Hṙip‘simē allows us to identify the paradigm of the victorious virgin while raising, for Agat‘angełos, the value of Hṙip‘simē. Hṙip‘simē merges different figures: the figure of Thecla when she defends her virginity, enjoying a burst of ‘virile force’,21 and then, in having God’s support, a cohort of female   The theme of the masculinisation of women, especially of the virgin and the martyr, constitutes a well-known topos in Christian literature, also in the Acts of Thecla (§ 25-26). On this theme, see for example K. Aspegren, The Male Woman. A Feminine Ideal in the Early Church, edited by R. Kieffer (Uppsala and Stockholm, 1990); E. Castelli, ‘‘I Will Make Mary Male’: Pieties of the Body and Gender. Transformation of Christian Women in Late Antiquity’, in J. Epstein and K. Straub (eds), Body Guards. The Cultural Politics of Gender 21



martyrdom and collective rescue113

c­ haracters from the Old Testament who, before her, obtained divine assistance. The God invoked by Hṙip‘simē in her prayers is the God of Sarah, Rebecca, Susanna, Yael, and Deborah (§ 170 and 179). Unlike Thecla, Hṙip‘simē finds death in martyrdom; she had been called to another mission, namely ‘to bring the Armenians close to God’ through her sacrifice, as we saw above (§ 720). 5.  The virginal body as temple and receptacle of the divinity It is interesting to note that Agat‘angełos contrasts the purity of the virgins with the impurity of their aggressors, who, as the text reminds us, are pagans. To Agat‘angełos, paganism and impurity go together,22 and strongly pejorative terms like ‘stain’, ‘pollution’, ‘luxurious obscenity’, and others are associated with the ‘impious religion’; ‘impious’, incidentally, is the ‘concupiscence’ of the pagans: (§ 147) Ard xnayea, Tēr, [...], zi mi xaṙnakesc‘uk‘ ĕnd anargut‘iwn płcut‘ean het‘anosac‘. ew mi tar zzgastut‘iwn srbut‘ean meroy bozanoc‘ anōrēn šanazgeac‘ lktut‘ean noc‘a, ew mi zkusut‘ean margarit hawatoc‘ meroc‘ i šawiłs xozagnac‘ ambarštut‘ean noc‘a (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 82, 17-83, 1) So have mercy, Lord, […]. Let us not be joined to the degradation of pagan filthiness. Permit not the chastity of our holiness to be a brothel for the licentiousness of those obscene dogs. Give not the pearl of the virginity of our faith to their impious and swinish ways (Thomson, Lives, 220) Ambiguity (New York and London, 1991) 29-49; L.S. Cobb, Dying to Be Men. Gender and Language in Early Christian Martyr Texts (New York, 2008); E. Cooper, ‘The Bride of Christ, the ‘Male Woman’, and the Female Reader in Late Antiquity’, in J. Bennet and R. Karras (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2013) 529-44; A. Marjanen, ‘Male Women Martyrs: The Function of Gender-Transformation Language in Early Christian Martyrdom Accounts’, in T.K. Seim and J. Økland (eds), Met­ amorphoses. Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Chris­ tianity (Berlin, 2009) 231-47; K. Vogt, ‘‘Becoming Male’: A Gnostic and Early Christian Metaphor’, in K.E. Børresen (ed.), The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (Minneapolis, MN, 19952). This topos is also attested in Jewish tradition: D. Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Palo Alto, 1999) 75-81. 22   On the opposition between purity and impurity, but outside the dichotomy Christianity-paganism, see E.A. Clark, Reading Renunciation. Asceti­ cism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton, 1999) 215-24.

114

martyrdom and collective rescue

(§149) Ibrew oč‘ i žamanakean mahuanēs p‘axuc‘ealk‘, ayl yanhnarin molekan anōrēn c‘ankut‘eanc‘n čołoprealk‘ [...] zi zogisn iwreanc‘ srbut‘eamb aṙanc‘ ałtełut‘ean pahel mart‘asc‘en yanōrēn gičut‘ean płcut‘ean ałtełut‘ean xaṙnic‘ mardkan anōrēn krōnic‘ (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 84, 15-85, 5) Not as fleeing from this temporal death, but escaping from the terrible passion of impious desires […] to be able to preserve their souls in purity without contamination from the impious pollution and foul impurity of irreligious men (Thomson, Lives, 221)

The association of paganism with impurity is certainly a commonplace in Christian literature; in Agat‘angełos’ work, whose central theme is Christianity’s triumph over paganism in 4th-century Armenia, this association comes to denigrate the older religion in order to illustrate the superiority of the new. In another excerpt, the dichotomy between (Christian) purity and (pagan) impurity is reinforced by the idea that the virgins’ extreme defence of purity, even unto death, is also a defence of the Christian faith itself: (§ 194) Ayl mez law ē meṙanel i srbut‘ean k‘um, k‘an t‘ē jgic‘emk‘ zjeṙs mer yastuacs ōtars, or č‘ic‘en isk (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 105, 4-5) But it is better for us to die in our purity23 than to stretch out our hands to foreign gods who really do not exist (Thomson, Lives, 259)

Purity’s opposite here is idolatry. The passage continues with a proclamation on the inanity of the pagan cults, as well as a profession of the faith in God the creator, in the Son and the Holy Spirit (ibid.): (§ 194) ayl oč‘ inč‘ isk en amenayn paštamunk‘ het‘anosac‘. zi du es ararič‘, ew amenayn i k‘ēn ē ew Ordwovd k‘o miacnaw, aṙanc‘ oroy ełen ew oč‘inč‘, ew Hogid k‘o bari aṙaǰnordesc‘ē mez yerkir ułił, or tani zmez i barut‘iwnsn yawitenakansn yerkraworsn (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 105, 5-9) All the cults of the heathen are but nothing. For you are the creator and everything is from you and through your only-begotten Son, without whom nothing at all was made (cf. John 1:3). Your good Spirit will lead us to a straight land, and will bring us to the eternal and heavenly blessings (cf. Ps 143 [142], 10) (Thomson, ibid.)   The same Armenian word has the double meaning of ‘purity’ and ‘sanctity’. 23



martyrdom and collective rescue115

In yet another excerpt, which refers to the defilement that the pagan kings brought upon Hṙip‘simē, virginity becomes the very foundation of the Church: (§ 147) Ew mi šaržesc‘ē ułx anyag ǰurc‘ bazmut‘eanc‘ molorahołmn xabēut‘ean zrahełełn sastkut‘ean zhimuns surb ekełec‘woy k‘oy (TērMkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 83, 1-3) Let not the torrent of the voracious floods of vain error and deceit (Ps 17, 5)24 shake the foundations of your holy Church (Thomson, Lives, 220)

By means of a subtle semantic shift, in several passages the virgin’s body, whose chastity is viewed as the Church’s foundation, becomes literally a Temple of God.25 (§ 170) Ew ases: ‘Anun im i veray jer koč‘ec‘eal ē’ ew ‘Duk‘ tačar ēk‘ astuacut‘ean imoy’ [...] Aha žołovealk‘ č‘ark‘ bazumk‘ płcel zanun surb k‘o or i veray mer ē, ew ztačar anuand k‘oy; cf. § 172 i mez, zor anuanec‘er tačar kamac‘ k‘o (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 94, 3-8; cf. 95, 5-6) And you said: ‘My name has been called over you’ and ‘You are the temple of my divinity’ […] Behold many evil men have gathered to sully your holy name which is upon us, and the temple of your name (cf. Cor 3.16, 6.19; see also § 564, infra) (Thomson, Lives, 236; cf. ibid., 238)   Deception is Satan’s preferred instrument, and the pagan king is associated with him (see infra, ch. IX, 195-6). 25   Regarding the consecrated virgins of Alexandria, Athanasius writes e.g.: ‘The Son of God [...] bestowed this also upon us, that we should possess upon earth, in the state of virginity, a picture of the holiness of Angels. Accordingly such as have attained this virtue, the Catholic Church has been accustomed to call the brides of Christ. And the heathen who see them express their admiration of them as the temples of the Word’ (Apologia ad Constantium 33 [J.-M. Szymusiak, Apologie à l’empereur Constance. Apol­ ogie pour sa fuite [Paris, 1958] 128 = PG, 25, 640B]; translated by M. Atkinson and A. Robertson, in Ph. Schaff and H. Wace [eds], Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 4 [Buffalo, NY, 1892] 425). See also Acts of Thecla 5; Acts of Thomas 1, 12; Origen, Contra Celsum IV, 26; Basil of Ancyra, De virginitate 27; Eusebius of Emesa, De virginitate 25, 27 and Hom. 6 de martyribus 24; Vita Melaniae Iunioris 19; Pseudo-Basil, De vir­ ginitate 2, 41. On the body of the virgins as representation of the ‘body of the Church’, see Kelly, Performing Virginity, 41-2; M.Y. MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion. The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge, 1996) 242-3. 24

116

martyrdom and collective rescue

This topos is a commonplace in Christian literature, and is also present in the Acts of Thecla, particularly in the makarismos of § 5 (from Paul’s sermon), where the ‘bodies of the virgins’ are called ‘temples of God’: Erani oyk‘ pahen zmarmins iwreanc‘ srbut‘eamb, zi nok‘a koč‘esc‘in tačar Astucoy (Calzolari, § 5, 6-8) Happy are they who keep their flesh in purity, for they will be called ‘temples of God’.

The image of the virginal body as a receptacle of God also applies to the deceased; martyrs’ relics are called the ‘treasure of the Divinity’ (§ 717 zganjn Astuacut‘eann). The virginal body as divine receptacle can only be of an incorruptible nature. The violated body, deprived by the king of burial, is preserved: (§ 201) Ew k‘aršeal i bac‘ ĕnkec‘in zmarmins noc‘a aṙ i ker linel šanc‘ k‘ałak‘in ew gazanac‘ erkri ew t‘ṙč‘noc‘ erknic‘ (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 108, 10-12)26 They dragged out their bodies and threw them as food for the dogs of the city and beasts of the land and birds of the sky (cf. Ps 79 [78] 2) (Thomson, Lives, 265).

Once he has been saved from his pit, Gregory must collect their remains, which are found to be still intact. ‘God’s power had preserved their bodies during nine days and nine nights’ (§ 223 zōrut‘eann Astucoy paheal ēr zmarmins noc‘a , zi ayn inn tiw ēr ew inn gišer).27 The inviolability and incorruptibility of the martyred virgin bodies is another manifestation of the contact with the divine that they 26   The first verses of the psalm recall the nations’ encroachment on God’s legacy, as well as the profanation of the Temple and the defilement of the soil of Jerusalem by the blood flowing in streams and by the bones that had been deprived of burial (cf. 2 Kings 2:14). We cannot pursue this subject further here, but we note that in the hagiographical section on the martyr virgins in Agat‘angełos’ work, the blood is not perceived as a defilement. 27   Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 117, 8-9. Regarding Hṙip‘simē’s relics, we recall that according to Pseudo-Sebeos (7th century), History of Armenia 37 [121], during the restoration of the chapel of Hṙip‘simē in the 7th century, at the time of Catholicos Komitas, her relics were discovered intact. The text emphasises Hṙip‘simē’s virginity: ‘royal pearl […] virginal body of the holy Lady Hṙip‘simē’ (the 10th-century historian John Catholicos, in his History of Armenia 27, also mentions these events).



martyrdom and collective rescue117

have enjoyed. By virtue of this contact, they obtain the power of intercession, which is also attributed to their relics (cf. § 720, supra): (§ 241) Apa ew surb vkayk‘n Astucoy, zor duk‘n č‘arč‘arec‘ēk‘ vasn jer ew nok‘a barexōsut‘iwn karen matuc‘anel (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 125, 2-4) Then the holy martyrs of God, whom you tortured, will be able to offer intercession on your behalf (Thomson, Lives, 304)

The presence of their bodies, these ‘temples of God’, is the Armenians’ only means of approaching God, as the text states explicitly: (§ 564) Isk marmink‘ noc‘a ew oskerk‘ noc‘a Astucoy tačark‘ en i miǰi jerum. zi oč‘ ayl iwik‘ karic‘ēk‘ duk‘ zAstuac ĕnd jez haštec‘uc‘anel ew merjenal aṙ Astuac et‘ē oč‘ barexōsut‘eamb ałōt‘ic‘ noc‘a (TērMkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 285, 10-13) Their bodies and their bones are temples of God in your midst, for in no other way can you reconcile God with yourselves and approach God, except by the intercession of their prayers (Thomson, Teaching, 135)28

6.  The profanation of the temple of God by the boar king and its expiation: the new birth of the Armenian people Everything we have considered here allows us now to understand the true nature of Tiridates’ crime: the misery inflicted upon the Christian virgins is a profanation of the divine receptacle that is the virginal body. The first act that the metamorphosed king must accomplish in order to regain human form is to bury the remains and to erect sanctuaries for housing them. The virginal body thus becomes literally the foundation for a house of worship, since the chapels of the sacred virgins were in fact the first churches to be built in Armenia. In Agat‘angełos, the virgins’ bodies can thus be viewed, as Averil Cameron argues,29 as a metaphor for the Church. But the metaphorical image of a body as a church, which is common in ascetic ancient literature, acquires an entirely new dimension within the foundation story of Armenia’s Church. The purity of the virgins’ bodies is a metaphor for the purity obtained by the Armenians through their   R.W. Thomson, The Teaching of Saint Gregory. An Early Armenian Cat­ echism. Translation and Commentary (Cambridge, MA, 1970). 29   See Cameron, ‘Virginity as Metaphor’. 28

118

martyrdom and collective rescue

c­ onversion, as the text clearly shows. Gradually, as the chapels are erected, Tiridates regains his human appearance. It is only after this constructive act that his beastly mien disappears. In the exact moment that the profane king gives the sacred bodies their due, his own body passes from the inhuman (animal) to the human. (§ 773) Ew t‘agaworn minč‘ deṙ kayr i tesil kerparanac‘ xozi ĕnd žołovrdeann yankarcaki hareal zdołman, ew zxorxn xozi artak‘oy marm­ noy iwroy i bac‘ ĕnkenoyr [...] ew dēmk‘ eresac‘n darjan yiwr isk ker­ paransn, ew marminn p‘ap‘kac‘eal matałac‘eal linēr ibrew zaṙōreay mankan cneloy, ew ołǰandam marmnovk‘n amenewin bžškec‘aw (TērMkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 401, 6-13) Then the king, while he was standing among the people with the appearance of a pig, suddenly trembled and threw off from his body the piglike hide [...]. His face returned to its own form, and his body became soft and young like that of a newly born infant. He was completely healed in all his limbs (Thomson, Lives, 365-6)

The king’s healing, which is described as a new birth, corresponds to the healing of the Armenian people30 and anticipates the ‘new and prodigious birth’ (cnund norog ew sk‘anč‘eli) that Tiridates, his army, his household, and the Armenian multitude receive by the Euphrates’ baptising waters and Gregory’s paternal right hand in the second part of the work: (§ 830) [...] orum pargewēr isk vičak yamenašnorhn Astucoy, hayrakan č‘ap‘un cnanel cnund norog ew sk‘anč‘eli, pargewabašx surb aǰovn iwrov. zamenayn i ǰroy ew i Hogwoyn yargandē mkrtut‘eamb miwsan­ gam verstin cnanel, aṙnel katarel, srbel, drošmel mi žołovurd Teaṙn (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 432, 15-433, 4) […] to him [scil. Gregory] the gift was granted by all-gracious God to produce a new and wonderful birth in fatherly fashion, by his holy and liberal right hand; to give birth once again to everyone by baptism from water and the womb of the Spirit, through baptism, and to perfect, purify and seal one people of the Lord (Thomson, Lives, 435)

  The text (§ 774) then describes numerous miraculous healings that took place among the Armenians, in imitation of the miracles carried out by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament. The parallel with the rebirth of the king is introduced by the formula ‘in the same way, numerous people also […]’. In this passage on new birth, baptism and Spirit there is a possible allusion to John 3:3-8. 30



martyrdom and collective rescue119

The purification through the virgins’ self-sacrifice anticipates, if not downright prepares, Gregory’s baptising mission. If, as we have seen, the sacred virgins are the route by which to approach God (§ 720) and to gain his protection (§ 564), the chapels built for their bodies are in turn ‘temples of united prayer, to seek continually from God […] reconciliation and peace for the world’ (§ 717 tačars ałōt‘ic‘ miabanut‘ean, hanapazord xndrel yAstucoy [...] zhaštut‘iwn ew zxałałut‘iwn ašxarhi)31 – in other words, to guarantee the continuity of God’s protection and benevolence. 7.  The story’s protological dimension The metaphorical value of virginity in the Armenian text is also emphasised protologically, that is, by a dimension inherent in the creation of the first human beings. In ascetic literature,32 sexuality and procreation are associated with the fall of the first human couple, and in particular with woman’s sin. Men had been created as immortals; due to their disobedience, Adam and Eve plunged humanity into death. Sexuality is a means of combatting death, but it also perpetuates the moral condition of man in this world, whence the extreme position of rigorist circles, such as the Encratites and the Apotactics, who went so far as to prohibit marriage and procreation.33 The choice of a life of continence and virginity is thus not only the ‘moyen privilégié de la rencontre exclusive’ with God, as we have seen,34 but also constitutes the highest attempt to restore to earthly life the state of Eden that God had originally intended for man and that by Eve’s sin had been lost. The chaste and the virgins are those who approximate most closely the state of man before the fall, and who thus are like angels.35 This angelic state is explicitly attributed to the Hripsimian virgins: (§ 149) zanjins iwreanc‘ hreštakakan zuart‘akan kargōk‘ lusaworeal varuc‘n k‘aǰut‘eambk‘, zi zAstuac tesanel karasc‘en (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 85, 10-12)   Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 373, 11-374, 2; Thomson, Lives, 324.   This dimension in ascetic literature considers the beginning of human history so as to learn about the end (archē and telos): see Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia, 174. 33  See infra, ch. IX-X. 34   See above, 109 and note 16. 35   On the virgins’ isangelia, which is a topos in ascetic literature, see Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia, passim; Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 347-88. 31

32

120

martyrdom and collective rescue

They illuminated their souls in angelic form by the virtue of their conduct so that they might be able to see God.36

It is, incidentally, because they ‘overcame the desires of the flesh’ (§ 563 yałt‘ec‘in marmnełēn c‘angut‘eann) that Hṙip‘simē and her companions were able to pass ‘from corruptibility to incorruptibility’ (yapakanut‘enēs yanapakanut‘iwn, ibid.).37 The importance of the virgin woman is here that she transcends the weakness of the first woman. As the fall of humanity had been caused by a woman who was a virgin at the moment of the creation, the redemption had to be achieved by another virgin: this is the basic dogma of Mary’s virginity.38 Hṙip‘simē for her part is Eve’s antithesis in Agat‘angełos. The text compares her trial with that of Eve in terrestrial paradise, with the pagan king being compared to the ‘enemy’: (§ 141) Isk ibrew tesin aṙak‘inik‘n zgałtajig nets t‘šnamwoyn, or i cacuk sovor ēr jgel i surbsn k‘ristosasērsn, aman č‘ari gteal zt‘agaworn. orpēs i draxti and zōjn andruvar arareal, aṙ i patuirann moṙanaloy, mteal yanzgam yunkn knoǰn aṙaǰnoy. soynpsē ew ast zt‘agaworn anōrēn ibrew zvahanak eresac‘ gteal novaw martuc‘eal ĕnd astuacašĕn ekełec‘is (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 80, 5-10) But when the pious women saw the hidden arrows of the enemy, who is accustomed to shoot secretly at the saints who love Christ, they found that the emperor (had become) a vessel of evil. Just as in the garden he had used the snake as a vehicle for causing the forgetting of the commandment, entering into the senseless ear of the first woman, so here too he had used the lawless emperor as a mask through which he could fight with the church built by God (Thomson, Lives, 216)

Contrary to Eve, Hṙip‘simē did not fall into Satan’s net, and avoided error: (§ 143) Isk eranelin parkeštasērn Gayianē, srbasnelovn Hṙip‘simeaw handerj ew ayl ĕnkerōk‘n iwreanc‘, yišeal zuxtn srbut‘ean, zōrinawor krōnic‘n zgastut‘ean srbut‘iwnn yor mteal ēin [...] čgnut‘eamb matuc‘eal 36  Thomson, Lives, 161. The model is Enoch, whom God ‘elevated to the rank of the angels’ (§ 76, cf. Catechesis of St. Gregory, § 294, based on Gen 5:24). 37   Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 285, 4-6. 38   Jesus himself, the new Adam, was a virgin, as was the first man at the creation: see Cameron, ‘Virginity as Metaphor’, 186.



martyrdom and collective rescue121

yałot‘s xndrel i bazumołorm Teaṙnēn ōgnakanut‘iwn p‘rkel znosa i p‘or­ jut‘enēn, or haseal ēr i veray noc‘a (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 81, 4-10) Then the blessed and chaste Gayianē, with the saintly Hṙip‘simē and their other companions, remembered the covenant of the holiness, the religious rule of chastity into which they had entered […] They fervently prayed, seeking help from the all-merciful Lord, that he would save them from the trial which had come upon them. (Thomson, Lives, 217)

Hṙip‘simē’s was a woman tasked with preparing the Armenian people’s redemption, and her martyrdom had to bring them close to God (§ 720). She was thus an anti-Eve.39 The redeemer of humanity had to be born from Mary’s virginal body; in Agat‘angełos, the first Armenian church/Church had to be built on the virginal body of female martyrs, which was the beginning of the Armenian people’s redemption. The development of the theme of virginity in the History of Armenia thus takes on an entirely original meaning. It ought to be emphasised that the importance of the virgin state is linked to what is the preferred way of viewing the female body, with male celibacy not being demanded by the primitive Armenian Church. Gregory the Illuminator indeed had children; his two sons and their descendants received in their turn the title of Catholicos of the Church of Armenia, according to the dynastic customs of Armenian society. This society had been strongly influenced by Iranian culture and allowed for the hereditary transmission of institutions and offices, including the patriarchal throne. 39   It is interesting to note that in a sacred hymn attributed to the Catholicos Komitas (7th century), Hṙip‘simē is portrayed as a new Mary, capable of annulling the curse that had befallen humanity thanks to Eve. The typology Eve-Mary (for example in Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian) is also present in Armenian literature. One may cite e.g. the Armenian Infancy Gospel, which shows a meeting between Eve and Mary at the moment of Jesus’ birth. The ‘mother of all men’ is present at the delivery of the one who is come to redeem her sin: Calzolari, ‘Mary and Eve’. Eve is also present in Armenian iconography, especially in the illuminated medieval evangeliaries that contain nativity scenes, like MSS. 4820 and 316 in the Matenadaran of Erevan, from the 14th century: D. Kouymjian, ‘Some Iconographical Questions about the Christ Cycle in Armenian Manuscripts and Early Printed Books’, in C. Baffioni et al. (eds), Le sacre scritture e le loro interpretazioni: l’Enci­ clopedia dei fratelli della purità (Rome, 2015) 121-41; cf. Calzolari, ‘Eve, the Foremother’.

122

martyrdom and collective rescue

8.  God’s plan and the mission of the virgins, Armenia’s apostles While the central role of the virgins’ martyrdom in the salvation of the Armenian people is not in doubt, we must still explore whether to Agat‘angełos this martyrdom fit within God’s plan for the Armenians. Another part of the text shows that, to Agat‘angełos, if Hṙip‘simē and her companions arrived in Armenia, where they ‘brought [the Armenians] close to God’ by their sacrifice, it is because God himself wanted it. In the passage containing Hṙip‘simē’s supplications to heaven as she is being threatened by Tiridates, the celestial voice that is heard in response to her calls is very explicit: (§ 175) Zōrac‘aruk‘, pind kac‘ēk‘, k‘aǰalerec‘aruk‘, zi es ĕnd jez em, ew pahec‘i zjez yamenayn čanaparhs jer, ew aci zjez paheals anara­ tut‘eamb, ew hasuc‘i zjez minč‘ew i tełis yays, zi ew ast p‘aṙaworesc‘i anun im aṙaǰi het‘anosac‘ kołmanc‘ hiwsisakanac‘: Manawand du, Hṙip‘simē (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 96, 13-97, 1) Be strong, stand firm and be of good cheer, because I am with you, and I have preserved you in all your journeys and led you safely in purity and have brought you to this place so that here my name might be glorified before the heathens of the northern regions. Especially you, Hṙip‘simē (Thomson, Lives, 240)

We see here that the Roman virgins did have a specific mission ­chosen by God himself. There are traces in these lines even of an apostle’s function. In at least one other excerpt, Agat‘angełos employs the same words Christ used to indicate the mission of the apostles in the Gospel of Matthew 5:15-16 (cf. Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16, 11:33): (§ 159) Ayl oč‘ isk ēr part t‘agč‘el čšmartut‘eann ew vkayic‘n aṙak‘i­ nut‘ean, ew oč‘ lusoy čragin ĕnd gruanaw cackel, ew oč‘ i nerk‘oy stuerac‘ kat‘edrac‘n anerewoyt‘ linel. ayl i veray aštanakac‘n oskwoc‘ zardareloc‘, ew oskwovk‘ čragaranōk‘ ziwłn parartut‘ean anušut‘ean, zardarut‘ean hawatoc‘n vaṙeal zloysn hamapaycaṙ (Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 89, 1-6) It was not right for the truth and virtue of the martyrs to remain hidden, nor for the light of a torch to be hidden under a bushel or under the shadow of a chair; but on candlesticks ornamented with gold and with golden torches one should kindle the glorious light, the oil of sweet plenty of the righteous faith (Thomson, Lives, 229-30)



martyrdom and collective rescue123

Gregory applies the epithet ‘apostle’ to the sacred virgins, in the Cat­ echesis addressed to the Armenians around him: (§ 572) Ard noc‘in barexōsut‘eamb hačec‘ayk‘ duk‘ ĕnd Astucoy, ĕst xratu soc‘in aṙak‘elakc‘in jeroc‘ aṙak‘eloc‘s mecin Pōłosi (TērMkrtč‘ean and Kanayeanc‘, 289, 15-17) By their intercession you will be reconciled with God according to the instruction of the companion apostle to these apostles of yours, the great Paul (Thomson, Teaching, 138)

In this passage, we find a further comparison between Hṙip‘simē and Thecla, who according to the Acts of Paul is Paul’s disciple and ‘companion apostle’, a subject to which we shall return in ch. VIII. In conclusion And so we see that women played an indispensable role in Armenia’s conversion, just as did the evangelist and first patriarch of the Armenian Church. In the account of events that we have, which reflects the official tradition of the Armenian Church from the 5th century on, St. Gregory and the Hripsimian virgins occupy a central position as intermediaries between God and the Armenians. But God’s plan for the Armenian people included different modalities for different apostles. We recall that when Zoroastrianism reigned in Armenia, before Tiridates’ conversion, Gregory had fearlessly proclaimed his Christian faith before the pagan king, thus becoming a ‘Confessor’ saint. This is one of the most important passages in the work, where, in a long dialogue between Tiridates and Gregory, the Zoroastrian king’s value system is overturned point by point by his Christian servant (§ 48-65).40 The venue of this confrontation is the temple of the goddess Anahit   To mention one example, when Tiridates threatens to deprive Gregory of the honours that one usually receives at the royal banquet – which in the Iranian social system of ancient Armenia was a great privilege – Gregory responds that he will be invited to another banquet, next to Abraham (the image of the kingdom of heaven in Luke 16). This long dialogue between king and patriarch is analysed in V. Calzolari, ‘Une page d’histoire religieuse arménienne. L’affrontement entre le roi mazdéen Tiridate et Grégoire l’Illuminateur près du temple de la déesse Anahit en Akilisène’, in F. Prescendi and Y. Volokhine (eds.), Dans le laboratoire de l’historien des religions. Mélanges offerts à Philippe Borgeaud (Geneva, 2011) 45-61. 40

124

martyrdom and collective rescue

in Ekełeac‘,41 the protecting ‘Great Lady’ of pre-Christian Armenia. For the crime of having confessed his faith and refused to sacrifice to Anahit, Gregory was condemned to death, but his life was saved at the bottom of the pit so that he might complete his evangelising and pastoral mission. Hṙip‘simē, the new Thecla, and her companions suffered a very different fate. Their martyrdom allowed the angelic purity that they enjoyed by virtue of their virginity to spread among the Armenians at large. By their voluntary acceptance42 of death, these women ended up standing at the origin of Armenia’s redemption. In Agat‘angełos’ view, God’s plan foresaw their sacrifice: they were the necessary victims of the Armenians’ new birth. They also died so that the Lord’s people might multiply and fill the world to the farthest lands of the oikoumene.

  The Greek Akilisene, mentioned for example by Strabo XI, 14, 16. On Anahit, see Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 235-60; on the possible association between Anahit and St. Thecla in the History of Armenia by P‘avstos Buzand (5th century), see ch. VII. 42   The episode of one of Hṙip‘simē’s companions is notable. She was weak and had not been able to follow Hṙip‘simē and the others; she thanks God for not having excluded her, but for having joined her to the martyrdom (§ 201). 41

VII. St. Thecla as a Patroness of Nicean Orthodoxy in the History of Armenia by Faustus of Byzantium (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘)*

As we emphasised in ch. V, the legend of St. Thecla enjoyed widespread fame in the ancient Christian East and West. Thecla’s story soon became detached from Paul the Apostle, and began to circulate independently. Over the centuries it was modified and adapted little by little to the needs of different communities that had adopted her cult. Armenia’s nascent literature also took an interest in this saint from Iconium. 5th-century translations, which were destined to shape and enrich Armenian religious consciousness, were the first to spread her legend in Armenia. In the first half of the 5th century, the Armenians translated the Acts of Thecla from Syriac.1 The considerable quantity of Armenian manuscripts that contain this version shows that the legend of Thecla, which had come from Syria, was extraordinarily diffused in Armenia.2 This diffusion suggests that Thecla played an important role in the history of Christian Armenia. She allows us to understand the manner in which the Armenians constructed their culture and reinforced their national identity in the course of their very troubled history. The assimilation of this ‘foreign’ saint was characteristic of a more general strategy of ‘retrieval’. In order to understand this strategy, we must look beyond the translations and at the historiographical works of the 5th century. In searching for the Armenian people’s roots and in reconstructing its past, historians contributed to the creation of a national identity that to the Armenians was intimately connected with the Christian confession. We shall explore   Translated from the French by Dr Benedict Beckeld.  See supra, 84-5, note 5. 2   On the manuscript tradition of the Acts of Thecla, see Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca, 191-228. * 1

126

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

St. Thecla’s presence in the chapter on the death of Emperor Valens in the Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ (BP),3 or History of Armenia (probably second half of the 5th century),4 which was based on pre-existing material.5 Following convention, I shall refer to the author of the BP as ‘Faustus’, without entering upon the problems of his identity.6 1.  Chapter IV, 10 of the BP and its context In the BP, Thecla appears in chapter IV, 10, which is part of a longer section on St. Nersēs, Armenian Catholicos from 353 to 373.7 In this section, Faustus portrays Nersēs as a veritable hero of the Armenian cause and of orthodoxy. His story is presented as a series of interconnected episodes. It is not always easy to establish the logical connection among them, and it is evident that we are dealing with a sort of compilation. Faustus tells us of an embassy by Nersēs, at the time of the Armenian King Aršak (350?-367/368), to Emperor Valens (364-378), who was an ardent partisan of Arianism (BP IV, 5).8 The goal of the embassy was to renew the peace that already existed between the king and the Roman emperor.9 But the meeting went poorly. As Valens   K‘. Patkanean, P‘awstosi Buzandac‘woy, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ [Faustus of Byzantium, History of the Armenians] (St. Petersburg, 1883; repr. Delmar, MI, 1984). English translation with commentary: Garsoïan, Epic Histories, a reference work also for the bibliography concerning BP. 4  Garsoïan, ibid., 11 and passim. 5  Garsoïan, ibid., 35-41. 6  Garsoïan, ibid., 11-6. 7   M. Ōrmanean, Azgapatum [National History], vol. 1 (Constantinople, 1912) 163-5, followed by Garsoïan, ‘Politique ou orthodoxie?’, 306 (cf. also Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 395). N.H. Baynes (‘Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century’, EHR 25 [1910] 625-2-6) proposed the date 339-340 for the beginning of Nersēs’ patriarchate, and J. Markwart (Die Entstehung der armenischen Bistümer [Leuven, 1932] 232) 355-356. 8   G. Traina, ‘L’ambassade de l’arménien Narsēs/Narseus (a. 358)’, in A. Becker and N. Drocourt (eds), Ambassadeurs et ambassades au cœur des relations diplomatiques. Rome – Occident médiéval – Byzance (VIIIe siècle avant J.-C.-XIe siècle après J.-C.) (Metz, 2012) 203-9. 9   This peace may be the reconciliation between Rome and Armenia resulting from the treaty of Nisibis in 298 (between the Romans and Persians), which re-established the Roman protectorate over the Kingdom of Armenia: 3



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy127

had a son who was seriously ill, he asked Nersēs to pray that God heal him. Nersēs replied that only a disavowal of Arianism and a return to the true faith could save his son’s life. Valens refused, and the child died. Devastated by his death, the emperor blamed Nersēs and sent him into exile on a desert island, where he remained for nine years (BP IV, 6). Faustus relates how once Nersēs had been deported, the situation both in Armenia and in all of the eastern Roman Empire deteriorated. In Armenia, the people mourned Nersēs’ absence, all the more so since King Aršak, who previously had led a pious life, fell ever farther from the path of faith and justice (BP IV, 11-12). Valens for his part continued to impose Arianism on all his cities, thereby perverting the true faith and being guilty of persecution: after having banished Nersēs, he gathered all the bishops, priests, and deacons of the Empire and demanded that they disavow their orthodox faith and become Arians (BP IV, 5).10 They refused and were thus banished in turn, after which all churches were filled with fake bishops (č‘episkoposs),11 true ‘workers of Satan’ (mšakk‘ satanayi).12 Faustus describes the situation as more lamentable than that of the pagan era: (IV, 5) Ew mec ełew ĕnd amenayn tiezerk‘ p‘orjut‘iwnk‘ nełut‘eanc‘ vtangi k‘an zaṙaǰin t‘agaworac‘n. ews č‘ar or i het‘anosac‘n paterazmn ew xṙovut‘iwnk‘n yaṙaǰagoyn yaṙnēr aṙ aylovk‘ dic‘apašt mehenasēr t‘agaworōk (Patkanean, 99, 12-16) And greater tribulations and oppression and harm disturbed all of the universe than under earlier kings, even more wicked than the wars and conflicts that arose formerly among the heathens, in the time of the idol-worshiping, temple-loving kings (Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 123) cf. Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 273, note 2 in BP IV, 5, and 265, note 16 in BP  III, 21; for the traditional alliance between Tiridates and Constantin, attested by Agat‘angełos, see also M.-L. Chaumont, ‘Une visite du roi d’Arménie Tiridate III à l’empereur Constantin à Rome?’, in H. Ahrweiler et al., L’Arménie et Byzance (Paris, 1996) 55-66; Garsoïan, ibid., 265, note 6 in BP III, 21. This tradition was developed in medieval times, for example in the Letter of Love and Concord: Z. Pogossian, The Letter of Love and Concord (Leiden and Boston, 2010). 10   Cf. Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 276, note 50 in BP IV, 5. 11   Patkanean, 99, 9. Cf. H. Delehaye, ‘Μιερεύς. Note sur un terme hagio­ graphique’, Comptes rendus des séances de l‘Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1919) 128-34. 12   Patkanean, 99, 18.

128

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

This section in the text that we have just summarised is full of anachronisms. First of all, Faustus has placed under Valens an embassy that probably took place at the time of Constantius II (337361), in 358.13 We also know that Nersēs’ embassy was in fact successful.14 The 358 dating also means that Faustus’ version of events is impossible, since he says that Nersēs was exiled on the occasion of his mission to Byzantium. He was in fact still present at the Armenian court when Aršak’s nephew Gnel was murdered, in August of 359.15 The date of his exile must therefore come after Gnel’s death, in 359-360.16 This date would thus coincide with the recrudescence of Constantius’ Arianising politics following the Councils of Rimini-Seleucia (359) and Constantinople (360).17 And so Nersēs was probably one of the numerous victims of the persecutions and expulsions of 359-360. But in order to turn him into a symbol of the orthodox Christians against the Arian enemy, Faustus says that he was banished before all the others. According to the BP, after having exiled Nersēs the emperor decided to call an assembly of the men of the Church, for the purpose of imposing Arianism 13   N.G. Garsoïan, ‘Quidam Narseus? A Note on the Mission of St. Nersēs the Great’, in Armeniaca (Venice, 1969) 148-64 (= Ead., Between Byzantium and the Sasanians, n° V) 157 and passim; N.G. Garsoïan, ‘Nersēs le Grand, Basile de Césarée et Eusthate de Sébaste’, REArm 17 (1983) 145-69 (= Ead., Between Byzantium and the Sasanians, n° VII) 148. 14   Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia III, 21; Ammianus Marcellinus XX, 11, 3; Codex Theodosianus XI, 1, 1. These sources teach us that Constantius, as a sign of friendship with the Armenian king, offered him the hand of the fiancée of his deceased brother, Olympias, freed him from his fiscal obligations toward the Empire, and released his two nephews, who had been left at the Imperial court: cf. Garsoïan, ‘Narseus’, 150-1; Garsoïan, ‘Politique ou orthodoxie?’, 304-5 and notes 30-1; see also A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602. A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1964) 466. On Olympias, see F. Chausson, ‘La famille du préfet Ablabius’, Pallas 70 (2002) 205-29 at 214; cf. F. Chausson, Stemmata aurea. Constantin, Justine, Théodose; revendications généalogiques et idéologie impériale au IVe s. ap. J.-C. (Rome, 2007) 148, 150-2, and 256. 15   Garsoïan, ‘Narseus’, 156-7; Garsoïan, ‘Politique ou orthodoxie?’, 307 and note 40. 16   Garsoïan, ‘Narseus’, 155-6; Garsoïan, ‘Nersēs’, 167. 17   Garsoïan, ‘Narseus’, 156; on the history of Arianism from 358 to 360, see A. Fliche and V. Martin (eds), Histoire de l’Église, vol. 3 (Paris, 1936) 150-76.

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy129



upon them. It is in this context that the particular episode in chapter IV, 10 is found, in which St. Thecla intervenes. With the intention of diffusing his Arian heresy, Valens calls in an expert to reject the orthodox faith. This expert is a ‘sophist’ (sop‘estēs)18 from an unnamed city. Valens sends emissaries (magistrianoi) to fetch him. On the way back to the emperor, the sophist and the emissaries stop in another city, which also bears no name but where there is a martyrium of St. Thecla. The sophist lets the emissaries sleep and decides of his own accord to go sleep in the martyrium. But before he has fallen asleep, an extraordinary vision appears to him. The gates of the sanctuary open and a crowd of martyrs and saints enters, while St. Thecla comes to bid them welcome. These saints and martyrs sit down and decide to put an end to Valens, who mistreats and exiles the ‘saints of the Lord’ who are still on earth. In order to kill him, they dispatch two saints, St. Sergius and St. Theodore, and make an appointment for the following night. Then they all leave. The sophist is stupefied at what he has just seen, and is unable to sleep. In the morning the emissaries come to fetch him in order to continue their journey, but he refuses to leave and feigns madness, pretending to be incapable of uttering a single word and just panting and gasping till nightfall. The emissaries leave him for yet another night in the martyrium, and so the sophist is able to witness the saints’ next meeting. St. Thecla is no longer mentioned, but St. Sergius and St. Theodore return to announce to the others that they have killed Valens. The saints embrace one another and bid each other farewell. The sophist remains there till morning, in a terrified state, and as the emissaries come to collect him again, he declares to them that the emperor is dead. They do not believe him, but they allow him three days to prove his statement, and if he is wrong, they will kill him. Valens’ death is in fact verified, and this allows Nersēs and the other banished bishops to return from exile (BP IV, 13). Faustus explicitly connects those two events, which as we have seen is chronologically impossible: (IV, 13) Ayl ibrew satakec‘aw kaysrn, darjan amenayn hoviwk‘n episkoposk‘n ork‘ ak‘sorealk‘ ēin [...]: Yaynžam darjaw ew surb kat‘ołikosk‘n Nersēs yanapat i kłzoy andi (Patkanean, 118, 1-4)   Patkanean, 110, 4.

18

130

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

After the emperor had perished, all the shepherding bishops who had been exiled returned […]. Then the holy catholicos Nersēs also returned from the desert island (Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 136)

While returning to Armenia, Nersēs discovers a people oppressed by Aršak, who has abandoned God’s path. He courageously leads the king back to the righteous path, at least temporarily, and resumes his office as Catholicos. 2.  Interpretation of the passage: changing of events If we compare Faustus’ passage on Valens’ death with the testimonies from other historians, pagan and Christian, we notice an enormous amount of differences. Faustus rewrites the episode in question and its overall context, altering events, and sometimes switching out characters. We shall not get bogged down in details, but the most serious changes should be listed: a) The most essential change is that Faustus made sure not to describe the emperor’s death directly: the two saints return to the martyrium of Thecla and declare that they have killed him, but without specifying where or how. But Valens’ death in fact involved a very important episode in Roman history. As part of a military campaign against the Goths, on August 9, 378 Valens gave battle about twenty kilometres north of Adrianople, and the outcome was disastrous:19 Valens himself was killed,20 and more than two thirds of the 19   T.S. Burns, ‘The Battle of Adrianople: a Reconsideration’, Historia 22 (1973) 341-5; H. Wolfram, History of the Goths (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1988) 125-7; U. Wanke, Die Gotenkriege des Valens. Studien zu Topographie und Chronologie im unteren Donauraum von 366 bis 378 n. Chr. vol. I, 1 (Frankfurt, 1990) 198-219. 20   Ammianus Marcellinus reports two versions of Valens’ death at Adrianople: according to the first, the emperor was struck dead by an arrow (Amm. XXXI, 13, 12); according to the second, he sought refuge in a village house that was then burnt by the Goths (cf. Amm. XXXI, 13, 14-16). It is this second version that is supported by most other sources, including Zosimus IV, 24, 2; Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, Epit. 46, 2; Sozomen, HE VI, 40, 5; Theodoret, HE IV, 36). Socrates, HE IV, 38 offers both accounts. His body was never found or buried, which the orthodox Christians interpreted as divine punishment for the persecutory emperor (cf. F. Paschoud, Zosime, Histoire nouvelle, livre IV [Paris, 1979] 383-4). It is interesting that the



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy131

Roman army perished,21 which would create serious problems in the following year. The Battle of Adrianople was perceived as a turning point in history: Rufinus, in his History, says that it marked the beginning of Rome’s troubles;22 Ammianus Marcellinus makes it the concluding event of his own historical work.23 Faustus does not utter a single word about the Battle of Adrianople, and ignores the entire episode of the war against the Goths. His purpose is obvious: he wants to place the Arian emperor’s death within the context of the struggle between heretics and orthodox Christians. And so he substitutes Valens’ conflict with an Armenian saint for the war against the Goths. b) The refocusing of the story on Valens is aided by the involvement of two figures: the Armenian St. Nersēs and the Greek St. Basil of Caesarea. This Greek saint was an even greater champion than Nersēs in the fight against Arianism. It was originally Basil, not Nersēs, who refused to heal Valens’ son.24 Now, there is a lot of material on Basil in Faustus and his role is fully recognised, but this is all to establish a direct parallelism between – almost a superimposition of – the two saints.25 In order to enrich the Armenian legend, emperor’s death had been announced by earlier signs. Ammianus devotes chapter XXXI, 1 to a series of prodigies of Valens’ death, while Zosimus IV, 21, 2-3 speaks of a prodigy that appeared to Valens and revealed the fate of the whole Empire (cf. ibid., 378). In both these textual instances, the prodigies are very different from that in the BP IV, 10. We find a Christian version of the signs that announced the defeat at Adrianople in an episode described by Theodoret, HE IV, 34 and Sozomen, HE VI, 40, 1: St. Isaac predicted to Valens that if he did not return to the orthodox faith, the war against the Goths would end in catastrophe. The emperor’s obstinacy (which is reminiscent of his attitude vis-à-vis Nersēs in BP IV, 5) thus caused his death. 21   Amm. XXXI, 13, 18: Constatque vix tertiam evasisse exercitus partem. 22  Rufinus, HE XI, 13: quae pugna initium mali Romano imperio tunc et deinceps fuit. 23   More than one modern historian continues to see in Valens’ defeat at Adrianople ‘the beginning of the end’ of the Roman Empire: see e.g. E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. 1: De l’État romain à l’État byzantin (284-476) (French edition by J.-R. Palanque) (Paris, 1959) 190. 24   Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. XLIII, 54; Sozomen, HE VI, 16; Socrates, HE IV, 26; Theodoret, HE IV, 19, 8-10. 25   For this purpose Faustus introduces, in the section on Nersēs in Book IV, three peculiar chapters on the life of the Armenian patriarch and on the history of Armenia, as pertaining to the biography of Basil: IV, 7 (voluntary

132

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

Faustus has no compunction about inventing a meeting between the two26 and attributing some of the Greek saint’s hagiographical elements to the Armenian.27 He presents Nersēs as the defender of the orthodox faith against the Arian heresy, and he turns Valens into the very symbol of a heretic emperor and into the villain par excellence.28 This leads to unfortunate anachronisms, because we know that in reality Valens died well after Nersēs. In Faustus, Valens’ death, originally at the Battle of Adrianople, has become a miracle, whose patron saint is Thecla. It is a major change in the material that allows Faustus to refocus the story around the Armenian Church’s resistance to Arian persecution. But we must still try to understand why it was specifically St. Thecla who welcomed the other saints in her martyrium. Before looking directly at Thecla, however, we shall examine the theme of a vision announcing an emperor’s death. 3.  The parallelism with Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History VI, 2 Faustus does not reinvent the story ex nihilo. There are models that he then transforms. His version indeed is related to a legend concerning the death of Valens’ predecessor, Julian the Apostate, who died in 363 in exile, which is a parallel to Nersēs’ exile in chapter 6); IV, 8 (disputes between Arians and the orthodox, whose champion Basil is); IV, 9 (Basil’s episcopal ordination in Caesarea). 26   This imaginary meeting takes place in Caesarea on the occasion of Nersēs’ consecration, which is chronologically impossible: see Ōrmanean, Azgapatum, 169; cf. Garsoïan, ‘Nersēs’, 147-8. 27   In addition to the episode on the death of Valens’ son, there is also that of the miracle of the dove, which placed itself on Basil’s head and then on Nersēs’, at the moment of the latter’s consecration in Caesarea (BP IV, 4; cf. also BP IV, 7). This miracle is reminiscent of Basil’s baptism according to Pseudo-Amphilochius, ‘Life of Basil’, in SS Patrum Amphilochi Iconensis Methodii Patarensis et Andreae Cretensis opera omnia, ed. F. Combefis (Paris, 1644) 172-3. 28   The author of the BP only mentions two emperors, i.e. Constantine, the Christian emperor par excellence, and Valens: cf. Baynes, ‘Rome and Armenia’, 626; Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 10 and note 38; cf. V. Calzolari, ‘Santi armeni e imperatori romani: eroi in conflitto. (Il patriarca armeno Nersès e l’imperatore romano Valente nei Buzandaran Patmutiunk)’, in C. Mutafian (ed.), Roma-Armenia (Rome, 1999) 74-6.



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy133

the war against the Persians. The different versions of this legend state that Julian’s death had been announced by saints and martyrs, and almost all these versions name St. Mercurius as Julian’s executer. This legend, with varying nuances, appears in Greek and Syriac authors.29 We find it, for example, in Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History,30 whose text was paraphrased by Nikephoros Kallistos,31 as well as in the Syriac Romance of Julian the Apostate from the beginning of the 6th century32 or, according to some, of the 4th.33 Another branch of the tradition, including e.g. the Life of Basil by Pseudo-Amphilochius,34 has been mixed with hagiographical material on Basil.35 Among these different versions, I shall retain that which is closest to Faustus and which was written around the same time: the description of Julian’s death in chapter VI, 2 of Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History, written in Constantinople in the first half of the 5th century.36 Let us summarise the passage in question. The writer of the Ecclesiastical History relates that one of Julian’s servants during the war against the Persians spent the night in a church, where he had a divine vision. He saw a group of apostles and prophets enter, who then began to deplore the injustices against the Church perpetrated by the emperor, and to discuss counter-measures. Two of them left the rest of the group, reassuring the others and going off to destroy Julian’s empire. The servant was terror-stricken, but stayed where he was, and in the following night the vision reappeared. The two saints returned to the assembly, as if having been on a military expedition, and announced the emperor’s death.   The different versions of the legend have been studied by P. Peeters, ‘Un miracle des SS. Serge et Théodore et la Vie de S. Basile, dans Fauste de Byzance’, AB 39 (1921) 65-88; see also H. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Brussels, 1909) 96-101. 30   HE VI, 2, 3-5. 31   HE X, 35. 32   Peeters, ‘Un miracle des SS. Serge et Théodore’, 79-82 (at 79, note 1 for the bibliography), criticised by N. Baynes, ‘The Death of Julian the Apostate in a Christian Legend’, Journal of Roman Studies 27 (1937) 21-9. 33   H.J.W. Drijvers, ‘The Syriac Romance of Julian. Its Function, Place of Origin and Original Language’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), VI Symposium Syriacum 1992 (Rome, 1994) 201-14. 34   Pseudo-Amphilochius, 180-5. 35   See also John Malalas, Chronography XIII; John of Damascus, On Holy Images I (PG, 94, 1277). 36   B. Grillet, Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique (Paris, 1983) 25-31. 29

134

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

The convergences with the story in the BP are remarkable. In both texts, a man is witness to a reunion of saints. The saints complain of the Roman emperor’s treatment of the Church, and two figures leave the group to go kill the emperor. The spectator of the vision is terrified by what he has seen, but decides to await the following night. He then sees a second meeting, to which the two saints who had departed return to announce the emperor’s death. The analogy between the two texts is striking and should be interpreted. We may assume that Faustus, for his story on Valens’ death, has been inspired by the legend of Julian’s. While this version of Julian’s death is attested in many works, with a few variations, Faustus’ version of Valens’ death is a hapax. This is an important point, and suggests that the Armenian historian has used a pre-existing model in order to rewrite the story of Valens’ death. This is the alteration of a tradition. But once the analogy has been established, it is still interesting to see which details render the text in the BP unique. a) Sozomen situates the scene in the church of an unnamed region (VI, 2, 3 ἔν τινι χωρίῳ... ἐν τῇ ἐνθάδε ἐκκλησίᾳ ‘in a certain region… in the church of that place’); Faustus situates the scene outside the walls of an unnamed city, but specifies that the vision took place in the martyrium of Thecla: ‘and outside the city (there was) a martyrium of the holy Lady Thecla’ (ew artak‘oy k‘ałak‘in vkayanoc‘ mi surb tiknoǰn T‘ekłi).37 b)  Sozomen says that Julian’s servant is obliged to sleep in a church because there is no other lodging in the vicinity (VI, 2, 3 λέγεται … ἀπορίᾳ οἰκήματος ἐν τῇ ἐνθάδε ἐκκλησίᾳ καθευδῆσαι ‘it is said that because of the poverty of the lodging he had slept in a church of that place’. In Faustus, on the other hand, the sophist freely chooses to leave his escort and to sleep in Thecla’s martyrium: ēǰ sop‘estēs, ew iwr vans unēr i nerk‘s i vkayanoc‘i and. isk magistria­ nosk‘n unēin vans iwreanc‘ i k‘ałak‘in (Patkanean, 110, 11-12) The sophist got down and chose the inside of the martyrium for his lodging, while the magistrianoi lodged in the city (Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 131)

Faustus’ sophist seems to have the deliberate intention of sleeping in the martyrium. His decision makes us understand that he must have 37

  Patkanean, 110, 9-10.



