The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East (Bible in the Christian Orthodox Tradition) 9781433110351, 9781453905296, 1433110350

Citation preview

The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East

@

BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX TRADITION Vahan S. Hovhanessian General Editor Vol. 2

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt am Main y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East

Edited by

Vahan S. Hovhanessian

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt am Main y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the churches of the east / [edited by] Vahan S. Hovhanessian. p. cm. — (Bible in the Christian Orthodox tradition; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. 1. Bible—Canon. 2. Apocryphal books. 3. Orthodox Eastern Church—Doctrines. I. Hovhanessian, Vahan. BS465.C37 220.1’20882815—dc23 2011044701 ISBN 978-1-4331-1035-1 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4539-0529-6 (e-book) ISSN 1947-5977

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2012 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in Germany

Contents Preface ............................................................................................... vii

The Canon of Scripture in the Orthodox Church ...................................1 Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou The Prayer of Manasses: Orthodox Tradition and Modern Studies in Dialogue .........................................................................................7 Daniel Alberto Ayuch Testament of Solomon and Other Pseudepigraphical Material in Aḥkām Sulaymān (Judgment of Solomon) ......................................21 Slavomír Čéplö (bulbul) The Book of Wisdom of Solomon in the Armenian Church Literature and Liturgy .......................................................................................39 Anushavan Tanielian Visul Maicii Domnului (“The Dream of the Mother of the Lord”): New Testament Romanian Amulet Text ..........................................43 Nicolae Roddy Banned from the Lectionary: Excluding the Apocalypse of John from the Orthodox New Testament Canon .....................................51 Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou

vi

•C O N TE N TS •

New Testament Apocrypha and the Armenian Version of the Bible .......................................................................................63 Vahan S. Hovhanessian

Notes ....................................................................................................89 Bibliography ......................................................................................107 Index ..................................................................................................111

Preface

T

his is the third volume to be published by the “Bible in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” unit of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). The first volume was published in 2009 under the title Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East, which included the papers presented and discussed at the SBL meeting in San Diego, USA. The second volume, The Old Testament as Authoritative Scripture in the Early Churches of the East, was published in 2010 as the first volume in the new series “Bible in the Christian Orthodox Tradition.” The papers published in this book represent the latest scholarly findings in the field of Apocrypha and the New Testament canon from the perspective of the churches of the East. These findings were presented and discussed at the July 2009 International Meeting of SBL in Rome, Italy, and at the November 2009 Annual Meeting of SBL in New Orleans. These two sessions became two giant steps in strengthening the foundation laid years ago through the establishment of the SBL unit as a forum for a new scholarly endeavor to explore a critical examination of biblical scholarship as founded and developed in the earlier centuries of Christianity within the Orthodox churches in the East. Sincere thanks to the steering committee members of the “Bible in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” unit of the SBL, and to the scholars who chaired and moderated the sessions as well as those who presented the fruits of their scholarly labor as part of the unit’s program. May the Lord continue blessing us as we strive to explore, understand and teach His word. Bishop Vahan Hovhanessian, Ph.D. November 2011

•E

U G E N I A

S

C A R V E L I S

C

O N S T A N T I N O U

•

The Canon of Scripture in the Orthodox Church

T

he precise status, content and role of the canon in the Orthodox Church escape easy definitions and explanations. The Eastern Church never conclusively defined a canon of Scripture in an authoritative statement such as those ultimately pronounced in the West. Although the Orthodox Church is one Church, united in one faith and historically connected to the early apostolic Church, it is also simultaneously many separate, autonomously functioning churches. The various Orthodox churches embrace a variety of practices and traditions with respect to liturgics, iconography, lectionary and even the canon of Scripture itself. Among the Orthodox Churches are both Chalcedonian (“Eastern Orthodox”) and non-Chalcedonian (“Oriental Orthodox”). The most unusual aspect of the canon of Scripture among the Orthodox is that no official canon exists at all and the canon remains somewhat loose. The word “canon” (kanon in Greek) originally meant a reed or measuring stick. It came to mean the applicable standard for measurement: a ruler. The word “canon” was employed to refer to a rule or Church law. With respect to the Bible, “canon” is the list of books recognized as authoritative Scripture because when deciding which books should be considered Scripture, the Church applied certain standards. The canon of Scripture also demarcates those books which may be read in Church.

The Septuagint Some consider the consistent use of the Septuagint to be the most distinctive characteristic of the Orthodox canon. The Septuagint was

2

•E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •

the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures produced during the mid-third century B.C. by Greek-speaking Jews, also known as “Hellenistic” Jews, or Jews of “diaspora.” The collection of books recognized as sacred among diaspora Jews tended to be larger than among Jews in Judea and Galilee who read the Scriptures in Hebrew. However, even among first century Jews no such thing as a completely standardized and fixed canon existed, whether in Greek or in Hebrew. Originally the Bible did not exist as a single volume but was more like a library of books. As books were written, they were added to this collection. “The Bible” was not a single volume and people called these books “the Scriptures,” a collection of writings. Each book of Scripture was written independently of the others, and was circulated and hand-copied separately. Furthermore, the collections of different congregations, whether among Jewish or Christian communities, initially were not the same. The books which now comprise our Bible were written, read, copied and circulated along with other religious and spiritual books individually at first. Over a period of time some of these books acquired elevated status as people regarded them highly and began to think of them as Sacred or Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture differs from ordinary writing because it is recognized by the worshipping community as God-inspired and authoritative. This distinction indicates that the Jews, and later the Christians, realized that not all religious books in their collections were equal in merit, authenticity or value. First century Judaism encompassed a variety of opinions on many matters, including what constituted Sacred Scripture. The Sadducees and Pharisees only agreed that the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, was Scripture. Among the books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls collection were many copies of books, which were very popular among the residents of the Qumran community which produced the scrolls, but which are not part of the Jewish canon today, including Septuagint books. Exactly how they were viewed by the people of Qumran—as “Scripture” or “not Scripture”—is unclear. The Church emerged from this atmosphere of first century Jewish diversity. The early Church, therefore, embraced a much less rigid concept of “canon” and this is reflected in the Orthodox Church today.

•T H E C A N O N O F TH E S C R I P T U R E •

3

The early Church began in Judea among non-Hellenized Jews but it soon attracted even larger numbers of Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews who also accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The followers of Jesus, who ultimately came to be known as “Christians,” were initially a group within Judaism and not a separate religion. Jewish Christians were the first to marshal passages from the Jewish Scriptures to passionately assert that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. The Septuagint was usually employed since most Jews in the Roman Empire were Greek-speaking. Many Jews were not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and resented the hijacking of “their” Scriptures by the “heretic” followers of Jesus. In time the movement, which came to be known as “Christianity” separated from Judaism and the Jews gradually associated the Septuagint with the Church. Eventually, the Jews rejected all Greek translations of the Scriptures in favor of Hebrew and settled on canon of twenty-two books. But the Septuagint collection, which had been used by diaspora Jews for approximately three centuries, contained additional books other than those twenty-two and also some extra passages among books which the Jews had accepted. These additional books and passages in the Septuagint which were later excluded from the Jewish canon, included the Books of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Psalm 151 and the hymn of the three youths, (an extended version of Daniel 3). The early Church was by then separate from Judaism and did not conform to the smaller Jewish canon. In response to Jewish criticisms of the Septuagint canon and the use of the Greek translation in general, Christians defended the Septuagint as an inspired translation and collection, something which had also been a long-standing Jewish tradition. The Orthodox Church continues to utilize the Septuagint’s broader canon since it was the canon of the apostles and the early Church. This does not mean that the Orthodox Church rejects the Hebrew version of the Bible. Rather, the acceptance of the Septuagint reflects the typical Orthodox practice to follow the norms of the ancient Church. The decision of the Jews to define a twenty-two book canon and exclude some books already in use by the Christian Church was eventually followed by the Protestant Reformers during the 16th century. The Protestant canon of thirty-nine Old Testament books precisely matches

4

•E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •

the Jewish canon of twenty-two books. The variation in number arises from a difference in how the books are counted, because the Jews tend to combine smaller books into one. In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church held one of its most important councils, the Council of Trent in 1545. At Trent, Catholics refused to reject the additional books of the Septuagint. Because these books had been removed by the Jews centuries earlier, Protestants adopted the Jewish canon for their Old Testament and, like the Jews, rejected the additional Septuagint books and labeled them “apocrypha.” The term “apocrypha” had been the conventional designation for a book which is rejected from the canon of Scripture. But the Council of Trent disagreed, establishing the number of Old Testament books for Catholics as forty-six. While the additional books are not entirely rejected from the canon, therefore not “apocrypha,” Catholic Church decided that these books form a secondary canon and designated them “deutero-canonicals.” The deutero-canonical books are nevertheless Scripture and are found without distinction in Catholic bibles among the other Old Testament books. Although some Orthodox Christians refer to these additional books as “deutero-canonicals” for ease of reference, strictly speaking that term is a Catholic designation. For the Orthodox, no such differentiation has ever been made between the “deutero-canonicals” and other books. The Old Testament is typically said to number fortynine books for Orthodox Christians, but the exact canon remains undefined for the Orthodox, both in content and number. For example, 4 Maccabees is at times included or Susanna might be counted separately or as part of Daniel. The unfortunate application of the term “apocrypha” by the Protestant Reformers to the additional books of the Septuagint has created some confusion. For Orthodox Christians, the apocrypha are books which were never included in the canon of Scripture, usually Christian books that were falsely attributed to apostles, such as the Protoevangelium of James. Although the term also refers to heretical Gnostic works, ordinary Orthodox Christians have no familiarity with Gnostic books and they play no role in Orthodox church tradition whatsoever.

•T H E C A N O N O F TH E S C R I P T U R E •

5

The New Testament Books Although some discussion existed among Fathers of the Church about the acceptance of certain Old Testament books, for the most part the Septuagint canon was inherited from the Jews and adopted in its totality by the Church. “Scripture” for first and second century Christians meant the Jewish Scriptures. Apostolic writings were not immediately recognized as Scripture when they were penned during the first century. Although the earliest Christians knew of apostolic writings, the life and teachings of Christ were primarily passed along orally for many generations. Christians even considered oral tradition superior to writing because one always knew and had confidence in the trustworthiness of one’s teacher. Books, however, were copied by hand, and one could never be certain that any book was a faithful copy of what the author had actually written, or even whether the book had in fact been composed by that author. By the late second century, the increased distance from the time of the apostles prompted Christians to think differently about apostolic books. The actions of Marcion and Tatian also contributed toward the creation of a Christian canon. Marcion, a presbyter from Asia, had entirely rejected three of the gospels—Matthew, Mark and John—and had created his own highly edited version of Luke. Tatian, a Syrian Christian, had blended all four into one large gospel in the Syriac language which was dubbed Diatessaron (“through four”), which became very popular among Syrians. But most Christians decried the mutilation of the apostolic writings. Prominent figures such as Tertullian and Irenaeus vigorously protested the activities of Marcion and Tatian in their books and condemned all tampering with written apostolic testimony. The mutilation and adulteration of apostolic writings awakened Christians and compelled them to realize that apostolic books were also inspired Holy Scripture to be preserved and protected. By the end of the second century, Christians were citing and refer to apostolic writings in the same manner as the Jewish Scriptures. The terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” first appeared around the year 200, showing that Christian writings had at last been accepted as equally authoritative and inspired. A milestone had been achieved in the

6

•E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •

development of the canon. But a new question arose: which books belonged in this New Testament? A general consensus existed by the year 200 in both the East and West for the core of the canon: our present fourfold gospel corpus, Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation. Although a small minority of Christians had objected to the Johannine writings, the Gospel, 1 John and Revelation were accepted as apostolic and genuine early in the life of the Church and never faced serious opposition. But what about other books? A number of factors contributed to the difficulty of defining the precise limits of a canon or even thinking about Christian writings as a set of Scripture which could stand alongside the Old Testament. Since each congregation possessed a different collection of books, no standardized Christian canon existed. Collections began to be created, such as the epistles of Paul, but even those letters were gathered gradually and haphazardly by individual congregations as Christians changed domicile, traveled for various purposes, or through deliberate exchanges of documents between communities. Even the most widelytraveled second century Christian who had visited many different congregations would probably never encounter the entire New Testament canon we now possess. As books were exchanged, not all congregations readily accepted all books. The rapidity of a given book’s acceptance by a local congregation would depend upon a number of factors, including but not limited to whether the book appealed to the congregation on a spiritual or inspirational level, whether it contained words of the Lord, and whether it was apostolic. Initially no apparent need to delineate a canon existed, just as the Jews had used a wide variety of books long before they had fixed their canon. But this changed as the number of Christian writings grew. Pseudonymous and apocryphal books also mushroomed, both in an effort to promote divergent theologies and to preserve earlier oral traditions. Dogmatic questions also pressed upon the Church as heresies took hold and began to threaten orthodox Christianity. A New Testament canon was needed.

•D

A N I E L

A

L B E R T O

A

Y U C H

•

The Prayer of Manasses: Orthodox Tradition and Modern Studies in Dialogue

T

his fifteen verse document is an important testimony of how Early Eastern Christians interpreted the Old Testament texts and how the concept of the Scriptural canon was evolving in those Christian communities. Based on modern studies (see among others Charles and Vriezen) we can affirm that the prayer of Manasses was written in a Greekspeaking Jewish community. Antioch is to be suggested as the place of writing, because of the strong relationship of the prayer tradition with the Didascalia (early third century) and because of other arguments that shall be discussed below. The prayer was written to urge the community leaders not to fall into idolatry and to repent of this sin. The Prayer of Manasses, despite its canonical content, has never been part of the canon of the Old Testament, nor of the manuscripts of the Septuagint. Only the Alexandrinus manuscript registers it as an appendix to the Psalms under the title of “the Odes”. We deduce, in agreement with most scholars, that this prayer was written during the first century BC (Denis 678). The so-called Prayer of Manasses in Qumran is unrelated to our writing (4Q381 33,8–11; Denis 679). The text used here is the one published in Rahlfs’ LXX (II. 180– 181). More detailed information on the manuscripts and versions can be found in Charles’ introduction (612–619). In this paper the prayer will be quoted in English according to the New Revised Standard Version as it appears in BibleWorks 7, unless noted otherwise. This paper investigates the canonical dimension of the prayer attributed to King Manasses. For this purpose we shall first study its intertextuality by analyzing the central message of the stories in

8

•D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •

Manasses 2Kings and 2Chronicles. Within this research we shall also examine whether there are similar patterns in the Old Testament and how they work. In the second instance we will study the prayer contents and its relation to the canonical texts. Throughout this paper we are interested in studying the interpretative approach of early Christians, particularly as it is shown in the Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions which adopted the text as part of the liturgical order of their Antiochian communities that later on spread throughout the Christian East and West. Regarding the methods of interpretation, we shall build on Tarazi’s theory that the Old Testament narrative texts are to be read as “edifying stories” (in Hebrew: meshalim), i.e., as an interpretation of historical events that has been written as a similitude of the events with the aim of moving the reader to a certain action (Tarazi 22–27). So we will see how the interaction of Manasses’ mashal with the religious experience of a particular community has led to the creation of a new writing to express their faith. Moreover, the theories on the role of the biblical narrator as explained in detail by Marguerat have often been adopted (167–198). One King, Two Narratives: The Deuteronomistic Version In the Hebrew canon 1–2 Kings are seen as a single book that forms together with Joshua-Judges and 1–2 Samuel the triptych of Prior Prophets. Therefore, these books are introduced to be read first of all as the revelation of God’s word to his people and not as the kings’ annals. The narrative of Manasses comes in the third part of the Book of Kings (2Kgs 18–25) and as a prelude to its grand finale that leads Judah to the exile in Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Chapter 21, which deals with two wicked kings, Manasses and Amon, is inserted between the narratives of two great kings, Hezekiah (2Kgs 18–20) and Josiah (2Kgs 22–23). This is the first account on Manasses that appears in the Old Testament canon, and it mirrors the key features of the Deuteronomistic theology: Fidelity to God is the conditio sine qua non to inherit the land and to prosper. The temple is the center of true worship and the other great pillar of Deuteronomistic theology. However, if the people fell into idolatry, they shall be

•T H E P R A Y E R O F M A N A S S E S •

9

considered as a foreign nation and be handed over to the oppression of the world. Israel's monarchs have proven to be impious and sinful, but the house of David will prevail because God has promised to hold it forever (González Lamadrid, 144). Manasses is the most defective king. This is why the Deuteronomist had no hesitation in condemning him. The paragraph of 2Kgs 21:11–16 has no parallel in the Book of Chronicles and expresses the atrocity of Manasses’ deeds who becomes the antitype for those who believe in the Law of Moses. The condemnation comes in the mouth of the prophets (v. 10), this is how the Deuteronomist asserts that the true representatives of divine revelation are the prophets, not the kings. In this context comes the story about Manasses as the most unfaithful and idolatrous of all kings. Already the writing of his name in Hebrew suggests deceit. The names of Manasses (hvnm) and Moses (hvAm)1 written in Hebrew are very similar without the Masoretic vocalization; only a tiny tick leads the reader between the two extremes of that who gave the Law to the people and the one who trespassed it the most conducting the people to forget their faith. Both these names form a paronomasia (Schökel 47–49), of which the reader must take great care when reading the text. According to Thiele, Manasses reigned from 696–642 BC (Hicks 499).2 In his extended 55 years of reign, Judah remained a vassal of Assyria; in the annals of Esarhaddon we read that the kingdom paid tribute to the empire (ANET 291). In 2Kgs 21:2 we can see the Deuteronomist giving carefully the details of Manasses’ perverse behavior in order to emphasize by comparison the merits of his predecessor Hezekiah and his successor Josiah. The charges against Manasses remind us those that were raised against the kingdom of Israel in 2Kgs 17, and let us imply that the same destiny awaits Judah. In vv. 3 4 Manasses undoes his father’s reforms (cf. 18:4) and profanes that temple that in the Deuteronomistic theology was the center of holiness and worship (González Lamadrid 54–55). An unforgivable sin. See also vv. 7–8. In v. 9 Manasses is portrayed as the Jeroboam of Judah who led people to that sin that in the end would inevitably destroy them all.

10

•D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •

One King, Two Narratives: The Chronicler Version The historical background of the Chronicler is different. We are in the Second Temple era and the people, who have assumed as part of their identity the exile crisis, known that there is no even a remote possibility of a new monarchy. We are most probably in the early fourth century B.C. (North 558s). The Chronicler looks to the kings with less harshness than the Deuteronomist did and hopes that the Second Temple system might guide the people in this new era under the the ministry of the priests and the Levites. Manasses is not condemned in spite of his evil deeds. This permissive attitude of the Chronicler together with his narrative on Manasses’ exile and return have caused big skepticism among those scholars who sought in the text a historical chronicle. Today, narrative criticism sees with other eyes this story and looks for its pragmatic function in the reader’s response.3 It is precisely this pragmatic aspect of the narrative what inspired a writer to create the Prayer of Manasses. The Chronicler does know the version of 2Kings and uses it as a source many times verbatim. For instance, the list of Manasses transgressions in v.9 is similar to that in 2Kgs 21:2–9 and reflects exactly what is said in Jer 7:31 in order to assert that “he violated all the laws contained in the book.” However, several modern interpreters see that the absence in the Deuteronomistic version of the scene where Manasses repents and converts is a valid reason to accuse the Chronicler of having included “tendentious” data that were not available in the sources they had at hand (Oesterley 296 ). Nevertheless, Hicks insists that the Chronicler is faithful to the sources throughout the book (500). It is evident that the role of Manasses’ narrative in 2Kings and 2Chronicles has different connotations. On the one hand, The Deuteronomist highlights above all the king’s corruption and how he can spoil God’s plans and lead the people astray. On the other hand, the Chronicler underlines how the conversion of the leader can help all people to prosper to the point of becoming a guide for future generations. Indeed, both authors write two versions of the same mashal. The Deuteronomist writes it based on the Exile experience, while the Chronicler does it based on the experience of the organization of the Second Temple. On the one

•T H E P R A Y E R O F M A N A S S E S •

11

hand, the Deuteronomist searches for the reasons that led to the crisis so that the reader does not repeat the same mistakes. On the other hand, the Chronicler takes a step further and gives guidelines for a new era of communication between God and his people. For both authors Manasses plays a role model: for doom in the first account and for conversion in the second one. After all, the Chronicler is not an idealistic dreamer. Also in his account we read that last kings of Judah sinned again and were the reason why God commanded the Exile (2Chr 36:1 21). But once again God intervened and sent Cyrus of Persia in order to build a new temple in Jerusalem helped by those who still believed in Him. The Chronicler ends the first work with the phrase: “Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him! Let him go up” (2Chr 36:23). To this end follows the diptych of Ezra-Nehemiah, who most probably were the Chronicler’s direct ancestors. Manasses’ end of life serves as a prototype, as a king who suffered the exile and came back to rebuild the Temple of the Lord. Even the wall reconstruction can be historically linked to him (590 North; Hicks 506). However, this narrative on the reestablishment of the cult in Jerusalem is, first of all, a mashal that serves as a prototype for the Chronicler’s readers who live and thrive in the New Jerusalem. The harm caused by Manasses’ idolatry is so great that even the reform fails to change the people’s cultic misbehavior who continued to offer sacrifices at the high places (2Chr 33:17). This is a warning to the Second Temple priests to watch for those things that are still to be done, lest they return to the exile. In this tension of what has been achieved and what still needs to be done comes the prayer of Manasses to move people to change and repent.

The Intertextuality Having highlighted the different approaches of the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler, who far from contradicting, they complement each other, it can be said that the Prayer of Manasses is an important key to understand the reading of the Old Testament in the Early Judaism of the Antiochian Diaspora4 and how this way of reading was also practiced in the first century Christian church. The short title “Prayer of

12

•D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •

Manasses” that we read in Rahlf’s LXX and the longer one “Prayer of Manassas, King of Judah, when he was holden captive in Babylon” in the Vulgate relate the prayer with the Chronicler’s narrative and set a method of intertextuality. Definitely, the clearest example of intertextuality is available in the Didascalia version of the prayer, a text that was written in the Antiochian region in the early third century by a Jewish Christian who was strongly acquainted with the Old Testament (Altaner 84–85). This text had such authority that it was translated into Syriac, Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopian, and later on was incorporated as a key source of the Apostolic Constitutions. In a chapter where the main theme is the Bishop’s task to watch for repentance and conversion, the author urges him to follow the example of God when Manasses showed penitence and contrition. In this context comes the mashal of Manasses with the following introductory sentence: “It is written in the fourth Book of Kingdoms and likewise in the second Book of Chronicles…” (ii, 22). The author braids the texts of both sources with some variations5 and when he comes to the prayer, he introduces it in full text. Manasses’ repentance in the Didascalia goes beyond what is said in Chronicles: “And he served the Lord only, with all his heart and with all his soul, all the days of his life: and he was accounted righteous.” This last predicative is very important to the author of the Didascalia because it implies that repentance opens the doors of salvation. With the firm purpose to exhort bishops to accept those who repent, the author of the Didascalia has not hesitated to write his own version of the two ancient accounts on Manasses and to include this exemplary penitential prayer, which he must have from a source containing canonical and non-canonical writings. The writer followed both the Deuteronomistic teaching on idolatry as the worst sin against God, and the Chronicler’s teaching on repentance and contrition. The keyword to understand the text of the Didascalia is repetition, a very well-known principle of interpretation of texts in both Testaments. Consider the example of the narrative repetitions between 1–2Kings and 1–2Chronicles; or those Psalms that are present in 1–2Chronicles and 1–2Kings and appear again in the Book of Psalms. The New Testament builds on the same principle of repetition, as well. Let us mention for instance the four versions of Jesus Life in the four Gospels and

•T H E P R A Y E R O F M A N A S S E S •

13

the Book of Acts that has no problem to narrate three different versions of Saul’s vision on his road to Damascus. The key for interpreting the story of Manasses is explicitly mentioned in the Didascalia with the saying: “It behoves thee, O bishop, to have before thine eyes those things which happened of old time, that tou mayest learn by comparison the healing of souls” (ii. 22). To Learn by comparison is the key to understand the principle of elaborated repetitions that allow the reader to discover new horizons of interpretation in a classic text, to which have been added certain variations. Genette and Kaestli define intertextuality as a literary device in which a text B is created with regard to a text A and in a relationship different from the one of a commentary (Kaestli 288–290). The relationship is the revised repetition with variations that produce the intended effect of updating the story for the new circle of readers to whom the author addresses his writing. This sort of intertextuality is more specifically called hypertextuality (Marguerat 177). Beyond the hypertextuality we also find several patterns of intertextuality in the Old Testament between a narrative and a prayer inspired in it. The most influential examples are undoubtedly those of the Psalter. There are a collection of psalms with introductions to King David’s life as it stays in the Deuteronomistic history. All together, there are thirteen psalms of this kind, twelve of them are in the first and second book of the Psalter and the last is, is at the end of the fifth book.6 David’s image in these titles is that of a righteous and suffering David who utters these hymns in the crucial moments of his life. Directly related to the Prayer of Manasses is, of course, the title of Ps 51, which expresses the repentance of David, after having heard the prophecy of Nathan against his sin. The title leads us immediately to 2Sam 12:1 13 where the only words said by David are his confession: “I have sinned against the Lord” (v. 13). 2sam 12 does not even allude to a repentance prayer said by David, which could subsequently have inspired the psalm, unless the words in v. 20 “David rose from the ground…went into the house of the Lord, and worshiped” should be understood as the narrative framework for this penitential prayer. Nevertheless, the title of Ps 51 can only refer to this page of David’s life which is completely absent in Chronicles, where David cannot be seen as a sinner.

•D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •

14

Another important example to be mention is the prayer of Solomon in Wisdom 9, which belongs to the same period of Manasses’ Prayer and is also linked to a text of the Deuteronomistic history (1Kng 3:5– 10). In this sentence the author of Wisdom develops freely the brief text of 1Kng 3 and transforms it into a model prayer to beseech for divine wisdom and the understanding of God’s mysteries. This is a clear evidence of how biblical texts were processed in the first century BC.

