Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies (volume 19): 2016 9781463240028

Citation preview

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Volume 19 2016

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute GENERAL EDITOR George Anton Kiraz, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute / Gorgias Press EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Adam Becker, New York University Sebastian P. Brock, University of Oxford Aaron Michael Butts, The Catholic University of America Jeff W. Childers, Abilene Christian University Muriel Debie, CNRS Paris Sidney Griffith, The Catholic University of America Amir Harrak, University of Toronto Susan Harvey, Brown University Mor Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, Mardin-Edessa Publishing House Andreas Juckel, University of Münster Hubert Kaufhold, Oriens Christianus Robert Kitchen, Knox-Metropolitan United Church Kathleen McVey, Princeton Theological Seminary Heleen Murre-van den Berg, Leiden University Wido T Van Peursen, The Peshitta Institute of Leiden University Lucas Van Rompay, Duke University Alison Salvesen, University of Oxford Hidemi Takahashi, University of Tokyo Jack Tannous, Princeton University BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Ute Possekel, Harvard Divinity School CONFERENCE REPORT EDITOR Jeanne-Nicole Saint-Laurent, Marquette University ASSISTANT EDITOR J. Edward Walters, Rochester College

HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES (ISSN 1937-318X) Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is a publication of BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE. Copyright © 2016 by GORGIAS PRESS and BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE. The Syriac word hugoye, plural of hugoyo, derives from the root hg
‘to think, meditate, study’; hence, hugoyo ‘study, meditation’. Recently, hugoye has been used for ‘academic studies’; hence, hugoye suryoye ‘Syriac Studies’. SUBSCRIPTIONS Subscription requests should be addressed to Gorgias Press, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. Subscriptions may be made online at http://www.gorgiaspress.com. Back issues are available. NOTE FOR CONTRIBUTORS Submission guidelines and instructions are found on the Hugoye web site at http://www.bethmardutho.org. NOTE TO PUBLISHERS Copies for review should be sent directly to the Book Review Editor at the following address: Ute Possekel, Hugoye Book Review Editor, Gordon College, Department of History, 255 Grapevine Road, Wenham, MA 01984. ADVERTISEMENTS Rates: $250 full page; includes a listing in all e-mail announcements for one year. To place ads, write to the subscription address above.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.

TABLE OF CONTENTS HUGOYE 19.1 Papers Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism: Alphonse Mingana Among His Fellow Scholars................................................... 3 Tijmen C. Baarda The Syriac Tradition of The Legend of the Thirty Pieces of Silver ........... 35 Tony Burke and Slavomír Čéplö Latin Words in Classical Syriac .......................................................... 123 Aaron Michael Butts Corpse ExposuUe in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs and Its Literary Models.................................................................................................... 193 Héctor Ricardo Francisco Bibliographies ....................................................................................... 237 Book Reviews ....................................................................................... 259

v

vi

Table of Contents

HUGOYE 19.2 Papers Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity: Remarks on His Historical Writings .... 303 Dorothea Weltecke Wooden Stirrups and Chritian Khans: Bar ʿEbroyo’s Use of Juwaynī’s “History of the World Conqueror” as a Source for His “Chronography” ................................................................................... 333 Pier Giorgio Borbone “And the Impure and Abominable Priests Fled for Help to the Names of the Devils”: Amulets and Magical Practices in Syriac Culture between Late Antiquity and the Modern World ............... 371 Marco Moriggi British Library Additional 14,686: Introduction, List of Readings, and Translations of Colophon and Notes........................................ 385 Nils Hallvard Korsvoll, Liv Ingeborg Lied, and Jerome Alan Lund Reports ................................................................................................... 403 Book Reviews ....................................................................................... 413

Volume 19 2016

Number 1

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 19.1, 3-34 © 2016 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN EARLY 20TH-CENTURY ORIENTALISM: ALPHONSE MINGANA AMONG HIS FELLOW SCHOLARS1 TIJMEN C. BAARDA LEIDEN UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF RELIGION, LEIDEN UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT Alphonse Mingana (around 1880–1937), a well-known scholar and manuscript collector who specialized in Syriac language and literature literature and early Islam, was born near Mosul and moved early in his career to Britain. Mainly because of rumors that he had forged some manuscripts, Mingana’s reputation is often referred to as questionable. In this paper I want to argue that during his own active life, Mingana was much more respected by his fellow scholars in his fields of scholarship than one would think from more recent discourse about him, even though it seems that this appreciation is somehow limited to his expertise with manuscripts and Oriental languages.

1 I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Bas ter Haar Romeny and Professor Heleen Murre-van den Berg of Leiden University, who supported me in writing this article, which was first written as a master’s thesis. I would also like to thank Professor Léon Buskens (Leiden University) for the idea to take a scholar’s work and network as the basis of my research. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for suggesting some references to recent discussions about the contested works by Mingana, and for their other remarks.

3

4

Tijmen C. Baarda

When one encounters a reference to one of Alphonse Mingana’s articles or books in an academic work, it is often mentioned that he has a questionable reputation as a scholar, connoting that the work referred to would not be reliable. Although this is probably not always the author’s intention, each time such a notice is made the image of Mingana as a scholar with a questionable reputation is reinforced. Mingana has this reputation mainly because of four accusations of having forged parts of his data that came from manuscripts. The accusations were made during his life, but the discourse about it continued after his death, as more evidence became available. In two cases it has now been established that Mingana was correct, while in the two other cases the status quo is that Mingana was not completely sincere in his use of sources. In this paper, I am concerned with Mingana’s position in contemporary Orientalism and what his academic network looked like. I want to know in that respect if the reputation Mingana has nowadays was different from the reputation he had when he was active as a scholar, and what the influence was of the accusations of forgery during his own life. I will also relate it to the discussion of 20th-century (British) Orientalism as a whole. I will first give a very short overview of Mingana’s life, about which more information can be found in several biographies, a new and updated one being in preparation by Kristian Heal.2 I will then indicate the most important problematic aspects of his academic career. The main part will then be an analysis of the correspondence with and concerning Mingana by Western scholars who were working in the same fields as Mingana, which I mainly found in the Cadbury Research Library in Birmingham, United Kingdom. The immediate reception of Mingana’s academic work in the form of reviews will also be taken into account. This provides 2 The most extensive and recent biography so far has been published by Samir Khalil Samir in 1990, which is a published lecture he addressed at the First Woodbrooke Symposium in Birmingham (United Kingdom) in 1990. For the new biography by Heal newly available material from the Cadbury Research Library in Birmingham is being used, part of which has also been used for this paper. Samir Khalil Samir, Alphonse Mingana (1878– 1937) and his contribution to early Christian-Muslim Studies (Birmingham: Selly Oak Colleges, 1990).

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

5

an insight in the discourse surrounding Mingana in his own age, but the main aim is to show how Mingana was embedded in the network of British and other Western Orientalists of that time, and on what parts of his academic work his reputation was based. BECOMING A BRITISH ORIENTALIST: MINGANA’S ARRIVAL AND WORK IN BRITAIN Mingana was born as Hormizd in a Chaldean family in the village of Sharanish near Zakho around the year 1880. 3 He got his ecclesiastical education at a Catholic missionary seminary in Mosul (both in service to the Syriac Catholics and the Chaldeans), and after ten years he was ordained priest in 1902, when he obtained the name Alphonse. However, he did not stay active as a priest for a long time; in the same year he became lecturer of Syriac language and culture at the seminary where he was educated. In this position he wrote his first publications, both in Latin and French. In 1910 Mingana’s position ended. In 1913 Mingana left Mosul and went to Birmingham in Britain through the intervention of the missionary A.N. Andrus, who introduced him to the British New Testament scholar and Quaker James Rendel Harris, who would remain important for Mingana for the rest of his life. It is unknown what exactly happened in the period between 1910 and 1913, and why Mingana moved to Britain, but all sources point to a conflict with the Catholic Church: Mingana openly doubted the infallibility of Saint Peter, which would have severe consequences for the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church.4 In Birmingham he stayed for two 3 Officially, his birth date is 23 December 1881, as is mentioned on his funeral card (John Rylands Library JRL/4/1/1), but this date has been questioned by Jacques-Marie Vosté, and rectified to 1878 by Samir on the basis of his ordination date and the fact that people in the Middle East in that age often did not know their exact birth dates. There is however not enough evidence that his actual year of birth was 1878. Jacques-Marie Vosté, “Alphonse Mingana: A propos du ‘Catalogue of the Mingana Collection, t III,’” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 7 (1941), 515–516 and Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 6 (see in particular the second endnote). 4 Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 14–15. A letter by A.N. Andrus, who was there as a missionary, to Rendel Harris gives more information: he met him in Duhok, and they were “mutually drawn together.” Mingana was “practically a prisoner there while acting as a secretary to the Chaldean

6

Tijmen C. Baarda

years at the Woodbrooke Quaker settlement and college as a settler.5 In 1915 he moved to Manchester where he obtained a job at the John Rylands Library to catalog its collection of Arabic manuscripts, of which he later became the curator. In the years 1924–1929, Mingana made three journeys to the Middle East to collect manuscripts. Some of the manuscripts were placed at the John Rylands Library, but most of them went to the Selly Oak Colleges Library in Birmingham (Woodbrooke was a part of the Selly Oak Colleges), where they formed the famous Mingana collection of manuscripts.6 In 1926 Mingana became curator of his bishop of that town. This is his punishment for having spoken too truthfully in his book – ‘[illegible] Zkhâ.’” Andrus proposes that Harris takes him for a year to Woodbrooke so that he ‘get[s] at Selly Oak a vision of the spiritual nature + power of the religion which has hitherto been to him but one of rite + ceremony, fast + feast” (Cadbury Research Library, DA21/1/1/27, letter from Andrus to Harris, 26 August 1912). In a letter dated 10 March 1913, Mingana is already on his way to Birmingham. A more detailed but partly conflicting account of what would have happened can be found in A.W. Price, The Ladies of Castlebrae (Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 1985), 182–183, but Price does not specify his sources and acknowledges that he supplemented his sources with his imagination, as he wrote the book as a novel. A booklet from the Mingana Papers with testimonials to Mingana mentions his “doubts about the infallibility of St. Peter,” but the same source claims that he obtained his education in Europe (in France and Italy, including at Sorbonne in Paris). Anonymous, “Testimonials to Rev. Alphonse Mingana, D.D. Late Professor of Semitic Languages in the Syro-Chaldean Seminary, Mosul; Lecturer in Syriac, Arabic and Persian at the Friends’ Settlement, Woodbrooke, Selly Oak, Birmingham,” no date, no place (Cadbury Research Library, DA66/ 2/6/2). 5 John Rylands Library, JRL 4/1/1, letter from Mingana to Henry Guppy (librarian of the John Rylands Library), dated 25 January 1914. Mingana writes in this letter that as an “alien friend” he is not allowed to pay Guppy a visit at a certain moment because of a new regulation. 6 In fact, the manuscripts that went to Birmingham were first given to the one who paid most of the expenses of the journeys, the philanthropist Edward Cadbury, the son of George Cadbury (also a philanthropist), who had founded Woodbrooke. Edward Cadbury donated the manuscripts to Woodbrooke, where it was decided to house them in the Selly Oak Colleges Library, which was yet to be built, especially for the sake of this collection. More information about this complicated construction can be found in Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 31–32.

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

7

own collection in Birmingham, but he kept a part-time position at the John Rylands Library until 1932, and moved to Birmingham only when this position ended. 7 Mingana kept working in Birmingham for the Selly Oak Colleges until late 1937, when he died from heart disease.8 MINGANA’S PUBLICATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS OF FORGERY Mingana produced about ninety academic publications from the beginning of his career in the Middle East to the very end, including about fifty articles and twenty books. 9 His most important publications were undoubtedly the three catalogs of manuscripts of the Mingana collection in Birmingham and the catalog of Arabic manuscripts at the John Rylands Library in Manchester. Many of his other publications consist of critical analyses, editions and translations of texts available in the collections he was responsible for. All his publications were written in English, except the ones he wrote early in his career, when he used Latin and French. Besides his academic works, he also published a good number of newspaper articles commenting on contemporary events in the Middle East. I have not taken these into account here.10 While Mingana thus deployed the same genres as other European scholars, he seems sometimes not at ease with the usual To be more precise, Mingana kept working on a freelance basis in Manchester after he moved to Birmingham in 1932 until 1934, when his Catalogue was published. John Rylands Library, JRL 4/1/1, letter from Mingana to Henry Guppy, dated 13 April 1934. The Catalogue meant is Alphonse Mingana, Catalogue of the Arabic manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, Manchester (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1934). 8 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/1/3, letter from Mingana to W.E. Crum, 28 October 1937. 9 This number was based on the bibliography provided in D.S. Margoliouth and G. Woledge, Alphonse Mingana: A Biography and Bibliography (Birmingham: Library of the Selly Oak Colleges, 1939). I found one article by Mingana that was not included in this bibliography, but I do not expect that there is much more. 10 The articles, written during the full period when he was in Britain, were gathered in a scrapbook that is available in the Cadbury Research Library, DA66/2/5/9. Most of the articles were published in the Manchester Guardian. 7

8

Tijmen C. Baarda

academic writing style. This is more visible in his analytical essays and monographs than in his text editions and translations. For example, a number of Mingana’s works start with an introduction that does not explain the contents of the article or book, but that give instead a lengthy overview of the subject in general, which one would rather expect in an encyclopedia.11 In addition to that, Mingana was often very concise in his assertions. The most obvious example is the estimations Mingana made about the date of manuscripts when no date was provided by the scribe. For most of the manuscripts in his four catalogs, Mingana is able to date the manuscript accurately to the nearest decade, without providing any explanation. About this specific example, however, Samir Khalil Samir writes that while he was very skeptical at the beginning, he became convinced of the validity of Mingana’s dating after examining a number of manuscripts that

11 An example can be found in the book Leaves From Three Ancient Qur’âns, Possibly Pre-ʿOthmânic, for which Mingana wrote the introduction. Without giving a clue about the main topic of the book, Mingana gives a long introduction to the Quran and especially its transmission. Although relevant for the topic of the book—to understand the importance of these ‘pre-ʿOthmânic’ leaves it is necessary to know something about the transmission of the Quran and ʿUthmān’s role in it—the long introduction has such a general connection to the contents of the book that one would expect this kind of contribution rather in an encyclopedia. Alphonse Mingana and Agnes Smith Lewis, Leaves From Three Ancient Qur’âns, Possibly Pre-ʿOthmânic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914). Also the contemporary Jean-Baptiste Chabot made a remark about this in a critique to Mingana’s edition of Narsai’s homilies: “L’ouvrage est précédé d’une préface d’une trentaine de pages dans laquelle l’éditeur a recueilli toutes les données déjà connues sur Narsai et ajouté quelques éléments nouveaux d’information sur lesquels il nous paraît utile d’attirer l’attention.” (The work is preceded by a preface of about thirty pages in which the editor gathered all facts already known about Narsai, and to which he added some new elements of information, of which it seems useful to draw attention to.) J.-B. Chabot, “Narsai le docteur et les origines de l’école de Nisibe, d’après la chronique de Bar adbešabba,” Journal asiatique 6 (10th series, 1905), 157.

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

9

Mingana had cataloged.12 In other cases Mingana considers arguments self-evident to his readers.13 This is not enough for Mingana to receive such a troubled reputation, though. Most people who questioned Mingana’s authority or even integrity refer to the fact that a few of his editions of primary texts have been considered forgeries by some scholars. Much has been written about these possible forgeries, and while an updated overview still has to be written, it is not my primary concern here. We will see, however, that a considerable portion of Mingana’s correspondence is about these supposed forgeries, so it is necessary to know what they are in order to gain insight into the appreciation Mingana enjoyed: it is not only part of today’s discourse about Mingana, but it also had influence in his own time.14 As stated above, there are four cases known in which Mingana was accused of forgery. Two of them had to do with text editions that he published when he was still living in the Middle East. In 1905, Mingana published a text by Baradhbshabba that was previously unknown, simply as part of the preface to an important edition of works by Narsai.15 The contemporary Orientalist JeanBaptiste Chabot wrote in an article on Baradhbshabba’s text using Mingana’s edition that the second part of the work was so different from the first part, that the whole seemed incoherent and that therefore (among other reasons) it was not possible to ascribe a

Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 25. Another example is his article “Syriac influence on the style of the Ḳur’ân,” which forms an early argument for a heavy influence of Syriac on the Arabic of the Quran. Mingana gives a wealth of examples of words for which he gives an etymology from Syriac, but he presents these etymologies as self-evident and does not always explain why they were not original in Arabic but rather borrowed or calqued from Syriac. An example is Arabic ‫ الله‬Allāh ‘God,’ which he traces back to Syriac 
Elāhā ‘God,’ while it is (nowadays) usually derived from al-Ilāh ‘the deity.’ Alphonse Mingana, “Syriac influence on the style of the Ḳur’ân,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 11 (1927), 86. 14 Samir summarized parts of the discourse surrounding these accusations in his biography, which I have been using gratefully. Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 8–13, 24, and 26–28. 15 Narsai, Narsai doctoris Syri homiliæ et carmina, edited by A. Mingana (Mosul: Typis Fratrum Prædicatorum, 1905), 32–40. 12 13

10

Tijmen C. Baarda

very great historical value to the text.16 Later, in 1907 and 1913, it became clear that there was no other manuscript known where this part of the text was present, and it is still unknown if the lines were present in the manuscript Mingana used or forged by him.17 In the second case the accusation is that Mingana made a manuscript look older than it was in reality. When Mingana published in 1907 the Chronicle of Erbil, attributed to Mshi a-Zkha, this text and his edition became famous.18 From 1925, however, the authenticity of the text was disputed, first by Paul Peeters, whom we will meet further on for similar matters as well. After Mingana’s death, it became clear that the manuscript had its provenance not in the 10th century, as Mingana wrote, but in the 20th century, while the scribe who produced the manuscript declared that he had learned from Mingana how to make manuscripts look older. In the end one scholar, Jean-Maurice Fiey, wrote that Mingana had written the text himself, but this conclusion seems not to be shared by too many scholars.19 The third case is probably the most important one, as it generated the most discussion, both in articles and reviews, and in correspondence, as we will see. In 1920, Mingana wrote an article about the Book of Religion and Empire, which he often referred to as the Apology of Islam, by ʿAlī al- abarī. This was a hitherto unknown 16 J.-B. Chabot, “Narsai le docteur”: 157–77. Chabot first states that Mingana’s edition of Narsai’s text is “important.” 17 Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 9–11. See also A. Becker, Sources for the Study of the School of Nisibis (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2008), 168–171, for a recent discussion of this fragment, also including a short more general discussion on the reliability of Mingana’s works. 18 Alphonse Mingana, Sources syriaques, volume 1, Mšiḥa-Zkha, texte et traduction (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1908). 19 Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 12–13. A recent overview of the discussion since Mingana’s publication until 2006 can be found in Joel Thomas Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 287– 290. Even after the start of the controversy, the document was still widely used and praised by scholars, most interestingly by Peter Kawerau, who published in 1985 a new facsimile edition and German translation of the text, using the same contested manuscript (now owned by the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin). Remarkably, he does not include any reference to the controversy surrounding the way Mingana dealt with this text. Peter Kawerau, Die Chronik von Arbela, two parts (Louvain: Peeters, 1985).

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

11

text defending Islam using a wealth of Biblical citations, which Mingana found in a manuscript in the John Rylands Library. Later he published the text itself and wrote two further articles about it.20 Paul Peeters (see above) first wrote a review in 1924 in which he stated that the manuscript was much more recent than it was dated.21 Maurice Bouyges, a famous Orientalist, even wrote in a letter to the John Rylands Library that Mingana had probably written the text himself.22 Although Mingana could prove that the manuscript was already in the library in 1843, Bouyges did not change his accusation. Later on, Samir found the text in another manuscript in the form of a Coptic response to it.23 The fourth and last publication giving trouble is a document published in 1925 about the conversion to Christianity of a Turkish tribe as part of a 5th-century letter (the “Letter of Philoxenus to Abū ʿAfr”), also on the basis of a manuscript from the John Rylands Library, dated 1909. 24 It was again Paul Peeters who questioned the authenticity in 1927, when he suggested that the work was a forgery. Mingana responded in 1930 that he also found the text in a 16th-century manuscript in his own Mingana collection. After Mingana’s death Peeters however repeated the argument, and Fiey (see above as well) wrote in an article that the second manuscript did not exist. Sebastian Brock however showed in an

20 Alphonse Mingana, “A semi-official defence of Islam,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1920), 481–488. The edition is ʿAlī al- abarī, The Book of Religion and Empire, A semi-official defence and exposition of Islam, edition and translation by A. Mingana (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1922–1923). 21 Paul Peeters, review of The Book of Religion and Empire, by ʿAlī alṬabarī, edited by Mingana, Analecta Bollandiana 42 (1924), 200–202. Peeters is very positive, though, about Mingana’s edition and translation. 22 M. Bouyges, Le « Kitab ad-Din wa’d-Dawlat », récemment édité et traduit par Mr A. Mingana, est-il authentique ? Lettre à Monsieur le Directeur de la John Rylands Library, Manchester (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1924–1925). 23 Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 27–8. 24 Alphonse Mingana, “The early spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: a new document,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 9 (1925), 297–371. The article starts with a long general introduction about Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East; the part covering the new document with translation and edition starts at page 343.

12

Tijmen C. Baarda

article in which he compared the texts in the two manuscripts that their accusation could not be correct.25 The four accusations are severe, and while the latter two are today known to be false, this was not the case during Mingana’s lifetime; the third one was only solved after Mingana’s death, while the fourth one was more or less resolved, but discourse against Mingana was still being published in 1961. At the same time, other scholars actively defended Mingana, even in the case of the accusations that have never been resolved.26 In other words, while the accusations towards Mingana were more serious when he was alive, the outcome of the discussion was much less clear than it is now. It seems therefore self-evident that these questions have influenced Mingana’s reputation during his life in a different way than they do now, and in the next sections the correspondence in which this issue is dealt with will play a prominent role. AN ACADEMIC NETWORK THROUGHOUT EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES The archival fonds called the Mingana papers located in the Cadbury Research Library in Birmingham contains a great amount of correspondence between Mingana and other scholars. Most of this correspondence took place in Mingana’s second period in Birmingham (1932–1937), while a smaller part is from the earlier period in Manchester (1915–1932). Together with correspondence I found at other places, the letters provide a wealth of information about the way other scholars looked at Mingana and vice versa.27 In 25 S.P. Brock, “Alphonse Mingana and the Letter of Philoxenus to Abu ʿAfr,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 50 (1967), 199–206. 26 For instance, see I. Ortiz de Urbina, “Intorno al valore storico della cronica di Arbela,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 2 (1936), 5–6 and 32. Writing after (and partly in response to) Peeters’ negative assessment of the Chronicle of Erbil of 1925, Ortiz de Urbina judges that the document is of “mediocre authority” and that its reliability can only be assessed on the basis of the contents of the text, not on the basis of the date of the manuscript or the authority of the author. An example of an early adoptation is Eduard Sachau, Die Chronik von Arbela: ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des ältesten Christentums im Orient (Berlin: Verlag der königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1915). 27 The staff of the Cadbury Research Library of the University of Birmingham and of the John Rylands Library of the University of

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

13

most of the cases from the time that Mingana is using a typewriter, a carbon copy is available for outgoing letters, making the material much richer.28 Taking for the moment only the correspondence present in the Mingana papers in Birmingham, we get a rough picture of the extent of Mingana’s network. The total number of persons with whom Mingana had contact in this collection is about 140, of whom about seventy are scholars. The other persons are mainly manuscript sellers, library personnel, clergy (both Western and Eastern), missionaries, and journalists. The scholars represented in the Mingana papers are of varying disciplines, more or less corresponding to Mingana’s own fields of interest. The two largest groups, which comprise together almost half of the scholars, are theologians (scholars of biblical studies, church history, and others) and scholars of Islamic studies. Most other scholars are specialists in a specific language and its literature. Almost half of the scholars are British, while scholars from the United States and Germany also form a big part. There are only a few scholars from France, Italy, and The Netherlands, and only one from each of Australia, Egypt, India, Ireland, Lebanon, and Russia. The relatively small number of French scholars that occur in Mingana’s correspondence is remarkable because of his original French education, but it may relate to the fact that Mingana broke off his relations with the Catholic Church.29 Also remarkable is the fact that Mingana had so little correspondence with people from the East: this is especially true for the scholars among them, but also for the people with other professions. Manchester have been very helpful and patient in providing me access to the archival material, and in particular I would like to thank Ms. Elizabeth Gow, who prepared for me all the material available in the John Rylands Library concerning Alphonse Mingana. 28 Mingana is using a typewriter from May 1932, just after the new Selly Oak Colleges Library opened its doors, as is clear from the archive containing the John Rylands Library correspondence (John Rylands Library, JRL/4/1/1), which contains a continuous flow of letters from Mingana to Guppy, the librarian. 29 C. Snouck Hurgronje, Abdoel-Ghaffaar: sources for the history of Islamic studies in the Western world, volume 1: Orientalism and Islam: the letters of C. Snouck Hurgronje to Th. Nöldeke from the Tübingen University Library, published by P.Sj. van Koningsveld (Leiden: Documentatiebureau IslamChristendom, Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 1985), 335.

14

Tijmen C. Baarda

Most scholars are from the same generation as Mingana, meaning that they were active in more or less the same period as he was, while a smaller part is from an older generation and another small part from a younger generation. The latter category includes people who were students at the time of the correspondence, but who became known as scholars later. From this quantitative survey, which only includes the material available in the Mingana papers in the Cadbury Research Library in Birmingham, it becomes clear that there was a large number of scholars from all the relevant fields with whom Mingana had contact, and who were for the greatest part Western scholars, being concentrated in Europe and North America. Most of the scholars he was in contact with were at the same stage of their careers. While these facts are helpful, as they suggest that Mingana was embedded and part of the academic context to which he formally belonged, they are not enough: the question is whether the letters are representing (mutual) appreciation, or for example simply contain inquiries for library items. In the following sections I will therefore discuss the correspondence dividing them into three categories: inquiries, supervision of students, and academic discussion. USING MINGANA’S EXPERTISE: INQUIRIES Many letters contain inquiries about material that was accessible for Mingana, and for which he was the most suitable person to ask because of his function of curator of manuscripts (both in Manchester and in Birmingham). Their relevance for this paper lies in the fact that the inquirer had to trust Mingana’s expertise in the use of manuscripts and oriental languages. Inquiries are also present in the other direction, where Mingana needs information for one of his articles, books or catalogues, but I have found much fewer of these. Most of the inquiries simply ask Mingana to look up something, but some of them go further, and want Mingana to identify a text or even to make a translation. Mingana tended to put a lot of effort into these inquiries, if needed. William Lockton, a relatively unknown British church historian and New Testament scholar, asks Mingana in 1934 for a piece of Syriac text in translation. Mingana makes a translation specifically for him, even though the two do not seem to know

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

15

each other personally. 30 Mingana’s willingness to provide a translation is especially remarkable in the light of the following statement to Francis Crawford Burkitt, a British theologian whom we will meet later on, from about the same period: There are apparently very few people in this country who can read Syriac, and I cannot understand how a critical student of the New Testament can dispense with this language.31 This complaint about the lack of knowledge of languages among scholars is an echo of an earlier complaint, made when he was still in the Middle East, speaking in a cynical way about scholars who could only read Syriac with the help of a dictionary, as described by Samir in his biography.32 While Mingana is less severe in his later letter to Burkitt, it is still surprising that Mingana translates the Syriac text for Lockton without complaining. Another example where Mingana takes much time to help somebody with an inquiry is the case of Maurice Arthur Canney (1872–1941), a British religion scholar who is known for his Encyclopædia of Religions. 33 In very extensive correspondence that lasted from 1932 until 1936, Canney asks Mingana to prepare rotogravures of a manuscript which was needed by F.D. Coggan, one of Canney’s Ph.D. students. From the correspondence it is clear that Mingana did a lot of work to provide these rotogravures, while he provided much more additional information about the manuscript than what Canney asked for. Canney had to pay for the rotogravures and the costs of sending them, and Mingana appears to have been very precise about this. The letters do not only contain formal elements, but also account for visits they were to pay to each other.34

30 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/1/32–33 (corresponddence between Mingana and W. Lockton, three letters, 1934). 31 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/2 (correspondence between Mingana and F.C. Burkitt, 1933–1934). 32 Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 10. 33 Maurice Arthur Canney, An Encyclopædia of Religions (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1921). 34 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/1/5–25 (correspondence between Mingana and M.A. Canney, 1932–1935). Another group of letters is available in Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/4 (1932–1936),

16

Tijmen C. Baarda

Mingana was not always immediately willing to answer the inquiries he received, as appears from his correspondence with an Indian scholar named ʿAbd al- amīd, where he is requested to look up a few passages in the original Arabic from ʿAlī al- abarī’s Apology. Mingana did not answer these questions, but referred to his edition, indicating how he could order it.35 In 1937, when Mingana was ill for the full year and when he eventually died, he was still prepared to answer inquiries, although in some cases he was too ill to do it. Also Mingana himself is still doing inquiries during this year, as he asks Robert Ellis (whom I have not been able to identify) in October 1937, two months before Mingana’s death, to identify an Armenian palimpsest.36 In general the inquiries show that Mingana was known, both by otherwise unknown people like ʿAbd al- amīd and by eminent scholars such as Canney, as a point of access to information they could use for their academic work. Although we cannot look into the minds of these scholars, let alone the scholars who did not use Mingana as a source of information, it seems that Mingana was trusted for the way he looked up and translated information, especially from his own manuscripts. MINGANA AS A SUPERVISOR AND EXAMINER In part of the correspondence Mingana acts as a (official or unofficial) supervisor of students who are working on a thesis. These students are from outside Manchester or Birmingham, where Mingana was active as a lecturer.37 Possible supervision of students which contains many informal elements and where Mingana shows his most ironical side. 35 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/1/26–28 (corresponddence between Mingana and ʿAbd al- amīd, 1934). It has to be mentioned that one of ʿAbd al- amīd’s questions was how he could order the work.
36 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/4 (letter from Mingana to R. Ellis, 1937). 37 Mingana’s biographies show that in Manchester he was appointed as a ‘special lecturer’ of Arabic at the University of Manchester; correspondence with Guppy, the librarian in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, shows that after his departure to Birmingham he has “lectures to give.” See for the lectureship in Manchester: Margoliouth and Woledge, Alphonse Mingana, 3. The letter to Guppy is in John Rylands

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

17

in Manchester and Birmingham would probably yield less correspondence because it could have been done orally. One of the longest series of correspondence within the Mingana papers in the Cadbury Research Library is with Willem van Unnik (1910–1978), a Dutch New Testament scholar, who wrote his doctoral dissertation in Leiden with Mingana’s help. Van Unnik’s official supervisor in Leiden was Johannes de Zwaan, who was professor of New Testament and early Christian literature, and also a former student at Woodbrooke, but from the correspondence it seems that the person who did most for him was Mingana. Van Unnik was one of the many students of theology in Leiden who went to Woodbrooke in Birmingham, 38 to which Mingana was affiliated because of his position at the Selly Oak Colleges Library, and Van Unnik used this opportunity to study, using the Mingana collection of manuscripts, the East Syriac text “Questions of the Eucharist” by Īshōʿyabh IV. After a few letters sent from London, where Van Unnik did research at the British Museum, the long series of letters starts after his return to The Netherlands. From the beginning it is clear that their relationship had informal sides, Mingana using the nickname “the great Van Unnik” for him.39 In April 1933, Van Unnik wrote from Haarlem, where he lived, that he had spoken to De Zwaan to discuss what he “had done under your [Mingana’s] direction.” De Zwaan had agreed to the basic idea, but wanted to see a more detailed outline of Van Unnik’s proposed thesis, which he announces to specify in “close contact with you, so that you [Mingana] in fact will become my promotor [doctoral advisor].”40 While Mingana’s idea about Van Unnik’s thesis was that he prepare an edition with a translation and a small commentary, Van Unnik wrote that this would not be Library, JRL/4/1/1 (library correspondence; letter from Mingana to Guppy, 9 May 1932). 38 See G. van Dalfsen, “The Influence of Woodbrooke in the Netherlands,” in Woodbrooke 1903–1953: A Brief History of a Quaker Experiment in Religious Education, edited by R. Davis (London: The Bannisdale Press, 1953), 159–168. 39 One of the most telling examples is Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/17, letter from Mingana to Van Unnik, 29 April 1933. 40 Ibid. (letter from Van Unnik to Mingana, 13 April 1933).

18

Tijmen C. Baarda

enough for his thesis to be accepted, and that he had to provide a history of the Eucharist in the East Syriac Church. Mingana agreed to this, but warned that this would take much more time. Although a considerable portion of the correspondence is about the ideas for and the outline of the thesis, Mingana did not give further advice regarding its content. Most of the letters deal with the production and the shipment of rotogravures of parts of manuscripts from the Mingana collection. Mingana warns several times that Van Unnik wants to have too many rotogravures and that it would become too expensive for Van Unnik, but eventually Van Unnik writes in 1935 in a rather bold letter that because an edition with translation is not enough, he has to conduct a comparison with similar phenomena, and that because he “found that next to nothing of the works dealing with this branch of historical science had been published and investigated,” he has to do it himself, necessitating an abundance of additional rotogravures.41 Unfortunately, Mingana’s reaction to this is missing, but in a later letter Mingana writes that he is happy that certain rotogravures have arrived.42 Because Van Unnik also had to study for his doctoral examination, his ecclesiastical education, and was working on some articles for which he also used the Mingana collection, work on the dissertation took much more time than was originally intended. It seems that Mingana eventually became irritated about the continuous delays, writing ironically in October 1935: I am pleased to hear that things are beginning to move, and that you will have to finish your thesis in February, that is to say, in about three months’ time. I hope that February is in Holland our true February, and not like the double Dutch ordination, of which we know nothing! 43

Ibid. (letter from Van Unnik to Mingana, 17 April 1935). Ibid. (letter from Mingana to Van Unnik, 23 May 1935). 43 Ibid. (letter from Mingana to Van Unnik, 28 October 1935). With the “double Dutch ordination,” Mingana refers to the fact that Van Unnik had to do two examinations before he could become a minister, one for the “state” and one for the church, pointing to the separation between a secular and ecclesiastical part of programs of theology at certain universities in The Netherlands. 41 42

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

19

This was the last letter of this correspondence that is available in the Mingana papers, the dissertation finally being defended in November 1937.44 It seems that at least some letters are missing at this point, while the earlier part appears to be virtually complete. Another Ph.D. candidate who received Mingana’s help was Abraham Levene, who worked for the Nottingham Hebrew Congregation. In 1932 he proposes his Ph.D. project at the University of London, which is about an anonymous East-Syriac commentary on the Pentateuch that is preserved in a manuscript from the Mingana collection. Also these letters are in large part about rotogravures, which Mingana commissioned for him. In the last letter that is preserved, dated 4 November 1936, Mingana writes that it would be a good idea if Levene published his thesis, which he finally did in 1951.45 Mingana was also sometimes asked as a (secondary) examiner for master’s and Ph.D. dissertations. When Mingana is asked by the important Islam scholar Richard Bell (1876–1952), well known for his Introduction to the Qur’ān, to examine a Ph.D. thesis that was written under his supervision about the Yezidis, Mingana answers that he is willing to do this under the condition that the thesis is not abnormally long. Bell states that it is Mingana whom he asks for this task because he considers him “the person in this country who knows most about them.”46 Finally, when Mingana is asked by Canney (see above) to act as an external referee for a thesis by a person named Mougy, he only agrees to do it after Canney insists, writing that he has very little time for it, and finally returns the manuscript before finishing the job because he has a lasting problem with his eye. He writes that

W.C. van Unnik, Nestorian Questions on the Administration of the Eucharist, by Isho’yabh IV: A Contribution to the History of the Eucharist in the Eastern Church (Haarlem: Joh. Enschedé en zonen, 1937). 45 Abraham Levene, The early Syrian Fathers on Genesis: from a Syriac ms. on the Pentateuch in the Mingana collection: the first eighteen chapters of the ms. ed. with introd., transl. and notes, and incl. a study in comparative exegesis (London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1951). The letters are found in Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/1/10 and DA66/1/3/2/12 (both correspondence between Mingana and Levene, 1932–1936). 46 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/2 (correspondence between Mingana and Bell, 1933). 44

20

Tijmen C. Baarda

his impression was that it was “a commonplace composition, which any orthodox Mohammedan might have written.”47 To conclude, Mingana’s access to and knowledge of a wealth of Middle Eastern manuscripts made him a valuable person for students to assist them with writing their theses, and his expertise in specific subjects made him a suitable candidate to act as an examiner. In particular, Mingana’s correspondence with Van Unnik shows a deep appreciation of Mingana as a supervisor from Van Unnik’s side, and a genuine determination from Mingana’s side to bring Van Unnik’s Ph.D. thesis to a good ending. Moreover, there is no reason to assume that Mingana had any official obligation to put any effort into helping a student in Leiden. ACADEMIC DISCUSSION The largest part of the correspondence can be identified as academic discussion, not so much in the sense that Mingana gets into debates with other scholars directly, but that opinions on academic matters, works, and persons are being exchanged. Many letters deal with the Apology by ʿAlī al- abarī, of which, as we have seen above, the authenticity had been questioned by two scholars not long after Mingana had published an article about the text for the first time in 1920. Most letters are about the authenticity and are in defense of Mingana’s sincerity and about the genuineness of the document, whereas a few are about the implications of the contents of the document. The well-known German scholar Franz Taeschner (1888– 1967), who specialized in Turkish language and literature, published an article about the Apology concerning its quotations from the Pentateuch, drawing upon Mingana’s edition which he published in 1932/1933.48 Mingana and Taeschner corresponded about this in 47 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/4 (correspondence between Mingana and Canney, 1932–1934). Another thesis was one submitted by a woman named A.H. Fahmy about education in the medieval Muslim world, submitted for the master’s program of Education at the University of Birmingham, about which Mingana was very satisfied. Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/1/5 (correspondence between Mingana and C.W. Valentine on behalf of the Education Department of the University of Birmingham, 1937). 48 Franz Taeschner, “Die alttestamentische Bibelzitate, vor allem aus dem Pentateuch, in a - abarī’s Kitāb ad-Dīn wad-Daula und ihre

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

21

1935. The first letter that is available is a carbon copy from Mingana and shows that Mingana was pleased by the article: I read your pamphlet with great interest, and found that your argument based on abari’s quotations from the Pentateuch is well put, and I congratulate you on your painstaking labour on abari’s important work.49 Mingana however mentions some problems that he really wants to see fixed. According to him, Taeschner had failed to take into consideration three important articles on the matter, including one by Mingana himself and one by David Samuel Margoliouth. Because Mingana’s own article contains a correction to his original edition, Mingana is anxious that Taeschner publishes an erratum: Could you write a further note in the Oriens Christianus, and draw attention to the above point? By omitting them you have not done good justice to yourself.50 Taeschner responds that he was not able to see two of the articles because the publishing process took too long, but that it was “eine große Unterlassungssünde” (a big mistake out of carelessness) that he had not taken into consideration Mingana’s correction, and he promises to publish a correction. About Margoliouth’s article, which was so similar to his own that Taeschner’s could almost be seen as a case of plagiarism, Taeschner stresses that he had not seen the article by Margoliouth and that his work is indeed original.51 Taeschner’s rectification was published half a year later in Oriens Christianus.52 Later, Mingana sends an article from the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library to Taeschner, to which he responds as follows: Bedeutung für die Frage nach der Echtheit dieser Schrift,” Oriens Christianus 9 (1934), 23–39. 49 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/1/39 (letter by Mingana to F. Taeschner, 1935). 50 Ibid. 51 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/1/38 (letter by F. Taeschner to Mingana, 1935). 52 It was published as a Nachtrag in Oriens Christianus 9 (1934): 277– 278. The correspondence took place in January 1935, so this issue must have appeared in the beginning of 1935 as well.

22

Tijmen C. Baarda

Empfangen Sie meinen besten Dank für Ihren Brief und den Sonderabzug Ihres Artikels im “Bulletin…” An der Echtheit der abarī-schrift kann meiner Ansicht nach nunmehr kein Zweifel mehr bestehen. (Please accept my best thanks for your letter and the offprint of your article in the “Bulletin…” In my opinion, from now on there can be no doubt anymore about the authenticity of the text by abarī.)53 We can be almost certain that this refers to the note that Henry Guppy, the librarian of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, wrote much earlier in 1930. In this note, Guppy spoke up for Mingana against the accusation that Mingana had forged the Apology, by simply stating that the manuscript was already there in 1843.54 Taeschner’s letter shows that he already believed in the authenticity of the document and in Mingana’s sincerity, and that thanks to this document he became even more convinced about this. The Apology also plays a role for Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje (1857–1936), a scholar of Islam at Leiden University. In correspondence between him and the German Semitic scholar Theodor Nöldeke (1836–1930), published by Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld,55 Mingana is mentioned three times. On 8 December 1923 Snouck Hurgronje writes to Nöldeke about the Apology (here referred to using its Arabic name): Van het door Mingana nu ook in tekst uitgegeven ‫[ كتاب الدين والدولة‬Kitāb al-dīn wa-l-dawla] hebt U zeker ook een exemplaar ontvangen? Het is wel een hoogst merkwaardig boek. Soms vraagt men zich 53 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/1/2 (postcard from F. Taeschner to Mingana, 1935). 54 Henry Guppy, “The genuineness of ‘At- abari’s Arabic ‘Apology,’ and of the Syriac document on the spread of Christianity in Central Asia in the John Rylands Library,” with a note by Alphonse Mingana, “Remarks on the Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14 (1930), 121–124. 55 I would like to thank Professor Van Koningsveld for his suggestion to look through his edition of Snouck Hurgronje’s letters.

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

23

af, of de Moslimsche toepassing van al die Bijbelteksten den gewezen Christen volkomen ernst geweest kan zijn. De editie is keurig verzorgd in alle opzichten. (I suppose you have also received a copy of the Kitāb al-dīn wa-l-dawla, of which the text has now also been published by Mingana? It is a highly remarkable book. Sometimes one wonders whether the Muslim usage of all the biblical texts was completely serious for the former Christian. The edition is very well-cared for in all respects.)56 The phrase “highly curious book” refers here to the contents of the work that Mingana edited itself, and not Mingana’s edition, which he names “very well-cared for in all respects.” Between 1935 and 1937, Mingana maintained correspondence with the French Orientalist Jean-Baptiste Chabot (1860–1948). Much earlier, in 1905 when he was still in the Middle East, Mingana had attacked him harshly after Chabot’s critique to Mingana’s edition of the text by Baradhbshabba (see above), accusing Chabot of not being able to read Syriac without a dictionary.57 The relationship at the time of the correspondence seems much better, though, writing to each other with the fullest respect and friendliness, and Chabot is interested in some of Mingana’s manuscripts.58 However, after Mingana visited Chabot in Paris in 1935, he writes the following, in which he indirectly questions Chabot’s sincerity in his relation toward Mingana: J’espère que, suivant l’occasion, vous écrirez une notice concernant le Catalogue, et l’œuvre de Job, dans le Journal des Savants pour corriger 56 Letter by Snouck Hurgronje to Nöldeke, dated 8 December 1923. C. Snouck Hurgronje, Abdoel-Ghaffaar, volume
, Orientalism and Islam, 319320. Snouck Hurgronje wrote his letters to Nöldeke in Dutch instead of the expected German; see page XIII of Van Koningsveld’s edition. 57 Samir, Alphonse Mingana, 9. Samir cites Mingana’s Réponse à Mr l’Abbé J.-B. Chabot à propos de la Chronique de Bar-hadhbšabba, Mosul, 1905, which was not intended for publication but distributed by Mingana among a number of people. I have not seen this réponse. 58 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/3 (correspondence between Mingana and Chabot, 1935–1937).

24

Tijmen C. Baarda

l’impression, faite par vos revues de mes Woodbrooke Studies à quelques savants de France et d’Allemagne, que vous aviez une rancune personnelle contre l’auteur … Pour vous dire la vérité, elles m’ont fait la même impression qu’elles avaient faite aux savants de France et d’Allemagne, qui m’en avaient écrit, spécialement le feu et regretté M. F. Nau. Pardonnez-moi d’avoir écrit sur cette question, qui est plus personnelle que scientifique, mais j’ai pensé que ce serait bon pour nous deux d’en faire mention, dans le but de ne laisser aucune chose, ouverte ou cachée, qui pourrait ternir notre amitié. (I hope that, if there is an occasion, you will write a notice about the Catalogue and the work about Job in the Journal des Savants, to correct the impression that was given to some scholars in France and Germany by your reviews about my Woodbrooke Studies, that you would have a personal rancor against the author … To tell you the truth, they59 gave me the same impression as they gave to the scholars in France and Germany, who wrote to me about it, especially the late and regretted M.F. Nau. Excuse me for writing about this matter, which is more personal than scholarly, but I thought that it would be good for the two of us to make a notion about it, in order not to leave anything that could harm our friendship, whether it is open or hidden.)60 Chabot had indeed published two reviews in Journal des Savants, discussing respectively the second and third, and the fourth through the seventh volumes of Mingana’s Woodbrooke Studies, which is an important series of text editions with translations from manuscripts in Mingana’s own collection. Chabot’s reviews are very critical about some of the texts Mingana published; not about the quality of the editions or translations, but about the importance and authenticity that Mingana ascribes to them. According to him, 59 60

The reviews are meant here. Ibid. (letter from Mingana to Chabot, 3 December 1935).

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

25

a text named Vision of Theophilus presented in volume III is a Syriac translation while the Arabic original is available as well, and Chabot supposes that he publishes the translation to give his own manuscript collection more importance. About volume VII, named “Early Christian Mystics,” he writes that these Christian mystics are not early, as information about earlier Christian mystics is known, and suggests that the text was compiled by the scribe himself as he wrote the manuscript in 1918, because Mingana does not indicate his source.61 Having received Mingana’s letter quoted above, Chabot promptly answers that he does not have anything against the editor, but that he does indeed have doubts about the edited manuscripts, based on a letter that he once got from a missionary in Syria, who wrote that manuscripts were copied and fabricated, and that everything went to private collections in England, and that he cannot exclude this possibility in this case because he has no information on the manuscripts Mingana used.62 In the following letters that are preserved, nothing more is written about this matter, but in January 1937 Mingana expresses his satisfaction after reading another review by Chabot of Mingana’s publication of the Book of Treasures of Jacob of Edessa, in which Chabot praised the importance of the text and the quality of Mingana’s translation. 63 Chabot responds in the last preserved letter of the correspondence between him and Mingana that he submitted two other reviews in Journal des Savants, commenting on the first two volumes of Mingana’s catalogue of his own collection,

61 J.-B. Chabot, review of Woodbrooke Studies, volume II through IV, edited by Alphonse Mingana, Journal des Savants 1932, 82–85, and J.-B. Chabot, review of Woodbrooke Studies, volume V through VII, edited by Alphonse Mingana, Journal des Savants 1934, 228–229. In fact, Mingana refers to his Catalogue where he mentions the copyist of the manuscript he used (Mingana Syriac 601) and the copyist’s source. Alphonse Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana collection of manuscripts, now in the possession of the trustees of the Woodbrooke settlement, Selly Oak, Birmingham, volume 1 (Cambridge: Heffer, 1933), 1153. 62 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/3 (letter from Chabot to Mingana, 13 December 1935). 63 J.-B. Chabot, review of Book of Treasures, by Jacob of Edessa, edited by Alphonse Mingana, Journal des Savants 1936, 236–237.

26

Tijmen C. Baarda

and that Mingana would probably like it.64 Indeed, Chabot’s tone in these reviews is quite positive, and he even renounces what he had written earlier concerning Woodbrooke Studies: Il a donné lui-même une idée des avantages qu’on pourra tirer de sa Collection dans les sept volumes qu’il a été parlé ici même, et à ce propos, après examen du Catalogue, je reconnais volontiers que les réserves formulées au sujet de quelques textes n’étaient pas fondées. (He himself has given an idea of how one could take advantage of his Collection in the seven volumes which have been discussed right here, and for this reason, after examining the Catalogue, I gladly recognized that the reservations that I formulated concerning some texts were not wellfounded.)65 A scholar who was immediately pleased by Mingana’s Woodbrooke Studies was the German Syriac scholar Anton Baumstark (1872–1948). In a review of volumes IV and V published in his own journal Oriens Christianus, he praises the value of the texts edited. Unfortunately his critique is mainly limited to the importance of the texts itself, and Baumstark writes very little about the quality of Mingana’s editing and translation work, except for a few remarks about details in Mingana’s translation.66 Baumstark’s recognition of Mingana’s work is interesting in the light of the fact that he is known for his active role in the NSDAP party in Germany during the time before the Second World War. Apparently, also for Mingana this was no reason not to praise Baumstark, as he writes to him in 1934: If at any time you think of coming to England, I shall be very pleased indeed to give you hospitality at our house, for a week or two, and if I know that Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/3 (correspondence between Mingana and Chabot, 1935–1937). 65 J.-B. Chabot, review of Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, volume 1 and 2, by Alphonse Mingana, Journal des Savants 1937, 38–40. 66 A. Baumstark, review of Woodbrooke Studies, volumes IV and V, edited by Alphonse Mingana, Oriens Christianus 8 (1933), 95–99. 64

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

27

what would impede you from coming would be your financial situation, I shall gladly pay your travelling expenses one way.67 In 1936, Mingana writes to him while sending the second volume of his catalogue of the Mingana collection: You are the only scholar in Germany, and the second in all the world, to whom I am sending this catalogue, and I know that you are the scholar to appreciate it and make use of it more than any other living man!68 Unfortunately, no letters in the other direction are present in the Mingana papers, but it is clear that the correspondence took place in both directions. In correspondence between Mingana and Arthur Jeffery (1892–1959), who was affiliated to the American University in Cairo between 1921 and 1938, the two give an insight into their approach to scholarship of Islam. Like Mingana himself, Jeffery had a critical way of studying Islam and the Quran in particular. He belonged to a group of scholars, also including the abovementioned Margoliouth, who were in favor of studying the history and origins of Islam and the text of the Quran in the same critical way as it was fashionable among theologians concerning Christianity and the Bible. Both liked the idea of the production of a critical edition of the Quran. 69 Jeffery has sometimes been identified as an anti-Islamic scholar, and his works are being used

Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/1 (letter from Mingana to Baumstark, 1934). 68 Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/2/2 (letter from Mingana to Baumstark, 1936). 69 Gerhard Böwering and Jane Dammen McAuliffe, preface to the 2006 reprint of The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān, by Arthur Jeffery (Leiden: Brill, 2006 [1938]), IX–X. Mingana begins his article on the Syriac influence on the language of the Quran by stating that “[t]he time has surely come to subject the text of the Ḳur’ân to the same criticism as that to which we subject the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Jewish Bible, and the Greek of the Christian Scriptures.” Mingana, “Syriac influence on the style of the Ḳur’ân,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 11 (1927), 77. 67

28

Tijmen C. Baarda

by anti-Islamic groups,70 but reading through his work it actually appears that he writes about Islam with respect, even though for him this does not imply that he follows the Islamic tradition. The same is evidently true for Mingana, who however became less identified with this aspect, as it was only one part of his work. The correspondence however shows that they both wrestled with this problem and agreed upon the way of handling it: by pursuing their work in the way they wanted, apparently ignoring the criticism they received from Muslim sides, while at the same time not being negative about Islam itself. Some letters nevertheless suggest that Jeffery enjoyed attacking the traditional views on Islamic history and texts, while Mingana seems to be less concerned with this.71 In the following letter, Jeffery complains about the fact that certain Western scholars of Arabic or Islam were not allowed to participate in a meeting of the Académie arabe in Cairo because of their attitudes to Islam: The great excitement in Cairo at the present time, outside the usual political wrangles, is the coming meeting of the Academie Arabe. Preliminary meetings are already being held and the official assembly is calling for the end of the month. You probably heard the fuss there was over Wensinck 70 This is evident from a simple search on the Internet using Jeffery’s name, which also yields many results from Islamic websites rejecting Jeffery for being anti-Islamic. 71 I say this mainly on the basis of a case where Mingana discovered a manuscript of the Bukhārī Hadith collection that was a major variant of the normally used witness (the one used at al-Azhar university). Jeffery insisted that Mingana published a facsimile edition of the manuscript because the new manuscript made that “doubt is cast on the whole Corpus of Tradition, and their problem is to demonstrate to the world that the text they have chosen is the only authentic one” (Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/1/8, letter from Jeffery to Mingana, 5 December 1936). Mingana was willing to publish a full facsimile edition, but in the end he published only a small portion of it in facsimile because the costs were too high, but in the introduction he also writes that “the reproduction of all the pages was not really necessary for students interested in the critical study of the early transmission of Muslim Traditions,” which implies that Mingana was not interested in contradicting Islamic tradition. Alphonse Mingana, An Important Manuscript of the Traditions of Bukhāri (Cambridge: Heffer, 1936), 28.

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

29

being invited. As a result of the newspaper campaign his name has been dropped. There was also a dirty attack on Nallino in one of the papers, but his name has been allowed to stand as he has not written any work attacking Islam. Dr Margoliouth was not invited to form part of the Academy because he had written two books which are considered offensive to Islam. I went for them on this question, and wanted to know what a scholar’s views on Islam had to do with his suitability for appointment to an Arabic Academy which was not concerned with religion but with Arabic language and literature. Had they forgotten that there were Jewish and Christian poets writing in Arabic before Muhammad was born? Did they not know that Arabic was the language of a Christian civilization before there was any Islam? But they would not print my letter.72 Founded mainly to maintain the “integrity” of the Arabic language and to make it suitable for modern usage, the Cairene Académie arabe was established in 1932 on the initiative of the Egyptian government. 73 As the academy was officially only concerned with the Arabic language and not with Islam, Jeffery’s complaint about the rejection of Western scholars on the basis of their views on Islam seems reasonable. Western Orientalists with a critical attitude toward Islam were however from the beginning not accepted as members of the academy.74 The fact that the scholars mentioned in Jeffery’s letter were dropped is therefore not surprising. Jeffery’s concern, however, tells us that even though he did not approve of its connection to an orthodox form of the Islamic religion, he considered the Académie arabe important enough to write a complaint to them. We do not have Mingana’s reaction, but Jeffery’s tone suggests that Mingana would agree to this.

Cadbury Research Library, DA66/1/3/1/8 (letter from Jeffery to Mingana, 20 January 1934). 73 Rachad Hamzaoui, L’Académie de langue arabe du Caire: histoire et œuvre (Tunis: Publications de l’Université de Tunis, 1975), 54 and 57. 74 Ibid., 65 and 100. 72

30

Tijmen C. Baarda

MINGANA AS A WELL-RESPECTED ORIENTAL SCHOLAR IN A PRE-SAIDIAN WORLD There is much more correspondence available that was not discussed above. The letters that were not highlighted paint more or less the same picture as the picture that emerged in the previous section. Most letters are formal, while a good number have a warm personal tone and mention plans to pay each other visits or give an account on how holidays were spent. The majority of the letters is on academic matters and expresses consideration of the other’s work, and in a few cases there are plans to work together on a project. The large number of well-known and eminent scholars shows that Mingana was to a great extent part of the academic context of Western and especially British Orientalists of his time. These scholars work in all the fields that Mingana himself specialized in. The content of the letters shows that the ones with whom Mingana was in contact respected him, used him as a source of information, trusted him in the way he processed Oriental texts to editions, and were also interested in his theories. Despite all the accusations that he forged material, the people with whom he had correspondence do not take these accusations seriously or do not seem to be influenced by them in the way they address Mingana. The negative influence of these accusations must have been much graver after his death. There is however a futher remark to be made. Positive as the comments about Mingana’s work might seem, it is most of the time restricted to his reproductions, critical editions and translations of ancient and medieval texts. About Mingana’s theories and other critical work about these texts, I have found much fewer positive reactions, and in some cases they were even negative. The evidence is not very rich, and a definitive conclusion can therefore not be drawn. We can also make a note in relation to the Orientalism debate. The well-known critique about old-fashioned Orientalists who would have only respect for Oriental texts and not for Oriental people, is sometimes also directed toward the scholars with whom Mingana had contact. In this case, I think I can say that there is no reason to assume that these scholars did not have sincere appreciation for Mingana as a person and as a scholar, even if they often did not agree with his critical work.

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

31

It is often noted that Edward Said in his book Orientalism left out or misread Orientalists who did not fit into his narrative of Orientalists as scholars who used their profession to assert power over Middle Eastern societies. In an important critique on Edward Said’s Orientalism, Daniel Martin Varisco criticizes Said because he was “either unaware of or willfully ignored the scholarly output of quite respectable ‘Arab’ or ‘Muslim’ Orientalists,” after which he mentions a long list of names.75 Mingana is not part of this list, but he could very well be added to it. To conclude, in my opinion Mingana was a very well respected scholar in his own lifetime. There is reason to assume that he was more appreciated for his editions and translations than for his critical work, but even for the latter category it seems that he was at least taken seriously. Living in an age that was long before Said’s influential work, Mingana was one of the many oriental Orientalists who formed an integral part of the Orientalist discourse, showing the need to revise the view that in the Orientalism of Mingana’s time, people from the Middle East itself did not take part. At the same time, I assert that the issues concerning possible forgeries of documents influenced his reputation to a much smaller extent than one would expect from the discourse about him nowadays. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous, “Testimonials to Rev. Alphonse Mingana, D.D. Late Professor of Semitic Languages in the Syro-Chaldean Seminary, Mosul; Lecturer in Syriac, Arabic and Persian at the Friends’ Settlement, Woodbrooke, Selly Oak, Birmingham,” no date, no place (Cadbury Research Library, DA66/2/6/2). Baumstark, A. Review of Woodbrooke Studies, volumes IV and V, edited by A. Mingana. Oriens Christianus 8 (1933): 95–99. Becker, A. Sources for the Study of the School of Nisibis. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2008. Bouyges, M. Le « Kitab ad-Din wa’d-Dawlat », récemment édité et traduit par Mr A. Mingana, est-il authentique ? Lettre à Monsieur le Directeur de la John Rylands Library, Manchester. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1924–1925. 75 Daniel Martin Varisco, Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007), 43.

32

Tijmen C. Baarda

Böwering, Gerhard and Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Preface to the 2006 reprint of The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān, by Arthur Jeffery. Leiden: Brill, 2006 [1938], IX–X Brock, S.P. “Alphonse Mingana and the Letter of Philoxenus to Abu ʿAfr.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 50 (1967): 199– 206. Canney, Maurice Arthur. An Encyclopædia of Religions. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1921. Chabot, J.-B. “Narsai le docteur et les origins de l’école de Nisibe, d’après la chronique de Baradbešabba.” Journal asiatique 6 (10th series, 1905): 157–177. Chabot, J.-B. Review of Woodbrooke Studies, volume II through IV, edited by A. Mingana, Journal des Savants 1932, 82–85. Chabot, J.-B. Review of Woodbrooke Studies, volume V through VII, edited by A. Mingana, Journal des Savants 1934, 228–229. Chabot, J.-B. Review of Book of Treasures, by Jacob of Edessa, edited by A. Mingana, Journal des Savants 1936, 236–237. Chabot, J.-B. Review of Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, volume 1 and 2, by A. Mingana, Journal des Savants 1937, 38–40. Van Dalfsen, G. “The Influence of Woodbrooke in the Netherlands”. In Woodbrooke 1903–1953: A Brief History of a Quaker Experiment in Religious Education, edited by R. Davis, 159–68. London: The Bannisdale Press, 1953. Guppy, Henry. “The genuineness of ‘At-abari’s Arabic ‘Apology,’ and of the Syriac document on the spread of Christianity in Central Asia in the John Rylands Library,” with a note by Alphonse Mingana, “Remarks on the Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14 (1930): 121–124. Hamzaoui, Rachad. L’Académie de langue arabe du Caire: histoire et œuvre. Tunis: Publications de l’Université de Tunis, 1975. Kawerau, Peter. Die Chronik von Arbela, two parts. Louvain: Peeters, 1985.

Firmly Established in Early 20th-Century Orientalism

33

Levene, Abraham. The early Syrian Fathers on Genesis: from a Syriac ms. on the Pentateuch in the Mingana collection: the first eighteen chapters of the ms. ed. with introd., transl. and notes, and incl. a study in comparative exegesis. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1951. Margoliouth, D.S. and G. Woledge. Alphonse Mingana: A Biography and Bibliography. Birmingham: Library of the Selly Oak Colleges, 1939. Mingana, Alphonse and A.S. Lewis, Leaves From Three Ancient Qur’âns, Possibly Pre-ʿOthmânic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Mingana, Alphonse. “A semi-official defence of Islam.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1920): 481–488. Mingana, Alphonse. “The early spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: a new document.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 9 (1925): 297–371. Mingana, Alphonse. “Syriac influence on the style of the Ḳur’ân.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 11 (1927): 77–98. Mingana, Alphonse. Catalogue of the Mingana collection of manuscripts, now in the possession of the trustees of the Woodbrooke settlement, Selly Oak, Birmingham, volume 1. Cambridge: Heffer, 1933. Mingana, Alphonse. Catalogue of the Arabic manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1934. Mingana, Alphonse. An Important Manuscript of the Traditions of Bukhāri. Cambridge: Heffer, 1936. Narsai. Narsai doctoris Syri homiliæ et carmina, edited by A. Mingana. Mosul: Typis Fratrum Prædicatorum, 1905. Ortiz de Urbina, I. “Intorno al valore storico della cronica di Arbela.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 2 (1936): 5–32. Peeters, Paul. Review of The Book of Religion and Empire, by ʿAlī alabarī, edited by Mingana. Analecta Bollandiana 42 (1924): 200– 202. Price, A. Whigham. The Ladies of Castlebrae. Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 1985.

34

Tijmen C. Baarda

Sachau, Eduard. Die Chronik von Arbela: ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des ältesten Christentums im Orient. Berlin: Verlag der königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften: 1915. Samir, Samir Khalil. Alphonse Mingana (1878–1937) and his contribution to early Christian-Muslim Studies. Birmingham: Selly Oak Colleges, 1990. Snouck Hurgronje, C. Abdoel-Ghaffaar: sources for the history of Islamic studies in the Western world, volume 1: Orientalism and Islam: the letters of C. Snouck Hurgronje to Th. Nöldeke from the Tübingen University Library, published by P.Sj. van Koningsveld. Leiden: Documentatiebureau Islam-Christendom, Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 1985. abarī, ʿAlī al-. The Book of Religion and Empire, A semi-official defence and exposition of Islam, edition and translation by A. Mingana. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1922–1923. Taeschner, Franz. “Die alttestamentische Bibelzitate, vor allem aus dem Pentateuch, in a - abarī’s Kitāb ad-Dīn wad-Daula und ihre Bedeutung für die Frage nach der Echtheit dieser Schrift.” Oriens Christianus 9 (1934): 23–39. Van Unnik, W.C. Nestorian Questions on the Administration of the Eucharist, by Isho’yabh IV: a Contribution to the History of the Eucharist in the Eastern Church. Haarlem: Joh. Enschedé en zonen, 1937. Varisco, Daniel Martin. Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007. Vosté, Jacques-Marie. “Alphonse Mingana: A propos du ‘Catalogue of the Mingana Collection, t III.’” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 7 (1941): 514–518. Walker, Joel Thomas. The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 19.1, 35-121 © 2016 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THE SYRIAC TRADITION OF THE LEGEND OF THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER TONY BURKE YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, CANADA SLAVOMÍR ČÉPLÖ CHARLES UNIVERSITY, CZECH REPUBLIC / COMENIUS UNIVERSITY, SLOVAKIA

ABSTRACT Since the publication of the long-lost Gospel of Judas in 2006, there has been a flurry of interest in canonical and noncanonical traditions about the famous betrayer of Christ. One text overlooked in this excitement is the Legend of the Thirty Pieces of Silver (Leg. Silv.), which traces the transmission of the coins paid to betray Jesus from Terah’s gift of the coins to Abraham up to Judas’s purchase of the Field of Blood in Acts 1:18-19. Leg. Silv. was a very popular text in medieval times and appears in a number of languages and forms, including Latin, Syriac, and Armenian, along with several European languages: German, English, Italian, Spanish, and Catalan. To date, relatively little work has been done on this text; indeed, there has yet to appear a formal critical edition. This paper aims to address this neglect by presenting, for the first time, an edition of the Syriac branch of the tradition. The text is extant in at least eight Syriac manuscripts, another six in Garšūnī, and it is found also incorporated into the Book of the Bee by 35

36

Burke / Čéplö Solomon of Basra. The paper includes also an overview of previous scholarship on Leg. Silv. and a discussion of the text’s origins and transmission.

The Legend of the Thirty Pieces of Silver (Leg. Silv.) is a medieval apocryphon that traces the transmission of the coins paid to Judas to betray Jesus from Terah’s gift of the coins to Abraham to Judas’s purchase of the Field of Blood in Acts 1:18-19. The text is extant in a variety of forms and languages including Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and several European languages including German, English, Italian, Spanish, and Catalan. Previous work on the text has focused primarily on the versions in Western languages, neglecting the Eastern branch of the tradition. Of these Eastern traditions, the Syriac is by far the most plentiful—eleven manuscripts feature Leg. Silv. as a distinct text, and another 12 contain the text as part of Solomon of Basra’s Book of the Bee. Few of these manuscripts have seen publication, and until now no critical edition of the Syriac tradition has appeared. With such an edition it is possible to determine the shape and proclivities of the text as it was read in the East and to consider how it relates to Leg. Silv. in Western sources. The theme of the tale is fate. Through almost two millennia, the coins are kept together as a unit and providentially guided to their ultimate goal. 1 Along the way they figure in several major events in biblical history, including the sale of Joseph, the construction of Solomon’s temple, and the Babylonian Exile. From Babylon, the coins make their way to Palestine via a number of channels, but ultimately arrive there either among the gifts of the Magi (in the Western texts) or as the gift of King Abgar of Edessa (in the Eastern texts). Jesus gives the coins to the Temple, and the Jews then use them to pay Judas to betray Jesus. Finally, the coins are used to purchase the potter’s field. The story of an object’s passage through history to its predestined goal is taken up in traditions of other auspicious items found in the gospels, including the gifts of the Magi, the cross of Jesus, the purple cloak, and the Seamless Robe, the last of which is incorporated in the story of Leg. 1 Kim Paffenroth, Judas: Images of the Lost Disciple (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2001), 79.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

37

Silv. in several witnesses. Such translation narratives provide back stories to their related relics—whether real (however unlikely) or counterfeit—and allow the bearer of such relics to feel that their ownership or stewardship of the holy object is also providentially ordained. They become part of the story. 1. THE LEGEND IN WESTERN SOURCES The earliest evidence for the text of Leg. Silv. in the West appears in the works of three writers.2 The first of these works is Godfrey of Viterbo’s Pantheon, a world chronicle dedicated to Henry VI recording the history of the world from creation until 1185, the year of its completion.3 Godfrey died six years later. The text, a mixture of Latin prose and poetry, presents Leg. Silv. in 23 rhyming triplets, beginning with: “Denariis triginta Deum vendit Galilaeus, quos et apostolicus describit Bartholomaeus, unde prius veniant, quis fabricavit eos.” Where Godfrey found Leg. Silv. is unclear. He claimed the source was a sermon in Hebrew of the apostle Bartholomew to the Armenians; but the legend does not appear in any known work attributed to Bartholomew.4 For a survey of the Western versions of Leg. Silv. see George Francis Hill, “The Thirty Pieces of Silver” (Archaeologica 59 [1905], 235-54) (repr. in idem, The Medallic Portraits of Christ: The False Shekels: The Thirty Pieces of Silver [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920], 91-116), and David Hook, “The Legend of the Thirty Pieces of Silver,” in The Medieval Mind: Hispanic Studies in Honour of Alan Deyermond, ed. Ian R. MacPherson, and Ralph J. Penny (London: Tamesis, 1997), 205-208. For other scholarship (primarily summary) on Western traditions about the thirty silver pieces see: Rudolph A. Hofmann, Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen im Zusammenhang aus den Quellen erzählt und wissenschaftlich untersucht (Leipzig: Friedrich Voigt, 1851), 333; Wilhelm Creizenach, Judas Ischarioth in Legende und Sage des Mittelalters, Separatabdruck aus den Beiträgen zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur, Band II, Heft 2 (Halle, Lippert’sche Buchhandlung, 1875); and Erica Reiner, “Thirty Pieces of Silver” (JAOS 88.1 [1968], 18690). 3 Godfrey of Viterbo, Pantheon, sive Vniversitatis Libri, qui Chronici appellantur, xx (Basel: ex officina Iocabi Parci, 1559); also found in Edélestand du Méril, ed., Poésies populaires latines du Moyen Age (Paris: Firmin Didot & A. Franck, 1847). Hill provides a free translation in “Thirty Pieces,” 91-93. 4 Paolo Cherchi (“A Legend from St Bartholomew’s Gospel in the Twelfth Century” [RB 91 (1984), 212-18]) argues that the lost Gospel of 2

38

Burke / Čéplö

The second Western writer who drew upon the text is Ludolph of Suchem. He journeyed to the Holy Land in 1336-1341 and wrote about his trip in De Itinere Terrae Sanctae, published between 1350 and 1361.5 The chapter on the coins (ch. 39) is said to derive from a text called the “History of the Kings of the East.” Perhaps this same text was read by the pilgrim Felix Fabri of Nuremberg at the end of the fifteenth century; he says he read the tale in a “certain long and wordy history.”6 The third and final Western writer is John of Hildesheim who incorporated Leg. Silv. in his Historia Trium Regum (chs. 28-29).7 John was a Carmelite friar who composed his text some time between 1364 and 1375 (the year of his death). The Historia was inspired by the translation of the bodies of the three Magi to Cologne in 1164. Three fingers from the bodies were given to the cathedral of Hildesheim. There grew a desire for a complete legend of the three national saints, and this need was met by John. In Bartholomew may have incorporated the story of the coins, and that Godfrey may have used a Latin version of this text. Hill thinks Godfrey may have drawn upon a Latin translation of some legend of Armenian origin (“Thirty Pieces,” 237). 5 See Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” 96-97, which includes a brief summary of Ludolph’s version of the tale. For an edition of the text see Ferdinand Deycks, ed., Ludolphi, rectoris ecclesiae parochilais in Suchem, De itnere terrae Sanctae Liber, Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 25 (Stuttgart: Literarischer Verein, 1851) and Aubrey Stewart, trans., Ludolph von Suchem’s Description of the Holy Land, and of the Way Thither, Written in the Year AD 1350, Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society 12 (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1895). 6 Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” p. 100. See further Cunradus D. Hassler, ed., Evagatorium in Terrae Sanctae, Arabia et Egypti peregrinationem, Fratris Felicis Fabri, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Sumptibus Societatis Litterariae, 1843), 246. For an English translation see Aubrey Stewart, Book of the Wanderings of Brother Felix Fabri, Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society 7-10 (London: 24 Hanover Square W., 1893-1896); for the Leg. Silv. section see vol. 1.2, 532-33. 7 See Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” 97-99. The first modern edition was made by Ernst Köpke, Mittheilungen aus den Handschriften der Ritter-Akademie zu Brandenburg A.H., vol. 1: Johannes von Hildesheim (Brandenburg: G. Matthes, 1878). The edition is reproduced, along with variants from other manuscripts, in Carl Horstman, ed., The Three Kings of Cologne: An Early English Translation of the ‘Historia Trium Regum’ by John of Hildesheim, EETS, Old Series 85 (London: Oxford University Press, 1886). Horstman also provides details of John’s life and works (Ibid., xii-xvi).

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

39

chapter four, John lists his sources as “books written in Hebrew and Chaldee of the life and deeds, and all matters of the 3 kings”; however, as Horstman states, these are “no doubt, a mere fiction, or perhaps mention was made of them in his real sources.”8 The Historia was quite popular in John’s day and spawned translations into English and German.9 It fell into some obscurity during the Reformation but was rediscovered in the nineteenth century. Leg. Silv. is also preserved in several Latin manuscripts. A fifteenth-century manuscript from Italy (British Library, 22553, fol. 144v) and a contemporary one from Germany (British Library, Add. 34139, fol. 87r; 1492 or early 16th cent.)10 contain versions of the text distinct from the one known to the three Western writers.11 Also of note are a handful of Latin manuscripts that have yet to be evaluated. Included in these are British Library, Add. 34276 (fol. 33v, 15th cent.),12 which seems to be an abbreviation of John of Hildesheim’s version; Halle, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Stolb.-Wernig Za 69m (fol. 23v-24v, 15th cent.); 13 Bibliothèque nationale, Manuscrits latins des nouvelles acquisitions 543 (fol. 112v-113r;

Ibid, xiv. See Horstman, Three Kings of Cologne, for an edition and discussion of the Old English version, which is an abbreviation of the Historia Trium Regum made around 1400. A German translation was made as early as 1389. For a broader discussion of the manuscript tradition of the English and German translations see Max Behland, Die Dreikönigslegende des Johannes von Hildesheim (Munich: W. Fink, 1968) and Sylvia C. Harris, “German translations of the Historia Trium Regum by Johannes de Hildesheim” (Modern Language Review 53 [1958], 364-73); idem, “The Historia Trium Regum and the Mediaeval Legend of the Magi in Germany” (Medium aevum 28 [1959], 23-30). 10 Trustees of the British Museum, Catalogue of the Additions to the Manuscripts of the British Museum 1888-1893 (London: British Museum, 1894), 210-11. 11 See Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” 101. 12 Ibid., 282-83. 13 Renate Chipke and Kurt Heydeck, Handschriftencensus der kleineren Sammlungen in den östlichen Bundesländern Deutschlands: Bestandsaufnahme der ehemaligen Arbeitsstelle “Zentralinventar Mittelalterlicher Handschriften bis 1500 in den Sammlungen der DDR” (ZIH) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 310. This manuscript has not been discussed in previous scholarship. 8 9

40

Burke / Čéplö

14th cent.); 14 and Vienna, Ms No. 1948 (no fol. nos. provided; 1332).15 It is notable that all the versions of Leg. Silv. named here appear as independent self-contained works and not as a part of either Pantheon, De Itinere Terrae Sanctae, or Historia Trium Regum. The Vienna manuscript, however, seems to be identical to Godfrey’s text or its source, as are several versions of Hispanic provenance.16 Despite the exotic statements of origin for Leg. Silv. by Godfrey, Ludolphe, and John, likely the text became available to the writers in Latin, perhaps as a translation from a lost Greek original. All three published versions differ in many places, though Harris saw enough significant correspondences between them to conclude that John’s account was dependant on Ludolph’s and supplemented by details from Godfrey.17 Hook, however, suggests that John may have used a text similar to Godfrey’s source.18 The Western form of the text has several identifying features. The silver pieces are said to derive from a collection of gold coins created by Terah for Ninus, king of the Assyrians; they are used by the Ishmaelites to purchase Joseph; the Ishmaelites pass the coins on to the Queen of Sheba; after Nebuchadnezzar they go to Saba (Godfrey) or Arabia (John) or Godolia (Ludolph), and then to Nubia (Ludolph, John); there is no mention of the Persians, nor of Edessa and Abgar; they pass on from the Nubians or the Magi (via Saba in Godfrey) to the Christ child; from there they are lost in Egypt, where they are found and returned to Christ. Finally, Ludolph and John end stating that the coins were dispersed after the death of Judas. Two of the writers (Godfrey and Ludolph) take 14 Société de l’école des Chartres, Bibliothèque de l’École des chartres. Revue d’érudition consacrée specialement a l’étude du moyen age, vol. 53 (Paris: Libraire d’Alphonse Picard, 1892), 341. This manuscript has not been discussed in previous scholarship. 15 Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis, Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter Graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum, Volumen 1, Cod. 1-2000 (Vienna: Gerold, 1864), 303. The catalog cites the incipit and the last verse: “In folio numero non signato inter thecam et folia signata carmen 67 versuum de triginta argenteis, quibus Christus venditus est. Incip. ‘Denariis triginta deum vendit galilenus. . .’ Expl.: ‘Cuius sunt vota et non dicere facta remota.’” These are nearly identical to Godfrey’s version in du Méril’s edition. 16 See Hook, “Legend,” particularly 209-16. 17 Harris, “German translations,” 29. 18 Hook, “Legend,” 208.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

41

great pains to explain how the gold pieces of Terah became the silver pieces of Judas. The discrepancy may derive from the blending of two traditions: the original silver pieces of Leg. Silv. with the gold pieces said to have been given to the Christ child by Melchior, one of the Persian Magi, and which were coined by Terah, paid to the Queen of Sheba by Joseph, and given by the Queen to Solomon.19 Gold coins as part of the gifts of the Magi are mentioned also in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew ch. 16. This notion of the dispersion of the coins serves as back story to the existence of “Judas-penny” relics.20 More than thirty of these coins are recorded in various sources; some of them are still extant. The references to the coins go back to as early as the fifteenth century and they seem to have been dispersed in France, Italy, Bologna, Rhodes, and Russia. Not one of them, of course, was of the kind in circulation at the time of Jesus.21 2. THE LEGEND IN THE SYRIAC TRADITION Scholars’ first look at the Syriac version of Leg. Silv. came in 1866 with the publication of Solomon of Basra’s Book of the Bee. 22 Solomon was bishop of Basra (in modern-day Iraq) beginning around 1222. His book is a collection of theological and historical texts covering events and figures from creation to the final day of resurrection. He includes the story of the silver pieces in a chapter (ch. 44 in Budge’s edition) that relates the origins of a variety of artifacts from the Passion of Christ, including his tomb, the purple cloak, and the cross. The first critical edition of the Book of the Bee, made by J. M. Schoenfelder, included a Latin translation of the text based on a single manuscript from Munich (Ms C below). Twenty years later E. A. Wallis Budge contributed a more comprehensive See Ernest A. W. Budge, The Book of the Bee: The Syriac Text Edited from the Manuscripts in London, Oxford, Munich, with an English Translation, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 1 part 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), 95 n. 5. 20 For a detailed discussion of the coins see Fernand de Mély, “Les Deniers de Judas dans la Tradition du Moyen Âge” (Revue Numismatique 4.3 [1899], 500-9, summarized and updated in Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” 10316. 21 Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” 103. 22 J. M. Schoenfelder, Salomonis, episcope Bassorensis, liber apis, syriacum arabicumque textum latine (Bamberg: O. Reindl, 1866). 19

42

Burke / Čéplö

edition, in Syriac and English, incorporating readings from two additional Syriac manuscripts and another in Garšūnī: A B C

D

London, Royal Asiatic Society, Syr. 1, paper, 8 x 5 3/4 in., 188 fols., East Syriac, 1559; fol. 26r-92v.23 London, British Library, Add. 25875, paper, 8 7/8 x 6 1/8 in., 362 fols., East Syriac, 1709/1710: fol. 81v-157v.24 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Syr. 7, paper, 12 1/8 x 8 ¼ in., 146 fols., East Syriac (right column in Syriac, left in Garšūnī), end 17th/beginning 18th cent.25 Oxford, Bodleian Library, 141 (formerly Poc. 89), paper, 8 5/8 x 6 ¼ in., 405 leaves, Garšūnī, 1584: fol. 81-217.26

At the time, Budge characterized Schoenfelder’s text as “faulty in many places,” and promised to deliver a better edition.27 He also mentioned the existence of several additional manuscripts of the text:28 Vatican, Syr. 176, paper, 119 fols.(?), East Syriac, 17th cent.: fol. 42-126.29 23 This is the same manuscript used for Budge’s edition of the Syriac Life of Mary: Ernest A. W. Budge, The History of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the History of the Likeness of Christ, 2 vols., (London: Luzac & Co., 1899). Full manuscript details are supplied by William Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Edited from Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum and Other Libraries, vol. 1: The Syriac Texts (London: Williams and Norgate, 1871), xxii. 24 William Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838, Part 3 (London: Longmans & Co., 1872), 1064-69. 25 Joseph Aumer, Verzeichniß der orientalischen Handschriften der K. Hofund Staatsbibliothek in München, mit Ausschluß der hebraeischen, arabischen und persischen (1875; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1970), 114-15. 26 Robert Payne Smith, Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, Pars sexta (Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1864), 452-58. 27 Budge, Book of the Bee, iii. 28 Ibid., ix. 29 Stefano E. Assemani, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticane Codicum Manuscriptorum catalogus, vol. 2: Codices Chaldaicos sive Syriacos (1758; Paris: Maissoneuve, 1926), 363-67. Assemani’s information on the manuscript is

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

43

Vatican, Syr. 177, paper, 83 fols., East Syriac, n.d.: fol. 1-83.30 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Syriaque 232, paper, 592 fols., Garšūnī, 17th cent.: fol. 1-81 (said to be a copy of D but missing the beginning and end, and full of lacunae).31 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Syriaque 368, paper, 210 x 150 mm., East Syriac, 16th cent.: fol. 1-16 and 18-41 (missing the beginning and end, and full of lacunae).32 And since Budge’s day, more manuscripts have come to light: London, British Library, Or. 4526, paper, 8°, 285 fols., 1727: fol. 54r-155r.33 London, British Library, Or. 5281, paper, 4°, 146 fols., 18th cent.34 Cambridge, University Library, Add. 2815, paper, 9 x 6 ¾ in., 91 fols., 1887.35 Birmingham, Mingana, Syr. 93, paper, 221 x 162 mm, 101 fols., 1886.36 contradictory: he lists the folio count at 119, but the Book of the Bee’s placement in the manuscript as running to fol. 126 and discusses the presence of some librarian’s notes on fol. 128. 30 Ibid., 367. 31 Hermann Zotenberg, Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque nationale (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1874), 177-81. 32 Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (nos 356-435, entrés depuis 1911), de la bibliothèque Méjanes d’Aix-en-Provence, de la bibliothèque municipale de Lyon et de la bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1997), 4041. 33 George Margoliouth, Descriptive List of Syriac and Karshuni MSS. in the British Museum Acquired since 1873 (London: Longmans & Co., 1899), 46-47. This manuscript, like Urmia 38 below, is closely related to Royal Asiatic Society, Syr. 1 (Budge’s Ms A)—the three contain virtually all the same texts and in the same order. 34 Ibid., 49. Folio numbering not provided. 35 William Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, vol. 2 (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1901), 658-59. 36 Alphonse Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, vol. 1 (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, Ltd., 1933), 233.

44

Burke / Čéplö Yale, Beinecke Library, Syr. 4, paper, 21½ x 15½ in., 134 fols., 1687.37 Teheran, Neesan 28 (18th cent.?).38 Urmia 38, paper, 8º, 573 fol. (or pages?), 1885: no fol. numbers provided.39

Clearly more work could be done to establish the text of the Book of the Bee and thus of the version of Leg. Silv. preserved within it. The edition of the Eastern text of Leg. Silv. offered below incorporates only the manuscript readings provided by Budge. In the years between Schoenfelder’s and Budge’s editions there appeared Paul de Lagarde’s collection Praetermissorum libri duo, which includes an editon of Leg. Silv. 40 Lagarde said little about the sources he used for his texts, but it is now clear that for Leg. Silv. he used British Library, Syriac 9 (Ms M, discussed below).41 Along with Leg. Silv. and an edition of Elias of Nisibis’ Kitāb at-tarğumān in 37 See James T. Clemons, “A Checklist of Syriac Manuscripts in the United States and Canada” (OCP 32 [1966], 487, No. 247); and Alain Desreumaux, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits syriaques, Documents, études et répertoires publiés par l’Institut de recherché et d’histoire des texts (Paris: Éditions du CNR, 1991), 199, no. 611. 38 The existence of this manuscript, as yet uncataloged and unevaluated, was made known to us by Alain Desreumaux. For more on the manuscripts of Teheran see Desreumaux, Répertoire, 237. 39 Kashisha Oshana Sarau and John H. Shedd, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the Museum Association of Oroomiah College (Urmiah: Library of the Museum Association of Oroomiah College, 1898), 10. This manuscript is now lost. 40 Paul de Lagarde, Praetermissorum libri duo (Göttingen: Officina Academica Dieterichiana, 1879). 41 In Praetermissorum, de Lagarde lists three sources: “g codex gothanus 1091” (current designation Universitätsund Forschungsbibliothek Erfurt / Gotha Ms. orient. Ag 79; for a description of this manuscript, see Wilhelm Pertsch, Die orientalischen Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Gotha [Gotha: Friedr. Andr. Perthes, 1893], 58-59), “h codex londoniensis” (our Ms M), and “r,” which is Thesaurus arabicosyro-latinus by Tommaso Obicino (aka Tommaso de Navaria [Rome: Sac. Congregationis de propag. Fide, 1636]). Lagarde’s “h codex londoniensis” is confirmed as BLSyr. 9 by the description of the manuscript in Giuseppe Furlani, “Il manoscritto siriaco 9 dell’India Office” (RSO 10 [1923-1925], 315-20).

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

45

Arabic and Hebrew script, Lagarde’s book also contains various other lexicographical material taken from M42 and Bar Hebraeus’s commentary on the Psalms, all presented in Hebrew script. Thus, the first publication of Leg. Silv. as a distinct text came over a century ago, but it made little to no impact on scholarship on the text. The entire range of known Syriac manuscripts for Leg. Silv., either as a distinct text or incorporated into the Book of the Bee, falls into two recensions. The Western recension comprises five Serto manuscripts. The Eastern recension comprises four East Syriac manuscripts and the Book of the Bee. The Garšūnī manuscripts contain features from both recensions and have undergone independent development. All of the manuscripts used in the present study are described below. 2.1 Manuscripts of the Western Recension43 A Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Syriaque 197, 263 fols., Serto, 16th cent.: fol. 93r-94v.44 This manuscript, copied by a scribe named James, is a large collection of homilies, poetry and extracts from lives of saints in Syriac and Arabic (Garšūnī). Notable works contained herein include the collected poems of Bar Hebraeus (fol. 118v-226v) and a number of homilies by Jacob of Sarug and Ephrem the Syrian. Manuscript A was selected as the base manuscript for the recension as it appears to suffer from the least amount of errors and omissions (note the two observable grammatical errors, shared with B, in l. 14 and 53, and three idiosyncratic readings in l. 7, 28, and 42). This manuscript is related to B (see below). B Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Syriaque 215, 86 fols., Serto, 17th cent.: fol. 82v-83v.45 42 An excerpt from what Furlani calls “Alcuni versi I spiegazioni di parole” (BLSyr. 9, fol. 441-444), an excerpt from “Spiegazioni di parole” (BLSyr. 9, fol. 189v-191v), and a fragment taken from BLSyr. 9, fol. 196. 43 Many of the manuscripts described below, including those of the Eastern recension and the Garšūnī versions, are listed in Florence Jullien, “La légende des Trente pièces d’argent de Judas et le roi Abgar” (Apocrypha 24 [2013], 207-20). 44 Zotenberg, Manuscrits orientaux, 144-47.

46

Burke / Čéplö

Much of the contents of this thin volume are identical to those of A: Title

A

B

150v-226v

Zotenberg No. 14°f-gg

9r-56r

Zotenberg No. 2°

Collected poems of Bar Hebraeus A poem by David, son of Paul, on the Syriac alphabet

227r-235v

15°

56v-59v

3°

111 Pythagorean symbolic maxims taken from a letter of Theodosius, the patriarch of Antiochia

236r-244v

16°

60r-62v

4°

A homily on the solitary life of hermits

245r-258v

17°

63r-68r

5°

A homily on poverty and alms

259r-263r

18°

68v-69v

6°

Another homily on hermits, different from the previous one

105r-118r

13°

70r-75r

7°

Leg. Silv.

93r-94v

11°

82v-83v

11°

Along with a third homily on the hermit life (8°, fol. 75v-79v), this manuscript further contains a list of monastic rules in Arabic (Garšūnī, 1°, fol. 1-8r) relating to discipline, two alphabetical poems (9° and 10°, fol. 80r-82r) and a collection of letters written by a priest to a deacon, a metropolitan and a bishop (12°, fol. 83v-85). The text of B follows close that of A, aside from two minor departures (l. 20, 42) and a case of dittography (l. 24-25), perhaps due to homoeoteleuton. The presence of this error, along with the

45

Ibid., 166.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

47

date of the two manuscripts and the order of the texts, suggests that B is a copy of A or a very similar manuscript. C Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 480, 418 x 261 mm., 428 fols., Serto, 1712/13: fol. 241v-242r.46 Mingana describes C as “a handsome and sumptuous MS. containing the New Testament and many other treatises.” 47 Included among these treatises are works by Jacob of Edessa, Ephrem, John of Saba, and Philoxenos of Mabbug. The bulk of the manuscript is devoted to the four gospels in the Harklean Version (fol. 33v-303v), with the text in one column and commentary in the other. Several maps and diagrams follow the gospels. Then we see the Acts of the Apostles according to the Peshitta Version (310v311v), the Catholic Epistles (fol. 334v-344r), the Epistles of Clement (344r-351r), and the Pauline Epistles (351v-397r). Leg. Silv. is found near the start of the Gospel of John (John begins at fol. 234v). The colophon (427v-428v) provides the date of the manuscript and its place of origin in the Church of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste in the town of Mardin. It reveals also that the manuscript was copied from another created for the Metropolitan of Aleppo, Dionysius Shukr-Allah from Mardin. The manuscript is very similar to A and B, with two major differences: an extra word in l. 22 (“and sat down”) which is found also in the Eastern recension, and a repeated word (due to dittography) in l. 39. C features several other unique readings (l. 1 of the title and in l. 16, 33, 42, 45, 48-49, 50, and 54), and shares a number of variants with manuscripts D and E (see l. 1, 2, 9, 14, 20, 31, 32, 38, 53, and 56), though none of these are significant enough to indicate a direct relationship between C and DE. D Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 71, 218 x 155 mm., 154 fols., Serto, ca. 1600: fol. 134v-136v.48 This undated manuscript contains various lives, treatises, notes, prayers, and brief stories, some of which are incomplete. Some 46 Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection, 863-82 (here listed incorrectly as fol. 240v-241r). 47 Ibid., 863. 48 Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection, 180-88.

48

Burke / Čéplö

pages have been bound out of order. Mingana describes it as a collection “from different MSS., written by two hands and put together by an early binder.”49 There are a number of errors in the manuscript (see l. 18, 20, 25, 48, 49) that have been corrected likely by the scribe himself, and several unique readings: l. 1 of the title (perhaps shared with C), the addition of “village” in l. 3 (also found in the East Syrian recension), and other variants in 7, 15, 25, and 43). The manuscript is related to E (see further below). E Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 369, 255 x 176 mm., 159 fols., Serto, ca. 1480: fol. 130r-131r.50 This manuscript, the earliest we have of the text, is a collection of Syriac and Garšūnī texts originating from different manuscripts and in several different hands. A number of the texts are shared with D:

1. Memra on the parrot which sang the trisagion in Antioch 2. Treatise on the Syrian authors known as Isaac 3. Collection of pious anecdotes 4. History of Rome by Diocles Peparethius 5. Question by an Egyptian monk to old hermits 6. A story on the faithfulness of a dog 7. Astronomical and physical notes by Dionysus 8. How to hold a controversy with a Nestorian 9. Ephrem on the Trinity 10. Story of a demon who repented Ibid., 181. Ibid., 669-80. 51 There is no item V. 49 50

E

D

F (24v-29v)

K (73v-83r)

G (29v)

L (83v-84r)

J (34r-40v) K (40v-43v)

N (88r-101r) O (101r-106v)

L (43v-44r)

P (106v-107v)

M (44r-44v)

Q (106v-107v)

N (44v-46r)

R (108v-112r)

O (46r-47r)

S (112r-113v)

P (47r) Q (47v-50r)

T (113v-114r) U (114r-118v)51

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver 11. Prayer before a Sultan 12. Order of prayers over a dying man 13. Sayings of the desert fathers 14. Acrostic admonitions by Ephrem 15. Treatise on six Syriac letters with two sounds 16. Leg. Silv.

