From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia

Citation preview

Li Tun}; éi'. Dictmar W. Winidlrr {Edi-L]

From the Oxus River

to the Chinese Shores SttldiEE-t {111 East Syriac ’Chr‘isttitmit}!r in China and Central Asia-1

nricntaiin — patrislica — mcilrmnica ml. 5

LIT

Li Tang, Dietmar W. Winkler (Eds.)

From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica herausgegeben von/edited by

Dietmar W. Winkler (Universität Salzburg)

Vol. 5

LIT

From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia edited by

Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler

LIT

Cover image: Cross with flower motif unearthed at the archaeological site of the Ongut King George Graveyard in Guyuan County, Hebei Province (13th century). Photo provided by Ge Chengyong.

Printed with the support of the Austrian Research Association (Österreichische Forschungsgemeinschaft, ÖFG)

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-643-90329-7

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

(0) ©LIT Zweigniederlassung Klosbachstr. CH-8032 Tel. Fax E-Mail: http://www.lit-verlag.ch +41VERLAG [email protected] Zürich 44-251 107 75GmbH 06 05 Zürich & Co. 2013 KG Wien,

LIT VERLAG Dr. W. Hopf Berlin 2013 Fresnostr. 2 D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-62 03 20 Fax +49 (0)2 51-23 19 72 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.de

Distribution: In Germany: LIT Verlag Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0)2 51-620 32 22, Fax +49 (0) 2 51-922 60 99, E-mail: [email protected] In Austria: Medienlogistik Pichler-ÖBZ, e-mail: [email protected] In Switzerland: B + M Buch- und Medienvertrieb, e-mail: [email protected] In the UK: Global Book Marketing, e-mail: [email protected] In North America: International Specialized Book Services, e-mail: [email protected]

CONTENTS Introduction Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler

5

MANUSCRIPTS & INSCRIPTIONS

On Some Transcriptions of Syriac Names in Chinese Language Jingjiao Documents Hidemi Takahashi

13

Traversing Time and Location: A Prayer-Amulet of Mar Tamsis from Turfan Erica Hunter

25

Fragments of Sogdian Gospel Lectionaries: Some New Identifications William J. Pittard and Nicholas Sims-Williams

43

More on the Priest Särgis in the White Pagoda: The Syro-Turkic Inscription on the White Pagoda in Hohhot Pier G. Borbone

51

A Database of the Syriac and Syro-Turkic Inscriptions from Central Asia and China Margherita Farina

67

Yangzhou and Quanzhou: Ongoing Research on Syro-Turkic Inscriptions Majella Franzmann

83

A Nestorian Tombstone with Syriac Inscriptions from Central Asia Niu Ruji

93

Turkic Christianity in the Black City (Xaraxoto) Peter Zieme

99

2

Contents

HISTORY & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS THE TANG PERIOD

A Belligerent Priest – Yisi and His Political Context Max Deeg

107

The ‘Romanitas’ of the Xi’an Inscription Samuel N. C. Lieu

123

Luminous Ministers of the Da Qin Monastery: A Study of the Christian Clergy Mentioned in the Jingjiao Pillar from Luoyang Matteo Nicolini-Zani

141

A Comparative Study of Two Nestorian Stone Steles Unearthed in the Two Capital Cities of the Tang Dynasty: Xi’an and Luoyang Ge Chengyong

161

The Luoyang Nestorian Pillar and the Gande Township: A Settlement of Foreigners in the Area of Luoyang of the Tang Dynasty Zhang Naizhu

177

THE MONGOL-YUAN PERIOD

When Was the Temple of the Cross at Fangshan a “Christian Temple”? Pierre Marsone

205

Two Portraits for One Man: George, King of the Önggüt Pierre Marsone

225

White Tatars: The Problem of the Origin of the Öngüt Conversion to Jingjiao and the Uighur Connection Maurizio Paolillo

237

Rediscovering the Ongut King George: Remarks on a Newly Excavated Archaelogical Site Li Tang

255

Contents

3

The Rise and Fall of Nestorianism in Quanzhou during the Yuan Dynasty Xu Bin and Xie Bizhen

267

Doubt on the Viewpoint of the Extinction of Jingjiao in China After the Tang Dynasty Wang Yuanyuan

279

Aristocratic Women and Their Relationships to Nestorianism in the 13th Century Chingizid Empire

297

Mehmet Tezcan and Asiye Bayindir

SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY ALONG THE SILK ROUTES

East Syrian Missions to the Malabar Coast in the Sixteenth Century Baby Varghese

317

Assyrians in Armenia – An Interdisciplinary Survey Jasmine Dum-Tragut

341

LITURGICAL TRADITIONS & THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS

The Importance of the Psalter at Turfan Mark Dickens

357

The Triune God in the Tripartite World in a Syriac Manuscript Found at Khara-Khoto Shinichi Muto

381

The Evolution of Pro-Nicene Theology in the Church of the East Daniel H. Williams

387

The Contributions of the Theology of Jingjiao to the Society in China during the Tang Dynasty Garry Moon Yuen Pang

397

4

Contents

How Jingjiao Became Nestorian: Western Perceptions and Eastern Realities Glen L. Thompson

417

Evagrius and the History of Mar Yaballaha: Preliminary Findings on a Virtue Tradition in the Church of the East AnthonyJ. Watson

441

The Glorious Past: The History of the Church of the East in China as Symbol among East Syrian Christians in the 20th Century