Interpretation The Prayer of Manasses is undoubtedly a penitential psalm, as Schökel defines the gender for those psalms that contain a confession of sins (Schökel 1994, 104). Its parallel prayers in the Psalter are Pss 6; 32; 38; 51; 102; 103 and 143. Undoubtedly, among them, Psalm 51 is the closest one in form and content. It is understandable that the prayers added in an appendix to the book of Psalms do not carry exactly the title “Psalms” in order to avoid their fusion within the canonical book itself. The Greek text is introduced by the word “prayer” (proseuch.) which in Hebrew corresponds to the term tefillah (hL'piT). These two words match as the title of a penitential prayer in Psalm 102 according to BHS and LXX. Furthermore, Schuller says that the Hebrew term is often used in Qumran for penitential prayers (220–221). While Charles suggests only three main sections in the prayer (612) and Vriezen prefers a detailed segmentation of every element (553), I propose a structure that agrees with the general lines drawn by Charles and with Schökel’s definition of the penitential psalms: 1–4 5–7 8–10 11–13 14–15

An invocation of the Lord The Lord and the sinner A confession of sin An supplication for forgiveness A final doxology

In the following paragraphs we will comment on those aspects of the prayer that are directly related to the main question of this paper: the canonicity of the Prayer and its relation to the Deuteronomistic and

•T H E P R A Y E R O F M A N A S S E S •

15

the Chronicler’s narratives. We will focus on the reading of the Old Testament canon reflected in this prayer, as well as on its influence in the Early Syrian Christian Tradition, which led the author of Didascalia to include it in his work. For this brief commentary we read the Alexandrinus text (Fifth Century), since it is the shortest version and has been published in Rahlfs’ LXX (1962, 180–181). The text variations in the Syriac and Latin translations are indicated, as well. The Invocation (vv. 1–4) The opening invocation functions as a confession of orthodox faith. The vocative “oh Almighty” (pantokra,twr) is the translation of “(Lord) of the hosts” (tAab'c) and occurs 10 times in both the Dtr and the Chr narratives. The names of the ancestors chosen here are the classic ones “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The author does neither name the prophets, nor less common characters of the Jewish apocryphal literature (Let us mention, for instance, Enoch, Adam, Baruch or Asthenet). In other words, in this prayer Manasses seeks for the ancient scriptural roots using the language of the Law and the Prophets. God is the supreme and final authority, the creator (o` poih,saj), whom all fear (v. 4). The phrase “your terrible and glorious name” in v. 3 stands out. It emphasizes God’s sovereignty (cf. Ps 111:9). This confession of faith is the prior step to the supplication for forgiveness. The penitent delivers himself in confidence to the supreme authority, the one who keeps the order on the world and decides about the future. The concept of “righteous” (di,kaioj) as a synonym for "believer" occurs already in this section and is one of the many elements that highlight the Jewish background of the prayer. Justice (dikaiosu,nh) is one of the major Deuteronomistic theological arguments (see 1Sam 26:23; 2Sam 8:15; 22:21; 1Kgs 10:9) reflected in the prayer. In v. 8 the term reappears twice in plural form to designate the assembly of believers in the Lord. Finally, in v. 9 comes the noun “sin” (avdiki,a) which derives from the same stem and in its strict sense means “injustice.” The four participles in vv. 2–3 are also a remarkable feature in the prayer: You who made (o` poih,saj), you who shackled (o` pedh,saj), you who confined (o` klei,saj), and you who sealed (sfragisa,menoj). All these participles come in Aorist (three in active voice and a one in

16

•D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •

middle voice). They are a typical feature of Biblical prayers, where the participle replaces the divine name in vocatives in order to emphasize a certain divine quality (see Ps 136 and Schökel 1993,1557). The four participles here describe God’s action as the Creator who set everything in detail so that the power of evil will not prevail over good. The Lord and the Sinner (vv. 5–7) This section is divided into two causal clauses (starting with o[ti…) and work as a preamble to the confession of sin (vv. 8 10) and the supplication for forgiveness (vv. 11 14). Inasmuch as the four participles stand out in the invocation, in this praise to compassion, which seeks to capture the divine benevolence, there are four adjectives with alpha privativa that suggest a Greek authorship. These adjectives are: Unbearable (a;stektoj), unendurable (avnupo,statoj), immesurable (avme,trhto,n) and unsearchable (avnexicni,aston). They describe three main qualities of the Divine: Glory, wrath and mercy. None of these three features are unknown in the Old Testament books, by which the author undoubtedly is inspired. And as expected, in the second causal clause (v. 7) the penitent will stop to contemplate the most appropriate quality for the situation: God’s mercy (to. e;leoj), which appears in this section twice and occurs again as the last argument of the supplication (v. 14). As a matter of fact, to talk of a compassionate and merciful God is to speak of the Scriptural God. In the Greek literature contemporary to the prayer mercy does neither belong to the divine qualities, nor to the human virtues (Löning, 68–69). For Socrates it is a shame to try to awaken the judge’s mercy (Plat Ap 34c 35b) and a judge who decides on the base of mercy behaves unjustly. This is not the case in the Old Testament literature, where God’s mercy is the only convincing argument for salvation and forgiveness (Deut 30:3; Isa 55:7; Ps 51:1). Therefore, Manasses in this prayer follows unconditionally the scriptural tradition and seeks for God’s forgiveness pleading for the strongest argument of all: God’s mercy. In verse 7 we have a long addition to the Alexandrian text that is found in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the Latin version of the prayer (Charles 621).7 The theme of repentance is developed in a way that seems to reflect rather the background of the Apostolic Constitu-

•T H E P R A Y E R O F M A N A S S E S •

17

tions author. The contents of this addition do not contradict in anything the rest of the prayer; it rather stresses God’s readiness to forgive. The Confession of Sin (vv. 8–10) The previous section concludes with the phrase “human suffering” and that is the key issue of this paragraph, which can be summarized with the word “sin”. Several synonyms of “sin” occur to describe the harm caused by the disobedience to God. The verb “sin” (a`marta,nw) and its derivatives (a`martwlo,j a`marti,a) appear 4 times. Then there are the terms “transgressions” (avnomi,ai) and “iniquities” (avdiki,ai) in v. 9, “iron fetter” (desmo,j si,dhroj), “evil” (to. ponhro.n) “abominations” (bdelu,gmata) and “offense” (prosocqi,smata) in v. 10. Against all these tribulations there is only one choice, to repent and return to God. The key term is, of course, metanoia (meta,noia), which appears twice in this section (v. 8) and again in the supplication (v. 13). Manasses confesses having committed all possible faults and does not develop any argument or excuse. To counterpart the situation, the penitent shows a complete submission to God, his judge. He does not even use the argument of having been created or born in sin, like David does in Ps 51:5. The rhetorical figure of verb repetition (Schökel 1987, 99–100) appears here for the first time and will again be used twice in the supplication (vv. 12 13). This kind of repetition is also to be found in Asthenet’s confession and entreaty (Joseph and Atheneth 12:5–12). The first two repetitions highlight the multitude of sins committed by Manasses and the third one underscores the appeal for forgiveness of sins. The Syriac version of verse 9 is longer.8 Charles compares it with the Mozarabic version and deduces that, because of its shape and vocabulary, the added phrase may have been part of the original text. The Supplication for Forgiveness (vv. 11–14) The most solemn moment in the prayer comes in v. 11 with the rhetoric figure “I bend the knee of my heart” (kli,nw go,nu kardi,aj). The heart is here personified in a similar way as in Rom 2:29, where Paul talks about the circumcision of the heart. Both texts cannot lead

18

•D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •

but to Jer 31:33, where the new covenant with the people is written in the heart, i.e., that inner part of the human being that thinks and feels. Repentance is so deep that the human decision center is submitted to God, making possible a direct and close relationship with the Creator. Formerly it was sin what led his heart to perdition and suffering. The penitent now hopes to find comfort in God’s goodness. Joel 2:13 shares this way of thinking as well: Rend your hearts and not your clothing. Return to the Lord, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing.

The underlined text is identical with v. 7 in the prayer. This shows Joel’s influence on the Prayer of Manasses author, as well. It is exactly here where the term “salvation” occurs in direct connection with mercy. Mercy is the penitent’s only cause for hope. Otherwise, he knows what to expect and expresses it with three prohibitive verbs: Do not destroy me, do not be angry with me, do not condemned (v. 13). Two new divine qualities are tackled in this section. Both of them belong to the semantic field of the royal court: goodness (crhsto,thj) in v. 11 and benevolence (avgaqwsu,nh) in v. 14. These two concepts have a high occurrencen the Septuagint and describe God as a reigning sovereign, who has a positive attitude towards his servants. These terms remind the Orthodox reader that benevolent attitude to be seen in the Pantocrator’s icons, where Christ blesses the beholder with the right hand, while with his left one holds the scripture with a call for conversion. The Final Doxology (v. 15) As in all penitential psalms, the final promise is to praise the Lord forever. This implies a commitment not to sin again. To praise does not only mean to chant hymns, but above all a complete life turn according to God’s will. IT means to profess faith publicly, in saying and in deeds. The verb used here is “to praise” (aivne,w) and has all this theological connotation in the LXX Psalter. Finally, the penitent concludes as he began, confessing God’s glory and majesty.

•T H E P R A Y E R O F M A N A S S E S •

19

Conclusions Having come to the end of this paper and as a conclusion about the issues raised in the introduction concerning the canonical value of the prayer and its relationship with the Old Testament texts, we can sum up the results as follows. The prayer is strongly linked to the theology of the Chronicler without neglecting the Deuteronomistic principles. The author is interested in highlighting the option for repentance for those who live under the threat of idolatry and have to learn to live again according to the Lord’s revelation. The prayer is related to the book of Psalms in several ways. In the title it takes the pattern used in Psalms about David’s life and classifies the text as a “prayer” based on the penitence prayer patterns of the Psalter. From then on the direct references to specific Psalms and prophetic writings have been shown in the interpretation. The Prayer of Manasses is far from the Messianism developed in Alexandria, and does not show a particular interest in the Temple cult, nor in the priest ministry. The author seems to be a Jew of the Diaspora who aims to move the readers to return to the old lineage of the Genesis. Given all this evidence of canonicity the scholar would pose the question why the prayer of Manasses has not become a part of the Old Testament canon. The reasons are diverse and have been presented throughout the paper. Here a summary on the issue: The Prayer of Manasses was written in Greek in a late period, when the LXX was already well known in the Diaspora. Our author uses it first entry is listed first on the top line. The origin of the prayer seems to be neither Palestinian nor Alexandrian, which were the two major centers for the formation of the Old Testament canon in its two versions: the short one in Hebrew and the long one in Greek. The prayer contents seem to create a formal conflict with the Deuteronomistic mashal on Manasses. It is true that this conflict is also present in the Chronicles, as well. However, the prayer is too short a text to develop the needed arguments that would explain its variation to the Deuteronomistic version. Besides, the fact that it was written in

20

•D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •

Greek prevented its assimilation within the Chronicles, as the Didascalia author did later on. The Prayer of Manasses has found its way into the Eastern Christianity and has found its place in the liturgy order to enhance the theology of forgiveness and to show that there is no worst sin than to abandon the blessings given by the faith in the God of the revelation. Its theology of mercy as the only plausible reason to obtain divine forgiveness is far away from a theology of a deserved and attained justification. This is how the Prayer of Manasses has found acceptance among Christians who understood the incarnation as the sublime act of divine mercy.

•S

L A V O M Í R

Č

É P L Ö

(

B U L B U L

)•

Testament of Solomon and Other Pseudepigraphical Material in Aḥkām Sulaymān (Judgment of Solomon)

T

he Arabic text which is the subject of this paper was first brought to scholarly attention by Georg Graf in his seminal Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur1. Graf includes Judgments of Solomon (JSol) in his overview of legends concerning David and Solomon, doing so on two occasions: first he identifies an Arabic translation of the Testament of Solomon2 (TSol) in Vaticano arabo 448, fols. 39r–54r, yet without naming the work it constitutes a part of. A little later, he lists JSol as a separate work (29r– 54r) consisting of five distinct parts, including the previously mentioned translation of TSol3. Having failed to capture the interest of scholars of pseudepigrapha and apocrypha for some time, the next significant reference to JSol comes with James H. Charlesworth’s The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research4. Charlesworth, however, merely cites Graf’s identification of an Arabic translation of TSol5 and with another reference to Graf includes JSol as item no. 10 in his list of twelve Solomonic apocrypha (the “Solomon Cycle”)6. Thanks to the welldeserved authority of The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, all subsequent research on TSol continues to include Vat. ar. 448 as an Arabic recension in their overview of manuscript witnesses7, yet so far, no attempt has been made to study this work. It is the purpose of this paper to remedy that and to show that JSol does not in fact contain a translation of any known recension of TSol, although it does draw heavily from it. We will further show that JSol

• S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•

22

is a compilation of canonical, pseudepigraphical and legendary material relating to King Solomon, some of it known previously, other not, that celebrates Solomon’s wisdom and his power over demons. Along with bringing attention to previously unknown manuscript witnesses, we will briefly examine the structure and the content of this work, analyze its substantial connection to the Testament of Solomon and see what insights JSol can provide into pseudepigrapha and their place in Eastern and Oriental versions of the Bible.

Manuscript Witness Known Manuscripts 1. VAT. AR. 448 - Vaticano arabo 448. Egypt (?), 17th century8. Paper, i+212 fols. numbered in Coptic numerals (original scribe) and western numerals (cataloguer), 15 lines per page, careless partially vocalized Egyptian nasḫī. According to the Arabic fihrist written on fol. i, the manuscript contains the following works: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Work

Fihrist

Cat. fols.

Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Judgments of Solomon Wisdom Proverbs Tobit Esther A commentary on the Lord’s prayer Judith A letter by Hermes the Wise (?)

‫اوله كتاب قوھلت ھو الجامع‬ 21 ‫تانيه كتاب نشيد االنشاد في عدد‬ 29 ‫كتاب االحكام للسًيد سًلمان في عدد‬ 59 ‫كتاب الحكمه في عدد الورق‬ 89 ‫كتاب االمتال في عدد‬ 142 ‫كتاب طوبي ابن طوبي في عدد‬ 159 ‫كتاب استير االسًرايليه في عدد‬ 170 ‫تفسير ابونا الدي في السًموات في عدد‬ 181 ‫كتاب يوديد العبرانيه في عدد‬ 215 ‫كتاب رسالة الحكيم ھرمس في عدد‬

1–20 21–28r 29–54r 59–88r 89–141 142–158 159–167 170–180r 181–212 ?

The final work, however, appears to be missing from the volume, as are fols. 55–58 and 169; fol. 168 is vac. This is the manuscript originally studied and cited by Graf.

1. 2. 3.

Section

Folios

A refutation of those who claim Mary was not called ‘The Mother of God’ A dispute between the monk Ibrāhīm and a muslim prince ʿAbd ar-Rahmān concerning the veracity of the Christian faith A letter sent from Cyprus to Taqīy ad-Dīn ibn at-Taymīyya of

1–25 26–47 48–65r

•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N •

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Damascus A dispute between the monks Satiricus and Andrew and ʿAmrān the Jew Four books of the Old Testament with an introduction Judgments of Solomon A dispute between a Christian and a Jew A commentary on the Lord’s Prayer by Anbā Andrew A commentary on the Nicene Creed, a chapter from Kitāb maǧmūʿ uṣūl ad-dīn by Ibrāhīm ibn al-ʿAssā’ī and Abū Iṣḥāq al-Mu’taman 19 responses to theological questions by St. Athanasius of Alexandria 23 responses by St. Gregorius of Nysse to his student Ephrem A privilege granted to all Christians by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭallib

23

65v–112r 112v–185 186 –203 203v–220r 220v–221r 221v–227r 227v–231 232–256 257–261

2. BNF AR 214 - Bibliothèque Nationale de France Fonds Arabe 214 (previous designations: Regius 385, Ancien Fonds 880). Egypt, 1254 AM / 1538 AD. Paper, 262 folios numbered in Coptic numerals, 285 mm x 210 mm, 17 lines per page, fine partially vocalized Egyptian nasḫī9. De Slane’s and Troupeau’s descriptions divide the manuscript into twelve sections which for the most part correspond with individual works: Section 5, however, contains five distinct works in Arabic: translations of Ecclesiastes (114v–126), Song of Songs (126–131), Wisdom of Solomon (131v–150), Proverbs (150v–185v) and a translator’s introduction to Wisdom and Proverbs (112v–114), all written in the same hand as JSol. In the introduction, the translator makes a brief reference to Solomon’s lost works: Solomon left three thousand proverbs and one thousand and five songs, but they perished and were lost during the captivity of the Children of Israel. And of the proverbs, only this book remained and the book of Qohelet, and of the songs, only the Song of Songs.

No mention, however, is made of JSol. Although Graf was well acquainted with the Arabic mss collections of the Bibliothèque Nationale, he does not mention this manuscript.

24

• S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•

3. Coptic Museum 31 - A 17th century manuscript identified by Graf and cited10 with a note “zwischen Sap und Sir” which presumably refers to folios where JSol can be found. 4. Coptic Museum 67 - In addition to the previous manuscript, the Coptic Museum Ms. 67 also contains of an edition of JSol11, seemingly unkown to Graf. We haven’t had the opportunity to examine either of the Coptic Museum manuscripts. 5. Dayr Mār Mīnā 120 - A Christian Arabic manuscript kept at the library of the Cloister of Saint Menas at Cairo. JSol occupies folios 34r– 53v12. We haven’t had the opportunity to examine this manuscript. Relationship Between Available Known Manuscripts It is immediately apparent that the one thing tying Vat. ar. 448 and BnF 214 together is the fact that both contain a collection of Solomonic writings which include the canonical (Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon), as well as the non-canonical (JSol). The relationship of both sets of canonical books will need to be examined closely to determine the textual history of both translations. As for JSol, both recensions are remarkably close in wording, appearance (the general title, the titles of the first three sections) and in their distinct linguistic features. Considering the fact that BnF 214 is the older of the two witnesses, one would be tempted to hypothesize that Vat. ar. 448 is a copy of BnF 214. However, several indicators speak against that. First, BnF 214 is relatively consistently vocalized while Vat. ar. 448 is not and where it is, the vocalization is different. Secondly, there are a number of differences that could not have arisen had the scribe of Vat. ar. 448 copied BnF 214. The most notable of those is the name of the king of the Gentiles who appears in stories V and VIII (see manuscript division below). Where BnF 214 with its clear nasḫī unmistakably reads ‫[ ناوون‬n’wwn], Vat. ar. 448 has ‫[ ياوون‬y’wwn]. Whether both these witnesses ultimately rely on a single older one or whether the textual history of JSol is more complicated than that remains to be seen.

•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N •

25

Origin and History Judgments of Solomon assembles material of different origin into a relatively coherent narrative, much reminiscent in its style and form of Arabic popular literature, especially popular romances13. While it is immediately obvious that JSol has been compiled from various sources, some of it possibly translated from at least two languages, it is also clear that the compiler made a significant effort to tie the stories together both conceptually and in terms of chronology. Beyond that, however, the manuscripts themselves offer very little insight into the origin and the process of compilation of JSol. Indeed the only fact we can be certain of is that this work in its form currently known to us originated in Egypt’s Christian milieu some time before 1538. With the exception of the first two parts, the language of JSol clearly betrays its origin through a number of dialectal features typical of Egyptian Arabic (‫ ت‬and ‫ د‬for ‫ث‬and ‫ ذ‬consistently throughout, ‫ بحري‬and ‫قبلي‬ for “north” and “south”, respectively, the dialectal cohortative particle ‫ خلي‬and so forth). Even the narrative itself shows signs of adaptation of foreign elements to Egyptian sensibilities, as in Story VIIIa, where in the middle of the narration, the previously nameless and unimportant country of ‫ ناوون‬/ ‫ ياوون‬king of the Gentiles suddenly grows in importance and is identified with Egypt. It is equally difficult to trace the ultimate origin of all constituent parts of JSol. Except for the first two sections, translations of wellknown passages from the canonical Old Testament, only one story can be directly traced to older material (story V and the Coptic Legend of Solomon and Thabor). We will show below that at least four other stories (IV, VI, VII and VIII) incorporate various motifs from the Testament of Solomon and thus must be counted under those relying on older material, albeit indirectly. We also include here story X which shares a basic narrative motif with one of the legends from an Old Russian collection of Solomonic lore known under the name Sudy Solomona14 (“Judgments of Solomon”) preserved in various manuscripts of Paleya tolkovaya15. As for the remaining parts of the narrative, the text itself suggests that at least some of those stories (most notably VI and IX) were translated into Arabic – problems with identification of characters and their names, repetitiveness, some uncharacteristic syntactic structures and

26

• S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•

curious lexical choices are evidence of translation or at least adaptation from another language. Finally, it is remarkable that very little in JSol, with the possible exception of the structure of stories IX and X and the concept of castles floating in the air in story VI, is similar to or reminiscent of any of the many works of Muslim Arabic Solomonic literature. It is our hope that further research will shed more light on the relationship of JSol to both Christian (Greek and Coptic) and Islamic Solomonic lore.

Origin and History When describing the contents of JSol, Graf identifies five separate narratives, the final one being the alleged translation of TSol. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes obvious that the structure of JSol is slightly more complex. The following table provides an overview of our division of JSol into individual stories based on both external clues (titles, rubrics, less formal division marks such as the phrase ‫)و بعد دلك‬, as well as the progression of the narrative: No. I II III IV V VI VII VIIIa VIIIb IXa

IXb X

Brief description Solomon asks God for wisdom – 1 Kings 3:4–15 Solomon and the two harlots – 1 Kings 3:16–28 (Solomon’s first judgment) Joachim and his daughters Mary and Martha (Solomon’s second judgment) Demons prevent people from worshipping at the Temple, Solomon is given a ring to control them and forces them to work on the Temple ‫[ ناوون‬n’wwn] / ‫[ ياوون‬y’wwn] king of the Gentiles visits 365 demons rebel against Solomon A demon steals food from one of the workers ‫[ ناوون‬n’wwn]/ ‫[ ياوون‬y’wwn]king of the Gentiles writes to Solomon asking him to rid him of the demon who plagues his land (Egypt) Solomon sends his servant with the ring to capture the demon Queen of demons sinks ships, ‫[ كرام‬kr’m] king of ‫[ دارس‬d’rs] writes to Solomon asking to rid him of her; Solomon sends his servant who brings her to him; Solomon interrogates her and learns her name – ‫[ تادورا‬t’dwr’] among the demons, ‫االردميس‬ [’l’rdmys] among the people Solomon asks the queen of demons to recount her sins, she tells the story of how she blinded a man named ‫’[ ورول‬wrwl] and 10/12 servants in the Temple A man named ‫[ قستاردس‬qst’rds] dies and leaves his three sons a puzzling testament (Solomon’s third judgment)

BnF Ar 214 fols. 186r 186v:1–187r :6

Vat. ar. 448 fols. 29r –29v l. 13 29v :14–31r:1

187:7–189v:8

31r:1–34v

189v:9–191v:2

35r–37r:15

191v:2–192v:5

37r:15–39r:2

192v:5–193v:13 193v:13–194v:10 194v:10–196r :7

39r:2–40v:5 40v:5–41v:13 41v:13–43v

196r:7–198r:12

44r–47r:2

198r:12–199r:17

47r:2–48v:6

199r:17–201r:5

48v:6–51r:8

201r:5–203r

51r:8–54

•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N •

27

These stories are arranged in chronological order with the construction of the Temple serving as the main indicator of a story’s place on the timeline. Thus in stories I through III, there is no Temple yet, instead a ‘sanctuary’ (‫ )ھيكل‬is mentioned. Story IV takes place around the time the foundations for the Temple (‫ )بيت ﷲ‬were laid and its conclusion is tied directly to the beginning of story V. Three years have passed in story VI and the events of the remaining stories seem to follow one another, with the exception of the flashback in IXb, where once again references are made to a sanctuary (‫)ھيكل‬. While the exact relationship of individual constituent parts of JSol to each other in terms of their history is unclear, it is obvious that a significant effort has been made to shape them into a coherent narrative. Thus for example, story VIIIb references God’s promise from story I to award Solomon riches and power, stories V and VIIIa are tied together by the character of the king of the Gentiles and the final story once again recounts a judgment made by Solomon after a detour into his dealings with demons. In the following sections, we present a brief summary of the contents of individual stories highlighting where appropriate details significant for our understanding of the work. The Canonical Introduction (Stories I and II) We begin with the retelling of Solomon’s dream at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4–15) and of his most famous judgment (1 Kings 3:16–28). Both stories are essentially a translation of the canonical version, but not entirely. First, the reaction of the women to Solomon’s test is quite different from 1 Kings 3:26. In JSol, it is the mother of the dead boy who speaks first. As for the other woman, ‫ و َسجدت للملك سُليمان وقالت له اسمع يا َسيدي‬.‫وان االمره الدي لھا الولد الحي وق َعت علي االرض‬ ‫ وادا قَمت كل يوم نطرته في شوارع المدينه تسليت به‬.‫الملك اد ِف َع الولد الحي لھده وال تھلكه‬ And then the mother of the living boy fell to the ground, prostrated herself before Solomon and said: “Oh my Lord the king, give the living boy to this woman and do not kill (lit. destroy) him, so when I rise every day and see him in the streets of the city, I can rejoice in him.”

This addition cannot be found in either the canonical Old Testament or the Septuagint, nor have we been able to find it in any other versions of the Bible.