49

R (50r-50v) aa (77r-79v)

W (118v-119v) X (119v-128v)

gg (96r-97v) hh (98)

Y (128v-130v) Z (130v-132r)

jj (115r-116v)

aa (132v-134v)

ll (130r-131r)

bb (134v-136v)

The shared material appears in a variety of hands in E, with Leg. Silv. written by a certain Basil the door-keeper of a church in the Monastery of Za‘farān in 1481.52 The precise nature of the relationship between manuscripts D and E is uncertain. Both contain a host of shared variants, including one agreement with the Eastern recension in l. 39 (note also “king of the Persians” in l. 7); and they share several omissions (see l. 2-3 of the title; l. 7-8, 50, and 57-58). E has three unique readings in l. 15, 44, and 51. The weight of this evidence would suggest that E, or a very similar manuscript, is the source of D. Other noteworthy texts in the two manuscripts are portions of Apoc. Pet. (=Book of the Rolls) in Garšūnī (fol. 30r-32r),53 the Martyrdom of Pilate (fol. 117r-130r),54 and the Life of John the Baptist by Serapion (fol. 142r-149v).55 2.2 Manuscripts of the Eastern Recension The Eastern recension is available as a distinct text in three manuscripts and is incorporated also into Solomon of Basra’s Book of the Bee. All of the Eastern witnesses feature the same lengthy title and the mention of the prophecy of Zarathustra (l. 16; though this Basil is responsible also for items B, D, E, F, G, H, I, Y, Z, kk, mm, and nn. J to P are by another hand, Q and R by another, and aa to hh and jj by others. 53 See Alphonse Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshuni, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927-1931), 3:93-450. 54 See Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies, 2:241-332 but based on Mingana Syr. 127 and Syr. 355 (both in Garšūnī) and a Paris manuscript (Arab. 152). 55 See Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies, 1:138-287. The edition is based on Mingana Syr. 22 (discussed under the Garšūnī manuscripts below) and Syr. 183. 52

50

Burke / Čéplö

is not found in P). Also, they lack a number of readings found in the Western recension: part of the dialogue between the shepherds and the merchants (l. 39-41, 42-43), the statement that Jesus knew the secrets of the Robe and the pieces (l. 48-49), the command to Judas to deliver Jesus (l. 51), and the depositing of the pieces in the fountain along with the staff of Moses (l. 55-57). M London, British Library, Syriac 9 (formerly India Office Syriac 9), octavo, 444 fols., East Syriac, 1712/13: fol. 242r-243r.56 With the exception of fols. 59v to 193v, the manuscript is divided into two columns. Titles and conclusions are written in red ink; the rest of the text is in black ink and fully vocalized using the eastern vocalization system. Furlani identifies in the manuscript 84 separate works of various types, mostly short treatises on philosophy and linguistic matters. Fol. 1r to 44r contain a version of Kitāb at-tarğumān—i.e., “Book of the Translator,” an Arabic-Syriac dictionary organized by semantic fields compiled by Elias of Nisibis (d. 1049). This very manuscript was used by Paul de Lagarde for his edition of both Kitāb at-tarğumān and Leg. Silv.57 M appears to be the best manuscript of the Eastern recension, with only two signs of scribal error: 
 for
 in the title, and a single word added super linea in l. 26; note also the unique reading in l. 41-42. The manuscript is also the only witness in the Eastern recension to a reading attested in the Western recension (l. 35). N Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Syr. 74 (formerly Sachau 9), 208 x 140 mm., 128 fols., East Syriac, 1695: fol. 20v-22r.58 Sachau describes the manuscript as “Sammelband, enthaltend: Theile der Schatzhöhle und des Buches der Biene; Apokryphe Apostel-Acten; eine Josephs-Geschichte von Basilius dem Grossen; Heiligen-Legenden.”59 However, the only portions identifiable as parts of the Book of the Bee are Leg. Silv. (fol. 20v-22r) and the Furlani, “Il manoscritto siriaco 9.” Lagarde, Praetermissorum Libri Duo. Leg Silv. apppears at 94-96. 58 Eduard Sachau, Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek. Erste Abtheilung (Berlin: A. Asher & Co., 1899), 281-88. 59 Ibid., 281. 56 57

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

51

introduction (fol. 22r-24v). The manuscript is related to O (see below), but suffers from fewer errors (see l. 16, 40, 48, 49; for readings unique to N see titulus l. 1 and 4, l. 5, 25-26, 40, 46, and 47). O Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Syriaque 309, 240 x 160 mm., 344 fols., East Syriac, 1869: fol. 51v-53v.60 This relatively modern volume—written by a 13-year old student named Elias from Alqosh, Iraq, and completed in July 1869—contains 21 separate works. With the exception of the first one—Songs for the Feast of the Resurrection (fol. 1v-10r)—these are lives of saints and other legends. The manuscript is related to N, though perhaps not directly. N and O share the following texts: N Leg. Silv. Acts of Andrew and Mathaias Legend of John, the son of the king of Rome

O

20v-22r (4°) 82v-91r (12°)

51v-53v (3°) 53v-66r (4°)

121r-128v (15°)

77v-91v (6°)

The two manuscripts share a number of readings within Leg. Silv. (see particularly l. 8-9, 24) and several significant omissions (l. 7-8, 12-13, 9-12, and 35). The title is now illegible, as are four lines of text at the start of fol. 52v (though these lines are not part of Leg. Silv.). O also has some particular features: two words are added super linea (l. 41, 46; the latter word is lacking in N); there is a corruption (
 for
 in l. 9), a correction (l. 22), an omission of several words (l. 43-44); the colophon and benediction, extant in MN, are absent (l. 50-51), and there are other errors and omissions (l. 23, 44). Florence Jullien distinguishes the West Syriac text of Leg. Silv., identified correctly as a tahwita (“demonstration”), Jean Baptiste Chabot, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque Nationale” (JA IXe série, 8 [Sept.-Oct. 1896], 256-58); François Nau, “Notice des manuscrits syriacques entrés à la Bibliothèque Nationale de paris depuis l’édition des catalogues (syriacques 289-355)” (ROC 16 [1911], 281). 60

52

Burke / Čéplö

from manuscript O (the only East Syriac witness, besides Budge’s edition of the Book of the Bee, in her study), identified as a mimra, “c’est-à-dire d’une homélie versifiée destinée avant tout à édifier,”61 yet there is nothing about the form of the text in O that is any different from other East and West Syriac manuscripts. P Solomon of Basra, The Book of the Bee (edition E. A. W. Budge). Only three Syriac manuscripts of P have yet been edited, with a fourth in Garšūnī discussed by Budge for comparison. They are represented in the edition below as Pa (London, Royal Asiatic Society, Syr. 1), Pb (London, British Library, Add. 25875), and Pc (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Syr. 7). Though all three manuscripts have their own unique readings (note, in this regard, Pa’s omission in l. 24-25 and addition in l. 14; and Pb’s addition in l. 23), most often Pa and Pc agree against Pb. P is distinguished from the other East Syriac manuscripts by several noteworthy readings: two occasions where P agrees with the West Syriac (“children of Israel,” l. 9; a lengthier reading in v. 6, l. 19); the omission of the prophecy of Zarathustra (l. 16); and several other significant omissions (l. 10-11, 11-12, 23, and, like O, the colophon and benediction in l. 50-51). 2.3 The Garšūnī Manuscripts The Garšūnī witnesses fall into two major groups: Garšūnī A (GarA) with manuscripts RSTU and Y and Garšūnī B (GarB) consisting solely of V. R Cambridge, Syriac Add. 2881, 7¼ x 5¼ in, 435 fols., 1484: fol. 136v-139r.62 The volume is damaged in a number of places with at least one quire missing. It contains a large collection of various texts in Arabic written in Garšūnī (Serto) and Arabic script (Naskhī). Somewhat careless writing and various errors and omissions suggest this is a work of an unskilled copyist working from an Jullien, “La légende,” 210. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 713-23. 61 62

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

53

imperfect Vorlage. In a number of places, including GarA l. 5-6 (marked as lacunae in the critical edition), the letters are replaced by numbers, possibly indicating places where the original was illegible. Along with various lives of saints, homilies, theological treatises, and the history of the monks in the desert of Scete, R contains a number of additional apocryphal works: Acts of Thomas (fol. 53v103v), The Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ to his Disciples on the Mount of Olives (fol. 103v-136v), the Abgar Correspondence (fol. 158v159v), the Relation of Pontius Pilate regarding the dealings of the Jews with our Lord, written in the year 18 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius (Anaphora Pilati? fol. 160r-168r), and the History of the Decease of the Virgin Mary (Dorm. Virg.? fol. 223r-238r). S Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 22, 247 x 167 mm., 237 fols., 1527: fol. 134v-136v.63 The manuscript is comprised entirely of Garšūnī texts, one of which is the Life of John the Baptist by Serapion (fol. 29r-48v), found also in Mingana Syr. 369 (Ms E above). The manuscript lacks several pages—between fol. 43-44, 49-50, 50-51, and 71-72—none of which affect Leg. Silv.; in addition, the second half of fol. 227 has been cut off (but with no damage to the text), the final text of the manuscript is incomplete at the end, and the final leaf is damaged. The manuscript is dated on fol. 72v by a scribe named Jacob. T Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 48, 218 x 170 mm., 147 fols., 1906 (but based in part on a manuscript from 1757): fol. 144r-145r.64 The majority of this manuscript is devoted to texts related to Mary. The first is the West Syriac Life of Mary (fol. 1r-71v) divided into five books: the Infancy of Mary (fol. 1r-6v) and the Birth of Jesus (fol. 6v-10v) drawn from the Protevangelium of James, the Vision of Theophilus (10v-29r), Infancy Gospel of Thomas (29v-32r), and the Dormition of the Virgin (32v-71v). To date, little work has been done on this collection of tales; only the Vision of Theophilus has seen print. 65 The Life of Mary texts are followed by several memrē Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, 62-68. Ibid., 133-37. 65 See Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies, vol. 3, 1-92. Prior to Mingana’s edition the work had been made known by way of a summary 63 64

54

Burke / Čéplö

devoted to the Virgin and three letters that came down from heaven (fol. 126v-134v). The final three texts of the manuscript are in Garšūnī: a miracle of the Virgin attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem (135r-142v), Leg. Silv. (144r-145r), and another miracle “performed by Our Lady Mary the Saint in the days of caliph Ma’mun” (145v150r). Leg. Silv. is preceded by a lengthy colophon (142v-143v) providing the identity of the copyist, and the date and place (Mosul) of production.66 The colophon of the manuscript from which this one was copied is reproduced on fol. 143v and reveals that it originated in the village of Baith Khudaidah in 1757. The placement of the Judas text after the colophons suggests it was a late addition to the collection. U Birmigham, Mingana Syr. 479, 228 x 167 mm, 125 fols., 1819: fol. 123v-125r.67 This manuscript only contains three works: a grammar of Syriac by Timothy Isaac bar Deacon Abd Hayya (also known as Basil Isaac Gobeyr) the Metropolitan of Diyarbakır (1643-1721), a chapter on the Eucharist from the Canons of the Apostles in Garšūnī, and Leg. Silv., likewise in Garšūnī. Written in clear Serto by Abd al-Masih bar Ishaq, a priest. V Birmigham, Mingana Syr. 514, 161 x 111 mm, 152 fols., 1729 or 1750: 140r-142r.68 This manuscript contains 19 works from different periods bound together in a single volume. They include three memrē in presentation in François Nau, “La version syriaque de la vision de Théophile sur le séjour de la Vierge en Egypte,” ROC 15 (1910): 125-32. The Vision of Theophilus also exists as an independent text. See CANT 56 and Clavis Patrum Graecorum 2628 for references to various versions. For a precise listing of the available manuscripts see Tony Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas from an Unpublished Syriac Manuscript. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes” (Hugoye 16.2 [2013], 234-36). 66 The catalog entry report is erroneous in this section. It lists the colophon as fol. 144v-145, Leg. Silv. as fol. 146-147r, and neglects to mention the final text at fol. 145v-150r. 67 Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, 862-63. 68 Ibid., 943-48.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

55

Syriac by Jacob of Serug: a long memrā on the destruction of Jerusalem (1-25v), a shorter unfinished one on the Virgin looking at the crucified Christ (26r-29r), and one on strangers who die in a foreign land (79v-83v). The first two of these are written by the same hand. Only one additional work is in Syriac: a brief history of Nestorius before a council of bishops (144v-149r). The rest of the volume is taken up by works in Garšūnī and contains historical and theological treatises, commentaries, prayers, and various apocryphal material. Along with Leg. Silv., these works include two works on miracles of the Virgin, one describing a miracle perfomed during the reign of Caliph Ma’mun (65r-72v, the same work as the one found in Ms N), the other a miracle in a convent in Damascus (73r79v). All the works in Garšūnī and the Nestorius treatise are written by chorbishop Abdallah in clear but inelegant Serto. The dates are given in two colophons on fol. 128r and 143v. Y Mardin, Dayr Al-Zafaran 240, size not specified, 117 fols., 19th/20th cent.: fol. 95r-97v.69 Along with Leg. Silv., this manuscript contains five stories and two treatises, all in Garšūnī, including one by Jacob of Serug titled “On the Holy Mysteries, Confession, and Repentance” (32v-39r). It is written in elegant Serto with colored titles and diacritics. The scribe is identified on fol. 3-4 as Iliyas Adam. The Garšūnī manuscripts are so divergent in their wording that it is impossible to speak of a single Garšūnī recension of Leg. Silv., nor can any of them be traced directly to one of the Syriac recensions. Of the two groups of witnesses, GarB is the closest to the two Syriac recensions, especially ESyr, with which it shares a number of features, such as the reference to the merchants falling asleep at the side of the road (l. 18-19) and the shorter version of the exchange between Abgar and the merchants (l. 34-38). GarA manuscripts, on the other hand, show a number of similarities to WSyr, such as the details of the transaction between the shepherds and the merchants (l. 28-34), the mention of an inn (l. 36), and a reference to Jesus’ knowledge of secrets (l. 53). Additionally, GarA 69 Cataloged on the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library web site: http://www.vhmml.us/research2014/catalog/detail.asp?MSID=122639. Cited 1 July 2014.

56

Burke / Čéplö

contains a number of independent innovations when compared to the Syriac versions and GarB. These include the mention of the shepherds giving water to their sheep (l. 28) and the reference to the priests showing Judas the pieces and using them to tempt him (l. 57). The manuscripts within the GarA group fall into two subgroups. The first one comprises manuscripts T and U, which show by far the largest degree of agreement to the point of being nearly identical. However, they also display a number of small, but consistent differences (such as the spelling of Isaac’s name or the plural of “shepherd”) which make it clear that one is not a copy of the other, but that they both are close branches of a single tradition. In terms of content, T and U are the only Garšūnī manuscripts which, like ESyr, make a reference to the prophecy of Zarathustra, albeit in the guise of Balʻam, whom the Arabic tradition identifies with Zarathustra. On the other hand, T and U stand unique in a number of aspects—for example, they both describe the placement of the coins on Solomon’s temple in greater detail than all the other manuscripts in both languages (l. 6-8), and they both lack a reference to Abgar’s observation on the uniqueness of the Seamless Robe (l. 40). Manuscripts R, S, and Y, which together make up the second subgroup of GarA, are far more divergent, both in appearance and content, with R clearly standing against S and Y. Only S and Y can be considered complete while R shows a number of lacunae (such as l. 4-6) and while all three manuscripts contain an elaborate introduction, only R concludes the narrative in an equally elaborate fashion. The same relationship between the three manuscripts is also reflected in the content, with S and Y agreeing with each other in a number of places against R. The most notable examples are the lack of mention in R of how the priests showed the pieces to Judas (l. 57) (R is the only Garšūnī manuscript which omits this) and the reference to the cemetary for strangers (l. 60)—R directly mentions a “potter’s field” as an afterthought while S and Y speak of a “potter’s land” when mentioning the purchase. In other places, however, agreement is fluid and in a number of instances Y stands alone, such as in its shorter version of the description of the transaction over the Robe and the pieces (l. 35-38) and the description of the origin of the Robe (l. 43).

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

57

Finally, when comparing the Syriac and Garšūnī versions of Leg. Silv., one cannot help but notice the distinct nature of the preserved witnesses: both branches of the Syriac tradition show relative uniformity and little substantial disagreement, whereas the Garšūnī versions are not only different from either of the Syriac recensions, but they also differ wildly from each other. This applies to content (especially when introducing elements not found in Syriac) as well as language—whether orthography, morphology (such as the four different plurals for the word “shepherd”), or choice of words (the inversion of the words for “inn” between U and Y on the one hand and S and T on the other). The variation in the Garšūnī tradition is thus reminiscent of the variation in other types of popular literature, such as fairy tales, which are primarily transmitted orally. This not only illustrates the popularity of Leg. Silv., but it suggests also that while the Syriac recensions followed the usual patterns of written transmission, the Garšūnī version was told, retold, and then written down over and over again. As such, the history of Leg. Silv. is also a witness to the language shift from Syriac to Arabic in the Christian communities of the Middle East. 3. ARMENIAN VERSION The Armenian version is found in two manuscripts discussed in an essay on the Abgar Legend by Bernard Outtier.70 The manuscripts are: Erevan, Matenadaran no. 3854 (1471), fol. 80v-88v and Erevan, Matenadaran no. 7993 (1692), fol. 152v-153v.71 The story weaves in and out of the Abgar Legend. In Edessa, Abgar instructs Addai to find a garment fitting as a gift for Jesus. As they are speaking, some merchants appear with the Seamless Robe and present it to Adaai. Recalling Leg. Silv. v. 10-11, the merchants tell the king how they obtained the Robe, and Addai takes the Robe from the merchants and the pieces from the shepherds and has Addai bring them to Jesus along with the letter requesting healing from his disease. After Addai returns to Edessa with Jesus’ response to Abgar, Jesus 70 Bernard Outtier, “Une forme enrichie de la Légende d’Abgar en arménien,” in V. Calzolari Bouvier, J.-D. Kaestli, and B. Outtier, eds., Apocryphes arménians: transmission– traduction–creation–iconographie; Acts du colloque international sur la literature apocryphe en langue arménienne (Genève, 18-20 septembre 1997) (Lausanne: Éditions du Zébre, 1999), 129-145. 71 See H. S. Anasian, Bibliologie arménienne, vol. 1 (Erévan: Académie des Sciences, 1959), 5-6.

58

Burke / Čéplö

tells the disciples where the money from Abgar came from, relating an abbreviated version of the remaining portions of the story from Leg. Silv. Many elements of the Armenian version of the tale have parallels in the Latin sources: Abraham uses the money to buy a cave from the “son of Amor,” from whom it comes into the hands of the Edessenians, who use it to buy Joseph from his brothers; the brothers then bring the money to Pharaoh; later, the priests use the pieces returned to them by Judas to pay the guards at the tomb, but the guards refuse it, saying, “This money should not be kept, because it is the price of blood.” So the priests buy the potter’s field. These parallels with the Latin witnesses lead Florence Jullien to conclude that there may be some truth to Godfrey of Viterbo’s claim to have found Leg Silv. in a sermon by the apostle Bartholomew to the Armenians.72 Indeed, the Armenian text does contain elements common to both Eastern and Western traditions. 4. ADDITIONAL STORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER Another story (Leg. Silv. Rings) of the origin of the thirty pieces of silver has been published in Latin,73 Greek,74 Arabic75 and Amharic,76 Jullien, “La légende,” 217-18, 220. See Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” 102-3 for a summary of the Latin text reproduced in Arthur S. Napier, History of the Holy Rood-tree (EETS, Old Series 103; London: Oxford University Press, 1894), 69. 74 Jakob Gretser (Hortus Sanctae Crucis [Ingolstadt, 1610], 233) mentions the story from a cross legend found in two manuscripts of a twelfth-century Greek synaxarion. See the discussion in Wilhelm Meyer, “Die Geschichte des Kreuzholzes vor Christus,” Abhandlungen der philosophisch-philologischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 16 (1882): 156. 75 Carl Bezold, Kebra Nagast, die Herrlichkeit der Könige (Munich: Verlag der Könglichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1905), xliv ff. For the English translation, see Ernest A. W. Budge, The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelek (London: Martin Hopkinson & Co., 1922), xxxix-xlv. Georg Graf (Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 1 [Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944], 210) includes this story in the circle of legends surrounding the building of Solomon’s temple and cites two Arabic manuscript sources: Strasbourg, Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire, or. 4180 (ar. 33), fol. 189r-192r (16th cent.; described by Graf as being a part of “einer seltsamen Miszellaneen72 73

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

59

with the latter possibly being a translation of the former. This particular version differs considerably from Leg. Silv. and it ties the story of the silver pieces to the origin of the wood from which the True Cross was made. According to the Arabic version of the story, Solomon commanded his hunters to capture a young Rukh bird and hold it in a brass pot. Its mother saw this, flew up to Paradise, picked up a piece of wood which was lying there, brought it back to Jerusalem and dropped it onto the brass pot which broke and released the young bird. Solomon knew this was no ordinary piece of wood and he ordered his masons to use it in the construction of the Temple. Once the Temple was finished, Solomon placed the piece of wood in the entrance to the Temple. When the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon and learned of the story of the piece of wood, she adorned it with a silver ring and so did Solomon and all who reigned in Israel after him, until there were thirty pieces of silver attached to it. When Judas came to the priests to betray Christ, they stripped the silver from the wood and gave it to Judas, and the wood was made into the cross on which Christ was crucified. The Latin version begins differently, with Moses encountering three rods of cypress, cedar, and pine. These rods are passed down to David and he plants them in Jerusalem, where they grow together into one tree. Every year, for thirty years, David adds a silver ring to the tree; the rings expand as the tree grows. When Solomon builds the temple, a beam is needed, so the tree is cut down and the thirty silver rings are hung in the temple.

Sammlung”); and Cairo, Patriarchal Library (the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate), 645, fol. 166v (1719). Another source for this text is a manuscript from St. Mark’s Cathedral (the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate) microfilmed by Brigham Young University under the designation COP 66 (http://cpart.mi.byu.edu/home/manuscripts/cop/, the manuscript images are available at https://archive.org/details/COP6-6, both cited 18 January 2016.) Leg. Silv. Rings can be found on 172r-173v (according to Arabic foliation; fol. 183-184 according to the foliation in Coptic numerals) under the title “The story of the thirty silver rings” as a part of a collection of shorter texts. This is the same collection of miscellanea as the one in BNU Strassburg or. 4180 which includes, among others, a copy of the Arabic recension of Testament of Adam. 76 Thomas L. Kane, “An Amharic Version of the Origin of the Cross,” BSAOS 44. 2 (1981): 273-89.

60

Burke / Čéplö

Another Cairo manuscript, CMB 12-6 in the Macomber index, is mentioned by Jullien.77 The relevant entry in the catalog of the Coptic Museum manuscripts by Simaika and Abd al-Masih78 gives the title of the work as “Mīmar on the 30 pieces of silver for which Judas betrayed the Savior” and describes it as spanning 33 folios with 15 lines per page. This manuscript, written in the Arabic language in Arabic script and foliated in Coptic numerals, does indeed contain another Arabic recension of Leg. Silv., albeit an incomplete one. The text of Leg. Silv. begins on fol. 1r at the end of Leg. Silv. 6 and shows most similarity to the GarA recension, agreeing at times with the RSY group of manuscripts, then at others with the TU group. The story of the 30 silver pieces concludes on fol. 3r with Judas accepting them for his betrayal of Christ. The text then turns into a memra on Judas himself. A separate edition of the recension of Leg. Silv. in CMB 12-6 will be published by the present authors at a later point. 5. MOTIF TABLE

77 Jullien, “La légende,” 213 n. 19. See William F. Macomber, Final Inventory of the Microfilmed Manuscripts of the Coptic Museum Old Cairo, Egypt (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1995), 73, 86. 78 Serial No. 116, Call No. Hist. 276 in Marcus Simaika Pasha and Yassa Abd al-Masih Effendi, Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in the Coptic Museum, the Patriarchate, the Principal Churches of Cairo and Alexandria and the Monasteries of Egypt in 3 Volumes, vol. 1 (Cairo: Government Press, 1939), 61.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

61

Motif

WSyr

ESyr

GarA (TU)

GarA (RSY)

GarB

Terah created the coins; he gave them to Abraham

X

X

X

X

X

Abraham gave them to Isaac; Isaac bought a village

X

X

X

X

X

Master of the village gave them to the Pharaoh

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

… to honor him Pharaoh gave them Solomon for the Temple

to

X

X

X

X

X

Solomon put them around the door to the sanctuary

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

… ten here, ten there …ten on the left, ten on the right

X

Nebuchadnezzar finds them in the Temple

X

X

X

X

X

Nebuchadnezzar brings them to Babel with captives

X

X

X

X

X

Nebuchadnezzar has Persian hostages

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

…or servants

X

Persian kings send Nebuchadnezzar gifts worthy of kings

X

… and beautiful

X

X

62

Burke / Čéplö

Motif

WSyr

ESyr

GarA (TU)

GarA (RSY)

GarB

Nebuchadnezzar sends Persian children home with coins

X

X

X

X

X

When Christ was born and they saw the star

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

… as foretold by Zarathustra … they took the coins and gold, myrrh and frankincense

X

X

X

X

X

The kings stopped in/near Edessa

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

...at a well …or at the side of the road

X

X

...they fell asleep

X

X

X

X

...leaving the coins behind

X

X

X

X

X

Some merchants found the coins

X

X

X

X

X

The merchants stopped at a well near Edessa

X

X

X

X

X

An angel came to shepherds, gave them Seamless Robe

X

X

X

X

X

Shepherds came to the well

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

...for water for their sheep They asked the merchants to buy the Robe

X

X

X

X

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

63

Motif

WSyr

ESyr

GarA (TU)

GarA (RSY)

GarB

Merchants marveled at it and gave coins in exchange

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Merchants came to Edessa …or an unnamed city

X

...and stopped at an inn

X

Abgar the king of Edessa sent for the merchants

X

X

X

X

X

He asked merchants if they had something worthy of kings

X

X

X

X

X

Merchants said they had the Seamless Robe

X

X

X X

Merchants brought in the Robe along with other clothing King saw the Robe and that it was unique

X

X

King asked where they got it from

X

X

Merchants said they came to a well and met the shepherds

X

X

Shepherds asked the merchants to buy the Robe

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Merchants looked at it and saw that it was unique

X

X

X

Merchants said they had coins

X

X

X

...with images of kings on them

X

X

X

64

Burke / Čéplö

Motif

WSyr

ESyr

GarA (TU)

GarA (RSY)

GarB

Merchants buy the Robe; coins are worthy of a king

X

X

X

X

X

King sent for shepherds and took the coins

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

…and gave the merchants their equivalent in weight King sent coins and Seamless Robe to Jesus for curing him

X

X

X

X

X

Jesus kept the Robe and sent coins to the treasury

X

X

X

X

X

...he was happy to have the Robe and put it on

X

...in the Temple

X

X

X X

He knew their secrets and that he would be bought with them

X

X

X

The Jews came to Judas and said to him “Deliver Jesus to us”

X

X

X

Judas approached the Jews

X

X

Judas asked for the price of betraying Jesus

X

X

X

X

X

The Jews brought the coins

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

...and showed them to Judas to tempt him ...then gave them to Judas When Judas repented

X

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

65

Motif

WSyr

ESyr

GarA (TU)

GarA (RSY)

GarB

...he returned them to the Jews

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

...and hanged himself

X

The Jews used the coins to buy the potter’s field

X

They threw the remaining coins into a well in the Temple

X

...along with the Staff of Moses

X

...and so hid them

X

X

6. ORIGINS AND TRANSMISSION Leg. Silv. has a rich manuscript tradition in Syriac and Garšūnī alone; add to these the sources in Armenian, Latin, and the European vernaculars and it becomes very complicated to determine the paths of the text’s transmission. At least for the Garšūnī tradition, the transmission of Leg. Silv. worked somewhat like that of a fairy tale, with various alterations taking place through oral performance and subsequent return to written form. Some changes in the versions came through translation from one language to another, and still others from the writers’ desire to elaborate and enhance the tale with additional biblical traditions, local legends, and histories of other relics of the Passion. All of these changes make establishing a single authoritative text a difficult, if not impossible, task. The two Syriac recensions are so structurally and syntactically alike that it is evident they are variations on a common text. Nevertheless, there are several noteworthy differences: the mention of the prophecy of Zarathustra (ESyr; Balʻam in GarA manuscripts TU), the lengthier retelling of the merchants’ acquisition of the Seamless Robe (WSyr), the statement that Jesus knew the secrets of the priests (WSyr and GarAB), the role of Judas (ESyr GarB) rather than the priests (WSyr and GarA) as instigator of the plot against Jesus, and the deposition of the coins in the temple fountain (WSyr and GarAB) along with the Staff of Moses (WSyr only). Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine which reading in each

66

Burke / Čéplö

of these cases is the original. There is agreement throughout the tradition, however, on several unusual features: the events jump several centuries from Isaac’s purchase of the village (ca. 18th cent. BCE) to the village master’s transfer of the coins to the Pharaoh of Exodus (ca. 13th century); then a Pharaoh (presumably the same one, despite the historical difficulties) gives the coins to Solomon three centuries later; time is shortened again in the Edessa section from when the Magi lose the coins during Jesus’ infancy to when they are found by the merchants in Jesus’ adulthood. Also problematic is the Syriac tradition’s occasional naming of Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Persia (see v. 4), rather than Babylon, and King Abgar is healed before Jesus’ death (v. 11), rather than after, as in the Abgar Legend (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.13.5; Doctr. Addai 10). When the author/redactor created the Syriac text is unknown. Solomon of Basra incorporated it into his Book of the Bee in the thirteenth century, but the authors of the earlier Chronicle of Zuqnin (8th cent.) and the Cave of Treasures (ca. 6th cent.), were either unaware of or uninterested in the text.79 Florence Jullien believes Leg. Silv. is a Syriac composition. 80 As evidence, she cites the interest in garment imagery in the East and what she sees as a meaningful structure evident only in the Syriac/Garšūnī tradition. Jullien argues that the Syriac author draws upon the concept of the seven-year Jubilee to arrange the story into two seven-stage periods: one representing Old Testament history (from Terah to Nebuchadnezzar), and the other New Testament history (from the Magi to Judas).81 Jullien then postulates that the text was translated from Syriac into Armenian, and it is this Armenian version that was available to Godfrey, 82 who claims to have found his text in a Hebrew sermon of the apostle Bartholomew to the Armenians; further support may be found in Godfrey’s inclusion of an Armenian astrologer. But there are problems with Jullien’s theory. 79 Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” 94 makes more of this than is warranted. He says that both of these earlier writers report that the gifts to Jesus from the Magi came from the cave of Adam, a legend that Solomon is challenging in his incorporation of Leg. Silv.; however, unlike the Western writers, Solomon makes no association between the coins and the gifts. 80 Jullien, “La légende,” 215-18. 81 Ibid., 214-15. 82 Ibid., 220.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

67

First, garment imagery is certainly important in Syriac thought, but the Seamless Robe does not play the same role in Leg. Silv. as garments do in other Syriac literature. Second, the double sevenstage transmission simply does not work: Nebuchadnezzar gives the coins to the Persian kings, the eighth Old Testament-era bearers of the silver pieces, unless one considers the Persian kings and the Magi a single stage, but this disrupts the Old Testament/New Testament dichotomy. Third, it is unwise to put much stock in the Western writers’ elaborate claims of Eastern origins for the legend; and Godfrey’s is the most doubtful of them all—indeed, not only does he not say his version of the legend derives from an Armenian text but translation from Armenian to Latin is an extremely unlikely pathway of transmission. What, then, can be said about the existence of Leg. Silv. prior to Solomon of Basra? If the Western tradition does not derive directly from the Eastern (whether via Syriac or Armenian), then agreements between the two traditions should be meaningful for establishing an early form of the text. The Latin and Syriac/Garšūnī stories begin the same: Terah mints the coins and passes them on to his son Abraham. After Abraham the coins eventually come to Egypt—whether via a master of a village, who receives them from Isaac and then brings them to Pharaoh (Syriac/Garšūnī), or via several additional stages in the Latin sources (from Abraham, to the Ishmaelites, to Joseph’s brothers, then to the treasurer of Joseph). The traditions then agree that the pieces are given to Solomon for the building of the temple, either via the Pharaoh (Syriac/Garšūnī) or the Queen of Sheba (Latin). Nebuchadnezzar takes the pieces when he plunders the Temple, and he gives them to kings of the East, with whom they remain until the birth of Jesus. The Magi bring the coins on their journey along with their traditional gifts, but in the Syriac/Garšūnī version, the Magi lose the coins, and they end up in the hands of King Abgar, who also acquires the Seamless Robe. In the Latin witnesses, the Magi give the coins to Mary, but she loses them during the flight to Egypt. Though the two traditions diverge considerably here, it is noteworthy that they both include the element of the loss of the coins. The pieces return to Jesus via Abgar (Syriac/Garšūnī) or, in the Western sources, via either a shepherd (John and Ludolphe) or an Armenian astrologer who

68

Burke / Čéplö

recovers them from shepherds (Godfrey).83 In all sources, Jesus directly or indirectly places the coins in the treasury, from where the high priests take them and give them to Judas to betray Jesus. Then Judas returns the coins and the high priests use them to buy the potter’s field (in the Latin sources, 15 coins are paid for the field and 15 are given to the guards at Jesus’ tomb). The texts conclude with a variety of accounts of the fate of the coins. In sum, the common sequence in the transmission is: Terah, Abraham, Pharaoh/Joseph, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, Magi, loss and return, Jesus, High Priests, Judas, potter’s field. Of all the Latin sources, Godfrey of Viterbo’s Pantheon contains the most correspondences with the Syriac/Garšūnī tradition. He alone mentions the Seamless Robe,84 saying that the Robe was sent from heaven after the Magi returned home and that its magical qualities included the ability to grow longer as Jesus grew in stature (st. 9-10). He returns to this point later when Jesus is given the Robe as an adult and it stretches to fit him (st. 15). He also mentions the death of Judas (st. 17), whereas the other Latin authors only state that Judas returned the coins. These commonalities are enough for Hook and Hill to think Godfrey and Solomon drew on a common, earlier tradition. 85 A common tradition is certain, but it is not clear where that originated nor in what form. The Seamless Robe is an integral part of the Eastern tradition but its presence in Godfrey may result from the phenomenon of attraction of relics legends—observable also in the addition of the Staff of Moses in WSyr, and the purple cloak (in the hands of the merchants along with the Seamless Robe) in Arm. The inclusion of Judas’ death also lacks significance, as Godfrey’s account, pieced together from Matt 27:5 and Acts 1:18, could be his own effort to embroider and harmonize the text with biblical traditions.

83 Note that, in some of the Latin manuscripts, the coins are not lost and Mary gives them to the shepherds at Jesus’ birth (from Luke 2:8-20; Paris, BnF NAL 543 and London, BL 22553) or directly to the temple for the child’s redemption (from Luke 2:22-40; London, BL Add. 34139). 84 John of Hildesheim also mentions the Robe, but not in the course of the story. The Robe is named along with the coins as relics that were passed along after the death of Jesus via hereditary succession. 85 Hook, “Legend,” 206-7; Hill, “Thirty Pieces,” 95.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

69

When the Armenian version is added to the discussion, more agreements between the Eastern and Western traditions come into view. Arm includes mention of the burial cave (purchased from “the Son of Amor” in Arm; John of Hildesheim says Abraham bought it for his wife and sons in Hebron [cf. Gen 23]), the sale of Joseph (to the “Edessenians” in Arm) and subsequent donation of the coins to Joseph, and the coins as payment to the guards at the tomb. Though none of these elements are present in the Syriac/Garšūnī witnesses, it is tempting to include them as components of the original text, either in a Syriac exemplar less developed than that used by ESyr, WSyr, GarA, and GarB or in another language. Perhaps all versions derive from a lost Greek original, translated into Syriac and Armenian (either directly or via a Syriac intermediary) on the one hand and Latin on the other. Likely the Abgar material was added in a Syrian milieu, though given the variety of ways the coins were lost and found again in the Latin versions, it is possible that something, either the Abgar story or another version of this stage of the legend, has dropped out of the Western text at some early stage of its transmission. The ultimate origin of Leg. Silv. lies somewhere between the second century, when the authority of the Gospels has become established, and the fifth or sixth century, when we see a surge of interest in relics of the crucifixion. The earliest form of the Legend of the True Cross (in Gelasius of Caesarea’s Historia Ecclesiastica) dates to ca. 390 C.E., though the cross was being venerated already in Jerusalem as early as the 320s. 86 Along with the True Cross, Helena, the mother of Constantine, is said to have found the nails of the crucifixion, the Holy Lance (John 19:34), the Seamless Robe, and the titulus that was nailed above the cross (Mark 15:26 par.; John 19:19-22). The discovery of the Crown of Thorns, the Holy Sponge, and other relics followed in due course.87

86 See further Jan Willem Drijvers, Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross (Leiden/New York: Brill, 1992). 87 For a brief overview of the transmission of the Seamless Robe relic see Bernhard Schneider, “Holy Coat,” in Religion Past and Present (12 vols.; ed. Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel; Leiden: Brill, 2006-2013), 6:218-219. Three cities today claim to possess the relic: Trier, Argenteuil, and Mtskheta (Georgia). The Trier

70

Burke / Čéplö

Over time, legends relating to the cross were expanded with extensive pre-histories similar to the origins of the coins in Leg. Silv. Some variations of the True Cross legend trace the origin of the cross to the Tree of Life.88 From the tree was crafted the Staff of Moses, which was used in building the temple, and then the staff was re-used for a bridge over the pool Bethzatha (John 5:2), and finally it became the cross of Jesus.89 Another account, from the fourteenth-century Sarajevo Haggadah, again states that the staff, also referred to as the Rod of Aaron, originated in pre-historic times: it was created by God on the sixth day of Creation. It was delivered to Adam, and then passed down until it was stolen from Joseph and given to Jethro. Like the story of Excalibur, no-one could remove the staff from the ground until Moses appeared, withdrew the staff and thus won the hand of Zipporah. The Staff of Moses is featured also in the ninth-century Midrash Yelamdenu (Yalkhult on Ps. 110 § 869).90 Here the story of the staff begins with Judah, who passed it on to Tamar, then God gave it to Moses, who gave it to Aaron; eventually it came to David, who used it to slay Goliath. Subsequent kings continued to use the staff as a scepter, but it was lost in the destruction of the temple. It is said, however, that it will be given to the Messiah when he comes. Solomon of Basra (Book of the Bee 30) continues the providential transmission of the staff into Christian times. He says Phineas hid the staff in the desert until robe, tradition claims, was bequeathed to the city by Helena, who found it in 327 or 328 along with the True Cross. 88 Jacobus de Voragine, compiler of The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints (2 vols.; trans. William Granger Ryan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), recounts some of these variants (1:277-78). 89 The story begins with the legend of the “Quest for the Oil of Mercy” (Seth’s efforts to retrieve the Oil from the Tree of Life and the angel’s refusal) recounted in the Life of Adam and Eve 40-43 (with further elements added in later recensions of the text) and Gos. Nic. (Recension B) 19. See Esther C. Quinn, The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). For the Quest of Seth’s elaboration in medieval legends of the True Cross, see Meyer, “Geschichte des Kreuzholzes vor Christus.” The story is also found in Godfrey of Viterbo’s Pantheon and the History of the Holy Rood Tree, a text that incorporates another account of the thirty silver pieces (mentioned above). 90 The examples here are discussed in Louis Ginzberg, “Aaron’s Rod,” JE 1 (1901) 5-6.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

71

God showed it to Joseph, who used it on his journey to Egypt and the return to Nazareth. The staff was passed on to James and Judas stole it. It was then used for the crossbeam of the cross. Solomon also briefly traces the origins of the purple cloak, mentioned just prior to the story from Leg. Silv. in Book of the Bee 44. The cloak is said to have been given to the Maccabees by the “emperors of the Greeks.” The priests used it to dress the temple and later took it down and draped it around Jesus for his humiliation. The best that can be said about the origins and transmission of Leg. Silv. is that, likely, it was composed around the fourth or fifth century, perhaps in Greek. The text then journeyed, through either oral or written transmission, to the West, where it was translated into Latin and then into European languages, and to the East, where it was translated into Syriac, Arabic (Garšūnī), and Armenian. No matter what its origins, it is a text that was valued throughout the Christian world, offering its readers answers to questions raised by the gaps in the Gospel record, supplying owners of Judas-penny relics a story of the origins of their prized possessions, and providing reassurance that the betrayal and death of Jesus was the result of a carefully-executed divine plan. 7. TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS Four separate texts and translations follow. The first two summarize the evidence for the West Syriac and East Syriac traditions. The West Syriac text is based on Ms A—Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Syr. 197—chosen because it suffers from fewer errors and omissions than the other manuscripts. The East Syriac text is based on Ms M—London, British Library, Syriac 9— chosen, again, because it has fewer scribal errors and deficiencies. On rare occasions, readings from other manuscripts have been adopted where the base manuscripts are clearly inferior. Readings from the Armenian tradition appear in the notes to WSyr. The Syriac editions were prepared by Tony Burke and Slavomír Čéplö. The second pair of editions present the Garšūnī manuscripts, divided into two recensions: Garšūnī A (utilizing RSTU and Y) and Garšūnī B (consisting solely of V). The Garšūnī editions were prepared by Slavomír Čéplö. Diacritics and vowels are not retained in the editions, nor for other manuscripts in the apparatus, unless they can affect meaning. The original punctuation also has not been retained, nor have abbreviations.

72

Burke / Čéplö

Sigla WSyr

West Syriac recension A: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Syriaque 197 B: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Syriaque 215 C: Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 480 D: Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 71 E: Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 369

ESyr

East Syriac recension M: London, British Library, Syriac 9 N: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Syr. 74 O: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Fonds Syriaque 309 P: Solomon of Basra, The Book of the Bee (edition E. A. W. Budge based on Pa, Pb, and Pc ) Pa: London, Royal Asiatic Society, Syr. 1 Pb: London, British Library, Add. 25875 Pc: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Syr. 7

GarA

Garšūnī recension A R: Cambridge, Syriac Add. 2881 S: Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 22 T: Birmingham, Mingana Syr. 48 U: Birmigham, Mingana Syr. 479 Y: Mardin, Dayr Al-Zafaran 240

GarB

Garšūnī recension B based on V: Birmigham, Mingana Syr. 514

Arm

Armenian translation enrichie,” 140-43.

from

Outtier,

“Une

forme

BIBLIOGRAPHY Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis. Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter Graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum, Volumen 1, Cod. 1-2000. Vienna: Gerold, 1864. Anasian, H. S. Bibliologie arménienne. Vol. 1. Erévan: Académie des Sciences, 1959.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

73

Assemani, Stefano Evodio. Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticane Codicum Manuscriptorum catalogus, Vol. 2, Codices Chaldaicos sive Syriacos. 1758; reprint, Paris: Maissoneuve, 1926. Aumer, Joseph. Verzeichniß der orientalischen Handschriften der K. Hofund Staatsbibliothek in München, mit Ausschluß der hebraeischen, arabischen und persischen. 1875; reprint, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1970. Behland, Max. Die Dreikönigslegende des Johannes von Hildesheim. Munich: W. Fink, 1968. Bezold, Carl. Kebra Nagast, die Herrlichkeit der Könige. Munich: Verlag der Könglichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1905. Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise. Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (nos 356-435, entrés depuis 1911), de la bibliothèque Méjanes d’Aix-en-Provence, de la bibliothèque municipale de Lyon et de la bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1997. Budge, Ernest A. W., ed. The Book of the Bee: The Syriac Text Edited from the Manuscripts in London, Oxford, Munich, with an English Translation. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 1 part 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886. __________. The History of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the History of the Likeness of Christ. 2 vols. London: Luzac & Co., 1899. __________. The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelek. London: Martin Hopkinson & Co., 1922. Burke, Tony. “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas from an Unpublished Syriac Manuscript. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes.” Hugoye 16.2 (2013): 225-99. Chabot, Jean Baptiste. “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque Nationale.” JA IXe série, 8 (Sept.-Oct. 1896): 234-90. Cherchi, Paolo. “A Legend from St Bartholomew’s Gospel in the Twelfth Century.” RB 91 (1984): 212-18. Chipke, Renate and Kurt Heydeck. Handschriftencensus der kleineren Sammlungen in den östlichen Bundesländern Deutschlands:

74

Burke / Čéplö Bestandsaufnahme der ehemaligen Arbeitsstelle “Zentralinventar Mittelalterlicher Handschriften bis 1500 in den Sammlungen der DDR” (ZIH). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000.

Clemons, James T. “A Checklist of Syriac Manuscripts in the United States and Canada.” OCP 32 (1966): 224-51, 478-522. Creizenach, Wilhelm. Judas Ischarioth in Legende und Sage des Mittelalters, Separatabdruck aus den Beiträgen zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur. Band II, Heft 2. Halle, Lippert’sche Buchhandlung, 1875. de Lagarde, Paul. Praetermissorum libri duo. Göttingen: Officina Academica Dieterichiana, 1879. de Mély, Fernand. “Les Deniers de Judas dans la Tradition du Moyen Âge.” Revue Numismatique 4.3 (1899): 500-509. de Navaria (Obicino), Tommaso. Thesaurus arabico-syro-latinus. Rome: Sac. Congregationis de propag. Fide, 1636. de Voragine, Jacobus. The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints. Translated by William Granger Ryan. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Deycks, Ferdinand, ed. Ludolphi, rectoris ecclesiae parochilais in Suchem, De itnere terrae Sanctae Liber. Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 25. Stuttgart: Literarischer Verein, 1851. Desreumaux, Alain. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits syriaques. Documents, études et répertoires publiés par l’Institut de recherché et d’histoire des texts. Paris: Éditions du CNR, 1991. Drijvers, Jan Willem. Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1992. du Méril, Edélestand, ed. Poésies populaires latines du Moyen Age. Paris: Firmin Didot & A. Franck, 1847. Furlani, Giuseppe. “Il manoscritto siriaco 9 dell’India Office.” RSO 10 (1923-1925): 315-20.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

75

Ginzberg, Louis. “Aaron’s Rod.” In vol. 1 of The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer et al., 5-6. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901. Godfrey of Viterbo. Pantheon, sive Vniversitatis Libri, qui Chronici appellantur. Basel: ex officina Iocabi Parci, 1559. Graf, George. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Vol. 1. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944. Gretser, Jakob. Hortus Sanctae Crucis. Ingolstadt, 1610. Harris, Sylvia C. “German translations of the Historia Trium Regum by Johannes de Hildesheim.” Modern Language Review 53 (1958): 364-73. __________. “The Historia Trium Regum and the Mediaeval Legend of the Magi in Germany.” Medium aevum 28 (1959): 23-30. Hassler, Cunradus D., ed. Evagatorium in Terrae Sanctae, Arabia et Egypti peregrinationem, Fratris Felicis Fabri. Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Sumptibus Societatis Litterariae, 1843. Hill, George Francis. “The Thirty Pieces of Silver.” Archaeologica 59 (1905): 235-54. Reprint in idem, The Medallic Portraits of Christ, The False Shekels, The Thirty Pieces of Silver. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920, 91-116. Hofmann, Rudolph. A. Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen im Zusammenhang aus den Quellen erzählt und wissenschaftlich untersucht. Leipzig: Friedrich Voigt, 1851. Hook, David. “The Legend of the Thirty Pieces of Silver.” In The Medieval Mind: Hispanic Studies in Honour of Alan Deyermond. Edited by Ian R. MacPherson and Ralph J. Penny, 205-21. London: Tamesis, 1997. Horstman, Carl, ed. The Three Kings of Cologne: An Early English Translation of the ‘Historia Trium Regum’ by John of Hildesheim. EETS, Old Series 85. London: Oxford University Press, 1886. Jullien, Florence. “La légende des Trente pièces d’argent de Judas et le roi Abgar.” Apocrypha 24 (2013): 207-20. Kane, Thomas L. “An Amharic Version of the Origin of the Cross.” BSAOS 44.2 (1981): 273-89.

76

Burke / Čéplö

Köpke, Ernst. Mittheilungen aus den Handschriften der Ritter-Akademie zu Brandenburg A.H., Vol. 1, Johannes von Hildesheim. Brandenburg: G. Matthes, 1878. Macomber, William F. Final Inventory of the Microfilmed Manuscripts of the Coptic Museum Old Cairo, Egypt. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1995. Margoliouth, George. Descriptive List of Syriac and Karshuni MSS. in the British Museum Acquired since 1873. London: Longmans & Co., 1899. Meyer, Wilhelm. “Die Geschichte des Kreuzholzes vor Christus.” Abhandlungen der philosophisch-philologischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 16 (1882): 103-66. Mingana, Alphonse. Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshuni. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927-1931. __________. Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts. Vol. 1. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, Ltd., 1933. Napier, Arthur S. History of the Holy Rood-tree. EETS, Old Series 103. London: Oxford University Press, 1894. Nau, François. “La version syriaque de la vision de Théophile sur le séjour de la Vierge en Egypte.” ROC 15 (1910): 125-32. __________. “Notice des manuscrits syriacques entrés à la Bibliothèque Nationale de paris depuis l’édition des catalogues (syriacques 289-355).” ROC 16 (1911): 271-323. Outtier, Bernard. “Une forme enrichie de la Légended’Abgar en arménien.” In Apocryphes arménians: transmission–traduction– creation–iconographie; Acts du colloque international sur la littérature apocryphe en langue arménienne (Genève, 18-20 septembre 1997). Edited by in Valentina Calzolari Bouvier, Jean-Daneil Kaestli, and Bernard Outtier, 129-45. Lausanne: Éditions du Zébre, 1999. Paffenroth, Kim. Judas: Images of the Lost Disciple. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2001. Pasha, Marcus Simaika and Yassa Abd al-Masih Effendi. Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in the Coptic Museum, the

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

77

Patriarchate, the Principal Churches of Cairo and Alexandria and the Monasteries of Egypt in 3 Volumes. Vol. 1. Cairo: Government Press, 1939. Pertsch, Wilhelm. Die orientalischen Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Gotha. Gotha: Friedr. Andr. Perthes, 1893. Quinn, Esther C. The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Reiner, Erica. “Thirty Pieces of Silver.” JAOS 88.1 (1968): 186-90. Sachau, Eduard. Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek. Erste Abtheilung. Berlin: A. Asher & Co., 1899. Sarau, Kashisha Oshana and Shedd, John H. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the Museum Association of Oroomiah College. Urmiah: Library of the Museum Association of Oroomiah College, 1898. Schneider, Bernard. “Holy Coat.” In Religion Past and Present. Vol. 6. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowksi, and Eberhard Jüngel, 218-219. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schoenfelder, J. M. Salomonis, episcope Bassorensis, liber apis, syriacum arabicumque textum latine. Bamberg: O. Reindl, 1866. Smith, Robert Payne. Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae. Pars sexta. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1864. Société de l’école des Chartres. Bibliothèque de l’École des chartres. Revue d’érudition consacrée specialement a l’étude du moyen age. Vol. 53. Paris: Libraire d’Alphonse Picard, 1892. Stewart, Aubrey, trans. Book of the Wanderings of Brother Felix Fabri. 4 vols. Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society 7-10. London: 24 Hanover Square W., 1893-1896. __________. Ludolph von Suchem’s Description of the Holy Land, and of the Way Thither, Written in the Year AD 1350. Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society 12. London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1895. Trustees of the British Museum. Catalogue of the Additions to the Manuscripts of the British Museum 1888-1893. London: British Museum, 1894.

78

Burke / Čéplö

Wright, William. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Edited from Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum and Other Libraries, Vol. 1, The Syriac Texts. London: Williams and Norgate, 1871. __________. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. Part 3. London: Longmans & Co., 1872. __________. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge. Vol. 2. London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1901. Zotenberg, Hermann. Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaďtes) de la Bibliothèque nationale. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1874.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver [page left blank intentionally]

79

80

Burke / Čéplö West Syriac Recension





 

      



       

      .
. 
  


        
  1
    

       .   


         
  
2
      
  

  5 .
 
   
      
   3
      

    
.        
   
  
     
 4 10
      



.
   



ABCDE Titulus 1 ante 
add.

 D add. <

> C 
post

ABDE :


C  add. 
 DE 2-3 
 —

ABC : om. DE 1 
 — 
ABC : 
 
 
 DE 2 
  AB :
  CDE  add. 
D 3 post 

     E 
  7
 ABC :

: om. DE 7 
 A :

 D 7-8 
—  

BC 8-9 
  ABC : 
 DE 9 
 AB : 

CDE 11
 ABC :
 DE (cf. ESyr lin. 11)
 ABD :
  CE

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

81

East Syriac Recension


  
 
 

     
     


 
    

 
 


 

    .
    
 1
 

          

    

    .  

           
   2
  
        

 5 .
 


      3     

         
    .
   

 

       4  
    10 
 
  
    
  .




.



      MNOP Titulus 1-4 

—



 :      
     
[ 
om. Pb]  
  





 P 1-3 
—
 : illeg. O 1 

MNOPb : 
Pac 4   
P : 
om. N 3 


M (err.) 
N 1 
 MNOPc : 
Pab 
 MNOPac : 
 
Pb 5 
MOPab : 
Pc om. N 7-8 
— 
om. NO 8 
MPab :
 Pc
 MPbc : 
 Pa 
M : 

P 8-9
 —

MP :
    

 

 [
 O] NO
9 post
 add.    P (cf. WSyr lin. 9)
10 
MNOPac : om. Pb 10-11
    MNO : om. P 11

MNOPbc :
 Pa (cf. WSyr lin. 11)
 MNOPbc : om. Pa 11
12
   MNO : om. P (cf. WSyr lin. 7 DE)
12-13  — 
: om. NO

82

Burke / Čéplö West Syriac Recension

 
    
      



         .       

.             
        
 5
   .     
  

     6  
   
  .
  
       .

 
  .    



  
  .

.         7  
      
        


 . 
 .    
  
     
 .
  

   
      8
  
 .     

15



20

25



ABCDE 12
 ABC : om. DE 
ABC : 
DE (cf. lin. 11)
 ABDE :
  C 14 
CDE (cf. ESyr lin. 14) : 
AB (err.) 15
 ABC :
 D om. E

16    ABDE :    C 17 
ABC :
 
DE 18 
ABCDpcE : 
Dac 20 
 ACDE : 
B 
 ABCDpcE : 
 Dac 
AB : 
 CDE 22 post 
 add. 
C (cf. ESyr lin. 21) 24-25 
 — 
ACDE : om. B (homoeotel.)

D 25 
 ACDpcE :
 Dac
 ABCE :

 DE 27 
 ABC :

 

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

83

East Syriac Recension


    

   
    
     
 

 
 



.    
     
 5
     .     
  

    
    6
   .
  

 
 
.       
 .


.
    .    7
 

            
  .
 
 .        
  
 .  

 
    
      8

15



20

25


MNOP 13

MP : 
 NO 13 
MPb : 
Pac


 
M :    NO  Pbc 14 



a      P 
  M :       NO
  
 Pbc      
   Pa  

 M : 

 Pa


 Pb 



Pc 
 NO 

— 
MN : om. P 
16 post 
add.
 N 

O 19 
MP : 
NO 19-20 
— 
: 


[
 Pb]



[
Pc] 
   
 
[


om. Pbc] P 19 
 M :
 NO 
MN : 
O
20 post alt. 
add.       Pa 
 
 
   Pbc 21 
MPa : 


NO om. Pbc 22 post
 add.
 O (et expunxit)

Pb

 MNP :
 O 23-24 23 post 
add.  
   M : 
 NO 
  
 P
add. 
NO 24 post  24-25 
 — 
 : om. Pa
Pb (cf. WSyr 25 
 MNO : 
 Pbc post
 add.
  lin. 26) 25-26  
MOP : transp. N

84

Burke / Čéplö West Syriac Recension


    .     
  .
  
   . 

 
.      
.
 
 
 .
            .
   30        
   9 
.
 
    
 .       

  
.  
    .
         
.
  
    10 35 . 
 
 .       
. 
.    


 
.    
 .         . 

 

 
      
.
   


  40
 
 
        

.       .  


ABCDE 
 ABC : om. DE 28 
A : 
BCDE
31
 AB (cf. lin. 35) :
 CDE (cf. ESyr lin. 30)
 AB : 
 CDE 33
 ABDE :
 C 38 
AB : om. CDE
DE post
 add.
 DE (cf. ESyr lin. 39 
 ABC :

   37) 
 ABC : 
 DE post 
 add. 
 C (dittogr.) 40 
ABC : om. DE 42 
A : 
 B 

DE 
C 43 
 ABCE : 
 D

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

85

East Syriac Recension

     
. 
 .
   



  
 .  
 
   
   
   .    
  .

    .
  

30 .     




   
       9 
.
 
 :     
       
     
. 

.          

.
 
 
   
   
10 35 .  
.  

 
 
  .


         
    

 
 .



 .
     

MNOP 26 
 P : sup. lin. M om. NO O 
MN : om. OP (cf. WSyr 27 
 MN : 
P 
  lin. 29)
— 
MNO :
 
28
 MNOPab : 
 Pc   
 [
 om. Pc]  
  
P 29 
 MNOPc : om. Pab 30   
  MP :  
   NO 31 
 MP : om. NO
 M : 
NP 
O 32 
 MPab : 
 NO  
Pc 
MNO : om. P
33
 MO :  NP post 
add.
 Pb
 MNOPac : om. Pb 34 
MNO : om. P (cf. WSyr lin. 36) 
MNOPac : om. Pb 35 
 — 
M :       
P
  

 NO
 — 
 M (cf. WSyr lin. 37) : om. NOP 
 M : 
 NO
 P 37 
 MP : 
NO
 MNO : om. P (cf. WSyr lin. 37)
   MP : 
NO post 
add. 
 Pab  38 

MNOPab :  Pc

86

Burke / Čéplö West Syriac Recension

   
    
    11
    
   
   . 
   
        

     

       
12 45
    
   .     

.            .

   13 .           
 . 
.       50     
  .  
   

  .     

 


 
           14


  .
  
  



        55

         

ABCDE 44 
 ABCD :

 E (cf. ESyr. lin. 40 NOPa) 45 post

add. 
C 47    
ABC : 
  DE 48 post 
add. 
D (et expunxit) 48-49  
ABDE : 
 C 49
 ABCE : 
 D 
ABC : om. DE 
 ABCE : 
 D 50 
 ABDE : om. C  
 ABC : om. DE 52 
ABCD : om. E 
ABC :
 
 DE 
 ABC :


 DE 53

CDE :

 AB (err.)
DE 54 
 AB : 
C    56 
AB : 
CDE
 AB : 
 CDE 57-58
ABC : om. DE
 — 
57 post 
add. 
 DE

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

87

East Syriac Recension




 

 

 .  
  11 40
  
         . 
 

      12      


.
       
      
. 
    13 45   .  
  
 
  
    
.     

  
.
   
       14 
          


       .    50
.
  


 MNOP
N (dittogr.?)
 MOP :
 N post 40 ante

 add.  

add. 
Pa

MPbc : 
  NOPa (cf. WSyr lin. 44


E)   MNO :    Pa  

Pb  
 Pc


  M :


  NO

 P

41     MNO :     P


sup. lin. O
 MNP :

O MNOPbc : om. Pa  42 
 M : om. NOP  
 MNO :   
 P
43  MNP : om. O 43-44
  MNP : om. O



MNP :  O 44  MNO : 
P
 45 post
 add. 
 Pb 46
 MP : sup. lin. O om. N  
 M : 
 NOP 
 MP : 
 NO 47 
M : 
 NO 
 P 
 M : 
 NO
 P 
 P (cf. WSyr lin. 53) : 

 M 
 O 
 N 48 
MPbc : 
N



O 
 Pa

    MP : 


O
 N 49
 MPb : 
NOPac 
sup. lin. N 
MNO : om. P
50 
—
 M :       N om. OP 50-51 
— 
M :  

  


     N om. OP

88

Burke / Čéplö West Syriac Recension

A demonstration of the origin of those pieces which Iscariot1 received as the price of Christ, those pieces which Judas received from the Jewish priests, where are they from and what is their story?2 1 Terah, the father of Abraham made those pieces. Abraham gave them to his son Isaac. And Isaac bought a village with them.3 The master of it4 brought them to Pharaoh. 2 Pharaoh sent them to Solomon, the son of David, for the temple he was building. And Solomon took the pieces and placed them around the door of the altar. 3 When Nebuchadnezzar5 came and took captive the children of Israel, he entered the temple of Solomon and saw that the pieces were beautiful,6 and he took and brought them7 to Babylon with the captive children of Israel. 4 And there were some Persians there as hostages. When Nebuchadnezzar came from Jerusalem, they sent8 him everything fit for kings.

1 “Judas

Iscariot” in DE. DE lack “where are they from and what is their story?” 3 In Arm, Terah uses the money to buy “the cave with the son of Amor.” Presumably this is Abraham’s burial cave from Gen 23, which was purchased from Ephron the Hittite for 400 shekels of silver. The burial cave appears also in John of Hildesheim and related Latin Mss. From here, like the Latin tradition, Arm moves right to the story of Joseph: “The Edessenians took the money and bought Joseph from his brothers. And the brothers of Joseph brought it as a gift to Joseph in Egypt.” 4 D has “master of the village” (cf. ESyr). 5 DE add “king of the Persians” (cf. GarAB) an incorrect designation, as Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon, not Persia. 6 DE lack “children of Israel” to “beautiful,” perhaps due to parablepsis. 7 DE have just “and he brought them.” 8 DE have “he sent” (cf. ESyr MNO). “They” likely refers here to the Persian rulers seeking to regain the hostages. This identification is made explicit in ESyr with its mention of the “king of the Persians” in this context. 2

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

89

East Syriac Recension And so, with God’s help, the tale of the pieces which Judas accepted for the price of our Lord, what is the history of their transmission?9 The thirty (pieces) of silver which Judas accepted and for which he sold his Lord, were thirty pieces according to the weight of the sanctuary. These were equal to six hundred pieces according to the weight of our country.10 1 Terah made these pieces for his son Abraham. Abraham gave them to Isaac. And Isaac bought a village with them. The master of the village brought them to Pharaoh. 2 Pharaoh sent them to Solomon, the son of David, for the building of the temple. And Solomon took these pieces and put them around the door of the altar. 3 When Nebuchadnezzar came and took captive the children of Israel, he entered the temple of Solomon and saw that these pieces were beautiful,11 and he took them and brought them12 to Babylon with the captives.13 4 And there were some Persians there as hostages, according to the custom of the kings. 14 When Nebuchadnezzar came from Jerusalem, the king of the Persians sent offerings,15 everything fit for kings and rulers.

Much of the title is illegible in O. This prologue varies slightly in the witnesses. NO shorten the description of the currency to “were thirty pieces according to the weight of out country”; P to “were equal to six hundred pieces according to the weight of our country.” 11 NO lack this sentence. 12 NO have “And Nebuchadnezzar brought them.” 13 P has “captive children of Israel” (cf. WSyr) 14 P lacks “according to the custom of the kings.” 15 P has only “they sent offerings.” 9

10

90

Burke / Čéplö West Syriac Recension

And when king16 Nebuchadnezzar saw that everything they had sent 17 him was beautiful, he released their sons and gave them many presents. He gave them also those pieces. And the Persians brought18 them to their fathers. 5 When Christ19 was born and they saw the star, they rose and took those pieces and gold and myrrh and frankincense. 6 They brought those pieces and traveled on the road until they reached the vicinity of Edessa. The day grew dark and they fell asleep on the side of the road. In the morning they arose to continue on the road. They forgot those pieces where they slept and did not know (it). Some merchants came after them and found the pieces. 7 They came to the vicinity of Edessa20 by a certain well. And on that very day an angel came to the shepherds of that land and he gave them a robe without a seam on the upper end. And he said to them, “Take the robe21 in which there is salvation for humanity.” 8 The shepherds took the robe and came to a well. And they found the merchants who had found the pieces by the well of water. They said to the merchants, “Will you buy this beautiful22 robe without a seam at the upper end?” The merchants said, “Bring it here.” And when the merchants saw this robe, they marveled at it very much. The merchants said to the shepherds, “We have beautiful pieces worthy of a king. Take them and give us this robe.”

DE lack “king.” DE has the singular (see note 6 above). 18 AB have the singular. 19 D has “Jesus”; E has “he.” 20 C adds “and sat down” (cf. ESyr). 21 B lacks “without…robe,” perhaps due to homoeoteleuton. 22 DE lack “beautiful.” 16 17

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

91

East Syriac Recension And since gifts and presents had been sent23 by the Persians,24 he released their sons and 25 also gave them presents and those pieces.26 And they brought (them) to their fathers. 5 When Christ was born and they saw the star (as in the prophecy of Zarathustra),27 they rose and took those pieces and gold and myrrh and frankincense. 6 They set forth on a road and came to the vicinity of Edessa. And these kings fell asleep on the side of the road. And they forgot these pieces and did not remember them.28 Some merchants came and found them.29 7 They came to the vicinity of Edessa, and sat down by a well. And on that very day an angel came to the shepherds, and he gave them a robe without a seam at the upper end.30 And he said to them, “Take this robe in which there is salvation31 for humanity.” 8 The shepherds took the robe and came to a well32 where those merchants were. They said to them,33 “We have a robe without seam at the upper end; will you buy it?” And the merchants said,34 “Yes, 35 bring it here.” And when they brought 36 the robe the merchants saw it and marveled at it. The merchants said to the shepherds: “We have thirty pieces worthy of kings. Take them and give us this robe.”

M has the singular. NO lacks “And since…Persians.” 25 NO add “Nebuchadnezzar.” 26 Pa has “and also those pieces of which we have spoken.” 27 The prophecy is not mentioned in P. 28 P is lengthier, approaching the reading in WSyr: “And they arose and left those pieces behind, and did not remember and forgot that anything of theirs remained.” 29 P adds “and took those pieces.” 30 Pa adds “woven throughout.” 31 NO has “eternal salvation.” 32 Pa has only “And they came to a well.” Pb adds “of water” (cf. WSyr). 33 NO lack “to them.” 34 P adds “to them.” 35 OP lack “yes” (cf. WSyr). 36 P lacks “when they brought.” 23 24

92

Burke / Čéplö

West Syriac Recension 9 When the merchants had taken the robe, they entered the city and stopped at an inn. Abgar the king sent for the merchants and said (to them), “Have you anything worthy of a king that I could buy from you?” The merchants said to him, “We have a robe without a seam at the upper end.” 10 When Abgar saw that robe of which there was no equal, he said to them, “Where did you get this robe?” They said to him, “We came to a certain well by the gate of your city. And some shepherds said to us, ‘We have a robe without a seam at the upper end. Will you buy it?’ And we saw a robe that has no equal in the world. We had with us thirty pieces stamped with images of kings which we gave to the shepherds and received this robe. And these pieces are worthy of kings such as yourself.” 11 When Abgar heard this, he sent for the shepherds and took the pieces from them. And Abgar sent the pieces and the robe to Christ for the good that he had done him, for he healed his disease.37 12 When Christ saw the robe and the pieces, he took the robe and sent the pieces to the Jewish treasury. Our Lord knew their secrets. That is why he sent these pieces with which he would be bought.

37 Arm summarizes vv. 2-11 as, “When Nebuchadnezzar deported Jerusalem, he broke the door and carried it to Babylon. The Babylonians gave it to the Chaldeans. The Chaldeans gave it to the merchants, and the merchants gave it to the shepherds. And Abgar, having received it from the shepherds gave it to us (i.e., Jesus and the apostles).” The merchants and shepherds are mentioned earlier in Arm (v. 5). In recounting Abgar’s commissioning of Addai, the text details how the merchants appeared before Abgar in Edessa with the Seamless Robe and the purple cloak. The robe was purchased by the merchants from the shepherds who received it from angels.

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

93

East Syriac Recension 9 When the merchants had taken the robe,38 they entered the city

of Edessa. Abgar sent to the merchants and said to them, “Have you anything worthy of a king that I could buy from you?” The merchants said to him, “Yes,39 we have a robe without a seam at the upper end.” 10 When Abgar saw that robe of which there was no equal in the world,40 he said to them, “Where did you get this robe?” They said to him, “We came to a certain well by the gate of your city. And we saw it with some shepherds.” And we bought it 41 for thirty stamped pieces of silver. And these pieces too are worthy of kings such as yourself.” 11 And the king sent for the shepherds, and received the pieces from them. And he sent the robe with the pieces to Christ for the good42 that he had done him and (because) he cured his sickness. 12 When Christ saw the robe and the pieces43 he kept the robe to himself44 and sent the pieces to the Jewish treasury.

NO lack “the robe.” P lacks “yes” (cf. WSyr). 40 Only M has “of which there was no equal in the world” (cf. WSyr). The other witnesses begin instead “and when he (P: the king) saw the robe” 41 Pab add “from them.” 42 Pa lacks “the good.” 43 O lacks “the pieces.” 44 N has only “he took it.” 38 39

94

Burke / Čéplö West Syriac Recension

13 And when the Jews45 came to Judas Iscariot they said to him,46

“Deliver to us Jesus, son of Joseph!” He said to them, “What will you give me if I deliver him to you?” And they rose (and) brought those thirty pieces and gave them to Judas Iscariot. 14 And Iscariot returned them to the Jews. They47 bought with them a burial-place for strangers. 48 And then they brought the pieces to Solomon’s temple and threw them into a fountain inside the temple—the pieces, as well as the staff of Moses the prophet49—and thus hid them.50

C has “they.” DE lack “they said to him.” 47 DE have “the Jews.” 48 In Arm, like the Latin tradition, the priests give the money to the guards at the tomb, though in Arm the guards return it saying, “This money should not be kept, because it is the price of blood.” So the priests buy the potter’s field. 49 DE lack “the pieces and the staff of Moses the prophet.” 50 DE add “peace.” 45 46

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

95

East Syriac Recension 13 And when Judas Iscariot came to the priests,51 he said to them,

“What will you give me if I deliver him to you?” And the priests rose (and) brought those pieces and gave them to Judas Iscariot. 14 And when he repented, he returned them to the Jews52 and went (and) hanged himself. The priests took them and bought with them a potter’s53 field for a burial-place for strangers. This completes the story of the pieces and the robe.54 May the mercy of Christ be on you forever, amen.55

Pb has “the chief priests.” NO have the erroneous “to Judas.” 53 P lacks “potter’s.” 54 This sentence is lacking in O and P. 55 The final benediction is lacking in O and P; N has “And glory to God, amen. And on the scribe, mercy and grace, amen.” 51 52

96

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A


 
 

 

 
 



.
 





 

 

 
 

 1 


 .
 
 
 

 



 
 .

 

 

 
 .

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
2 5

 

 

 
 




 

 


 
 
 .
 




 





 3
 
.

 

 

 

 10 .



 


 RSTUY Titulus S :

 

 

 


 

 



 R : om. TU :






 


 

 
 



 

 Y 1 
 RSY :
 T : 
U : ante add.
  U : ante add. 

 Y : post add.
 
T : post add.
 
U | 
 STUY :
 R |
 RSUY : om. T | 
SY : 
RT : 
U |
 RSY : 
 TU 2 

RSUY : 
T : post add. 
 TUY |
 RSY :
 TU | 
RS :
 Y : om. TU | 
 RSY : 
 T : 
 U | 
 SU : 
 TY: om. R | 

RSUY : 
T 3
 R :
 S :
 
T : 
 U : 
 Y | 
STUY :
 R | 
 RU : 
 S : 
 TY |
 post add. 
    
|
 STUY : 
 R 4
 RSY :

 TU : post add.
 TU 5 
 STUY : 
R | 
— 
lac. R | 
 SU : 
 TY | 
STU : om. Y 6 
RSTU : 
Y |
1 STUY : lac. R |
 lac. R : post add.
 TU |
 STUY : lac. R | 7
 SUY : lac. R : om. T |
1 UY : lac R : om. S : 
T 7-8
 — 

 
 T : 

 
 
R : 



 



 S : 

 


 U : 

 
 

 
 Y 9
 RSY : 
TU |
 RSTU :
 Y |  
 STUY : 
R | 

post add. 

R | 
RSTU : 
 Y 10
 post add. 
 
Y | 
 STUY : 
 R |
 RSU :
 TY | 
SUY : 
 RT 11 
 STUY : 
 R

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

97

Garšūnī B


 






 


 .
 


 

 
      
 

  1 
 .
 
 
      


.   

 
   

. 

       
 
      2 5    
  
    . .
   
      

  
      3 .  

 
  
      .

    
 
10

98

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

 
    .   
   4 .       
                 
   
   
   
   15
  
 .     
    
. 

  
   
     
 5 .   
   
 .
   
 
    
 6 20            
  

RSTUY 12
 s.s. U | 
 R : 
 S :

 TU : om. Y 12-13 

 om. TU 13 
 SY : 
R |
 SY :
 R | 
 S : 
 R :
 Y : post add. 
Y |
 TUY :
 
R :
 
S |
 STY :
 R :
 U 14
 RSTU :
 Y | 
RSY : 
TU |
 STUY : om R | 
 SY : 
R : 
TU |
 SY : om. RTU : post add.


 Y (dittog.) | 
 STUY :
 R |
 TUY : om. R :
 S | 
 Y : 
 R : 
 STU : post add.
 R 15 
STU : 
RY | 
 RTUY : om. S | 
RSY : 
TU : post add.
 TU |
 STUY : 
 R |
 STUY : om. R | 
 RSTU : 
 Y |
 RSTU :
 Y | 
 RS : 
 TU : 
 Y 16 
RSY : 
TU | 
RTUY : 
S | 
 RTUY : om. S |
 S :
 R : 
TU : 
 Y 17 
 SY : 
 
R : 
 
TU | 
RY : 

S : 
TU 18 
SUY : 
RT |
 RS : om. TUY |
 S : om. RTUY |
 post add. 




 
 Y |
 post add. 
 

 

 TU | 
 S :

 R : om. TU : 
Y | 
 RSY : 
TU 19
 STUY : om. R | 
 RSY :
 TU |
 RTUY : 
S |
 Y : 
RS : 
TU | 
TUY : 
R : 
S 20 
 RTU : 
 SY | 
RSTY :
 U | 
 RSY : 
 TU |
 RSTY : 
U | 
 TUY :
 R :
 S 21 
 —
 RSY : om TU | 
RSY :
 TU | 
SY : om. RT :
 U | 
RSY : om. TU

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

99

Garšūnī B

 
   
       4

       
   .      

  .  

   
   
   
.
  15   
    
  
 5 .     
  .
  
    
      6        
   

100

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

 
            .
 . 
     
.
           7   
          25  
.  
        .
 


  
   .       
     
 8 .     
         .     
     
   30

RSTUY 22 
 RSY : om. TU |
 RSY : om. TU | 
 STY : 

R : 
 U | 
 SY :
 R : om. TU |
 RSY : om. TU |
 RSY : om. TU | 22-23 
 — 
RSY : 
 

 
 



 
 
 

T : 
 

 
 



 
 


U 23 
 post add. 
 R | 
STUY : 
 R |
 RSTU :
 Y 24 
RTU :
 SY |
 RSTU : 
 Y | 
RUY :
 S : om. T | 
 R : 
S : 
 TU : 
 Y | 
 RTUY : 


S : post add. 
R 25 
STUY : 
R |
 RSTU : 
 Y |
 STUY :
 R |
 RSY : om. TU |
 ST :
 R : 
U : 
Y 26
 STUY : 
R |
 RTUY :
 S | 
RSY : om. TU | 
STUY :
 R 27 
 post add. 
 TU |
 RSTU :
 Y |
 STY :
 RU 28 
 STUY : 
 R |—
 
 om. TU |
 S :
 R :
 Y : post add. 
R |
 RSY : 
 TU 29 
 RSY : 

TU |
 RSY :
 TU | 
 RS :
 TUY | 
 RTU : 
 SY 30 
 STU : 
 R : 
Y |
 RSY : om. TU : post add.
 Y |
 RSTU :
 Y | 
 RSY : 
T : 
 U |
 STUY : 
R |
 post add. 




 Y

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

101

Garšūnī B

.

 


 20

 

 

 
 

 7

 

 

 .
 

 
 
 

 
.
 


 
 
 

 .


 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 


8 25
 
 
.


 


 
 . 





 
 


 


102

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

  
  .   
  

 .       
.    
 


 
  .        

 .
 

.
  
     
     9 35  
 . 
          
           
    
  . 
  .
 RSTUY 31 
RSTU : 
Y |
 post add.
 
R : post add. 
TU | 
RSUY : 
T | 
RS :
 T :

 U : om. Y | 
 post add.
 TU :

 Y |
 RSY : om. TU | 
R : 
S : 
 T : 
 U : 
Y : post add. 
 TU : post add. 
 
Y | 
RU : 
T : 
 U :
 Y 32
 RSTY : om. U | 
RSY :  TU : post add.
 U |

 RSY : om. TU | 
RSY : om. TU |
 RSY : om. TU |
 R :
 SY : om. TU 33 
 RSY : om. TU | 
RSY : om. TU |
 RSTU :
 Y |
 RSY : om. TU |
 RS : om. TUY | 
RTU : 
 SY :
 U |
 SUY :
 RT | 
 TUY : 
 R : 
 S 35 
 TUY : 
 R : 
S : post add.  TU : post
add.
 Y | 
 — 
 STU : 

 
 
 
 
 
R : 
 
 
 Y |
 S : 
 TUY | 

STUY : 

 R 36
 Y : om. STU :
 R | 
 RSY : om. TU : ante add. 
 R |
 RUY :
 ST : post add.
fin. lin. R (haplog.?) | 
SUY : om. R : om. T |
 UY : om. R :
 S :
 in marg. T | 
Y : 
RS : om. TU 37
 RS :
 TUY | 
 TUY : om. RS |
 RSTY :
 U : post add. 
R |
 RSY : om. TU | 
RSY : om. TU |
 RSY :
 TU |
 RTUY :
 S 38
 RSTU :
 Y |
 S :
 R : 
 TU :
 Y | 
 RSY : om. TU |
 RSTU : om. Y | 
RSTY : 
U | 
 RSTU :
 Y |
 SY : 
 R :
 TU : post add. 
R | 
RS :  

TU : 
 Y : post add. 
TU : post add. 
Y

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

103

Garšūnī B




 
 
.

 

 .

 
 


 

 

 .
 
 
 
 30
 
 

 
 




 9



 
 

 

 
.
 

 

 

 
 .
 


104

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A




 

 
 
 
 

 10 40


 
.
 
 
 



 
 
 


 





 

 .
 
 

 
.



 

 
 


 
 .
 


 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
45 .

 


 
 
 
 
    
   11 RSTUY 40 
 STUY : 
 R |
 — 
 R : 


 

 S :
 

 

 TU : 


 


 
Y 41
 TUY : om. RS | 
 R : 
 SY : om. TU | 
 post add. 
Y | 
RSY : 
 TU |
 STUY :
 R |
 STUY :
 R | 
 STUY : 
 R |
 RSUY :
 T : post add.
 TU | 42
 post add.
S (haplog.) |
 RSTU : 
 Y | 

STUY :
 R : post add.
 R | 
 STUY :
 R | 
RSY : 
TU | 
RSY :
 TU | 
 RTU : om. S : 
 Y | 
 RTUY : 
 S 42-43 —

 SY : om. RTU : post add.

 
Y 43 
SUY : 
 RT | 
 STU : 
R : 
 Y | 
 RTU : 
 SY |
 STUY : om. R |
 SU : om. R :
 T : 
 Y 44 
 SY : om. RT : 
U |
 STUY : 
R | 
 SY : 
 R : 
 TU | 
RSY : om. TU |
 RTU :
 S : 
 Y (dittog.?) | 
 SY : 
R : om. TU |
 RSY : 
TU | 
STU : 
R : 

Y : post add.
 R | 
 STUY :
 R 45
 TUY :
 RS | 
SY : 
 R : 
 TU | 
 RSU :
 T : 
 Y |
 post add. 
 SY | 
 TU : om. R : 
 S : 
 Y | 
 STUY : om. R 46
 STUY : 
 R |
 RSUY :
 T | 
RTUY : om. S |
 STU :
 RY 47
 SY : 
 R : om. T : 
 supr. lin. U |
 RSUY : 
 T | 
STY : 
RU | 
STUY : 
 R | 
RSTY : 
U | 
 SUY :
 R :
 T

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

105

Garšūnī B


 
 



 

 
10 

 
 .
 
 
 



 

 35 

 




 
 

 

 
 
 .
 

 
 
 
 .

 

 
 
 

 
 

 


 11 


106

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

 
 .

    
   
             
  .
         50 .   
    
12 
.     
    
     
      
    .
   


 
     13 55 
      . 
       
 .


 

 
   .
 . 
  
 RSTUY 48 
 STUY :
 R |
 SY : om. TU : 
 R | 
 RSTY : 
 U | 
 —
 RSY : 
 T :
 U | 
RY : 
 S | 
 SY : 

 R | 
 ante add. 
R 49
 STUY : 
R |
 RY : om. STU |
 R :
 S :
 T :
 UY post add.
 S |
 RSU :
 TY |
 RSUY : om. T 50
 STUY :
 R |
 STY :
 RU |
 post add. 

 R | 
STUY :
 R : post add.
 R 51
 RSY : RSY : 
T :
 U | 
RSTY : 
U | 
 RSTU : 
 Y |
 TUY : om. RS : post add. 
Y 52 
 SY : 
 R : 
 TU | 
 RSTY : 
 U | 
RSTU : 
Y 53 
 RSTU : 
 Y (dittog.?) |
 STUY : 
 R |
 RTUY :
 S | 
RSY :
 TU |
 RSY : om. TU | 
 STUY :
 R 55
 RS : 
T :
 UY | 
 STUY : 
 R | 
RTUY : 
 S | 
 TUY : 
RS |
 STU : om. RY | 
 RSTU : 
Y 56
 RTUY : om. S |
 RSTY :
 U 57 
 STUY : 
 R | 
 RST : 
 U : 
 Y | 
 SY : 
 TU :
 R | 
SU : 
R : 
 T : om. Y | 
TU :
 R : 
 SY | 
 —


 RSTU : om. Y | 
 SU :
 R : 
 T |
 SY : 
R : om. TU 58 
 RSTU : om. Y | 
 STU : om. RY | 
STU : om. R :  
 Y

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

107

Garšūnī B

 [
] 
       
 40 .    
      
    
  12   
.
    
  
 .   .   
                 
 13 45       . 

   .
       
    .


V 40
 supr. lin.

108

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

.  
            14 .           
 60    
 
   
    .
  
  .
 
  RSTUY 59 
 SUY : om. RT | 
 SUY : 
 T : om. R | 
 post add.
 R |
 STU :
 RY 60
 RSY : om. TU | 
STUY : 
R |
 STUY : om. R | 
 SY : 
 R : om. TU | 
 T : om. R : 
 U : 
 SY | 
 TUY :
 R : 

 S |
 RSUY :
 T : post add.
 

 R 61 
STUY : 
 R | 
STUY : 
 R | 
 STUY : 
R | 
TUY : om. RS | 
 UY : 
 T : om. RS | 
 TUY : 
 R : 
S : post add.
 S 62
 RTU :
 SY | 
 post add.
 
Y 63 — 

 RS : om. TU : 
.


 
Y : post add. 


 
 



 

 
.

 
R

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

109

Garšūnī B

  
            14   .        
            
  50 .
   .  
 
 

110

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

The story of the origin of the pieces which Judas Iscariot took as the price of our Lord the Christ.1 1 It is said2 of the pieces3 that Judas took from the Jewish priests that Terah, the father of Abraham,4 minted these5 pieces and gave them to Abraham. Abraham also6 gave them to his son Isaac and Isaac bought a village with them. The master of the village7 used them to honor Pharaoh.8 2 Pharaoh sent them9 to Solomon son of David as a gift on the occasion of the construction of the Temple. And Solomon10 put them on the frame of the door to the Sanctuary, ten on the upper frame, ten on the left and ten on the right.11

1 This wording is found in S. R has “And we write the report of the silver that Judas took from the Jews as the price of our Lord Jesus Christ, may his memory be worshipped and praised.” TU lack a title. Y has “By the power of the Holy Trinity, we write here the story of the origin of the pieces that Judas Iscariot took as the price of our Lord the Messiah, may he be worshipped and praised.” 2 T has “some scholars say.” U has “… a report about them, some scholars say.” Y adds “my brothers.” 3 R has “silver.” 4 TUY add “the Companion,” a traditional Arabic title for Abraham (cf. GarB). 5 TU have “the.” 6 R lacks this word. 7 R adds “took the sum of the pieces.” 8 TU add “the king.” 9 R has “gave them.” 10 R has a lacuna at “son … Solomon.” 11 For “ten on the left and ten on the right,” RSY have “ten here and ten here” and T has “ten on the left side.”

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

111

Garšūnī B By the power of the Holy Trinity, we write (the story) of the origin of the pieces which Judas took as the price of our Lord. 1 They say about the pieces that Judas took from Jewish priests that Terah the father of Abraham the Companion12 minted these coints and gave them to Abraham. Abraham also gifted them to Isaac his son and Isaac bought with them a village. The master of the village gave them as tribute to Pharaoh. 2 Pharaoh sent them to Solomon, the son of David, as a gift on the occasion of the construction of the Temple. Solomon put them on the frame of the door to the Sanctuary, ten on the upper frame, ten there and ten there.

12

A traditional Arabic title for Abraham.

112

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

3 When Nebuchadnezzar the king of Persia 13 came and took

captive the children of Israel,14 he entered the Temple of Solomon15 and saw the pieces and found them beautiful.16 He took them to Babylon with the rest of the children of Israel. 4 He had there children of the king of Persia as hostages.17 And when he returned from Jerusalem, the kings of Persia sent him many treasures18 and brought all kinds of things worthy of kings. And when Nebuchadnezzar saw that they had sent him tribute worthy of rulers, he released their children and gave them many gifts. He also gave them these pieces with the rest of the gifts and the children of Persia went with the pieces19 to their fathers. 5 When our Lord 20 Jesus21 Christ22 was born and they saw the star,23 they rose and took with them24 gold, myrrh and frankincense.

13 The WSyr Mss D and E also refer to Nebuchadnezzar as “king of the Persians.” See above, note 4. 14 R adds “from Jerusalem.” 15 Y adds “son of David.” 16 Lit. “they were pretty in his eye.” TY have “in his eyes.” 17 TU has “who served him”; Y lacks “as hostages.” 18 R has “honored him”; TU lack “And … treasures.” 19 SY have “with these pieces.” 20 TUY lack “our Lord.” 21 RTUY lack “Jesus.” 22 Y adds “may his memory be worshipped and praised and hallowed and venerated.” 23 TU add “as foretold by Balʻam, their grandfather” (cf. “prophecy of Zarathustra” in ESyr). 24 TU have “in their bags.”

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

113

Garšūnī B 3 When Nebuchadnezzar the king of Persia came and took the children of Israel captive, he entered Solomon’s temple and saw these pieces and found them beautiful. He took them as ransom25 with the rest of the captive children of Israel. 4 And he had there in the city of Babylon some Persian youths whom he had captured as hostages. When he came from Jerusalem, the kings of Persia sent all (kinds of) things worthy of kings to king Nebuchadnezzar. When he saw that they had sent him all (kinds of) beautiful things, he let their children go and gave them gifts and these pieces and he sent them with these Persians to their fathers. 5 When Christ was born and they saw the star, they rose and took these pieces and myrrh, gold and frankincense.

25

Lit. “blood money.”

114

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

6 And they also took these pieces and went to visit the Lord26

Christ. When they came to the vicinity of the city of Edessa, they set down and stopped at a well in the road.27 When they got up28 to continue their journey,29 the pieces fell from them on that well30 without them knowing. 7 When they left, there came from their country31 some merchants and they found the pieces. That very day,32 an angel of the Lord33 came to shepherds of that country and gave them a robe without a seam on the upper end made of one piece. And the angel said to them, “Take this robe, for in it is the life of humanity.” 8 So the shepherds took the robe and came to the well to give water to their sheep 34 and they fund the merchants 35 who had found the pieces sitting on the well. The shepherds said to the merchants, “Will you buy a robe without a seam on the upper end?” The merchants replied, “Bring that robe.”36 When they brought it,37 the merchants marveled at the beauty of the robe. The merchants replied and said to the shepherds: “We have some pieces that are the most beautiful thing (of all things that are) worthy a king. Take the pieces and give us the robe.”

R has “our Lord”; S has an unidentified word. TU lack “in the road.” 28 R has “they wanted.” 29 TU lacks “their journey.” 30 Instead of “the pieces … well”, TU have “they put the pieces on the well and forgot these pieces on the well.” 31 S has “in their footsteps”; TU have “after them.” 32 Y has “at that time.” 33 TU lack “of the Lord.” 34 TU lack “the shepherds … came.” 35 TU have “those.” 36 TU add “so that we can look at it,” Y adds “that you described.” 37 TU add “the robe,” Y adds “that robe.” 26 27

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

115

Garšūnī B 6 And they went on their way until they arrived in the vicinity of the city of Edessa. These kings then slept at the side of the road. When they got up they forgot and left the pieces remembering nothing about their real value. 7 When some merchants came, they found them and took them and came to the vicinity of the city of Edessa to a well. On that day, angels came to shepherds and gave them a robe without a seam and said to them, “Take this robe, the life of humanity is in it.” 8 These shepherds took the robe and came to the well at which these merchants stopped. And the shepherds said to the merchants, “We have a robe woven without a seam (that we received) from angels. Buy it from us.”38 The merchants said, “Bring it here.” And when the merchants saw the robe, awe overtook them and they said to the shepherds, “We have thirty pieces fit for rulers. Take them and give us the robe.”

38

Lit. “We bought it,” clearly an error.