457

Martin Tamcke

Index

469

INTRODUCTION Li TANG and Dietmar W. WINKLER

At the time of Timothy I (780-832), a significant and well-organized missionary enterprise towards the East took shape. The prominent East Syriac Catholicos Patriarch may serve here as a symbol of the Church of the East’s encounter with Asian as well as Arabic cultures and religions. Under this energetic promoter of missionary activities, Christianity together with Aramaic culture and liturgy spread along the Silk Roads and reached peoples of Persia, Azerbaijan, Af ghanistan, Turkey, Mongolia, China, Tibet, and India. For the first time in the history of Syrian mission we hear about monks and bishops who were specifi cally equipped for their missionary work and were sent out. They obviously fol lowed the trade routes used by merchants and travelled from Central Asia to China. One may suppose that the staging posts of those Christian merchants in cities like Merv, Bukhara and Samarqand or like the Turfan oasis grew into the first missionary bases among the native peoples. After these missionary efforts had come to an end in the middle of the 9th cen tury due to the religious persecution during the reign of the Chinese Emperor Wuzong (reign, 840-846), which was directed towards foreign religions, another attempt succeeded when East Syrians from Mesopotamia brought Christianity to the Turco-Mongol people. In the 11th century, the Kerait south of Lake Baykal were converted to Christianity. When Genghis Khan established his power in the 13th century, Christianity had already spread among other Mongol tribes, e.g. Naiman, Uighurs, Tangut, and Ongut. After the Mongols captured Baghdad in 1258, Christianity flourished along the Silk Roads from the Oxus to the Chinese shores. The 13th and early 14th centuries were the heyday of the Church of the East. It was geographically the largest Christian Church of the Middle Ages with its centre in Bagdad. This expansion is made more obvious, among others, through the studies of many scholars who were present at the Salzburg International Conferences on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia and whose researches are pre sented in this volume as well as the two previous ones.1 At the same time, to Cf. Jingjiao. The Church ofthe East in China and Central Asia. Ed. by Roman MALEK in con nection with Peter HOFRICHTER. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica 2006. Hidden Treas ures and Intercultural Encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia.

1

6

Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler

make it even more complex, the endeavors of the Church of the East reached not only the peoples of the Far East but also the nomadic and semi-nomadic Arab tribes in the Arabian Peninsular to which Syriac Christianity had also ex panded. After the Arab conquest in the 7th century, Syriac churches encountered Islam.2 We know from the same Timothy I. how Syriac Christianity interrelated with Arab culture: At the court of the Abbasid Caliphs in Bagdad (750-1258), one of the most spectacular and momentous movements in the history of thought took place. Almost all secular Greek books in philosophy, sciences and medicine that were available throughout the former Eastern Roman and Persian empires were translated into Arabic mainly by East Syriac Christians. By that the intellectual heritage of antiquity was transmitted to the blossoming Arab scholarship and herewith provided the basis for a philosophical terminology for Islamic religious thought and culture. This is of paramount cultural and histori cal significance also for the West, as works translated – via Syriac into Arabic – entered Europe through Spain and Sicily even before the Greek originals were known. Why should this be mentioned here, in a volume on China and Central Asia? It is because we see the same Syriac Christianity that exhibited the fascinating energy and willingness to encounter Arab culture and Islam as well as Central Asian and Chinese civilizations and religions. Detailed researches on literary and documentary texts as well as on archeological remains also direct us to a whole set of complicated questions: How shall we synthesize this research on East Syriac Christianity in its so different cultural contexts, e.g. Chinese, Turkic, Mongol, Tibetan and Sogdian? How were those communities along the Silk Roads integrated in the local environment? Were they integrated into the local societies and cultures? How did they celebrate their liturgy, pray and profess their faith? What kind of process of acculturation could be identified? How were the churches in these new environments structured, governed and related to their church leaders and Catholicos-Patriarch in Bagdad? Just to name a few questions. It seems like having many pieces of a colossal puzzle without yet knowing how the final picture will look like. Such being the case, we are fortu nate to present further intriguing pieces to this puzzle with the present volume of various scholarly and profound studies. The twenty-nine papers contained in this book have well presented this land scape from various perspectives such as history, paleography, epigraphy, phi lology, archaeology and theology. Most of the papers in this collection were first presented by scholars from the Asia-Pacific, Europe, and North America at the “3rd International Conference on the Church of the East in China and Central

Ed. by Dietmar W. WINKLER and Li TANG, Berlin: LIT 2009. 2 Cf. e.g. Syriac Churches EncounteringIslam. Past Experiences andFuture Perspectives. Ed. by Dietmar W. WINKLER (PRO ORIENTE Studies in the Syriac Tradition 1). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010.

Introduction

7

Asia”, held from June 4–9, 2009 in Salzburg, Austria. Some of the papers, which were not presented at the conference, have been added to this volume because of the significance of their inquiries as well as their relevance to the theme concerned. The study on East Syriac Christianity has much to gain when it employs an in terdisciplinary approach with a broader perspective. The contributions in this volume have well reflected such a broader prospective. The papers deal with diverse topics, but we have arranged them into four thematic groups: (1) Manu scripts and Inscriptions; (2) Historical Inquiry and Archaeological Excavations; (3) Syriac Christianity along the Silk Road; and (4) Liturgical Traditions and Theological Reflections. In the first group, various scholars have undertaken studies on manuscripts and inscriptions unearthed in China and Central Asia. Hidemi Takahashi gives a philological analysis of several Syriac names contained in Chinese Jingjiao documents, whereas William J. Pittarad and Nicholas Sims-Williams’ article seeks to identify the Gospel texts in the Sogdian fragments from Turfan. Erica Hunter’s article also elaborates on several Syriac fragments from Turfan, which deal with a prayer amulet of Mar Tamsis. Pier Giorgio Borbone, Majalla Franzmann and Niu Ruji have given an English translation of Syro-Turkic In scriptions from Inner Mongolia, Southeast China (Yangzhou) and Central Asia, respectively. Peter Zieme investigates a couple of Syro-Turkic fragments found in Xaraxoto in Inner Mongolia, thus providing some further insight into the me dieval Turkic Christian communities there. Margherita Farina has presented her project of creating a database for all the Syro-Turkic Inscriptions from China and Central Asia. The second part of this volume deals with the historical aspect of East Syriac Christianity. We have divided this section into two historical periods: The Tang (7th–10th centuries) and the Mongol-Yuan (13th–14th centuries) dynasties. On the Tang period, two articles by Max Deeg and by Matteo Nicolini-Zani concen trate on the key personalities mentioned in the Jingjiao inscriptions, respec tively. Max Deeg elaborates on the priest Yisi, the donor of the Nestorian Stele of Xi’an and interprets him against the political background of the Tang Dy nasty, proposing that the content of the Xi’an inscription was for political propaganda blended with religious rhetoric. Matteo Nicolini-Zani, on the other hand conducts a detailed study on the Sogdian clergy names mentioned in the Luoyang inscription. Sam Lieu digs into some of the special terms employed in the Xi’an inscription such as “Da Qin”, “Jingjiao” etc., and offers a new expla nation of the historical and geographical background behind the employment of these terms. No understanding of the inscriptions can be acquired without inves tigating the history of the Tang period, thus the two articles by Ge Chengyong and by Zhang Naizhu. Ge renders a comparative study of the Nestorian monas teries and communities in the two capitals of the Tang Dynasty, Chang’an (to