28

• S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•

Secondly, story II is the first time we encounter Solomon’s boyservant (‫ )غالم الدي لسليمان‬who will go on to play an important role in Solomon’s dealings with demons. In story II, he is the one who is told to fetch the sword, as opposed to unspecified ‘they’ in 1 Kings 3:24. Joachim’s Daughters and Trial by Water (Story III) We learn of a man named Joachim and his two daughters: Martha the older and righteous one and Mary the younger who is full of deceit and corruption. One day people find a dead baby left at the door to the sanctuary (‫)ھيكل‬. Outraged and wanting to punish the perpetrator as Moses’ law (‫ )ناموس موسى‬requires, they inquire with the priest as to where this sin originated and he points to the house of Joachim. Immediately suspicious of Martha, the people seek Solomon’s advice who has her undergo a trial by water: the priest prays over water, then sprinkles it over Martha and sends her out to the desert. When she comes back alive proving that she’s innocent, people turn on the priest, but Solomon defends him deciding to administer a trial by water of his own. He prays over the baptismal pool in the sanctuary asking God to reveal the guilt of anyone who enters the pool and cover them with boils. When Martha is submerged into the water seven times, she emerges safe and healthy. Solomon then orders Mary to dive into the water. When she emerges covered with boils, she is punished as God’s law requires and people praise Solomon’s wisdom. The Gift of the Ring (Story IV) Sometime after laying the foundations of the Temple (‫)بيت ﷲ‬, Solomon is on his way to bring offerings there, when he finds himself once again confronted with the clergy. This time, the priest refuses to take his offerings and scolds him for the sorry state of things in his kingdom. The priest reminds Solomon that from the day he became king, great demons (‫ )شياطين‬have been coming to many people and prevented them from worshipping at the Temple. “God made you a king over his people,” says the priest, “so go and pray to him and ask him to give you the power of demons.” Having heard this, Solomon retires to the Temple where he prays to God all night. When God finally appears, He tells Solomon not to worry about the priest and the demons, because “I will give you a ring16 (‫ )خاتم‬to drive them away and to keep them under your control. You will bind them with my

•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N •

29

name. This I will teach you and also how you can order them to cut stones for the construction of the Temple your are building in my name.” And God gives Solomon the ring and tells him His Magnificent Name (‫ )االسم العطيم‬which Solomon can use to control the demons. Solomon brings his offering, exits the Temple and immediately assembles all the demons and orders them to bring and cut stones. Demons gather stones from mountains everywhere and they do so in the night, so that when one evening, there were no stones available for the next day, in the morning there are enough stones for ten thousand men to work with for one whole year. With all this happening, however, the men who worked in the night did not see the demons. There was a great stone that the workers could not lift, so Solomon stamped it with his ring and the demons lifted it so high that the men tired from carrying it. So Solomon made a copy of the ring and gave it to the workers so they could command the demons. Every time there was a stone too big to move, they would place a stick on it, say “In the name of Solomon’s ring, let this stone move here or there” and point the stick. The demons would then haul the stone as ordered and work with the people who, however, never saw them. King Solomon worked on the Temple for 46 years and for the entire time, no sound of a saw or an axe was heard (1 Kings 6:7), because: God gave Solomon a precious stone with His Magnificent name on it, of which Solomon made a copy and gave it to the artisans. And so whenever the workers wanted to cut stone or saw wood, they would simply put the precious stone to the wood or the stone and cut them with it.

The Visit of the King (Story V) The focus of the narrative suddenly shifts beyond Israel, to king ‫[ نوروا‬nwrw’] of the ‫ البابيين‬/ ‫ الباتين‬who heard that Solomon was building a Temple to God whereupon he shuttered with fear and decided to wage war on Solomon. And so he, suddenly named ‫ ناوون‬/ ‫ ياوون‬and referred to as ‫“ ملك الشعوب‬king of the people”, assembled his army and travelled to Jerusalem with many gifts with the intent to first gauge Solomon’s strength. Having arrived at Solomon’s court, [n’wwn] is greeted by Solomon and invited to a feast. Once the feast is over and both kings retire, [n’wwn] is once again occupied by belligerent thoughts when suddenly there appear demons carrying stones and dropping them at the building site of the Temple, causing the ground

30

• S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•

to shake. Afraid, [n’wwn] wakes Solomon and asks him “Solomon, my brother, what is this great noise?” But Solomon only laughs and explains that these are demons working on the Temple. Having heard this, [n’wwn] is overwhelmed by fear and says to himself “If he can make demons work (for him) and bring stones for the building of his Temple, who am I to wage war on him? He would make them bend me and everyone with me like potter’s clay.” In the morning, [n’wwn] returns to his country and never again entertains the thought of waging war on Solomon, being so afraid of the demons under Solomon’s control. This rather curious story appears to be a faithful translation of a virtually unknown17 10th century Coptic text Legend of Solomon and Thabor from a ms located at the John Rylands Library in Manchester and previously described by Walter E. Crum18. It can be found in Crum’s ms no. 85, much of it illegible due to the binding with manuscript in such a bad condition that even a digital copy of this section cannot be made. Fortunately, Crum provided a transliteration of the text and though substantial portions of the beginning are missing, it can be conclusively established that Story V is indeed a translation of this legend. Two important aspects of this story could have significant implications for our understanding of both the Legend of Solomon and Thabor and the textual history of JSol: first, at the very beginning of the story, the king of the Gentiles is referred to as ‫ نوروا ملك البابيين‬/ ‫نوروا ملك الباتين‬ [nwrw’ king of the ?], it is only later that we learn that he is ‫ناوون ملك‬ ‫ الشعوب‬/ ‫ياوون ملك الشعوب‬. This hints at the possibility of a different material being reworked to better fit into the established narrative structure. Secondly, the reference to demons working in the night, tangential to story IV, becomes a major dramatic device in story V. This connection might indicate that the Coptic story of Solomon and Thabor was a part of a longer narrative. 365 Demons Rebel (Story VI) The construction of the Temple has now been in progress for three years and some demons have escaped from Solomon’s control and gathered in a valley where they debate what to do. Complaining that it has been three years now that they’ve been slaving away and the Temple isn’t even halfway finished, they decide to tear out a great stone castle19 (‫ )قلعة‬and drop it over the construction site of the Temple to

•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N •

31

make it sink to the ground. And so 365 demons gather and tear out a piece of rock big enough to cover the whole of Jerusalem and all who live there. When Solomon hears of it, he summons his servant, gives him the ring and tells him to go and look for a great piece of rock moving carried by invisible demons 1700 cubits above ground and once he finds it, he’s to say the following: “Listen, oh assembly of demons: I adjure you in the name of the ring that God gave to my master, king Solomon, to stop right here carrying this rock until the final destruction of Jerusalem.” Solomon’s servant takes the ring and sets out until he is 12 barīd away from Jerusalem and sees the rock moving in the air like a cloud and casting a dark shadow, yet with no one carrying it. He approaches it and says exactly as Solomon has commanded him. The rock stops moving and remains suspended between heaven and earth, 1700 cubits above ground, held there by 365 demons. Solomon’s servant returns to his master and king Solomon continues building the Temple with the help of the rest of the demons. The Theft of Food (Story VII) A man working on the Temple is plagued by a demon who approaches him as a breath of fire every time he sits down to eat and takes his food from him. As a result, the man grows thin and weak. When Solomon sees him, he asks: “What is wrong with you? Of all the men who work here, you are the only one who grows weak. Don’t they give you enough food to sustain you?” When the workman explains his predicament, Solomon gives him a copy of his ring and instructs him to show it to the demon and say the following: “Behold, this is Lord Sabaoth, god of my master Solomon, and this is his ring in my hand. You will not take anything from me.” When the next day the workman sits down to eat and sees the demon approaching, he screams at him: “Behold, this is the Lord, god of my master Solomon, and this is the ring of the God of Israel in my hand. For its sake, you will not take my food from me.” Upon hearing this and seeing the ring, the demon departs from the man, never to return. The Kings Correspond (Story VIII) (VIIIa) Having left Solomon’s kingdom, the demon from Story VII moves to the province of ‫[ يضر‬yḍr]20 and lays waste on it, appearing with a strong southern wind and plaguing both people and beasts of

32

• S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•

burden, throwing them off the road. When [n’wwn] king of the peoples, the ruler of this land, hears of it, he remembers that God gave Solomon power over demons. And so he assembles treasures of gold and silver and many gifts, gives them to his servant and sends him to Solomon with this letter: [n’wwn] king of the Gentiles writes to king Solomon in Jerusalem. First of all, greetings to you. I wrote you to (ask you to) accept my gifts and not to return them like the first gift at the time I came to you while you were building the Temple when you were prevented from taking them. I have heard that your name is great and the scent of your goodness is spread through all the lands of the earth and that God gave you power over all the demons whom you bound not to plague people. I have also heard that you have a ring with which you control them and bind them and order them to go and do as you command. Therefore I ask you, in regard to a demon who is destroying and laying waste to the whole of the land of Egypt, to rid us of him because he is destroying our land. Greetings.

When [n’wwn]’s servant arrives in Jerusalem, Solomon interrogates him asking where he comes from and whether he comes in peace or seeking war. The servant replies that he is from Egypt, sent by king [n’wwn] to deliver gifts and a letter. Solomon reads the letter and replies: I have accepted your gifts brought by your servant and I will not return them. As for your request, I will do what you ask and rid you of the demon who is destroying the land of Egypt, so that he will never return.

[n’wwn]’s servant returns home with the letter. When the people of Egypt learn that he’s come back, they gather and ask whether Solomon agreed to rid them of the demon. [n’wwn]’s servant reads them the letter, then returns to his master and reads him the letter again. Having heard this, the people of Egypt rejoice and wonder how is it possible that Solomon can control demons. (VIIIb) Meanwhile back in Jerusalem, Solomon summons his servant and tells him to take the ring, get a camel and load it with food and then go to Egypt, find the demon, bind him and bring him back. The servant is afraid and asks how he should capture him. Solomon tells him: “Go and look for a mighty southern wind, then go straight into the fire, southern wind and smoke. Stop and don’t be afraid, for you have the ring from God with you. Then wait for the demon, stand firm and say ‘This is what my master, king Solomon, says: in the name of the ring given to him by the Lord, god of Israel.’ You will

•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N •

33

thus bind him and find and capture him. Then bring him to me.” The boy takes the ring and leaves for Egypt where events unfold exactly as Solomon predicted. When the demon sees the ring, he is bound and Solomon’s servant sets out to take him back to Jerusalem. As they approach the mountain of Egypt (‫)ﺟبل مصر‬, the demon begs not to be taken to Solomon and to be released. Solomon’s servant is looking for some quid pro quo, so the demon promises to show him where he can find gold, silver and precious stones. The boy agrees and the demon takes him to the gold which the boy seals with the ring. The demon then shows him where he can find silver and precious stones and the boy seals both with the ring. When the demon asks to be released, Solomon’s servant once again wants to know what’s in it for him and this time, the demon promises to reveal the location of more treasure, 8 troves, each full of precious stones of a different kind. The boy seals each of them with Solomon’s ring. When the demon asks to be released, the boy once again recites Solomon’s words and refuses. And so as they approach Jerusalem, the demon causes a great storm with dust covering Jerusalem and cries with a great voice. Everyone in the city trembles, even Solomon is afraid. But he knows that it was the demon and so he pronounces a curse over the demon barring him from every place on earth and sending him to the fires of Hell until the Judgment Day. The boy then leads Solomon to all the treasures the demon has shown him, thus fulfilling God promise made to Solomon at Gibeon “And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour” (1 Kings 3:13, KJV). Queen of Demons (Story IX) (IXa) When the queen of demons learns of Solomon’s power over demons and his ability to command them and bend them to his will, she resolves to escape from him. Solomon pronounces a curse over her barring her from every place on earth, except for the sea, so she takes up residence in the sea and starts turning over ships. She appears over them as a cloud with strong wind and dust and sinks each and every one ship passing through, so that after some time, no one would travel across that sea. ‫[ كرام‬kr’m] king of ‫[ دارس‬d’rs] turns to Solomon for help. Solomon sends his servant with the ring and tells him to stand at the shore and by the power of the ring of God drive her out of the sea. The boy does as told and brings the queen of demons to Solomon. Solomon interrogates her and learns that she is known as ‫[ تادورا‬t’dwr’]

34

• S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•

among the demons and ‫’[ االردميس‬l’rdmys] among the humans. He also asks her to recount her sins, whereupon she tells him (IXb) that she blinded a man named ‫’[ اورول‬wrwl] and ten (or, in later repetition, twelve) servants in the Temple. Having heard this, Solomon sends the queen of demons to the fires of hell and she obeys, being afraid of him and his power. The Final Judgment (Story X) A rich man named ‫[ قستاردس‬qst’rds] has three sons and worries that when he dies, the two older ones will cheat the youngest out of his inheritance. Knowing that Solomon has been granted great wisdom by God, he decides to write a testament to prevent that from happening, so after his death, his sons will have to stand before Solomon who will judge between them. When he dies, his sons open the testament and learn that their father placed all his gold, silver and precious stones in a leather sack sealed with a clay seal. The youngest son will inherit the contents of the sack, the second one will inherit the sack and the oldest son will inherit the clay seal. After some fighting, they decide to go to Jerusalem and submit to Solomon’s judgment. When Solomon reads the testament, his wisdom reveals the true purpose of the testament and so he rules thusly: the youngest will get all the money, because he was given the contents of the sack, the second son will take all the animals his father owned because of the skin the sack is made of and the oldest will inherit all his father’s lands, because of the clay seal. The three sons realize that their father divided his property fairly and praise Solomon’s wisdom. As noted above, this story is essentially a retelling of the first story in an Old Russian collection of Solomonic lore known under the name Sudy Solomona, i.e. “Judgments of Solomon”. The Russian version21 is much shorter, barrels take place of sacks and the order in which the sons receive their inheritance is reversed (the oldest receives all the gold), but it is obvious that this is indeed the same story.

JSol and TSol A student of the Testament of Solomon will immediately recognize a number of narrative elements and motifs from TSol incorporated into

•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N •

35

JSol. The following table provides a brief overviews of these, arrange first by narrative elements and then by motif and their place in TSol: TSol 1:1–4 Ornias steels food from a worker 1:5–7 God gives Solomon a ring to control demons 22:1–19 Letter of Adarkes concerning the wind demon 24–25 Solomon adjures demons to hold a castle in the air

JSol Story VII Story IV Story VIIIa Story VI

Solomon makes demons work on the Temple Solomon interrogates demons, learns their names and asks what evils they do Solomon tells his servant to capture the Arabian wind demon

Story V Story IXb Story VIIIb

The order suggests that whatever the Vorlage, it probably did not resemble any of the recensions of the Testament of Solomon known to us22. And even these narrative elements and motifs show a number of differences to TSol, the most significant of which are: A) Solomon is given the ring not in response to the theft of the food (note that the sucking of a thumb is completely absent), but only when prompted to ask for power over demons by a priest in reaction to demons plaguing people who wish to worship at the Temple. Moreover, it is not archangel Michael who brings him the ring, but rather God himself. Much (if not all) of the duality for which TSol is notable23 is thus absent. Furthermore, if God speaks to Solomon directly at the beginning (albeit in a dream), it does not make sense to send an angel later in the story. It is also notable that Solomon is not once, but twice (Stories III and V) pitted against a priest. The direct communication between God and Solomon only strengthens his status as God’s favorite and his opposition to the Jewish establishment represented by the priesthood (in Story IV) suggests an attempt to portray Solomon in a different light—not exactly a magician, but rather a forerunner of sorts to Jesus. B) While TSol proper is known for its elaborate demonology, there is no evidence of any such interest on the part of the compiler of JSol. The demon who steals the food in Story VII (who is also identified with the Arabian wind demon Eppiphas from TSol 22–23) is not named and neither are any of the demons who work on the Temple or the demons who are ordered to lift up the castle. The only demon who is named is the queen of demons and she is given two names, both

36

• S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•

somewhat Greek-sounding (Arthemis and Theodora perhaps?)—one used among demons, the other one known to the people. The confrontation with her is the only one that partially follows the pattern established in TSol: first Solomon learns her name, then he orders her to tell him of the evil she does (blinding men). Once again in contrast to TSol, no thwarting angel is mentioned. Instead, Solomon uses his power and has her, just like the demon plaguing Egypt in Story VIIIb, sent straight to hell. The absence of angels who thwart the workings of demons underlies our point regarding duality of power in TSol and its absence in JSol—in JSol, Solomon’s power given to him by God is enough to counter any evil the demons are capable of. C) Solomon’s direct interaction of demons is limited to stories IV (the granting of the ring) and IX (the queen of demons). In all other cases (stories VI, VIIIb and IXa), it is his servant who does the work, as in TSol 29:9–15 (the capture of the Arabian wind demon). In addition, Solomon makes a copy of the ring and gives it to the craftsmen who work on the Temple and to the man whose food is stolen by the demon. While Solomon’s servant and the starving man are instructed to use the ring along with Solomon’s and God’s name (“God Sabaoth” or “God of Israel”) to control demons, the craftsmen only need a copy of the ring and a stick to make demons work. This is very much reminiscent of the later tradition (e.g. Clavicula Solomonis) where it’s the form and structure of the ring or seal and not its divine provenance that make it work and where Solomon’s name on its own is powerful enough to achieve the desired effect.

Conclusion The inclusion of JSol in what would otherwise be a collection of canonical books in both the Paris and the Vatican manuscripts indicates the status which the author or compiler ascribed or sought to ascribe to JSol, namely that of a book of the Bible once lost and now found again. This assumption could be strengthened by the translator’s remarks regarding the lost works of Solomon in the introduction to the translation of Wisdom and the Proverbs in BnF Ar 214 (fols. 112v– 185), as well as the inclusion of the well-known canonical stories at the very beginning of the work. The latter might also suggest that the compiler wished to contrast JSol to other legends around Solomon, such as those included in Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ by al-Kisā’ī24, which must

•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N •

37

have been known in one form or another to his Arabic speaking audience. The inclusion of works translated from Coptic and the Egyptian milieu JSol originated in offer a fascinating possibility that at least some of the material recognizable to us as a part of TSol was lifted from an unknown Coptic recension of the Testament of Solomon. If so, the compiler of JSol was in a much stronger position to argue the authenticity of his work as originating within the ancient Christian tradition of Egypt. It is our hope that further research will shed more light on this and on various other open questions regarding the ultimate origin of the various constituent parts of JSol and their relationship with the rest of the rich and varied Solomonic lore.

•A

N U S H A V A N

T

A N I E L I A N

•

The Book of Wisdom of Solomon in the Armenian Church Literature and Liturgy

T

he invention of the Armenian alphabet in c. 405/406, in Edessa by the Armenian monk St. Maštocʽ marked the beginning of Armenian written literature, in general, and of the translation of the Holy Bible Asdvadzashuntch—“breathed by God” (II Tim 3.16)— in particular. The translation was done from Syriac and Greek,1 and revised by Catholicos Sahag on the basis of Greek manuscripts brought from Constantinople in post 431, by Eznik and Koriwn, two disciples of St. Maštocʽ. The first reference to the canonical and deuterocanonical Scriptures, is the annals of the Council of Bardav,2 held jointly by the Armenian and West Syrian churches, in 728, in Bardaw (modern Iraq). There, the Wisdom of Solomon is not included in the order of the Scriptures.3 This oversight, however, does not diminish the validity of its translation in the fifth century. Its large circulation in early “Teachings,” historiographies, apologetics, liturgy and commentary-literature confirms its early translation.

Wisdom of Solomon in the Armenian Classics During the fifth century, the works of Early Church Fathers were translated as well along with the Holy Scriptures. Furthermore, and parallel to these translations, original works were also authored. The writings of the following four fifth-century authors are of our immediate interest because they quote the Wisdom of Solomon in their respective oeuvres. Agatangelos in his History of the Armenians (Wis

40

•A N U S H AV A N T A N I E L I A N •

2.24, 7.26, 13.11, 14.29), and The Teaching of St. Gregory (Wis 2.23, 2.24, 4.18), Ełišē in his History of the Armenians (Wis 3.11, 6.15, 9.14, 14.12, 14.23, 15.4), Eznik Kołbatsi in his Refutation of the Sects (Wis 1.13, 2.23–24, 2.24), and Lazar Pʽarpetsi in his History of the Armenians (Wis 2.24, 18.17).4 In his Stichometry, the seventh-century Armenian mathematician, Anania Sirakatsi (c.615–c.690A.D.), refers to the Wisdom of Solomon, along with the other Scriptures, having (10)20 verses.5 These references may be regarded as valuable reminiscence of the fact that the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, was translated together with the other Scriptures. The fact that Eznik Kołbacʽi was himself involved in the task of the translation of the Bible, further supports our suggestion.

Wisdom of Solomon in the Liturgy The Armenian Lectionary, which follows the early tradition of Jerusalem and has evolved throughout the centuries, is an important source for scholars. There, 110 saint-days are celebrated during the year. Readings from the Wisdom of Solomon are assigned on forty nine occasions,6 besides two Dominical feasts, the Burial and Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is interesting however to note that these readings are cited as “Reading from Proverbs, Wisdom.” The late Archbishop Zareh Aznavorian, a biblical scholar and chairman of the “Central Religious Council of the Catholicosate of Cilicia” in Lebanon, explains that this was done to bring readings from the Wisdom of Solomon under a canonical umbrella. Through a brief overview of the passages read from the Wisdom of Solomon during the annual liturgical journey, one may observe that most of the readings are quoted only from Chapters 1–10, which deal with justice, wisdom and immortality. This best justifies the witness and martyrdom of the saints and their hope anchored in the Crucified and Risen Lord. Readings from the Wisdom of Solomon are recited more frequently compared to those from the canonical Wisdom literature as well as Deuterocanonical readings. A brief survey shows that the Wisdom of Solomon is second in line (49 times) after the readings from Proverbs (61 times), while readings from the Book of Job occur 10 times, Song of Songs 13 times, Baruch 5 times and 2nd Macabees once.

•T H E B O O K O F W I S D O M O F S O LO M O N •

41

A comparison with the lectionaries of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, Indian Orthodox Church, and Greek Orthodox Church reveals that readings from the Wisdom Books, in general, and Wisdom of Solomon, in particular, are more frequent in the Armenian Church. In the Syrian Orthodox Church Wisdom is read on five occasions: Good Friday 2:12–22; Easter Thursday 1:1–16; 21st Sunday after Easter 1:2–9; Assumption of Holy Virgin Mary 1.2–9; Feasts of the Holy Martyrs 3:1–10. Its worth to note that on Good Friday the reading in the Armenian and Syrian Churches are the same with a slight variance in that while in the former the reading is from Wis 2:1–22, in the latter is Wis 2:12–22. The Readings from canonical and Deuterocanonical Wisdom Books in the Syrian Church differ from the Armenian Church. Paragraphs from the Book of Job are read 9 times; Proverbs, 15 times; Sirach 26 times and Baruch once. It’s very obvious that the Book of Sirach enjoys more popularity in Syrian Church than in any other church. In the lectionary of the Indian Orthodox Church, Wisdom of Solomon—referred to as the Great Wisdom—is read on four occasions: First Monday of Great Lent, Wis 7:7–24; Havorae Tuesday (following Easter): Wis 1:1–8; First Sunday following New Sunday: Great Wisdom 1:1–8; 2nd Sunday after the Elevation of Holy Cross: Wis 6:1–9. Readings from the other Wisdom Books are also rare. Six times from Job, nine times from Proverbs, three times from Ecclesiastes, and once from the Book of Macabbees. We find readings from the Wisdom of Solomon in the Greek lectionary on two occasions only: First Sunday after Pentecost, Sunday of All Saints Vesper Service, Wis 3:1–9; 5:15–6:3; and Third Finding of the Honorable Head (of John the Baptist), on May 29, Wis 4:7, 16, 17, 19, 20; 5:1–7. Comparatively, readings from the Book of Job and Proverbs are also few. The former is read on five occasions during the Vespers of Holy Monday through Holy Friday, and the latter thirty times during Great Lent on Monday through Friday. Readings from the Book of Baruch occur twice, on the Eve of the Nativity (Dec 24), at the Third Hour, Bar 3:36–4.4, and at Vespers, Bar 3:36–4.4. The above briefly reviewed facts provide us with reasonable ground to conclude that in the Armenian Church readings from Wisdom Books, in general, and from Wisdom of Solomon, in particular, are more recurrent and have been instrumental in strengthening the believers’ faith.

42

•A N U S H AV A N T A N I E L I A N •

In conclusion, The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, regardless of its classification as deuterocanonical book has been beneficiary in the Armenian Church life in different aspects. We should be always grateful to the Early Church Fathers who have preserved and saved this precious pearl “Wisdom of Solomon” which along with the other Deuterocanonical Books has been accepted and transmitted in the very words of St. Athanasius: “For greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of Godliness.”7

•N

I C O L A E

R

O D D Y

•

Visul Maicii Domnului (“The Dream of the Mother of the Lord”): New Testament Romanian Amulet Text

A

mong the rich and varied tradition of early Jewish and early Christian writings preserved by various communities throughout Eastern Europe and western Asia, there survives yet today an ancient genre known as the amulet text. This category of writings, which were known to Jews and Christians throughout Eastern Europe, includes folkloric retellings of biblical stories, sometimes with characters redrawn as ethnic contemporaries of the reading audience, circulating among largely illiterate rural peoples who carried them on their persons for the purpose of keeping away illness, ill fortune, envy and covetousness cast by the evil eye, and any other undesirable or malevolent influences. The present paper focuses on a particular Romanian amulet text known as Visul Maicii Domnului, or The Dream of the Mother of the Lord, featuring a heretofore unpublished specimen that was preserved along with the Slavic manuscripts of Hilandar, the well-known Serbian monastery on the Mount Athos, the self-governing monastic state on the Aegean coast of Greece.1 This brief preliminary study will employ literary critical and sociological methodologies in an attempt to reasonably account for how this particular amulet text offered its ongoing, perceived multidimensional transformative therapeutic and apotropaic properties within its largely rural Romanian social context. It will also assert that contrary to expectation, including my own initially, and some seemingly contradictory early and medieval Jewish examples, recitation was neither necessary, nor even significant aspect

44

•N I C O L A E R O D D Y •

in the use of amulet texts, contrasting with other widely popular oral and written forms of nature-manipulation, including charms, spells, and incantations. These findings suggest that the term “textual amulet” offers a more accurate description of the phenomenon, for these small handwritten pamphlets were and—as I recently discovered—still are employed more as amulet than text in their perceived apotropaic application.

The Amulet Text in General The academic study of beliefs and activities associated with manipulating the natural world in some supernatural way, popularly referred to as magic, has developed a specialized vocabulary for its devices and functions, although its usage is not always consistent across disciplines. Time will not permit us to distinguish among all of these forms—amulets, talismans, votives, protective animals or animal parts, charms, spells, incantations, and so on—but each of these has its own particular use. For example, an amulet—including our textual amulet—is a device employed to ward off evil, while a talisman (from the Greek, telesma, which refers to activity carried out in a sacred context) is something that brings the bearer good luck, often in association with astrological wisdom.2 Both are often found together, maximizing the bearer’s advantage in the world. Finally, formulaic genres like charms, spells, and incantations, which occur in both written and oral forms, are ubiquitous in Romanian popular culture, also offering a variety of specialized natural and supernatural benefits. In addition to the textual amulet, magical devices that make particular use of writing include divination texts; various omen writings, especially astrological texts; as well as the aforementioned charms, spells and incantations, whose perceived efficacy is experienced through syncopated lyrical cadences and rhyme, something for which some languages, like Romanian, is especially well-suited. Recited aloud or not, the textual amulet is only one of a number of literary forms that offer its possessor a means for bringing about a good end, warding off threats by mitigating powerlessness in the midst of an unpredictable and sometimes harsh or threatening world. The use of textual amulets throughout Europe and the Near East is rooted in practices described and depicted in ancient Near Eastern texts and artifacts and is likely as old as writing itself. The fact that a

• V I S U L M A I C I I D O M N U LU I •

45

particular sort of character or mark could symbolize (from Gr. sym ballein, “to throw” or “to bring together”) or re-present some known referent conventionally within a community a priori gives it a special sort of power. Biblical period references3 historically link these earlier examples with later practices mentioned in Jewish Literature of the Hellenistic Period, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, various pseudepigraphical and apocryphal texts, and perhaps even the New Testament, as for example, Jesus stooping down and writing in the dirt (Jn 8.6–8). In addition, there are the material remains of Aramaic incantation bowls from the Babylonian region,4 references to textual amulets in Talmudic and late medieval Jewish literature,5 and a plethora of Jewish and Christian examples that continued well into and beyond the Middle Ages. Perhaps the most well-known early Christian example is St. John Chrysostom’s derision of Constantinopolitan women who wore fragments of the Gospel in tiny lockets around their necks for the purpose of warding off bad luck.6 Although I have already suggested that amulet texts functioned more as amulet than text in some societies, it does not devalue the significance of the words they contain. According to L. Schiffman, the Cairo Genizah texts contain amulets referred to as ketavin, or “writings,” which are worn on the body as protection against ketavin bishin, “evil writings.” The fact that the oral recitation of these amulets was an important aspect of their perceived efficacy is evidenced by the fact that these texts were written with vocalization notation.7 But the question remains: is recitation necessary in order to experience the efficacious power of the amulet? Is it necessary that the bearer of the amulet even be able to read its words?