116

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

9 And so they concluded the transaction and the merchants took the robe and the shepherds took the pieces.39 The merchants went to Edessa40 and stopped at an inn, that is,41 a roadhouse.42 Abgar,43 the wise44 king of Edessa, sent for them and said to the merchants, “You45 have an item of clothing that is fit for a king that I (want to) buy from you.”46 And they brought in their47 hands magnificent dresses and also the48 robe. 10 When the king49 saw the robe of which there was no other like it made in the world,50 he said to the merchants, “Where did you get this51 robe?” They said52 to him,53 “We came to a well at the gates to your54 city and there came some shepherds with this55 robe without a seam on the upper end.56

For “the merchants … the pieces,” R has “over that robe and the merchants took it and they handed them those pieces” and Y has “the shepherds took the pieces.” 40 T has “city of Edessa.” 41 RT lack “that is” 42 ST transpose “roadhouse” and “inn.” Note that WSyr also mentions the inn, but ESyr does not. 43 TU do not give the name. 44 RS lack this word. 45 R has “do you.” 46 TU lack “from you.” 47 Lit. “his hands,” only Y has “their hands.” 48 TU have “that.” 49 RS lack “the king.” 50 S has “no other like it could be found in the world”; TU have “which was without a seam on the upper end.” 51 TU have “the.” 52 Y has “they answered and said.” 53 This longer exchange features in WSyr as well. 54 RSTU have singular, Y has plural. 55 TU have “the.” 56 RTU lack “without … end,” Y adds “that came down from above.” 39

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

117

Garšūnī B 9 When the merchants took the robe and entered the city of Edessa, king Abgar came and said to the merchants, “You have something fit for a king that I (am to) buy from you.” The merchants said, “We have a robe without a seam on the upper end.” 10 When Abgar saw that robe of which there was no like it in the world, he said to them, “Where did you get this robe?” They said to him,57 “We came upon a well at the gates to your city and saw it there with some shepherds and bought it from them for thirty pieces. And these pieces are surely fit for a king such as yourself.”

57 This short exchange between Abgar and the merchants is also a feature of ESyr.

118

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

They said to us, ‘Will you buy this robe?’ When58 we saw the robe, (we knew that) none59 had ever seen one like it. We also60 had some pieces in the sum of thirty61 images of kings62 that we gave to the shepherds and we took from them the63 robe. And those pieces were fit for and worthy of a king such as yourself. 11 The king bought the robe from them and sent for the shepherds to be brought. He took from them the pieces and gave them their equivalent in weight in exchange.64 And Abgar the king sent the pieces and the robe to our65 Lord the Messiah in return for the good that he had done to him with respect to a strong pain from which he had cured him. 12 When the king’s gift arrived, our Lord the Messiah66 took the67 robe. As for the pieces, he threw them into the treasury that is in the Jewish Temple. Our Lord, 68 knowing (all) the secrets and knowing the predestined,69 he sent them the pieces70 to buy himself with them.

R lacks this word. TU lack this word. 60 RTU lack this word. 61 R has 30 written in Arabic digits. 62 These “images of kings” are also mentioned in WSyr. 63 SY have “this.” 64 For “their … exchange,” TU have “in return.” 65 TUY have “the.” 66 RS lack “the Messiah.” 67 Y has “this.” 68 Y has “the Lord.” 69 This mention of Jesus knowing “secrets” is also featured in WSyr. 70 TU have “handed the pieces.” 58 59

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

119

Garšūnī B 11 When Abgar heard these words, he sent and called for the shepherds and took the pieces and the robe. (Abgar) sent them to the Christ because of the good he had performed on him when he suffered from a pain and he healed him. 12 When Christ saw the robe and the pieces, he was happy over the robe and put it on. As for the pieces, he sent them to the Jews, for it was destined that they would buy him with71 these pieces to the Temple.

71

Lit. “in.”

120

Burke / Čéplö Garšūnī A

13 And when the Jews came to Judas Iscariot, they said to him,72

“Deliver to us Jesus the Nazarene, the son of Joseph.”73 He said to them, “What will you give me if I deliver him to you?” So they brought and showed74 him thirty pieces75 and awakened his greed with them. And the Jews76 gave77 the pieces to Judas78 Iscariot.79 14 When Judas repented what he had done, he returned the pieces to the Jews. And the Jews bought with them80 a cemetery which was a potter’s land as a burying place for strangers.81 At that time, they returned the pieces 82 to the Temple of Solomon son of David83 and they threw them into a well which is in the Temple84 and hid them.85 But only God is all-knowing.86

RY lack “to him.” This dialogue between the priests and Judas is similar to that in WSyr. 74 R lacks “and showed.” 75 R has “silver.” 76 TU have “they.” 77 R has “handed.” 78 RY lack “Judas.” 79 Y lacks “gave the pieces to Judas.” 80 TU lack “with them.” 81 R has “bought with them a field which they made into a cemetery for strangers and this is the potter’s field.” 82 R has “the pieces returned.” 83 RS lack “the son of David.” 84 Y adds “out of fear.” 85 The hiding of the pieces in the well is found also in WSyr, though WSyr mentions the staff of Moses as well. The presence of this element in both WSyr and GarA (but not ESyr or GarB which shares some properties of ESyr) suggests that it is original to the text. 86 TU lack this traditional formula. Y has “Pray for the weak and the cross, amen” in Syriac. R adds: “This is what we found about the matter of the pieces and the robe. May God look favorably upon this undertaking and grant us his mercy forever, amen.” 72 73

Syriac Tradition of the Thirty Pieces of Silver

121

Garšūnī B 13 When Judas Iscariot came to the priests and said to them “What will you give me if I deliver him to you?” the priests rose and brought these pieces. They sent them to Judas and he delivered him to their hands, may God have mercy on him. 14 When Judas repented what he had done, he returned the pieces to the Jews and the Jews bought with them a cemetery which is a burying place for strangers. At that time, they returned the pieces to Solomon’s Temple and threw them into a well which is in the Temple and hid them. But only God is all-knowing.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 19.1, 123-192 © 2016 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

LATIN WORDS IN CLASSICAL SYRIAC AARON MICHAEL BUTTS THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA ABSTRACT This study analyzes the more than one hundred Latin words that are found in Syriac texts, not translated from Greek, written through the beginning of the eighth century. The study aims to provide an exhaustive collection of these words categorized by date in which they are first attested in Syriac. This diachronic approach makes it possible to observe changes over time in the contact between Syriac speakers and the Greco-Roman world. Attention is also paid to other languages of the Near East in which a Latin word is found, including various dialects of Aramaic as well as other languages, such as Mishnaic Hebrew, Armenian, and Coptic, in an effort to contextualize the presence of the Latin words in Syriac. Finally, the study hopes to make explicit that almost all of the Latin words in Syriac reached Syriac via Greek.

INTRODUCTION The Syriac language contains loanwords from a variety of languages. The largest number of loanwords in Syriac comes from Greek.1 There are in fact more than eight hundred Greek * I would like to thank the following people who helped with this study: Sebastian Brock (University of Oxford), Dexter Brown (Yale University), Simcha Gross (Yale University), Kristian Heal (Brigham

123

124

Aaron Michael Butts

loanwords attested in pre-eighth-century Syriac texts that were not translated from Greek.2 Many more are to be found in translated texts from this period or in later Syriac literature (whether translated or not). The next largest group of loanwords in Syriac derives from the various Iranian languages.3 Some of these Iranian words were inherited in Syriac, finding their source in earlier Iranian languages, e.g., Syriac
 gazzā ‘treasure’ (LS2 111; SL 223), which derives ultimately from Old Persian *ganza- via an earlier dialect of Aramaic,4 whereas others were transferred from an Iranian dialect contemporaneous with Syriac, e.g., Syriac
 ‘messenger’ (LS2 81; SL 142) from an Iranian dialect such as Young University), George Kiraz (Beth Mardutho: Syriac Institute), Lucas Van Rompay (Duke University), and Janet Timbie (The Catholic University of America). I am especially grateful to Geoffrey Moseley (Yale University) for helping to sort out the etymological relationship between some of the Greek and Latin words. The following abbreviations are employed throughout the study: CPA = Christian Palestinian Aramaic; JBA = Jewish Babylonian Aramaic; JPA = Jewish Palestinian Aramaic; LJLA = Late Jewish Literary Aramaic; MH = Mishnaic Hebrew; SA = Samaritan Aramaic; TgChron2 = Targum Chronicles 2 (ed. Le Déaut 1971); TgEsth1 = Targum Esther 1 (ed. Grossfeld 1983); TgEsth2 = Targum Esther 2 (ed. Grossfeld 1994); TgJob = Targum Job (ed. Stec 1994); TgJon = Targum Jonathan (ed. Sperber 2004); TgLam = Targum Lamentations (ed. Sperber 2004); TgProv = Targum Proverbs (ed. Diez Merino 1984); TgPsJon = Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (ed. Clarke 1984); TgSong = Targum Song of Songs (ed. Sperber 2004). Abbreviations for lexicographical tools are explained at the end of the study. 1 For an analysis of contact-induced changes in Syriac due to Greek, including loanwords, see Butts 2016. For previous literature, see Schall 1960 (with a valuable Greek-Syriac index in Voigt 1998) as well as a number of indispensable studies by Brock, especially Brock 1967, 1975, 1982, 1994, 1996, 1999-2000, 2004, 2005, 2010. A bibliography on Greek loanwords in Syriac is available in Voigt 1999-2000. 2 A comprehensive collection of the Greek loanwords in Syriac continues to be a desideratum. The present author is currently compiling a glossary of Greek loanwords in Syriac up to and including Yaʿqub of Edessa (d. 708). 3 For a detailed analysis, see Ciancaglini 2008. 4 See the discussion in Ciancaglini 2008: 142 with further bibliography.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

125

Pahlavi bayaspān (CPD 17).5 Syriac also inherited a number of words ultimately from Akkadian.6 This is, for instance, the case with Syriac
 š ārā ‘deed, document’ (LS2 773; SL 1549), which derives ultimately from Akkadian ša āru (CAD Š2 221-225) via an earlier dialect of Aramaic.7 Akkadian also served as a bridge for Sumerian loanwords in Syriac, such as Sumerian É.GAL ‘big house’, which is found in Akkadian as ekallu ‘royal palace’ (CAD E 52-61) and which eventually made its way into Syriac as 
hayklā ‘palace, temple’ (LS2 174; SL 340-341).8 One etymological source of words in Syriac that has not received significant attention in the secondary literature is Latin.9 More than one hundred Latin words are found in Syriac texts, not translated from Greek, written through the beginning of the eighth century. The present study aims to provide an exhaustive collection of these categorized by the date in which they are first attested in Syriac.10 This diachronic approach makes it possible to observe 5 Again, see the discussion in Ciancaglini 2008: 126-127 with further bibliography. 6 A foundational resource on Akkadian loanwords in the various Aramaic dialects, including Syriac, is Kaufman 1974. 7 See Kaufman 1974: 101. 8 See the discussion in Kaufman 1974: 27 as well as Mankowski 2000: 157 (on Hebrew). 9 Schall (1960: 244), for instance, lists only fourteen examples in his appendix on Latin words in Syriac. 10 In the lists that follow, the earliest text attesting the word in question that is known to the present author is cited with a heading in bold giving the century of composition. Consider, for instance, the following Greek loanword: ἔθος (LSJ 480) > 
‘custom’ (6th cent. Eliya, Life of Yu anon of Tella, 84.26 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; LS2 184; SL 356). To the present author’s knowledge, this word is not found in Syriac until the sixth century when it occurs in the Life of Yu anon of Tella by Eliya, which was edited by Brooks. Throughout this study, citations of Latin words in Syriac are systematically provided with references to LS2 and SL; the English translations in this study derive from SL, though with minor adaptations, such as curator for Sokoloff’s hybrid courator that combines Greek κουράτωρ and Latin curator. The determination of the earliest occurrence of a given word was facilitated by two large ‘databases’: the Oxford-BYU Syriac Corpus and Sebastian Brock’s more than two

126

Aaron Michael Butts

changes over time in the contact between Syriac speakers and the Greco-Roman world. An effort is also made in this study to list other languages of the Near East in which a Latin word is found, including various dialects of Aramaic as well as other languages, such as Mishnaic Hebrew, Armenian, and Coptic.11 The broad attestation of a Latin word across a number of different languages indicates that the word in question was widespread across the Roman and then Byzantine Near East. Before looking at the Latin loanwords in Syriac, a brief word is needed on the use of Latin in Late Antique Syria and Mesopotamia. Prior to the establishment of Roman control of Edessa in the late second century and again in the third century,12 Greek was the thousand card files listing Greek loanwords in Syriac. I would like to thank Kristian Heal (Brigham Young University), who provided me with a Beta-version of the Oxford-BYU Syriac Corpus. In addition, I am grateful to Sebastian Brock (University of Oxford), who allowed me to digitize his card files over several weeks in August of 2011. 11 For comparative Aramaic data, the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL), accessible online at , is essential. For Greek and Latin loanwords in the various dialects of Jewish Aramaic as well as post-Biblical Hebrew, see GLLTMT, which is, however, outdated and should be used with caution. For Latin words in Classical Ethiopic, see Weninger 2000. There is no study dedicated solely to Latin words in Armenian, though Greek loanwords in Armenian are analyzed in Hübschmann 1897: 323-389 and Brockelmann 1893. For Greek loanwords in Coptic (including those ultimately of Latin origin), the Database and Dictionary of Greek Loanwords in Coptic (DDGLC) will be an indespensible resource (see ). I would like to thank its director Sebastian Richter (Universität Leipzig), as well as his team, especially Dylan Burns (Universität Leipzig), for sharing a Beta-version of their lemmata list. Readers should note that the references in this study to DDGLC are provisional and may well change as that project progresses. 12 The dating formulae in the Old Syriac documents provide the most important information for the last set of these dates (the most convenient edition of these texts is Drijvers and Healey 1999: 232-248; for further bibliography, see Butts Forthcoming B). P. Dura 28 shows that the Abgarid dynasty must have come to an end in 212/213 when the city became a Roman colonia. On the basis of P. Euphrates 19, which states

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

127

language of international communication and commerce throughout the Seleucid Empire. The Roman Empire did not significantly alter this.13 In general, the Roman Empire did not force the Greek-speaking provinces to adopt Latin. Rather, Greek remained the official language of empire in the eastern provinces. Latin had a more restricted use, being employed primarily in military matters as well as in certain legal contexts.14 The distribution of Greek and Latin in a Roman city in the Eastern provinces from the first centuries of the Common Era can be illustrated by the more than 150 documents discovered at DuraEuropos, an important military outpost on the Euphrates until its destruction in 256 CE. A majority of the documents from this site are written in Greek or Latin, though there are also texts in Iranian or Aramaic (including Syriac).15 The documents from the archives of the Cohors Vicesima Palmyrenorum (a Roman military troop) are primarily in Latin (P.Dura 54-150). All of the texts associated with official military business are in Latin, including reports (P.Dura 82-97) and rolls and rosters (P.Dura 98-124). The famous Feriale Duranum, which is a calendar of official religious observances, is also in Latin (P.Dura 54). Correspondences by military officials are primarily in Latin though some are in Greek (P.Dura 55-81). Finally, judicial business and receipts from the archives of the Cohors Vicesima Palmyrenorum are primarily in Greek though a few are in Latin (P.Dura 125-129). In contrast to the predominance of Latin in the archive of the Cohors Vicesima Palmyrenorum, a vast majority of the texts found outside of this archive are in Greek (P.Dura 1-52). Thus, all of the texts from the that 28 Dec. 240 is the 2nd year of King Abgar, it can be established that the dynasty was restored in 239 (or late 238) under Abgar X, son of Maʿnu. Finally, it seems that Edessa must have reverted to a colonia by 242 on the basis of P. Euphrates 20, which gives 1 Sept. 242 as year 30 of the colonia. For further information, see Brock 1991; Ross 1993; 2001; Teixidor 1989. 13 See Rochette 2010: 289-290. 14 Latin was, for instance, used in more official and bureaucratic legal matters, such as law codes. In addition, Latin was the language of education at the law school in Berytus. 15 All of the texts are edited in Welles, Fink, and Gilliam 1959.

128

Aaron Michael Butts

registry office are in Greek (P.Dura 15-44), which include individual documents, such as a gift, loans, deeds of sale, deposits, a marriage contract, and divorce contracts. The lists and accounts are also in Greek (P.Dura 47-53) as are the texts associated with civil administration (P.Dura 12-14). Two letters are also in Greek, one of which may be an official letter (P.Dura 45) and the other of which is from a soldier (P.Dura 46). The documents from DuraEuropos, thus, illustrate the degree to which Latin was restricted to the military and even then to official military matters. Greek, in contrast, was used by the military in some correspondences as well as in day-to-day legal matters. Outside of the military, Greek was the language for a vast majority of tasks. Thus, Greek would have been the language of the Roman Empire with Latin restricted more or less to official military matters in Syria and Mesopotamia. Given the restricted use of Latin in Late Antique Syria and Mesopotamia, it is necessary to explain how more than one hundred Latin words are found in Syriac texts, not translated from Greek, written up to the beginning of the eighth century. It seems that most of the Latin words in Syriac were not transferred directly from Latin into Syriac but rather that Greek served as a bridge between Latin and Syriac.16 That is, Greek is usually the immediate source for Latin words in Syriac.17 In some cases, the phonology of the Syriac form is an indication that the word was transferred via Greek. The n in Syriac 
 ‘palace’ (LS2 574; SL 1199), for instance, indicates that the immediate source was Greek παλάτιον (LLGE 85; LSJ 1291) and not Latin palatium (OLD 1284; LD 1291).18 In addition, a majority of the Latin words found in Syriac So already Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; 1975: 90; 1996: 255; 1999-2000: 443; 2005: 23; Ciancaglini 2008: 7; Healey 1995: 83; Rochette 2010: 292; Schall 1960: 243-244; Wasserstein 1995: 134. 17 Immediate source refers to the language from which a lexeme was transferred to the recipient language whereas ultimate source is a reflection of a word’s etymology (for this distinction, see Butts 2016: §4.7, building on Wohlgemuth 2009: 51). A similar situation is attested for other Aramaic dialects; all of the Latin words in Palmyrene Aramaic, for instance, likely arrived by way of Greek (Brock 2005: 23). 18 There are occasional cases in which the phonology points to Latin as the immediate source. The initial voiced bilabial stop of Syriac 
 16

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

129

are also attested in Greek as loanwords. It is interesting to note in this regard that many of the Latin words in Syriac are attested in the Greek documentary record from Egypt.19 In addition, almost all of these Latin words are found in Byzantine Greek.20 This suggests that these Latin words were used in the Koinē Greek of the Eastern Roman Empire, and it is in this way that many of them entered Syriac. LATIN WORDS FIRST APPEARING IN SYRIAC BEFORE THE FOURTH CENTURY Latin words that first appear in pre-fourth century Syriac, including the Peshi ta Old Testament,21 are as follows:22 (1)

Latin caldaria, caldarium (LD 268) > καλδάριον (GLBRP 621) > 
 ‘pot’ (Pre-4th cent. Ex 27:3, 38:3; 1 Sam 2:14; 1 Kg 7:40; 2 Kg 25:14; Jer 52:18; LS2 693; SL 1402; see also Joosten 1998: 40; rare) b. Latin candela (OLD 264; LD 276) > κανδήλη, κανδῆλα a.

‘tower’ (LS2 92; SL 130) suggests, for instance, that the immediate source is Latin burgus (OLD 245; LD 255) and not Greek πύργος (LSJ 1556) (see also Schall 1960: 50-51). 19 A lexicon of the Greek documentary record from Egypt is available in LLGE. 20 For a lexicon of Byzantine Greek, see GLBRP. 21 The Syriac Old Testament is cited according to the Leiden edition where it exists and otherwise according to the British and Foreign Bible Society’s edition (1905-1920). 22 Several of the words in (1) are first attested in the Acts of Thomas (ed. Wright 1871: 2.171-333). Both the date and original language of this text are disputed. It, however, seems likely that the text was composed in Syriac (see the discussion in Attridge 1990), and that the date of composition is the first half of the third century (see the discussion in Bremmer 2001: 73-77). The Syriac original was translated into Greek at an early date (the Greek text is edited in Bonnet 1903: 99-291). The content of the Syriac text that is now extant shows signs of revision, often bringing it more in line with the emerging orthodoxy. The language of the Syriac text, however, contains a number of early forms (see Wright 1871: 2.xiv-xv), which indicate that the language belongs to the earliest period of Syriac. Thus, Latin words found in this text are included in this section.

130

Aaron Michael Butts (LSJ 874; PGL 700; GLBRP 626) >
 ‘lamp, torch’ (Pre-4th cent. Acts of Thomas, 232.20 [ed. Wright 1871: 2.171-333]; LS2 676; SL 1379-1380; see also Brock 1996: 255; 1999-2000: 443; GLLTMT 552), also in JPA ‫( קנדיל‬DJPA 496) and Mandaic qandila (MD 401), as well as Armenian կանթեղ (NDAE 325; see also Hübschmann 1897: 337, 354; Brockelmann 1893: 9), Arabic qandīl-, qindīl (BK 820; AFA 95),23 Coptic 
  (DDGLC 1027; see also Förster 2002: 375), Sogdian PL qndylyt (Sims-Williams 1988: 152; via Syriac), and Classical Ethiopic qandil (CDG 434; see also Weninger 2000: 144) c. Latin carrarius (OLD 279) > 
 ‘driver’ (Pre-4th cent. Acts of Thomas, 238.7, 9, 13; 241.16 [ed. Wright 1871: 2.171-333]; also in 2 Macc 9:4; LS2 689; SL 1417; very rare)24 d. Latin carruca (OLD 279; LD 295) > καρούχα, καροῦχα, καροῦχον (LSJ 879; GLBRP 630; PGL 703) > 
 ‘chariot’ (Pre-4th cent. Ex 14:6; Josh 11:4, 6, 9; 24:6; 1 Kg 10:25; 20:33; Is 66:20; LS2 696; SL 1403; see also Brock 1996: 255; 1999-2000: 444; Joosten 1998: 40), also in JPA ‫( כרוכין‬DJPA 503), as well as Coptic (DDGLC 3228) e. Latin cassis, accusative singular cassida, cassidem (OLD 282; LD 297) > κασσίς (GLBRP 632; LLGE 50; PGL 704) → accusative singular κασσίδα >
 ‘helmet; azure of the sky’ (Pre-4th cent. Job 38:29; 41:12; LS2 679; SL 1307; see also GLLTMT 556; rare), also in MH ‫קסדה‬ (Jastrow 1395) and Coptic 
 (DDGLC 2879; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 15) f. Latin cella (OLD 295; LD 309-310) > κέλλα (GLBRP

For the vowel assimilation *a > i / _CCī in qindīl, see Fox 2003: 267 n. 1. Compare the development of the Proto-Semitic nominal patterns *C1aC2C2īC3 to *C1iC2C2īC3 (Fox 2003: 267-268) and *C1aC2C3īC3 to *C1iC2C3īC3 (Butts 2011: 92-95) in Arabic. A similar assimilation rule is also found in Ugaritic (Huehnergard 1987: 269-270). 24 See Latin carrum ‘two-wheeled wagon’ (OLD 279; LD 295) > κάρρον (LSJ 880). 23

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

131

657; LLGE 51; PGL 741) [→ κελλίον (GLBRP 658; LLGE 52; PGL 741)] >
 ‘cell’ (Pre-4th cent. Num 25:8; LS2 668; SL 184, 1371-1372; see also Schall 1960: 104-105, 224; Joosten 1998: 40; Brock 1996: 254; common throughout Syriac), also in CPA qlyʾ (DCPA 374; LSP 180), LJLA PL ‫( קולין‬PsJon Gen 6:14; Jastrow 1327), and JBA ‫( קִ י ְלעָא‬DJBA 1013), as well as Arabic qillīyat- (BK 808; AFA 275), Sogdian qlytʾ (with alternative orthographies) (Sims-Williams 1988: 152; via Syriac; see also Brock 1975: 82), and Coptic 
(DDGLC 1103; see also Förster 2002: 403) g. Latin circus (OLD 326; LD 343-344) > κίρκος, κίρκας (LSJ 953; LLGE 55; GLBRP 665) > 
 ‘ring’ (Pre4th cent. Ex 26:6, 11, 23, 24, 26, 27; 36:13, 18; 39:33; LS2 701; SL 1415; see also Brock 1999-2000: 444; 2005: 17; GLLTMT 571),25 also in CPA qwrqws (DCPA 367), JPA ‫( קרקס‬DJPA 507), SA ‫( קרכס‬DSA 800), and LJLA ‫( קרקסא‬TgPs 69:13; Jastrow 1886-1903: 1426), as well as MH ‫( קרקסיות‬Jastrow 1426), Armenian կրկես (NDAE 364; see also Hübschmann 1897: 360), and Classical Ethiopic kirkos (with alternative orthographies) (Weninger 2000: 144) h. κλῇθρον (LSJ 957) > Latin clathri, clatri (OLD 333; LD 350) > Late Latin cracli (attested in the Appendix Probi; ed. Baehrens 1922: 8 [s.v. ln. 209]) >
 ‘grated cover’ (Pre-4th cent. Ex 27:4, 5; 38:4, 30; 39:39; LS2 700; SL 1416; see also Nöldeke 1904: §84 [p. 58 n. 1]; very rare)26 i. Latin collarium, collare (OLD 350; LD 365) > κολλάριον (GLBRP 675; LLGE 56; LSJ 972) >
 ‘iron collar’ (Pre-4th cent. 1 Chr 20:3; 2 Sam 12:31; LS2 671; SL This word should be added to Joosten 1998: 46-47. This word should be added to Joosten 1998: 46-47. Sokoloff (SL 550), building upon Brockelmann (LS2 288), sees Late Latin cracli as the source of
 ‘gridiron’ via dissimilation. Alternatively, however, Joosten (1998: 39-40) has suggested that
 derives from Latin craticula (OLD 499; LD 478), though he points out the lack of a possible Greek intermediary for this derivation. 25 26

132

Aaron Michael Butts 1330; see also GLLTMT 508), also in TgJon ‫( קולר‬Ezek 19:9; Jastrow 1330) and JPA ‫( קולר‬DJPA 479), as well as MH ‫( קולר‬Jastrow 1329) and Coptic (DDGLC 4941) j. Latin colonia (OLD 355; LD 370) > κολωνία, κολωνεία (GLBRP 676-677; LLGE 56; PGL 766; LSJ 974; see also Mason 1974: 5, 6, 62, 109) >
,
 ‘colony’ (Pre-4th cent. P.Dura 28.4; P.Euphrates 20.4 [ed. Drijvers and Healey 1999: 232-248]; LS2 669; SL 1329; see also Schall 1960: 40, 42; GLLTMT 546-547), also in Palmyrene qlnyʾ (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 406; see also Brock 2005: 18) and JBA ‫( ָק ָלנְי ָא‬DJBA 1021) k. Latin denarius (OLD 514; LD 545) > δηνάριον (GLBRP 356; LLGE 40; LSJ 388) > 
‘gold denarius’ (Pre-4th cent. P.Dura 28.ii (abbreviation), 9; P.Euphrates 19.ix, 16, 17, 18, 22 [ed. Drijvers and Healey 1999: 232-248]; P.Euphrates 7.29; 10.22 [ed. Feissel, Gascou, and Teixidor 1997]; LS2 160; SL 297; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; 1999-2000: 443; Schall 1960: 41, 98), also in Palmyrene dnrʾ, dynr (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 356; see also Brock 2005: 14), Judean Aramaic dynr (DNWSI 256), Ḥatran Aramaic dnr (DNWSI 256; Contini and Pagano 2015: 133), TgJon PL ‫( דינרין‬2 Kg 5:5), JPA ‫דינרא‬ (DJPA 147), JBA ‫( דֵ ינ ָָרא‬DJBA 334), Mandaic dinara (MD 108), CPA dynr (DCPA 86; LSP 45), LJLA ‫דינרא‬ (TgPsJon Ex 30:13; Jastrow 1886-1903: 302), as well as Arabic dīnār- (BK 737; Lane 919; AFA 191-192; FVQ 133-134), Punic dnʿryʾ (DNWSI 256), Armenian դենար (NDAE 139; see also Hübschmann 1897: 346;
Brockelmann 1893: 11), Coptic (DDGLC 2679), Pahlavi dēnār (CPD 26), Bactrian δ(δ)ιναρο (Sims-Williams 2013: 228), Classical Ethiopic dinar (CDG 138; see also Weninger 2000: 145), etc. l. Latin legio (OLD 1013-1014; LD 1047) > λεγιών, ληγιών, λεγεών, λεγιώνη (LSJ 1033; LSJ Suppl. 194; GLBRP 707; LLGE 65; PGL 794; see also Mason 1974: 5, 6, 7, 8, 65, 138, 163-165) >
 ‘legion’ (Pre-4th cent. Num 24:24; LS2 358; SL 673; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; 1999-2000: 443; Schall 1960: 97; Joosten 1998:

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

m.

n.

o.

p.

133

40), also in Palmyrene lgywn (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 376; see also Brock 2005: 18), TgJon PL ‫( לגיונין‬Ez 30:9), CPA l(y)gywn (DCPA 199, LSP 101), JPA ‫( לִיגְיוֹן‬DJPA 281), LJLA ‫( לגיונא‬TgJob 15:24; Jastrow 1886-1903: 692), as well as MH ‫( לגיון‬Jastrow 692), Armenian լեգէոն (NDAE 255; see also Hübschmann 1897: 337, 352; Brockelmann 1893: 13), Classical Ethiopic legewon (with alternative orthographies) (CDG 308; see also Weninger 2000: 142), and Coptic  (DDGLC 2740; see also Lefort 1950: 158) Latin piscina (OLD 1383; LD 1380) > φισκίνα (PGL 1485; du Cange 1688: 2.1679), πισκίνη (GLBRP 891; PGL 1082) > 
 ‘pool’ (Pre-4th cent. Neh 3:15, 16; LS2 585; SL 1215; see also GLLTMT 450), also in CPA psqyn (DCPA 336; LSP 160), as well as MH ‫פיסקין‬ (Jastrow 1168) and Coptic (DDGLC 5265) Latin ponto, pontonium (OLD 1403; LD 1397) >
 ‘ferry boat’ (Pre-4th cent. Acts of Thomas, 174.8; 185.11 [ed. Wright 1871: 2.171-333]; LS2 579; SL 1204; very rare) Latin sextarius (OLD 1751; LD 1688) > ξέστης (LSJ 1189-1190; GLBRP 790; LLGE 76-77) >
 ‘vase, urn; measure’ (Pre-4th cent. Ex 16:33; Judg 6:19; LS2 679; SL 1387; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; GLLTMT 535; Joosten 1998: 40), also in Palmyrene qwn (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 406; see also Brock 2005: 19), JPA ‫( קסיט‬DJPA 498), CPA qy (DCPA 372; LSP 181; Baillet 1963: 383-384), JBA ‫קִ י ְסטָא‬, ‫( קיסתא‬DJBA 1014), LJLA ‫( קסטא‬TgPsJon Ex 30.24), as well as Armenian քսեստ (NDAE 753; see also Hübschmann 1897: 389; Brockelmann 1893: 22, 35), Coptic  (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1495; see also Lefort 1950: 186; Behlmer 1997-1998: 20; Förster 2002: 555-556), and Arabic qis- ‘a measure; a measure for corn; a mug’ (Lane 2523; AFA 205) Latin strata (OLD 1826; LD 1758 [s.v. sterno]) > στράτα, στρᾶτα (LSJ Suppl. 281; GLBRP 1014; LLGE 108) > 
, 
‘street; road’ (Pre-4th

134

Aaron Michael Butts cent. Acts of Thomas, 239.7 [ed. Wright 1871: 2.171-333]; LS2 34; SL 71; see also GLLTMT 82-83; Schall 1960: 244), also in LJLA ‫( איסרטא‬TgPsJon Num 20:19; Jastrow 91l), JPA ‫איסטרט‬, ‫( איסרט‬DJPA 52), and SA sr h (DSA 611), as well as Arabic irā - (Lane 1678; FVQ 196) q. Latin subsellium (OLD 1848; LD 1781) > συμψέλλιον, συμψέλια (GLBRP 1060; LLGE 109; LSJ 1690) >
,
 ‘bench’ (Pre-4th cent. 2 Chr 9:11; Acts of Thomas, 218.3 [ed. Wright 1871: 2.171-333]; LS2 491; SL 963, 1032; see also GLLTMT 408-409; not common), also in JPA ‫סבסל‬, ‫( ספסל‬DJPA 386) and JBA ‫( ַס ְפ ְסלָא‬DJBA 827), as well as MH ‫( ספסל‬Jastrow 1015) and Coptic (DDGLC 5439; 5769) r. Latin sudarium (OLD 1859; LD 1790) > σουδάριον (GLBRP 1001; LLGE 106; LSJ 1621; see also Benveniste 1969: 213-217) > 
 ‘cloth; turban, tiara’ (Pre-4th cent. Jer 13:1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11; LS2 461; SL 976; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; GLLTMT 373-374), also in JBA ‫( סוּדָ ָרא‬DJBA 792), CPA swdrʾ (DCPA 282; LSP 133), JPA ‫( סודר‬DJPA 370), and LJLA ‫סודרא‬ (TgPsJon 21.15), as well as MH ‫( סודרין‬Jastrow 962) and Coptic  
  (DDGLC 2584; see also Lefort 1950: 276; Behlmer 1997-1998: 25) s. Latin tabellarius (OLD 1897-1898; LD 1831) > ταβελλάριος (GLBRP 1067; LLGE 109; LSJ 1752; see also Mason 1974: 4, 6, 90-91) >
 ‘keeper of records’ (Pre-4th cent. 2 Sam 15:1; 2 Kg 11:4; Prov 24:34; 2 Chr 30:6, 10; LS2 266; SL 510-511; see also Brock 1992: 229 n. 4; 1999-2000: 444),27 possibly also in LJLA ‫( טבלרא‬TgProv 24.34) t. Latin trulla (OLD 1981; LD 1905) > τροῦλ(λ)α (GLBRP 1097; LLGE 113; LSJ 1827) > 
 ‘iron spoon or pan’ (Pre-4th cent. Num 4:7; LS2 289; SL 549; see also Joosten 1998: 40; very rare)

A number of the Latin words that are attested in the earliest phase of Syriac literature continue to be common throughout the 27

See also
 ‘keeper of records’ (5n) below.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

135

later history of Syriac, such as
 ‘cell’ (1f) and 
‘gold denarius’ (1k). Several of the words in (1) are, however, very rare in Syriac, including 
 ‘driver’ (1c),
 ‘grated cover’ (1h),
 ‘ferry boat’ (1n), and 
 ‘iron spoon or pan’ (1t). Some, if not all, of these words are likely to be closer to Fremdwörter than they are to Lehnwörter.28 That is, some of them may have remained foreign words in Syriac and were not integrated as loanwords. In almost every case in (1), a possible
Greek intermediary is attested between Latin and Syriac. The only exceptions to this are: 
 ‘driver’ (1c),
 ‘grated cover’ (1h), and
 ‘ferry boat’ (1n). It is interesting to note that each of these is, as just mentioned, very rare in Syriac. It is possible that the Greek intermediary is simply unattested with these words or alternatively that the Latin words reached Syriac without a Greek intermediary, possibly as learned Fremdwörter. In cases in which a possible Greek intermediary is attested, the Greek is often also found in the documentary record from Egypt and/or in later Byzantine Greek (this is shown by the numerous references to LLGE and GLBRP in (1)). This suggests that these Latin words were used throughout the Koinē Greek of the Eastern Roman Empire. Several of the Latin words found in the earliest layer of Syriac literature are also found in other dialects of Aramaic. In some cases, these words may have been transferred into Aramaic at an earlier period and then inherited in Syriac. This is especially the case for words that are attested already in the earliest period of Syriac as well as in an Aramaic dialect prior to the second century CE (Middle Aramaic or earlier).29 Words in (1) that fit this criterion include:30 
‘gold denarius’ (1k),
 ‘legion’ (1l),
 ‘iron collar’ (1i), and
 ‘vase, urn; measure’ (1o). It is likely that these words were transferred into Aramaic at an earlier period 28 For this distinction, see, e.g., Brock 1975: 81; 1996: 261 n. 35; Butts 2016: §4.5; Ciancaglini 2008: 5, 23-25; Haspelmath 2009: 43; Joosten 1998: 42-43; Mankowski 2000: 8; Schall 1960: 9. 29 For this criterion, see Butts 2016: §4.9. 30 For a full listing of Greek words that were likely inherited in Syriac, see Butts 2016: Appendix 1.

136

Aaron Michael Butts

and then inherited in Syriac. In addition, some of the words in (1) are not only attested in Aramaic dialects, but also in non-Aramaic languages from Late Antiquity, such as Mishnaic Hebrew, Armenian, and Coptic. Consider, for instance, Latin denarius (1j), which is found in various dialects of Aramaic, including Palmyrene Aramaic, Judean Aramaic, Ḥatran Aramaic, Targum Jonathan, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Mandaic, Syriac, and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, as well as in non-Aramaic languages, such as Coptic, Arabic, Punic, Armenian, Pahlavi, and Classical Ethiopic. This wide distribution illustrates the prominence of this word across the Roman Near East. The words in (1) fall into a number of well-defined semantic groups. The largest semantic group is that of tools and utensils:
 ‘lamp, torch’ (1b), 
 ‘iron spoon or pan’ (1t),
,
 ‘bench’ (1q), 
 ‘pot’ (1a),
 ‘cell, tent’ (1f), and
 ‘vase, urn; measure’ (1o). The word
 ‘vase, urn; measure’ (1o) also falls into a category of coins, weights, and measures, along with 
‘gold denarius’ (1k). Several words in (1) belong to a semantic group related to architecture and the house: 
 ‘pool’ (1m), 
 ‘ring’ (1g), and
 ‘grated cover’ (1h). A semantic group of clothing is found with 
 ‘cloth; turban, tiara’ (1r) and
 ‘helmet; azure of the sky’ (1e). Another semantic group concerns transportation: 
, 
‘street; road’ (1p),
 ‘ferry boat’ (1n), 
 ‘chariot’ (1d), and 
 ‘driver’ (1c). Perhaps surprisingly and especially in comparison to later periods, the number of words related directly to Roman officials or personnel is small, being restricted to
 ‘keeper of records’ (1s). There are, however, a couple of words related to the army, including instruments of torture:
 ‘legion’ (1l) and
 ‘iron collar’ (1i). There is one term that is clearly related to Roman administration:
,
 ‘colony’ in (1j). LATIN WORDS FIRST APPEARING IN THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT While this study is primarily concerned with Latin words that occur in Syriac texts not translated from Greek, it is necessary to look

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

137

briefly at Latin words that occur in the New Teastment, since many of these also appear in later Syriac compositions. The following Latin words are first attested in Syriac in the New Testament:31 (2)

Latin assarium (OLD 186) > ἀσσάριον (GLBRP 264; LLGE 31; LSJ 260) > 
‘assarius, small copper coin’ (NT Mt 10:29 [SP]; Lk 12:6 [SP]; LS2 38; SL 80; see also Brock 1967: 394; 2005: 12-13), also in Palmyrene ʾsr (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 341; see also Brock 2005: 1213), atra ʾs (Contini and Pagano 2015: 129); CPA ʾsr (DCPA 24; LSP 16), and JBA ‫( ִאיסּ ָָרא‬DJBA 123), as well as Armenian ասարիոն (Hübschmann 1897: 341;
Brockelmann 1893: 34), Coptic (DDGLC 2653), and Classical Ethiopic ʾasorəyon (with alternative orthographies) (CDG 44; see also Weninger 2000: 145) b. Latin caesar (OLD 254; LD 265) > καῖσαρ (GLBRP 616617; LSJ 860; see also Mason 1974: 58) > 
 ‘Caesar, emperor’ (NT Mt 22:17 [SCP], 21 [SCP]; Mk 12:14 [SCP], 16 [SCP], 17 [SCP]; Lk 2:1 [SCP]; 3:1 [SCP]; 20:22 [SCP]; Jn 19:12 [P], 15 [P]; Acts 11:28; 17:7; 18:2; 25:8; Phil 4:22; LS2 680; SL 1388; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; 1999-2000: 443; Schall 1960: 40, 83), also in Judean Aramaic qysr (DJA 77-78), Palmyrene qysr (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 406; see also Brock 2005: 17), Nabataean Aramaic qysr (DNWSI 1018-1019; Healey 1995: 81), JPA ‫( קיסר‬DJPA 491), JBA ‫( ֵקיסָר‬DJBA 1014-1015), CPA qysr (DCPA 372; LSP 179), as well as Armenian կայսր (NDAE 524; see also Hübschmann 1897: 337, 354; Brockelmann 1893: 13-14), Coptic (DDGLC 2969), Arabic qay ar (BK 846), Sogdian qysr (Sims-Williams 1988: 145), Bactrian κησαρο (Sims-Williams 2013: 228), etc. a.

31 The Syriac Gospels are cited according to Kiraz 1996, with the siglum C referring to the Curetonianus ms., S to the Sinaiticus ms., and P to the Peshita. Other texts of the New Testament are cited according to the British and Foreign Bible Society’s edition (1905-1920). For Latin words in the Syriac New Testament, see already Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; 1999-2000: 443-444.

138

Aaron Michael Butts Latin centurio (OLD 300; LD 316) > κεντυρίων, κεντορίων, κεντουρίων (LSJ 939; GLBRP 659; LLGE 53; PGL 744; see also Mason 1974: 5, 60, 163) >
, 
 ‘centurion’ (NT Mt 8:5 [CP], 13 [CP]; 27:54 [SP]; Mk 15:39 [SP], 44 [SP]; Lk 7:2 [SP], 6 [SP]; 23:47 [SCP]; LS2 677; SL 1382-1383; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; 1999-2000: 443; GLLTMT 529; Schall 1960: 97), also in Nabatean Aramaic qn ryn (DNWSI 1015; Healey 1993: 209, 264; 1995: 77), Palmyrene q rywn (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 405-406; see also Brock 2005: 17), and CPA qn rywn (DCPA 377; LSP 181), as well as MH ‫( קיטרון‬Jastrow 1353), Coptic   (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1106; see also Lefort 1950: 135-136; Förster 2002: 405), and Classical Ethiopic qan orāhi (CDG 436; see also Weninger 2000: 142) d. Latin custodia (OLD 478; LD 504-505) > κουστωδία, κοστωδία (LSJ 987; LSJ Suppl. 184; GLBRP 687; LLGE 63) > 
 ‘guard’ (NT Mt 27:65 [S], 66 [S]; LS2 679; SL 1387; very rare; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46),32 also in CPA qs wdyʾ (DCPA 378; LSP 182), as well as Coptic  
(DDGLC 2985; see also Lefort 1950: 148) e. Latin fascia (OLD 677; LD 726) > φασκία (GLBRP 1136; LLGE 114) >
 ‘bandage used to wrap a corpse’ (NT John 11:44 [SP]; LS2 585; SL 1215), also in TgJon ‫( פסיקיא‬Is 3:24; Jastrow 1196), CPA psqyʾ (DCPA 336; LSP 160), and JPA ‫( פיסקי‬DJPA 432), as well as MH ‫( פסיקיא‬Jastrow 1196), Coptic 

(DDGLC 2839; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 28), and perhaps Arabic fāsqiyat- ‘a certain way of tying a turban’ (BK 594; Lane 2453) f. Latin flagellum (OLD 708; LD 755) > Late Latin fragellum (attested in the Appendix Probi; ed. Baehrens 1922: 6 [s.v. ln. 77]) > φραγέλλιον (GLBRP 1147; LSJ 1952) > c.

Fränkel (AFA 282) connects this with Arabic qus ās- (apparently a hapax legomenon). 32

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

139


 ‘whip’ (NT Mt 27:26 [SP]; Jn 2:15 [P]; LS2 592; SL 1227; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; GLLTMT 477478; DGLLT 153-154),33 also in CPA prgl (DCPA 339; LSP 161), as well as MH ‫( פרגל‬Jastrow 1214) and Coptic (DDGLC 2632) g. Latin libertinus (OLD 1025; LD 1059) > λιβερτῖνος (LSJ 1047; GLBRP 714) → PL λιβερτῖνοι > PL 
 ‘freedmen’ (NT Acts 6:9; LS2 357; SL 688; see also Schall 1960: 194; not common), also in Coptic   (DDGLC 4703; see also Lefort 1950: 159) h. Latin lorarius (OLD 1043; LD 1078) >
 ‘harness or saddle maker’ (NT Acts 18:3; LS2 361; SL 679; very rare) i. Latin macellum (OLD 1057; LD 1091-1092) > μάκελλον (GLBRP 728; LLGE 70; LSJ 1074) >
 ‘meatmarket’ (NT 1 Cor 10:25; LS2 400; SL 821; see also GLLTMT 349), also in JPA ‫( מקילון‬DJPA 326), as well as MH ‫( מקולין‬Jastrow 829), Armenian մակեղոն (NDAE 447; see also Hübschmann 1897: 363; Brockelmann 1893: 23), and Coptic
  (DDGLC 5029; see also Lefort 1950: 169) j. Latin mille (OLD 1109; LD 1144)34 > μίλιον, μείλιον (GLBRP 760; LSJ 1134) >
 ‘one-thousand paces; mile-stone’ (NT Mt 5:41 [SCP]; Jn 11:18 [S]; LS2 383; SL 752; very common; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; 1999-2000: 443; GLLTMT 335; Schall 1960: 100), also in Palmyrene m(yl) (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 380; see also Brock 2005: 18), JBA ‫( ִמילָא‬DJBA 667), CPA myl (DCPA 220; LSP 109), JPA ‫( מיל‬DJPA 304-305), LJLA PL ‫מילין‬ (TgPsJon Ex 12:37), as well as MH ‫( מיל‬Jastrow 773), Armenian մղոն (NDAE 480; see also Hübschmann 1897: 365; Brockelmann 1893: 11-12), and Coptic

33 Fränkel (AFA 282) connects this with Arabic farjawn-, firjawn‘comb’ (BK 563; 2361). 34 Perhaps the source is milium, a back-formation from the plural milia.

140

Aaron Michael Butts (DDGLC 2752)35 k. Latin modium (OLD 1123; LD 1155) > μόδιος (GLBRP 763; LLGE 73; LSJ 1140) > 
 ‘corn measure, peck; container’ (NT Matt 5:15 [C]; LS2 375; SL 721-722; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; 36, 58, 63; Schall 1960: 36, 58, 63), also in Palmyrene mdʾ (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 378; see also Brock 2005: 18-19), CPA mwdyʾ (DCPA 211; LSP 107), JBA ‫( מוֹדְ י ָא‬DJBA 645), JPA ‫( מודיי‬DJPA 294), as well as Armenian մոդ (NDAE 482; see also Hübschmann 1897: 366) and Coptic

  (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1432; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 19; Förster 2002: 527) l. Latin praetorium (OLD 1448; LD 1436) > πραιτώριον (LSJ 1458; LSJ Suppl. 257; GLBRP 915; LLGE 93; PGL 1126-1127; see also Mason 1974: 5, 78) > 
 ‘governor’s residence’ (NT Mt 27:27 [SCP]; Mk 15:16 [SCP]; Jn 18:28 [SCP], 33 [SCP]; 19:9 [SCP]; Acts 23:35; Phil 1:13; LS2 574, 596; SL 1199, 1237; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; GLLTMT 455-456), also in CPA ṗlywryn (DCPA 332; LSp 158), JPA ‫ָטוֹרין‬ ִ ‫( ְפּל‬DJPA 435), and LJLA ‫( פלטורין‬TgLam 4.1), as well as MH ‫פלטורין‬ (Jastrow 1180), Armenian պրետոր (NDAE 619; see also Hübschmann 1897: 375; Brockelmann 1893: 31), and Coptic 
  (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1812; see also Lefort 1950: 252-253; Behlmer 1997-1998: 24; Förster 2002: 668) m. Latin quaestionarius (OLD 1535; LD 1502) > κυαιστιωνάριος (GLBRP 694; LLGE 63)36 >
 ‘torturer’ (NT Mt 27:65 [P], 66 [P]; 28:11 [P], 12 [P] [these may be corruptions of 
 (Brock 1967: 405)]; also in Aphraha, Demonstrations, 1.705.24 [ed. Parisot 1894-1907]; LS2 679; SL 1387; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; DGLLT 173-175; GLLTMT 514; Schall 1960: 96), also in MH ‫( קוסטינר‬Jastrow 1336) and Coptic (DDGLC

For possible Arabic reflexes, see AFA 282-283. Brockelmann (LS2 679), followed by Sokoloff (SL 1387), gives the Greek intermediary as κουεστιονάριος, which is not, however, found in the Greek lexica. 35 36

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

141

4968) n. Latin speculator (OLD 1802; LD 1739) > σπεκουλάτωρ (GLBRP 1003; LLGE 106; LSJ 1626; see also Mason 1974: 4, 85) >  
,
 ‘executioner’ (NT Mk 6:27 [SP]; LS2 36; SL 75; see also Brock 1967: 424 n. 46; DGLLT 133-135; GLLTMT 92-93, 409), see also LJLA ‫( אספקלטורא‬TgEsth2 5:2; Jastrow 1886-1903: 56), JPA ‫( אספקלטור‬DJPA 68), CPA (ʾ)sṗqlwr (DCPA 23; LSP 15), as well as MH ‫( אספקלטור‬Jastrow 1017) and Coptic  
 (DDGLC 3056; see also Lefort 1950: 278) o. Latin talaria (PL) (OLD 1901; LD 1835) > ταλάριον (LLGE 110) > PL
 ‘sandals’ (NT Mk. 6:9 [P]; Acts 12.8; LS2 278; SL 535), also in TgJon ‫( טלרי‬1 Kg 2.5; Jastrow 1886-1903: 538), as well as Armenian տառաղան (NDAE 692; see also Hübschmann 1897: 383; Brockelmann 1893: 32) p. Latin uncinus (OLD 2090; LD 1929) > ὄγκινος (GLBRP 793; LSJ 1196) > 
‘hook; anchor; sailors’ sounding line’ (NT Acts 27:28, 29, 40; Heb 6:19; but not common until the fifth century; LS2 9; SL 20; see also Brock 1999-2000: 444 with n. 23),37 also in Coptic

  (DDGLC 1509; Förster 2002: 561) 37 Two corrections to the lexica are in order here: 1. Brockelmann (LS2 9), followed by Sokoloff (SL 20), analyzes 
in 124.22 of the Julian Romance as ὠκεανός ‘ocean’; this, however, does not fit the context:


  


 
   
             
 ‘For, Lord, your Divinity knows that our town holds the faith that your fathers handed down to it, like an anchor, in the soul of its inhabitants, and it will not forget this kingdom of yours’ (Julian Romance, 124.22-24; ed. Hoffmann 1880). Already Gollancz (1928: 134 [correct Sokoloff’s reference from pg. 136]) interpreted the word as ‘anchor’. Note that Narsai refers to faith as an anchor (
) on several occasions,
e.g.,         ‘with the anchor of faith, let us moor the ships of our minds’ (ed. Mingana 1905: 1.326.24327.1; see also Brock 1999-2000: 444 n. 23). 2. Brockelmann (LS2 9),
followed by Sokoloff (SL 20), relates  in the Life of Rabbula

142

Aaron Michael Butts

To these words that first appear in the New Testament, the following can be added that appear in the New Testament but are first attested in earlier Syriac (see (1)): (3)


‘gold denarius’ (1k) occurs in Mt 18:28 (SCP); 20:2 (SCP), 9 (SCP), 10 (SCP), 13 (SCP); 22:19 (SCP); Mk 6:37 (SP); 12:15 (SP); 14:5 (SP); Lk 7:41 (SCP); 10:35 (SCP); 20:24 (SCP); Jn 6:7 (SCP); 12:5 (SP); passim b.
 ‘legion’ (1l) occurs in Mt 26:53 (SP); Mk 5:9 (SP), 15 (P); Lk 8:30 (SCP) c. 
 ‘cloth; turban, tiara’ (1r) occurs in Jn 11:44 (SP); 20:7 (SP); Acts 19:12 d.
,
 ‘colony’ (1j) occurs in Act 16:12 e.
 ‘vase, urn; measure’ (1o) occurs in Mk 7:4 (SP), 8 (P); Heb 9:4 a.

A number of the Latin words attested in the Syriac New Testament continue to be common throughout the later history of Syriac. Several are, however, very rare in Syriac, including
 ‘harness or saddle maker’ (2h) and
 ‘meat-market’ (2i). Both of these may well be Fremdwörter. In addition, it should be noted that
 ‘harness or saddle maker’ (2h) is the only word in (2) for which a possible Greek intermediary is not attested. Three quarters of the words in (2) occur in another language from the Roman Near East, whether Aramaic or not, and a number of them are in fact attested in multiple languages. This suggests that these Latin words were Wanderwörter spread throughout various languages of the Roman Near East. The words in (2) fall into well-defined semantic groups. The largest group is that of Roman officials or personnel:  
, (161.14; ed. Overbeck 1865: 157-248) to Greek ὄγκινος (LSJ 1196), which itself derives from Latin uncinus (OLD 2090; LD 1929). Bowersock (2000: 260), however, has shown that the Syriac is better understood as Greek ὠκεανός ‘ocean’ (LSJ 2031) based on the well-attested use of ὠκεανέ as an acclamation (see Peterson 1929; Robert and Robert 1958: 207 [s.v. 105], both with additional references). Doran seems to have misunderstood Bowersock when he states, “Literally, the Syriac reads ‘hooks’, ‘anchors’, but Bowersock has pointed out that the Greek behind the Syriac was a well-known acclamation” (2006: 67 n. 6).

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

143


 ‘executioner’ (2n), PL 
 ‘freedmen’ (2g),
, 
 ‘centurion’ (2c), 
 ‘guard’ (2d),
 ‘torturer’ (2m), and 
 ‘Caesar, emperor’ (2b). Related to this category is also 
 ‘governor’s residence’ (2l). In addition, another word is related to torture:
 ‘whip’ (2f). All of these

are clearly associated with Roman administration. Another semantic group is that of tools and utensils: 
‘hook; anchor; sailors’ sounding line’ (2p), 
 ‘corn measure, peck; container’ (2k), and
 ‘bandage used to wrap a corpse’ (2e). The word 
 ‘corn measure, peck; container’ (2k) also falls into a semantic group of coins, weights, and measures, along with 
‘assarius, small copper coin’ (2a) and
 ‘one-thousand paces; mile-stone’ (2j). Two words are related to commerce:
 ‘harness or saddle maker’ (2h) and
 ‘meat-market’ (2i). Finally, one term is related to clothing: PL
 ‘sandals’ (2o). In contrast to the words in (1), most of the words in (2), if not all of them, are connected with Roman culture in one way or another, whether through administration and rule or everyday items. LATIN WORDS FIRST APPEARING IN FOURTH-CENTURY SYRIAC A small number of Latin words first appear in Syriac in the fourth century38: (4)

Latin caesarianus (OLD 254; LD 265) > καισαριανός (GLBRP 617; LSJ 860; see also Mason 1974: 6, 58) >
 ‘of the caesars’ (4th cent. Aphraha, Demonstrations, 1.220.15, 17 [ed. Parisot 1894-1907]; LS2 680; SL 1388; see also Schall 1960: 83-84, 95; very rare) b. Latin indulgentia (OLD 888; LD 928) > ἰνδουλγεντία a.

38 Several of the words in (4) are first attested in the Book of Steps, which has traditionally been dated to the fourth century. It should be noted, however, that in a recent paper Smith (2014) has argued that this text more likely stems from the fifth century. If this is in fact the case, then 
 ‘palace’ (4e), 
 ‘axe’ (4g), and 
‘hymns’ (4h) should be moved to the list in (5).

144

Aaron Michael Butts (GLBRP 601) > 
(corrupt) ‘amnesty’ (4th cent. Aphraha, Demonstrations, 1.589.6 [ed. Parisot 1894-1907]; LS2 155; SL 295; only here)39 c. Latin moneta (OLD 1130; LD 1161) > μονήτα, μονῆτα (GLBRP 766; LLGE 73; PGL 880; see also Mason 1974: 68) >
,
 ‘coin; money; coin die’ (4th cent. Ephrem, Maḏrāše against Heresies, 81.3; 166.24 [ed. Beck 1957]; not uncommon in Syriac; LS2 395; SL 781; see also Brock 1999-2000: 443-444; GLLTMT 326-327), also in JPA ‫( מוניט‬DJPA 295) d. Latin orbita (OLD 1264; LD 1276) > 
‘orbit (?)’ (4th cent. Ephrem, Prose Refutations, Discourse 2-5, 138.38; 139.2 [ed. Mitchell 1912-1921]; LS2 45; SL 20; only here) e. Latin palatium (OLD 1284; LD 1291) > παλάτιον (GLBRP 832; LLGE 85; LSJ 1291; see also Mason 1974: 74) > 
 ‘palace’ (4th cent. Book of Steps, 293.16; 525.7 [ed. Kmosko 1926]; LS2 574; SL 1199; see also GLLTMT 457-458), also in JPA ‫( ָפּ ָלטִין‬DJPA 435) and CPA ṗl yn (DCPA 332), as well as MH ‫( פלטין‬Jastrow 1180), Armenian պաղատ(ն), պալատ(ն) (NDAE 590; see also Hübschmann 1897: 337, 370; Brockelmann 1893: 14), Coptic (DDGLC 2556), and (possibly) Arabic balā - ‘palace’ but more commonly ‘pavement’ (BK 160) and less likely balad- ‘country, region’ (BK 158-159; Lane 247),40 see also atra PL pl yʾ ‘palace servants’ (Contini and Pagano 2015: 137) f. Latin patronus (OLD 1311; LD 1316-1317) > πάτρων (GLBRP 866; LLGE 88; LSJ 1349; see also Mason 1974: 5-7, 12, 152) > 
 ‘patron’ (4th cent. Book of Steps, 389.11; 392.18 [ed. Kmosko 1926]; Ephrem, Commentary on Diatessaron, 64.21 [ed. Leloir 1990]; LS2 565; SL 1183), also in JPA ‫( פטרון‬DJPA 429), as well as Coptic 
  (DDGLC 1698; see also Förster 2002: 631) g. Latin securis (OLD 1722; LD 1655-1656) > σεκούριον, 39 40

84.

Note, however,  
* ‘indulgence’ in (6w) below. For discussion of these two Arabic words, see AFA 28; FVQ 83-

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

145

σικούριον, τζικούριον (LSJ 1589; GLBRP 988, 1080) > 
 ‘axe’ (4th cent. Book of Steps, 773.11 [ed. Kmosko 1926]; LS2 496; SL 1007; see also GLLTMT 391; rare), also in JPA ‫( סיקור‬DJPA 376) and LJLA ‫( סיקורא‬TgPsJon Deut 19:5; Jastrow 1886-1903: 986), as well as Arabic āqūr- (BK 1352; Lane 1706; AFA 84-85) and Armenian սակուր (NDAE 629; see also Hübschmann 1897: 316) h. Latin statio ‘lit. standing’ (OLD 1814; LD 1751) > στατίων, στατιών (GLBRP 1006; PGL 1251; LSJ 1634; LLGE 107) > 
‘hymns’ (4th cent. Book of Steps, 181.10; 185.7, 16, 18; 309.6; 312.17, 18; 748.27; 924.5; 932.2 [ed. Kmosko 1926]; LS2 32; SL 69; see also Schall 1960: 244; rare), calqued on στάσεις (PGL 1251; LSJ 1634) Among these words, only
,
 ‘coin; money; coin die’ (4c) is very common, though 
 ‘patron’ (4f) and 
 ‘palace’ (4e) each occur a number of times throughout later Syriac literature. Both
,

 ‘coin; money; coin die’ (4c) and

 ‘palace’ (4e) are also attested in other languages of the Roman Near East. The remainder of the words in (4) are very rare, and a couple of them are probably hapax legomena, e.g., 
(corrupt) ‘amnesty’ (4b) and 
‘orbit’ (4d). These two words are more likely to be Fremdwörter than Lehnwörter. This may also be the case with
 ‘of the caesars’ (4a), 
 ‘axe’ (4g), and 
‘hymns’ (4h), which are only attested rarely in later Syriac literature. Out of all of these rare words, only 
 ‘axe’ (4g) is attested in another language of the Roman Near East. For most of the words in (4), a possible Greek intermediary is attested. This is not, however, the case for 
‘orbit’ (4d). Again, it should be noted that this word is rare in Syriac and may well be a Fremdwort rather than a Lehnwort. This word is, thus, similar to the words discussed in (1) for which a possible Greek intermediary is not (yet) attested. The words in (4) fall into several well-defined semantic groups. The category of Roman officials or personnel is found with 
 ‘patron’ (4f). Related to this category are 
 ‘palace’ (4e) and
 ‘of the caesars’ (4a). A tool is found in 


146

Aaron Michael Butts

‘axe’ (4g), and
,
 ‘coin; money; coin die’ (4c) falls into the category of coins, weights, and measures. A religious term is found in 
‘hymns’ (4h). Finally, the two rare words 
(corrupt) ‘amnesty’ (4b) and 
‘orbit’ (4d) do not fall into as clear of semantic categories as the other Latin words in Syriac. LATIN WORDS FIRST APPEARING IN FIFTH-CENTURY SYRIAC The number of Latin words first appearing in fifth-century Syriac is larger than the number first appearing in the fourth century:41 Latin birrus (LD 239)42 > βίρρος (GLBRP 309; LSJ 316) → accusative singular βίρρον > 
, 
 ‘toga, cloak, patriarch’s chlamys’ (5th cent. Life of Rabbula, 184.26 [ed. Overbeck 1865: 157-248]; 6th cent. Bar adbshabba, Ecclesiastical History, Part 1, 115.10 [ed. Nau 1932]; Yu anon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 527.2 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 69; SL 143, 187),43 also in MH ‫( בירוס‬Jastrow 166) and Coptic  (DDGLC 389; see also Förster 2002: 137) b. Latin cervical, cervicarium (OLD 305; LD 322) > κερβικάριον (LSJ Suppl. 175; GLBRP 661; LLGE 53-54)

(5)

a.

Perhaps also φαινόλης (LSJ 1912; GLBRP 1132) > Latin paenula (OLD 1282; LD 1289) > φαίνουλα, παίνουλα, πένουλα, or the like >
 ‘clerical vestment’ (5th cent. Life of Rabbula, 184.27 [ed. Overbeck 1865: 157-248]; LS2 566; SL 1188; see also Schall 1960: 214), also in Armenian փիլոն (NDAE 728; Hübschmann 1897: 387) and MH ‫פינס‬ (Jastrow 1165; Krauss 449). The Latin is originally a loanword from the Greek. There are, however, a few Greek forms in the Edict of Diocletian (φαίνουλα, παίνουλα, and πένουλα) that seem to have been loaned back into Greek from Latin. See the discussions in Frisk 1954-1972: 981982; Ernout, Meillet, and André 1985: 474; Beekes 2010: 2.1545; TLL X.1.68. 42 It should be noted that this is a loanword in Latin, probably from Celtic (Adams 1977: 77). 43 Fränkel (AFA 51) suggests a connection with Arabic burnus‘hooded cloak’ (BK 118; Lane 196) via a dissimilation from *burrus-. For the unlikelihood of such a dissimilation, however, see Butts Forthcoming A. 41

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

147

>
 ‘pillow, cushion’ (5th cent. Life of Rabbula, 185.2 [ed. Overbeck 1865: 157-248]; 6th cent. Eliya, Life of Yuanon of Tella, 48.6 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; LS2 667; SL 1367-1368; see also GLLTMT 176; rare), also in JBA ‫( גלופקרא‬DJBA 285) and LJLA ‫( קלופקריה‬TgPsJon Deut 24:13; Jastrow 1886-1903: 247), as well as MH ‫( קלובקרין‬Jastrow 247) c. Latin comitatus (OLD 360; LD 374) > κομιτᾶτος (LSJ Suppl. 181; GLBRP 677; LLGE 58) >
 ‘retinue, suite’ (5th cent. Rabbula of Edessa, Works, 219.18 [ed. Overbeck 1865: 210-248, 362-381]; LS2 672; SL 1363; not common; see also Brock 1996: 255), also in JPA ‫( קוֹ ִמיטָטוֹן‬DJPA 482, 844), as well as Coptic  
  (DDGLC 1172; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 17; Förster 2002: 432) d. Latin dux (OLD 582; LD 621) > δούξ (GLBRP 395; LLGE 41-42; LSJ 447; see also Mason 1974: 3, 6, 11, 39) > 
‘leader’ (5th cent. Martyrdom of Shmona, Gurya, and abbib, 5.16 [
; ed. Burkitt 1913: 3*-43*]; 6th cent. Eliya, Life of Yuanon of Tella, 39.23 [ed. Brooks 1907: 2995]; Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 175.20 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 153; SL 281),44 also in JPA ‫דוכוס‬, ‫( דוקוס‬DJPA 140-141), JBA ‫( דּוּ ְכסָא‬DJBA 317318), and LJLA PL.CON ‫( דוכוסי‬TgEsth1 5.11; Jastrow 1886-1903: 285), as well as Armenian դուքս (NDAE 149; see also Hübschmann 1897: 346;
Brockelmann 1893: 36) and Coptic   (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 578; see also Förster 2002: 210) e. Latin exceptor (OLD 634; LD 676) > Greek ἐξκέπτωρ, ἐξκήπτωρ (GLBRP 484; LLGE 44; LSJ Suppl. 121) > 
,  
‘amanuensis, scribe’ (5th cent. Martyrdom of Shmona, Gurya, and abbib, 14.20; 41.20 [ed. Burkitt 1913: 3*-43*]; Acts of Sharbel, 61.23 [ed. Cureton 1864: *41-*63]; LS2 19; SL 45; see also Schall 1960: 244; not common), also in JPA ‫( איסקבטור‬DJPA 52-53), as well as Armenian սկեպտոր (NDAE 643; see also 44

See also 
‘military command’ (6q) below.

148

Aaron Michael Butts Hübschmann 1897: 379; Brockelmann 1893: 37) f. Latin fabulator (OLD 665; LD 713) >
 ‘storyteller’ (5th cent. Acts of Sharbel, 52.18 [ed. Cureton 1864: *41-*63]; LS2 569; SL 1193; only here) g. Latin falsus (OLD 673-674; LD 722) > φάλσον (GLBRP 1134; PGL 1470) >
 ‘false’ (5th cent. Rabbula of Edessa, Works, 220.11 [ed. Overbeck 1865: 157-248]; LS2 575; SL 1202; very rare; see also Brock 1996: 255) h. Latin famulus (OLD 676; LD 725) > φάμουλος (GLBRP 1134) >
 ‘servant’ (5th cent. Isaq of Antioch, Mēmrē, 1.286.3 [ed. Bickell 1873-1877]; LS2 577; SL 1204; only here), also in LJLA ‫( פימליא‬TgSong 1:15; Jastrow 1185) i. Latin forma (OLD 722-723; LD 768) > φόρμα, φόρμη (GLBRP 1149; LLGE 115; LSJ Suppl. 308) > 
 ‘imperial edict’ (5th cent. Isaq of Antioch, Mēmrē, 1.440.1 [ed. Bedjan 1903]; LS2 598; SL 1170; rare), also in Coptic (DDGLC 5997) j. Latin galearius (LD 800) > γαλ(λ)ιάριος (LSJ 337; LLGE 38) >
 ‘galearius, military servant’ (5th cent. Isaq of Antioch, Mēmrē, 1.234.8 [ed. Bedjan 1903]; Julian Romance, 132.6; 158.21 [ed. Hoffmann 1880]; LS2 118; SL 237-238; see also GLLTMT 168; not common), also in JPA ‫( גולייר‬DJPA 123) and LJLA ‫( גולייר‬TgEsth2 6.12; Jastrow 221-222) k. Latin mansio (OLD 1074; LD 1109) >
 ‘journey of ten parasangs’ (5th cent. Balai, Mēmrē on Joseph, 210.8 [ed. Bedjan 1891]; Narsai, Mēmrē, 1.183.7 [ed. Mingana 1905]; Yoannan Iidaya, Letters, 1.148 [ed. Strothmann 1972]; Yaʿqub of Serugh, Mēmrē, 1.99.10; 1.504.9; 2.341.14; 4.140.21; 5.16.11 [ed. Bedjan 1905-1910]; LS2 396; SL 790; see also Brock 1967: 424; 1996: 255; 19992000: 444 with n. 25) l. Latin orarium (LD 1274) > ὠράριον (GLBRP 1186; LLGE 117; PGL 1557) > 
‘type of garment, stole’ (5th cent. Narsai, Mēmrē, 1.350.19 [ed. Mingana 1905]; LS2 45; SL 23; see also Benveniste 1969; Brock 19992000: 444; Schall 1960: 244), also in Sogdian wrrʾ (Sims-

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

m.

n.

o.

p.

149

Williams 1988: 148; via Syriac; see also Brock 1975: 82; 1999-2000: 444 n. 24), Armenian որար, ուրար (NDAE 530; see also Hübschmann 1897: 369; Petit, Van Rompay, and Weitenberg 2011: 162-163 n. 519), and Coptic (DDGLC 5342) Latin sacer, PL sacra (OLD 1674; LD 1610-1611) > σάκρα (GLBRP 977; PGL 1221; LSJ 1581; see also LLGE 100) >
 ‘imperial letter, imperial archives’ (5th cent. History of Shemʿon bar abbaʿe, 791.2; 811.14, 24; 814.1, 2, 3, 5; 815.17; 818.8, 11 [ed. Kmosko 1907]; LS2 495-496; SL 1041; see also Brock 1975: 104-106),45 also in Armenian PL սակերք (NDAE 629; see also Hübschmann 1897: 376; Brockelmann 1893: 26) and Coptic (DDGLC 6193) Latin tabularius (OLD 1899; LD 1832) > ταβουλάριος (GLBRP 1067; LLGE 110; PGL 1370) >
 ‘keeper of records’ (5th cent. Teaching of Addai, 1.13; 2.8, 16, 25; 3.11; 4.10, 21; 5.5; 31.19; 53.3 [ed. Howard 1981]; LS2 267; SL 509; very rare outside of this text)46 Latin uncia (OLD 2090; LD 1929) > οὐγκία (GLBRP 823; LSJ 1268; LLGE 79)47 > 
‘ounce’ (5th cent. Life of Rabbula, 182.10 [ed. Overbeck 1865: 157-248]; 6th cent. Eliya, Life of Yu anon of Tella, 46.23 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; LS2 30; SL 18), also in JPA ‫( אונקייא‬DJPA 40), CPA wqyʾs (DCPA 106; Baillet 1963: 384), and JBA ‫( אוקיא‬DJBA 93), as well as Armenian ունկի (NDAE 576; see also Hübschmann 1897: 369; Brockelmann 1893: 25), Arabic ʾūqiyyat- (BK 69; AFA 201), and Coptic (DDGLC 1591) Latin velum (OLD 2024; LD 1965-1966) > βῆλον,

45 This word was not included in the first printing of SL but was added in the second printing. 46 See also
 ‘keeper of records’ (1s) above. 47 It should be noted that the ultimate etymological relationship between the various Greek and Latin forms is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, it is likely that Greek οὐγκία in Late Antiquity is a loanword from Latin uncia. In general, see still Rosen 1964.

150

Aaron Michael Butts

οὐῆλον (GLBRP 307; PGL 295; LSJ Suppl. 68) > 
, 
 ‘veil, curtain’ (5th cent. Narsai, Mēmrē, 2.133.1 [ed. Mingana 1905]; Acts of Sharbel, 59.13 [ed. Cureton 1864: *41-*63]; 6th cent. Yaʿqub of Serugh, Mēmrē, 1.23.8; 1.48.4; 1.106.11; 4.13.6 [ed. Bedjan 1905-1910]; LS2 185; SL 358; see also Brock 1999-2000: 444; GLLTMT 235236), also in JPA ‫( ווילה‬DJPA 169), JBA ‫( ֵבּלָא‬DJBA 220), and LJLA ‫( ווילוון‬TgPsJon Ex 27:9), as well as MH ‫וילון‬ (Jastrow 373) and Coptic (DDGLC 4757) q. Latin veredarius (OLD 2035; LD 1973) > βερεδάριος, βερηδάριος, οὐερεδάριος (GLBRP 306; LLGE 34, 79) > 
, 
 ‘letter carrier’ (5th cent. History of Shemʿon bar abbaʿe, 806.4 [ed. Kmosko 1907]; LS2 75; SL 141; see also GLLTMT 155-15), also in JPA ‫( בלדר‬DJPA 104), as well as MH ‫( בולדר‬Jastrow 171), Coptic (DDGLC 4751), and Arabic barīd- (BK 108; Lane 185; see also Ullmann 1997) r. Latin veteranus (LD 1982) > οὐετ(ε)ρανός, βετρανός (GLBRP 823; LSJ 1269; LSJ Suppl. 233) > PL   ‘magnates’ (5th cent. Letter from Cosmas to Simeon the Stylite, 4.646.9 [ed. Bedjan 1890-1897: 4.644-648]; LS2 8; SL 14; see also GLLTMT 30-31; only here), also in Palmyrene w rn (Hillers and Cussini 1996: 361; DNWSI 297; see also Brock 2005: 19-20), Targum Jonathan ʾi ərun (Is 9:13), atran ʾw rnʾ (Contini and Pagano 2015: 129) A few of these words are relatively common in later Syriac, such as 
‘leader’ (5d) and
 ‘journey of ten parasangs’ (5k). Most of these words are, however, never too common. Some of them are in fact very rare, such as
 ‘false’ (5g) and

 ‘keeper of records’ (5n). In fact, several of the words in (5) seem to be hapax legomena in Syriac:
 ‘storyteller’ (5f),
 ‘servant’ (5h), and PL 
‘magnates’ (5r). Thus, in comparison with the words in (1) and especially (2), relatively more of the words in (5) are likely to be closer to Fremdwörter than they are to Lehnwörter. A number of the words in (5) are found in another dialect of Aramaic or another language from the Roman Near East. This

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

151

includes: 
, 
 ‘toga, cloak, patriarch’s chlamys’ (5a),
 ‘pillow, cushion’ (5b),
 ‘retinue, suite’ (5c), 
‘leader’ (5d), 
,  
‘amanuensis, scribe’ (5e),
 ‘galearius, military servant’ (5j),
 ‘imperial letter, imperial archives’ (5m), 
‘ounce’ (5o), 
, 
 ‘veil, curtain’ (5p), 
, 
 ‘letter carrier’ (5q), and PL 
‘magnates’ (5r). The Latin words lying behind these Syriac words thus seem to have been spread across the Roman Near East. Compared with the words in (1) and especially (2), fewer of the words in (5) are attested in another dialect of Aramaic or another language from the Roman Near East. This indicates that Syriac is one of the languages of the Near East that was most affected by its Greco-Roman context. The only words in (5) for which a likely Greek intermediary is not attested are
 ‘storyteller’ (5f) and
 ‘journey of ten parasangs’ (5k). As already noted,
 ‘storyteller’ (5f) appears to be a hapax legomenon in Syriac, and thus it may well be a Fremdwort. In contrast,
 ‘journey of ten parasangs’ (5k) is fairly common in Syriac, but no Greek intermediary seems to be attested.48 Several of the semantic groups attested with the words in (1), (2), and (4) are also found with the words in (5). The largest semantic group is Roman officials or personnel: 
‘leader’ (5d), 
,  
‘amanuensis, scribe’ (5e),
 ‘galearius, military servant’ (5j),
 ‘keeper of records’ (5n), 
, 
 ‘letter carrier’ (5q), and PL 
‘magnates’ (5r). In addition, there are several terms related to this semantic group:
 ‘retinue, suite’ (5c), 
 ‘imperial edict’ (5i), and
 ‘imperial letter, imperial archives’ (5m). All of these are clearly related to Roman administration. There are also two terms that fall into a semantic group of coins, weights, and measures:
 ‘journey of ten parasangs’ (5k) and 
‘ounce’ (5o), as well as two terms related to clothing: 
, 
 ‘toga, cloak, patriarch’s chlamys’ (5a) and 
‘type of garment, stole’ (5l). A couple of words belong to a semantic group of household items: 48 Brock (1967: 424; 1996: 255) already noted that no Greek intermediary is attested for this word.

152

Aaron Michael Butts


 ‘pillow, cushion’ (5b) and 
, 
 ‘veil, curtain’ (5p).

Interestingly, three of the very rare words do not fall into wellattested semantic groups:
 ‘storyteller’ (5f),
 ‘servant’ (5h), and
 ‘false’ (5g). This is probably another indication that these are closer to Fremdwörter than Lehnwörter. LATIN WORDS FIRST APPEARING IN SIXTH-CENTURY SYRIAC The sixth century saw a large increase in the number of new Latin words in Syriac: (6)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Latin annona (OLD 135-136; LD 125-126) > ἀννώνα, ἀννώνη (LSJ 145; LSJ Suppl. 35; GLBRP 172; LLGE 28-29; see also Mason 1974: 5, 6, 22) → accusative
plural ἀννώνας >  ‘yearly produce’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 339.9 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 29; SL 60; see also GLLTMT 66; rare), also in CPA PL ʾnwns (DCPA 20; LSP 13) and JPA ‫( אנונה‬DJPA 65), as well as Armenian անոն (Hübschmann 1897: 340) and Coptic

(DDGLC 164; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 5; Förster 2002: 60) Latin balnearius (OLD 224; LD 220) >
 ‘bath attendant’ (6th cent. Bar adbshabba, Ecclesiastical History, Part 1, 92.12 [ed. Nau 1932]; LS2 78; SL 162; rare)49 Latin campus (OLD 263; LD 275) > κάμπος (GLBRP 625; LLGE 49; PGL 700) → accusative singular κάμπον >
 ‘plain’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 300.30 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 673; SL 1379; see also GLLTMT 510; rare), also in JPA ‫( קמפון‬DJPA 496) Latin cancellarius (LD 276) > καγκελλάριος (LSJ 848; LSJ Suppl. 162; GLBRP 610; LLGE 48; PGL 681; see also Mason 1974: 4, 58) >
 ‘notary’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 543.2; 545.6 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 679; SL 1386; only

A possible Greek intermediary does not seem to be attested, but note βαλανεύτρια ‘bath-woman’ (GLBRP 172). 49

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

e.

f.

g.

h.

153

here) Latin cancellus (OLD 264; LD 276) > κάγκελ(λ)ος (LSJ 848; LSJ Suppl. 162; GLBRP 610; LLGE 48) >
 ‘trellis, grating’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 266.23 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 679; SL 1386; see also DGLLT 192; GLLTMT 533-534; rare), also in JPA ‫( קנקל‬DJPA 498) and LJLA ‫( קנקל‬TgPsJon Ex 27:4), as well as MH ‫( קנקל‬Jastrow 1394), Armenian կանկեղ (Hübschmann 1897: 354), and Coptic (DDGLC 973; see also 4891 and 6049) Latin capsa (OLD 273; LD 288) > κάψα (LSJ 873 [s.v.
κάμψα]; GLBRP 656) >
 ‘basket’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 415.4 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 685; SL 1395; rare), also in LJLA ‫‘ קופסא‬box’ (TgPsJon Deut 31:26; Jastrow 1886-1903: 1339), Mandaic kbaiata ‘cages, dovecotes’ (MD 202), and JBA ‫‘ קפצא‬bird cage’ (DJBA 1033), as well as MH ‫( קפצא‬Jastrow 1403), Coptic 

(DDGLC 1093; see also Förster 2002: 400), and Arabic qafa- ‘bird cage’ (BK 789; Lane 2551; AFA 118-119) Latin castrum, PL castra (OLD 282; LD 299) > κάστρον (GLBRP 632; LLGE 50-51; PGL 704-705; see also Mason 1974: 5, 59, 138) >
, 
 ‘fortified place’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 327.20 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 35.4, 6; 326.11 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; Eliya, Life of Yuanon of Tella, 66.19 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; LS2 680; SL 1387; see also GLLTMT 557), also in CPA qrwn (DCPA 379; LSP 182), JPA ‫( קסטרה‬DJPA 498), and LJLA ‫קסטרוותהון‬ ‘their fortresses’ (TgPsJon Gen 25.16), as well as MH ‫( קסטרא‬Jastrow 1396) and Coptic 
  (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1047; see also Förster 2002: 383) Latin castrensis (OLD 283; LD 298) > καστρήσιος, καστρένσιος (GLBRP 632; LLGE 50; LSJ Suppl. 168; see also Mason 1974: 4, 59) > 
 ‘palace

154

Aaron Michael Butts

i.

j.

k.

steward’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 546.2; 547.10, 13; 552.7 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 680; SL 1388; only here) Latin centenarium (OLD 298; LD 1969: 315) > κεντηνάριον (LSJ 939; GLBRP 659; PGL 744) >
,
,
 ‘hundredweight’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 43.7 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 212.11; 430.10, 13; 432.3; 548.12; 550.7 [ed. Brooks 19231925]; LS2 676; SL 1382; see also GLLTMT 532-533), also in JPA ‫קינטינר‬, ‫( קינטיר‬DJPA 491) and JBA ‫ִקינְט ְָרא‬ (DJBA 1014), as well as Armenian կենդինար (NDAE 342; Hübschmann 1897: 356), Coptic 
  (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1105; see also Förster 2002: 404), and Arabic qin ār- (Lane 2559; AFA 203) Latin chartularius (LD 326)50 > χαρτουλ(λ)άριος (LSJ 1980) >
 ‘archivist’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 48.28 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 543.2; 545.9 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 344; SL 650), also in Armenian քարտուղար (NDAE 748; see also Hübschmann 1897: 388) and Coptic (DDGLC 2358) Latin comes (OLD 359; LD 373-374) > κόμης, κόμες (GLBRP 677; LLGE 57-58; PGL 766-767; LSJ 975; see also Mason 1974: 3, 6, 11, 62) > 
, 
, 
 ‘governor’ (6th cent. Eliya, Life of Yu anon of Tella, 66.14; 68.13; 69.6, 8; 87.22; 90.21; 93.5 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 67.6 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 459.2 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 673; SL 1334; see also Nöldeke 1873: 500-501 n. 5; GLLTMT 509), also in Judean Aramaic qwms (DNWSI 1004), JPA ‫( קומיס‬DJPA 482), and JBA ‫קומא‬ (DJBA 999), as well as MH ‫( קומיס‬Jastrow 1333),

It should be noted that the stem of this Latin word is a Greek loanword, i.e., χάρτης (LSJ 1980) > Latin charta, carta (OLD 309; LD 325). 50

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

l.

m.

n.

155

Armenian կոմէս (NDAE 354; see also Hübschmann 1897: 359; Brockelmann 1893: 14), Coptic   (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1171; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 17; Förster 2002: 431-432), and Arabic qūmas- (BK 812)51 Latin cubicularius (OLD 463; LD 486) > κουβικουλ(λ)άριος (GLBRP 685; PGL 779; LSJ Suppl. 184) >
,
 ‘chamberlain’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 67.13, 27 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 25.3; 431.1, 7; 432.4; 433.10; 436.4; 437.2, 3; 439.2; 535.6; 546.2; 552.6 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 644; SL 1309; see also Brock 1996: 255), also in Coptic (DDGLC 4954) Latin curator (OLD 474; LD 501) > κουράτωρ (GLBRP 686; LLGE 62; PGL 773; LSJ 986; see also Mason 1974: 5, 6, 63) >

 ‘curator, an official responsible for financial matters’ (6th cent. Eliya, Life of Yu anon of Tella, 59.20 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 69.12 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 695; SL 1344), also in Armenian կորատոր (Hübschmann 1897: 360) and Coptic  
 (DDGLC 1196; see also Förster 2002: 438) Latin diarium (OLD 536; LD 569) > διάριον (GLBRP

51 Latin comes also occurs in Syriac spelled with a final , i.e., 
, in texts that are post-Islamic (see, e.g., Nöldeke 1873: 496.9). The emphatic could be explained as the result of assimilation of the feature [+emphatic] (for similar assimilations, see Butts 2016: §5.2.6). Alternatively, 
 with empathic could be a loanword from Arabic qummu - (so Nöldeke 1873: 500-501 n. 5). Regardless, these examples that have a secular meaning of governor should probably be distinguished from others that occur in a monastic sense (for citations of several examples with a monastic sense, see Van Rompay 2015: 558-559). The examples with a monastic sense, which are usually spelled with the empathic and only rarely with nonemphatic s, almost certainly derive from (Christian) Arabic qummu -, which is traditionally connected with Greek ἡγούμενος and not Latin comes (see Graf 1954: 93).

156

Aaron Michael Butts

o.

p.

q.

r.

s.

52

369; LLGE 40; LSJ 409) > PL 
‘stipend, pay’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 11.24 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 152; SL 300; not common) Latin domesticus (OLD 570; LD 607-608) > δομεστικός, δομέστικος (GLBRP 392; LLGE 41; PGL 380; LSJ Suppl. 97) > 
, 
‘domesticus, a Byzantine imperial guard soldier’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 9:19 [
] [ed. Brooks 1935]; PseudoZacharias, Ecclesiastical History, 2.60.4 [
], 6 [
] [ed. Brooks 1919-1924]; LS2 158; SL 283), also in Coptic    (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 4817; see also Förster 2002: 208) Latin donativum (OLD 572; LD 610) > 
‘largess, gift’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 137.4 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 160; SL 284; very rare) Latin ducatus (OLD 576; LD 615) > δουκᾶτον, δουκάτον (GLBRP 394; PGL 384) > 
‘military command’ (6th cent. Eliya, Life of Yu anon of Tella, 87.2 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; LS2 163; SL 287; only here)52 Latin excubitor (OLD 637; LD 680) > ἐξκουβίτωρ (LSJ Suppl. 121; GLBRP 484; LLGE 44-45) > PL   
(sic; without syāmē),
,
  (sic; with two syāmē), 
 ‘Excubitors, Byzantine palace guards’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 15.28; 30.10; 168.10 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 28.13 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 493; SL 78, 1037; see also Schall 1960: 244; only with this author), also in Coptic (DDGLC 5404) Latin exercitus (OLD 641) > ἐξέρκετον (GLBRP 482; LLGE 44; PGL 495; LSJ Suppl. 121) >  


See also 
‘leader’ (5d) above.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

t.

u.

v.

w.

157

‘army’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 279.13 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 19; SL 45; rare), also in Coptic (DDGLC 6219) Latin follis (OLD 719-720; LD 765) > φόλλις (LSJ 1949; GLBRP 1149; LLGE 115) >
 ‘follis, obole’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 526.8, 9, 10 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 575; SL 1202; see also GLLTMT 426), also in JBA ‫( פּוּ ְלסָא‬DJBA 889), as well as Armenian փող (NDAE 731; Hübschmann 1897: 387), Coptic   (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 2318; see also Förster 2002: 853-854), Arabic fals-, fils- ‘small copper coin’ (BK 630; Lane 2440; AFA 192), and Classical Ethiopic fəlus (CDG 160; see also Weninger 2000: 145) Latin fossa ‘camp, army’ (OLD 728; LD 774) > φόσσα (GLBRP 1150) >
, 
 ‘army’ (6th cent. Yaʿqub of Serugh, Mēmrē, 5.202.14; 5.229.15; 5.297.2 [ed. Bedjan 1905-1910]; LS2 580; SL 1208; see also GLLTMT 432), also in MH ‫‘ פוסא‬ditch’ (Jastrow 1144), Armenian փոս ‘ditch, pit’ (NDAE 733; see also Hübschmann 1897: 337, 387; Brockelmann 1893: 13), and Coptic 
(DDGLC 5540; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 28) Latin (vir) illustris (OLD 830) > ἰλλούστριος (GLBRP 597; PGL 673; LSJ Suppl. 158) → nominative plural ἰλλούστριοι > 
‘bearers of title vir illustris’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 165.15 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 22; SL 50; only here), also in Coptic   (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 951; see also Förster 2002: 346) Latin indulgentia (OLD 888; LD 938) > ἰνδουλγεντία (GLBRP 601; PGL 674) >  
* ‘indulgence’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 165.3 [ms.  
] [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2

158

Aaron Michael Butts

x.

y.

z.

aa.

bb.

53

28; SL 59; only here)53 Latin lectica (OLD 1012; LD 1045) > λεκτίκιον (GLBRP 709; LLGE 66; LSJ 1037) > 
, 
 ‘small litter’ (6th cent. Life of Aba I, 270.9; 271.13 [ed. Bedjan 1895: 206-287]; Qiyore of Edessa, Six Explanations of the Liturgical Feasts, 111.19 [ed. Macomber 1974]; LS2 370; SL 697; see also Brock 1975: 106-108; GLLTMT 319), also in MH ‫לקטקא‬ (Jastrow 718), Armenian լկտիք (NDAE 260; see also Hübschmann 1897: 353), and Coptic (DDGLC 4992) Latin lecticarius (OLD 1012; LD 1045-1046) > λεκτικάριος (GLBRP 709; LLGE 66; LSJ Suppl. 194) >
 ‘priest who carries funeral biers’ (6th cent. Eliya, Life of Yuanon of Tella, 88.24 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; LS2 370; SL 697; see also Schall 1960: 196) Latin legatum (OLD 1013; LD 1047) > ληγάτον, ληγᾶτον, λήγατον (GLBRP 712; LLGE 66; PGL 799; LSJ Suppl. 196; see also Mason 1974: 65-66) >
 ‘bequest’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 258.8 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 358; SL 688; see also DGLLT 104-105), also in MH ‫( לגטון‬Jastrow 692) and Armenian լիղատ (Hübschmann 1897: 352) Latin libellus (OLD 1022-1023; LD 1056) > λίβελλος (GLBRP 714; LLGE 66-67; LSJ 1047; see also Mason 1974: 6, 66) → accusative singular λίβελλον >
 ‘deposition, written accusation; letters of resignation of office’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 41.29 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 356; SL 687-688; see also Schall 1960: 193-194), also in Coptic (DDGLC 5002) Latin magister (OLD 1062; LD 1097) > μάγιστρος (GLBRP 726; LLGE 69; PGL 819; LSJ Suppl. 201; see also Mason 1974: 67) > 
 ‘magister’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 315.30 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints,

Note, however, 
(corrupt) ‘amnesty’ in (4b) above.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

cc.

dd.

ee.

ff.

gg.

54

159

28.13 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 374; SL 708), also in Armenian մագիստրոս (NDAE 446; see also Hübschmann 1897: 362; Brockelmann 1893: 23) and Coptic
 (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 5026; see also Förster 2002: 490) Latin magistrianus (LD 1098) > μαγιστριανός (GLBRP 726; LLGE 69; PGL 819) >
  ‘magistrianus’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 207.3 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 375; SL 708), also in Coptic (DDGLC 5766) Latin mandatum (OLD 1071; LD 1106) > μανδᾶτον (GLBRP 731; LLGE 70; PGL 825) >
 ‘command’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 162.30 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 395; SL 780) Latin mantele, mantile (OLD 1075; LD 1110) > μαντήλιον, μαντίλιον, μανδήλη (LSJ 1078; GLBRP 732) >
 ‘towel, handkerchief, shroud’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 540.6 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 395; SL 780), also in Arabic mandīl-, mindīl- (BK 1228; AFA 84),54 Coptic


  (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 5793; see also Förster 2002: 499), and Classical Ethiopic mandil (CDG 348-349; see also Weninger 2000: 143), Latin metatum (LD 1140 [s.v. meto]) > μήτατον, μητᾶτον (GLBRP 758; LLGE 72) >
 ‘house, dwelling’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 329.3 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 382; SL 752; only here) Latin notarius (OLD 1192; LD 1217) > νοτάριος (GLBRP 786; LLGE 74-75; PGL 922-923; see also Mason 1974: 69-70) >
, 
 ‘notarius, a Byzantine official’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 94.5 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 187.2; 188.6, 10; 213.7 [ed.