8

Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler

day’s Xi’an) and Luoyang, whereas Zhang particularly gives an in-depth and detailed investigation on the Sogdian settlements or communities in Luoyang. For the Mongol period, we have a diverse collection of studies, e.g., on the tem ple of cross in Fangshang/Beijing by Pierre Marsone and on the spread of East Syriac Christianity in China (e.g. in Quanzhou) after the Tang Dynasty by Xie Bizhen and Wang Yuanyuan, respectively. What is more, three papers focus on the famous personality King George of the Ongut. Pierre Marsone and Maurizio Paolillo both describe this King George from their own perspectives using Chi nese historical and epigraphic records; and Li Tang’s study on George of the Ongut combines the most recent outcome of an archeological excavation in Gu yuan Country, Hebei Province of China with other medieval written sources related this King George. This section ends with a paper by Mehmet Tezcan togethertowith Asiye Bayindir on the “Nestorian” aristocratic women in the 13th century. Regarding the widespread of East Syriac Christianity in Asia, two special arti cles are included in this volume, which cover the area of Armenia and India. From Baby Varghese’s article, one can have a glimpse of East Syrian missions to the Malabar Coast of India and their connections to Mesopotamia, with a special emphasis on the work of five bishops in Malabar. Meanwhile, Jasmine Dum-Tragut’s work provides us with a historical and demographical survey of the Assyrians in Armenia from the 19th century till now. Last but not the least is the section on the theological or liturgical perspective of East Syriac Christianity. A very elaborated study on the role and the uses of the Psalter in the Church of the East in Central Asia conducted by Mark Dickens, in the context of the Syriac, Pahlavi and Sogdian Psalter fragments from Turfan is included in this section. Shinichi Muto renders an English translation of a 13th century Syriac manuscript found in Karakhoto and gives a theological interpre tation of the doctrine of Trinity expressed in this liturgical piece. Two articles from this section deal with the theological debates of the early church in relation to “Nestorianism”. D. H. Williams emphasizes the Nicene Creed and its adapta tion to the religious need of the Church of the East, whereas Glen Thompson wrestles with the question of how Jingjiao became Nestorian and what was the Western perception vis à vis Eastern realities. The last two papers by Garry M.Y. Pang and Martin Tamcke concentrate on the theological contribution of Jingjiao to medieval Chinese society and to the East Syrian communities in the 20th century, respectively. The material presented in this volume is to be regarded as an overview of the ongoing scholarly researches on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. The discussions and debates will certainly continue as new archeological discoveries in China and Central Asia have been and will be brought to light. From the Oxus River to the Chinese shore, more and more traces of East Syriac Christianity have been discovered either through archaeological excavations or

Introduction

9

by incident. Therefore, the study on East Syriac Christianity in this part of the world remains a fascinating as well as challenging endeavor. New discoveries, such as manuscripts or artifacts, help us gain new insights into the history, the ology, and liturgical tradition of the Church of the East in its multi-cultural and multi-religious environment. The Salzburg International Conference on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia, which is held every four years seeks to bring together international scholars working in this field and to pro vide a platform for them to share their latest research outcomes in this area. We, as coordinators of the conference and editors of this volume, are grateful for their contributions. We would also like to take this opportunity to extend our thanks to the Austrian Federal Ministry for Science and Research, the Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, the Mayr-Melnhof Institute for Eastern Christian Studies Salzburg, and the Pro Oriente Foundation for their generous sponsorship of the 3rd Inter national Conference on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia. For the organizational support of the conference and for the final technical typeset ting of this volume, we give our sincere thanks to Regina Augustin and Verena Bull. Finally, the publication of this volume could not have been made possible without the financial support of the Austrian Research Association (ÖFG).

MANUSCRIPTS & INSCRIPTIONS

ON SOME TRANSCRIPTIONS OF SYRIAC NAMES IN CHINESE-LANGUAGE JINGJIAO DOCUMENTS Hidemi TAKAHASHI The University of Tokyo, Japan

Iˊ Among the exercises that might be undertaken by a Syriacist with minimal knowledge of Chinese but with the ability at least to recognise and distinguish Chinese characters is a review of those words (mostly proper names) that are, or appear to be, transcriptions from Syriac in the Chinese-language Jingjiao texts dating from the Tang period, that is to say, the texts of the so-called Xi’an Stele (Da Qin Jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei ໻⾺᱃ᬭ⌕㸠Ё೟⹥) and the Jingjiao documents discovered in the early part of the twentieth century in Dunhuang,1 as well as the portion of the Da Qin Jingjiao Xuanyuan zhibenjing ໻⾺᱃ᬭᅷ ‫ܗ‬㟇ᴀ㍧ newly recovered from the stone pillar found in Luoyang. It is clear that in looking at these words, one must consider how the Chinese characters used to represent them were pronounced in the period when these texts were composed and written down. Past scholars were, of course, aware of this,2 but not all have applied this principle to their work in a systematic way. Saeki, for example, occasionally refers to what he calls the “old Chinese pronunciation” of the characters, but when he translated the name 䊔㭽㘊 (pinyin “hèsàyƝ”, Wade-Giles “ho4-sa4-yeh1”), which occurs in the Zunjing ᇞ㍧, as “Hosea”, he was evidently thinking only of the modern pronunciation of the characters, whereas the Middle Chinese pronunciation (“Ȗâ-sât-La” in the reconstruction by

1

2

The whereabouts of the Jingjiao manuscripts that made their way to Japan was for long un known to the academic world. The four of them which are likely to be genuine are now known to be in Osaka, among the approximately 760 manuscripts from Dunhuang mostly collected by Tǀru Haneda with the financial assistance of Chǀbei Takeda V ѨҷⳂ℺⬄䭋݉㸯 and now housed in Kyǀ-u Shooku ᴣ䲼᳌ሟ, the library of the Takeda Science Foundation (Tonkǀ Hikynj ᬺ✠⾬ボ Collection, no. 459 = Xuting Mishisuo jing, no. 460 = Yishen lun, no. 13 = Zhixuan anle jing, 431 = Da Qin Jingjiao Xuanyuan [zhi]ben jing, first part). See KYƿ-U SHOOKU 2009a, 7, 149–150, 161–162; 2009b, 128–132 (for colour photographs of no. 13). On the composition of and the history of research on the Tonkǀ-Hikynj collection as a whole, see now IWAMOTO 2010 with the literature cited there. See, for example, MOULE 1930, 59 n. 69.