The Romanian Textual Amulet In the case of our present text, reading and recitation were almost certainly not factors in the use of amulet texts in Romanian rural society in the modern period. The use of oral forms of magic surviving in some Romanian communities to this day–including incantations (descântece), spells (fermece), and charms–widely documented by others8 and witnessed firsthand by this writer among members of his own family living in rural areas on the Transylvanian plateau, demonstrates that at least in the home such devices were recited, mostly (if not exclusively) by women, proactively or any time that illness or

46

•N I C O L A E R O D D Y •

some dread was experienced on the part of its possessor or any members of her family.9 But the much longer amulet texts, if recited at all, would have to have been uttered by rote memory, by dint of the fact that widespread illiteracy completely permeated the general populace of this relatively late feudal society, a condition lasting well into the 20th C. In support of the assertion that carrying the amulet was more important than reciting it, the most surprising thing to occur during the course of otherwise uneventful research on the topic came when I mentioned to a Romanian colleague, Alexandra Untu, a graduate student from the University of Bucharest, that I was working on a Romanian amulet text called Visul Maicii Domnului, to which she remarked quite matter-of-factly that her mother happens to carry a type-set copy of this very text with her always in her purse and that although she is able to read it—unlike most Romanians in generations past—its efficacy does not depend on the reading of the words. Thanks to the gracious labor of Ms. Untu’s transcription, I have been able to compare her mother’s copy, which was printed by a now defunct printing house in the mid-1990s, with my 1849 manuscript and was surprised to find a very striking degree of similarity between them, indicating careful transmission over at least a century and a half.10 One may attribute the degree of textual fidelity to reverence for the textual tradition in connection with the amulet’s special efficacy, but it is also the case that the text itself ensures its own accurate transmission through the power of authoritative words uttered from within Visul’s own narrative world, as will be shown below. In addition to its domestic use, there is evidence that Romanian textual amulets were also used outside the home. Romanian literary critic Nicolae Cartojan relates that at least some Transylvanian soldiers fighting at the front during WWI wore a copy of the popular Epistolia Domnului nostru, “The Letter of our Lord,” as a protective amulet around their necks.11 Other popular Romanian amulet texts include Călători Maicii Domnului în Iad; Sfântul Sisinie; Sator-arepo, Rotas-opera, a magical text associated with the Legend of Abgar; The 72 Names of Christ; and similarly, The 72 Names of the Virgin, but I have yet to examine these texts to see if there are any clues that might indicate how they were to be used; however, let us now turn to the particular amulet text at hand.

• V I S U L M A I C I I D O M N U LU I •

47

According to Nicolae Cartojan, Visul Maicii Domnului (“The Dream of the Mother of the Lord”) derives from the apocryphal Repose of the Mother of the Lord, which also survives in Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Greek, and Latin versions.12 It enjoyed wide circulation throughout the Romanian lands, along with the apocalyptic Călătoria Maicii Domnului la Iad, (“Journey of the Mother of the Lord to Hell”), based on the Apocalypse of the Mother of the Lord, which itself is based on the 4th C Apocalypse of Paul, as well as the text just mentioned, Epistola Domnului nostru Isus Hristos (“The Epistle of our Lord Jesus Christ”), which gave rise to the popular Romanian Legenda Duminicei (“The Legend of Sunday”).13 The cover folio of the present manuscript bears the title Visul Maicei Domnului, priscris în Sfântul Munte Athoiului în Mănăsteria Hilandariu la anul 1849, Dekembrii 26, written in Romanian in the Cyrillic alphabet, in regular use throughout the Romanian Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia until its official abandonment in 1860, coinciding with the creation of the Romanian unitary nation-state. Brief enough to present it here in its entirety, I have translated the text as follows: The Dream of the Mother of the Lord Most Holy Virgin Birthgiver of God was sleeping on the Mount of Eleon in the city of Bethlehem when our Lord Jesus Christ came to her and said, “My most holy mother, are you sleeping?” And she said, “My Son most sweet, I was asleep, and behold, I saw a terrible dream concerning you.” And he said to her, “My Mother, tell me the dream that you saw.” And she said, “I saw Peter in Rome14 and Paul in Damascus, but I saw you in the city of Jerusalem, crucified on the cross between two robbers. Scribes and Pharisees and base Jews ridiculed and mocked you exceedingly and they fed you with gall and gave you vinegar to drink, and they beat you over the head with a reed and with a stick, and they struck you upon your holy cheek, and they placed a crown of thorns upon your head, and one of the soldiers pierced your side with a spear, from which at once issued blood and water. The sun darkened, the moon reddened and changed. The iconostasis of the church was split in two from top to bottom and a great darkness came over all the earth from the sixth hour until the ninth. Joseph and Nicodemus15 appeared to me and brought you down from the cross and wrapped you in a clean shroud and placed you in a new tomb. And you descended into Hades. And the brass doors were shattered, and the iron bars were broken, releasing Adam and Eve. And coming to life on the third day you arose to the heavens and took your place at the right hand of the Father.”

48

•N I C O L A E R O D D Y • And the Lord said, “My most holy Mother, truly you saw a dream. And I will suffer all of these things for the Christian people. And if anyone writes your dream and holds it, and whoever wears it on the breast and keeps it in the house, the devil will not come near the house and the unclean spirit will flee, and the angel of God will always stand at his right-hand side and those overcome and troubled by bad men will be saved. And those travelers on the road who have this dream, this man will not be afraid of hailstones, lightning, thunder, nor of all the peril that summon Death untimely. Archangel Michael will be near him, guiding him in whichever way he goes. At the Judgment of the righteous he will find mercy, and at the going out of life I will show him [the ways of] man together with you, my Mother. And my angel will take his spirit, bringing it into the kingdom of heaven, rejoicing there with all the righteous from the age who well pleased me. Amen.

One characteristic of amulet texts, as observed by Don Skemer, is that they often present themselves as a “random assortment of diverse textual elements” appearing as “jumbled folk compositions.”16 Indeed one could hear in this recitation an agglomeration of biblical, creedal, traditional, and popular legendary elements. The biblical description of the Passion contains elements from the Synoptic gospels, as well as things unique to the Gospel of John, such as the inclusion of Nicodemus. Jesus’s resurrection from the dead and his ascension to the right hand of the Father, while biblically based, is expressed in the language of the Creed. Elements from the Harrowing of Hell tradition, rooted in the Acts of Pilate and incorporated into the somewhat later Gospel of Nicodemus, are present, include Christ’s descent into hell, the smashing of the brass gates, and the freeing of Adam and Eve. All of these elements are woven together with no apparent concern for geographical or chronological accuracy. For example, note that it is the iconostasis of the church that is split in two, not the veil of the temple. In the modern printed version carried by my Mrs. Untu, the Mother of the Lord sees Peter in Antioch and Rome concurrently, an addition likely incorporated at some point in support of the Orthodox assertion, found in Eusebius, that Peter was bishop of Antioch before traveling to Rome. Finally, built-in instructions voiced by Jesus Christ not only lend spiritual authority to the text but also help to perpetuate the ongoing accurate reproduction of the amulet text. Indirectly admonishing the reader, Jesus Christ informs his mother that:

• V I S U L M A I C I I D O M N U LU I •

49

If anyone writes your dream and holds it, and whoever wears it on the breast and keeps it in the house, the devil will not come near the house and the unclean spirit will flee, and the angel of God will always stand at his right-hand side and those overcome and troubled by bad men will be saved [et cetera].

Careful listeners will have noted that at no point does Jesus admonish readers to recite his mother’s dream, only to write it and wear it. Slavishly copying an amulet text does not require a full understanding what one is writing; the important thing seems simply to have it nearby, worn, carried, or present in the house. In conclusion, it should be evident by now that the tension one often expects between established religion and popular piety is almost completely lacking in Romanian society. However, even in the West one find examples of popular forms of magic sanctioned by representatives of the established Church; for as Skemer has observed, “In the early Middle Ages, clerics were generally the only people with the basic Latin literacy, writing materials, and access to written exemplars needed to produce textual amulets to meet the needs of the laity, including parishioners, neighbors, social peers, and kin.”17 The upshot is that we have here a particular amulet text based on a confluence of a variety of religious themes, formulae, and sources, still functioning as a textual amulet well into modern times and even to the present generation in Romanian society. Elements in the text itself ensure its continued reproduction, which took place largely in monasteries but also in secular publishing houses for those whose popular religious piety allows for a dimension of Christian experience that permits supernatural benefits, supplementing or otherwise enhancing institutionalized beliefs and practices.

•E

U G E N I A

S

C A R V E L I S

C

O N S T A N T I N O U

•

Banned from the Lectionary: Excluding the Apocalypse of John from the Orthodox New Testament Canon

T

he Book of Revelation occupies a peculiar place in the New Testament canon of Orthodox Christianity. Although it is acknowledged as canonical, it is entirely excluded from the lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church due to earlier controversies surrounding it. Other books were also disputed within the canon. But the Apocalypse of John traveled a unique road to canonical acceptance. Many authors and scholars continue to simplistically proclaim that the New Testament canon was “fixed” in the fourth century, usually with the publication of St. Athanasius’ famous Paschal Encyclical of 367. They suggest that since the great Athanasius had spoken, his opinion trumped all others and finally settled the issue of the canon. Indeed, it was Athanasius who provided, for the first time, the exact list of books which would eventually comprise the New Testament canon. But it can hardly be said that his directive to the faithful in his jurisdiction conclusively settled the matter for the entire Church, for the East, or even for the Church of Alexandria since variations within the canon continued long after Athanasius, especially in the case of Revelation.1 In fact, Athanasius provided his opinion of the canon precisely because it remained an unsettled issue. It can only be said that by the end of the fourth century a consensus existed in both the East and West for the core of the canon: our present fourfold gospel corpus, Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul (excluding Hebrews), 1 John and 1

52

•E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •

Peter. Other books remained contested. For Revelation, the fourth century proved particularly disastrous. Even though Athanasius had included it in his canon, by the time he published his famous list most Eastern Fathers had decided against Revelation and a cloud of skepticism continued to linger over the book for more than a thousand years. In the West, Revelation had never faced serious opposition and the canon was resolved earlier than in the East, assisted by the presence of two respected authorities: Jerome and Augustine. Their opinions regarding the content of the New Testament canon held sway and the production of the Vulgate Latin translation further contributed to more speedily fix the canon for the West.2 The East, on the other hand, was laden with many notable patristic authorities who were not in agreement, and who apparently perceived no need to standardize the canon since the canon was not a doctrinal issue. It had never been raised as an issue at any Ecumenical Council. Earlier Greek manuscripts and lectionaries continued to be copied, preserving the status quo by liturgical usage,3 and opinions about the canon continued to vary. The manner in which the Book of Revelation finally settled into the canon is entirely unique. With the exception of the Apocalypse of John, books which had never faced serious opposition, having enjoyed early and universal acceptance (the four gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline epistles, 1 John and 1 Peter), remained undisputed and found a place in the canon easily. Those which were disputed (such as, James and 2 Peter) slowly gained approval over time until they were eventually included in the canon in spite of some early reluctance. It is the peculiar phenomenon of Revelation to have experienced early and universal recognition as an apostolic writing, then lose favor relatively quickly, only to finally regain acceptance much later. Its rapid decline within the Eastern Church just prior to the formation of the lectionary resulted in its complete exclusion. Revelation contains exceptional characteristics. No other New Testament book demands to be treated as “scripture,” claims divine inspiration for itself,4 describes itself as prophecy,5 orders that its content be conveyed to the churches,6 blesses those who read it, blesses those who hear it, and curses those who tamper with it.7 Various factors have been cited to explain Revelation’s early and overwhelming acceptance: its antiquity, prophetic character,8 encouragement in times of persecution,9 apostolicity,10 its content which includes words of the Lord11 and finally its presentation as a letter, a genre already familiar

•B A N N E D F R O M T H E L E C TI O N A R Y •

53

to Christians in acceptable books.12 Yet a careful examination of the evidence establishes without a doubt that the tradition associating the Apostle John with this Apocalypse was the sole factor which let to its rapid and pervasive acceptance within the Church in the second century. To dislodge it from the canon and exclude it from lectionary could only be accomplished by disputing and destroying its reputation as an apostolic book.

The Seconc Century: Widespread Acceptance of Revelation Papias of Hierapolis indirectly provides the earliest evidence of apostolic authorship of Revelation in his famous book Exposition of Dominical Oracles composed approximately 125 CE. Although that work is no longer extant, Andrew of Caesarea, author of the first Greek patristic commentary on Apocalypse, cited Papias among a string of witnesses acknowledging apostolic authorship.13 Justin the Martyr and Philosopher confirmed that the early Church regarded the Apocalypse as apostolic in his remarks during the mid-second century when he wrote that John who authored the Apocalypse was “one of the apostles of Christ.”14 Justin’s comment is significant not only because of its early date but because Justin was catechized in Asia in the early second century and would have been familiar with the traditions associated with the Apostle John. Later in the second century, the earliest direct quotation from the Apocalypse appears, (along with five strong allusions), in the famous letter from the Churches of Lyons and Vienne sent to the churches of Asia and Phrygia (c. 178 CE.) describing recent martyrdoms which had occurred in Gaul.15 The letter actually cites Revelation as “scripture” and, since it is addressed to Christians in Asia, it evinces not only the high regard within the Church in Gaul for the Apocalypse but also its acceptance by the recipients in Asia.16 Perhaps the most important second century Asian witness for opinions about the Apocalypse is Irenaeus of Lyon. He had spent his youth in Asia and stated that he had heard Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John.17 Irenaeus was very familiar with the tradition of the Church, especially the Church in Asia. Although writing at the end of the second century, Irenaeus, like Papias and Justin, preserved and passed on ear-

54

•E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •

ly information from “the elders” of Asia Minor, including traditions about the Apocalypse which significantly pre-date the era of Irenaeus’ literary activity. When referring to the Apocalypse in his famous work, Against Heresies, he unequivocally attributed the Apocalypse to the Apostle John18 and frequently cited the Apocalypse together with eschatological passages in acknowledged Scriptures, such as Isaiah and Daniel.19 Irenaeus recognized only one Apocalypse and the author of that apocalypse was the Apostle John. Also like Justin and Papias, Irenaeus was a confirmed chiliast, and Revelation certainly must have appealed to him on that basis as well. Irenaeus’ correlation of false scripture (apocryphal writings) with heresy is also noteworthy for our purposes. At this time, the discussion about forming a New Testament canon which would stand alongside the Jewish Scriptures had just begun. A few individuals, who would later be referred to as the Alogoi, questioned the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel and wished to excluded it from the canon.20 Meanwhile, the heretic Marcion called for the exclusive use of his highly edited version of the gospel of Luke, and Tatian had created a single large gospel in Syriac, the Diatessaron, which blended the accounts from all four existing gospels. But Irenaeus, opposing all of these movements, championed four individual gospels in the New Testament canon. Irenaeus made his most noteworthy use of the Apocalypse as part of his effort to promote four gospels in the canon. Four gospels were intended by God, he argued, just as there are four creatures around the throne of God described in Revelation chapter 4: a lion, an eagle, a man and an ox. Irenaeus associated each one of these creatures with a different gospel, a move which captured the imagination of Christians and remains a popular symbolic depiction of the evangelists to this day. But careful consideration reveals how surprising and significant his argument truly was: Irenaeus was arguing for the acceptance of all four gospels on the basis of the Book of Revelation. This can only indicate that Revelation enjoyed more approval, or at least was less controversial among Christians, than all four gospels as a group. Another peculiar departure from expectation, which also occurred during this same period in history, supports the conclusion that Revelation enjoyed widespread approval even over what we might consider “obvious” candidates for the New Testament canon. The Muratorian canon, a second century Greek canon from Rome which only survives

•B A N N E D F R O M T H E L E C TI O N A R Y •

55

in a bad Latin translation, uses Revelation to argue for inclusion of St. Paul’s epistles. The anonymous author of this list reveals that his criterion for canonicity is apostolicity when he advocates for books in the New Testament by linking them to apostles. Revelation is held to be composed by the Apostle John, and the author of the Muratorian canon argues for the acceptance of Paul’s epistles on the basis that they were addressed to seven churches, just as the Apocalypse of John was addressed to seven churches. The Apocalypse of John surprisingly serves in the Muratorian canon as an archetype which permits the acceptance of Paul’s letters because they conform in some manner to Revelation. The author of the Muratorian Canon actually includes two apocalypses on his list, the other being the Apocalypse of Peter. This detail provides yet another important piece of evidence for the universal acceptance of Revelation. The Muratorian Canon comments that “some” do not accept the Apocalypse of Peter, strongly implying that no disagreement existed with regard to the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse of John. In the late second century, the Montanist movement had spread. It heavily utilized the writings of John, and anticipated the descent of a “heavenly Jerusalem” as part of its eschatological expectations. Montanist appeal to passages in Revelation shows that the book was accepted as an authoritative and apostolic text at that time. But the Montanist claim that the end was near proved untrue and even before the movement was entirely discredited, Montanism raised questions within the Church about the nature of prophecy and the prophetic gifts. Although it appears that Eastern Christians did not quickly reject the Apocalypse on the basis of Montanist use, it was in this context that the book began to initially suffer harm to its reputation by an unfortunate association with controversy and schism. Zealous anti-Montanists concluded that the most expedient way to discredit Montanism was to discredit the Johannine writings upon which the Montanists greatly depended.21 Leading this effort in the late second/early third centuries was a cleric named Gaius22 and his group would later be described as the “Alogoi.”23 Irenaeus balanced respect for the apostolicity of the Johannine writings and support for Christian prophecy while still denying Montanist claims. But in the third century others were willing to sacrifice Revelation and destroy its reputation to discredit fringe groups such as Montanists and chiliasts.

56

•E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •

The evidence strongly indicates that Revelation faced no real opposition in the second century, whether in Asia or elsewhere. No orthodox group can be found which challenged or questioned its apostolic authorship with the exception of a few over-reaching antiMontanists. Since it appears to have been held in such high esteem, we might have expected Revelation to easily secure a place in the New Testament canon. But it did not. In the third century it would face a serious attack, which by the fourth century would be effectively employed to destroy its reputation.

The Revelation of John in the Third Century: A Mixed Reception Revelation continued to enjoy broad support throughout the third century. Hippolytus accepted it as apostolic, calling John “apostle and disciple,”24 and introducing quotes from Revelation equally alongside Daniel and Isaiah as scripture. He considered the Apocalypse inspired by the Holy Spirit.25 Origen, the greatest mind of the early Church, divided Christian writings into two groups: those acknowledged by all as genuine (homologoumena) and those which were disputed. Origen reported that John wrote the gospel, the Apocalypse, an epistle, and maybe two additional epistles, “although some say those are not genuine.”26 This comment reflects the typical attitude toward the Apocalypse in the third century: except for 2 and 3 John, all of the Johannine writings were universally accepted, including Revelation. Origen had extensive contacts, travel and education, all of which had exposed him to broad and diverse opinions within the Church. He did not class Revelation among the disputed books but with those books accepted by all. Perhaps Origen’s most important contribution to the Apocalypse was that he wrenched it away from the chiliasts who depended on a literal interpretation of Rev. 20:4 to promote their expectation of a thousand year earthly reign of Christ. Origen offered a sound, spiritual interpretation as an alternative explanation, exactly what the Church needed to respond to the carnal reading of the book. Origen’s interpretation directly opposed those who expected a materialistic kingdom and sounded the first death-knell for chiliasm.27 Recognition of the highly symbolic character of Revelation might seem obvious, yet

•B A N N E D F R O M T H E L E C TI O N A R Y •

57

many Christians had interpreted the book quite literally, even crudely. These crass interpretations had themselves begun to raise suspicions about Revelation among many the Church. A distinguished pupil of Origen and highly influential bishop, Dionysios of Alexandria (bishop from 248–264), made the first serious attack on the apostolicity of Revelation. Dionysios, like Origen, had interpreted eschatological prophecies in the Old and New Testaments allegorically. His position was criticized by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos of Arsinoe, the author of a treatise entitled Refutation of the Allegorists, which supported a literal interpretation of prophecy, especially the Apocalypse. Nepos and other literalists were enthusiastic chiliasts. Dionysios visited Nepos and held a three day meeting to discuss the literal interpretation of prophecy. The event was a complete success, according to Eusebius, and Dionysios convinced the attendees that eschatological prophecy cannot be interpreted literally.28 While Dionysios did not reject the Apocalypse completely because “many of the brethren take it seriously,” he concluded that due to the great differences in language and style between the two books, Revelation could not have been written by the author of the Fourth Gospel.29 Then, as if to plant a seed of doubt which he knew would take root and grow, Dionysios nonchalantly reported that he had “heard” that two monuments existed in Asia bearing the name “John,” therefore, the author of Revelation must have been this “other John.” Despite affirming the “mystical” nature of the book and making weak efforts to appear objective, Dionysios’ criticisms of Revelation are clearly motivated by a hope to discredit chiliasm by discrediting the Apocalypse, especially considering the chiliastic beliefs of his disputants at the conference. Dionysios’ misgivings bore no fruit during his lifetime. But through Eusebius’ extensive reporting of the debate with Nepos, Dionysios’ analysis of Revelation and his conclusion that the Apostle John is not the author took root in the East during the fourth century, despite the overwhelming early tradition of the Church which had always maintained apostolic authorship. With the exception of antiMontanists and heretics such as Marcion, Dionysios appears to be the only individual prior to the fourth century to explicitly question whether the Apostle John was in fact the author of Revelation.

58

•E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •

The Fourth Century: Erosion of Support Eusebius of Caesarea bears the most responsibility for the exclusion of the Apocalypse from the canon. He rejected Revelation and worked to discredit it as often as possible, probably because he opposed chiliasm. It is Eusebius alone who preserved and even promoted Dionysios’ criticism of the Apocalypse, devoting an entire chapter to it in Ecclesiastical History.30 Eusebius emphasized Dionysios’ conclusion that the Apostle John could not have written Revelation, based on vocabulary and stylistic differences between the gospel and the Apocalypse. Eusebius was also the first to report Dionysios’ rumor that two tombs with the name “John” could be found in Ephesus. Eusebius coupled this with a reference by Papias to the existence of an elder named John in Asia, which was very useful in helping to shift the weight of opinion to the “other John” as the author of the Apocalypse.31 Ecclesiastical History was widely read during the fourth century and immensely influential. It is hardly surprising that Eusebius’ efforts inaugurate Revelation’s most significant decline in status in the East. The fourth century was an important period for the development of the canon, and Eusebius is a valuable source of information for our understanding of that progress. He often reported the use of scripture by various Christian authors and their opinions about the canon. He also discussed the state of the canon during his time and while engaged in this effort he betrayed his bias against the Apocalypse. Eusebius classified the books in contention for a place in the New Testament canon into three groups: universally acknowledged, disputed and spurious. The “universally acknowledged” were those unanimously recognized as inspired and connected to apostles according to a continuous Church tradition, namely, the four gospels, Acts, fourteen Pauline epistles (including Hebrews),32 1 John and 1 Peter. Then he added, “After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John.”33 The “disputed” books were those which many accepted, but others doubted their apostolic claims, such as James and 2 Peter. The books listed by Eusebius as “spurious” were those overwhelmingly rejected as counterfeit, such as the Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, and others, and he added lastly, the Apocalypse of John, “if it seem right.”34 Eusebius’ double listing of Revelation as both “universally acknowledged” and “spurious” has led to endless speculation

•B A N N E D F R O M T H E L E C TI O N A R Y •

59

and a variety of explanations by scholars. Today, authorship of Revelation would probably be described as “disputed.” But it could not be placed with the disputed books at that time because opinion within the Church was not divided: it was, in fact, universally accepted. Then why does Eusebius classify it as both “universally acknowledged” and “spurious”? The best explanation is that Eusebius reported the state of the canon at that time, in which Revelation was universally accepted in both the West and the East. However, he personally did not accept it as genuine and preferred that it be considered counterfeit, so he placed it into that category as well. Eusebius was not only reflecting the status of the canon then, but he hoped to shape future Church attitude toward Revelation by his classification and by reporting Dionysios of Alexandria’s opinion. That is exactly what occurred. Eusebius had highlighted the differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, knowing that his rejection of the Apocalypse could not prevail without undermining confidence in its apostolic origin. As time passed and Christianity not only became legal but part of the very fabric of the Empire, Revelation’s purpose to encourage commitment to Christ during persecution had faded. Furthermore, the fourth century was consumed by dogmatic controversies and Revelation had little to offer to those mining the Scriptures for ammunition in doctrinal debates. The book remained enigmatic and truly veiled. No one bothered to write a Greek commentary which might provide a sensible interpretation for its strange imagery and render the book more acceptable and comprehensible. By the end of the fourth century Eusebius had succeeded: opinion in the East toward Revelation had shifted and it was overwhelmingly rejected as unapostolic and undeserving of a place in the canon of Scripture.