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy135

known of the possibility of sleeping there. He finds there some means of making a bed: Ew ibrew keraw hac‘ sop‘estēsn, ēark ankołin, ew p‘akeac‘ zdurs vkayanoc‘in. ew ink‘n i nist ełeal i veray ankołnin, kamēr linel i kołmn (Patkanean, 110, 13-15) When the sophist had eaten, he made his bed, locked the doors of the martyrium, sat down on the bed, and intended to lie down [to sleep] (Garsoïan, ibid.)

This point is important and suggests a kinship between this martyrium of an unknown city and the sanctuary of St. Thecla outside the walls of Seleucia, which at this time was a famous incubation location. While Faustus models his version of Valens’ death on the legend of the death of Julian the Apostate, he makes sure to place the scene in a place consecrated to Thecla. Everything happens as if he wanted to lead us to that particular personage. So what is Thecla doing in our story? How did Faustus know the details that he shares with us of the saint? On what sources did he draw? To answer these questions, we must abandon the realm of Armenian literature and look toward the Greek. We must consider the Life and the Miracles of Thecla,38 a two-part work written in the middle of the 5th century by an anonymous author who was long believed to be the bishop of Seleucia, Basil.39 The first part, the Life, is a reworking of the Acts of Thecla, while the second, the Miracles, is a goldmine of information on the cult of this saint that flourished in Seleucia in Isauria from the 4th century on.40 The Miracles is the most pertinent to us here. I shall emphasise a few points that are similar to Faustus’ text.

 Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle.   On the dating and identification of the author of the Life and the Miracles of Thecla, cf. G. Dagron, ‘L’auteur des ‘Actes’ et des ‘Miracles’ de sainte Thècle’, AB 92 (1974) 5-11 and Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 13-9. 40   The first testimonies on the sanctuary and cult of Thecla in Seleucia go back to the second half of the 4th century: cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Carmen de Vita sua, v. 545-551 and Travels of Egeria 22, 2-23, 6. Cf. Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 55-8. 38

39

136

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

4.  The traces of the Life and Miracles of St. Thecla in BP IV, 10 The Miracles teach us that a Thecla sanctuary had existed since the 4th century outside Seleucia,41 just as in the BP Thecla’s martyrium was outside an unnamed city. In the BP, the saint lives in her martyrium: when the gates of the sanctuary open and the martyrs enter, Thecla is already inside and like a true mistress of the house goes to wish her guests welcome. (IV, 10) Ew elanēr ĕnd aṙaǰ noc‘a surb tikinn T‘ekłēs zardareal mecapaycaṙ, zi nšoylk‘ orpēs i lusoy hatanēin i nmanēn. ew aṙnēin mimeanc‘ ołǰoyn, ew asēr c‘noc‘a tikinn T‘ekł t‘ē ‘Bari ekik‘, sirelik‘ barekamk‘, ew vastakawork‘ K‘ristosi’ (Patkanean, 110, 18-23) And the holy Lady Thecla went to meet them adorned in such a brilliance that radiance like light seemed to emanate from her. They greeted each other, and the lady Thecla said to them: ‘Welcome, dear friends and laborers of Christ’ (Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 131)

In several passages of the Life and the Miracles we read that the saint had her abode inside the martyrium under the bêma.42 This is what Dagron in his commentary on Pseudo-Basil’s work has called the chthonian aspect of the Thecla cult.43 The fact that she lives in the residence that has been accorded her is a distinctive trait of the incubation cults. This was originally a pagan rite, which was then adopted by Christianity.44 As the Latin   The site of the Thecla’s cult was on the hill to the south of Seleucia (today Silifke), close to the village of Becili, called Ayatekla (= Hagia-Thecla) today and formerly Meriamlık: cf. Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 55. 42   According to the Life and the Miracles, Thecla’s sanctuary is in the cave where she was ensconced: cf. Mir. 7, 26 κατὰ τὸν αὐτῆς χῶρον καὶ τὸ βῆμα τὸ ἱερόν ‘in her own precinct and the sacred bêma’; Mir. 18, 41-42 τῶν περικειμένων τῷ ἐμῷ θαλάμῳ κιγκλίδων ‘of the latticed gates surrounding my (scil. Thecla’s) room’ (these are chancels inside the church); Mir. 46, 15-16 ὑποδραμοῦσαν ὁρᾷ πάλιν τὸν αὐτῆς θάλαμον, εἰς ὃν καὶ καταδῦναι λέγεται ‘she sees her (scil. Thecla) glide again into the room where she is said to be ensconced’; cf. Life, 28, 7-11. 43  Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 103 and especially 96: ‘(Thècle) est une sorte d’héroïne chtonienne qui habite réellement là où son culte est implanté, ou plutôt dont le culte est implanté [...] là où elle est censée habiter’. 44   In the pagan era, incubation was practiced for example in the temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus and in the sanctuary of Sarpedon in Seleucia, which 41



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy137

term ­incubatio suggests, the main feature of the rite is to sleep in the temple, so as to receive a vision of the relevant divinity or saint and obtain a solution to a problem, most often an illness. The Miracles of Thecla describes her cult as an incubation cult, and thus gives us to understand that people would come and sleep in her sanctuary.45 The visions may appear during sleep (ὄναρ), but also while the recipient is awake (ὕπαρ),46 as in the BP episode.47 Furthermore, the epiphanies of the saint often constitute only the first time period of the miracle. Thecla does not complete the miraculous act immediately, but rather announces the date; in a second period, the fulfilment of the act is confirmed.48 In two cases, in particular, Thecla’s apparition announces the death of someone who has stirred up her anger. The death of Marianos, in Miracle 29, is not announced directly to the relevant individual, but to a third party to whom the virgin appears in person.49 Another interesting comparison is between the Armenian account in the BP and that in the Miracles of Thecla. After having had the vision, the sophist experiences physical reactions that are typical: ‘he had a breakdown, was panting and short of breath, and was unable to answer the words (of the emissaries) until the evening’. This description recalls two episodes in the Miracles where some people who were present at the saint’s epiphany experienced similar physical reactions. In the first episode we read: ‘(the saint)… suddenly cut off their breath, so that there was not a single body part of theirs that was not shaken with spasms and trembling’ (Mir. 30, 25-26: ἄπνους μὲν αὐτοὺς παραχρῆμα ἐποίησεν, ὡς μηδὲν μεῖναι τῶν μελῶν ἄτρομον ἢ ἀκλόνητον); in the second, some virgins who have just seen Thecla are described as ‘faltering, pale, trembling, with a palpitating heart’ (Mir. 32, 28-29: ὡρακιῶσαί τε καὶ ἀλλοχροοῦσαι καὶ τρέμουσαι καὶ τὴν καρδίαν πάλλουσαι). was still in operation in the 5th century and was then supplanted by Thecla, as the Miracles tell us: cf. Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 103-5; cf. also L. Deubner, De incubatione capita quattuor (Leipzig, 1900) 83; N. Fernández-Marcos, Los Thaumata de Sofronio, Contribución al estudio de la incubatio cristiana (Madrid, 1975) 18, 34-5, 39-40, 61-2. 45   Mir. 12; 17-19; 23-24; 38-39; etc. 46  Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 104-5. 47   Patkanean, 110, 15-6 minč‘ deṙ art‘un ēr, ač‘ōk‘ bac‘ōk‘ tesanēr... ‘While he was still awake, with his eyes open, he saw…’. 48  Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 105-6. 49   See also Mir. 35.

138

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

Finally, we must examine the central figure of the Armenian story: the sophist. The presence of a sophist in Thecla’s martyrium is not surprising for those who know Pseudo-Basil. This Seleucian author specifies that the saint was a lover of letters50 and a protector of men of letters.51 She had, precisely, a weakness for sophists, to the point that she healed them even if they were pagans.52 Pseudo-Basil turns Thecla into a sort of triumphant rival of Athena (the pagan goddess who had been associated with Seleucia since its founding)53 by ascribing to Thecla the intellectual and warrior attributes of the virgin pagan deity. But Dagron cautions that Pseudo-Basil’s knowledge of Homer might be the only reason for the assimilation of the two virgins to each other. That Thecla finds her Diomedes54 in the bishop Dexianos is a literary image.55 Indeed nothing indicates that Thecla’s cult actually replaced Athena’s.56 The description of the Christian saint seems, rather, to be the result of an entirely literary process, created by someone who was steeped in classical erudition.57 This is important because it leads us to conclude, by hypothesis, that Faustus, most likely through Pseudo-Basil, knew of the connection between Thecla and the men of letters (more evidence infra). 5.  The underlying conditions of the Thecla legend’s diffusion in Armenia at the time of the BP All these parallels show us that Pseudo-Basil is very likely the author from whom Faustus borrowed his information on Thecla. This is important from the point of view of the history of the Greek text’s diffusion.   See e.g. Mir. 38 and 41, 1: φιλόλογός τέ ἐστιν ἡ μάρτυς.   Mir. 37. 52   Mir. 39. 53   Athena is on the coins of Holmoi, whose population was moved to the acropolis of Seleucia by Seleucus Nicator; she is the most ancient deity associated with that city; cf. Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 84 and note 3. 54   Mir. 3. 55  Cf.  Iliad V, where Athena protects her champion Diomedes. 56  Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 6: ‘La plus grossière erreur d’interprétation a consisté à prétendre que Thècle avait été une Athéna chrétienne et son culte le résultat d’une réelle substitution’. The thesis of Thecla as a successor to Athena has been advanced e.g. by E. Lucius, Les origines du culte des saints dans l’Église chrétienne (transl. from the German by E. Jeanmaire) (Paris, 1908) 277-88. 57  Dagron, ibid., 83-5. 50 51



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy139

The allusions to Pseudo-Basil in an Armenian text of probably the second half of the 5th century reveal that less than half a century after its composition, the Life and Miracles of Thecla were already known outside Seleucia and Asia Minor and had spread all the way to Armenia. One must also inquire how Faustus knew of the Life and the Miracles. This latter testimony reached Armenia perhaps through contacts with northern Syria, one of the areas where the Thecla legend had spread, as indicated by Dagron.58 This would agree with scholars’ conclusions on Faustus. N. Garsoïan believes that the author of the BP was a clergy member (which would explain his knowledge of hagiographical sources) from Tarōn,59 which was on the border with Northern Syria and a region that since the apostolic era had been deeply influenced by Syrian Christianity.60 In this case the diffusion of the Thecla legend in Armenia would be the result of Syriac religiosity.61 We saw in the first part that the apocryphal Acts of Thecla were translated into Armenian from a Syriac version. And now the Syrian connection has been reinforced. 6.  Thecla, patroness of the orthodoxy’s struggle against Arian heresy We must still answer our main question: Why did Faustus place the episode on the Arian emperor Valens’ death under the aegis of Thecla? The answer can be found, yet again, in a passage from the Miracles of Thecla. In Mir 10, 3-19, which features Symposios, the bishop of Seleucia at the end of the 4th century, Pseudo-Basil writes: Κατά τινα τῶν τοίχων αὐτοῦ τοῦ νεὼ τῆς μάρτυρος […] ἐμπέπηγε γράμματα διὰ ψηφῖδος λεππῆς καὶ χρυσῆς, τῆς ἁγῖας καὶ ὑπερτάτης Τριάδος κηρύττοντα πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις τὸ ὁμοούσιον. Ταῦτα τὰ  Dagron, ibid., 44.  Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 8. This provenance would explain certain Syriacisms in some sections of the BP (including ch. IV, 10), which Peeters has considered a proof that the BP original was in Syriac: cf. Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 7 and note 22, and 8, note 30. 60   Armenia’s earliest Christianity seems to have come from Edessa and to have developed clandestinely in Tarōn, around such cultic centres as Aštišat, of which we know thanks to, precisely, Faustus’ testimony: cf. Ananean, K‘ristonēut‘ean hetk‘er Hayastani mēǰ S. Grigor Lusaworč‘i k‘arozut‘enē aṙaǰ. See supra, ch. II, § 2. 61   On the echoes of a Syriac-influenced Armenian Christianity in the BP, see Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 46-7. 58 59

140

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

γράμματα ὁ Συμπόσιος, ὡς ἅτε ἀρειανός τε ὢν ἔτι καὶ παρ᾽ ὁμοδόξων ἐπισκόπων χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκκολαφθῆναι κελεύει ὡς ἂν μὴ συνᾴδοντα τῇ τούτων βδελυρίᾳ. Ὁ δὲ τοῦτο ἐπιταχθεὶς σφῦραν τε καὶ κολαπτῆρα λαβῶν καὶ διὰ πάσης ἐγκαρτερήσας ἡμέρας παίων καὶ κολάπτων, πάντα τρόπον ἀνορύττειν αὐτὰ πειρώμενος, τὰ μὲν γράμματα τῆς μακαρίας ἐκείνης ὁμολογίας οὐδ’ ὅλως ἐκίνησεν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἐπεχάραξεν, οὐδ᾽ - ὅ φησιν Ὅμηρος - ἐπέγραψε, σκεπούσης αὐτὰ δηλονότι καὶ φυλαττούσης τῆς ἀχράντου καὶ ἀκηράτου καὶ παρθενικῆς ἐκείνης χειρὸς ὡς βασιλικὰ σήμαντρα, ὡς θεμέλια καὶ φυλακτήρια τῆς ὅλης πίστεως καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ νεὼ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως. In one of the walls of the temple of the martyr (scil. Thecla) […] there is a fine golden mosaic inscription, proclaiming for all men the consubstantiality of the saint and the sublime Trinity. Symposios, while he was still Arian and had been ordained by bishops who shared his confession, gave orders to destroy this inscription, because it did not accord with their disgusting (doctrine). He who had been tasked with doing this took a hammer and a chisel, and spent the whole day striking and chiselling the mosaic, trying every means of removing it; but he could not damage in the slightest the letters of this blessed profession of faith, not even make a single cut in them or, as Homer says,62 the slightest scratch: evidently this pure, immaculate, and virginal hand watched over them and protected them like an imperial seal, like the foundations and guardian formula of the entire faith, and of this very church and of human nature itself.

The text continues that the man who ‘waged war against this divine inscription’ fell from his ladder and broke his bones; as for Symposios (Mir. 10, 22-25): τοῦ κακοῦ φρονήματος εὐθὺς τότε μεταθέμενος ἐκεῖνα ἔλεγεν, ἑκεῖνα ἀπέπνει, ἐκεῖνα ἀνωμολόγει, ἐκεῖνα δημοσίᾳ τε καὶ ἀναφανδὸν ἐκήρυττεν ἃ τὰ πρότερον πολεμούμενα γράμματα ἐδίδασκεν· ἡ Τριὰς ὁμοούσιος. He then instantly changed his bad views and publicly and openly articulated, professed, confessed, proclaimed the inscription’s formula that he had initially fought and that was the teaching of the consubstantial Trinity.

This anecdote turns the Thecla temple into a place of indestructible speech: the heretic Symposios ends up yielding to the evidence that the text that he wanted to destroy in the name of Arianism is protected 62

  Iliad IV, 139; XI, 388; XXI, 166.



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy141

by a divine force. Thecla appears here as the saint that keeps on the walls of her temple the message that can bring Arians to the true faith. Other passages in Pseudo-Basil’s work confirm Thecla’s role as patroness of orthodoxy.63 The Life 13 contains a second profession of faith in the Trinity. In that excerpt, Thecla thanks God for having saved her from the fire of martyrdom in Iconium, and for having allowed her to see Paul again, ‘her saviour and master’ (σωτῆρα καὶ διδάσκαλον), who announced to her ‘the absolute equality in power and dignity among the three persons of the divinity, the mystery of the incarnation of your (scil. God’s) only Son, the energy and always active power of the Holy Spirit […]’.64 In ch. 26 of the Life, furthermore, Thecla says before Paul: ‘Master, […] thanks to you I have learned to know the consubstantial Trinity, equal in honour and condition’.65 In the Mir. 14, 56-65, she visited the pagan Ipsistius, who was ill and bedridden, miraculously healed him, and then enjoined him to, among other things, profess his faith in the consubstantial Trinity and in Mary Theotokos: […] ἀνάστηθι, ἄπιθι, βαπτίσθητι, πρόσιθι τοῖς μυστηρίοις, προσκύνησον, ὁμολόγησον τὸν Πατέρα, τὸν Υἱόν, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὴν ἄκτιστον καὶ ὁμοούσιον Τριάδα τὴν πάντα ταῦτα δημιουργήσασαν, εἴτε νοητά, εἴτε αἰσθητά, εἴτε ὁρατά, εἴτε ἀόρατα, τὴν πάντα φέρουσαν καὶ ἡνιοχούσαν, τὴν πάντα οἰκονομοῦσαν καὶ διακρατοῦσαν. Συνομολόγησον πρὸς τούτοις τὴν μετὰ σαρκὸς παρουσίαν καὶ ἐπιδημίαν τοῦ μονογενοῦς, τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς παρθένου λέγω καὶ θεοτόκου Μαρίας σάρκωσίν τε καὶ γέννησιν, τὸν σταυρόν, τὸν θάνατον, τὴν ἀνάστασιν, τὴν ἀνάληψιν· […] Get up, go out, receive the baptism, approach the mysteries, prostrate, confess the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the uncreated and consubstantial Trinity, that created all these things, either spiritual and sensitive, visible and invisible, and that brings and leads everything, that   Hayne, ‘Thecla and the Church Fathers’, 213-4, which mentions another extract of the Life, where Paul professes ‘the holy and venerable Trinity, the uncreated and consubstantial divinity’ (Life 7, 46-7 ἡ ἁγία καὶ προσκυνητὴ Τριάς, ἡ ἄκτιστος καὶ ὁμοούσιος θεότης). 64   Life 13, 33-36: τῆς ἐν Τριάδι θεότητος τὸ ἀπαράλλακτόν τε καὶ ἰσοδύναμον καὶ ἰσοστάσιον, τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς σου Παιδὸς τὸ μυστήριον, τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὴν οὐκ ἀποδέουσαν ἐνέργειαν καὶ δύναμιν. 65   Life 26, 1-7 Ὦ διδάσκαλε, […] τὴν ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἰσότιμον καὶ ἰσοστάσιον Τριάδα ἔγνων διὰ σοῦ. 63

142

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

manages and directs everything. Confess also the parousia in the flesh and the coming of the Only-Begotten – I mean the incarnation and birth through the virgin and Mother-of-God [Theotokos] Mary) – the cross, the death, the resurrection, and the ascension (my emphasis)

This aspect of Thecla as a saint standing against the Arians is fundamental. This passage from Pseudo-Basil is to my knowledge the only one that shows us, earlier than Faustus’ BP, a protectress Thecla guaranteeing orthodoxy against the Arian heresy. It offers a further evidence for the hypothesis that Faustus knew Basil. It is through her high patronage and in her sanctuary that it is decided to eliminate the ‘unworthy emperor’. St. Sergius and St. Theodore, who carry out the murder, have been identified with the military saints Sergius of Resafa and Theodore of Euchaita.66 The former was a Syrian saint well-known in the Christian East,67 while the latter was Greek.68 The exact location of the martyrium where they are tasked with killing Valens is unclear. Faustus says that Thecla’s sanctuary is in ‘a certain city’. He knew of course that it was in Seleucia, because he probably knew Pseudo-Basil’s Miracles, as we have seen. But he prefers to be vague, as if he wanted to erase the borders of Armenia and Isauria. Thecla’s extra-territoriality in the BP, like the presence of both a Syrian and a Greek saint in the martyrium, seems to indicate that the struggle against the enemy of the Christian faith is carried beyond countries’ borders, and involves the whole oikoumene. The martyrium in Faustus becomes more than just a geographical location; it rises to the level of an institution and to the point of departure for the fight against Valens. Thecla is Christian here before she is Greek or Syrian. It is interesting that in Armenian medieval literature, too, the episode of Valens’ death is linked to the name of Thecla. In the History of the Arcruni by T‘ovma Arcruni (9th-10th centuries) and his ­followers, the  Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 279, note 7 to BP IV, 10; S. Malxasyanc‘, P‘awstos Buzand Patmut‘yun Hayoc‘ (Erevan, 1947) 323, note 83 had linked St. Sergius to Cappadocia. 67  Garsoïan, ibid., 407, s.v. Sargis. 68  Garsoïan, ibid., 413, s.v. T‘ēodoros. Cf. also Lucius, Les origines du culte des saints, 311-2, who states that ‘abroad, as in his fatherland, (St. Theodore) seems to have distinguished himself mainly by the protection he afforded Christianity against its enemies. He became one of the champions of the Christian East’ (in French). 66



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy143

death of the emir of Azerbaijian, Afšīn († 901),69 probably caused by an epidemic, is interpreted as the result of divine punishment for the evils against Armenia. This death is explicitly contrasted and compared with Valens’ death and the prodigious circumstances of the vision of Thecla: (IV, 2) And pataheal vrēž xndrut‘eann zor inč‘ arar č‘aris ĕnd Hayastan ašxarhs, orum oč‘ nereal Astucoy harkanē zna č‘arač‘ar kełov i jeṙn hreštaki srboy, orpēs erbemn zVałēs kaysr i jeṙn K‘ristosi k‘aǰ nahata­ kac‘n tesleamb T‘ekłeay srboy. zor ĕncayeac‘ mez hawasteaw Biwzandn patmōł (Patkanean, T‘ovmayi, § 275).70 There (scil. in the city of Partaw), he met with vengeance for the evils he had inflicted on Armenia. God did not spare him, but smote him with a painful ulcer through a holy angel – as one [he smote] the emperor Valens through the valiant martyrs of Christ by the vision of Saint Thecla, as the historian Biwzand has accurately expounded to us (Thomson, Thomas Arstruni, 338, § 275)71

7.  Thecla or Anahit? All the same, while Thecla is interpreted as a supra-national figure, she is also described in Faustus with a singular epithet: she is called tikin. This word can mean ‘lady’ or ‘queen’, and in the Middle Ages was used also for Mary, for example by Gregory of Narek.72 This special usage of tikin corresponds to Iranian bānūk, which also has the double meaning of ‘lady’ and ‘queen’ and was used as a term of reverence for goddesses.73 Bānūk is attested for the Iranian goddess   Muhammad Ibn Abi’l-Saj, also known by the name of Muhammad al-Afšīn. 70   Cf. K‘. Patkanean, T‘ovmayi vardapeti Arcrunwoy Patmut‘iwn Tann Arcruneac‘ [Thomas vardapet Arcruni, History of the House Arcruni] (St Petersburg, 1887, repr. Delmar, NY, 1991). This is one of the rare passages of the BP mentioned in the later sources, as stressed by Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 4-5. 71   R.W. Thomson, Thomas Artrsuni, History of the House of the Arstrunik‘ (Detroit, 1995). 72   Cf. Anania vardapet, quoted by Ł. Ališan, Hin hawatk‘ kam het‘anosakan krōnk‘ Hayoc‘ [The Old belief or the pagan religion of the Armenians] (Venice, 19102) 293; cf. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 251. On the use of this epithet for Sanduxt, see infra, ch. VIII. 73   Cf. the ideogram ML‘T in Sassanid inscriptions, read as bānūg: E. Benveniste, Titres et noms propres en iranien ancien (Paris, 1966) 28 and 46-7; 69

144

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

Anāhitā in two inscriptions from the beginning of the Sassanid era: in the inscription that the Magus Kartir caused to be engraved at the time of Vahram II,74 and in the inscription of Paikuli, engraved under Narseh I.75 The worship of Anahit was also very strong among the Armenians, who had adopted her in the Achaemenid era,76 as Greek and Roman historians like Strabo,77 Pliny the Elder, and Cassius Dio attest. The latter two even speak of a region in Armenia that took its name from the Anahit cult.78 This would be the district of Ekełeac‘ (Akilisene in Greek), where there was a temple of Anahit in the city of Erēz. According to Agat‘angełos, she was revered precisely with the epithet tikin.79 There has still been no in-depth study on the use of this epithet. We mention, however, that it could be derived, in its reverential as well as its other functions, from the cult of Anahit.80 cf. H. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik, vol. 1: Armenische Etymologie (Leipzig, 1897, repr. Hildesheim and New York, 1972) 117; see also Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 245 and note 44, who notes that among the Sassanids the queen was not called by the title bānūg (which perhaps was used by the Arsacids), but bambišn ‘queen’, which also exists in Armenian. Faustus sometimes uses bambišn as a common noun (III, 21), and sometimes as a proper noun (III, 15; III, 19; IV, 3), but he uses the noun tikin in the sense of ‘queen’ more often (III, 3; III, 20-21; IV, 15; IV, 55; IV, 59; V, 2-3; V, 37; V, 38; V, 43; V, 44); the passage IV,10 is the only one where the word tikin is used as a reverential epithet for a saint. Cf. Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 514, s.v. bambišn and 564, s.v. tikin. 74   M.-L. Chaumont, ‘Le culte d’Anâhitâ à Staxr et les premiers Sassanides’, RHR 153 (1958) 154-75 at 155, note 1 and 163-4, and ‘Le culte de la déesse Anāhitā (Anahit) dans la religion des monarques d’Iran et d’Arménie au Ier siècle de notre ère’, JA 253 (1965) 167-81 at 172, note 29. 75   Chaumont, ‘Le culte de la déesse Anāhitā’, 168, note 2 and 173, note 30. On the two inscriptions, see P. Lecoq, Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide (Paris, 1997); P.O. Skjaervo, The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli, 3.2: Commentary (Wiesbaden, 1983). 76  Chaumont, ‘Le culte de la déesse Anāhitā’, 173; Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 235-60; M.H. Ananikian, ‘Armenian’, in C.J.A. MacCulloch and G.F. Moore (eds), The Mythology of All Races, vol. 7 (New York, 1925) 5-100 at 24. 77   Strabo XI, 14, 16. 78  Plin., NH V, 34, 83: Anaetica; Cass. Dio 36, 48, 1; cf. 36, 53, 5. 79   Agat‘angełos § 53; 59; 127. 80  Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 251. To Russell, the epithet tikin was inherited as the Turkish epithet xat‘um ‘Lady’, employed for the Virgin



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy145

The issue deserves a thorough analysis. It is obviously necessary to distinguish between the possible literary recovery of symbolism (or of vocabulary) from ancient pagan beliefs,81 and the adaptation, in the Christian era, of religious practices.82 The two matters are quite different, and it is important to be cautious, lest one commit an improper amalgam. Moreover, a systematic study of the evidence of a possible recovery of paganism in Christian Armenia, based on contemporary methodologies and recent results in the history of religions, has never been performed. It seems clear, however, that the cult and the memory of the ancient Armenian favourite, Anahit, left some persistent vestiges in the following ages. One might therefore ask whether, in the case of Thecla, the term tikin, used as a reverential epithet, was not borrowed from the religious vocabulary associated with the goddess Anahit. The mere use of the epithet tikin cannot be considered sufficient to prove a link among figures from different religious universes (goddess/ saint). Other elements should be investigated, based on the information we have about the cult of Anahit and of her ancestor, the Iranian Anāhitā. Research on this latter goddess, on whom we are better informed, lets us establish a few parallels between her and Thecla. If one examines Anāhitā’s functions within the Iranian pantheon, one notices in fact that she also appears as a warrior goddess and a goddess of wisdom. Plutarch, in his Life of Artaxerxes, speaks, in reference to Anāhitā, of the ‘temple of this warrior goddess whom one could compare to Athena’.83 It is also interesting to note the Iranian goddess’ titulature in the fifth Yašt of the Avesta. She is called Aredvī Sūrā Anāhitā ‘the Wet, the Strong, the Spotless’. The second appellation, ‘strong’, alludes to Anāhitā’s warrior nature, which stands out especially in Verse 86 of the aforementioned Yašt, where it says that the warriors must pray that she grant them fast in modern times, especially among the Armenians of Dersim. He also recognised, in Soviet Armenia, a possible identification of the cult of Anahit with some religious practices related to the cult of Barbara (Vaṙvaṙē). 81   E.g. the recovery of the well-known excerpt on the birth of the god Vahagn (in Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia I, 31) in the Panegyric of the Virgin by Gregory of Narek: cf. J.R. Russell, ‘A Poem of Grigor Narekac‘i’, REArm 19 (1985) 435-9, repr. in Id., Armenian and Iranian Studies, 31-5. 82  See supra, 138. 83  Plut., Vita Artaxer. III, 2: Ἔστι δ᾽ θεᾶς πολεμικῆς ἱερόν, ἣν Ἀθηνᾷ τις εἰκάσειεν. Cf. Chaumont, ‘Le culte de la déesse Anāhitā’, 169.

146

st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy

horses and glory.84 Anāhitā also shares with Athena the role as goddess of wisdom. In the Avesta she offers a lot of advice to Zarathustra,85 and in verse 86 of the same Yašt it says that the priests must pray to her for knowledge (and for sanctity). And finally, Anāhitā is also known as a healing goddess, as both Plutarch86 and Movsēs Xorenac‘i87 attest. One must of course be cautious in approaching this material, especially as ancient deities generally embody many different aspects.88 All the same, I think it is interesting to see Thecla’s characteristics in the Iranian Anāhitā, with the former representing, in the Life and the Miracles, the triple nature of warrior saint, protectress of men of letters, and healer. It is a coincidence, but a coincidence that Faustus might have had in mind as he attributed to Thecla the epithet usually reserved for Anahit. Things become clearer when we recall that Tarōn, where Faustus comes from, is one of the areas where the cult of Anahit most strongly resisted Christianity after Armenia’s conversion.89 And so our author knew this goddess very well. He explicitly names her in the BP V, 25.90 We should express, even if with the utmost caution, the hypothesis that Faustus may have thought of an association between Anahit and Thecla. This is not intended to suggest, however, that the work of the Armenian historian should be considered as evidence of a possible transfer of the cult of Anahit to the cult of Thecla, but rather that, in his work, the mixing in the religious imagination of two (at least partly) similar figures may have taken place.91   On Anāhitā’s warrior aspect, see Chaumont, ‘Le culte d’Anâhitâ à Staxr’, 161; J. Duchesne-Guillemin, La religion de l’Iran ancien (Paris, 1962) 233; G. Dumézil, Tarpeia (Paris, 1947) 58-9. 85   Yašt V, 84-96. 86  Plut., Vita Artaxer. XXIII. 87   II, 60. 88   Chaumont, ‘Le culte de la déesse Anāhitā’, 170: ‘Les infiltrations les plus diverses, les plus hétérogènes, expliquent les multiples visages sous lesquels nous apparaît une divinité (scil. Anāhitā) qui a pu être assimilée à Artémis, Aphrodite, Athéna, Héra, la Magna Mater, etc.’; cf. aussi Chaumont, ‘Le culte d’Anâhitâ à Staxr’, 160-1. 89   Chaumont, ‘Le culte de la déesse Anāhitā’, 175. 90   P‘awstosi Buzandac‘woy, 223, 4-5: ‘…on the great mountain called the Throne of Anahit, which was the home of the pagan gods’ (...i meci lerinn i tełi dic‘n zor koč‘en at‘oṙ Anahtay). Cf. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 250-1. 91   For the same perspective, see N.G. Garsoïan, ‘Daniel ou Anāhitā?’, REArm 36 (2014-2015) 1-11. 84



st. thecla as a patroness of nicean orthodoxy147

In conclusion In order to provide Armenia with the ideal history it needed,92 and the Church with the main role therein, and in order to turn the profession of the true Christian faith into a symbol for the identity of the Armenian people, Faustus re-writes history by erasing certain borders and Armenianising as subtly as possible certain people. St. Nersēs is given the role of St. Basil, the sanctuary of Thecla in Seleucia has been discreetly placed by a city without name, and Thecla has become tikin Thecla, enemy of Arianism. As for Valens’ Goth conquerors, they have simply disappeared without a trace, so as to grant the Armenian Church the exclusive right to combat the heretic emperor.

92   P. Peeters, Recherches d’histoire et de philologie orientales, vol. 1 (Brussels, 1951) 242-3 defines as a veritable ‘hallucination collective’ the tendency or, better, the desire of Armenian writers in the 5th century to ‘voir le passé... sous les couleurs de l’avenir ideal’; cf. aussi Garsoïan, ‘Politique ou orthodoxie?’, 301-2, note 20.

VIII. Holy Women Preachers and Apostles: The Acts of Thecla and the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and Sanduxt in Armenian*

As we have seen in the preceding chapters, the figure of Thecla, with her numerous traits paradigmatic of sanctity, influenced the portryal of the female figures that have been associated with the beginnings of Armenian Christianity. This is the case of Hṙip‘simē in Agat‘angełos’ History of Armenia, which we discussed in ch. VI,1 and of Sanduxt in the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and Sanduxt (MartThad), which will be the subject of the present chapter. The hypothesis that the Acts of Thecla (AThec) influenced the MartThad was advanced without any further commentary by N. Akinean in an article published posthumously in 1970.2 This question deserved to be taken up again on the basis of a new comparison between the two texts. As a result of that analysis, I am able to confirm that a few parallels that Akinean signalled are not very compelling if one studies them in the light of the most ancient apocryphal Acts of the apostles. It is nonetheless possible to confirm, or identify, several other parallel passages that justify Akinean’s conclusions and allow us to assume that the author of the MartThad in fact had to be familiar with the AThec. We recall that according to the MartThad, Sanduxt was the daughter of the King of Armenia, Sanatruk.3 After having heard Thaddaeus preach, she converted and became that apostle’s first disciple, as well as Armenia’s   Translated from the French by Dr Benedict Beckeld.   See also Calzolari, ‘Le sang des femmes’. 2   N. Akinean, ‘Matenagrakan hetezōtout‘iwnner. Vkayabanut‘iwn S. T‘adēosi ew Sandxtoy kusin ew Kanonk‘ T‘adēi’ [Research on Armenian Literature. Martyrdom of St. Thaddaeus and the Virgin Sanduxt and Canons of ­Thaddaeus], HA 84 (1970) 1-34. 3  See infra, § 2.2.6. * 1



holy women preachers and apostles149

first Christian woman. The text also shows her as a preacher in her own right, which was probably inspired by the model of Thecla as a woman apostle. This parallelism is very interesting, especially if one reads it in the light of the importance of the Greek AThec as a source for the construction of the female image in ancient Christianity. This is a controversial subject, and one that we thus ought to summarise here, after we have presented in greater detail the contents of the Acts of Thecla. 1.  The Greek AThec This section of the Acts of Paul is centred on the conversion of a young girl from Iconium by the name of Thecla, who hears the apostle preach and then converts,4 thereby choosing chastity and breaking her engagement with Thamyris, whom her family had forced her to take as future husband. Her choice goes against the laws of the city, which expected a girl to marry and to assure the man’s offspring. The choice of chastity, which may be seen as a choice for autonomy from family and city, costs Thecla her first condemnation to martyrdom, from which only a miracle saves her. Thecla then quits her family and Iconium and follows the apostle on his journeys, which bring them to Antioch. Here, Thecla is attacked by Alexander, a local notable. But a divine force comes to her aid and she fights back and publicly humiliates her aggressor. Alexander occupied an important position in Antioch; Thecla therefore suffers a second condemnation to martyrdom but is saved a second time by divine intervention, and is thus able to re-join Paul, before she finally settles in Seleucia. The AThec stands out from the rest of the Acts of Paul by a few particularities. First of all, Thecla plays a primary role in the narration, while Paul is secondary and indeed, in the second part of the AThec, completely eclipsed by her. In some passages, he even seems cowardly as he disavows and abandons Thecla instead of protecting her against Alexander (§ 26), as we saw in ch. VI.5 4   Regarding the Acts of Thecla as a story about conversion, see V. Niederhofer, Konversion in den Paulus- und Theklaakten. Eine narrative Form der Paulusrezeption (Tübingen, 2017). 5   For another interpretation of this passage, see Wehn, ‘Blessed are the Bodies of Those Who are Virgins’, 149-64, at 158.

150

holy women preachers and apostles

Thecla’s importance comes to the fore especially in the second part of the Acts. During the second condemnation, she receives baptism directly by divine intervention – or, according to a different interpretation, she self-baptises –, without Paul having to do anything. 6 Recall that he had denied her baptism when she had requested it before they set out on their journey. The heroine’s initiation is then achieved by the baptism that she miraculously receives in the course of the second martyrdom. It is thus a new Thecla that leaves Antioch and re-joins Paul. Upon meeting him she tells him of the miracles that God has brought upon her. Paul must acknowledge God’s force and benevolence toward her; he then presents her – and this is an important point – with the teaching mission (§ 41 ‘Go and teach there [scil. in Seleucia] the commandments and the words of God’; cf. § 43 ‘And there [scil. in Seleucia], she enlightened many people with the word of God’).7 The AThec portrays Thecla not only as Paul’s disciple, but also as the first female apostle, and as the first woman martyr in the history of Christianity. There is indeed a Byzantine tradition of female apostles, especially in one of the additional texts that have been preserved in a number of Greek manuscripts at the end of the AThec:8 the Prodigies of Thecla.9 In paragraph I, 2, 4-5 we read: ‘Because she had received the order of the apostolate’ (orpēs ew ĕnkaleal ēr zhraman aṙak‘elut‘ean; cf. Gr. V, 2-3 τὴν ἀποστολὴν ἐμπιστευθεῖσα ‘Because she had been charged with the apostolate’). In the same Greek text (IV, 2) Thecla is called πρωτομάρτυς ἐν γυναιξί ‘first martyr among women’ (translated into Armenian as aṙaǰin vkayn i kanays ‘the first martyr among women’, I, 1, 3) and (passim) ἡ ἀπόστολος ‘the apostle’ (translated into Armenian as aṙak‘eluhi   On Thecla’s baptism, see more infra, § 2.2.5, note 44.   Calzolari, § 41, 15-6: Ert‘ ew ususǰir and zpatuirans ew zbans Astucoy, cf. § 43, 14-5: Ew and bazum mardik lusaworeac‘ baniw Astucoy. 8   On the additional texts of the AThec, see Kaestli and Rordorf, La fin de la vie de Thècle. 9   Full Greek title: Θαύματα τῆς ἁγίας πρωτομάρτυρος Θέκλας τὰ εἰς τὸν Μυρσεῶνα γενόμενα ‘Miracles of the holy protomartyr Thecla having taken place in the Myrseon (scil. Myrtle Forest by the City of Seleucia)’ (Greek edition in Kaestli and Rordorf, ibid.); in Armenian: Hrašk‘ sk‘anč‘eleac‘ or ełen zkni vkayakan handisic‘ srboy aṙak‘eluhoyn T‘ekłi yašxarhin Surac‘woc‘ ‘Miracles of the Prodigies that occurred after the agones of the martyrdom of the holy apostle Thecla in the land of the Surac‘ik‘ (Armenian edition in Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca, 428-85). 6 7



holy women preachers and apostles151

‘apostle’, I, 3-6; cf. I, 6, 3 znaxavkay ew zaṙak‘eal i kanaysn ‘the first martyr and apostle among women’). In the East, her popularity only grew in the following centuries and reached its apogee in the 5th century, at the cultic site in Seleucia, which was also the provenance of the Life and Miracles of Thecla.10 It has even been observed that until the 4th century Thecla’s celebrity as a virgin saint rivalled that of Mary.11 1.1.  The question of the origin of the AThec and the reconstitution of the history of women in ancient Christianity Other traits distinguish the AThec from the rest of the Acts of Paul. The importance of the female figures in the story, in particular, has drawn scholars’ attention. The opposition between men and women appears several times during the narration. For example, when the men of Antioch demand punishment for the saint, the women express solidarity with her and try to save her by throwing intoxicants in the amphitheatre in order to neutralise the wild animals (§ 35). Thecla’s mother is an exception, as she embodies the established order and laws of the city and calls for martyrdom for her daughter (§ 20). Her diametrical opposite is a second woman of royal blood, namely Tryphaena, who welcomes Thecla into her home before the martyrdom in Antioch and offers her her maternal love (§ 29; 39 and passim). Even animals are part of this solidarity: the lioness that is sent against Thecla in the Antioch amphitheatre does not only not attack her, but also turns against the other animals and finally dies in order to protect Thecla (§ 28). Already early 20th-century scholars remarked upon this central role played by women. Foremost was R. Söder, who suggested that the text was inspired by the Hellenistic novel and aimed mainly at a female readership.12 The importance of women in the AThec was also emphasised by the North American scholarship in the 1980s, especially by S.L. Davies,13 D.R. MacDonald,14 and V. Burrus in her early  Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle. Cf. supra, ch. V and VII.   See e.g. Davis, The Cult of Saint Thecla (Oxford, 2001) 4. 12   R. Söder, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike (Stuttgart, 1932). 13   S.L. Davies, The Revolt of the Widows. The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts (Carbondale, 1980). 14   D.R. MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle. The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia, 1983) and ‘The Role of Women in the 10 11

152

holy women preachers and apostles

works.15 In three studies, which received different reactions within the academic world, and through a sociological reading based among other things on the criteria of feminist criticism,16 these scholars tried to outline the environment of the AThec’s composition. Although they had different points of departure, they nonetheless reached a common conclusion: the AThec was composed within female Christian communities, or at least addressed to a mainly female public.17 Burrus and MacDonald, following A. Olrik’s and A.B. Lord’s work on oral tradition and folklore, as well as V. Propp’s formalist analysis, advanced the hypothesis of an oral origin of the Thecla tradition, which was only subsequently written down.18 According to Burrus, the stories of chastity and virginity that characterise a large part of the oldest apocryphal Acts and of the AThec should not be viewed as mere repetition of literary models from the ancient Greek novel – as had previously been suggested by E. von Dobschütz19 and then further developed by ­ roduction of the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles’, The Iliff Review 41 P (1984) 21-38. 15  Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy and ‘Chastity as Autonomy: Women in the Stories of the Apocryphal Acts’, Semeia 38 (1986) 101-17; see also J.-D. Kaestli, ‘Fiction littéraire et réalité sociale: que peut-on savoir de la place des femmes dans le milieu de production des Actes apocryphes des Apôtres?’, Apocrypha 1 (1991) 279-302. 16   See esp. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York and London, 1983), who views the AThec as a testimony of the existence of female emancipation movements among the most ancient Christian communities. 17   Davies in particular thinks that the AThec was written among widow communities. 18   A. Olrik, ‘Epic Laws of Folk Narrative’, in A. Dundes (ed.), The Study of Folklore (Englewood Cliffs, 1965) 131-41; A.B. Lord, The Singer of Tales (Cambridge, MA, 1960); V. Propp, Morphology of the Folk Tale, English translation of the Russian, Морфология сказки [Leningrad, 1928] (Bloomington, 1958, revised edition: Austin and London, 1968). The hypothesis of an oral tradition behind the Paul and Thecla legend had already been proposed by A. von Harnack (as against Ramsay and before him Th. Zahn), who distinguished between a first written edition of the AThec, which he dated to the 1st century, and a second, longer edition from 130-150: summary and bibliographical references in W. Rordorf, ‘Tradition et composition dans les Actes de Thècle. Etat de la question’, ThZ 41 (1985) 276-8. 19   E. von Dobschütz, ‘Der Roman in der alt-christlichen Literatur’, Deutsche Rundschau 111 (1902) 87-106.



holy women preachers and apostles153

Söder20 – but rather as the reflection of a socio-cultural reality that was first expressed through oral circulation. These stories would therefore not represent literary topoi or narrative strategies, but simply ‘the woman’s point of view’21 from female emancipatory groups that really existed: ‘The chastity stories are historical sources’.22 The distinction between textuality and orality is central, according to Burrus, in determining the nature of the chastity stories as historical sources. Other scholars approached the AThec, and the apocryphal Acts in general, more as texts with narrative and rhetorical strategies than as historical sources describing the role of women in ancient Christianity. Two of these were P. Brown in his famous Body and Society23 and, later, K. Cooper, in a monograph on virginity and asceticism in antiquity that expressly followed in Brown’s footsteps.24 Both historians acknowledged the central importance of female figures in the apocryphal Acts, especially of the women who had taken a vow of chastity, but they denied the possibility that these texts might be historical testimonies of women’s roles in early Christianity. According to Brown, one ought not to search for a female voice in the oldest apocryphal Acts, including the AThec, but rather for the manner in which male authors used female figures to express their own points of view and their own critique of Roman society: ‘Throughout this period, Christian men used women ‘to think with’ in order to verbalise their own nagging concern with the stance that the Church should take to the world’.25 According to Cooper, who continued with this line of thought,  Söder, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. On the relationship between the Greek novel and apocryphal literature, see already E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (Leipzig, 1876, 19143; Hildesheim and New York, 1974); on the AThec and the Greek novel, see, more recently, M. Aubin, ‘Reversing Romance? The Acts of Thecla and the Ancient Novel’, in R.F. Hock (ed.), Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (Atlanta, 1998) 257-72. 21  Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy, 107. 22  Burrus, ibid., 113. 23  Brown, The Body and Society. 24  Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride. 25  Brown, The Body and Society, 153. This passage, and Brown’s analysis in general, are analysed and criticised in S. Matthews, ‘Thinking of Thecla: Issues in Feminist Historiography’, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 17/2 (Fall 2001) 39-55, who adopts the feminist approach and views the apocryphal Acts as attestations of women’s roles in the history of ancient Christianity. 20

154

holy women preachers and apostles

the presentation of chaste women in the apocryphal Acts had to be read from the point of view of narrative rhetoric. The female characters, with their transgressive choice of chastity, had to be seen as expressing the fight against social authority and the conflict between the ancient pagan religion and the new Christian one, a conflict whose sole protagonists, however, were the men: ‘The challenge by the apostle to the household is the urgent message of these narratives, and it is essentially a conflict between men. The challenge posed here by Christianity is not really about women, or even about sexual continence, but about authority and the social order’.26 For Cooper, it is not actual historical women, but rather the female figure as literary construct that is significant in this literature. In recent years, the question has been picked up again by S.J. Davis, who specialises in the diffusion of the Thecla legend and cult in the Arab tradition.27 In reviewing the different hypotheses on the question of the Sitz im Leben of the AThec, he emphasises that beginning in the 1990s, scholars became less confident in the possibility of relying on the AThec as a historical source for reconstructing the history of early Christianity, and especially as a source for the reconstruction of the history of women in the same. Indeed he qualifies his own earlier argument in his 2001 monograph on Thecla and says that he is ‘slightly more skeptical than [he] once was about the project of reconstructing communities of women behind the text’.28 This more sceptical attitude that has characterised a part of scholarly literature since the 1990s is related to an epistemological adaptation from contemporary historiography, namely the ‘linguistic turn’. This concept emerged in philosophy in the 1950s, influenced by structuralism and poststructuralism, and especially by Derrida and F ­ oucault. It was applied to historical research in the 1980s and onward, and in that context inquires into the relationship between discursive  Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride, 55. Cooper’s suggestions have recently been criticised by R.S. Kraemer, Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean (Oxford and New York, 2011), who insists on the value of the AThec as an attestation of women’s groups that baptised and preached. Already Tertullian (De baptismo 17, 5) had mentioned women’s groups that invoked Thecla’s example in claiming for themselves the right to baptise. 27   Davis, ‘From Women’s Piety to Male Devotion’. 28  Davis, ibid. 26



holy women preachers and apostles155

r­ epresentation of reality and the extra-linguistic reality itself. In what way do the narrative language and the discourse form reality as we perceive it? How do we know ‘what really happened’?29 This methodology has been applied to ‘gender history’, including to the apocryphal Acts. This turn in contemporary historiography30 and the development within gender studies since the 1990s are among the factors that led to new and more careful approaches to the AThec as a possible historical source.31 The critique today is split between those who deny its value as a source for proving the existence of female Christian communities or emancipatory currents (e.g. L. Boughton, P.W. Dunn, K. Cooper, E.Y.L. Ng)32 and those who believe in that value (e.g. S. Matthews,   See e.g. D.B. Martin and P. Cox Miller (eds), The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies: Gender, Asceticism, and Historiography (Durham, NC, 2005); H. White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore, 1973); D. Schreiber and M. Aymes, ‘Hayden White, l’ironie de la Métahistoire/En avant l’après-histoire!’, Laby­ rinthe 33 (2009) 13-9; see also the following note. 30   Regarding the influence of the ‘linguistic turn’ on the study of Christianity and gender studies, see among others E.A. Clark, ‘The Lady Vanishes: Dilemmas of a Feminist History after the ‘Linguistic Turn’’, Church History 67 (1998) 1-31; E.A. Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historian and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge, MA and London, 2004) 156-85; see also J. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York, 1990). 31   E.g. C. Vander Stichele and T. Penner, Contextualizing Gender in Early Christian Discourse. Thinking beyond Thecla (New York and London, 2009) 137-78, have shown that Burrus changed her views from the 1980s. While in earlier studies she had dissociated the apocryphal Acts from the Greek novel, in the 2000s she came to study the Acts as inextricably linked to Hellenistic tradition: V. Burrus, ‘Mimicking Virgins: Colonial Ambivalence and Ancient Romance’, Arethusa 38 (2005) 49-88. 32   L.C. Boughton, ‘From Pious Legend to Feminist Fantasy: Distinguishing Hagiographical License from Apostolic Practice in the Acts of Paul/Acts of Thecla’, Journal of Religion 71/3 (1991) 362-83; Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride; P.W. Dunn, ‘Women’s Liberation, the Acts of Paul and Other Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: A Review of Some Recent Interpreters’, Apocrypha 4 (1993) 245-61; see also J.N. Bremmer, ‘Magic, Martyrdom and Women’s Liberation in the Acts of Paul and Thecla’ and ‘The Apocryphal Acts: Authors, Place, Time and Readership’, in Id., Maidens, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity (Tübingen, 2017) 164-5 and 225-34; E.Y.L. Ng, ‘Acts of Paul and Thecla: Women’s Stories and Precedent?’, JThS 55 (2004) 1-29. 29

156

holy women preachers and apostles

R.S. Kraemer).33 Scholars have again emphasised the importance of intertextuality and AThec’s relationship with other literary genres, especially the Greek novel, for correctly interpreting the Acts. The resulting approach is correspondingly complex and obliges us to temper the scholarly confidence of the 1980s, without however rejecting it completely.34 Rehearsing these matters reminds us – in case we had forgotten – that the apocryphal works are far from being simple texts written to entertain a ‘popular’ readership as a sort of pulp fiction; this view was fortunately abandoned a long time ago. These works, rather, lend themselves to complex examination that involves contemporary historiography on the origins of Christianity and the different ways in which ancient communities portrayed those origins. These issues are also relevant to scholars within Armenian studies, and they involve the history of ancient Armenian Christianity, a point to which we shall return once again in our conclusion to the analysis of the relationship between the AThec and the MartThad. 1.2.  The Thecla reception after the 2nd century: from transgressive woman to exemplary saint The model of sanctity that Thecla embodies can be broken down into different aspects – woman apostle, woman martyr, holy virgin, miracle worker – which have inspired different Armenian works at different times in Armenian literary history. While in the Greek AThec, independently of the environment in which it arose, Thecla is a transgressive figure opposed to ancient patriarchal society, this character over the centuries yielded to a more exemplary type of figure. Especially in the reception by the Church Fathers Thecla was elevated to the very model of sanctity, one that incorporated several different aspects. The role of preaching woman that was closely associated with Thecla in the 2nd-century Greek AThec was partly eclipsed in the Greek and Latin literature of the 4th century, which portrayed Thecla more as holy virgin than as female apostle.35 This is the paradigm Agat‘angełos follows in his portrayal of Hṙip‘simē that we examined in ch. VI.   Matthews, ‘Thinking of Thecla’; Kraemer, Unreliable Witnesses.   Davis, ‘From Women’s Piety to Male Devotion’. Chastity has long been a focus of these types of stories and drawn the attention of contemporary scholars with opinions evolving over the past few decades. However, it is not my aim here to give an exhaustive state-of-the-art on the question. 35   But see the testimony of the Prodigies of Thecla mentioned supra. 33 34



holy women preachers and apostles157

2.  Comparison between the Armenian AThec and the MartThad Keeping all of this in mind, we should present briefly the results of the comparative analysis between the two texts so as to identify any possible trace of influence by the AThec’s Thecla on Sanduxt. We shall base this on Akinean’s synopsis, and we shall first analyse the excerpts that this Mekhitarist scholar had juxtaposed with one another and flesh them out with further information. As has already been observed, no commentary or additional explanation accompanied Akinean’s synopsis; this is probably due to the fact that it was published posthumously. A commentary based on a new analysis thus seems necessary. 2.1.  Synopsis of the AThec and the MartThad The following lines offer a reproduction of Akinean’s synopsis (in translation), followed by my commentary as well as by a few conclusions on the question of the relationship between the two texts. My analysis has allowed me to identify other possible parallel passages, which are also indicated in the synopsis, in italics. AThec

MartThad

(§ 1, 1) As Paul was going up to the city of Iconium [...] (§ 5, 1) And when Paul entered the house of Onesiphorus [...]. (§ 5, 3-4) Paul approached and began to speak the word of God [...] (§ 7, 1-9) While Paul was speaking all these great things of God, amidst the assembly 36

(§ 4)37 And the holy apostle […] arrived in the land of Armenia at the court of Sanatruk […] in the royal palace […] He preached there the word of life […] And many people, who had come from the royal court to the holy apostle, listened to the sweet teaching of the Gospel from

36   Number of paragraph and lines of my edition of the Armenian text: Calzolari, Apocrypha Armeniaca, 231-409 (passim). My Italian translation of the Armenian text has been translated by Dr Megan Wolfreys and revised, based on the Armenian, by myself. Quotations are from this revised English translation. 37   Number of paragraph of my French translation: Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, 51-88 (passim).