14

Hidemi Takahashi

Karlgren), as well as the context (cf. Daniel 1:6ff.), clearly favours the interpre tation as “Azariah” (Syriac [= syr.] cAzaryƗ).3 In another instance, Saeki, appar ently misled this time by the Japanese pronunciation of the characters (kynjretsu), interpreted the name ঞ⚜ (pinyin “jíliè”) on the Xi’an Stele as “Cyriacus”, whereas the reconstructed Middle Chinese pronunciation (“g’Lԥp-lLät” Karlgren) favours an interpretation as “Gabriel”, as was already suggested by Johannes Heller in 1885.4 An attempt has been made in a paper published elsewhere to provide a list of the transcribed names that occur in the Jingjiao documents with their pronunciations according to the reconstruction for Middle Chinese by Karlgren [= K] and for Late Middle Chinese by Pulleyblank [= PL].5 The fol lowing lines offer some of the observations deriving from that exercise, which, as will be seen, are not exactly novel and ground-breaking, but which at least help us to confirm or refute some of the suggestions which have been made in the past.

II One of the more obvious and not unexpected observations is that the transcrip tion in the Jingjiao texts often reflect the peculiarities of the Northwestern dia lect (or dialects) of Middle Chinese as are also known to us from other sources, such as the Chinese Manichaean texts and the Tibetan transcription of the Qian ziwen गᄫ᭛.6 These peculiarities include the realisation of the standard final stop “-t” as liquid “-r” or “-l” (a phenomenon observed, incidentally, also in the Korean pronunciation of Chinese characters). This helps explain the transcrip tions we have seen in Section I of the “-zar-” of “Azariah” and the “-el” of “Gabriel”, as well as such instances as the rendition of “Mary” (syr. Maryam) as ᳿㡊 (mòyàn; K muât-Läm; PL muat-jiam) in the Xuting Mishisuo jing ᑣ㙑䗋 䀽᠔㍧and of the Middle Persian [= MP]/Sogdian [sogd.] “tarsƗg/tarsƗk” (“Christian”) as 䘨࿥ (dásuǀ; K d’ât-sâ; PL tůat-sa) on the Xi’an Stele. Another is the denasalisation, for example, of “n-” into “nd-” and “m-” into “mb-” (re flected also in the kan’on ⓶䷇ pronunciation of Chinese characters in Japanese, which usually follows the pronunciation of the region around Chang’an [Xi’an] in the seventh-eighth century), which helps explain the rendition of Middle Per sian “dƯbƗn” (“epistles”) as ᆻ㨀 (níngwàn; K nieng-mLwLJn; PL niajƾ-ƶjyan; Northwestern ndƱei-mbvän [Haloun-Henning]),7 and allows us to identify the 3 4 5 6

7

See MOULE 1930, 55, n. 61. HELLER 1885, 107, 118f.; cf. PELLIOT 1996, 255. TAKAHASHI 2008. On Northwestern Middle Chinese, LUO 1933 can still be consulted with profit. On transcribed words in Chinese Manichaean texts, see YOSHIDA 1986. On the Tibetan Qianziwen, see also HANEDA 1923. See HALOUN-HENNING 1952, 207; YOSHIDA 1986, list, no. 30; for the suggestion of emending ᆻᗱ㍧ (níngsƯjƯng) in the Zunjing to ᆻ㨀㍧ (níngwànjƯng), see CHAVANNES-PELLIOT 1913,

On Some Transcriptions of Syriac Names in Chinese-Language Jingjiao Documents

15

name 555% (nuoningyi, PL na-niaer-jit)8 found in the Zunjing as being most likely a rendition of “Daniel” (syr. Dani’el/Daniyel),9 even if the inconsistency of Standard Middle Chinese “n-” corresponding to Syriac “n-” in the second syllable will then call for further explanation. A third feature that should be mentioned is the loss of the final “-ng” (-13) (again, a phenomenon which occurs also in the Japanese pronunciation of Chinese characters). This helps account, for example, for the use of the character him-3 (ning) to represent the sound of “di ” in “diban”, and just the “d-” of “Rfiha d-Qudsa” (Holy Spirit) in the transcrip tion Egfilg‘llfiw (luhém'ngjfisha; K luo-Xa-nieng-kiu-sa, PL lué-xa-niaer-kyé sax) which we encounter in the Zunjing, as well as for the rendition of “Mat thew” (syr. Mattay) as 593?? (mingtai; K miwnng-t’ai; PL miaer-thaj) found on the Xi’an Stele and in the Zunjing.