Acceptance Because the lectionary was formed in the fifth century, and by then Revelation was almost entirely rejected in the East, it never found a place in the lectionary. But it gradually found a place in the canon. Three primary factors advanced the acceptance of the Apocalypse in the canon of the Eastern Church. First, the composition of a commentary which offered a sound, orthodox, traditional and patristic explanation of Revelation and which affirmed its spiritual value in the lives of Christians. This commentary, composed by Andrew Archbishop of

60

•E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •

Caesarea, Cappadocia, in 611, is the primary reason for the eventual acceptance of Revelation into the New Testament canon not only among the Greeks but also for the Slavs, Georgians and Armenians. The commentary was translated into those languages in the middle ages and Revelation was accepted into their canons because of this extraordinary commentary. Secondly, Eastern Christians once more became attracted to Revelation with the rise of Islam and their experience of persecution. Once more, Christians found themselves living under a sometimes hostile non-Christian regime, the same situation which their ancestors had faced during the pre-Christian Roman Empire, the original historical context for Revelation. Interest in the Apocalypse grew especially during the centuries immediately preceding and following the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The number of Revelation manuscripts produced during this time increased dramatically. 35 It is also during this period that scenes from the Apocalypse first appear on church frescoes and icons in the East.36 Third, the invention of the printing press influenced the canon. Most byzantine manuscript copies of the New Testament were missing the Apocalypse, and since it formed no part of the lectionary, there was little reason to copy it. But during the seventeenth century, Protestant missionaries appeared in the East promoting Calvinist doctrine, intent upon “evangelizing” the Greeks. They distributed printed copies of the Greek New Testament which included Revelation.37 People saw a copy of the New Testament in one volume, and that volume included the Apocalypse. By then, Eastern attitudes toward Revelation had progressed since the time of Eusebius largely due to the Apocalypse commentary of Andrew of Caesarea and the religious oppression which Christians were experiencing daily in the East. Today, Revelation is accepted as canonical in a de facto situation, rather than by synodal decision; it is canonical by consensus. No “official” canon of Scripture has ever been declared by the Eastern Orthodox Church in the same manner that the Council of Trent definitively established a canon of scripture for the Catholic Church. The Council of Trullo (681), also known as the Quinisext Council because it was convened to complete the work of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, is often cited as proclaiming a definitive canon for the Orthodox. But Trullo simply ratified the canons of earlier synods, and

•B A N N E D F R O M T H E L E C TI O N A R Y •

61

those canons were not in agreement, not only with respect to Revelation but other books of the Bible as well. The lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church, fixed for centuries now, continues to exclude Revelation. In many respects, it is entirely appropriate that Revelation received final acceptance in the Orthodox Church by the consensus of the faithful over the course of time, since that manner of resolving conflicts and issues is highly characteristic of Orthodox Christianity. But the question must be posed: if a book is never read in Church, can it truly be considered canonical? In fact, a book is canonical if it may be read in Church; nothing requires that it must be read in Church. Perhaps one day selections from Revelation will be added to the lectionary. But for now, while no Orthodox Christian would dream of rejecting Apocalypse from the canon, it remains banned from the lectionary.

•V

A H A N

S. H

O V H A N E S S I A N

•

New Testament Apocrypha and the Armenain Version of the Bible

O

ne of the interesting characteristics of the Armenian version of the Bible—from the initial stages of its translation (first decade of the fifth century) to its published editions (as late as the 19th century)—is its ambiguous relationship with several books usually categorized under the title “New Testament Apocrypha.”1 Several books and letters attributed to the Apostles, Evangelists or biblical characters were copied in the New Testament manuscripts of the Armenian Church. Some of these writings remained part of the Armenian version of the New Testament for centuries after churches in the East and the West had finalized their list of the canonical books of the Bible. This unsettled situation concerning the New Testament canon of the Armenian Church continued as late as the 19th century, long after the publication of the first edition of the Armenian Bible. Meanwhile, throughout the centuries, many other apocryphal writings were translated into Armenian and preserved in the Armenian language, independently of the books and manuscripts of the Bible in Armenian. This paper will shed light on the history of the Armenian version of the apocryphal writings associated with the New Testament in the Armenian Church. Through a survey of the various Armenian manuscripts of the Bible, canon lists, and patristic commentaries, we will examine the history of these writings within the early Armenian literature and their relationship with the New Testament canon of the Armenian Church. We will conclude by affirming that the Armenian Church, similar to other churches in the East, has not officially, and through a church council or synod, recognized a closed canon of the New Testament. As a consequence of this situation, a few of the apocryphal writings remained in manuscripts of the New Testament of

64

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

the Armenian Church as late as the nineteenth century. We will explore also the reasons for the long history of the incorporation of these books into the New Testament of the Armenian Church. During the early centuries of Christianity, pseudepigraphic and pseudonymous books and letters, associated with the New Testament, circulated in Christian and non-Christian communities. Orthodox fathers of the church as well as gnostic and heretical teachers contributed to the creation and evolution of this body of literature. Some of the apocryphal documents were received by the early church and treated as authentic and genuine apostolic literature. Of the latter group, several writings are still part of the New Testament.2 Other writings made it into the New Testament canon of some of the churches in certain parts of the world at various times, but were ultimately removed from the sacred collection.3 Finally, there is a third group of apocryphal writings that was condemned by the fathers of the church as being heretical and promoting unorthodox teachings. Some of the apocryphal writings associated with the New Testament, were translated into Armenian as early as the fifth century, as part of the Golden-age translation of the Bible.4 Today, certain versions of some of these translated writings survive only in Armenian manuscripts.5 Several of these documents, such as Third Corinthians, henceforth 3 Cor, and The Repose of the Evangelist John or The Rest of the Blessed John, henceforth RBJ, continued to be copied as part of the Armenian New Testament, or an appendix to it, for centuries. Those writings which did not make it into the New Testament of the Armenian Church were not all necessarily condemned and destroyed. Rather, many of them continued to be copied and preserved in the Armenian Church as religious literature for catechetical purposes and for the spiritual entertainment of the faithful. Unfortunately, however, not many scholarly works have been published concerning this body of Armenian literature, the history of its use in early Christianity and its contribution to the textual criticism of the New Testament apocrypha. In 1889, Fr. Garegin Zarbhanalean, a member of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood, dedicated a section in his book, Matenadaran haykakan t'argmanut'eanc' nakhneac' - Catalogue des anciennes traductions arméniennes, siècles IV–XIII “Catalogue of the ancient Armenian translations: 5th–13th centuries”, to examining the apocryphal writings found in the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible. In his comments, in Armenian, Zarbhanalean lists some of the

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

65

New Testament apocryphal writings preserved in Armenian and offers a brief introduction to the theme and contents of these writings.6 A few years later, the Mekhitarist fathers published a three-volume series pioneering an effort to explore and introduce to the public the apocryphal literature as preserved in the Armenian manuscripts of the Mekhitarist collection. The first volume of the series, Ankanon girk' hin ktakaranac', “The Non-Canonical Books of the Old Testament,” by Sargis Yovsep'ianc', is dedicated to the Old Testament apocrypha.7 In volume two, titled, Ankanon girk' nor ktakaranac' “The NonCanonical Books of the New Testament,” published in 1898, Fr. Esayi Tayec'i discusses the Armenian apocryphal literature associated mainly with our Lord and the Theotokos.8 Volume three of the same series, published six years later by Fr. K'erobē Č'rakean, is dedicated to the apocryphal writings attributed to the apostles and several other New Testament characters.9 Other than brief introductions at the beginning of each one of these three volumes, they are basically collections of published apocryphal texts as preserved in the Armenian manuscripts of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood in Venice. The text of each of the apocryphal writings included in these volumes is simply that of the manuscripts preserved in Venice with footnote references, in some instances, highlighting some of the textual variations among the various manuscripts of the specific writing. The two volumes dedicated to the New Testament Apocrypha do not offer any discussion of the history of the writings, their date, authorship and association with the New Testament canon. Missing from these volumes are the following three New Testament apocryphal writings very popular in the Armenian Church: 3 Cor, RBJ, and the Petition of Euthalius. Almost all the manuscripts of the Armenian Bible include at least one of these writings if not all of them. Č'rakean very briefly refers to these writings in the introduction to his volume. He does not, however, publish their texts in his volume. He simply mentions their titles and refers to very few earlier publications by the Mekhitarist Brotherhood, each one of which introduce one of these documents and discusses it briefly.10 Since the publication of the three volumes of the apocryphal writings in Armenian by the Mekhitarist fathers, several Armenian and non-Armenian scholarly works appeared contributing to the study of the Armenian New Testament Apocrypha. In his book Nor ktakarani grk'eru karge hayoc' k'ov “The Order of the New Testament Books

66

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

Among the Armenians,” another member of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood by the name of Ogostinos Sekulay discusses the sequence of the books of the New Testament in the various canonical lists and manuscripts of the Bible.11 In his study, Sekulay mentions a few of the apocryphal writings that made it into the New Testament canon of the Armenian Church. He examines the position of these writings in the various lists of the canonical books of the Armenian Bible, indicating their canonical or deutero-canonical status. In his published collection of Armenian essays in Manr erker, professor Hagop S. Anassian includes an article in Armenian titled “The Unauthentic Writings of the Bible in the Armenian Literature.”12 In this article, Anassian offers a brief introduction to the history of the apocryphal literature in the Armenian version of the Bible in general. Several pages are dedicated to the subject of New Testament Apocrypha in Armenian.13 His work concludes with a bibliography of the various scholarly works concerning the apocryphal writings known to the author by the date of the publication of his book.14 Archbishop Chahé Adjémian, of the Armenian brotherhood of Saints Jameses in Jerusalem, contributes to the discussion of the Armenian New Testament apocrypha through his monumental work, Grand Catalogue des manuscrits arméniennes de la bible.15 In the introduction to the Catalogue, Adjémian designates a section discussing the issues related to the New Testament canon in the Armenian Church.16 Within that section he mentions some of the New Testament apocrypha that made it into the Armenian New Testament and refers to some of the scholarly works pertaining to them.17 The second part of Adjémian’s work is cataloguing the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible known to the author, with a listing of the contents of each of the manuscripts. In addition to the introductory works mentioned above, very little has been published in Armenian concerning the New Testament apocrypha.18 The state of scholarship in the field of the Armenian New Testament apocrypha is not much different in non-Armenian publications. Obviously, the unfamiliarity of scholars in the West with the Armenian language remains a major obstacle in the path of their exploration of this body of literature. Toward the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, as part of a revitalized interest in the non-canonical books of the early Church, a small group of Bible scholars and Armenologists published several articles and a few books

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

67

introducing to western scholars some of the Armenian manuscripts and versions of the New Testament apocryphal texts.19 Among the scholarly works published in the West during the last half century, we mention the articles of professor Gérard Garitte examining the apocryphal documents associated with the apostle Thomas in the Armenian tradition.20 Peter Cowe, of UCLA, has published a few articles examining the Armenian text of 3 Cor and its variations in the Bible manuscripts.21 In a recently published collection of articles concerning the Armenian apocrypha, the editor of the collection Valentina Calzolari Bouvier offers a valuable summary of the state of scholarly research in the field of Armenian Apocrypha, both Old and New Testament. Her article, “En guise d’introduction: quelques réflections sur le rôle de la littérature apocryphe dans l’Arménie chrétienne ancienne,” explores also the role that this body of literature played in the early stages of Christianity in Armenia.22 All these publications call for a more detailed and closer examination of the various documents they introduce. At this stage one should also mention the extensive research and publications of Professor Michael Stone, of the Hebrew University, in the field of Armenian Apocrypha. Professor Stone’s work, unfortunately, is limited to mainly the field of Old Testament literature.23 Finally, volumes of scholarship in the field of New Testament apocrypha in general, dating from the previous century to a few years ago only mention, at best, the Armenian version of these apocryphal writings in passing.24

A Historical Glance Based on comments by the historians of the Golden-Age of Armenian literature, i.e. Koriwn, Ghazar Parpetsi (Łazar P'arpec'i) and Moses Khorenatsi (Movsēs Xorenac'i), one can safely conclude that church services and scripture readings in Armenia, prior to the invention of the Armenian alphabet and the translation of the Bible, were performed mainly in Syriac. Ghazar Parpetsi, for example, comments on St. Mashtots being “concerned and distressed, seeing the great effort and even the more expenditures of the children of the land of Armenia, who at great cost and with long journeys and extensive study passed their days in schools of Syrian education. For church services and readings of Scriptures were conducted in Syriac in the monasteries and churches of the people of Armenia. … and the incomprehension of the

68

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

Syrian language caused toil to the ministers and was unprofitable to the people.”25 Without delving into the details of the issues related to the language and version of the parent text of the Armenian translation(s),26 which is beyond the scope of this introductory presentation, Parpetsi’s quotation confirms that Armenian clergy and church leaders, at least in certain parts of Armenian, were familiar with the Syrian version of the Bible during the first five centuries of Christianity. They used it in teaching the Armenian people and celebrating their liturgy. As such, the quotation confirms also that the Armenian Church accepted the collection of writings in the old Syriac version of the Bible as the divinely inspired canon of scriptures. The third and fourth century commentaries of the Syrian fathers of the church, such as Ephraem (Ephrem) and Aphraat, point to the fact that the Old Syriac New Testament included apocryphal documents.27 Contemporary scholarship confirms that sufficient evidence has survived to render it certain that the old Syriac version of the New Testament included apocryphal writings, such as 3 Cor.28 Consequently, Armenians and their vardapets, prior to the translation of the Bible into Armenian, must have known of these apocryphal books, used them to preach and teach the Good News, and most importantly accepted them as a part of their New Testament canon and of the foundation for the rule of faith in the Armenian Church. The earliest Armenian historians narrating the story of the translation of the Bible leave us, to say the least, uncertain regarding the canon of the New Testament and the apocryphal literature incorporated in it at the time of the translation. To begin with, none of the three historians have preserved an exact list of the translated books of the Bible in their writings. Koriwn, whose biography of Mashtots, Vark Mashtotsi (vark' maštoc'i), is the basis of the works of the other two historians, Ghazar Parpetsi and Moses Khorenatsi, comments on the translation of the Bible, summarizing the contents of the newly translated Scriptures into Armenian as follows: At that time our blessed and wonderful land of Armenia became truly worthy of admiration where by the hands of two colleagues, suddenly, in an instant, Moses, the law-giver, along with the order of the prophets, energetic Paul with the entire phalanx of the apostles, along with Christ’s world-sustaining gospel, became Armenian-speaking.29

Koriwn’s Bible, therefore, must have included the Pentateuch, the Prophets, a Pauline corpus, writings related to the apostles, and the

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

69

Gospels. The Book of Acts is not mentioned in the above reference, although the phrase “the entire phalanx of the apostles” may be an indirect reference to it. However, we know from Koriwn’s comments elsewhere in the Vark Mashtotsi that his New Testament included the Book of Acts,30 and the Pauline corpus which consisted of 14 letters including the one to the Hebrews.31 However, not much is said regarding the rest of the New Testament canon. The letters of Paul and the Catholic Epistles are not named in a list by Koriwn, although he must have been aware of such circulating lists in the church. Furthermore, not all the epistles of the current New Testament canon are used in his Vark. Finally, the Book of Revelation, on the other hand, is definitely missing from Koriwn’s comments. Somewhere else in his Vark Mashtotsi, Koriwn makes it clear that he is aware of the existence of non-orthodox pseudepigraphic books circulating in Armenia. In Chapter 23, for example, he mentions a book by a certain Theodore. The synodical fathers, according to Koriwn, ordered the burning of this book because of its unorthodox contents. The Armenian Church at the time of Koriwn, therefore, was aware of the existence of heretical hidden or apocryphal books, and took actions to stop their circulation. Such ecclesiastical actions were most probably reserved only for books with obvious heretical teachings. Koriwn, however, is aware also of a group of writings which he treats as deuterocanonical or extracanonical. He mentions this group of books in chapter two, which he dedicates to justifying his project of writing the memoirs of his teacher. At the end of this chapter, having just finished listing evidence supporting his project from the various canonical books of the Bible, Koriwn adds: We have also the gracious canonic writings which came after the apostles indicating how they honored and praised one another for their true faith and evangelical life and have been similarly treated to this very day.32

The works which Koriwn identifies in this paragraph as “writings which came after the apostles” are definitely not condemned by the church. They are religious discourses about the apostles written after their death. The contents of these writings “honor” the apostles by recording their acts and teachings. In fact, Koriwn emphasizes that they are “gracious canonic writings.” He uses the adverb “also” at the beginning of this sentence because he has just finished listing and dis-

70

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

cussing the universally accepted canonical books of the Bible. The insertion of this statement in the narration of Koriwn’s Vark after having just finished listing the books of the New Testament, indicates that Koriwn was aware of the existence of other books, written after the death of the apostles, which were treated “similarly” as the canonic ones. Obviously, the adjective “kanonakan,” i.e. canonic, given to these books indicates that, unlike the heretical one by Theodore mentioned earlier, these books were accepted by Koriwn and his church as part of the “canonical” collection of sacred writings in the Armenian Church. The normative status of these books is further emphasized when Koriwn uses them, together with the books of the Bible, in support of his project to publish and promote his master’s biography.33 Manug Apeghyan, the editor of the 1940 edition of the Vark Mashtotsi, interprets Koriwn’s statement, “canonic writings which came after the apostles” as a reference to a body of ecclesiastical literature that circulated independently of the Bible for church administration.34 However, Koriwn’s description of the contents of these books and his reference to them as “canonic”, support their association with, if not inclusion in, the canon of the New Testament. Furthermore, if the phrase “canonic writings” refers to a body of Christian literature outside the New Testament collection which contained praises of holy men and women of God who lived after the apostles, then the existence of this corpus itself and its circulation would have been sufficient to justify Koriwn’s project to write the biography of his teacher. He would not have needed to go through lengthy explanations in chapter two of his book to validate his project. Justifications for writing this kind of literature is an indication that, outside what was considered the sacred collection of inspired books of the Scriptures (canonical and deuter-canonical), no such separate corpus of Christian literature was known to Koriwn and to his contemporaries. The three historians mentioned earlier state that the translation of the Bible into Armenian, which ultimately led to the Golden-age of Armenian literature, included also the translation of many patristic commentaries and writings.35 There is no doubt that the fathers of the Armenian Church received these commentaries as orthodox and essential in the teaching and promotion of the Christian faith. Among them we mention, for example, the commentary of St. Ephraem on the books of the Bible and the theological discourses of St. Aphraat. However, the fifth century Classical Armenian translation of St. Ephraem’s

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

71

commentary on the letters of the apostle Paul includes a chapter dedicated to 3 Cor.36 Furthermore, St. Aphraat’s discourses, as preserved in the Classical Armenian translation, discuss several quotations from 3 Cor as genuine sayings of the apostle Paul.37 The fact that these and other writings, prior to the translation of the Bible into Armenian, treated 3 Cor as a genuine letter of the apostle Paul, supports the argument that the Armenian Church of the 5th century treated at least one apocryphal writing, i.e. 3 Cor, as a part of the New Testament. In his version of the History of the Armenians, Moses Khorenatsi, who had at his disposal the earlier Armenian sources, does not add much to what has already been said regarding the canon of the New Testament. However, a comment he makes in his History sheds light on our understanding of the concept of canon in the early centuries of Christianity in Armenia and the church in the East. In the Third Book of his History, Khorenatsi comments on Mashtots’ translation adding: And right away he began to translate, wisely commencing with Proverbs. Completing the twenty-two known (or revealed) books, he translated the New Testament into Armenian as well.38

The “twenty-two known books” is an obvious reference to the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament.39 However, nothing is mentioned regarding the list of the canonical books of the New Testament and their number. The use of the Classical Armenian word yaytni i.e. “known” or “revealed” for the twenty two books of the Old Testament, assumes that Khorenatsi was aware of the development of a body of literature known as the canonical writings versus the apocrypha, i.e. “hidden” or “unrevealed.” One could ask, therefore, why would Khorenatsi mention the number of the Old Testament books but not that of the New Testament? The answer may lie in the growing tension in the early church between the gradually developing concept of a universally recognized canon of the New Testament, and the collection of publicly revered and liturgically used writings in the local churches. By the time Khorenatsi was editing his version of the History, the churches in the East and West had already developed their lists of the canonical books of the New Testament. It would have been very difficult for him, for example, to include locally popular apocryphal books in the Armenian Church such as 3 Cor in the canon when influential centers of Christianity had, by then, defined the canon excluding these books. On the other hand, it must have been equally difficult for him

72

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

to condemn or not to include in his list of the canonical books of the New Testament, books and writings which were not found in the list of the canonical books of the New Testament but were otherwise popular and used by renowned vardapets of the church in the East, such as Sts. Gregory the Illuminator, Ephraem and Aphraat. These dynamics must have created a tension in the Armenian Church, and the early church in the East, between the popular tradition regarding the collection of divinely inspired books versus the ecclesiastically recognized list of the canonical books of the New Testament. This tension, one can argue, explains the reason for Khorenatsi’s avoidance of mentioning the exact number of the books of the New Testament. The tension discussed above also explains the reason for the reluctance of the church in Armenia and most of the East to confirm a canonical list of the New Testament. These dynamics, ultimately, prevented the official and ecclesiastical closing of the canon of the New Testament in the Armenian Church. Needless to say, the absence of a decision by an Armenian Church synod or council to define the list of the canonical books of the Bible further complicated the situation.40 How could, for example, any Armenian Church council, bishop or patriarch condemn a writing such as 3 Cor when the same writing was used by St. Gregory and treated as part of the divine revelation? We will trace further manifestations and consequences of these dynamics in the following sections of our presentation. There is no doubt that early Armenian commentators of the Bible treated several of the New Testament apocrypha as canonical and genuine apostolic writings. The early fifth century father of the Armenian Church Yeznik Koghbatsi (Eznik Kołbac'i), a disciple of St. Mesrob Mashtots and one of the translators of the Bible into Armenian, for example, treats 3 Cor as a genuine letter of the apostle Paul and as part of the divinely inspired scriptures. In his book, A Treatise On God, arguing for the almightiness of God, Koghbatsi uses St. Paul’s apostolic authority to reinforce his teaching. Quoting from 3 Cor, Koghbatsi says, “And why would the apostle say, ‘Satan too will become subject to our savior together with death, and he will fall from his principality and from his dominion, he who wanted to become God by himself’.”41 The latter is a quotation from 3 Cor 1:11–17. This fifth-century Armenian theologian and translator of the Bible, therefore, must have treated the apocryphal 3 Cor as a genuine letter of the Apostle and a canonical book of the New Testament.

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

73

Theodor von Zahn in his Gechichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons was the first to point out three references to 3 Cor in the late fifth century History of the Armenians by Agathangelos.42 The first reference is from the mouth of St. Gregory the Illuminator in the section of the book entitled “Teachings of St. Gregory.” In chapter 25, section 280, a quotation from 3 Cor 2:11 is inserted as a direct saying of the apostle Paul. In section 387 of chapter 41 of the Teachings, the second quotation is attributed to St. Gregory the Illuminator, who refers to 3 Cor 2:13–16 as a divine revelation. Finally, section 179 of chapter 16, which is the text of a prayer by St. Hripsimé, includes a reference to 3 Cor 2:30. There is no doubt, therefore, that the New Testament of Agathangelos, and possibly that of St. Gregory and St. Hripsimé, included the apocryphal 3 Cor. By the seventh century, we find enough evidence in the patristic literature pointing to disagreements between the universally acknowledged list of the canonical books of the Bible and the locally received and revered books of the New Testament in Armenia. Hovhannes Mayragometsi (Yovhannēs Mayragomec'i), for example, argues against the inclusion of verses 22:43–44 of the Gospel of Luke in the canonical text and rejects them as “non-canonical.” Arguing against Mayragometsi, and defending the divine inspiration of these verses as well as of 3 Cor, the 7th century saint of the Armenian Church, Theodore Krtenavor (T'ēodoros K'ṙt'enavor), reaffirms the authenticity of 3 Cor and its apostolic origin. In his Apology Against Mayragometsi, written around AD 635, Krtenavor argues that the verses mentioned above, as well as 3 Cor, were part of the Armenian New Testament since the time of St. Gregory, quoting Agathangelos’ reference to 3 Cor in St. Gregory’s speech. Krtenavor, on the other hand, admits that recent copies of the New Testament do not include these apocryphal texts anymore. Rebottling Mayragomeci’s argument, therefore, Krtenavor states: When our forefathers, the Christ-bearing orthodox bishops, assembled in the city of Nicaea, they established a canon that only fourteen epistles of the divinely-preaching apostle Paul should be read in the holy convocation, and in the modern version of scriptures this arrangement is adopted. However what the fathers pass over in silence, and is not included in the new translation, is cited in the homilies of the acclaimed Gregory. … So then if the older gospel is to be rejected and discarded by the church as inauthentic because that passage is not transcribed by the more recently produced

74

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN • translation, by the same token the great primate Gregory is disdained and slandered.43

Thus, while Krtenavor admits that by his time these apocryphal books or added verses were no longer copied as part of the scriptures, they were in fact revered by the Armenians as part of the divine revelation. Since these books did not make it in the canonical lists developed by the churches known to Mayragometsi and Krtenavor, they were removed from the new versions of the Armenian books of the New Testament. Despite that, Krtenavor’s comments confirm that the Armenian Church continued treating these writings as part of the divine revelation and continued preaching and teaching based on their contents. Krtenavor’s comment is another indication of the dynamics and the tension that existed in the Armenian Church regarding the finalization of the canon of the New Testament. Despite this ongoing tension, many Armenian fathers of the church continued using and referring to certain apocryphal documents as divinely inspired literature and, in some cases, as part of the canon of the Bible. Nersess Lambronatsi (Nersess Lambronac'i), one of the famous theologians of the Cilician Era of the Armenian Church, has many commentaries on the various books of the Old and New Testaments including the 12 minor prophets and book of Psalms. Of interest to us are manuscripts #1587, 3196, 3649 and several others in the Jerusalem collection of manuscripts which include Lambronatsi’s commentary on RBJ.44 Since these manuscripts contain the saint’s commentary of the biblical books, one can safely conclude that Lambronatsi’s New Testament included RBJ. In a few of these manuscripts, such as in #3649 of the St. James collection, we find the following subtitle, meknut'iwn nnǐman yovhannu greal i xntroy step'anosi yovkatsvoy iwroy vardapeti, “Commentary on the Rest of John written by the request of Stepanos Hagovgatsi his teacher.”45 This means that the apocryphal RBJ was not only part of Lambronatsi’s canon of the New Testament, but also of his vardapet and teacher, Step'anos Hagovgac'i.46 This makes the apocryphal RBJ part of the canon of the Armenian New Testament at least in the Cilician Armenia some time toward the end of the 11th century. Lambronatsi’s New Testament must have included 3 Cor as well. A manuscript in the St. James Collection in Jerusalem preserves a homily by the saint, where he uses the same verses of 3 Cor mentioned in Agathangelos and introduces them as genuine teachings of the apostles.47

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

75

The New Testament of Anania Sanahnec'i, another 11th century vardapet of the Armenian Church and a son of the Sanahin Monastery, included apocryphal writings as well.48 Copies of his commentaries on the Letters of Paul are preserved in manuscripts #234, 254, 260 and 523 of the St. James collection in Jerusalem.49 Among his comments on the letters of St. Paul in these manuscripts we find a section dedicated to the apocryphal 3 Cor. This section comes immediately after his comments on 2 Cor and before those on Galatians. This confirms not only that 3 Cor was part of the New Testament canon during Sanahnec'i’s time, but also, by virtue of its location after 2 Cor and before Galatians, that it was treated as an authentic letter of the apostle Paul. Furthermore, a few of the manuscripts indicate that Sanahnec'i’s commentary on Paul’s letters, including 3 Cor, was written by the request of Catholicos Petros Getadarc' (10th century).50 This confirms that the New Testament of Getadarc included apocryphal writings as well.51 Yovhanēs Orotnec'i, a fourteenth century chief vardapet of the Armenian Church, and a mentor to many theologians at the monasteries of Glaj'or and Tat'ew, including Grigor Tat'ewac'i the vardapet par excellence of the Armenian Church, treats 3 Cor as a genuine letter of the apostle Paul. He considers it a part of the canon of the New Testament as well. His comments on the epistles of St. Paul, including 3 Cor, survive in several manuscripts which contain collections of commentaries on the various books of the Bible.52 Paul Vetter published Orotnec'i’s commentary at the end of his book, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief.53 For a vardapet of such a renowned fame and theological authority to write a commentary on 3 Cor, as part of his comments on the books of the Bible, is a clear indication that this apocryphal correspondence must have been accepted by the communities and monastic hierarchies of Glaj'or and Tat'ew in Armenia as part of the Bible, as late as the fourteenth century. It should not be a surprise, therefore, to find another commentary on 3 Cor by a student of Orotneci, Grigor Tat'ewac'i. Manuscripts #279 and 477 of St. James collection in Jerusalem include Tadevatsi’s commentary on 3 Cor. Following Tat'ewac'i’s comments, the scribe adds Orotnec'i’s commentary as well. It is interesting to note that in both commentaries, 3 Cor is placed after 2 Cor and before Galatians, a position that further supports its canonical status.