158

holy women preachers and apostles

in the house of Onesiphorus, a virgin named Thecla, daughter of Theoclia, who had been promised to a man named Thamyris, approached and sat by a window that was close to their roof, and listened to Paul’s words about purity. And she no longer moved from the window; day and night, she listened to Paul’s prayers and was amazed at his faith [...] (§ 8, 13-15) And I am amazed at this: how wise virgins so quickly follow utterly wicked and deceitful words [...]. (§ 9, 5-6) Thecla, too, has become bound to him as the texture to the canvas, and is gripped by a new desire [...] (§ 18, 1.5-10) And the same night, Thecla [...] came and sat down at Paul’s feet and listened to him (speak) of God’s great works. Paul was not troubled, but boldly made all in his presence openly happy through God’s commandment. And with great joy Thecla kissed the bonds and chains on Paul’s feet and hands. (§ 34, 2-7.10-17) When Thecla saw that many beasts were being released against her, she stretched out her hands and remained in prayer. And when she finished her prayer, she turned and saw a cistern full of water and said: ‘So, it is time to be baptised’. She raised her voice and said: ‘In the name of Jesus Christ, I am baptised here, on the last day’. [...] And the judge too, when he saw her, wept to think the beasts in the water would devour such fair beauty. But

him […] And many people, having seen all his miracles, began to believe in Christ (p. 13, 4-26)38 (§  5) Then the king’s daughter arrived, who was called Sanduxt and who had a charming appearance and a beautiful visage since childhood, such that one would find no one on earth who could be compared to her. She came at night to the holy apostle and heard coming from him the word of the teaching […] and she fell at his holy feet, kissed him in tears and was taught by him during several days. She did not leave him, neither at day nor at night, and she was thus fixed to the love of Christ our God (p. 14, 1-16) And the holy apostle [...], seeing the fervent piety of her love of Christ, took her and baptised her in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A luminous sign coming from heaven then showed itself on the holy virgin and, in the middle of the light, one heard the voice of celestial angels (p. 14, 16-24) (§ 7) […] Approaching the holy Sanduxt, he kissed her chains and told her: ‘You are blessed, daughter of the heavenly King’. And having strengthened them in their love of Christ with the words of the holy Gospel, he made a sign to stay in silence and to pray. And he himself, having opened his hands toward heaven, said: ‘I render grace unto you, my Lord […] Now, from your heavenly abode […] look toward your servant Sanduxt who has given

  Page and lines of the edition of the Armenian text: [Ališan], Vkayabanut‘iwn (passim). 38



holy women preachers and apostles159

Thecla promptly leapt into the water, you her youth. Watch over her, my and the beasts that were there, as Lord, and strengthen her in this soon as they saw the flash of fire, fight’ (p. 17, 13-18, 5) died; and floated around her on the surface of the water, and a lightning cloud cast a shadow over her, so that it did not appear that Thecla was naked. **

**

(§ 24, 1-8) Thecla went with him to the young man’s house and entered, stood in front of Paul, and found him kneeling, praying and saying: ‘Our Father who art in heaven, I pray that the fire does not approach Thecla, but rather extinguish it far from her, since she is yours’. And Thecla stood behind him, opened her mouth and said: ‘Father, who created the heavens and the earth, you are the father of the Saint, I thank you for what you have done with me and for making me live so that I can see Paul’. (§ 24, 8-14) Paul arose and saw her. He answered and said: ‘God who knows hearts, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I thank you because, as I asked you, you took her from the fire and allowed me to see her, me and to those who are with me; only by your hand is it possible to free from all pain those who glorify your name forever’. (§ 25, 1-11) And Paul exulted and rejoiced along with all who were with him. And the boy brought them five loaves of bread and vegetables, salt and water, and they rejoiced in the holy works of Christ. And Thecla said to Paul: ‘I will cut my hair and follow you, wherever you go’. Paul said to her: ‘War is violent and you are a beautiful woman; perhaps another trial

(§ 12) Having seen the holy apostle who prayed, as well as a great light above him, St. Sanduxt, seized with fright, threw herself at the ground in tears, kissed the heels of the man of God and said: ‘My lord and father who found me, lost as I was, and who has made me know my heavenly Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son, pray now for me and bless me, so that I too may haste to join my companions and become worthy of seeing the Lord Christ with you’. The holy apostle, having seen the tears of the holy virgin Sanduxt and the fervent piety of her love for Christ, then said: ‘You are happy, daughter of the heavenly King. Wait here for a while; now you will see the light of all creatures’. He also encouraged the other believers through the saint: ‘Be firm, because now you will receive the crown of light’. And at the end of these words they presented him with the bread. Having taken the bread, he blessed it and gave of it to St. Sanduxt and to her companions. He also tasted a bit of it. And as they got up, they pronounced a benediction and said grace to the holy Trinity (p. 27, 13-28, 18) (§ 13) ‘[…] Watch also over this young girl, Sanduxt, for she is pure and a virgin. And give her the strength to carry on the struggle of the trials of

160

holy women preachers and apostles

will come upon you even more evil than the first and you will not be able to bear it’. Thecla said to Paul: ‘Just give me the seal of Christ and the ordeal will not touch me.’ Paul said to Thecla: ‘Be patient and you will receive what you ask for’. ** (§ 22, 11-15) [...] and a thunderous noise came up from the ground and a cloud of dew cast a shadow over her, and hail and violent rain poured over the earth. Many of the people who sat and watched died; and the fire was extinguished and Thecla was saved. Cf. § 35, 23-27 But a flame from the fire shot up and burned the ropes they had bound Thecla’s feet with. Thecla rose and held herself next to the bulls, as if she had no pain at all and as if they had not bound her with ropes. ** (§ 41, 15-16) ‘Go and teach there [scil. in Seleucia] the commandments of God’. Cf. § 43, 14-15 And there, she enlightened many people with the word of God.

**

martyrdom and to receive the crown of light on her head’ (p. 29, 13-18)

** (§ 17) […] the earth trembled and, coming from the heavens, a light appeared. They heard a voice that said: ‘Take courage, my daughter, for I am with you to save you’. Then her chains loosened; the leader of the executioners and many others with him perished through the brilliant lights (p. 36, 13-19)

** (§ 19) And St. Sanduxt consoled all the believers. She nourished them with bread, dressed them with clothes and let them lack for nothing. She preached the word of life and converted many people by signs and miracles (p. 39, 23-40, 4). Cf.  (§ 11) Then St. Sanduxt sent someone to her house, unbeknownst to her father, to fetch some fine linen. Having taken her holy companions in faith, she shrouded their bodies, embraced them, and said: ‘Happiness to you, my brothers and sisters, who have become worthy of heavenly joys; remember me as well, your servant’. And she buried them close to her palace and made sure that no one from the royal house knew of it (p. 26, 25-27, 11) **



holy women preachers and apostles161

(§ 27, 14-15) And there was there a rich lady of royal dignity named Tryphaena, whose daughter was dead (cf. § 36, 11 since Queen Tryphaena, who stood by the theater doors, is of the imperial family) [...] (§ 39, 5-10) Thecla went with her and entered her house and rested there for eight days, and taught the queen Tryphaena all God’s commandments. And the queen and many of her servants believed in God. And there was great joy there.

(§ 20) Then a lady of high lineage, by the name of Zarmanduxt, who was close to the king, became a believer, she and all her household (p. 40, 5-8)

**

**

§ 17, 15-18) As he heard these words, the judge ordered that he go to prison in the same bonds, until the opportunity arose to listen to him well. (§ 28, 1-4.6-7) When the beasts entered the theatre, they came to fetch Thecla from Tryphaena’s house; they took her to the theatre and undressed her, threw a linen cloth over her and made her stand naked. And they released a great lioness against her [...] The lioness approached and began to lick Thecla. (§ 35, 23-25) But a flame from the fire shot up and burned the ropes they had bound Thecla’s feet with.

(§ 28) Then the king was angry and said: ‘This man must not live’. And having led St. Thaddaeus in chains, they shut him into the rampart (of the fortress), where there were man-eating beasts. As two lions were released, they came and fell to his feet; they licked the saint’s sandals and roared, while also ­ caressing him. And upon the saint’s prayers, his chains fell off (p. 51, 26-52, 10)

**

**

(§ 21, 3-4) And he passed sentence that she should be burned with fire in the middle of the theatre. (§ 22, 5-15) The young men gathered up the wood and grabbed her, so that it went up and remained on the blazing fire; and Thecla immediately went up and remained on the fire and held out her hands in the shape of a cross. When the flames of the blazing fire rose, however, they did not burn even a hair on her head, for the spirit of God had mercy on her; and a thunderous

(§ 28) But the unjust king, who was even more enrapt by the Evil one, ordered a fire lit in the oven. They lit an intense fire and threw the chained holy apostle into the oven. And he prayed and said: ‘Lord Jesus Christ, come to my aid’. Suddenly, a very strong wind mixed with clouds of dew arose, brought off the burning oven and threw it onto the unjust barbarians. And everyone perished with fright at the

162

holy women preachers and apostles

noise came up from the ground and a cloud of dew cast a shadow over her, and hail and violent rain poured over the earth. Many of the people who sat and watched died; and the fire was extinguished and Thecla was saved.

sound of the heavenly voices. But the king fled and sought refuge in his palace. He was greatly embarrassed due to a bad illness (p. 52, 12-26)

2.2.  Commentary 2.2.1. The meeting between the apostle and the young girl (Paul and Thecla, Thaddaeus and Sanduxt) In this synopsis we notice that Akinean first compares the description of Paul’s arrival in Iconium with that of Thaddaeus’ in Šavaršan (AThec 1 and 5; cf. MartThad 4; the two excerpts are quoted in abbreviated form). The intertextual relationships between these two passages, however, are not very clear. Akinean probably wanted to put Thecla’s and Sanduxt’s first appearances in their proper contexts. These two sections are indeed compared with each other, and we ought to dwell on them for a moment. Especially the MartThad 5 is juxtaposed to the AThec 7-9 (abbreviated). Thus we have ‘(Thecla) approached and sat by a window that was close to their (scil. the neighbours’) roof, and listened to Paul’s words about purity’ (AThec 7, 4-6), like Sanduxt, ‘(having) arrived…, she came at night to the holy apostle and heard coming from him the word of the teaching’ (see synopsis, underlined). The text of the MartThad specifies in addition that Sanduxt remained ‘day and night’ (ztiw ew zgišer) at the apostle’s side in order to be taught, just as Thecla remained ‘day and night’ (ztiw ew zgišer) by the window in order to hear Paul. Nonetheless, this aspect constitutes a fairly common topos in the apocryphal Acts and can therefore not be considered sufficient for establishing a connection between the two texts. In the Greek Acts of Andrew, for example, the ‘brothers’, Stratocles, Maximilla, and others, repeatedly remain at Andrew’s side ‘day and night’ (Gr. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, cf. Acts of Andrew 8, 5; 10, 5-6; 13, 1-2; 23, 18), and in the Epistle of Pseudo-Titus I, 5 the virgins think both night and day of Godly matters. In addition to Akinean’s passage, we may identify similar occurrences in two other passages from the Acts of Paul, and especially in an episode that is not part of the sections that were translated



holy women preachers and apostles163

into Armenian (the Ephesus episode, Acts of Paul IX, 16 and IX, 18). Akinean also draws a parallel between, on the one hand, the section of the AThec 8-9 that mentions the surprise of Thecla’s mother at the influence the apostle has on the town women, and in particular her daughter (§ 9, 5-6 ‘Thecla, too, has become bound to him as the texture to the canvas, and is gripped by a new desire’), and, on the other hand, the passage of the MartThad 5 that emphasises the extent to which Sanduxt ‘was fixed to the love of Christ our God’. We can identify other points of contact between the MartThad 5 and the AThec 18. In the AThec 18, 5.9-10, Thecla ‘came and sat down at Paul’s feet […] And with great joy [Thecla] kissed the bonds and chains on Paul’s feet and hands’, and in the MartThad 5 Sanduxt ‘fell at his [scil. Thaddaeus’] holy feet, kissed him in tears’ (see synopsis, underlined parts). It is interesting that the situation described in the AThec is found also in the MartThad 7, but in reverse. In the latter it is Thaddaeus that kisses the chains (lit. links) of Sanduxt: ‘approaching the holy Sanduxt, he kissed her chains’ (see synopsis, underlined part). In § 12, furthermore, St. Sanduxt kisses Thaddaeus’ feet: ‘(St Sanduxt) threw herself at the ground in tears, kissed the heels of the man of God’ (see synopsis, underlined part). In this case, too, we have a topos that also appears e.g. in the Martyrdom of ­Matthew 6, where the bishop Plato and other members of the clergy fall to the earth before the apostle and kiss his feet. 2.2.2. The double condemnation to martyrdom of Thecla, Sanduxt, and Thaddaeus Other similarities between the two texts include that like Thecla (AThec 22, cf. AThec 28), also Sanduxt (MartThad 17, cf. MartThad 23) is twice condemned to martyrdom, a detail that Akinean does not mention; and that, contrary to the classic paradigm of the apocryphal martyrdoms,39 in these two works it is the young girl and not the apostle who is condemned first.40   See below, 169.   In the AThec 21, Paul is beaten and chased out of Iconium while Thecla is condemned to death. In the second part of the text, which is set in Antioch, Paul disappears and Thecla remains the sole protagonist, with her condemnation to martyrdom as the central theme. So too in the MartThad 17 it is 39 40

164

holy women preachers and apostles

Both saints are first condemned to burning, and are then saved through miraculous events, albeit different ones in the two works. In other apocryphal texts, the execution by fire is also avoided through a miracle; this is the case, for instance, with the Martyrdom of Matthew 19, where the whole furnace suddenly becomes cold. So too in the AThec 22, 11-15, the flames are extinguished by a ‘cloud of dew’ (amp c‘awłagin), by hail, and by a violent rain accompanied by a great noise; these miraculous events cause the deaths of those who are present: ‘a thunderous noise came up from the ground and a cloud of dew cast a shadow over her, and hail and violent rain poured over the earth. Many of the people who sat and watched died; and the fire was extinguished and Thecla was saved’. In the MartThad 17, Sanduxt’s martyrdom is avoided by an earthquake and a miraculous light that cause the executioners’ deaths; the chains binding Sanduxt are loosened and the young girl is free,41 following the manifestation of a divine voice that reassures her. In the AThec 35, 23-27 as well, Thecla is freed from her chains, albeit following a different kind of miracle: ‘but a flame from the fire shot up and burned the ropes they had bound Thecla’s feet with. Thecla rose and held herself next to the bulls, as if she had no pain at all and as if they had not bound her with ropes’. It should also be observed that in the MartThad, the apostle himself is about to be subjected twice to martyrdom (MartThad 28; cf. MartThad 31) and, like Thecla and Sanduxt, is condemned on the first occasion to burning. The martyrdom is stopped by a miraculous violent wind mixed with a dew cloud that falls upon the furnace in which Thaddaeus is meant to be burned; instead of the apostle dying, the miracle terminates the ‘unjust barbarians’ (see synopsis, underlined part). The same topos is in the AThec 22. In the MartThad 28, before the burning, Thaddaeus must face wild animals. This episode allows for more compelling points of comparison with the AThec, especially the episode of Thecla’s second punishment, which is described in the AThec 28. Sanduxt who is condemned, for having provoked the ire of the king, her father; Thaddaeus will only be condemned later on. 41   The theme of chains that break is also found in the Ephesus episode of the Acts of Paul IX, 19 and in the Life of Andrew by Gregory of Tours, I, 7 (cf. Acts 12); O. Weinreich, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien (Darmstadt, 1968) 118-79 (first published in 1929). See also infra, MartThad 28.



holy women preachers and apostles165

2.2.3. The episode of the lioness in the AThec and the episode of the lions in the MartThad The text of the AThec 28, 4.6-7 relates that during the punishment in the Antioch amphitheatre a lioness was sent out against the saint; instead of attacking her, she began to lick her feet while also protecting her against the other wild beasts: ‘And they released a great lioness against her […] The lioness approached and began to lick Thecla’ (see synopsis, underlined part). Similarly, in the MartThad 28, two lions are released against the apostle, but, as the text says, they do not attack him: ‘As two lions were released, they came and fell to his feet; they licked the saint’s sandals and roared, while also caressing him. And upon the saint’s prayers, his chains fell off’ (see synopsis, underlined part). The mention of the chains that loosen themselves is reminiscent of the miracles that come to the aid of Sanduxt (MartThad 17) and Thecla (AThec 35).42 This parallel between the two texts was pointed out by Akinean, who however did not point out another quite obvious parallel, namely the mention of two ladies of noble lineage who were converted, one by Thecla and the other by Sanduxt. 2.2.4. The episode of the converted lady of noble lineage: Tryphaena and Zarmanduxt In the AThec, Thecla is taken into the protection of a royal lady by the name of Tryphaena, who is close to the emperor: (§ 27,14-15) Ew ēr and tikin mi t‘agaworazn mecatun, Trip‘onia anun, oroy meṙeal ēr dustr iwr (cf. § 36, 11 zi Trip‘onia tikinn yazgē kayser ēr) And there was there a rich lady of royal dignity, named Tryphaena, whose daughter had died (cf. § 36, 11 since Queen Tryphaena… is of the imperial family)

After having escaped martyrdom, Thecla converts her along with her whole household: (§ 39, 5-10) Ew č‘ogaw ĕnd nma T‘ekł ew emut i tun nora, ew hangeaw and awurs ut‘, ew usoyc‘ Trip‘oneay tiknoǰ zamenayn patuirans Astucoy: Ew hawatac‘ tikinn yAstuac, ew bazumk‘ yałaxnac‘ nora. ew ełew and uraxut‘iwn mec.   For the theme of the lion(ess), see J.E. Spittler, Animals in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Tübingen, 2008) 182-9. 42

166

holy women preachers and apostles

And Thecla went with her and entered her house and rested there for eight days, and taught the queen Tryphaena all God’s commandments. And the queen and many of her servants believed in God. And there was great joy there.

In the MartThad 20, there is also a woman of royal lineage among the converts, by the name of Zarmanduxt. As Tryphaena and her servants are converted by Thecla, so Zarmanduxt and her household are converted by Sanduxt: Yaynžam hawatac‘ kin omn i mec azgē amenayn tamb iwrov or ēr i merjaworac‘ t‘agaworin, orum anun ēr Zarmanduxt ([Ališan], 40, 5-8) Then a lady of high lineage, by the name of Zarmanduxt, who was close to the king, became a believer, she and all her household.

Even though it is not possible to quote verbatim the exact passages, and despite the stereotypical nature of many of the examples, which correspond to the topoi of apocryphal and hagiographical literature, the abundance of motifs that allow us to compare the two texts suggests that the author of the MartThad knew the AThec and was inspired by it in his portrayal of Sanduxt. This hypothesis is reinforced by the great influence that the AThec exercised upon other Armenian literary works already in the 5th century, notably on Agat‘angełos’ History and on the Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘, which were presented in previous chapters.43 2.2.5.  Thecla’s and Sanduxt’s baptisms Whereas the parallels between the AThec and the MartThad are indeed numerous, the author of the MartThad at an important point in the portrayal of his heroine does depart from his model. Sanduxt is baptised by Thaddaeus immediately (MartThad 5), while in the AThec, Paul refuses Thecla her baptism, and so she must await her second martyrdom before receiving it. It is without needing the apostle’s aid that she receives it, or, according to another interpretation, that she baptises herself.44   Ch. V-VII.  Cf.  AThec 34, 6-7 Νῦν καιρὸς τοῦ λούσασθαί με. Καὶ ἔβαλεν ἑαυτὴν λέγουσα· Ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑστέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ βαπτίζομαι (lit.) ‘Now is the moment that I am washed (passive voice)/the moment I wash 43 44



holy women preachers and apostles167

The scene where the apostle withholds baptism is described in the AThec 25, in a passage that Akinean quotes and reproduces in the synopsis. Here, Paul invites Thecla to wait before receiving baptism, out of fear that she prove weak in face of the trials that might confront her by dint of her beauty: ‘War is violent and you are a beautiful woman; perhaps another trial will come upon you even more evil than the first and you will not be able to bear it […] Be patient’ (see synopsis, underlined part). In the MartThad 12-13, which Akinean has appropriately juxtaposed to this passage from the AThec, Thaddaeus also tells Sanduxt to wait (hamberea… ‘wait…’) and calls upon God to grant the young girl the patience, or endurance, necessary to attain the crown of martyrdom to which she aspires (see also infra). This is in fact the reason for Sanduxt’s haste. The reference to the trial and the fight is therefore present in both texts. But in the AThec 25 we are dealing with ‘war’ (paterazm) and with ‘trial’, or with ‘temptation’ (p‘orjut‘iwn), which could endanger Thecla’s faith, while in the MartThad 13 the war is that of the fights for martyrdom: ‘Watch also over this young girl, Sanduxt, for she is pure and a virgin. And give her the strength to carry on the struggle of the trials of martyrdom and to receive the crown of light on her head’ (cf. MartThad 7 pahea zsa Tēr im, ew zōrac‘o i paterazmis ‘watch over her, my Lord, and strengthen her in this fight’)45. The motif of patience is not exclusive to these two works. The variant in MartThad, in particular, is close to a topos that is also attested e.g. in the Martyrdom of Matthew 4, which mentions myself (middle voice). She threw herself [into the pool] and said: “In the name of Jesus Christ, I am baptised/I baptise myself on my last day”’. Cf. AThec 40, 8-10 Ἔλαβον τὸ λουτρόν, Παῦλε· ὁ γὰρ σοὶ συνεργήσας εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κἀμοὶ συνήργησεν εἰς τὸ λούσασθαι (lit.) ‘I received the bath, Paul, for he who worked with you for the sake of the Gospel worked with me for the sake of the bath (scil. so that I may receive baptism)’; Vouaux translates: ‘j’ai reçu le baptême, Paul, car celui qui te donna le pouvoir pour la bonne nouvelle me l’a donné à moi-même pour le baptême’ (L. Vouaux, Les Actes de Paul et ses lettres apocryphes [Paris 1913] 225). On the ambiguity of these passages, see P.W. Dunn, The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legacy in the Second Century [PhD Dissertation] (Cambridge, 1996) 64-7. On the possible relationship between these passages and 1 Cor 10, see S.J. Davis, ‘A ‘Pauline’ Defense of Women’s Right to Baptize? Intertextuality and Apostolic Authority in the Acts of Paul’, JECS 8 (2000) 453-9. On Thecla’s baptism, see also Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, 40-4. 45   See synopsis, underlined part.

168

holy women preachers and apostles

the crown of martyrdom – another common topos – as a crown that was promised for the patience of the apostle. In the Acts of John in Rome 4, the martyrdom crown is also considered as the fruit of patience. Other comparisons between these two sections are also possible. At their beginning, in the AThec 25 we find a reference to the sharing of five breads among Paul, Thecla, and other neophytes, a scene that can be juxtaposed to the sharing of the bread of the Eucharist in the MartThad 12. Although these two sections do not correspond exactly, we are able to identify a strong concentration of comparable details. We have here a re-writing of the AThec and an adaptation of certain elements to a different context. The baptism itself is especially interesting, as it is portrayed very differently in each text. Whereas the Armenian text lends great importance to Sanduxt, whom the apostle immediately deems ready to receive baptism, this may in fact be considered a sort of watering down of the corresponding AThec passage. Sanduxt depends on the apostle, while Thecla can manage without him! The initial refusal of baptism only heightens Thecla’s importance, whose baptism does not require Paul. In spite of the apostle’s indispensable mediation, the MartThad still accords particular attention to Sanduxt all along. During the baptism, a sign of light appears on her face as a sign of election. After the baptism, Sanduxt assumes ever more importance in the story. Her important role in the MartThad stems for example from the fact that she has the privilege of pronouncing the first profession of faith in God the creator (see infra, MartThad 16). This profession is uttered in a dialogue between Sanduxt and her father who, as must be emphasised, represents the power of ancestral religion in pagan Armenia. Sanduxt’s obstinacy, which persists in her continued negation of the kingdom’s deities, is at the root of her father’s wrath, who condemns her to death. Like Thecla, but also like Maximilla in the Acts of Andrew, Mygdonia and Queen Tertia in the Acts of Thomas, Nicanora in the Acts of Philip, Xanthippe in the Acts of Peter, and others yet, Sanduxt is inserted into a narratological framework that is typical of apocryphal literature and of hagiographical literature more generally. This framework was developed especially in martyrdom stories, in which a woman from a highly placed family converts and thereby provokes the ire of her husband or fiancé, who in turn embodies the older institutions. His anger is linked to the woman’s choice of chastity, as after



holy women preachers and apostles169

her conversion she distances herself from her partner.46 Thus, in the Acts of Andrew, Maximilla provokes the wrath of her husband Aegeatus, the governor of Patras; in the AThec, Thecla incurs the ire of Thamyris, who solicits the judge in Iconium to intervene; in the Acts of Thomas, Tertia and Mygdonia provoke the wrath of their respective husbands, King Mazdai and his confidant Karish; in the Acts of Peter, Xanthippe distances herself from her husband, Albinus, who then complains to the prefect Agrippa and has the apostle condemned; etc. As for Sanduxt, she incurs the anger of her father, who in line with this classic scheme of martyrdom stories condemns the apostle to death, since he holds him responsible for his daughter going astray. In the case of the MartThad, however, the conflict is not provoked by the choice of a chaste life. Admittedly, Sanduxt is often called by the traditional epithet koys ‘virgin’: ‘watch also over this young girl, Sanduxt, for she is pure and a virgin (lit. pure regarding virginity)’ (MartThad 13; see synopsis, underlined part; cf. also MartThad 23, 26, 27, and passim). But the fact remains that her condemnation to death is caused by her opposition to her father’s and his kingdom’s gods and customs rather than by her decision for chastity. 2.2.6. The opposition between terrestrial and celestial paternity in the MartThad In order to understand Sanduxt’s role in the MartThad, we might look at the passages that feature the opposition between the daughter and her pagan father-king and that show among other things that it is indeed not the chastity that is at the root of the king’s anger and of the condemnation of the girl and the apostle, the latter of whom is held responsible for having led the young girl astray. We shall look first of all at Sanduxt’s statements in which she opposes terrestrial and celestial-spiritual paternity, recognising the Lord – or the apostle – as her father, who has let her be reborn in faith, as opposed to her biological father. In the following passages she is addressing Thaddaeus: (§ 12) Tēr im ew hayr, or gter zis zmoloreals, ew canuc‘er inj zerknawor ztērn im zYisus K‘ristos zmiacin ordin, ayžm ałōt‘ea vasn im ew ōrhnea zis, zi ew es p‘ut‘ac‘eal hasic‘ ĕnkerac‘n imoc‘, ew ełēc‘ aržani tesaneln ztērn zK‘ristos k‘ew handerj։ ([Ališan], 27, 19-28, 1)   Y. Tissot, ‘Encratisme et Actes apocryphes’, in Bovon et al. (eds), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres, 109-19. 46

170

holy women preachers and apostles

My lord and father who found me, lost as I was, and who has made me know my heavenly Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son, pray now for me and bless me, so that I too may haste to join my companions and become worthy of seeing the Lord Christ with you (my emphasis) (§ 14) Tēr im ew hayr hogwoy imoy, oč‘ em vatasrteal, ayl c‘ncam ew urax em ew p‘ut‘am tesanel zK‘ristos yoys im, ew linel aṙaǰi nora yamenayn žam, zi kari anjkac‘eal em tesanem zloysn erknayin ([Ališan], 32, 19-25) My lord and father of my soul, I am not weak, on the contrary I exult and rejoice and am eager to see the Christ, my hope, and to find myself before him eternally, for I am desirous to see the heavenly light (my emphasis) (§ 22) Erani ē k‘ez hayr im, or cnar zis verstin ew usuc‘er inj zloysn kendani zK‘ristos, zi du ełer inj čanaparh kendani ew deł anmahut‘ean. ard xndrea i K‘ristosē, zi p‘ut‘ov žołovescē zis aṙ ink‘n ([Ališan], 43, 5-11) Happiness to you, my father, you who made me be born again and taught me the living light, the Christ; for you have been for me a living path and a medicine of immortality. Now ask the Christ that he may hasten to unite me to him (my emphasis)

Thaddaeus replies to these entreaties by calling Sanduxt ‘sister’ and ‘daughter’, as well as ‘daughter of the heavenly king’ (§ 14 Erani ē k‘ez k‘oyr im ew dustr... ‘Happiness to you, my sister and my daughter…’;47 § 12 Erani ē k‘ez dustr erknawor t‘agaworin... ‘Happiness to you, daughter of the heavenly king…’48). In other passages, Sanduxt speaks to the Lord, addressing him as ‘father and creator’, as in the MartThad: (§ 17) Tēr im Yisus K‘ristos, p‘ut‘a has inj yōgnakanut‘iwn, zi du es im hayr ew ararič‘. apawēn ew keank‘, mi t‘ołur zmoloreal oč‘xars hōti k‘o ([Ališan], 36, 7-12) My Lord Jesus Christ, hurry, come to my aid, for you are my father and creator; my refuge and my life, do not abandon the sheep that have strayed from your flock (my emphasis)

  [Ališan], 32, 26-33, 1 and passim.   [Ališan], 28, 5-6 and passim.

47 48



holy women preachers and apostles171

The Lord for his part recognises Sanduxt as his daughter, for example in two passages, from § 17 and § 7: (§ 17) K‘aǰalereac‘ dustr im, zi ĕnd k‘ez em i p‘rkel zk‘ez... ([Ališan], 36, 15-16) Take courage, my daughter, for I am with you to save you (my emphasis) (§ 7) Sanduxt, or ekir zkni im, ew arhamarhec‘er zerkrawor patiws, ew koč‘ec‘er zis hayr, tac‘ k‘ez zveragoyn loysn … ([Ališan], 18, 24-19, 1) As for you, Sanduxt, who has followed me, who has scorned terrestrial honours and has called me father, to you I shall give the supreme light (my emphasis)

A counterpoint to Sanduxt’s rejection of Sanatruk’s paternity is the passages that refer to Sanatruk’s paternal love and piety, connected to matters here below: (§ 11) Ew ibrew ełew aṙawōt, xorhurd arareal t‘agaworin vasn dstern iwroy Sandxtoy, t‘ē zinč‘ part ē aṙnel. vasn spanman oč‘ karēr tal hraman, vasn ałēti gt‘oy hayrut‘eann, zi aṙawel sirēr, ew minč‘ yišēr layr daṙnapēs: Apa yłēr i bandn naxarar zomn acel zsurbn Sanduxt, ew yuzeal zašxarhapołotaysn zi gteal acc‘en zsurb aṙak‘ealn T‘adēos or molorec‘oyc‘ zdustrn iwr ([Ališan], 25, 1-13) Morning having come, the king held counsel on the subject of his daughter Sanduxt, in order to know what he should do: he could not give orders to execute her, because of the compassion and pity that he felt as a father, for he loved her in the highest degree. And while immersed in memories he cried bitterly. He then sent a nobleman to the prison to fetch Sanduxt, and he made him scour the public streets in order to find and bring to him the holy apostle Thaddaeus, who had led his daughter astray (my emphasis) (§ 16) Mōt ek dustr im. ew na oč‘ hayec‘aw i na, ew oč‘ gnac‘ mōt: Ew asē t‘agaworn. Urac‘ar zis, ew sirec‘er zmolorec‘uc‘ič‘n. et‘ē oč‘ daṙnas yamaṙ mtac‘ k‘oc‘ erdueal yastuacsn amenayn č‘ar mahuamb korusic‘ zk‘ez ew zna ([Ališan], 34, 8-15) ‘Come near, my daughter’. But she did not look at him and did not come near. And the king said: ‘Have you renounced me? Have you been smitten with this impostor? If you do not distance yourself from your obstinate thoughts, I swear to you by all the gods that I will make you die a nasty death, you and him’ (my emphasis)

Sanatruk’s threats do not rattle Sanduxt, who replies by confirming her faithfulness to the creator God that Thaddaeus made her know; it is interesting to notice that she calls God ‘king of kings’, an ­expression

172

holy women preachers and apostles

that might have a political undertone in a discourse addressed to the king of Armenia: (§ 16) Or koč‘es molorec‘uc‘ič‘, na zis i xawarē i loys p‘oxeac‘, ew canoyc‘ inj ztēr im zararič‘n erkni ew erkri, ew zOrdin miacin, ew zsurb Hogin or i noc‘unc‘. es p‘ut‘am aṙ tēr im K‘ristos, na ē teranc‘ ew t‘agawor t‘agaworac‘, or ē loys ew keank‘ amenayn araracoc‘ ([Ališan], 34, 16-24) He whom you call impostor, he has brought me from the shadows to the light and has made me know my Lord, creator of heaven and earth, and his only Son and the Holy Spirit that comes from them. I hasten to my Lord, the Christ; he is the Lord of lords and the king of kings, light and life of all creatures.

The following passage summarises the main faults that according to the king make Thaddaeus punishable by death. To the king, Thaddaeus is responsible for having removed Sanduxt from him, her father, as well as from the gods of the kingdom and from the prerogatives of a princess: (§ 26) Ziard gołac‘ar zmits č‘k‘nał kusin dstern imoy, ew grawec‘er zna i k‘ez, ew heṙac‘uc‘er zna i hayreni at‘oṙoys imoy, i ciranazgest ew yoskehuṙ patuoys. ew ararer ateli astuacoc‘n meroc‘. ew ararer zna orpēs zmi yałk‘atac‘, minč‘ew c‘asumn srtmtut’ean imoy koroys zna i sur anołorm ([Ališan], 50, 5-14) How have you enchanted the lovely virgin, my daughter, and captured her, how have you removed her from the seat of her father, me, as well as from the honour of the purple and gold-embroidered attire; how have you rendered her hateful to our gods and into a wretched sort, so that the outburst of my wrath has killed her by a merciless sword? (my emphasis)

The apostle replies to these questions by mentioning Sanduxt’s rebirth through baptism: (§ 27) Ardarew es gołac‘ay zna i saṙnamaneac‘ ew yandndayin ptutic‘ č‘arameṙ ew xawarayin gorcoc’ č‘ar paštamanc‘n jeroc‘, ork‘ jōnealk‘d ēk‘ Anahtay kṙamol diwac‘n: Ew grawec‘i zmits nora i K‘ristos, cnanelov erknawor cnndeamb surb awazanawn, ew heṙac‘uc‘anel zna i k‘o hayreni płcuteanc‘n. zgec‘oyc‘ nma K‘ristos p‘aṙs lusełēns zerknawor čaṙagayt‘sn ([Ališan], 50, 16-51, 2). It is true that it is I who have enchanted her, taking her to the glacial and infernal chasms from the deadly and murky works of your evil cults, you who are devoted to the idol of the goddess Anahit. I have seized her thought in the Christ, by making her be born in a celestial



holy women preachers and apostles173

birth through the holy basin, to remove her from your defilement, from you who are her father. The Christ has dressed her in the luminous glory of heavenly rays (my emphasis)

This passage associates the father’s defilement with idolatry, especially with the veneration of the goddess Anahit, who as we previously saw was the favourite deity of pre-Christian Armenia. The connection between paganism and defilement constitutes a topos in the Christian apologetic texts and is very frequent in the apocryphal literature, too.49 In other passages, Sanduxt herself opposes the deities worshipped by her father and his subjects, notably in the following excerpt, which at the same time contains the text’s first profession of faith, as well as the first accusation – spoken to the king – against the vanity of idolatry. The fact that these words are put in Sanduxt’s rather than the apostle’s mouth reinforces her importance in the MartThad: (§ 16) Ew asē t‘agaworn. Ov ē na or koč‘es Astuac ew Hayr: Asē surbn Sanduxt. Astuac, na ē Astuac, or arar zamenayn yoč‘ĕnč‘ē, ew hastateac‘ zamenayn araracs baniw beranov iwrov, ew jer moloreal mitk‘ ew xawareal xorhurdk‘ t‘ołeal zAstuac zararič‘n jer, or zjez yoč‘ĕnč‘ē arar ew hastateac‘. ew duk‘ paganēk‘ erkir uruakanac‘ kṙoc‘ meṙeloteac‘, or oč‘ tesanen ew oč‘ lsen yorum bnakeal en dewk‘, or xawareal korusin zmits jer, ew ararin zjew ordis gehenin: Ard unik‘ ert‘al i xawarn artak‘in gorcakc‘awn jerov satanayiw, ur lal ač‘ac‘ ē ew krčel atamanc‘ ([Ališan], 34, 24-35, 16) And the king said: ‘Who is he whom you call God and Father?’ St. Sanduxt said: ‘God is He who has created all from nothing and who has strengthened all creatures by his word, with his mouth; but your misdirected thoughts and your advice full of darkness have abandoned God, your creator, who created and strengthened you from nothing. And you worship the simulacra of lifeless idols that neither see nor hear and in which demons reside that offend and lose your thought and that have turned you into children of Gehenna. You must therefore go with your companion, Satan, to the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30)

  We find the same connection in Agat‘angełos’ History of Armenia § 149, which we examined in ch. VI: cf. Calzolari, ‘Le sang des femmes’, 183-4 and supra, ch. VI, § 4.

49

174

holy women preachers and apostles

2.2.7.  Sanduxt’s initiation and her role as preacher: Tikin Sanduxt On the eve of her second martyrdom (MartThad 23), Sanduxt is initiated. She can now assist the apostle in his activity: indeed we see her preach, console, take care of her companions and of martyrs, and also, like an apostle, perform miracles and convert many souls, including Zarmanduxt: (§ 19) ew mxit‘arēr surbn Sanduxt zamenayn hawatac‘ealsn. kerakrēr znosa hac‘iw ew zgec‘uc‘anēr handerjiw, ew oč‘inč‘ aṙnēr noc‘a pakas, ew k‘arozēr zbann kenac‘, ew darjuc‘anēr zbazums aṙnelov nšans ew sk‘anč‘elis ([Ališan], 39, 23-40, 4). And St. Sanduxt consoled all the believers. She nourished them with bread, dressed them with clothes, and let them lack for nothing. She preached the word of life and converted many people by signs and miracles [the aforementioned conversion of Zarmanduxt then follows] (my emphasis)

Sanatruk himself recognises that his daughter, a greatly transformed woman able to assist Thaddaeus in his mission, is now in the process of leading people yet further away: ‘more and more, she leads everyone astray’ (MartThad 2050 Na zamenesean aṙawel molorec‘uc‘anē). These words contribute to the emphasis on her role as preacher. Everything happens as if Sanduxt must not die before completing her mission. Before her first condemnation we see her exhort ‘with a strong voice’ her companions in faith, uttering exhortations that elsewhere are pronounced by the apostle or by God himself: (§ 15) Asē surbn Sanduxt mecabarbaṙ jayniw c‘hawatac‘eal ĕnkera­ kic‘sn iwr c‘ncalov. Ełbark‘ im, pind kac‘ēk‘ ew zōrac‘aruk‘ i K‘ristos ([Ališan], 33, 16-21) With a strong voice, St. Sanduxt said to her companions in faith, exulting: ‘My brothers, be firm and strong in Christ’

Moreover, a passage from the MartThad mentions charitable works that Sanduxt accomplished toward her companions in faith: (§ 11) Yaynžam yłēr i tun iwr surbn Sanduxt gałt i hōrēn iwrmē ew tayr berel barak ktaws, ew aṙeal zhawatac‘eal surb ĕnkersn, amp‘op‘ēr zmarmins noc‘a, hamburēr ew asēr. ‘Erani ē jez, ełbark‘ im ew k‘ork‘. ork‘ aržani ełēk‘ erknawor uraxut‘anc‘n, yišec‘ēk‘ ew zis załaxins jer.   [Ališan], 40, 18-9.

50



holy women preachers and apostles175

Ew t‘ałēt znosa mōt yaparans iwr, ew tayr zgušut‘iwn, zi mi ok‘ gitasc‘ē yark‘uni tanēn ([Ališan], 26, 25-27, 11). And as it was night… St. Sanduxt sent (someone) to her house, unbeknownst to her father, to fetch some fine linen. Having taken her holy companions in faith (scil. the believers killed by the king’s order), she shrouded their bodies, embraced them, and said: ‘Happiness to you, my brothers and sisters, who have become worthy of heavenly joys; remember me as well, your servant’. And she buried them close to her palace and made sure that no one from the royal house knew of it.51

All passages quoted thus far show that the author of the Armenian MartThad in his portrait of Thaddaeus’ first disciple does not adopt the model of Thecla as holy virgin – the one used by the Greek and Latin Church Fathers and also by Agat‘angełos in his portrayal of Hṙips‘imē52 – but rather the model of Thecla as female apostle, a role she had in the most ancient apocryphal Acts. After her martyrdom, Sanduxt, whom the text had previously referred to as a ‘young girl’ (ałǰik)53, is called ‘Lady’, tikin in Armenian (which can also mean ‘queen’), an epithet that as we have seen was also used reverentially for St. Thecla (in Faustus of Byzantium, History of Armenia IV, 10),54 for the Mother of God (e.g. in Gregory of Narek),55 and, in the pre-Christian era, for the goddess Anahit (Agat‘angełos, History of Armenia § 53). These are the great ladies of ancient Armenia’s religious literature and history, to whom we must also add Hṙip‘simē. They are united in the model of the saint from Iconium, who influenced many of the portrayals of them in the major texts on the history of Christianity.