III Examination of the transcribed names in Xuting Mshisuo jing and Yishen lun

éiEPEfi, which are generally thought to be the earliest of the surviving Jingjiao documents, is of interest in view of the opinion of Lin Wushu, who considers the manuscripts we have today of these texts to be modem forgeries, although based on genuine Tang-Dynasty texts.10 In a number of cases, the transcriptions are found to be closer to the Syriac in their Middle Chinese forms than in their modern forms, so that “inventing” them would have required knowledge of both

Syriac and Middle Chinese. This is especially the case with ,%§!Efl5fi (wfilishil ian: K uo-lji-si-liam, PL Yué-li-sr-liam) as a transcription of the Syriac “Orislem” (“Jerusalem”). Similar comments may be made for (jixi, PL ki sit: syr. Qesar/Qisar, “Caesar”),11 55.13))? (atan; PL Ya—tfiam: syr. Adam, “Adam”)

and 11915? (yaoxi; PL jiaw-sfiip: syr. Yawsep, “Joseph”), as well as for Eligfi (mOyan; PL muat-jiam: syr. Maryam) mentioned in Section 11. Some others,

such as 95$1E§Wi駀fl5§51 (mishihé/mishihe, PL mji-si-xa/mjiaj -§r-xa: syr. Msiha,

“Christ”), 5% fi/%E%§Z (yishu, PL ji-syé/inaj-sué: syr. Isc')‘, “Jesus”), Hittfifiiag (pr'luodousi; PL pfiji-la-tué-sz: syr. Pilatos, “Pilate”), zigillz (suoduona; PL sa ta-na: syr. sate—ma, “Satan”), 12 likewise reasonably accurately represent the

8

136 (cf. id. 1911, 556). On the character EB (nuo, 5551?] sec. Zihui bu $§¥fi also na, fu), see MOROHASHI 1966-68, vol. 11, p. 242, no. 39394; HANYU DAZIDIAN, p. 3768.

As has been done, for example, by WU 2001, 23 and NICOLINI-ZANI 2006a, 220', as opposed to “Hnanisé‘” as suggested by Saeki. 10 See LIN 2003, 1864228, id. 2006, id. 2007, 3964398; cf. NICOLINI-ZAN12006b, 27429. It may be expected that further light will be shed on this matter when scholars are allowed access to the manuscripts themselves (cf. note 1 above). In this instance, Saeki’s interpretation as “Caesar” is better than Moule’s “Caiaphas” (MOULE 1940, 18). 12 Cf. (Suédan', K sa-tan', PL sa-tan, “Satan”) on the Xi’an Stele, which is closer to the Par

16

Hidemi Takahashi

sounds of the Syriac counterparts in their reconstructed Middle Chinese pro nunciation. In the Yishen lun we also encounter at least two words of Iranian origin, filigrn (cannu; PL tsham-nué) representing sogd. smnw (smanu, simnu)

“Satan”14 and E731)“ (shihu; PL shaik-xut) answering to MP yahud/jahud (sogd. cxwd [éaxu6]) “Jew”.15 Other instances, however, are more problematic. Looking at their Middle Chinese pronunciation does not appear to offer us any immediate new insights about the much debated interpretation of (xusuc');

PL shyé-sa) or of

(kenuyishu, PL khjazik-nuéi-inaj-§u€5).16 Similarly,

$5 (yuhun; PL ijk-xun), believed to represent “John”, is no closer to the Syriac ‘Yohannan” (cf. sogd. ywhnn) in its Middle Chinese pronunciation than in the modern; %§ (ruohun; PL riak-xun) is further away in both. Such in stances suggest that the text has been corrupted, giving support to Lin’s view of the manuscripts as being later forgeries. Two instances lend themselves to (very)

tentative suggestions for emendation:

(shunan; PL shyt-nan) and §§E

(duonan; PL ta-nan), both understood to mean “Jordan”, would produce a sound

closer to the Syriac “Yordnan” if the two were merged to form

(PL

shyt-ta-nan), especially if we may posit a similar transformation of y- into I— as observed in MP yahud/jahud (with the latter sound represented, as seen above,

by PL sh—); E’Z/FU (qiju; PL kit-kyé), “Golgotha”, would produce a sound that is at least closer to the first two syllables of Syriac “Gagulta” if the two characters were reversed.

IV Other than in the interpretation of 52?]! (11110) as “Gabriel” mentioned in Section I, examination of the Middle Chinese pronunciation adds relatively little to our insights into the names found in the main text of the Xi’an Stele which have already been the subject of much discussion.17 While in the majority of cases thian/MP s’t’n (/satan/, DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2004, 306) than to syr. sate—ma with its emphatic state ending. %: so the manuscript; usually in the commoner forms 755, 2% in printed editions. 14 GHARIB 2004, 375', cf. BENVENISTE 1964, 87f. (: id. 1979, 310f.', see also id. 1979, 175f., 234); KASCHEWSKY 2002, 133', NICOLINI-ZAN12006a, 244.

15 DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2004, 198,373;GHAR1B 2004, 131. 16 On Fiji, see HANEDA 1926, 128f. (: id. 1958, 250f., suggesting emendation to

xupo, PL

shyé-phua, and interpretation as “Jehovah”, a theonym which, it should be noted, is not current

in seeSyriac); HANEDA MOULE 1918, 1930, 144 (:59 id. n. 69',N100L1N1-ZANI2006a,265; 1958, 238f., suggesting identification DEEG 2007, of 423f. as On MP “kadés”, citing MULLER 1904, 61', on q’dws in MP, see further DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2004, 201', note also {BHE% Eifi jialushi, PL khia-lué-gr < q’dws, in the Monijiao Xiabuzan @Fb'iingtBfig, Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 54, 1274a 49, cf. MOULE 1930, 55 n. 59, YOSHIDA 1983, 327); NICOLINI-ZANI 2006a, 236f. (suggesting emendation to $3.51 “forgiving”). 17 The most discussed of these names is no doubt that of tflfiag (aluobén', K ~a-la-pu9n', PL Pa

On Some Transcriptions of Syriac Names in Chinese-Language Jingjiao Documents

17

the Chinese and Syriac names of the clerics in the list accompanying the main text have little to do with each other in sound, it has been pointed out that in some cases, at least, the Chinese names have some phonetic correspondence with their Syriac counterparts.18 The Chinese names which are likely to be pho netic renditions of the corresponding Syriac names include: (yaoyue, K iau-jiwnt; PL jiaw-yat: syr. Yo’él, “Joel”), EU??? (mingtai, K miwpng-t’ai, PL miajrj-thaj: syr. Mattay, “Matthew”, cf. Section II above), jézlfi‘ (puji; K p’uo

tsiei; PL phué-tsiaj: syr. Pusay), KNEE (ye'jumo; K ia-kiu-mua, PL jia-kyé mua: syr. Ya‘qob, “Jacob”)19 and $15 (shénshen, K s'iom-Z'ien, PL sim-shin: syr. Semson, “Samson”). Two considerations evidently operated in the composition of the Chinese names of the clerics given in the list; for we see that with the exception of HBjfifi (ye'jumo) just mentioned, all the names consist of two characters, and in the majority of cases, at least, the characters selected have meanings that are

appropriate for religious names. The Chinese name Eli? (heji; K yua-kiét, PL xhua-kjit, literally “harmonious-auspicious”), for example, of the priest George (syr. Giwargis), are the same as the middle two characters of the Hflldifi. (yihejisi, K ngjie-yua-kiét-si; PL rji-xfiua-kjit-sz), which appears in the Zunjing

and has been interpreted as a rendition of Giwargis. Similarly, W448 (fi'llin, K p’iuat-liam, PL ijt/filt-lim), the Chinese name of the priest Ephrem (syr.