76

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

One can easily conclude this brief review of the early Armenian Christian literature stating that enough Patristics evidence has survived to confirm the existence of an extra-canonical literature, associated with the Armenian version of the New Testament canon. Very few of these writings made it into the New Testament manuscripts of the Bible, some of which remained there for centuries. The existence and popularity of this literature became an obstacle in the process of the finalization of the canon of the New Testament in Armenia, especially during the early centuries of Christianity.

Armenian Canon Lists of the New Tewstament The Armenian Church literature preserves many lists of the canonical books of the Bible. While the majority of these lists agree with the New Testament canon as accepted today,54 many of them include in them several of the New Testament apocrypha. In the following pages we will review some of these lists, which incorporate apocryphal writings in the canon of the New Testament. The disagreement of these lists among themselves and with the generally accepted canon of the New Testament, is another expression of the tension between the universally accepted canon of the New Testament and the locally revered and popular non-canonical books. Following the steps of the early church fathers, St. Sargis the Graceful (12th century) classified the books of the New Testament into three categories:55 “a. Books that are accepted [by all],” “b. the ones which are doubtful” and “c. those which are completely despised.”56 This approach to the biblical canon, obviously, allows for a category of books that are neither in the universal canon of the Bible, nor condemned as heretical. What is of special interest to us is that the list of St. Sargis includes 14 letters of St. Paul within the category of the accepted books of the New Testament, excluding Hebrews. Two paragraphs later he discusses Hebrews as a doubtful letter, although he concludes that its authenticity has been approved. If St. Sargis does not count Hebrews as one of the accepted letters of St. Paul, in category “a”, what then was the 14th letter in his collection of the Pauline corpus? Could 3 Cor have been part of the Pauline letters of St. Sargis? Furthermore, his silence on the two New Testament apocryphal books in question, otherwise popular in the Armenian Church, should also be of interest. Neither 3 Cor nor RBJ are included in the

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

77

first or the second categories of St. Sarkis. However, what is more puzzling is that these books are not found in the third category as well, which includes condemned apocryphal writings such as the Book of the Infancy of Jesus and the Gospel of Thomas. The vague status of the letter to the Hebrews as well as the absence of 3 Cor and RBJ from all three categories of the lists of St. Sargis is a testimony of the unsettled situation of the canon of the New Testament. It can be explained as a result of the saint’s hesitance to keep these documents in the New Testament or to reject them completely as heretical. In his Jamanakagrakan Patmut'iwn, “Chronological History,” the 13th century renowned vardapet and abbot of the Monastery of Geghart, Mkhitar Ayrevantsi (Mxit'ar Ayrevanc'i) offers a discussion of “The Hidden Books of the Jews.” Ayrevantsi lists the names of nine apocryphal books of the Old Testament and seven of the New Testament, which he classifies as “hidden” or apocryphal.57 At the end of these books, however, Ayrevantsi adds a short list of New Testament writings that he labels as “accepted” or “permissible,” by a certain Clement. Among these writings we find the Acts and Canons of the Apostles, the Revelation of John, the Advice of the Theotokos to the Apostles, the Letter of Timothy and others.58 This section of Ayrevantsi’s book is followed by a complete list of the canonical books of the Bible. The title of this list reads, “The Order of the Books of the Bible verified by Sarkawag Vardapet and written by me, Mkhitar Vardapet.” This suggests an even earlier date for the list.59 Fr. Garegin Galemkaryan published this list in his article “Mkhitar Ayrevantsi and A Newly Discovered Writing by Him.”60 Galemkaryan offers a discussion of the textual variations among the various versions of this list. He classifies the manuscript evidence to three variations. What is of interest to us is that all three variations include RBJ as part of the New Testament canon. In all of them, this apocryphal writing comes immediately after the Revelation of John. In two of these manuscripts, RBJ and Revelation of John are placed at the end of the canon after the Pauline Corpus. In the third variation, the two writings appear after the catholic epistles and the Petition of Euthalius and before the Pauline Corpus. All three variations of the list include also 3 Cor, which in all of them is placed after 2 Cor and before Galatians. Thus, not only are these documents included within the canonical books of the New Testament, they are inserted within the canonical books confirming their status equal to those of the canonical ones. Finally, The apocryphal

78

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

Petition of Euthalius is also found in two of the three variations of this list. Another Armenian list of the canonical books of the Bible is found in a 13th century writing commonly referred to as Girk Patčarac', “The Book of Causes” or “The Book of Reasons.” The list is attributed to the late 12th century and early 13th century Grigor, the son of Abas and the abbot of the Sanahin monastery (AD 1214–19). The list includes 3 Cor as part of the canonical books of the New Testament. The position of the book in the list, after 2 Cor and before Galatians, emphasizes its canonical status, as opposed to the Book of Revelation, for example, which is left at the end of the list and is not treated as a canonical book.61 In addition to his commentaries on the books of the Bible mentioned earlier, Grigor Tat'ewac'i composed his own list of the canonical books of the Bible. Both 3 Cor and RBJ are found in this list. RBJ is inserted after the Revelation, which comes after the Gospel of John and before the Acts of the Apostles. 3 Cor, on the other hand, is shifted toward the end of the list of the canonical books after Philemon, a location suggesting a deutero-canonical status if not merely an appendix. The list ends with the apocryphal Letter of Thaddeus. At the end of the list, Tat'ewac'i adds, “And as Clement and Anania of Damascus state, we received six more books in the church which are the Reading of Jacob, the two Apostolic Canons, the Sayings of Justus, the Book of Dionysius the Areopagite, and the Preaching of the Apostle Peter.”62 This, Tat'ewac'i concludes, adds up the number of the books of the New Testament to 36. Once again the list support/s the argument for a “loose” definition of the canon of the New Testament in the Armenian Church. In the introduction to his book, Haytnut'eann Hovhannu hin hay t'argmanut'iwn (The Old Armenian Translation of the Revelation of John), Frederich Murad discusses manuscript #345 in the St. James collection of the Armenian monastery in Jerusalem, which includes a list of the canonical books of the Bible.63 The list, according to Murad, is attributed to Aṙakel, the 15th-century bishop of the Siwnik region in Armenia. The author of the list identifies himself saying, “I, Lord Arakel the overseer of the Siwnik region, deprived and bare of any grace, composed the list (or order) of the books of the testaments of the Bible.” He then lists the names of the books of the Old Testament, indicating their total number to be 44. Following the Old Testament, the

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

79

author indicates the total number of the canonical books of the New Testament to be 28, which he then enumerates. The apocryphal RBJ is mentioned as the last book in the list of the canonical books of the New Testament, following the Book of Revelation. This position reflects a deutero-canonical status of RBJ. The third page of manuscript #1928 of the St. James collection in Jerusalem identifies its copier as “Grigor Eṙamec, who thus classified the books of the Old and New Testaments, how many they are and which books of the Old and New Testaments are holy.”64 This remark is followed by a listing of the names of all the books of the Old and New Testaments in their proper order. Among this list of canonical books of the New Testament we find 3 Cor, RBJ and the Letter of Thaddeus. The copier concludes his list indicating that the total number of the New Testament books is 30. He then adds that six more New Testament apocryphal books were received by the Church, according to a certain Clement and Anania of Damascus. He identifies them as: the Reading of Jacob, the Apostolic Canons, the Sayings of Justus, the Book of Dionysius the Areopagite, and the Preaching of Peter. In conclusion, the several lists of the books of the Bible examined earlier confirm what we have observed in our study of the history of the association of the New Testament apocrypha with the New Testament canon. Our examination clearly confirms that as late as the 17th century, neither was the canon of the New Testament exclusively finalized nor were the apocryphal writings completely removed from the Bible.

Armenian Bible Manuscripts Like the rest of the New Testament apocrypha preserved in other languages, most of the Armenian New Testament apocrypha have never made it into the canon of the Armenian New Testament. The majority of these writings were translated, copied and preserved as pious literature or for the sake of spiritual entertainment. As discussed earlier, however, a few of these writings were inserted in the Armenian manuscripts of the New Testament. Most of the writings in the latter category remained part of the Bible for centuries and were copied and preserved as part of the Armenian New Testament until its publication. Among the latter group we mention 3 Cor, RBJ, The Petition of

80

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

Euthalius, in addition to a fourth apocryphon called the Sailing of the Apostle Paul to Rome. These four writings are found in almost all the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible. The oldest extant Armenian manuscript of a complete Bible, i.e. manuscript #1925 of the St. James collection in Jerusalem, ca. 1269, inserts RBJ after the Book of Revelation which comes after the Gospel of John. RBJ in this manuscript is followed by the Pauline corpus, which ends with the Sailing of Paul. The Book of Acts followed by the catholic letters come after the Pauline corpus. The collection ends with the Petition of Euthalius. Manuscript #5 of the Mekhitarist collection in Venice contains another old copy of a complete Bible in Armenian. The copying and compilation of this Bible is attributed to the 13th-century Gevorg Skewṙac'i. This version of the Armenian Bible was widely copied during the Cilician era and was used by Oskan, Zohrabian and Bagratuni to prepare their published editions of the Bible.65 In this manuscript, the catholic letters are inserted in the Bible after the Gospels and the Book of Acts. The Petition of Euthalius is inserted at the end of the catholic letters, followed by book of Revelation. The Pauline corpus, which comes after the Book of Revelation, ends with the Sailing of Paul followed by 3 Cor at the end of the collection. Once again the position of the last two documents in this manuscript, indicates the shifting of their status to a deuteron-canonical or part of an appendix. As late as the seventeenth century, apocryphal books were copied and preserved as part of the Armenian Church canon of the New Testament. A scribe and priest of the Armenian Church by the name of Step'anos ǐułayec'i or C'ik is known for copying the four Gospels and the various books of the Bible. Among his copied manuscripts surviving in the St. James collection of the Armenian monastery in Jerusalem are manuscripts # 428 and 1672 of a complete Bible. Both manuscripts include the apocryphal 3 Cor and RBJ as part of the canon of the New Testament.66 In addition to the two oldest manuscripts of a complete Armenian Bible mentioned above, 3 Cor, RBJ, The Petition of Euthalius, and the Sailing of the Apostle Paul to Rome are found in many complete and partial Armenian Bibles.67 They appear in different places in the list of the canonical books. In most of the manuscripts they are usually at the end of the canon indicating a deutero-canonical or semi-canonical status. In some manuscripts, however, 3 Cor appears after 2 Cor and be-

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

81

fore Galatians, and RBJ appears after Revelation and before the Pauline corpus or the catholic letters.68 The Sailing of the Apostle Paul to Rome can also be found sometimes at the end of the Pauline corpus and before the Book of Acts or before the Book of Revelation.69 It is obvious that the four apocryphal writings mentioned above received a special status among the Armenians than the rest of the New Testament apocrypha. None of the Armenian apocryphal books of the New Testament, for example, has been incorporated into the liturgical cycle of the Armenian Church. Nor have any of the fathers of the Armenian Church commented on them or quoted them as part of the divine revelation and inspiration. Furthermore, none of these writings have been incorporated, as divinely inspired literature, into the various sacraments of the church. Exceptions to all the above generalization are 3 Cor, RBJ and The Petition of Euthalius. 3 Cor is found in several lectionaries of the Armenian Church where it is inserted as one of the scripture readings of the day.70 RBJ is read in its entirety on the feast day of the “Evangelist John and the Apostle James, the sons of Zebedee” as one of the scripture readings of the day.71 It is also incorporated into the burial service of a priest. A verse from RBJ is still part of a prayer in the Eucharist of the Armenian Church.72 Our brief examination of the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible confirms the inclusion of certain apocryphal writings in the New Testament collection of the Armenian Church. These manuscripts clearly designate a special status to 3 Cor, RBJ, the Petition of Euthalius and the Sailings of Paul, which seem to be found in the majority of the Armenian manuscripts of the New Testament. Once again, our glance at the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible conveys a relaxed understanding of the concept of an expanded canon of the New Testament, while clearly agreeing on the core collection.

Apocrypha in Published Versions of the Armenian Bible As early as the 16th century, serious efforts were made to publish a partial or complete version of the Bible in Armenian.73 Of interest to our study, obviously, are the published editions of the Armenian Bible that shed light on the history of the incorporation, preservation and transmission of the New Testament apocrypha. The first successful attempt in publishing an entire Bible was realized in Amsterdam in AD 1666 thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of Bishop Oskan Yerevantsi

82

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

(Erewanc'i) of the brotherhood of Etchmiadzin. This version did not include any of the Armenian apocryphal books of the New Testament frequently found in the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible.74 This could be a consequence of the influence that the Roman Catholic Church exercised on the preparation and publication of Oskan’s version of the Bible. This influence is obvious in the many illustrations that adorn the pages of the Bible, which are of European and not Armenian origins, and also in the modifications of the canon of the Old and New Testaments. In his comments published in the Bible, Oskan himself admits to having used Latin manuscripts to edit the Armenian text of his edition. In this version of the Bible Oskan discusses his efforts in rearranging the chapters and verses of the books of the Armenian Bible in order to agree with those of the Latin Vulgate. He recounts his efforts of replacing the existing Armenian text of certain books, such as of the Books of Joshua and the Wisdom of Sirach, with a new translation that he made from the Latin, because the existing Armenian translation was not in agreement with the Latin text. Furthermore, he admits of translating Fourth Ezra from Latin to Armenian and introducing it in the canon of the Armenian Old Testament for the first time.75 These observations and certain comments made by Oskan in his correspondence published in the Bazmavep, make us conclude that Oskan had to modify the text, list and sequence of the books of the Armenian version of the Bible to make them in agreement with the Latin Vulgate in order to obtain the permission to publish the Armenian Bible.76 In 1805, a member of the Mekhitarist brotherhood in Venice by the name of Hovhannes Zohrabian (Hovhannēs Zōhrapean), criticizing the Latin influence on Oskan’s edition of the Bible, published a more authentic version of the Armenian Bible in Venice, Astuacašunč' matean hin ew nor ktakaranac' (Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments).77 In the introduction to his version of the Bible, Zohrabian highlights the Latin influences on the Armenian text of Oskan Yerevantsi’s Bible.78 In turn, he offers a new version of the Armenian Bible that is closer to the text preserved in the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible than the one published by Oskan. The version prepared by Zohrabian is the result of his scholarly and critical research comparing a manuscript of the Armenian Bible copied in AD 1319 to several other complete and incomplete manuscripts of the Bible. The Zohrabian Bible includes 3 Cor, RBJ and the Petition of Euthalius.79 These three apocryphal writ-

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

83

ings, however, appear at the end of the New Testament canon and the Bible, in a section identified as the appendix. The same section includes Old Testament apocryphal documents as well. By doing so, Zohrabian, remained faithful to the earlier Armenian Church fathers in not designating canonical status to these writings. He, however, also did not want to ignore their popularity and abundant appearance in the Armenian manuscripts of the New Testament. Zohrabian’s version was used as the base for several subsequent published editions of the Armenian Bible. In 1860, another member of the Mekhitarist brotherhood by the name of Arsen Bagratuni published another edition of the Armenian Bible.80 Bagratuni, however, admits that he removed the New Testament apocryphal writings from his edition of the Bible and modified the text of the Zohrabian edition. He justifies these changes as a consequence of his comparison of Zohrabian’s version with the Latin and Greek manuscripts of the Bible available to him.81 The American Bible Society published an edition of the Armenian Bible in 1929 using a version prepared by Patriarch Nerses Varjabedian based on Zohrabian’s edition. Several of the apocryphal writings in the Old and New Testaments were removed in this edition. The Hebrew or Palestinian canon was used to define the canon of the Old Testament. Meanwhile, the commonly accepted New Testament canon of the protestant churches was used to define the list of the canonical books of the New Testament in this edition of the Armenian Bible. These concessions were to meet the requirements of the American Bible Society in order to publish the edition.82 None of the above mentioned publications of the Armenian Bible was immediately under the supervision of the Armenian Church and the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. Later published editions of the Armenian Bible were sponsored or published mainly by protestant publishing houses. This obviously meant the elimination from the New Testament of any writing that was considered canonical by the protestant church. Almost a century ago, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Malakia Ormanian, mourns the fact that until the date of the publishing of his volumes of the Azgapatum, not a single version of the Armenian Bible had been prepared and published under the supervision and with the approval of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and the Armenian Church.83

84

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

Our review of the highlights in the history of the publishing of the Armenian version of the Bible confirms the presence of very few noncanonical books as part of the New Testament collection in the Armenian Church as ;late as the 19th century. However, it clearly indicates also that the complete and final decision to remove these apocryphal books from the Armenian New Testament was vicariously done by the authorities in charge of the publishing houses in the West, under the influences of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches.

A List of New Testament Apocrypha in Armenian As mentioned earlier, the majority of the New Testament apocrypha were not part of the canon of the Armenian Bible. They were copied and preserved in manuscripts independent of the Bible. However, very few of them were inserted in the Bible and copied and preserved in the manuscripts of the Bible. The following is a list of the New Testament apocryphal writings found in Armenian Manuscripts: 1. Gospel of Infancy or The Book of the Infancy of Christ attributed to James the brother of the Lord.84 2. The Gospel of Nicodemus or the Memoirs of Pilate.85 3. The Epistle of Pilate.86 4. The Epistle of James the Bishop of Jerusalem to Kodrates.87 5. The Letter of Publius Lentulus.88 6. The Vision of the Most Holy Theotokos89 7. The Saying of the Blessed Nicodemus Concerning the Repose of Mary the Theotokos and Ever-virgin.90 8. Acts of the Apostles Peter and Paul91 9. The Witnessing (martyrion) of the Praised and Chief Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul92 10. The Witnessing of the Apostle Peter.93 11. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Paul.94 12. The Vision of the Apostle Paul.95 13. Third Corinthians.96 14. The Letter of Dionysius to Timothy the Disciple of Paul Concerning the Death of Paul and Peter.97 15. Concerning the Apostle Andrew and His Miracles Which the Lord Performed Through Him and through Matthew in the Land of the Cannibals98

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

85

16. The Witnessing of the Apostle Andrew Who Suffered in the Garden, Before One of the December Noels.99 17. The Story of the Apostles Andrew and Matthew as to How They Went to the Land of the Cannibals.100 18. The Story of How St. Jacob (James) Went to Spain and Retuned to Jerusalem and Was Beheaded.101 19. The Acts of John the Evangelist.102 20. Concerning the Exile of St. John.103 21. Concerning Mironos and his entire household and what happened through John.104 22. Concerning how the Gospel Was Narrated by John.105 23. The Rest of the Evangelist John.106 24. The Story of the Apostles of Christ, John and James, the Sons of Zebedee.107 25. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Philip.108 26. Canons of the Apostle Philip.109 27. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew.110 28. The Discovery of the Relics of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew.111 29. In Memory of the Holy Apostle Thomas.112 30. The Witnessing of the Apostle Thomas which took place in India.113 31. The Story of the Holy Apostle Thomas.114 32. The Story Concerning the Discovery of the Holy Apostle Thomas.115 33. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew.116 34. The Witnessing of James the Brother of the Lord.117 35. The Holy Apostle Thaddeus Concerning the first discovery of the Holy Cross.118 36. The Holy Apostle Thaddeus Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead.119 37. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Simon the Zealot.120 38. Concerning the Holy Apostles as to Who They Were and How They Were Called for the Ministry.121 39. Concerning the Twelve Holy Apostles.122 40. The Teachings of the Apostles as to How They Were Completed and Exist Until Now (by Epiphan the Cyprian).123

86

•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •

41. Concerning the Apostles As To Who Among Them Were Married And Who Were Not.124 42. The Letter of Barnabas.125 43. The Letter of the Armenian King Abgar.126 44. The Petition of Euthalius.127 45. The Canons and Laws Which the Holy Disciples of Christ Established.128 46. The Laws and Canons of the Holy Apostles by Clement, the Apostle of the Heathens.129 47. The Canons of the Apostle Philip.130 48. The Laws of the Canons of St. Thaddeus in the City of Urha131 49. The Holy Apostle Thaddeus Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead.132 50. The Sailing of the Apostle Paul133 51. Acts of Enlightenment134 52. Concerning the Exile of St. John.135 53. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Titus.136 54. The Story of Judas of Iscariot.137 Portions or of the apocryphal documents listed above can also be found independently of its original document copied in various Armenian manuscripts.

Conclusion Our survey of the Armenian Church literature leads us to conclude that the New Testament apocrypha has definitely been an important component of the Christian experience in Armenia, as early as the first decades of Christianity in the country. The Armenian Church clearly distinguished three categories of books associated with the New Testament: 1) the core canon; 2) books associated with the New Testament; 3) books condemned because of its un-orthodox contents. Some of the New Testament apocryphal writings were incorporated in the Armenian version of the Bible, as early as its translation into Armenian. A few of these apocryphal writings remained included in the New Testament corpus as late as the early publications of the Armenian Bible. Some of them were treated not only as canonical, but also as genuine and authentic writings of the apostles. The majority of the apocryphal writings which were not part of the New Testament canon,

•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A •

87

on the other hand, continued to enjoy a special status in the Armenian Church as religious literature. This is confirmed by the multitude of copies and versions of these apocryphal writings that are preserved in Armenian manuscripts until today. The lack of a decisive decision by an Armenian Church council to finalize the list of the canonical books of the New Testament, or to receive a universally confirmed list left the fathers of the Armenian Church in the midst of a tension between two elements in the early centuries of Christianity. These were the gradually developing universal list of the canonical books of the Bible, and the reverence for, and attachment to, some of the New Testament apocrypha that were used locally by the early evangelists and preachers of Christianity in Armenia. The tension between these two forces can be clearly traced in the different lists of the canonical books of the New Testament and in the commentaries of the various fathers of the Armenian Church. The absence of such a council decision, left the collection of biblical books open to new entries and removals, throughout the centuries. Outside influences, such as Roman Catholic supervision of the early publications of the Armenian Bible and Protestant direction of publishing houses such as the Bible Society, which published the later editions of the Classical Armenian version of the Bible, gradually imposed the commonly recognized canonical list of the New Testament on the West on the later editions of the Armenian Bible.

Notes

The Prayer of Manasses 1

2

3

4

5

6

The BHS writes in all cases Moses with the retained WAW (hvm), but records exist with the name written with WAW. Here we give some examples from the Qumran writings: 4QFlor 2:3; 1QM 10:6; 1QH 17:12 y 1QS 5:8. They can reflect the how the name was written in Early Judaism. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962) and J. Bright in his History of Israel (1981) say that the date was 687–642BC. On the other hand, the historical criticism has found dates that make plausible the exile from Manasses to an emerging Babylon but still under the dominion of the Assyrians (Hicks 499). The prayer does not tackle any topic related to the Greek invasion to Palestine and does not reflect any type of relationship with the Maccabean struggle or with the ideologies that rose after the revolution. Neither the temple, nor its contamination or purification, is a subject in the prayer. We find no reference to the priests. Therefore, there are no indications to deduce that the author could have been a Hasidean as Oesterley suggests (297). Besides, the absence of this prayer in the LXX manuscripts discards the possibility that its origin be Alexandria. The Antiochian and Syrian region seem to be more appropriate for many reasons: the central theme is repentance after having falling into idolatry, one of the main problems for the Jews of Antioch (Downey 79–80; 107–108). The prayer’s key objective is to reaffirm the believers in the old ancestral tradition (the Jews came to Antioch since its foundation at the end of the 4th century). The fact that the prayer was preserved in Syriac and was passed on to be part of the Didascalia also speaks in favor of its Antiochian origin. For a detailed presentation of the variation and intercalation of Deuteronomistic and Chronicle texts, see Charles 613. The titles are found in the beginning of Sal 3;7;18;34;51;52;54;56;57;59;60;63 and 142. The title structure is always with a temporal clause that describes the situation for which the psalm was written. They all use the “Be +inf” formula, except psalm 18 that uses the relative pronoun “asher” in the title.

90 7

8

•N O T E S • The additional text, which is included in the NRV, says: “O Lord, according to your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have appointed repentance for sinners, so that they may be saved.” This addition forms part of the prayer in the Greek Great Horologion (172) as well as in the Arabic one (179). “And now, oh Lord, I am justly punished and deservedly afflicted; for lo! I am in captivity” (translated by Charles 622). This addition appears neither in the Apostolic Constitutions, nor in the GreekGreat Horologion (172) or the Arabic one (179).