For the vowel assimilation *a > i / _CCī in mindīl, see fn. 23 above.

160

Aaron Michael Butts

hh.

ii.

jj.

kk.

ll.

Brooks 1923-1925]; Eliya, Life of Yu anon of Tella, 85.15; 87.24 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; LS2 427; SL 898, 911), also in Armenian նօտար (NDAE 540; see also Hübschmann 1897: 368) and Coptic  
 (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1486) Latin optio (OLD 1260; LD 1273) > ὀπτίων (GLBRP 814; LLGE 78; LSJ 1242; see also Mason 1974: 5, 71) > 
‘army paymaster who distributes rations to soldiers’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 133.1 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 40; SL 84; only here), also in Coptic (DDGLC 1565; see also Förster 2002: 585) Latin ostiarius (OLD 1276; LD 1284) > ὀστιάριος (GLBRP 820; LLGE 79) > 
‘porter’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 464.10, 11 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 30.10 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 33; SL 69; see also Schall 1960: 244; only here) Latin paganus (OLD 1282; LD 1290) > παγάνος (GLBRP 829; LLGE 83; PGL 1990; LSJ 1284) >
, 
 ‘commoner, peasant’ (6th cent. Philoxenos, Discourses, 1.192.14 [ed. Budge 1894]; Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 133.3 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 556; SL 1154; see also GLLTMT 421), also in JPA ‫( פגן‬DJPA 424), as well as MH ‫( פגן‬Jastrow 1134) and Coptic 

  (DDGLC 1606; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 21; Förster 2002: 599) Latin papilio (LD 1299) > παπιλιών, παπιλεών (GLBRP 839) >
 ‘pavilion’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 298.30 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 586; SL 1217; see also GLLTMT 474-475; rare), also in MH ‫( פפליון‬Jastrow 1204) and Coptic (DDGLC 5218; 6117) Latin paragauda (LD 1301)55 > παραγαύδιον

The Latin word is ultimately from Old Iranian *paraγauda(Ciancaglini 2008: 236-237 with additional references). 55

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

161

(GLBRP 840; LLGE 86) > 
 ‘bordered garment’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 69.4 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 592; SL 1226; see also GLLTMT 477; Ciancaglini 2008: 236237; basically only here), also in JPA ‫( פרגוד‬DJPA 443), Mandaic br guda (MD 69; see also AFA 51), and LJLA ‫( פרגודא‬TgPsJon Ex 26:31; Jastrow 1886-1903: 1214), as well as MH ‫( פרגוד‬Jastrow 1214) and Coptic (DDGLC 5221)56 mm. Latin patricius (OLD 1310; LD 1315) > πατρίκιος (PGL 1052; GLBRP 865) >
 ‘patrician’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 42.10 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 157.12; 189.7; 191.10 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 565-566; SL 1184), also in CPA ṗṭryqyws (DCPA 327), as well as Armenian պատրիկ (NDAE 605; see also Hübschmann 1897: 371; Brockelmann 1893: 14), Coptic 
  (DDGLC 1696; see also Förster 2002: 630), Classical Ethiopic ba riq (with alternative orthographies) (CDG 114; see also Weninger 2000: 142), and Arabic ba rīq (BK 136; Lane 217-218) nn. Latin porta (OLD 1407; LD 1400-1401) > πόρτα (GLBRP 911; LLGE 91) > 
 ‘gate’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 566.9 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 595; SL 1170; rare), also in Coptic (DDGLC 5305) oo. Latin posca, pusca (OLD 1409; LD 1969: 1402) > φοῦσκα (LSJ 1952; GLBRP 1151)57 >
 ‘vinegar and water mixed’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 530.7 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; Eliya, Life of Yu anon of Tella, 46.25 [ed. Brooks 1907: 29-95]; LS2 585; SL 1167), also in Coptic  
For a potential Arabic reflex, see AFA 45-46. Brooks (1925: 530 n. 3) notes the Latin posca but was unable to identify a potential Greek intermediary. Brockelmann (LS2 584), followed by Sokoloff (SL 1167), gives the Greek intermediary as πόσκα, which is not, however, found in the Greek lexica. 56 57

162

Aaron Michael Butts

pp.

qq.

rr.

ss.

tt.

(DDGLC 2324; see also Förster 2002: 857) Latin praepositus (LD 1426) > πραιπόσιτος (GLBRP 914; PGL 1126) >
 ‘praepositus, chamberlain in the court of the Byzantine empire’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 67.28 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 546.8; 548.2 [ms.
; ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 604; SL 1248-1249), also in Coptic    (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 1811 as well as 5303; see also Förster 2002: 668), compare also the abstract Armenian պրոպոսիտոսուքիւն ‘rank of praepositus’ (Hübschmann 1897: 375) Latin praetor (OLD 1448; LD 1436) > πραίτωρ (GLBRP 915; LLGE 92; PGL 1126; see also Mason 1974: 3, 6, 7, 78) >
 ‘praetor’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 161.30 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 596; SL 1237; only here) Latin (comes rerum) privatarum (OLD 1461; LD 1447) > (κώμης τῶν) πριβᾶτων (GLBRP 917; PGL 1131; see also Mason 1974: 79) >
 ‘private treasury of emperor’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 72.27 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 591; SL 1238; basically only here), see also JPA ‫‘ פריבט‬private bath’ (DJPA 446) Latin protector (OLD 1503; LD 1477-1478) > προτέκτωρ, πρωτήκτωρ (GLBRP 957; LLGE 96; PGL 118; see also Mason 1974: 4, 11, 82) > 
 ‘protector, a military officer at the Byzantine court’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 467.2 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 596; SL 1231; see also Schall 1960: 218; not common); see also Coptic (DDGLC 6294) Latin quaestor (OLD 1534-1535; LD 1502-1503) > κυαίστωρ, κυαισίτωρ (GLBRP 694; LLGE 63; PGL

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

uu.

vv.

ww.

xx.

yy.

163

784; see also Mason 1974: 3, 6, 63) >
 ‘quaestor, Byzantine head of judiciary’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 24.2958 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 655; SL 1322; see also DGLLT 184; not common), also in MH ‫( קייסטור‬Jastrow 1327) and Coptic (DDGLC 5790) Latin saccellus (LD 1610) > σάκκελλα (GLBRP 976; LLGE 100) → σακκέλλιον (PGL 1221) > 
 ‘public treasury’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 136.24 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 494; SL 1040; only here), compare also Coptic (DDGLC 1924) Latin scala (OLD 1698; LD 1638) > σκάλη, σκάλα, σκᾶλα (GLBRP 991; LLGE 104; LSJ 1603) >
 ‘ladder’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 29.4 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 494; SL 1039; very rare), also in Coptic 

(DDGLC 1975; see also Förster 2002: 733) Latin scrinium (OLD 1710-1711; LD 1648) > σκρίνιον (GLBRP 998; LLGE 105; PGL 1242) > 
‘box, chest of documents’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 162.1 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 37; SL 79; only here) Latin sella (OLD 1728; LD 1663) > σέλλα (GLBRP 983; LSJ 1590)
→ σελλίον (GLBRP 983; LSJ 1590) >
PL ,  ‘small chair; latrine, toilet’ (6th cent. Yu anon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 74.11 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 392.5 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 71, 476; SL 149; 1001; see also GLLTMT 383), also in JPA ‫( סילון‬DJPA 374-375), as well as Armenian սելին (NDAE 636; see also Hübschmann 1897: 378); compare also Coptic (DDGLC 1946) Latin stabularius (OLD 1812-1813; LD 1749) > 
‘stable-master’ (6th cent. Yu anon of

58 Brockelmann (LS2 679), along with Sokoloff (SL 1322), also list 114.22, but the edition does not contain the word.

164

Aaron Michael Butts Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 519.10, 13; 520.3, 13 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 32; SL 67-68; not common) zz. Latin stabulum (OLD 1813; LD 1749-1750) > στάβλον (GLBRP 1005; LLGE 107; LSJ 1631) > 
‘stable’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 519.2, 5 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 32; SL 67; see also Schall 1960: 244), also in LJLA ‫( אסטבלוון‬TgChron2 32.28), as well as MH ‫אצטבלא‬, ‫( אסטבלא‬Jastrow 89), Arabic ʾisabl-, ʾiabl- (BK 32; Lane 64; AFA 123-124), and Coptic 
  (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 2022, 5910; see also Förster 2002: 746) aaa. Latin tractatus (OLD 1955; LD 1882-1883) > τρακτάτον (GLBRP 1087; PGL 1398) >
,
 ‘negotiation’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 73.2; 319.8 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 292; SL 557) bbb. Latin tremis (LD 1895) > τριμήσιον (GLBRP 1092; LLGE 113; LSJ 1820) > 
‘tremissus (coin)’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, 525.11; 526.2, 3, 9 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; LS2 289; SL 552; see also GLLTMT 273; not common), also in JPA ‫( טרימיסין‬DJPA 231), as well as Armenian տրմէս (NDAE 710; see also Hübschmann 1897: 385) and Coptic   (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 2217; see also Förster 2002: 819-822) ccc. Latin tribunus (OLD 1972; LD 1897) > τριβοῦνος (GLBRP 1090; LLGE 112; PGL 1407; see also Mason 1974: 6, 7, 94) >
 ‘tribune, military commander’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 309.22 [ed. Brooks 1935]; Lives of the Eastern Saints, 459.1; 668.9 [ed. Brooks 1923-1925]; but already in Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 184.17 [ed. Wright and McLean 1898]; LS2 287; SL 552), also in Armenian տրիբուն (NDAE 710; see also Hübschmann 1897: 385;

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

165

Brockelmann 1893: 37), Coptic    (with alternative orthographies) (DDGLC 2215; see also Behlmer 1997-1998: 27; Förster 2002: 819), and Classical Ethiopic rebunās (with alternative orthographies) (CDG 597; see also Weninger 2000: 142) ddd. Latin velarium (OLD 2022; LD 1964) > βηλάριος (GLBRP 307) > 
 ‘curtains’ (6th cent. Yaʿqub of Serugh, Mēmrē, 1.28.3 [ed. Bedjan 1905-1910]; LS2 185; SL 357; only here), also in Armenian վեղար ‘hood, cowl’ (NDAE 674; see also Hübschmann 1897: 337, 383; Brockelmann 1893: 37) eee. Latin vestiarium (OLD 2048; LD 1981) > βεστιάριον (GLBRP 306) > 
‘wardrobe’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 269.6 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 80; SL 163; only here), also in Coptic 
 (DDGLC 379; see also Förster 2002: 133) fff. Latin vestiarius (OLD 2048; LD 1981) > βεστιάριος (GLBRP 306; LLGE 34; see also Mason 1974: 12) >
 ‘person in charge of wardrobe’ (6th cent. Yuanon of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, 94.17 [ed. Brooks 1935]; LS2 80; SL 163; only here) The sixth century attests the largest increase in the number of new Latin words in Syriac. This increase is, however, largely due to a few authors and texts, especially Yuanon of Ephesus (d. 581), who is known to have resided for a number of years in Constantinople, which was Greek speaking, but whose imperial court was officially Latinate.59 In fact, the following words in (6) are only found in the works of Yuanon of Ephesus or texts derived from them:
 ‘notary’ (6d), 
 ‘palace steward’ (6h), PL 
 (with alternative orthographies) ‘Excubitors, Byzantine palace guards’ (6r), 
‘bearers of title vir illustris’ (6v),  
* ‘indulgence’ (6w),
 ‘house, dwelling’ (6ff), 
‘army paymaster who distributes 59

For Yuanon of Ephesus, see Harvey 1990.

166

Aaron Michael Butts

rations to soldiers’ (6hh), 
‘porter’ (6ii), 
 ‘bordered garment’ (6ll),
 ‘praetor’ (6qq),
 ‘private treasury of emperor’ (6rr), 
 ‘public treasury’ (6uu), 
‘box, chest of documents’ (6ww), 
‘wardrobe’ (6eee), and
 ‘person in charge of wardrobe’ (6fff). A number of additional Latin words are found primarily, though not exclusively, in Yuanon of Ephesus. The Latin loanwords in Yuanon’s writings may be due to the particular sociolect of Syriac that was in use in Constantinople by Yuanon and his audience, which was more influenced by the imperial language of Latin as well as by Byzantine Greek.60 Several of the words in (6) are not uncommon in Syriac, such as
, 
 ‘fortified place’ (6g), 
 (with alternative orthographies) ‘governor’ (6k),

 ‘curator, an official responsible for financial matters’ (6m), and
 ‘tribune, military commander’ (6ccc). The vast majority are, however, rare. Many of these rare words may be closer to the Fremdwort side of the Fremdwort-Lehnwort continuum. This is especially the case for words limited to the sociolect of Syriac used in Constantinople by Yuanon of Ephesus and others. The words in (6) continue the trend, seen with the previous list in (5), that the Latin source words are not as widely attested in other languages of the Roman Near East. In fact, in well over half of the words in (6), the Latin word is attested in Syriac but not in any other dialect of Aramaic as well as not in another language of the Roman Near East, such as Mishnaic Hebrew, Armenian, or Coptic. This is indicative of the fact that Syriac underwent a more intense period of contact with the Greco-Roman world at this period than many of the other languages of the Near East did. In a vast majority of cases, a possible Greek intermediary is attested for the Latin words in (6). A Greek intermediary is not, however, attested for the following words:
 ‘bath attendant’ (6b), 
‘largess, gift’ (6p), and 
‘stable-master’ (6yy). None of these words is very common.

The Ecclesiastical History of Pseudo-Zacharias (6th cent.) is similar in this regard (ed. Brooks 1919-1924). 60

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

167

The semantic groups attested in (6) are similar to those found in the earlier periods, though they are much more connected to Byzantine culture. By far the largest semantic group revolves around Byzantine officials and personnel:
 ‘bath attendant’ (6b),
 ‘notary’ (6d), 
 ‘palace steward’ (6h),
 ‘archivist’ (6j), 
 (with alternative orthographies) ‘governor’ (6k),
,
 ‘chamberlain’ (6l),

 ‘curator, an official responsible for financial matters’ (6m), 
, 
‘domesticus, a Byzantine imperial guard soldier’ (6o), PL 
 (with alternative orthographies) ‘Excubitors, Byzantine palace guards’ (6r), 
‘bearers of title vir illustris’ (6v),
 ‘priest who carries funeral biers’ (6y), 
 ‘magister’ (6bb),
  ‘magistrianus’ (6cc),
, 
 ‘notarius, a Byzantine official’ (6gg), 
‘army paymaster who distributes rations to soldiers’ (6hh), 
‘porter’ (6ii),
, 
 ‘commoner, peasant’ (6jj),
 ‘praepositus, chamberlain in the court of the Byzantine empire’ (6pp),
 ‘praetor’ (6qq), 
 ‘protector, a military officer at the Byzantine court’ (6ss),
 ‘quaestor, Byzantine head of judiciary’ (6tt), 
‘stable-master’ (6yy),
 ‘tribune, military commander’ (6ccc), and
 ‘person in charge of wardrobe’ (6fff). In addition to these personnel terms, there are several other words that are directly related to Byzantine administration: 
‘largess, gift’ (6p),  
* ‘indulgence’ (6w),
 ‘bequest’ (6z),
 ‘deposition, written accusation; letters of resignation of office’ (6aa), and
,
 ‘negotiation’ (6aaa). Several words fall into a semantic group associated with the military: 
‘military command’ (6q),  
‘army’ (6s),
, 
 ‘army’ (6u), and
 ‘command’ (6dd). As in the earlier periods, there is a semantic group of tools and utensils:

‘ladder’ (6vv),
 ‘basket’ (6f), and 
‘box, chest of documents’ (6ww), as well as one of coins, weights, and measures:
 (with alternative orthographies) ‘hundredweight’ (6i), 
‘tremissus (coin)’ (6bbb), and
 ‘follis, obole’ (6t). There are
also several items related to commerce more broadly:  ‘yearly produce’ (6a) and 
‘stipend, pay’ (6n). Two words also relate to the treasury:
 ‘private treasury of emperor’ (6rr) and

168

Aaron Michael Butts


 ‘public treasury’ (6uu). A semantic group concerning

architecture and the house is more common than the earlier periods:
 ‘trellis, grating’ (6e),
 ‘house, dwelling’ (6ff),
 ‘pavilion’ (6kk), 
 ‘gate’ (6nn), 
‘stable’
, 
 ‘small chair; latrine, toilet’ (6xx),
, (6zz),  
 ‘fortified place’ (6g), and 
 ‘curtains’ (6ddd). As in the previous periods, there are also several terms related to clothing:
 ‘towel, handkerchief, shroud’ (6ee), 
 ‘bordered garment’ (6ll), and 
‘wardrobe’ (6eee), as well as one term related to transportation: 
, 
 ‘small litter’ (6x). Finally, there is one item related to the physical world:
 ‘plain’ (6c), and one item related to food and drink:
 ‘vinegar and water mixed’ (6oo). LATIN WORDS FIRST APPEARING IN SEVENTH-CENTURY SYRIAC A much smaller number of Latin words first appear in seventhcentury Syriac: (7)

Latin calendae, kalendae (OLD 989; LD 1022) > καλάνδαι (LSJ 866; GLBRP 621) > 
 ‘the first day of the month, esp. of January’ (7th cent. Yaʿqub of Edessa, Canons, 29.11 [ed. Kayser 1886]; LS2 669; SL 1307; see also GLLTMT 546), also in JBA ‫( קלנדא‬DJBA 1021) and CPA qlnd (DCPA 375; LSP 180), as well as Armenian PL կաղանդք (NDAE 320; see also Hübschmann 1897: 354; Brockelmann 1893: 22) and Classical Ethiopic qalendes (with alternative orthographies) (CDG 429; see also Weninger 2000: 144) b. Latin pagus (OLD 1283; LD 1290) > πᾶγος (GLBRP 829; LLGE 84) >
 ‘village’ (7th cent. Ishoʿyahb III of Adiabene, Letters, 164.18 [ed. Duval 1904-1905]; LS2 556; SL 1154; rare) c. Latin tabula (OLD 1898-1899; LD 1832) > τάβλα, τάβλη (GLBRP 1067; LLGE 109; LSJ 1752) >
 ‘plank, table, altar; gaming board’ (7th cent. Yaʿqub of Edessa, Letter 18, 60.13; 62.2 [ed. Rignell 1979], but already in Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, a.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

169

297.17 [‘gaming board’] [ed. Wright and McLean 1898]; LS2 266; SL 510; see also GLLTMT 254-255), also in JPA ‫( טבלה‬DJPA 220), as well as MH ‫( טבלא‬Jastrow 518), Armenian տապեղ ‘table game’ (NDAE 691; see also Hübschmann 1897: 383; Brockelmann 1893: 27), and Coptic 

(DDGLC 2143; see also Förster 2002: 791) The seventh century sees a sharp decline in the introduction of new Latin words in Syriac via Greek. The contrast is especially stark compared with the sixth century, which represents the peak of the introduction of Latin words in Syriac. This probably reflects a decline in the contact between Greek and Syriac between the sixth and seventh centuries. There is a possible Greek intermediary attested for all three of the words introduced in this period. The semantic groups attested differ somewhat from the earlier periods. One term is related to the previously seen semantic group related to the house, e.g.,
 ‘plank, table, altar; gaming board’ (7c), but another word falls into the category of social political relations, e.g.,
 ‘village’ (7b), and yet another is related to the calendar, e.g., 
 ‘the first day of the month, esp. of January’ (7a). CONCLUSION More than one hundred Latin words are found in Syriac texts, not translated from Greek, written up to the beginning of the eighth century. This fact has been obscured in the standard Syriac lexica. In his Lexicon Syriacum, Brockelmann does not provide a Latin etymology for more than a dozen of these.61 This is striking given

61 These are as follows: 
‘ounce’ (5o),  
,
 ‘executioner’ (2n), 
‘box, chest of documents’ (6ww), 
‘army paymaster who distributes rations to soldiers’ (6hh), 
, 
 ‘letter carrier’ (5q), 
, 
 ‘toga, cloak, patriarch’s chlamys’ (5a), 
‘stipend, pay’ (6n),
 ‘keeper of records’ (5n), 
 ‘iron spoon or pan’ (1t),
  ‘magistrianus’ (6cc), 
 ‘public treasury’ (6uu),
 ‘imperial letter, imperial archives’ (5m), 
 ‘bordered garment’ (6ll),
 ‘whip’ (2f),
 ‘pillow, cushion’ (5b), 
 ‘pot’ (1a),
 ‘grated cover’ (1h).

170

Aaron Michael Butts

that Brockelmann wrote his Lexicon in Latin. Sokoloff’s English translation of Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum is even worse in this regard, with more than twenty-five additional words lacking an indication of their Latin origin.62 Even a specialized work such as Schall’s Studien über griechische Fremdwörter im Syrischen neglects to mention the Latin origin of several words in Syriac.63 This study has aimed to help rectify this situation by collecting all of the Latin words that occur in Syriac texts not translated from Greek up to and including Yaʿqub of Edessa (d. 708). The Latin words in Syriac fall into a number of well-defined semantic groups. The following lists organize the Latin words by semantic groups.

With the exception of the last word, Sokoloff also fails to provide a Latin etymology for these words in his SL. 62 These are as follows: 
‘hook; anchor; sailors’ sounding line’ (2p),  
‘army’ (6s), 
‘bearers of title of “illustrious ones”’ (6v), 
‘assarius, small copper coin’ (2a),
 ‘tribune, military commander’ (6ccc),
,
 ‘negotiation’ (6aaa),
 ‘archivist’ (6j),
 ‘bequest’ (6z),
 ‘legion’ (1l),
 ‘deposition, written accusation; letters of resignation of office’ (6aa), 
, 
 ‘small litter’ (6x),
 ‘house, dwelling’ (6ff),
 ‘one-thousand paces; mile-stone’ (2j),
 ‘command’ (6dd),
, 
 ‘small chair; latrine, toilet’ 
 ‘cloth; turban, tiara’ (1r),  (6xx),
 ‘vinegar and water mixed’ (6oo), 
 ‘palace’ (4e),
, 
 ‘army’ (6u), 
 ‘pool’ (1m),
 ‘pavilion’ (6kk),
,
 ‘chamberlain’ (6l),

 ‘curator, an official responsible for financial matters’ (6m),
 ‘cell’ (1f),
, 
 ‘centurion’ (2c),
 ‘helmet; azure of the sky’ (1e), 
 ‘guard’ (2d), and
 ‘of the caesars’ (4a). 63 Though mentioned in the main text of his monograph, a Latin form is never mentioned for the following words, and they are also not included in his list of Latin words on p. 243-244: 
‘gold denarius’ (1k),
 ‘deposition, written accusation; letters of resignation of office’ (6aa), 
 ‘corn measure, peck; container’ (2k),
 ‘one-thousand paces; mile-stone’ (2j),
 ‘cell’ (1f),
,
 ‘colony’ in (1j),
, 
 ‘centurion’ (2c), and 
 ‘Caesar, emperor’ (2b).

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

171

Officials or Personnel (especially Roman or Byzantine)


‘magnates’ (5r) 
,  


PL

‘amanuensis, scribe’ (5e) PL 
‘bearers of title vir illustris’ (6v) 
‘stable-master’ (6yy) 
‘porter’ (6ii)  
,
 ‘executioner’ (2n) 
‘army paymaster who distributes rations to soldiers’ (6hh) 
, 
 ‘letter carrier’ (5q)
 ‘bath attendant’ (6b)
 ‘person in charge of wardrobe’ (6fff)
 ‘galearius, military servant’ (5j) 
‘leader’ (5d) 
, 
‘domesticus, a Byzantine imperial guard soldier’ (6o)
 ‘keeper of records’ (5n)
 ‘keeper of records’ (1s)
 ‘tribune, military commander’ (6ccc)
 ‘archivist’ (6j) PL 
 ‘freedmen’ (2g)
 ‘priest who carries funeral biers’ (6y)


 ‘magister’ (6bb)
  ‘magistrianus’

(6cc)
, 
 ‘notarius, a Byzantine official’ (6gg) PL 
 (with alternative orthographies) ‘Excubitors, Byzantine palace guards’ (6r)
, 
 ‘commoner, peasant’ (6jj) 
 ‘patron’ (4f)
 ‘praetor’ (6qq) 
 ‘protector, a military officer at the Byzantine court’ (6ss)
 ‘praepositus, chamberlain in the court of the Byzantine empire’ (6pp)
,
 ‘chamberlain’ (6l) 
 (with alternative orthographies) ‘governor’ (6k)

 ‘curator, an official responsible for financial matters’(6m)
, 
 ‘centurion’ (2c)
 ‘notary’ (6d) 
 ‘guard’ (2d)
 ‘torturer’ (2m)

172

Aaron Michael Butts


 ‘quaestor, Byzantine head of judiciary’ (6tt)


 ‘palace steward’ (6h)


 ‘Caesar, emperor’ (2b) Roman or Byzantine Administration

 
* ‘indulgence’


 ‘imperial letter,


‘largess, gift’ (6p)
,



 ‘imperial edict’ (5i) 
 ‘palace’ (4e) 
 ‘governor’s

(6w)

‘negotiation’ (6aaa)


 ‘bequest’ (6z)
 ‘deposition, written accusation; letters of resignation of office’ (6aa)

imperial archives’ (5m)

residence’ (2l)


,
 ‘colony’ (1j)
 ‘retinue, suite’ (5c)


 ‘of the caesars’ (4a)

Military (including torture)

 
‘army’ (6s) 
‘military command’ (6q)


 ‘legion’ (1l)


 ‘command’ (6dd)
, 
 ‘army’ (6u)
 ‘whip’ (2f)
 ‘iron collar’ (1i)

Tools and Utensils


‘hook; anchor; sailors’ sounding line’ (2p) 
‘box, chest of documents’ (6ww) 
 ‘iron spoon or pan’ (1t) 
 ‘corn measure, peck; container’ (2k) 
 ‘axe’ (4g)


,
 ‘bench’ (1q)


 ‘ladder’ (6vv)
 ‘bandage used to wrap a corpse’ (2e)


 ‘cell, tent’ (1f)
 ‘lamp, torch’ (1b)
 ‘vase, urn; measure’ (1o)


 ‘basket’ (6f) 
 ‘pot’ (1a)

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

173

Architecture and the House


‘stable’ (6zz) 
 ‘curtains’ (6ddd) 
, 
 ‘veil, curtain’ (5p)
 ‘plank, table, altar;

gaming board’ (7c)
 ‘house, dwelling’ (6ff)
, 
 ‘small chair;  latrine, toilet’ (6xx) 
 ‘gate’ (6nn) 
 ‘palace’ (4e)


 ‘pool’ (1m)
 ‘pavilion’ (6kk) 
 ‘governor’s residence’ (2l)


 ‘ring’ (1g)
 ‘pillow, cushion’ (5b)


 ‘trellis, grating’ (6e)
, 
 ‘fortified place’ (6g)
 ‘grated cover’ (1h)

Clothing


‘type of garment,

stole’ (5l) 
‘wardrobe’ (6eee) 
, 
 ‘toga, cloak, patriarch’s chlamys’ (5a) PL
 ‘sandals’ (2o)
 ‘towel, handkerchief, shroud’ (6ee)


 ‘cloth; turban, tiara’ (1r)


 ‘bordered garment’

(6ll)
 ‘helmet; azure of the sky’ (1e)

Transportation


, 
‘street; road’ (1p)


, 
 ‘small litter’ (6x)


 ‘ferry boat’ (1n) 
 ‘chariot’ (1d) 
 ‘driver’ (1c)

Coins, Weights, and Measures


‘ounce’ (5o)


‘assarius, small copper coin’ (2a)

174

Aaron Michael Butts


‘gold denarius’ (1k) 
‘tremissus (coin)’

(6bbb) 
 ‘corn measure, peck; container’ (2k)
,
 ‘coin; money; coin die’ (4c)
 ‘one-thousand paces; mile-stone’ (2j)


 ‘journey of ten parasangs’ (5k)


 ‘follis, obole’ (6t)
 (with alternative

orthographies) ‘hundredweight’ (6i)
 ‘vase, urn; measure’ (1o)

Commerce


 ‘yearly produce’ (6a) 
‘stipend, pay’ (6n)
 ‘harness or saddle maker’ (2h)


 ‘meat-market’ (2i) 
 ‘public treasury’ (6uu)
 ‘private treasury of emperor’ (6rr)

Religious

Food and Drink


‘hymns’ (4h)


 ‘vinegar and water mixed’ (6oo)

Physical World


 ‘plain’ (6c)

Socio-Political Relations


 ‘village’ (7b)

Calendar


 ‘the first day of the month, esp. of January’ (7a) There are a handful of words that do not fall into clear semantic groups, all of which are very rare in Syriac.64 A vast majority of the Latin words in Syriac were not transferred directly from Latin into Syriac but rather find their These include: 
‘orbit’ (4d),
 ‘storyteller’ (5f),
 ‘false’ (5g), and
 ‘servant’ (5h). 64

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

175

immediate source in Greek. In many cases, a potential Greek intermediary is attested, especially in the Greek documentary record from Egypt and/or in Byzantine Greek. The fact that most Latin words in Syriac reached Syriac via Greek has not been represented accurately in the Syriac lexica. In several cases, Sokoloff (SL) has added a Greek intermediary to the presentation in Brockelmann (LS2).65 In a number of cases, however, both Brockelmann (LS2) and Sokoloff (SL) neglect to mention a probable Greek intermediary from Latin to Syriac.66 Thus, these two lexica often imply that a Latin word was transferred directly into Syriac. This is unlikely. In addition, both of these lexica fail to indicate clearly the direction of transfer, often simply listing Greek and Latin forms without specifying that a word was transferred from Latin into Greek and only then into Syriac. The present study hopes to have made explicit that Latin words in Syriac almost always reached Syriac via Greek. The diachronic approach employed in this study has made it possible to observe changes over time in the contact between Syriac speakers and their Greco-Roman context. A number of Latin words are already found in the earliest period of Syriac (prefourth century) as well as in the Syriac New Testament. Several of these words were transferred into Aramaic at an earlier period and then inherited in Syriac. Others reached Syriac (via Greek) due to the Roman presence in Syria and Mesopotamia already in the early centuries of the Common Era. The fact that many of the Latin These include: 
‘stable’ (6zz),
 ‘priest who carries funeral biers’ (6y),
 ‘towel, handkerchief, shroud’ (6ee), and
 ‘bandage used to wrap a corpse’ (2e). 66 These include: 
‘type of garment, stole’ (5l), 
,  
‘amanuensis, scribe’ (5e), 
‘hymns’ (4h), 
‘porter’ (6ii), 
, 
‘street; road’ (1p), 
‘wardrobe’ (6eee),
 ‘person in charge of wardrobe’ (6fff), 
‘military command’ (6q), 
 ‘curtains’ (5ddd), PL
 ‘sandals’ (2o),
,
 ‘coin; money; coin die’ (4c), PL 
 (with alternative orthographies) ‘Excubitors, Byzantine palace guards’ (6r), 
 ‘axe’ (4g),
 ‘village’ (7b),
, 
 ‘commoner, peasant’ (6jj), 
 ‘gate’ (6nn), 
 ‘imperial edict’ (5i), 
 ‘patron’ (4f), and
 ‘servant’ (5h). 65

176

Aaron Michael Butts

words in the Syriac of this period are also attested in other languages of the Near East, whether Aramaic or not, indicates that they were widespread throughout the Roman Near East. Many of the Latin words that are found in the earliest period of Syriac (prefourth-century) as well as in the Syriac New Testament were likely a deeply ingrained part of the Syriac language by the time of fourthcentury authors, such as Aphraha (fl. 337-345) and Ephrem (d. 373).67 The fourth century saw only a small addition in the number of Latin words in Syriac. A number of these words are rare throughout the history of Syriac, and a couple of them seem to be hapax legomena. The presence of rare words, and especially hapax legomena, suggests that Syriac speakers continued to be in contact with the Greco-Roman world in the fourth century. At the same time, however, the paucity of new Latin words in this period indicates a relatively low degree of contact. Contact between Syriac and the Greco-Roman world seems to have increased in the fifth century, when the number of new Latin words in Syriac rises. The appearance of a number of Latin words that are closer to Fremdwörter than they are to Lehnwörter corroborates such an increase in contact. It is also the fifth century that sees more Latin words in Syriac that are not found in other dialects of Aramaic or in other languages of the Roman Near East, pointing to an increase in contact between Syriac and the Greco-Roman world relative to that of other languages and cultures. The sixth century represents the zenith of new Latin words in Syriac pointing to a climax in contact between Syriac culture and the Greco-Roman world. The sixth century continues two trends from the fifth century: the appearance of a large number of Fremdwörter as well as the rise in the number of Latin words in Syriac that are not found in other languages of the Near East. Both of these trends point to a high degree of contact between Syriac and the Greco-Roman world in the sixth century. This is perhaps best illustrated by Yuanon of Ephesus and his particular sociolect of Syriac, which contains numerous Latin words. The seventh century sees a sharp decline in the number of new Latin words in Syriac. This is at least partly due to the absence of a figure such as Yuanon of Ephesus in this 67

For further arguments along this line, see Butts 2016: §10.3-10.4.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

177

period. It may, however, also be due to a decrease in contact compared to the sixth century. When analyzed diachronically, the Latin words in Syriac can serve as a thermometer – to borrow a metaphor of Brock – to gauge the changing degrees of contact between Syriac and the Greco-Roman world in Late Antiquity.68

68

Brock 1999-2000.

178

Aaron Michael Butts

Latin Index annona (6a) assarium (2a) balnearius (6b) birrus (5a) caesar (2b) caesarianus (4a) caldaria, caldarium (1a) calendae (7a) campus (6c) cancellarius (6d) cancellus (6e) candela (1b) capsa (6f) carrarius (1c) carruca (1d) carrum (fn. 24) cassis (1e) castrensis (6h) castrum (6g) cella (1f) centenarium (6i) centurio (2c) cervical, cervicarium (5b) chartularius (6j) circus (1g) clathri, clatri (1h) collarium, collare (1i) colonia (1j) comes (6k) comitatus (5c) cracli (1h) craticula (fn. 26) cubicularius (6l) curator (6m)

custodia (2d) denarius (1k) diarium (6n) domesticus (6o) donativum (6p) ducatus (6q) dux (5d) exceptor (5e) excubitor (6r) exercitus (6s) fabulator (5f) falsus (5g) famulus (5h) fascia (2e) flagellum (2f) follis (6t) forma (5i) fossa (6u) galearius (5j) illustris (6v) indulgentia (4b), (6w) lectica (6x) lecticarius (6y) legatum (6z) legio (1l) libellus (6aa) libertinus (2g) lorarius (2h) macellum (2i) magister (6bb) magistrianus (6cc) mandatum (6dd) mansio (5k) mantele (6ee) metatum (6ff) mille (2j)

modium (2k) moneta (4c) notarius (6gg) optio (6hh) orarium (5l) orbita (4d) ostiarius (6ii) paenula (fn. 41) paganus (6jj) pagus (7b) palatium (4e) papilio (6kk) paragauda (6ll) patricius (6mm) patronus (4f) piscina (1m) ponto, pontonium (1n) porta (6nn) posca, pusca (6oo) praepositus (6pp) praetor (6qq) praetorium (2l) privatarum (6rr) protector (6ss) quaestionarius (2m) quaestor (6tt) saccellus (6uu) sacer (5m) scala (6vv) scrinium (6ww) securis (4g) sella (6xx) sextarius (1o) speculator (2n) stabularius (6yy)

Latin Words in Classical Syriac stabulum (6zz) statio (4h) strata (1p) subsellium (1q) sudarium (1r) tabellarius (1s) tabula (7c)

tabularius (5n) talaria (2o) tractatus (6aaa) tremis (6bbb) tribunus (6ccc) trulla (1t) uncia (5o)

179 uncinus (2p) velarium (6ddd) velum (5p) veredarius (5q) vestiarium (6eee) vestiarius (6fff) veteranus (5r)

180

Aaron Michael Butts

Greek Index ἀννώνα, ἀννώνη (6a) ἀσσάριον (2a) βερεδάριος (5q) βεστιάριον (6eee) βεστιάριος (6fff) βηλάριος (6ddd) βῆλον (5p) βίρρος (5a) γαλ(λ)ιάριος (5j) δηνάριον (1k) διάριον (6n) δομεστικός (6o) δουκᾶτον (6q) δούξ (5d) ἐξέρκετον (6s) ἐξκέπτωρ (5e) ἐξκουβίτωρ (6r) ἰλλούστριος (6v) ἰνδουλγεντία (4b), (6w) κάγκελ(λ)ος (6e) καγκελλάριος (6d) καῖσαρ (2b) καισαριανός (4a) καλάνδαι (7a) καλδάριον (1a) κάμπος (6c) κανδήλη, κανδῆλα (1b) καρούχα, καροῦχον (1d) κάρρον (fn. 24) κασσίς (1e) καστρήσιος (6h) κάστρον (6g) κάψα (6f) κέλλα, κελλίον (1f) κεντηνάριον (6i) κεντυρίων (2c) κερβικάριον (5b)

κίρκος, κίρκας (1g) κλῇθρον (1h) κολλάριον (1i) κολωνία (1j) κόμης, κόμες (6k) κομιτᾶτος (5c) κοστωδία (2d) κουβικουλ(λ)άριος (6l) κουράτωρ (6m) κουστωδία (2d) κυαιστιωνάριος (2m) κυαίστωρ, κυαισίτωρ (6tt) λεγιών (1l) λεκτικάριος (6y) λεκτίκιον (6x) ληγάτον (6z) ληγιών (1l) λίβελλος (6aa) λιβερτῖνος (2g) μαγιστριανός (6cc) μάγιστρος (6bb) μάκελλον (2i) μανδᾶτον (6dd) μαντήλιον, μανδήλη (6ee) μείλιον (2j) μήτατον (6ff) μίλιον (2j) μόδιος (2k) μονήτα (4c) νοτάριος (6gg) ξέστης (1o) ὄγκινος (2p) ὀπτίων (6hh) ὀστιάριος (6ii) οὐγκία (5o) οὐερεδάριος (5q) οὐετ(ε)ρανός (5r)

Latin Words in Classical Syriac οὐῆλον (5p) παγάνος (6jj) πᾶγος (7b) παίνουλα, πένουλα (fn. 41) παλάτιον (4e) παπιλιών(6kk) παραγαύδιον (6ll) πατρίκιος (6mm) πάτρων (4f) πόρτα (6nn) πραιπόσιτος (6pp) πραίτωρ (6qq) πραιτώριον (2l) πριβᾶτων (6rr) προτέκτωρ (6ss) σάκκελλα, σακκέλλιον (6uu) σάκρα (5m) σεκούριον, σικούριον (4g) σέλλα, σελλίον (6xx) σκάλη, σκάλα (6vv) σκρίνιον (6ww) σουδάριον (1r) σπεκουλάτωρ (2n) στάβλον (6zz) στατίων (4h) στράτα (1p)

181

συμψέλλιον, συμψέλια (1q) ταβελλάριος (1s) τάβλα, τάβλη (7c) ταβουλάριος (5n) ταλάριον (2o) τζικούριον (4g) τρακτάτον (6aaa) τριβοῦνος (6ccc) τριμήσιον (6bbb) τροῦλ(λ)α (1t) φαινόλης, φαίνουλα (fn. 41) φάλσον (5g) φάμουλος (5h) φασκία (2e) φισκίνα (1m) φόλλις (6t) φόρμα, φόρμη (5i) φόσσα (6u) φοῦσκα (6oo) φραγέλλιον (2f) χαρτουλ(λ)άριος (6j) ὠράριον (5l)

182

Aaron Michael Butts

Syriac Index


(5r) 
(5o) 
(2p) 
(4d) 
(5l) 
(5e)  
(6s) 
(6v)  
* (6w)
 (6a) 
(6zz) 
(6yy) 
(4h) 
(6ii) 
(1p)  
(2n) 
(6ww) 
(2a) 
(6hh) 
 (fn. 18) 
 (5q) 
(6eee) 
, 
 (5a)
 (6b)
 (6fff)
 (5j) 
(5d) 
, 
(6o) 
(6p) 
(6q) 
(4b) 
(1k) 
(6n) 
 (6ddd) 
, 
 (5p)
 (5n)
 (7c)


 (1s)
 (2o) 
 (1t)
 (fn. 26)
 (6ccc) 
(6bbb)
,
 (6aaa)
 (6j)
 (6z)
 (1l)
 (2h)
 (6aa) 
 (2g)
 (6y) 
, 
 (6x) 
 (6bb)
  (6cc) 
 (2k)
 (4c)
 (6ff)
 (2j)
 (6dd)
 (6ee)
 (5k)
 (2i)
 (6gg)
 (1q) 
 (1r)
, 
 (6xx) 
 (2n) 
 (4g)
 (1q) 
 (6r)
 (6vv) 
 (6uu)
 (5m)
 (7b)

Latin Words in Classical Syriac


, 
 (6jj)
 (6t)
 (6oo) 
 (6nn) 
 (5i) 
 (4f)
 (6mm)
 (fn. 41)
 (5f) 
 (4e)
 (5g)
 (5h)
 (1n)
, 
 (6u) 
 (1m)
 (2e)
 (6kk) 
 (6ll)
 (2f)
 (6qq) 
 (2l) 
 (6ss)
 (6rr)
 (6pp) 
 (7a)
,
 (6l)
,
 (1j)
 (1i)


 (6k) 
 (fn. 51)

 (6m) 
 (1g)
 (5c)
 (5b)
 (1f)
 (6c)
 (1b)
 (6i)
, 
 (2c)
 (6e)
 (6d)
 (1e)
 (1o) 
 (2d)
 (2m)
 (6tt)
, 
 (6g) 
 (6h) 
 (2b)
 (4a)
 (6f) 
 (1a) 
 (1d)
 (1h) 
 (1c)

183

184

Aaron Michael Butts

ABBREVIATIONS OF LEXICOGRAPHICAL RESOURCES AFA BK CAD

CAL CDG CPD DCPA DDGLC

DGLLT DJA DJBA

DJPA

DNWSI DSA FVQ

Fränkel, S. 1886. Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im arabischen. Leiden. Biberstein-Kazimirski, A. de. 1860. Dictionnaire arabe-français. Paris. Gelb, I. J. et al. 1956-2011. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, accessible online at . Leslau, W. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden. MacKenzie, D. N. 1971. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London. Sokoloff, M. 2014. A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (OLA 234). Louvain. Database and Dictionary of Greek Loanwords in Coptic (), cited by lemma number. Sperber, D. 1984. A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature. Jerusalem. Sokoloff, M. 2003. A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. Ramat-Gan. Sokoloff, M. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan. Sokoloff, M. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (2nd ed.). Ramat-Gan. Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden. Tal, A. 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. Leiden. Jeffery, A. 1938. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qurʾān. Baroda.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac GLBRP GLLTMT

Jastrow

Lane LD LLGE LS2 LSJ

LSJ Suppl.

LSP MD NDAE OLD PGL

185

Sophocles, E. A. 1900. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. New York. Krauss, S. 1899. Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, Vol. 2. Berlin. Jastrow, M. 1886-1903. Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York. Lane, E. W. 1863-1893. An Arabic-English Lexicon. London. Lewis, C. T. and C. Short. 1969. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford. Daris, Sergio. 1991. Il lessico Latino nel Greco d’Egitto (2nd ed.). Barcelona. Brockelmann, C. 1928. Lexicon Syriacum (2nd ed.). Halis Saxonum. Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott (revised by H. Stuart Jones and R. McKenzie). 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott (revised by H. Stuart Jones and R. McKenzie; edited by P. G. W. Glare). 1996. Greek-English Lexicon. Revised supplement. Oxford. Schulthess, F. 1903. Lexicon Syropalaestinum. Berolini. Drower, E. S. and R. Macuch. 1963. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford. Bedrossian, M. 1875-1879. New Dictionary. Armenian-English. Venice. Glare, P. G. W. 1982. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford. Lampe, G. W. H. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford.

186 SL

TLL

Aaron Michael Butts Sokoloff, M. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake – Piscataway. Thesaurus linguae Latinae.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, J. N. 1977. The vulgar Latin of the letters of Claudius Terentianus (P. Mich. VIII, 467-72). Manchester. Attridge, H. W. 1990. “The Original Language of the Acts of Thomas,” in H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, T. H. Tobin (eds.), Of Scribes and Scrolls. Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Lanham. 241-250. Baehrens, W. A. 1922. Sprachlicher Kommentar zur Vulgärlateinischen Appendix Probi. Halle. Baillet, M. 1963. “Un livret magique en christo-palestinien à l’Université de Louvain,” Le Muséon 76: 375-401. Beck, E. 1957. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses (CSCO 169-170). Louvain. Bedjan, P. 1890-1897. Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum. Paris – Leipzig. _______. 1891. Histoire complète de Joseph par Saint Ephrem (2nd ed.). Paris – Leipzig. _______. 1895. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deux laïques, nestoriens. Paris. _______. 1903. Homiliae S. Isaaci, Syri Antiocheni, vol. 1. Leipzig. _______. 1905-1910. Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (5 vols.). Paris – Leipzig. Beekes, R. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Brill. Behlmer, H. 1997-1998. “Index der Lehnwörter und Namen in Amélineau, Œuvres de Schenoudi,” Enchoria 24: 1-33. Benveniste, E. 1969. “Diffusion d’un terme de culture: Latin orarium,” in Studia classica et orientalia Antonino Pagliaro oblata. Rome. 1.213-218.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

187

Bickell, G. 1873-1877. Sancti Isaaci Antiochi doctoris Syrorum opera omnia, syriace, arabiceque primus edidit, latine vertit. Giessen. Bonnet, M. 1903. Acta Philippi et Acta Thomae accedunt Acta Barnabae. Leipzig. Bowersock, G. 2000. “The Syriac Life of Rabbula and Syrian Hellenism,” in T. Hägg and P. Rousseau (eds.), Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. 255-271. Bremmer, J. N. 2001. “The Acts of Thomas: Place, Date and Women,” in his The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas. Louvain. 74-90. Brock, S. P. 1967. “Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels (vet and pe),” Le Muséon 80 (1967): 389-426. _______. 1975. “Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac,” in A. Dietrich (ed.), Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet. Göttingen. 80-108. (= Brock 1984: IV) _______. 1982. “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,” in N. G. Garsoïan, T. F. Mathews, and R. W. Thomson (eds.), East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period. Washington, D.C. 17-34. (= Brock 1984: V) _______. 1984. Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity. London. _______. 1991. “Some New Syriac Documents from the Third Century AD,” ARAM 3: 259-267. _______. 1992. The Luminous Eye. The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem (2nd ed.). Kalamazoo. _______. 1994. “Greek and Syriac in Late Antique Syriac,” in A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf (eds.), Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Cambridge. 149-160. (= Brock 1999: I) _______. 1996. “Greek Words in Syriac: Some General Features,” Scripta classica Israelica 15: 251-262. (= Brock 1999: XV) _______. 1999. From Ephrem to Romanos. Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity. Aldershot. _______. 1999-2000. “Greek Words in Ephrem and Narsai: A Comparative Sampling,” ARAM 11-12: 439-449. _______. 2004. “Secondary Formations from Greek Loanwords in Syriac,” in H. Juusola, J. Laulainen, and H. Palva (eds.), Verbum

188

Aaron Michael Butts et calamus. Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen. Helsinki. 31-39.

_______. 2005. “Greek and Latin Words in Palmyrene Inscriptions: A Comparison with Syriac,” in E. Cussini (ed.), A Journey to Palmyra: Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers. Leiden. 11-25. _______. 2010. “A Criterion for Dating Undated Syriac Texts: The Evidence from Adjectival Forms in -aya,” Parole de l’Orient 35: 111-124. Brockelmann, C. 1893. “Die griechischen Fremdwörter im Armenischen,” ZDMG 47: 1-42. Brooks, E. W. 1907. Vitae virorum apud Monophysitas celeberrimorum (CSCO 7-8). Louvain. _______. 1919-1924. Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori vulgo adscripta, 1-2 (CSCO 83-84, 87-88). Louvain. _______. 1923-1925. John of Ephesus. Lives of the Eastern Saints, 1-3 (PO 17.1; 18.4; 19.2). Paris. _______. 1935. Iohannis Ephesini. Historiae Ecclesiasticae. Pars Tertia (CSCO 105). Louvain. Budge, E. A. W. 1894. The Discourses of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbôgh, A.D. 485 – 519. London. Burkitt, F. C. 1913. Euphemia and the Goth, with the Acts of Martyrdom of the Confessors of Edessa. London. Butts, A. M. 2011. “Reduplicated Nominal Patterns in Semitic,” JAOS 131: 83-108. _______. 2015. Semitic Languages in Contact (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 82). Leiden. _______. 2016. Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in its Greco-Roman Context (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 11). Winona Lake. _______. Forthcoming A. “The Etymology of Aramaic (and Hebrew) √prns ‘to distribute, supply’,” JAOS. _______. Forthcoming B. “Old Syriac,” in Paul J.J. van Geest and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte (eds.), Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Leiden.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

189

Cange, Charles du Fresne du. 1688. Glossarium ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ Graecitatis. Paris. Ciancaglini, C. A. 2008. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Wiesbaden. Clarke, E. G. 1984. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch. Hoboken, N.J. Contini, R. and P. Pagano. 2015. “Notes on foreign words in Hatran Aramaic,” in Butts 2015: 126-157. Cureton, W. 1864. Ancient Syriac Documents. London. Le Déaut, R. 1971. Targum des Chroniques (Cod. Vat. Urb. Ebr. 1). Rome. Diez Merino, L. 1984. Targum de Proverbios. Madrid. Doran, R. 2006. Stewards of the Poor. The Man of God, Rabbula, and Hiba in Fifth-Century Edessa (CSS 208). Kalamazoo. Drijvers, H. J. W. and J. F. Healey. 1999. The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene. Leiden. Duval, R. 1904-1905. Išōʿyahb Patriarchae III. Liber Epistularum (CSCO 11-12). Louvain. Ernout, A., A. Meillet, and J. André. 1985. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: Histoire des mots (4th ed., with additions and new corrections). Paris. Feissel, D., J. Gascou, and J. Teixidor. 1997. “Documents d’archives romains inédits du moyen Euphrate (IIIe s. après J.C.). II. Les actes de vente-achat (P. Euphr. 6 à 10),” Journal des Savants: 3-57. Förster, H. 2002. Wörterbuch der griechischen Wörter in den koptischen dokumentarischen Texten. Berlin. Fox, J. 2003. Semitic Noun Patterns. Winona Lake. Frisk, H. 1954-1972. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg. Gollancz, H. 1928. Julian the Apostate. London. Graf, G. 1954. Verzeichnis arabischer kirchlicher Termini (CSCO 147; 2nd ed.). Louvain. Grossfeld, B. 1983. The First targum to Esther. New York. _______. 1994. The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther. New York.

190

Aaron Michael Butts

Harvey, S. A. 1990. Asceticism and Society in Crisis. John of Ephesus and the Lives of the Eastern Saints (The Transformation of Classical Heritage 18). Berkeley. Haspelmath, M. 2009. “Lexical Borrowing: Concepts and Issues,” in M. Haspelmath and U. Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the World’s Languages. A Comparative Handbook. Berlin. 35-54. Healey, J. F. 1993. The Nabataean tomb inscriptions of Madaʾin Salih (JSS Supplement 1). Oxford. _______. 1995. “Lexical Loans in Early Syriac: A Comparison with Nabataean Aramaic,” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 12: 75-84. Hillers, D. R. and E. Cussini. 1996. Palmyrene Aramaic Texts. Baltimore and London. Hoffmann, G. 1880. Iulianos der Abtruennige. Syrische Erzaehlungen. Leiden. Howard, G. 1981. The Teaching of Addai. Chico. Hübschmann, H. 1897. Armenische Grammatik, Part. 1. Armenische Etymologie. Leipzig. Huehnergard, J. 1987. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Atlanta. Joosten, J. 1998. “Greek and Latin Words in the Peshitta Pentateuch First Soundings,” in R. Lavenant, S.J. (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII. 1996 (OCA 256). Rome. 37-47. Kaufman, S. A. 1974. Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Chicago. Kayser, C. 1886. Die Canones Jacob’s von Edessa. Leipzig. Kiraz, G. A. 1996. Comparative edition of the Syriac Gospels. Leiden. Kmosko, M. 1907. S. Simeon bar Sabbaʿe (PS 2.3). Paris. _______. 1926. Liber Graduum (PS 3). Paris. Lefort, L.-Th. 1950. Concordance du Nouveau Testament Sahidique, Vol. 1. Les mots d’origine grecque (CSCO 124). Louvain. Leloir, L. 1990. Saint Éphrem. Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), folios additionels (CBM 8). Louvain. Macomber, W. F. 1974. Six explanations of the liturgical feasts by Cyrus of Edessa (CSCO 355-336). Louvain.

Latin Words in Classical Syriac

191

Mankowski, P. V. 2000. Akkadian loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS 47). Winona Lake. Mason, H. J. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto. Mingana, A. 1905. Narsai doctoris Syri homiliae et carmina, 1-2. Mosul. Mitchell, C. W. 1912-1921. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, 1-2. Oxford. Nau, F. 1932. La première partie de l’histoire de Barhadbesabba ʿArbaïa (PO 23.2). Paris. Nöldeke, Th. 1873. “Zwei syrische Lieder auf die Einnahme Jerusalems durch Saladin,” ZDMG 27: 489-510. _______. 1904. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated from the second and improved German edition by James A. Crichton. Leipzig. Overbeck, J. J. 1865. S. Ephraemi Syri Rabulae episcopi Edesseni Balaei aliorumque Opera selecta. Oxford. Parisot, I. 1894-1907. Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (PS 1.1-2). Paris. Peterson, E. 1929. “Die Bedeutung der ὠκεανέ-Akklamation,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 78: 221-223. Petit, F., L. Van Rompay, J. J. S. Weitenberg. 2011. Eusèbe d’Émèse. Commentaire de la Genèse (Traditio exegetica Graeca 15). Louvain. Rignell, K.-E. 1979. A Letter from Jacob of Edessa to John the Stylite of Litarab Concerning Ecclesiastical Canons. Lund. Robert, J. and L. Robert. 1958. “Bulletin épigraphique,” Revue des études grecques 71: 169-363. Rochette, B. 2010. “Greek and Latin Bilingualism,” in E. J. Bakker (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Malden, MA. 281-293. Rosen, K. M. D. 1964. “Latin uncial,” Language 40: 21-22. Ross, S. K. 1993. “The last king of Edessa: New evidence from the Middle Euphrates,” ZPE 97: 187-206. _______. 2001. Roman Edessa. Politics and Culture on the Eastern Fringes of the Roman Empire, 114-242 C.E. London. Schall, A. 1960. Studien über griechische Fremdwörter im Syrischen. Darmstadt.

192

Aaron Michael Butts

Sims-Williams, N. 1988. “Syro-Sogdica III: Syriac Elements in Sogdian,” in A Green Leaf: Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen. Brill. 145-156. _______. 2013. “Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders: Linguistic evidence from the Bactrian documents and inscriptions,” in N. Sims-Williams (eds.), Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples (Proceedings of the British Academy 116). Oxford. 225-242. Sperber, A. 2004. The Bible in Aramaic (3rd ed.). Leiden. Stec, D. M. 1994. The text of the Targum of Job. Leiden. Strothmann, W. 1972. Johannes von Apamea. (PTS 11). Berlin. Teixidor, J. 1989. “Les derniers rois d’Édesse d’après deux nouveaux documents syriaques,” ZPE 76: 219-222. Ullmann, M. 1997. Zur Geschichte des Wortes barīd „Post“ (Beiträge zur Lexikographie des klassischen Arabisch 13). Munich. Van Rompay, L. 2015. “Le Couvent des Syriens en Égypte aux 15e et 16e siècles: L’apport des colophons syriaques de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France,” Parole de l’Orient 41: 549-72. Voigt, R. 1998. “Griechischer Wortindex zu Anton Schalls ‘Studien über griechische Frendwörter im Syrischen’,” in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (Uppsala 1996) (OCA 256). Rome. 539-543. _______. 1999-2000. “Griechische Fremdwörter im Syrischen: Eine Bibliographie,” Graeco-Arabica 7/8: 555-570. Wasserstein, A. 1995. “Non-Hellenized Jews in the SemiHellenized East,” Scripta Classica Israelica 14: 111-137. Welles, C. B., R. O. Fink, and J. F. Gilliam. 1959. The Excavations at Dura-Europus. Final Report V, Part 1. The Parchments and Papyri. New Haven. Weninger, S. 2000. “Lateinische Fremdwörter im Äthiopischen,” BN 102: 141-145. Wohlgemuth, J. 2009. A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Berlin. Wright, W. 1871. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. London. Wright, W. and N. McLean. 1898. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili, 265-339, Bishop of Caesarea. London.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 19.1, 193-235 © 2016 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

CORPSE EXPOSURE IN THE ACTS OF THE PERSIAN MARTYRS AND ITS LITERARY MODELS HÉCTOR RICARDO FRANCISCO IMHICIHU-CONICET/ UNIVERSIDAD DE BUENOS AIRES ABSTRACT This paper explores the literary models of the corpse exposure motif in East-Syriac Hagiography.

INTRODUCTION A well-known passage of the History of Łazar Pʻarpecʻi described how the Šāhānšāh Yazdgard II commanded that his servants leave the corpses of the executed Christians unburied in deserted places because: They (i.e. the Christians) say about the bones of those who die for their God, that if anyone has in his house even a small fragment of them no harm or evil machination touches him or his house or his dear ones. Furthermore, he said, they claim that in judicial proceedings [the relics] give success, wisdom, bravery, and security. They attempt by personal efforts and money, even at

193

194

Héctor Ricardo Francisco the cost of their lives, to obtain at least a tooth or nail of such persons and to take to their homes.1

This quotation may be taken as an evidence of the well-known Zoroastrian taboo about dead matter. But, after a second reading of its arguments, it is surprising to learn that it does not express the concern of a pious Zoroastrian king about the purity of the earth; instead, it actually reveals a strategy directed to avoid the establishment of a cult around the bodies of the executed Christians. The reasons given to do so are a good example of how the cult of the martyrs was perceived not by the Zoroastrian authorities, but by the author himself. Like all Late Antique Christians, he conceived relics as a source of spiritual as well as material benefits. Additionally, the fruitless attempt of the persecutors to prevent the remains of the Christian heroes from becoming the focus of worship confirmed their victory over death. Undoubtedly, the disposal of the bodies of the Christian martyrs occupied the center of the scene, but it is noteworthy that the speech entailed a different set of preoccupations other than the purity of creation. In fact, it turned the control over them into a central issue, not only because of the fear of reprisal on the part of the Magi but also because of the place occupied by relics within the Church’s life. Thus, from the author’s point of view, the anecdote highlights the importance of the relics in Christians’ lives and, by extension, their impact on the definition of power relations inside the Church. In the following pages I will analyze the origin and function of the stories concerning corpse exposure in the East-Syrian Martyr Acts. In particular, I will concentrate on the literary nature of these stories, arguing that East Syrian hagiographers organized the stories about the exposure and ransom of martyrs’ corpses on the basis of a literary topos. The result was twofold. Beyond any doubt, these stories built a specific image of a religious “other” (i.e. the Magi) through which communal boundaries could be defined. However, they were primarily designed to legitimize the pretentions of the episcopacy to exercise control over Christian sanctuaries. Corpse exposure –along with close kin marriage– has been regarded as one of the key features of the religious practices in pre1 R. Thomson, The history of Łazar Pʻarpecʻi (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 135.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

195

Islamic Iran. In fact, both contemporary literary sources and modern specialists have defined it as a mark of “Zoroastrian” identity. Although the allusions to corpse exposure in East-Syrian hagiography were frequently noted, their study is relatively recent, and chiefly focused on its theological aspects. Actually, in his study of the Acts of the Persian Martyrs under Shapur II, Gernot Wiessner had already mentioned them in a non-exhaustive catalog.2 But the first systematic approach is Peter Bruns’s study of the stories related to corpse exposure in East-Syrian hagiography. By analyzing its contents and structure, Bruns concluded that these narratives alluded to an actual debate between Christian and Zoroastrian theologians.3 Thus, by appropriating images and concepts of Zoroastrian theology, Christian writers could claim the superiority of their faith over that of their religious opponents. Geoffrey Herman reached similar conclusions in his comparative study on the exhumation of corpses in the Talmud Bavlī and Christian literature.4 Herman has demonstrated that exhumation has been a troublesome factor for Jewish and Christians living in the Sasanian Empire at least from the mid-fourth century onwards. The chronological parallels have pointed “to a synchronized common plight for both of these non-Zoroastrian communities” caused by a “Zoroastrian activism” which “legitimated the meddling in the practices of all non-Zoroastrians where these offended Zoroastrian sensibilities.”5 The valuable works by Bruns and Herman consider those narratives as directed towards the “outsiders” of the Christian community. This does not mean that Christian writers were arguing directly against the Magi. On the contrary, like most of the Late 2 G. Wiessner, Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II, Untersuchungen zur Syrischen Literaturgeschichte I, Abh. Gött, Philol.-hist.Kl., Dritte Folge 67 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 219-221. 3 P. Bruns, “Reliquien und Reliquienverehrung in den syro-persischen Martyrerakten,” Romische Quartalschrift fur Christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 101 (2006), 194-213. 4 G. Herman, “Bury My Coffin Deep! Zoroastrian Exhumation in Jewish and Christian Sources,” in Tiferet Leyisrael: Jubilee Volume in Honor of Israel Francus, ed. J. Roth, M. Schmeltzer, Y. Francus (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2010), 31-59. 5 Herman, “Bury My Coffin Deep,” 52.

196

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

Antique Christian polemics, the targeted audience was their own co-religionists. For both studies, the underlying purpose of the narratives was to warn them about any possible compromise with the Magi while establishing the theological limits between both “religions.” Moreover, the above-mentioned anecdotes may be considered testimonies of the existence of an actual debate on two antagonistic theological conceptions about Death and Afterlife. In general terms, I agree with their conclusions but tend to feel that they simplify a much more complex scenario. Christian writers described some exemplary Zoroastrianism in order to transmit their own teachings. Their ultimate intention was not to generate an accurate description but to strengthen (or even create) a communal identity built on the concepts and practices which defined the how-to-be Christian. Thus, the images of this Zoroastrian “other” were based on a well-established literary tradition about the Iranian culture. Paradoxically, this tradition was not only developed through the contact with “actual” Zoroastrians, but was also built on references extracted from Classical ethnographers and reproduced by Jewish and Christian literature. In other words, this literary tradition was a sort of prism through which actual experience was seen. As we shall see, it seems apparent that the events related to corpse exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs were inspired by western models, chiefly by the History of the Martyrs of Palestine by Eusebius of Caesarea. CORPSE EXPOSURE IN IRANIAN MILIEU It is well known that the Iranian custom of corpse exposure to the action of animals (birds and dogs) and natural elements caught the attention of foreign observers, namely ancient ethnographers and modern travelers. Literary evidence suggests that this practice was very old.6 Yet, in spite of their abundance, the early testimonies present a considerable number of interpretative problems. First, from Herodotus to Agathias, Classical and Christian sources offered a substantial amount of information about it.7 But these

6 M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 325-330. 7 For a detailed record of the testimonies in Classical and Christian Literatures see: A. De Jong, Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

197

“external” sources are too contradictory and biased to be taken unreservedly. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to affirm that they do not provide much more than an insight into the prejudices and literary clichés designed to create the image of the Barbarian.8 Second, “internal” (i.e. Avestan and Pahlavi) sources do not provide a unanimous description. Avestan purity prescriptions designed to prevent the elements (Earth, Fire, and Water) from being polluted by corpses were complemented by Medieval Pahlavi literature which regulated a complicated funerary ceremony.9 Although the Vendidad gives several details about the rituals prescribed for the disposal of the dead and the theological principles behind them, the information provided in it is “slightly contradictory” and suggests the coexistence of various practices besides exposure.10 On the other hand, most Pahlavi theological texts -although unambiguous in their descriptions- date from a relatively late period, and their value as source for Late Antiquity is problematic, to say the least. Furthermore, archaeological evidence offers little information on the uniformity of the funerary practices in Late Antique Iran. Recent surveys have demonstrated that corpse exposure coexisted with a great variety of funerary practices, including inhumation.11 In Latin literature, (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 436 and A. Cameron, “Agathias on the Sassanians,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23-24 (1969), 67-183. 8 De Jong, Traditions of the Magi, 433-437. 9 Most of the ritualistic prescriptions on the treatment of corpses in Avestan literature are contained in the Vendidad, see A. Panaino, Vendidad: la legge di abiura dei demoni dell'Avesta zoroastriano, (Milano: Mimesis, 1990). B. T. Anklesaria, Zand-Ākāsīh, Iranian or Greater Bundahišn. Transliteration and Translation in English, (Mumbai: Rahnumae Mazdayasnan Sabha, 1956), 25; J. Tavadia, Šāyast-nē-šāyast. A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs, (Hamburg: Friederichsen, De Gruyter, 1930), 30-73. For detailed descriptions of these rituals see: J.J. Modi, The funeral ceremonies of the Parsees: their origin and explanation, (Mumbai: Fort Print Press, 1905) and D. Menant, “Les rites Funéraires des Zoroastirens de l’Inde,” in Conférences faites au Musée Guimet, (Paris: Leroux, 1910), 141-198. For a modern analysis, see: M. Boyce, “Corpse, Disposal of, in Zoroastrianism,” in Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, 2011, available at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/corpsedisposal-of-in-zoroastrianism. 10 Ibid. 11 L. Trüpelman, “Sasanian Graves and Burial Customs,” in Arabie orientale. Mésopotamie et Iran méridional de l’âge du fer au début de la période

198

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

addition, there is evidence that funerary practices presented multiple local variations which may have transcended religious boundaries.12 Besides the extent and uniformity of corpse exposure as a funerary practice, there is another issue involving the correlation between corpse exposure and the Zoroastrian “theology of Death”. The development of a Zoroastrian theology regarding the origin and nature of Death antedates the Sasanian period. However, it seems that this theology fully dealt with funerary practices only in relatively later times.13 As I have already mentioned, Pahlavi literature of the Early Islamic period complemented prescriptions about proper disposal of the dead in the Vendidad. However, as Satnam Mendoza Forrest has showed, for Zoroastrian orthodoxy the potential of contamination of a corpse was not that straightforward, and depended on the piety of the deceased while islamique, ed. R. Bourchalat (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1984), 317-329; R. Bourchalat, “Pratiques funéraires à l’epoque sasanide dans le Sud de l’Iran,” in Histoire et cultes de l'Asie Centrale préislamique:sources écrites et documents archéologiques : actes du Colloque international du CNRS, (Paris, 22-28 novembre 1988), ed. P. Bernard, F. Grenet, (Paris: CNRS, 1991), 7178; D. Huff, “Archaeological evidence of zoroastrian funerary practices,” in Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, ed., M. Stausberg, (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 593-630. 12 On the debate about Christian Acculturation on Iranian funerary practices see: M.-J. Steve, et al., L’Île de Khārg. Une page de l’Histoire du Golfe Persique et du Monachisme Oriental (Herman Gasché, Neuchâtel, 2003), 6977; S. Hauser, “Christliche Archäologie im Sasanidenreich: Grundlagen der Interpretation und Bestandsaufnahme der Evidenz,” in Inkulturation des Christentums im Sasanidenreich, ed. A. Mustafa, J. Tubach, & G. Sophia Vashalomidze, (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2007): 93-136; S. J. Simpson & T. S. Molleson, “Old Bones Overturned: New Evidence for Funerary Practices from the Sasanian Empire,” in Regarding the Dead: Human Remains in the British Museum, ed. A. Fletcher, D. Antoine, and J.D. Hill, (London: British Museum press, 2014), 77-90. 13 M. Hutter, “The Impurity of the Corpse (nasā) and the Future Body (tan ī pasēn): Death and Afterlife in Zoroastrianism,” in Human Body in Death and Resurrection, ed., T. Nicklas, F. V. Reiterer, J. Verheyden, H. Braun (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 13-26. For a general view about the development of Zoroastrian theology, see: S. Shaked, Dualism in transformation: varieties of religion in Sasanian Iran, (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1994).

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

199

alive.14 For example, both for the Vendidad and the Pahlavi literature the corpses of the unbelievers were a minor source of pollution.15 According to Mendoza Forrest, “the more advanced the departed soul was, the more rage the demon of dead matter feels when entering the body”.16 As a consequence, the bodies of Christian Holy Men may have been considered a less harmful source of pollution than those of the pious Zoroastrians. This distinction may explain the absence of a cult around the pious Zoroastrians’ bodies but, at the same time, proves that Christian worship would offer no serious threat to their purity taboos. East-Syrian, Armenian and Talmudic sources are purportedly first-hand witnesses. As I have already pointed out, Geoffrey Herman has demonstrated that exhumation of corpses was an actual issue for both Jews and Christians in the Sasanian Empire. However, we must also consider that the purpose of their narratives was mostly pedagogical. Moreover, their various inconsistencies and contradictions show that they cannot be taken at face value. Two frequent features of these narratives demonstrate that Christian hagiographers had little concern for the empirical accuracy of their descriptions of the Zoroastrian taboos concerning dead matter. First, all the stories point to the fact that inhumation as a practice was apparently out of the question, and the problem arises only in those cases in which Christian worship threatens the religious status quo. Second, the intervention of Sasanian authorities frequently seems to come directly into conflict with the practices sanctioned by Pahlavi literature.17 S.K. Mendoza Forrest, Witches, Whores, and Sorcerers: The Concept of Evil in Early Iran (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2011), 54-55. 15 Vendidad, 5.36. Quoted by Mendoza Forrest, Witches, Whores, and Sorcerers, 54; A. Barthelemy, Gujastak Abalish. Relation d’une conférence théologique présidée par Le Calife Mámoun. Bibliothèque de L`École des Hautes Études 69 (Paris, Vieweg, 1887). 16 Mendoza Forrest, Witches, Whores, and Sorcerers, 55. 17 For example, the bodies of the bishop and martyr Baršebyā and his companions were thrown to be devoured by beasts and birds, but their heads were hanged on the doors of the temple of the goddess Anahīd at Estakhr, AMS II, 283. The Martyrdom of ūltan Māhdūkh —though set in a completely legendary context—makes several references to Sasanian culture. Despite this, the story states that the body of the saint was cremated, AMS II, 38. According to the Life of Mār Ābā, the Magi 14

200

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

Two examples could shed some light on this point. The first one is the short dialog between the East-Syrian Catholicos Mār Baboī and the Šāhānšāh Djamasp contained in a late source, the Chronicle of Seert, dating from the tenth or eleventh centuries.18 Bruns makes an extensive analysis of the theological and, especially, medical concepts in the dialog, concluding that the words of the Catholicos reflected an accurate understanding of Zoroastrian theology. However, the dialog gives us only a hint about the Galenic influence on East-Syrian anthropology, while leaving little room for an insight into the Zoroastrian viewpoint on the topic. On the contrary, the testimony of Ełišē’s History of Vardan and the Armenian War19 can help us to reach some interesting conclusions. On the one hand, Ełišē refers to Yazdgard’s invective against the Christians for polluting the earth by interring the dead.20 But, on the other hand, these purity taboos are set aside in another episode devoted to the execution and exposure of a Magus converted to Christianity. In this case, the king’s concern was less related to the conservation of the purity of Earth than to the effects of the cult of the relics on religious status quo.21 For the king, just like in later Pahlavi literature, the focus of the debate was on the status of the corpse rather than on the burial itself, and his main concern was to avoid the spread of the cult around the martyr’s relic. Both examples demonstrate that the references to corpse exposure in Christian literature must be read with caution. Without any doubt, there were occasional clashes between Christians and the Magi about the cult of relics. Indeed, the Christian insistence unsuccessfully tried to take the corpse of the celebrated Catholicos—a convert from Zoroastrianism—and threw it to the dogs. Finally, they accepted the superiority of Christian leadership and participated in the procession that translated his body, see P. Bedjan, Histoire de Mar Jabalaha, de trois autres Patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deux laïques nestoriens, (Paris: Harrassowitz, 1895), 271-272. 18 A. Scher, Histoire nestorienne inédite: (chronique de Séert). Seconde partie. (I), PO 7.2, (Paris: Firmin & Didot, 1911), 37-38. This same anecdote is reproduced with interesting variants by the two versions of the Kitab Al Majdal. 19 R. Thomson, Ełišē. History of Vardan and the Armenian War, (Cambridge: Harvard University press, 1982). 20 History of Vardan and the Armenian War, 90. 21 History of Vardan and the Armenian War, 207.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

201

on the contact with dead matter as a means to reach God necessarily affected Zoroastrians’ sensibility. But there is no conclusive evidence about a systematic and long-term policy against the deposition of saints’ relics in churches.22 On the contrary, Christian Martyria were allowed into the cities and kings were eager to finance their construction.23 In general, they did not expect religious homogeneity and they were tolerant of Christian practices, except in those cases (as in the case of Ełišē’s story) when the religious hegemony of the Magi was challenged. To sum up, regardless of their undeniable factual value, I consider that these anecdotes might also be approached from a literary stance. From this point of view, they may be interpreted as literary devices which differentiate the theological concepts and funerary practices of Christians from those of “others”, i.e. the Magi, the Jewish and the Manicheans. At the same time, they allowed the development of the cult around the relics, which became an incontestable mark of Christian identity. Yet they also constituted internal bonds through the assignment of hierarchical roles to the living in their exchange with the dead. Consequently, the stories about the ransom of the saint’s bones from the exposure to the elements and animals, and their subsequent deposition in a Martyrium entitled the clerical elite to hold control over them. THE EXPOSURE OF THE MARTYRS’ CORPSES IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE As mentioned above, modern studies have addressed the narratives related to the exposure of martyrs’ corpses as a product of the interaction between Christians and their Zoroastrian adversaries. However, the motif of the unburied corpse was frequent in classical, Jewish and Christian literature and undoubtedly inspired East-Syrian hagiographers. In this section I will analyze some 22 The only (possible) exception to this observation is the Martyrdom of Pērōz, AMS IV, 254, which states that the infamous Mobad Mīharšābhōr commanded the exhumation of all the dead who had been buried during the reign of Yazdgard I. 23 Cf. AMS IV, 180, Life of Mār Ā ūdemmēh, 31; Chronicle of Seert 2.2, 146-147. Cf. J. B. Chabot, Synodicon Orientale. (Paris: Klincksieck, 1902), 107 (text), 364 (translation).

202

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

potential literary antecedents and the possible ways in which they could have reached East-Syrian literature. References to corpse exposure abound in the Bible, though none of them is related to the Iranian culture. The first occurrence is a particular one in the Book of Jeremiah known as “the burial of the ass” (‫)קְ בוּרַ ת חֲ מוֹר‬, which was the punishment reserved for perjurers and blasphemers.24 The second form is directly related to the formula “food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.” This formula can be found more or less verbatim thirteen times throughout the Bible and, although this repetition hinders the identification of any order of precedence, we can find two distinct sets. Both are closely interrelated, but their significance is clearly different. The largest group (made up of ten occurrences) is part of the Deuteronomistic tradition, and makes reference to the desecration of corpses as the punishment reserved to those who disobeyed God’s commandments.25 Almost all of these references are related to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 597 BC.26 The only exception is Deut. 28: 26 in which the prophecy is replaced by the more abstract, but equally threatening, overtone of Moses’ speech about the calamities which would fall on Israel due to their disobedience. 24

Jer. 22:19. Cf. Sanh. 82a; and especially in the Synods of the Church of the East where the “burial of the ass” is reserved for those found guilty of incestuous marriages and polygamy, see: Synodicon Orientale, 84-85 (text), 338 (translation). 25 Jer. 7:33, 15:3, 16:4, 19:7, 22:19, 41:20; Ezek. 29:5; Isa. 18:6; 1 Sam. 17:44-46. This punitive dimension may be related to the horror shared by most ancient civilizations for the unburied corpses, and evidences the close relation between moral behavior and proper burial, although there is no mention of any link between them and individuals’ destiny in the afterlife. In Ancient Mesopotamia, denying a proper burial was a punishment for extremely awful crimes, such as impiety and treason. D. J. Wiseman, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” Iraq 20.1 (1958), 61-62. Classical Greek literature identified the practice of leaving corpses unburied with Barbarians. J. P. Vernant, “La Belle Mort et le Cadavre outragé,” in La mort, les morts dans les Societès Anciennes, ed. G. Gnoli, J. P. Vernant, (Paris: Editions de la maison des Sciences de l’homme, 1982), 45-77. 26 The only exception is 1 Sam. 17:44-46 which is related to the combat between David and Goliath.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

203

The second group is represented by Psalm 79: 2-3 and associated passages in the Maccabees’ tradition.27 All of them make reference to the defilement of Jerusalem but shift the punitive dimension of the first group to a martyrological context, adding corpse exposure to the sufferings of the Jews under an impious monarch. Yet, the exact relationship between Psalm 79 and its counterparts in the tradition of the Maccabees is problematic. The former is a lament for the destruction of Jerusalem. Verses 2 and 3 plead for the victims of the slaughter: The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be food unto the birds of the heavens, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them.28 Although most modern scholars relate Psalm 79 to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC,29 this psalm is often identified by late antique exegetes as a prophecy of the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BC.30 This identification is based on the textual similarities between Ps. 79:2 and 1 Macc. 7:16-17, in which the massacre of sixty Hasidim (Ἀσιδαῖοι) by the pro-Syrian High Priest Alcimus is described: Whereupon they believed him: howbeit he took of them threescore men, and slew them in one day, according to the words which he (Alcimus?) wrote, The flesh of thy saints have they cast out,

1 Macc. 7:16-17, 2 Macc. 9:15, 3 Macc. 6:34. Ps. 79:2. 29 M. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 132-133. 30 J. Goldestein, I Maccabees. A new translation with Introduction and Commentary (Nueva York: Doubleday & Co., 1976), 332-336; Theodoret, Interpretatio in Psalmos, PG LXXX, 1503-1510; R. Hill, ed., Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on Psalms 1-81 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 1086. M. J. Pierre, Aphraate le Sage persan. Les Exposés I: Exposés I-X, SC 349 (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 345-346. 27 28

204

Héctor Ricardo Francisco and their blood have they shed round about Jerusalem, and there was none to bury them.31

The passage of 1 Macc. 7:16-17 resumes the martyrological overtones of Ps. 79:2-3. Both are purported as a lament for the calamities which befell on the pious Jews. Notwithstanding the similarities of the vocabulary in both sets of references, their consequences are different. While the Deuteronomistic tradition emphasizes the punitive character of the exposure, Psalm 79 and the Maccabean tradition are more concerned with the motif of the fate of the innocents killed by the impious tyrant. The martyrological exegesis of 1 Macc. 7:16-17 was translated into Latin and Greek martyr stories.32 Although the earliest testimonies are not directly connected to martyrological context,33 the second- and third-century’s martyr stories made the relation more explicit. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius quoted a letter concerning the execution of the martyrs of Lyon.34 This document dates from the second century AD and although it is impossible to determine the exact measure to which the original text was reproduced by the bishop of Caesarea, it is undeniable that the Books of Maccabees inspired the author of the letter in his portrayal of the Christian heroes.35 This inspiration is evidenced in 1 Macc. 7:16-17. H. Delehaye, Les légendes hagiographiques, (Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1906), 32-33. 33 In the Acts of Pilate the image of the unburied corpse is present in the form of a threat directed to Joseph of Arimathaea for having buried the body of the Savior. See J. K. Elliot, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 178. 34 HE V, 1 55-56. The translations of the Ecclesiastical History are taken from K. Lake, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Loeb Classical Library, (London: W. Heinemann, 1926). 35 For a general view of the relationship of hagiography and biblical text see: M. Van Uythfanghe, “Modèles bibliques dans l’hagiographie,” in Le Moyen Age et la Bible. P. Riché, & G. Lobrichon, Dirs. (Paris, Beauchesne, 1984), 449-487; V. Saxter, Bible et Hagiographie. Textes et thèmes bibliques dans les Actes des martyrs authentiques des premiers siècles (Bern: Peter Lang, 1986), 37; O. Delouis, “Topos et typos, ou les dessous vétérotestamentaires de la rhétorique hagiographique à Byzance aux viiie et ixe siècles,” Hypothèses, 1 (2002), 235-248. 31

32

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

205

the story of the martyr Blandina.36 Both the vocabulary and the course of the events allowed the reader/audience to establish a typological connection between the figures of Mart Šmūnī, the mother of the seven martyrs of 2 Macc. 7: 1-42 / 4 Macc. 8:1-17:6 and the noble Galo-Roman lady.37 By encouraging their children to keep faithful to God in the face of the wicked persecutor, both women became the models of maternal bravery.38 In order to emphasize the parallel, the author borrows Maccabean vocabulary to describe Blandina and other characters in the story. By applying the Maccabean term “beasts” (θηρία) to refer to the magistrate and the pagans of Lyon, the persecutors are equated with the animals of the arena.39 This parallelism also allowed the hagiographer to make an explicit connection between the martyrs and their Jewish forerunners in the final paragraph dedicated to the fate of their corpses: Not even thus was their madness and cruelty to the saints satisfied, for, incited by a wild beast (ὑπὸ γὰρ ἀγρίου θηρὸς40), wild and barbarous tribes (ἄγρια καὶ βάρβαρα φῦλα) could scarcely stop, and their violence (ὕβρις) began again in a new way on the bodies; for that they had been conquered did not even shame them, because they had no human reason, but it rather inflamed their wrath as of a wild beast (καθάπερ θηρίου) […]41 In this paragraph, the author stressed the persecutors’ irrational and foolish nature by establising a mimetical link between them and the biblical story. After the mention to 2 Macc. 7, the narrator turned to another martyrial reference in the Maccabean circle, i.e. 1 HE V.1.55-56. HE V.1.55 Cf. 2 Macc 7:41. Saxter, Bible et Hagiographie, 38. 38 T. Rajak, “The Maccabean Mother between Pagans, Jews, and Christians,” in C. Harrison, C. Humfress, I. Sandwell, eds., Being Christian in Late Antiquity: A Festschrift for Gillian Clark (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014), 50-53. 39 Saxter, Bible et Hagiographie, 40-47.
 40 Syriac translation says:           

“From wild beasts, that is to say, from Satan.” 41 HE V.1.57-58. 36 37

206

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

Macc. 7:16-17. Both the governor and the people were depicted as wild (ἄγρια) and beastlike (καθάπερ θηρίου) for leaving the corpses to the dogs.42 The remains of the martyrs were subsequently burnt and their ashes thrown to the Rhône river. The story ends with a lament in the first person: We could not bury the bodies in the earth (μὴ δύνασθαι τὰ σώματα κρύψαι τῇ γῇ.), for night did not avail us for this, nor did money persuade nor entreaty shame, but in every way they watched, as though they would make, some great gain, that the bodies should not obtain burial.43 In both pasages, the author associated bestiality with the irrational (even demoniac) nature of persecutors. In contrast, the Christians of Lyon—in all likeness with the Maccabean heroes— are endowed with martyr’s virtues such as endurance and impassibility. But, unlike the subsequent references in Martyr stories, there is no posthumous victory for the Saints. On the contrary, the impious and animal nature of the pagans prevented the Christians from rescuing the corpses. There are two other testimonies in Eusebius’s works which may give us a clearer viewpoint about the transmission of the motif of corpses’ exposure. Both belong to The History of the Martyrs of Palestine.44 Due to its structure and contents, the Syriac translation provided successive East-Syrian martyr stories with the most obvious narrative model. The first testimony belongs to the chapter devoted to the confession of Antoninus and his companions. In this story, the bishop of Caesarea uses biblical imagery to describe Ibid. HE V.1.61-62. 44 This text survives in two versions. A shorter version is preserved in Greek and is included as an appendix of the Ecclesiastical History, see E. Schwartz, Eusebius Werke. Erster Teil, Zweiter Band, Die Kirchegeschichte, GCS, (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908), 908-950; The longer version survives in a few Greek fragments published by H. Delehaye, “Eusebii Caesariensis De martyribus Palestinae Longioris Libelli Fragmenta,” (Analecta Bollandiana 16 [1897]), 113-39; and an almost complete Syriac translation published by W. Cureton, History of the Martyrs of Palestine by Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. Discovered in a very Ancient Syriac Manuscript. (London: Williams & Norgate, 1861). 42 43

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

207

the judge’s brutality against the Christians. The magistrate “was
) so carried away even beyond the laws of nature (    that he wreaked his vengeance and hatred even upon the lifeless corpses (    
) of the Christians, and forbade their burial.” Eusebius follows: […] orders were issued that their dead bodies

) should be devoured by beasts ( 
), and be carefully guarded (
) (  night and day till they should be devoured by birds (

). Guards (
) were therefore appointed to watch over this barbarous order from a distance, and to keep guard to prevent the bodies of the confessors from being carried away by us
by stealth. So the beasts of the field (  

), and the dogs ( ), and the fowls of the sky (
 ), were here and there tearing to pieces the flesh of men, so that men's bones and entrails were found even in the middle of the city; and all men were clad in sorrow on account of these things, because never before had such atrocities been done.45 Following the same argument of the letter of Lyon, Eusebius used the parallel between the judge and the beasts to highlight the irrational nature of the sentence. Moreover, the vocabulary of the parallel resembles that in the Maccabean story and the reference to “guards” appointed to prevent the stealing of the corpse may be an indirect reference to the resurrection of the Lord.46 This same idea is expanded with new elements in the confession of Pamphilus and

45 History of the Martyrs of Palestine, 33-34; the Greek text in Schwartz, Die Kirchengeschichte, 929. 46 J. Corke-Webster, “Author and Authority. Literary Representations of Moral Authority in Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Martyrs of Palestine,” in Christian Martyrdom in Late Antiquity 300-450 AD: history and discourse, tradition and religious identity, ed. P. Gemeinhardt & J. Leemans (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 51.