Aprém), corresponds to the second and third characters of EWWA‘; (efi'llinjing, PL Yat-ijt/fut-lim-kjiajrj), which, again, occurs in the Zungjing and is usually understood to mean the “Book of Ephrem”.20 In the light of these considerations, the following names too may involve partial phonetic rendering of the Syriac

names: £74m (yeli, K ngipp-lji, PL rjiap-li; “work-benefit”: syr. Gabri’él, “Gabriel”; but cf. £2,514 [jilie] in the main text of the Stele, mentioned in Section I), NE, (lijian, K lji-kien, PL li-kjiarj, “benefit-see”: syr. Lfiqa, “Luke”; cf.

Zunjing Elm] [lujia, K luo-ka; PL lué-kja:]), E4? (juxin; K kiwo-sién, PL la-pun', NW Ya-la-pon). To the references cited in this connection at TAKAHASHI 2008, 639f., add NICOLINI-ZANI 2006a, 102f. and DEEG 2009, 147f.

18 See, RIBOUD 2001, 23. LIEU 2009, 233f., mentions Elfifi (yaolun), EHVF (fulin), $512 (laiwéi', PL laj-Pyj: Noh, “Noah”) and El? (jfixin) as possible cases of phonetic rendition. Cf. ENE? (ye’jfiffi', K ia-kiu-p’iu', PL jia-kyé-ijé/fué) in the Monijiao Xiabuzan, Taisho Tripi taka, vol. 54, 1275a 27', cf. Yoshida [1986], list, no. 95, see also ibid., 11 n. 54).

20 195% (fulin), of course, is used elsewhere as the Chinese word for “Rome” (< MP Hr6m), but the correspondence with (efulinjing), if the latter is indeed the “Book of Ephrem”, leaves little doubt that the name here is intended to represent the Syriac name “Ephrem”. Among other interpretations for (efulinjing), that as “Letter to the Romans” (so JIN 1979, 334) fails to account for the first character. MP afrin (“prayer”) is another possibility, but the Middle Chinese ending “-im” of M favours “Ephrem” over “afrin” (cf. W519i JfiL [PY afuyin', PL Ya-ijt-jin] in the list of the Manichaean scriptures in the Moni Guangfo jiaofa yiliie, Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 54, 1280b 21', cf. Haloun-Henning [1952] 194 n. 61, 208', Yoshida [1986], list, no. 5).

l8

Hidemi Takahashi

kié/kyé-sin, “dwell in-believe”: syr. Qostantinos, “Constantine”, partial tran scription of “Q(')s’,tan-”?),21 1% (baoguo, K pau-kwak, PL puaw-kuék; “pro tect-country”: syr. Bakkos, “Bacchus”), 593* (mingyi, K miwpng-iét, PL miajij-int, “bright-one”: syr. ‘Ammanfi’el, “Emmanuel”, transcription of “

manfi’el”?), (baoling, K pau-lieng, PL puaw-liajij; “treasure-spirit”: syr. Pawlos, “Paul”, cf. Zunjing fiffi§ [baolu, K pau-luo; PL puaw-lu5]). The bishop Elfifi (yaolun, PL jiaw-lyn, “shine-wheel”) and the monk (yaoyuan, PL jiaw-ijyan; “shine-source”) both bear the Syriac name of “John” (syr. Yohannan), so that in these cases the first character 5% may be intended to rep resent the sound “y6-” of ‘Yohannan”. A number of instances may also involve a semantic, as well phonetic, corre spondence between the Syriac and Chinese names. The Chinese name him-3%! (ningshu, K nieng-s'iwo, PL niajg-sié/syé) of Catholicos Hnanisc')‘ (lit. “compas sion of Jesus”) is probably intended to represent the last two syllables (-nis6‘) of the Syriac name, but there may also be an intended semantic correspondence between $551 (shu: “kind, indulgent; to forgive, show mercy”) and “hnan(a)”

(“mercy, compassion”). In the Chinese name 55% (baoda, K pau-d’at; PL puaw-tfiat) given to the priest Msihadad (“Christ gave”), where the second character is probably intended to represent the sound of “-dad”, it is possible that the first character E (“treasure”) is intended to represent in some way the idea of “Christ” (cf. the Buddhist concept of the “Three Treasures”, triratna E

E, consisting of the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha, iiiiPéi'é). In a small number of cases, the Chinese names may be intended to convey something of the meaning of the Syriac (or Persian) names, without there being any phonetic correspondence. The name 15$)ng (wenshun, PL ujyn/uun-sfiyn; “hear-obey”), for example, of the monk Simeon (syr. Sem‘on) may involve a play on the sense

of syr. smac (“to hear”), while the name

(lingshou, PL liajij-sfiiw, “spirit

longevity”) of the monk Enos (syr. Anos) may have been inspired by the homophony of the Syriac (Biblical) name with MP anos (“immortal”).

V Another Jingjiao document that contains a large number of transcribed names is the Zunjing. Among the relatively small number of Biblical figures and saints in the first part of that text which still defy identification,22 (suoluo, PL sa-la) is clearly closer in sound to “Sarah” (syr. Sara) than to “Silas” (syr. Sila, so Saeki) and “Saul” (syr. Sawal; so Tang, Wu) which have been suggested so far, 21 LIEU 2009, 234, also sees a semantic connection between $1? (“constant in faith”) and the

original Latin meaning of “Constantinus”, but one has to question whether such knowledge of Latin was current among the Christians reaching China in this period. 22 On the identification of EBiilmlliE (nuoningyi) as “Daniel”, see Section II above.