  See Armenian text in the synopsis.   On this topic, see supra, ch. VI. 53   The same epithet is used for Hṙip‘simē in Agat‘angełos § 202, 249 and passim, in the excerpt presented in ch. VI. 54   On the epithet tikin for the goddess Anahit and St. Thecla, see supra, ch. VII, § 7; cf. Calzolari, ‘De sainte Thècle à Anahit’, 48-9. See also the following note. 55   On the use of tikin for the Virgin, see Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 251-2, already cited supra. 51 52

176

holy women preachers and apostles

In conclusion The long introduction on the origin of the Greek AThec (supra, I.1) now raises new considerations. Now that we have confirmed that the AThec was among the literary models of the MartThad and that the Thecla paradigm as holy apostle influenced the portrayal of Sanduxt, what conclusions can be drawn from this? Can Sanduxt’s role as preacher in the MartThad give us any clues on the place of women in ancient Armenian Christianity? Do the numerous traces of intertextuality between the AThec and the MartThad not suggest that we are dealing with a purely literary reworking of the story, especially since the figure of Thecla was a model for other ancient Armenian literary works, too? Against this last hypothesis one may object that literary texts are always prone to anticipate the expectations of their readership and thus to include – even if just implicitly or indirectly – references to religious practices that really existed. This objection can be formulated more explicitly: why would the text adopt the model of holy preacher rather than that of holy virgin if the former were completely alien to the Armenian Church? The research is particularly tricky in this regard and must necessarily take other elements beyond the testimonies of the texts themselves into account. The nature of the main two texts influenced by the AThec, namely the MartThad and Agat‘angełos’ History – both of them on the founding of the Armenian Church and from the point of view of the Church56 – might weaken rather than strengthen the possibility of finding any traces in these texts of ‘lost Christianities’, to use the expression of B.D. Ehrman in his work of that title,57 that is, testimonies on the existence of religious movements or practices that are only known in part or that have completely disappeared. And so we must be very cautious. The apocryphal texts can and must be taken into consideration in reconstructing the history of Christianity. For   The official philo-Greek current, which is represented by the Pahlawuni and attested by Agat‘angełos, and the philo-Syrian current, which was a minority but did exist and is assumed by the MartThad (see supra, ch. II, § 2; cf. Calzolari, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy, 31) and of which there are traces in the Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ as well, to mention but these two works. 57   B. Ehrman, Lost Christianities. The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford, 2003). 56



holy women preachers and apostles177

example, the Martyrdom of Philip and the Martyrdom of Andrew allow us to find traces of Encratism in Armenia.58 In the case of the MartThad, on the other hand, the testimony is insufficient. The hypothesis of the existence of female communities is not thereby rejected, but it must be corroborated by other evidence. And so historians have their work cut out for them.59

 See infra, ch. IX-X. The information we can draw from these two apocryphal texts overlaps with what we know on the diffusion of Eustathian Encratist movements in Armenia thanks to e.g. the canons of the Synod of Gangra (see infra, ch. X, § 1). 59   Regarding Armenian female ascetic movements, the matter has been researched by Z. Pogossian, ‘Female Asceticism in Early Medieval Armenia’, Le Muséon 125 (2012) 169-213. This chapter was written before the recent publication of D. Zakarian, Women, Too, Were Blessed: The Portrayal of Women in Early Christian Armenian Texts (Leiden and Boston, 2021), on the representation of women in 5th-century Armenian literature and historiography. 58

Part Three

The Armenian Translation of the Martyrdom of Andrew and of the Martyrdom of Philip

IX. The Armenian Translation of the Martyrdom of Andrew: Christology, Encratism, and the ‘Inner Man’*

1.  The transmission of Christian apocryphal texts in the Eastern ­v­ersions The Martyrdom of Andrew (MartA) is the final section of the Acts of Andrew (AA),1 an apocryphal text that was probably written in Asia Minor in the 2nd century AD.2 The AA is first mentioned (along with the Acts of John and the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias) at the beginning of the 4th century, by Eusebius of Caesarea. In his HE (III, 25), Eusebius states that the thought and doctrine of these writings depart radically from orthodoxy; he considers them to be fabricated by heretics and thinks they should be totally rejected as absurd and impious texts. His condemnation led to a long series of attacks against the AA and the other apocryphal Acts, attacks that were often based on prejudice and on criteria of orthodoxy completely alien to the period in which the most ancient apocryphal Acts were produced (2nd-3rd centuries): AA, Acts of Paul, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Peter, Acts of John. As we know, the censorship by the Great Church of   Translated from the French by Dr Benedict Beckeld.  Cf.  J.-M. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 2 vols (Turnhout, 1989); D.R. MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew and The Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals (Atlanta, 1990); MacDonald has also produced a study on the possible sources of the AA, notably in profane Greek literature: cf. D.R. MacDonald, Christianizing Homer (New York and Oxford, 1994). See also J.N. Bremmer, ‘Man, Magic, and Martyrdom in the Acts of Andrew’, in Id., Maidens, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity, 115-31; Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae Apocrypha. The Greek passages mentioned in this chapter will be cited following Prieur’s (P) edition. 2  Bremmer, ibid., 114-5. * 1

182

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

the apocryphal Christian texts had serious consequences for their diffusion and transmission: some of these works were completely lost; others have come down to us, but only in few and often fragmentary copies; others yet were altered or purged of all heterodox passages. But the reception of the apocryphal works was not always the same across the oikoumene. Certain texts, in fact, which in the West were condemned by the Church, continued to circulate in Eastern Christian communities in the form of translations. In many cases, versions in Eastern languages, including Armenian, played an essential role in this process. The Armenian version of the MartA is a fundamental tool for restoring the Greek text. It preserves several likely primitive passages that were lost in the original Greek. Our goal here is to analyse some of these passages that have come down to us solely through the Armenian version. We shall pay particular attention to the excerpts that hold out the promise of clarifying the way in which censorship sometimes intervened in the original Greek text. The analysis of these passages will be preceded by a general discussion of the translation technique in the Armenian MartA and of the passages that betray a doctrinal intention on the part of the translator. Knowledge of the mechanisms that guided the translator’s alterations is in fact indispensable for distinguishing the secondary developments in the Armenian from the original Greek testimonies, and this distinction is our main interest here. Before proceeding to our analysis, it would seem useful to recall some general information on the Greek AA and on its Armenian version. 2.  The Acts of Andrew 2.1.  The Greek text The AA is an exemplary case of the vicissitudes suffered by the apocryphal texts over the centuries. There is no extant manuscript that contains the complete Greek text of the AA. The first part, which describes the apostle’s journey from the Pontus to Achaea, is known only thanks to a Latin epitome by Gregory of Tours (died in 593) that was based on a Latin version of the original text.3 Gregory often   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 551-651 and MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew, 179-317. For the part corresponding to chapter 18 of Gregory’s epitome we also have the testimony of the incomplete fragment of the Coptic papyrus

3



the armenian translation of the martyrdom183

altered his sources by omitting or changing the sections that he deemed long-winded, heretical, or too prone to the fantastical.4 The part of the Acts that concerns Achaea and that ends with the Martyr­ dom in Patras has come down to us in a very fragmentary state, in the form of excerpts, epitomes, rewrites, and translations.5 On the basis of these direct and indirect testimonies, two hypotheses on the reconstitution of the original Greek text have been proposed, in two critical editions by, respectively, J.-M. Prieur and D.R. MacDonald.6 2.2.  The Armenian version of the Martyrdom of Andrew The only proper edition of the Armenian version of the MartA appeared in Venice in 1904, under the aegis of K‘. Č‘rak‘ean;7 it was based on three testimonies from the Mekhitarist library in Venice. It is difficult to date this version, due to the lack of exact external criteria. We recall that L. Leloir, to whom we owe a French translation of the MartA, considered the Armenian translations of the apocryphal Acts, including the MartA, to be likely later than the golden Utrecht 1, whose first translation was published, in English, in G. Quispel, ‘An Unknown Fragment of the Acts of Andrew’, VigChris 10 (1956) 129-48. The fragment was then edited by R. van den Broek and translated into French in Prieur, Acta Andreae, 653-71. 4   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 8-12, 119; MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew, 15-9, 181-5. 5   For the various witnesses of the AA, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 2-31, 423-35. 6   The two editions generally agree with each other, except for the different approach to the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the Land of the Anthropoph­ agi: Prieur, Acta Andreae, 32-5, following J. Flamion, Les Actes Apocryphes de l’Apôtre André, 269-324, considers it to be late and independent of the AA, while MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew, 3-47, 61-177, publishes it at the beginning of the AA and thus considers it to be a part of one single work; on this topic, see A. Hilhorst and P. J. Lalleman, ‘The Acts of Andrew and Matthias: Is it part of the original Acts of Andrew?’, in J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew (Leuven, 2000) 1-14. See also the new edition of the fragment of the AA that is preserved in the MS. Vat. gr. 808 (fol. 507r-512v) by Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae Apocrypha, 110-34 (already published by Bonnet in AAA, vol. II, 1, 33-50); cf. L. Roig Lanzillotta, ‘Vaticanus Graecus 808 Revisited. A Re-evaluation of the Oldest Fragment of Acta Andreae’, Scriptorium 56 (2001) 126-40. 7  Č‘rak‘ean, Ankanon girk‘, 146-67 (Č‘ in the following). His edition was translated into French by Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 228-57.

184

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

age, and placed them in the 6th-7th centuries AD.8 The Armenian MartA corresponds to chapters 47-65 of the Greek AA. We do not know whether the translator possessed the Greek AA in its entirety or only the text of the Martyrdom. A circulation and separate translation of the Martyrdom can at least not be excluded, since in several other cases the final section of apocryphal Acts of the apostles was translated independently.9 As has already been observed, the Armenian version includes a few passages that are absent from the Greek original.10 The importance of these passages did not escape the most recent editors of the Greek AA: Prieur, who knew them through Leloir’s French translation, offers his observations on them in the pages of his Commentaire; MacDonald for his part inserts them into the Greek text and offers an English translation with the aid of an Armenian scholar, Th. J. Samuelian.11 But none of these extracts have been subjected to a direct and full analysis, which would seek to identify the linguistic, stylistic, and lexical characteristics of the Armenian version (in brief, the translator’s usus vertendi). Only such an analysis can allow us to distinguish the divergences of a likely Greek variant from differences that are simply caused by the exigencies of adapting Greek language structures to those of the target language.12

  Leloir, ‘Rapports’, 137-48, at 138.   Leloir, ‘Les Actes apocryphes d’André’, 193-4; Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, vol. 2, 397. 10   Among the longest Armenian extracts we mention especially the speech on the devil’s work, which will be examined infra (Č‘ 147, 24-149, 15; cf. P 49, 8-50, 17); the allegory of the eagle, which is completely absent from the Greek (Č‘ 152, 18-154, 22; the Armenian text corresponds to the end of P 53); the speech of the apostle on the cross (Č‘ 154, 24-156, 22), which in Greek can be reconstructed only through indirect testimony (the Martyrium prius and the Laudatio): cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 14-17, 236-65, 428-30, 673-83, 735-45. 11  MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew, 322-3; see my review in Le Muséon 106 (1993) 198-200. The testimony of the Armenian is also important to Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae Apocrypha, 4, 39-40, 71-4, 87, 92-3, and passim. 12   Here it will suffice to point out that the translator has avoided calques from Greek syntax and has preferred to flesh out implicitly Greek structures like participles, genitive absolutes, infinitives, etc. See Calzolari, ‘Particola­ rità sintattiche e lessicali della versione armena del Martirio di Andrea’. 8 9



the armenian translation of the martyrdom185

A detailed comparison between the two texts has allowed me to confirm that the translator of the Armenian MartA was not a servile sort of translator, but a writer who felt sufficiently in command of Greek to be able to depart from the source language in order to better express the original content in Armenian.13 It has also allowed me to confirm that the Armenian MartA and the Greek original differ in the speeches. In the narrative parts, the correspondence between the two texts is generally quite precise, whereas in the speeches there is a large number of divergences. It is sometimes impossible to know whether or not these are entirely imputable to the translator, given that within the framework of the direct tradition the speeches are the parts that have been modified the most, and have often been transmitted in incomplete form.14 By a critical study of the Greek variants (in Prieur’s apparatus) and of the variants preserved in several important unpublished Armenian manuscripts, I have been able to verify that the Armenian text shows a considerable degree of proximity to the Greek version that Prieur deemed to be the best one.15 While this latter, as well as the Armenian version, thus seem to derive from a common ancestor, the Armenian text still seems more faithful to that ancestor in many places than does the Greek.16   The translator’s mastery of Greek is also clear from his ability to recognise and translate rare Greek verbs, such as ὀπτρίζομαι (P 47, 12), which means ‘see as in a mirror’ (Prieur, Acta Andreae, 500, note 2) and whose semantic field the translator grasped in translating it by the Armenian verb tesanem ‘see’ (Č‘ 146, 17), probably on the basis of κατοπτριζόμενοι from 2 Cor 3:18 (translated into Armenian by the periphrasis ibrew ĕnd hayeli teseal ‘seeing as in a mirror’). This is also the case with the hapax στερρύνω (P 53, 22, cf.  στερρόω ‘solidify, strenghten’, στερρότης ‘firmness, solidity’, στερρός ‘solid, hard, strong’), which the translator understood and translated as zōrac‘eal linim ‘become strong’ (Č‘ 152, 14). There are a few errors, however, such as the two times the translator does not recognise the verb ἀνιάω ‘afflict, torment’, and translates it as t‘ołum ‘let’, which corresponds rather to Gr. ἐάω or ἀνίημι (P 54, 17 ἀνιᾶσαι ‘afflict’: Č‘ 157, 4 t‘ołul ‘let’, and P 62, 24 ἀνιᾶσῃ ‘you will grieve’: Č‘ 165, 8-9 t‘ołc‘es ‘you will let’). 14   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 5-6. 15   For a classification of the Greek manuscripts, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 431-5. 16   I have offered the results of this analysis in Calzolari, ‘La versione armena del Martirio di Andrea’. 13

186

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

These, put briefly, are the chief considerations regarding the characteristics of the Armenian MartA translation. We must now reveal the points that betray the translator’s bias in doctrine. 3.  Excerpts of the Armenian MartA that betray the translator’s doc­ trinal bias We observe as an initial, more general point, that the Armenian translator tends to interpret the Greek text with inspiration from the Bible,17 as in the following passages: (P 64, 17-18) Τὰ σά... ἅμα σοὶ πορευέσθω ‘may your goods come with you’, translated as Č‘ 167, 14-15 inč‘k‘ k‘o ĕnd k‘ez ełic‘i i korust ‘may your goods come with you into perdition’, which recalls Acts 8:20 Τὸ ἀργύριόν σου σὺν σοὶ εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν = Arm. arcat‘ k‘o ĕnd k‘ez lic‘i i korust ‘may your money come with you into perdition’; (P 55, 11) Οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ἀκούειν ‘he cannot hear’, translated as Č‘ 157, 19-20 oč‘ uni akanǰs lseloy ‘he has no ears for hearing’, which recalls Matt 11:15; 13:9.43; etc. Ὁ ἔχων ὦτα, ἀκουέτω, translated in turn as unic‘i akanǰs lseloy luic‘ē ‘he who has ears for hearing, may he hear’; (P 52, 10) δὲ φέρειν τὰ ἐπαγόμενα ‘carry what has been imposed’, translated as Č‘ 151, 7-8 baṙnal zbeṙn irerac‘ ‘to carry each other’s weights’, which is similar to Gal 6:2 Ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε, translated as zmimeanc‘ beṙn barjēk‘ ‘to carry each other’s weights’.

A second peculiarity is the fundamental role of God’s ‘commandements’. While in Greek there is only one reference to the ‘Lord’s commandment’ (P 39, 4 τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἐντολήν),18 in Armenian there is several times the necessity of fulfilling God’s ‘commandments’, which are gradually described as ‘sweet’, ‘delicious’, ‘luminous’, ‘blessed’, ‘desirable’, and are considered as a natural ornament for the soul.19 The importance that the translator lays on the divine   Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, in the notes to his French translation, points out the series of Biblical and especially New Testament references in the Armenian MartA. On the Biblical quotes in the AA, see also Prieur, Acta Andreae, 404-5; L. Leloir, review of Prieur, in RHE 85 (1990) 361-2; Leloir, ‘Les Actes apocryphes d’André’, 197-8. 18  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 490, note 2. 19   See the following passages, which are all absent from the Greek: Č‘ 148, 16-7 zi zna siresc‘uk‘ ew zpatuirans nora arasc‘uk‘ ‘so that we may love 17



the armenian translation of the martyrdom187

commandments becomes clear in the explicit of the MartA: the Greek Ἐνταῦθά που τὸ τέλος τῶν μακαρίων μου διηγημάτων ποιήσαιμι καὶ πράξεων καὶ μυστηρίων δυσφράστων ὄντων ἵνα μὴ καὶ ἀφράστων εἴπω ‘may I achieve here my blessed story of the acts and mysteries that are difficult if not impossible to express’ (P 65, 1-3) is translated into Armenian as ayl inj ełic‘i yaysmhetē xokal yeraneli ew i c‘ankali patuirans Teaṙn or ančaṙk‘ en ew anhasanelik‘ ‘but may there now be time for me to think of the blessed and desirable commandments of the Lord, which are indescribable and inaccessible’ (Č‘ 167, 20-22). In some passages the translator seems to have revised the Greek for the purpose of suppressing any ambiguity, as in the following snippets: a) Having confirmed the instability of men and their customs, Andrew explains that this happens ‘because of the uneducated soul which is misled in nature’ (P 47, 9-10 διὰ τὴν ἀπαίδευτον ψυχὴν τὴν εἰς φύσιν πλανηθεῖσαν), that is, as Prieur explains, in the body and its connections.20 The Greek is translated into Armenian as anxrat anjin or iwrov isk kamōk‘ molorec‘an21 ‘the uneducated soul which, by its own will, is misled’ (Č‘ 146, 13-14). We may assume that the translator perceived the possibility of a determinist interpretation of the expression εἰς φύσιν as an equivalent of κατὰ φύσιν or πρὸς τὴν φύσιν, ‘by nature, according to (his) nature’, and therefore intentionally corrected the passage by ‘translating’ εἰς φύσιν by the reflexive pronoun iwr ‘own’, and the noun kamk‘ ‘will’, in the instrumental.22 him (scil. God) and fulfil his commandments’ (cf. 1 John 5:2); Č‘ 152, 21-22 yałags k‘ałc‘r ew hešt patuiranac‘n Astucoy ‘(the demons… argue with us) about the sweet and delicious commandments of God’; Č‘ 153, 8-9 zar­ daric‘emk‘ zmez lusełēn patuiranawn ew hogełinac‘n aṙak‘inut‘eambk‘ ‘we prepare for the luminous commandment and spiritual virtues’. 20  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 333. 21   On the basis of the comparison with the Greek, I follow the variant in the Venice MS. 731 molorec‘an ‘she went astray’ (cf. gr. πλανηθεῖσαν, ‘led astray’), in place of that retained in Č‘rak‘ean: molic‘in ‘she went insane’. 22  Augustine, Contra Felicem II, 6, recalls different expressions in the AA (cited as ‘Acts written by Leucius’) that allude to men who live in error due to the toxic influence of the sensory world (per se ipsum deterior factus est per seductionem). Augustine changes the meaning of the source in a similar way as the Armenian translator and thereby shines a light on man’s free will, a concept that is not in the original text. Cf. Junod and Kaestli, L’histoire des

188

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

b) From the Greek Ὁ ... διάβολος τὰ ἴδια τέκνα ὁπλίσει ‘the devil will arm his own children’ (P 49, 8), we read in Armenian ban­ sarkun zor xotorec‘uc‘eal yAstucoy arar iwr ordis, zineal vaṙē ‘the devil, after having armed them, excites those he made his children by removing them from God’ (Č‘ 147, 25-26); the relative clause specifies the meaning of the expression ‘children of the devil’.23 In this case, too, the translator emphasises that one cannot be a ‘child of the devil’ by nature, but that one becomes it if one yields to the Evil one. The Armenian text contains more material on the devil’s works than does the Greek,24 and so we have in the former a sharper image of the evil actions of the demon, who intervenes in the lives of men to make them carry out his wishes. It is interesting that a great many active transitive verbs have the devil as subject and men as object. The latter submit to the former’s action. Satan effectively ‘makes men remove themselves from God… brings them to perdition… fights against those who love peace… takes them away from eternal life… fights against those who are not his… fools their thoughts… makes them fall… makes them his children’. The devil’s fight against those whom he is unable to bring into his ranks is described in numerous military terms.25 Only the illumination that comes from the Word reflecting Actes apocryphes des apôtres du IIIe au IXe siècle, 64: ‘Pour Augustin, la phrase de Leucius signifie clairement que l’homme est pécheur non par nature, mais par volonté ... en cédant à la séduction du Diable’. 23   On the ‘children of the devil’, cf. 1 John 3:10 and Matt 13:38. 24   On the figure of the devil and on demoniacal powers in the AA, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 367-72. 25   See the series of Armenian expressions that refer to the devil’s works. They sometimes have no Greek equivalent (a), and sometimes are an amplified or lightly altered version of the original (b): a) Č‘ 148, 3-4 zi korusc‘ē zmardik or yastuacut‘enēn ‘to lead men (who were created) by the divinity into perdition’; Č‘ 148, 7 paterazmi ĕnd sirołs patueal xałałut‘ean ‘he fights against those who love peace and honour it’; Č‘ 148, 23-25 aṙ i xotorec‘uc‘aneloy yararč‘ēn mermē Astucoy. ew hanic‘ē yawitenakan kenac‘n ‘in order to remove (men) from God our Creator and to take them away from eternal life’; b) Č‘ 147, 26 zineal vaṙē ‘after having armed them, he incites’ (cf. P 49, 8 ὁπλίσει); Č‘ 148, 8 ĕnd aynosik martnč‘i or oč‘ iwrn en ‘he fights against those who are not his’ (cf. P 49, 12 τὸν μὴ ἴδιον); Č‘ 148, 10 patrē zmits aynoc‘ik or oč‘n čanač‘en zAstuac ‘he fools the thought of those who do not know God’ (cf. P 49, 13-14 καὶ μηδέπω δυνάμενον γνωρίζεσθαι); Č‘ 148, 19-20 oč‘ erewec‘uc‘anēr ziwr t‘oynsn nengawors ‘he did not show his insidious poisons’ (cf. P 49, 19 ἐχθρὸς μὲν



the armenian translation of the martyrdom189

the divine will and design allows men the awareness that they are being dominated by the flattery of the Evil one, as can be read in P 50, 3-5 (cf. Č‘ 148, 25-28). After emphasising the role of divine revelation, the text continues through a series of reflexive pronouns referring to the demon, who is now hated and sees that his talents are being ridiculed. Men’s awareness thanks to revelation causes the devil to be demoted from agent and to himself become the object of others’ actions. The Armenian text also differs from the original in its attitude to soteriology. Whereas the Greek does not remark on salvation through Christ,26 the Armenian contains numerous references to the coming of the Lord and to the work of Redemption through the Passion. The soteriological question is notably present in Andrew’s speech on the devil’s work, in one of the trickiest passages of the Greek AA, involving the identification of the anarchos. A direct comparison of the two versions at least partly clarifies this section of the MartA, which by dint of its importance must be examined here in a separate section. 4.  Is every Christological reference in the Martyrdom of Andrew to be excluded? The antithesis between the work of Christ and the ‘prince of angels’ The passage in question is part of Andrew’s last private speech to his disciples. Announcing that his martyrdom is imminent – as a result of the devil’s enmity against all who love Jesus – he then enters upon a digression on the devil and his works,27 where the term ἄναρχος (anarchos), ‘without-beginning’, is introduced, which has been the object of controversial interpretations. Already Prieur evaluated the importance of the comparison with the Armenian version for understanding this obscure excerpt, and in his commentary he offered a synoptic table between the Greek and Leloir’s French translation of οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο); Č‘ 148, 20-22 i sērs anaṙaks ew i č‘aris płcut‘ean zmardik arkanelov ‘making men fall into lustful love and into the evil of impurity’ (cf. P 49, 17-18 Ὑποβάλλων γὰρ αὐτῷ τὰ ἴδια πολλάκις διέγραψεν ἐνήδονα ὄντα καὶ ἀπατηλά); Č‘ 148, 22-23 zi i moṙac‘ut‘iwns ew i heł­ gut‘iwns acc‘ē zmardik ‘in order to lead men to oblivion and neglect’ (cf. P 50, 1-2 ὡς εἰς λήθην). 26   In Prieur’s opinion: Acta Andreae, 301, 365 and passim. 27   Cf. P 49, 8-50, 17 and Č‘ 147, 24-149, 15.

190

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

the Armenian.28 All the same, an analysis directly between the Armenian text and its Greek original reveals more exact parallels between the two texts and allows us to correct the table in Prieur. This also leads, of course, to a new interpretative hypothesis. In order for the reader to grasp more clearly the comparisons in question, I offer here: 1) Prieur’s synoptic table for the passage;29 2) the changes that I have deemed necessary. 1) P 49, 11-4 ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς πάντων ἀρχῆς, καὶ εἰ δεῖ λέγειν, ἐξ οὗπερ ὁ ἄναρχος τῇ ὑπ’ αὐτὸν ἀρχῇ κατῆλθεν ἀπωθῆσαι 30

ὁ πολέμιος εἰρήνης ἀλλότριος, τὸν μὴ ἴδιον, ἀλλὰ μόνον τινὰ τῶν ἀσθενεστέρων καὶ περιφανῆ καὶ μηδέπω δυνάμενον γνωρίζεσθαι. Καὶ διὰ τὸ μηδὲ αὐτὸν ἐπίστασθαι, ...

Leloir, Écrit apocryphes, 234-5 Comme il était prince des anges et créé avant tous , s’il est nécessaire de dire, il est tombé des cieux comme l’éclair, afin de perdre les hommes par la divinité. Aussi le Seigneur de gloire, éternel et incorruptible, est-il venu sur terre, pour le chasser du nous et perdre, qui lutte continuellement avec ceux qui aiment honorent la paix. Lui-même, en effet, est étranger à la paix, et il lutte avec ceux qui ne sont pas siens; alors qu’il est lui-même faible, impuissant et invisible d’aspect, il séduit les ésprit de ceux qui ne connaissent pas Dieu.

 Prieur, Acta Andreae, 218-26, 208-9.  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 219-20. 30   The angle brackets indicate the lacuna that M. Bonnet had already identified in AAA, vol. II, 1 (Leipzig, 1898, repr. Darmstadt, 1959) 45, 2 and was assumed by Prieur, Acta Andreae, 502, note 4, containing the object of ἀποθῆσαι, ‘remove’, and the verb for which ὁ πολέμιος, ‘the enemy’, is the subject, and of which τὸν ἴδιον ‘he who is not his’ is the direct object. For the Greek lacuna, the Armenian has the accusative of the personal pronoun zna, followed by the relative clause or yamenayn žam paterazmi ĕnd sirołs xałałut‘ean patueal, ‘he who at every hour fights against those who love peace and honour it’. This Armenian material, however, is not helpful for restoring the Greek since, as we have seen, the MartA refers to Satan’s works far more than does the Greek. 28 29



the armenian translation of the martyrdom191

Prieur was probably misled by Leloir’s translation into placing the Greek passage with the ἄναρχος opposite the Armenian with the ‘prince des anges... créé avant tous ’, i.e. the devil. This choice assumes that the Armenian translator interpreted the descent of the ἄναρχος as the fall of Satan and that he interpolated the reference to the coming of the Christ, ‘Lord of glory’ and Saviour of humanity, perhaps for the sake of orthodoxy.31 What Prieur did not see is that the Armenian adjective anskizbn (a compound meaning literally ‘without-beginning’) is the exact equivalent of the Greek ἄναρχος. He was probably misled by the French translation, which translates the Armenian adjective as ‘eternal’. This prevented him from grasping the exact correspondence between the Greek ἄναρχος, ‘without-beginning’, and the Armenian ‘incorruptible Lord and with­ out-beginning’, as opposed to between ἄναρχος and the ‘prince des anges [...] créé avant tous ’ [archangelos and before all the others before-created]’. We may thus alter the synoptic table in the following way: 2) P 49, 11-2 ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς πάντων ἀρχῆς, καὶ εἰ δεῖ λέγειν,

ἐξ οὗπερ ὁ ἄναρχος τῇ ὑπ’ αὐτὸν ἀρχῇ κατῆλθεν ἀπωθῆσαι

ὁ πολέμιος εἰρήνης ἀλλότριος,

 Prieur, Acta Andreae, 222.

31

Č‘ 148, 1-7 k‘anzi hreštakapet ēr ew yaṙaǰ k‘an zamenesean naxastełc, et‘ē part ic‘ē asel, vasn oroy ankawn yerknic‘ ibrew zp‘aylakn, zi korusc‘ē zmardik or yastuacut‘enēn. vasn oroy anskizbn ew anełc Tērn p‘aṙac‘ ekn yerkir, zi zna meržesc‘ē i mēnǰ, ew korusc‘ē, or yamenayn žam paterazmi ĕnd sirołs patueal xałałut‘ean. k‘anzi ew ink‘n ōtar ē i xałałut‘enē, ew ĕnd aynosik martnč‘i

192

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

τὸν μὴ ἴδιον, ἀλλὰ μόνον τινὰ τῶν ἀσθενεστέρων καὶ περιφανῆ καὶ μηδέπω δυνάμενον γνωρίζεσθαι. Translation of the Greek text

or oč‘ iwrn en. zi ink‘n tkar ē ew anzōr ew anerewoyt‘ tesleamb. patrē zmits aynoc‘ik or oč‘n čanač‘en zAstuac:

Translation of the Armenian text As it was an archangel and Since the beginning of all things, and, before all things before-created, if it is necessary to say, if it is necessary to say (it), for this reason, he fell from the heavens like lightning, to waste the men who (were created) by God; since the without-beginning for this reason, the without-beginning and incorruptible Lord of glory descended came onto the earth toward the beginning (that is) under him to remove to remove him

from us and waste him, he who at every hour fights against those who love peace and honour it. the enemy, For he (scil. the devil) is himself stranger to peace a stranger to peace,

and he fights against he who is not his, those who are not his. but only someone Because he himself of the weaker, is weak and powerless and invisible and invisible to sight, he fools the souls of those and not yet who do not (being) able to be known/know himself. know God.



the armenian translation of the martyrdom193

4.1.  Formal analysis of the two texts This second synoptic table sheds light on the formal proximity between the Greek temporal expression ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς πάντων ἀρχῆς ‘since the beginning of all things’, and the Armenian yaṙaǰ k‘an zame­ nesean ‘before all things’, which depends on the compound Armenian adjective naxastełc ‘before-created’, which refers to the archangel fallen from heaven. The table also reveals a formal proximity between the Greek relative-explicative ἐξ οὗπερ ‘because of this, for this reason, since’ (preposition + genitive relative pronoun), and the Armenian vasn oroy ‘because of this, for this reason’ (preposition + genitive relative pronoun). The Armenian is followed by the adjective anskizbn ‘without-beginning’, which is formed by the negative prefix an and the noun skizbn ‘beginning’ (= Gr. ἀρχῆ) and which is thus a calque of the Greek ἄναρχος. In the Armenian text, the adjective serves as an epithet for the ‘Lord of glory’ (Tērn p‘aṙac‘), who is also described as anełc ‘incorruptible’ (quote from James 2:1 and 1 Cor 2:8,32 absent in the Greek). We must therefore juxtapose the Armenian ‘the without-beginning… came… to remove’ with the Greek ὁ ἄναρχος ... κατῆλθεν ἀπωθῆσαι ‘the without-beginning descended… to remove’. This allows us to correct Prieur, who believes that the translator understood the theme of the downfall of the ἄναρχος (‘l’abaissement de l’ἄναρχος’) as the ‘fall of the prince of angels’ (‘la chute du prince des anges’).33 Prieur interpreted the last part of the Greek text, which is clearly corrupt, as a series of epithets referring to the ἄναρχος, describing him as ‘faible... invisible et ne pouvant pas encore être connu’.34 In the Armenian text, on the other hand, it is obvious that these labels refer to the devil and not the ‘without-beginning’. The translator rendered the Greek accusative adjectives as a series of nominatives that refer to the personal pronoun ink‘n ‘himself’ (scil. Satan), except for the Greek accusative τὸν μὴ ἴδιον ‘he who is not his’, which is rendered in Armenian by an accusative direct object of the verb martnč‘i: ‘he fights against those who are not his’. 32   Cf. also T‘agawor p‘aṙac‘ ‘King of glory’, in Ps 23; 7; 8; 9; 10 (bis) and in Isa 33:17; Astuac p‘aṙac‘ ‘God of glory’, in Ps 28:3 and Acts 7:2; Hayr p‘aṙac‘ ‘Father of glory’, in Ep 1:17 (the same expression is in Č‘ 148, 15, also in a speech on the devil’s works, in a passage that is not in the Greek). 33  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 222. 34  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 222 and 225.

194

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

Finally, in spite of the difference in diathesis, there is still a grammatical proximity between the verbal forms of the Armenian oč‘n čanač‘en ‘they do not know’ and the Greek μηδέπω ... γνωρίζεσθαι ‘not yet (being able) to be known’. This proximity falsifies the hypothesis that these Armenian words and the beginning of the following sentence in Greek coincide (Καὶ διὰ τὸ μηδὲ αὐτὸν ἐπίστασθαι... ‘and it is because he did not know him…’), as Prieur’s table presumes. The Armenian text insists on the idea that the demon’s deceptiveness exercises its power on ‘the souls of those who do not know God’,35 which explains the fact that the divine revelation and illumination, which reveal man’s consciousness, also unmask the devil’s work, as one can read in P 50, 3-5 as well. Now that we have shed some light on the main parallelisms between the two texts, we should recall the interpretative hypotheses that have already been expressed on the ἄναρχος passage. 4.2.  Interpretation of the passage This passage drew the attention of E. Hennecke, who suggested that we identify the ‘without-beginning’ with God, on the basis of Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos 4 and Plato’s Leges 4 (ap. Hippolytus, Refutatio 1, 19).36 And we may add the following: Heraclides, quoted by Origen in the Dialogus cum Heraclide 2; Hymenaeus et al., Epistula ad Pau­ lum Samosatenum 2; John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Col. 5, 3. Prieur does not share Hennecke’s view. Indeed he writes: ‘L’ἄναρχος représente l’élément spirituel qui, au commencement de toutes choses, s’est abaissé dans ce qui a un commencement (ἀρχή). Il s’agit, en d’autres termes, de la venue de l’âme dans le corps’.37 The adjective ἄναρχος could indicate – as Prieur believes – the νοῦς of P 37, 22-23 or the ἄναρχος to which P 7, 2; 7, 11; 7, 19 refer. Prieur compares the downfall of the ἄναρχος with the fall of the νοῦς as it is pulled down by Eve (P 37, 22-23) and with the bewilderment of the uneducated ψυχή in nature (P 47, 9-10). According to Prieur, these are three different ways of indicating ‘l’union d’un élément supérieur et ­spirituel   P 47, 9 where, as we have seen, the uneducated soul’s ignorance is responsible for the soul’s folly. 36  E.  Hennecke, Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen, 1904) 555-6. Hennecke thought of a reference to original sin and Gen 3. 37  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 208, note 3 and 225. 35



the armenian translation of the martyrdom195

au monde matériel et inférieur’; it is the profoundly negative state of becoming, of γένεσις. But none of these passages that Prieur chose in order to clarify the concept of ἄναρχος has any vocabulary in common with the passage in question; they can therefore not be considered loci similes in the true sense of that term. As for the presence in texts other than the AA of the subject of the ἄναρχος’s descent into that which has a beginning, Prieur mentions the Corpus Hermeticum IV, 8, where we read that the good is without beginning (ἄναρχον), even if it seems to us to have a beginning (ἀρχὴν ἔχειν), as well as Plotinus, Enneades V, 1, 2, who refers to the soul.38 The opposite of the ἄναρχος is the ‘enemy’ (πολέμιος), i.e. the devil. The appellation of the Evil one as ἐχθρός ‘enemy’ is attested in the New Testament, in Matt 13:39 (recalling Matt 13:25) and Luke 10:19. The term ἐχθρός is used for the devil also in Jewish pseudepigraphical texts (e.g. in the Testament of Dan 6, 3-4; Apocalypse of Moses 2, 4; 7, 2; 25, 4; 28, 4; Life of Adam and Eve 17; the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 13, 2); in Christian apocryphal texts (e.g. AA 49, 19; 16, 8; 45, 6; Acts of Thomas 39; Acts of Andrew and Matthias 20; Acts of John 83; 84; 112; Acts of Philip 38); in the Peri Pascha 102 by Melito of Sardis; etc. The term πολέμιος refers to the demon in the Contra Celsum 5, 48; 6, 28 and the Homiliae in Jer. 5, 17 by Origen, as well as in the Commentarii in Pss. 108, 6 and the Historia Ecclesiastica 5, 39, 11 by Theodoret of Cyrrhus. In 1 P 5, 8, the διάβολος is called ἀντίδικος, an adjective that reappears with the same meaning of ‘enemy’ in the AA 63, 6 and in the Acts of John 108. Further, the Acts of John 66 and Ascension of Isaiah 11, 19 preserve the adjective ἀλλότριος ‘stranger’, which returns in the AA in P 49, 12.39 The work of the enemy is described as a trap. The devil does not openly reveal his evil action, but flatters men and seeks to capture their spirits by pretending to be their friend. The motive behind the devil’s seduction is in the New Testament, e.g. at Luke 22:31; Rom 16:17-20; 2 Cor 2:11.14-16; and 11:3-15. On the topic of the demon’s traps and ruses, Prieur recalls the Lessons of Sylvanus, NHC VII, 4; the Odes of Salomon 38; Porphyry, De abstinentia II, 40, 1.40 The devil’s fraudulent work is unmasked through revelation (cf. P 50,   On the ἄναρχος and related topics, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 207-9.   G.J.M. Bartelink, ‘‘Ἀλλότριος’ und alienus als Teufels- und Dämonenbezeichnung’, Glotta 58 (1980) 266-79. 40  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 371, note 3. 38 39

196

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

3-4). In this regard, Prieur explains that the conception of salvation in the AA must be interpreted as the effect of the revelation that the disciples received by means of the apostle’s miracles and words.41 This is the same conception as in the Acts of John.42 Now that we have rehearsed these modern commentaries,43 it would be interesting to examine how this passage was interpreted in antiquity, especially by the Armenian translator. As we have said, the second synoptic table reveals that the translator identified the ἄναρχος with the Lord who came onto the earth (who ‘descended’, according to the Greek text). The reasons for his coming are explained in the preceding passage, where the Armenian alludes to the archangel as ‘fallen from the heavens like lightning’ (ankawn yerknic‘ ibrew zp‘aylakn, a quote from Luke 10:18 tesanēi zsatanay ankeal yerknic‘ ibrew zp‘aylakn ‘I saw Satan fall from the heavens like lightning’).44 Within this passage we find two parallel turns of phrase, introduced by vasn oroy ‘therefore’, and followed by a purpose clause, with repetition of the same verb korusc‘ē ‘(in order)… to waste’, which has for its subject, respectively, the ‘archangel’ and the ‘Lord of glory’. The translator probably wanted to add a clarification before the subject of Christ’s coming, in order to render this enigmatic text more understandable: it is because Satan first fell from the heavens to waste men that the Christ in turn came to remove and waste him. A propos of the reference to Christ’s work of salvation, Prieur states: Alors que les AA sont centrés sur la lutte du démon contre l’ἄναρχος et sur la dialectique ignorance/connaissance qui caractérise cette lutte, la Passion arménienne introduit le thème, beaucoup plus orthodoxe, de l’incarnation du Christ venu pour révéler Dieu et vaincre le diable.45 41  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 226, 293-5. On Andrew’s words in the AA, see F. Bovon, ‘The Words of Life in the Acts of Andrew’, in Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, 81-95. 42   É. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, 2 vols (Turnhout, 1983) 2, 681. On the theology of the Acts of John, cf. also É. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli, ‘Les traits caractéristiques de la théologie des Actes de Jean’, RThPH 26 (1976) 125-45. 43   Cf. also L. van Kampen, Apostelverhalen: doel en compositie van de oudste apokriefe Handelingen der apostelen (Utrecht, 1990) 148-9. 44   Cf. also Isa 14:12-15. On the fall of the angel, see J.-M. Rosenstiehl, ‘La chute de l’ange. Origines et développement d’une légende. Ses attestations dans la littérature copte’, in Écritures et traditions dans la littérature copte (Leuven, 1983) 37-60. 45  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 223.



the armenian translation of the martyrdom197

Prieur supports this hypothesis due to his erroneous conviction that the Armenian passage on Christ’s coming is an addition without Greek equivalent. In fact, however, as we have seen repeatedly, it is the devil’s fall that has no counterpart in the original. An indication of the secondary nature of this latter section is the quote from Luke. In other places too of the Armenian translation of the speech on the devil’s works – again without parallel in Greek – there are several Biblical references or quotations. In addition to Luke 10:19, we also have John 12:31; 1 John 5:2; and 1 John 2:26.46 The general impression that one is left with in this passage is thus the following: The Armenian translator definitely rewrote the obscure Greek section on the devil’s works and tried to make it more comprehensible. For this purpose he used, among other things, well-known elements like Biblical quotations. Nonetheless, the parallelism in the two languages between the sentences on the ‘without-beginning’ remains important. We should also not disregard the fact that the Armenian version presents a coherent text even where, as Prieur notes, the Greek original is too mutilated to be properly understood.47 Furthermore, the fact that the original text in this place survives in a sole manuscript, and a corrupted one at that, means that we must keep an ‘open’ attitude about both texts. In spite of the obvious changes in the Armenian text, it still seems possible to me to trace out, at least partly, the underlying Greek and to conclude that in this passage the

  Cf. John 12:31 ayžmik datastan ē ašxarhis aysorik. ayžmik išxan ašxar­ his aysorik ĕnkesc‘i artak‘s ‘it is now the judgment of this world; now the prince of this world will be thrown out’, taken up again in Č‘ 148, 12-13 ew ĕnkesc‘i p‘aṙac‘ ew yišxanut‘enēn ‘and he made (him) rush (lit. ‘throw’) from glory and from the principality’. This also recalls John 16:11 and 1 John 5:2 yoržam zAstuac siresc‘uk‘ ew zpatuirans nora arasc‘uk‘ ‘when we love God and perform his commandments’, repeated word for word in Č‘ 148, 16-7 zi zna siresc‘uk‘ ew zpatuirans nora arasc‘uk‘ ‘so that we may love (God) and perform his commandments’, followed by Č‘ 148, 17 ew es jez bazum angam grec‘i ‘and I have written you several times…’ (this reference to Andrew’s earlier writings cannot be explained on the basis of the narration in the AA), which recalls 1 John 2:26 zays grec‘i jez ‘I have written you this’. Prieur believes that the translator wants to turn Andrew into a type of Paul who writes to the Churches he has founded: Prieur, Acta Andreae, 222, note 1. 47   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 225. 46

198

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

Greek was better than what we have today.48 On this basis, and contrary to Prieur’s statements, we maintain that the absence of any reference to Christ’s work of Redemption in the primitive AA cannot be absolutely excluded.49 5.  Two passages with Encratist tendencies in the Armenian MartA The Armenian MartA lends itself to a heterogenous commentary: in addition to a language that is rich in Scriptural references and allusions to Christ and the commandments – which fit well in an ‘orthodox’ context – it also, in other places, constitutes a text from which, as Leloir emphasised, ‘les retouches d’orthodoxie ont été épargnées, du moins partiellement. D’où son intérêt’.50 This is the case with the somewhat Encratist passages we shall examine here.51 These passages are part of a missionary speech in which Andrew begins by condemning those who do not grasp the true meaning of death as the soul’s liberation from the body and earthly life, and who continue to be connected to temporary pleasures, to the body, to the sensible world, and to material goods (P 56-58).52 The fact that these passages are part of a speech by the apostle rather than of a narrative section increases their critical value, as we may deduce from Prieur’s words: Les AA gr. sont très prolixes; ils contiennent en particulier de nombreux et longs discours. L’évolution textuelle ... s’est effectuée, non dans le sens de l’amplification d’un texte de base bref, mais dans celui de l’abréviation d’un long texte original. Ce sont les discours qui, se prêtant   Other textual snippets also indicate faithfulness on the part of the Armenian text. For example, the reading εἰ δεῖ ‘if it is necessary’, in P 49, 10, assumed by Bonnet (AAA, 45, 1) and retained by Prieur instead of ἤδη (preserved in the only Greek manuscript we have for this passage), is confirmed by the Armenian et‘ē part ic‘ē ‘if it is necessary’; the Greek negation μή in P 49, 13, assumed by Bonnet (AAA, 45, 3) and retained by Prieur before περιφανή, is confirmed by the Armenian an-erewoyt‘ ‘in-visible’, with the negative prefix an-; etc. 49   See the considerations in Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae Apocrypha, 39-40. 50   L. Leloir, ‘La version arménienne de la Passion d’André’, HA 90 (1976) 471-4. 51   I thank professor A.M. Mazzanti, who in a private conversation allowed me to better understand certain aspects of Encratism. 52  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 172-4, 265-73, 295-7. 48



the armenian translation of the martyrdom199

le mieux à ce travail et jugés sans doute d’une ampleur excessive, ont fait les frais de cette opération.53

There is thus a great probability that the Armenian passages that lack any correspondence in the Greek constitute parts of the primitive AA that were lost in the direct tradition. An analysis of the lexicon and structure allows us to verify this. A) The first passage is located after the translation of P 56, 18-19 (καὶ εἰ τὰ ἐκτὸς ὑμῶν εὐτυχήματα μακαρίζει ὑμᾶς, ὄντως ἐστὲ ἀθλιώτατοι ‘if you rejoice at your outer successes, you are truly miserable’): ew et‘ē amusnut‘ean heštut‘iwnk‘ ew xaṙnakut‘iwnk‘ uraxac‘uc‘anē zjez, ew or i noc‘anē ałtełut‘iwnn ē, li c‘awovk‘ trtmec‘usc‘ē 54 zjez: ew et‘ē snndean bazum ordeac‘ c‘ankanayc‘ēk‘ ew or i noc‘anē janjrali t‘šuaṙut’iwnn cnanic‘i jez, nełesc‘ē zjez (Č‘, 158, 16-21) And if you rejoice at the pleasures and coupling of marriage, on the contrary (lit. and), may the defilement that results from them, full of pain, sadden you; and if you desire the birth55 of many children and the painful suffering that will arise for you from them, may it oppress you.

5.1.  Lexical analysis From a lexical point of view, we observe a great degree of concordance with the lexical repertoire of the Armenian MartA and with the vocabulary of the Greek AA. Let us consider only the most significant words: Arm. heštut‘iwn ‘lust, pleasure, delight’ is used in Č‘ 159, 9; 159, 23; and 161, 4 for Gr. ἡδονή ‘pleasure’, and in Č‘ 158, 3 (in the plural) for Gr. τὰ ἡδέα ‘sweet things, delights’. In Č‘ 148, 29 we read hešt c‘ankut‘iwn ‘sweet lust’, for Gr. ἡδονή. Arm. heštut’iwn is also attested in Č‘ 152, 14 for the Greek verb ἥδω, which has the same root as the noun ἡδονή; in Č‘ 158, 22 for Gr. ἰδίους, which was probably confused with a form of ἡδύς by iotacism of the letter ē;  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 8.   I follow the Armenian variant trtmec‘usc‘ē (aorist subjunctive, attested in the manuscripts 731 of Venice, 178 of the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, 1-d of Jerusalem and 1325 of the Matenadaran in Erevan) rather than the reading retained by Č‘rak‘ean trtmec‘uc‘anē (present indicative), by analogy with the aorist subjunctives (nełesc‘ē and naxatesc‘ē) in the following sentences, whose structure is similar to that of the sentence in question. 55   The noun snund literally means ‘food, subsistence’ (cf. Gr. τροφή). 53 54

200

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

and in Č‘ 158, 27, which has no Greek equivalent. Arm. xaṙnakut‘iwn ‘coupling, union’, equivalent of Gr. μῖξις and συνουσία in the sense of ‘sexual union’. Both Greek terms are attested, with the same negative connotation as the Armenian word, in three passages of the AA: P 14, 15 and 21, 14 (μῖξις); P 37, 7 (συνουσία). Arm. ałtełut‘iwn ‘defilement, impurity, turpitude’ has the same root as the adjective ałtełi ‘impure’, the equivalent of Gr. ῥυπαρός; this Greek adjective is attested in three AA passages, among which is P 37, 8, where the Greek adjective is used to describe as ‘impure’ the life devoted to συνουσία. Arm. ałtełi also corresponds to Gr. αἰσχρός, attested four times in the AA, notably in P 21, 14, where it is followed by the noun ἔργον, here in the sense of μῖξις. Arm. trtmec‘uc‘anem ‘sadden’ is attested in Č‘ 162, 8 for Gr. λυπέω ‘afflict, grieve’; the intransitive form trtmim ‘be sad’ is attested in Č‘ 165, 8 for the passive of the same Greek verb. Arm. c‘ankanam (or c‘ankam) ‘to desire’ is used in Č‘ 166, 17 for Gr. ποθέω, which has the same meaning, as well as in two other passages that have no Greek counterpart. Finally, Arm. amusnut‘iwn ‘marriage’, which also appears in Č‘ 159, 16 (without Greek counterpart), corresponds semantically to Gr. γάμος ‘marriage’, which is found in P 36, 2 of the Greek AA. 5.2.  Structural analysis As far as structure is concerned, the two conditional clauses greatly resemble the series of conditional clauses in the Greek text, which are introduced by καὶ εἰ, ‘and if’ (P 56, 5-19). Furthermore, the relative clauses of the two Armenian protases recall the relative of one of the preceding Armenian conditional sentences, which itself translates an implicit Greek turn of phrase by following a type of translation method that is typical of the Armenian version of the MartA;56 this suggests that there were perhaps some clauses in Greek that corresponded to the relatives of the Armenian passage. The comparison with the conditional sentence that follows this Armenian extract, absent in Greek, leads to very interesting considerations; the former exists in the Greek: καὶ εἰ τὰ λοιπὰ ὑμῶν κτήματα ἰδίους ἐπαίρει ἑαυτοῖς, τὸ πρόσκαιρον αὐτῶν ὀνειδιζέτω ὑμᾶς (P 56, 19-20) And if your other riches attract you to them as their goods, may their ephemeral character reproach you.   Cf. P 56, 15-16 and Č‘ 158, 10-11.

56



the armenian translation of the martyrdom201

ew et‘ē zawelstacut‘ean mecut‘iwnn heštut‘eamb siric‘ēk‘ apaka­ nut‘eambn iwrov, naxatesc‘ē zjez (Č‘ 158, 21-23) And if you love lustfully the grandeur of receiving-in-abundance, with its ephemeral character (lit. its corruption), may it reproach you.

As we can see, the verb of the Greek apodosis is in the third person singular imperative (ὀνειδιζέτω ‘may it reproach’) and has been translated into Armenian by an aorist subjunctive with an exhortative-imperative meaning (naxatesc‘ē ‘may it reproach’).57 This comparison clarifies the meaning of the aorist subjunctives in the passage that is only attested in Armenian (trtmec‘usc‘ē ‘may it sadden’, and nełesc‘ē ‘may it oppress’). They must no doubt be understood as exhortative-imperative subjunctives, and they very likely rest on Greek imperatives. This interpretation weakens Prieur’s hypothesis, which is based on Leloir’s French translation that considered the two verbal forms to have a future flavour (‘... une plénitude de malheurs vous attristera... la misère... vous attristera’),58 something that is also possible for the Armenian aorist subjunctive. Perhaps based on the Greek future, Prieur believed that the translator watered down the sentence on the marriage by giving it a moralising sense: one must not enjoy the lust and coupling of marriage because these will cause sadness and suffering; one must not desire the birth of many children, because the misery they bring will oppress.59 In reality, the Armenian expression ‘may it (scil. the defilement that derives from marriage and coupling) sadden you’ is part of the apostle’s radical condemnation, as are the words ‘may it oppress you’, uttered by Andrew regarding the suffering caused by having many children.60 B) The second passage with Encratist tendencies is found after the translation of P 57, 2-3 (ἢ τίς ἐκ τοῦ ἐκτὸς γένους ἔπαρσις, τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ψυχῆς αἰχμαλώτου ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις πεπραμένης; ‘or what pride do you draw from the outer race, when in you the soul is a

  Cf. also Č‘ 147, 17 mi xṙovec‘usc‘ē, Armenian aorist subjunctive, which translates the Greek third person singular imperative of P 49, 1-2 μὴ ... ταρασσέτω. 58   Cf. Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 247. 59   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 270. 60   On the suffering that derives from procreation, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 226, note 4 and 324-6. 57

202

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

prisoner, sold to the desires?’), in a series of direct interrogatives that condemn everything exterior: ew zinč‘ heštut‘ean ew ordecnut‘ean c‘ankal yoržam yetoy bažanel unimk‘ ews i mimeanc‘. k‘anzi ew oč‘ gitē ok‘ zinč‘ aṙnē kam ov knoǰ iwrum xnam tanic‘i zbałeal tṙp‘anōk‘ c‘ankut‘ean (Č‘ 158, 27-159, 3) And why desire pleasure and procreation when we must then separate from each other? Indeed no one knows what he is doing. Or who will take care of his wife, given that he was interested in her by love of concupiscence?