208

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

his companions.47 In this story, Eusebius applied a similar set of images to define the barbarous attitude of the persecutors who exposed the corpses of the martyrs to become “food for the
beasts” (   ).48 But in this case, the Christian heroes had a posthumous victory when, according to the Syriac translator, “not even the wild beasts ( )” dared to harm
the bodies49. Then, the believers ransomed their remains and carried them to a church where commemorations (

) were celebrated in their honor. The inclusion of a miracle which allowed the ransom and deposition of the relics matched the triumphal overtones of Eusebian narrative. But most importantly, it showed all the ingredients that are present in later narratives. Greek and Latin hagiographical texts from the fourth and fifth centuries were influenced by Eusebian material. The case of the Martyrdom of Sergius and Bacchus is of great interest due to its popularity among the Christians of the Sasanian Empire. 50 The cult of these two Roman soldiers spread over Mesopotamia and western Iran, and their story was soon translated into Syriac and Armenian.51 The earliest Greek version states that the judge in charge of the execution of the martyrs “became irritated because he was defeated” and did not allow the burial of the body of Saint Bacchus. Then, he ordered that his remains “be thrown out and exposed as food (βορὰ) to the dogs, beasts, and birds (κυσὶν καὶ θηρίοις καὶ ὀρνέοις) outside the camp52.” The Syriac version is more explicit in quoting directly from the Pešīttā: “but thrown to the dogs History of the Martyrs of Palestine, 38-48. Cf. Schwartz, Die Kirchengeschichte, 945, Delehaye, “Eusebii Caesariensis De martyribus Palestinae,” 139. 48 History of the Martyrs of Palestine, 48. The Greek version is significantly different: εἰς βορὰν τοῖς σαρκοβόροις [θηρίοις]. 49 Ibid. The Greek text of the Long version reads: οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς προσεῄει οὐ θήρ, οὐκ ὄρνεον, ού κύων, Cf. Delehaye, “Eusebii Caesariensis De martyribus Palestinae,” 139. The shorter version reads: οὐ θηρίον, οὐ πτηνόν, οὐ κύων προσπέλαζεν, Cf. Schwartz, Die Kirchengeschichte, 945. 50 BHG 1624-1625. BHO 1052-1055. E. Key Fowden, The Barbarian Plain. Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). 51 Fowden, The Barbarian Plain, 101-173. 52 I. Van Den Gheyn, “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi Graece nunc primum edita,” Analecta Bollandiana 14 (1895), 389. 47

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

209




(           ), and that would be food for the beasts of the     

     desert and the birds of the sky (               53   
 ). ” In both versions, the scene ends when the birds guarded the body of Bacchus “as rational human beings” (ὑπὸ τινων λογικῶν    ) until the next day, when the    
    ἀνθρώπων/       monks dwelling in the caves adjacent to the Castrum ransomed his corpse and buried it with honors. A comparable story is related by the Latin Passion of Saint Vincent of Zaragoza.54 According to the Passio Brevior and the testimony of Prudentius,55 the body of the Spanish deacon was thrown on the field to be devoured by dogs and beasts (canes aut bestiae); however his corpse was kept safe by the intervention of a raven (Corvus).56 To sum up, the motif of the exposure of saints’ corpses was originated in the exegesis of the Hellenistic Judaism and then propagated to early Christian martyrological literature. Central to this motif was the theme of the wicked nature of the persecutors who denied the saints proper burial. Then, the fourth- and fifthcentury Christian martyr stories added the element of the saint’s posthumous triumph thanks to divine intervention. As Wiessner has already stated, Eusebius’s History of the Martyrs of Palestine contributed some specific vocabulary to the East-Syrian narratives of the ‘Great Persecution’.57 But the development of this motif in East-Syriac and Armenian literature was not the mere reproduction of a hagiographical cliché. It is undeniable that inhumation in general and the cult of the saints in particular could eventually be an issue for the Christians living in the Sasanian Empire. However, western hagiographical tradition was the prism through which

AMS III, 305. BHL 8627-8648; BHG 1866-1867. The story of the martyrdom of this Spanish deacon is attested by three different recessions published in “Acta S. Vincentii martyris, archidiaconi Caesaraugustani, qui passus est Valentiae in Hispania, et relatio translationis ejusdem,” Analecta Bollandiana 1 (1882), 259-278. Cf. the sermons of Augustine: PL 38, cols. 1252-1267. 55 V. H. G. Thompson Prudentius, 2 vols (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1953), 190-195. 56 Acta S. Vincentii martyris, 262. 57 Wiessner, Zur Märtyrer-überlieferung, 266-270. 53

54

210

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

actual events developed specific meanings which were relevant to the definition of Christian identity. SAINTS’ CORPSES AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY IN SASANIAN EMPIRE The Cult of the Saints, its sociological, political and cultural consequences have captured the attention of the majority of the historians devoted to Late Antiquity for the last forty years. A great number of studies have pointed out the control exercised over the saints’ tomb as a source of power in the construction of episcopal authority.58 This control was materialized by three elements: the configuration of a sacred space in which the relics were deposed, the periodical performance of the liturgy according the Church’s calendar, and the composition of narratives related to both. From the fourth century onwards, the periodical celebrations or “commemorations” of the feasts of the saints and martyrs sanctified time and space. On the one hand, those liturgical commemorations defined “sacred places”, i.e. sanctuaries, where they were performed.59 The presence of renowned sanctuaries in a city or a district projected sanctity to their surroundings. On the other hand, these celebrations often included the Memorial of the saints, a practice which served as a temporal bridge between their heroic deeds and the believers. As a consequence, the past became central to Church’s life, instituting historical (i.e. biographical) narrative as one of its key components. The fourth element (relics) involved a much more conflictive process. Unlike Jewish and pagan taboos on dead matter, Christianity subverted60 the relation between the living and the dead, thus establishing a “Tactile

This may not be the time to list the vast bibliography on the Cult of the Saints in Late Antiquity. For a quick reference see P. Brown, “The rise and function of the Holy man in Late antiquity,” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971), 80-101; Idem, The cult of the saints. Its rise and function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). 59 S. MacCormack, Loca sancta: the organization of sacred topography in late antiquity, (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1990); R. Markus, “How on Earth Could Places Become Holy? Origins of the Christian Idea of Holy Places,” JECS 2.3 (1998), 257-271. 60 A. Vauchez, “Introduction,” Micrologus. Natura, scienze e società medievali, VII, Il Cadavere (1999), 1-10. 58

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

211

Revolution”61 in which death was not a source of pollution but a means to reach God. Hence, both realms were integrated by having the tomb of these “very special dead”62 within the city walls. As a consequence of the presence saints’ relics, Christian sanctuaries became places where spiritual authority was manifested. But this authority also flowed through space, thanks to their circulation in the form of a “blessing” (Gr. εὐλογία, Syr. 
) which was perceived as endowed by the saint’s power.63 Although blessings may be defined as “disinterested gifts”, their circulation established hierarchical bonds not only between individuals, but also between communities. Following Patrick Geary, we could define relics as “Sacred Commodities”: “goods destined to circulation and exchange” which establish hierarchical relations between the donor and the receiver.64 The relics may have circulated as a reminder of the power of the saint, but especially as an expression of the special relation between him and a specific community.65 Accordingly, the circulation of the saints’ relics could have strengthened or challenged the hierarchical relations between them. For example, J. M. Fiey has showed that the translation of the bodies of the saints in Late Antique Iraq was part of an agonistic exchange between communities.66 This competition was intended to legitimize the authority of the relic-holder over his neighbors. A. Samellas, Death in the eastern Mediterranean (50-600 A.D.): the Christianization of the East : an interpretation, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 12 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 148-162. 62 Brown, The cult of the saints, 69. 63 See: D. Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy Christian Gifts and Material ‘Blessings’ in Late Antiquity,” JECS 14 (2006), 329-377; idem, “Alms, Blessings, Offerings,” in The Gift in Antiquity, ed M. L. Satlow (Oxford, John Wiley & Sons, 2013). 64 P. Geary, “Sacred commodities: the circulation of medieval relics,” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 169. 65 On the translation of Saints’ relics see: H. Delehaye, Les origines du culte des martyrs (Bruxelles: Societé des Bollandistes, 1912), 63-119; C. Mango, “Constantine's Mausoleum and the Translation of Relics,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83.1 (1990), 51-62. 66 J. M. Fiey, “La vie mouvementée des reliques dans l’orient,” Parole de l'Orient 13 (1986), 183-196. 61

212

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

In the West, the Cult of the Saints reinforced and amplified a previously existing episcopal structure. But until the first decades of the fifth century, the Church of the East had a scarcely organized episcopal organization. From the first decades of the reign of Yazdgard I onwards, there was a process which led to a much more formal ecclesiastical structure. While this episcopal structure was being formalized, a Christian cult of the saints was developed. This cult expanded around the martyrs of the ‘Great Persecution’ under Šapūr II and it spread to a number of local martyrs and ascetics. The stories told around their deeds –what we could call the EastSyrian hagiographical tradition- were the means of expression of a Christian culture in which martyrdom was paramount. One of the main components of this culture was the assertion of a radical opposition between the Christian heroes and their religious rivals.67 But this insistence on polemic and conflict does not conceal the multiple instances of adjustment of Christians to the Persian Culture.68 Moreover, in posing the opposition of two antagonistic patterns of behavior, martyr stories were not intended to build a “realistic” model of Christian behavior but an ideal of Christian A. Becker, “Martyrdom, Religious Difference and ‘Fear’ as a Category of Piety in the Sassanian Empire. The Case of the Martyrdom of Gregory and the Martyrdom of Yazdpaneh,” Journal of Late Antiquity, 2 (2009), 300-336. 68 An extensive bibliography puts accommodation and negotiation at the center of the Church-State relations in Sasanian Empire: R. Payne, Christianity and Iranian Society in Late Antiquity, ca. 500 – 700 CE. (Princeton: PhD. Thesis, 2010); J. T. Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh. Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006); S. McDonough, “A Question of Faith? Persecution and Political centralization in the Sasanian Empire of Tazdgard II (438-457 CE.),” in Violence, Victims, and Vindication in Late Antiquity, ed. H. Drake (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 69-82; idem, “Bishops or Bureaucrats?: Christian Clergy and the State in the Middle Sasanian Period,” Current Research in Sasanian Archaeology, Art and History, D. Kennet & P. Luft, eds., (Oxford, Archaeopress, 2008): 87-92; P. Gignoux, “Sur quelques relations entre Chrétiens et mazdéens d’aprés des sources syriaques,” Studia Iranica, 28 (1999), 83-94; L. Van Rompay, “Impetuous Martyrs? The Situation of the Persian Christians in the Last Years of Yazdgard I (419-421),” in Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective. Memorial Louis Reekmans, ed., M. Lamberigts and P. Van Deun (Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 363-375. 67

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

213

heroism. This heroism was the starting point for the transmission of authority from the martyrs to the clergy in charge of their cult. This last observation leads us to the other characteristic of Christian culture: its local character, and its temporal continuity through the succession of martyrs and bishops.69 The sanctuaries housed the saints’ charisma, which was transmitted to the clergy attached to them by the re-enactment of their martyrdom by means of asceticism and liturgy.70 They were actually the source of a Christian identity which stemmed from the development of a culture centered on Martyrdom. At this point, it becomes apparent that the events related to corpse exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs could be addressed within this much broader view. This scope includes not only the theological polemic but also the literary tradition underlying them and, chiefly, their function in the plot of each narrative. As a general hypothesis I would like to suggest that the events of corpse exposure were a form of Inventio reliquarum. The Inventio reliquarum is a well known feature of Late Antique hagiography related to the need to legitimize Christian sanctuaries as places of worship. The most notable of these findings is the Inventio of the relics of the Holy Cross by Saint Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine.71 As a literary device, the Inventio reliquarum was a means to fill the gap between the “historical” time of a saint and the emergence of his or her cult. Most of the stories about the exposure of the martyrs’ body in East-Syriac literature are closely related to the Inventio of the relics in which a miracle reveals the place where the saint’s remains are located.

69 M. Debié, “Writing History as ‘Histoires’: the biographical dimension of East Syriac historiography,” in Writing ‘True Stories’: Historians and Hagiographers in the Late Antique and Medieval Near East A. Papaconstantinou, M. Debié, H. Kennedy (eds.) (Paris: Brepols, 2010), 43-75. 70 Cf. the link between the martyrs of Bēth Selōkh and the monks, AMS II, 531-535. 71 J. W. Drijvers, Helena Augusta. (Leuven: Brill, 1992).

214

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

CORPSE EXPOSURE IN EAST-SYRIAN MARTYR STORIES Approximately sixty percent of the seventy three72 hagiographical pieces related to the Sasanian Empire contain some reference to corpse exposure, but their extension and characteristics are not homogeneous. Ironically, explicit references to exposure to the elements, dogs and birds are relatively sparse and ambiguous.73 In some cases the references are undoubtedly bonded to biblical typology.74 Most of them do not mention animals and are brief and plain, almost of formulaic nature. They only state that the corpses were left unburied and taken by the believers “secretly” or “by night” because they feared the Magi.75 While some events include miracles or portents which allowed the ransom of the body,76 72 This number is taken from the exhaustive catalogue made by S. Brock, The History of Mar Ma‘in with a Guide to the Persian Martyr Acts, Persian Martyr Acts in Syriac: Text and Translation 1, (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008), 78-84, plus a few addtions of our own. 73 See the martyrdoms of the captives of Bēth Zabaī, AMS II, 323; Jacob and Azad, AMS IV, 140; Baršebyā, AMS II, 283, Mīles of Susa, AMS II, 275, the Greek martyrdoms of IA, H. Delehaye, Les Versions grecques des Actes des Martyrs Persans. Textes grecs et traductions, PO 2.4 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907), 460-461 and Šīrīn, P. Devos, “Sainte Sirin, martyre sous- Khosran ler Anosarvan,” Analecta Bollandiana 64 (1946), 131; the Life of Mār Ābā, Bedjan, Histoire de Mar Jabalaha, 598, and the Life of A ūdemmēh, F. Nau, Histoires d'Ahoudemmeh et de Marouta, métropolitains Jacobites de Tagrit et de l'Orient (VIe et VIIe siècles), suivies du Traité d'Ahoudemmeh sur l'homme, PO 3.1 (Paris: Firmin & Didot, 1909), 46-51. Some references are unclear, see: the martyrdom of Ādhūrhōrmīzd and his daughter Ānahīd, AMS II, 596-600. 74 As is the case of the introduction to the history of Simeon Bar ābbā‘e, Cf. A. Scher, & J. Perier, Histoire nestorienne inédite: (Chronique de Séert). Première partie. (I), PO 4.3, (Paris: Firmin & Didot, 1908), 299. M. Kmosko, S. Simeon Bar Sabba’e, PS 1.2, (Paris: Firmin & Didot, 1907), 718. Cf. K. Smith, The Martyrdom and History of Blessed Simeon bar Sabba‘e, Persian Martyr Acts in Syriac: Text and Translation 3 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2014). 75 Cf. the martyrdoms of Šābōr and Isaac, AMS II, 56; the 120 martyrs, AMS II, 295; Badmā, AMS II, 351; Dadō, AMS II, 221; Pinhas, AMS IV, 218; Narsaī, AMS IV, 180; Tataq, AMS IV, 184; Aqebhšemā, AMS II, 390-391. 76 See the martyrdoms of Pōsī, AMS II, 232; Jacob and Azad, AMS IV, 140. Cf. Bruns, “Reliquien und Reliquienverehrung,” 201-209.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

215

others showed how the crafty believers managed to recover it.77 Details may vary, but their structure and contents are almost identical. First, there is often an explicit or implicit allusion to biblical literature. The Maccabean martyrs or Jesus’ resurrection78 are among the most common. Second, nearly all of the cases stressed the presence of Christian witnesses, who were also agents of the ransom of the corpse. Third, and foremost, the clergy mediated between the relics and the people deposing them in the sacred space of a sanctuary. Only a few cases offered a more elaborated account of the events. All of them included the exposure of corpses in the context of the competition for the control over the saint’s remains. The first examples come from the set of stories named by Wiessner as the B-Zyklus: the long version of the martyrdom of Simeon bar ābbā‘e79 and the stories of Pōsī80 and his daughter Marthā.81 All of them include narratives related to the final destination of the relics, especially their location in the local sanctuaries. In the final section of the History of Simeon, devoted to the execution and burial of the bishop and his companions, no mention was made to the exposure of the corpses to the animals.82 Instead, there was a reference to 77

See the martyrdom of Gūbarlāhā, AMS II, 160; Zebīnā and his companions, AMS II, 49 and Sabas-Pirgušnasp, AMS IV, 249. 78 In particular, the references to the episode given by the guards of Jesus’s tomb in Mat. 27:64-28:13. 79 BHO 1119. 80 BHO 993. 81 BHO 698. These stories narrate the persecution in Karkhā deLēdān during the reign of Shapur II (circa 340 AD) but were written (probably by the same author) in the first decades of the fifth century, Cf. Wiessner, Zur Märtyrer-Überlieferung, 102-103. Although some of these texts may have experienced several transformations until they reached their definitive form, see G. Wiessner, “Zum Problem der zeitlichen und örtlichen Festlegung der erhaltenen syro-persischen Märtyrerakten. Das PusaiMartyrium,” in Paul de Lagarde und die syrische Kirchengeschichte. Ed. Göttinger Arbeitskreis für syrische Kirchengeschichte, (Göttingen: Lagarde-Haus, 1968), 231-351. 82 This anecdote, absent in the shorter version of the martyrdom, was reproduced and expanded with supernatural elements by the Haddad Chronicle, B. Haddad, Mukhta ar al-akhbār al-bīʿīyā, (Baghdad: Al-Diwan, 2000), ۱۹۲, and the Chronicle of Seert 1.1, 303, ‘Amr Ibn Mattā: H.

216

Héctor Ricardo Francisco



how the bodies were “taken away on that very night” (

 

 
 


) by some “Roman captives who lived  in83 Karkhā d Lēdān,”

 
and were buried in honors (






)” in an unidentified place. Immediately, the desire for a portion of their bodies spread among the Christians, both local and foreign, who asked for 
“blessings” (

 ) of the saints, “and they were given to them by the bishops who were at Karkhā at that time.”84 The most striking feature of this anecdote is that the author transformed the exposure of the saint’s body into the starting point of its fragmentation and subsequent circulation among believers. The sequence implies that the narrative was the response to an actual competition for the control over the remains. By leaving the corpses unburied, the persecutors lost control over them, allowing their ransom by Roman captives. Unlike the place of execution, their burial site was not identified and the narrator never explained how the bishops took control of the “blessings”, which were later distributed. At this point it is worth questioning the reliability of the scene. The shorter and earlier version (i.e. the Martyrdom) does not mention the fate of the corpses and might seem that this final section of the History was a later addition. Thus the inclusion of the corpses’ ransom may reflect an interest in promoting a cult centered on the relics. Other minor inconsistencies in the narrative like the reference to Christian soldiers asking for relics85 and the Gismondi, Maris, Amri et Slibae: De Patriarchis nestorianorum commentaria ex codicibus vaticanis, vol. 2 (Roma: De Luigi, 1899), ١٨ (text), 11 (Latin translation). Surprisingly, ‘Amr wrongly states that the Magi intended to “cremate” (‫ )حرق‬the bodies. This same connection between Zoroastrianism and cremation is suggested by ‘Amr in the story of the dialogue between Catholicos Babaī and the King Zamasp, Cf. Idem, pp. ٣٦ (Text), 21 (Latin Translation). Others directly omitted or simplified the reference. For example, Michael the Syrian did not mention it, and Marī Ibn Suleymān just stated that the Bishop of Al-Ahwaz (Khuzestan) buried their remains. 83 History of Simeon Bar abba‘e, 98. The Syriac text and English translation are taken from K. Smith’s The Martyrdom and History of Blessed Simeon Bar abba‘e, 210-211. 84 Ibid. 85 As Kyle Smith noted (p. 210 n. 97), this statement contradicts the previous accusation against the Christians for not serving in the king’s army.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

217

presence of bishops in Karkhā after the execution of Simeon might lead to the conclusion that the whole scene was an invention meant to fill the gap between “historical” events and the author’s time. A different pattern applies to the martyrdoms of Pōsī and Marthā. Both stories conclude with the deposition of their relics in the house of a local Christian family. In the case of Pōsī, the Mobad in charge of the execution sought to prevent Christians
) and from burying the corpse of the saint and taking “relics (
  )” by appointing guards (  blessings (  
  
) to watch the corpse; however, a miraculous hail frightened the guards away and allowed the believers to take the body and carry it into the city.86 The story goes on to state that a portent pointed to the house of a captive woman and Barth qeyāmā as the final resting place for the saint. The pious woman and her brother, after discovering the identity of the corpse “embalmed the corpse of the glorious Pōsī, and buried it with honors, so that it will be a treasure of blessings for the citizens.87” Pōsī’s execution was followed by that of his daughter Marthā, who chose death over a forced marriage. Her burial was undertaken by the same family who had buried her father: “The brother of that blessed (woman) who had buried her father gave money and took her corpse. And he also embalmed her and deposed her with her father”.88 The burial of Pōsī and Marthā’s bodies in the house of the Barth qeyāmā indicates that martyrs’ shrines could frequently be a family business.89 However, the narrator also avoids any criticism stating that the woman  commemorated them every year in her habitation (
  ) “in the presence of the priests of the Church”.90 The commemoration continued even after the woman’s death, when the shrine passed on to her brother’s son and, after his death to his two sons. At this point the narrator states that the family control over the sanctuary AMS II, 230. AMS II, 232. 88 AMS II, 240. 89 R. Payne, “The emergence of martyrs’ shrines in late antique Iran: conflict, consensus, and communal Institutions,” in P. Sarris, et al., An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 89-113.   
 
     . 90 Ibid.          86 87

218

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

ended when both brothers had a dispute over the control of the relics. The quarrel was settled by the bishop aūmaī who “persuaded the two of them and he took them (the bones) from them and gave them to the people of the Church of Karkhā as a good reminder and a valuable treasure from the Church of the Messiah.”91 This aūmaī was Bishop of Karkhā deLēdān during the first decades of the fifth century and was an active promoter of the cult of the martyrs in his diocese.92 His intervention allowed the translation of the control over the sanctuary from the lay elite to the local bishop. Thus, the exposure of the Martyrs’ corpses was part of a larger narrative that revealed the concern of a still precarious episcopal authority over the development of “lay” sanctuaries, i.e. the deposition of the Martyrs’ bones in private houses.93 In other words, the stories of the secret burial of Simeon and the recovery of Pōsī and Marthā’s bones were less concerned with any Zoroastrian opposition than with the tensions produced by the competition for the control of martyrs’ relics. It might be alleged that in the first decades of the fifth century, the bishops of Karkha deLēdān tried to legitimize their monopoly over the relics of the fourth-century martyrs of the great persecution. These relics were scattered among a variety of sanctuaries devoted to their memory. The stories of Pōsī and Marthā reveal that some centers of worship remained outside the control of the episcopal authority. Thus, the narratives concerning the exposure and ransom of their bodies may be interpreted as literary devices to put them under clerical control. The story of Simeon is the earliest example of corpse exposure in East-Syrian martyrs’ literature. Successive stories developed this motif at full length. Two late sixth- or seventh-century hagiographical texts from opposite fields are good examples of the diffusion of this motif. Although the details are mostly creations of a later date, these stories may reflect some historical kernel. The first one belonged to the Life of Mār Ābā, which described the AMS II, 240-241. J. M. Fiey, “L'élam, la première des métropoles ecclésiastiques syriennes orientales,” Parole de l'Orient 1.1 (1970), 127. 93 Cf. Payne, “The emergence of martyrs’ shrines,” 98-102. A.Vööbus, The Canons ascribed to Marūtā of Maipherqat and related sources, CSCO 439-440, Scriptores Syri 191-192, (Leuven, Peeters, 1982), 105 (Text), 88 (transl.). 91 92

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

219

funerals of the great sixth-century Catholicos (who died circa 552 AD) as a competition between Christians and the Magi for the control of his corpse: Then the Magi from everywhere stirred up because he would not be translated until the King commanded it. And then they deposited him on a bier (   

, gr. λεκτίκιον) and transported him with great difficulty because of the multitude of believers because many people cast shrouds ( 
   gr. σουδάριον) and vestments on him, and took  ),
) and blessings (  
them up again as relics ( 
      until they arrived to the great church (  
  

i.e. the cathedral) of Kōkhē. And the Magi commanded that he be thrown to the dogs. And many companies of believers rose (saying) “If someone approaches the body of the saint, we will make havoc.” And numerous crowds approached and torn the wagon to pieces (
 
 )94 and took it as blessing. And nothing remained except for the
 chest (   gr. Γλωσσόκομον
which contained the body of the saint.95 The story continues stating that the body of Ābā was honored for seven days in the cathedral of Kōkhē. During that time “all the  crowd of believers from everywhere took the clothes (  
 ) and 
garments (   ) which covered his body to their homes as blessings  ).”96 The conflict ended with a sort of negotiation, when the (  
 king commanded the Zoroastrian authorities to visit the body in order to confirm the saint’s death. Only after this ceremonial display of royal authority was the body of the saint posed on another bier (   

) and
transported to the monastery of the city  ) with great honor. As previously of Seleucia (


   94

The word
 is related to the Parthian bayaspak. See C. Ciancaglini, Iranian loanwords in Syriac. (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2008), 127. 95 Life of Mār Ābā, 270-271. 96 Life of Mār Ābā, 272. Cf. Delehaye, Les Origines, 63-64.

220

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

mentioned, even the judges and the Magi participated in the procession. The primal function of the whole narrative on the conflict over the corpse of Mār Ābā is to stress the leadership of the Catholicos over both Christian believers and their pagan opponents. For the Magi, their unsuccessful effort to give him a pious Zoroastrian burial (i.e. throwing his remains to the dogs) was not only a reminder of Ābā’s Zoroastrian origin but also the tacit recognition that his prestige outreached religious boundaries. But they gave way to Christian pressure and followed the funeral procession to the saint’s final resting place, maybe at a prudential distance from the wagon.97 This attitude reveals that the concern over the due treatment of the corpse occupied a secondary place. On the contrary, it seems evident –if we assume that the events are historical- that even if Ābā had been Zoroastrian, a proper burial was object to negotiation. But the story poses another –and less obvious– issue. The Life affirms that Ābā died in a place next to the church of Bēth Narqōs at Ctesiphon,98 but his body was moved to the “great church” of Kōkhē99 and then to his final resting place in the “monastery of  Seleucia” ( 
  
 ).100 This journey is marked by the believers’ desire to strip both “blessings” from the litter and other elements which had been in contact with his body. At first sight, this attitude may be interpreted as the recognition of the privileged relation between the bishop and God. Indeed, this was a usual, though controversial, custom among Christians both in the east and the west. An echo of this controversy in the Church of the East may be found in the Canon XIV of the Synod of Mār Yešō‘īab (585) which condemned the incorrect use of amulets made from the bones of the saints.101 Although this canon dates from a later time, it expressed the same concern over the misuse of relics by lay and           The use of the expression  


   seems to point in  this direction. 98 Life of Mār Ābā, 270. On this church see J M Fiey, “Topographie Chrétienne de Mahozé,” L’Orient Syrien 12.4 (1967), 413. 99 Cf. Fiey, “Topographie,” 403. 100 This information contradicts the testimonies of Marī Ibn Sūleyman and ‘Amr who state that Ābā was buried at Hīrtā, cf. Gismondi, Maris, Amri et Slibae, 45. 101 Synodicon Orientale, 150 (text), 411 (translation). 97

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

221

monks alike. In the same way, the author of the Life of Mār Ābā stresses that, despite the challenge of the Magi and lay believers, the body of the saint remained unharmed and under Church’s control until its final deposition in the monastery. To sum up, the story of Ābā’s burial primarily supported the claims of the episcopal elite to monopolize the control over the Holy Man’s relics. Far from being a mere description of the events, the text was organized on the basis of two distinct, but interrelated, conflicts. The first one involved the opposition between Christians and the Magi on the origin of the saint’s authority. Hence, the Zoroastrian funerary custom, although pious from the Magi’s perspective, was presented as an act of desecration. However, we must remember that there is no hint to indicate any concern over the earth’s purity. On the contrary, the author stressed that Zoroastrian authorities were eager to negotiate, thus validating Christian worship. The second conflict may be interpreted in a very different light. The Christian crowd occupied a central place not only in the defense of the body of the saint but also in the tearing of the garments off the corpse. The resulting “blessings” scattered among the Christian households symbolized the dissemination of the saint`s protection over the city. The second example is taken from the Miaphysite literature. In the early sixth century, Miaphysite missionaries from the Roman Empire started crossing the border into the western provinces of the Persian Empire.102 However, it was only during the first decades of the seventh century, that the Miaphysite Church became a significant opponent to the Dyophysite hegemony on the Persian Church. By the seventh century, the Church of the East was structured through a well-established net of urban bishoprics hierarchically organized around the Catholicos of Mā ozē. In addition, the “Nestorians” could claim continuity from the Apostles themselves through a succession of bishop-martyrs like Simeon bar ābbā‘e or Mār Ābā. Unlike their opponents, the Miaphysite Church, organized in scattered communities, could not claim such an ancient and well-established history. On the contrary,

102 For a history of the Persian Miaphysitism, see W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 282-285, 321.

222

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

it was a barely organized net of isolated communities around the monastery of Mār Matay near Mosul, and the city of Tagrīt.103 Besides the West-Syrian historians of the Eastern Roman Empire, the early history of the Persian Miaphysism is contained in two hagiographical stories concerning the two first Maphrian: Mār Ā ūdemmēh and his successor Mār Marūthā. Both stories, written in the first decades of the seventh century, were composed to endow the recently organized Miaphysite Church with a prestigious past. In particular, the Life of Mār Ā ūdemmēh was conceived to fill a chronological gap between the seventh-century metropolis and its semi-legendary founder.104 The Life of Mār Ā ūdemmēh was most likely written a few years before the Islamic invasion, and describes the semi legendary history of this bishop, missionary and confessor who died in prison circa 575 AD. His Vita is divided into two parts. The first part is dedicated to his mission among the pagan Arabs who dwelled in the frontier district of Bēth ‘Arabayē. The second part records his imprisonment and execution after being found guilty of the conversion of one of the sons of King Cosroes II. Space and movement are central to Ā ūdemmēh’s story to the extent that his missionary travels prefigure the geography of the seventh-century Miaphysism. The saint is not only a preacher and performer of miracles but also an itinerant bishop, following the Arab tribes around the steppe. This mobile nature of the pastoral function of the saint may be considered the consequence of the control exercised by “Nestorian” bishops over the main cities. Although Ā ūdemmēh is credited as bishop of the country of the 103 Some traditions located the See of the Miaphysite Maphrian (i.e. Catholicos, or Metropolitan bishop) of the East in Mosul, while others in Tagrīt, J. M. Fiey, “Tagrît. Esquisse d’histoire Chrétienne,” L'Orient Syrien, 8.3-4 (1963), 301-309. Michael the Syrian states that the first Metropolitan of the Sasanian Empire was certain Garmaī, ordained by the Catholicos of Armenia in the Monastery of Mār Mattay. J. B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, vol. II, (París: E. Leroux, 1901), p. 417 (transl), idem, vol IV (1910), p. 413 (text). 104 The only contemporary testimony to Ā ūdemmēh is provided by the Miaphysite historian John of Ephesus, who did not directly relate him to the See of Tagrīt. E.W. Brooks, Iohannes Epheseni. Historiae ecclesiasticae pars tertia. CSCO, 105/106, Scriptores Syri 54/55, (Leuven, Peeters, 193536), 316-317 (text), 240 (transl.).

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

223

Arabs ( 
) and Metropolitan, his mission is not restricted to a particular location, i.e. an episcopal see. On the contrary, his authority extended over isolated communities around the shrines of Mār Sargīs, adjacent to the monastery of Aïnqenoïe,105 and the monastery of Ga‘atany near the castle of Āqrūntā some distance from the city of Tagrīt.106 This mobility of the episcopal function is also apparent in the episode devoted to his capture.107 The saint was arrested and sent to Mā ōzē to be interrogated by the king. The road to the royal city was presented as a pilgrimage to the place where the saint would testify the true faith. This sense of perpetual movement which pervaded the Life of Mār Ā ūdemmēh is the key to understand the section devoted to the ransom of his relics. According to the final section of his Vita, the saint died after two years in prison. The believers tried to recover his body for a proper burial but the attempt to bribe the guards was unsuccessful.108 Instead, the guards carried the body outside the walls of the prison, cut his head off and took it along with the royal seal attached to the necklace. Then, they departed after leaving the body to the wild animals. At this point, the author makes a brief excursus by comparing the beheading of the martyr with that of John the Baptist by Herod. Finally he concludes: And they (the guards) threw his corpse with the rest of the men who had died in that prison, and
) that they went out to throw it in front of the dogs ( were also accustomed to devour the flesh of the men. And some believers stayed at some distance and watched so that the flesh of the saint would not be


   ). eaten by birds and dogs (

And they saw a miracle and they were astonished. Those dogs approached the corpse of the saint, but none of them touched it. Not even the birds that hovered settled on him because of the dogs. Oh prodigy! That the wild dogs became his guards! Oh the hardness of heart of the tyrant Life of Mār Ā Life of Mār Ā 107 Life of Mār Ā 108 Life of Mār Ā 105 106

ūdemmēh, 29. ūdemmēh, 32. ūdemmēh, 35-40. ūdemmēh, 47.

224

Héctor Ricardo Francisco king who did not obey the commandments of God, like the dogs!109

Although, at first sight the scene seems to depict the Iranian custom of corpse exposure, the sequence of events seems to be inspired by Eusebius’s Martyrs of Palestine in which –as we have already seen- animals’ behavior is equated to the persecutors’. Yet, in this case, the comparison brings on an opposition. Unlike Cosroes, whose orders were contrary even to human law and the fear of God, the irrational dogs acknowledged the holy nature of the martyr and kept the corpse unharmed. Undoubtedly, this feature does not necessarily override the historicity of the anecdote, but its actual meaning derives from the combination of a known figure in martyrological literature and a well established tradition which associates corpse exposure to the Iranian milieu. Furthermore, another element of the narrative points to a broader meaning than the simple description of the Iranian custom. This is the case of the believers who witnessed the exposure. Their testimony not only assures his sanctity, but also serves as recognition of the link between the saint and the royal city. Thus, the miracle is a sign of divine protection over the bodies of those who keep his commandments and the starting point of the long journey of the saint’s relics. This journey has a symbolic value, since the path gives a specific meaning to both the authority of the shepherd and to his flock. As a consequence, it could be asserted that the narrative projects the contemporary claims of different communities over the body into the past. And when the sun set and the dominion of twilight of the dawn of that Saturday began, those believers stole the body of the saint, and took it to Mā ōzē and they deposited it in the church that was there, which is called of the rebībē.110 Although there is no other information about the church of the rebībē, it is worth noting that the deposition of the saint’s body in it connects the Miaphysite church to the royal cities. This first stop on the saint’s journey may be considered as a hint of the existence of a developed cult around the martyr in the local 109 110

Ibid. Life of Mār Ā ūdemmēh, 48.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

225

community, although this assertion is merely speculative. In any case, the main focus of the narrative is the translation of the relics further north, to the region adjacent to the city of Tagrīt. An hour after the deposition of the saint in the church of the capital, the deacon who was his disciple took the body and translated it to the monastery of Bēth Āsā near a village named Āqrūntā, and then made his way to Tagrīt. In its new location the relics of the saint became the focus of a struggle for their control. The story goes on to state the disciple’s desire to become abbot (
) of the monastery located inside the city. The way to achieve his goal was to negotiate with the citizens (
 ), who accepted to make him abbot in exchange for the translation of Ā ūdemmēh’s relics into the city.111 Then, the disciple and some of the city noblemen
) went to Bēth Āsā in order to require their delivery from (
  the monks. They spent two days in the monastery “pressing” (
) the abbot until he agreed to give them the corpse. After achieving their goal, they crossed the river back to Tagrīt. If the translation of the relics from the Royal city to the north was apparently due to human craftiness, the chain of events is henceforth explicitly ruled by divine intervention. On its way from Bēth Āsā to Tagrīt, the raft passed the village of Āqrūntā. At that moment, a wind from the south disturbed the river preventing the raft from going forward. This prodigy was understood by the deacon and the believers as a sign of divine will. At the end of the story, the bones of Ā ūdemmēh were deposed (
) in the village, except for “a little portion of him” (  
)112 which was given to the citizens of Tagrīt. As in the case of Simeon, it can be assumed that the episode of the ransom of Ā ūdemmēh’s bones and their subsequent translation was intended to fill a temporal gap, projecting the seventh century’s geography of his cult into the past. Nevertheless, it also filled a spatial gap, because the final result was the location of the relics inside the city. By stressing their miraculous path, the author justified the power relations inside the diocese, or rather the different negotiations which ended with the partition of the Martyr’s relics. Then, although most of the body was laid in a 111 112

Ibid. Life of Mār Ā ūdemmēh, 50.

226

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

nearby village, the mere presence of a single part of it enabled the city to claim him as its first bishop. CONCLUSION As in most of the historiography of Late Antiquity, the main purpose of hagiography was to provide models of behavior to its audience. Thus, “facts” were incorporated to the plot to serve its primary pedagogical aims. The references to corpse exposure in East-Syriac hagiography reflected the same principle: they were pedagogical tools. However, their ultimate meaning was far from univocal. Furthermore, there was no consistency in the meanings of these references as a whole insofar each of them seemed to be the answer to specific situations. Certainly, the cult around the relics of the Christian martyrs was a controversial matter for Christians in the Sasanian Empire, but the reasons were far more complex than the mere opposition of their Zoroastrian adversaries. Although it seems undeniable that the proximity with dead matter was perceived by the Magi as a threat to the purity of creation, Christian funeral practices (i.e. inhumation) were not a central issue as long as Zoroastrian purity laws were not conceived as a universal rule, but as a constitutive part of the ethos of a specific ethnoreligious group. On the other hand, theological differences between Zoroastrians and Christians about the origin and nature of death did not necessarily impact on funeral practices. Ironically, the Medieval Pahlavi literature stressed that the most serious threat of pollution came immediately after death, and that the bleached bones of the dead exposed to the sun were a minor source of pollution. Moreover, as we have already seen, the threat increased if the dead had led an extraordinary pious life.113 These statements derived from a materialistic conception of death as a demoniac power created by Ahrimen to defeat the good creation of Ahura Mazda.114 For their part, East-Syrian and Armenian theologians may have known these arguments and insisted on the divine origin and pedagogical dimension of death. Attached to human nature by God for the sake of instruction (rather than merely for 113 Hutter, The Impurity of the Corpse, 18. Mendoza Forrest, Witches, Whores, and Sorcerers, 54-55. 114 Yasna 30:3-4.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

227

punishment),115 death was perceived as a legitimate means to reach Him. The cult devoted to the relics, as a logical result of the Christian theology of death, was of great importance to define a distinctive Christian identity. Notwithstanding this obvious function, this cult has to be performed properly, in consecrated places and overseen by the right authority. Such was the concern of East-Syrian writers as Narsaï116 or Isaiah,117 who were less concerned with the hypothetical objections of the Zoroastrian authorities than the establishment of a legitimate way for the living to interact with the dead. In other words, it was the consequences of the Cult of the Saints that was at stake, rather than the polemic with external adversaries about funeral practices. In this paper I have proposed to analyze the function of the topic of corpse exposure in East-Syrian hagiography as a result of the tensions generated inside the Church. To the extent that they fixed Christian sanctity in space, Martyria were not only places where Christian memory was materialized, but also the means by which God’s power manifested. The stories about the exposure and ransom of saints’ relics, as a form of Inventio, were intended to endow the clergy attached to the Martyria with a portion of this 115 Leaving aside the problem of the original immortality of Man. P. Gignoux, Homélies de Narsaï sur la Création, in PO 34.3-4 (Paris: Brepols, 1968), 130; M. J. Blanchard & R. Darling Young, Eznik of Kolb. On God, (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 72-76. Cf. P. J. De Menasce, Une apologétique mazdéen du Ixe siècle. Škand-Gumānīk Vicār, La solution décisive des doutes, (Fribourg: Librairie de l'Université, 1945). 116 See the homily “On Martyrs” attributed to Narsaï, A. Mingana, Narsai doctoris Syri Homiliae et carmina. vol. 2, (Mosul: Typis Fratum Praedicatorum, 1905), 46-55. P. Krüger, “Traduction et Commentaire de L'Homelie de Narsai sur les Martyrs. Contribution à l’étude des Martyrs dans le nestorianisme primitif,” Parole de L'Orient 3.1 (1958), 299-316. 117 A. Scher, “Traités d’Isaï le docteur et de Hnana d’Adiabéne sur les Martyrs, le Vendredi d’or et les Rogations,” in PO 7.1 (Paris: Firmin & Didot, 1911), 15-52. In particular, his doctrine of the inactivity of the soul after death (derived from Narsai’s anthropolgy), see P. Krüger, Traduction et Commentaire de L'Homelie de Narsai sur les Martyrs, 302-303. M. Dal Santo, “The Saints’ Inactivity post mortem: Soul Sleep and the Cult of Saints East of the Euphrates,” in Debating the Saints' Cult in the Age of Gregory the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 237-320.

228

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

divine power, filling a more or less prolonged chronological gap between them. The stories of the ransom of the bodies of Simeon bar ābbā‘e, Ābā and Ā ūdemmēh are good examples of this process. All of them projected into the past the tensions caused by the particular conditions in which they were written. But, in spite of the different circumstances, all of them reflected a common cultural heritage in which the rules that governed the relationship between the living and the dead were central to define the power relations inside the Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anklesaria, B. T. Zand-Ākāsīh, Iranian or Greater Bundahišn. Transliteration and Translation in English. Mumbai: Rahnumae Mazdayasnan Sabha, 1956. Barthelemy, A. Gujastak Abalish. Relation d’une conférence théologique présidée par Le Calife Mámoun. Bibliothèque de L`École des Hautes Études, 69, Paris, Vieweg, 1887. Becker, A. “Martyrdom, Religious Difference and ‘Fear’ as a Category of Piety in the Sassanian Empire. The Case of the Martyrdom of Gregory and the Martyrdom of Yazdpaneh,” Journal of Late Antiquity, 2 (2009): 300-336. Bedjan, P. Histoire de Mar Jabalaha, de trois autres Patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deux laiques nestoriens. Paris: Harrassowitz, 1895. Blanchard, M. J. & R. Darling Young, Eznik of Kolb. On God. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Bourchalat, R. “Pratiques funéraires à l’epoque sasanide dans le Sud de l’Iran,” in Histoire et cultes de l'Asie Centrale préislamique:sources écrites et documents archéologiques : actes du Colloque international du CNRS, (Paris, 22-28 novembre 1988). ed. P. Bernard, F. Grenet, París: CNRS, 1991, 71-78. Boyce, M. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Boyce, M. “Corpse, Disposal of, in zoroastrianism”, in Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, 2011, available at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/corpse-disposal-of-inzoroastrianism.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

229

Brock, S. The History of Mar Ma‘in with a Guide to the Persian Martyr Acts. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. Brooks, E.W. Iohannes Epheseni. Historiae ecclesiasticae pars tertia. CSCO, 105/106, Scriptores Syri 54/55, Leuven, Peeters, 1935-36. Brown, P. “The rise and function of the Holy man in Late antiquity.” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971): 80-101. Brown, P. The cult of the saints. Its rise and function in Latin Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Bruns, P. “Reliquien und Reliquienverehrung in den syropersischen Martyrerakten.” Romische Quartalschrift fur Christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 101 (2006): 194-213. Cameron, A. “Agathias on the Sassanians.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23-24 (1969): 67-183. Caner, D. “Towards a Miraculous Economy Christian Gifts and Material ‘Blessings’ in Late Antiquity.” JECS 14 (2006): 329377. Caner, D. “Alms, Blessings, Offerings.” In The Gift in Antiquity, ed M. L. Satlow. Oxford: Wiley & Sons, 2013. Chabot, J. B. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, 4 vol. París: E. Leroux, 1899-1910. Chabot, J. B. Synodicon Orientale. Paris: Klincksieck, 1902. Ciancaglini, C. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2008. Corke-Webster, J. “Author and Authority. Literary Representations of Moral Authority in Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Martyrs of Palestine.” In Christian Martyrdom in Late Antiquity 300-450 AD: history and discourse, tradition and religious identity., ed. P. Gemeinhardt & J. Leemans, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012, 51-78. Cureton, W. History of the Martyrs of Palestine by Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. Discovered in a very Ancient Syriac Manuscript. London: Williams & Norgate, 1861. Dal Santo, M. “The Saints’ Inactivity post mortem: Soul Sleep and the Cult of Saints East of the Euphrates,” in Debating the Saints’

230

Héctor Ricardo Francisco Cult in the Age of Gregory the Great, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 237-320.

De Jong, A., Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin literature. Leiden: Brill, 1997. De Menasce, J. Une apologétique mazdéen du Ixe siècle. Škand-Gumānīk Vicār, La solution décisive des doutes. Fribourg: Librairie de l'Université, 1945. Debié, M. “Writing History as ‘Histoires’: the biographical dimension of East Syriac historiography.” In Writing ‘True Stories’ Historians and Hagiographers in the Late Antique and Medieval Near East, ed. A. Papaconstantinou, M. Debié, H. Kennedy. Paris: Brepols, 2010, 43-75. Delehaye, H. “Eusebii Caesariensis De martyribus Palestinae Longioris Libelli Fragmenta.” Analecta Bollandiana 16 (1897): 113-139. Delehaye, H. Les légendes hagiographiques. Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1906. Delehaye, H. Les origines du culte des martyrs. Bruxelles: Societé des Bollandistes, 1912. Delouis, O. “Topos et typos, ou les dessous vétérotestamentaires de la rhétorique hagiographique à Byzance aux viiie et ixe siècles.” Hypothèses 1 (2002): 235-248. Devos, P. “Sainte Sirin, martyre sous- Khosran ler Anosarvan.” Analecta Bollandiana 64 (1946): 87-131. Drijvers, J. W. Helena Augusta. Leuven: Brill, 1992. Duval, Y. Auprès des saints corps et âme: l'inhumation" ad sanctos" dans la chrétienté d'Orient et d'Occident du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1988. Elliot, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Fiey, J. M. “Tagrît. Esquisse d’histoire Chrétienne.” L'Orient Syrien, 8.3-4 (1963): 288-341.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

231

Fiey, J. M. “Topographie Chrétienne de Mahozé.” L’Orient Syrien, 12.4 (1967): 397-420. Fiey, J.M. “L’élam, la première des métropoles ecclésiastiques syriennes orientales.” Parole de l'Orient 1:1 (1970): 123-153. Fiey, J. M. “La vie mouvementée des reliques dans l'orient.” Parole de l'Orient 13 (1986): 183-196. Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of the Monophysite movement. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1972. Geary, P. “Sacred commodities: the circulation of medieval relics.” In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 169-191. Gignoux, P. Homélies de Narsaï sur la Création. PO 34.3-4, Paris: Brepols, 1968. Gignoux, P. “Sur quelques relations entre Chrétiens et mazdéens d’aprés des sources syriaques.” Studia Iranica, 28 (1999): 83-94. Gismondi, H. Maris, Amri et Slibae: De Patriarchis nestorianorum commentaria ex codicibus vaticanis. 4 vols. Roma: De Luigi, 1899. Goldestein, J. I Maccabees. A new translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1976. Goulder, M. The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Haddad, B. Mukhta ar al-akhbār al-bīʿīyā, Baghdad: Al-Diwan, 2000. Hauser, S. “Christliche Archäologie im Sasanidenreich: Grundlagen der Interpretation und Bestandsaufnahme der Evidenz,” in Inkulturation des Christentums im Sasanidenreich, ed. A. Mustafa, J. Tubach, & G. Sophia Vashalomidze, Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2007, 93-136. Herman, G. “Bury My Coffin Deep! Zoroastrian Exhumation in Jewish and Christian Sources.” In Tiferet Leyisrael: Jubilee Volume in Honor of Israel Francus. ed. J. Roth, M. Schmeltzer, Y. Francus. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2010, 31-59.

232

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

Hill, R. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on Psalms 1-81. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Huff, D. “Archaeological evidence of zoroastrian funerary practices.” In Zoroastrian rituals in context, ed. M. Stausberg. Leiden: Brill, 2004, 593-630. Hutter, M. “The Impurity of the Corpse (nasā) and the Future Body (tan ī pasēn): Death and Afterlife in Zoroastrianism.” In Human Body in Death and Resurrection, ed. T. Nicklas, F. V. Reiterer, J. Verheyden, H. Braun. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009, 1326. Key Fowden, E. The Barbarian Plain. Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Krüger, P. “Traduction et Commentaire de L'Homelie de Narsai sur les Martyrs. Contribution à l'étude des Martyrs dans le nestorianisme primitif.” Parole de L'Orient 3.1 (1958): 299-316. MacCormack, S. Loca sancta: the organization of sacred topography in late antiquity. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990. Mango, C. “Constantine's Mausoleum and the Translation of Relics.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83.1 (1990): 51-62. Markus, R. “How on Earth Could Places Become Holy? Origins of the Christian Idea of Holy Places.” JECS 2.3 (1998): 257-271. McDonough, S. “A Question of Faith? Persecution and Political centralization in the Sasanian Empire of Tazdgard II (438-457 CE.).” In Violence, Victims, and Vindication in Late Antiquity. ed. H. Drake. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006, 69-82. McDonough, S. “Bishops or Bureaucrats?: Christian Clergy and the State in the Middle Sasanian Period.” Current Research in Sasanian Archaeology, Art and History, ed. D. Kennet & Luft, P. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2008, 87-92. Menant, D. “Les rites Funéraires des Zoroastriens de l’Inde.” Conférences faites au Musée Guimet, Paris: Leroux, 1910, 141-98. Mendoza Forrest, S.K. Witches, Whores, and Sorcerers: The Concept of Evil in Early Iran, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2011.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

233

Mingana, A. Narsai doctoris Syri Homiliae et carmina. 2 vols. Mosul: Typis Fratum Praedicatorum, 1905. Modi, J.J. The funeral ceremonies of the Parsees: their origin and explanation. Mumbai: Fort Print Press, 1905. Nau, F. Histoires d'Ahoudemmeh et de Marouta, métropolitains Jacobites de Tagrit et de l'Orient (VIe et VIIe siècles), suivies du Traité d'Ahoudemmeh sur l'homme. PO 3.1. Paris: Firmin & Didot, 1909. Panaino, A. Vendidad: la legge di abiura dei demoni dell’Avesta zoroastriano. Milano: Mimesis, 1990. Payne, R. Christianity and Iranian Society in Late Antiquity, ca. 500 – 700 CE. Princeton: PhD. Thesis, 2010. Payne, R. “The emergence of martyrs’ shrines in late antique Iran: conflict, consensus, and communal Institutions.” In P. Sarris, et al. An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2011, 89-113. Pierre, M. J. Aphraate le Sage persan. Les Exposés I: Exposés IX. SC 349. Paris, Cerf, 1988. Rajak, T. “The Maccabean Mother between Pagans, Jews, and Christians.” In C. Harrison, C. Humfress, I. Sandwell, eds. Being Christian in Late Antiquity: A Festschrift for Gillian Clark. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014, 50-53. Samellas, A. Death in the eastern Mediterranean (50-600 A.D.): the Christianization of the East : an interpretation. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Saxter, V. Bible et Hagiographie. Textes et thèmes bibliques dans les Actes des martyrs authentiques des premiers siècles. Bern: Peter Lang, 1986. Shaked, S. Dualism in transformation: varieties of religion in Sasanian Iran. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1994. Schwartz, E. Eusebius Werke. Zweiter Band, Die Kirchegeschichte, GCS. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908. Scher, A. “Traités d’Isaï le docteur et de Hnana d’Adiabéne sur les Martyrs, le Vendredi d’or et les Rogations.” In PO 7.1. Paris: Firmin & Didot, 1911, 15-52.

234

Héctor Ricardo Francisco

Scher, A., et al. Histoire nestorienne inédite (Chronique de Séert). PO 4.3, 5.2, 7.2, 13.4. Paris: Firmin & Didot, 1908-1919. Simpson S. J. & T. S. Molleson. “Old Bones Overturned: New Evidence for Funerary Practices from the Sasanian Empire,” in Regarding the Dead: Human Remains in the British Museum, ed. A. Fletcher, D. Antoine, and J.D. Hill, London: British Museum press, 2014, pp. 77-90. Smith, K. The Martyrdom and History of Blessed Simeon bar Sabba'e. Persian Martyr Acts in Syriac: Text and Translation 3. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2014. Steve, M.-J, et al. L’Île de Khārg. Une page de l’Histoire du Golfe Persique et du Monachisme Oriental, Herman Gasché, Neuchâtel, 2003. Tavadia, J. Šāyast-nē-šāyast. A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs. Hamburg: Friederichsen. De Gruyter, 1930. Thomson, R. Ełišē. History of Vardan and the Armenian War. Cambridge: Harvard University press, 1982. Thomson, R. The history of Łazar Pʻarpecʻi. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Trüpelman, L. “Sasanian Graves and Burial Customs.” In Arabie orientale. Mésopotamie et Iran méridional de l’âge du fer au début de la période islamique, ed. R. Bourchalat. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1984, 317-329. Van Den Gheyn, I. “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi Graece nunc primum edita.” Analecta Bollandiana 14 (1895): 373-395. Van Rompay, L. “Impetuous Martyrs? The Situation of the Persian Christians in the Last Years of Yazdgard I (419-421).” In Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective. Memorial Louis Reekmans, ed. M. Lamberigts and P. Van Deun. Leuven: Peeters, 1995, 363-75. Van Uythfanghe, M. “Modèles bibliques dans l’hagiographie.” In Le Moyen Age et la Bible. Dir. P. Riché, & G. Lobrichon. Paris, Beauchesne, 1984, 449-487. Vauchez, A. “Introduction.” Micrologus. Natura, scienze e società medievali, VII, Il Cadavere (1999): 1-10.

Corpse Exposure in the Acts of the Persian Martyrs

235

Vernant, J. P. “La Belle Mort et le Cadavre outragé.” in La mort, les morts dans les Societès Anciennes, ed. G. Gnoli, J. P. Vernant. Paris: Editions de la maison des Sciences de l’homme, 1982, 45-77. Vööbus, A. The Canons ascribed to Marūtā of Maipherqat and related sources. CSCO 439-440, Scriptores Syri 191-192. Leuven, Peeters, 1982. Walker, J. T. The Legend of Mar Qardagh. Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. Berkeley, University of California Press, 2006. Wiessner, G. Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II, Untersuchungen zur Syrischen Literaturgeschichte I, AbhGött, Philol.-hist.Kl., Dritte Folge, 67. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Wiessner, G. “Zum Problem der zeitlichen und örtlichen Festlegung der erhaltenen syro-persischen Märtyrerakten. Das Pusai-Martyrium”, in Paul de Lagarde und die syrische Kirchengeschichte. Ed. Göttinger Arbeitskreis für syrische Kirchengeschichte, Göttingen: Lagarde-Haus 1968, 231-351. Wiseman, D. J. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon.” Iraq 20.1 (1958): 61-62.

RECENT BOOKS ON SYRIAC TOPICS SEBASTIAN P. BROCK, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD GRIGORY KESSEL, PHILIPPS-UNIVERSITÄT MARBURG The present listing continues on from previous annual listings in the first number of Hugoye each year from 1998 onwards. Once again it should be noted that reprints are not included (for a number of important ones, see http://www.gorgiaspress.com). For the recent Russian titles see a bibliography of Kessel and Seleznyov in the same issue of the journal.

2012 J.W. Childers & G.A. Kiraz, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Mark (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (tr. Yuhanon Seven Beth Qermez), The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Legality of the Ecumenical Councils (Norsborg [Sweden], [email protected]). [Syriac tr. from Arabic].

2013 S. Aydin, Klassisk arameisk grammatik (syriska) (Anastatis Media AB). Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (tr. Yuhanon Seven Beth Qermez), St Peter, the Head of the Apostles according to the Tradition of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (Norsborg [Sweden], [email protected]) [Syriac tr. from Arabic]. D. Matto (ed.), Ktōbō d-Tē’ūlūgīyā sīm l-mōr(y) Baseliyūs Shem‘ūn bar Malkē manʿamōyō Maphryōnō d- ūr ʿAbdīn (Paderborn: St. Jakob von Sarug Verlag). S. Ribolov, Изворът на асирийското и халдейско християнство. Сотириология и христология в съчиненията на Теодор Мопсуестийски (352–428) (Studia patristica et byzantina sardicensia 1; Sofia: Izdatelstvo Iztok-Zapad). A. Sauma, Syrianske filosfen Barhebraeus och has filosofibok Swåd Sofiya (Stockholm: Kitab-i Arzan). [Introduction, Syriac text, Arabic tr.]. D.M. Walter, G. Greenberg, G.A. Kiraz, J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Twelve Prophets (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press).

237

238

Bibliographies

D.M. Walter, G. Greenberg, G.A. Kiraz, J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Lamentations, Prayer of Jeremiah, Epistle of Jeremiah and Epistles of Baruch (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press).

2014 - Qeryōnē men ktōbō qadīshō l-kūlēh krukyō sha(n)tōnōyō (Istanbul: Mor Gabriel Monastery).

E. Aydin, Das Leben des heiligen Jakob von Sarug / The Life of St. Jakob of Sarug / Tashʿīthō d-qadīshō Mōr(y) Yaʿqūb da-Srūg (Paderborn: St Jakob von Sarug Verlag). [Syriac text, German tr., English tr., Turoyo text]. S.P. Brock & P. Dilley, The Martyrs of Tur Ber’ain (Persian Martyr Acts in Syriac 4; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). Ch. Chaillot, Vita e spiritualità delle chiese ortodosse orientali: delle tradizioni siriaca, armena, copta ed etiopica (Cinisello Balsamo, MI: Edizioni San Paolo). J.W. Childers, J. Prather, G.A. Kiraz, Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: John (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). K. Den Biesen, De zingende vrouwen van St. Efrem de Syriër. Mimro van Mor Jacob van Serug over de gelukzalige Mor Efrem (Glane/Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag). [Vocalized text and translation of Jacob’s Mimro on Ephrem]. R. Donef, The Hakkâri massacres: an anthology of documents related to massacres and deportation of Assyrians in northern Mesopotamia: ethnic cleansing by Turkey, 1924-25. Second edition (Sydney: Tatavla Publishing) J. Ferreira, Early Chinese Christianity: the Tang Christian Monument and other Documents (Early Christian Studies 17; Strathfield NSW: St Pauls). B. Groen, D. Galadza, N. Glibetic, G. Radle (eds), Rites and Rituals of the Christian East (Eastern Christian Studies 22; Leuven: Peeters). [Several articles of Syriac interest]. S.E. Güler, Şanlıurfa Yazıtları (Grekçe, Ermenice ve Süryanice) (Yayınevi: Arkeoloji Sanat Yayınları).

Bibliographies

239

K.S. Heal & A.G. Salvesen (eds), Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Colloquia of the International Syriac Language Project (Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). J.A. Lund & G.A. Kiraz The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Revelation (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). B. Mathew, The Role of the Petrine Ministry in the Ecumenical Relationship between the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Catholic Church (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang). J. Moolan, Liturgy of the hours (divine praises): Syro-Malabar Church (OIRSI 389; Kottayam, Kerala). J. Önder (ed.), Die Feier der Heiligen Eucharistie nach dem Ritus der SyrischOrthodoxen Kirche von Antioch. Anaphora des Heiligen Jakobus, des Herrenbruders (Glane/Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag). [Syriac and German; available in larger and smaller formats]. J. Yacoub, Qui s'en souviendra? : 1915, le genocide assyro-chaldéen-syriaque (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf).

2015 - Mélanges offerts à l’Abbé Élie Khalifé-Hachem = Parole de l’Orient 41 (Kaslik: Université Saint-Esprit). H. Abdul-Nour & M. Waiblinger, Iglesias y cuevas en el Valle del Qadisha (Líbano): el testimonio de las comunidades monásticas más antiguas de Oriente (Pola de Siero, Asturias: Ménsula Ediciones) Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev (ed.), St Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual legacy. Proceedings from the International Patristics Conference, Moscow, 2013 (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press). M.M. Anwar, al-Jumlah fī al-lughah al-Suryānīyah: fī awʼ ʿilm al-lughah al- adīth (al-Qāhirah: Ītrāk lil- ibā ah wa-al-Nashr wa-al-Tawzī). N. Akçay, Ktōbō d-turgōmē ‘bīd l-Hasyō Mōr Seweriōs Mōshō bar Kīphō (no place or date given [Adiyaman]). E.M. Assad, Pearls from Heaven: the Assad Collection of Syriac Manuscripts and Works of Art (London: the Author).

240

Bibliographies

S. Aydin, Sergius of Reshaina, Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories, addressed to Philotheos. Syriac Text with Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Diss. Uppsala). A. Bausi et al. (eds), Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction (Hamburg: Tredition, 2015) [also available online: http://www1.unihamburg.de/COMST/handbookonline.html]. A.H. Becker, Revival and awakening: American evangelical missionaries in Iran and the origins of Assyrian nationalism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press). V. Berti, L’au delà de l’âme et l’en deçà du corps: morceaux d’anthropologie chrétienne de la mort dans l’Église syro-orientale (Paradosis 57; Fribourg: Academic Press). [contains ed. and tr. of Ep. 2 of Timothy I] M. Blömer, A. Lichtenberger, R. Raja (eds), Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed. Continuity and Change (Contextualizing the Sacred 4; Turnhout: Brepols). P.G. Borbone & P. Marsone (eds), Le christianisme syriaque en Asie centrale et en Chine (Études syriaques 12; Paris: Geuthner). F. Briquel-Chatonnet & M. Debié (eds), Manuscripta Syriaca. Des sources de première main (Cahiers d’Études Syriaques 4; Paris: Geuthner). S.P. Brock & G.A. Kiraz, Gorgias Concise Syriac-English, English-Syriac Dictionary (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). J. Charles-Gaffiot & A. Desreumaux (eds), Grandes heures des manuscrits irakiens. Une collection dominicaine inconnue de manuscrits orientaux (XIIeXXe siècles) (Paris: Les Éditions du Net). H. Çolak, The Orthodox Church in the Early Modern Middle East: Relations between the Ottoman Central Administratioon and the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria (Ankara: TTK). E. Cook, G.A. Kitaz & J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Version with English Translation: Numbers (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). M. Debié, L’Écriture de l’histoire en Syriaque. Transmissions interculturelles et constructions identitaires entre hellénisme et Islam (Late Antique History and Religion 12; Louvain: Peeters).

Bibliographies

241

R.A. Dempsey, From John of Apamea to Mark’s Gospel (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang). M. Doerfler, E. Fiano, K. Smith (eds), Syriac Encounters. Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, June 2011 (Eastern Christian Studies 20; Louvain: Peeters). S.G. Donabed, Reforging a Forgotten History. Iraq and the Assyrians in the Twentieth Century (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). E.G. Farrugia, SJ (ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Christian East (Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute). E. Fiori, Dionigi Areopagita, Nomi divini, Teologia mistica, Epistole. La versione siriaca di Sergio di Res’ayna (VI secolo) (CSCO 656/7, Scr. Syri 252/3; Leuven: Peeters). G. Fisher (ed), Arabs and Empire before Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press). G. Greenberg, D.M. Walter, G.A. Kiraz & J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Ezekiel (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). G. Greenberg, D.M. Walter, G.A. Kiraz & J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Joshua (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). S.H. Griffith & S. Grebenstein (eds), Christsein in der islamischen Welt. Festschrift für Martin Tamcke zum 60. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). H. Gzella, A Cultural History of Aramaic. From the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1 The Near and Middle East; vol. 111; Leiden: Brill). T.H.F. Halbertsma, Early Christian Remains of Inner Mongolia. Discovery, Reconstruction and Appropriation. Second Edition, Revised, Updated and Expanded (Leiden: Brill). Ignace Antoine II Hayek, Le relazioni della Chiesa Siro-giacobita con la Santa Sede dal 1143 al 1656 (Cahiers d’études syriaques 3; Paris: Geuthner).

242

Bibliographies

G. Herman, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians: Religious Dynamics in a Sasanian Context (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). R.G. Hoyland (ed.), The Late Antique World of Early Islam: Muslims among Christians and Jews in the East Mediterranean (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 25; Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press). L.K. Jacobs, Strangers in the West: The Syrian Colony of New York City, 18801900 (New York: KalimahPress). D. Janos, Ideas in Motion in Baghdad and Beyond. Philosophical and Theological Exchanges between Christians and Muslims in the Third/Ninth and Fourth/Tenth Centuries (Islamic History and Civilization 124; Leiden: Brill). F. Jullien, Histoire de Mar Abba Catholicos de l’Orient, Martyres de Mar Grigor, Général en chef du roi Khusro Ier et de Mar Yazd-Panah, juge et gouverneur (CSCO 658/9, Scr. Syri 254/5; Leuven: Peeters). O. Kahl, The Sanskrit, Syriac and Persian Sources in the Comprehensive Book of Rhazes (Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science 93; Leiden: Brill). N. Kavvadas, Isaak von Ninive und seine Kephalaia Gnostica. Die Pneumatologie und ihr Kontext (SVC 128; Leiden: Brill). G. Khan, Geoffrey & L. Napiorkowska, Neo-Aramaic and its Linguistic Context (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). N. Kul, Geçmişten günümüze Midyat ve Tur Abdin Süryanileri (İstanbul: Yeni Anadolu Yayıncılık). R. Sirkel, M. Tweedale, J. Harris & D. King (tr.), Philoponus: On Aristotle. Categories 1-5 & A Treatise concerning the Whole and the Parts (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle; London: Bloomsbury). [On pp. 167-221 contains a tr. from Syriac of Philoponus’ Treatise concerning the Whole and the Parts by D. King]. G.A. Kiraz, The Syriac Dot (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). E.E. Knudsen, Classical Syriac Phonology (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). T. Koonammakkal, The Theology of Divine Names in the Genuine Works of Ephrem (Moran Etho 40; Kottayam: SEERI).

Bibliographies

243

M. Kozah et al. (eds), An Anthology of Syriac Writers from Qatar in the Seventh Century (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 39; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). J. Loopstra, An East Syrian Manuscript of the Syriac 'Masora' Dated to 899 CE: Introduction, List of Sample Texts, and Indices to Marginal Notes in British Library, Additional MS 12138 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). N.Q. Macabasag, The Annunciation (Lk 1:26-38) in the Writings of Jacob of Serugh and Early Syriac Fathers (Moran Etho 34; Kottayam: SEERI). G. Mathew [Kuttiyil], Holy Spirit Calls You. A Study of the Ordination Rite of Priest in the Mar Thoma Syriac Church (Moran Etho 38; Kottayam: SEERI). J.D. Moore, G.A. Kiraz, J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Leviticus (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). H.L. Murre-van den Berg, Scribes and Scriptures. The Church of the East in the Eastern Ottoman Provinces (1500-1850) (Eastern Christian Studies 21; Leuven: Peeters). G. Mushayabasa, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Ezekiel 1-24. A Frame Semantics Approach (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 63; Leiden: Brill). A. Papaconstantinou, N. MacLynn & D.L. Schwartz (eds), Conversion in late antiquity: Christianity, Islam, and beyond. Papers from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Sawyer Seminar, University of Oxford, 2009-2010 (Farnham; Burlington, VT: Ashgate). R.E. Payne, State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity (Transformation of the Classical Heritage 56; Oakland, California: University of California Press). M.Ph. Penn, When Christians First Met Muslims. A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam (Oakland, California: University of California Press). M.Ph. Penn, Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). P.-H. Poirier, A. Roman, T. Schmidt (eds), Titus de Bostra. Contre les manichéens (Corpus Christianorum in Translation 21; Turnhout:

244

Bibliographies Brepols). [French translation of the critical edition of the text that is partially preserved only in Syriac].

A. Pritula, The Wardā: An East Syriac hymnological collection. Study and critical edition (Göttinger Orientforschungen, Reihe 1.: Syriaca, Bd. 47; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). I.L.E. Ramelli, Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press). C. Rammelt, C. Schlarb & E. Schlarb (eds), Begegnungen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Beiträge dialogischer Existenz. Eine freundschaftliche Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstag von Martin Tamcke (Theologie 112; Berlin-MünsterWien-Zürich-London: LIT Verlag). M.-H. Robert & M. Younès (eds), La vocation des chrétiens d'Orient: défis actuels et enjeux d'avenir dans leurs rapports à l'islam: actes du colloque international à l'Université catholique de Lyon (26-29 mars 2014) (Paris: Karthala). C. Rouxpetel, L’Occident au miroir de l'Orient chrétien: Cilicie, Syrie, Palestine et Égypte (XIIe-XIVe siècle) (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 369; Rome: École française de Rome). J.-N. Saint-Laurent, Missionary Stories and the Formation of the Syriac Churches (Transformation of the Classical Heritage 55; Oakland, California: University of California Press). N. Sims-Williams, The Life of Serapion and other Christian Sogdian texts from the manuscripts E25 and E26 (Berliner Turfantexte 35; Turnhout: Brepols) [Translations from Syriac]. P.S. Stevenson, Stanzaic Syntax in the Madrashe of Ephrem the Syrian (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Amsterdam 22; Leiden: Brill). E.J. Tully, The Translation and Translator of the Peshitta of Hosea (MPIA 21; Leiden: Brill). R. Vollandt, Arabic versions of the Pentateuch : a comparative study of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sources (Biblia Arabica 2; Leiden: Brill).

Bibliographies

245

D.M. Walter, G. Greenberg, G.A. Kiraz & J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Samuel (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). D.M. Walter, G. Greenberg, G.A. Kiraz & J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Daniel (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). D.M. Walter, G. Greenberg, G.A. Kiraz & J. Bali, The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation: Judges (Surath Kthob; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). J. Wickes, St. Ephrem the Syrian. The Hymns on Faith (The Fathers of the Church 130; Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press). D. Wilmshurst, Bar Hebraeus, the Ecclesiastical Chronicle (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 40; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press). S.S. Yohanna, The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition based on the Earliest Witnesses (Biblica et Orientalia 52; Rome: Gregorian Biblical Press). E.I. Yousif, Deux chroniques syriaques. Chroniques d'Édesse et d'Arbèles (Erbil) (Paris: L’Harmattan).

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SYRIAC AND CHRISTIAN ARABIC STUDIES 1 IN RUSSIAN, 2015 GRIGORY M. KESSEL, PHILIPPS UNIVERSITÄT – MARBURG NIKOLAI N. SELEZNYOV, INSTITUTE FOR ORIENTAL AND CLASSICAL STUDIES, RUSSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOR THE HUMANITIES

2014 Addenda Али-Заде, Э.А. [Elmira A. Ali-Zade], Русская литература и Арабский мир (к истории арабо-русских литературных связей) [The Russian Literature and the Arab World (On the History of RussianArabic Literary Connections]. Book 1. Москва: МБА, 2014. – 524 pp. – ISBN: 978-5-9905933-1-2. Барский, Е.В. [Evgeny Барский, Е.В.

V. Barsky]

see:

Калинин, М.Г.,

Гаврилова, Е.А., Лявданский, А.К. [Elena A. Gavrilova, Alexei K. Lyavdansky], “Рассказ Д.Я. Петросова «Пыччунта»: вступительная статья, текст, перевод, комментарий” [“Pychchunta by David Ya. (Bit-)Petrosov: Introduction, Text, Russian Translation, Commentary”], Иудаика и библеистика, eds. К.А. Битнер, Л.А. Лукинцова. Санкт-Петербург: Петербургский Институт иудаики, 2014, pp. 187–235. – ISBN 978-5-906555-95-3. Глускина, Г.М. [Gita M. Gluskina, 1922–2014], “Воспоминания” [“Memoirs”], Неизвестные страницы отечественного востоковедения. Вып. 4. / Отв. ред.: И.М. Смилянская, Н.В. Романова [Eds. Irina M. Smilyanskaya, Natalia G. Romanova]. Москва: Институт Востоковедения Российской Академии Наук, 2014, pp. 390–426. – ISBN 978-5-89-282-587-0.

1 See previous issues of the Bibliography in: Scrinium #2 (2009): 481– 487; #4 (2009): 394–402; Hugoye #13:1 (2010): 108–117; #16:1 (2013): 134–155; #17:1 (2014): 132–140; #18:1 (2015): 125–145.

247

248

Bibliographies

Грушевой, А.Г. [Alexander G. Grushevoy], “Реформирование школ Палестинского общества в Сирии – проекты российских представителей и отношение к ним местного населения (по данным инспекции 1910 г.)” [“Reforms of the Schools of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society in Syria: the Russian Representatives’ Projects and the Attitude of the Local Population (as Documented by Inspections in 1910)”], Письменные памятники Востока 2/21 (2014): 189–200. Гуринов, Е.А. [Evgeny A. Gurinov], “К вопросу об основании графства Эдесского” [“On the Establishing of the County of Edessa”], Веснiк Беларускага дзяржаунага унiверсiтэта. Ser. 3, #3 (2014): 45–50. Калинин, М.Г., Барский, Е.В. [Maksim G. Kalinin, Evgeny V. Barsky], “Понятие Шхины в богословии Исаака Сирина” [“Shekhinah in the Theology of Isaac the Syrian”], Иудаика и библеистика, eds. К.А. Битнер, Л.А. Лукинцова. Санкт-Петербург: Петербургский Институт иудаики, 2014, pp. 262–277. – ISBN 978-5-906555-95-3. Лявданский, А.К. [Alexei K. Lyavdansky] see: Гаврилова, Е.А., Лявданский, А.К. Маханько, М.А. [Maria A. Makhanko], “Забытые образы ‘Богоносных отец наших’: святые православного Востока и Киликиевский крест вологодского Спасо-Прилуцкого монастыря” [“Forgotten Images of ‘God-Bearing Fathers’ : The Saints of the Orthodox Orient and the ‘Cilician’ Wooden Cross from the Spaso-Prilutsky Monastery near Vologda”], Каптеревские чтения 12 (2014), pp. 181–210. Мещерская, Е.Н. [Elena N. Mescherskaja], “Соломон и Богородица. Формирование прообразовательной традиции” [“Solomon and Theotokos: The Formation of a Prototypical Tradition”], Иудаика и библеистика, eds. К.А. Битнер, Л.А. Лукинцова. Санкт-Петербург: Петербургский Институт иудаики, 2014, pp. 174–186. – ISBN 978-5-906555-95-3.

Bibliographies

249

Милакович, Ж.В., Моисеева, С.А. [Zhanna V. Milakovich, Sofia A. Moiseeva], “Забытый сирийский столпник Тимофей из Кахушты” [“A Forgotten Syrian Stylite Timothy of Kakhushta”], Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, Ser. 3, #5/40 (2014): 45–54. Моисеева, С.А. [Sofia A. Moiseeva] see: Милакович, Ж.В., Моисеева, С.А. Муравьев, А.В. [Alexei V. Muraviev], “Личные имена в восточно-сирийской литургической рукописи из Тайбэя” [“Personal Names in an East-Syriac Liturgical Manuscript from Taipai”], Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, Ser. 3, #5/40 (2014): 55–67. Муравьев, А.В. [Alexei V. Muraviev], “Lapsus traductoris: подходы к неточностям перевода с арамейского на греческий (корпус мар Исхака Ниневийского)” [“Lapsus traductoris: Inaccuracies of Translation from Aramaic [sic] into Greek (The Corpus of Mār Is āq of Nineveh)”], Иудаика и библеистика, eds. К.А. Битнер, Л.А. Лукинцова. СанктПетербург: Петербургский Институт иудаики, 2014, pp. 162–173. – ISBN 978-5-906555-95-3. Панченко, К.А. [Constantin A. Panchenko], “Мелькитское книгописание в Позднее Средневековье” [“Manuscript Production of the Melkite Community in the Late Middle Ages”], Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, Ser. 3, #5/40 (2014): 68–77. Панченко, К.А. [Constantin A. Panchenko], Review of the article: Treiger A., “Unpublished Texts from the Arab Orthodox Tradition (1): On the Origin of the Term Melkite and on the Destruction of the Maryamiyya Cathedral in Damascus”, Chronos: Revue d’Histoire de l’Université de Balamand, 29 (2014): 7– 37, Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, Ser. 3, #5/40 (2014): 137–144. Петрова, Ю.И. [Yulia I. Petrova], “Путешествие патриарха Макария Антиохийского. Перевод Тауфика Кезмы” [“The

250

Bibliographies Travels of Macarius Patriarch of Antioch. Translation by Tawfiq Kezma, edited and introduced by Yu. Petrova”], Східний світ 1 (2014): 161–188.

Петрова, Ю.И. [Yulia I. Petrova], Review of the book: The Orthodox Church in the Arab World, 700–1700: An Anthology of sources / Edited by Samuel Noble & Alexander Treiger ; Foreword by Metropolitan Ephrem (Kyriakos). DeKalb, IL.: Northern Illinois University Press, 2014. – 375 pp. – ISBN 978-0-87580-701-0, Східний світ 4 (2014): 172–176. Пятницкий, Ю.А. [Yuri A. Pyatnitsky] “Антиохийский патриарх Григорий IV и Россия: 1909–1914 годы” [“Patriarch of Antioch Gregory IV addād and Russia: 1909–1914”], Исследования по Аравии и исламу. Сборник статей в честь 70летия Михаила Борисовича Пиотровского / Ed. А.В. Седов [Alexander V. Sedov]. Москва: Государственный музей Востока, 2014, pp. 282–337. Селезнев, Н.Н. [Nikolai N. Seleznyov], “Ал-Макӣн ибн алʿАмӣд о Моисее Критском” [“Al-Makīn ibn al-ʿAmīd on Moses of Crete. Arabic Text”], Иудаика и библеистика, eds. К.А. Битнер, Л.А. Лукинцова. Санкт-Петербург: Петербургский Институт иудаики, 2014, pp. 151–161. – ISBN 978-5-906555-95-3. Туркин, С.С. [Sergei S. Turkin] “Третий и пятый тома творений преподобного Исаака Сирина” [“The Third and the Fifth Parts of Works of St. Isaac the Syrian”], Церковь и время 2/67 (2014): 86–102. Туркин, С.С. [Sergei S. Turkin] “Первое слово о знании преподобного Исаака Сирина: введение и перевод” [“The First Memra on Knowledge of St. Isaac the Syrian. Russian Translation with an Introduction”], Церковь и время 3/68 (2014): 109–120. Туркин, С.С. [Sergei S. Turkin] “Поставление преподобного Исаака Сирина в епископа в свете канонических норм Православной Церкви” [“The Episcopal Ordination of St.

Bibliographies

251

Isaac the Syrian in the Light of the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church”], Церковь и время 4/69 (2014): 65–79. Фомичева, С.В. [Sofya V. Fomicheva], “Иона-врач: к вопросу об использовании медицинской терминологии и образов, связанных с медициной, у Ефрема Сирина” [“Jonah the Physician: Medical Terminology and Imagery in Ephrem the Syrian”], Иудаика и библеистика, eds. К.А. Битнер, Л.А. Лукинцова. Санкт-Петербург: Петербургский Институт иудаики, 2014, pp. 236–261. – ISBN 978-5-90655595-3. Французов, С.А. [Serge A. Frantsouzoff], “Сказание о благочестивой израильтянке Хaсане в арабо-православной агиографической традиции” [“The Story of the Pious asana the Israelite in the Arab Orthodox Hagiographic Tradition. A Study and Russian Translation with Commentary”], Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, Ser. 3, #5/40 (2014): 89–99, 113–123. Чекаль, А.Г. [Alexey G. Chekal] “Сакральное и погребальное искусство Пальмиры и Дура-Европос в контексте эпиграфических надписей” [“Religious and Funerary Art of Palmyra and Dura-Europos in the Context of Epigraphic Inscriptions”], «Византийская мозаика»: Сборник публичных лекций Эллино-византийского лектория при СвятоПантелеимоновском храме / Ред. проф. С.Б. Сорочан; сост. А.Н. Домановский [Eds. Sergey B. Sorochan, Andrey N. Domanovsky]. Вып. 2 (2014), pp. 102–118. (Нартекс. Byzantina Ukrainensia. Suppl. 2). – ISBN 978-966-372-588-8. Ченцова, В.Г. [Vera G. Tchentsova], “Еще раз о дате кончины Павла Алеппского” [“The Date of Paul of Aleppo’s Death: A Reconsideration”], Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, Ser. 3, #5/40 (2014): 100–110.

252

Bibliographies

2015 Беляков, В.В. [Vladimir V. Belyakov], “Монастырь в горах Ливанских” [“Monastery in the Mountains of Lebanon” (Mar Elias Choueir)], Восточная коллекция 1/60 (2015): 126–131. Бондач, А.Г. [Albert G. Bondach], “Письма академика Ф.Е. Корша Г.А. Муркосу в фондах РГАДА” [“Letters of Fyodor E. Korsh (1843–1915) to Georgi A. Murkos (1846– 1911) in the Russian State Archives of Ancient Documents”], Россия и Христианский Восток 4–5. Москва: Языки славянской культуры, Знак, 2015, pp. 660–677. – ISBN 978-5-9551-07295. Ден Хайер, Йоханнес [Johannes den Heijer], “Отношения между коптами и сирийцами в свете открытий в Дейр асСурйан” [“Relations between Copts and Syrians in the Light of Discoveries at Dayr as-Suryān”], Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом 2/33 (2015): 118–139. [Дунаев, А.Г. (Alexey G. Dunaev), Дэпрэ, В. (Vincent Desprez)] Преподобный Макарий Египетский (Симеон Месопотамский). Духовные слова и послания. Собрание I [Saint Macarius the Egyptian (Symeon the Mesopotamian). Spiritual Discourses and Epistles. Collection I] / Новое издание с приложением греческого текста, исследованиями и публикацией новейших рукописных открытий. Изд. подг. А.Г. Дунаев и иером. Винсен Дэпрэ при участии М.М. Бернацкого и С.С. Кима. Святая Гора Афон; Москва, 2015. 1143 pp., illustrations – ISBN 978-5-98840-001-1 [the publication contains a discussion of the Syriac versions of Macarius’ homilies as well as a possible Syriac provenance of the text]. Зинин, Ю.Н. [Yuri N. Zinin], “Арабески” [“The Arabesques”], Восточная коллекция 1/60 (2015): 104–108. (“Там, где говорят по-арамейски” [“They Speak Aramaic There: Maʿloula”]: 104–105). [Калинин, М.Г. = Maksim G. Kalinin] “Прп. Исаак Сирин. Три мистических трактата, не вошедшие в греческий перевод Первого собрания” (пер. с сирийского М. Г. Калинина)

Bibliographies

253

[“St. Isaac of Nineveh. Three Mystic Treatises Not Included in Greek Translation of The First Part of His Ascetical Works” (transl. from Syriac M.G. Kalinin)], Богословские труды 46 (2015): 11–20. – ISBN 978-5-88017-546-8. Кессель, Г.М. [Grigory Kessel], A review of Titus Bostrensis. Contra Manichaeos libri IV graece et Syriace cum excerptis e Sacris Parallelis Iohanni Damasceno attributis / ed. by P.-H. Poirier, A. Roman, Th.S. Schmidt, E. Crégheur & J. Declerck, (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 82). Turnhout: Brepols, 2013, Богословские труды 46 (2015): 297–305. – ISBN 978-5-88017546-8. Кессель, Г.М. [Grigory Kessel], A review of Sabino Chialà, Isacco di Ninive. Terza Collezione (CSCO 637/8, Syr. 246/7). Leuven: Peeters, 2011 & Μάρκελλος Πιράρ, Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου, ΛOΓΟΙ ΑΣΚΗΤΙΚΟΙ. Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσι. Ἅγιον Ὄρος, Ἱερὰ Μονὴ Ἰβήρων, 2012, Богословские труды 46 (2015): 306–322. – ISBN 978-5-88017-546-8. Крачковский, И.Ю. [Ignaty Yu. Krachkovsky, 1883–1951], Труды по истории и филологии христианского Востока [Historical and Philological Works on the Christian Orient]. Москва: Восточная литература, 2015. – 900 pp. – ISBN 978-5-02-036578-0. Лявданский, А.К. [Alexey K. Lyavdansky] “Лилит в традициях сирийских христиан Курдистана и иранского Азербайджана” [“Lilith in traditions of Syriac Christians of Kurdistan and Iranian Azerbaijan”], In Umbra: Демонология как семиотическая система. Issue 4 / Отв. ред. и сост.: Д.И. Антонов, О.Б. Христофорова. Москва: Индрик, 2015, pp. 261–288. – ISBN 978-5-91674-342-5. Минов, С.В. [Sergey V. Minov], “Зороастрийские мифологические мотивы и феномен христианской аккультурации в Сасанидской Месопотамии” [“Zoroastrian Mythological Motifs and the Phenomenon of Christian Acculturation in Sasanian Mesopotamia”], Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом 2/33 (2015): 61–87.

254

Bibliographies

Михайлов, С.С., Фарис, В.Г. [Sergey S. Mikhailov, Vyacheslav G. Faris], Ассирийцы на новой родине: русский выбор [Assyrians in Their New Homeland: The Russian Choice]. Москва: Археодоксiя, 2015. – 264 pp., ills. – ISBN 978-5-9904801-7-9. Михайлов, С.С. [Sergey S. Mikhailov], “Ассирийцы в городах Западной Мещёры” [“Assyrians in the Towns of Western Meschyora Region: Yegoryevsk, Shatura, Orekhovo-Zuevo, Noginsk, Pavlovsky Posad, Kolomna, Voskresensk”], Мещёракрай 2015 (Москва: Археодоксiя): 81–98, photographs. – ISBN 978-5-9904801-6-2. Михайлов, С.С. [Sergey S. Mikhailov], Review of Селезнев, Н.Н. [Nikolai N. Seleznyov], Рах Christiana et Рах Islamica: Из истории межконфессиональных связей на средневековом Ближнем Востоке [Рах Christiana et Рах Islamica: On the History of Interconfessional Relations in the Medieval Near East]. (Ser.: Orientalia et Classica, XLV). Москва: Российский государственный гуманитарный университет, Институт восточных культур и античности, 2014. – 264 pp. – ISBN 978-5-7281-1594-6, Мещёра-край 2015 (Москва: Археодоксiя): 216–220. – ISBN 978-5-9904801-6-2. Моисеева, С.А. [Sofia A. Moiseeva], Арабская мелькитская агиография IX–XI веков [Arabic Melkite Hagiography of the 9th– 11th Centuries]. Москва: Православный Свято-Тихоновский Гуманитарный Университет, 2015. 191 pp. (Серия “Литературное наследие и история Христианского Востока”). – ISBN 978-5-7429-0973-6. Морозов, Д.А. [Dmitry A. Morozov], “Русско-арабский глоссарий XVII в., времен Павла Алеппского” [“A 17th Century Russian-Arabic Glossary from the Times Documented by Paul of Aleppo”], Россия и Христианский Восток 4–5. Москва: Языки славянской культуры, Знак, 2015, pp. 247– 255. Муравьев, А.В. [Alexei V. Muraviev], “M alyānūthā 3. Иоанн Златоуст в Антиохии, движение акимитов и вопрос о содержании ‘мессалианской ереси’” [“M alyānūthā 3: John

Bibliographies

255

Chrysostom in Antioch, the Acoemetae Movement, and the ‘Messalian Heresy’ Doctrine], Вестник древней истории 1 (2015): 66–86. Притула, А.Д. [Anton D. Pritula], “Из келий в ханские шатры: сирийская поэзия монгольского времени” [“Syriac Poetry in the Mongol Time: From Monastery Cells to Royal Tents”], Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом 2/33 (2015): 88–117. Селезнев, Н.Н. [Nikolai N. Seleznyov], Йоханнан Бар Зоʿби и его «Истолкование таин»: Критический текст, перевод, исследование [John Bar Zōʿbī and his Explanation of the Mysteries: Critical text, Russian translation from Syriac, and Investigation]. Second, corrected, edition. Омск: Амфора, 2015. – 224 pp. – ISBN 976-5-906706-18-8. Селезнев, Н.Н. [Nikolai N. Seleznyov], “История экуменизма: забытый ранний этап” [“History of Ecumenism: The Forgotten Early Period”], Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом 2/33 (2015): 161–181. Селезнев, Н.Н. [Nikolai N. Seleznyov], Review of Samuel Noble and Alexander Treiger (eds.) The Orthodox Church in the Arab World, 700–1700: An Anthology of sources. Foreword by Metropolitan Ephrem (Kyriakos). DeKalb, IL.: Northern Illinois University Press, 2014. – 375 pp. – ISBN 978-0-87580701-0, Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом 2/33 (2015): 304–308. Смирнов, А.В. [Andrey V. Smirnov], Review of Селезнев, Н.Н. [Nikolai N. Seleznyov], Рах Christiana et Рах Islamica: Из истории межконфессиональных связей на средневековом Ближнем Востоке [Рах Christiana et Рах Islamica: On the History of Interconfessional Relations in the Medieval Near East]. (Ser.: Orientalia et Classica, XLV). Москва: Российский государственный гуманитарный университет, Институт восточных культур и античности, 2014. – 264 pp. – ISBN 978-5-7281-1594-6, Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом 2/33 (2015): 300–304.

256

Bibliographies

Соловьева, Т.М. [Tatyana M. Solov’yeva], “От бедуинского шатра до царского дворца” [“Ghassanids: From the Bedouin Tent to the Royal Palace”], Восточная коллекция 2/61 (2015): 52–60. Темчин, С.Ю. [Sergey Yu. Temchin], “Сирийская фраза парехъ мари в граффито XI в. новгородской Софии и церковнославянский перевод Иеронимова Жития Илариона Великого” [A Syriac Phrase Parekh Mari in the 11th c. Graffito of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Novgorod and the Church Slavonic Translation of the Life of St. Hilarion the Great by St. Jerome], Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье, Вып. 27: Государственная территория как фактор политогенеза. Москва, 2015, pp. 259–264. Трейгер, А.С. [Alexander S. Treiger], “Маронит, мелькит или яковит? К вопросу о конфессиональной принадлежности ʿАбд ал-Масиха ибн Наʿима ал-Химси, арабохристианского переводчика Плотина” [“Maronite, Melkite, or Jacobite? Investigating the Confessional Affiliation of ʿAbd al-Masī ibn Nāʿima al- im ī, the Arab Christian Translator of Plotinus”], Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом 2/33 (2015): 140–160. Французов, С.А. [Serge A. Frantsouzoff], “Житие св. Герасима из Эмессы: уникальный памятник сиро-византийской агиографии в арабской передаче” [“The Life of St. Gerasimos of Emesa. A Unique Text of Byzantine-Syriac Hagiography in Arabic Transmission”]. Труды Государственного Эрмитажа. Т. 74. Византия в контексте мировой культуры. Материалы конференции, посвящённой памяти А.В. Банк (1906–1984). Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2015, pp. 260–270. Graduate Works Зарезаева, Ю.И. [Yulia I. Zarezaeva], История о султане и визире: филологический анализ текста на северо-восточном новоарамейском диалекте [A Story of the Sultan and His Vizier: Philological Analysis

Bibliographies

257

of the Text in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialect]. Дипломная работа. Институт Восточных Культур и Античности Российского Государственного Гуманитарного Университета, 2015. Кузин, Н.С. [Nikita S. Kuzin], Именные предложения в классическом сирийском языке: грамматическое исследование на базе трех языковых памятников [Nominal Phrases in Classical Syriac: A Study Based on Three Documents]. Дипломная работа. Институт Восточных Культур и Античности Российского Государственного Гуманитарного Университета, 2015.

BOOK REVIEWS Claudio Balzaretti, The Syriac Version of Ezra-Nehemiah: Manuscripts and Editions, Translation Technique and Its Use in Textual Criticism, Biblica et Orientalia 51 (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2013). Pp. xii + 417; €48.00. SIAM BHAYRO, UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

For those interested in the biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah in Syriac, these are indeed good days, for in addition to the monograph under review, there is also the recently published critical edition from the Peshita Institute. 1 Balzaretti’s study is a truly excellent resource that discusses in detail all the points in its subtitle. Its conclusions are very important, particularly regarding the unity of Ezra-Nehemiah and how this is reinforced in the Syriac tradition. The analysis of the manuscripts and editions will prove to be very useful for many years to come, as will some of the accompanying argumentation. In his introduction, Balzaretti surveys previous scholarship on the Syriac Ezra and Nehemiah (hereafter: SyrEN), beginning with Hawley (1922) and ending with my teacher, Michael Weitzman (1999), whose posthumously published monograph represents the last major contribution prior to the work under review.2 Balzaretti then discusses the unity of SyrEN, its canonical status within the Syriac tradition (which remains a subject of controversy), and its presence in Syriac literature—with reference to the Cave of Treasures, Theodore bar Koni, Ishoʿdad of Merv, Severus of Antioch, and various chronicles including that of Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus. In the second chapter, Balzaretti describes the manuscripts, noting that the Paris Polyglot, which was altered in the seventeenth century by Gabriel Sionita with the aim to better reflect the Hebrew Masoretic text, has served as the basis for all printed 1

M. Albert et al., eds., The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshita Version, Part IV Fasc. 4. Ezra and Nehemiah, 1–2 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Balzaretti’s book has already been reviewed with typical incisiveness and erudition by Kristian Heal in CBQ 77.1 (2015), pp. 128–129. 2 M. P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

259

260

Book Reviews

editions. Balzaretti also identifies those (mostly ancient) manuscripts that should be used in the preparation of a critical edition. Balzaretti then discusses translation technique (and here offers a nice summary of the history of this subject and how it has been applied to SyrEN) and outlines his methodology. These two chapters very much lay the groundwork for what follows: in successive chapters he analyses the translator’s treatment of proper names, omissions and additions, word order, parallelisms, vocabulary, parallel texts, the flow of the narrative, and other versions. Perhaps the most important point made in this work relates to the notion of translator as narrator. For Balzaretti, SyrEN has “a tendency to improve the narrative, not only because the text has become clearer but also the ‘logic’ of the narrative has been improved” (p. 80); furthermore, “Having reached this point, the proposed description of the translator as ‘narrator’ seems appropriate…we ought not to oppose the translation verbum de verbo to that sensus de senso because the translator has acted as interpres seeking to be faithful to the Hebrew. However, where he has encountered difficulties, [he] has acted as orator, not recording the exact number of the words but their sense” (p. 327). For those readers who are familiar with previous work on SyrEN, the most pressing question will be to what extent does Balzaretti modify Weitzman’s work and, in doing so, is he justified? In many respects, Balzaretti himself raises this question, as his summary of previous scholarship ends with a section titled “From Roediger to Weitzman.” Weitzman argued that Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles (and perhaps Esther) probably represent a distinct translation unit that was translated c. 200 CE, around fifty years after the translation of the majority of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, according to Weitzman, the translators were Jewish, albeit non-rabbinic, and the translation was made from a Hebrew Vorlage with no use of the LXX. On the other hand, for Balzaretti, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles do not represent a distinct translation unit but reflect the same environment (p. 343). Furthermore, Balzaretti would seem to reject a Jewish origin—although he expresses this always very cautiously and recognises the presence of Jewish influence (e.g., pp. 338–339). When we come to attempt to adjudicate between the two, the waters become a little bit muddied. For example, Balzaretti states, “There are elements, however, which place in doubt a Jewish origin

Book Reviews

261

for the Syriac version of EN. The first is the use of kwmrʾ to indicate Jewish priests because, in the Targum, kwmr always refers to pagan priests. The second is the transformation undergone by many legal prescriptions which seems to suppose a community that is not interested in the kind of rabbinical discussions which had been concluded in the Mishnah and in the Talmud” (p. 338). The problem, of course, is that Weitzman had already presented a detailed argument for why the Jewish translators of Ezra-Nehemiah were not rabbinic Jews, so the second point is rather moot. Furthermore, it is not clear why the use of a cognate term in Targumic Aramaic should be of any relevance to the discussion of the origins of SyrEN, especially since there is no Targum Ezra or Targum Nehemiah. Balzaretti’s reference to ‘the Targum,’ therefore, is problematic (especially given how many different targumim there were). In terms of argumentation, therefore, I am sometimes left wondering whether Balzaretti has engaged with sufficient rigour with Weitzman. Overall, however, there is much of value here—Balzaretti should be congratulated for presenting a wealth of research that is organized in a very clear and helpful way, and for bringing important methodological questions to bear on the study of SyrEN.