On Some Transcriptions of Syriac Names in Chinese-Language Jingjiao Documents

19

whereby, given the presence in the list of popular martyrs (Sergius, George, Bacchus)23 and persons prefiguring Christian martyrs (Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael), the Sarah intended may be the fourth-century (?) martyr and sister of Behnam rather than the wife of Abraham.24 Among the interpretations proposed for figfi (minyan, K mien-lam, PL min-jiam), “Mary” (syr. Maryam)25 seems to be the strongest candidate, since, despite the phonetic difficulty (cf. the phoneti cally closer Eligfi [mOyan; PL muat-jiam] mentioned in Section II), support is

provided by the almost equally phonetically distant ifigfi (manyan, PL muan jiam; “Maryam”, as the mother of Mani) in the Manichaean Moni Guangfo

jiaofa yilu'e @lEfi'filTfi‘ljélimfim as well as by the fact that the character gfi, common to the three names just mentioned, is one that is used of feminine beauty. Greater difficulties are still encountered in the interpretation of the names of the sacred books in the second half of the Zunjing. One new suggestion that might

be made here is on gill)?

(yiliyuesi-jing, PL rjjiajj-1i-rjyat-sz—kjiajrj). The

name @711] E E1 has been interpreted as “George” (syr. Giwargis; so Saeki)27 and “Julius” (syr. Yfiliy6s; so Tang). A name that is closer, at least, to the Mid dle Chinese pronunciation of the characters is “Gregory” (syr. GrigOriyOs). Which Gregory is thereby likely to be meant is difficult to determine in the ab sence of additional information, but a possible candidate will be Gregory Na zianzene, the one most frequently cited by the East Syrians out of the three Greek Fathers by the name of Gregory whose works are known to have been translated into Syriac (i.e. Nazianzene, of Nyssa and Thaumaturgus).28

23 It will be worth remembering here that the acts of Sergius and Bacchus and of George are among the Syriac hagiographical works known to have been translated into Sogdian (SIMS WILLIAMS 1992a, 52', id 1992b). 24 On Behnam and Sarah, see FIEY 2004, 54f., 167, with the literature cited there. It has to be admitted, however, that the cult of Behnam and Sarah has been more popular among the West Syrians than among the East Syrians and that its spread seems to be of relatively late date. 25 So WU 2001, 23f.', cf. NICOLINI-ZAN12006a, 220 with n. 40, who, while adopting the interpre tation in his translation, notes the difficulty of applying the title iiEE (fawang, “law-king”) to a female figure. Saeki had translated the name as “Simeon” (syr. Sem‘On), but with this one has to compare $T%j%fi(cenwénséng; PL tgfiom-Yun-soérj) in the following line of the text, which has been interpreted as “Simon Peter” (sogd. Sem‘On Sang, where “sang” I “stone, rock”; see HANEDA 1929, 13 I id. 1959, 281', cf. GHARIB 2004, 375, no. 9288, s.v. smywn snk). If the interpretation of as the martyr Sarah is correct, her brother Behnam (syr. Behnam) will be another candidate, but the separation of the two names within the list, as well as the phonetics, causes difficulties.

2“ Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 54, 1280a 5-, cf. YOSHIDA 1986, list, no. 58. 27 Cf. ETD 5E (yihe’jisi', PL l’Jl-Xfilla-kjll-SZ', I St. George) in the first half of the Zunjing (cf. section IV above). 28 See BROCK 2007, 21-23', TAYLOR 2007, 56457. It is unlikely that any of the minor East Syrian authors called Gregory (e.g. Catholicos GregoryI [605-608/9], Gregory ofKashkar', on whom, see BAUMSTARK 1922, 128) is intended here. The identification made by WU 2001, 35 (cf.

20

Hidemi Takahashi

VI The remaining Jingjiao documents contain only a relatively small number of transcribed Syriac words.29 One instance that might be mentioned here is E551

915 (luhéna; PL lué-xa-na) in the newly discovered section of the Xuanyuan

zhz'ben jing (column 15, the first part of which reads: quiigfig%%§7§ifiéié Eda)” The first two characters undoubtedly represent syr. ruha, “spirit” (cf. Section II above). The third character 315, which was taken as demonstrative “that” by Tang, may also be a part of the transcription, the three characters then together representing syr. ruhana “spiritua ”. The following character ‘5? (“body”) was translated as “entity” by Tang, no doubt to avoid the difficulty of the “spirit” (the Holy Spirit) having a body,31 but this will be unnecessary if E 351315 is understood as “spiritual” and if we remember the phrase “spiritual body” used of the resurrected body at I Cor. 15:44,3'2 which will then allow us to translate the sentence quoted, perhaps, as “The spiritual body will seek out the ultimate truth and will for ever enjoy life.”

VII The foregoing lines, which contain some hurried observations about the tran scribed Syriac terms in the Jingjiao documents by an amateur of Jingjiao stud ies, offer, as has been said, relatively little that is new. It is hoped nevertheless NICOLINI-ZANI 2006a, 222), of gflfi 1@\ (yiliyuesi) with George of the Arabs (ob. 724) is unlikely to be correct even if the name is to be interpreted as “George”, since the religious works and letters of that West Syrian bishop would not have circulated among the East Syrians, while his translations of Aristotle’s logical works (Categoriae, De interpretatione, Analytica priora), if they did, would have been referred to not by the name of their translator but by the name of their original author or by their titles. A similar comment may be made about Wu’s

identification (op. cit. 43415) of @fiéefififi (mosajisijing', PL mua-sat-kjit-sz-kjiajij) as a work of the similarly West Syrian Sergius of Résh‘ayna (ob. 536), the Acts of Sergius (and Bacchus) being a much more likely candidate there (cf. note 23 above). 29 One interpretation that was overlooked in TAKAHASHI 2008 (on p. 653) is that of

(lu6

jiméi', PL la-xhjiaj-muaj) in the Zhixuan anle jing as syr. rahma (“mercy”) by NICOLINI-ZANI

2006a, 290. 3° See TANG 2009a, 1123-, ead. 2009b, 141. 31 TANG 2009a 118 translates the part quoted above as “The entity of Luke (the Holy Spirit) is truly the embodiment of truth and the life of eternal joy” and remarks in the footnote that the

phrase EEEHB‘EE literally means “that body ofLuke”. 32

The phrase “odautx nvsoucxtmév” occurs twice there in the Greek (with 6611a not explicit but understood in the second instance). In the Syriac Peshitta, the first instance is translated as

“pagra ruhanaya” and the second as “pagra d-ruh”.