5.3.  Lexical and structural analysis From a lexical point of view, in addition to the words already mentioned – heštut‘iwn ‘pleasure’ and c‘ankal ‘desire’, we also have Arm. xnam ‘care, solicitude’, for Gr. ἐπιμέλεια in P 57, 4 and 64, 5 (cf. also P 44, 8); the Armenian xnam tam ‘take care of’, semantic equivalent of Gr. ἐπιμελέομαι, which is attested in P 13, 17. As for the passage’s structure, the first sentence is introduced by the Armenian syntagma ew zinč‘ ‘and why…?’, which recalls ew zinč‘ ‘and why…?’ (cf. P 57, 1 τί γὰρ) and ew kam zinč‘ ‘or why…?’ (cf. P 57, 2 ἢ τίς) of the preceding passages, as well as kam zinč‘ ‘or why…?’ (cf. P 57, 3 ἢ τίς) of the following passage. The first interrogative is followed by a subordinate temporal clause, introduced by the conjunction yoržam ‘when’; it is similar to the temporal clause of the preceding sentence, which contains the Greek genitive absolute.61 The second sentence, introduced by the explicative conjunction k‘anzi ‘because, for’, was considered by Prieur to be a gloss.62 It does in fact ruin the series of direct interrogatives and does not fit in the structure of the narrative context in which it is located. I would be cautious enough to consider even the third sentence as a gloss, introduced by the words kam ov ‘or who?’. The structural coherence of the two Armenian passages within their context, the lexical homogeneity with the rest of the MartA, and especially the appearance of an underlying Greek lexicon that is 61 62

  Cf. P 57, 2-3 and Č‘ 158, 25-26.   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 267.



the armenian translation of the martyrdom203

attested in other passages of the AA, all lead to the conclusion that the two Armenian extracts are primitive.63 Is it possible to understand the reasons for their loss in the direct Greek tradition? Is it the result of a simple accident in the manuscript transmission or the result of doctrinal interference by a Greek copyist? A look at the content allows us to determine that the second hypothesis is the likeliest one. 5.4.  Interpretation of the passages The content is characterised by the rejection of marriage and procreation that is the fundamental element of the Encratist kerygma.64 Some of the words are very explicit from this point of view: Arm. ałtełut‘iwn ‘defilement, impurity’ – which is said of the pleasures and coupling of marriage – recalls Gr. ῥυπαρός, used for the sexual act in Acts of Thomas 12, whose Encratist nature is widely acknowledged.65 This connotation of marriage is reminiscent of the formula of the Encratitarum patriarches,66 Tatian, who identifies γάμος with πορνεία ‘fornication’ and φθορά ‘corruption’.67 Equally significant is the term c‘ankut‘iwn, ‘lust’, equivalent of Gr. ἐπιθυμία, which for Julius Cassian (like Tatian a champion of Encratism) is responsible for the soul’s decay into ‘becoming’ (γένεσις) and ‘corruption’   Cf. Prieur, ibid.   The concept of Encratism must be distinguished from that of the ‘tradition of enkrateia’. As U. Bianchi, ‘Le thème du colloque en tant que problème historico-religieux’, in Id. (ed.), La tradizione dell’enkrateia. Moti­ vazioni ontologiche e protologiche (Rome, 1985) 1-32 at 1, specifies, while the simple term enkrateia ‘... ne dénomme autre chose que la ‘continence’, sexuelle et alimentaire, dans un milieu parlant grec...’ and constitutes ‘le mot clé d’un courant idéologique ... qui valorise ... un régime abstentionniste concernant la sexualité et les aliments...’, the term ‘Encratism’, on the other hand, indicates the radical form of enkrateia, characterised by a rejection of gamos, as already ancient heresiologists explained. On this distinction between Encratism and the tradition of enkrateia, cf. also ‘Documento finale del colloquio. Proposte concernenti l’uso dei termini encratismo ed ­enkrateia’, in Bianchi, ibid., XXIII-XXV. 65   Cf. Y. Tissot, ‘L’encratisme des Actes de Thomas’, in ANRW 2.25.6 (Berlin and New York, 1988) 4415-30. 66   Cf. Jerome, Prol. com. in ep. ad Titum 685 (PL, 26, 590). 67   Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I, 28, 1, ap. Eus., HE IV, 29, 3. Tatian’s formula is mentioned in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, VI, 49, 1. 63 64

204

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

(φθορά).68 In the Latin text of the Acts of Peter 8, concupiscentia constitutes the means of seduction by the ‘entirely bitter fruit from the tree of bitterness’ (fructus arboris amaritudinis totus amarissimus),69 i.e. by the devil.70 In AA 16, the Greek proconsul Aegeatus is considered an obstacle to his wife Maximilla’s wishes to remove herself from the ‘repugnant defilement’ (τοῦ μιαροῦ τούτου μιάσματος), and for this reason is called an ‘insolent and hostile snake’ (P 16, 4-5 ὑβριστὴν καὶ ἀντίδικον ὄφιν), as well as a ‘savage and forever incorrigible enemy’ (P 16, 7-8 τὸν ἄγριον καὶ ἀεὶ ἀπαίδευτον ἐχθρόν). Aegeatus is thereby linked to the devil.71 The third significant term is Arm. ordecnut‘iwn ‘procreation of children’ for Gr. παιδοποΐα, which is attested in the first pronouncement of the Encratist doctrine refuted by Clement of Alexandria, which in turn consists of the rejection of γάμος and παιδοποΐα, lest one offer ‘food to death’.72 From all this   Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, XIII, 93, 3.   M. Döhler (ed.), Acta Petri: Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Actus Vercellenses (Berlin, 2018) 78, 251-2; cf. AAA, vol. I, 1, 55, 29-30. See also infra, 236, note 61. 70   The definition of the demon as ‘bitter tree’, which is also in the Acts of Thomas 44, recalls the ‘bitter herb’ (sexuality and γένεσις) from which the Lord encourages abstinence in the Gospel of the Egyptians (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, IX, 66, 1, 226, 15-6: πᾶσαν φάγε βοτάνην, τὴν δὲ πικρίαν ἔχουσαν μὴ φάγῃς ‘Eat all herbs, but not that which is bitter’), a work by which according to Clement (Strom. III, IX, 63, 1, 25, 1-4) the Encratists supported their arguments. In the Epistle of the Deacons and Priests of Achaia 5 (developed in the 6th century based on the end of the primitive Acts of Andrew), there is a reference to the lignum concupiscentiae tasted by Adam, which is contrasted with the wood of the cross of Christ. The Jewish origin of this concept is attested e.g. in the Apocalypse of Moses XIX, 3, where ἐπιθυμία is viewed as τὸν ἰὸν τῆς κακίας... κεφαλὴ πάσης ἁμαρτίας ‘the poison of evil… beginning of all sin’. The overall context here involved the protological motivation of enkrateia, as pointed out by G. Sfameni Gasparro, ‘Le motiva­ zioni protologiche dell’enkrateia nel Cristianesimo dei primi secoli e nello gnosticismo’, in Bianchi (ed.), La tradizione dell’encrateia, 149-237 at 153-5. On the bitterness associated with concupiscence, see also R. Cantalamessa, L’omelia ‘in S. Pascha’ dello Pseudo-Ippolito di Roma. Ricerche sulla teologia dell’Asia Minore nella seconda metà del II secolo (Milan, 1967) 288-91. 71   The report on Aegeatus’ kinship with the devil is emphasised in P 40, 3-4; 40, 14-15; 42, 20. 72   Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, VI, 45, 1. As Sfameni Gasparro, ‘Motivazioni protologiche’, 153, explains, this is a reference to the Gospel of the Egyptians. 68 69



the armenian translation of the martyrdom205

we can confirm that the terminology in the Armenian passages examined here is clearly marked by an Encratist point of view. As we know, since antiquity many have insisted on the Encratism of the apocryphal Acts of the apostles. Epiphanius of Salamis, in particular, informs us that the Encratites knew and used the Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and Acts of Thomas,73 and that the Apotactites (or Apostolics) used the Acts of Andrew and Acts of Thomas.74 We also know, however, how subjective the ancient ecclesiastical authors are on the apocryphal texts, as they often tendentiously exaggerate any ‘heretical’ elements. And so the condemnation of the apocrypha sometimes stems from a prejudice ensuring that ‘puisque les textes canoniques sont la source de l’orthodoxie, les textes apocryphes deviennent automatiquement associés à l’hérésie’.75 At the beginning of the previous century, J. Flamion carried out a vigorous reassessment of the Encratist interpretation common in the apocryphal Acts of the apostles. To him, the exaltation of sexual continence in the Acts is simply a literary convention inherited from the Hellenistic novel, which did not correspond to real popular practice. Flamion notes that many opportunities of developing Encratist teaching are not exploited, and that the references to continence are more numerous in the narrative sections than in those that would be more appropriate for expressing the apostle’s views, namely the speeches. Flamion also considers the radical condemnation of marriage merely as an idealizaiton of apostolic times.76 Flamion’s objections were refuted by Prieur,77 who considered the AA to be an Encratist work.78 The rejection of sexuality, which is  Cf.  Pan. 47, 1, 5.  Cf.  Pan. 61, 1, 5. Epiphanius’ testimony refers to Encratist movements in the 4th century, which are also mentioned by Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragmenta X, 1-3. Cf. Junod and Kaestli, L’histoire des Actes apocryphes, 23-34. 75   Cf. É. Junod, ‘Actes apocryphes et hérésie: le jugement de Photius’, in Bovon et al. (eds), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres, 11-24 at 24, as well as 22 on Photius’ judgment on the Encratist tendency in the AAA. 76   Cf. J. Flamion, ‘Les Actes apocryphes de Pierre’, RHE 10 (1909) 14-20. 77   Prieur’s critique of Flamion’s objections is in Prieur, Acta Andreae, 323-4. 78   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 323. This opinion is shared by G. Sfameni Gasparro, who emphasises the protological justifications for radical enkrateia in the AA. The protological context also appears through the reference to the lignum concupiscentiae in the Epistle of the Deacons and Priests of Achaia 5 73 74

206

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

linked to the ‘outer man’ and the flesh, was in Prieur’s view a logical consequence of the AA thought process that sees in the discovery and stable possession of the ‘inner man’ the very content of salvation.79 Prieur draws on Y. Tissot’s definition of Encratism: ‘nous définirons l’encratisme comme une tendance faisant de la continence sexuelle une exigence de la foi’.80 To Tissot, the apocryphal Acts of the apostles may be called Encratist ‘quand leur auteur traite le récit de martyre sous la forme encratite du mariage rompu, avec une insistance montrant qu’il s’agit là de sa conviction, surtout si sa conviction est confirmée ailleurs’.81 The narration in the Martyrdom to which he refers follows the pattern: 1. conversion of a nobleman’s wife, who refuses to continue her conjugal life; 2. the husband’s reaction, who threatens and throws the apostle into prison as the one responsible for his wife’s conversion; 3. the wife’s firmness, encouraged and supported by the apostle; 4. the apostle’s martyrdom.82 The largest quantity of traces of this pattern are in Gregory of Tours’ Latin epitome. But these traces are not obvious, due to Gregory’s orthodox revisions; they can only be reconstructed through conjecture.83 In the Greek AA, Maximilla converts and chooses a life of absolute continence. This resolution is the reason for her husband Egeatus’ decision to condemn Andrew to death. The episode of Maximilla’s conversion and the apostle’s teaching that caused it has been lost. But we know the words by which Andrew exhorts her to remain and its reverse parallel between Adam-Eve and Andrew-Maximilla; in this parallel, the latter couple re-establishes the state that existed before the fall, i.e. before the fulfilment of the γάμος: cf. G. Sfameni Gasparro, ‘Gli Atti apocrifi degli Apostoli e la tradizione dell’enkrateia. Discussione di una recente formula interpretative’, Augustinianum 23 (1983) 287-307 at 300-2, and ‘Motivazioni protologiche’, 154 and 169-70; cf. also P. Nagel, ‘Die Wiedergewinnung des Paradieses durch Askese’, FuF 34 (1960) 375-7. On the Adam-Eve/ Andrew-Maximilla typology, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 204-7. 79   Cf. Prieur, ibid., 321; on the ‘inner man’, see also infra, § 6. 80   Cf. Tissot, ‘Encratisme et Actes apocryphes’, 111. 81   Cf. Tissot, ‘Encratisme et Actes apocryphes’, 116. 82   Cf. Tissot, ‘Encratisme et Actes apocryphes’, 115. For the pattern of Encratistically motivated conversions, causing the apostle’s death, see also Sfameni Gasparro, ‘Atti apocrifi’, 301. 83   See chapters 18-19 and 23; see also chapter 11, which alludes to Andrew’s intervention against a marriage: cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 42-3, 45, 49-50, 322-3; Flamion, Les Actes apocryphes de l’apôtre André, 254-8.



the armenian translation of the martyrdom207

firm in her chastity.84 Still, the loss of the Greek text of Maximilla’s conversion, as well as the hypothetical character of the Encratist episodes in the Latin epitome, led Tissot (before the publication of Prieur’s commentary) to be sceptical of Encratism in the AA. In his view, the fragmentary state of the text does not provide us with sufficient evidence to evaluate the author’s supposedly Encratist position.85 And so the fundamental importance of the Armenian passages is even more amplified, as they contain a radical and explicit condemnation of marriage and procreation, free of the sugar-coating and moralising that Prieur assumes.86 Their value is increased by the fact that they are part of the missionary preaching of the AA, that is, of a section that is crucial from a doctrinal point of view. The primitive passages that are only attested in the Armenian version thus demonstrate that the Greek original had a more marked Encratist tendency than that of the text that is preserved in the Greek manuscripts. But with the expression ‘Encratist tendency’ we must not understand a polemical tendency on the part of the AA author. As Prieur has stated, ‘l’auteur... écrit à une époque où la doctrine est encore flottante et l’orthodoxie mal définie, et où l’on peut exprimer des idées comme les siennes sans l’intention de s’écarter de la pensée orthodoxe et de s’opposer à d’autres chrétiens’.87 So while the Armenian text allows us to discount the idea of any ideological intention in the Greek AA, it is important to show that at a later time, after the composition of the AA and heresiologists’ accusations against Encratism,88 a late Greek copyist probably suspected that the passages in question were heretical and therefore expunged them, as Gregory of   Cf. P 37, 40, 45, as well as Andrew’s prayer in ch. 16.   Cf. Tissot, ‘Encratisme et Actes apocryphes’, 117-8 and ‘L’encratisme des Actes de Thomas’, 4422, note 49. Tissot’s article already assumes knowledge of the manuscript Sinaiticus Gr. 526, which contains the longest fragment of the AA. 86   See the analysis of the structure of passage A, supra. 87  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 408-9. On the regulation of faith in the later 2nd century, see É. Junod, ‘Observations sur la régulation de la foi dans l’Église des IIe et IIIe siècles’, Le Supplément 133 (1980) 195-213. 88   Notably Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria: see F. Bolgiani, ‘La tradizione eresiologica sull’encratismo. I. Le notizie di Ireneo’, Atti della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, II. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 91 (1956-1957) 343-419 and ‘II. La confutazione di Clemente di Alessandria’, ibid. 96 (1961-1962) 537-664. 84 85

208

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

Tours did for the parts he summarised in his epitome.89 The fact that these passages were not similarly treated in the Armenian version reveals that neither the translator nor the Armenian copyists perceived any danger from a heterodox interpretation. A study of Encratism in Armenia remains a desideratum. Leloir recalled that the typical Encratism of Syrian circles penetrated into the milieu of Armenian monasteries.90 Eustathius of Sebaste’s rigorist position must have entered Armenia as well.91 While the Armenian MartA offers us an interesting testimony on the diffusion and reception of this doctrine in Armenia, a stronger familiarity with this religious current and its impact among the Armenians would allow us to determine more closely the time in which the Armenian version of the MartA arose. We shall offer further remarks on the Encratist traits preserved in Armenian and erased from the Greek original when we discuss the Martyrdom of Philip. In the meantime we mention other pericopes that are preserved in Armenian and absent in Greek. Here also we are probably dealing with primitive passages. 6.  The ‘inner man’ This extract is also part of Andrew’s missionary sermon to the crowd from the cross. For the Greek ἠρέμα τοιγαροῦν ἄνδρες θαρροῦσιν κτλ. (lit.) ‘In truth, men peaceably have confidence…’ (P 58, 2), the Armenian has a longer passage (between the asterisks): ardarew hezs *tesanem zjez orpēs ew kamims. i bac‘ linel jez yartak‘in kerparanac‘ zi nerk‘in mardn92 mer miaban lic‘i: Ołǰunem zjez šnorhōk‘n Astucoy ew sirovn or aṙ na, ew aṙawel jerov miabanut‘eambd or aṙ mimeans, heṙanal jez i vnasakarac‘n ew dimel i na ew i barin ew i miamtut‘iwnn or aṙ na ē ew i miabanut‘iwnn or i soyn.* zi ew ayl mardik kaǰaleresc‘in (Č‘ 160, 11-19)   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 267.   Cf. Leloir, ‘Rapports’, 148. 91  Voir infra, ch. X, § 4.4. 92   I retain the variant nerk‘in mardn ‘the inner man’, attested in the auxiliary manuscripts of the Venice edition and in the MSS. 110, 118, 178 of Paris, 1-d of Jerusalem, and 2601 and 1325 of Erevan, instead of the reading in Č‘rak‘ean: nerk‘ins ‘(the) inner (things)’. 89 90



the armenian translation of the martyrdom209

In truth I see you peaceable, *as I want it, staying far from outer forms so that the inner man may be in harmony with us. I greet you in the name of God’s grace and of the love that (is) for Him and even more for your mutual agreement,93 (exhorting you) to remove yourselves from dangers and to soar toward Him and toward the good and the loyalty that is in Him and in the concord that (is) in Him,* so that other men also may be confident.

An analysis of the text may verify the primitive origin of this Armenian pericope, whose main point is the reference to the ‘inner man’. From a textual point of view, we notice an arrangement between the Greek words ἠρέμα τοιγαροῦν ‘peaceably in truth’ and the incipit of the Armenian passage ardarew hezs ‘in truth peaceable’. If the Armenian adverb ardarew ‘in truth’ equals the Greek adverb τοιγαροῦν, with the same meaning, the Armenian adjective hezs ‘peaceable’ assumes a Greek form derived from ἤρεμος ‘peaceable’, or from its synonym ἠρεμαῖος, rather than the adverb ἠρέμα. One might thus suppose a reading in the original close to ἠρεμαίους τοιγαροῦν ‘in truth peaceable…’.94 The Greek words ἄνδρες θαρροῦσιν... ‘men have confidence…’, which follow ἠρέμα τοιγαροῦν ‘peaceably in truth’, correspond to the last part of the Armenian passage (zi ew ayl mardik k‘aǰaleresc‘in... ‘so that other men also may be confident…’); the Armenian section is intermediary and absent in the Greek. From a lexical point of view, we note that Arm. artak‘in ‘outer’ is attested for Gr. ἐκτός ‘outer’ in other passages as well (Č‘ 152, 15 and 158, 15;95 158, 24 and 159, 4). Arm. hez ‘gentle, peaceable’ corresponds to Gr. ἤρεμος ‘peaceable’ in P 62, 31 and P 64, 10 (= Č‘ 166, 3 and Č‘ 167, 3). Arm. kerparan ‘form’ is attested in Č‘ 155, 24 for Gr. μορφή ‘form’ (cf. also Č‘ 155, 24-25 an-kerparann ‘without-form’ for Gr. ἄ-μορφον ‘without-form’; Č‘ 156, 1 kerparanam ‘give form, shape’ for Gr. μορφόω ‘give form’). Arm. miaban ‘harmony, united’ recalls Č‘ 166, 20 miabanakic‘ (synonym for miaban), used for Gr. συγγενής ‘of the same origin, which has affinity with’ (P 63, 10). The Armenian noun miabanut’iwn ‘union, communion’ is used in Č‘ 167, 26 for κοινωνία ‘communion’ (P 65, 6) and in Č‘ 157, 28 for σύνοδος   Lit. ‘which is for each other’.   Prieur’s apparatus could be corrected as follows: 58, 2 post τοιγαροῦν plenius habet arm. 95   In both passages it is a variant. 93 94

210

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

‘meeting, union’ (P 56, 6); it is also attested in Č‘ 154, 19-20 and Č‘ 164, 3, in sections with no Greek equivalent. Arm. šnorh(k‘) ‘grace’ translates Gr. χάρις, which has the same meaning, in Č‘ 165, 13; 166, 14; and 167, 4. Finally, Arm. vnasakaran ‘dangers’ recalls Arm. vnasakarsn ‘the dangers’ in Č‘ 146, 5, the translation for P 47, 4-5 ἐπιβλαβέσιν ‘the pernicious fantasies’. The central element in the passage is the ‘inner man’. As Prieur and Roig Lanzillotta have observed, the inner man (cf. P 7, 19 ὁ ἐν σοὶ ἄνθρωπος and P 16, 9 τῷ ἔσω ἀνδρί), which is the opposite of the visible body, is fundamental to the Greek AA.96 Knowledge of the inner man, a result of revelation, is the necessary condition for achieving salvation.97 This knowledge unites the ‘brothers’ (ἀδελφοί) by distinguishing them from the rest of humanity, i.e. from the ‘outer men’ (τοὺς ἐκτὸς ἀνθρώπους) mentioned in P 53, 24 (cf. also P 57, 2). The contrast between inner and outer man presupposes among other things a distinction between inner and outer things (a subject that will appear again in the 61st chapter, to be presented below); it is from the latter that men must distance themselves, in accordance with Andrew’s many exhortations (e.g. P 47; 56; 57).98 The invitation to ‘be peaceable’ is also based on Andrew’s teaching: in chapter 52, 7-8 of the Greek text, Stratocles, one of the apostle’s disciples, says that Andrew taught how to contain one’s anger. In P 53, 13-17, furthermore, Andrew criticises Stratocles for an angry outburst; P 64, 9-10 refers to the choice of ‘a holy and sweet life’ by Maximilla after the apostle’s death. The subject of ‘agreement’ or ‘mutual communion’, on the other hand, recalls the Greek κοινωνία ‘communion’99 in P 33, 3 (communion with God) and P 57, 19 (communion with Andrew). The reference to ‘the love that is for Him’, finally, recalls the Greek φιλίᾳ τῇ πρὸς αὐτόν, ‘the love for Him’ in P 58, 4.100 All this points to a probably primitive origin of this extract.101 The particular nature of the passages examined above could perhaps  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 179-84; 201-2; 293; 313-4; 332 and passim. Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae Apocrypha, 220-2 and, more generally, 220-43 regarding the anthropology of the AA. 97  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 293. 98  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 318-9; Roig Lanzillotta, ibid. 99  Prieur, Acta Andreae, 312. 100   Ibid. 101   Cf. also Prieur, Acta Andreae, 268. 96



the armenian translation of the martyrdom211

remove a few doubts regarding their primitive origin among the scholars who have not acknowledged any Encratist influence in the AA. But the absence in the Greek text of extracts that do not contain anything that orthodox revisionists might have wanted to expunge proves that the deletions in the direct Greek tradition are not limited to the parts that were ‘embarrassing’ from a doctrinal point of view. This is indeed corroborated by two other examples of abbreviation of the original text, which may be assumed based on the Armenian. These are two excerpts from the speech in chapter 61, which are only attested in Armenian and are probably of primitive origin.102 7. MartA 61 By way of introduction to these passages, we note first of all that chapter 61 confirms the Armenian translation’s importance for restoring the probable order of the pericopes that are only preserved in a fragmentary state, in two Greek texts, according to Prieur’s edition, namely the MSS. H (S. Sabas Gr. 103 of Jerusalem, 12th century) and S (Sinaiticus Gr. 526, 10th century),103 on the one hand, and the MS. C (Ann Arbor 26, 14th-15th centuries) on the other. If we look at Prieur’s apparatus, we see that only the first three lines of chapter 61 are preserved in the two texts, as well as in Armenian. The same thing cannot be said about the subject of the successive pericopes: P 61, 3-4 is attested in C and in Armenian, but is absent from HS, while P 61, 4-8 is attested in HS and Armenian, but is absent from C. Further, P 61, 8-11 is attested in C and Armenian, but absent from HS. The Armenian translation is thus the only testimony that preserves the complete text of chapter 61. In light of these considerations, the importance of some passages in chapter 61 that have survived only in Armenian is heightened all the more. The first passage is in Č‘ 163, 6-7. After the Arm. ov orč‘ap‘ sk‘anč‘elik‘ ełen104 zi yerkraworac‘s paxic‘en ‘Oh! How many miracles   Calzolari, ‘La versione armena del Martirio di Andrea’, 149-55.   Both MSS. preserve ch. 1-65 of the AA, while C only preserves ch. 51-65 (Martyrdom). On the manuscript tradition of the AA, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 423-39 and Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae Apocrypha, 3-106. 104   V.l. in aorist (ełen) instead of the present (en) in the published text; cf. Gr. γέγονεν. 102 103

212

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

have come, so that they flee these earthly things!’ (cf. P 61, 3-4 ὢ πόσα γέγονεν ἵνα τῶν γηΐνων φύγωμεν ‘Oh! How many things have happened so that we may flee the earthly things’),105 the Armenian text continues with the words ayl aṙawel yaynosik hareal kan ‘but they remain more attached to these’ (Č‘ 163, 7-8), which has no Greek equivalent. The sentence that is completed thanks to the Armenian is articulated by antitheses, comparable to the immediately preceding sentence, ov ork‘an xōsec‘ak‘ minč‘ew c‘ayžm, ew oč‘ hawanec‘uc‘ak106 zmern ‘Oh! How we have spoken up till now, but we have not persuaded our own’ (Č‘ 163, 5-6), which translates the Gr. ὢ πόσα εἰρηκότες ἕως τοῦ νῦν οὐκ ἐπείσαμεν τοὺς ἰδίους ‘Oh! How many things have been said up till now, but we did not persuade our own’ (P 61, 2-3). The text contains two clauses with the same structure. Indeed the speeches in the AA are rich in rhetorical techniques, and often feature binary structures.107 It is therefore possible that the passage that we only have in Armenian goes back to the original text of the AA. The evaluation of two other passages that we also only have in Armenian is more difficult, and we shall present them now. A) After Č‘ 163, 6-8 (quoted above) we have in Armenian: ov k‘ani bṙnaworut‘iwn108 yałags marmnakanac‘s asac‘i109, ew aṙawel zdoyn kamin. ov k‘anic‘s angam ałač‘ec‘i zi yałtełi sovorut‘eanc‘n hanic‘ znosa, ayl aṙawel yoč‘inč‘n yordorec‘an (Č‘ 163, 8-12) Oh! How much violence have I pronounced against these corporeal (things), but they prefer these same (things). Oh! How many times have I begged them to distance themselves from sordid habits, but they rather have been pushed toward nothingness!

B) After Č‘ 163, 12-13 zinč‘ ē bazumsirut‘iwn or aṙ marmins. ew zinč‘ zbazum110 zbałumn or i nma ‘what is this excessive love for the   Divergence between the Arm. orč‘ap‘ sk‘ančelik‘ ‘how many miracles’ and the Gr. πόσα ‘how many things’, as well as between the 3rd person pl. Armenian verb p‘axic‘en ‘they flee’ and the Greek 1st person pl. verb φύγωμεν ‘we flee’. 106   I retain the v.l. hawanec‘uc‘ak‘ ‘we have persuaded’, in lieu of the published hawanec‘ayk‘n ‘you have been persuaded’, on the basis of the Gr. ἐπείσαμεν ‘we persuaded’. 107   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 166 and passim. 108   I retain the v.l. bṙnaworut‘iwn ‘violence’ (vel bṙnut‘iwn ‘violence’) instead of the published bnaworut‘iwn ‘character’. 109   Variant for asac‘an ‘(things) have been said’. 110   Based on Gr. πολλή ‘excessive’, I insert before Arm. zbałumn ‘preoccupation’ (cf. Gr. συμπλοκή) the adjective zbazum ‘excessive’, lost through 105



the armenian translation of the martyrdom213

flesh?111 What is this excessive preoccupation with it?’ (cf. Gr. Τίς ἡ πολλὴ φιλία ἡ πρὸς τὴν σάρκα; ἢ τίς ἡ πολλὴ συμπλοκὴ πρὸς αὐτήν; ‘What is this excessive affection for the flesh? What is this excessive attachment to it?’, P 61, 4-5), we have: zinč‘ ē c‘ankut‘iwn or ĕnd nmin sermanec‘aw. zinč‘ or i nmayn ē. zinč‘ ē sovorut‘iwnn č‘ar. zinč‘ ałtełi katakk‘n. darjeal zis kamic‘ik‘, or imd ēk‘, k‘ałak‘avarel ĕnd aylsd (Č‘ 163, 14-17) What is the desire that has been mixed with it (scil. the flesh)? What is in it? What is the bad habit? What (are) these sordid tricks? Again you want me, you who are mine, that I should live with you others.

The Armenian text continues with the words darjeal zis kamic‘ik‘, zi yapakanelis aysrēn darjayc‘ ‘again you want me, that I should again return to corruptible things?’ (cf. Gr. πάλιν με παρακαλεῖτε ἐν τοῖς ῥευστοῖς ἀνεθῆναι ‘again you ask me to return to transient things’, P 61, 5-6). Once again, in order to identify the primitive or secondary nature of the Armenian passages that do not have Greek counterparts, we must look at their lexicon, structure, and content, so as to grasp their coherence within the overall work. 7.1.  Lexical analysis From a lexical point of view, also in these passages is there considerable concordance with the lexical repertory in the Armenian MartA and with the vocabulary of the Greek AA. Among the most significant items we have Arm. bṙnaworut‘iwn ‘violence’, attested in Č‘ 147, 20 (v.l.) for Gr. βία ‘violence’ (P 49, 3); the same Greek noun, in instrumental dative (P 52, 4), is rendered in Armenian by the adverb bṙnabar ‘violently’ in Č‘ 150, 27. The Armenian verb ałač‘em ‘ask, beg’ is used for Gr. λιπαρέω ‘ask with insistence’ (P 64, 11) – where it applies to the proconsul Egeatus’ pleading with his wife – and especially for the verbs παρακαλέω ‘beg’ (P 47, 5) and δέομαι ‘beg’ (P 57, 11), both used by Andrew in the first person sg. in a similar context as that of the passage examined here. Indeed, in P 47, 5 Andrew exhorts the ‘brothers’ to flee the unstable and fleeting things and to hasten toward those that are

haplography in the MS. followed by Č‘rak‘ean, due to its paleographic resemblance with zbałumn. 111   Other possible translation: ‘body’.

214

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

stable and ­constant; in P 57, 11, he exhorts them to abandon outer things and the ugliness of life on earth. We have commented above on the Arm. ałtełi ‘impure’ and c‘an­ kut‘iwn ‘desire’ (from c‘ankanam ‘to desire’). In the passages we are now examining, the adjective ałtełi is applied to sovorut‘iwn ‘habit’ (also described as č‘ar ‘bad’) and katakk‘ ‘jokes’: both terms refer to attachment to the flesh. Arm. sovorut‘iwn ‘habit’, furthermore, corresponds to Gr. ἔθος ‘habit’, attested in the Greek AA (P 17, 7 and 17, 12), and συνήθεια ‘habit’, which belongs to the same semantic field as the adjective συνήθης (cf. P 28, 1 and P 37, 2) and the adverb συνηθῶς (cf. P 19, 9). Arm. yordorem ‘push, exhort’/yordorim ‘be exhorted, be pushed toward’ is attested in the Armenian for Gr. προτρέπω ‘exhort’ (P 47, 6, v.l.), προάγομαι ‘be pushed’ (P 59, 3), and ἐπιτρέπω ‘turn toward’ (varia lectio of Ep in P 62, 20), as well as in a later passage without Greek counterpart. Finally, the noun yordorumn ‘exhortation’ is attested for Gr. προτροπή ‘encouragement’ in P 59, 9 and in another extract without Greek counterpart. The first passage contains two clauses introduced, respectively, by Arm. ov k‘ani ‘Oh! How many…!’ and ov k‘anic‘s angam ‘Oh! How many times…!’, two expressions synonymous with ov ork‘an ‘Oh! How many…!’ and ov orč‘ap‘ ‘Oh! How many…!’, attested in the Armenian text preceding the present passage (Gr. ὢ πόσα... ὢ πόσα... ‘Oh! How many… Oh! How many…!’). Both clauses are articulated antithetically, like the two preceding clauses, which are also attested in Greek: ὢ πόσα εἰρηκότες ἕως τοῦ νῦν οὐκ ἐπείσαμεν τοὺς ἰδίους· ὢ πόσα γέγονεν ἵνα τῶν γηΐνων φύγωμεν ‘Oh! How many things have been said up till now, but we did not persuade our own! Oh! How many things have happened so that we may flee earthly things!…’ (P 61, 2-4), which we can complete, as we have seen above, thanks to the Arm. ayl aṙawel yaynosik hareal kan ‘but they remain more attached to these’. The second passage is formed by a series of interrogative clauses introduced by the pronoun zinč‘ ‘what?’, which also appears in the immediately preceding section, where the Armenian pronoun corresponds to Gr. τίς.112 The last sentence in the Armenian text is introduced by the expression darjeal zis kamic‘ik‘ ‘again you want me…’,  Cf.  Τίς ἡ πολλὴ φιλία ἡ πρὸς τὴν σάρκα; ἢ τίς ἡ πολλὴ συμπλοκὴ πρὸς αὐτήν; ‘What is this excessive affection for the flesh? What is this excessive attachment to it?’ (P 61, 4-5). 112



the armenian translation of the martyrdom215

which is attested, identically, in the immediately following clause, for Gr. πάλιν  με  παρακαλεῖτε ‘again you ask me…’ (P 61, 5). Both sentences introduced by Arm. darjeal zis kamic‘ik‘ ‘again you want me’ contain a purpose clause. So yet again the text presents two clauses of identical structure. On a final note, the anaphoric pronoun (cf. nmin and nmayn), attested twice in the second passage, with a reference to the flesh/body, recalls the anaphoric pronoun of the preceding sentence, which in turn can be compared to the Greek;113 in this latter case, too, the pronoun refers to the flesh.114 7.2.  Analysis of the content 115 An analysis of the content confirms that the two passages are perfectly consistent with the surrounding context, and with the thought of the AA more generally. They emphasise the condemnation of material and corporeal life from other sections of the work. In the same paragraph (P 61, 4-5) there is a passage we have already come across: Τίς ἡ πολλὴ φιλία ἡ πρὸς τὴν σάρκα; ἢ τίς ἡ πολλὴ συμπλοκὴ πρὸς αὐτήν; ‘What is this excessive affection for the flesh? What is this excessive attachment to it?’ (P 61, 4-5), which pushes the same idea. Andrew expresses in five further paragraphs his condemnation of life on earth, temporary pleasures, and outer goods, which is balanced by the call to move toward the eternal and otherworldly.116 His reproachful tone is justified by the fact that, in spite of his repeated exhortations, his disciples continue their attachment to earthly life and for this reason request that their master’s life be spared. In chapter 60, the crowd in fact forces the proconsul, who has condemned Andrew to death, to go to the cross where the apostle has been crucified and to liberate him. The people rejoice around the master and tell him of his imminent liberation, and thereby demonstrate that they have not 113   Cf. Arm. ew zinč‘ zbazum zbałumn or i nma ‘and what is this excessive preoccupation that is in it?’ for Gr. ἢ τίς ἡ πολλὴ συμπλοκὴ πρὸς αὐτήν; ‘what is this excessive attachment to it?’. 114  Cf.  Τίς ἡ πολλὴ φιλία ἡ πρὸς τὴν σάρκα; ‘What is this excessive affection for the flesh?’, translated as ew zinč‘ ē bazumsirut‘iwn or aṙ mar­ mins ‘what is the excessive love for the flesh?’, already quoted above. 115   For a more detailed look at ch. 61, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 273-8. 116   Cf. ch. 47, 48, 56, 57, 59. On the ethical approach of the AA, see Prieur, Acta Andreae, 318-31.

216

the armenian translation of the martyrdom

understood the true message of his preaching, which conceives of death as a liberation and aspires to separation from the earthly world and to reunification with Christ.117 It is here that the speech of chapter 61 is located, in which the apostle refuses to be removed from the cross and announces to his disciples that he is now about to dissolve definitively the bonds that have kept him in earthly life and to join ‘him who is above everything and everyone’, namely Christ (cf. P 61, 10-11). So in conclusion, an analysis of the lexicon, structure, and content of the two Armenian passages shows us that they very likely go back to the primitive text of the AA.118 Conclusion The Armenian MartA is an exemplary case illustrating the importance of Armenian translations of apocryphal texts.119 The Armenian version of the MartA offers us an invaluable testimony on the interpretation – in an era likely close to the publication of the AA – of passages that are now obscure to us. It allows us to locate thoughts from the AA in places where the direct Greek tradition has been subjected to deletions, especially as a result of doctrinal revision. The Armenian translation most of all allows us to identify traces of orthodox manipulation of the Greek AA and at the same time to understand the conditions of the work’s reception in Christian Greek and Christian Armenian milieus. Similar reflections will be possible on the subject of the Armenian translation of the Martyrdom of Philip, to which we now turn.

  Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 277.   Cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 275; MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew, 428 inserts the first passage within the Greek text and gives the second in a note. 119   For a general presentation of the apocryphal literature in Armenian, see ch. I. 117 118

X. The Encratism of the Martyrdom of Philip: The Evidence of the Armenian Translation*

1.  The Greek Acts of the Apostle Philip and its Encratist traits The Martyrdom of Philip is the final section of the Acts of Philip, which tells of the apostle’s missionary journey until his death in Ophioryme, a city that has been identified as the ancient Hierapolis (today Pamukkale), in Phrygia.1 The Greek text of the Acts, as it has come down to us, is the result of a compilation of four sections from different eras.2 The first narrative unit is the Acts III-VII. The second encompasses Acts VIII-XV and the Martyrdom that, as often happens to the last part of apocryphal Acts, was cut from the rest of the work, probably in order to facilitate its use in the liturgical celebrations of the apostle.3 The third and fourth narrative units are constituted by two separate Acts, namely I and II. The work’s time of writing is different for the different units. It runs from the middle of the 4th century, for the second unit (Acts VIII-XV), to the second half of the 5th, for Act II. The first section was probably written toward the end of the 4th century, while Act I might go back to the end of the 4th/beginning of the 5th century.4 The composition of the different sections must have taken place in Asia Minor, specifically in Phrygia, as the analysis of the doctrinal   Translated from the French by Dr Benedict Beckeld.  Cf.  Act III, 4. 2   The composite nature of the text was assumed by the first scholars to take an interest in this work, and was subsequently demonstrated by codicological discoveries and by B. Bouvier’s and F. Bovon’s philological recovery: F. Bovon et al., Acta Philippi. Textus (Turnhout, 1999). For a history of the scholarship, see F. Amsler, Acta Philippi. Commentarius (Turnhout, 1999) 20-2. 3  Amsler, Acta Philippi, 410; F. Amsler et al., Actes de l’apôtre Philippe (Turnhout, 1996) 248. 4  Amsler, Acta Philippi, 438. * 1

218

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

t­endencies of the text has shown.5 This apocryphal work indeed constitutes an exceptionally important document for improving our knowledge of the Christian currents that circulated in Late Antiquity (4th to 5th centuries). In particular it offers a major testimony on the diffusion of the doctrines practiced in ancient rigorist circles – Encratites, Apotactites, Eustathians – who advocated a radical vision of both sexual and dietary continence (Greek enkrateia).6 These rigorist ascetic practices were characterised by, among other things, the rejection of marriage (γάμος) and procreation (παιδοποΐα or τεκνογονία), by the refusal of material goods, and by dietary rules, such as abstinence from meat and wine, including the wine of the Eucharist, for which the Encratites substituted water.7 The Apotactites took an even more radical position and advocated a purely spiritual communion with Christ, without the mediation of the two elements of the Eucharist.8 But beyond the specific differences, all these rigorist circles stressed abstinence and purity as privileged means of trying to approach the purity of the origins and reach salvation.9 These circles were sanctioned by the Church Fathers and condemned during the Synod of Gangra, among others, in Asia Minor (Paphlagonia), in the 4th century (340 or 343).10 Our information on  Amsler, Acta Philippi, 17-22 and passim.   The hypothesis of an Encratist origin of the Acts of Philip was already suggested by scholars like P. Batiffol (‘Actes des apôtres, III: Actes [apocryphes] des apôtres’, DTC, vol. 1 [Paris, 1903] 362) and E. Peterson (‘Die Häretiker der Philippus-Akten’, ZNW 31 [1932] 97-111 at 106), and taken up again by Kaestli and Junod, ‘L’histoire des Actes apocryphes des apôtres’, 30, 33-4, 75, note 116), as well as by Bovon et al., Acta Philippi, passim. The matter was also studied by Amsler, Acta Philippi, 13-16, 493-520, and passim, notably based on an anti-heretic fragment attributed to Amphilochius of Iconium. See also R.N. Slater, ‘An Inquiry into the Relationship between Community and Text: The Apocryphal Acts of Philip 1 and the Encratites of Asia Minor’, in Bovon et al. (eds), The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge, MA, 1999) 281-306. 7   On Encratism, see Βianchi, ‘Le thème du colloque’; Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia and ‘Atti apocrifi’; Tissot, ‘Encratisme et Actes apocryphes’; see also ch. VIII of the present book. 8  Amsler, Acta Philippi, 500-1; Amsler et al., Actes de l’apôtre Philippe, 82. 9   See Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antropologia, passim. Cf. Angelidi, ‘Virginité ascétique’; Beatrice, ‘Continenza e matrimonio nel cristianesimo primitive’; Brown, The Body and Society; Perrone, ‘Eunuchi per il regno dei cieli?’; Rousselle, Porneia. 10  Amsler, Acta Philippi, 479-80; see also infra, § 4.4. 5 6



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip219

these currents is to a great extent linked to the testimony of their detractors, and thus guided by the negative view of the Church Fathers. But thanks in part to the testimony of the apocryphal literature it is possible to find first-hand information on these religious doctrines and practices that the Great Church condemned. This is indeed the case with the Acts of Philip, with the exception of Act II, which seems to be an orthodox rewriting of an older Act (VI, as well as the Martyrdom). While the text of the Acts retains several Encratist and Apoctite traits, the Martyrdom may have borne the brunt of doctrinal corrections. The liturgical use of the text might be the reason for the Church’s increased attention to the work’s orthodoxy. The hypothesis of a revision of the Greek Martyrdom to water down its Encratist traits receives support from a comparison with the old Armenian version (BHO 980-981, CANT 250.II). This Armenian text preserves some Encratist passages that do not appear in the known versions of the Greek text. The content and vocabulary of those passages are consistent with the Encratist-seeming remarks in other sections of the Acts, which is an indication of their primitive origin. The Armenian document is therefore essential in trying to determine the original tenor of the primitive Greek text (critical restoration of the Greek) and in understanding the doctrinal orientation that guided the translator and the Armenian religious environment in which he worked. We should observe that our knowledge of Encratism and other rigorist circles in ancient Armenia is limited, as there has been no systematic study of them. Such a study would have to take into account the evidence in the apocryphal literature, certainly the Martyrdom of Philip. The results could then be fruitfully compared with those that have already been achieved with other apocrypha with Encratist leanings, such as the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, whose Encratist traits were studied by Leloir,11 and the Mar­ tyrdom of Andrew. As we saw in the previous chapter, the Armenian version of the Greek Martyrdom of Andrew was not the object of as much doctrinal interference as the Greek, and thus preserves primitive Encratist passages that cannot be found in any known Greek testimony.12 Before we analyse the relevant Armenian passages of the Mar­ tyrdom of Philip, we briefly present here the manuscript tradition in the two languages.   Leloir, ‘Rapports’,   See Calzolari, ‘La version arménienne du Martyre d’André’, 170-81; cf. Calzolari, ‘La versione armena del Martirio di Andrea’. 11

12

220

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

2.  The Greek Acts and Martyrdom of Philip: editions and manuscript tradition The manuscript tradition of the Acts is very limited, and none of the surviving testimonies preserves the text in its entirety. The different manuscripts do allow us, however, faithfully to restore the fifteen Acts that precede the Martyrdom. The 1974 identification by Bovon and Bouvier of a new testimony, the MS. Xenophontos 32 (an Athonite manuscript from the 14th century, with the siglum A),13 has confirmed this restoration. The manuscript indeed attests to a writing of the text including the whole of the Acts and Martyrdom. But it has also been subjected to censorious intervention, so that many parts and sometimes even whole books have been torn out of the codex. The manuscript does, however, remain a primary tool for our restoration of the Greek. We have today a critical edition of the Acts of Philip of the MS. Xenophontos 32, thanks to Bovon and Bouvier.14 As has been stated, the Martyrdom was transmitted independently of the Acts. All its currently known manuscripts contain traces of alterations undertaken after its separation from the rest of the work. Some of these aimed to render the beginning of the text less abrupt by introducing the persons of the story.15 The work’s liturgical use is the reason for a richer transmission than the rest of the Acts has enjoyed; we know of over fifty testimonies. The editio princeps of the Martyrdom is by C. Tischendorf, who published two editions of the text, in 1851 and 1866.16 The text was then published by M. Bonnet in three versions, with the sigla, respectively, Γ, Θ, and Δ.17 In Γ and Θ (BGH 1525-1526m; BHGa 1525-1526d), the text of the Martyrdom begins with ch. 1  Bovon et al., Acta Philippi, XIII-XX.   Ibid. 15   On the primitive content of the Martyrdom’s opening, see Amsler, Acta Philippi, 412-4. 16   C. Tischendorf, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1851) 75-104; C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866; repr. Hildesheim, 1966) 141-56. 17   AAA, vol. II, 2, VII-XV, XXXVI-XXXVII, 1-98, at 41-90, for the Mar­ tyrdom. On the versions of the Greek texts of the Martyrdom, see also J. Flamion, ‘Les trois recensions grecques du Martyre de Philippe’, in Mélanges d’histoire offerts à Charles Moeller, vol. 1 (Leuven and Paris, 1914) 215-25. 13 14



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip221

[107], while in Δ (BGH 1528 z) it begins only with ch. 17 [123]. It is only in the correspondence of ch. 19 [125] that the text becomes common to all three versions, ‘ce qui conduit à penser’, as F. Amsler writes, ‘que c’est à cet endroit précis que commençait le Martyre primitive’.18 In addition to the fifteen manuscripts Bonnet used for his edition, including the Vaticanus Gr. 824 (parchment from the 11th century, siglum V) which attests to version Γ,19 Bonnet indicates sixteen others, which he did not use for establishing his text. An important one among these is the Vaticanus Gr. 808 (parchment from the 11th century), of which Bonnet used only three fragments, in the introduction to his edition.20 After the text of Γ, Θ, and Δ, Bonnet’s edition also contains the text preserved in the MS. Parisinus Gr. 1551, a Cypriot Greek menology from the 14th century that preserves a very summary form of the Martyrdom (BHG 1528).21 There is also an edition of the Martyrdom in the editio minor of the Acts of Philip that appeared in the CCSA. Mirroring the text in the MS. Xenophontos 32, and close to Bonnet’s Θ, the editors, Bovon and Bouvier, edited the text of MS. Vaticanus Gr. 834, which attests to Γ. The text in MS. Vaticanus Gr. 808, for which there is a French translation published by Amsler and Bouvier in 1996 in their Apo­ cryphes collection, is still unpublished. As they say in the introduction to that volume, ‘la version contenue dans ... le Vaticanus graecus 808... est une forme hybride, soit A [Γ], enrichie d’éléments propres ou provenant de B [Θ] et de C [Δ]’.22 3.  The Armenian version of the Martyrdom of Philip and its relation­ ship with the Greek textual tradition The Armenian text was published in 1904, in Venice.23 The editor, K‘. Č‘rak‘ean, published two versions of the text (a.I and a.II), printed one above the other, on the same page. Each of these two is based on  Amsler, Acta Philippi, 413.  Bovon et al., Acta Philippi, XX-XXI. 20   AAA, vol. II, 2, XIII-XV; cf. Bovon et al., Acta Philippi, XXXIV-XXXV. 21   AAA, vol. II, 2, 91-8. 22  Amsler et al., Actes de l’apôtre Philippe, 54. I have added the sigla [Γ], [Θ], and [Δ] within brackets. 23  Č‘rak‘ean, Ankanon girk‘, 300-20 and 321-8. 18 19