Scott F. Johnson, ed., Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity: Greek, The Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–1500, vol. 6 (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2015). Pp. 600; $250. YULIYA MINETS, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

A few years ago Ashgate Variorum launched an ambitious new project, “The Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–1500,” edited by Robert Hoyland and Arietta Papaconstantinou. Its subseries “Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity” has recently had a new addition, a volume devoted to Greek, edited by Scott F. Johnson. The volume contains an introduction and nineteen previously published articles that have been fundamental in shaping the scholarly understanding of the topic. The articles reprinted in the volume are organized chronologically. The early period is covered by publications by William Adler, Fergus Millar, and David Taylor; the post-Chalcedonian situation is discussed in the works of Jean-Luc Fournet, Arietta Papaconstantinou, Bernard Flusin, Glanville Downey, and John Duffy. A lot of attention is paid to the centuries after the Arab conquest, with contributions by John Haldon, Robert Pierpont Blake, Cyril Mango, Guglielmo Cavallo, Marie-France Auzépy, Sidney Griffith, David Wasserstein, Bernard Flusin, Johannes Pahlitzsch, Joseph Nasrallah, and Averil Cameron. In the following, I will focus on the extensive Introduction by Scott Johnson, entitled “The Social Presence of Greek in Eastern Christianity, 200–1200 CE” (pp. 1–122). It is a well-balanced analysis of the status quaestionis and the focal point of the publication that connects the diverse articles reprinted in the volume. Its purpose is to describe the dynamic role of the Greek language in “the cultures and institutions of ‘eastern Christianity,’ that is, groups of Christians whose primary language was not Greek, but who interacted with Greek to one degree or another” (p. 1). The intrinsically Greek-speaking areas such as Constantinople and Asia Minor are beyond the scope of the current work. The focus is instead on the Greek presence in the predominantly Coptic- and Syriac-speaking regions in the centuries before and after the Sasanian and Arab conquests. There is also ample discussion of Greek interaction with Georgian, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Armenian, Arabic, and Latin. 262

Book Reviews

263

The main conceptual difficulty lies in the fact that Greek was “more than simply one language among equals in the medieval Mediterranean.” As Johnson demonstrates in the second section of the Introduction, the formula “Greek as a fundamental ‘given’ of eastern Christianity” (p. 7) is probably the best way to refer to the crucial role of Greek in “the history of Christianity ab initio and in toto” (p. 2) and to emphasize the great moments of Greco-Semitic cultural interference beginning with Alexander the Great, through the Septuagint translation up to the Middle Ages. In section three, “Greek, Syriac, and the Language of Roman Power,” Johnson reviews a series of Fergus Millar’s publications.1 Millar posits a lack of Syriac presence in the public and intellectual spheres and a dominant role of Greek in the regions West of the Euphrates from the early third century, when Edessa acquired the status of colonia in the Roman empire, up to the sixth century. Johnson demonstrates that these conclusions result from a sometimes tendentious use of the sources and an underestimation of the Syriac literary production in the Edessa region in the second and third centuries. On the more general level, Johnson questions Millar’s explanatory framework of the linguistic processes in the late ancient Near East, within which Hellenization of the region is presented as the direct consequence of its Romanization. Instead, Johnson argues that “language was less a political necessity and more a functional tool for intellectual interaction and the selfdefinition of community” (p. 17) and suggests that the role of Greek in the eastern Roman empire would have been better articulated “if the Hellenism of Syriac (and other eastern Christian) literature is allowed to speak in its own cultural voice and context” (p. 13). 
Fergus

Millar, Religion, Language, and Community in the Roman Near East: Constantine to Muhammad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Fergus Millar, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II, 408–450 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006); Fergus Millar, “Ethnic identity in the Roman Near East, AD 325–450: Language, Religion and Culture,” in Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean in Antiquity: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Humanitites Research Centre in Canberra 10–12 November, 1997, introd. G. W. Clarke (Sydney: Dept. of Archaeology, University of Sydney, 1998), 159–176; Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 BC – AD 337 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).

264

Book Reviews

In section four, “The Early Period: Edessa, Third to Fourth Centuries,” Johnson discusses the Greek-Syriac interaction reflected in the intellectual movements, educational centers, and literary works of this early period. Johnson questions Brock’s terminology of “antagonism” and “assimilation”2 and proposes to treat the “idiomatic” position of Aphrahat, Ephrem, and Jacob of Serugh as a rather short aberration within the context of generally Hellenophile sentiments of Aramaic Christianity before 300 and after 500 CE. The fifth section of the Introduction, “The First Golden Age: Syria and Palestine, Fifth to Sixth Centuries,” focuses on the time of the theological controversies when the language choice got closer to being the marker of confessional identity than ever before. Still, as Johnson warns, theological allegiances across languages should not be underestimated. While Eusebius of Emesa, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius, authors who played a formative role in the Christological controversies, chose to write in Greek, from the 470s onwards dyophysite authors like Narsai wrote exclusively in Syriac. Over the same fifth and sixth century, miaphysite authors wrote in both Greek and Syriac, and Greek compositions were often translated into Syriac soon after they were written. Section six, “Greek, Syriac, and Coptic: The Case of Egypt, Fourth to Tenth Centuries,” covers issues related to translation activities and intellectual connections between Manicheans and various kinds of Christians—the speakers of Greek, Coptic, Syriac, and Latin—who interacted in the monastic centers and settlements in Egypt. Johnson untangles the complicated linguistic evidence focusing on the papyri sources, the manuscript history, and colophons. He concludes that, far from being a dominant language, “Greek was a language of cultural currency which could be invoked when a translation from Syriac to Coptic was somewhat tenuous or needed further specification” (p. 40). By the late seventh century, Greek almost disappeared from the Coptic world.

2

Sebastian P. Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, edited by Nina Garsoïan, Thomas Mathews, and Robert Thompson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982), 17–34 .

Book Reviews

265

Section seven, “The Second Golden Age: Palestine, Sinai, and Syria, Seventh to Twelfth Centuries,” explores the social value and functionality of Greek in the region under the increasing Arabicization, and traces the migration of texts through languages and locations. The separation along linguistic and theological lines between Chalcedonians (Greek) and non-Chalcedonians (other languages) went further, but Greek played a unifying role among different Christian communities in the East well into the ninth century and beyond. It was also the language that connected Eastern Greek intellectuals with Constantinople and the West. The last part of this section is devoted to Greek influence on Georgian literature. In the conclusion Johnson once more turns to the debate with Fergus Millar on the relation between language and identity. He agrees with Millar’s thesis that in the earlier period (the second to the fourth century) languages such as Greek, Syriac, or Coptic did not play the role of a primary marker of ethnic or religious identity among the Christian communities in the Near East. Yet he argues that the later use and functions of the Greek language in the region do not confirm Millar’s assertion concerning an abrupt shift in the sixth century toward sectarian language use and identity formation. Johnson refers to the continuing appreciation of Greek among East Syriac Christians and the use of Syriac by the Melkites. He insists that the literary history of the sixth century demonstrates “that new, hybrid combinations of languages and authorial careers were producing innovations in literature well beyond anything easily captured under the term ‘identity’” (p. 91). Cross-pollination between Greek and other languages of the East was crucial to the formation of the literary histories in all these languages, including Greek. There are a couple of minor criticisms. First, it would perhaps be worth highlighting that in contrast to the Jewish and Islamic traditions, Christianity did not insist on the importance of the original language of the divine message, be it Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew. This point would help to contextualize the case of Christianity within the history and sociology of the other religions of the Near East. Second, the difference between popular and elite use of Greek in a particular time is not always clearly articulated. Johnson refers to the evidence of low-register bilingualism, such as papyri and epigraphy for the earlier period, but at some point (post-seventh century) the focus is rather on the elitist culture. Cer-

266

Book Reviews

tainly, the literary productivity of bilingual authors writing in Greek under Arab rule and ongoing translations to and from Greek in the monastic centers witness to the continuous use of Greek by the educated elite in the Near East, but the extent to which these activities affected the majority of the population remains unspecified. It may, however, well be that it is impossible to reconstruct the picture on the ground based on the available sources. Johnson successfully summarizes the previous scholarship and carefully presents his own argument. One could specially mention his attention to manuscripts and literary histories, to intellectual and monastic centers and schools, and to the history of literary genres. So far, English scholarship has been lacking such a publication that combines a large-scale chronological perspective, a systematic approach to the primary sources, and a well-balanced conceptual framework. This book is an important contribution that demonstrates the diversity of the Christianities of the Near East and their interconnectedness.

Amir Harrak, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Partaking of the Holy Mysteries; Scott F. Johnson, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Sinful Woman; Edward G. Mathews, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Creation of Adam and the Resurrection of the Dead; Adam C. McCollum, Jacob of Sarug’s Homilies on Jesus’ Temptation; Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 19, 33, 37–38, The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, Fascicles 17, 31–33 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013–2014). Pp. vii + 49, x + 128, viii + 66, viii + 144; $35.00, $52.91, $41.60, $55.64. PHILIP MICHAEL FORNESS, PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Translations release texts from the domain of specialists, enabling wider access and forging connections across disciplines. Often they become the best known, most cited, and most valued texts in a corpus. They exert a strong influence in scholarship on large and difficult corpora. Hence the importance of these four volumes. They offer accessible translations of homilies with a difficult style that come from one of the largest collections of early Christian sermons. The translators provide introductions and annotations that identify productive avenues of scholarship on Jacob of Sarug. This review considers especially the trajectories of research that these volumes encourage. Amir Harrak’s Homily on the Partaking of the Mysteries situates Jacob’s work within its liturgical setting. 1 In this homily, Jacob interprets the movements of the clerics and the words of the liturgy, and he exhorts his audience to partake worthily of the Eucharistic feast. It provides a glimpse into the setting in which Jacob delivered his homilies and brings us closer to an understanding of Jacob as a late antique ecclesiastical leader. Harrak’s prior scholarship has shown that this homily is a valuable source for understanding the early Syriac liturgy.2 Here he identifies specific phrases that reflect historical and contemporary liturgies. Jacob even uses “an expression not found in the Syriac Orthodox and Catholic liturgy but present in the liturgy of the 1

Paul Bedjan, ed., Homiliae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (Paris: Harrassowitz, 1905–1910), vol. 3, 646–63 (no. 95). Bedjan’s edition serves as the base text for the homilies in these volumes. 2 Amir Harrak, “The Syriac Orthodox Celebration of the Eucharist in Light of Jacob of Serugh’s Mimrō 95,” in Jacob of Serugh and His Times, ed. George A. Kiraz (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 91–113.

267

268

Book Reviews

Church of the East and the Chaldean Church” (p. 3). While Narsai has received substantial attention for the development of the liturgy, a full analysis of Jacob’s corpus in this regard awaits scholarly attention. This homily has long been available in English and French translations.3 The translation offered here is mostly reliable, but contains misprints (e.g., pp. 6, 14, 16, 32) and exhibits occasional confusion over Jacob’s syntax (e.g., pp. 8, 14, 20). As a whole, the volume lays the groundwork for further research on the early Syriac liturgy in relation to Jacob’s homilies. Scott Johnson’s Homily on the Sinful Woman provides a window into late antique literary culture.4 The homily offers an interpretation of the biblical narrative of the woman who anoints Jesus. Johnson’s introduction highlights the imagery of baptism and medicine, among other topics, to compare this homily to a PseudoEphremic homily, an anonymous dialogue poem of the fifth or sixth century, and a kontakion of Romanos the Melode. In the epilogue, Romanos’s kontakion takes center stage, as Johnson considers the possible dependence of Romanos on earlier Syriac sources. These extended discussions reveal the fluidity and freedom of literary borrowings and allusions among Syriac and Greek authors. A picture emerges not of unoriginal copying but of creative repurposing and adaptation. This volume also locates this homily within broader concerns about cultural interaction in bilingual areas. Johnson has recently published an extended treatment of the use of Greek by Christians in the Eastern Mediterranean, where he discusses the relationship between Greek and Syriac in late antiquity.5 Ephrem and Romanos have for some time served as key figures for exploring this relationship, and Jacob has recently received due attention as a transmitter Richard H. Connolly, “A Homily of Mâr Jacob of Sérûgh on the Reception of the Holy Mysteries,” The Downside Review 8 [27] (1908), 278– 87; Johannes P. M. van der Ploeg, “Une homélie de Jacques de Saroug sur la réception de la sainte communion,” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 3, Orient chrétien, deuxième partie, Studi e Testi 233 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964), 395–418. 4 Bedjan, Homiliae, vol. 2, 402–28 (no. 51). 5 Scott F. Johnson, “Introduction: The Social Presence of Greek in Eastern Christianity, 200–1200 CE,” in Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity: Greek, The Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–1500, vol. 6 ed. Scott F. Johnson (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2014), 1–122. 3

Book Reviews

269

of traditions.6 The introduction and epilogue frame the homily as a primary source through which one can fruitfully explore themes of bilingualism and literary relationships among Greek and Syriac authors. This volume offers a revision of Johnson’s previously published translation of this homily.7 Only minor translation errors appear: for example, “the Savior” for “our Savior” ( 
; p. 70). The introduction and epilogue to this volume offer a focused study on this topic; the translation encourages readers to join this conversation. Edward Mathews’s Homily on the Creation of Adam and the Resurrection of the Dead connects Jacob’s thought to exegetical traditions.8 The opening sections of the homily feature an interpretation of Genesis 1–3. But Jacob quickly turns to the resurrection of Adam. This structure allows for extensive theological development. Jacob’s theology of the fall and the creation of humanity has been the focus of previous scholarship. Mathews’s translation makes this theology more accessible to an English-reading audience and reasserts this homily’s importance for discussing such themes. His translation benefits from a modern critical edition and French translation by Khalil Alwan.9 While Matthews opts to use Bedjan’s edition, he adds one line to the text and includes an additional twelve-line section in the introduction. Taeke Jansma’s important article on Jacob’s Homily on the Creation of the World, also known as the Hexaemeron, 10 helped place Jacob’s exegesis of Genesis within the tradition of hexaemeral

6 See, for example, Manolis Papoutsakis, “The Making of a Syriac Fable: From Ephrem to Romanos,” Le Muséon 120 (2007), 29–75. 7 Scott F. Johnson, “The Sinful Woman: A Memra by Jacob of Serugh,” Sobornost 24 (2002), 56–88. 8 Bedjan, Homiliae, vol. 3, 152–75 (no. 72). 9 Khalil Alwan, ed. and trans., Jacques de Saroug: Quatre homélies métriques sur la création, CSCO 508–509 / Scrip. Syr. 214–215 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 78–105 (text); 87–113 (trans.). 10 See the titles given to the homily in the Arabic and Italian translations: Behnam M. Boulos Sony, trans., Al-maymar ʿalā itqān al-barāyā aw maymar al-ayyām al-sittah, 2 vols. (Rome, 2000); Behnam M. Boulos Sony, ed. and trans., Esamerone: I sei giorni della creazione (Rome: Guaraldi, 2011).

270

Book Reviews

literature.11 Mathews, who also has translated two parts of Jacob’s Hexaemeron for this series,12 similarly locates Jacob’s Homily on the Creation of Adam and the Resurrection of the Dead within a broader exegetical tradition. Drawing on his previous scholarship on early Christian exegesis of Genesis,13 Mathews connects this homily to the writings of Greek and Syriac authors. He thus demonstrates Jacob’s participation in a wider discussion over the interpretation of this passage that crossed linguistic boundaries. The translation does not always accurately interpret Jacob’s syntax (e.g., pp. 14, 22, 26–28). Much work remains to show the value of Jacob’s corpus for understanding late antique exegesis. Volumes like Mathews’s do much to forward this cause. Adam McCollum’s Homilies on Jesus’ Temptation locates Jacob’s exegesis within a broader exegetical tradition and identifies crucial questions for the future study of Jacob’s corpus. McCollum translates two homilies that offer imaginative narrations of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.14 The survival of two homilies on this topic invites reflection on the major challenges facing scholarship on Jacob’s homilies. In the introduction, McCollum considers the ascription of these homilies to Jacob and their manuscript transmission. We will need to understand Jacob’s style and tendencies in order to attribute homilies to Jacob with confidence. 11 Taeke Jansma, “L’hexaméron de Jacques de Sarûg,” trans. LouisMarcel Gauthier, L’Orient Syrien 4 (1959), 3–42, 129–62, 253–84. This homily appears in Bedjan, Homiliae, vol. 3, 1–151 (no. 71). 12 Edward G. Mathews, Jacob of Sarug’s Homilies on the Six Days of Creation: The First Day (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009); Jacob of Sarug’s Homilies on the Six Days of Creation: The Second Day (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, forthcoming). 13 Edward G. Matthews and Joseph P. Amar, trans., Saint Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, FC 91 (1994); Edward G. Mathews, ed. and trans., The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO 572–573 (Louvain: Peeters, 1998); Edward G. Mathews, “Isaac of Antioch and the Literature of Adam and Eve,” in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 89, eds. Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth A. Clements (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 331–344; Edward G. Mathews, “‘What Manner of Man?’: Early Syriac Reflections on Adam,” in Syriac and Antiochian Exegesis and Biblical Theology for the 3rd Millennium, (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008), 115–149. 14 Bedjan, Homiliae, vol. 3, 335–63 (no. 82); vol. 4, 610–31 (no. 126).

Book Reviews

271

More attention to the complicated transmission of these homilies is also necessary to comprehend how and why they have survived to the present. McCollum offers several constructive ways of approaching these foundational questions. First, he links these homilies to a wider exegetical tradition by noting common themes among Greek and Syriac works on the temptation. Jacob’s relationship to Ephrem and the anonymous Syriac poetic tradition may yield insights not only into the biblical exegesis of this passage in these homilies but also into their ascription to Jacob. Second, he explores Jacob’s vocabulary for aggression, humility, and the devil and demons. This enables comparison between the two homilies. Further studies on his language will lead to stronger claims about the authorship of Jacob’s homilies. Third, he identifies interpretations common to both homilies. This suggests that the author of one homily at least had familiarity with the exegetical traditions in the other. This volume offers an excellent translation of these two homilies, even though occasional errors in word choice occur: “His” for “Our Lord’s” (
; p. 34); “our Lord” for “Christ” (
; p. 78). But the translation offers good readings of the syntax, and the study of Jacob’s specialized vocabulary makes the translation particularly lively at points. As a whole, this volume points forwards towards a better, linguistically grounded understanding of Jacob’s corpus. These four volumes highlight four major areas for potential growth in scholarship: liturgy, literature, exegesis, and the integrity of the corpus. In so doing, they reveal the importance of Jacob’s homilies for understanding the history of biblical interpretation, late antique Christianity, and the Syriac heritage.

Dietmar W. Winkler, ed., Syriac Churches Encountering Islam. Past Experiences and Future Perspectives, Pro Oriente Studies in the Syriac Tradition 1 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010). Pp. 253; $139.75. CORNELIA HORN, FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN, AND THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

This publication presents the contributions of scholars who participated at the First Colloquium Syriacum in Salzburg, Austria, on November 14–16, 2007. The meeting was sponsored by the Austrian Foundation “Pro Oriente,” whose main aim is facilitating and promoting the work of ecumenical encounters between the Roman Catholic Church, the Chalcedonian churches in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox), and the non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox) churches. The First Colloquium Syriacum focused its study on the encounter of the Syriac churches with Islam in the past, while hoping to derive from such a retrospective directions for developing new perspectives for the future. The volume offers thirteen main articles, followed by four documents (reports, press releases, and list of conference participants) in an appendix. The articles are arranged chronologically, extending from the beginnings of Christian-Muslim encounters in the seventh century down to the more recent past. The impact of the current situation in the Middle East, where Christians and other non-Muslims or minority Muslims experience atrocities and violence in Syria and Iraq in their encounter with some forms of Islam, may change expectations for future perspectives regarding the Christian-Muslim encounter in the Middle East drastically. The book’s geographical focus is clearly on the Middle East, augmented by Baby Varghese’s contribution on Christian-Muslim relations in Kerala. This edited volume appeared in print as the first contribution to a new series, “Pro Oriente Studies in the Syriac Tradition.” Establishing such a series is without doubt a laudable goal. Yet the intended audience of this series is unclear. Several of the articles in the volume offer fully documented, polished presentations of the subject matter they propose to discuss. Others offer scant documentation, missing the opportunity to orient the reader toward a fuller understanding of the context of a given discussion. It may be that the primary intention of this volume was to provide 272

Book Reviews

273

the community involved with Pro Oriente access to unedited documentation of oral presentations. Those who approach these contributions as a starting point for understanding the scope and complexity of the questions which the contributors have addressed, or as a resource for independent research will face a certain hurdle on account of the paucity of references. Irrespective of the intended audience(s), it would be of great advantage for the readers as well as the contributors if the editors of future volumes would take greater care in supervising the copyediting of the volume in order to produce a book free of typographical and stylistic errors in the medium of communication, in this case, English.

Samuel Noble and Alexander Treiger, eds., The Orthodox Church in the Arab World, 700-1700: An Anthology of Sources. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2014. Pp. ix +375; $35. J. EDWARD WALTERS, ROCHESTER COLLEGE

The texts, and thus the history of Arabic-speaking Christians have too long remained out of reach to Western historians of Christianity, sequestered as they are by historical developments that isolated these Christians from the West and the language barrier that Arabic presents. In the present volume, Samuel Noble and Alexander Treiger take a significant step toward filling this gap by offering an anthology of Arabic texts in English translation that display the range and diversity of the Arabic Christian tradition. This range covers both a broad span of time (as the sub-title suggests, roughly 700-1700 CE) and genres. As such, these texts offer a small, but representative sample that displays the vitality of this understudied and undervalued literary tradition. Several of these texts have never before appeared in English translations, and several have never appeared in any Western language. The editors begin the volume with a helpful Introduction, including an impressively concise yet detailed overview of the history of Christianity in the Arabic-speaking world. In this narrative, the editors do offer a brief introduction to all of the Eastern Christian traditions that ultimately adopted Arabic, but they note that the focus of this particular volume is the history of the Arabic-speaking Christians who remained loyal to the Antiochian Orthodox tradition. Historically, these Christians have been called “Melkites,” denoting their allegiance to the faith of the Byzantine Emperor; Noble and Treiger refer to this tradition as the “Arab Orthodox” Church. Thus, the texts presented in this volume represent only one branch of Arabic-speaking Christianity. Although this editorial decision limits the diversity of texts that might have been included, this decision may actually be helpful to non-specialists, who may be confused by the various branches of the Syriac-Arabic tradition. In the Introduction, the editors also offer an overview of Christian literature produced in Arabic. Throughout the course of this overview, the editors place each text included in this volume within a broader literary and historical context, which is particularly helpful for scholars who are new to these materials. This overview of Christian Arabic literature shows the range of genres that 274

Book Reviews

275

Arabic-speaking Christians adopted. Each text includes a brief introduction by its translator and a bibliography for further suggested reading. The first selection, translated by Mark N. Swanson, presents excerpts from the earliest surviving Christian work in Arabic, the 8th-century, anonymous, and untitled theological treatise that Swanson calls “An Apology for the Christian Faith.” Swanson has previously published on this work and is currently preparing, a complete English translation, to be accompanied by an Arabic edition prepared by Samir Khalil Samir. This text is likely the most well-known of all those included, given its publication history beginning with Margaret Dunlop Gibson’s discovery of the text at the Monastery of Saint Catherine. And yet, despite the fact that this text has existed in an English translation for over a century, it still remains unknown to many historians of Christianity. Swanson’s notes on this text are in-depth, reflecting his prior work, and will be of a helpful resource for those interested in the Christian appropriation of Qur’anic texts and language. The second selection comes from the late 8th/early 9th-century bishop of Harran, Theodore Abu Qurra, with an introduction and translation by John C. Lamoreaux. The passage chosen for inclusion in this volume—an excerpt from Theodore’s “Treatise on the Existence of God and the True Religion” (Maymar fi wujud al-Khaliq wa-l-din al-qawin) 1 —was previously published as part of Lamoreaux’ edition of Theodore’s works,2 though Lamoreaux has edited this translation slightly for the current volume. The excerpt presented here provides Theodore’s survey of religious options available to him by speaking to adherents of each religion—Hanifs (local “pagans” from Harran), Zoroastrians, Samaritans, Jews, Manichaeans, Marcionites, Bardaisanites, and—finally—Muslims. Much like the religious odyssey presented by Justin Martyr, Abu Qurra seeks the “true religion.” This selection is an excellent addition to this volume because it provides a wealth of information about Theodore’s perception of other religions, a topic that will be of

Note: the editors present all Arabic transliterations without diacritical marks, so I have followed their convention in this review. 2 John C. Lamoreaux, Theodore Abu Qurrah (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005). 1

276

Book Reviews

interest to many who may want to use this book as a textbook for a course. The third selection represents the “disputation/dialogue” genre that became popular for Christian apologetic and catechetical purposes in the Muslim world. The text chosen—the 9th-century “Disputation of the Monk Abraham of Tiberias,” translated by Krisztina Szilágyi—provides an excellent example of this genre. Moreover, this particular disputation is of interest because it also features some Jews as part of the disputation in addition to the monk Abraham and a Muslim emir. Like all other writings of this genre, this account is highly fictionalized, as Szilágyi notes, but the topics discussed in the dispute provide a window into the historical world of inter-religious dialogue by highlighting the doctrines that Christians felt they needed to defend against their Muslim neighbors. In Chapter 4, John C. Lamoreaux presents translations of three hagiographical works: “The Passion of Saint Anthony Rawh,” “The Passion of Saint ʿAbd al-Masih al-Ghassani,” and “Saint George and a Muslim.” Scholars who are already familiar with the hagiographical traditions in Greek or Syriac will recognize many familiar themes here. According to Lamoreaux’s introduction, the first two texts are likely based on real, historical figures while the third is probably a literary creation, invented for the purposes of extolling the local shrine of St. George in Lydda. Scholars and historians who are interested in martyrdom and the genre of hagiography more broadly will find these translations of particular useful. Turning from hagiography to history, the next selection comes from the 10th-century “Chronicle” of Agapius of Manbij, also translated by John C. Lamoreaux. Agapius’ Chronicle spans from creation to the author’s present time, the middle of the 10th century. The excerpt provides an argument for the superiority of the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Septuagint) over both the Hebrew version—which he argues was corrupted by the Jews—and all translations based off the Hebrew, including the subsequent Syriac translations. As such, this selection presents a fascinating historical retelling of the translation of the Septuagint under Ptolemy Philadelphus as well as a textual exposition of the “corruptions” in the Scriptures of the Jews.

Book Reviews

277

The sixth chapter in this volume shows the diversity of the offerings of Arabic Christian literature, featuring the poetry of Sulayman al-Ghazzi, an 11th-century bishop from Gaza whose poetry has never before been translated and published in a Western language. Samuel Noble provides the translation and introduction, which situates Sulayman’s life and work within the broader turmoil of Palestinian Christian life in the 10th and 11th centuries. Two poems are included here, entitled: “Not All Baptized with Water Are Christians” and “Soul, Do Not Mourn Death.” The first focuses on orthodoxy and heresy in faith and the nature of the Church, whereas the second provides an intimate window into Sulayman’s life, including the death of his son. These poems offer but a small taste of the richness of the Arabic Christian literary tradition, and one can only hope that more will appear in English translation in the near future. The next two texts, comprising Chapters 7 and 8, offer a glimpse into the ways that older philosophical and theological texts from other languages—primarily Greek—influenced theological writing in Arabic. First, Samuel Noble presents a translation of two essays by ʿAbdallah ibn al-Fadl al-Antaki, an 11th-century deacon of Antioch, whose grasp of Greek philosophical and patristic texts shows a well-rounded education. These two essays, one on the soul’s pursuit of virtue and the other on the refutation of astrology, show an impressive range of explicit citations of or references to previous literature. Indeed, on only one page, Ibn al-Fadl manages to quote or refer to Galen, Aristotle, Gregory of Nyssa, and John of Damascus—no small feat! Prior to this volume, neither of these essays has ever been published in English. The text of Chapter 8, “The Noetic Paradise,” represents (likely) the only text in this volume that was not originally written in Arabic. This text—an anonymous, allegorical treatise of unknown origin—was composed in Greek, but the Greek original is now lost. Thus, the Arabic translation represents the only surviving vestige of what the present translator, Alexander Treiger calls “a masterpiece of Greek patristic literature” (188). In this allegory of ascetic life, the nous is expelled from Paradise—just as Adam and Eve were expelled—and it struggles to return to this paradise. This text has yet to be edited and published, either in Arabic or in English translation, but Treiger’s excerpted translation included in this

278

Book Reviews

volume is part of his forthcoming edition and translation of the work. The following work, also translated by Treiger, provides a window into ecclesiastical issues, insofar as it presents a biting critique of the Church, and especially the priesthood, by the Agathon of Homs. This Agathon (ca. 11th/12th-century), born Iliyya of Antioch, assumed the bishopric of Homs at some point in his life; however, he later resigned the position, citing “blasphemies” in the priesthood as his reason. The text presented here represents, as Treiger calls it in his introduction, “an apology [Agathon] wrote in the wake of his resignation” (201). As such, this letter represents an extensive treatment of the priesthood and church leadership that is unparalleled in Arabic Christian literature. Treiger’s partial translation here is the first translation of this text to appear in English. In Chapter 10, eminent Christian Arabic scholar Sydney H. Griffith presents a translation of Paul of Antioch’s well-known “Letter to a Muslim Friend,” which circulated broadly among Arabic-speaking Christians. Indeed, although Paul served as the bishop of Sidon, and thus presumably wrote his “Letter” from there (likely in the early 13th century), this work provoked a response from a near-contemporary Egyptian Muslim, Shihab al-Din Ahmad ibn Idris al Qarafi, and it was copied and distributed in Cyprus in the early 14th century. According to Griffith, Paul of Antioch is unique because, although his audience is Christian, he writes with “an Arabic idiom that is distinctly Islamic” (217). No doubt one reason for the popularity of this text is its unique argument; Paul attempts to use passages from the Qur’an to support the practice of Christianity, including a reinterpretation of the life of Muhammad through a Christian lens. The final two selections in this volume bring us to the modern period and demonstrate the vast reach of Arab Orthodox Christians in the 17th and 18th centuries. Four selections from the writings of Macarius Ibn al-Zaʿim, the 17th-century Patriarch of Antioch, translated by Nikolaj Serikoff, comprise Chapter 11. Macarius’ life and writings show both an intense desire to bring the practices of the Arabic Orthodox community more in line with those of the Greek Church and the influence of Western missionary activity. Macarius also traveled extensively in Eastern Europe, soliciting financial support for the Orthodox Christians

Book Reviews

279

under Ottoman rule. Much of Macarius’ writings are preserved in a largely unpublished “notebook” that he kept during his travels. Of the four texts included here, the first three come from this notebook. The fourth will likely be of broadest interest: a letter (one of two known such letters) written by Macarius to the French King Louis XIV. This letter sheds light on the French missionary interest in the Holy Lands in the 17th century, and Macarius appeals to Louis as a defender of Middle Eastern Christians. The final selection comes from the travelogue of Paul of Aleppo, archdeacon of Antioch, and son of Macarius Ibn al-Zaʿim, with translation and introduction by Ioana Feodorov. Paul accompanied his father on his travels to Eastern Europe, mentioned above, and he kept a detailed record of their travels, including local customs of the people they encountered. Despite the significance of this text, no complete edition or Western translation exists yet, though Feodorov notes that there is an edition and French translation in progress. The passages chosen include a description of stops in Constantinople, Moldavia, and Moscow; likewise, they also include meetings with significant figures including the Russian Patriarch Nikon. All of the texts chosen for this volume are interesting in their own right, but the collection of these sources into a single volume, with helpful introductions and bibliographies, makes this book an invaluable resource for the study of Arabic Christianity and, indeed, the history of Christianity more broadly. The editors have also included a “Biographical Guide to Arab Orthodox Christianity,” which falls into four categories: 1) Reference Works, 2) English Translations of Arab Orthodox Texts, 3) Translations of Arab Orthodox Texts into Languages other than English, and 4) Other Useful References. Finally, three indices—Biblical passages, Qur’anic passages, and general—round out this volume. Henceforth, historians of Christianity will have no excuse to remain ignorant of the Arab Orthodox tradition. The editors and translators are to be commended for creating such a valuable resource and at such an affordable price. And indeed, in the current socio-poltical atmosphere in which there is so much ignorance concerning the history of Christians in the Middle East, their efforts deserve a wide audience.

Nicholas Sims-Williams, Biblical and Other Christian Sogdian Texts from the Turfan Collection. Berliner Turfantexte 32 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014). Pp. 227 + 17 plates; €70. MARK DICKENS, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA

The Turfan Collection in Berlin contains fragments of texts in more than 20 languages and more than 20 scripts (with many languages written in two or more scripts and many scripts used to write two or more languages). The vast majority of texts are Buddhist or Manichaean, reflecting the two major religions practiced in the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho (the capital of which was Turfan), but there are also about 1100 fragments from Christian texts, the majority in Syriac, Sogdian or Uyghur Turkic. This volume examines Christian Sogdian material, biblical and otherwise, in seven separate studies, providing transliterations, translations and commentaries on various fragmentary texts, followed by two helpful glossaries. The author, Nicholas Sims-Williams, is an internationally recognized scholar of Sogdian language and literature who has worked extensively with the Christian Sogdian material from Turfan. His catalogue Iranian Manuscripts in Syriac Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection (containing all the known Sogdian and Persian texts in Syriac script from Turfan) was published in 2012. Although most of this volume addresses matters of Sogdian syntax, morphology, etymology, phonology and orthography, scholars of Syriac will find much of interest in the book. The author makes connections wherever possible (signalled in the commentary sections by ~) to Syriac equivalents of Sogdian words, phrases and longer chunks of discourse, highlighting similarities and differences between the two, whether the text was translated or adapted from a Syriac original or, in some cases, is of uncertain origin. As is the custom with all volumes in the Berliner Turfantexte series (which began in 1971), the texts themselves are all transliterated into Latin script. This may seem strange to those readers who are used to reading Syriac in Syriac script. However, it makes the volume more accessible to those who are not Syriac specialists and enables readers to decipher Sogdian words no matter what script they were originally written in. The reader is advised to note the important footnote on p. 5 concerning the transliteration conventions employed. Sims-Williams has a very precise system for identifying missing, illegible or 280

Book Reviews

281

reconstructed text which the fragmentary state of the texts necessitates. Readers will also find it handy to consult a copy of the aforementioned catalogue, since texts in this volume are referred to throughout by the numbering system employed in the catalogue. Finally, those unfamiliar with Sogdian orthography should be aware that the transliteration into Latin script reflects Sogdian pronunciation of Syriac
and
as γ and c (= č) respectively. Thus biblical names like
 and
 appear as nbwkdncr and yšwγ, reminding us that speakers of Iranian languages would pronounce these names differently from native Syriac speakers. The first study in the present volume concerns a Sogdian Psalter written in Sogdian script, one of two such Psalters found at Turfan (Sogdian was written in the native Sogdian script, Manichaean script, Syriac script and Brahmi script). Although parts of this Sogdian Psalter were previously published by Martin Schwartz (1967), who was the first to recognize the text for what it was, the process of identifying the various fragments from the original manuscript has taken nearly 50 years. As with the texts addressed in the other chapters, the author clearly outlines the history of reconstructing the remains of the original manuscript, a reminder of the sleuth work required to work with this collection, so much of which consists of small pieces that must be matched to other fragments formerly joined together, but separated by deliberate vandalism at some point or the vicissitudes of time and weather. Indeed, the process of fragmentation continued during World War II and its aftermath; numerous references in this volume to lost originals and readings based on photographs remind us that the 20th century also wreaked havoc on these manuscripts. Sims-Williams includes important information about the format of this Psalter, including Psalm numbers and titles, some of which are rendered in Syriac, as well as the relation of the translation to the Peshitta original and a complete list of variant readings in the Sogdian that agree with certain manuscripts of the Syriac text. As with all the studies in this volume, the Sogdian text in transliteration and the translation include an extensive and precise set of footnotes. Of particular interest to many readers will be the fact that the final extant folio of this manuscript contains translations of part of a hymn by Babai of Nisibis and the Nicene Creed, the latter differing only slightly from the East Syriac text. The creed in particular prompts a number of observations related to the

282

Book Reviews

translation process (the following references are all from pp. 31 and 33). In places the Sogdian reflects a literal translation rather than the figurative sense of the Syriac original (“God, the Father, the Keeper of all” to translate  


, instead of “God, the Father Almighty”; “by whose hands” to translate 
, instead of “by whom” – see the author’s comment on p. 70). Other variations do not reflect the Syriac text but are perhaps included to clarify a concept (“one Lord God, Jesus Christ” instead of “one Lord, Jesus Christ”) or to avoid using a word which would be meaningless in a Central Asian context (“one apostolic Christian church” instead of “one holy, apostolic, Catholic church”). Also of interest are the two names written in the margin of the creed folio which demonstrate the onomastic interactions of Syriac, Sogdian and Turkic in the Turfan Christian community. Six of the nine folios from this text are included in the plates at the back of the volume; it would perhaps have been nice to have images of all folios (including the final one containing the creed), but presumably publishing costs dictated the use of only a representative set of plates. One other minor point that might seem strange to some readers is the use of Thou, Thee and Thy for the divine pronouns in the translation of this text, in contrast to the modern pronouns that are used in other translations in this volume. The second study deals with select fragments of two separate gospel lectionaries, one Syriac-Sogdian and another exclusively Sogdian. As Sims-Williams notes, this essay was published previously, but with misprints that necessitated its republication in the present volume; it features fragments identified by a former student of the author. References to “a tiny scrap of paper… [containing] part of a final -t” (p. 58) that proved crucial in identifying where the scrap in question belonged and the conclusion that a fragment consisted of “two layers of paper from consecutive folios which are stuck together” (p. 60) remind the reader of the painstaking work needed to decipher and reconstruct the original texts from the extant remains of this corpus. More sobering are the phrases “a folio which is now lost” and “this fragment cannot now be located” (pp. 58, 62), underscoring the fact that even manuscript collections removed from their original context are not impervious to irretrievable loss.

Book Reviews

283

The third study addresses another lectionary, this one containing only the Pauline epistles and written only in Sogdian (in contrast to a Syriac-Sogdian epistle lectionary in the collection), raising the question of why some Sogdian biblical texts were bilingual, while others did not include the parallel Syriac text. The presence of one Syriac word (
, God forbid!) and certain “highly unusual linguistic and orthographical features” in the Sogdian translation highlight the multilingual nature of the Christian community that created and used these texts (pp. 64, 70). An extensive commentary on the text provides important insights into the process of translating the Syriac original into a Central Asian linguistic and cultural context, including the use of a Zoroastrian term for “Light Paradise” (p. 72). As Sims-Williams notes, this lectionary was not identified until after the aforementioned catalogue was published, highlighting the challenge of verifying the contents of some of these texts, even after they have been worked on by experts over many decades. Unlike elsewhere in the volume, the author has omitted the distinctive n signature numbers (assigned to nearly every Sogdian fragment in Syriac script) for the two partial folios extant from this lectionary (E32/1 = n377–n381; E32/2 = n376, n379). The fourth study examines several folios from the same original manuscript, some of which deal with the story of Daniel from the Bible and all of which seem to share a common theme of fasting. Unlike the majority of texts presented in this book, the Syriac original of this text (if such existed) has not been identified. Of interest in this text are 1) an alternate version of the 10 commandments; 2) the use of both Syriac 
and Sogdian bγy for the Judeo-Christian God; 3) the use of a Syriac term for bishops
– see the note on pp. 96–97 on the use of seyāmē in (  Christian Sogdian to indicate pronunciation as well as plurality) but a Sogdian term for priests (dyndʾrty); 4) a specific reference to cštʾ, “koumiss” (fermented mare’s milk, a favorite drink in Central Asia, especially amongst Turkic peoples) as one of the forbidden substances when undertaking a fast; 5) the use of Sogdian sng, “stone” instead of 
 for “Peter” and 6) the upside-down writing of šmnw, “Satan” (discussed on p. 104). The author speculates that missing text in folio E29/2 may have “gone on to draw a parallel between Moses’ fast and the practice of fasting in the Christian

284

Book Reviews

church” (p. 75), but the plain sense of the text seems to be more concerned with a parallel between Moses shepherding the people of Israel with his staff and bishops and priests shepherding the church with the (processional?) cross. The fifth study discusses a Sogdian version of the Wisdom of Aiqar, the famous Aesop-like collection of aphorisms extant in numerous versions. As Sims-Williams notes, the Sogdian version, which was “surely translated from Syriac… differs in many details from the extant Syriac versions” (p. 108), suggesting that the Sogdian translator had access to an earlier version in Syriac that contained material omitted in later versions. The commentary on this text contains copious notes, not only on philological points, but also on the presence or absence of individual maxims in other versions of Aiqar (e.g., Aramaic, Armenian, Slavonic, Syriac, Turkish), thus providing invaluable material for those who wish to reconstruct the various textual layers of this ancient literary source. We have a similar situation with the sixth study in this book, which deals with a version of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, written on two folios which probably come from the same original manuscript as the Wisdom of Aiqar. In this case, as the author observes, although Syriac preserves one version of this story, “none of the [extant] Syriac texts provides a close parallel to the Sogdian version of this episode, which seems to be much more concise” (p. 125). Of special interest is the quotation in the Sogdian text of two Syriac phrases uttered just prior to Mary’s upward transfer to heaven (pp. 128, 132–133). A note written on the bottom of the first folio beginning “I, the faulty, the sinful” (p. 132) reminds us of the monastic milieu in which these texts were used and probably originally written—similar marginal notes in Syriac, Sogdian and Uyghur script can be found on Syriac manuscript fragments from Turfan.1 The seventh and final study concerns a bilingual list of numerals which may well be part of the same original manuscript as the Sogdian Psalter discussed in the first study. Although the exact purpose of the list is unclear, it was presumably made to help Sogdian Erica C. D. Hunter and Mark Dickens, Syrische Handschriften, Teil 2: Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung = Syriac texts from the Berlin Turfan collection, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 5/2 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2014), SyrHT 48 & 49, SyrHT 287, U 5545, pp. 63, 271–272, 491–492. 1

Book Reviews

285

speakers who needed to use Syriac texts to learn the numbers, whether to find biblical references, pages or passages in liturgical and other texts. The omission and seemingly later addition of certain numbers to the list (p. 137, n. 3–4) may provide insight into the thought processes of the scribe who prepared this list. An apparently unrelated Syriac sentence contained in the central column is perhaps a mnemonic whose original meaning has been lost. Certainly all the texts in this volume provide plenty of fodder for those who want to understand scribal practices in the Syriac world. These seven studies are followed by two glossaries, one concerned with Christian Sogdian texts in Sogdian script and the other addressing those in Syriac script. These glossaries are invaluable additions to the tools available to scholars of Sogdian and Syriac who wish to see how the latter tradition was interpreted in the world of the former. The volume concludes with a list of Abbreviations, an extensive Bibliography, an Index of all words cited from Sogdian and 24 other languages (highlighting Sims-Williams’ broad knowledge of Indo-European languages), a list of Plates and 17 black and white plates at the back. The two glossaries will undoubtedly be of interest to many Syriac scholars, particularly the way in which they show how sometimes Sogdian was used and sometimes Syriac when translating important religious terms. Thus, the following words are invariably Sogdian: •

Church (p. 141)

•

Holy (p. 144)

•

Angel (p. 146, 178)

•

Peace (p. 149, 177)

•

Priest (p. 149, 177)

•

Sin (p. 150)

•

Worship (p. 153,

•

192, 196) •

Soul (p. 158, 191)

Christian & Christianity (p. 162, 194)

•

Spirit (p. 163, 196)

•

Salvation (p. 163, 172)

184) •

Heaven (p. 159,

•

Lord (p. 165, 200)

286

Book Reviews

•

Paradise (p. 171)

•

Censer (p. 190)

•

Religion (p. 177)

•

Baptism (p. 192)

•

Demon (p. 177)

•

Monk (p. 192)

•

Presbyter (p. 183)

•

Faith (p. 196)

•

Fasting (p. 186, 202)

By contrast, Syriac terms are employed for the following words or phrases: •

Amen (p. 140, 171)

•

Messiah (p. 153,

•

Martyrs’ (anthems) (p. 192)

183)

•

Vigil (p. 193)

•

Bishop (p. 171)

•

Deacon (p. 193)

•

Canon (p. 180)

•

Blessed are they

•

Catholicos (p. 180)

•

Psalm (p. 184)

(p. 195) •

Altar (p. 195)

And a few words have both Sogdian and Syriac manifestations: •

God (p. 145, 171,

•

(p. 173, 181)

174) •

•

Resurrection

Cross (p. 154, 175,

•

Prayer (p. 175, 184)

189)

•

Ascension (p. 192,

Gospel (p. 172,

193)

183) There is little to critique in this volume. The following are minor points that do not in any way mar the overall value of the book. One minor oversight seems to be the lack of an explanation of the Aramaic heterograms that are rendered in capitals (as is common when dealing with Iranian languages that used alphabets

Book Reviews

287

derived from Aramaic), e.g., pp. 142 (ʾPZY, ZY), 144 (ʿM), 146 (MN), 152 (Lʾ, MN), 167 (ZKn), 168 (ZY). Some readers will also wish that the second glossary (Sogdian words in Syriac script) included Syriac equivalents, as the first glossary (words in Sogdian script) does. There were several references in the texts to a source abbreviated merely as P (e.g., P9 on p. 97, P5.116 on p. 99) which is not included in the otherwise helpful list of Abbreviations located after the Glossary of Sogdian texts in Syriac script. These trivial observations aside, readers will be struck throughout by the depth and breadth of the author’s knowledge of not only the Sogdian language, but also many other languages, especially Syriac, as well as the broader scope of Central Asian culture and the beliefs and practices of Christianity in general and the Church of the East in particular. The extensive bibliography and frequent references to others who have written on a plethora of related texts or topics are a testimony to how well-read the author is and how quick he is to acknowledge the contributions of others, as well as to correct past scholarly errors, including those by himself. All in all, this volume not only introduces a significant corpus of texts for future scholars to work on, but also sheds considerable light on how Syriac Christianity adapted to the cultural intertidal zones in which it so frequently found itself.

Hannah Hunt, Clothed in the Body: Asceticism, the Body and the Spiritual in the Late Antique Era, Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012). Pp. xii + 237; $149.95. CARMEN MAIER, CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA

In Clothed in the Body: Asceticism, the Body and the Spiritual in the Late Antique Era, Hannah Hunt presents a survey of early Christian asceticism. She focuses on desert and Syriac literature up to the early seventh century, covering a great diversity of cultural and theological contexts. Hunt’s central question addresses the interface between religious anthropology and Christology: “How was it that only a complete, holistic humanity was accepted in Christ while in His human counterpart a division between body and soul appeared not only desirable but perhaps the only way to achieve theosis?” (1). She covers the whole spectrum between “dualist” and “dialectic” interpretations of the human person—comprised of “material” and “non-material” aspects, but devotes most attention to dialectic or “holistic” anthropologies. The book is encyclopedic rather than systematic. Hunt offers numerous entry points for deeper investigation of the often conflicting theological anthropologies represented in early eastern Christian literature. Given the breadth of the study, not all research is presented or interpreted from direct engagement with the primary literature; this would have required several volumes. A better balance between the expansiveness of the work and the rationale for its organization might have been struck, however. We are given a lot of information with very little interpretive or organizational structure. Between introductory and concluding chapters, Hunt’s work may be divided into four sections: chapters two and three address philosophical and biblical backgrounds; chapters four to six survey desert literature; chapters seven to ten focus on Syriac literature; and heterodox and orthodox developments are featured in chapters eleven and twelve. This review presents key points from each section in light of Hunt’s research question. Some further assessments of Hunt’s study are offered in conclusion. In chapters two to four, Hunt presents the Greek terms sōma and psychē, translated “body” and “soul,” which consistently stand for the material and non-material aspects of the human person, respectively. She shows a development in Plato’s anthropology 288

Book Reviews

289

beyond a Cartesian dualism often read anachronistically into Plato’s works, noting Aristotle understood the relationship between body and soul to be even more integrated. Hunt suggests it was Stoics, in their positive valuation of material creation, who “perhaps...leave the biggest footprint” in early Christian anthropology (28). From the biblical corpus, Hunt draws mostly on Pauline literature, which she presents as essentially Semitic in anthropology. Paul’s notion of sarx “denotes mortality and the potential for corruption; it is not inherently corrupt” (42). Nor was his view of the body negative, proven by his belief in a physical resurrection (1 Cor. 15). The desert literature covered in chapters four to six reveals a diversity of views on the integration of the material and nonmaterial aspects of the human person. Evagrius is representative of a moderate view. His anthropology presents the human person as a psychosomatic unity: “the body of the ascetic is very much part of his [or her] whole self; when under discipline and correctly controlled through purity of heart, it is the icon of God’s grace” (51). An entire chapter is devoted to Climacus, who is presented as the prime exemplar of desert literature. He uses Evagrian terminology to describe the spiritual ascent, which begins with a departure from physical and emotional attachments, continues with mastery over physical temptations, and culminates in “hesychia, apatheia, and love” (85). Like Evagrius, he is moderate in his teaching on the physical body. For Climacus, the human body at creation was in a state of “original perfection” but has become corrupt (86). The implication is that the body needs to be reintegrated with the soul “in a synergic process” (85) for the human person to achieve virtue. Interestingly, in these chapters Hunt addresses the “gendering of the spiritual” (68). She points out the faulty understandings of human physiology of this period (female fetuses were seen as less developed males; women’s changing states through puberty and menopause represented chaos). In terms of Greek moral philosophy, virtue was seen as a “male quality” (67). Yet female gender could be subverted through cross-dressing and choosing a celibate lifestyle. Women could thus free themselves from the social expectations to remain in the household domain and to rear children, opening the opportunity for social mobility and spiritual virtue. In addition, some Christian writers believed that sexual differentiation was introduced as a result of the fall. Thus, “By

290

Book Reviews

relinquishing sexual activity,” women’s “souls became unified and in imitation of the unsullied spiritual status of the first Adam” (73). In chapters seven to ten, Hunt shifts from desert spirituality to Syriac Christianity. The large geographical and cultural span of Syriac Christianity is matched by an equally broad spectrum of ascetical beliefs and practices—from body-denying feats in the stylites, extreme encratism, to more moderate views of the body’s role in salvation. Hunt focuses on writers who present a holistic theological anthropology, including Aphrahat, Simeon, Philoxenus, Isaac, John of Apamea, and especially Ephrem. In this section, Hunt also devotes a chapter to a single author, Pseudo-Macarius. This figure was held suspect by his contemporaries for “a quasiGnostic over-validation of the spiritual side of the human person” (128). Yet Hunt shows how integral the body was in PseudoMacarius’ anthropology. Body and soul were for him mutually dependent on each another, so much so that they could exchange attributes with one another (synaesthesia). Her literary overview is, from the standpoint of anthropology, broader in scope, including the Diatessaron, Acts of Thomas, Hymn of the Pearl, Odes of Solomon, and the Liber Graduum. Hunt’s tenth chapter, “‘Clothed in the Body’ as a Metaphor for Incarnation,” turns to the book’s title and shows the centrality of the body for much of Syriac theology, often illustrated by clothing imagery. Following Sebastian Brock, Hunt demonstrates that in early Syriac theology, every stage of salvation can be described through clothing imagery. Christ, “clothed in the body” in the Incarnation (149), restores the garment of glory Adam lost at the fall. Those who follow Christ into baptismal waters are clothed in that glory, symbolized in the baptismal garments, the same garments that will be worn at the eschatological wedding banquet. Chapters eleven and twelve form the final section, devoted to heterodox and orthodox Christologies. Hunt summarizes the beliefs of various “Heresiarchs,” including Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Saturnius, Eunomius, and especially Apollinarius, whose beliefs came very close to orthodox doctrinal formulations, and whose “intellectual powers challenged” those of the “orthodox Fathers” (181). Hunt highlights the classic Christological formulations by Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus, who all subscribed to a Christology that assumes a full

Book Reviews

291

humanity in Christ, which they deemed necessary for the full redemption of the human person. At the outset of the book, Hunt acknowledges that Christology and religious anthropology are “uneasily yoked threads” in her academic research (1). While the book moves forward in bringing these aspects of her work into dialogue, several tensions remain. Hunt’s initial research question, which was quoted in the introduction to this review, concerns a comparison between Christ’s humanity in the Incarnation with that of other human persons. This aspect of the relationship between Christology and anthropology—with greater emphasis on the latter—is consistently presented throughout her work. Yet the implications of her overviews are almost entirely left for the reader to discern, outside of the presumed agreeability of a holistic view of what constitutes a human person—i.e., a view that regards the human body as good and essential. A second concern Hunt presents as central is not well distinguished from the first, however. She states: “this text explores the simultaneous insistence on the unity of the two natures in Christ (increasingly the focus of ecumenical councils in the period) and the tension between dualistic and dialectic interpretations of the integrity of the human person” (2). This second concern seeks to draw a comparison between the unity of divine and human natures in Christ with the disunity/unity of the material and non-material aspects of the human person. It may have been helpful if Hunt had explained this second concern in relation to early Christian Christologies. For instance, is one to understand the comparison between the unity of divine and human in Christ with the unity of soul and body in another human person to approximate a logical equivalency? If so, the comparison would make sense only from the standpoint of a non-Chalcedonian Christology—not an Antiochene logos-anthropos Christology, but an Alexandrian logos-sarx Christology, a Christology that holds that the divinity of Christ replaces some part of what is authentically part of the human person, e.g., the human rational soul, or mind. Or, is the comparison rather an analogy? Maybe this is more likely, as Hunt points out in the conclusion: “As we have seen, some Patristic writers draw parallels between the unity of two natures in Christ and the integrity of the human person” (203). In any case, Hunt concludes: “how the integrity of body, soul, mind and spirit within the human person is linked to or reflects Christ’s unity of opposite

292

Book Reviews

natures remains unresolved because of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the late antique sources” (204). This lack of resolution is reflected in the inconsistent interchange throughout the book between the Christological designations of “two natures,” “dual nature,” and, somewhat confusingly, “dual natures” (83, 181), as well as in the inconsistent designations of what constitutes a human being—most often two aspects are noted (e.g., soul and body; spiritual and physical), but sometimes more aspects are given, as in the citation above. Hunt does present a potential framework for reconciling the tension between anthropology and Christology in this book, one stated in the introduction, and repeated in the conclusion, but not one developed or argued throughout. Hunt writes, “Prior to the Council of Nicaea’s concern with the full humanity of Christ, discussion of the problems posed by the human body focused on that of man, not Christ. The introduction of public debate about the dual nature forced the discussion out of the relative seclusion of the desert, and combined religious discourse with secular philosophical teachings in a rhetorical, frequently polemical, mode of address. It was no longer a priority to agonize about how to control one’s own body and its urges when the Church establishment needed to vilify and exclude from the fold those who misunderstood or misrepresented the body of Christ” (3). The suggested movement between the discourse on early Christian desert anthropology and the doctrinal formulations at the Christological councils remains unconvincing. Hunt’s work will be a useful resource for students of early Christian theology, spirituality, and literature. Her inclusion in a single volume of such a breadth of material will be hard to match. Students of early Christian theology in particular will benefit from so many eastern Christian texts gathered together and given voice regarding the central theological topics of anthropology and Christology, topics so wrestled with and passionately debated in the early centuries of Christianity. Those long tired of doctrinal approaches to early Christian theology may find her book refreshing. Hunt’s presentation allows for an appreciation of a great variety of views, particularly of the human body, far beyond what came to be included in orthodox belief. Students of Syriac Christianity will find here a good introduction to some of the basic literature, both primary and secondary,

Book Reviews

293

and will encounter the vast scope of this tradition that may well tease one into further research. Methodologically, Hunt shows the tension in this relatively young field between literary, historical, and theological approaches to the literature. Her work challenges us to consider the criteria we might use to do as the series editors suggest: “to estimate the value” of early Christian writings for today.

294

Book Reviews

Adam H. Becker, Revival and Awakening: American Evangelical Missionaries in Iran and the Origins of Assyrian Nationalism (University of Chicago Press, 2015). Pp. 432; $32.50. R. TODD GODWIN, THE INSTITUTE FOR ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES, CAMBRIDGE, UK

Delivering once again the type of intelligent, creative, and erudite work he is known for, Adam Becker’s newest book takes Syriac studies out of the past and into the contemporary period by offering us an energetic probe into the origins of “nationalism” among East Syriac Christians (between 1840 and 1918) and its connections to American Protestant missionaries. For Becker this nationalism led to East Syrians’ embrace of the appellation “Assyrian”—a late 19th-century creation—and for him a sign that ethnic nationalism had come to be (at least at times) more important than “religion” as a component within East Syrian identity. I put quotation marks around these and other key terms because this is something the book’s arguments and primary source probing does as well, in a manner of speaking. As Becker writes: “through a close reading of the sources, the book reconstructs the social and intellectual world of the American mission (to East Syrians at Urmia, Iran, ca. 1840– 1918), and in so doing tells the story of how Protestant religious (devotional, creedal, epistemological, and moral) reform and the practices, ideas, and affects the missionaries aimed to cultivate helped foster a new secular national identity” (p. 6). Becker provides us with eight chapters in making this argument, covering the period from the Congregational Church and Justin Perkins’ “Mission to the Nestorians” (beginning in 1838 and continuing to WW I); and within this chronology Becker examines how a national consciousness arose between East Syrians and their American Protestant interlocutors. Becker is at times more careful than others to say this involved East Syrian agency as well, though a hermeneutic of agency is problematized too at the end of chapter one, and in one of the book’s many gems—its forays into theoretical historiography. The first chapter sets the stage with a look at the local geography and pre-missions context the missionaries would encounter in the 1840s in the plain of Urmia (a region thusly called due to its proximity to Lake Urmia), in a remote and mountainous and thus lightly governed Ottoman province called Hakkari, in what is today

Book Reviews

295

part of Iran (though within a province Iran calls West Azerbaijan). The second chapter moves back across the Atlantic and examines the thought-world of Perkins and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM). The third chapter begins to move into the encounter between the two groups and focuses on the epistemological rift that existed in and around East Syrians’ pre-modern script and manuscript culture versus the missioners’ printed books and print culture (one of a dozen fascinating pathways Becker has uncovered as a way of analyzing the development of national consciousness and social body conceptions among East Syrians and the relationships between East Syrians, these intellectual conceptions, and the American missionaries). The fourth chapter looks at the curriculum and daily life of the mission’s schools. The fifth chapter offers a fascinating examination of contestations over death rituals and the East Syrians’ pre-modern views of death and the communion of saints which occurred between the two groups (the missionaries finding East Syrian death rituals and thought to be far too Catholic and unmodern and in need of reform). The sixth and seventh chapters focus on “native assistants” and the journals and publications of East Syrians under the sway of the mission, and gradually move forward through the nineteenth century. In these latter two chapters the secularism implicit in the missioners’ world view (which Becker is at pains to say was implicit from the beginning—more on this below) has become part of the East Syrians’ world view. Science education and a secularization of time is part of this, for to ‘keep the Sabbath holy’ had a corollary of making the rest of the week secular and part of the consumerist impulses of the business week. Notions of industriousness and national reform were a natural corollary. The final chapter examines the rejection of confessional identity among some East Syrian leaders and their embrace of an ethnic identity tied to Syrian-ness, and eventually the appellation “Assyrian,” and looks at the accompanying “autoethnography” writing which led to this (i.e., biblical studies and field reports written by “native assistants” in which the imaginative landscape of the missionaries happen to come to mirror the East Syrians’ perceived “ancient” connections to biblical, Babylonian and Assyrian figures and contemporary archaeology). As Becker notes early on, the Neo-Aramaic texts and archives he has worked with in the book, such as the nationalist newspaper

296

Book Reviews

The Star (Kokhwa), and Rays of Light (Zahrire d-bahra) among others, have lain virtually untouched by either scholars of nationalism in the late Ottoman Middle East or by Syriac scholars more generally. As a scholar trained in antiquity, the learning curve Becker has put himself on for this project is not just commendable, but inspiring in that an entirely new and sorely needed field of analysis has been opened up along with a critical frame for it. The book will be of enduring value to students of Syriac culture in antiquity and the middle ages seeking to understand where many of their translations (such as those of Wallace Budge) and their primary source texts (such as those published by Paul Bedjan and Addai Scher) come from, and the world which shaped their transmission. Beyond what the book will do to push Syriac scholars into the study of NeoAramaic, the book will be of enduring value to Americanists, historians of missions, postcolonialists, historians of nationalism globally, and historians of Middle Eastern nationalism—many of whom do not have access to materials in Neo-Aramaic. From the outset Becker also offers a robust engagement with the cutting edge of theoretical work on religion, modernity, nationalism and secularism, and thinkers such as Benedict Anderson, Talal Aasad, Partha Chatterjee and Birgit Meyer, as well as scholarship in Evangelical piety and colonialism, such as that of Webb Keane and John Modern. He also incorporates the existing literature on Western missions to East Syrians by scholars who know Aramaic, such as J.F. Coakley’s work (centered on Anglicanism), and that of Daniel Wolk (centered on East Syrian migrations out of Mesopotamia after WWI). But well beyond simply being comprehensive and opening up an archive that has heretofore been untouched, the book’s enduring value will be its method of conceptualizing and probing empirically “the nation” and national consciousness as it developed between East Syrians and their reluctantly secularizing and modernist Protestant missionary interlocutors. This is a conception which challenges the secularization thesis, i.e., the narrative that modernity involves a gradual interiorization of religion and its elimination from public life (though this is precisely what happened in some instances with East Syrian nationalism). Becker argues that “religion” itself came into being and was constituted within modernity, but is not coterminous with nationalism. Following other scholars on this theme and referring to “religionization,” Becker

Book Reviews

297

remarks that this is “a process that often entails the isolation, codification, and naming of tradition, or traditionalization, which itself plays an important role in the mythologization of the origins of nations, where religion and nation are not discontinuous with one another nor inherently linked as reductive equivalents, but two related instances of the reification of modernity” (12). However important this conception is, this reviewer finds it linked to something problematic in the book as well. Referring to the use of this conception in Postcolonial scholarship on British India, Becker writes that with this conception “sectarianism and its heightened tensions are no longer to be seen simply as age–old phenomena, but modern articulations which derive in part (emphasis mine) from colonial rule and missionary education” (12). While reading through the book one gets a sense that the extreme violence that occurred under late Ottoman rule during WW I against Syriac Christians, and the violence that came from the 2003 US military invasion of Iraq and the ensuing violence against Syriac Christians in the region, which has not ceased, lurks too prominently. It seems to be the case that for Becker American Protestant missionaries not only dislodged Syriac Christians from their organically situated and harmonious place within late Ottoman and early constitutionalist Iran (the first Iranian constitution being formed in 1905), and his book is a cautionary tale focused overly tightly. For Becker it appears that because of the gradual cultivation and reification of a sense of ethnic separateness among East Syrians, coming at the hands of the missionaries, and East Syrians gradually coming to think of themselves as part of a family of nations, linked to other burgeoning, secular democratic polities across the world, he has uncovered the source of violence that occurred under the late Ottomans and much more. This is why he is so insistent that the liberalism of the mission was there from the beginning—to assert it was there from the beginning places the blame squarely on the missionaries and their perceived undue influence. Becker’s analysis of these themes within the historical data is often brilliant. He pulls into his own narrative and argument an image from The Star in which nationalists conceived the Syrian nation as a photo montage of separate but linked individuals all being drawn into one national reform movement in which isolationist impulses were purged through the new national asceticism taught to East Syrians by nationalist Protestants. Becker informs us that this stems from

298

Book Reviews

Evangelical Protestant notions about the necessity of personal conviction for one’s sins. While this may or may not be one of the sources of the coming violence, as a hermeneutical device such as this can be deceptive when it is held up too readily as a way of reading a range of period sources. I would like therefore to say a few words about how, what is for me is part of an imbalance and a misreading in some cases, can be redressed as the new field of study Becker has masterfully opened moves forward and develops. As there is no extended interest expressed by Becker in either the birth of constitutionalism in Iran (1905), or the changes which were taking place under Ottoman hegemony concerning how “minorities” were being seen, this theme needs to be taken up by scholarship and integrated with Becker’s work and archival materials. Another major lacuna is the fact that the development of ethnic nationalism and consciousness was occurring in this region both among Christians (among Armenians and Greeks), but also among Muslims who were beginning to see themselves in terms which were cultural, national (Iranian, Egyptian etc.) and modern, and as part of the unraveling of Ottoman imperial rule. Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians suffered tremendous violence at the hand of Ottoman forces in the second decade of the 20th century as part of this confluence of changes. The reason that today there exist Eastern Orthodox churches organized around ethnic and national lines (Bulgarian, Georgian, Greek, Romanian, etc., all of whom are in communion with one another), is because of changes which took place in Ottoman policy and the Ottomans’ creation of separate Patriarchates, beginning first with Bulgaria in 1872 at the Synod of Constantinople. This was embraced by the Bulgarians and part of what led to their resistance to Ottoman rule. Though the new Bulgarian Patriarchate and the Bulgarian rhetoric surrounding it was condemned by other Orthodox leaders as “phyletism” (love of one’s ethnicity), the Bulgarian paradigm soon spread to Greece, Georgia and Romania following the synod. Fully exploring how this intersects with the important groundwork Becker has laid would require reading ability in Ottoman Turkish as well as in Greek and Armenian. There is an inchoate secondary literature on this which deserves to be probed. Non-specialists can also work with specialists and share the cognitive load of this necessary work.

Book Reviews

299

It also bears pointing out that there were parallel developments taking place across the colonial world with regards to national consciousness and Protestant missions. Becker has studied the South Asian (Indian and Indonesian) developments, but American and British Protestant culture and financial influence was a major component within the history of Chinese and East Asian nationalism too. The secular and liberal thought brought to Protestant mission schools there, and which led eventually to China and Taiwan’s first modern universities, undercut the religious nature of these institutions, and did so in ways that parallel what occurred in Mesopotamia. China’s first modern newspapers came from this confluence of forces as well, and had its national reading and consumption habits shaped by it. Parallels exist with what took place in Ottoman-led Mesopotamia. This cultural encounter between the local and the trans-regional led to the creation of the Nationalist Party (The KMT), still ruling Taiwan today, as well as to the avowedly (then at least) anti-religious ideology of the People’s Republic of China. Looking more widely at these developments would suggest, as Becker does at times acknowledge, that “Christianity” is more deeply imbricated within modernity than we often realize. While bringing this to the narrative in Mesopotamia may appear to support Becker’s “dislodgement” thesis, it may spur examinations of the wider context too, and encourage researchers to look beyond the missioner-“native assistant” locus, which would thus further reorient and nuance Becker’s narrative. One plank within Becker’s narrative it would not and should dislodge however is an the understanding that European racial ideologies, coming with Darwinism, and eventually leading to Social Darwinism and contouring the Social Gospel movement’s emphasis on bodily comportment, the individual’s need for spiritual cleansing, and as part of early 20th century nationalism’s emphasis on the cleansing of society as a whole. The YMCA was a major force in interwar Shanghai, and part of the racializing of China’s struggle for independence and the otherizing of non-Chinese, and tied to the fomenting of violence against minorities and perceived outsiders which occurred within East Asian nationalisms. Though much of the extreme violence of the early 20th century came as a result of racial ideologies spreading from Europe, within what postcolonial scholars call “colonial modernity,” and with its intrinsic connections to Protestant education initiatives, our hermeneutic

300

Book Reviews

should not preclude attribution of agency to the locals. Whether in East Asia or Mesopotamia, it was these locals who took up, worked with, and often helped generate, these representations. They also did so in conjunction with local political and ideological structures which had nothing to do with Protestants and their missions. Getting this balance right with regards to East Syrians will require more than one book. But the fact that the archives and surrounding questions have been so ably opened before us should be duly acknowledged.

Volume 19 2016

Number 2

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 19.2, 303-332 © 2016 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

BAR ʻEBROYO ON IDENTITY: REMARKS ON HIS HISTORICAL WRITING DOROTHEA WELTECKE UNIVERSITÄT KONSTANZ ABSTRACT This paper analyses Maphrian Grigorios Bar ‘Ebroyo’s historical writing with regards to the construction of identity by focusing on his terminology and self-designations as well as his approach to important cities and other places of memory. In the overall structure of the chronicle, Bar ‘Ebroyo reduces the lines of successions of the different empires found in his main source, the chronicle by Patriarch Michael I Rabo, and focuses on the different religions, Christian denominations, and events of the Eastern regions alone. He presents the maphrians as the authentic catholicoi against the claim of the Church of the East and as autonomous against the claims of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal See of Antioch. With Bar ‘Ebroyo’s treatment of the city of Tagrit he offers an interpretation that highlights Tagrit as being just as noble as Edessa, as a focal point of resistance to the “Nestorian heresy,” as well as the only legitimate successor of See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. At the same time the self-designations and terminology he uses show different, overlapping fields of identity construction (historical, religious, confessional, linguistic). Thus the Syriac Orthodox identity represented here cannot be perceived of as being one religious or ethnic entity but was much more complex. In view of current debates it should be observed that Bar ‘Ebroyo does not favor the term “Arameans” as a self-designation. His audience apparently did not identify with this term; they saw themselves as “Easterners.” The 303

304

Dorothea Weltecke position of the Syriac Orthodox in the East being rather vulnerable in the late 13th century, Bar ‘Ebroyo’s work offers at the same time an Eastern and a Christian identity on historical grounds, which is flexible and inclusive but also reflects the specific perspective of his community.

I* Historical memory and historical narratives are an important element of the identity of communal groups, nations or churches. They are formed and transmitted through liturgy, festivals, poems, songs, stories, and pictures. Chronicles also participate in the construction of communal historical identity, albeit probably to a smaller extent than the other genres. More importantly, chronicles reflect the historical identity of the world surrounding them and of which they themselves are a part.1 Bar ʻEbroyo was one of the most important writers of his church and of his time. His Syriac world chronicle is the only one in the Syriac Orthodox tradition that is extant in many manuscripts.2 He also wrote a shorter Arabic version of the chronicle, thus enlarging the potential audience of his work. In addition, he was very actively engaged in political and interreligious relations, and, as head of his church, he was responsible for his flock in a fast changing world. His choice to write Syriac and to write works focusing on Syriac issues like his Grammar was intended to bolster his community’s attachment to the Syriac culture. Therefore it is worthwhile analysing his chronicles to reconstruct his ideas on historical identity. This contribution aims to add to a growing field of research on the identity formation of * This contribution was presented at the 2nd Aleppo Colloquium on the life and works of Bar ʻEbroyo, Aleppo July 1-4, 2010 and submitted for a collection of papers of this conference in January 2012. However, it now seems best to publish the paper independently, and I would like to thank the editors for this opportunity. 1 As a new introduction to medieval historical writing (including Syriac, Arabic and Persian), see Dunphy, Encyclopedia and especially the systematic articles. 2 Brock, ‘Syriac Historical Writing’; Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur; Bar awm, Scattered pearls.

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

305

the churches and the peoples in the Syriac traditions.3 To this end, after a summary of the state of research the present study shall explore Bar ʻEbroyo’s terminology and the self-designations he used in his chronicles. Secondly his treatment of some important cities and places of memory is of interest. An examination of both these issues will reveal some features of the specific audience he had in mind for his chronicle. Scholars have often assumed as a matter of course that there was a simple Syriac Orthodox identity common to all the members of the church. I shall argue that the situation was far more complex and that the description of communal identity needs to be differentiated. The historical identity Bar ʻEbroyo constructed or reflected in this chronicle was much more specific and was directly related to a certain place and a certain time. II Recent research has demonstrated that there was a gradual process of identity formation of the Syriac churches, which underwent historical change. The research group led by Bas ter Haar Romeny, for example, balanced their findings methodologically between a deconstructionist position, which tends to speak about an “invention of an identity”, as if there were no material kernel to it and another position, which tends to see communal identity as something almost biological and a-historical. The relationship between religious and ethnic identity has been a long-standing issue concerning Eastern Christianity in general and Syriac Christianity in particular.4 While Arnold Jones had already stated that the schisms in the church were not caused by ethnic differences between Syrians and Greeks, Romeny developed this thesis and proposed that the religious choice for a dogmatic position preceded the formation of the specific Syriac Orthodox ethnic identity, which developed only gradually.5 This being said, there had indeed been a Murre-van den Berg, Ginkel & Lint, Redefining Christian Identity; ter Haar Romeny, ‘Communal Identity’. 4 See of late Fiey, “Assyriens” ou Araméens?’; Sauma-Assad, Word Suryoyo-Syrian; Novák & Younansardaroud, ‘Mār Behnām’; Younansardaroud, ‘Mār Behnām’; Murre-van den Berg, ‘Church of the East’. 5 Jones, ‘Movements’. 3

306

Dorothea Weltecke

competition between the Syriac versus the Greek language preceding the schisms. Yet in some respects this traditional rivalry had in fact united writers of Syriac across the confessional boundaries and continued to do so when the position of Syriac versus the Arabic language started to be debated.6 In these investigations, Syriac chronicles among other fields were always of primary concern. Research on Syriac historiography took a new turn during the last decade, which dramatically changed Western theories. At the same time the perception of Syriac Orthodox Christians toward their own past was undergoing processes of transformation. Migration to the West, participation in Western intellectual practices, as well as the political developments in the Middle East have triggered new social institutions and a new concern for affiliation and self-designation. 7 Today no one would defend the assumption that Syriac chronicle writing was simply the compilation of material. Instead, scholars have demonstrated how the Syriac accounts, analogous to medieval chronography in other languages, constructed historical identity through the establishment of succession and affiliation. Like their counterparts in Byzantium and the Latin world the Syriac narrators explained critical situations of the communities and thereby encouraged the communal groups in phases of suppression and crisis. They also clarified the relations of the Syriac Orthodox Christians to the many other denominations in the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural world of the Middle East. Many aspects of historical thought in Syriac are still controversial.9 More basic research grounded in detailed source analysis is required before theories with a larger scope can be developed. See for example Rubin, ‘Language of Creation’. An influential recent institution in Germany are the village-groups. See for example http://www.sare-online.com/HOME-SARE.html [21/12/2011]; Hanna & Hollweger, Website Hahoye. 8 Harvey, ‘Syriac Historiography’; Harvey, Asceticism and Society; Witakowski, Pseudo Dionysius; Palmer, ‘Messiah and Mahdi’; Ginkel, John of Ephesus; Panzer, Identität und Geschichtsbewußtsein; Weltecke, “Beschreibung der Zeiten”; Morony, ‘History and Identity’; Harrak, ‘Syriac View’; Reinink, ‘East Syrian Historiography’ and other works by these authors. 9 The role of the Ancient Near Eastern Empires for the historical identity of the Syrians is evaluated differently, see for example Debié, ‘Syriac Historiography’, pp. 103 and passim. 6 7

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

307

Much progress regarding the chronicles of Bar ʻEbroyo has been made during the last twenty years as has been documented in Hidemi Takahashi’s bio-bibliography.10 It is true, a critical edition of his chronicles is still a desideratum. Yet an important number of studies were published, and scholars have identified many of Bar ʻEbroyo’s sources or have contributed to the analysis of the structure of his works.11 Some elements of the meta-history of his narration have been identified. The findings can be summarized as follows: Bar ʻEbroyo created an innovative chronographic form on the basis of Eusebius of Caesarea’s (263 – 339 A.D.) chronography and ecclesiastical history, both of which had already been modified and combined several times in the Syriac historiographical tradition.12 The first part of his world chronicle, the secular history, notably includes a new and marked interest in scientific achievements and scholars from the early invention of astrology to the renowned physicians of his day. Instead of presenting a traditional succession of kings, wars, and empires, as was usual for the genre, Bar ʻEbroyo also incorporated scientific and cultural achievements. Bar ʻEbroyo included Muslim as well as Christian scholars from other churches, but by presenting many Syriac Orthodox scholars, members of this church were, for the first time, systematically integrated into such an account. Bar ʻEbroyo reduced the table of the many synchronic successions of Empires (yūbōlē dmalkē ) he found in his main source, the chronicle by Michael the Great (1126-1199), to one succession of Empires only (Adam Patriarchs - Judges - Kings of the Hebrews - Kings of the Chaldeans - Kings of the Medes - Kings of the Persians - Kings of the Greeks - Kings of the Romans - Kings of the Christian Greeks - Kings of the Arabs - Kings of the Huns). His profane history is much more focused on the Eastern regions, whereas the medieval Byzantine Empire is less important to him than to earlier Syriac orthodox chronicles. In his two-part ecclesiastical history, which forms the second segment of his world chronicle, he also offered a new Takahashi, Barhebraeus. Borbone, ‘Barhebraeus e Juwayni’; Witakowski, ‘Gregory Bar ‘Ebroyo’; Samir, ‘al-Qifti’. 12 For the Syriac Orthodox tradition see the table in Weltecke, “Beschreibung der Zeiten”, pp. 45-46. 10 11

308

Dorothea Weltecke

construction.13 The traditional ecclesiastical histories had presented the apostolic successions in the four or five patriarchates respectively, the theological achievements, conflicts with heresies, as well as struggles with Jews.14 Eusebius of Caesarea and his successors in church historical writing wanted to show the progress of the Orthodox denomination which varied depending on each author's own definition. Instead, Bar ʻEbroyo invented a twofold construction only of the Syriac Orthodox Church, disregarding the Coptic or the Armenian succession he had found in Michael the Great’s chronicle. He presented the history of the Syriac Orthodox Church as a juxtaposition of the Western Patriarchs and “our Eastern high priesthood”, the maphrianate. 15 Bar ʻEbroyo’s work came to be the first history of the maphrians written in the Syriac Orthodox Church. The sources for this part are only partly known.16 The maphrianate here is grounded in the succession of the Apostles Thomas, Mari, and Addai. Thus, the (Syriac Orthodox) Church of the East becomes independent of or even equal to the Patriarchal See of Antioch, who maintained the dominion over the maphrianes during the medieval period. Bar ʻEbroyo also claimed the maphrians to be the legitimate heirs of the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the original residence of the catholicos of the ancient autocephalous Church of the East in the Persian Empire.17 According to Bar ʻEbroyo this was at the same time possible and necessary because the head of the Church of the East and parts of the clergy and the community 13 Pinggéra, ‘Christologischer Konsens’; Weltecke, “Beschreibung der Zeiten”, pp. 208-220; Witakowski, ‘Gregory Bar ‘Ebroyo’; Hage, ‘Anfänge der Apostolischen Kirche’. 14 Timpe, ‘Was ist Kirchengeschichte?’; Chesnut, First Christian Histories. 15 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 2 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 2). 16 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 2 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 2). On the succession of the maphrians see Fiey, Oriens Christianus Novus, an important correction was published by Harrak, ‘Excavations in Takrit’, p. 18, concerning the dates of John I (686-688 according Fiey). The latter must have ruled in 709/710 AD according to a dated inscription. 17 Winkler, Ostsyrisches Christentum, pp. 23-35; Witakowski, ‘Gregory Bar ‘Ebroyo’, pp. 70-71.

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

309

had left the path of Orthodoxy in the 5th and 6th century and the succession remained with the enduring believers. Thus, the maphrian was heir to the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in the same way as the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was the legitimate successor of the ancient Patriarchs of Antioch.18 In other words, the maphrians were the authentic catholicoi while the Catholicoi of the Church of the East were only schismatics. While Bar ʻEbroyo reduced the account of the patriarchates of the Roman Empire in the first section of his ecclesiastical chronicle to the one chain of the Patriarchs of Antioch, he integrated the affairs of the Church of the East as well as some of the Armenian and the Greek Church in the former Persian Empire into his succession of the maphrians. Thus, Bar ʻEbroyo’s history of the Eastern high priesthood is not a history of orthodoxy in the world but rather an ecumenical history of all the Christians of this region. This narrative strategy is seen in accordance with his ecumenical attitude, which he demonstrated during his own maphrianate. III Scholars have noted that Bar ʻEbroyo used the term “Jacobites (yaʿqūbōyē ),” and it is said to have been the usual self-designation.19 This assumption may be somewhat revised. Bar ʻEbroyo’s main source, the chronicle by Michael the Great, very rarely uses this word.20 The third large chronicle of the period, the anonymous chronicle to the year 1234 on the other hand speaks about “Jacobites” even more often than Bar ʻEbroyo does.21 Still, even in the anonymous chronicle other self-designations occur more frequently. Concerning Bar ʻEbroyo’s secular chronicle, the term “Jacobites” occurs rarely and is mostly a quotation of an outsider or even an enemy. In passages like these the term is clearly used in a derogative sense.22 On the other hand, Bar ʻEbroyo relates that in Pinggéra, ‘Christologischer Konsens’, pp. 20-22; Hage, ‘Anfänge der Apostolischen Kirche’. 19 Pinggéra, ‘Christologischer Konsens’, p. 3. 20 See Michael, Chronique (Chabot) IV, p. 724 (III, p. 387). 21 Anonymous, Chronicon anonymum (Chabot/Abouna), II, 233 (167); 336 (251). 22 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 100 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), 94): “yaʿqūbī ē ”; p. 134-5 (p. 123-124): “yaʿqūbōyē ”. 18

310

Dorothea Weltecke

the year 1001 the “Arabs” burnt down the church of the “Jacobites” in Baghdad. In this case “Jacobites” is obviously used in a neutral sense to distinguish between different denominations in Baghdad. In the year 1223 a renowned physician was murdered. Bar ʻEbroyo names him “Amīn ad-Dawlā Abū al-Karām Saʿīd the Baghdadian from our Jacobites (mēn yaʿqūbōyē dīlān).”23 The physician has an Arabic name and probably belonged to an environment dominated by the Arabic language, “Jacobites” as a self-designation is thus connected to this Arabised culture. This practice is in accordance with Coptic historiography in Arabic, where the term indeed served as the usual self-designation.24 The term could therefore be linked to Christian cultures in Arabic from which Bar ʻEbroyo must have taken some of his sources. If this hypothesis is valid, the term “Jacobite” should appear more frequently in the Eastern part of the ecclesiastical chronicle than in the Western part, where the Syriac Orthodox were much less Arabised, which is indeed the case. In the Western ecclesiastical part and in the secular part of the chronicle the term “Jacobites” is hardly ever employed as a self-designation. The simplest and the most unambiguous self-designation by the Syriac Orthodox always was “our people (ʿāmō dīlān)” or simply “ours (dīlān)”, “all of us (kulhūn dīlān)” and this was also the case in Bar ʻEbroyo’s language. 25 “Our people” designates the members of the church in a given area or a city and is frequently used throughout all three parts of the chronicle. These phrases also distinguish between the Syriac Orthodox and other Christians, like Greeks, Armenians or “Nestorians (nes uryōnē ).”26 Like “our people”, the expression “our faithful, the orthodox (mhaymnē, mhaymnē dīlān)” is often used to distinguish the Syriac Orthodox from other denominations such as the Greeks in Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 449 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 385). 24 See for example the Severus ibn al-Mukaffa et. al, History of the Patriarchs (Evetts et al.); Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) III, p. 369 (p. 370): “yaʿqūbōye ak ād w-nes uryōnē bmadn ō.” 25 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 2 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 2). 26 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 512, 527 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 437, 450). 23

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

311

Aleppo.27 “Our faithful” is again especially frequent in the Eastern part of the chronicle. In the earlier passages of this part the Greek word “orthodox” was often used for the same purpose. In contrast to the exclusive “our faithful”, the term “Christians (kris yōnē)” is used to distinguish all the Christians of the different denominations from the Muslims. Throughout the chronicle, Bar ʻEbroyo frequently employs “Christians” for the mixed Christian population of cities like Tagrit or Melitene, comprising Greeks, Armenians, Syriac Orthodox or the Church of the East.28 Beside their religious affiliation, another aspect of the identity of Bar ʻEbroyo’s readers is their historical connection to the world of the Ancient Near Eastern Empires and their ethnic origin. Bar ʻEbroyo’s source, Michael the Great, had mentioned both Arameans and Assyrians as ancestors of his people, identifying them with the Chaldeans. In another passage he had stated that the Assyrians were the Syrians, and in a third passage he had offered that the Arameans were the Syrians.29 Bar ʻEbroyo omits these difficulties by speaking about the “ancient Syrians (sūryōyē ʿatīqē )”, which is an open ethnic designation that includes ancient writers and speakers of Aramean from East and West. Assyria, Babylonia as well as the Aramean principalities of the West are thus included. Bar ʻEbroyo also identifies the Chaldeans with these ancient Syrians (“kulhūn hōlēn kaldōyē ēnūn [i.e. some kings he had mentioned] awkīt suryōyē ʿatīqē ”).30 In his Arabic Chronicle, Bar ʻEbroyo explicates that the Chaldeans are one of the seven oldest peoples, among the Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Turks, Indians, and Chinese. These civilisations are divided between those who developed sciences, as did for example the Persians and the Chaldeans and those who did not, 27 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 510 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 436). During the Mongol assault the Syriac Orthodox Christians fled into the Greek church. All of those Christians hiding there were, however, sold into slavery. On Syriac Christians in Baghdad see Fiey, Chrétiens syriaques. 28 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 507 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 433). 29 Michael, Chronique (Chabot) IV, p. 17 (I, p. 32): “ōtūrōyē ”; IV, p. 18 (I, p. 34): “ōrōmōyē ”; Weltecke, “Beschreibung der Zeiten”, pp. 225-227. 30 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 5 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 4).

312

Dorothea Weltecke

like the Turks.31 While this is a rather distinguished group of cultures, the abstract term for the Chaldeans, literally “Chaldeanhood (kaldōyūtō)” is still denounced as “barbaric”. Bar ʻEbroyo mentions this “kaldōyūtō,” critically discusses this in his grammar, and distinguishes his own language from it as the pure Aramaic of the Syrians.32 Apparently Bar ʻEbroyo differentiated between historical and linguistic identity. While the ancient and the present Syrians had much in common historically, their languages differed. Below we will see how. Another detail has some bearing on the contemporary debates: When Bar ʻEbroyo explains the regions divided between the sons of Noah he says that the borders of Shem included the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Lydians, Syrians, and others.33 Unlike in the chronicle of Jacob of Edessa (c. 640-708) or that of Michael the Great, who followed him, Bar ʻEbroyo does not mention Aram in this context nor does he mention the Arameans. In fact, he omits the word “Arameans” from Michael’s list, which had included “Assyrians, Chaldeans, Lydians, Arameans that is to say Syrians”.34 What is more, neither here nor anywhere else in this chronicle does Bar ʻEbroyo write about the Arameans as a people let alone as his ancestors.35 In his grammar he mentions Aramaic as a language and the “Aramean Syrianhood (suryōyūtō ōrōmoytō).”36 In Bar ʻEbroyo’s Arabic chronicle the term is again used in a linguistic sense. Bar ʻEbroyo presents the thesis that Syriac had been the primordial language, in which God had conversed with Adam. This language parted into three branches, the purest of which was the Aramaic spoken by the inhabitants of Edessa, Harran, and the exterior Syrians. The second branch is defined as 31 Bar ʻEbroyo, Tārī (Salhani), p. 4; Bar ʻEbroyo, Historia Compendiosa Dynastiarum (Pococke), p. 2 (p. 2). 32 Bar ʻEbroyo, Livre de splendeurs (Moberg), p. 2 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Buch der Strahlen (Moberg), p. 1). 33 Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 7 (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 6). 34 Michael, Chronique (Chabot) IV, p. 7 (I, p. 16). 35 Bar ʻEbroyo mentions only Uẓ as son of Aram, who according to Josephus had built Damaskus: Bar ʻEbroyo Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p.10 (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 11). 36 Bar ʻEbroyo, Livre des splendeurs (Moberg), p. 2 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Buch der Strahlen, p. 1).

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

313

the language of Palestine, Damascus, Lebanon, and the interior Syrians, the third as the language of Assur and the villages of Iraq. According to Bar ʻEbroyo the latter is the worst; it is precisely the Chaldean language he mentions critically in his grammar.37 In the secular part of his chronicle Bar ʻEbroyo uses “Syrians (suryōyē )” as a general designation for Christians using the Syriac language. This name distinguishes them from Greeks and Arabs, when Bar ʻEbroyo mentions translations of works by Aristotle among Greeks, Arabs, and Syrians.38 He mentions that “we, the Syrians” use the Seleucid chronology,39 which during the 13th century was still true for most writings in Syriac by any of the churches in the Syriac tradition.40 He uses “Syrians”, or rather “all Syrians (kulhūn suryōyē)”, as a generic term also in the famous passage where he regrets that the Syrians who once brought the sciences to the Muslims are now obliged to ask them for knowledge.41 Thus the term “Syrians” clearly is not geographic but rather an ethnic-cultural or a linguistic conception, including Christians of all the three denominations of the Syriac tradition.42 This interpretation is corroborated by Bar Ebroyo’s grammar. As the word “Syrians” often includes the entire Syriac speaking population, some further classification is needed to distinguish between Syriac Orthodox and other Syrian Christians. Emperor Leo IV (775-780), for example, is said to have persecuted the 37 Bar ʻEbroyo, Tārī (Salhani), p. 17-18; Bar ʻEbroyo, Historia Compendiosa Dynastiarum (Pococke), p. 11. The passage is quoted by Bar awm, Scattered pearls, p. 4. 38 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 54 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chonography (Budge), p. 54). 39 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum, p. 37 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 40). 40 Briquel-Chatonnet, ʻCahiers et signatures’. Brock, ‘Hijra Dating’. I do not see that the choice for the Seleucid chronology proves an identification with Greek culture, see Debié, ‘Syriac Historiography’, pp. 99-103. 41 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 98 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 92). 42 Only one exception of the rule is known to me at present: Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 232 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 207). Togril Bek wants to make war against the “mōrūdē bnay suryōyē ”. Here simply the population of Syria is meant, not the Christians only. Bar ʻEbroyo seems to be quoting directly from a Muslim source.