The Testament of Solomon 1

2

3 4

5 6

7

Graf, Georg, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Vol. 1 (Città del Vaticano: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944), 210–211. McCown, C.C., The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1922), English translation in Duling, D.C. “Testament of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (edited by James H. Charlesworth; New York : Doubleday, 1983), 935–987. In the following, we’ll cite Duling’s translation and use his division of TSol into chapters. Graf, Geschichte, 210. Charlesworth, James H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (with a Supplement) (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981), 197–202. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 197. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 202. It is interesting to note that among those twelve, Charlesworth also includes “7) Solomon’s Warning to Rehoboam” (Graf’s “Mahnrede Salomons”, Geschichte p. 209). This work can be found in Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Fonds Syriaque 194 (BnF Syriaque 194), fols. 153r–156v and it is the very same work Charlesworth identifies as “a recension of portions of the Testament of Solomon extant in Karshuni” (Pseudepigrapha, p. 201). Having had the opportunity to examine this manuscript, we note that while the title of the work in question begins with the words Waṣīyyat Sulaymān (“The testament of Solomon”), it is in fact not a recension of TSol, but a late Christian Arabic composition belonging to the genre of waṣīyya – spiritual testaments written by kings and rulers for their successors. For more information on the genre in Islamic milieu, see Gilliot, Claude, “In consilium tuum deduces me: le genre du «Conseil» naṣīha, waṣīyya dans la littérature arabo-musulmane,” Arabica, 54/4 (2007): 466–499. While this work (which we have come to call “the Pseudotestament of Solomon”) may indeed have been influenced by other pseudepigrapha, especially wisdom literature and stories of Ahiqar and Luqmān, it has absolutely no connection to the Testament of Solomon, save for the title. Thus for example Duling, D.C., “Testament of Solomon,” 935–987, Klutz, Todd, Rewriting the Testament of Solomon: Tradition, Conflict and Identity in

•N O T E S •

8 9

10 11

12

13

14

15

16 17

18

19 20

21 22

23

91

a Late Antique Pseudepigraphon (London: T&T Clark International, 2005) and Schwarz, Sarah L., “Reconsidering the Testament of Solomon,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16 (2007): 203–237. Referring to Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, these studies also cite BnF Syriaque 194 as a Syriac (and not Karshuni, i.e. Arabic, as correctly observed by Charlesworth) recension of TSol (which it is not). Graf, Geschichte, 210. M. Le Baron de Slane, Catalogue de manuscrit arabes (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1883–1895), 54–55. Also see Troupeau, Gérard, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes. Première partie. Manuscrits chrétiens. Tome I. Nos 1–323 (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1972), 185–187. Both catalogues are available in digital format at http://www.bnf.fr/pages/catalog/mssor-num.htm. Graf, Geschichte, 211. Sinaika and and ʻAbd al-Masīḥ, Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic manuscripts of the Coptic Museum, the Patriarchate, the principal churches of Cairo andAlexandria and the monasteries of Egypt. Volume 1 (Cairo: Government Press, 1939), 171. Khater, Antoine, and Khs-Burmester, O.H.E., Catalogue of the Coptic and Christian Arabic MSS. preserved in the Cloister of Saint Menas at Cairo (Le Caire: Société d’archéologie Copte, 1963), 73. sīra šaʿbīya. See for example Gažáková, Zuzana. “Sayf ibn Ḏī Yazan, King of Ḥimyar between History and Popular Epic,” Graecolatina et Orientalia 21-22 (2008) for a recent analysis of one such popular epic, its textual history and its relationship to other historical and literary sources. Orlov, Andrei A., From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism. Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 54–56. For one edition of this work, see Tikhonravov, Nikolay Savvich, Pamyatniki otrechennoy russkoy literatury. Tom I (Sanktpeterburg: Obshchestvennaya polʹza, 1863), 259–272. It should be noted that in this edition, taken from a 16th century Tolkovaya Paleya, the title of the work is Judgments of king Solomon. literally “a seal” The only reference to it in connection with Solomonic literature known to us is made by Scott T. Carroll in “The ‘Apocalypse of Adam’ and Pre-Christian Gnosticism,” Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990): 270. Crum, Walter E. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Collection of the John Rylands Library, Manchester (Manchester: University Press, 1909), 41– 42. also tower, citadel or perhaps pillar Thus in both BnF Ar 214 and Vat. ar. 448. One feels tempted to consider this a scribal error for ‫مصر‬, i.e. Egypt. Tikhonravov, Pamyatniki, 259–260. McCown’s recension D, however, appears to be the closest thing to a likely candidate. Angels working against demons with God on the sidelines, see Alexander, Philip S., “Contextualizing the Demonology of the Testament of Solomon,” in

92

24

•N O T E S • Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. Armin Lange. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 627. Salzberger, Georg, Die Salomo-Sage in der semitischen Literatur. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Sagenkunde (Berlin-Nikolassee: Kommissionsverlag von Max Harrwitz, 1907).

The Book of Wisdom of Solomon 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

For the source of translation for certain Books of OT see the following critical editions: C.E. Cox, The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy, (University of Pennsylvania, Armenian texts and Studies), Ann Arbor, MI, Edwards Brothers: 1981, pp.12–13. S. P. Cowe, The Armenian Version of Daniel, (University of Pennsylvania, Armenian Texts and Studies 9), Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press: 1992, p. 441. See The Canon Book of the Armenians, V. Hakopyan (ed.), vol. 2, Erevan, Armenian Academy of Sciences: 1971, pp. 17–18. Michael Stone having studied different canons of the Scriptures, makes the following statement: “It is of further interest to observe that books so well established in the Ca non of the Greek Bible as Judith, Tobit, and Wisdom of Solomon do not appear in the Greek or Armenian texts of the Canons discussed here. This, it seems to us, is more evidence for the common tradition of these particular lists than it is a reflection on the position of these books in actual usage. It follows from the above that the Armenian Canon of Partaw is fashioned after the example of certain identifiable Greek Conciliar lists, primarily the Apostolic Canon and the Laodicaean Canon.” (See M. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists I: The Council of Partaw (768 C. E.),” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 479–486. For the references and further detailed quotations see Archbishop Nerses Lambronaci, Commentary on Wisdom of Solomon, by Anoushavan Tanielian, New York, NY, Skewra Press: 2007, pp. 293–294. M. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists II, The Stichometry of Anania of Shirak,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 68, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1975), pp. 253–260. This number can be very slightly varied according to the change of the date of Easter. Athanasius, Letter 39, “On the Paschal Festival,” in NPNF, vol. 4, p. 552b.

Visul Maicii Domnului 1

Hilandar no. 737. I wish to thank my friend and colleague Dr. Predrag Mateic, Director of the Hilandar Research Library at Ohio State University for calling this text to my attention, and his friendly staff for providing me with a copy.

•N O T E S • 2

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12 13 14

15 16 17

93

See D. Skemer, Binding Words: Textual Amulets in the Middle Ages (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006) 8. The biblical perspective on magical practices is not as consistent as most readers expect. While the Deuteronomistic writer and other prophetic writings explicitly condemn such practices, magic at the hands of Elijah and Elisha was apparently acceptable. Dated to the Assyrian and neo-Babylonian periods, these bowls contained incantations inscribed in a spiral inside the vessel and were buried beneath the thresholds of houses for the purpose of maintaining the well-being of the household. See J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985). See L. Schiffman and M. Swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts from the Cairo Genizah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Hom. Matt. 73. Schiffman, Incantation Texts, 32–33. Most notably the work of Sanda Golopentia. See Sanda Golopentia, Desire Machines: A Romanian Love Charms Database (Bucharest: Romanian Cultural Foundation, 1998). Use of the feminine pronoun here is intentional. Apart from the fact that the amulet text presented here was produced in a monastic setting that excluded women, I have found no evidence that use of these forms occurred outside the domain of women. Ironically, the amulet text was apparently not effective in preventing its publisher from going out of business. N. Cartojan, Cărţile populare în literatura românească. 2vols. (Bucharest, 1929; rep. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică Română, 1974] I.102. Cartojan, Cărţile populare, II.126. Cartojan, Cărţile populare, I.101–02. The modern printed text in the possession of Mrs. Untu has “Peter in Antioch and Rome,” probably added to support the Orthodox assertion rooted in Eusebius that Peter was bishop of Rome before he became bishop of Antioch. John 19:39–42. Skemer, Binding Words, 75. Skemer, Binding Words, 47.

Banned from the Lectionary 1

Even recent works continue to express this simplistic opinion about the development of the canon. See Eldon Jay Epp, “Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon,” in The Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002, second edition, 2004), 485–515. Epp writes: “[T]he place of the Revelation to John in the canon of Eastern Christianity was not certain until the late fourth century, and even later in some places.” Epp, 505, citing Harry Gamble “Canon: New Testament,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:853–56, Helmut

94

2

3

4

5 6 7

8

9

•N O T E S • Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity (2 vols.) 2nd ed. (New York: de Guyter, 1995–2000), 2:6–12. But even well into the Reformation era, some aberrations were found in the West in the Latin canon. Complete uniformity did not occur, evidenced by the inclusion of the apocryphal epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans in many preReformation and Reformation era bibles. Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 239f. The Latin Church “had a stronger feeling than the Greek for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon” and “it was less conscious than the Greek Church of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted”, according to Metzger. Canon, 229. Arthur Darby Nock concurred that the Greeks generally displayed more flexibility toward the canon, whereas the West had “a tendency to define, not only de facto, but also de iure, what is permissible.” “A Feature of Roman Religion,” Harvard Theological Review, vol. 32, no. 1 (1939) 83–96, 95. Rv. 22:16, 20. Revelation is the only possible exception to the rule that no part of the New Testament was recognized as inspired and authoritative. “Only the book of Revelation claims for itself such a lofty position that would come close to the notion of inspiration and Scripture…Even the Gospels do not in themselves claim final authority.” Lee McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995), 9. Rv. 22:7, 18–19. Rv. 1:11, 22:10. Rv. 1:3. “The writer, John, is evidently a prophet, and if his prophetic vocation be acknowledged, it is a natural conclusion that his book is inspired prophecy and therefore Scripture. The striking thing is that it is so intended, and by virtue of this fact claims for itself a place of permanent authority, side by side with the Jewish Scriptures. In this new type of Christian literature we see the welding of the new prophetic sense of inward spiritual endowment with the old Jewish idea of inspired books. It thus foreshadows a Christian Scripture. Alone among the books of the New Testament the Revelation claims for its whole contents the authority of divine inspiration.” Edgar Goodspeed, The Formation of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926), 14–15. This argument was made by Adolph von Harnack, The Origin of the New Testament, trans. J.R. Wilkinson (London: Williams and Norgate, 1925). This is William Farmer’s opinion in his book with Denis Farkasfalvy, The Formation of the New Testament Canon, (New York: Paulist Press, 1983). Farmer argues that the New Testament canon is a “martyr’s canon which can be traced through Origen, Hippolytus and Irenaeus to a particular traditional idealization of Christian martyrdom exemplified by Polycarp and Ignatius and reflecting the influence of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in Rome.” Farmer and Farkasfalvy, 8. He states that the three major factors which contributed to the shaping of the New Testament canon were: (1) the persecution of Chris-

•N O T E S •

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 18

19

95

tians, (2) diverse systems of Christian theology, and (3) Constantine’s legalization and promotion of Christianity.” Farmer and Farkasfalvy, 8. By “diverse systems of theology” he means a diversity of opinion regarding the value of martyrdom, which was questioned by Gnostics. Scriptures supporting martyrdom could counter-balance Gnostic attitudes which might weaken Christian resolve in the face of persecution. N.B. Stonehouse, The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church (Goes, [Holland]: Oosterbaan and Le Cointre, 1929). John Elliotson Symes, The Evolution of the New Testament, (London: John Murray, 1921), 331. Symes believed that three factors determined canonicity: “(1) the authority of the Church, (2) evidence that these books contain the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate disciples, and (3) the internal evidence ― the response of Christian hearts to the New Testament teaching. None of these answers may seem quite satisfactory, if taken separately: but, in conjunction, they have been found by almost all Christians to provide an adequate ground for their belief in the authorized Canon.” More recently, Lee McDonald lists four primary factors: apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity and use, and allows for the possible addition of such factors as adaptability and inspiration. Lee Martin McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question,” in The Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002), 416–439. Denis Farkasfalvy’s opinion. Farmer and Farkasfalvy, The Formation of the New Testament Canon, 156–7. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, Prologue. Josef Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisareia, vol. 1 of Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, 3 parts (München: Karl Zink Verlag, 1955–56). English translation forthcoming, by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, Fathers of the Church series, Catholic University of America Press. Dialogue with Trypho 81, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, eds. and trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, AnteNicene Fathers series, vol. I [Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted 1989], 240. Quoted nearly in its entirety by Eusebius of Caesarea in Ecclesiastical History 5.1.1–2.7, hereinafter E.H. Charles Hill notes that the fact that the letter contains so many references to Revelation and that it is addressed to churches in Asia strongly supports the view that the Asian churches accepted the Johannine books “without controversy.” Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 87. E.H. 5.20.5, Adv.Heres. 3 3.4. See also E.H. 5.20.1 and 5.5.8. Adv. Heres. 5.35.2 and 5.26.1. Irenaeus quoted many passages from the Apocalypse, which he stated was written by “John, the Lord’s disciple.” Adv. Heres. 5.34.2.

96 20

21 22 23

24 25 26 27

28 29

•N O T E S • Farmer notes that the churches of Asia Minor were firmly tied to the gospel of John, whereas churches in other areas preferred the synoptics and even rejected John due to differences in style and other details, such as the order of events in Jesus’ ministry. Irenaeus was very successful in championing the idea of a “fourfold gospel,” and was followed by men such as Hippolytus, Origen and Eusebius. Farmer believes that the Apocalypse was received in the church because of the acceptance of the gospel of John. Farmer and Farkasfalvy 93, fn 77. But even if this holds true in the West, which is doubtful, it is certainly not correct for the East, where even after accepting the Fourth Gospel suspicions remained regarding the Apocalypse. In Rome, the Apocalypse appears to have found wide acceptance in the second century, probably even before the gospel of John, evidenced by the Quartodeciman controversy. Contrary to Farmer’s conclusion, the opposite seems true: the Apocalypse of John was widely accepted and recognized as apostolic in the East and in the West well before the Fourth Gospel was universally accepted. Stonehouse, 93ff. Or “Caius.” The Alogoi were so named by Epiphanios in the fourth century because they opposed the writings attributed to John. Panarion 51.3.1. Because John used the term “Logos” (“Word”) for the Son in the prologue of his gospel, those who rejected the Johannine writings were called the “Alogoi,” Anti-Logos. But “logos” also means “reason,” so Alogoi is also a derogatory pun which means “irrational.” “The Alogoi − for that is the name I give them − …reject the books of John. Since therefore they do not accept the Word preached by John, let them be called Alogoi…They accept neither the Gospel of John nor his Revelation…The excuse they make… is that they are not from John, but from Cerinthus, and are not worthy to be read in the church.” (Panarion 51.3.1–3, 6. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, trans. Philip R. Amidon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 177. It is uncertain whether they are connected to, comprise the same group, or share the same views as the nameless anti-Montanists who were attacked by Irenaeus. However, it appears that Gaius and the Alogoi rejected both the Gospel and Apocalypse. There may have been other anti-Montanists who rejected only the gospel of John or only the Apocalypse. The anti-Montanists may have been represented by the Alogoi in the East and by Gaius in the West. The extent to which anti-Montanists may have differed in their views on the canon, if at all, is uncertain. Stonehouse, 64. Hippolytus, Christ and Antichrist 36. Christ and Antichrist 48. E.H. 6.25.7, 9–10. Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, trans. John A. Hughes (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1994), 45. E.H. 7.24.6ff. E.H. 7.25:7–15. See also Robert Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1993), 104ff; Stonehouse, 125; Goodspeed, 99.

•N O T E S • 30 31 32

33 34

35

36 37

97

E.H. 7.24. E.H. 3.39.6. See also 7.25.16. Here he demonstrates that he is not really giving us the state of the canon of the entire Church, but primarily of the East, since at this time most in the West rejected Hebrews. E.H. 3.25.2. Translation by Metzger, Canon, 309. E.H. 3.25.4. “Among the spurious books must be reckoned…in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.)” Translation by Metzger, Canon, 309. Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse, (2 vols.) vol. II, “History and Text,” by Ernest Cadman Colwell, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), 143. McCormick Apocalypse, II:13–14 McCormick Apocalypse II:26–33.

New Testament Apocrypha 1

2

3

4

5 6

7

There is not a single corpus of literature that is historically designated as “New Testament apocrypha.” This phrase, relatively speaking, is new within the field of New Testament studies. It is borrowed from a well defined discipline in the Old Testament scholarship. It usually refers to very diverse pieces of literature, including gospels, acts and letters that are associated with the New Testament literature or its characters. Unlike most of the writings within the Old Testament apocrypha, many of the New Testament apocrypha have very little to do with the canon of the New Testament. In fact, if anything, they can simply be designated as writings “which were not accepted into the canon.” See, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 50–51. Among these we mention the canonical Second Letter of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, the Apostle’s Letter to the Colossians and others. See, for example, the status of the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter in the Muratorian fragment. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scriptures, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), pp. 158–169; and Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992). See the discussion concerning the dating of the Armenian version of the Rest of the Evangelist John, in Yovsep Gatrchean, Hangist Eranelvoyn Yovhannu (Vienna, 1877), pp. 6ff. Such as the Armenian version of RBJ and the Gospel of Infancy. Fr. Garegin Zarbhanalean, Matenadaran haykakan t'argmanut'eanc' nakhneac' (Venice: San Lazzaro, 1889). Pages 192–206 include the authors discussion of the New Testament apocrypha in the Armenian version of the Bible. Fr. Sargis Yovsep'ianc', Ankanon Girk Hin Ktakaranats, (Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1896). This volume was translated into English a few years later by J.

98

8

9

10

11

12

13 14

15

16 17 18

19

•N O T E S • Issaverdens, The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament Found in the Armenian MSS. of the Library of St. Lazarus, (Venice, St. Lazzaro, 1934). Fr. Esayi Tayec'i, Ankanon Girk Nor Ktakaranats, (Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1898). The late French Armenologist Louis Leloir translated this volume into French in his work, Écrit apocryphe sur les Apôtres: traduction de l’édition arménienne de Venise (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986). See Fr. Aristakes Vartanian’s Matenagrutyunk Eut'ałi “Euthalian Literature,” (Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1930), in which the author discusses the introductions to the books of the Bible attributed to Euthalius, which exist in almost all the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible. A few pages of this work are dedicated to the apocryphal “Petition of Euthalius,” pp. 209–212; Yovsep Gatrchean, Hangist Eranelvoyn Yovhannu (Vienna, 1877); Hakovbos Tashean, Haykakan ašxatasirutiwnk hayaget P. Fet't'eri (Vienna: 1895) and “T'łt'akcut'iwn Połōsi ew kornt'ac'woc' ew meknut'iwn Ep'remi,” Handes Amsorea 5 (1891), pp. 217–18, 232–34, 276–79. Ogostinos Sekulay, Nor ktakarani grk'eru karge hayoc' k'ov (Venice, 1949), pp. 78ff. Manr erker, edited by professor A. K. Sanchean (Los Angeles: La Verne, 1988), pp. 157–173. Ibid., pp. 159–163. Ibid., pp. 168–173. See also the same author’s book, Astuacašunč' mateani Haykakan Bnagirě (The Armenian Text of the Bible), (Yerevan: The Academy of Science in Armneia, 1976). Lisbone: Bibliothèque Arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian, 1992. Ibid., pp. XCVII–CIII. Ibid., pp. CI–CII. See the introduction of Frederich Murad’s work Haytnut`eann Hovhannu hin hay t'argmanut'iwn (The Old Armenian Translation of the Revelation of John), (Jarusalem: St. James Press, 1911), where the author discusses several Armenian lists of the New Testament canon. These lists serve as valuable resources in the study of the history of the New Testament canon in the Armenian Church. See also Kh. S. Kourian, Mesropean Astuatsašunč'e banasirut'ean loysin tak - Ancient Armenian Translation of Bible Under the Light of Philology (Cairo: Nubar Press, 1944). In chapter 27, “Anvawer Girk' Nor Ktakarani” (Unauthentic Books of the New Testament), pp. 652–680, Kourian’s discussion of the apocryphal writings in Armenian is based on the works of Zarbhanalean and Č'rakean mentioned earlier. See also, Taniel Šamlean, “The Canonical and Deuterocanonical Books of the Holy Scriptures,” Sion (1966), pp. 83–87. In 1894, Paul Vetter published his book Der apokryphe dritte korintherbrief, examining the Armenian version of Third Corinthians. See also the same author’s articles, “Armenische apokryphe Apostelgeschichten,” in Akten des V. Internationalen Congress der Katholischen Gesellschaft (1901), pp. 361ff.; “Armenische Apostelakten,” Oriens Christianus (1901), pp. 168–170; and

•N O T E S •

20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

99

“Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelgeschichten,” in Theologische Quartalschrift (1906), pp. 161–186. In 1895, Professor Joseph Armitage Robinson, Dean of Westminster, published his notes concerning the Armenian version of the New Testament, examining the apocryphal introductions to the epistles of St. Paul attributed to Euthalius, in Euthaliana as part of the “Text and Studies” series of Cambridge University. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare published several articles examining the Armenian version of several New Testament Apocrypha such as “Acta Pilati” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica (1896), pp. 59–132 and “Protoevangelium Iacobi” in The American Journal of Theology, I, no, 2 (1897), pp. 424–42. “Le martyre géorgien de l’apôtre Thomas,” Le Muséon, XXXIII (1970), pp. 497–532; and “La passion arménienne de S. Thomas l’apôtre et son modèle grec,” Le Muséon, XXXIV (1971), pp. 151–195. “Christological Trends and Textual Transmission,” in S. Ajamian and M. E. Stone (ed.), Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); and “Text Critical of the Armenian Version of Third Corinthians,” in Valentina Calzolari Bouvier (ed.), Apocryphes arméniens: transmission – traduction – creation – iconographie (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1999), pp. 91–102. Calzolari Bouvier, Apocryphes arméniens, pp. 9–18. “The Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Tradition,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1969), pp. 59–77; “Armenian Version of Bible,” Encyclopedia Judaica. (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 5, 861–62; “Armenian Canon Lists, I: The Canon of Partaw,” Harvard Teological Review (HTR) 67 (1973), pp. 479–486; “Armenian Canon Lists II: The Stichometry of Anania of Shirak," HTR 69 (1976), pp. 253–260; “Armenian Canon Lists III The Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivank',” HTR 69 (1976), pp. 289–300; “Armenian Canon Lists IV: The List of Gregory of Tathew,” HTR 73 (1980), pp. 237– 244; “Armenian Canon Lists V - Anonymous Texts,” HTR 83 (1990), pp. 141–161, and others. Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965); James H. Charlesworth, The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1987); and James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). Łazar P'arpec'i, History of the Armenians (Delmar: Caravan Books, 1985), p. 13. For a discussion of the history of the translation of the Bible to Armenian and the language of the parent text, see Stanislas Lyonnet, S.J., Les origins de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1950), and Andranik S. Zeytounian, Girk' Tsnndots': k'nnakan bnagir (The Book of Genesis: A Critical Text) (Erevan, 1985), pp. 40–78. See our discussion of the writings of St. Ephraem and St. Aphraat in the following pages. See also Joseph Kerschensteiner “Beobachtungen zum altsyrischen Actatext,” Biblica 45 (1964), pp. 63–74. See Joseph Kerschensteiner, Der Altsyrische Paulustext, CSCO, 315 (1970), pp. 63–74.

100 29

30 31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38

39

40

41

42

43

44

•N O T E S • Koriwn, translated by Bedros Norehad, (New York: Caravan Books, 1985), p. 34. Ibid., p. 32. Ibid., pp 26 and 32. Ibid., p. 26. Almost one sixth of Koriwn’s book is dedicated to justifying his project of writing his teacher’s biography. In the introduction to his work, Koriwn rhetorically asks the question “whether it is permissible to write concerning the lives of deceased men.” After referring to various passages in the Bible Koriwn concludes that it is permissible to do so. See, Koriwn, p. xiv. Koriwn, p. 107, note 47. See Krikor Maksoudian, “Ōskedarean t'argmanutiwnk' naxneac'” in: Hayastaneayc' Ekełec'i (1976), pp. 9–12. Srboyn ep'remi matenagrut'iwnk', vol. 3, Meknut'iwn c'orek'tasan t'łt'oc'n pawłosi, (Venice: San Lazzaro, 1836), pp. 116–123. See Aphraat’s use of 3 Cor in his Demonstration IV “Of Monks.” Moses Khorenats'i Patmut'iwn Hayots', A facsimile reproduction of the 1913 Tiflis edition with an Introduction by Robert W. Thomson, (New York: Caravan Books, 1981), p. 327. The “twenty-two known books” is a reference to the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, known as the Palestinian Canon, which did not include the Apocrypha found in the Septuagint. Josephus, Origen and Jerome, among others, confirm that the Old Testament canon included twenty-two books. See, F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 43; Gleason L Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), pp. 72ff., and Michael Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists IV – The List of Gregory of Tat’ew (14th Century),” HTR (1980), p. 243. The only Armenian Church council that includes a canon dealing with the list of the canonical books of the Bible is the Council of Partaw (AD 768). However, this council’s list includes the books of the Old Testament only. Scholars agree that this canon is a translation of an earlier non-Armenian text that was later inserted into the collection of the Partaw canons. See Garegin Zarbhanalian, Matenadaran haykakan t'argmanut'eanc' naxneac', (Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1889), p. 225; and also Michael Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists, I: The Canon of Partaw,” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1973), pp. 479–486. See section 264 in Monica J. Blanchard and Robin Darling Young’s Eznik of Kołb – On God (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), p. 147. Theodor von Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (Hildesheum: Georg Olms Verlag, 1975). S. P. Cowe, “Christological Trends and Textual Transmission,” in Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), p. 42. See Norayr Połarean, Mayr c'uc'ak jeragrac' srboc' hakopeanc' (Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts), vol. 5, p. 375, vol. 8, p. 491 and vol. 11,

•N O T E S •

45 46 47

48

49

50

51 52

53 54

55

56

57

58 59

60

101

p. 69, (Jerusalem: St. James, 1966). And Armenian Writers, pp. 254–255. Lambronac'i’s commentary was translated into Russian and published in 1897. Połarean, Granhd Catalogue, vol. 11, p. 69. Połarean, Armenian Writers, pp. 253–255. Wilhelm Fredrich Rink, in his book, Das Sendschriben dritte Korinthiarum, pp. 16–17, was the first to call our attention to this manuscript. Anania Sanahnec'i is well known for his commentaries on the books of the Bible including the Gospel of Matthew, the letters of Paul, and the book of Jonah. See, Połarean, Armenian Writers, pp. 185–186. Połarean, Grand Catalogue, vol. 1, p. 645, and vol. 2, pp. 31, 48 and 527 respectively. Połarean, Grand Catalogue, vol. 1, p. 644. Page 17 of the manuscript includes a note by the scribe who explains that the commentary is by Anania vardapet Sanahnec'i based on the comments of St. Ephraem the Syrian and St. John Chrysostom. The note dates the writing of the commentary “i Š ew D t'vakanin hayoc'.” Połarean, Armenian Writers, p. 185. See manuscripts #560 and 1284 in Połarean’s Grand Catalogue, vol. 2, p. 589 and vol. 4, p. 477. “Der Comentar des Johannes Kachik Orotnethsi” (Vienna, 1894), pp. 80–88. See for example the list of Anania Širakac'i, “Anania Širakac'woy antip ēǐerēn,” Handes Amsorea (1908), p. 20; and Murad, Haytnut`eann Hovhannu, pp. MHĔ. Sargis Šnorhali, Meknut'iwn ēot'eanc' t'łt'oc' kat'ułikeanc' (Jerusalem: St. James, 1998), p. 399. The same dynamics existed in the early church in the East and the West, which led to the categorization of the books of the New Testament to groups such as: canonical, deuterocanonical, apocryphal and heretical. The variations that exist among the lists of Origin, Clement of Alexandria, and others is a consequence of the tension between the popularity and liturgical usage of some apocryphal documents and the limits of the list developed by the church toward the end of the fourth century. Eusebiuse’s commentary on these lists and the variations in the classifications of the books into two, three or four groups, is further evidence of the tension that defined the state of the canon of the New Testament. Gargein Galemkaryan, “Mxit'ar Ayrevanc'i ew noragiwt grut'iwnně” in: Handes Amsorea (1891), p. 162. Ararat (1895), p. 407. According to Armenian historians, including the thirteenth century Kirakos Ganjakec'i, a certain Sarkavak Vardapet is known to have lived in in Armenia during the first half of the 12th century. See Kirakos Ganjakec'i’s Patmut'iwn Hayoc' (History of the Armenians), Robert Bedrosian, (tr.) (New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1986). Gargein Galemkaryan, “Mxit'ar Ayrevanc'i ew noragiwt grut'iwnně” in: Handes Amsorea (1891), p. 161–167.