222

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

a single manuscript in the library of the Mekhitarist congregation in Venice: a.I: Ven. Arm. 228, ex 653 (in the year 1847), copy of the famous Homiliary called ‘of Muš’ (M 7729) from 1200-1202, by Father N. Sargsean,24 n° 142. a.II: Ven. Arm. 222, ex 239 (in the year 1335), Select speeches, n° 95.25 The two versions are followed by an abbreviated form of the Martyr­ dom, preserved in the Armenian Synaxarion (Yaysmawurk‘).26 The text published by Č‘rak‘ean was translated into French by Leloir in 1992.27 Beside his translation activities, Č‘rak‘ean also went on the search for new manuscripts, and indeed found fourteen unpublished ones. I have been able to lengthen this list with an additional seventeen.28 Leloir carried out a preliminary study of the relationship between the two versions of the Armenian text and the three of the Greek in Bonnet’s edition, and reached the conclusion that the Armenian is closest to Θ. This overlap between the Armenian and Θ is not absolute, however, because the Armenian also contains possible similarities with the other Greek versions. According to Leloir, ‘cet état de choses peut recevoir deux explications’: (1) L’arménien représente un stade tardif de l’histoire du texte et résulte d’une contamination entre les diverses formes textuelles grecques. (2) L’arménien dérive d’un état ancien du texte, antérieur à la forme

  B.V. Sarghissian, Mayr c‘uc‘ak hayerēn jeṙagrac‘ Matenadaranin Mxit‘areanc‘ i Venetik [Grand Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts in the Mekhitarist library in Venice], vol. 2 (Venice, 1924) 462. 25  Sarghissian, ibid., 343. 26   G. Bayan, ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. IV. Mois de Tré’, PO 77 (16/1) (1922, reprint 2003) 28-34 [530-6]. This summary version (BHO 986-987; cf. BHG 1525) is also preserved in three unpublished manuscripts from the Manuscript Institute in Erevan (Matenadaran): M 2234 (year 1634?), incipit fol. 150v; M 4774 (16th c.) n° 3, incipit fol. 1v; M 4822 (year 1491) n° 4, incipit fol. 13v. According to Leloir, the abbreviated form of the Mar­ tyrdom in the Synaxarion is related to the Greek Γ, which shows that the latter is not a summary of the long textual version (a.I and a.II): Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 460-3. 27  Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 432-59. 28   See Calzolari, ‘La version arménienne du Martyre de Philippe’, 119-20. 24



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip223

actuelle des recensions grecques, et peut restituer ici et là des éléments du texte primitif qui ont disparus en grec.29

The systematic examination of the relationships between the Armenian and the known Greek versions brought Leloir to embrace the second hypothesis and to guess that the Armenian text might well presuppose a now lost Greek text closer to the primitive text.30 These results ought now to be verified through our rich harvest of unpublished Armenian testimonies. While we await a new critical edition of both texts – Greek and Armenian31 – it is still possible as of now to bring into the discussion a few elements of interest. In the following paragraphs, I shall present three examples of Armenian passages that are not in the Greek. They are to be found, respectively, in ch. 15 [121], 22 [128], and 13 [119]. As has been stated above, these extracts are characterised by words of an Encratist flavour and could attest to passages that were expunged from the Greek by a censor. 4.  Encratist passages preserved in Armenian 4.1. Martyrdom of Philip 15 [121] The first example comes from ch. 15 [121] and relates the events that followed upon Philip’s and Bartholomew’s arrival in Hierapolis (Acts XIII-XV and Martyrdom). According to Act XV, Nicanora, the city governor’s wife, converted and thereby provoked her husband’s wrath against the two apostles, in line with the classic narrative pattern of the apocryphal Acts of the apostles.32 The Greek text of this passage reports Tyrannognophos’ – the governor’s – words as he orders Philip and  Bar­ tholomew to be arrested and brought to him. As he sees them, he cries out: Γ Βασανίσατε τοὺς μάγους τούτους τοὺς πλανήσαντας πολλὰς γυναῖκας καὶ ἄνδρας, νέους τε καὶ νεάνιδας καὶ λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς  Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 423.   Ibid., 423-8. 31   A new critical study of the Armenian text, as compared with the Greek, has been undertaken by E. Bonfiglio; a new critical edition of the Greek Martyrdom of Philip is forthcoming from F. Amsler. Both projects fall within the purview of the AELAC. 32   Tissot, ‘Encratisme et Actes apocryphes’, passim. 29 30

224

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

εἶναι θεοσεβεῖς, βδελύγματα ὄντες (CCSA 11, 364, 15, 2-4; cf. AAA, 50, 5-7) Torture these sorcerers who have led so many women and men astray, young men and young girls, and who pretend to be pious while they are in fact abominations. Θ Σύρατε τοὺς μάγους τούτους καὶ πλάνους τοὺς πλανήσαντας πολλὰς ψυχὰς γυναικῶν καὶ λέγοντας ὅτι ῾Θεοσεβεῖς ἐσμεν᾽ (CCSA 11, 365, 15, 2-4; cf. AAA, 50, 21-23) Bring me these sorcerers, (these) seducers, who have led the souls of so many women astray, while saying ‘We are pious!’ (cf. Vat. Gr. 808)

The Greek text only states rather vaguely that the two apostles have led the city’s men and women astray, without specifying the exact nature of the apostles’ actions. The Armenian is quite different on this point: a.I Hanēk‘ artak‘s zxaberaysd zaydosik i tanē Stak‘eay, ew tanǰec‘ēk‘ orpēs mahapart, zi hrapurec‘in zkanays mer ew zkoyss, oč‘ bnakel ĕnd aṙns ew oč‘ linel aranc‘. ew asen zink‘eans astuacapašts ew surbs, ew surb srbut‘iwn usuc‘anen mez: (Č‘rak‘ean, 303.a, 7-10) Make these sorcerers come out of Stachys’33 house and torture them to death (lit. as condemned to death), because they have seduced our women and virgins, in order that they (the women) not live with their men and that they (the virgins) not belong to men (lit. not be for men). They call themselves pious and pure, and they pretend to teach us (lit. they teach us) pure purity.34 cf. a.II K‘aršec‘ēk‘ zkaxardsd zaydosik ork‘ molorec‘uc‘anen zbazum kanays ew koyss ew asen, et‘ē astuacapaštk‘ emk‘: (Č‘rak‘ean, 303.b, 1-3) Bring these sorcerers who lead many women and virgins astray and say: ‘We are pious (lit. adorers of God)’.   A wealthy dignitary of Hierapolis who welcomes Philip and Bar­ tholomew into his house. He is blind, but is then healed by Mariamne (Act XV, 7), Philip’s sister, and becomes bishop of the city (Martyrdom, § 37 [143]). 34   Also ‘the sacred sanctity’ or ‘the sacred purity’. 33



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip225

The Armenian text of a.II overlaps more with the Greek, especially Θ. This comparison does also, however, reveal some peculiarities that distinguish the Armenian from the Greek: the omission of Gr. καὶ πλάνους ‘and seducers’; the expression zbazum kanays ew zkoyss ‘many women and virgins’ for Gr. πολλὰς ψυχὰς γυναικῶν ‘the souls of so many women’,35 with the omission of the word ψυχάς ‘souls’ and, inversely, the Armenian indication of ‘virgins’, which is absent in Greek. Among the similarities, the translation of the Greek participle after the article (τοὺς πλανήσαντας... καὶ λέγοντας... ‘having led astray… and saying…’), by an Armenian relative clause (ork‘ molorec‘uc‘anen... ew asen... ‘who lead astray… and say…’) is a common translation method for this type of Greek syntagma.36 The text of a.I does not exactly overlap with any of the Greek versions, although it shares certain elements with version Γ.37 We note in particular that the verb tanǰec‘ēk ‘torture’ corresponds to the verb βασανίσατε ‘torture’ in Γ and that the reported speech, with the verb understood (zink‘eans astuacapašts ew surbs ‘[they call] themselves pious and pure’), may be compared with the infinitive clause in Γ (ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι θεοσεβεῖς ‘[saying] themselves to be pure’). The verb tanǰec‘ēk ‘torture’ is preceded by a second verb form, hanēk ‘pull, make leave, bring’, followed by the prepositional phrase artak‘s ‘out of’ with the ablative. But it is difficult to establish whether this clause presupposes the verb σύρατε ‘bring’ in Θ38 or whether it is a secondary development. The a.I also contains the expression ‘women and virgins’ which appeared in a.II. We can easily identify directly in the text other developments of a.I that are absent in the Greek. The most interesting element is the explanation of the motive behind people going astray as a result of the apostles’ preaching, an element that is vague in the Greek. The most serious crime of which Philip and Bartholomew are guilty in the   Lit. ‘many souls of women’.   On the Greek participle translated with a relative clause in Armenian, see V. Banăţeanu, La traduction arménienne des tours participiaux grecs (Bucharest, 1937) 81-106. 37   On the possible overlaps with Θ and Γ, see supra, 222. 38   The Armenian verb k‘aršec‘ēk‘ ‘pull, bring’, preserved in a.II, is semantically closer to the Greek σύρατε than is the verb hanēk ‘make leave’: cf. G. Awetik‘ean et al., Nor Baṙgirk‘ Haykazean Lezui [New Dictionary of the Armenian Language], vol. 2 (Venice, 1837, repr. Erevan, 1981) s.v. 35 36

226

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

Armenian, ‘to death’ according to the a.I, consists in the fact that they separate the wives from their husbands and that they encourage virgins not to marry, in conformity with the pious life they teach. Now, as we have emphasized above, this exhortation corresponds to one of the fundamental precepts of Encratism, which advocated the separation of couples and especially the distancing of women from their husbands. The question of celibacy’s superiority to marriage had been debated already in the apostolic era. Without getting into the deeper details, we may mention especially Paul’s first Epistle to the community of Corinth (1 Cor 7), in which he recommends marriage to those who are not strong enough to choose chastity, which in and of itself is preferable: ‘I say therefore to the unmarried and to the widows that it is good to remain such, as I. But if they cannot live in continence, may they marry, for it is better to marry than to burn’ (1 Cor 7:8).39 Though continence is the preferable state, marriage is not condemned.40 But in both versions of the Armenian text we observe an insistence on ‘the virgins’. That is, although virginity is also advocated by other ascetic Christian sects and by the Church Fathers, especially from the 4th century onwards,41 it is one of the main aspects of Encratism. It remains difficult to determine whether the passage preserved only in Armenian was also in the primitive Greek text, given that a.I features other developments whose origin (whether primitive or secondary) cannot be ascertained with certitude. Nonetheless, its consistency with some of the primary ideas of the Greek Acts of Philip is noteworthy. The occurrences of the terms παρθένος ‘virgin’ (cf. Arm. koys) and παρθενία ‘virginity’ in the Greek Martyrdom are quite numerous.42 They are consistent with the theme of purity or sanctity (Arm. srbut‘iwn, equivalent of Gr. ἁγνεία) that in the Armenian becomes a precept of the apostles’ teaching, while the Greek refers only to piousness. Ἁγνεία is in turn a central doctrinal element in the work, to the point that it has   There is a very rich bibliography on the interpretation of 1 Cor 7; we mention among others Brown, The Body and Society, 58-96; Clark, Reading Renunciation, 259-329; MacDonald, Early Christian Women, 133-44. 40   Still, this Epistle was used in later literature as a reference text for the exaltation of chastity. Matt 19:10-12 should also be mentioned among the New Testament pericopes on marriage and celibacy that were the object of several later interpretations in ascetic literature. 41  Brown, The Body and Society, passim. 42  Amsler, Acta Philippi, 504. 39



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip227

been ­written: ‘la véritable entrée pour l’étude de l’encratisme dans les Actes de Philippe est constituée par la notion d’ἁγνεία’.43 The condemnation of marriage as the core of the apostle’s kerygma appears in other passages of the Greek text, like the three following excerpts, which explicitly mention the separation of couples as a result of Philip’s sermons:44 Acts of Philip IV Text of the Xenophontos 32 (A) αἱ δὲ καὶ ἐλοιδόρουν αὐτὸν ὅτι διαχωρίζει συμβιώσεις, διδάσκει γάρ, φησίν, ὅτι ἡ ἁγνεία ὁρᾷ τὸν θεόν, καὶ τὴν τεκνογονίαν ὀδύνην εἶναι λέγει (CCSA 11, 117, 1, 15-17) But other women insulted him, saying that he separated spouses in teaching, to use his terms, that purity sees God and that procreation is misery. Text of the Vaticanus Gr. 824 (V) ἄλλαι δὲ ἔλεγον ὅτι ‘μάγος καὶ σκολιὸς ἄνθρωπος οὗτος, ὅτι διαχωρίζει τὰς συμβιώσεις· διδάσκει γάρ ὅτι ἡ ἁγνεία ὁρᾷ τὸν θεόν καὶ τὴν τεκνογονίαν ὀδύνην εἶναι λέγει’ (CCSA 11, 116, 1, 12-14; cf. AAA, 18, 14-17) But other women said: ‘It is a sorcerer and a devious man, because he separates spouses by teaching that purity sees God and that procreation is misery’. Acts of Philip V Text of A ἡ δὲ διδασκαλία αὐτοῦ ἐστιν διαχωρίζουσα ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας, λέγων ὅτι ἡ ἁγνεία, φησίν, ὁμιλεῖ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ διδάσκει πιστεύειν εἰς ὄνομά τινος Ἰησοῦ (CCSA 11, 139, 5, 5-8) His teaching consists in separating husbands from wives, affirming that purity, as he says, keeps company with God, and teaching to believe in the name of a certain Jesus. Text of V Non habet

 Amsler, ibid., 494.   Cf. also Acts of Philip I, 2.

43 44

228

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

Acts of Philip VI Text of A ἡ πᾶσα διδασκαλία αὐτοῦ ἐστιν διαχωρίζειν γάμους καὶ κηρύττειν ἁγνείαν (CCSA 11, 181, 3, 15-16) His whole teaching consists in separating couples and preaching purity. Text of V Non habet

The passages quoted here are drawn from sections in the Acts of Philip that were not translated into Armenian, which increases their importance for evaluating the consistency between the Armenian passages we examine and the rest of the Greek work. Other interesting criteria for determining the origin of the passage in ch. 15 [121], preserved only in Armenian, appear through the parallel with a second excerpt, in ch. 22 [128], which states that the apostle’s rejection of marriage and exultation of virginity and abstinence are part of his doctrine. 4.2. Martyrdom of Philip 22 [128] In ch. 22 [128] of the Martyrdom of Philip, John the Evangelist intervenes to help Philip and Bartholomew, Tyrannognophos’ victims. John questions the inhabitants of Hierapolis regarding the tumult embroiling the city. They reply to him by blaming the apostles for the unrest. In Γ we read: Γ Μὴ οὐκ εἶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἡμῶν καὶ ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων; οἵτινες πολλοὺς ἠδίκησαν, ἔκλεισαν δὲ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς ἡμῶν καὶ ἐν τῇ μαγείᾳ αὐτῶν ἀνεῖλον τοὺς ὄφεις καὶ τοὺς δράκοντας (CCSA 11, 376, 22, 4-7; cf. AAA, 57, 4-8) Are you then not from our city that you ask about these men? They have wronged many, they have even shut out our gods and by their sorcery have exterminated the serpents45 and dragons.46   For a reference to the cult of the viper, which occupied a central place among the popular beliefs in the city of Ophioryme and has been compared with the cult of the Anatolian goddess Cybele, see A. von Gutschmid, ‘Die Königsnamen in den apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des geschichtlichen Romans’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge 19 (1864) 161-83 and 380-401 (reprinted in his Kleine Schriften II [Leipzig, 1890] 340-94) at 400; Amsler et al., Actes de l’apôtre Philippe, 57-62. 46   On the dragon cult, see Amsler et al., Actes de l’apôtre Philippe, 62-6. 45



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip229

Θ Οὐκ ἦς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ, οὔτε ἔγνως ἕνεκα τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων, ὅπως ἐτάραξαν τοὺς οἴκους ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν πόλιν δὲ πάσαν; ἔτι γε μὴν καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν ἀποστῆναι ἀνέπεισαν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν προφάσει θεοσεβείας ξένον ὄνομα καταγγέλλοντες Χριστοῦ. ἔκλεισαν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἡμῶν ἔχοντές τινα μαγείαν μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν καὶ ἀναιροῦσιν τοὺς ὄφεις τοὺς ὄντας ἐν τῇ πόλει διὰ ξένων ὀνομασιῶν μὴ ἐγνωσμένων ἡμῖν ποτε (CCSA 11, 377, 22, 4-11; AAA, 57, 12-19) Were you not in this city and did you not know that these men have disrupted our homes and the whole city? They have gone so far as to convince our wives to remove themselves from us on the pretext of piety, proclaiming a foreign name, that of Christ. They have closed our sanctuaries, having some sort of sorcery with them, and they killed the serpents that were in our city through strange appellations that we have never heard before.

Θ is the more developed text. We note in particular the reference to the rupture of conjugal unions in the name of the apostles’ teaching. Γ, on the other hand, only contains a vague indication thereof. And in Θ, the separation of spouses precedes a series of other references to Philip’s and Bartholomew’s struggle against the pagan and idolatrous religious practices in the city. These are attested, in an abbreviated form, in Γ, too. It is interesting that the Armenian text in turn, in both II.a et II.b, preserves a passage referring to the separation of wives from their husbands, just like in Θ. This is followed by an expansion of the theme of virginity, thereby recalling ch. 15 [121] above. II.a accentuates the radicalisation of the apostolic teaching in its reference to marriage (or conjugal interaction) as garš, a very pejorative adjective meaning ‘abominable, execrable, disgusting’, already used in ch. 13 [119] to translate the Greek αἰσχρός, which there defines concupiscence and is used in the Encratist texts to describe marriage.47 II.a ... vrdovec‘uc‘in zk‘ałak‘s amenayn, zkanays yaranc‘ meknelov, garš hamarelov, ew zkoyss usuc‘anen mnal aṙanc‘ aranc‘. ew harsunk‘ tołeal zp‘esays yaṙagasti ew zhet noc‘a usmann gnac‘in, arhamarelov zzards  See infra, 233. The Armenian adjective may also be compared with the semantic field of the Greek βδελυκτός ‘abominable’, βδέλυγμα ‘abomination’: cf. Acts of Philip XI, 9, 15; XIII, 1, 15; Vat. Mart. 15, 4. 47

230

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

oskwoy ew arcat‘oy ew zk‘aranc‘ patuakanac‘ ew zpatmučans hander­ jic‘ ew zhot iwłoc‘ ew xnkoc‘ anušic‘. ew unin kaxardins imn, or baniw zōjs spananen i jeṙn astucoyn iwreanc‘, zor č‘ik‘ mer lueal (Č‘rak‘ean, 306a, 6-15) (my emphasis) They have disrupted the entire city, separating women from men, by considering (marriage) abominable, and they teach the virgins to remain without men; young married women, having left their husbands in the nuptial chamber, have followed their teaching, hating the ornaments of gold and silver, precious stones and sumptuous robes, and the fragrance of oils and sweet incenses. And they have some sorcery that by word kills the serpents through their God, of which we have never heard before. II.b … xṙovec‘uc‘anen zbazums vasn kananc‘ ew dsterac‘ iwreanc‘. k‘anzi bazum kanayk‘ meknec‘an yaranc‘ iwreanc‘, ew bazum koysk‘ mnac‘in aṙanc‘ aranc‘, ew harsunk‘ tołin zp‘esays ew ĕnt‘ac‘an aṙ nosa. ziwłs anušuns ew zxunks c‘ankalis ĕnkec‘in yeress marc‘ iwreanc‘, p‘šrec‘in zanōt‘s iwłep‘ec‘ac‘n, p‘akec‘in zdruns mehenin. ew i veray aysr amenayni kaxardut‘iwn imn i jeṙs unin, ew apakanen zōjs or i k‘ałak‘is merum, i jeṙn ōtar anuan zor č‘ik‘ erbek‘ mer lueal (Č‘rak‘ean, 306b, 8-307, 1) (my emphasis) They disrupt many people because of their wives and daughters; indeed many women have separated from their husbands, and many virgins have remained without men. Young married women have left their spouses and have rushed to them (scil. the apostles); they have thrown into their mothers’ faces the sweet oils and desirable incenses, they have smashed the perfumers’ vases. And (the apostles) have closed the gates of the temple48 and, beyond all this, they have some sorcery and they destroy the serpents that are in our city by means of a foreign name that we have never heard (my emphasis)

In these two Armenian versions, the reference to rupturing marriages and to virginity is followed by something absent in the Greek, namely the young married women leaving their nuptial chamber so as to follow the apostles. The women’s loyalty to the apostolic word, in the Armenian, brings along other consequences for their behaviour. In the name of their new lifestyle choice they renounce all material goods, including their feminine ornaments.   Based on the comparison with the Greek, I deviate from the punctuation in the Armenian, according to which one should translate: ‘they (feminine) have closed the gates of the temple’. 48



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip231

In trying to determine whether the passages that are only extant in the Armenian are primitive secondary, we find that there are similar passages on wealth and feminine ornament in other parts of the Greek Acts, too, which proves their consistency with the thought of the work as a whole, or at least with what we have that can be examined. A most interesting parallel can be established with a passage from Act VIII, which belongs to the same literary unit as the Martyr­ dom. This is a key passage in which Mariamne, Philip’s sister and his companion in the mission, receives the following recommendations as she is about to follow him on his voyage: Acts VIII MS. of Athens, National library, 346 καὶ σὺ δὲ αὐτή, Μαριάμνη, ἄλλαξόν σου τὴν στολὴν καὶ τὴν ἰδέαν, καὶ ἔκδυσαι ὅλον τὸ γυναικεῖον εἶδος καὶ τὸ θέριστρον ὅπερ περιβέβλησαι. μὴ ἔχε τὸ κράσπεδον κατασυρόμενον χαμαί, μηδὲ πλέξῃς αὐτό, ἀλλὰ ψάλισον αὐτὰ καὶ βάδιζε ὁμοῦ μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου Φιλίππου κτλ. (CCSA 11, 245, 4, 1-5) As for you, Mariamne, change your clothes and appearance: strip off everything exterior that is reminiscent of woman, the summer dress that you wear. Do not let the fringe of your clothes drag on the ground, do not dress but cut it; then travel away in the company of your brother Philip, etc.

The passage can be juxtaposed with the episode of Charitina, who in Act IV, 6, 4-5 dresses as a man before departing with Philip. It is also close to a passage preserved only in the MS. Vaticanus Gr. 808, which mentions the case of young girls shaving their heads, removing their rings, and dressing in modest attire, in order to follow the apostle.49 With the current state of the scholarship being what it is, and especially considering the absence of any critical editions of the Greek and Armenian that take all of the manuscript tradition into account, it is impossible to determine the origin of these passages with any certainty. But the consistency between what we only have in Armenian and the rest of the Greek work suggests a primitive origin. Encratist traits are also developed in a third passage, from ch. 13 [119].

 Amsler, Acta Philippi, 506 and note 5; cf. also Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 429. 49

232

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

4.3.  Martyrdom of Philip 13 [119] In ch. 13 [119] we find a long section about Tyrannognophos and his wife, Nicanora. The latter has converted to Christianity and is adopting a life of abstinence. She encourages her husband to convert as well and to lead a pure life without blemish. Contrary to the case in the passages we have previously examined, here the Greek also – especially in Θ – has a strongly Encratist content and vocabulary. The governor’s wife condemns concupiscence and carnal union very severely. Θ ὦ Τυραννόγνοφε, ... ἔπαρον ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ τὸ θηριῶδης καὶ ἀσελγὲς ἔργον τῆς αἰσχρᾶς ἐπιθυμίας καὶ παραίτησαι τὴν κακὴν συνουσίαν, ἡτις ἐστὶν γεωργία τοῦ θανάτου. κατάστρεψον τὸ μεσότοιχον τῆς φθορᾶς, καὶ περιποίησαι σεαυτῷ βίον σεμνὸν καὶ ἀρρύπαρον, ἵνα γενῶμεθα ἐν ἁγιασμῷ διὰ παντός. ἐὰν οὖν θέλῃς παρὰ σοί μένειν, ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ οἰκήσω σὺν σοί (CCSA 11, 361-3, 13, 1-11; cf. AAA, 48, 17-49, 18) O Tyrannognophos… free yourself from the animal and impudent activity of shameful concupiscence and avoid carnal union, which is bad, for it is the tillage of death.50 Destroy the separating wall of corruption, and embrace a respectable and pure life, so that we may be forever in holiness. So if you want me to live with you, it is in continence that I shall share your house.

This passage contains much of the Encratist kerygma. First we have the association between carnal union on the one hand, and death and corruption on the other. This theme is also found in the Acts, notably in a passage where Philip exhorts one of his disciples to lead a continent life and to associate concupiscence with ‘defilement’ (Acts XV, 3, 7 τοῦ ῥύπου τῆς ἐπιθυμίας) and ‘corruption’ (Acts XV, 3, 7.11 φθορά). This is an aspect of Encratist doctrine. According to the Encratites, sexual union and procreation must effectively be seen as perpetuating the deprived condition of humanity, which has been condemned to death and plunged into corruption. In the first utterance of Encratist doctrine refuted by Clement of Alexandria in the Stromata, γάμος and procreation are rejected by the Encratites ‘in order not to   On the image of procreation as ‘a field of death’, see Bovon et al., Acta Philippi, 363, note 24; see also infra, 236. 50



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip233

offer nourishment to death’ (μηδὲ ἐπιχορηγεῖν τῷ θανάτῳ τροφήν).51 Tatian was supposedly the first to introduce the formulation,52 ‘calling marriage, corruption and fornication’ (γάμον τε φθορὰν καὶ πορνείαν... ἀναγορεύσας). According to Julius Cassian, ἐπιθυμία ‘concupiscence’ is considered responsible for the soul’s decay into ‘becoming’ (γένεσις) and ‘corruption’ (φθορᾶ).53 Among the Encratist terms in our extract one must also stress the adjective αἰσχρᾶς ‘abominable, execrable’ (describing ἐπιθυμίας), which brings us back to the semantic field of the Armenian adjective garš ‘abominable’ mentioned above. A closely related word is also attested in other apocryphal Acts where marriage and sexual union (συνουσία) are often called ‘impure’ (Gr. ῥυπαρός, cf. Acts of Thomas 12, Acts of Andrew 56)54. In the text of Γ, the Encratist vocabulary is less explicit and the attacks on carnal union have been replaced by the more conventional theme of condemning idolatry. Although the word enkrateia is explicitly mentioned,55 defilement is not connected to sex but to a commitment to idols.56 There is also the originally Old Testament association between the cults of idols and demons: Γ ὦ Τύραννε, ... ἀπόθου τὸ θηριῶδης τῆς φαύλης σου γνώμης, φύγε τὸν δράκοντα τὸν πικρὸν καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτοῦ, ῥῖψον ἀπὸ σοῦ τὰ ὄργανα καὶ τὸ βέλος τοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνου ὄφεως, παραίτησαι τὰς μυσαρὰς καὶ ἐναγεῖς κακίας τῶν εἰδώλων, αἱτινές εἰσι γεωργία τοῦ   Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, VI, 45, 1 (reference to the Gospel of the Egyptians): see supra, ch. IX, note 72. 52   Cf. Iren., Adv. Haer. I, 28, 1, ap. Eus., HE IV, 29, 3: Τατιανοῦ τινος πρώτως ταύτην εἰσενέγκαντος τὴν βλασφημίαν ‘a certain Tatian having first coined this blasphemy’. On the appelation of Tatian as Encratitarum patriarches in the Latin tradition, see Jerome, Prol. com. in ep. ad Titum 685 (PL, 26, 590). 53   Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, XIII, 93, 3. 54   On the Encratism of the Acts of Andrew, see supra, ch. IX; cf. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 321-7. 55   The word enkrateia ‘continence’ is mentioned at the same time as hag­ neia ‘purity’, on which see supra, 226-7: cf. εὐτρέπισον σεαυτὸν μένειν ἐν ἁγνείᾳ καὶ ἐγκρατείᾳ καὶ ἐν φόβῳ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ ‘prepare to remain in purity and continence as well as in fear of the true God’. 56  Bovon et al., Acta Philippi, 363, note 24. 51

234

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

ἐχθροῦ καὶ σκοτεινὸς φραγμός· περιποίησαι δὲ σεαυτῷ βίον σεμνὸν καὶ ἄρυπον, ἵνα γενόμενος ἐν ἁγιασμῷ δυνηθῇς γνῶναι τὸν ἰατρόν μου καὶ χωρῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. ἐὰν οὖν θέλῃς παρὰ σοί με εἶναι, εὐτρέπισον σεαυτὸν μένειν ἐν ἁγνείᾳ καὶ ἐγκρατείᾳ καὶ ἐν φόβῳ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ καὶ συνοικήσω σοι τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον· καθάρισον σεαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ παντὸς ῥύπου αὐτῶν (CCSA 11, 360-2, 13, 1-14; cf. AAA, 48, 5-49, 5) O Tyrannos… renounce the beastliness of your vile thought, escape the cruel dragon and its lusts, throw far away the instruments and the sting of the murderous serpent, renounce the abominable and cursed evils of the idols, which are a field of the enemy and dark enclosures. Embrace rather a respectable and pure life, so that, having entered into holiness, you may know my medicine and understand his name. So if you want me to be with you, prepare to remain in purity, in continence, and in fear of the true God; then I shall share your roof forever. Purify yourself of idols and of their whole defilement.

The Armenian version is very close to Θ and features a rich Encratist vocabulary. This is especially true of a.I. a.I Ov bṙnawor ... garš hamaresǰir zgorc płcut‘ean, c‘aco zvayreni zbarsd ew loyc zt‘šnamut‘iwnd, šiǰo zspanut‘iwn ew zc‘ankut‘iwn višapin ew hražarea i xaṙnakut‘eanc‘ or ē andastan mahu ew gub xawarin. korca­ nea zkrčimn apakanut‘ean ew stac‘ir zkeans parkešts ew anałts, zi lic‘uk‘ hanapaz i srbut‘iwn (Č‘rak‘ean, 301a, 20-302, 10) O tyrant… consider as abominable the work of impurity, soften your savage customs and discard your hostility, smother the murderous spirit (lit. the murder) and concupiscence, (which are the work) of the dragon, and renounce the carnal union which is a field of death and a well of shadows. Reverse the obstacle of corruption and receive a life chaste and without defilement, so that we may always remain in holiness.57

The text of a.II is more watered down, as it does not contain any reference to sex or concupiscence. The exhortation to chastity, viewed as a lifestyle without defilement, does remain, however: a.II Ov bṙnawor ... i bac‘ ara i k‘ēn zvayreni barsd, aysink‘n zgorcs płcut‘ean, or ē andastan mahu ew c‘ank xawari. korcanea zkrčimn apa­ kanut‘ean, stac‘ir k‘ez keans parkešts ew anałts, zi lic‘uk‘ hanapaz i srbut‘ean. (Č‘rak‘ean, 301b, 11-302, 3)   Other possible translation: ‘purity’.

57



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip235

O tyrant… remove from yourself your savage customs, namely the works of impurity, which are a field of death and an enclosure of shadows. Reverse the obstacle of corruption, receive a life chaste and without defilement, so that we may always remain in holiness.58

In a.I the Encratist tendency is amplified by a long passage on corruption (cf. Gr. φθορά), which is completely absent from the extant Greek texts: zi aydpisi axt apakanut‘ean norogē zapakanut‘iwn hogwoc‘ ew marm­ noc‘. na ē ibr zełeal i veray ereweli araracoc‘s or cnani zmełs. na ē amenayn č‘areac‘ gorcaran or zhogis šlac‘uc‘anē ew zmarminn apa­ kanē i korstean vihn mahu. na ē axorželi diwac‘, anmak‘ur axtiwk‘ bereal ew šaržeal pēs pēs vawašotut‘eamb. na ē skizbn xṙovut‘ean arar­ č‘in aṙ araracs, zi vasn c‘ankut‘ean ĕnkalan zanēcs ew zpatuhas azg mardkan, yamenec‘unc‘ Teaṙnēn (Č‘rak‘ean, 302a, 10-20) Indeed, this affection for corruption renews the corruption of souls and bodies. This is that which, widespread among visible creatures, gives birth to sins. This is that which, as an instrument/factory of all evils, blinds the spirits/souls and corrupts the body into perdition, which is the abyss of death. It is agreeable to the demons, led by dirty passions and stirred by all sorts of debauchery. It is the beginning of the wrath of the Creator against his creatures,59 for because of concupiscence the human race has received from the Lord of all curses and punishment.

In addition to the themes explored above regarding the Greek Θ, the Armenian passage of a.I establishes an interesting association between corruption – caused by concupiscence – and sins, i.e. evil. According to this passage, corruption (concupiscence) is considered to be the ‘factory of all evils’60 and is associated with the demoniac world (‘agreeable to the demons’). We recall in this regard that in the Latin text of the Acts of Peter 8, ‘concupiscence’ is considered an instrument of seduction by the ‘entirely bitter fruit from the tree of bitterness’, that is, the devil (Tu es fructus arboris amaritudinis totus amarissimus, qui varias   Also ‘purity’.   I disagree with the translation in Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres, 434: ‘Elle est le début, chez les créatures, du soulèvement contre le Créateur’. The continuation of the text points toward the idea of God’s wrath against creatures rather than that of the creatures’ uprising against God. 60   Cf. also Apocalypse of Moses XIX, 3, cited above, ch. IX, note 70. 58

59

236

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

concupiscentias inmittis).61 In the Armenian passage from the Martyr­ dom of Philip quoted here, the connection between concupiscence and sin has a protological dimension, that is, it is inherent in the very conception of the creation of the first (proto-) humans.62 Without entering upon details, we must keep in mind that in ascetic literature, sexuality and procreation were often associated with the fall of the first human couple, Adam and Eve, and in particular with the woman’s sin. Men had been created immortal; due to their disobedience, the first humans threw humanity into death. And so while marriage and procreation can be seen as a means of fighting against death and preserving the human race, this preservation, as we have seen above, perpetuates the fallen state of a humanity plunged into corruption, whence the condemnation of marriage by the most radical rigorist circles, such as the Encratites and Marcionites. Among the former, sexual union and γάμος were themselves identified with the original sin, rather than being seen as a consequence of the fall.63 This is the underlying idea of the Armenian text, according to which concupiscence is the cause, not the result, of God’s curse on the human race. While the Greek origin of the two first Armenian excerpts seems likely, it is harder to establish with any certainty whether the last Armenian pericope also belonged to a lost Greek original. The transmission history in the two languages is very complex, which makes   Döhler (ed.), Acta Petri, 78, 251-2; cf. AAA, vol. I, 1, 55, 29-30. See supra, 204, note 69. Cf. Sfameni Gasparro, ‘Gli Atti apocrifi’, 293. On the definition of the demon as ‘bitter tree’ (cf. Acts of Thomas 44) and the possible parallels with the ‘bitter herb’ from which the Lord encourages one to abstain, in the Gospel of the Egyptians (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, IX, 66, 1, 226, 15-6), see supra ch. IX, note 70. Recall also the reference to the lignum concupiscentiae tasted by Adam, opposed to the wood of Christ’s cross, mentioned in the Epistle of the Deacons and Priests of Achaia 5, on which see supra, ch. IX, note 70. On the devil association, see also Acts of Andrew 16 (supra, 204). 62   It is a dimension that considers the beginning of human history in order to envisage its end (archē and telos): Sfameni Gasparro, Enkrateia e antro­ pologia, 174. 63   This idea is found not only among the Encratites, but also in some orthodox writers like Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Zeno of Verona: Cantalamessa, L’Omelia ‘In S. Pascha’, 299, note 70; Sfameni Gasparro, Enk­ rateia e antropologia, 168, 277-8; Bolgiani, ‘La tradizione eresiologica sull’encratismo’, II, 591. 61



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip237

it difficult to express any critical judgment on the matter. From the Armenian point of view, the importance of these passages is still beyond question: they reflect aspects of the Encratist doctrine as it existed especially in the Eustathian milieu, whose influence on the Acts of Philip is a well-known fact, and on which, to conclude this study, we dwell for a moment. 4.4.  The rigorist positions of Eustathius of Sebaste in the words of the canons of the Synod of Gangra and their diffusion in Armenia Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste (before 300-ca. 377) was the founder of a monastic movement characterised by rigorist ascetic practices, including the condemnation of marriage and procreation, as well as the prohibition on eating meat. Most of our knowledge of this movement comes from the canons of the synod that met at Gangra in 340 (according to Sozomen) or after 360 (according to Socrates) in order to condemn the Eustathian heresy.64 Their deliberations were also translated into Armenian (see infra). Canons 1, 9, and 10 anathematise those who in following Eustathian principles reject and scorn marriage. More concretely, canon 14 anathematises women who leave their husbands, which confirms that this practice was indeed followed in that movement. A propos of women, we also find a condemnation of the practice – by women – of donning men’s clothing (canon 13) and of cutting one’s hair (canon 17). The Gangra canons also deal with the subject of virginity and purity, distinguishing between on the one hand beautiful and holy virginity (canon 9: Gr. τὸ καλὸν καὶ ἅγιον τῆς παρθενίας ‘the beauty and holiness of virginity’, cf. Arm. baroy ew s[r]b[oy] parkeštut‘ean ‘the good and holy chastity’), and on the other hand the absolute rejection and hatred of marriage:65 (canon 9) εἴ τις παρθενεύοι ἢ ἐγκρατεύοιτο, ὡς ἂν βδελύττων ὄντων τῶν γάμων ἀναχωρήσας καὶ μὴ δι᾽αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν καὶ ἅγιον τῆς παρθενίας, ἀνάθεμα ἕστω. If anyone lives outside marriage or in continence because of hatred of marriage and not due to the beauty and holiness of virginity, may he be anathematised.  See supra, 218 and note 10.   J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux, vol. 1 (Paris, 1907) 1036. 64 65

238

the encratism of the martyrdom of philip

Canon 1 contains an interesting element for our analysis of the Armenian passages. It says that the Eustathians ‘considered marriage abominable’:66 (canon 1) εἴ τις τὸν γάμον μέμφοιτο, καὶ τὴν καθεύδουσαν μετὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς, ... βδελύσσοιτο ἢ μέμφοιτο..., ἀνάθεμα ἕστω If anyone scorns the state of marriage, if he scorns and blames the woman who lives with her husband… may he be anathematised.

In the Armenian translation of this canon we find the same expression – garš hamarelov ‘considering (marriage) abominable’ (canon 1 za­musnut‘iwn garš hamarin, cf. canon 9 garš ic‘ē amusnut‘iwn) – as in ch. 22 [128], which shows a possible Encratist origin, of the Eustathian variety, for this vocabulary. As N.G. Garsoïan has noted, it is probable that Eustathius’ ideas found followers in Greater Armenia as well, especially at the time of the patriarch Nersēs the Great, in the 4th century.67 The development of the Armenian translation of the twenty-three chapters from the Synod of Gangra was integrated into the official canonical collection of the Armenian Church68 and constitutes a strong indication of the diffusion of this movememt as well as of the necessity for the Church of opposing it.69 In spite of the condemnations from the Great and in particular the Armenian Church, the circulation of these tendencies could not be completely stopped, as the apocryphal sources, among others, show us. Conclusion The analysis of the extracts in this chapter has a twofold goal. First, it tries on the basis of the Armenian to furnish testimonies useful for the restoration of the Greek text of the Martyrdom of Philip and, more specifically, for understanding that work’s Encratist tenor. These testimonies are offered for specialists in the Greek tradition of the Acts  Hefele, ibid., 1032.   Garsoïan, ‘Nersēs’, 164-9. 68   V. Hakobyan, Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘ [Book of Canons of the Armenians], vol. 1 (Erevan, 1964) 188-201, 579-85 (§ 190-201); cf. F. Macler, ‘Une recension arménienne des canons du concile de Gangres’, REArm 9 (1929) 73-97; Ch. Mercier, ‘Les canons des conciles œcuméniques et locaux en version arménienne’, REArm 15 (1981) 222-6 (foreword and notes by J.-P. Mahé). 69   Garsoïan, ‘Nersēs’, 166. 66 67



the encratism of the martyrdom of philip239

of Philip, who might one day, if they have a more complete picture of the manuscript tradition, evaluate the work’s origin. Second, and independently of whether that origin is primitive or not, these Armenian extracts, along with other passages preserved in the Armenian apocryphal literature, constitute sources that are of the most supreme importance for increasing our knowledge of the diffusion of rigorist movements in Armenia, especially that of the Eustathians, an issue that we still do not know very much about. It is interesting in this context that the Armenian Synaxarion, for the liturgical feast day of Philip (November 14 = 6 trē), preserves a notice that is completely free of any Encratist reference and that fits well with the celebration of this apostle’s cult within the Armenian Church. Without the testimony of the apocryphal texts, we would not know the literary traditions or the forms of Philips’s cult before the orthodox revisions. More generally, the apocryphal literature is far from being a marginal phenomenon without interest from a historical point of view. Rather, it is often of primary importance for better understanding the different facets of the religious world in ancient Christian Armenia, and most of all the facets that were hidden from institutional scrutiny.

XI. Bibliography

1.  General Bibliography NB. In this bibliography are only included works quoted more than once. Further references are found in the notes. Abełean, M. and Yarut‘iwnean, S. (eds), Movsisi Xorenac‘woy, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ [Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of Armenia] (Tiflis, 1913; repr. Delmar, NY 1981). Amsler, F., Acta Philippi. Commentarius (Turnhout, 1999). Angelidi, C., ‘Virginité ascétique: choix, contraintes et imaginaire (4ème7ème siècles)’, in Comportamenti e immaginario della sessualità nell’Alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 2006) 675-95. Aragione, G. et al. (eds), Le canon du Nouveau Testament (Geneva, 2005). Bais, M., Albania caucasica (Milan, 2001). Barrier, J.W. et al. (eds), Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West (Leuven, 2017). Bayan, G., ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. I. Mois de Navasard’, PO 23 (5/3) (1909; reprint, 2003). —, ‘Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israël. V. Mois de Kalotz’, PO 86 (18/1) (1924) 23-7. Beatrice, P.F., ‘Continenza e matrimonio nel cristianesimo primitivo’, in R. Cantalamessa (ed.), Etica sessuale e matrimonio nel cristianesimo delle origini (Milan, 1976) 3-68. Bianchi, U. (ed.), La tradizione dell’enkrateia. Motivazioni ontologiche e protologiche (Rome, 1985). —, ‘Le thème du colloque en tant que problème historico-religieux’, in Id. (ed.), La tradizione dell’enkrateia, 1-32. Bolgiani, F., ‘La tradizione eresiologica sull’encratismo. I. Le notizie di Ireneo’, Atti della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, II. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 91 (1956-1957) 343-419 and ‘II. La confutazione di Clemente di Alessandria’, ibid. 96 (1961-1962) 537-664. Bovon, F. et al. (eds), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva, 1981). —, et al., Acta Philippi. Textus (Turnhout, 1999). Bremmer, J.N., Maidens, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity (Tübingen, 2017).



bibliography241

Brown, P., The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Cristianity (New York, 1988). Burnet, R., Les douze apôtres. Histoire de la réception des figures apostoliques dans le christianisme ancien (Turnhout, 2014). Burrus, V., Chastity as Autonomy: Women in the Stories of the Apocryphal Acts (Lewiston, NY, 1987). Calzolari, V., ‘La citation du Ps 78 [77], 5-8 dans l’épilogue de l’Histoire de l’Arménie d’Agathange’, REArm 29 (2003-2004) 9-27. —, ‘Le sang des femmes et le plan de Dieu. Réflexions à partir de l’historio­ graphie arménienne ancienne (Ve siècle ap. J.-C.)’, in A.A. Nagy and F. Prescendi (eds), Victimes au féminin (Geneva, 2011) 178-94. —, ‘Saint Marūtha de Maipherqaṭ à la croisée de traditions orientales: le dossier arménien’, in F. Jullien (ed.), L’Orient en partage. Échanges et transferts culturels entre Tibre et Euphrate (Turnhout, forthcoming). Cameron, A., ‘Virginity as Metaphor: Women and Rhetoric of Early Christianity’, in Ead. (ed.), History as Text. The Writing of Ancient History (London, 1989) 184-205. Cantalamessa, R., L’omelia ‘in S. Pascha’ dello Pseudo-Ippolito di Roma. Ricerche sulla teologia dell’Asia Minore nella seconda metà del II secolo (Milan, 1967). Chaumont, M.-L., ‘Le culte d’Anâhitâ à Staxr et les premiers Sassanides’, RHR 153 (1958) 154-75. —, ‘Le culte de la déesse Anāhitā (Anahit) dans la religion des monarques d’Iran et d’Arménie au Ier siècle de notre ère’, JA 253 (1965) 167-81. —, ‘Sur l’origine de saint Grégoire d’Arménie’, Le Muséon 102 (1989) 11545. Clark, E.A., Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton, 1999). Cooper, E., ‘The Bride of Christ, the ‘Male Woman’, and the Female Reader in Late Antiquity’, in J. Bennet and R. Karras (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2013) 529-44. Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris, 1974). —, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle. Texte grec, traduction et commentaire (Brussels, 1978). Davis, S.J., ‘From Women’s Piety to Male Devotion: Gender Studies, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Evidence of an Arabic Manuscript’, HThR 108 (2015) 579-93. de Gaiffier, B., ‘Le Breviarium apostolorum (BHL 652). Tradition manuscrite et œuvres apparentées’, AB 81 (1963) 89-116. Desreumaux, A., Histoire du roi Abgar et de Jésus (Turnhout, 1993). Döhler, M. (ed.), Acta Petri: Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Actus Vercellenses (Berlin, 2018).

242

bibliography

Drijvers, H.J.W., ‘Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity’, The Second Century 2 (1982) 157-75 (= Id., East of Antioch. Studies in Early Syriac Christianity [London, 1984], n° VI). Finke, H., Acta Aragonensia, 2 vols (Leipzig and Berlin, 1908, reprinted Darmstadt, 1968). Flamion, J., Les Actes apocryphes de l’apôtre André. Les Actes d’André et de Matthias, de Pierre et d’André et les textes apparentés (Louvain, 1911). Flusin, B., ‘Construire une nouvelle Jérusalem: Constantinople et les reliques’, in M.A. Amir-Moezzi and J. Scheid (eds), L’Orient dans l’histoire religieuse de l’Europe. L’invention des origines (Paris, 2000) 51-70. Garsoïan, N.G., ‘Politique ou orthodoxie? L’Arménie au quatrième siècle’, REArm 4 (1967) 297-320 (= Ead., Between Byzantium and the Sasanians, n° IV). —, ‘Quidam Narseus? A Note on the Mission of St. Nersēs the Great’, in Armeniaca (Venice, 1969) 148-64 (= Ead., Between Byzantium and the Sasanians, n° V). —, ‘Nersēs le Grand, Basile de Césarée et Eusthate de Sébaste’, REArm 17 (1983) 145-69 (= Ead., Between Byzantium and the Sasanians, n° VII). —, The Epic Histories Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘) (Cambridge, MA, 1989). —, L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (Louvain, 1999). Hakobyan, T.X. et al., Dictionary of Toponymy of Armenia and Adjacent Territories, vol. 1 (Erevan, 1986). Hayne, L., ‘Thecla and the Church Fathers’, VigChr 48 (1994) 209-18. Howard, G., The Teaching of Addai (Chico, CA, 1981). Jullien, C. and Jullien, F., Apôtres des confins. Processus missionnaires chrétiens dans l’Empire iranien (Bures-sur-Yvette, 2002). Junod, É. and Kaestli, J.-D., L’histoire des Actes apocryphes des apôtres du IIIe au IXe siècle (Geneva, Lausanne and Neuchâtel, 1982). Junod, É., ‘Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament’: une appellation erronée et une collection artificielle’, Apocrypha 3 (1992) 17-46. —, ‘La littérature apocryphe chrétienne constitue-t-elle un objet d’études?’, REA 93 (1991), 397-414. Kelly, K.J., Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity in the Middle Ages (London and New York, 2000). Kraemer, R.S., Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean (Oxford and New York, 2011). Lane Fox, R., Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, 1986). Limberis, V., Divine Heiress. The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople (London and New York, 1994). Lipsius, R.A., Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, vol. II, 2 (Braunschweig, 1884; reprint, Amsterdam, 1976).



bibliography243

Lucius, E., Les origines du culte des saints dans l’Église chrétienne (transl. from German by E. Jeanmaire) (Paris, 1908). MacDonald, D.R., The Acts of Andrew and The Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals (Atlanta, 1990). MacDonald, M.Y., Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion. The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge, 1996). Mahé, J.-P., ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet: réflexions sur l’historiographie arménienne’, REArm 23 (1992) 121-53. Marcus, R., ‘The Armenian Life of Marutha of Maipherkat’, HThR 25 (1932) 47-71. Marinesco, C., ‘La Catalogne et l’Arménie au temps de Jacques II (12911327)’, extrait des Mélanges de l’Ecole roumaine en France, vol. 2 (Paris, 1923) 5-19. Matthews, S., ‘Thinking of Thecla: Issues in Feminist Historiography’, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 17/2 (Fall 2001) 39-55. Metzger, B.M., The Canon of the New Testament. Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford, 1987). Mimouni, S.C. (ed.), Apocryphité (Turnhout, 2002). Palmer, A., ‘Les Actes de Thaddée’, Apocrypha 13 (2002) 63-84. Perrone, L., ‘Eunuchi per il regno dei cieli? Amore e sessualità dal Nuovo Testamento al primo cristianesimo’, CrSt 23 (2002) 281-305. Phillips, G., The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle (London, 1876; reprinted and translated into English by G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai [Chico, CA, 1981]). Połarean, N., Girk‘ t‘łt‘oc‘ [Book of Letters] (Jerusalem, 1994). Prieur, J.-M., Acta Andreae (Turnhout, 1989). Roig Lanzillotta, L., Acta Andreae Apocrypha. A New Perspective on the Nature, Intention and Significance of the Primitive Text (Geneva, 2007). Rousselle, A., Porneia. De la maîtrise du corps à la privation sensorielle. IIe-IVe siècles de l’ère chrétienne (Paris, 1983). Russell, J.R., Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge, MA, 1987). Sfameni Gasparro, G., ‘Gli Atti apocrifi degli Apostoli e la tradizione dell’enkrateia. Discussione di una recente formula interpretativa’, Augustinianum 23 (1983) 287-307. —, Enkrateia e antropologia (Rome, 1984). —, ‘Le motivazioni protologiche dell’enkrateia nel Cristianesimo dei primi secoli e nello gnosticismo’, in Bianchi (ed.), La tradizione dell’en­ krateia. Motivazioni ontologiche e protologiche (Rome, 1985) 149-237. Söder, R., Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike (Stuttgart, 1932). Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean, G. and Kanayeanc‘, S., Agat‘angełay, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ [Agat‘angełos, History of the Armenians] (Tiflis, 1909; repr. Delmar, NY 1980).