314

Dorothea Weltecke

“people of the orthodox Syrians (ʻʿāmō trī shub ō suryōyē )”.43 Bar ʻEbroyo relates that during the late 12th century 170 “Syrian men from ours (gabrē suryōyē mēn hōlēn dīlān)” were killed. 44 He also combines “Syrians” with “the faithful, the orthodox (mhaymnē )”. The patriarch and his entourage took rest in a village “in a garden of one of the orthodox Syrians (b-gantō d- ād mēn mhaymnē suryōyē ).”45 Bar ʻEbroyo did not take sides in the older debate on the question who the real Syrians were, only those west of the Euphrates or all of those who wrote and spoke the language of Edessa. Patriarch Dionysius of Tel-Ma re (d. 848) in his chronicle held the view that only the West-Syrians were the real Syrians. He claimed that all the Syrians to the East of the Euphrates were called by this name only in a metaphoric sense. The chronicle to the year 1234 followed him by quoting his theory.46 This debate was obviously inspired by an opposition between the Syrians east and west of the Euphrates. Abramowski assumed this to be a rivalry between patriarchate and maphrianate.47 Dionysius, during his time, also felt the power of the mighty Church of the East.48 Yet the meaning of the term “Easterners” or “East-Syrians” in the use of many Syriac Orthodox chronicles is unspecified. This is also true for Bar ʻEbroyo, although in his grammar he classified the Eastern tradition as the tradition of the Church of the East. Elsewhere in his chronicle the term East-Syrians (madn ōyē) designates either members of the Apostolic Church of the East or

Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 128 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 117). 44 Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 370 (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 321). 45 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) II, p. 679 (p. 680). 46 Anonymous, Chronicon anonymum (Chabot/Abuna), I, pp. 112-114 (pp. 88-90). 47 Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre, pp. 85-100; on internal conflicts see Strothmann, ‘Heutiges Orientchristentum’, pp. 18-19. On the maphrianate in general also Fiey, ‘“maphrianat” syrien’; Hage, ‘Anfänge der Apostolischen Kirche’. 48 Weltecke, “Beschreibung der Zeiten”, pp. 222-232. 43

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

315

Syriac Orthodox Christians from the regions east of the Euphrates who belonged to the jurisdiction of the maphrian.49 Particularly noteworthy at this point are two features: The first is Bar ʻEbroyo’s strategy of defining different, sometimes overlapping fields of linguistic, cultural, ethnic, and religious affiliation. Secondly, his disinterest in the term “Arameans” throughout his chronicle is also rather marked. For his own denomination he clearly prefers the terms “our Syrians” and “our faithful”. IV One of the reasons why the term “Arameans” is not central to his chronicles might be that his addressees were not identifying themselves with Aram. Neither had they any interest in the debate about who the real Syrians were. Bar ‘Ebroyo’s audience was from the East. This geographical aspect of their identity crystallizes in the function of the city of Tagrit in Bar ʻEbroyo’s history of the church as a corner stone of the Syriac Orthodox history. In this work, therefore, Tagrit became a rival to the claims of Edessa. The importance of Edessa for the Syriac historical identity cannot be disputed. The ancient city of Edessa was the root of the language, as had often been repeated, not least by Bar ʻEbroyo himself.50 Likewise I was led to expect the same highlighted position for Edessa in Bar ʻEbroyo’s chronicles, all the more as the first protagonists of the Eastern part of the ecclesiastical history – Thomas, Addai, Aggai, and Mari – are closely connected to the city.51 However, as useful as Edessa was for the establishment of the apostolic succession of the maphrianate in Bar ʻEbroyo’s ecclesiastical chronicle of the East, it is less central for the structure of the work than one could expect. In general, Bar ʻEbroyo mentions Edessa less often than Baghdad and Mosul. On the other hand, he frequently refers to Tagrit. In the third part of the chronicle, the city of Tagrit even 49 Indeed they share ethnic and cultural traditions, see Varghese, Syrian liturgical theology, p. 4; Morony, Iraq, pp. 373-375. 50 Bar ʻEbroyo, Livre des splendeurs (Moberg), p. 2 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Buch der Strahlen (Moberg), p. 4). 51 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) III, pp. 1121 (pp. 12-22).

316

Dorothea Weltecke

forms the centre of the narration, the main object, as has already been shown by Jean-Maurice Fiey.52 Yet this fact has strong implications for the interpretation of Bar ʻEbroyo’s narration. Tagrit’s crucial importance as the cornerstone of this work is revealed in the very beginning. On the first pages of the second part the first Christian city is not Edessa, as was the common understanding of Syriac historiography, but Tagrit. Bar ʻEbroyo enumerates the regions through which the Apostle Thomas passed. On his way to the East, Thomas reached Tagrit, where “the king Ardashir, known as ‘the black’ (Ardashīr malkō dmētīdaʻ ūkōmō )” had established a station. Thomas evangelized a number of inhabitants from this place. Only after the report of St. Thomas’s achievements in India does Bar ʻEbroyo turn to Edessa many pages later, and only then to its King Abgar “the black (ukōmō ),” who since the days of Eusebius of Caesarea is traditionally narrated to have been the first ever Christian king. The function of the story of a Tagritan king, who was called “the black” and who preceded the Edessan king also called “ukōmō,” is obvious: The emerging town of Tagrit and its Christian inhabitants have an even more noble place in the history of Christianity than the Edessans. From where Bar ʻEbroyo received knowledge about these first Christians of Tagrit is unknown. Fiey considered this story as a detail peculiar to Bar ʻEbroyo. There might have been local traditions upon which he could draw. The Apostle Thomas was very important for Tagrit as can be seen from consecrations of churches with Thomas as patron as well as literary works dedicated to him.53 Bar ʻEbroyo stresses that Tagrit alone remained on the orthodox path when the entire East became infected by “Nestorianism”. As was noted earlier, Bar ʻEbroyo follows the polemical language of his sources in this decisive part of the formation of the maphrianate and frequently speaks about the “Nestorian heresy”. Here again Fiey discovered that Bar ʻEbroyo narrated the same story twice. Bar ʻEbroyo placed the orthodox population that heroically withstood the persecutions of Metropolitan Bar awma of Nisibis (d. about 495) first in the  ur ʻAbdin, and later on in the parallel narration again in Tagrit. Fiey 52 53

Fiey, ‘Tagrît’, p. 289. Fiey, ‘Tagrît’, pp. 318-319.

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

317

also observed that the ultimate Syriac Orthodox source for this narration was a letter by the first primas of the Eastern part of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Marutha of Tagrit (d. 649). Yet the Tagritan letter had not mentioned either the persecution of the Tagritans or their resistance to Metropolitan Bar awma.54 While Tagrit had indeed defied the reformations of the Church of the East in the 5th and 6th centuries, this story appears to be of a later date to bolster its prerogative for a leading function among the Syriac Orthodox communities. For the same purpose Tagrit is defended as the legitimate successor to the See of SeleuciaCtesiphon against the claims of the rival Church of the East, as was said.55 In reality, the caliphs had admitted the Catholicos of the Church of the East to move from Seleucia-Ctesiphon to Baghdad as the new and splendid centre of power and had barred the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Here, Tagrit as the residence of the maphrians is explained as a deliberate choice for the most pious and loyal community to the Orthodox cause, the city therefore does not only surpass Edessa but also Baghdad in honour. This interpretation might also have been a local tradition rather than Bar ʻEbroyo’s invention. Later on Tagrit became also the burial place of the maphrians. As these burials are faithfully recorded throughout Bar ʻEbroyo’s chronicle of the Eastern priesthood, Tagrit becomes no less than a sacred and blessed place.56 Amir Harrak identified one of these burials, the grave of Maphrian Athanasius (887-904). It was situated in a church within the citadel of Tagrit, which Harrak considers to be the famous Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus.57 At the same time Bar ʻEbroyo tended not to consider some of the conflicts and criticisms surrounding the maphrians he found in his sources.58 The reports on the conflicts had always reflected the Western view 54 Fiey, ‘Tagrît’, p. 298. Michael, Chronique (Chabot) II, p. 435-440 (IV, pp. 424-427). On the establishment of this new function see Fiey, ‘“maphrianat” syrien’; Fiey, ‘Syriaques occidentaux’; Hage, ‘Anfänge der Apostolischen Kirche’. 55 Fiey, ‘Tagrît’, p. 301. Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) III, p. 85 (86). 56 There are indeed several churches in which maphrians were buried. Fiey, ‘Tagrît’, p. 311-313; Fiey, ‘“maphrianat” syrien’. 57 Harrak, ‘Excavations in Takrit’, pp. 23-24. 58 For sources see Fiey, ‘Tagrît’, p. 313.

318

Dorothea Weltecke

on the rivalry between the patriarchs and maphrians, like the work by the above mentioned Patriarch Dionysius of Tel-Ma re or by Michael the Great. Significantly no other Syriac chronicle attributes a similar glory to Tagrit or even any glory at all. To Bar ʻEbroyo writing a history of the Eastern Church involved disregarding Western polemics in favour of constructing a heroic past and perspective peculiar to the Eastern Church. Of Tagrit we know that its cultural and linguistic situation in the Middle Ages differed from regions west of the Euphrates. While Syriac was still the sacred language, Arabic was also widely spoken and written by Syrians.59 The newly elected Maphrian Lo‘zor in the mid-12th century argued against his being sent to Tagrit because he did not speak Arabic and could not speak to the people.60 A Muslim Armenian governor ruled Tagrit at that time, as we learn from a letter from the Tagritans, who urge Loʻzor not to feel embarrassed and assure him that the governour would welcome him warmly. Loʻzor also learned that his predecessor did not speak Arabic when he first took up his office, and he learned little.61 Arabic was widespread in the great cities, as also the names of the scholars and donors attest, who are mentioned throughout Bar ʻEbroyo’s chronicle. Unlike in the West they often have Arabic names, like the physician Amīn ad-Dawlā Abū al-Karam Saʿīd from Baghdad mentioned above.62

59 On this topic see Watt, ‘Guarding the Language’. Bishop Basilius of Edessa relates that the Christian population of Edessa, used to Arabic language and script, evacuated the city together with the Muslims, when Edessa was reconquered by the Byzantine Empire in 1031, and fled to Tagrit. Fiey, ‘Tagrît’, p. 322. Michael, Chronique (Chabot) IV, p. 640 (III, p. 280). See, however, Harrak, ‘Excavations in Takrit’, who published a number of inscriptions in Estrangelo and Serto, which document some knowledge of Syriac. In these mostly undated (but apparently rather early) inscriptions the Syriac names form the majority. 60 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) III, p. 335 (p. 336). 61 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) III, p. 335. 62 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 449 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 385). See also the name of donors of a Church in Baghdad, Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) I, p. 445 (p. 446). On Syriac Christians in Baghdad see Fiey, Chrétiens syriaques.

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

319

A rational reason for Maphrian Loʻzor to decline a passage to Tagrit, however, was the situation in the city at that time. The multi-religious, multi-ethnic situation – beside the Syrians and the Arabs, Armenians and Greeks were also living in Tagrit – constantly endangered internal peace. Muslim rioters repeatedly attacked and destroyed churches and Christian property. Apostasy to Islam was also an issue.63 Because of the unsafe conditions Maphrian Lo‘zor transferred the metropolitan see to Mosul in the middle of the 12th century. Shortly afterwards the Caliph al-Muqtafī even destroyed parts of Tagrit. At that time the city was, as Fiey stated, only a shadow of its former glory.64 Tagrit remained neglected until Bar ʻEbroyo’s days. V Because of the difficult situation in the East, some of the maphrians of the first half of the 13th century never resided in Mor Mattay close to Mosul or in Tagrit but rather remained in the Levant altogether, leaving their community deprived of a central leadership. Bar ʻEbroyo, on the other hand, had taken on himself the passage to the East. Again the general political conditions had changed. Bar ʻEbroyo had survived the frequent wars between Mongols and Mamluks in the 13th century and the terrible effect they had on the Christian population. In the year 1275 Bar ʻEbroyo visited his Cappadocian home country. The region of Melitene and of the monastery Mor Bar awmo appeared to him like a vineyard beaten by hailstones.65 As he said in a letter written to explain his disinterest in the patriarchate, the West was in ruins.66 His own task at hand was to care for the people whom he was to lead in the East. The maphrianate at that time consisted of a reduced number of communities and bishoprics. The Syriac Orthodox Christians of the East formed a small minority compared to Christians of other denominations. Yet there was also reason for optimism. The Kawerau, Jakobitische Kirche, pp. 96-98; pp. 103-104. Fiey, ‘Tagrît’. The city is hardly ever mentioned in Bar ʻEbroyo’s secular chronicle or in the Arabic version. 65 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 528 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 450). 66 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) III, p. 459 (p. 460). 63 64

320

Dorothea Weltecke

raiding wars and the wave of destruction were over and the Mongol Empire was consolidated. Baghdad, the rival see of the catholicoi, had lost some of its former glory as it showed the recent events. Ruins remained part of the city landscape for most of the 13th century, but Baghdad slowly recovered.67 The Mamluks, who ruled the West, held the Christian communities of the Levant responsible for collaboration with the Crusaders. The Mongols in the East, however, provided new opportunities as their elite still inclined to Christianity.68 Bar ʻEbroyo had started to write the chronicle no earlier than about 1275.69 At that time he had already been leading his church as maphrian for over ten years. His uncompromising position concerning the apostolic succession of the maphrians and their claim on Seleucia-Ctesiphon was no secret. He insisted on the title even in his letter to Catholicos Den a of the Church of the East (1265-1281) in 1279.70 Yet Bar ʻEbroyo’s attitude had not prevented both leaders from entertaining a good working relationship. When Bar ʻEbroyo visited the city of Tagrit in 1278 for two weeks, he was the first maphrian to do so for half a century. At that time his world chronicle might have been completed and been presented to the Syriac Orthodox public. Bar ʻEbroyo wished and expected his chronicles to be read aloud to an audience.71 Thus, the apparent pride of the Eastern Syriac Orthodox Church as it was constructed in the chronicle, and the fact that Bar ʻEbroyo insisted on the title catholicos, can be seen as

The Dominican Riccoldo da Monte di Croce visited Baghdad at the end of the 13th century and mentioned ruins as well as beautiful gardens and buildings: Riccoldo di Monte Croce, Pérégrination (Kappler). See also Le Strange, Baghdad; Micheau, ‘Baghdad’. 68 On the state of research see recently Winkler, Hidden Treasures; see also Lane, ‘Bar Hebraeus’. 69 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 37 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 40) explains chronology and mentions “today” as the year 1587 A. S.; Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 503 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 429) mentions Patriarch Joseph I Galesiotes (1267-1275) as still in office. 70 Pinggéra, ‘Christologischer Konsens’, pp. 17-18. 71 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 1-2 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 1-2). 67

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

321

part of his program to enhance and develop the identity of the Syriac Orthodox in the maphrianate. This line of interpretation is corroborated by some observations on Bar ʻEbroyo’s treatment of himself in this chronicle. Very seldom does Bar ʻEbroyo indicate himself as “the writer of these [reports] (maktbōnō d-hōlēn).” He does so in the dramatic story of the Mongol raids in the region of the monastery Mor Bar awmo in the year 1249. His aged father was very close to these events. Instead of fleeing to the monastery for safety he chose to hide in the mountains, together with Bar ʻEbroyo’s little brother, Bar awmo. The father had good reason to do so. The monastery, which had been a veritable castle in the 12th century, had been declining in strength in later times.72 Bar ʻEbroyo mentions himself only as witness to these dramatic events, to authenticate the story, not offering any personal memory or comment.73 In this function, as a witness who heard eyewitness reports and who thereby authenticates them, we find him more often, mentioning himself in the first person singular as well as in the plural.74 He also sometimes introduces himself as the writer in order to direct the reader to passages further up or down in the books.75 Occasionally he offers his opinion as to sources and their reliability or decides between alternative representations of a given fact.76 As someone involved in the events, he only very rarely mentions himself by speaking in the first person. He introduces himself in his report on the Mongol raids in Aleppo in the year 1260, when he, without success, tried to prevent a massacre and was incarcerated by the conquerors. In this dramatic and very emotional moment Bar ʻEbroyo presents himself as one who had a terrible responsibility, and who failed. It is true that in the role of Kaufhold, ‘Notizen’. Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 492 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 420). 74 Singular f.e. in Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), pp. 512, 513 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), pp. 437, 438); plural f.e. in Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 557 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 447). 75 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), pp. 553, 556, 568 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), pp. 471, 473, 484). 76 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), p. 37 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), p. 40). 72 73

322

Dorothea Weltecke

maphrian he also sometimes mentions himself in the first person plural.77 In the normal course of his ecclesiastical chronicle, however, be it as bishop or maphrian, he refers to himself in the third person as if he had no personal relation with this prelate “Grigorios,” whose moves and actions he sometimes mentions. As long as he was bishop of Laqabin he calls this persona “the one from Laqabin (how d-laqabīn)”;78 after being moved to Aleppo, he presents himself as “Gregory from Aleppo (Grigorios d- olob)”.79 There is obviously no autobiographical concept here. Rather, Bar ʻEbroyo deconstructs any rudiments of a narrative of himself by constantly changing his identity according to the genre of the information and his given ecclesiastical function. Patriarch Dionysius of Tel Ma re and Patriarch Michael the Great on the other hand deliberately integrated their own deeds and achievements into the narrative of the legitimate successors of the Apostolic See of Antioch. Within this chain of succession, they also presented an interpretation of their own deeds and their characters.80 In another book, the Book of the Dove aimed at monastic edification, Bar ʻEbroyo presented a short passage about himself, again not as an active church leader but as a mystic detached from the struggles and the learning of this world.81 Thus, his non-narrative treatment of his own person in this world history was a deliberate choice. In this chronicle Bar ʻEbroyo was not interested in explaining his ecclesiastical program or constructing a place for himself in the history of the church. He disappeared behind the functions in Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Syriacum (Bedjan), pp. 528, 557 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronography (Budge), pp. 450, 475). 78 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) II, p. 715 (p. 716). 79 Bar ʻEbroyo, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Abbeloos/Lamy) II, p. 749 (p. 750). 80 Michael, Chronique (Chabot) IV, p. 503 (III, p. 42); IV, pp. 538-543 (III, pp. 104-110) contain Dionysius’s writing on himself. Most of the autobiography of Michael is lost and only extant in the abbreviated excerpts by Bar ʻEbroyo. On the autobiographical writing of Michael and Dionysius see Weltecke, “Beschreibung der Zeiten”, pp. 83-84, 205-206 and passim. 81 Bar ʻEbroyo, Book of the dove (Bedjan), pp. 577-579 (Bar ʻEbroyo, Book of the dove (Wensinck), pp. 60-62). 77

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

323

which he served. Yet it seems that he saw a need for a noble tradition for his addressees, which was grounded in the Tagritans’ and Eastern Christians’ own region. At the same time, Bar ʻEbroyo offered a new Christian identity of the East based on historical grounds, which overcame confessional and linguistic boundaries. This approach was fitting for the ecumenical movement of the time, and it was a prudent policy for a minority group even among the Christians. CONCLUSION Historical identity is always complex. It is shared with different groups in different respects. There are elements all the physicians or silver merchants share, all the inhabitants of a region or all the members of a religion in the world. We can see here that these patterns of overlapping fields of affiliation and identification we consider typical for the modern world can also be detected in the cities of the Medieval Middle East. These patterns create, connect and disconnect groups in different respects. Bar ʻEbroyo used self-designations to define the historical, the ethnic-cultural, the linguistic, and the religious identity of the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church. He connected them to the world of the Ancient Near Eastern Empires and to their common Aramaic language and he defined them in the multidenominational situation of the present. While these strategies are well known in principle, his specific use and his precise terms are worthy of notice. The Syriac Orthodox identity was clearly not uniform. Various writers and different local communities had ideas of their own about the value of the term “Aramean” or “Syrian”. “Easterners” in Bar ʻEbroyo’s language quite consciously designated the members of the Apostolic Church of the East as well as Eastern members of the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East. “Syrians” without specification often designates Christians of the different Syriac denominations. In the Arabised Christian world – be it Egypt or Baghdad – the word “Jacobites” was apparently considered an acceptable self-designation while the Western Syriac Orthodox rejected it. Unlike Michael the Great, Bar ʻEbroyo declined to use the word “Arameans”. Neither did he mention the debate about the “real Syrians”. He preferred to stress the common tradition of the East and for this end neither the term “Arameans” nor the debate, which identified the real Syrians with the Western

324

Dorothea Weltecke

regions, were of use to him. In general Bar ʻEbroyo seems to have aimed for a neutral and inclusive language. His terms “ancient Syrians” and “our Syrians” for him best expressed the historical and ethnic-linguistic identity of the Syriac Orthodox. As his work is related to expectations and imaginations of his intended readers, his terms in some ways probably reflect their specific Eastern perspective. Furthermore, I suggest here that Bar ʻEbroyo’s picture of the maphrianate as the legitimate successor of the apostolic See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, of the central role of Tagrit as the first Christian community, as the guard of orthodoxy, and as a sanctified place was aimed for his flock at a time of both danger and great chances. Although there was never a question who “our people (ʻāmō dīlān)” were in everyday life, in the complex environment of the Middle East the specific designation and definition for this group had been and still remained problematic. There were clerics and scholars, who were very much connected to the Syriac language, but they did not belong to “our people”, which remained identical with the religious denomination. At the same time, not all members of the Syriac Orthodox denomination preferred to speak or read the Syriac language. Like other Syriac Orthodox writers, Bar ʻEbroyo had to find specific solutions for specific situations in time and space to formulate an identity that was flexible and adequate to this complex world. Still, as the exceptionally broad reception of his work shows, other regions in the Syriac reading world were also able to relate to Bar ʻEbroyo’s narrative.

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

325

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABRAMOWSKI, R. (1940) Dionysius von Tellmahre. Jakobitischer Patriarch von 818-845. Zur Geschichte der Kirche unter dem Islam. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 25.2. Leipzig: Brockhaus. ANONYMOUS (1952-1974) Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I-II, I ed. by J.-B. CHABOT (1953). CSCO 81, Syr. 36. Tr. by J.-B CHABOT (1952). CSCO 109, Syr. 56. II ed. by J.-B. CHABOT (1953). CSCO 82, Syr. 37. Tr. by A. ABOUNA & introduction, notes and index by J.-M. FIEY (1974). CSCO 354, Syr. 154. Louvain: Durbecq. BAR ʻEBROYO (1663) Historia Compendiosa Dynastiarum. Authore Gregorio Abul-Pharajio, Historiam compectens universalem, a mundo condito, usque ad Tempora Authoris, res Orientalium accuratissime describens. Arabice edita & latine versa, ed. and tr. by E. POCOCKE. Oxford: Davis. BAR ‘EBROYO (1872-1877) Gregorii Barhebrei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum I-III, ed. and tr. BY J. B. ABBELOOS & T. J. LAMY. Louvain et al.: Peeters. BAR ‘EBROYO (1890) Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum. E codd. mss. emendatum ac punctis vocalibus adnotationibusque locupletatum, ed. by P. BEDJAN. Paris: Maisonneuve. BAR ‘EBROYO (1890) Tārī al-mu ta ar al-duwal, ed. by A. SALHANI. Beirut: Catholic Press. BAR ‘EBROYO (1897) The Laughable Stories collected by Mâr Gregory John Bar Hebraeus, Maphrian of the East from A.D. 1264 to 1286, ed. and tr. by E. A. WALLIS BUDGE. Luzac’s Semitic Text and Translation Series 1. London: Luzac. BAR ‘EBROYO (1898) Book of the dove. In: Bedjan, P. (ed.). Ethicon seu moralia Gregorii Barhebraei. Liber Columbae seu directorium monachorum. Paris: O. Harrassowitz. pp. 521-599. BAR ‘EBROYO (1907-1913) Buch der Strahlen. Die größere Grammatik des Barhebräus. Übersetzung nach einem kritisch berichtigten Text mit textkritischem Apparat und einem Anhang, tr. by A. MOBERG. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz.

326

Dorothea Weltecke

BAR ‘EBROYO (1919) Bar Hebraeus’s Book of the Dove. Together with some Chapters from his Ethikon. With an Introduction, Notes and Registers, tr. by A. WENSINCK. Veröffentlichungen der De Goeje-Stiftung 4. Leiden: Brill. BAR ‘EBROYO (1922) Le livre des splendeurs. La grande grammaire de Grégoire Barhebraeus, ed. by A. MOBERG. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. BAR ‘EBROYO (1932) The Chronography of Gregory Ab’ul Faraj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus I– II, tr. and ed. by E. A. W. BUDGE. London: Oxford University Press. BARSAWM, I. A. (2003) The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Siences, tr. by M. MOOSA. 2nd edition. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. BAUMSTARK, A. (1922) Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensischen Texte. Bonn: Marcus u. Weber [Reprint: 1968. Berlin: De Gruyter]. BORBONE, P. G. (2004) Barhebraeus e Juwayni: un cronista siro e la sua fonte persiana. Egitto e Vicino Oriente. 27. pp. 121-144. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F. (1998) Cahiers et signatures dans les manuscrits syriaques. Remarques sur les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale de France. In: Hoffmann, P. (ed.). Recherches de codicologie comparée, la composition du codex au Moyen Âge, en Orient et en Occident. Paris: Presses de l’Ecole normale supérieure, pp. 153-169. BROCK, S. P. (1979-1980) Syriac Historical Writing: A Survey of the Main Sources. Journal of the Iraqi Academy Syriac Corporation. 5. pp. 326-297. BROCK, S. (2005) The Use of Hijra Dating in Syriac Manuscripts. A Preliminary Investigation. In: Murre-van den Berg, H. L., van Ginkel, J. J. & van Lint, T. M. (eds.). Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 134. Leuven: Peeters. pp. 275290. CHESNUT, G. F. (1977) The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius. Paris: Éd. Beauchesne.

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

327

DEBIÉ, M. (2009) Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation. In: Ter Haar Romeny, B. (ed.). Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian Communities of the Middle East. Church history and religious culture 89. pp. 93-114. DUNPHY, G. (ed.) (2010) Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle I-II. Leiden: Brill. FIEY, J. M. (1963) Tagrît. Esquisse d’histoire chrétienne. L’Orient syrien. 8. pp. 289-432. FIEY, J. M. (1965) “Assyriens” ou Araméens? L’Orient syrien. 10. pp. 141-160. FIEY, J. M. (1974-1978) Les diocèses du “maphrianat” syrien 6291860. Parole de l’Orient. 5. pp. 133-164, pp. 331-393; 8. pp. 347378. FIEY, J. M. (1980) Chrétiens syriaques sous Abbassides surtout à Bagdad (749-1258). CSCO 59 = 420. Leuven: Peeters. FIEY, J. M. (1992) Syriaques occidentaux du pays de perses: réunion avec Antioche et ‘Grand Métropolitat’ de Takrit en 628/629?. Parole de l’Orient. 17. pp. 113-126. FIEY, J. M. (1993) Pour un Oriens Christianus Novus. Répertoire des Diocèses syriaques orientaux et occidentaux. Beiruter Texte und Studien 49. Beirut: Steiner. GINKEL, J. J. VAN (1995) John of Ephesus. A Monophysite Historian in Sixth-Century Byzantium. Dissertation. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit. HAGE, W. (2007) Die Anfänge der Apostolischen Kirche des Ostens nach Gregorius Barhebräus. In: Mustafa, A., Tubach, J. & Vashalomidze, G. S. (eds.). Inkulturation des Christentums im Sasanidenreich. Wiesbaden: Reichert. pp. 13-20. HANNA, S. & HOLLERWEGER, H. (2004-2012) Website Hahoyo [Online]. Available from: http://www.hahoye.org/index.php [Accessed: 21st December 2011]. HARRAK, A. (2001) Recent Archeological Excavations in Takrit and the Discovery of Syriac Inscriptions. Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies. 1. pp. 11-40.

328

Dorothea Weltecke

HARRAK, A. (2005) Ah! The Assyrian is the Rod of My Hand!: Syriac View of History after the Advent of Islam. In: Murrevan den Berg, H. L., van Ginkel, J. J. & van Lint, T. M. (eds.). Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 134. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 45-66. HARVEY, S. ASHBROOK (1988) Remembering Pain. Syriac Historiography and the Separation of the Churches. Byzantion. 85. pp. 295-308. HARVEY, S. ASHBROOK (1990) Asceticism and Society in Crisis. John of Ephesus and the Lives of the Eastern Saints. The transformation of the classical heritage 18. Berkeley et al.: University of California Press. JONES, A. H. M. (1959) Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?. Journal of Theological Studies N.S. 10 (2). pp. 280-298. KAUFHOLD, H. (2000) Notizen zur späten Geschichte des Barsaumô-Klosters. Hugoye. [Online] 3 (2). pp. 1-29. Available from: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No2/HV3N2Kaufhold German.html. [Accessed 22nd December 2011]. KAWERAU, P. (1960) Die jakobitische Kirche im Zeitalter der syrischen Renaissance. Idee und Wirklichkeit. Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten 3. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. LANE, G. (1999) An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu alFaraj and His Relations with the Mongols of Persia. Hugoye. [Online] 2 (2). Available from: http://www.bethmardutho.org/index.php/hugoye/volumeindex/113.html. [Accessed: 21st. August 2014]. LE STRANGE, G. (1900) Baghdad During the Abbasid Caliphate. A Topographical Summary, with a Notice of the Contemporary Arabic and Persian Authorities. Reprint: 1972. London: Curzon Press. MICHAEL THE GREAT (1900-1910) Chronique de Michel le Syrien. Patriarche Jacobite d´Antioch (1166-1199) I-IV, ed. and tr. by J.-B. CHABOT. Paris: Ernest Leroux. [repr.: 1963. Brussels: Culture et Civilisation].

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

329

MICHEAU, F. (2008) Baghdad in the Abbasid Era: A Cosmopolitan and Multi-Confessional Capital. In: Jayyusi, J. S. et al. (eds.). The city in the Islamic world. Handbook of Oriental studies 1, The Near and Middle East 94. Leiden: Brill. pp. 221-245. MORONY, M. G. (1984) Iraq after the Muslim conquest. Piscataway: Gorgias Press et al. MORONY, M. G. (2005) History and Identity in the Syrian Churches. In: Murre-van den Berg, H. L., van Ginkel, J. J. & van Lint, T. M. (eds.). Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 134. Leuven: Peeters. pp. 1-33. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, H. L., VAN GINKEL, J. J. & VAN LINT, T. M. (eds.) (2005) Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 134. Leuven: Peeters. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, H. (2005) The Church of the East in the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century: World Church or Ethnic Community?. In: Murre-van den Berg, H. L., van Ginkel, J. J. & van Lint, T. M. (eds.). Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 134. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 301-320. NOVÁK, M. & YOUNANSARDAROUD, H. (2002) Mār Behnām, Sohn des Sanherib von Nimrūd. Tradition und Rezeption einer assyrischen Gestalt im iraqischen Christentum und die Frage nach dem Fortleben der Assyrer. Altorientalische Forschungen. 29 (1). pp. 166-194. PALMER, A. (1993) The Messiah and the Mahdi: History Presented as the Writing on the Wall. In: Hokwerda, H., Smits, E. R. & Woesthuis, M. (eds.). Polyphonia Byzantina: Studies in Honour of Willem J. Aerts. Mediaevalia Gromingana 13. Groningen: Forsten. pp. 45-83. PANZER, R. (1998) Identität und Geschichtsbewußtsein. Griechischorthodoxe Christen im Vorderen Orient zwischen Byzanz und Arabertum. Studien zur Zeitgeschichte des Nahen Ostens und Nordafrikas 3. Hamburg: Lit Verlag.

330

Dorothea Weltecke

PINGGÉRA, K. (2000) Christologischer Konsens und kirchliche Identität. Beobachtungen zum Werk des Gregor Bar Hebraeus. Ostkirchliche Studien. 49. pp. 3-30. REININK, G. J. (2005) East Syrian Historiography in Response to the Rise of Islam: The Case of John bar Penkaye’s Ktābā d-rēš mellē’. In: Murre-van den Berg, H. L., van Ginkel, J. J. & van Lint, T. M. (eds.). Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 134. Leuven: Peeters. pp. 77-90. RICCOLDO DI MONTE CROCE (1997) Riccold de Monte Croce: Pérégrination en Terre Sainte et au Proche Orient. Texte latin et traduction. Lettres sur la chute de Saint-Jean d’Acre, tr. by R. KAPPLER. Textes et traductions des classiques français du moyen âge 4. Paris: Champion. RUBIN, M. (1998) The language of Creation and the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity. Journal of Jewish Studies. 2. pp. 206-333. SAMIR, S. K. (2003) L’utilisation d’al-Qifti par la Chronique arabe d’Ibn al-Ibri (†1286). Parole de l’Orient. 28. pp. 551-598. SAUMA-ASSAD, A. (1993) The Origin of the Word Suryoyo-Syrian. The Harp. 6. pp. 171-197. SEVERUS IBN AL-MUKAFFA et al. (1904-1974) History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria I, 1-3, (1904 1915), ed. and tr. by B.T.A. EVETTS. Patrologia Orientalis. 1 (2). pp. 105-211; 1 (4). pp. 381-519; 10 (5). pp. 357-551. II, 1-3 (1943 -1959): History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church, known as the History of the Holy Church of Sawirus ibn al-Mukaffa, Bishop of al-Asmunin, ed. by Y. ‘ABD AL-MASIH, O. H. E. BURMESTER & A. S. ATIYA. Cairo: Société d’Archéologie Copte. III, 1-3 (1968-1970), ed. BY A. KHATER & O. H. E. KHS-BURMESTER. Cairo: Société d’Archéologie Copte. IV, 1-2 (1974): History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church, known as the History of the Holy Church. Cairo: Société d’Archéologie Copte. STROTHMANN, R. (1936) Heutiges Orientchristentum und Schicksal der Assyrer. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. 6. pp. 17-82.

Bar ʿEbroyo on Identity

331

TAKAHASHI, H. (2005) Barhebraeus: A Bio-Bibliography. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. TER HAAR ROMENY, B. (2010) The Formation of a communal identity among west Syrian Christians: Results and Conclusions of the Leiden Project. In: Ter Haar Romeny, B. (ed.). Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian Communities of the Middle East. Church History and Religious Culture 89. Leiden: Brill. pp. 152. TIMPE, D. (1989) Was ist Kirchengeschichte? Zum Gattungscharakter der Historia Ecclesiastica des Eusebius. In: Dahlheim, W. & Ungern-Sternberg, J. (ed.). Festschrift Robert Werner zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. Xenia. Konstanzer Althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen 22. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. pp. 171-204. VARGHESE, B. (2004) West Syrian liturgical theology. Aldershot: Ashgate. WATT, J. (2007) Guarding the Syriac Language in an Arabic Environment: Antony of Tagrit on the Uses of Grammar in Rhetoric. In: Bekkum, W. J. van, Drijvers, J. W. & Klugkist, A. C. (eds.). Syriac Polemics. Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 170. Leuven: Peeters. pp. 133150. WELTECKE, D. (2003) Die “Beschreibung der Zeiten” von Mor Michael dem Großen (1126-1199): Eine Studie zu ihrem historischen und historiographiegeschichtlichen Kontext. CSCO 594, 110. Leuven: Peeters. WINKLER, D. W. (2003) Ostsyrisches Christentum. Untersuchungen zu Christologie, Ekklesiologie und zu den ökumenischen Beziehungen der Assyrischen Kirche des Ostens. Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 26. Münster: Lit. WINKLER, D. W. (ed.) (2009) Hidden treasures and intercultural encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. Wien et al.: Lit. WITAKOWSKI, W. (1987) The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo Dionysius of Tel-Ma rē. A Study in the History of Historiography. Acta

332

Dorothea Weltecke Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 9. Dissertation. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

WITAKOWSKI, W. (2006) The Ecclesiastical Chronicle of Gregory Bar ‘Ebroyo. Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies. 6. pp. 61-81. YOUNANSARDAROUD, H. (2002) Die Legende von Mār Behnām. In: Tamcke, M. (ed.). Syriaca. Zur Geschichte, Theologie, Liturgie und Gegenwartslage der syrischen Kirchen 2. Deutsches SyrologenSymposium (Juli 2000, Wittenberg). Münster: Lit Verlag.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 19.2, 333-369 © 2016 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

WOODEN STIRRUPS AND CHRISTIAN KHANS: BAR ‘EBROYO’S USE OF JUWAYNĪ’S “HISTORY OF THE WORLD CONQUEROR” AS A SOURCE FOR HIS “CHRONOGRAPHY”1 PIER GIORGIO BORBONE UNIVERSITY OF PISA ABSTRACT One of the sources used by Bar ‘Ebroyo in his Chronography was a “marvellous work” he consulted in the library of Maragha, in Azerbaijan, where “many volumes of the Syrians, Saracens, and Persians” were preserved. This book may be identified without any doubt as the History of the World Conqueror (Ta’rīkh-i jahān gušā), written in Persian by ‘Alā al-Dīn ‘A ā Malik Juwaynī between 1252/1253 and 1260. This article aims at outlining Bar ‘Ebroyo’s approach to Juwaynī’s work as his main source about the Mongols, through a close comparison of the chapters devoted to the beginning of Mongol history and the rise of Genghis Khan, and desultory parallel readings of other episodes. It must be acknowledged that Bar ‘Ebroyo is essentially true to his source and draws from it This paper is a revised version of my ‘Bar ‘Ebroyo and Juwaynī’. Another relevant study about the topic has been published by Denise Aigle (Aigle, ‘L’œuvre historiographique’). In comparison with mine, Aigle’s work has a wider scope, as it also takes into account Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Arabic chronicle. 1

333

334

Pier Giorgio Borbone what is most relevant to his aims as a chronographer. The two works are in fact different in terms of aims as well as language. A detailed comparison allows for promising developments, shedding considerable light on both.

1. INTRODUCTION In the Preface to his Chronography, Bar ‘Ebroyo states that the memory of past events, both good and bad, prompts man to admire what is excellent and to refrain from reproachable deeds. After having outlined this conception of history as magistra vitae, he points out how Syriac scholars had not bothered with historywriting for some eighty years after the work of Michael the Great (1166-1199).2 Such a long period, dense with events relevant to the world as well as the Church, deserved being recorded in writing, and Bar ‘Ebroyo resolved to take on the task. Consequently, in his words, “I, having entered the library of the city of Maragha, in Azerbaijan, have loaded up this my little book with narratives which are worthy of remembrance from many volumes of the Syrians, Saracens, and Persians which are preserved here”.3 In other words, he adapted for his people – in their classical language, Syriac – the updated chronicles that were already available to Arabic- and Persian-speaking audiences. The main, if not the only, Persian source used by Bar ‘Ebroyo is easily identified as the work of ‘Alā al-Dīn ‘A ā Malik Juwaynī (1225-1283).4 Bar ‘Ebroyo himself declares it, soon after relating 2 A statement that would imply that Bar ‘Ebroyo was not aware of the anonymous Chronicon ad annum 1234. 3 Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 1; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 2. From Bar ‘Ebroyo’s statement, it would seem that access to the books preserved in Maragha did not only facilitate his job but actually prompted him to undertake it. According to a 14th-century Arabic source, the library was located close to the observatory, which Hülegü had entrusted to the learned Na īr al-Dīn ūsī, and contained about 400,000 books (see Takahashi, ‘Simeon of Qal‘a Rumaita’, note 90; Lane, ‘An Account’). 4 For information about Juwaynī and his work, see Barthold and Boyle, ‘Djuwaynī’, pp. 606–607; Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), pp. XV–LXV; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, pp. XV–XXXVIII.

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

335

the death of ‘Alā al-Dīn’s brother, the prime minister Šams al-Dīn Mu ammad Juwaynī,5 in 1284: “Now his brother was ‘Alā al-Dīn, who was governor of Baghdad, and who two years earlier had well-nigh died a natural death in Mughan; and he was brought to the city of Tabriz and buried there. Now this man was exceedingly skilled in learned subjects, and he had an adequate knowledge of the poetic art. And he composed a marvellous work in Persian on the chronology of the kingdoms of the Saljuks, and Khwarazmians, and Ishmaelites, and Mongols; what we have introduced into our work on these matters we have derived from his book.”6 The “marvellous work” is the book known as History of the World Conqueror (Ta’rīkh-i jahān gušā), written by ‘Alā al-Dīn ‘A ā Malik Juwaynī between 1252/1253 and 1260.7 The conqueror is 5 Šams al-Dīn Mu ammad Juwaynī served as a vizier under the khans Hülegü, Abaqa and Arghun from 1263 to 1284 (Spuler, Mongolen in Iran, p. 238). 6 Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 503; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 473. Bar ‘Ebroyo cites ‘Alā al-Dīn four times prior to this passage, in the entries for the years 1265 (he is nominated the governor of Baghdad), 1268 (he saves the catholicos Den a from the enraged crowd besieging him in his residence); 1271 (the “Assassins” ambush him and 1282); he is slandered and investigated and dies from the humiliation; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), pp. 472, 474–475, 476, 496; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, pp. 445, 447, 449, 446 respectively). In all the instances ‘Alā al-Dīn is referred to as the ā īb dīwān or ā īb dīwān d-bagdad. But in the passage where he is quoted as the author of the historical work, he is said to be the šallī ā d-bagdad “governor of Baghdad”. This led Budge to wrongly assume that two distinct persons were referred to and to classify them separately in his index, as “Alâ ad-Dîn, Master of the Dîwân” vs. “Alâ ad-Dîn of Baghdâd” (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 514). 7 ‘Alā al-Dīn ‘A ā Malik belonged to an ancient family from the Juwayn region in Khorasan (see Krawulsky, Īrān, p. 88), which had come into the service of the Mongols after the conquest: his father Bahā al-Dīn had been the governor of Khorasan and his brother Šams al-Dīn had been a vizier of the Mongol rulers for over two decades (1263–1284). ‘Alā

336

Pier Giorgio Borbone

Genghis Khan, whose ascent to power Juwaynī relates along with his conquest of the lands west of Mongolia, following it up with an account of his successors. Juwaynī’s familiarity with the conquerors and the active role he played in some of the related events make his work one of the most relevant sources on the history of the Mongols.8 Our aim in this paper is to outline Bar ‘Ebroyo’s approach to Juwaynī’s work. We shall limit our detailed analysis to a few passages. The way in which Bar ‘Ebroyo refers to Juwaynī’s work is revealing of his approach. He fails to mention the book’s title, so Juwaynī’s work is described as a maktbānut zabnē “chronicle, annals”, literally a work containing materials arranged in a chronological sequence. But this is not an accurate description of Juwaynī’s book, which is built around the core theme of the Mongols, and whose narrative occasionally deviates from linear chronology – for example, in order to incorporate the accounts of vanquished dynasties (such as the Uighurs and, particularly, the Khwarazmshahs). The three parts which make up the History of the World Conqueror are devoted to: I) the Mongols, II) the Khwarazm dynasty, III) the Isma‘ilis – with several overlaps. Bar ‘Ebroyo’s approach and his attitude towards Juwaynī are revealed by his al-Dīn ‘A ā Malik himself had accepted relevant offices in the Mongol administration, culminating in his appointment as the governor of Baghdad, and had accompanied Hülegü on the campaign against the Isma‘ilis which led to the destruction of their stronghold, the Alamut fortress (1256). Hülegü also entrusted to him the examination of the books contained in the Isma‘ili library at Alamut, and he accordingly selected what to save and what to destroy. 8 The Persian text was edited by Mīrzā Mu ammad Qazwīnī (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), Juwaynī, Khwárazm-Sháh Dynasty (Qazwīnī), Juwaynī, History of Mangú Qá'án (Qazwīnī). Only two translations into modern western languages exist: the earliest one is in English, edited by John Andrew Boyle (Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle); a second one, in Italian, is by Gian Roberto Scarcia (Juwaynī, Gengis Khan (Scarcia). The latter, aimed at the wider public and therefore not accompanied by philological and historical notes — at variance with Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) — is nonetheless very useful: despite being based on the English translation, it was revised on the Persian original and often proposes improvements (although they are not explicitly singled out).

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

337

description of the source: his mention of “the Saljuk kingdom, the Khwarazm dynasty, the Isma‘ilis and the Mongols”9 implies the adoption of a descriptive criterion based on a succession of dynasties in time, and does not correspond to the real content of the work described. In fact, the History of the World Conqueror does not devote specific attention to the Saljuks (if not marginally, insofar as they interact with the Isma‘ilis, in its third section). Consequently, if Juwaynī’s history had not been preserved, Bar ‘Ebroyo’s description would lead us to imagine it as a linear narrative, in the form of annals beginning with the Saljuks and ending with the Mongols – a very misleading impression of the actual work, both in form and in content.10 Approaching the History of the World Conqueror as a source of information suitable for inclusion in his Chronography, Bar ‘Ebroyo deliberately selects excerpts of varying length, leaving out considerable portions of Juwaynī’s work in the process. Digressions, remarks, and anecdotes are usually left out.11 Apart from the above quotation, Bar ‘Ebroyo does not usually mention his sources explicitly in his narrative; his excerpts from Juwaynī are accordingly fully integrated into the text. The Syriac chronicler first introduces information derived from Juwaynī in the chapter titled “The beginning of the Kingdom of the Mongols, that is to say the Tatars”, included in the section devoted to the “Kings of the Arabs”, beginning in 1202.12 Our study will focus on this 9 See

above, no. 5. This would perhaps explain why Fiey considers the “marvellous book” an “ouvrage aujourd’hui perdu” (Fiey, Chrétiens syriaques, p. 99). 11 For instance, when dealing with the early stages of Genghis Khan’s campaign in Transoxiana, Bar ‘Ebroyo drastically resumes Juwaynī’s account (which dwells for several pages on the occurrences which took place during the army’s march) and reduces the accounts of the capture of the towns of Otrar and Bukhara to concise notices, separated by the addition of an extensive narrative of events in Syria and Egypt (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), pp. 62–66; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), pp. 337–338, 395–397). 12 Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 370; Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 14. The insertion of the notice in this place is due to the fact that Juwaynī, who makes a far more sparing use of dates compared to Bar ‘Ebroyo, precisely situates the battle between Genghis Khan and Onk Khan in 599 Hijrī (= 1202/3) (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 27). 10

338

Pier Giorgio Borbone

section, following Bar ‘Ebroyo’s narrative sequentially and comparing individual instances with their source.13 2. BAR ‘EBROYO’S NARRATIVE COMPARED WITH JUWAYNĪ’S Juwaynī’s Foreword and the introductory paragraphs in its first chapter (“Of the condition of the Mongols before the time of Genghis Khan’s rise to power”) are entirely skipped by Bar ‘Ebroyo, and understandably so, considering that they have no factual relevance but aim at illustrating the importance of acquiring a knowledge of the Mongols’ way of life before approaching their history.14 Bar ‘Ebroyo Now the first country of the Tatars, before they spread abroad in these exterior countries, was a valley, that is to say a [great]15 plain in the north-eastern quarter of the world, the length and width of which was a journey of eight

Juwaynī The home of the Tatars, and their origin and birthplace, is an immense valley, whose area is a journey of seven or eight months both in length and in breadth. In the east, it marches with the land of Khitai, in west with the country of the

13 A thorough synopsis of the two narratives would be unfeasible. On the other hand, it is our intention to provide the reader with as much information as possible, using summaries where necessary. Detailed geographical and biographical information will be omitted, except when relevant to our specific aim (on the subject of Genghis Khan’s ascent to power, some good reference information may be extracted from Grousset, Le conquérant du monde; Phillips, The Mongols; Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan; Roux, Histoire de l’empire mongol; Roux, Gengis Khan). 14 Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Chronography is cited according to the English translation by Budge (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge), while for Juwaynī’s History of the World Conqueror Boyle’s translation is adopted (Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle). Both translations have been checked against their Syriac and Persian originals (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek) = Bedjan edition, Paris 1890; Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī) [Juwaynī, Khwárazm-Sháh Dynasty (Qazwīnī); Juwaynī, History of Mangú Qá'án (Qazwīnī)]). The changes aim at greater fidelity to the original text. 15 In an old – perhaps the oldest – Ms. of the Chronography (Vat. Syr. 166, before 1356/7) the adjective “great” (rabtā) is absent; it occurs in Mss. Sachau 210 (14th century) and Hunt. 1 (ca. 1498).

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans months. On the east side, their territory extended to the country of the Chinese kātāyē, that is Katai; and on the west to the land of the Uighur Turks; and on the north to the land, which is called slpg’y; and on the south to India. (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 370; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 352)

339

Uighur, in the north with Qirqiz and Selengei (slnk’y) and in the south with Tangut and Tibet. (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 15; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, pp. 20–21)

Commentary Reliance on Juwaynī is immediately apparent, but a few stylistic variations emerge; for instance, Bar ʻEbroyo uses one single term (“first country” instead of “home”, “origin” and “birthplace”) to designate the home of the Mongols. From the point of view of content, differences seem to be due to various reasons. The addition of “before they spread… ” links this chapter – which sees the Mongols debut on the scene of history – to its appropriate chronological and geographical setting. The reasons for other differences are less easily identified. Juwaynī’s approximation (“seven or eight” – haft hašt) is resolved in favour of the higher figure. Differences that are more significant concern the notices on neighbouring peoples: that on the Chinese and the Uighurs is slightly expanded, while the Southern border is defined differently. Bar ‘Ebroyo knows, and elsewhere cites, Tangut;16 it is therefore unclear why he replaced its mention (alongside Tibet) with India. Nothing accounts for his failure to mention Qirqiz (the Kirghiz territory), while the Syriac slpg’y clearly renders the Arabo-Persian slnk’y.17 Juwaynī here refers to “Selenga”.18 According to the 16 Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), pp. 412, 413, 421; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, pp. 391, 398. 17 Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 15 (cf. Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 21). 18 Juwaynī’s translations (Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 21: “river Selengei”; Juwaynī, Gengis Khan (Scarcia), p. 42: “fiume Selenga”, our Italics) could be misleading: Selenga is indeed a river in Mongolia, but Juwaynī’s Persian text contains no explicit mention of a river, while a

340

Pier Giorgio Borbone

apparatus of Qazwīnī’s critical edition, in all the Persian manuscripts the sound g is represented by a plain Arabic kaf with no diacritical marks.19 We could presume that the manuscript available to Bar ‘Ebroyo featured a more accurate spelling or, more probably, that the name and its spelling were known to him from another source. A later copyist should most probably be held responsible for the misreading of the n as a p.20 Bar ‘Ebroyo Before Genghis Khan, their first king, rose up, they were without a head, and they used to give tribute to the kātāyē, that is to say the Chinese. They dressed themselves in the skins of dogs and bears,21 and they lived upon mice and other unclean beasts, and animals that had died, and they drank the milk of mares. And the sign of a great amīr among them was that when riding he had stirrups made of iron, whilst for everyone else they were made of wood.

Juwaynī Before the appearance of Genghis Khan they had no chief or ruler. Each tribe or two tribes lived separately; they were not united with one another, and there was constant fighting and hostility between them. Some of them regarded robbery and violence, immorality and debauchery as deeds of manliness and excellence. The Khan of Khitai used to demand and seize goods from them. Their clothing was of the skins of dogs and mice, and their food

geographical treatise included in the encyclopaedic work Nuzhat al-qulūb by amd-Allāh Mustawfī, completed in 1340, refers to “Selenga” as a land in the four instances when the term occurs – in two cases explicitly connecting it with Qirghiz/Qirqiz (Qazwīnī, Geographical Part (Le Strange), pp. 10, 212, 238, 260 [Persian text]; Qazwīnī, Geographical Part (Le Strange, tr.), pp. 10, 204, 231, 253 [Engl. transl.]). This possibly explains why Bar ‘Ebroyo mentions a “land (
) called slpg’y”. 19 The orthographic features of the manuscripts of Juwaynī’s text are described in Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), pp. LXVI– LXXIII. 20 The comparison with Juwaynī disproves Budge’s proposed interpretation of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s place name as a reference to “Siberia” (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 352: “Salapgây (Seber, Siberia)”. 21 The Syriac 
 may be read both as “bears” (debbē) and as “wolves” (dibbē).

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), pp. 370–371; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge), I, p. 352)

341

was the flesh of those animals and other dead things; their wine was mares’ milk and their dessert the fruit of a tree shaped like the pine, which they call qusuq […] The sign of a great emir amongst them was that his stirrups were of iron; from which one can form a picture of their other luxuries. (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 15; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle), I, pp. 21–22)

Commentary In this instance, too, Bar ‘Ebroyo proceeds by excerpting a few sentences, omitting others and modifying some of the information. Juwaynī’s main point in presenting the Mongols is to illustrate not only how “primitive” they were, but also how morally reprehensible their customs were before the advent of Genghis Khan. Judging from his omissions, Bar ‘Ebroyo seems less concerned with this, and also with where and how the fruit called qusuq grows (a passage omitted from our Juwaynī’s quotation for the sake of brevity). As in the previous instance, less conspicuous variations are not as easily explained: the “mice”, for instance, become “bears” (or “wolves”). However, while not mentioned as the providers of fur,22 mice appear among the victuals – Juwaynī only alludes to them indirectly in this connection. Possibly Bar ‘Ebroyo amended the source of his own accord: mouse skins may have appeared to him as an unlikely material for the manufacture of clothing. Even the iron stirrups are presented differently: where Juwaynī provides an ironic remark aimed at showing how little luxury was afforded by the upper classes, following it up with an equally ironic detailed description of the Mongols’ rudimentary dessert, Bar ‘Ebroyo only includes a plain factual notice. In fact, the use of wooden stirrups is

22 Perhaps the mention of “mouse” furs results from a distortion of the reported habit of using small fur animals, such as sables and squirrels.

342

Pier Giorgio Borbone

documented in Mongolia among reindeer people (Tsaatan), butwhat is more important for us, in 13th-14th century Syria.23 Bar ‘Ebroyo In the year 1514 of the Greeks, and the year 599 of the Arabs [AD 1202/3], when Onk25 Khan, that is John, the Christian king, was reigning over a certain tribe of the barbarian Huns who were called kryt (Kereyit), Genghis Khan was going about continually in his service. And when Onk Khan saw his superior intelligence, and that he progressed from day to day, he became jealous of him, and he wished to size him by deceit and put him to death. Then two of the young men of Onk Khan, becoming acquainted

Juwaynī24 Genghis Khan bore the name of Temürjin until the time when, in accordance with the decree of “Be, and it is” [Qur’an, II, 117], he became master of all the kingdoms of the habitable world. In those days Onk Khan, the ruler of the Kereyit and the Saqiyat, surpassed the other tribes in strength and dignity and was stronger than they in gear and equipment and the number of his men […] Upon every occasion, by reason of the nearness of their confines and the proximity of their territories, he [Genghis Khan]

23 See the picture of a wooden stirrup dating back to the 14th century (Bashir, Muslim Knight, p. 347). Besides, a search on the internet can show that the use of wooden stirrups is still in fashion. 24 It is impossible to quote Juwaynī’s passage in its entirety: from this point onwards Bar ‘Ebroyo drastically resumes a far more elaborate and detailed narrative. Several pages (of great ethnographical and historical interest) devoted to the laws established by Genghis Khan introduce this. We will accordingly quote only those sentences, which have an echo in Bar ‘Ebroyo, either as an excerpt or a paraphrase. Juwaynī begins his account of Genghis Khan’s rise to power by celebrating the Mongol tribe to which he belonged; he then moves on without further ado and introduces him. 25 As known, this was the title (wang “king”) awarded by the Chinese (Jurchen) emperor to the Kereyit ruler. The Syriac spelling 
reproduces Juwaynī’s Persian spelling ’wnk (so all the MSS: Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 26). Rubruk’s (Latin: Unc) and Marco Polo’s (Old French: Unc) identical spelling seem to support the Persian one (hinting perhaps to a written tradition underlying the spelling adopted by the two European travellers).

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans with the treachery, informed Genghis, and straightway Genghis made it known to his own men, and they removed themselves by night from their tents and hid themselves in ambush. And at daybreak when Onk Khan attacked the tents of the Tatars he found no one in them. And then the followers of Genghis leaped out upon him, and they met each other in battle by the side of a spring which was called b’lšyh. And the party of Genghis triumphed, and the party of Onk Khan was broken. And the two parties met together in battle on many occasions, and at length the party of Onk Khan perished entirely, and he himself was killed, and his wives, and his sons, and his daughters were made captives. And Genghis Khan magnified those two young men, and he passed a law of freedom for them, so that in every capture of prisoners in which they were present, no portion should be taken for the king from them and their sons for ever. And they were to enter the presence of the kings without a summons to do so. And however much they might offend, no one was to be set over them. And he promoted the other men who

343

used to visit Onk Khan, and there was a feeling of friendship… [Onk Khan appreciated Genghis Khan’s qualities increasingly, to the point that] Day by day he raised his station and position, until all affairs of state were dependent upon him and all Onk Khan’s troops and followers controlled by his discipline and justice. The sons and brothers of Onk Khan and his courtiers and favourites became envious of the rank and favour he enjoyed: they accordingly cast nets of guile… [Over time, though, Onk Khan, instigated by his relatives and by the Kereyit nobles,] became suspicious of him and was doubtful as to what he should do […] he thought to remove him by craft and guile and to hinder by fraud and treachery God’s secret design in fortifying him. It was agreed, therefore, that at dawn, while eyes were anointed with the collyrium of sleep and mankind was rendered negligent by repose, Onk Khan’s men should make a night attack upon Genghis Khan and his followers and thus free themselves from their fears. They made every preparation for the deed and were about to put their intention into action; but since

344

Pier Giorgio Borbone

had been with him in that war, and made them nobles. And because there were with him men of the Mongol race, who were called Oirats,26 and they exhibited more skill than the other in athletic exercises, and fought more strenuously, Genghis Khan paid them honour. An he passed a law concerning them that brides for the sons of kings27 were to be selected among their daughters, so that children of the seed of Genghis might be propagated. And also that wives from among the daughters of the sons of kings should be given to their sons.28 And this law remains among them to this day. (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 371; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge), I, pp. 352–353)

26

his luck was vigilant and his fortune kind, two youths in Onk Khan’s service, one of them named Kishlik and the other Bada, fled to Genghis Khan and informed him of the badness of their faith and the uncleanness of their treachery. He at once sent off his family and followers and had the tents moved away. When at the appointed time, in the dawn, the enemy charged down upon the tents they found them empty. Though the accounts differ here as to whether they then returned or whether they at once took up the pursuit, the upshot of the matter was that Onk Khan set off in search of him with a large force of men, while Genghis Khan had but a small force with him. There is a spring, which they call Baljuna (b’ljwnh): here they joined battle and fierce fighting ensued. In the end Genghis Khan with his small army routed Onk Khan with his great host and won much booty. This event occurred in the year 599 [AD 1202/3], and the names of all who took part therein are

Syriac ’wyr’t’y’, wrongly vocalized by Budge as “’Awîrâthâyê” (p.

353). 27 In Syriac, bnay malkē “children of the kings”: the expression is probably a calque from the Mongolian köbegüd, a plural of “sons” used specifically for the rulers’ children. 28 See previous note.

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

345

recorded, whether base or noble, from princes down to slaves, tent-pitchers, grooms, Turks, Taziks and Indians. As for those two youths, he made them tarkhan.29 Tarkhan are those who are exempt from compulsory contributions, and to whom the booty taken on every campaign is surrendered: whenever they so wish they may enter the royal presence without leave or permission. He also gave them troops and slaves and of cattle, horses and accoutrement more than could be counted or computed; and commanded that whatever offence they might commit they should not be called to account therefore; and that this order should be observed with their posterity also down to the ninth generation. Today there are many people descended from these two persons, and they are honoured and respected in every country, and held in high esteem at the courts of kings. [There follows a concise narrative of subsequent encounters.] Finally all the latter’s [= Onk Khan’s] family and retainers, even his wives and daughters, fell into Genghis Khan’s hand; and he himself was slain. […] and all 29 Or darqan, “free man, man freed from tax imposition” (Buell, Historical Dictionary; see Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia, p. 133).

346

Pier Giorgio Borbone that came to tender submission, such as the Oirat and the Qonqurat, were admitted to the number of his commanders and followers and were regarded with the eye of indulgence and favour. [The chapter ends with an account of the suppression of the “abominable” ancestral habits described earlier.] (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), pp. 25–28; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle), I, pp. 35-38)

Commentary Bar ‘Ebroyo omits mention of Genghis Khan’s original name30 and follows it up with an account of his falling out with Onk Khan, which is presented as a personal issue between them, without the involvement or instigation of the court and Kereyit nobles. The issue is reduced to a jealousy affair between an old king and a young chief. To those familiar with the Bible, the reference to the story of David and Saul, as told in I Samuel, is immediately apparent. Although Bar ‘Ebroyo himself will have made the connection, it must be emphasised that the essence of the story, as well as its details, are derived from Juwaynī, and bear no indication of an explicit and deliberate Biblical reference. We will shortly come across a similar, and perhaps even more revealing, instance.31

30 As also, understandably, of the Qur’anic quotation used by Juwaynī to stress the divine rule over human events. 31 As evidenced by Jullien, ‘La notice syriaque’, the text appears modelled on a Biblical canvas; the essay is of great relevance, as it provides a number of references to Western and Eastern Christian sources relevant to aspects only briefly touched upon in our discussion; among them is the identification, in contemporary sources, of Onk Khan / Yo annan with the “Prester John”. I am indebted to Florence Jullien for allowing me to use her forthcoming article.

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

347

Bar ‘Ebroyo alone specifies that Onk Khan was a Christian and went by the name of John (Yū annan).32 In addition, he elaborates on Juwaynī’s account of an initial proximity soon followed by esteem, trust and admiration, and states that Genghis Khan was in Onk Khan’s service. The two youths who save Genghis Khan from the treasonable attack are mentioned, but not their names; as usual, other details are also left out. In describing their reward, Bar ‘Ebroyo omits mention of their Mongol title, which in itself would have accounted for the prerogatives he lists. The inclusion of exemption from tribute among the prerogatives of the tarkhan’s descendants is erroneous: only impunity would actually have extended down to the ninth generation. Concerning the measures taken by Genghis Khan to escape the ambush, it must be noted that according to Juwaynī he “had the tents moved away”,33 while Bar ‘Ebroyo has him ordering to remove themselves from the tents, obviously without moving them. That this occurred at night is not stated by Juwaynī, but is implied in his subsequent mention of the attack taking place “in the dawn”. On the other hand, Juwaynī has Genghis Khan organising the flight of his people, while according to Bar ‘Ebroyo he would only have “informed” them. Contradicting his prior statement, Juwaynī then writes that the enemy fell on the tents only to find them empty – implying that they had actually been vacated. Bar ‘Ebroyo’s account, therefore, is essentially true to its source, although the details are balanced off differently. Where the two texts disagree is on the moment when the battle took place, resulting in a significantly different account of events: Bar ‘Ebroyo implies that the men, after leaving their tents, remained hidden in ambush nearby, the confrontation occurring soon afterwards. Juwaynī on the other hand writes that the precise sequence of events was unclear, but the fugitives were certainly pursued and the encounter took place later, near a spring called “Baljuna”.34 32 As suggested by Giorgio R. Cardona, the phonetic passage from (Chinese) wang + (Mongolian) qan should have produced a Mongolian spelling oŋqan, from which the interpretation of a personal name as “Yo annan” derived (Cardona, ‘Indice ragionato’, p. 700). 33 Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 27. 34 The Syriac transliteration b’lšwyh for the Arabo-Persian b’ljwnh contains one erroneous letter, since the n is rendered as a y. This may have occurred either through a misreading of the Persian (where only diacritical

348

Pier Giorgio Borbone

The more significant feature, besides the fact that Onk Khan is qualified as a Christian, is found in the final passage. Juwaynī mentions the submission of various tribes, including the Oirats, saying that they obtained a favourable treatment, along with others. Bar ‘Ebroyo not only presents the occurrence otherwise, treating the Oirats as first-minute allies and the most strenuous of fighters, but – unusually for him – he also adds other details: the family of the Oirats’ sovereigns would have perpetually intermarried with the ruling dynasty as a reward.35 The informant about the marriage privilege is indeed Juwaynī: we may find the information in the thirty-third chapter of the History, devoted to Emir Arghun. The cue for the information is provided by the emir’s Oirat ancestry.36 Thus Bar ‘Ebroyo introduces here a detail which in fact is found in a later section of Juwaynī’s work.37 marks differentiate between the two letters) or within the manuscript tradition. Syriac š usually corresponds in Near Eastern Syriac scribal use to Arabo-Persian j and Turkic and Mongolian č and ǰ; in texts from Central Asia, Syriac is used. 35 The existence of such intermarriage alliance (anda-quda in Mongolian) between Genghis Khan’s family and the ruling clan of other Mongol tribes was so well known in Asia. Even Marco Polo mentions it, but in connection to the Önggüt tribe: “The king of the province is of the lineage of Prester John […] It is a custom, I may tell you, that these kings of the lineage of Prester John always obtain to wife either the daughters of the Great Kaan or other princesses of his family…”, Translation by Yule (Marco Polo, The Travels of Marco Polo (Yule & Cordier), I, pp. 284–285). About the Önggüt tribe see the Secret History of the Mongols §§ 190, 202, 239; also Buell, Historical Dictionary, pp. 206–207. This confederation of (partly) Christianised Turkic tribes was settled North of China and defended its borders. Soon enough, they formed an alliance with Genghis Khan, which paved the way for him once he decided to conquer China. 36 “The Oirat are one of the best known of the Mongol tribes, and to that tribe belong most of the maternal uncles of the children and grandchildren of Genghis Khan, the reason being that at the time of his first rise to power the Oirat came forward to support and assist him and vied with one another in their alacrity to tender allegiance, and in recognition of their services an edict was issued concerning that tribe to the effect that the daughters of their emirs should be married to the descendants of Genghis Khan” (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 242; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) II, pp. 505–506). 37 In the corresponding passage of the Arabic Chronicle, there is no mention of this intermarriage alliance.

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

349

Bar ‘Ebroyo “And it is right to know that this king John of the kryt was not rejected for nothing, but only after he had turned aside his heart from the fear of Christ His Lord, who had magnified him, and had taken a wife from a tribe of one of the Chinese peoples which was called Qārākā ā. He forsook the religion of his fathers and worshipped strange gods, and therefore God took away the kingdom and gave it to one who was better than he; and his heart became right before God.” (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), pp. 371–372; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 353) Commentary This notice is exclusive to Bar ‘Ebroyo, who – after stating that Onk Khan-Yo annan was a Christian – now finds himself understandably forced to justify before his Christian audience his defeat and killing at the hands of a heathen. At first glance, Bar ‘Ebroyo would seem to follow a well-known Biblical (or more precisely Deuteronomistic) pattern.38 However, at a closer look, the explanation provided by Bar ‘Ebroyo in this instance appears ultimately based on Juwaynī’s account of the Naiman leader Küchlüg – purportedly adapted and distorted. Initially in the service of the gür khan of the Qarakitai,39 Küchlüg rebelled against him and after various turns of fortune defeated him, made him prisoner and usurped his reign. In that circumstance, says Juwaynī, “[Küchlüg] took one of their maidens to wife. Now the Naiman are for the most part Christian; but this maiden persuaded him to turn idolater [i.e. Buddhist] like herself and to abjure Christianity.” (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 48; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle), I, p. 64) After his conversion Küchlüg, having conquered the regions of Kashghar and Khotan, forces the Muslims to convert to Buddhism or Christianity, and destroys mosques and places of prayer. 38 A member of the Syriac clergy – as for that matter any Christian reader – could not have helped being reminded of the great Solomon, ruined by “foreign” women (cfr. 1 Kings 11). 39 Gür khan “eternal khan” was the title of the Qarakitai rulers.

350

Pier Giorgio Borbone

Juwaynī, as we have seen, states that Küchlüg was a Christian, since he belonged to the tribe of Naiman; however, while introducing his figure, he had earlier stated that he was a son of the Kereyit ruler, Onk Khan, who had escaped the defeat.40 This is clearly an error, which results in an incongruity in Juwaynī; but precisely this alleged connection between Küchlüg and Onk Khan could have inspired Bar ‘Ebroyo to transfer Küchlüg’s marriage details to Onk Khan.41 Whatever the case, Bar ‘Ebroyo here makes an improper use of his source; it is difficult to say whether this is due to a deliberate intention to distort its message, caused by the need to justify Onk Khan’s disgrace in terms of retribution, or to mere sloppiness on the part of Bar ‘Ebroyo. As we shall see further, there is at least one other case where Bar ‘Ebroyo certainly did not bother to read Juwaynī’s text thoroughly or carefully. The replacement of [Küchlüg’s] “turn idolater” with his “forsake the religion of the fathers and worship strange gods” has at all events an undoubted Biblical flavour. Bar ‘Ebroyo And at that time a certain man of the Tatars rose up, who in

Juwaynī At this time there arose a man of whom I have heard from

History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 46. F. Jullien suggests that Bar ‘Ebroyo may here have taken recourse to a different source, possibly the Arabic original (now lost to us), written around 1221, of a text which survives in its Latin version: the Relatio de Davide. The text would seem to describe under the garb of an Eastern follower of King David, the liberator of Christians from the Muslim yoke the historical figure of Küchlüg, the Naiman ruler who converted to Buddhism and became a persecutor of Muslims in Central Asia. The Relatio, however, does not mention his conversion to “idolatry”, that is to say, Buddhism (on this aspect see the discussion in Jullien, ‘La notice syriaque’, notes 27–34 and related text, with extensive bibliography). Since, as may be seen, Bar ‘Ebroyo is following Juwaynī’s account closely, it is easier to assume that the episode is derived from him; this is further supported by the explicit mention of the wife’s being a princess of the Qarakitai. One should also add that an account of Küchlüg’s marriage is also included in the Persian history written by Rašīd al-Dīn (1247–1318), which contains even further details (Rašid-al-Din, Sbornik letopisej (Smirnova), p. 180). This testifies to its popularity among the literate circles of Mongol Iran, and to the different ways by which it may potentially have reached Bar ‘Ebroyo. 40 Juwaynī, 41

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans the depth of winter, in all the frost and cold which exist in that country, went about naked, and he walked through the mountains and hills for many days. And he used to come and say, “I have gone forth from God, and He said unto me: ‘I have given the whole earth to Temürjin (tmwršyn) and his sons, and I have called him by the name of Genghis Khan’ – now his original name was Temürjin (tmwršyn). The Tatars call this man Tubut Tangri (twbwt tngry). (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 372, Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 353)

351

trustworthy Mongols that during the severe cold that prevails in those regions he used to walk naked through the desert and the mountains and then to return and say: “God has spoken with me and has said: ‘I have given all the face of the earth to Temürjin and his children and named him Genghis Khan. Bid him administer justice in such and such a fashion.’ They called this person Bot Tengri, and whatever he said Genghis Khan used implicitly to follow. (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), pp. 28-29, Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 39) [Juwaynī continues by giving a brief résumé of the story of Bot Tengri, the influential shaman who also aspired to rule, but lost his life in the struggle for power. Equally concise is the ending to his chapter, which only states that Genghis Khan subdued the tribes and even the Emperor of China, as further detailed in the book.]

Commentary Bar ‘Ebroyo’s typical approach to his source is here well represented: Juwaynī is mostly followed closely, albeit more concisely and with slightly different shades in terminology – synonyms or paraphrases, such as “Tatars” vs. “Mongols”, “through the mountains and hills” vs. “through the desert and the mountains”, “I have gone forth from God” vs. “God has spoken with me”, and so on – and a few significant differences. Bar ‘Ebroyo here mentions Genghis Khan’s original name before his

352

Pier Giorgio Borbone

rise to power, cited by Juwaynī much earlier. Perhaps Bar ‘Ebroyo would have omitted mention of it, as in the previous instance, had the literal quotation of the prophecy not obliged him to mention it. The form of the name is worth noting: tmwršyn, which corresponds with that used by Juwaynī, Temürjin.42 Both forms, the classical Mongolian temürǰin “smith” (from temür “iron”) and the more ancient temüǰin, which recurs in the Secret History and in the Chinese chronicle if the Mongol (Yuan) dynasty, the Yuan shi, are plausible.43 Since the latter form is the most ancient, Boyle prefers to reject the reading tmrjyn proposed by Qazwīnī and to accept instead the reading Temüjin as original. However, in so doing, he rejects the evidence of the most ancient Persian manuscript which, we may now add, receives additional support from Bar ‘Ebroyo. The passage contains one more instance where Bar ‘Ebroyo’s text may help in establishing the original form of a personal name in the Persian text. As mentioned, Juwaynī’s Bot Tengri (bt tngry) becomes twbwt tngry (Tubut Tengri) in Bar ‘Ebroyo. The Mongol name is Teb-tenggri: this is the nickname of the shaman Kököchü, and approximately means “the very celestial”, “the very divine”44 – or in other words, someone with divine powers, considering that

42 Several variants are attested in the Persian manuscript tradition: for the first occurrence (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 26) the reading tmrjyn (ms. A) is at variance with MSS B and J: tmwjyn, H: tmjyn and W: tmrjn. For the second (the passage under scrutiny) (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 28), the same readings recur in A, B and J, whereas H and W both read tmjyn. MS A = Paris, BN, Suppl. persan 205 (dated to 8 December 1290); MS B = Paris, BN, Suppl. persan 1375 (14th c.?); MS J = Paris, BN, Suppl. persan 1556 (13th–14th c.?); MS H = Paris, BN, Suppl. persan 1563; MS W = Paris, BN, Suppl. persan 207 (dated September 1818) (cf. Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), pp. LXVI–LXXIX). Both translations consulted (English and Italian) actually suggest alternative readings as more probable: accordingly, the form chosen by the English translator, Boyle, and the Italian one, Scarcia, is Temüjin. Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, pp. 35, 39; Juwaynī, Gengis Khan (Scarcia), pp. 56, 59. 43 Roux, La religione dei Turchi, p. 94; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 35. 44 Roux, La religione dei Turchi, pp. 85–87; Buell, Historical Dictionary, p. 264: “something like ‘high Heaven’”.

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

353

Tengri is, for the Turco-Mongol peoples, the Sky as a deity.45 In this respect, neither translation is really appropriate. In Persian, moreover, the word bot means an “idol”, and consequently the name lends itself to misunderstanding. In the Arabo-Persian script, the difference between bot and tob consists in the positioning of diacritical marks. Consequently, the misreading is easily explained as a lectio facilior: the Persian scribe was far more acquainted with the word bot than with the Mongolian teb, and the term “idol” did not seem out of place in the context. Bar ‘Ebroyo’s reading is also blatantly erroneous compared to the Mongol, but it appears more of a conflated reading of tob and bot. This may possibly result from Bar ‘Ebroyo’s initiative, but in his apparatus Qazwīnī signals, among the attested variants, the reading tbt tnkry, found in two manuscripts.46 It is consequently far more probable for the On Teb-tenggri and his role in Genghis Khan’s rise to power, see the essays cited in note 17. 46 Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 28. These are MSS H and W. MS A reads tb tnkry with an undotted nun: a correct reading, if we assume the Mongol name to be a model, to which Qazwīnī prefers in his text bt tngry, presumably from MS G. MS B simply reads tnkry; MS D (= Paris, BN, Ancien Fonds Persan 69 [dated 16 August, 1531]) once more has tbt tnkry, but with an undotted b. Qazwīnī’s choice to consider original a reading which does not reflect the actual Mongol name has no grounds, when we consider, as noted by O. Smirnova in her Russian translation of Rašīd al-Dīn’s Collection of Chronicles, that “in Persian language documents [the name is] invariably but-tangrī” (Rašid-al-Din, Sbornik letopisej (Smirnova), p. 150 n. 4; clearly Smirnova does not take into account the variations in Juwaynī’s text, which would temper her statement). The name could have been interpreted as “idol of the Sky” or “[divine] image of the Sky”: a meaning ultimately compatible with the semantic field of the Mongolian Teb-tenggri. It is therefore possible for bot tengri to be Juwaynī’s original rendering, later variously amended based on the Mongol either by omitting bot (MS B), by reading tb (MS A), or by producing a conflated reading tbt (MSS H, W and D). The Persian manuscripts which contain the latter reading are dated between the 16th and 19th centuries, but Bar ‘Ebroyo testifies that the reading was already current by the 70s or 80s of the 13th. With specific reference to Bar ‘Ebroyo’s account, F. Jullien noted – here as elsewhere (Jullien, ‘La notice syriaque’ [forthcoming], notes 47–48 and related text) – several Biblical echoes, among which are Teb-tenggri’s nakedness (cf. 1 Samuel 19:14) and the use, in Syriac, of the verb bdq which brings to mind Isaiah 52:7. However, Bar ‘Ebroyo did not weave an original narrative based on the 45

354

Pier Giorgio Borbone

conflated reading to have originated with the Persian manuscript consulted by Bar ‘Ebroyo. The mss. evidence regarding the names “Temü(r)jin” and “Teb-tenggri” could be the starting point for a further inquiry aimed at establishing which of the surviving manuscripts from Juwaynī’s work most closely resembles the one used by Bar ‘Ebroyo. The following chapter is devoted by Juwaynī, and accordingly by Bar ‘Ebroyo, to the sons of Genghis Khan. Once more, Bar Bible, but merely followed Juwaynī’s account. The issue could be further textured, were we to take into account the Islam’s considerable Biblical background – but Juwaynī’s account of Teb-tenggri derives from Mongol sources and is previously found in the Secret History (§§ 244–246): if there ever was any Biblical influence on the Mongol conception of rule, this should be sought further back in time, possibly at the time of the “Nestorian” mission in Central Asia, around the 8th–9th centuries. We personally support the answer given by Alessandro Catastini, whose research provides surprising comparisons between ancient Hebrew prophetism and the shamanic aspects of Turco-Mongol religions: “The answer to our problem… must be situated within the polygenetic structures which are likely to favour multiple influences between two cultures precisely on the basis of their phenomenological similarities” (Catastini, Profeti e tradizione, pp. 131–143, cit. p. 142, our translation). This appears to us as a step in the right direction, especially considering the existence of other ritual and ceremonial aspects that are documented both in the Bible and among Turco-Mongol peoples, such as the custom of dividing up the bodies of slaughtered animals on the occasion of the stipulation of important treaties (cf. Genesis 15:9–11, 17–18 and Jeremiah 34:17–19 with the Secret History, § 141, bearing in mind the observation of numerous instances in the Turco-Mongol milieu documented by Sinor, ‘Taking an Oath’ esp. pp. 302–303; cf. also Roux, Histoire de l’empire mongol, p. 110). The nudity of the “man of God”, moreover, is not explainable only in terms of Biblical parallels, being a widespread feature of shamanic practice (see Roux, La religione dei Turchi, p. 85) which, along with the theme of resistance to low temperatures, is documented even in Tibetan culture, in the practice of gtum-mo, psychophysical warmth (Stein, La civiltà tibetana). In conclusion, the stereotype of the “heavenly mandate”, as also other cultural features, is best interpreted in terms of a very deep layer shared by numerous ancient cultures even if geographically distant, rather than as an influence of one upon another, while its literary expression may well have been textured to suit specific contexts through the conscious adoption of “foreign” expressive modes, depending on the source and the audience of the account.

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

355

‘Ebroyo significantly resumes Juwaynī. The latter continues with an account of the conquest of the Uighur land and the submission of their idiqut (title of the Uighur sovereign), which is skipped by Bar ‘Ebroyo entirely. He similarly ignores the following passage, where Juwaynī inserts an account of Uighur history before their submission to the Mongols, following it up with an excursus on the origins of the title of the Uighur sovereign – the idiqut – a description of their land and, finally, of their beliefs. This chapter, a long passage virtually independent from its context, is only echoed in Bar ‘Ebroyo through a rather peculiar feature, as we shall see below. The space available does not allow a detailed discussion of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s chapters on the “Sons of Genghis Khan” and the “Laws which Genghis Khan made”; suffice to say that they are, even more than usual, significantly more concise than their source. The regulations, which are described by Juwaynī at length, with recourse to technical Mongolian terminology, as a sign of the high and noble civilization introduced by Genghis Khan among the Mongols, are reduced by Bar ‘Ebroyo to nine laconic points or articles. Nonetheless, Juwaynī is clearly Bar ‘Ebroyo’s only source.47 By way of example, Bar ‘Ebroyo’s second article of Genghis Khan’s laws may be cited, due to its relevance to a Christian chronicler: “Let [the Mongols] magnify and pay honour to the modest, and the pure, and the righteous, and to the scribes, and wise men, to whatsoever people they may belong, and let them hate the wicked and the men of iniquity. And having seen very much modesty and other habits of this kind among the Christian people, [the Mongols] loved them greatly.” [Here ends the text written by Bar ‘Ebroyo; the following phrase, translated in Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) but absent in MS Vat. Syr. 166, was added by a later scribe] (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek) p. 373, Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 354). Bar ‘Ebroyo clearly had an interest in this aspect. Nonetheless, Juwaynī’s text – resumed and, more importantly, modified by Bar ‘Ebroyo – remains far more detailed: “Being the adherent of no religion and the follower of no creed, he eschewed bigotry, and the preference of one faith to another, and the placing of some above others; rather he honoured and respected the learned and pious of every sect, recognizing such conduct as the way to the Court of God. And as he viewed the Muslims with the eye of respect, so also did he hold the Christians and idolaters [i.e. the Buddhists] in high esteem. As for his children and grandchildren, several of them have chosen a religion according to their inclination, some adopting Islam, others embracing 47

356

Pier Giorgio Borbone

A particularly interesting comparison is provided by the chapter which in Bar ‘Ebroyo immediately follows the one on regulations, titled “How the Mongols cleaved to the worship of images”. Bar ‘Ebroyo “Formerly the Mongols had no literature and no religion of their own, but they knew one God, the Creator of the Universe, and some of them confessed that heaven was God, and they called it so. [And this they did] until they ruled over the people of the Uighur Turks, and they found that there were among them certain men who were sorcerers and who were called qams (

). We have heard many who testified concerning them, saying, ‘We heard the voice of the devils who held converse with them through the openings of the tents. And the secret conversation with devils was not made complete until after they had been defiled by other men, because the great number of them were women-men.’ And these men were wholly abominable, for when they wished to perform some act of their sorcery, every one who met them they seized by force that he might defile them. Therefore when the Mongols saw them, they also turned aside after them in their simplicity. Afterwards when Genghis Khan heard that the Chinese, that is to say, the kātāyē, had images and priests who were lords of wisdom, he sent ambassadors to them, and asked them for priests, Christianity, other selecting idolatry and others again cleaving to the ancient canon of their fathers and forefathers and inclining in no direction; but these are now a minority. But though they have adopted some religion they still for the most part avoid all show of fanaticism and do not swerve from the yasa of Genghis Khan, namely, to consider all sects as one and not to distinguish them from one another” (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), pp. 18–19, Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 26).

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans and promised them to hold them in honour. And when the priests came, Genghis Khan ordered them to make a debate on religion and an inquiry into it with the qams. And when the priests spoke and read extracts from their book, which they call Nawm (nwm) in their language, the qams failed and they were unable to reply because they were destitute of knowledge. And from this time the rank of the priests increased among the Mongols, and they were commanded to fashion images, and to cast copies of them as [the priests] did in their own country, and to offer to the full sacrifices and libations according to their custom. And although they honoured the priests greatly, the Mongols at the same time did not reject the qams. And both parties remained among them, each to carry on its own special work, without despising or holding the other in contempt. It is the reverse with the peoples who have the Scriptures and the Prophets, for every one is ready soundly to revile his fellow, and judges him [to be] an unbeliever. Now in the book of the priests which is called Nawm, together with the pagan proverbs which resemble those which St. Gregory Theologus brings to our memory, there are also good laws, as for example, an admonition against oppression and the infliction of injuries, and we must not return evil for evil, but good, and a man must not kill any small creature such as a louse or a gnat. And like Plato they confess the transmigration of souls from body to body [saying] that the spirits of just men, and righteous men, and well-doers when they die migrate to the bodies of kings and nobles, and the souls of evil and wicked men into the bodies of evil-doers who are tortured, and beaten and killed, and also into the bodies of irrational creatures, and reptiles and birds of prey. And when flesh is brought unto those men to eat, they ask the bringer of it, ‘Didst thou slay this beast on

357

358

Pier Giorgio Borbone account of us, or didst thou buy it in the market?’ And if he says, ‘On your account’, they will not taste it.” (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 374, Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, pp. 355356)

The above passage derives from Juwaynī, but in rather complex ways, so that it would be misleading to present it as a parallel. Indeed, Juwaynī’s text that underlies Bar ‘Ebroyo’s passage describes the religion of the Uighurs, not the Mongols. It does, nonetheless, mention the Mongols, and this, coupled with his direct knowledge of Mongol beliefs, probably appeared sufficient to Bar ‘Ebroyo, who applies the description to the latter. Juwaynī “The reason for the idolatry [i.e. Buddhism] of the Uighur is that in those days they knew the science of magic, the experts in which art they called qams. Now there are still to this day among the Mongols people that are overcome with ubna,48 and speak vain things, and claim that they are possessed by devils who inform them of all things. We have questioned certain people regarding these qams, and they say: ‘We have heard that devils descend into their tents by the smoke-hole49 and hold converse with them. And it is possible that evil spirits are intimate with some of them and have intercourse with them. Their powers are at their strongest just after they have satisfied their natural lust in an unnatural way’. In a word, these people we have mentioned are called qam; and when the Mongols had no knowledge or science, they had from ancient times yielded obedience to the words “In Arabic ‘the craving of the pathic’”, according to Boyle (Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 59 n. 24); “bramosia omosessuale”, according to Scarcia (Juwaynī, Gengis Khan (Scarcia), p. 78). 49 The opening on top of the tents of Turco-Mongol nomads, located above the hearth; its felt covering may be removed by means of ropes when necessary. 48

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans of these qams; and even now their princes still believe in their words and prayers, and if they engage upon some business they will conclude nothing until these astrologers have given their consent. And in a similar manner they heal their sick. Now the religion of Khitai was idolatry. Buqu dispatched a messenger to the Khan [of that country] and summoned the toyins to him. When they arrived he confronted the two parties so that they might choose the religion of whichever party defeated the other. The toyins call a reading from their book nom. Now the nom contains their theological speculations and consists of idle stories and traditions; but excellent homilies are likewise to be found in it such as are consonant with the law and faith of every prophet, urging men to avoid injury and oppression and the like, to return good for evil and to refrain from the injuring of animals, etc. Their dogmas and doctrines are manifold; the most typical is that of reincarnation. They say that the people of to-day existed several thousand years ago: the souls of those that wrought good deeds and engaged in worship attained a degree in accordance with their actions, such as that of king, or prince, or peasant, or beggar; while the souls of those who had engaged in debauchery, libertinism, murder, slander and injury to their fellow-creatures descended into vermin, beasts of prey and other animals; and so they are punished for their deeds. But the ignorance is [everywhere] in the ascendant: ‘They say that which they do not’. When they had read certain noms, the qams were completely dumbfounded. For this reason the Uighur adopted idolatry as their religion, and most of the other tribes followed their example. And there are none more bigoted than the idolaters of the East, and none more hostile to Islam. As for Buqu Khan…” (Juwaynī, History of

359

360

Pier Giorgio Borbone Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), pp. 43-45; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, pp. 59-60.)50

Commentary While Juwaynī deals with the Uighurs’ religion, he soon afterwards states that qams (whom we would define as “shamans”) are also found among the Mongols, and the description he provides is derived from a Mongol source. This connection probably prompted Bar ‘Ebroyo to refer the whole account to the Mongols, ascribing the summoning of Chinese “priests” not to the Uighur sovereign Buqa but to Genghis Khan himself. It is worth noting that, just as Bar ‘Ebroyo had previously avoided the use of the Mongol term tarkhan, here he refrains from the use of the technical 50 That Bar ‘Ebroyo applied (a portion of) Juwaynī’s the chapter on the Uighurs to the Mongols has surprising implications, as it reveals the approach of the Syriac author, otherwise quite accurate in his use of the source, in this section of Juwaynī. This part of the History of the World Conqueror was possibly less interesting to Bar ‘Ebroyo, the subject being an Eastern population outside the scope of his immediate interests. Further corroborating this are other instances. For example, at the end of his account on the origins of the Seljuks, which depends on the Michael’s Chronicle, Bar ‘Ebroyo writes: “Now the story of the dog which the blessed old man [i.e. Michael the Great] said led them when they went forth from their country we have not found anywhere. It is possible that he wrote it down from hearsay, or from some book which we have not read, for we have not met with it in any book” (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 203; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 196). Michael includes the “story of the dog” in the fourteenth book of his Chronicle, which is entirely devoted to the Turks). But the story of the dog which led the Turks from their homeland to the West is indeed found in Juwaynī, precisely in the chapter dealing with the Uighurs and just a few lines after the passage dealing with their religion. As certainly Bar ‘Ebroyo had read this passage, one wonders why he overlooked the story of the dog, next to it. Probably he, having reached the words “As for Buqu Khan…”, realising that the following passage was not relevant to his ends, ceased to read and moved on, since it appears unlikely that the text available to him was different from that transmitted by the whole manuscript tradition of Juwaynī’s work. Another explanation might be that Bar ‘Ebroyo became aware of the presence of the story of the dog in Juwaynī’s narrative some time after completion of the chapter about the Saljuks, and forgot to correct his previous statement.