On Some Transcriptions of Syriac Names in Chinese-Language Jingjiao Documents

21

that these jottings will provide a stimulus for those who are better qualified to look again into the matter of these transcriptions which remains one of the more tantalising aspects of the study of these texts.

Bibliography BAUMSTARK, Anton. 1922. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit AusschluB der christ

lich-palastinensischen Texte. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber. BENVENISTE, Emile. 1964. “Le vocabulaire chrétien dans les langues d’Asie Centrale”,

in Atti del convegno sul tema: L’Oriente cristiano nella storia della civilta (Roma 31 marzo — 3 aprile 1963) (F irenze 4 aprile 1963). Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 85—91 [92]. — Repr. in BENVENISTE 1979, 308—314.

BENVENISTE, Emile 1979. Etudes sogdiennes. Wiesbaden: Reichert. BROCK, Sebastian P. 2007. “L’apport des Peres grecs a la littérature syriaque”, in Les Peres grecs dans la tradition syriaque, ed. A. Schmidt & D. Gonnet. Paris: Geuthner, 9—26. CHAVANNES, Ed[0uard], & P[au1] PELLIOT. 1911. “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine”. Journal asiatique, lOe sér. 18, 499—617.

CHAVANNES, Ed[0uard], 1913. “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine (deuxieme par tie)”. Journal asiatique, 11c sér. 1, 99—199 and 261—394.

DEEG, Max [translated by Takashi Furumatsu]. 2007. “Gareki n0 yama kara Kami wo

horu — Keikyo-bunken t0 kenkyfi n0 ideorogi” Elfi “9 UJ 79‘ 6 12113 ’5’ TE 5 —%$5li

gr e 154% o 4 7‘“ 4 r1 3%“ —, in Chfigoku shukyo bunken kenkyfi weaietu 511 ed. Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 411—426. DEEG, Max 2009. “Ways to G0 and Not to G0 in the Contextualisation 0f the Jingjiao Documents of the Tang Period”, in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, ed. Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang. Vienna: LIT, 135—152. DURKIN-MEISTERERNST, Desmond. 2004. Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Dictionary of Manichaean Texts III/ 1). Turnhout: Brepols. FIEY, Jean Maurice. 2004. Saints syriaques. Princeton: The Darwin Press. GHARIB, B[adr al-Zaman]. 2004. Sogdian Dictionary (Sogdian, Persian, English). Te hran: Farhangan Publications.

HANEDA, T6ru 33 53 $. 1918. “Keikyo kyoten Isshin-ron kaisetsu” §§llfifiII$fififi

541. Geibun amnesia—ea 9/1, 141—144. _ Repr. in HANEDA1958,235—239. HANEDA, T6ru 1923. “Kan-Ban taion Senjimon n0 dankan” iifi¥i§$$i “9 Elf/Iii

The Toyo-Gakuho nae—1% 13/3, 390—410. _ Repr. in HANEDA 1958, 396—419 and P1. 1 1.

HANEDA, T6ru 1926. “Keikyo kyoten J0ch6-Meishish0-ky6 ni tsuite” §§ll§§§fll$fi§jfl§ 5%“)31 l; (1‘ 'C , in Naito-hakushi kanreki shukuga shinagaku r0ns6 Wfiifiiifi

22

Hidemi Takahashi

@3155" §%B%Efi%, ed. T. Haneda. Kyoto: Kobundo, 117—148. — Repr. in HANEDA 1958, 240—269. HANEDA, Toru 1929. “Keikyo kyoten Shigen-anraku-kyo ni tsuitc” iiigéfifigfé§%

l;

(1‘ 'C. The Toyo-Gakuho 18/1, 1—24. — Repr. in HANEDA 1958, 270—291 and

P1. 6

HANEDA, Toru 1958. Haneda-hakushi shigaku ronbun-shl'l II 31% Elfiiigifiii, _F % Recueil des oeuvres posthumes de Toru Haneda, II. Etudes linguistiques et reli gieuses. Kyoto: Toyoshi-Kenkyfikai, Société pour l’étude l’histoire de l’Extréme Orient, Université de Kyoto. HALOUN, G., & W.B. HENNING. 1952. “The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light”. Asia Major, NS. 3, 184—212.

HANYU DAZIDIAN fligji$ifii (575$) . 1995. Ed. Hanyu DaZidian Bianji Wei yuanhui flifijiiljiififié 51%. [Chengdu]: Sichuan Cishu Chubanshe/ [Wuhan]: Hubei Cishu Chubanshe. HELLER, Joh[annes] Ev[angelist]. 1885. “Das nestorianische Denkmal in Singan fu”. Zeitschrift fi'Ir katholische Theologie 9, 74—123.

IWAMOTO, Atsushi

2010. “Kyo-u Shooku 26 Tonko-Hikyfi gaikan — Sono

kosei to kenkyfishi”

[Ekiirwfil tFiléfi—% “J 15512 (1 113%???

Seihoku Shutsudo Bunken Kenkyfi fijttljiifififiif% 8, 55—81. JIN, Naomichi WEIE. 1979. “Keikyo hibun ikyo no kanji hyoki ni mieru saigaiteki yoso ni tsuitc” fitfififii ' 1E§§VJY¥$i€€ELZ Jr 71 5 %9|\E4J§%11 9 1‘ 'C [0n Iranian Elements in Nestorian Inscription and its Sutras], in Collected Papers for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Establishment of the Society for Near Eastern

Studies in Japan Eli-