244

bibliography

Thomson, R.W., The Lives of Saint Gregory. The Armenian, Greek, Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History Attributed to Agathangelos. Translated with Introduction and Commentary (Ann Arbor, 2010). Tissot, Y., ‘Encratisme et Actes apocryphes’, in F. Bovon et al. (eds), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva, 1981) 109-19. van Esbroeck, M., ‘Un nouveau témoin du livre d’Agathange’, REArm 8 (1971) 13-167. Voicu, S.J., ‘Thecla in the Christian East’, in J.W. Barrier et al. (eds), Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West (Leuven, 2017) 47-68. Wehn, B., ‘‘Blessed are the Bodies of Those Who are Virgins’: Reflections on the Image of Paul in the Acts of Thecla’, JSNT 79 (2000) 149-64. 2.  Bibliography on Armenian Christian Apocrypha NB. In this bibliography are included all the works related to Armenian Christian Apocrypha quoted in this book. Akinean, N., ‘Matenagrakan hetezōtout‘iwnner. Vkayabanut‘iwn S. T‘adēosi ew Sandxtoy kusin ew Kanonk‘ T‘adēi’ [Research on Armenian literature. Martyrdom of St. Thaddaeus and virgin Sanduxt, and Canons of Thaddaeus], HA 83 (1969) 399-426 and 84 (1970) 1-34. [Ališan, Ł.], Vkayabanut‘iwn ew giwt nšxarac‘ S. T‘adēi aṙak‘eloy ew Sandxtoy kusi [Martyrdom and Discovery of the Relics of St. Thaddaeus the Apostle and St. Sanduxt the Virgin] (Venice, 1853). —, Lettre d’Abgar (Venice, 1868). —, Labubneay diwanagir dpri Edesioy, T‘ułt‘ Abgaru [Labubna, archivist scribe of Edessa, Abgar’s Letter] (Venice, 1868). —, Vark‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwnk‘ Srboc‘ hatĕntir k‘ałealk‘ i čaṙĕntrac‘ [Saints’ Lives and Martyrdoms. Anthology gathered from the čaṙĕntirs], 2 vols (Venice, 1874). Č‘rak‘ean, K‘., Ankanon girk‘ aṙak‘elakank‘ [Uncanonical Books on the Apostles] (Venice, 1904). Calzolari Bouvier, V. et al. (eds.), Apocryphes arméniens. Traduction, création, transmission, iconographie (Lausanne, 1999). —, ‘En guise d’introduction: quelques reflexions sur le rôle de la littérature apocryphe dans l’Arménie chrétienne ancienne’, in Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds.), Apocryphes arméniens, 9-18. —, ‘Un projet de répertoire des manuscrits arméniens contenant les textes apocryphes chrétiens’, in Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds.), Apocryphes arméniens, 53-70. Calzolari, V., ‘La tradition arménienne des Pseudo-Clémentines: état de la question’, Apocrypha 4 (1993) 263-93.



bibliography245

—, ‘Particolarità sintattiche e lessicali della versione armena del Martirio di Andrea, messa a confronto con Teone armeno’, Le Muséon 106 (1993) 267-88. —, ‘Notes sur la traduction arménienne du texte syriaque des Actes de Thècle’, in D. Sakayan (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics (McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. May 1-5, 1995) (Delmar, NY, 1996) 233-43. —, ‘Réécriture des textes apocryphes en arménien: l’exemple de la légende de l’apostolat de Thaddée en Arménie’, Apocrypha 8 (1997) 97-110. —, ‘La trasmissione dei testi apocrifi cristiani in armeno: l’esempio degli Atti di Paolo e Tecla’, in A. Valvo (ed.), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale. Forme e modi di trasmissione (Atti del Seminario Nazionale, Trieste, 19-20 settembre 1996) (Alessandria, 1997) 45-58. —, ‘Un nouveau texte arménien sur Thècle: les Prodiges de Thècle (Présentation et analyse linguistique)’, REArm 26 (1996-1997) 249-71. —, ‘La versione armena del Martirio di Andrea e il suo rapporto con la tradizione manoscritta dell’originale greco’, Le Muséon 111 (1998) 139-56. —, ‘La version arménienne du Martyre d’André’, in J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew (Leuven, 2000) 149-85. —, ‘Srbuhi T‘ekłi awandut‘iwnĕ Hayastani mēǰ’ [The tradition of St Thecla in Armenia], in P. Muradyan, Armenia and Christian Orient (Erevan, 2000) 55-61. —, ‘Hayerēn k‘ristonēakan ankanon grut‘iwnnerĕ ew irenc‘ aržēk‘ĕ ibr ałbiwr hay hin k‘ristonēut‘ean patmut‘ean vray (S. P‘ilipposi Vkayabanut‘ean enkratakan vardapetut‘iwnĕ)’ [The Christian Apocryphal Writings in Armenian and their Value as Sources on the History of the Ancient Armenian Christianity. (The Encratite Doctrine of the Martyrdom of Philip)], in Armenian Studies Today and Development Perspectives (Erevan, 2004) 565-72. —, ‘Il rapporto della versione armena del Martirio di Paolo con l’originale greco: nuovi contributi sulla base di undici testimoni armeni inediti’, in V. Calzolari et al. (eds), Bnagirk‘ yišatakac‘/Documenta memoriae. Dall’Italia e dall’Armenia studi in onore di Gabriella Uluhogian (Bologna, 2004) 23-43. —, ‘La transmission et la réception des apocryphes syriaques dans la tradition arménienne’, in M. Debié et al. (eds), Les apocryphes syriaques (Paris, 2005) 169-95. —, ‘Une traduction latine médiévale de la légende arménienne de Thècle et la translation du bras de la sainte de l’Arméno-Cilicie à Tarragone en 1321’, AB 123 (2005) 349-67. —, ‘Le Martyre de Thaddée arménien’, in EAC, vol. 2, 661-96.

246

bibliography

—, ‘La transmission des textes apocryphes chrétiens ou de l’“excès joyeux de la variance”: variantes, transformations et problèmes d’édition (­L’exemple du Martyre de Paul arménien)”, in A. Frey and R. Gounelle (eds), Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques. Etudes réunies en l’honneur de Jean-Daniel Kaestli et Éric Junod (Lausanne, 2007) 129-60. —, ‘“Je ferai d’eux mon propre peuple”: les Arméniens en tant que peuple élu selon la littérature apocryphe chrétienne en langue arménienne’, RHPR 90 (2010) 179-97. —, Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy. Aux origines du christianisme arménien (Turnhout, 2011). —, ‘Les récits apocryphes de l’enfance dans la tradition arménienne’, in C. Clivaz et al. (eds), avec la collaboration de B. Bertho, Infancy Gospels. Stories and Identities, Tübingen, 2011), 560-87. —, ‘La version arménienne du Martyre de Philippe grec: passages encratites et manuscrits inédits’, Apocrypha 24 (2013) 111-37. —, Apocrypha Armeniaca I: Acta Pauli et Theclae, Prodigia Theclae, Martyrium Pauli (Turnhout, 2017). —, ‘Notes sur le Martyre de Barthélemy aménien inédit conservé dans le ms. 7753 du Matenadaran’, in L. DiTommaso et al. (eds), The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone (Leiden and Boston, 2018) 301-20. —, ‘Eve, the Foremother, in the Nativity Scene in Armenian Apocryphal Literature and Illuminations’, in C. Gislon Dopfel (ed.), Pregnancy and Childbirth. History, Medicine, and Anthropology (Longmont, CO, 2018) 56-62 and 164-5 (ill.). —, ‘Mary and Eve. The Permanence of the First Mother in Armenian Apocryphal Infancy Gospels’, in C. Gislon Dopfel et al. (eds), Pregnancy and Childbirth in the Premodern World. European and Middle Eastern Cultures, to Late Antiquity to the Renaissance (Turnhout, 2019) 193212. —, ‘Stefano il protomartire e i Padri della Chiesa: su alcune omelie greche e siriache tradotte in armeno e un inedito Encomio di santo Stefano attribuito a Basilio di Cesarea’, Adamantius 25 (2019) 230-55. —, ‘The Reception of the Acts of Thecla in Armenia: Thecla as a Model of Representation for holy Women in ancient Armenian Literature’, in G. Dabiri and F. Ruani (eds), Thecla and Medieval Sainthood: The Acts of Paul and Thecla in Eastern and Western Hagiography (Cambridge, forthcoming). —, ‘La pseudépigraphie dans la littérature arménienne ancienne et médiévale’, in É. Crégheur et al. (eds), [Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Perspectives on Pseudepigraphy in Antiquity’. Université de Laval, 12-14 September 2019] (forthcoming).



bibliography247

—, ‘The Dossier on Stephen, the first Martyr, in Armenian. An unpublished Martyrdom of Stephen’, in B. Landau (ed.), [Memorial volume in honour to F. Bovon] (forthcoming). —, ‘The Tradition and the Cult of Saint Stephen in Armenia: A Preliminary Assessment’, in I. Dorfmann-Lazarev (ed.), Sharing Myths, Texts, and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus: Apocryphal Themes in Literatures, Arts and Cults from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages (forthcoming). Carrière, A. and Berger, S., ‘La correspondance apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens. Ancienne version latine et traduction du texte arménien’, RTP 24 (1891) 334-51. Carrière, M.A., ‘La légende d’Abgar dans l’Histoire d’Arménie de Moïse de Khoren’, Centenaire de l’École des Langues Orientales Vivantes (17951895) (Paris, 1895) 357-414. Catergian, J., Ecclesiae Ephesinae de obitu Joannis Apostoli narratio ex versione Armeniaca saeculi V nunc primum Latine cum notis prodita (Vindobonae, [1877]). Conybeare, F.C., ‘Protevangelium Jacobi’, The American Journal of Theology 1 (1897) 424-42; reprinted in N.V. Nersessian, The Armenian Church: Heritage and Identity. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare (New York, NY, 2001) 356-70. —, The Armenian Apology and Acts of Apollonius and other Monuments of Early Christianity (London and New York, 1894, 18962). Cowe, S.P., ‘Text Critical Investigation of the Armenian Version of Third Corinthians’, St. Nersess Theological Review 2/1 (1997) 39-51. —, ‘Text Critical Investigation of the Armenian Version of Third Corinthians’, in V. Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds), Apocryphes arméniens. Traduction, création, transmission, iconographie (Lausanne, 1999) 91-102. Dashian, J., ‘Zur Abgar-Sage’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, IV Band (Vienna, 1890) 186-95. Dasnabedean, T., La Mère de Dieu: Études sur l’Assomption et sur l’image de la très-sainte Mère de Dieu (Antelias, 1995). —, Tiramayr [Mother of Lord], 3 vols (Lisbon and Beirut, 1997-1998). —, ‘Un récit arménien du Pseudo-Jean l’Évangeliste sur la Dormition’, Armach 1 (1992) 27-38. De Strycker, É., La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques. Recherches sur le papyrus Bodmer 5, avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée. En appendice les versions arméniennes traduites en latin par Hans Quecke (Brussels, 1961). Dorfmann-Lazarev, I., ‘La transmission de l’apocryphe de l’Enfance de Jésus en Arménie’, in J. Frey and J. Schröter (eds), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen (Tübingen, 2010) 557-82.

248

bibliography

—, ‘The Cave of the Nativity Revisited: Memory of the Primæval Beings in the Armenian Lord’s Infancy and Cognate Sources’ (edited texts and critical study)’, in A. Mardirossian et al. (eds), Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé (Paris, 2014) 285‒334. —, ‘Eve, Melchizedek and the Magi in the Cave of the Nativity According the Armenian Corpus of Homilies Attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis’, in J.N. Bremmer et al. (eds), The Protevangelium of James (Leuven, 2020) 264-94. Émine, J.-B., ‘Leboubna d’Édesse, Histoire d’Abgar et de la prédication de Thaddée’, in V. Langlois (ed.), Collection des historiens anciens et ­modernes de l’Arménie, vol. 1 (Paris, 1867) 313-21. García Villada, Z., ‘La traslación del brazo de Santa Tecla desde Armenia a Tarragona (1319-1323)’, Estudios Eclesiásticos 1 (1922) 43-50. Hakobyan, Z., ‘St. Thecla: the Iconographical Tradition and the Testimony of Her Veneration in Early Medieval Armenia’, in I. Dorfmann-Lazarev (ed.), Sharing Myths, Texts, and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus: Apocryphal Themes in Literatures, Arts and Cults from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages (forthcoming). Hovhanessian, V., Third Corinthians. Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (Bern and New York, 2000). Kouymjian, D., ‘Some Iconographical Questions about the Christ Cycle in Armenian Manuscripts and Early Printed Books’, in C. Baffioni et. al. (eds), Le sacre scritture e le loro interpretazioni: l’Enciclopedia dei fratelli della purità (Rome, 2015) 121-41. Leloir, L., ‘La version arménienne des Actes apocryphes d’André, et le Diatessaron’, NTS 22 (1975-1976) 115-39. —, ‘La version arménienne de la Passion d’André’, HA 90 (1976) 471-510. —, ‘Rapports entre les versions arménienne et syriaque des Actes apo­cryphes des apôtres’, in F. Graffin and A. Guillaumont (eds), Symposium Syriacum 1976 (Rome, 1978) 137-48. —, ‘L’Apocalypse de Paul selon sa teneur arménienne’, REArm 14 (1980) 217-80. —, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres (Turnhout, 1986) 191-265. —, ‘Les Actes apocryphes d’André’, in A. van Tongerloo and S. Gieversen (eds), Manichaica Selecta. Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Leuven and Lund, 1991) 191-201. —, ‘Les citations évangéliques dans la version arménienne des Actes apo­ cryphes’, in R. Gryson (ed.), Philologia sacra. Studien zu Bibel und Kirchenvätern für H.J. Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag (Freiburg, 1993), 364-77. Malan, S.C., The Life and Times of S. Gregory the Illuminator the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church (London, Oxford and Cambridge, 1868).



bibliography249

Mamyan, M., ‘“Mankut‘ean awetaran”-i ew Hakobosi naxavetarani hayeren t‘argmanut‘yunnerĕ (hamematakan verlucut‘yun)’ [The Armenian Translations of the Infancy Gospel and of the Protevangelium of James; A Comparative Analysis], BM 23 (2006) 231-44. —, ‘“Mankut‘ean awetaran”’-i poxakerpumĕ Aṙak‘el Bałišec‘u “Tał awetman”-um’ [The Transformation of the Armenian Infancy Gospel in the Ode to the Annunciation of Aṙak‘el Bałišec‘i], BM 27 (2019) 402-30. Moesinger, G., Vita et Martyrium sancti Bartholomaei apostoli, ex sinceris fontibus Armeniacis in linguam latinam conversa (Salisburgi, 1877). Muradyan, G., ‘T‘adevos ev Bardułimeos aṙak‘yalneri masin legendi tarberakner miǰnadaryan bnagrerum’ [The variants of the legend on the apostles Thaddaeus and Bartholomew in the medieval MSS], in V. Barkhudaryan (ed.), Aršaluys k‘ristoneut‘yan Hayoc‘ [The dawn of the Christianisme of Armenia] (Erevan, 2017) 133-40. Outtier, B., ‘Paralytique et ressuscité (CANT 85 et 62). Vie des apocryphes en arménien’, Apocrypha 8 (1997) 111-9. —, ‘Une forme enrichie de la Légende d’Abgar en arménien’, in V. Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds), Apocryphes arméniens. Traduction, création, transmission, iconographie (Lausanne, 1999) 129-45. —, ‘Dialogue du paralytique avec le Christ’, in EAC, vol. 2, 63-74. —, ‘The Armenian and Georgian Version of the Evangelium Nicodemi’, Apocrypha 21 (2010) 49-55. Peeters, P., Évangiles apocryphes, vol. 2: L’Évangile de l’enfance (Paris, 1914). Rice, B., ‘The Dialogue of the Paralytic with Christ. A New Translation and Introduction’, in T. Burke and B. Landau (eds), New Testament Apocrypha. More Noncanonical Scriptures (Grand Rapids, 2016), 140-157. Rosenstiehl, J.-M., ‘Notes sur la première Apocalypse apocryphe de Jean et d’autres apocryphes arméniens’, REArm 18 (1984) 599-603. Schmid, M., ‘Geschichte des Apostels Thaddaeus und der Jungfrau Sanducht’, in F.N. Finck et al. (eds), Zeitschrift für armenische Philologie, Erster Band, erstes Heft (Marburg, 1901) 67-73. Shoemaker, S.J., ‘Apocalyptic Traditions in the Armenian Dormition Narratives’, in K.B. Bardakjian and S. La Porta (eds), The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition (Leiden and Boston, 2014) 538-50. Sruanjteanc‘, G., Hnoc‘ ew noroc‘ patmut‘iwn vasn Dawt‘i ew Movsēs Xorenac‘woy [Of Old Things and New. History of David and Movses Khorenatsi] (Constantinople, 1874). Stone, M.E., ‘The Study of the Armenian Canon’, in G. Aragione et al. (eds), Le canon du Nouveau Testament (Geneva, 2005) 283-95. Tayec‘i, E., Ankanon girk‘ nor ktakaranac‘ [Uncanonical books of the New Testament] (Venice, 1898) 313-45.

250

bibliography

Terian, A., The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with three early versions of the Protevangelium of James (Oxford, 2008). van Esbroeck, M., ‘Chronique arménienne’, AB 80 (1962) 423-45. —, ‘Le roi Sanatrouk et l’apôtre Thaddée’, REArm 9 (1972) 241-66. —, ‘La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy en Arménie’, REArm 17 (1983) 171-95. —, ‘The Rise of saint Bartholomew’s Cult in Armenia from the seventh to the thirteenth Centuries’, in Th.J. Samuelian and M.E. Stone (eds), Medieval Armenian Culture (Chico, CA, 1983) 161-78. —, ‘L’apôtre Thaddée et le roi Sanatruk’, in M. Nordio and B.L. Zekiyan (eds), Atti del II Simposio Internazionale ‘Armenia-Assiria’. Istituzioni e poteri all’epoca Il-Khanide (Venice, 1988) 83-106. —, Aux origines de la Dormition de la Vierge. Études historiques sur les traditions orientales (Aldershot, 1995). Vetter, P., ‘Das apokryphe Schreiben des Dionysius des Aeropagiten an Titus über die Aufnahme Mariä aus dem Armenischen Übersetzt’, TQ 69 (1887) 133-8. —, ‘Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief neu übersetzt und nach seiner Entstehung untersucht’, TQ 72 (1890) 610-39. —, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief (= Einladung zur akademischen Feier des Geburtsfestes Seiner Majestät des Königs Wilhelm II von Württemberg auf den 25. Febr. 1894 im Namen des Rectors und akademischen Senats der Königlichen Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Beigefügt ist eine Abhandlung: Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief von P. Vetter) (Vienna, 1894). —, ‘Mitteilungen. Armenische Apostelakten’, OC 1 (1901) 168-70. —, ‘Die armenische Dormitio Mariae’, TQ 84 (1902) 321-49. —, ‘Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelakten. II. Die Akten der Apostel Petrus und Paulus’, OC 3 (1903) 16-55, 324-83. —, ‘Rezensionen: Die armenischen Apokryphen’, TQ 87 (1905) 608-10. —, ‘Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. I. Die Petrus- und Paulus-Akten’, TQ 88 (1906) 161-86. —, ‘Die armenische Paulus-Apokalypse’, TQ 88 (1906) 568-95 and TQ 89 (1907) 58-75. Voicu, S.J., ‘Gli apocrifi armeni’, Augustinianum 23 (1983) 161-80.

Index of names, subjects and passages A AA: vii-viii; 3, n. 6; 5, n. 15; 8, n. 24; 168-9; 181 and n. 1; 182-3; 205; § 7: 194; 210; § 8: 162; § 10: 162; § 13: 162; 202; § 14: 200; § 16: 204; 210; 236, n. 61; § 17: 214; § 19: 214; § 21: 200; § 23: 162; § 28: 214; § 33: 210; § 36: 200; § 37: 194; 200; 207, n. 84; 214; § 39: 186; § 40: 204, n. 71; 207, n. 84; § 42: 204, n. 70; § 44: 202; § 45: 195; 207, n. 84; § 47-65: 184; § 47: 194; 210; 213; § 49: 184-5; 187; 188 and n. 25; 189, n. 25.27; 190-8; 210; 213; Epistle of the Deacons and Priests of Achaia 5: 204, n. 70; 205, n. 78; 236, n. 61; Laudatio (Andreae): 184, n. 10; MartA: viii; 4, n. 15; 9; 25; 69; 177; 181-216; 219; § 52: 186; 210; 213; § 53: 184-5; 210; § 55: 186; § 56-58: 198; § 56: 199-0; 210; 233; § 57: 201-2; 210; 213-4; § 58: 208-11; § 59: 214; § 61: 211-6; § 62: 185; 195; 209; 214; § 63: 195; 209; § 64: 186; 202; 209-10; 213; § 65: 187; 209; Martyrium prius: 184, n. 10 Abdašarag: 41, n. 35 Abdias, Pseudo (Virtutes apostolorum), Passion of Bartholomew (BHL 1002): 53; 61, n. 50; V, 22: 54, n. 23 Abdiopolis: 60; see also s.v. Albania; Albanopolis; Albanos Abgar (Ukkama): vii; 9; 30, n. 6; 32-3; 33, n. 15; 36 and n. 24; 37-8; 39 and n. 28; 40; 50; church of: 32, n. 10; conversion of: 33; cycle of: 14; illness of: 33; sadness of: 36/Abgar VIII: 33, n. 15 Abraham, Catholicos: 65 Abraham: 74; banquet of: 110; 123, n. 40 Abshadar: 41 Abstinence: 204, n. 70; 218; 228; 232; from meat and wine: 218; see also s.v. continence; encratism; enkrateia Achaea: 183 Achaemenid: 144; 182 Acts and Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHGa 226z): 68 Acts and Martyrdom of Bartholomew (codex Weimar 729): 18, n. 69; 68-79; title: 69; § 1, 1: 71; § 3, 1: 75; § 21, 1: 75; see also s.v. Martyrdom of Bartholomew (MS M7753) Acts of Andrew and Matthias: vii; 5, n. 15; 9; 21; 183, n. 6; 219; § 20: 195 Acts of John by Prochorus: 9

252

index

Acts of John: vii; 168; 181; 195-6; 205; § 66; § 83; § 84; § 112: 195; in Rome § 4: 168 Acts of Paul and Thecla: see s.v. AThec Acts of Paul: 3, n. 6; 18; 83; 123; 149; 151; 162-3; 181; IX, 16 and IX, 18: 163; IX, 19: 164, n. 41 Acts of Peter and Paul: 9; 19 Acts of Peter: vii; 168-9; 181; 235; § 8: 204 Acts of Philip: viii; 195; 218, n. 5; 220-1; 226-8; 237; I: 227, n. 44; IV: 227; 231; V: 227; VI: 228; VIII, 3 [95]: 52, n. 13; 231; § 38: 195; XI: 229, n. 47; XIII-XV: 223; 224, n. 33; XIII: 229, n. 47; XV: 232; Martyrdom of Philip: 24-5; 208; 216-39; § 13: 232-7; § 15: 223-8; § 22: 228-31; § 37: 224, n. 33 Acts of Thaddaeus: 38, n. 27; see also s.v. Martyrdom of Thaddaeus Acts of the Apostles: 67; apocryphal: 109, n. 15; 184; 205-6; 223; see also s.v. Bible Acts of Thomas: vii; 9 and n. 28; 169; 181; 205; § 1: 88, n. 17; 115, n. 25; § 12: 203; 233; § 39: 195; § 44: 204, n. 70; 236, n. 61 Adam: 87; 119; 204, n. 70; 206, n. 78; 236; 236, n. 61; as virgin: 120, n. 38 Addai: vii; 41; 50; illness of: 35; martyrdom in the eastern regions: 35-6 Adrianople: 130, n. 20; battle of: 89; 130-1; 131, n. 20.23; 132 Adriatic: 59 Aegean: 59 Aegeatus (in AA): 169; 204 and n. 71 Afšīn, emir of Azerbaijian: 143 Agat‘angełos, History of Armenia: viii; 30; 86 and n. 6; 87; 88-124; 127, n. 9; 148; 156; 166; 173, n. 49; 175; 176, n. 56; § 13: 107; § 53: 144, n. 79; 175; § 59: 144, n. 79; § 127: 144, n. 79; § 141: 120; § 143: 105; 120; § 147: 113; § 149: 114; 119; § 159: 122; § 170: 113; § 175: 122; § 179: 113; § 191: 87, n. 15; 112; § 194: 114; § 202: 175, n. 53; § 249: 104; 175, n. 53; § 563: 120; § 720: 109; 121; § 793: 106; § 854: 105 Agathon, Bishop: 58 Aggai: 35; 36, n. 24 Agrippa (in Acts of Peter): 169 Ahura Mazdā: see s.v. Aramazd Akilisene (Arm. Ekełeac‘): 124, n. 41; 144 Akinean, N.: 148; 157 Ałbak: 50 and n. 4 Alban: 60



index253

Albania (Ałuank‘): vii; 51; 55; 60, n. 50; 71; 74-75; 75, n. 20; 77; 77, n. 27; (city): 54-5; 60; 70-1; 74-5; see also s.v. Abdiopolis; Albanopolis; Albanos Albanian: 60; 77, n. 27 Albanopolis (Arpanopolis): 54-5; 60; see also s.v. Abdiopolis; Albania; Albanos Albanos (city of Greater Armenia): 55; 60; see also s.v. Abdiopolis; Albania; Albanopolis Albinus (in Acts of Peter): 169 Alexander (in AThec): 87; 111-2; 149 Alexandria: 65; 67; 115 Alexandrian: 52 Ališan, Ł.: 19 Alliance, between the Armenians and the Christian Occident: 102; between Armeno-Cilicia and Catalonia: 94-5; between God and the Armenians: 44, n. 41; 106; between Tiridates and Constantin: 127, n. 9; matrimonial: 92, n. 30 Allotrios (‘stranger’): 195 Ałuank‘ (Albania): vii; 51; 72; 74-5; 77 Amalfi: 59-60 Ambrose, Epistula LXIII, 34: 111, n. 19 Ammianus Marcellinus: 128, n. 14; 130, n. 20; 131 and n. 21 Amphilochius, Fragmenta X, 1-3: 205, n. 74 Amphilochius, Pseudo, Life of Basil: 132, n. 27; 133 and n. 34; 205, n. 74; 218, n. 6 Amsler, F.: 221 Anahit: 44, n. 40; 124; 143-6; idol of: 172; parallel with Thecla: 124, n. 41; 143-7; temple of: 123-4; 124, n. 41; 172-3; 175 and n. 54; see also s.v. Anāhitā; Mazdean; Zoroastrian Anāhitā (Aredvī Sūrā Anāhitā): 145; see also s.v. Anahit Anak: 41, n. 35; 45; see also s.v. Snak Anania Mokac‘i, Catholicos: 65, n. 68 Anania Širakac‘i, Geography VII, 35: 53, n. 21 Anania vardapet: 143, n. 72 Anaphora Pilati: 10 Anarchos (‘without-beginning’): 189; 191; 193-5 Anastasiopolis (Dara): 58 Anastasius, Emperor: 58 Anathema/anathematising: 237-8 Anatolian goddess: see s.v. Cybele

254

index

Andrew: 162; 182; 187; 206, n. 78; as a type of Paul: 197, n. 46; condem­ nation to death of: 206; 215; martyrdom of: 189; prayers/speeches/ teaching/words of: 184, n. 10; 189; 196, n. 41; 198; 201; 206 and n. 83; 207, n. 84; 208; 210; 213; 215; writings of: 197, n. 46 Angel, -s: 99; 115, n. 25; 119; 120, n. 36; 143; 158; prince of: 189; 193; see also s.v. archangel; isangelia Angelic, purity: 124; state/form: 119-20 Angł-Tun: 30, n. 6; 32 Anonymous I (BHG 153c): 56-7 Antioch: 65 Antonelli, C.: 18, n. 69; 68, n. 2 Aphrahat: 109 Apocalypse of Baruch 13, 2: 195 Apocalypse of John: 2 and n. 4; 3, n. 6; 10 Apocalypse of Mary: 10 Apocalypse of Moses 2, 4; 7, 2; 25, 4; 28, 4: 195; XIX, 3: 204, n. 70; 235, n. 60 Apocalypse of Paul: 10; 19; 21 Apocalypse of Peter: 3, n. 6 Apotactics: 119; 205; 218 Arabia, Southern: 52, n. 17; Felix: 52, n. 17; 53 Arachosia: 52, n. 17 Aragon, Kingdom of: 92-3; 95; 100; 102 Aramazd (Ahura Mazdā): 44, n. 40; 75, n. 18 Archangel, -s: 191-2; 196; fall of: 193; 196 and n. 44; see also s.v. angel Arcruni: 40 Arian/arianising/Arianism/arianist: 89-90; 126-32; 139-43; 147 Armenia: vii-ix; xv; 1; 2, n. 4; 17; 27; 29; 30, n. 6; 31-2; 36, n. 25; 38; 40-4; 44, n. 40; 45-6; 48-51; 54-9; 61; 63-4; 64, n. 63.65; 66-7; 70-4; 77-8; 83-4; 84, n. 3; 85, n. 6; 86-9; 91; 94; 97; 101-2; 104-5; 105, n. 6; 106-7; 107, n. 12; 108; 114; 122-3; 123, n. 40; 125; 126, n. 9; 127; 130; 131, n. 25; 138-9; 142-4; 147-8; 157; 172; 208; (Armenia) I: 56; Greater: 53-5; 55, n. 26; 56 and n. 30; 57; 59-2; 64; 75; 100; 238; Lesser: 55; Pre-Christian: 75, n. 18; 124; 173; 175 (see also s.v. Armenian paganism); Quarta: 63, n. 58; Soviet: 145, n. 80; and encratism/Eustathian encratist movements: 25 and n. 104; 177 and n. 58; 208; 218-9; 237-9; churches of: 30; 117; 121; Christianisation of: 46; conversion of/redemption of: viii; 32, n. 10; 44-9; 86-9; 105, n. 4; 117-9; 123-4; 146



index255

Armenian (language): vii-ix; 1; 4 and n. 15; 8-11; 14-5; 20; 34; 39-40; 55; 60; 67, n. 72; 68-9; 70; 72; 74; 78-9; 83; 85; 87; 97; 105 and n. 5; 108, n. 13; 114, n. 23; 144; 148; 150, n. 9; 175; 185, n. 13; 188 and n. 25; 190, n. 30; 191; 193-4; 198, n. 48; 199 and n. 54; 200-1; 201, n. 57; 202; 209; 212, n. 105; 213; 225, n. 38; 229, n. 47; 230, n. 48; 233 Armenian, -s: vii-ix; xi; 8-9; 11-2; 14; 16; 29; 32; 34; 38 and n. 27; 39-40; 43-6; 48; 50; 55; 57 and n. 37; 58-9; 61-2; 62, n. 54; 63 and n. 58.60; 64; 66-7; 67, n. 72; 68-70; 72-3; 73, n. 10; 75; 77 and n. 27; 79; 83-4; 86 and n. 9; 87-96; 96, n. 37; 97 and n. 44; 98-103; 105-7; 109-10; 113; 117-8; 118, n. 30; 109; 121 and n. 39; 122-6; 128 and n. 14; 131 and n. 25; 132; 137-9; 144-5; 145, n. 80; 156-7; 157, n. 36; 158, n. 38; 168; 175; 184-5; 189; 208; alphabet/letters: xv; 8; 43-4; 44, n. 42; 77, n. 27; 84, n. 4; 106; Christian Armenia/Christian milieus/Christianisation/Christianity: vii; 24; 30-2; 34; 45; 84-5; 139, n. 60.61; 148; 156; 176; 218; 239; Church: vii; 4, n. 14; 9; 11-2; 15; 25; 29-30; 32; 42; 46; 51; 61; 64; 66-7; 79; 89; 91-2; 121; 123; 132; 147; 176; 238-9 (see also s.v. Aštišat; council); Church’s autocephality: 64; 67; 92; female ascetic movements: 177, n. 59; first churches: 88; 117; 121; hagiographic literature/hagiographical works/hagiography: 15; 32, n. 10; 98; historians/historiography: viii; 29; 43-5; 47; 63, n. 58; 65; 74; 84; 89; 106; 125; 146; 177, n. 59; literature/literary works/writers: 9; 18; 46; 53, n. 21; 54; 73; 83-4; 84, n. 4; 85, n. 6; 86; 109; 121, n. 39; 125; 135; 142; 147, n. 92; 148, n. 2; 156; 166; 176-7; 177, n. 59; monasteries: 208 (see also s.v. Hogeac‘ Vank‘; Xor Virap); nation/national identity/national sentiment: 15; 31; 43; 125; pagan gods/pagan king/pagan worship (also ancient religious)/paganism: 44, n. 40; 87; 106; 108, n. 13; 114-5; 123; 127; 144-6; 146, n. 90; 147; 168-9; 175 (see also s.v. Armenia, pre-Christian); people: 31; 44; 46; 87; 107; 117-8; 1213; 125; 127; 130; 147; people, chosen: 41-2; 44 and n. 41; 106; Synaxarion: 12; 60; 61, n. 51; 64, n. 63; 73, n. 13; 78, n. 29; 91; 222; 239; translations/translators/versions: 18; 21; 24; 32-8; 40; 41, n. 35; 43; 59-60; 68-9; 71 and n. 5; 72; 75 and n. 18; 76; 77; 84-5; 85, n. 4; 96; 97, n. 44; 98; 125; 139; 150; 163; 181-7; 189-93; 196-201; 203; 205; 207-8; 211-4; 216-7; 219; 221-6; 228-9; 230-1; 234; 236-9 Armenianisation/armenianising: 39-40; 147 Arpanopolis (Albanopolis): 54-5

256

index

Arsacid: 29; 74; 144, n. 73 Aršak II, King: 66 Artaz: 30, n. 6; 31; 41; 46; 50 Artemis, temple of (in Acts and Martyrdom of Bartholomew, MS Weimar 729): 75, n. 18 Ascension of Isaiah: 6; § 11, 19: 195 Ascetic, ascetism: 153; 157, n. 59; 218; 226; 237; literature: 87, n. 13; 110, n. 17; 111, n. 18; 117; 119 and n. 32.35; 226, n. 40; 236 Asclepius, temple of (in Epidaurus): 136, n. 44 Asia Minor: 83; 139; 181; 217-8 Aštišat (mother of Armenia’s churches): 30 Astriges, King: 54, n. 23 Athanasius, Apologia ad Constantium 33: 115, n. 25 Athanasius, Pseudo, Vita S. Sincleticae: 111, n. 19 AThec: viii; 9; 20, 23; 84, n. 3; 85 and n. 5; 87-8; 98; 104; 111-2; 112, n. 21; 115, n. 25; 116; 125; 135; 139; 148-69; 176; § 1: 162; § 5: 88; 115, n. 25; 116; 162-3; § 7-9: 162-3; § 8: 158; § 9: 158; § 17: 161; § 18: 158 163; § 20: 151; § 21: 161; § 22: 1601; 163-4; § 24: 159; § 25-26: 112, n. 21; § 25: 159-60; 167-8; § 26: 112; 149; § 27: 161; 165; § 28: 164-5; § 29: 151; § 34: 158; 165, n. 34; § 35: 151; 164-5; § 39: 151; § 40: 167, n. 44; § 41: 150; 160; § 43: 150; § 44: 204, n. 70; Latin text of: 96-9 Athena: 138 and n. 53; association with Seleucia: 138 and n. 53; as virgin deity: 138; 145-6; as intellectual and warrior deity: 145-6; see also s.v. Thecla Augustine, Contra Faustum XXX, 4: 111, n. 19; Contra Felicem II, 6: 187, n. 22; De sancta virginitate I, 44: 111, n. 19 Aurelius Victor, Pseudo, Epitome de Caesaribus 46, 2: 130, n. 20 Avesta, Yašt V: 145-6 Ayas: 92; 97, n. 44; 98; see also s.v. Lajazzo Ayatekla: see s.v. Hagia-Thecla Azerbaijan, Iranian: 50, n. 5; 143 B Babylon: 108, n. 13 Balducci Pegolotti, F., La pratica della mercatura: 92, n. 29 Bambišn (‘queen’): 144, n. 73 Banquet, royal: 123, n. 40; see also s.v. Abraham Bānūg (Iranian epithet of Anāhitā): 143, n. 73; see also s.v. ML‘T Barbara (Arm. Vaṙvaṙē), St.: 185, n. 80



index257

Barbarian, -s: 54; 161; 164 Barcelona: 93; 96: 98 Bardesanes: 33, n. 15 Bartholomew, apostle: vii-viii; 9; 20; 22; 44-5; 48-79; 223; and Armenia: 61-4; 66-7; 76-7; and Capernaum (city): 71, n. 5; and the Gospel of Matthew: 52-3; and the tribe of Zebulun: 71, n. 5; Basilica of (on Tiber Island): 59, n. 44; church of (in Benevento): 59, n. 44; death/martyrdom of: 45; 49; 51-2; 55; 76/in Armenia: vii; 54; 62/ in Lycaonia: 52; 73/on the cross: 72; 75/clubbed: 72; preaching of, in Ałuank‘: 74-5; 77/in Armenia: vii; 48-51; 51-2; 54-9; 66; 78/in India: 71-2/in Lycaonia: 71-3/in Phrygia: 71/in the city of Abdiopolis/Albania/Albanopolis/Albanos/Corbanopolis/Ourbanopolis/Urbianos): 54-5; 60; 74-8/in the countries of the Persians: 74, n. 17/in the land of the Parthians: 71-3/in the Oasis city: 52; one of the Twelve: 69-70; 71, n. 5; relics of: 58; 59 and n. 44; 60-4 Bartholomew, one of the Seventy: 52; 70; 73 and n. 11; 223; 224, n. 33; 225; 228-9 Basil of Ancyra, De virginitate 27: 88, n. 17; 115, n. 25 Basil of Caesarea, Pseudo, De virginitate: 88, n. 17; 115, n. 25 Basil of Caesarea: 108; 131 and n. 25; 132, n. 27; 147 Basil of Seleucia, Pseudo: 94, n. 34; Life of Thecla: 15; 83; 90; 135-6; 139; 141 and n. 64.65; 146; 151; § 13: 141; § 28: 95; 136, n. 42; Miracles of Thecla: viii; 90; 96, n. 37; 135; 137; 139-42; 151; Mir 3: 138, n. 54; Mir 7: 136, n. 42; Mir 10: 139-41; Mir 12: 137, n. 12; Mir 14: 141; Mir 18: 136, n. 42; Mir 30: 137; Mir 32: 137; Mir 35: 137, n. 49; Mir 37: 138, n. 51; Mir 38: 138, n. 50; Mir 39: 138, n. 52; Mir 41: 138, n. 50; Mir 46: 136, n. 42 Basil of Seleucia: 135 Bașkalē: 50, n. 6 Beast, -s/beastliness/beastly: 42; 116; 118; 158-9; 161; 165; 234 Becili: 136, n. 41 Becoming (genesis): 195; 203; 233 Believer, -s: 101; 159-61; 166; 174-5 Benediction: 159; see also s.v. blessed Benevento: 59 and n. 44 Berger, S.: 20 Betrothal, symbolism of: 110, n. 18 Bianchi, U.: 203, n. 64 Bible, Gen 3: 194, n. 36; 5:24: 120, n. 36; 2 Kings 2:14: 116, n. 26; Isa 14:12-15: 196, 14; 33:17: 193, n. 32; Ps 7; 8; 9;

258

index

10; 23; 28:3: 193, n. 32; 79 [78]: 116; 143 [142]: 114; Song of Songs: 110; Daniel 4: 108, n. 13; Matt 5:15-16: 122; 8:12: 173, n. 49; 9:6: 71, n. 5; 10:3: 51; 11:15: 186; 13:9: 186; 13:25: 195; 13:38: 188, n. 23; 13:39: 195; 13:43: 186; 19:1012: 226, n. 40; 22:13: 173, n. 49; 25:1-10: 110; 25:30: 173, n. 49; Mark 3:18: 51; 4:21: 122; Luke 6:14: 51; 8:16: 122; 10:18: 196; 10:19: 195; 11:33: 122; 16: 123, n. 40; 22:31: 195; John 1:3: 114; 1:45-50: 51; 3:3-8: 118, n. 30; 12:31: 197 and n. 46; 16:11: 197, n. 46; Acts 1:13: 51; 7:2: 193, n. 32; 8:20: 186; Rom 16:17-20: 195; 1 Cor 2:8: 193; 7: 226 and n. 39; 7:8: 226; 10: 167, n. 44; 2 Cor 11:2: 110, n. 18; 11:3-15: 195; 2:11.14-16: 195; 3:18: 185, n. 13; Gal 6:2: 186; Ep 1:17: 193, n. 32; 5:27: 110, n. 18; James: 3, n. 6; 2:1: 193; 1-2 Peter: 3, n. 6; 1-3 John: 3, n. 6; 1 John 2:26: 197; 3:10: 188, n. 23; 5:2: 187, n. 19; 197 and n. 46; Jd: 3, n. 6; see also s.v. Bible Bitter/bitterly/bitterness: 35-7; 171; 204 and n. 70; 235; 236, n. 61 Black Sea: 59 Blessed/blessing: 33; 35; 65; 87; 94-7; 100; 104-5; 110; 114; 121; 140; 158-9; 170; 186-7; see also s.v. benediction Blood, royal: 151; flowing/shedding/spilling of: 76; 87; 104; 10610; 116, n. 26 Boar: 107 and n. 13; 108; 117 Body, -s: 118; 137; 160; 175; 187; 198; 210; 215; 235; female: 121; of Mary: 121; of Thecla: 94-6; 96, n. 37; of Valens: 130, n. 20; virgin/virginal: 88 and n. 17.18; 99; 108; 109, n. 15; 113-9; 121; as temple of the divinity: 88; 113-9; 116; see also s.v. corpse; flesh Bollandist, -s: 98; 105, n. 6 Bonds: 158; 161; 163; 216; see also s.v. chains; ropes Bones: 76; 116, n. 26; 117; 140 Bonnet, M.: 183, n. 6; 190, n. 30; 198, n. 48; 220-2 Book of Letters (Girk‘ t‘łt‘oc‘), n° 89: 45, n. 44 Boughton, L.: 155 Bouvier, B.: 217, n. 2; 220-1 Bovon, F.: 217, n. 2; 218, n. 6; 220-1 Bread: 159-60; 168; 174 Breviarium apostolorum 106-7: 54; 55, n. 26 Bridegroom, divine: see s.v. fiancé Brothel: 113



index259

Brother, -s: 76; 160; 162; 174-5; 210; 213; 231; of Constantius, Emperor: 128, n. 14; of James: 49; of Tigranes, King: 39 Brown, P.: 153 Bulls: see s.v. Thecla Burrus, V.: 151-3; 155, n. 31 Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘: viii; 89; 125-47; 166; see also s.v. Faustus of Byzantium Byzantine: 85; 95; 100; 150; Armenia: 56; 63, n. 58; Empire: 54; 56 and n. 29; 57; 61; literature: 84; see also s.v. Church Byzantium: 64; 128 C Č‘rak‘ean, K‘.: 16; 72; 79; 183; 187; 199; 208; 213; 221-2 Calzolari, V.: 14; 18; 20; 22-4 Cameron, Av.: 117 Campania: 59 Canvas, being bound as texture to: 158; 163 Capernaum: 71, n. 5 Cappadocian: 58 Carnal union: 232; 234 Carrière, A.: 20 Cassius Dio 36, 48, 1 and 36, 53, 5: 144 Catalan, -s: 95-6; 98; 101; 103; maritime laws: 92; navigators: 92; portolan charts: 92; trade: 92 Catalonia: 91; 92, n. 30; 93, n. 32; 94-5; 96, n. 37; 101 Catechesis of St Gregory § 294: 120, n. 36 Catergian, J.: 19 Catholic: see s.v. Church Caucasian: vii; 51; 60, n. 50; 75 and n. 20; 77 Caucasus: 60 and n. 50; 77, n. 27 Celibacy: 121; 226 and n. 40 Censor/censorius/censorship: 4; 181-2; 220; 223 Chains: 158; 160-1; 163-4; 164, n. 41; 165; see also s.v. bonds; ropes Chalcedonian, anti-: 92/philo-: 57 Charitable: 174 Charitina (in Acts of Philip): 231 Chasms, glacial and infernal: 172 Chastity: 8; 86-7; 105; 108-9; 109, n. 15; 111; 113; 115; 121; 149; 152-4; 156, n. 34; 168-9; 207; 226 and n. 40; 234; 237

260

index

Chosen people: see s.v. Armenian Christ: 2; 31; 33; 42-3; 49; 65; 70; 71, n. 5; 72-3; 76, n. 23; 108; 110 and n. 17.18; 111; 120; 122; 125; 158-60; 163; 167, n. 44; 170; 172-4; 189; 198; 216; 218; coming of: 191; 196-7; cross of: 204, n. 70; 236, n. 61; fiancée of, brides of: 109; 111, n. 18; 115, n. 25; 229; friends and laborers of: 136; gospel of: 38; 55; martyrs of: 143; resurrection of: 71-2; seal of: 160; teaching of: 35; see also s.v. Jesus Christian Apocrypha/apocryphal, and closing of the canon: 1-4; concept of: 5-6; in Armenia/Armenian: 1-25 Christian, -s: vii; ix; xi; 1-2; 5-9; 14-5; 20-1; 30 and n. 6; 37; 44-6; 52; 62; 63, n. 58; 83-4; 89-90; 97; 99; 102; 107-9; 109, n. 15; 112, n. 21; 114; 116-7; 123; 128; 130-1; 132, n. 28; 142 and n. 68; 145; 147; 149; 152 and n. 16; 154; 173; 181-2; 195; 216; 218; 226; 239; female communities: 155/pre-Christian: 75, n. 18; 124; 173; 175; see also s.v. Armenia Christianisation/Christianising: 45-6; 49; 77, n. 27/Christianity: vii-ix; xi; 2; 24; 29-32; 32, n. 10; 33, n. 15; 34; 44; 46; 65; 77, n. 27; 84 and n. 3; 85; 86-7; 104; 106; 109 and n. 15; 113, n. 22; 114; 136; 138-9; 139, n. 60.61; 142, n. 68; 146; 148-51; 153 and n. 25; 154; 155, n. 30; 156; 175-6; 232 Christology, in the MartA: 189-98 Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē: see Chronicle of Zuqnîn Chronicle of Zuqnîn: 53, n. 19 Chronicon paschale: 56, n. 28 Chthonian cult of Thecla: 136 and n. 43 Church: 3; 88; 99; 110, n. 18; 120-1; 128; 133-4; 147; 153; 182; 219; 238; body of, body as: 88, n. 18; 115; 117; Byzantine: 64; 70; Catholic 115, n. 25; Ethiopian: 4, n. 14; Fathers of: 3, n. 9; 4, n. 11; 108; 111; 156; 175; 218-9; 226; foundations of: 115; founded by Paul: 197, n. 46; Great: 181; 219; Greek: 4, n. 14; 52; 108; Latin: 4, n. 14; 92; 108; 175; metaphor of: 88; 117; of Edessa: 32-7; oriental: 4, n. 14; Syriac: 4, n. 14; 30/church, -s: 100-1; 127; 133-4; built by Addai: 35; of Abgar: 32, n. 10; of Aštišat: 30; of the Theotokos, erected by Bartholomew: 57; of Thecla in Cilicia: 100; of Thecla in Seleucia: 140 Cilicia: 91; 96, n. 37; 97, n. 44; Armenian Kingdom of: 91-2; 94-5; 102-3; Chancellery of: 97 and n. 44 Cilician: 92; 100



index261

Civitates foederatae: 63, n. 58 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata: 207, n. 88; 232; 236, n. 63; III, VI, 49, 1: 203, n. 67; III, XIII, 93, 3: 204 and n. 68; III, IX, 66, 1, 226, 15-16: 204, n. 70; 236, n. 61; III, VI, 45, 1: 204, n. 72; III, VI, 45, 1: 233, n. 51; III, XIII, 93, 3: 233, n. 53 Clement, Pseudo, Recognitions: 24 Cloud: 159-62; 164 Codex Theodosianus XI, 1, 1: 128, n. 14 Colchis: 61, n. 50 Collective rescue: s.v. martyrdom Commandment, -s: 120; 187, n. 19; 198; of God: 150; 158; 160-1; 166; 187, n. 19; 197, n. 46; of Lord: 186-7 Compagnia dei Bardi: 92, n. 29 Concupiscence: 113; 202; 204 and n. 70; 229; 232-6 Conjugal life/unions/interactions: 206; 229 Constantine: 66, n. 69; 127, n. 9; 132, n. 28 Constantinople: 28; 65 and n. 69; 67; 100; 133 Constantius II, Emperor: 128 and n. 14; 65, n. 69 Consulado del Mar: 31; 92 Continence: 109, n. 15; 119; 154; 202, n. 64; 205-6; 218; 226; 232; 233, n. 55; 234; 237; see also s.v. abstinence; encratism; enkrateia Conybeare, F.C.: 19 Cooper, K.: 153-4 Corbanopolis: 60; 75 Corpse, -s: viii; 88; see also s.v. body Corpus Hermeticum IV, 8: 195 Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians: 4, n. 14; 9-10; 20 Corruptibility/incorruptibility/corruption: 120; 201; 203; 232-4; 235 Corycos: 92 Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography: 53, n. 21 Council, of Adana: 102; of Constantinople (360): 128; of Nicea: 89; of Rimini-Seleucia (359): 128; of Sis: 102 Creation, from nothing: 173; of all: 141; of the heavens and earth: 159; of the humans: 87; 119-20; 120, n. 38; 188; 192; 236; before-created: 191-2; uncreated: 141, n. 63 Creatures: 159; 172-3; 235 and n. 59 Cross, of Andrew: 161; 184, n. 10; 208; 215-6; of Christ: 142; 204, n. 70; 236, n. 61; relic of: 32, n. 10; sign, shape of: 50; 161 see also s.v. Bartholomew, apostle.