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

361

term toyin, which refers to Buddhist monks. On the other hand, he retains the word qam, probably as the only term suitable for describing a religious experience that was alien to his cultural milieu. In describing the qams’ activities, Bar ‘Ebroyo says “We have heard many who testified concerning them…” – using, as is customary for him, the first person plural. In this instance, however, he simply quotes from Juwaynī (“We have questioned…”), boasting as his own an inquiry that was never conducted personally: all the information he provides derives (with the usual omissions) from a single source. On the other hand, evidence of direct experience on the part of Bar ‘Ebroyo may possibly be traced in his description of the beliefs of the “priests”, that is to say, of Buddhist monks. Within the narrative sequence, he leaves an assessment of their doctrines to the end – at variance with Juwaynī, who places it before the end of the dispute. Bar ‘Ebroyo complements the borrowings from Juwaynī by some additional remarks. Among these is the mention of “Gregory the Theologian”51 and Plato as recommended readings that will help clarifying the beliefs which characterize the Buddhists – more specifically, their emphasis on the refusal to kill even the smallest living beings and to be indirectly responsible for the death of animals in case they had been purposely killed to be offered to them. These features would seem to derive from a direct knowledge of Buddhist monks, whom Bar ‘Ebroyo may easily have met in Iran under Mongol rule. A knowledge based on direct experience rather than readings seems supported by the rather lax prohibition of meat consumption: from Bar ‘Ebroyo’s description, one gains the impression that meat was actually quite commonly eaten.52 Because of his epithet, this should be Gregory of Nazianzus, but we are unable to specify further the work where he purportedly deals with these subjects. 52 See now Bertozzi, ‘Precisazioni’. The Buddhists’ abstinence from meat could not have distinguished them significantly from the Syriac clergy and — during certain periods of the year — even the Syriac laity. A sympathetic but critical observer such as the Dominican missionary Riccoldo of Monte Croce, who was in Mesopotamia between 1289 and 1291, thus writes of them: “Sunt enim magne abstinentitie; multum orant et multum ieiunant. Religiosi eorum et episcopi et archiepiscopi et patriarche in perpetuum non comedunt carnes nec condimenta carnium 51

362

Pier Giorgio Borbone

Returning now to the paragraph which in Bar ‘Ebroyo precedes his assessment of Buddhist doctrines, his observation regarding the role of such monks in the introduction of statues in the temples where they practised their cult must also be derived from direct experience. This is even more probable of his observation that qams and Buddhist monks live under the Mongols without friction, each of them managing their own sphere of beliefs and activities. Rather surprising for a churchman and theologian such as Bar ‘Ebroyo is his liberal recourse to an ironic tone – with perhaps a hint of sadness – in his description of what differentiates the “religions of the Book” from the qams and Buddhists: in the religions grounded in scriptures and prophecies, factionalism soon takes root. Accordingly, once the Mongol rulers converted to Islam, Buddhist temples and monks were the first to pay a price: the former were destroyed and the latter converted or killed.53 3. CONCLUSIONS At the end of this partial comparison, it is worth summarising some of the most significant outcomes, which will have to be further verified on the basis of a full comparison of the two works. The impression gained from a reading of Juwaynī soon after Bar ‘Ebroyo is that of a reconstitution of the logical and consequential flow of events. These often appear clearer and more organically described – but, considering the widely differing aims of nec etiam pro infirmitate mortali. […] In quadragesima tam Nestorini quam Iacobini omnes tam religiosi quam seculares nullo modo comederent pisces nec biberent uinum” (Riccoldo di Monte Croce, Pérégrination (Kappler), pp. 148–150). 53 Cf. the account given by the Persian historian Khāndamīr (d. 1535): “The stipends that had been paid previously to Christian and Jewish physicians and astrologers were cut off, and an amount equal to their stipends was transferred from the divan to the ministers of state. Orders were given to prepare caravans for the pilgrimage, and much effort was made to collect the amounts due from properties left in trust to the two holy shrines of the Hejaz. Idol temples, churches and synagogues were destroyed, and in their place rose mosques” (Khāndamīr, Habibu’s-Siyar (Thackston), p. 67) — possibly an anachronistic reference to the time of the khan Tegüder-A mad (1282–1284) which would more accurately suit Ghazan Khan’s time (r. 1295–1304).

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

363

the two authors, it must be acknowledged that Bar ‘Ebroyo is essentially true to his source and draws from it what is most relevant to the aims of a chronography. The two works are in fact completely different in terms of aims as well as language: on the one hand we have a history having with literary pretentions and aiming explicitly at a celebration of Genghis Khan; on the other, a “small” annalistic treatise. Bar ‘Ebroyo’s excerpts preserve little of Juwaynī’s flowery language, frequently embellished (when not overburdened) by images and poetic quotations.54 On occasion, the source is indeed trivialised, significantly reducing the impact of the original argumentation and anecdotes.55 54 Sentences such as this are typically ignored: “It was agreed, therefore, that at dawn, while eyes were anointed with the collyrium of sleep and mankind was rendered negligent by repose, Onk Khan’s men should make a night attack upon Genghis Khan and his followers”. It would seem, on the other hand, that another Syriac author — who remained anonymous — appreciated Juwaynī’s style and occasionally imitated him. Compare one of his incipits: “Now when the sun had descended into the sign of Aries, and creation was warmed a little…” (Anonymous, Storia di Mar Yahballaha (Borbone), p. 104) with one by Juwaynī: “And when the world had begun to smile because of the alighting of the Sun at the house of Aries and the air to weep through the eyes of the rain-clouds…” (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 145; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 184). 55 Besides the mention of wooden stirrups, in comparison with the ironic tone of Juwaynī, we may cite the case of the sentence purportedly uttered by a refugee from Bukhara: “Now one man had escaped from Bukhara after its capture and had come to Khorasan. He was questioned about the fate of that city and replied: ‘They came, they sapped, they burnt, they slew, they plundered and they departed (amadand wa kandand wa suḫtand wa koštand wa burdand wa raftand)’. Men of understanding who heard this description were all agreed that in the Persian language there could not be nothing anything more concise than this speech. And indeed all that has been written in this chapter is summed up and epitomized in these two or three words” (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 84; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 107). In Bar ‘Ebroyo’s version: “For certain men asked a man of Bukhara on his coming to Khorasan, ‘How did it fare with them?’, and he said, ‘Why do ye weary me? The Tatars came, and they killed and dug up and burnt and plundered and departed.’ He that hath ears let him hear!” (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 397; cf. Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 376. Budge’s

364

Pier Giorgio Borbone

Bar ‘Ebroyo’s reading of Juwaynī appears careful but, as shown by the episode of the dog leading the Turks,56 occasionally hasty, particularly in the case of those chapters that were less relevant from his point of view. The reading of individual personal and place names yields relevant clues that shed light on the textual history, and possibly the textual critique, of Juwaynī’s work. Lying somewhere between translation and paraphrase, Bar ‘Ebroyo’s quotations nonetheless remain essentially true to the Persian original, with some logical and literary nuances that bear witness to an excellent understanding.57 Despite this, the content is subject to significant changes, which may mislead the reader as regards the sequence of events or the motivations thereof. These usually result from drastic summarising.58 Another consequence is the temporal contractions, by which complex sequences of occurrences are reduced to instant events. This is the case, for instance, with the battle following Onk Khan’s ambush; a further example is provided by the account of the siege of the Otrar citadel.59

translation incorporates the last sentence as part of the direct speech by the Bukharan man; this is possible on the basis of the Syriac text alone, but less probable if we take into account the original Persian). The sequence of deeds committed by the destroyers of the city is altered in Bar ‘Ebroyo’s text (besides, the English translation provided by Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 376, ignores the verb “to kill” and proposes unnecessary integrations interpretations which harmonise the answer with previously narrated events). Regarding the divergence toward the end, perhaps Bar ‘Ebroyo wanted to avoid mentioning the Persian language, not so much because this would have revealed his debt toward Juwaynī, but because he probably considered this linguistic reference of little interest to his audience. 56 See note 50. 57 An example is the account of Genghis Khan’s flight from the encampment before the ambush plotted by Onk Khan. 58 Consider for example the falling out of Genghis Khan and the Kereyit court, which is reduced to a dispute between two individuals. 59 Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 388: in his account of the defenders who took shelter in the citadel, Bar ‘Ebroyo fails to mention that the battle “went on for a whole month” (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 65; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 85); one

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

365

Even when Bar ‘Ebroyo modifies the information provided by Juwaynī, by varying them or adding to them, he does not seem to rely on a written source. In all the instances examined, it appears clear that these are his own deductions or assumptions; although the reason for these is not always clear,60 the use of information obtained from oral sources and direct experience seems very probable. Some of the additions, moreover, may be explained in view of Bar ‘Ebroyo’s religion such as the account of Onk Khan’s apostasy. The same holds true for several omissions: Qur’anic quotations are expunged, and so are certain characteristically Islamic expressions.61 Bar ‘Ebroyo appears to have little interest in exoticism: whenever possible, he readily omits many of the Mongol and foreign terms that recur in Juwaynī.62 The details he chooses to include are not always easily accounted for. For example, while his omission of the names of the youths that warn Genghis Khan of Onk Khan’s threat most probably results from his intention to shorten the account, it is less clear why he would choose to name only two of the four commanders of the troops defending Bukhara – and why those particular two.63 consequently gains the mistaken impression that the events took place in a very short period of time. 60 A case in point is the information on the territories bordering on the Mongol homeland. 61 For example, while Juwaynī has “They [i.e. the Mongols] caused him and all his companions to attain the degree of martyrdom” (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 65; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 84; Juwaynī, Gengis Khan (Scarcia), p. 106), Bar ‘Ebroyo only has “And they commanded, and he and all those who were with him were killed” (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 388; Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 368). 62 However, sometimes they occur in his Arabic Chronicle (Muḫta ar ta’rīḫ al-duwal – also depending on Juwaynī’s work, s. Aigle, ‘L’œuvre historiographique’), where in the narrative of Genghis Khan’s rise to power we find the title tarkhan which was omitted in the Syriac Chronography (Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek). 63 Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Çiçek), p. 369, Bar ‘Ebroyo, Chronography (Budge) I, p. 376: only “the famous captains Sewinj Khan e Keshli Khan”, rather than “Kök Khan and other officers such as Khamid Bur, Sewinch

366

Pier Giorgio Borbone

We hope to have demonstrated that a detailed comparison of these two related works allows for promising developments, shedding considerable light on both. BIBLIOGRAPHY AIGLE, D. (2008) L’œuvre historiographique de Barhebræus: Son apport à l’histoire de la période mongole. Parole de l’Orient. 33. pp. 25–62. ANONYMOUS (1920) Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I–II, ed. and tr. by J.-B. CHABOT. CSCO, Volume 81– 82, Syr. 36–37. Louvain: Officina Orientali et Scientifica. ATWOOD, CH. P. (2004) Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. Facts on File Library of World History. New York: Facts on File. BAR ‘EBROYO (1932) The Chronography of Gregory Ab’ul Faraj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus I– II, ed. and tr. by E. A. W. Budge, London: Oxford University Press (English translation and facsimile of the Syriac text (London, BM, MS Huntington 52). BAR ‘EBROYO (1987) Maktbānut zabnē men rišā da-britā ‘admā la-šnat 1285 m. d-sim l-yadu‘tānā rabbā mār Grigoriyos Yu annān mapryānā mšab ā d-madn ā d-metdallal bar ‘ebrāyā / The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, ed. by J. Y. ÇIÇEK, Glane-Losser: Bar Hebraeus [= BEDJAN, P. (ed.) (1890) Chronicon Syriacum. Paris: Maisonneuve]. BARTHOLD, W. & BOYLE, J. A. (2013) Djuwaynī. In: Bearman, P. et al. (eds.) Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd edition. [Online]. pp. 606– 607. Available from: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/djuwayni-SIM_2131. [Accessed: 10. 12. 2013]

Khan and Keshli Khan” (Juwaynī, History of Chingíz Khán (Qazwīnī), p. 80; Juwaynī, World Conqueror (Boyle) I, p. 103; Juwaynī, Gengis Khan (Scarcia), p. 126).

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

367

BASHIR, M. (2008) The Arts of the Muslim Knight: The Furusiyya Art Foundation Collection. Milan: Skira. BERTOZZI, R. (2015) Precisazioni intorno a una regola alimentare buddhista nella Cronografia di Barhebraeus. Studi Classici e Orientali. 61. pp. 471-477 (English abstract: p. 487). BORBONE, P. G. (2009) Bar ‘Ebroyo and Juwaynī: A Syriac Chronicler and his Persian Source. Acta Mongolica. 9 (329). pp. 147–168. BUELL, P. D. (2003) Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire. Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras, Volume 8. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. CARDONA, G. R. (1982) Indice ragionato. In: Bertolucci Pizzorusso, V. (ed.) Marco Polo, Il Milione: Versione toscana del Trecento. Classici, Volume 31. Milan: Adelphi. pp. 489–761. CATASTINI, A. (1990) Profeti e tradizione. Seminari di orientalistica, Volume 3. Pisa: Giardini. FIEY, J. M. (1975) Chrétiens syriaques sous les Mongols (Il-Khanat de Perse, XIIIe-XIVe s.). CSCO, Volume 362, Subs. 44. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO. GROUSSET, R. (1944) Le conquérant du monde: Vie de Gengis Khan. Reprint: 1972. Paris: Michel. JULLIEN, F. (forthcoming) La notice syriaque de Barhebraeus sur le roi chrétien des Kéreïts. In: TARDIEU, M. (ed.) Colloque sur le thème “Le Prêtre Jean et l’orientalisme”. Damas IFPO, 2–4 juin 2003. JUWAYNĪ (1912) The Ta’ríkh-i-jahán-gushá of ‘Alá’u ’d-Dín ‘Aá Maliki-Juwayní (Composed in A. H. 658 = A.D. 1260). Part I, Containing the History of Chingíz Khán and His Successors, Part II, Containing the History of Khwárazm-Sháh Dynasty, Part III, Containing the History of Mangú Qá'án, Húlágú and the Ismá‘ílís., ed. with an Introduction, Notes and Indices from Several MSS. by MÍRZÁ MU AMMAD B. ‘ABDU’L-WAHHÁB-I-QAZWÍNÍ. E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series, Volume 16.1. Leiden: Brill [Tehran 1367 H. = 1988]. JUWAYNĪ (1958) The History of the World Conqueror: By ‘Ala-ad-Din ‘Ata-Malik Juvaini. Transl. from the Text of Mirza Muammad

368

Pier Giorgio Borbone Qazvini by J. A. BOYLE I–II. UNESCO Collection of Representative Works: Persian Series. Manchester: Manchester University Press [reprinted in: JUWAYNĪ (1997) Genghis Khan. The History of the World Conqueror: By ‘Ala-ad-Din ‘Ata-Malik Juvaini. Transl. from the Text of Mizra [sic!] Mu ammad Qazvini by J. A. BOYLE with a new introduction and bibliography by D. O. MORGAN. Manchester Medieval Sources Series. Seattle: University of Washington Press].

JUWAYNĪ (1962) Gengis Khan. Il conquistatore del mondo, tr. by G. R. SCARCIA. Milan: Mondadori [repr. 1991]. KHĀNDAMĪR (1994) Khwandamir. Habibu’s-Siyar III. The Reign of the Mongol and the Turk. Pt. 1: Genghis Khan — Amir Temür, ed. and tr. by W. M. THACKSTON. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures, Volume 24, Central Asian Sources, 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. KRAWULSKY, D. (1978) Īrān, das Reich der Īl̮hāne: Eine topographischhistorische Studie. Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Beihefte, Volume 17. Wiesbaden: Reichert. LANE, G. (1999) An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu alFaraj and His Relations with the Mongols of Persia. Hugoye. [Online] 2. Available from: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/ Vol2No2/HV2N2GLane.html. [Accessed: 10. 12. 2013] MARCO POLO (1903–1920) The Travels of Marco Polo. The complete Yule-Cordier Edition I, ed. and tr. by H. YULE & H. CORDIER, New York: Dover Publications. MICHAEL THE GREAT (1900–1910) Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche jacobite d'Antioche I–IV, ed. and tr. by J.-B. CHABOT, Paris: Ernest Leroux. MICHAEL THE GREAT (2006) Ktābā dmaktbānut zabnē, sim lmāry Mikā’el Rabbā. Chronicle by Michael the Great, ed. by I. AYGÜR et al., s. l. PHILLIPS, E. D. (1969) The Mongols. Ancient Peoples and Places, Volume 64. New York: Praeger. QAZWĪNĪ (1915) The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulūb: Composed by Hamd-Allāh Mustawfī of Qazwīn in 740 (1340), ed. by G. LE STRANGE. Publications of the Institute for the History

Wooden Stirrups and Christian Khans

369

of Arabic-Islamic Science, Islamic Geography, Volume 102. Leiden: Brill. QAZWĪNĪ (1919) The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulūb: Composed by Hamd-Allāh Mustawfī of Qazwīn in 740 (1340), ed. and tr. by G. LE STRANGE. Publications of the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, Islamic Geography, Volume 103. Leiden: Brill. RABBAN SAUMA (2000) Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma. Un orientale in Occidente ai tempi di Marco Polo, tr. by P. G BORBONE. Turin: Zamorani. RAŠID-AL-DIN (1962) Sbornik letopisej I–II, tr. by O. I. SMIRNOVA. Moscow–Leningrad: Akademii Nauk SSSR [ = Moscow 2000]. RATCHNEVSKY, R. (1991) Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy. Oxford: Blackwell. RICCOLDO DI MONTE CROCE (1997) Riccold de Monte Croce: Pérégrination en Terre Sainte et au Proche Orient. Texte latin et traduction. Lettres sur la chute de Saint-Jean d’Acre, tr. by R. KAPPLER. Textes et traductions des classiques français du moyen âge, Volume 4. Paris: Champion. ROUX, J.-P. (1990) La religione dei Turchi e dei Mongoli: Gli archetipi del naturale negli ultimi sciamani. Nuova Atlantide. Genoa: ECIG. ROUX, J.-P. (1993) Histoire de l’empire mongol. Paris: Fayard. ROUX, J.-P. (2002) Gengis Khan et l’empire mongol. Paris: Gallimard. SPULER, B. (1985) Die Mongolen in Iran. Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1220–1350. 4th edition. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. STEIN, R. A. (1986) La civiltà tibetana. 2nd edition. Saggi, Volume 694. Turin: Einaudi. TAKAHASHI, H. (2001) Simeon of Qal‘a Rumaita, Patriarch Philoxenus Nemrod and Bar ‘Ebroyo. Hugoye. [Online] 4. Available from: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol4No1/ HV4N1Takahashi.html. [Accessed: 10. 12. 2013]

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 19.2, 371-384 © 2016 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

“AND THE IMPURE AND ABOMINABLE PRIESTS FLED FOR HELP TO THE NAMES OF THE DEVILS” AMULETS AND MAGICAL PRACTICES IN SYRIAC CHRISTIAN CULTURE BETWEEN LATE ANTIQUITY AND THE MODERN WORLD.1 MARCO MORIGGI UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI CATANIA ABSTRACT Starting from a memrā probably authored by Is aq of Antioch (5th century), the paper illustrates how evidence of the magical practices referred to in its text may be found in contemporary incantations featured on Syriac incantation bowls. Magic texts subsequently found their way into the Syriac Christian amulets, which incorporate 1

This article is the outcome of a very stimulating discussion which took place on the second day of the workshop “Studying Ancient Magic: Categorisation – Comparison – Materiality” (10th-11th June 2015, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo). The author is grateful to Prof. Liv Ingeborg Lied and Mr Nils Hallvard Korsvoll (MF Norwegian School of Theology) for their kind invitation to take part in the workshop. The anonymous reviewers of Hugoye provided references and insightful comments, for which the author expresses his gratitude. Any misreading is solely responsibility of the author. Thanks are due to Dr Ruth Anne Henderson (Università di Torino) for English language counselling.

371

372

Marco Moriggi liturgical utterances, prayers, and references to the Gospels, saints, and articles of the Christian faith. The paper addresses the problem of how the texts evolved from Late Antiquity to the present day and what role the Christian clergy (according to the memrā deeply involved in magic practice since Late Antiquity) played in this transmission and transformation of texts.

In a contribution published in 1948, Erik Peterson refers to a memrā allegedly attributed to Ephrem (but probably by Isaq of Antioch, who presumably died in the second half of the 5th century A.D.), which describes the persistence of pagan religious tradition in both the clergy and the laity of the Christian communities of the time.2 This memrā was edited first by Lamy in 1886, with accompanying Latin translation, and has been subsequently re-edited by Beck in 1972 with a German translation. The text first deals with the return of the clergy and laity to the ancient paganism and then describes their final destiny in the context of Judgment Day. Among the most significant issues of this return to paganism, the author emphasizes the magical practices and the use of amulets, which he describes as frequently attested in the everyday life of priests and deacons.

2

E. Peterson, “Die Zauber-Praktiken eines syrischen Bischofs” (Lateranum 14:1-4 [1948]), 102. The article mainly concerns divination and does not deal with “magic” in the sense intended here. As to the authorship of this memrā (“On sorcery and incantations and oracles and on the End of the World”), see Th. J. Lamy, ed., Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, II (Mechliniae: H. Dessain, 1886), cols. 393-394 (Ephrem); A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn: A. Marcus & E. Weber, 1922), 65 (Isaq); E. Beck, ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III, CSCO 321/Syr. 139 (Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1972), vii (an author later than Ephrem); S. P. Brock, “Ephrem,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, ed. S. P. Brock, A. M. Butts, G. A. Kiraz, L. Van Rompay (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 145 (refers to Beck). Peterson accepts the position of Baumstark. See further E. G. Matthews, “A Bibliographical Clavis to the Corpus of Works attributed to Isaac of Antioch” (Hugoye 5:1 [2002]), 11.

Amulets and Magical Practice

373

I provide here an English translation of some of the passages of this memrā which are most relevant for our analysis:3 1) Magical ablutions and the use of amulets (vs. 33-66) 33/34


 
 
The world returned to its  
  vomit / to the ancient paganism.4

35/36 37/38 39/40 41/42 43/44 45/46 47/48



  In Christ, in name alone, / and
(actually) in the service of 
     


 
   

 
 


 
  


  


 
 

 


  


   


 

49/50

  




 

51/52


 

  

 



53/54 3

Satan (they are). They laid aside the holy armour / and they put on the one of sin. They left the faithful Church / in which is the heavenly Healer, and they run to the house of the sorcerers / the haven of all Evil. To the Church come the saints / multitudes of fire and Spirit and near the sorcerers are found / all the devils of the Creation. In place of the benedictions of the saints / the incantations of sorcerers, and instead of the Holy Cross / the writings of demons they bear. Today they come to the Baptism / and they dress with the Holy Spirit and tomorrow they go to

Syriac text published in E. Beck, ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III, CSCO 320/Syr. 138 (Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1972), 12-27. The edition by Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri II, cols. 393-426 has been compared with Beck’s and only small differences have been detected. The English translation is by the present author and was maintained as literal as possible. 4 See Proverbs 26: 11 (

 
 
).

374

Marco Moriggi


 


(magical) ablutions / and they 55/56 57/58 59/60 61/62 63/64 65/66


   

  


 



 


 
  
 


 
 
  


 




 

  




 

are stripped and are naked. Above the waters of the Baptism / the Holy Spirit is settled and over the springs of (magical) ablutions / settles the spirit of Satan. The common people come to the Church / and (they are) driven there by Satan, and (he is) borne at their necks / like the necklaces of regal dignity. This one bears him on his head / and the other one (on the other end) at his neck, and the young boy who does not know anything / comes bearing the names of the devils.

2) Angelic names in incantations - active participation of priests and deacons in the magical practices (vs. 81-100) 81/82

83/84 85/86





 

  




 


  

 

87/88



 

 


89/90



 

 
 




    


 
  

91/92 93/94

And the impure and abominable priests / fled for help to the names of the devils. Rwp’yl and Rpwp’yl / servants of the Adversary, are celebrated in the books / of the Church, the Bride of Christ. May Rwp’yl be execrated / and Rpwp’yl together with his fellows and ryws together with his troop / in the deep abyss of the Earth may he descend! The deacons expel demons / from within the faithful Church, but the sons of the Church

Amulets and Magical Practice

95/96 97/98 99/100



 
 


   

 



 
 
 

  


 
 



375

keep them / and do not let them depart. The Church’s gates are then open / but no one comes to the prayer, because the shepherds, together with the flock, / run to the gate of sorcerers. The chiefs of the priests of the Church / abandon them to the sorcerers.

3) Books of magic in the hands of priests and deacons (vs. 123128) 123/124 125/126 127/128



   
 



   




   
 




The priests abandoned God / and the Holy Gospel, and they bear lot-books / because of the love for money.5 Magic knots and oracles and incantations / they brought and proposed (them) to us by means of books.

4) Priests and deacons judged as sorcerers in the Judgment Day Divination, neck-amulets, magical ablutions, writing and signing incantations with blood (vs. 421-444) 421/422



 
And what will they do at that
 


time / the priests who were  sorcerers?

5

Lot-books are part of the paraphernalia handled by magicians in Late Antiquity and beyond. In this case it seems likely that they were used to predict the destiny of people and / or the success of their enterprises. The diffusion of these texts, “even among magicians living in villages in remote regions,” is witnessed by the data provided in G. Lacerenza, “Jewish Magicians and Christian Clients in Late Antiquity. The Testimony of Amulets and Inscriptions,” in What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem. Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster, Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 1, ed. L. V. Rutgers. Leuven: Peeters, 2002, 407-408.

376

Marco Moriggi

423/424


 




 

425/426
 



  

 
 427/428
 
 
 429/430 431/432


 



 


 

 

 



433/434

 





 

435/436


 


 

   






 

437/438 439/440


 

 




 


441/442





 




443/444


 




 

And in what place will they lie in hiding, / as Satan knows his own? Deacons who become crazy and followed / magic knottings and incantations, where will they go at that time / as they are in the midst of demons? The priest who gave an oracle / and caused the flock of Christ to err, together with the sorcerers they count him / and he is not separated from the diviners. Everyone who hung a slip of writing / of the unclean demons on his neck, stands there and it is borne by him / as it were to him like a charge. He who bathed in sources / and springs after he was baptized, they put him among the pagans / and he is not separated from the Jews. Everyone who, with the blood of his body / wrote a yod and signed in a script,6 stands together with Jannes and Jambres / very famous sorcerers.7


(pl. of
, name of the letter yod) is attested The Syriac term  with the meaning “amulets” in some texts, see C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (Hildesheim, Zürich and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1995 [Reprint of Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer, 1928]), 299, and M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake, IN and Piscataway, NJ: Eisenbrauns and Gorgias Press, 2009), 568. 7 On these two famous magicians, whose names frequently recur in magical literature, see now S. Bhayro, “On Early Jewish Literature and the 6

Amulets and Magical Practice

377

5) Priests and deacons mixed with all evildoers (sorcerers) in final Judgment (vs. 619-624) 619/620 621/622

623/624



 




  

 
 

  
 




  


They come and enter in like manner / all the multitudes of sorcerers, and are together with them the priests of the Church / and the deacons of sin mixed, mingled with one another / all the evil doers.

As stated above, it is quite clear that a good deal of the “return to ancient paganism” the writer is denouncing is made up of magical practices, all formally prohibited by Church authorities, but all tolerated and even practised by the clergy themselves. The picture painted in the quoted passages is reflected in recent studies about the use of magical objects in Christian communities of the Near East in both Late Antiquity and later medieval and modern periods. Starting from the magical ablutions (vs. 51-58; 437-440) and the use of amulets (vs. 59-66; 433-436) recorded by the author of the memrā, one may easily connect the first to the tradition witnessed by Abousamra in contemporary northern Lebanon (Qadisha valley),8 where “a tradition is still alive today [...]: small children are dipped in the spring of Mar Asia [...], because these waters have the power of healing, especially for children who stop developing and are referred to as ‘makbous.’”9 As for amulets, Abousamra has provided evidence from the same geographical context for the use today of paper amulets enclosed in fabric Aramaic Magic Bowls” (Aramaic Studies 13 [2015]), 57-63 and literature quoted there. As to quotations of their names in Syriac magic texts, see e.g. Codex A, § 51 in H. Gollancz, ed., The Book of Protection. Being a Collection of Syriac Charms (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1976 [Reprint of London and Oxford: Henry Frowde and Oxford University Press, 1912]), 30 (Syriac text), lv (English translation). 8 UNESCO World Heritage List ref. no. 850. 9 G. Abousamra, “Two Syriac Amulets from Hadath Grotto (Qadisha)” (Parole de l’Orient 38 [2013]), 219.

378

Marco Moriggi

envelopes, which are in turn sewn to children’s clothing.10 Dandini witnessed this practice already among the Maronites in the late 16th century.11 Furthermore, scholars are familiar with the phenomena of both Syriac incantation bowls and Syriac amulets on leather strips, dated to Late Antiquity and the early Islamic periods.12 Following the text of the memrā, the reader encounters other peculiarities of the condemned magical practice: it is based on texts quoting the names of angels such as Rwp’yl and Rpwp’yl (vs. 83-84; 87-88), it is operated by means of books where incantations are listed (vs. 127-128),13 and these incantations also contain the letter yod and magic signatures put down with human blood (vs. 441444). Again, angelic names are often found in both the Syriac exorcistic texts of Late Antiquity and recent magical recipe-books, the latter being the offshoot of a flourishing production of written magic devices of the modern period.14 In fact, if we consider the memrā to have been composed by Isaq of Antioch instead of Ephrem, the text presents us with an amazing diffusion of some magical practices among the Christian people during the 5th century. This is the very period when 10

3).

Abousamra, “Two Syriac Amulets,” 214, 227 (photographs nos. 2-

11 Ibidem, where further references to analogous uses reported by Badger (1852) for the Nestorians of Kurdistan are found. 12 On Syriac incantation bowls see M. Moriggi, A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls. Syriac Magical Texts from Late-Antique Mesopotamia, Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity 3 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014). As to Syriac amulets of Late Antiquity, see Ph. Gignoux, Incantations magiques syriaques, Collection de la Revue des Études Juives (Louvain: Peeters, 1987); J. Naveh, “A Syriac Amulet on Leather” (JSS 42 [1997]), 33-38. 13 On these books of magic formulae and incantations, see Lacerenza, “Jewish Magicians and Christian Clients,” 407-408. On the debate about the oral and / or written transmission of magic texts, see C. G. Häberl, “Aramaic Incantation Texts between Orality and Textuality,” in Orality and Textuality in the Iranian World, ed. J. Rubanovich and Sh. Shaked, Leiden: Brill, 2015, 365-399. 14 The name of Rwpy’yl is quoted in some Syriac incantation bowls, see Moriggi, A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls, 253. Among Syriac modern magic recipes, the best known are those included in Gollancz, The Book of Protection.

Amulets and Magical Practice

379

incantation bowls were in use in Mesopotamia (Babylonia) and when the amulets studied by Gignoux and Naveh were produced (6th-7th century).15 Furthermore, strong parallels from the point of view of the typology and use of the amulets may be singled out between the description found in the memrā and some objects and practices witnessed in contemporary Christian communities of the Near East. Following the description of the contents of these significant sections of the memrā dealing with magic, together with ancient and modern links, it is to be stressed that, in all but one passage, priests and deacons are explicitly accused of believing in magic and going (or even running) to the house of sorcerers in search of help. Even more significant is the datum that priests and deacons are themselves involved in magic and witchcraft and actually: - they use the names of the devils for help (vs. 81-82); - they drive the flock of Christians to the gate of sorcerers (vs. 97-100); - they bear lot-books and induce people to incantations, oracles and magic knots, after having abandoned God and the Holy Gospel (vs. 123-128); - they are counted with diviners and demons in the final Judgment, as they have become sorcerers (vs. 421-428); - they will be punished together with all evildoers (= magic practitioners) (vs. 619-624). It goes without saying that both the tone and the contents of this memrā are well known to this kind of texts when addressed to specific social categories, i.e. they are parts of the genre of polemics. Nevertheless the picture drawn in the memrā may be taken as depicting, at least partly, existing phenomena and cultural behaviours of the Christian communities in the Upper Euphrates/northern Mesopotamian area in the 5th century. On the other hand, the contamination of “official” religious practice and magic in the wider sense may also be witnessed in its

15

See Gignoux, Incantations magiques syriaques, 2. Even though Naveh, “A Syriac Amulet,” 33, does not indicate a precise period, he states that the amulet he is studying is “written [...] in the dialect characteristic of the Syriac incantation texts of late antiquity” and he often refers to Syriac bowls elsewhere in the article.

380

Marco Moriggi

outcomes, some of which have reached us from Late Antiquity and later periods. A late-antique example could well be the Syriac incantation bowl no. IBC 3 (Bibliothèque Centrale de l’Université Saint-Esprit de Kaslik, Lebanon), featuring “a prayer, quite complex as for style and content, with direct references to both specific articles of the Christian faith and features of Christian liturgy.”16 The text reads as follows:17 (1) In front of you, physician and living healer and the one who performs (acts of) goodness, (2) he who came with the announcement of heaven and brought life to men. (3) Put on them your holy hands, filled of mercies and supplied with grace, give strength (4) to their interior man and healing which is from all external pains of the fleshes which they are dressed with, dress them (5) of your divine arms, in order that they will be on their right (and) left sides, put on their heads helmets of life, by means of which it is abolished the strength of evil (6) and the preparation of the Gospel which is of peace, may it be in the form of a wall raising against all darts of evil, and heal and strengthen (7) and protect and accomplish and establish and by means of your many mercies may the name of your majesty and of your divinity be praised from now and forever and ever. Amen. (8) In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. ’’bbggdd hh ww zz   yy kk llm [m nnn] ss ccpp qqrr šštt In this case what we are faced with is evidently a magic re-use of a text the components of which were in all probability originally 16

Moriggi, A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls, 208. Due to its phraseology, which is very different from the usual utterances of incantation bowl texts in general, it may be supposed that this bowl is a modern forgery. The present author does not agree with this hypothesis, as at least two other parallel texts are housed in two different private collections to be published by James Nathan Ford. 17 Moriggi, A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls, 209.

Amulets and Magical Practice

381

conceived for an “official,” duly uttered, prayer. Even if nearly half a millennium later than the Syriac bowl quoted above, the amulet of David son of Yasmine (late 13th century) edited by Abousamra testifies to the same practice, as it quotes “God the Ever Living” together with saints, is aimed at healing a child, and is based on the outline of a prayer.18 The continuity of this praxis is well documented by other amulets, such as the amulet of Mar ʿAbdishoʿ (late 13th century), where another common element of late-antique and modern Syriac magic is found: the historiola, i.e. a short narrative featuring the evil being against which the spell is intended and an agent who struggles against it and wins on behalf of the client who ordered the incantation.19 An analogous example is represented by the text of a scroll published by Hunter, where again a “liturgical” introduction and some prayers are flanked and mingled with an historiola and, on the verso, a priest named Joseph signs the spell.20 The evidence supplied until this point is enough to confirm the picture of the memrā from which our study began. A good deal of magic material, especially dating from the late-medieval and modern periods, is clearly based upon liturgical texts and/or prayer books. It is still to be completely clarified whether, especially for earlier – late-antique – periods, this datum directly implies a widespread involvement of the clergy in the production and use of this material, as the memrā claims. As regards more recent periods, we have various data supporting an affirmative answer to this question: from the signature of the priest in the scroll published by Hunter (see above) to the present day practices of Christians in Lebanon, witnessed by Abousamra. As to older periods, some caution may of course be used. Considering what Bhayro concludes as regards the context of Jewish communities in lateantique Mesopotamia, where “it seems likely that the same scribes who would be employed to write Jewish legal documents, such as deeds of divorce, were able to supplement their income by writing incantations, often for non-Jewish clients” and the “professional magicians should probably be identified with the scribal guild that 18

Abousamra, “Two Syriac Amulets,” 215-216. Ibidem, 220-223. 20 E. C. D. Hunter, “A Scroll Amulet from Kurdistan” (Aram 5 [1993]), 249-253. 19

382

Marco Moriggi

was located at the centre, rather than on the periphery, of the Jewish communities of Talmudic Babylonia,”21 a likely involvement of Christian clergy of late-antique Christian communities in magical practices cannot be excluded. This is indirectly suggested by incantation texts on the one hand and polemically described by the memrā and similar compositions on the other. The “contamination” of liturgical texts by magic traits would thus be, as in the Jewish Mesopotamian context, the consequence of all the texts being produced in the very same scriptoria by a clergy who were in the same way aware of articles of Christian faith but whose cultural background embraced issues coming from old pagan traditions, older or contemporary religious movements (e.g. Manichaeism), Jewish tradition, etc. The clergy may themselves have thus indulged in the magical practice as it was a crucial component of its cultural milieu as well as of the laity. While Church authorities tried to eradicate magic practice and condemned it in solemn homilies, the priests and deacons may have started a process of “Christianization” of texts and users, in order not to let the laity continue to believe in magic outside Christianity. As long as all coexisted in the cultural milieu of local clergy, older magical traditions lost their late-antique effectiveness, magic issues were incorporated as fossils in increasingly stereotyped formulae, which, under a Christian “re-painting,” reached the present day and are still recognizable to scholars. Thus in recent times the clergy did not apparently felt uncomfortable with these issues and used them quite extensively, after having received them in an already Christianized form.

21

S. Bhayro, “Divorcing a Demon. Incantation Bowls and BT Giin 85b,” in The Archaeology and Material Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, ed. M. J. Geller, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015: 130-131. As to the Mandaic context, one must bear in mind that “many Mandaean priests, in spite of the Ginza’s prohibition of such practices, derive part of their income from the writing of amulets, and from sorcery, when legitimate fees are insufficient for their needs.” E. S. Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran. Their Cults, Customs, Magic, Legends, and Folklore, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937: xviii.

Amulets and Magical Practice

383

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abousamra, G. “Two Syriac Amulets from Hadath Grotto (Qadisha).” Parole de l’Orient 38 (2013): 213-230. Baumstark, A. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur. Bonn: A. Marcus & E. Weber, 1922. Beck, E., ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III. CSCO 320/Syr. 138. Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1972. Beck, E., ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III. CSCO 321/Syr. 139. Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1972. Bhayro, S. “Divorcing a Demon. Incantation Bowls and BT Giin 85b.” In The Archaeology and Material Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. Ed. M. J. Geller. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015: 121132. Bhayro, S. “On Early Jewish Literature and the Aramaic Magic Bowls.” Aramaic Studies 13:1 (2015): 54-68. Brock, S. P. “Ephrem.” In Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, ed. Idem, A. M. Butts, G. A. Kiraz, L. Van Rompay. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011: 145-147. Brockelmann, C. Lexicon Syriacum. Hildesheim, Zürich and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1995. [Reprint of Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer, 1928]. Drower, E. S. The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran. Their Cults, Customs, Magic, Legends, and Folklore, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937. Gignoux, Ph. Incantations magiques syriaques. Collection de la Revue des Études Juives. Louvain: Peeters, 1987. Gollancz, H., ed., The Book of Protection. Being a Collection of Syriac Charms. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1976. [Reprint of London and Oxford: Henry Frowde and Oxford University Press, 1912].

384

Marco Moriggi

Häberl, C. G. “Aramaic Incantation Texts between Orality and Textuality.” In Orality and Textuality in the Iranian World. Ed. J. Rubanovich and Sh. Shaked. Leiden: Brill, 2015: 365-399. Hunter, E. C. D. “A Scroll Amulet from Kurdistan” Aram 5 (1993): 243-254. Lacerenza, G. “Jewish Magicians and Christian Clients in Late Antiquity. The Testimony of Amulets and Inscriptions.” In What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem. Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 1. Ed. L. V. Rutgers. Leuven: Peeters, 2002: 393-419. Lamy, Th. J., ed., Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones. II. Mechliniae: H. Dessain, 1886. Matthews, E. G. “A Bibliographical Clavis to the Corpus of Works attributed to Isaac of Antioch.” Hugoye 5:1 (2002): 3-14. Moriggi, M. A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls. Syriac Magical Texts from Late-Antique Mesopotamia. Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity 3. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014. Naveh, J. “A Syriac Amulet on Leather.” JSS 42 (1997): 33-38. Peterson, E. “Die Zauber-Praktiken eines syrischen Bischofs.” Lateranum 14:1-4 (1948): 95-102. Sokoloff, M. A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, IN and Piscataway, NJ: Eisenbrauns and Gorgias Press, 2009.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 19.2, 385-402 © 2016 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

BRITISH LIBRARY ADDITIONAL 14,686: INTRODUCTION, LIST OF READINGS, AND TRANSLATIONS OF COLOPHON AND NOTES NILS HALLVARD KORSVOLL MF NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

LIV INGEBORG LIED MF NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

AND JEROME ALAN LUND ACCORDANCE BIBLE SOFTWARE ABSTRACT The 13th century Syriac lectionary manuscript British Library Additional 14,686 contains lections from the Old Testament, Catholic Epistles and Acts for Sundays and feast days of the church year. The present article provides a brief presentation of this manuscript, a full list of its prescribed lections, as well as transcriptions and translations of and annotations to the colophon and notes found on the last folios.

385

386

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

The manuscript British Library Additional (BL Add) 14,686 is a West Syriac lectionary for Sundays and dominical feasts of the church year, containing lections from the Old Testament, Catholic Epistles and Acts. 1 The colophon of the manuscript (folio 205b), translated below, suggests that it was copied in the Deir al-Surian (the Monastery of the Syrians) in the Wadi al-Natrun in Egypt in 1255.2 BL Add 14,686 is a relatively well preserved paper codex. It measures 18 x 26 cm, which is the common “utilitarian size” of Syriac codices.3 The codex consists of 208 leaves organised in 21 quires. Two leaves are wanting, one after folio 48 and another after folio 160. The medieval binding of the codex has not survived.4

1 Our work on BL Add 14,686 is based, firstly, on Liv Ingeborg Lied’s inspection of the manuscript in the British Library, 3-8 March 2013 and 20-21 February 2014 and, secondly, on digital images of the manuscript provided by the British Library. The list of readings in BL Add 14,686 was originally produced by Nils Hallvard Korsvoll and Lied for the online database ThALES (www.lectionary.eu). The present publication adds a more comprehensive introduction, as well as Jerome Lund’s translation of and commentary to the colophon and notes. Thanks are due to Sebastian P. Brock for sharing with us a draft of the catalogue entry to Deir al-Surian Syriac Ms 33 before its publication in 2014. 2 With some exceptions, the list of lections provided by BL Add 14,686 overlaps with the list of lections of the lectionary manuscript Deir al-Surian Syriac Ms 33 (DS 33). Interestingly, in some of the places where the two manuscripts diverge there are marginal notes in DS 33 that point these out as mistakes, with reference to the sequence found here in BL Add 14,686. DS 33 is still kept in the Monastery of the Syrians and was described in Sebastian P. Brock and Lucas Van Rompay’s Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi alNatrun (Egypt) (OLA 227; Leuven: Peeters, 2014). 3 Cf. Marlia M. Mango, “The Production of Syriac Manuscripts, 400700 AD,” in Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanto: Atti del seminaro del Erice (ed. Guglielmo Cavallo, Giuseppe de Gregorio and Marilena Maniaci; Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo, 1991), 16179. 4 The codex was rebound in a modern binding by Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO) for the British Museum probably in the 1940s. Unfortunately, the HMSO did not keep any records or photographs of the older/original binding of the codex and it remains unknown (Emailcommunication with Martyn Jones,13 June 2013).

British Library Additional Manuscript 14,686

387

The script is a regular Es rangelo. Occasional Greek system vowel signs have been added by a later hand. The text is written in two columns, each consisting of 17 or 18 lines. The titles of events and lections are inscribed in red ink. The quire marks are decorated with diamond shaped constellations of dots and dashes. The manuscript contains some notes from later readers and correctors. A short devotional note in Arabic appears on folio 208b, and a note in Ser o is found on folio 208a.5 The lectionary covers sixty-one Sundays and feast days, 6 starting with the Consecration of the Church (folio 1b) and ending with the Festival of the Cross (205a).7 The number of lections at each event varies between two and nine. Three lections are most commonly prescribed for ordinary Sundays, but for important occasions such as Nativity, Epiphany, Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday the lectionary gives seven to nine lections. The last lection at each event is a lection from Acts or Epistles. The preceding lections are lections from various parts of the Old Testament, their literary contents fitting to the occasion. The text of each lection is given in full. Two special traits deserve some additional attention. First, BL Add 14,686 is one of a pair. As suggested by the colophon, the lectionary manuscript has “a companion.” The companion lectionary manuscript is in all due likelihood BL Add 14,687.8 BL Add 14,687 provides another set of lections from the Old Cf., William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838 (Vol. 1; London: The British Museum, 1870), 169-72. The present codicological description is based partly on William Wright’s catalogue and partly on Lied’s inspection of the codex in the British Library. 6 Note, however, that according to the rubrics, the lections for the Sundays of the Easter Season were supposedly also to be read during the Week of White (in Albis). This means that the lectionary potentially contains lessons for altogether sixty-eight events. 7 In addition, the lections for The Consecration of the Waters are added on folios 206a-207b. A note in the margin of folio 33a notes that these lections are inscribed at the end of the codex. It is likely that they were supposed to be copied were the note occurs. Cf. BL Add 14,486 and 18,714. 8 BL Add 14,687 is copied by the same scribe in the following year, the year 1256, also in the Monastery of the Syrians. Furthermore, the colophon describes this manuscript as “the second part” (folio 198r). 5

388

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

Testament, Epistles and Acts for the same Sundays and feasts of the church year.9 Second, BL Add 14,686 contains lections from 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. 4 Ezra 12:31-38 is scripted to be read on The Revelation of Joseph (folio 16a-b), 4 Ezra 7:26-42 is one of the lections for The Sunday of the Dead (folio 75b-77a), and 6:18-28 is copied on folios 195a-196a, to be read on The Festival of Mount Tabor. The lection from 2 Baruch (2 Bar. 44:9-15) appears after the lection from 4 Ezra on The Sunday of the Dead (folio 77a-b). Lections from 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are not commonly found in Syriac lectionary manuscripts. However, lections from these two writings do appear in the companion manuscript BL Add 14,687, in DS 33, a 13th century manuscript still kept in the Deir al-Surian, as well as in the 15th century Ms 77 of the Abraham Konath Collection. 10 These lectionary manuscripts contain, mostly, the same selection of lections from 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, scripting them to be read at the same events during the church year. LIST OF LECTIONS

1. The Consecration of the Church (1b-4a) Jer 31:10-26 (1b-2a) Ezek 9:11-10:22 (2a-3a) Acts 7:44-53 (3a-4a) 2. The Annunciation of Zechariah (4a-8a) Gen 17:15-22 (4a-5a) 1 Sam 1:9-17 (5a-b) 2 Pet 1:1-15 (5b-7a) 9 Cf., further, Odilo Heiming’s description of Add 14,485, 14,486 and 14,487 in “Ein jakobitishces Doppellektionar des Jahres 824 aus Harran,” in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (Vol. 2, ed. Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann, Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1970), 768-99. 10 A lection from 4 Ezra is also found in the highly fragmentary manuscript BL Add 14,736. For further details, cf., Liv Ingeborg Lied, “4 Ezra in Syriac Lectionary Manuscripts – Three Points for Further Reflection,” in Religion – Manuscripts – Media Culture (4 September 2015), http://livlied.blogspot.no/2015/09/4-ezra-in-syriac-lectionarymanuscripts.html (Accessed 12 July 2016).

British Library Additional Manuscript 14,686

389

3. Lections for The Annunciation of the Holy Virgin (7a-11a) Judg 13:2-14 (7a-8b) Zech 2:14-17+ 4:1-7+8:3-4 (8b-9b)11 1 Jn 3:2-17 (9b-11a) 4. The Visit [of Mary to Elizabeth] (11a-13a) Gen 27:22-40 (11a-12b) 1 Pet 2:6-10 (12b-13a) 5. The Nativity of John the Baptist (13a-16a) Gen 21:9-21 (13a-14a) Ex 2:1-10 (14a-15a) 1 Jn 4:1-10 (15a-16a) 6. The Revelation of Joseph (16a-17b) 4 Ezra 12:31-38 (16a-b) 1 Pet 2:1-10 (16b-17b) 7. Lections for The Festival of the Nativity (17b-22b) Gen 21:1-8 (17b-18a) Josh 24:21-26 (18a-b) 1 Sam 1:19-23 (18b-19a) Wis 8:19-9:3 (19a-b) Jer 23:5-8 (19b) Ezek 37:16-28 (19b-21a) 1 Jn 1:1-2:6 (21a-22b) 8. The Commemoration of the Holy Virgin (22b-26a) Ex 3:1-10 (22b-23b) Ezek 44:1-12 (23b-24b) Acts 7:30-43 (24b-26a) 9. Lections for The Killing of the Infants (26a-30a) Jer 31:15-26 (26a-27a) Ezek 5:5-17 (27a-28b) Acts 7:11-29 (28b-30a) 10. Lections for The Circumcision (30a-33a) Gen 17:9-27 (30a-31a) Deut 10:12-11:1 (31a-32a) Acts 7:2-10 (32a-33a) 11

The three excerpts from Zechariah are seamlessly bound together.

390

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

11. Lections for The Epiphany (33a-40b) Gen 24:1-28 (33a-35a) Num 24:2-19 (35a-36a) Josh 4:16-24 (36a-37a) 2 Sam 23:13-17 (37a-b) 2 Kings 2:19-25 (37b-38a) Zech 6:9-15 (38a-b) Dan 12:5-9 (38b-39a) Acts 8:26-40 (39a-40b) 12. The Beheading of John the Baptist (40b-43b) Jer 37:12-21 (40b-41b) Isa 40:3-41:13 (41b-42b) Acts 26:1-10 (42b-43b) 13. Lections on Mar Stephen the Protomartyr (43b-46a) Sir 50:1-11+50:29-51:3 (43b-44b) 2 Chr 24:20-25 (44b-45a) Acts 7:54-8:2 (45a-46a) 14. Lections for the Sunday after the Epiphany (46a[48b])12 Gen 25:19-34 (46a-47b) 2 Kings 3:13-25 (47b-48b) Acts 2: 37-39 [47] (48b)13 15. The Second Sunday after the Epiphany (49a -51b) Prov 8:22-9:9 (49a-50a)* *One folio is missing. The rubric and first part of what is probably the first lesson is lost. The last half of the lesson is found on folio 49a Mic 5:1-8 (50a-b) 1 Pet 3:7-15 (50b-51b) 16. The Third Sunday after the Epiphany (51b-55b) Joel 2:21-4:8 (51b-53b) 12 In DS Syr 33 the title is Lections for the Sunday after the Feast of Stephen. 13 One folio is missing at the end of the quire. The lesson from Acts breaks off in verse 39. DS Syr 33 has 7:37-47.

British Library Additional Manuscript 14,686

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

391

Jer 31:2-12 (53b-54b) 1 Pet 2:1-10 (54b-55b) The Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany (55b-58a) 1 Sam 16:1-13 (55b-56b) Deut 18:9-16 (56b-57a) 1 Jn 4:11-21 (57a-58a) (variants) Lections for The Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple (58a-61a) Lev 12:1-8 (58a-59a) 2 Sam 5:1-6+5:17-21 (59a-60a) Acts 24:10-23 (60a-61a) Lections for the Week of Nineveh (61b-64a) Num 5:5-10 (61b-62a) Jonah 1:1-2:1 (62a-63b) Acts 7:37-43 (63b-64a) Lections for the Tuesday of the Week of Nineveh (64a-67b) Mic 1:1-16 (64a-65b) Nah 1:1-14 (65b-66b) Acts 8:9-25 (66b-67b) The Wednesday of the Week of Nineveh (68a-71b) Zeph 1:11-2:4 (68a-69a) Jonah 2:2-3:5 (69a-70a) Jas 1:13-27 (70a-71b) Lections for The Commemoration of the Priests (71b-74b) Num 20:23-29 (71b-72a) Job 14:7-22 (72a-b) Wis 4:7-16 (72b-73b) Acts 20:26-38 (73b-74b) Lections for The Sunday of the Dead (74b-79b) Ezek 37:1-14 (74b-75b) 4 Ezra 7:26-42 (75b-77a) 2 Bar. 44:9-15 (77a-b) Jas 4:6-5:11(77b-79b) Lections for the First Sunday of the Fast (79b-82b) Gen 9:12-21 (79b-80a)

392

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

1 Kings 18:29-46 (80a-81b) Acts 11:19-26 (81b-82b) Lections for the Monday in the First Week of the Fast (82b-85b) Gen 1:1-13 (82b-83b)14 Wis 7:7-24 (83b-85a) Jas 1:2-12 (85a-b) Tuesday in the First Week of the Fast (85b-88a) Jer 11:1-8 (85b-86b) Ezek 20:5-14 (86b-87b) Jas 1:13-21 (87b-88a) Lections for the Wednesday [in the First Week of the Fast] (88a-90b) Gen 1:14-19 (88a-b) Hag 2:17-23 (88b-89b) Jas 1:22-2:5 (89b-90b) Thursday in the First Week of the Fast (90b-93a) Job 8:1-22 (90b-91b) 2 Kings 17:18-23 (91b-92a) Jas 2:14-26 (92a-93a) Friday in the First Week of the Fast (93a-95b) Ezek 18:20-32 (93a-94a) Zech 1:1-6 (94a-95a) Jas 3:13-4:5 (95a-b) Saturday in the First Week of the Fast (95b-100a) Gen 2:8-25 (95b-97a) Jer 17:19-25 (97a-98a) Acts 12:1- 24 (98a-100a) The Second Sunday of the Fast (100a-102b) Gen 7:6-19 (100a-101a) Jer 15:15-21 (101a-102a) Acts 9:22-31 (102a-b) The Third Sunday of the Fast (103a-108b)

14 Although following the Peshita in every other way, the manuscript here writes the first day in the description of both the second and the third days.

British Library Additional Manuscript 14,686

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

393

Ezek 33:23-34:12 (103a-105a) 2 Chr 6:12-18 (105a-106a) Deut 31:19-30 (106a-107a) Acts 28:17-28 (107a-108b) Lections for the Fourth Sunday of the Fast (108b111b) 1 Sam 7:10-17 (108b-109b) Prov 16:12-32 (109b-110b) Acts 20:22-32 (110b-111b) The Fifth Sunday of the Holy Fast of the Forty [Days] (111b-114b) Jer 51:1-9 (111b-112b) Sir 42:15-43:10 (112b-113b) 1 Pet 3:8-16 (113b-114b) The Sixth Sunday, of the Miracles (114b-119a) Deut 25:13-26:5 (114b-115b) Judg 6:11-24 (115b-117a) Ezek 13:1-16 (117a-118a) 1 Pet 4:12-19 (118b-119a) Lections for Eucharist of the Forty [Days] on Friday (119a-121b) Deut 1:3-14 (119a-120a) 2 Sam 24:18-25 (120a-b) 1 Pet 1:13-22 (120b-121b) The Saturday of The Resurrection of Lazarus (121b124a) 2 Kings 20:1-10 (121b-122b) Wis 11:21-12:4 (122b-123b) 1 Pet 2:6-10 (123b-124a) Lections for The Holy Sunday of the Hosannas (124a-130a) Gen 49:8-15 (124a-b) Job 26:1-14 (124b-125a) Judg 9:7-15 (125a-126a) Prov 1:20-33 (126a-b) 1 Kgs 8:1-6 (126b-127b) Zeph 3:14-20 (127b-128a)

394

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

Jer 30:18-22 (128a-b) Dan 3:7-11 (128b-129a) 1 Jn 2:7-17 (129a-130a) Lections for The Passion of our Saviour. Monday of the Passion (130a-133a) Gen 22:1-14 (130a-131a) Judg 11:30-40 (131a-132b) Acts 25:6-12 (132b-133a) Tuesday of the Week of the Passion (133a-135b) Deut 31:16-20 (133a-b) Zech 12:1-8 (133b-134b) 1 Jn 1:1-9 (134b-135b) Lections for the Wednesday of the Week of the Trembling (135b-139a) Lev 6:17-7:7 (135b-136b) 1 Sam 16:1-13 (136b-137b) 1 Kings 1:32-37 (137b-138a) Acts 9:22-30 (138a-139a) Lections for the Thursday of the Mystery (139a-143a) Ex 12:1-11 (139a-140a) Josh 5:9-12 (140a-b) 1 Sam 10:17-21 (140b) 2 Kings 23:21-25 (140b-141b) Jer 18:18-23 (141b-142a) Zech 11:10-14 (142a-b) Acts 1:15-20 (142b-143a) Lections for the Friday of the Crucifixion (143a-147b) Zech 13:7-14:5 (143a-144a) Hab 1:2-12 (144a-145a) Lev 4:1-7 (145a-b) 2 Kgs 19:20-29 (145b-146b) Acts 22:30-23:16 (146b-147b) Lections for The Adoration of the Cross (147b-150a) Ex 17:8-16 (147b-148b) Josh 8:18-25 (148b-149a) 1 Pet 2:19-25 (149a-150a)

British Library Additional Manuscript 14,686

395

45. Lections for the Saturday of the Good Tidings (150a153b) Gen 8:1-12 (150a-151a) Jer 38:3-13 (151a-152a) Judg 7:9-15 (152a-153a) Acts 3:11-21 (153a-b) 46. Lections for the Great Sunday of the Resurrection (153b-160a) Ex 40:17-23 (154a-b) Isa 60:1-7 (154b-155a) Judg 6:11-16 (155a-b) Joel 2:21-3:5 (155b-156b) Mic 7:11-20 (156b-157b) Dan 6:19-25 (157b-158a) Acts 2:22-43 (158a-160a) 47. Lections for the Second Sunday after the Resurrection, and Monday [of the Week] of White (160a-161b) Gen 41:41-46* (160a-) *One folio is lost. Comparing with DS Syr 33, it is likely that the folio contained the last five words of verse 46 in the lection from Gen 41:41-46; a lection from Judg 8:13-21; as well as verse 19 and the four first words of verse 19 in the lection from 1 Pet 2:19-25. 1 Pet 2: [19] * 20-25 (-161b) 48. The Third Sunday after the Resurrection, and Tuesday of the Week of White (161b-164a) Ex 14:26-31 (161b-162a) Josh 6:10-17 (162a-163a) Acts 13:26-39 (163a-164a) 49. The Fourth Sunday after Resurrection, and Wednesday of the Week of White (164a-167a) Ex 40:2-16 (164a-b) Josh 2:1-6 (164b-165b) Acts 4:8-21 (165b-167a)

396

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

50. The Fifth Sunday after the Resurrection, and Thursday of the Week of White (167a-171a) Ex 34:4-12 (167a-168a) Mic 4:1-7 (168a-b) Zech 8:4-9 (168b-169b) 1 Jn 4:19-5:15 (169b-171a) 51. Lections for the Friday of the Week of White, and the Sixth Sunday after the Resurrection (171a-173b) Deut 16:1-8 (171a-b) Josh 8:30-33 (171b-172b) Prov 9:1-11 (172b-173a) 1 Pet 3:17-22 (173a-b) 52. The Seventh Sunday after the Resurrection, and the Saturday of the Week of White (173b-175b) Josh 1:5-9 (173b-174a) 1 Kings 17:17-22 (174a-b) Acts 26:19-25 (174b-175b) 53. The Eight Sunday after the Resurrection, as also New Sunday (175b-179a) Jer 1:4-12 (175b-176a) 2 Sam 7:18-26 (176a-177a) Jer 26:1-6 (177a-178a) Acts 6:8-7:1+7:54-60 (178a-179a)15 54. Lections for The Ascension (179a-182b) Deut 9:26-10:5 (179a-180a) Jer 31:31-34 (180a-181a) Ezek 10:18-22 (181a-b) Acts 1:1-11 (181b-182b) 55. Lections for the Sunday of Pentecost (182b-187b) Ex 19:1-11 (182b-183b) Prov 4:18-5:2 (183b-184b) 2 Kgs 2:13-17 (184b-185a) Dan 5:7-19 (185a-186b) Acts 2:1-11 (186b-187b) The two excerpts from Acts are seamlessly bound together in the middle of the second column on folio 178b and appear as one lection. 15

British Library Additional Manuscript 14,686

397

56. Lections for The [Commemoration of the] Apostles (187b-189b) Jer 16:16-21 (187b-188a) Dan 1:1-9 (188a-189a) Acts 1:1-14 (189a-b) 57. Lections for The [Commemoration of the] Martyrs and the Holy Fathers (189b-194a) Mal 3:13-24 (189b-190b) 2 Kings 2:1-12 (190b-192a) Acts 12:1-17 (192a-194a) 58. Lections for The Festival of Mount Tabor (194a197a) Deut 16:13-17:1 (194a-195a) 4 Ezra 6:18-28 (195a-196a) 2 Pet 3:8-15 (196a-197a) 59. Lections for The Decease of the Virgin Mary (197a201a) Ex 19:16-20:6 (197a-198b) Josh 3:1-17 (198b-200a) 1 Jn 2:23-3:3 (200a-201a) 60. Lections for The Festival of the Saving Cross (201a205a) Num 21:4-8 (201a-b) 1 Sam 17:37-54 (201b-203b) Dan 7:21-28 (203b-204a) Acts 13:26-38 (204a-205a) “The end of the first part of the lections for the dominical feasts” 61. Lections for The Consecration of the Waters (206a207b) Deut 15:22-25 (206a-b) 2 Kings 2:19-22 (206a) Dan 12:5-9 (206b) Acts 8:26-40 (206b-207b)

398

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

COLOPHON (FOLIO 205B)16 Text

 .   

   .  
 


  
    .      . 


 
 
   
 



  .            
 .
 

 . 
   

   

  . 

          
   
 
  





   
         
.     .     
 
  
  .            
   

 .   
   .     

    
  
   
  .          
   
 . 
 .     
 . 

 
     . 
  



   .      
   


      .     .           .  
      .
       
   .  

  
.         
 
 
    .  
     .     
  . 

 

   
    

16 Folio 205b contains three separate notes. The first (the colophon) and third notes are written with ser o script, while the scribe wrote the second note, a doxology, with es rangelo script.

British Library Additional Manuscript 14,686

399

  
.         
                
 
    


 
           .


       
    

 . 
   


    .
 
         


 Translation This first half of the lectionary17 of the entire year, of Sundays and dominical feasts, with its companion [volume], has reached full completion18 in the year 156619 of the deceitful Greeks, on the 27th day20 in the month Elul, in the days of the overseers of the church — Mar Athanasius was patriarch of Egypt. 21 Moreover, 22 the church of us Syrians was without a head at that time.23 Moreover, it24 and its companion were written at the holy monastery of ‘The Bearer of God’25 of us Syrians, which is in the desert of Egypt, that

Literally, “the division of readings.” Literally, “end and completion.” 19 Since the Seleucid era began either 311 or 312 BC, 1566 of the Greeks is equivalent to AD 1254 or 1255. 20 Literally, “in the 27 days.” 21 Athanasius apparently refers to the Coptic patriarch Athanasius III, to be distinguished from the Greek patriarch by the same name who ruled later in the same century from the same city, Alexandria. 22 In this text the particle dēyn functions as a marker to introduce an additional element into the narrative. Consequently, I have rendered it as ‘moreover’. 23 That is, the Syrian Orthodox see of Antioch was vacant. 24 The Syriac uses the feminine personal pronoun ‘she’ because the referent pālgūtāʾ ‘half’ is feminine. 25 The title of Mary, the equivalent of Greek Θεοτόκος. 17 18

400

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

is, ‘The Weigher of the Heart’.26 Moreover, an old man, feeble and full of defects and sores, whose name was Bacchus, wrote them for the aforementioned monastery so that they might read and serve with them, and they should pray for him and for his fathers, and that he might have a remembrance and participation in the prayers and in the services and in the liturgies that are performed at this holy monastery, forever. Now I entreat and supplicate, while prostrating myself before every discerning brother who reads in them or recites27 from them, that if he finds an error or mistake he should correct (it) in love and should not reproach the one deserving of reproof, even the guilty, because every creature 28 lacks and no man is perfect, but God alone [is perfect]. And you my fathers and my brothers, a mighty troop, and congregation of modest and holy monks, and chosen hermits, and true strangers,29 with the honored abbot,30 I implore, prostrating myself before you, that you do not reproach me because of the weakness of the writing, and inasmuch as according to strength I was not diminished — God witnesses — because I am very weak due to old age and my hands, see! they tremble, and my eyes have grown dim, and constant illnesses, see! they vex me, and daily I request death. So I entreat from your kindnesses that you be mediators between God and my low state, who already through your prayers shows me mercy and absolves me. And he that in love and discernment prays for me, may he also be absolved by God. Amen. And pray for my spiritual brother, Rabban Habbib, who indeed faithfully serves me. And pray for my blood brother, Rabban Sergius, who has departed.31 And pray for my uncle Rabban Isaiah who has departed,32 who raised me and taught me.

26 The expression ‘The Weigher of the Heart’ is the equivalent of Coptic ši-hēt, the name given to Wadi al-Natrun, also called the Nitrian Desert. 27 Or: “copies.” 28 Vocalize the form as a passive participle, namely as baryāʾ. 29 On the use of ‘stranger’ to describe the believer, see Heb 11:13. 30 Literally, “head of the monastery.” 31 That is, died. 32 That is, died.

British Library Additional Manuscript 14,686

401

Doxology Praise to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen. Request for Intercessory Prayer Pray for Rabban Jesus, the abbot,33 in whose care they were written. NOTE FOUND ON FOLIO 208A34 Text

 

   .

 
    

  
  .     
       
.      . 


       
          
   .
 :   



   .
    
   
 

 .       

     


Translation This writing was copied by the ability that is from God with much diligence and with laborious zeal by a poor man and a stranger with barbs, with many defects, so it is not fitting that his name be recorded. But he entreats and supplicates from every discerning brother who, as opportunity offers, encounters it, that is, reads in it, that he murmur a prayer in love for the aforementioned weak one, and for the honored brothers who have borne the weight of my weakness in all these matters of mine that I might be able to do this. And to God be the glory, he who has given strength and ability to my ink.35 Literally, “head of the monastery.” This note is written with ser o script. 35 It is possible to emend ldywty ‘to my ink’ to ldwywty ‘to my wretched state’ — see Add 14,687, folio 201b, note 2, that reads ldwyty. 33 34

402

Korsvoll, Lied, and Lund

BIBLIOGRAPHY Brock, Sebastian P. and Lucas Van Rompay. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi alNatrun (Egypt). Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 227. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Heiming, Odilo. “Ein jakobitishces Doppellektionar des Jahres 824 aus Harran.” Pages 768-99 in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten. Vol. 2. Edited by Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann. Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1970. Lied, Liv Ingeborg. “4 Ezra in Syriac Lectionary Manuscripts – Three Points for Further Reflection.” In Religion – Manuscripts – Media Culture (4 September 2015), http://livlied.blogspot.no/ 2015/09/4-ezra-in-syriac-lectionary-manuscripts.html (Accessed 12 July 2016). Mango, Marlia M. “The Production of Syriac Manuscripts, 400-700 ad.” Pages 161-79 in Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanto: Atti del seminaro del Erice. Edited by Guglielmo Cavallo, Giuseppe de Gregorio and Marilena Maniaci. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo, 1991. Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. Vol. 1. London: The British Museum, 1870. Online: http://www.archive.org/stream/ catalogueofsyria01brituoft#page/168/mode/2up.

CONFERENCE REPORTS

Recovering the Role of Christians in the History of the Middle East: A Workshop at Princeton University May 6-7, 2016 MICHAEL REYNOLDS, JACK TANNOUS, AND CHRISTIAN SAHNER WORKSHOP ORGANIZERS

On May 6-7, 2016, the Near East and the World Seminar welcomed fourteen distinguished scholars to Princeton University to discuss the place of Christians in Middle Eastern history and historiography. At the outset, speakers were invited to reflect on how the field of Middle Eastern history generally and their work specifically changes when they consider perspectives provided by Christian sources, institutions, and individuals. A working premise of the conference was that although Christians have formed a significant portion of the population of the Middle East since the Arab conquests, the stubborn but understandable tendency of historians to conceive of the Middle East as a Muslim region has had the effect of marginalizing Christian experiences. The result has been to consign Middle Eastern Christianity to a niche specialty alongside larger fields, such as Islamic studies, Byzantine studies, church history, Jewish studies, and Ottoman history. The workshop participants answered the question of how to integrate Christians into Middle Eastern history in different ways. Robert Hoyland and Bruce Masters stressed how scholars must be open to evidence produced by Muslims and non-Muslims when writing the social and political history of the region: a source is a source, no matter its confessional origins. John-Paul Ghobrial and Bernard Heyberger underlined the importance and payoff of integrating Christians into bigger narratives about early modernity, especially how Eastern Christians served as cultural brokers between the Middle East, Europe, and the New World. Scholars sometimes struggle to find Christians in historical sources written primarily by and for Muslims. But Petra Sijpesteijn and George Kiraz discussed two sets of overlooked archival evidence that can help provide a more balanced picture of Muslim-ruled societies, 403

404

Conference Reports

including the papyri of early Islamic Egypt and the Syriac archives from late-Ottoman Tur Abdin. Thomas Carlson explored the theme of Islamization in medieval Middle Eastern history. Specifically, he questioned the need to identify tipping points and conversion curves, since Islamization can be measured in subtler, more meaningful ways than simply the number of Muslims who lived at a given time. The religious diversity of the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Middle East was a theme in the presentations of Febe Armanios, Bedross Der Matossian, and Tom Papademetriou, who discussed the experiences of Copts, Armenians, and Greeks, respectively. In their own way, each speaker challenged the idea of center and periphery in Ottoman Studies, specifically why the history of Muslims was often given precedence over that of non-Muslims, and the history of cosmopolitan elites over that of sub-elites in the provinces. Lev Weitz and Luke Yarbrough asked how distinctive Christians really were in medieval Islamic societies, especially when it came to issues such as marriage and state service. Along the way, they discussed the importance of seeing Christians as representative of their broader societies, while at the same time, acknowledging the traditions, practices, and mentalities that made them distinct. Finally, Stephen Davis and Samir Khalil Samir emphasized the significance of the Arabic Christian patrimony for the study of Middle Eastern History. Davis did so by discussing his work with the uncatalogued Copto-Arabic manuscripts of Dayr al-Suryan in Egypt, and Samir by discussing the urgency of updating and disseminating one of the major instrumenta studiorum of the field, Georg Graf’s monumental Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (1944-53). These presentations led to discussion and debate about a number of bigger historiographic issues. Much of the conversation revolved around how to make the research of specialists in Middle Eastern Christians accessible to scholars in adjacent fields. The general opinion was that historians of Middle Eastern Christianity must resist the impulse toward ghettoization and do a better job of inserting themselves in wider debates. This can be done by tackling themes that transcend the study of Christians in the region – including global history, microhistory, the history of the body, etc. It can also be done by inviting scholars from these fields to collaborate and comment on our work, even when they study very

Conference Reports

405

different geographies and time periods. Another way of accomplishing this would be to promote an “integrated” or “connected” history of the Middle East, one that does not privilege any one ethnic or religious group over another, but studies them side by side. At the same time, as we should strive to collapse distinctions among the “Islamic,” “Christian,” and “Jewish” layers in the history of the region, we should also take stock of what makes each of these communities unique. Thus, there was discussion about how specialists of Middle Eastern Christians must create a shared scholarly agenda based on comparison of Christian practices, institutions, and ideas over time. These might include the study of distinctive Christian languages (Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Greek, etc.), literary genres (theology, poetry, hagiography), and social phenomena (pilgrimage, monasticism, sectarianism). Along with this, the workshop touched on practical matters related to the study and teaching of Middle Eastern Christians. Several participants noted the difficulty of gaining access to archival materials in the Middle East, especially from ecclesiastical institutions. Others noted the need to eliminate barriers for entry by making basic scholarly resources – such as manuscript catalogs, reference works, and dictionaries – freely accessible online. Still others bemoaned the fact that because the history of Middle Eastern Christians remains an academic niche, it can be difficult to find gainful academic employment, even if a candidate has the ability to teach and research across more “mainstream” fields, such as Islamic, Byzantine, Ottoman, or early modern studies. The speakers proposed a number of concrete steps to help open the field and make it more attractive for prospective students. One would be to organize a second conference as a follow-up to the Princeton meeting, which might lead to the publication of an edited volume. Another would be to organize intensive workshops for graduate students aimed at introducing them to the history of Christians in the Middle East. This would also serve to promote an “integrated” approach to the history of the region more generally and create connections and collaborations among early-career scholars. Finally, the participants agreed that the present tumult in the Middle East provides a unique opportunity – indeed, an obligation – to disseminate our research about Christians to the broader public. This might take the form of books aimed at undergraduates and lay readers, including a new textbook on

406

Conference Reports

Middle Eastern history that deals extensively with underrepresented ethnic and religious groups; lectures for the general public; podcasts, etc.

Conference Reports

407

Allographic Traditions among the Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews and Samaritans. Workshop on the Writing Systems of Garshuni, Judeo-Arabic and Samaritan-Arabic. EKATERINA PUKHOVAIA, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

On June 9-10 a unique workshop took place at the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton). It was convened to allow scholars from various fields of expertise to discuss allographic traditions among the Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews and Samaritans, circumstances under which such traditions developed and ways in which the use of particular scripts, writing systems and languages reflects communal and religious identity. The workshop was the first of a series of Patricia Crone Memorial Workshops, sponsored by the Director’s Excellence Fund, established by the Hendricks Charitable Foundation. The workshop was organized by Sabine Schmidtke (IAS) and George Kiraz (Princeton University). A total of 16 speakers from the USA, Europe, Israel, and Japan participated in the workshop. Their papers covered a variety of topics, all related to “allographic traditions” and illustrated the variations of these traditions among communities in the Middle East. The workshop was a unique meeting of experts on Judeo-Arabic, Garshuni, aljamiado, Ottoman, and Coptic, who study the Jewish, Samaritan, Christian and Morisco communities of the Middle East and Spain. This allowed the participants to discuss similarities and differences in which these communities used different scripts and languages in a broad variety of texts – from poetry to legal documents, private letters and religious polemical literature. The workshop was accompanied by an exhibition of some examples of texts in Garshuni and Judeo-Arabic, materials for which were provided by the Princeton Geniza Lab and Beth Mardutho Research Library. The exhibits included some of the earliest printed books in Arabic Garshuni, notably, a grammar of Syriac written in Syro-Arabic Garshuni, as well as Syro-Ottoman and Syro-Arabic newspapers. Several liturgical manuscripts written in several languages (Syriac, Arabic, Ottoman, English) and scripts were also exhibited. The Princeton Geniza Lab exhibited reproductions of a ketubba (marriage contract), and a palimpsest, which is arguably one of the oldest manuscripts in the Geniza and

408

Conference Reports

includes a unique example of Hebrew transliterated in Greek characters, both courtesy of Cambridge University Library. The workshop was divided into 8 sessions dedicated to Ottoman and Judeo-Arabic, Samaritan, Syro-Turkic Garshuni, Judeo-Arabic, Syriac Garshuni, Syro-Arabic Garshuni, writing systems originating from Islamic Spain, particularly aljamiado and Arabic in Latin script. The last session was dedicated to a case of Arabic in Greek letters and Coptic allographic traditions. The first session, chaired by Sabine Schmidtke (IAS), was dedicated to “code-switching” in Judeo-Arabic and Ottoman. Meira Polliack (Tel Aviv University) gave a paper on “The Phenomenon of ‘code switching’ in the Written Discourse of Judeo-Arabic Texts”, where she discussed how sociolinguistic approaches to Judeo-Arabic, particularly, to cases when languages and scripts are being switched between in one text, can allow researchers to understand the social background of the text production. Her talk was followed by E. Efe (Khayyat) (Rutgers University), who in his paper “Turks with a ‘wāw’” outlined the variety of allographic traditions in the Ottoman period and discusses the search for a new script for the Turkish language to replace the Ottoman-Turkish script. In the second session, chaired by Eve Krakowski (Princeton University), two papers on Samaritan allography were presented. Stefan Scorch (Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg) in his paper on “Allographic writing in the Samaritan manuscript culture between Arabic and Hebrew” paid special attention to multilingual manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch as examples of simultaneous existence of three scripts (Arabic, Samaritan Hebrew cursive and formal Samaritan Hebrew) and two languages (Hebrew and Arabic). This presentation was followed by Tamar Zewi (University of Haifa). Her paper on “Arabic and Syriac in the Samaritan Version of Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Pentateuch” concerned the characteristics of a manuscript of Saadya Gaon’s translation and ways in which it influenced the transmission of the text of the Pentateuch in the Samaritan and, possibly, Arab Christian communities. The third session, chaired by Hassan Ansari (IAS), concentrated on Syro-Turkic Garshuni. Anton Pritula (Hermitage Museum) presented the first paper in the session, entitled “Poems in Turkic and Persian Garshuni from the Mongol time”, which

Conference Reports

409

examined two poems, that used the switch between Syriac and a Turkic language in one case, and between Syriac and Persian in the other case and different intention for language switching in each case. The second speaker in the panel, Jonas Karlsson (Uppsala Universitet), presented the paper “Remarks on some Turkic Garshuni Texts Preserved in an 18th Century Chaldean Prayer Book”, concerning four previously unidentified Syriac poems that employ different systems of transcribing Turkic. The fourth session, chaired by Tamar Zewi (University of Haifa), was confined to Judeo-Arabic. Esther-Miriam Wagner (University of Cambridge) presented the paper “Jewish identity and Hebrew script: the case of Judeo-Arabic”, which studies the ways in which various social groups in the Medieval Cairo Jewish community employed Judeo-Arabic and various scripts, depending on circumstance; it also touched upon changes in vocalization practices. The second speaker, Eve Krakowski (Princeton University) presented the paper “Judeo-Arabic as a legal language: the view from the Cairo Geniza”, in which she outlined a shift in the legal clauses – a switch between languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic) and a change in formulations, aimed to make a document acceptable both in a Jewish and Islamic court. The second day of the workshop opened with two sessions on Garshuni. The first session of the day, chaired by Andrea Piras (IAS) was devoted to Syriac Garshuni. Grigory Kessel (Phillips Universität Marburg) presented a paper on “Syriac Garshuni: Patterns of distribution in different branches of Syriac Christianity”. In his paper he demonstrated the spread of Garshuni in manuscripts of various Christian Syriac communities across the Middle East and pointed out that while some of these communities often resorted to the use of Garshuni, others chose not to; in most cases the use of Garshuni was determined by external factors. The topic of Garshuni was continued by the second speaker, George A. Kiraz (Princeton University), who presented a paper entitled “From Garshuni to ‘garshunography’: Garshuni Systems in the Early Modern and Modern World”. In his paper he conceptualized Garshuni as a living tradition and a term used by members of the Syriac community to describe an array of usages both of the Syriac script to transcribe other languages (including Arabic, Ottoman, Armenian etc.) and other scripts to transcribe Syriac. He demonstrated that the semantic connotations of the lexeme

410

Conference Reports

expanded to include any case of writing a language in the script of another. The second session on Syro-Arabic Garshuni was chaired by Grigory Kessel. The first speaker, Johannes Pahlitzsch (Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz) presented the paper “The use of Garshuni by the Melkites from a cultural-historical perspective”, in which he argued for a coexistence of languages and scripts within the Melkite community and questioned to what extent this coexistence was informed by identity preservation and expression needs. The second speaker, Hidemi Takashi (University of Tokyo), furthered this discussion in his paper “Why and when to write in Garshuni: observations based on some manuscripts and peripheral cases”, in which he covered non-Arabic Garshuni instances in manuscripts and texts from a broad geographical and historical background, starting from the earliest known Syro-Sogdian texts found in Central Asia and ending with Syro-Armenian texts of the eighteenth century. The third session of the day, chaired by George Kiraz, introduced the various allographic traditions that were spread in Spain before and after the Reconquista. Nuria Martínez de Castilla Muñoz (Universidad Complutense Madrid) presented a paper on “Linguistic and cultural uses behind Aljamiado texts”. The paper concerned the use of Arabic script for transcribing Spanish texts in the morisco community and how the old Arabic-language tradition was preserved, translated and transmitted in it. The second speaker, Mònica Colominas Aparicio (Universiteit van Amsterdam) advanced the discussion with her talk “Spanish Islam in Arabic Script: Language, Identity, and Community Boundaries in the Literature of Religious Polemics of the Muslims of Late Medieval Christian Iberia”. Her paper covered religious polemics with Christians and Jews in the mudejar community and how the Arabic script and the language of these polemical writings stand witness to cultural assimilation, adaptation, and gradual agency and identity change. The last session of the day and the workshop was chaired by Johannes Pahlitzsch and included two papers. Firstly, Ronny Vollandt (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) presented a paper on “The ‘Violet Fragment’: revisiting a strange case of Arabic in Greek letters”, which discussed the provenance of this bilingual Septuagint fragment, its long travels between countries and libraries

Conference Reports

411

and the theories surrounding the motivation of the copyist to use Greek letters for transcribing Arabic. The second speaker of the session, Sebastian Richter (Freie Universität Berlin) spoke on “Allographic Experiments at the Cradle and at the Grave of Coptic Written Culture”. His paper concerned Coptic allography in Arabic script as present in a few manuscripts, which only underlines the fact that “Copto-Arabic” allography never became a major cultural trend within the Coptic community. The workshop turned out to be successful. Every session closed with fruitful discussions between the participants, that allowed them to elaborate on their ideas and advance their inquiry. The papers presented at the workshop are expected to be published as a separate volume in the journal Intellectual History of the Islamicate World (Brill).

BOOK REVIEWS Nestor Kavvadas, Isaak von Ninive und seine Kephalaia Gnostika. Die Pneumatologie und ihr Kontext. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 128 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015). Pp. IX +193; € 99/$128. LUCAS VAN ROMPAY (EMERITUS, DUKE UNIVERSITY), ’S-HERTOGENBOSCH, THE NETHERLANDS

The Syriac writings of the famous ascetic and mystic author Isaac, who for a short time was bishop of Nineveh (ca. 676–680), are extant in three collections, or “parts.” The first part was published by P. Bedjan in 1909 and translated into English by A. J. Wensinck in 1923; most of the second part was published by S. Brock in 1995 (with English translation); and the third part by S. Chialà in 2011 (with Italian translation—an English translation by M.T. Hansbury appeared in 2015). The focus of the present monograph is on a long chapter of the second part that has remained unpublished and that in the sole manuscript (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Syr. e. 7) is given the title “Chapters of Knowledge,” reflecting the title of the Kephalaia Gnostica of Evagrius of Pontus, one of Isaac’s main sources of inspiration. Isaac’s Kephalaia Gnostica (KG) consist of four “centuries,” or collections of one hundred short passages each, succinctly expressing key ideas of his theological and spiritual worldview. Since the central topic of the KG—and a pervasive theme for Isaac’s entire oeuvre as well—is the “spiritualization” of the ascetic’s life, or “its transformation into a spiritual mode of existence through the inhabitation of the Holy Spirit” (p. 1), the “pneumatological” approach almost naturally imposes itself. In the absence of a critical edition of the KG, the author had to turn to the Oxford manuscript, whereas the reader is entirely dependent on the author’s selection of passages and on his decision to provide in the footnotes Syriac text for certain passages and simple references to manuscript folios for others. This obviously hampers a full understanding, but the author’s generosity in providing Syriac text and, additionally, in quoting parallel texts from other parts of Isaac’s work for which editions are available mitigates this problem. The book consists of two parts. The first part (pp. 3–51) addresses general questions and deals with some characteristics of the 403

404

Book Reviews

East Syriac mystical tradition: the interconnectedness of a distinct group of authors; the accusation of “Messalianism” to which they were subject; the tension between the anchoritic lifestyle and coenobitism; the oftentimes problematic relationship with the established church; and the widespread skepticism toward “scholastic” wisdom (both secular and theological), even though all known ascetic authors hailed from the East Syriac school tradition (see p. 43). The second part (pp. 53–177) focuses on Isaac’s views of the workings of the Spirit in the present world and in the “new” world, a process that starts with the commitment to ascetic life and ultimately leads to the ascetic’s theosis, understood as “becoming spiritual” (“Geistlich-Werden”), both in an “onto-theological” and in a salvation-historical sense (see esp. pp. 141–152). Overall the author’s analysis is convincing and illuminating. He fully succeeds in bringing to life important aspects of Isaac’s theology and anthropology for a readership that is conversant with present-day theological discourse. Both Isaac’s wrestling with the perennial theological questions and the particularities of his specific cultural and religious location receive ample consideration. The author’s balanced methodology and his clear and careful style of writing help articulate insights that are often new and refreshing. Even though the author’s approach is mostly synchronic and aims at understanding Isaac’s world in its own right, he often touches upon the question of Isaac’s sources and of his dealing with the different currents that existed in the East Syriac world of his day. As is well known, Isaac and other East Syriac authors with him (starting perhaps with Babai the Great) were committed to bringing together Theodore of Mopsuestia, the main theological authority of the East Syriac tradition, and Evagrius of Pontus, who represented the Origenist tradition. The author discusses this fascinating topic in great detail and with much insight. He shows how Isaac interweaves the two different worldviews, of Theodore and Evagrius, and he highlights some of the remaining incompatibilities and tensions. Isaac adopts the Theodorean framework of the two ages, or catastases (“Zwei-Welten-Ökonomie”, see e.g., p. 65), along with God’s pedagogy as the leading principle in salvation history. He reads the story of humanity’s creation and disobedience through the lens of Theodore’s exegesis of the Letters of Paul rather than through his Commentary on Genesis (p. 156). In addition, Isaac’s strong intellectual approach and his belief in the proper

Book Reviews

405

dynamics of the process of spiritualization and salvation exert pressure on the concept of free will, which was central to Theodore’s worldview—an emphasis shared by most of the early Syriac tradition. Isaac followed Theodore in his view that humanity was created mortal (rather than becoming mortal through sin), but he goes further than Theodore by blaming human mortality for causing sin through free will (see pp. 61–62), thus downplaying human agency. Further on in the process of spiritualization, human free will is deemphasized even more and is in fact suspended during prayer, when the spiritual regime sets in and the human intellect “at that point is entirely being steered rather than doing the steering itself” ( 

 
:

 
); see p. 167 and ed. Bedjan, p. 170,12–13. The driving force throughout the process of spiritualization and salvation is divine grace (), which may overwhelm, or “swallow up” ( 
), all things human (see e.g., p. 129). Human free will ultimately will give way to the process of universal salvation (p. 164). As for the centrality of scripture in Isaac’s ascetic system, there is much that reminds one of Theodore, but in the end Isaac’s Evagrian orientation leads him to accept theoria as an important hermeneutical tool. As the “spiritual insight into the deep-structure of Holy Scripture” (p. 123), theoria may include spiritual reading and even produce “contra-textual” interpretations (“kontratextliche Schriftinterpretationen”), which seem to go against Theodore—see esp. pp. 87–88 and 107–119. The author discusses the ways in which Isaac adopts, modifies, and elaborates exegetical-theological insights of Theodore (p. 61); his “very free” reception of his sources (p. 83, note 20); and his “implicit harmonization work on Evagrius and Theodore” (p. 151: “seine implizite Harmonisierungsarbeit an Evagrios und Theodor”). While Evagrius obviously represents for Isaac “the highest authority in the area of ascetic theology” (p. 92), the question arises as to how much Theodore there still is in Isaac’s writings, beyond a number of concepts re-used in a radically rebuilt thought system. Should Isaac’s self-professed loyalty to Theodore be seen as formal traditionalism—his own traditionalism and that of his church—rather than as deliberate engagement with Theodore’s legacy? Interestingly, the author does not give much attention to Isaac’s reception of the writings of John the Solitary, which may constitute a potential third source of inspiration; see

406

Book Reviews

especially his comment on p. 147, note 40, which seems to minimize John’s possible contribution. This very rich and thought-provoking monograph has few imperfections. Unfortunately, the Syriac texts and translations are not free of errors. Several typos and small mistakes (as well as the infelicitous decision not to reproduce the supralinear dot for the pronominal suffix of the third person feminine) make some Syriac passages less accessible than they should have been. Some examples are given: p. 10, note 6: 
>
 | 

> 


| 
 >  
 |  >  ; p. 24, note 50:    >   
 ; p. 68, note 7: 

 cannot possibly mean “hat Er sie…eingeführt”; p. 81, note 13:     >     | 
> 
; p 96, note 53:
  >
  ; p. 156, note 69:  >   ; p. 167, note 111: 
> 
. On p. 12, note 11 the word 
“the man from Dalyatha” is missing from the translation. A final note has to do with layout and typesetting. When a footnote shifts from the left-to-right to the right-to-left writing direction (i.e., from German to Syriac), it seems obvious that the right-to-left layout should be respected until the end and that the final words of an incomplete final line should be at the right, not at the left. This is the case, e.g., on p. 10, note 6, where  should be at the right end, followed by a period. See also pp. 44, note 57; 59, note 4; 61, note 15; 79, notes 8 and 9; 81, note 13 and many more footnotes. None of these comments detract from the very fine quality of this monograph, which offers a wonderful exploration of Isaac’s rich thought world both for readers who are (somewhat) familiar with him and for those who are new to his writings.

David A. Michelson, The Practical Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Pp. xvi + 245; $105. PAULINE ALLEN, AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA, SYDNEY COLLEGE OF DIVINITY

Despite the fact that Philoxenus of Mabbug, who died in 523, produced the largest surviving corpus in Syriac literature, scant attention has been paid to him, apart from the magisterial work by André de Halleux (Philoxène de Mabbog: sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963)), the focus of which was christology and soteriology, and subsequent studies following on from de Halleux, which the author of this book details on p. 2, n. 3. While de Halleux and others have dealt with the historical, textual, and theological aspects of Philoxenus’ work, the present study is devoted to the praxis of the bishop of Mabbug and its interaction with his christology. The book has seven chapters and includes a useful map on p. 4 of the world of Philoxenus. Chapter 1 is an introduction to Philoxenus and his context, including his key christological ideas: incarnation as becoming, the economy of salvation, unity and trinity, the mystery of the incarnation, error and heresy, and faith and simplicity. Chapter 2 deals with the practical considerations that the divine oikonomia raised for the bishop. Here Michelson seems to be struggling with term oikonomia and the various possibilities of its translation, which in English do not have to be the same in every instance, but rather depend on whether the meaning is the divine incarnation or the bishop’s governance. Coming up with the antiquated ‘churchmanship’ for the latter (p. 36, n. 4) is not helpful. Consultation of the work of Gerhard Richter (Oikonomia: Der Gebrauch des Wortes Oikonomia im Neuen Testament, bei den Kirchenvätern und in der theologischen Literatur bis ins 20. Jahrhundert, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 90 ((Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008)) would have afforded some solutions to the quandary of translating the term into English. Chapter 3, devoted to the Patristic sources of Philoxenus’ theological epistemology, is valuable for alerting us to the fact that the bishop of Mabbug used not only Ephrem the Syrian and Cyril of Alexandria, but also the ps-Apollinarian writings and the works of the Cappadocians. The author’s conclusion on p. 69 is pertinent: ‘we may say that Philoxenos viewed Cyril as the 407

408

Book Reviews

culmination rather than the origin of miaphysite Christology’. Chapter 4, entitled ‘Proof Texts for the Ineffable’, examines Philoxenus’ ideas of faith, simplicity, and the fear of God, and his advocacy of the correct way of interpreting Scripture, which was meant to inculcate obedience and lead to contemplation of the divine vision – a departure from the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the ‘school’ of Antioch. This consideration ties in with chapter 5, which is devoted to christological threats to liturgical practice and illustrates how Philoxenus’ anti-Chalcedonian stance informed his practical theology. Here Michelson builds on the work of Sebastian Brock (see p. 145 with n. 2), especially with regard to the description of an early West Syrian baptismal liturgy preserved in Philoxenus’ works. The author stresses that for the bishop of Mabbug the liturgical mystery was a christological mirror, and that wrong (especially Chalcedonian) doctrine informed wrong worship. Philoxenus, he argues, called for an end to speculation and for the proper worship of the incarnate Christ, an approach that involved the struggle of the Holy Spirit against Satan. This again is a well-articulated transition to the next chapter, in which Philoxenus’ attitude to dogma, doctrinal enquiry, demons, and the ascetic system are analysed. Implicit in this system is the fact that communion with heretics must be fought against, and that faith must be accompanied by simplicity, craftiness being a cloak for sin. Chapter 7 is a short general conclusion. The book includes a list of manuscripts consulted, a bibliography, general index, and an index of places (after which inexplicably there are twelve blank pages). This book is a coherent exposition of Philoxenus’ practical theology. It is well conceived and researched, and provides the reader with English translations of many Philoxenian texts, whether by Michelson or other scholars. Many readers, however, will find the persistence of split infinitives jarring and will wonder about the suitability of the illustration on the cover – dice-players as portrayed in the Antiochene Yakto mosaic.