102 61

62 63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71 72

73

74

75 76 77 78

•N O T E S • N. Akinian, “Grigor ordi abasay hełinak patčarac' groc',” Handes Amsorea (1907), pp. 132–135; “patčarac' girkĕ,” Handes Amsorea (1907), pp. 228–235 and 271–274, and Murad, Haytnut`eann Hovhannu, p. MŁD. Girk Harc'manc' Grigori Tat'ewac'woy (Constantinople, 1729), p. 451. Frederich Murad, Haytnut'eann Hovhannu hin hay t'argmanut'iwn (Jerusalem: St. James, 1905–1911), pp. MŁZ–MŁĒ. Połarean, Mayr c'uc'ak jeragrac', vol. 6, p. 427ff. The manuscript is copied in Jerusalem and dated AD 1648. Adjémian, Grand Cataloge des manuscrits Armeniens de la Bible, pp. CVI– CVII. Based on its various colophons, Pogharean dates this manuscript to AD 1620. Połarean, Grand Catalogue, vol. 2, pp. 382–387. See also N. Akinian, “Step'anos C'ik ǐułayec'i (1603–1637),” in Handes Amsorea (1947), pp. 112– 123. Of the 294 manuscripts of the Bible examined by Onnik Ekanean, 156 ones are of complete Bibles or complete or partial New Testaments, some of which include only four or less books of the Bible. Among the second groupof manuscripts, 114 are of The Petition of Euthalius, 87 of RBJ and 86 or 3 Cor. See Archevêque Chahé Adjémian, Grand Cataloge (Lisbonne: FundaçāoCalouste Gulbenkian, 1992), pp. 1040–1041. See, for example, manuscripts #234, 254, 255, 523, 540, 560, 736, 1127, 1284, 1932, 1933, 1934 and others of the St. James collection in Jerusalem. See, for example, manuscripts #255, 540, 1127, 1297 and others of the St. James collection in Jerusalem. Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), pp. 12–16. See also manuscripts # 5, 22, 95, 122 of Armenian church lectionaries in the St. James collection in Jerusalem. Połarean, Grand Catalogue, vol. 1, pp. 53–58, 112–115, 289–301, 352–358. See, for example, Chashots’ Girk’, (Jerusalem: St. James, 1967), pp. 370–372. For a detailed examination of the incorporation of RBJ in the Armenian Church liturgy see the author’s article, “The Repose of the Blessed John in the Armenian Bible and the Acts of John” in: P. Piovanelli (ed.), Bringing the Underground to the Foreground: New Perspectives on Jewish and Christian Apocryphal Texts and Traditions. Proceedings of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Section of the Society for Biblical Literature International Meeting Held in Groningen, The Netherlands, July 25–28, 2004 (forthcoming). For a review of the earliest efforts to publish the Armenian version of the Bible see Hagop S. Anassian, Manr Erker, pp. 361ff. The only Old Testament apocryphal books in Oskan’s Bible are the Prayer of Manasseh the King of Judah and the Fourth Book of Ezra. Bazmavep (1966), pp. 298 and 301; and also Minassyan, pp. 360–367. For Oskan’s correspondence, see, Bazmavep (1966), pp. 293–307. Venice: San Lazzaro, 1805. Zōhrapean, pp. 7–8.

•N O T E S • 79 80 81

82

83 84

85

86

87

103

Ibid., pp. 25ff. Girk' astuacašunč' hin ew nor ktakaranac' (Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1860). The introduction to Bagratuni’s edition of the Bible is published in Bazmavep (1966), pp. 347–353. He keeps the apocryphal Letter of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Sirach in the canon of his version of the Bible because “the Greeks and the Romans classify them as canonical,” p. 349. Astuacašunč' matean hin ew nor ktakaranac' (Constantinople: Baghdadlian Press, 1929). See also Adjémian, Grand Catalogue, p. III Azgapatum, (Beirut: Sevan Press, 1959), vol. 3, p. 2954. See F. C. Conybeare, “Protoevangelium Iacobi, (from an Armenian Manuscript in the Library of the Mechitarists in Venice),” The American Journal of Theology, I (1897), pp. 424–442; and N. Mar, “Girk mankut'ean Yisusi” Bazmavep (1892), pp. 247–253 and 290–295. For a comparison of the texts of this document in the Armenian, Syriac and Arab traditions see, Paul Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes. II. L’Évangile de l’Enfance. Rédactions syriaque, arabe et arméniennes traduites et annotées (Paris: Auguste Picard, 1914). For a study of another Armenian manuscript, #1432 in Jerusalem, see S. Mkhsyan, “Avetaran Mankutean Krisdosi,” Sion (1972), pp. 122–131. For the text in Classical Armenian see Esayi Tayec'i, Ankanon girk' Nor Ktakaranats'.(Uncanonical books of the New Testament), pp. 1–126, and a second variation on pp. 127–233. Fragments of the same apocryphal writing are also preserved in Armenian. See, Tayec'i, pp. 257–312. See also Abraham Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with three early versions of the Protevangelium of James (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Some manuscripts add the subtitle: “Memoirs of what happened to Christ in the presence of Pontius Pilate, the ruler of the Jews.” This is the Armenian translation of a version of the Acta Pilati. Its text agrees with that of Tischendorf’s “A” recension. See Tichendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha (Lipsiae, 1876), pp. 210–486. Fredrick C. Conybeare published his comments on the Armenian version with its Greek and Latin re-translation by him in Studia Biblical et Ecclesiastica (Oxford, 1896), pp. 59–132. This apocryphal writing is known in the Church in the West as the “Gospel of Nicodemus.” This title, which gained popularity in the medieval times, was based on the assumption that the author of the original Hebrew text of this apocryphal writing was Nicodemus. See Schneemelcher, pp. 501–536. For the textin Classical Armenian, see Esayi Tayec'i, Ankanon girk' nor ktakaranats', pp. 313–358. Tayec'i, pp. 359–378. An abbreviated variation of the same apocrypha is preserved in Armenian, pp. 379–380. The same apocryphon is known as the Letters of Herod and Pilate. It connects the death of Christ with the context of Roman history. In addition to the Armenian manuscripts, this apocryphon is found also in a sixth-centuy Syriac manuscript in the British Museum and a Greek manuscript in Paris. The full title reads “The Epistle of James the Bishop of Jerusalem to Kodratos (Quadrates), to demonstrate the order given by Emperor Tiberius to the Jews in order to crucify Jesus.” See Hakovbos Tashean, Vardapetutʻiwn Aṛakʻelotsʻ

104

88

89

90

91

92 93 94 95

96 97 98 99 100 101

102 103 104

105 106

107

•N O T E S • anvawerakan kanonatsʻ mateaně, Tʻughtʻ Hakobay aṛ Kodratos ew Kanonkʻ Tʻaddēi : kʻnnutʻiwn ew bnagirkʻ (Vienna : Mkhitʻarean Tparan, 1896). This letter of two pages in Tayec'i’s book appears to be the Armenian translation of a Latin version which was discovered among the writings of the 11thcentury Anselm of Canterbury. It is a letter by an alleged contemporary of Pilate to the Roman Senate. The Latin text of the letter was first published, with minor variations, by Fabricius in his Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti (Hamburg, 1703). This apocryphal letter contains the first description of the personal appearance of Christ. See Tayec'i, pp. 381–382 for the Armenian text. Some manuscripts have the subtitle, “Which the most blessed saw concerning the suffering of the sinner.” See Esayi Tayec'i, pp. 383–401. Several variations of the same writing are preserved in Armenian. See pp. 402–450. Paul Vetter, “Die armenische Dormitio Mariae,” Theologische Quartalschrift, LXXXIV (1902), pp. 321–349; and Hakovbos Tashean, “Anvawerakan t'ułt Dionesiosi arispagac'woy aṙ Titos vasn nnǐman Maremay” Handes Amsorea (1893), pp. 69–71. For the Armenian text see, Tayec'i, pp. 451–478; and Połarean, Grand Catalogue, manuscript #929, vol. 3, p. 465. K'erobē Č'rakean, Ankanon girk' Arak'elakank, (Venice: San Lazzaro, 1904), pp. 1–29. This apocryphal writing is preserved in Armenian in several versions. For an abbreviated version of the same, see pp. 30–45. Ibid., pp. 46–50. Ibid., pp. 51–56. Ibid., pp. 57–61. With the subtitle: “When the Angels Carried His Soul Away.” Ibid., pp. 62– 84. Different versions of this apocryphal writing with different subtitles are preserved in Armenian. Ibid., pp. 85–100 and 101–109. Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians. Supra n. 63. Č'rakean, pp. 110–122. Ibid., pp. 124–145. Ibid., pp. 146–167. Ibid., pp. 168–173. The subtitle reads: “Being in the body, he went to Spain, who is now called St. Jacob.” Ibid., pp. 174–189. Ibid., pp. 190–221. Ibid., pp. 222–229. Ibid., pp. 230–240. There are several apocryphal documents similar to this one narrating the miraculous ministry of the Evangelist John. See, Č'rakean, pp. 241–277. Ibid., pp. 286–292. See Hovsep Gatrchian, Dormitio Beati Joannis (The Rest of the Blessed John), (Vienna: Mechitaristen-Buchdruckerei, 1877), and Vahan Hovhanessian, “The Repose of the Evangelist John and the Armenian Bible,” forthcoming in conference volume for the 2004 International Conference of the Society of Biblical Literature in Groningen, Netherlands, ed. Pierluigi Piovanelli. Č'rakean, pp. 293–299.

•N O T E S • 108

109 110

111 112

113

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

126

127 128

129

130 131 132 133 134

135 136 137

105

Ibid., pp. 300–320. The same apocryphal writing exists in different versions. Ibid., pp. 321–328. Ibid., pp. 329–332. Ibid., pp. 333–357. Some manuscripts add “and Jude.” An abbreviated variation of the same writing survives also in Armenian. See pp. 358–364. Ibid., pp. 365–368. G. Garitte, “La passion arménienne de S. Thomas l’apôtre et son modèle grec,” Le Muséon, LXXXIV (1971), pp. 151–195; H. S. Anassian, “Mi ancanōt hełinak ew nra erki noragiwt hratarakut'iwně.” For the Armenian text see Č'rakean, pp. 369–387. Č'rakean, Ankanon girk', pp. 388–400. An abbreviated version of the same story is also available in Armenian manuscripts. See pp. 428–436. Ibid., pp. 401–416. Ibid., pp. 417–427. Ibid., pp. 437–448. Ibid., pp. 449–452. Ibid., pp. 453–461. Ibid., pp. 462–463. Ibid., pp. 464–465. Ibid., pp. 466–470. Ibid., pp. 471–473. Ibid., pp. 474–475. Ibid., pp. 476–477. See manuscripts # 7 (old #4) and #10 in Hakovbos Tashean’s, Catalog der armenischen handschriften in der Mechitharisten-bibliothek zu Wien (Vienna, 1895), pp. 43. See also Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 159. For the Classical Armenian text of Abgar’s letter to Christ and Christ’s reply to him see manuscripts # 7 (old #4) of a 1439 AD Yaysmawurk (Synaxary) and #219 (old 7) of another Yaysmawurk and others in Hakovbos Tashean’s, Catalog, pp. 34 and 566. See also Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 160. A. Vartanian, Matenagrutyunk Eutałi, (Vienna: 1930). Hakovbos Tashean, Vardapetut'iwn Arak'eloc' anvawerakan kanonac` mateane, T'ułt' Hakobay ar Kodratos ew Kanonk' T'addēi (Vienna, 1896). For the Armenian text see, Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 161. Vazgen Hakobyan, Kanonagirk hayoc', vol. 1, (Erevan, 1964), pp. 67–100 and 550–557; and Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 161. Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 161. Ibid., p. 161. Č'rakean, Ankanon girk', pp. 462ff, and Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 161. Some manuscripts add, “to Rome.” Ibid., p. 123. This is an anthology of miracles attributed to the apostle John. See Č'rakean, pp. 190–221. Č'rakean, pp. 222–229. Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 160. Ibid., p. 160.

Bibliography Adjémian, Archevêque Chahé. Grand Cataloge des manuscrits Armeniens de la Bible. Lisbone: Bibliothèque Arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian, 1992 ———. S., and M. E. Stone. Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Alexander, Philip S. “Contextualizing the Demonology of the Testament of Solomon,” in Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, ediyed by Armin Lange. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Altaner, Berthold and Stuiber, Alfred. Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenvaeter. Herder: Freiburg, 1993. Anassian, Hagop. Manr Erker, A. K. Sanchean (ed.). Los Angeles: La Verne, 1988. Burchard, Christoph. Armenia and the Bible. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Calzolari Bouvier, Valentina . Apocryphes arméniens: transmission – traduction – creation – iconographie. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1999. Cartojan, N. Cărţile populare în literatura românească. 2vols. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică Română, 1974. Charles, R.H. (Ed.) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the several books. Volume I: Apocrypha. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Charlesworth, James H. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (with a Supplement). Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981. Connolly, R.H. Didascalia Apostolorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929. Č'rakean, K'erobē. Ankanon girk' Arak'elakank. Venice: San Lazzaro, 1904. Denis, A.M. Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. Downey, G. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton University Press, 1961. Duling, D.C. “Testament of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Epp, Eldon Jay. “Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon,” in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002.

108

•B I B LI O GR AP H Y •

Farkasfalvy, Denis. The Formation of the New Testament Canon. New York: Paulist Press, 1983. Georg, Graf. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Volume 1. Città del Vaticano: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944. González Lamadrid, A. (et all.), Historia, Narrativa, Apocalíptica. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2000. Hakopyan, V. (Ed.) The Canon Book of the Armenians. 2vol. Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1971. Hicks, J.M. 1 & 2 Chronicles (NIV Commentary), College Press, 2001. Kaestli, J.D. “La littérature apocryphe peut-elle être comprise comme une ‘littérature au second degré’ (G. Genette)?” In: D. Marguerat and A. Curtis (ed.). Intertextualités. La Bible en échos. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2000. Leloir, Louis. Écrits apocryphes sur les Apôtres: traduction de l'édition arménienne de Venise. Turnhout: Brepols, 1986. Löning, K. “Die Tora als Weg zum ewigen Leben nach Lk 10,25-37,” in: Angenendt, A. / H. Vorgrimler, Sie wandern von Kraft zu Kraft. Festgabe für Bischof R. Lettmann, Münster: Butzon & Bercker, 1993, 49-71. Lohse, E. (Ed.) Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebraeisch und Deutsch. Mit Masoretischer Punktation. Uebersetzung, Einfuehrung und Anmerkungen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1986 4th Edition. Marguerat, D. & Y. Bourquin. Cómo leer los relatos bíblicos. Iniciación al análisis narrativo. Santander: Sal Terrae, 2000. McCown, C.C. The Testament of Solomon. Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1922. Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Naveh, Joseph and Shaked, Shaul. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985. North, R. “El Cronista: 1 y 2 Crónicas, Esdras y Nehemías.” En: Brown, R. (Ed.) Nuevo Comentario Bíblico San Jerónimo. Antiguo Testamento. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2005, 556-614. Oesterley, W.O. An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha. London: SPCK, 1958. Pritchard, J. (Ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Relating to the Old Testament (ANET). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955. Rahlfs, A. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graecae iuxta LXX interpretes. Libri poetici et prophetici. Editio Septima, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 1962. Schiffman, Lawrence. and Swartz, Michael. Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts from the Cairo Genizah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Schmid, Josef. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisareia, vol. 1 of Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes. München: Karl Zink Verlag, 1955-56. Schökel, L.A. Manual de poética hebrea. Ediciones Cristiandad: Madrid, 1988. Schökel, L.A. and Carniti, C. Salmos I. Salmos 1-72. Traducción, introducción y comentario. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1994. Schökel, L.A. and Carniti, C. Salmos I. Salmos 73-150. Traducción, introducción y

•B I B LI O GR AP H Y •

109

comentario. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1993. Schuller, E.M. “The use of Biblical Terms as designations for non-Biblical Hymnic and Prayer Compositions.” In: Stone, M.E. and Chazon, E.G. (Ed.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 207-222. Sekulay, Ogostinos. Nor ktakarani grk'eru karge hayoc' k'ov. Venice: San Lazzaro, 1949. Skemer, Don C. Binding Words: Textual Amulets in the Middle Ages. University Park, Pennsylvania: State University Press, 2006. Stonehouse, N.B. The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church. Goes, [Holland]: Oosterbaan and Le Cointre, 1929. Tanielian, Bishop Anoushavan. Archbishop Nerses Lambronaci, Commentary on Wisdom of Solomon. New York, NY: Skewra Press: 2007. Tarazi, P.N. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Volume 1: Historical Traditions. New Revised Edition. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood (N.Y.), 2003. Tayec'i, Esayi. Ankanon Girk Nor Ktakaranats. Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1898. Vriezen, T.C. & A.S. van der Woude. Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature. Translated by B. Doyle. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005. Wuerthwein, E. The Text of the Old Testament. An introduction to Biblia Hebraica. Translated by E.F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Index •A• Abgar, 42, 85, 105n.126 Adam, 15, 47, 48, 90n.17 Acts of the Apostles, 6, 13, 51, 52, 58, 68, 77, 79, 80 of John, 84, 102n.72 of Paul, 58 of Pilate, 48 Agathangelos, 72, 74 Apostle Bartholomew, 84 James, 4, 52, 58 John, 58, 63, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 84, 93n.1, 94n.31, 95n.18 Paul, 6, 17, 47, 51, 55, 58, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 83, 85, 93n.1, 96n.2, 98n.19 Peter, 6, 48, 52, 55, 58, 77, 78, 83, 92n.14 Thaddeus, 84, 85 Thomas, 66, 76, 84, 98n.20 Aramaic, 45, 92nn.4 and 5 Athanasius (Saint), 23, 42, 51, 52, 91n.7

•B• Babylon, 8, 12, 45, 88n.3, 92n.4 Bagratuni, 79, 82, 102n.81 Barnabas, 85 Baruch, 15, 40, 41 beasts, 31 Bethlehem, 47 bishop, 12, 13, 48, 55, 71, 72, 77, 81, 83, 92n.14, 103n.87

breath, 31, 39 brotherhood, 63, 64, 75, 81, 82

•C• Caesarea, 53, 58, 60, 94n.13, 95n.15 Cairo, 24, 45, 90n.11, 12, 92n.5 canticles, 24 Cappadocia, 60 Castle(s), 26, 30, 35 Cilicia(n), 40, 73, 79 circumsicion, 17 Constantinople, 39, 60, 82 Coptic, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 37, 47, 90nn.11, 12, 18 covenant, 18 Council of Bardaw (Bartaw), 39 Trent, 4, 60 Trullo, 60

•D• Damascus, 13, 23, 47, 77, 78 Daniel, the prophet, 3, 4, 56, 91n.1 dark(ness), 31, 47 David, the king, 9, 13, 17, 19, 21 Dead Sea Scrolls, 2, 45 Deuteronomist, 8–15, 19, 88n.5, 92n.3 diaspora, 2, 3, 11, 19 Diatessaron, 5, 54, 99n.26 Didascalia, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 20, 88n.4 Dionysios of Alexandria, 57–59 doxology, 14, 18

112

•I N D E X •

•E• Earth, 31, 32, 33, 47, 56 East, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 70, 71, 95n.20, 96n.32, 100n.56 Easter, 41, 91n.6 Ecclesiastical History, 58, 95n.15 Eusebius, 48, 57, 58, 59, 60, 92n.14, 95nn.15, 20, 101n.56 Euthalius, Petition of, 64, 76, 77, 79, Esarhaddon, annals of, 9 Eznik, 39, 40, 71, 100n.41

•F• feast, 29, 40, 41, 80, 91n.6, fire, 31, 32, 33, 34 fihrist, 22 forgiveness, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20

Iraq, 39 Ibrāhīm, the monk, 20, 21

•J• Jeroboam, 9 Josiah, 8, 9 Judgment, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 48, 90n.15, Justice, 15, 40

•K• kingdom, 9, 12, 28, 31, 48, 56 Koriwn, 39, 66, 67, 68, 69, 99nn.29, 33, 34 Krtenavor, Theodore, 73, 74

•L• •G• Gaius, 55, 95n.23 Gentiles, 3, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32 Gibeon, 27, 33 Girk Patčarac', 77 Gnostic, 4, 63, 90n.17, 94n.9 Greece, 43 Gregory (the Illuminator), 40, 71, 72, 73, 98n.23 Grigor Tat'ewac'i, 74, 77

•H• Heaven, 31, 47, 48 Hell, 33, 34, 36, 47, 48 Hippolytus, 56, 94n.9, 95n.20

Latin, 12, 15, 16, 47, 49, 52, 55, 82, 83, 94nn.2, 3, 103n.85, 104n.88 Law, 1, 9, 10, 15, 28, 68, 86 Lectionary, 1, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61 Levites, 10 light, 26, 35, 37, 63, 71, 81, 98n.18 liturgy, 20, 39, 40, 64, 102n.72

•M• Marcion, 5, 54, 57 Martha, 26, 28 mashal, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19 Montanism, 55 Muratorian, 54, 55, 97n.3

•N• •I• Icons, 18, 60 Iconostasis, 47, 48 Idolatry, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 89n.4 Irenaeus of Lyon, 5, 53, 54, 55, 94n.9

nasḫī, 22, 23, 24 Nathan, the prophet, 13 Nepos, 57 Nicodemus, 47, 48, 84, 103n.85

113

•I N D E X •

•O• Odes, 7 Origen, 56, 57, 94n.9, 96n.20 Oskan, 80, 81, 82, 102nn. 74, 76

•P• Parpetsi, Ghazar, 67, 68 Pilate, 48, 84, 103n.85 Polycarp, 53, 94n.9 prophet(s), 8, 9, 15, 52, 68, 74, 103n.81 Psalm(s), 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 89n.6

Tatian, 5, 54 Torah, 2 Tradition, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 36, 40, 43, 46, 48, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 67, 72, 89n.4, 90n.7, 92n.3, 99n.23, 102n.72, 103n.84

•V• Vatican(o), 21, 22, 36, 90n.1 virgin, 41, 46, 47, 84 vision, 13, 84 Vulgata, 12, 52, 82

•Z• •Q• Qohelet, 23 Queen, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36 Qumran, 2, 7, 14, 89n.1 Quinisext, 60

•R• refutation(s), 24, 40, 57 Repose, of the Evangelist John, 64, 84, 102n.72, 104n.106 ring, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 Rome, 33, 47, 48, 54, 80, 81, 93n.14, 94n.9 repentance, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 89n.4, 90n.7 Russian, 24, 34, 101n.44

•S• sacrifice(s), 11, 55, 81 Septuagint, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 18, 27, 100n.39 Susanna, 4 Syriac, 5, 12, 15, 17, 39, 47, 54, 67, 68, 89n.4, 91n.7, 103nn.84, 86

•T• Tatˈewacˈi, 75, 78, 99n.23

Zebedee, sons of, 81, 85 Zohrabian, 80, 82, 83

@

BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX TRADITION Vahan S. Hovhanessian, General Editor

This series aims at exploring and evaluating the various aspects of biblical traditions as studied, understood, taught, and lived in the Christian communities that spoke and wrote—and some continue speaking and writing—in the Aramaic, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Romanian, Syriac, and other languages of the Orthodox family of churches. A particular focus of this series is the incorporation of the various methodologies and hermeneutics used for centuries in these Christian communities, into the contemporary critical approaches, in order to shed light on understanding the message of the Bible. Each monograph in the series will engage in critical examination of issues raised by contemporary biblical research. Scholars in the fields of biblical text, manuscripts, canon, hermeneutics, theology, lectionary, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha will have an enormous opportunity to share their academic findings with a worldwide audience. Manuscripts and dissertations, incorporating a variety of approaches and methodologies to studying the Bible in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions—including, but not limited to, theological, historiographic, philological and literary—are welcome. Further information about this series and inquiries about the submission of manuscripts should be directed to: Acquisitions Department Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. P.O. Box 1246 Bel Air, MD 21014–1246 To order books in this series, please contact the Customer Service Department: (800) 770–Lang (within the U.S.) (212) 647–7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647–7707 FAX or browse online by series: www.peterlang.com