262

index

Crown: 110; 112; of light: 159-60; 167; of martyr/martyrdom: 31; 168 Cybele: 228, n. 45 Cyprus: 102 D Dagron, G.: 83; 136; 138-9 Dara (Anastasiopolis): 58 Dark/darkness/darkening: 78; 173; 234; region of: 53 Dasnabedean, T‘.: 22 Davies, S.L.: 151; 152, n. 171 Davis, S.J.: 154 de Gaiffier, B.: 54 De ortu et obitu Patrum (BHL 6544): 55, n. 26 Deadly and murky works: 172 Death: 31; 34-6; 38; 42; 48; 55; 59; 69; 72; 75-7; 78, n. 29; 87; 89-90; 94, n. 34; 95; 100; 104; 108; 113-4; 119; 124; 126-30; 130, n. 20; 131-5; 137; 139; 142-3; 163, n. 40; 164; 168-9; 171-2; 192; 204; 206 and n. 82; 210; 215-7; 224; 226; 232 and n. 50; 233-6; field of: 232, n. 50; 234-5; of the executioners: 160; 164; tillage of: 232 Debauchery: 235 Deborah: 113 Deception, as Satan’s instrument: 115, n. 24 Demon, -s/demoniacal powers/world: 173; 187, n. 19; 188 and n. 24; 189; 194-6; 204, n. 70; 233; 235; 236, n. 61 Derrida, J.: 154 Dersim: 145, n. 80 Devil: 184, n. 10; 188 and n. 24; 189; 191-3; 204 and n. 71; 235; 236, n. 61; children of: 188 and n. 23; fall of: 197; seduction of: 195; works of: 188 and n. 25; 189; 193, n. 32; 194-5; 197; see also s.v. Satan Devious man: 227 Dew: 160-2; 164 Dexianos, bishop (in Miracles of Thecla): 138 Dialogue of the Paralytic with Christ: 14; 20-1 Didache: 3, n. 6 Dietary, continence: 218; rules: 218 Diocletian, Emperor: 32, n. 10; 105 Diomedes: 138 and n. 55



index263

Discovery of the Mortal Remains of Bartholomew (BHO 159): 24; 61-4; 77; see also Return of the Remains of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew: 59, n. 47 Discovery of the relics of Thaddaeus: 23; 31; 45, n. 43 Disobedience, of Adam and Eve: 119; 236; see also s.v. obedient Divine: 116; assistance/intervention: 113; 149-50; force: 141; 149; inscription: 140; plan: 49; receptacle (virginal body): 116-7; revelation: 51; 101; 189; 194; table: 96; vision: 133; will: 189; see also s.v. bridegroom; fiancé; grace; pledge; providence; punishment; voice Divinity: 141 and n. 63 (Trinity); cohort of: 42; 188, n. 25; holy and fragrant: 42; treasure of: 116; see also s.v. body; light; Jesus Diyarbakır: 62, n. 54 Doctrine of Addai/Teaching of Addai: 15; 32-41; 50; and Movēs Xorenac‘i: 38-41 Dolbeau, F.: 55-6 Dominicans: 97, n. 44 Dorfmann-Lazarev, I.: 22 Dormition of John: 9; 19 Dormition of Mary/Dormition of the Virgin: 16; 19; 78, n. 29 Dragon: 44, n. 40; 228 and n. 46; 234; and lust: 234 Dunn, P.W.: 155 E Eagle, allegory of (AA): 184, n. 10 Earthquake: 164 Eclipse: 78, n. 29 Eden: 119 Edessa: 9; 30; 32-4; 37-8; 38, n. 27; 39-41; 139, n. 60; archives of: 33; 39-41; Christianity of: vii; 32, n. 10; 34; Church of: 32-4 Egeria, Travels of, 22, 2-23, 6: 135, n. 40 Ehrman, B.D.: 176 Ekełeac‘ (Gr. Akilisene): 124; 144 Émine, J.-B.: 19 Emperor, heretic: 132; 147; impious/lawless/ungodly/unworthy: 90; 120; 142; persecutory: 130, n. 20; see also s.v. Diocletian; Julian; Valens Encratism/Encratist/Encratite: 177; 198-208; 203, n. 64; 217-39; in Armenia: 25, n. 104; 208; 232; 236-9; see also s.v. abstinence; continence; enkrateia

264

index

Enemy: 49; 120; 190, n. 30; 192; 195; 204; 234 Enkrateia: 203, n. 64; 204, n. 70; 205, n. 78; 218; 233; see also s.v. abstinence; continence; encratism Enoch: 120, n. 36 Ephesus: 65; 65, n. 69; 67; 163; 164, n. 41 Ephrem: 109 Epidaurus: 135, n. 44 Epiphanius, Pseudo, Lists: 54-6 Epiphanius: 22, n. 94; 54-6; 205, n. 74; Panarion 47, 1, 5: 205, n. 73; 61, 1, 5: 205, n. 73 Epistle of Barnabas: 3, n. 6 Epistle of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to Titus: 10; 18-9 Epistle of Pseudo-Titus I, 5: 162 Erevan: 13 Erēz: 144 Erotic vocabulary: 110 and n. 17 Etchmiadzin, cathedral of: 85, n. 6 Ethiopia: 52, n. 17; 53 and n. 19 Ethiopian: 52 and n. 14; see also s.v. Church Eucharist: 105, n. 5; 168; 218; without wine: 218 Euphrates: 57; baptising waters of: 118 Europe: 83; 102 Eusebius of Caesarea, HE I, 9, 8, 2: 105, n. 6; I, 13, 1-22: 33-4; 39; I, 13, 5: 39, n. 30; II, 10: 39, n. 30; V, 10, 3: 52; III, 25: 3, n. 6; 181 Eusebius of Emesa, De virginitate 25, 27: 88, n. 17; 115, n. 25; Hom. 6 de martyribus 24: 88, n. 17; 115, n. 25 Eustathian: 177, n. 58; 218; 237-9 Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste: 25; 208; 237-8 Eve: 120-1; 121, n. 39; 194; 206, n. 78; 236; as virgin: 120 Evil, -s: 42; 99; 115; 120; 143; 160; 167; 172; 188; 189, n. 25; 195; 204, n. 70; 234-5/Evil: 161; 188-9; 195 Expositio totius mundi et gentium § 16-18 and 35: 53, n. 21 F Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti: 7, n. 23; 16 Faustus of Byzantium: viii; 29-31; 65; History of Armenia (BP) III, 12, 14 and IV, 3, 4: 29; IV, 10: 89-90; 125-47; 175 Female: 112; apostle: 150; 156; 175; ascetic literature/movements: 110, n. 17; 177, n. 59; body: 121; Christian communities: 152;



index265

155; 177; emancipation movements and ancient Christianity: 152, n. 16; 153; figures and Armenian Christianity: 85; 148; figures/characters in the apocryphal Acts: 153-4; image and ancient Christianity: 149; 151; martyrs: 121; public/readership: 151-2; virgin: 88, n. 17.18; voice: 153 Fiancé: 87; 168; divine (also bridegroom): 110/Christ’s fiancée: 109; 111, n. 18 Fight/fighting: 167; against Arianism: 131; against death: 236; against social authority: 154; for martyrdom: 167; for the defense of virginity: 87; 108; of Satan, the enemy: 120; 188 and n. 25; 190, n. 30; 192-3; see also s.v. struggle; Thecla Filthiness, pagan: 113 Fire: 78, n. 29; 159-62; 141; 164 Flamion, J.: 8, n. 24; 205 Flesh: 116; 120; 142; 157; 206; 213-5; 215, n. 114; see also s.v. body Floods of error and deceit: 115 Foreign name: 229-30 Foucault, M.: 154 Fragrance: 49; 230 Franciscans: 97, n. 44 Froehner, W.: 68, n. 2 Furnace: 164 G Galen, ed. C.G. Kühn, MedG: 71, n. 6 Gangra, Canons of: 237-8; Synod of: 177, n. 58; 218 García Villada, Z.: 96; 98 Garden (Eden): 120 Garsoïan, N.G.: 30, n. 6; 139; 143, n. 70; 238 Gayianē: 8; 86; 120-1 Geerard, M.: 11 Gehenna, children of: 173 Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE III, 9, 2: 53, n. 18 General Archives of the Crown of Aragon (ACA), Reg 245: 93, n. 33; Reg 246: 94 Girk‘ t‘łt‘oc‘: see s.v. Book of Letters Girl, young/maiden (Arm. ałǰik): 112; 159; 162-4; 167; 169; 175; 224 Glory: 76 and n. 23; 111; 146; 173; 197, n. 46; Father of: 193, n. 32; God of: 193, n. 32; King of: 193, n. 32; see also s.v. Lord

266

index

Gnel, murder of: 128 God: 8; 33; 42; 45; 49; 76 and n. 23; 86; 87 and n. 13; 96; 99; 106-10; 112-4; 117-8; 120 and n. 36; 124, n. 42; 127; 130; 141; 143; 150; 158-9; 163; 166-8; 171-4; 188; 192; 194; 224; 227; 230; as creator: 188, n. 25; as king of kings: 171-2; closeness/ homilia to: viii; 87, n. 13; 110-1; 111, n. 20; 117; 119-21; communion with: 210; curse of: 236; design/providential plan for the Armenians: 48; 67; 105-6; 122-34; foreign: 114; Great things/ works of: 157-8; legacy of: 116, n. 26; man of: 163; mother of: 142; 175; power of: 116; providence of: 106; Son of: 115, n. 24; 141; Spirit of: 161; temples of (i.e. bodies of the virgins): 88; 115-7; true: 233, n. 55; 234; word of: 71; 150; 157; 160; wrath of: 235, n. 59; see also s.v. alliance (with the Armenians); commandment; glory; grace Gold/golden: 172; 183; 230; coffin: 64, n. 63; crown: 112; inscription (at the temple of Thecla): 140; torches: 122 Gospel of Matthias: 3, n. 6; 181 Gospel of Nicodemus (also Acts of Pilate): 10; 18 Gospel of Peter: 2; 3, n. 6; 181 Gospel of the Ebionites: 4, n. 12 Gospel of the Egyptians: 204, n. 70.72; 233, n. 51; 236, n. 61 Gospel of the Hebrews: 4, n. 12 Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus/Infancy Gospel: 10; 18-20; 22; 24; 121, n. 39 Gospel of the Nazarenes: 4, n. 12 Gospel of the Twelve Apostles: 4, n. 11 Gospel of Thomas: 3, n. 6; 7; 181 Gospels, collection of the four: 2, n. 3 Goths: 89; 130 and n. 20; 131 and n. 20 Grace: 158-9; apostle’s: 45-6; divine: 44; 87; 104; God’s: 106; 209; Lord’s: 49 Gregorid: 29-30 Gregory of Narek: 143; 175; Panegyric of the Virgin: 145, n. 81 Gregory of Nazianzus: 108; Carmen de Vita sua, v. 545-551: 135, n. 40; Carmina Moralia II, 190 and II, 87: 111, n. 19; Orationes XXIV, 10: 131, n. 24 Gregory of Nyssa: 108; In Canticum Canticorum, or. 1: 111, n. 19; Vita Macrinae 2: 111, n. 19 Gregory of Tours: 182; 206; Life of Andrew I, 7: 164, n. 41; Miraculorum Lib. I. De gloria martyrum 33: 58 and n. 41



index267

Gregory the Illuminator: 29-30; 45; 74; 77, n. 27; 104-9; 116; 124; and King Tiridates: 123 and n. 40; and King Uṙnayr: 77, n. 27; as living martyr: 66; as preacher: 106; baptising mission of: 119; conception in the plain of Artaz: 45-6; intermediary between God and men/the Armenians: 106; 123; paternal right hand of: 118; sons of: 121; St. Thaddaeus’ successor: 65 Gregory the Martyrophile: 12, n. 42 Guignard, C.: 56; 60, n. 49 H Hagia-Thecla/Ayatekla: 136, n. 41 Hagneia (‘purity’): 233, n. 55 Hail: 160; 162-3 Hair, cutting of: 159; 161; 237 Hannan: 33; 41 and n. 35 Hatra: 32 Healing: 71, n. 5; 76; 118 and n. 30; 146 Heathen, -s: 114; 115, n. 25; 122; 127 Heaven, -s/heavenly: 31; 49; 100-1; 114; 122; 158-60; 162; 170; 172-3; 175; 192-3; 196; kingdom of: 110; 123, n. 40 Heels of the man of God: 159; 163 Hellenistic: 155, n. 31; see also s.v. Novel Hellespont: 59 Hennecke, E.: 194 and n. 36 Heraclides: 194 Hermetic/Hermetism: 8, n. 24 Het‘um II, King: 97, n. 44 Hierapolis: 217; 223; 224, n. 33; 228 Hippolytus, Refutatio 1, 19: 194 Historiography, Armenian: see s.v. Armenian History of James and John: 9 History of Thaddaeus and Sanduxt: 15 History of the Discovery of the Mortal Remains of Thomas (BHO 1224): 51 History of the Hripsimian Saints: 32, n. 10 History of the preaching of James in Spain: 9 Hogeac‘ Vank‘, monastery of: 78, n. 29 Holiness: 113; 115, n. 25; 121; 232; 234-5; 237; paradigms of: viii; 85; 110 Holmoi: 138, n. 53

268

index

Holy Land: 32, n. 10 Homer: 138; 140; Iliad: 138, n. 55 Hṙip‘simē: 105 and n. 6; 107-9; 113; 115; 120; and Armenian redemption: 121; and the Holy Land: 32, n. 10; and Thecla: 110-3; as Eve’s antithesis: 120; as (holy) virgin: 88; 110-2; 116, n. 27; as new Mary: 121, n. 39; chapel of: 116, n. 26; martyrdom of: 113; 121; relics of: 116 and n. 27; strength: 112; struggle: 87; see also s.v. Hripsimian virgins Hripsimian virgins: viii; 32, n. 10; 86; 105-7; 109; 119; 121-3; and Armenian salvation: 106-8; and God’s plan for the Armenians: 122-3; as apostles of Armenia: 122-3; bodies/relics of: 116-7; chapels of: 116, n. 27; 117-9; martyrdom of: 32, n. 10; 87; 10424; 122; 124 and n. 42; shedding/spilling of blood of: 107-10 Hymenaeus et al., Epistula ad Paulum Samosatenum 2: 194 I Iconium: 125; 141; 149; 157; 162-3, n. 40; 169; 175 Idol, -s/idolatrous/idolatry/idol-worshipping: 75-6; 108; 114, 127; 172-3; 229; and defilement: 233-4 Illness: 137; and Valens’ son: 127; see also s.v. Abgar; Addai; Sanatruk Impurity: see s.v. purity Incenses: 230 Incorruptibility: see s.v. corruptibility Incubation: 90; 135-6; 136, n. 44; 137 India, -s: 51 and n. 10; 52 and n. 17; 53 and n. 17.19.21; 54-5; 58; 71-2; 77, n. 27/citerior: 52 and n. 17; 53; Happy: 55; ulterior: 52 and n. 17 Infancy Gospel: see s.v. Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Inner man: 181; 206; 208-11 Intercession: 76 and n. 23; 78; 110; 117; 123 Intertextual/intertextuality: viii; 87; 156; 162; 176 Intoxicants: 151 Inviolability, of the Nicean canons: 90; of the saint’s virginal body: 99; 116 Irenaeus: 131, n. 29; 207; 236; Adversus Haereses I, 28, 1: 233, n. 52; 203, n. 67 Isaac, St.: 131, n. 20 Isangelia: 87 and n. 13; 119, n. 35; see also s.v. angel Isauria: 135; 142 Isidore of Seville: 55, n. 26



index269

J James II, King of Aragon: 92-5; 98; 100-1 James, apostle: 77, n. 27 Jerome, De viris illustribus 36: 52, n. 15; Epistula XXII, 41: 111, n. 19; Prol. com. in ep. ad Titum 685: 203, n. 66; 233, n. 52 Jerusalem: 13; 15; 32, n. 10; 65; 67; 78, n. 29; 116, n. 26; 199, n. 54; 208, n. 92; 211 Jesus: 17; 31; 33; 42; 49; 158-9; 161; 170; 189; 227; birth and infancy of: 9; 16; 121; coming of: 9; divinity of (in Teaching of Addai): 33; 40; miracles of: 118, n. 30; name of: 167, n. 44; passion of: 9; portrait of: 33; ‘secret’ or ‘hidden words’ of: 3, n. 7; virginity of: 120, n. 38; see also s.v. Christ Jew/Jewish: 8; 33; 37; 44 and n. 42; 106; 109, n. 15; 113, n. 21; 195; 204, n. 70 Johan Vallfogona, Pere: 102 John Catholicos: 65; 116, n. 27; History of Armenia, § 12-13: 66-7 John Chrysostom: 108; Homiliae in Col. 5, 3: 194; De virginitate: 87, n. 13 John Malalas, Chronography XIII: 133, n. 35 John of Damascus, On Holy Images I: 133, n. 35 John the Evangelist: 228; relics of: 65, n. 69 John XXII, Pope: 97, n. 44 John Zosimus: 55-6 John, Archbishop of Toledo: 94 Jude Thomas: 33; 50, n. 7 Jude, brother of James: 49-50 Judge: 158; 161; 169 Julian, Emperor: 90; death of: 132-5 Julius Cassian: 203; 233 Jullien, F. and C.: 60 Junod, É.: 6-7; 16 Justin Martyr: 121, n. 39 Justinian, Emperor: 56; 63, n. 58; 66, n. 69 K Kalē Archē (Theodosiopolis): 57 Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘, § 190-201: 238, n. 68 Karin: 57 Karish (in Acts of Thomas): 169 Kartir, Magus, inscription of: 144

270

index

Keturah: 74 Kirakos Arewelc‘i: 36, n. 24 Kissing: 158-9; 163 Komitas, Catholicos: 116, n. 27; Hymn on Hṙip‘simē attributed to: 121, n. 39 Konya: 92 Korbanopolis: 56, n. 28 Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘: 78, n. 27; IX, 5: 106 Kraemer, R.S.: 154, n. 26; 156 L Labubna (Doctrina Addai): 15; 32; 41 Lady/Great Lady (Tikin/Mec Tikin) (epithet): 116; 124; 134; 136; 143; 144, n. 80 (xat‘um); 175 Lajazzo: 92; see also s.v. Ayas Langlois, V.: 19 Łaradał: 30, n. 6 Laudes in gloriosum et sanctum Christi apostolum Bartholomaeum 6-7: 58, 40 Law, -s, maritime: 92; of the city: 149; 151/Law, Tablet of: 44, n. 42 Łazar of P‘arpi: 30 Lebbaeus: 50 Łebubna (Doctrina Addai): 40-1; 41, n. 35 Legacy of God: 116, n. 26 Leloir, L.: 1-3; 20-1; 21, n. 90; 183 and n. 7; 184; 189; 191; 198; 201; 208; 219; 222 and n. 26; 223 Lessons of Sylvanus, NHC VII, 4: 195 Letter of Abgar: 15; 19; see also s.v. Doctrine of Addai Letter of Pilate: 10 Levon IV, King: 93 Levon the Magnificent, King: 97, n. 44 Life of Adam and Eve 17: 195 Life of Marūtha: 62-3 Life of St. Gregory: 39 Life: 36, n. 25; 46; 54; 170; 172; 210; chaste: 169; 234-5; conjugal: 206; corporeal: 215; earthly: 119; 198; 214; 216; eternal: 188 and n. 25; Gregory’s: 124; impure 200; Nersēs’: 131, n. 25; of continence: 119; 206; 232; pious: 127; 226; pure: 232; 234; Valens’ son’s: 127; Thecla’s: 102; word of: 31; 157; 160; 174/ lifeless: 173



index271

Light: 136; 158-60; 164, 168; 172; arc of: 49; glorious: 122; heavenly: 170; living (i.e. the Christ): 170; of a torch hidden under a bushel: 122; of all creatures: 159; 172; of resurrection: 110; of the divinity: 42; supreme light: 171; see also s.v. crown Lignum concupiscentiae: 204, n. 70; 205, n. 78 Linguistic turn: 154; and gender history: 155, n. 30 Lion/lioness: 151; 161; 165 Lipari, Islands: 58-9 Lipsius, R.A.: 33; 73 Lists of Apostles: 9; 17 Logoi apocryphoi (Gospel of Thomas): 3, n. 7 Lord, A.B.: 152 Lord: 41-2; 49; 63; 66; 70; 71, n. 5; 72; 113; 118; 124; 158-9; 167; 169-72; 196; 204, n. 70; 235; 236, n. 61; all-merciful: 121; ascension of: 31; coming of: 189; of glory: 191-3; 196; of Powers: 73; Providence of: 44; saints of: 129; see also s.v. commandment; grace Loyalty: 89; 102; 108; 209; 230 Lycaonia: 52; 54; 71-3 M MacDonald, D.R.: 151-2; 181, n. 1; 183 and n. 6; 184 Magi: 74, n. 17; 78, n. 29 Magistrianoi (Emissaries): 129; 134 Makarismos: see s.v. Paul Maku: 30, n. 6 Malan, S.C.: 19 Mamikonean: 29 Mamluk: 98 Mamyan, M.: 22 Man-eating beasts: 161 Marcionites: 236 Mariamne (in Acts of Philip): 224, n. 33; 231 Marianos (in Miracles of Thecla): 137 Marriage: 110, n. 18; 200-1; 203; 226 and n. 40; 229; 233; 236-8; rejection of: 119; 203-5; 206, n. 83; 218; 227-8; 230; 237; symbolism of: 110, n. 18 Martyrdom of Bartholomew (BHO 156): 15; 19; 48-69; § 2: 72; § 14: 73; § 15-16: 48; § 16: 72; § 18: 72; § 18-19: 49 Martyrdom of Bartholomew (Ethiopian): 62, n. 14

272

index

Martyrdom of Bartholomew (MS M7753): 18; 68-79; see also Acts and Martyrdom of Bartholomew (Greek, codex Weimar 729) Martyrdom of Bartholomew and Jude (BHO 160): 67, n. 72; 78 Martyrdom of Matthew: 69; 163-4; 167; § 6: 163 Martyrdom of Paul: 9; 20; 84, n. 3 Martyrdom of Peter: 9 Martyrdom of St. Stephen: 14; 24 Martyrdom of St. Timothy the Apostle: 15 Martyrdom of St. Titus the Apostle: 15 Martyrdom of Thaddaeus: 31; 41-7; 69; 75, n. 18; 148-77; § 2: 31; § 3: 32; § 4: 41; § 13: 41-2; § 25: 41; § 29: 41; § 32: 43 Martyrdom of Thomas: 9 Martyrdom, collective salvific value of: 87; and collective rescue: 104-24; stories/narration of: 168-9; 206; see also s.v. Addai; Andrew; Bartholomew; crown; fight; Hṙip‘simē; Hripsimian virgins; Sanduxt; struggle; Thaddaeus; Thecla Martyrium S. Photinae Samaritanae: 111, n. 19 Martyropolis: 58; 61; 62, n. 56; 63-4; 77; see also s.v. Maypherkat, Mayyāfāriqīn, Mefrkt, Np‘rkert, Silvan Marūtha: vii; 61-4; 77 Mary: 16-7; 141-3; 151; and Eve: 121, n. 39; apparition of: 32, n. 10; portrait of: 78, n. 29; virginity of: 120-1 Masculinisation of women: 112, n. 21; see also s.v. virile Maštoc‘: 44, n. 42; 77, n. 27; 84, n. 4 Matthews, S.: 153, n. 25; 155 Maximilla (in AA): 162; 168-9; 204; 206 and n. 78; 207; 210 Maximinus Daia: 105, n. 6 Maypherkat: vii; 61; 63 Mayyāfāriqīn (Martyropolis): 62, n. 54 Mazdai, King (in Acts of Thomas): 169 Mazdean: 74, n. 17; see also s.v. Anahit; Aramazd; Zoroastrian Medes: 52, n. 17 Medicine: 234; of immortality: 170 Mefrkt (Martyropolis): 62, n. 54 Mekhitarist, -s: 1; 14; 16-8; 157; 183; 222 Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha: 195 Mercurius, St.: 133 Meriamlık: 136, n. 41 Metamorphosis of Tiridates: 108, n. 13; 117



index273

Methodius of Olympus: 108; De virginitate/Symposium, or On Virginity I, 2, 3, 4: 87, n. 13; VIII, 1, 171: 111, n. 20 Middle-Platonism: 8, n. 24 Military saints: 89; 142 Miracle, -s: 33; 78, n. 29; 93; 96, n. 37; 99; 101; 107; 118, n. 30; 132 and n. 27; 137; 149-50; 158; 160; 164-5; 174; 196; 211; 212, n. 105 Mithridates VI Eupator, King: 56 Mixis (‘sexual union’): 200 ML‘T, ideogram: 143, n. 73; see also s.v. bānūg Moesinger, G.: 19 Monastic circles, and preservation of apocryphal works: 4, n. 13 Moses: 44, n. 42 Mourning: 36-7 Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i (or Kałankatuac‘i), History of Albania: 78, n. 27 Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Pseudo, Letter to Sahak Arcruni: 79 Movsēs Xorenac‘i: 44-6; 64, n. 64; History of Armenia I, 31: 145, n. 81; II, 1.68: 74; II, 24-36: 38-41; II, 24: 30, n. 6; II, 26: 40; II, 29-30.33: 40; II, 34: 45; 50; II, 36: 40; II, 60: 146; II, 74: 45; III, 21: 128, n. 14; III, 59: 57, n. 37 Muhammad Ibn Abi’l-Saj (Muhammad al-Afšīn): 143, n. 69 Muradyan, G.: 68 and n. 1 Muš, Homiliary of: 222 Mygdonia (in Acts of Thomas): 168-9 N Narratio de rebus Armeniae § 5-9: 57 Narseh I: 144 Nathanael: 51 Nativity of Mary: 10 Nature: 187-8; 194 Nebuchadnezzar: 108, n. 13 Nersēs, Armenian patriarch: 66 and n. 71; 89; 126-31; 131, n. 20.25; 132; and Arianism: 128; 131-2; and Basil: 147; 238; and Valens, emperor: 126-32; consecration of: 132, n. 26.27; exile of: 132, n. 25 Ng, E.Y.L.: 155 Nicanora (in Acts of Philip): 168; 223; 232 Nicea: 89

274

index

Nicean: viii; 89-90; 125-47; canons: 89-90; Creed: 90 Nicetas the Paphlagonian: 56, n. 26; 58-61; Oratio X: 59, n. 42; PG, 99, 213 C – 215 C.217 BC: 60 Nicolas de Ray, notarius: 96-7 Nicopolis: 56; 60 Nikephoros Kallistos: 133 Nile: 53 Nisibis, treaty of (298): 126, n. 9 Noise: 160; 162; 164 Noret, J.: 68 North American scholarship in the 1980s: 151 Northern regions: 122 Northern Syria: 139 Novel, Greek/Hellenistic: 151-2; 156; 205; and apocryphal literature: 153, n. 20; 155, n. 31 Np‘rkert (Martyropolis): 62, n. 54 Nuptial, chamber: 230; symbolism of: 110 O Obedient: 110; see also s.v. disobedience Obscenity, of the impious religion: 113 Occident: 84; 91; 97; 102/Occidental: 84, n. 3; 92; Christianity: 84, n. 3 Odes of Salomon 38: 195 Oil: 230; sweet: 230; of sweet: 122 Olrik, A.: 152 Olympias: 128, n. 14 Onesiphorus: 157-8 Only-Begotten: 114; 142 Ophioryme: 217; 228, n. 45 Orality: 153 Orient: 89; 91-2; 97; 102/Oriental, Christianity: 84, n. 3; Churches: 4, n. 14; literature: 90 Origen: 4, n. 4; Contra Celsum IV, 26: 88, n. 17; 115, n. 25; V, 48 and 6, 28: 195; Homiliae in Jer.: 195; Dialogus cum Heraclide 2: 194 Ōrmanean, M.: 46 Ormi: 50 Orthodox/orthodoxy: 3, n. 6; 89; 181; 191; 198; 205-7; 211; 216; 219; 236, n. 63; revisions: 239; see also s.v. Nicean Ošin, King: 92-4; 96-7; 101-2; philo-Latin politics of: 102 Osrhoene: 30; 32-3



index275

Otto III, Emperor: 59, n. 44 Ourbanopolis: 55-6; 56, n. 28; 59-60; 75/v.l. Ovbianos, Urbanos, Urbianos, Urbanupōlis: 61, n. 51; 64, n. 63 Outtier, B.: 14; 18, n. 72; 20; 22 P Pagan: 8; 37; 58; 99; 109, n. 15; 113-5; 115, n. 24; 127; 130; 138; 145; 146, n. 90; 154; 229; ancient cult places of: 106; and impurity: 114; and incubation: 136 and n. 44; and Ipsistius (Miracles of Thecla); and Sanatruk: 169; and Tiridates: 87; 105; 108, n. 13; 120; 123; as obscene dogs: 113; filthiness: 113; Greek literature: 8, n. 24; sexual morality: 109, n. 15 Paganism: 76; and defilement: 113-5; 173; and impurity: 113 and n. 22; 114; Christianity’s triumph over: 114; see also s.v. Armenian; struggle Pahlawuni: 176, n. 56 Paikuli, inscription of: 144 Palermo: 59, n. 43 Pamukkale: 217 Pap, King: 66, n. 71 Paphlagonia: 218 Paradosis Pilati: 10 Paris: 13; 199, n. 54; 208, n. 92 Partaw: 143 Parthamasiris: 30, n. 6 Partheneia (‘virginity’): 226; folk etymology of: 111, n. 20 Parthians: 57; 71-4 Passion of Blandina: 86, n. 9 Passion of Perpetua: 86, n. 9 Passion of Sanduxt: 15; 19 Passion, -s: 102; dirty: 114; 235; of impious desires: 114/of Christ: 9-10; 18/Passion-genres: 108 Paternity, celestial: 169; spiritual: 169; terrestrial: 169 Patience/patient: 160; 167-8 Patras: 169; 183 Patriarch/patriarchal/patriarchates: 29; 46; 65-7; 89; 99; 121; 123 and n. 40; 131; 156; 238 Paul, apostle: viii; 15; 78, n. 29; 85, n. 6; 123; 125; 141 and n. 63; 149-50; 152, n. 18; 157-60; 162; 163 and. 40; 166-7; 167, n. 44; 168; 197, n. 46; 226; makarismos of: 116

276

index

Paulinus of Nola: 57 Peace/peaceable/peaceably: 62; 110; 119; 126 and n. 9; 188 and n. 25; 190, n. 30; 192; 208-10 Peeters, P.: 20; 133, n. 29; 139, n. 59 People, chosen: see s.v. Armenian Persarmenia: 30, n. 6; 56; 58; 64 Persecutions: 127-8; Arian: 132; by Maximinus Daia: 105, n. 6; by Shapur II: 62, n. 57; era of: 108/persecutory emperor: 130, n. 20 Persian, -s: 57; 62; 74 and n. 15.17; 78, n. 29; 126, n. 9; 133; Empire: 62; 63, n. 58 Peter, apostle: 78, n. 29 Philip: 51-2; 70-1; 73 and n. 10.11.13; 223; 224, n. 33; 225; 227-9; 231-2; 239 Phrygia: 71-2; 217 Piety: 158-9; 171; 229 Plato, bishop (in Martyrdom of Matthew): 163 Plato, Leges: 194 Pledge, divine: 42 Pliny the Elder, NH V, 34, 83: 144, n. 78 Plotinus, Enneades V, 1, 2: 195 Plutarch, Artaxer III, 2: 145, n. 83; XXIII: 146, n. 86 Pollution: 113-4 Pompey: 56 Pontus/Pont(os): 56; 59; 182 Pope: 102; see also s.v. John XXII Porphyry, De abstinentia II, 40, 1: 195 Portella: 92 Preaching of Bartholomew in the Oasis City: 52, n. 14 Prieur, J.-M.: 183-5; 187; 189-91; 193-97; 197, n. 46; 198 and n. 48; 201-2; 205-7, 209, n. 94; 210-1 Prince of angels: see s.v. angel Prison/prisoner: 161; 171; 202; 206 Procreation (paidopoia/teknogonia): 119; 201, n. 60; 202-4; 207; 218; 227; 232 and n. 50; 236-7 Prodigies of Thecla: 18; 20; 23; 84, n. 3; 85 and n. 7; 96, n. 37; 99; (Arm.) I, 2, 4-5: 150; (Greek) I, 1, 3; IV, 2 and V, 2-3: 150 Propp, V.: 152 Protevangelium of James: 9; 19-20 Protological/Protologically: 119; 204, n. 70; 205, n. 78; 236 Providence: 107; divine: 43; 45; see also s.v. God; Lord



index277

Punishment: 151; 164-5; divine: 89; 130, n. 20; 143; 235 Purity: 111-3; 113, n. 22; 114; 116-7; 122; 162; 226-8; 228, n. 55; 234; 237; angelic: 124; primordial: 87/impurity: 189, n. 25; 200; 203; 218; 224 and n. 34; 234-5; see also s.v. paganism Q Quecke, H.: 19 R Rain: 160; 162; 164 Raymond of Avignon, Provost of Tarragona: 94-5 Rebecca: 113 Red Sea: 52, n. 17 Redeemer of humanity: 121 Redemption: 87; 120-1; 189; 198; of the Armenian people: 87; 107; 121; 124 Relic, -s: 31; 65; 95-6; transfer narratives: 100; see also s.v. Bartholomew; Cross; Hṙip‘simē; John the Evangelist; Sanduxt; Thaddaeus; Thecla; Thomas Renunciators: 87 Return of the Remains of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew: 59, n. 47; see also s.v. Discovery of the Mortal Remains of Bartholomew (BHO 159) Revelation: 51; 101; 189; 194-6; 210 Rice, B.: 21 Roig Lanzillotta, L.: 210 Roman Empire: 105; 127; 131, n. 23 Romance of Julian the Apostate: 133 Ropes: 160; 164; see also s.v. bonds; chains Rousselle, A.: 109 Rufinus, HE I, 9: 53, n. 18; XI, 13: 131, n. 22 Russell, J.R.: 144, n. 80 S Sacrifice: 78, n. 29; 124; and redemption of Armenia: viii; 86-7; 104-5; 105, n. 5; 107; 113; 119; 122; 124 Sadness: 36-7; 201 Salmas/Salamast/Salmast: 50 and n. 5 Salt: 159 Salvation: 45, n. 42; 47; 106; 108; 122; 189; 196; 206; 210; 218

278

index

Samuelian, Th.: 184 San Lazzaro, Island: 1, n. 1 Sanatruk, King: 30, n. 6; 31; 38-41; 48; 148; 157; 171; 174; as apostle-killer: 30; fortress of: 30, n. 6; illness of: 162; Mount: 30, n. 6; plain of: 30, n. 6 Sanduxt (MartThad): 9; 15; 43; 143 and n. 72; 148; 158-9; 162-4; 164, n. 40; 165-9; and Thecla: 157; 166; 176; as preacher: viii; 160; 174-5; as tikin: 174-5; as virgin (koys): 43; 158-9; 167; 169; 170-3; charitable works of: 174-5; martyrdom of: 160; 163-4; 175; rebirth by baptism: 172; relics of: 15 Sarah: 113 Sargsean, N.: 222 Sarpedon: 136, n. 44 Sassanid: 29; 62; 74 and n. 15; 129; 143, n. 73; 144 and n. 73 Satan: 173; 188; 190, n. 30; 191; 193; 196; fall of: 196; net of: 120; workers of: 127; see also s.v. demon; deception Saviour/saviour: 31; 141; 191 Šawaršan: 31; 41 Schermann, Th.: 55 Schmid, M.: 19 Schneemelcher, W.: 5-6; 8; 17 Sebeos, Pseudo, History of Armenia: 116, n. 27 Seducer: 224-5 Seleucia: viii; 142; 147; 149-50; 150, n. 9; 151; 160 Seleucus Nicator: 138, n. 53 Seljuk: 91; 100 Sergius of Resafa: 129; 142 and n. 66 Serpent, -s, sting of/instruments of: 44, n. 40; 228-30; 234 Seventy/Seventy-Two: 33; 48; 65; 70; 73 Severian of Gabala, De caeco nato: 86, n. 8 Sexual union: 200; 232-3; 236 Sexuality: 119; 204, n. 70; 205; 236 Shadow: 122; 159-60; 162; 164; 172; 234-5 Shapur II, King: 62, n. 57 Sharing of bread: 168 Shepherd of Hermas: 3, n. 6 Sicily, Muslim capture of: 58-9 Signs: 131, n. 20; and miracles: 160; 174 Silence: 158 Silifke (Seleucia): 136, n. 41



index279

Silvan (Martyropolis): 62, n. 54 Silver, reject of: 230 Simon the Zealot: 50 Simon, apostle: 50; 50, n. 7 Simon, J.: 98 Simulacra of lifeless idols: 173 Sin: 87; 121, n. 39; 194, n. 36; 204, n. 70; 235-6; and concupiscence: 236; and Eve: 119-20; original: 87; 236 Sivas: 1, n. 1 Sleep/sleeping: 129; 134-5; 137 Snak: 41, n. 35; see also s.v. Anak Snake: 120; 204 Socrates, philosopher: 111 Socrates: 237; HE I, 19: 53, n. 18; VII, 8: 62, n. 57; IV, 38: 130, n. 20; IV, 26: 131, n. 24 Söder, R.: 151; 153 Sophanene: 62 and n. 58 Sophene: 62, n. 58 Sophist: 90; 129; 134-5; 137-8 Sorcerers/sorcery: 224; 227-30 Soteriology/soteriological question: 189 Soul: 49; 76; 78; 114; 120; 174; 186-7; 192; 194 and n. 35; 195; 198; 201; 203; 224-5; 233; 235 Sozomen, HE II, 24, 1: 53, n. 18; VI, 2: 132-5; VI, 40, 5: 130, n. 20 Stachys (in Martyrdom of Philip): 224 Step‘anos of Siwnik‘, Letters (Book of Letters, n° 89): 45, n. 44 Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i: 50 Stone, M.: 11 Strabo: 144; Geography: XI, 3, 2 and XI, 14, 4: 75, n. 20; XI, 4, 16: 124, n. 41 Stratocles (in AA): 162; 210 Struggle: 159; against Arian heresy: 139; against paganism and idolatry: 229; between heretics and orthodox Christians: 131; for the defence of chastity/virginity: 108; 111; of the martyrdom: 167; see also s.v. fight; Hṙip‘simē; Thecla Sunousia (‘sexual union’): 200; 233 Surac‘ik‘: 85, n. 7; 150, n. 9 Susanna: 113 Symposios, bishop of Seleucia: 139-40 Synax. Eccl. CP: 55, n. 25

280

index

Synaxarion, Armenian (Yaysmawurk‘): see s.v. Armenian Syriac: 7; 15; 21; 32-8; 40; 43; 53, n. 19; 62 and n. 56; 84 and n. 3; 85, n. 5; 98; 133; Armenian translations from: vii; 8 and n. 26; 9; 43; 125; Canon: 10; Christianity: vii; influence on Armenian Christianity/Church: 30-2; religiosity: 139; Syriacisms in Armenian: 139, n. 59; translations from Greek: 8; 85; 139; see also s.v. Church Syrian, -s: 40; 61; 63; 91; 142; 208; Christianity: 139; philo-Syrian current in Armenia: 176, n. 56 T T‘ovma Arcruni, History of the Arcruni IV, 2: 142 Tablets of the Law: see s.v. law Tarōn: 30; 139 and n. 60; 146 Tarragona: 84; 91; 95; 96, n. 37; 98; 100-3; 103, n. 59; cathedral of: 93, n. 32; 94; 102 Tatian: 203; 233 and n. 52; Oratio ad Graecos 4: 194 Tears: 37; 158-9; 163 Teeth, weeping and gnashing of: 173 Temptation: 167 Ter Israel: 36, n. 24 Ter-Movsisyan, M. (Magistros): 13, n. 48 Terian, A.: 21-2 Tertia, Queen (in Acts of Thomas): 168-9 Tertullian: 121, n. 39; De baptismo, 17, 5: 154, n. 26 Testament of Dan 6, 3-4: 195 Thaddaeus: vii; 9; 22; 25; 64; and Elisaeus: 77, n. 27; and Jude/Lebbaeus: 50; and Sanduxt: 148; 161-3; 166-7; 169-72; 174-5; as one of the Seventy (Seventy-Two): 70; condemnation of (in MartThad): 163-4; 172; cycle of (in Armenian): 9; 15; 20; in Eusebius: 34; in Movsēs Xorenac‘i: 38-9; 44-7; joint mission with Bartholomew in Armenia: 48-9; martyrdom: 30-1; 38; 45 and n. 43; 164; preaching in Edessa: 32; 38; 40-1; preaching/teaching in Armenia: 29-31; 38; 40; 41-3; 50; 54; 66; 157; relics of (in Armenia): 15; 45; 62; 66-7; seat/throne of (in Armenia): 65 Thamyris (in AThec): 149; 158; 169 Thecla: viii; 14; 18; 94; 148-50; 158-63; and Athena: 138; and the Church Fathers: 111 and n. 19; 156; and the bulls: 160-4; and the lioness: 151; 165 and n. 42; and Tryphaena: 151; 165-6; and women’s groups preaching and baptising: 154, n. 26; Arab legend



index281

of: 154; as exemplary saint: 156; as miracle-worker: 156; as model of sanctity: 156; as model of Sanduxt: 157; as new Athena: 90; 138 and n. 56; as patroness of the alliance between the Kingdom of Aragon and the Kingdom of Cilicia: 102; as Patroness of Nicean Orthodoxy: 125-47; as protectress of men of letters: 146; as transgressive figure: 156; as virgin: viii; 86; 88; 94; 110-1; 137-8; 151; 156; 158; 175; as woman apostle: 149-50; 156; 1756; association with Anahit: 124, n. 41; baptism of: 150; 166-9; bas-relief of (in Etchmiadzin): 85, n. 6; compared with Hṙip‘simē: 110-3; 123-4; condemnation of: 150; 163-4; epiphanies of: 137; fight/struggle against Alexander: 111; 149; first martyr among women/martyr: 150; 156; healer: 146; iconography of: 85, n. 6; 102 and n. 59; in Tarragona (Catalonia): 84; 91-5; 101-2; in the Armenian tradition: 83-103; limbs of: 100; martyrdom of: 86; 141; 149-51; 163 and n. 40; 164-6; martyrium/sanctuary of: 12930; 132; 135 and n. 40; 136 and n. 42; 137-8; 142; 147; mother of: 151; 163; oral tradition on: 152 and n. 18; paradigms of holiness embodied by: 85; reception after the 2nd century: 156; relics of: 84; 91-103; teaching mission: 150; tikin: 175, n. 54; virginal hand of: 140; warrior saint: 138 Theoclia (in AThec): 158; see also s.v. Thecla, mother of Theodore of Euchaita: 142 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentarii in Pss. 108, 6: 195; HE 5, 39, 11: 195 Theodorus Lector, HE II, 57: 58, n. 38 Theodorus Studita: 58 Theodosiopolis: 57-9; see also s.v. Kalē Archē Theodosius I, Emperor: 57/Theodosius II, Emperor: 57, n. 37; 63; 66, n. 69 Theophilus, Emperor: 59 Theotokos: 57; 141 Thomas, apostle: 48-51; 51, n. 10; 70-2; 77, n. 27; relics of: 17 Tigranes the Great: 39; 63, n. 58 Tikin: 143-4; 144, n. 73.80; 145; 147; 174-5; 175, n. 54.55 Tiridates, King: 77, n. 27; 87; 105-6; 108; 117-8; 122-3; 123, n. 40; 127, n. 9 Tischendorf, C.: 120 Tissot, Y.: 206-7 Tomb: 101; of Thaddaeus: 46; of Thecla: 95; 100 Tōnakan of Makenoc‘: 13

282

index

Trajan, Emperor: 30, n. 6 Trial: 120-1; 159; 167 Trinity: 140-1; 141, n. 63 Tryphaena, Queen (in AThec): 151; 161; 165-6 Turkey: 50, n. 5; 62, n. 54 Tyrannognophos/Tyrannos (in Acts of Philip): 223; 228; 232-4 U United States: 83 Uṙnayr, King: 77, n. 27 V Vahagn: 107, n. 13; 145, n. 81 Vahan Mamikonean: 31 Vahram II: 144 Valencia: 94 Valens, Emperor: 89-90; 126-8; 131 and n. 23; 132 and n. 27.28; 147; death of: 90; 129-30; 130, n. 20; 132; 134-5; 139; 142-3 van Esbroeck, M.: 18; 22; 54-7; 60; 61, n. 52; 65; 68; 73 Vaṙvaṙē, St.: see s.v. Barbara Vaspurakan: 30, n. 6; 50, n. 6 Vegetables: 159 Venice: 13-4; 16; 183; 187, n. 21; 199, n. 54; 221-2; see also s.v. San Lazzaro Vetter, P.: 17-8; 20 Vienna: 1, n. 1; 13 Viper, cult of (in Acts of Philip): 228, n. 45 Virgin: viii; 87 and n. 13; 111; 112, n. 21; 119; 123; 137; 162; 2246; 230; and martyr: viii; 86; 107; 112, n. 21; 116 and n. 26; 122; as Christ’s fiancée: 109-10; 110, n. 17; Christian: 117; endangered, tale of: 88; holy: 176; model of: 176; of Alexandria: 115, n. 25; paradigm of the victorious: 112; (self-)sacrifice of: 107; 119; Wise: 110 (parable); 158/Virgin (Mary): 16; 22; 32, n. 10; 57; 78, n. 29; 120 and n. 38; 142; 144, n. 80; as tikin: 175, n. 55/virginal body of: 121; see also s.v. Adam; Athena; body; Eve; Hṙip‘simē; Hripsimian virgins; Sanduxt; Thecla; woman Virginity/virginal state: 87-8; 88, n. 18; 108-9; 111; 115, n. 25; 119; 121; 153; 169; 228-30; and angelic purity: 124; and Gangra



index283

canons: 237; and proximity with God: 111, n. 20; and womanhood: 108; as foundation of the Church: 115; as privileged way to meet God: 87; defense/struggle for: 86; 108; 112; 114; in ancient Greece: 109, n. 15; pearl of: 113; stories of: 152 Virile force: 112; see also s.v. masculinisation Višap: 44, n. 40 Vita Melaniae Iunioris 19: 88, n. 17; 115, n. 25 Voice: 158; 160; 174; celestial/divine/heavenly: 122; 161; 164; female: 153 von Dobschütz, E.: 152 W Wedding: 110 and n. 18 Widow: 226; communities: 152, n. 17 William, translator in Ayas: 97, n. 44 Wind: 161; 164 Window: 158; 162 Woman/women: 86-7; 101; 108-9; 120-1; 163; 168; 224-7; 230-1; 236; 238; and Armenian conversion: 123-4; and baptism: 154, n. 26; and virginity: 107-8; 120; Armenian first Christian: 149; as apostle: 156; beautiful (Sanduxt): 159; 167; first: 120; first martyr (Thecla): 150-1; history of, in ancient Christianity: 151-6; 176; in 5th century Armenian literature: 177, n. 58; in Gangra canons: 237; masculinisation of: 112, n. 21; of a royal lineage: 166; preachers/preaching: 148-9; 156; solidarity of: 151; transgressive: 156; virgin: 107; 120; 158; 224-5; 230; see also s.v. masculinisation; Thecla Word of life: see s.v. life Wrath: 168-9; 172; 223; of the Creator; 235 and n. 59 X Xač‘ik I Aršaruni, Catholicos: 65, n. 68 Xač‘ik II Anec‘i, Catholicos: 65, n. 68 Xanthippe (in Acts of Peter): 168-9 Ximenez de Luna, Archbishop of Tarragona: 94 Xor Virap (‘Deep pit’), monastery of: 107, n. 12 Y Yael: 113 Yazdegert I, King: 62 and n. 57; 63 Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i: see s.v. John Catholicos

284

index

Z Zarathustra: 146 Zarmanduxt (in MartThad): 165-6; 174 Zartōnk‘: 14 Zebulun, tribe of: 71, n. 5 Zeno of Verona: 236, n. 63 Zoroastrian/Zoroastrianism: 107, n. 13; 123; see also s.v. Anahit; Aramazd; Mazdean Zosimus, New History IV, 24, 2: 130, n. 20

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706